Why did Obama not veto the anti-Israel resolution?

[Ford]

That's because the three biggest sponsors of terrorism are the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, in that order. Nuking either of the other two would be an exercise in futility, and in Pakistan's case, would ACTUALLY TRIGGER a nuclear war.

Iran's contribution to Hamas isn't even a rounding error by comparison, and their backing of Shi'ite militias is almost indistinguishable from ordinary international trade (seeing how they share a border and all).


Is there any reason to think they would react any differently from any of the OTHER countries we've invaded in the past 50 years?

A good idea needs to both work and come at a reasonable cost. Nuking the sponsors definitely fails the second half this.

Since it fails the first half too, it's pretty solidly a terrible idea.

All this would do is redirect the terrorism against other targets.

Nonsense. Terrorism isn't a hobby, it's not a sports league that happens to compete in Israel because they have the best tennis courts. Terrorism is a means to an end. Eliminate the end, and the means is irrelevant.

The only way to eliminate the end is to all bow down to Islam.

Or maybe you could just try to get along with Muslims.

Did you not read what Bin Laden said? He showed the true intent of the terrorists. While there were objections to various acts of ours the "solution" included the world bowing down to Islam.

Bin Laden is dead, and he never spoke for all Muslims, contrary to your opinion.

 

[bilby]

That's because the three biggest sponsors of terrorism are the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, in that order. Nuking either of the other two would be an exercise in futility, and in Pakistan's case, would ACTUALLY TRIGGER a nuclear war.

Iran's contribution to Hamas isn't even a rounding error by comparison, and their backing of Shi'ite militias is almost indistinguishable from ordinary international trade (seeing how they share a border and all).


Is there any reason to think they would react any differently from any of the OTHER countries we've invaded in the past 50 years?

A good idea needs to both work and come at a reasonable cost. Nuking the sponsors definitely fails the second half this.

Since it fails the first half too, it's pretty solidly a terrible idea.

All this would do is redirect the terrorism against other targets.

Nonsense. Terrorism isn't a hobby, it's not a sports league that happens to compete in Israel because they have the best tennis courts. Terrorism is a means to an end. Eliminate the end, and the means is irrelevant.

The only way to eliminate the end is to all bow down to Islam.

Or maybe you could just try to get along with Muslims.

Did you not read what Bin Laden said? He showed the true intent of the terrorists. While there were objections to various acts of ours the "solution" included the world bowing down to Islam.

The Christian crusaders said that the 'solution' to their violence was for the entire Islamic world to bow down to Christianity; the IRA told us that the Troubles would only end when the island of Ireland was united and independent of the UK; Che Guevara told us that the struggle would continue until communism was accepted worldwide. All of these groups ceased their violence without having achieved their stated minimum requirements for peace.

The moral of this story is that terrorists' assessments of the necessary conditions for an end to terrorism are rarely of any value in determining when, whether, or under what circumstances terrorism will actually cease.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you not read what Bin Laden said? He showed the true intent of the terrorists. While there were objections to various acts of ours the "solution" included the world bowing down to Islam.

Bin Laden is dead, and he never spoke for all Muslims, contrary to your opinion.

I never said he spoke for all Muslims. I said he was a reasonable representation of what the terrorists (and their sponsors) want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Christian crusaders said that the 'solution' to their violence was for the entire Islamic world to bow down to Christianity; the IRA told us that the Troubles would only end when the island of Ireland was united and independent of the UK; Che Guevara told us that the struggle would continue until communism was accepted worldwide. All of these groups ceased their violence without having achieved their stated minimum requirements for peace.

The Crusaders were as bad in their day as the Islamists are now.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

 

[bilby]

The Crusaders were as bad in their day as the Islamists are now.

I say, Holmes - there appears to be a marked absence of faecal material.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Or when the other conditions it requires go away.

Money is usually necessary, but is far from sufficient, for terrorism.

As I just set out. And you just completely ignored in favour of a statement of the bleeding bloody obvious.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Did you not read what Bin Laden said? He showed the true intent of the terrorists.

Half right; he showed the WISHES of terrorists, as far as what they want to see happen. That have no real intention or capability of following it through, so they limit themselves to more specific, regional agendas that inevitably fail anyway because -- it turns out -- the ability to blow things up does not easily translate to the ability to facilitate political change.

While there were objections to various acts of ours the "solution" included the world bowing down to Islam.

And that's not going to change even after they lose. That's the thing about lost causes: people will still take up for the cause even DECADES after it's clear the cause will never work. This is why white supremacists still pine for the good old days of the Confederacy, why Israel still holds on to hope of some day annexing Judea and Samaria and unifying all of it under a Jewish state, why there are some in Japan who still wish for the glory days of the Japanese Empire, and why the United States refused to recognize the PRC for three decades.

There are ALWAYS people who still pull for lost causes; even under CURRENT conditions, their numbers aren't even a rounding error for the total number of Muslims in the world.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Crusaders were as bad in their day as the Islamists are now.

And then the Crusades ended.

Funny how nobody had to raze the cities of the governments that supported the Crusaders before their violence stopped.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Again, that's not what stopped the Crusades.

And Billby has this 100% right: terrorism ends when the terrorists either give up their cause in favor of something CLOSE to their goal, or because the oppressed people they claim to represent no longer have their collective backs, either because the terrorists have become more trouble than they're worth (see "ISIS") or because their conditions have improved to the point that terrorism is not considered a viable option. This second option is basically how the Hagannah and the Irgun wound up being transformed into the Israeli Defense Force: terrorism was no longer neccesary, and the Israeli people were organized enough and independent enough that they could just become a full military and not have to stab people in the back or blow up hotels anymore.

 

[laughing dog]

And then the Crusades ended.

Funny how nobody had to raze the cities of the governments that supported the Crusaders before their violence stopped.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Again, that's not what stopped the Crusades.

And Billby has this 100% right: terrorism ends when the terrorists either give up their cause in favor of something CLOSE to their goal, or because the oppressed people they claim to represent no longer have their collective backs, either because the terrorists have become more trouble than they're worth (see "ISIS") or because their conditions have improved to the point that terrorism is not considered a viable option. This second option is basically how the Hagannah and the Irgun wound up being transformed into the Israeli Defense Force: terrorism was no longer neccesary, and the Israeli people were organized enough and independent enough that they could just become a full military and not have to stab people in the back or blow up hotels anymore.

But the Jews are different that Muslims because the Jews are good and Muslims are evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I say, Holmes - there appears to be a marked absence of faecal material.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Or when the other conditions it requires go away.

Money is usually necessary, but is far from sufficient, for terrorism.

As I just set out. And you just completely ignored in favour of a statement of the bleeding bloody obvious.

All other conditions can be faked. Thus money is both necessary and sufficient.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Half right; he showed the WISHES of terrorists, as far as what they want to see happen. That have no real intention or capability of following it through, so they limit themselves to more specific, regional agendas that inevitably fail anyway because -- it turns out -- the ability to blow things up does not easily translate to the ability to facilitate political change.

The point is so long as their wish list isn't met there will still be Islamist money funding terrorism. Taking away one target will just make them switch targets, not quit.

While there were objections to various acts of ours the "solution" included the world bowing down to Islam.

And that's not going to change even after they lose. That's the thing about lost causes: people will still take up for the cause even DECADES after it's clear the cause will never work. This is why white supremacists still pine for the good old days of the Confederacy, why Israel still holds on to hope of some day annexing Judea and Samaria and unifying all of it under a Jewish state, why there are some in Japan who still wish for the glory days of the Japanese Empire, and why the United States refused to recognize the PRC for three decades.

There are ALWAYS people who still pull for lost causes; even under CURRENT conditions, their numbers aren't even a rounding error for the total number of Muslims in the world.

The problem is the amount of money they are willing to spend on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Again, that's not what stopped the Crusades.

And Billby has this 100% right: terrorism ends when the terrorists either give up their cause in favor of something CLOSE to their goal, or because the oppressed people they claim to represent no longer have their collective backs, either because the terrorists have become more trouble than they're worth (see "ISIS") or because their conditions have improved to the point that terrorism is not considered a viable option. This second option is basically how the Hagannah and the Irgun wound up being transformed into the Israeli Defense Force: terrorism was no longer neccesary, and the Israeli people were organized enough and independent enough that they could just become a full military and not have to stab people in the back or blow up hotels anymore.

Rulers quit funding Crusades, they ended. That's a lack of money.

 

[bilby]

I say, Holmes - there appears to be a marked absence of faecal material.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Or when the other conditions it requires go away.

Money is usually necessary, but is far from sufficient, for terrorism.

As I just set out. And you just completely ignored in favour of a statement of the bleeding bloody obvious.

All other conditions can be faked. Thus money is both necessary and sufficient.

The IRA never ran out of money. They stopped fighting without anyone having to nuke Boston or New York City.

You are, quite simply, wrong.

 

[Bronzeage]

I say, Holmes - there appears to be a marked absence of faecal material.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Or when the other conditions it requires go away.

Money is usually necessary, but is far from sufficient, for terrorism.

As I just set out. And you just completely ignored in favour of a statement of the bleeding bloody obvious.

All other conditions can be faked. Thus money is both necessary and sufficient.

If this was the case, we wouldn't have the Boston Marathon bombing, or the San Bernadino shooting. Those terrorists were self planned and self financed.

For some reason, you seem attracted to solutions with the highest body count, as if killing people will somehow inspire people to stop killing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I say, Holmes - there appears to be a marked absence of faecal material.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Or when the other conditions it requires go away.

Money is usually necessary, but is far from sufficient, for terrorism.

As I just set out. And you just completely ignored in favour of a statement of the bleeding bloody obvious.

All other conditions can be faked. Thus money is both necessary and sufficient.

If this was the case, we wouldn't have the Boston Marathon bombing, or the San Bernadino shooting. Those terrorists were self planned and self financed.

For some reason, you seem attracted to solutions with the highest body count, as if killing people will somehow inspire people to stop killing.

But they still had the Islamists acting as recruiters.

In the absence of that recruiting effort there will still be a few disorganized terrorist attacks but there will not be terrorist movements.

 

[Bronzeage]

I say, Holmes - there appears to be a marked absence of faecal material.

The actual end of terrorism usually occurs because the terrorists accept a compromise solution; or because the oppressed people that they represent decide that the oppression is less awful than the terrorism. This can be achieved by simply improving the lot of the oppressed minority - people who are comfortable generally do not care to have terrorists fighting on their behalf. Wealthy urban citizens don't generally care much for fundamentalist religion. The way to eliminate religious violence is to make people feel safe and comfortable in their lives.

Terrorism ends when the money goes away.

Or when the other conditions it requires go away.

Money is usually necessary, but is far from sufficient, for terrorism.

As I just set out. And you just completely ignored in favour of a statement of the bleeding bloody obvious.

All other conditions can be faked. Thus money is both necessary and sufficient.

If this was the case, we wouldn't have the Boston Marathon bombing, or the San Bernadino shooting. Those terrorists were self planned and self financed.

For some reason, you seem attracted to solutions with the highest body count, as if killing people will somehow inspire people to stop killing.

But they still had the Islamists acting as recruiters.

In the absence of that recruiting effort there will still be a few disorganized terrorist attacks but there will not be terrorist movements.

Okay, so we're going with the "Kill them all and let God sort it out" strategy?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The point is so long as their wish list isn't met there will still be Islamist money funding terrorism.

No. There will always be Islamist money funding the pursuit of that wish list. Terrorism ceases to be a viable option where more efficient means of pursuing that agenda become viable.

It can't be overstated at this point that there is almost no unity in the Wahabi religious schools and that Islamist terrorists spend 99% of their time killing other Muslims. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent; Islamists fund terrorist groups because they literally don't know what else to do and assume that destroying people who disagree with them will make their agenda happen by default. The moment a more efficient option becomes available, they would/will throw their weight behind it.

The problem is the amount of money they are willing to spend on it.

I'm beginning to realize you have no idea how much money is actually involved, where it's coming from or who it's going to...

And that you are, as usual, pulling facts directly out of your ass with no basis in reality. I don't know why I ever assumed otherwise.

Rulers quit funding Crusades, they ended.

Exactly. They found better things to do.

That's exactly Bilby's point, and exactly mine. Salafists fund Islamist movements primarily for lack of a better option because they're too stupid or too lazy to actually BUILD something that their people want. It's way easier and cheaper (at the very least, appear) to punish the people who cause problems than it is to solve the actual problem. Punishing people doesn't take any intelligence or creativity, just vindictiveness and gratification. Solving problems takes skill, education, compassion and patience. Incompetent leaders always choose the former, which is why it is the preference of religious fanatics who are way better at convincing people to follow them than they are at actually leading them anywhere.

And it's the same reason the United States funds terrorist groups in Syria, because our leaders have no fucking clue how to fix the Syria problem and will settle for "put bullets into the bad guys" as the appearance of progress.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, so we're going with the "Kill them all and let God sort it out" strategy?

No. I'm saying to go after the recruiters.

 

[bilby]

Okay, so we're going with the "Kill them all and let God sort it out" strategy?

No. I'm saying to go after the recruiters.

With nuclear weapons.

Seems a tad excessive.

 

[LordKiran]

He is going full-left wing in the lame duck period - he stopped DAPL, he blocked Arctic drilling, he appointed Wesley Cook's lawyer for "civil rights" post (what a joke) and now he sold out our best ally in the Middle East to the UN wolves.
WTF?

Why bother with the question format if you're just going to answer it yourself? You might as well check all of the 'insufferable douche' checkboxes and speak of yourself in the third person.

 

[Will Wiley]

Okay, so we're going with the "Kill them all and let God sort it out" strategy?

No. I'm saying to go after the recruiters.

Do you mean the FBI?
The FBI again thwarts its own Terror plot

The FBI has received substantial criticism over the past decade — much of it valid — but nobody can deny its record of excellence in thwarting its own Terrorist plots. Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out — only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI

 

[Bronzeage]

Okay, so we're going with the "Kill them all and let God sort it out" strategy?

No. I'm saying to go after the recruiters.

All 6.5 million of them?