Isn't everyone tired of the constant warmongering?
Saw some cuckservative guest on Fox talking about how the "war on terror" is winnable and they are going to fix afghanistan.
Does it make sense to fight Muslims without end, destabilize their countries, and then bring them over here?
Obviously Muslims will keep fighting as long as we keep sending people for them to either kill or be killed by. According to Islam getting killed fighting an infidel is just as much of a win as killing one, because both outcomes are rewarded with a host of women in the next life.
If we are going to constantly fight these people we ought to 1) not bring them here anymore, and 2) loot their countries as we go so that the war pays for itself.
It's not retarded at all. It just isn't a war on terror.
Tyler Foster
>2) loot their countries as we go so that the war pays for itself. Speaking like a true snow nigger. Such a mentality is not really different from the Jihadists themselves.
Why don't, you know, act with integrity and honor... and fuck off? Become energy independent and stop backing your USD with petrodollar of OPEC countries.
Retard.
Landon Sanders
I don't want anything to do with these people one way or another. There should be no trade and no immigration between us. I said
>IF
we are going to keep fighting with these people then we ought to at least get something from it or make the durkas pay for the war.
Part of my point being that the constant war is a constant drain and I would rather keep more of my money in taxes + live in a durka free country.
Jason Martinez
What's your theory?
Alexander Sullivan
>There should be no trade Too late. USA is greatly dependent on Saudi Arabia since William E. Simon's 1974 petrodollar deal with them:
The USA even backed Khomeini in order to oust the Shah because he no longer being a OPEC puppet. I could give sources on that too.
In fact, USA has been supporting Islamists since the very beginning.
>we are going to keep fighting with these people The USA are the ones creating enemies and then fighting them for no reason. ISIS was literally a creation by the USA and UK. By supporting unsavory rebels that switch sides, USA indirectly led to groups like Al-Nusra and ISIS being strengthened, and this could have all been prevented if Assad were supported in the beginning.
What I'm trying to say is you snow niggers are far worse than Al-Queda because, humorously, you created and strengthened them.
You snow niggers don't even share predominant descent with Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks, and I honestly think you should STFU and go back into your mudhuts already. You are not fit to wield this much power, faggots.
Robert Roberts
Well war for resources and political influence is the obvious answer. There's also military-industrial complex lobby and the need to train the troops somewhere. The US has to remain in constant war. More tinfoily answer is that the wars in ME also have the goal of poking the shitskins and triggering the invasion on Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if that was also the case since (((the rulers of this world))) wanted to turn Europe into shitskin hellhole since before the WW2. More people die to nigger violence than in terror attacks and US government doesn't give a single fuck. So why would they suddenly care so much about the victims of terror?
Caleb Gutierrez
No, there should be no trade with durkas. We have enough oil in the US, and if we don't then we ought to trade with Russia. I'd rather not have anything to do with Durkas in any capacity. The best relationship you can hope for with them is one of complete separation.
>snow nigger
I'm not, but that's still better than being a durka. Yes the US government policy toward the Middle East is retarded, which was what I said in my opening statement. Better to stay out of the ME and let the savages kill eachother, since that's the main thing they do when there are no infidels around.
On the other hand, it's not the US that made Muslims savage. They have always been savage, and a serious threat to western civilization. That's why they should all either be contained in their parts of the world, or just flat out annhilated.
Caleb Martin
Yea I think you're right. Military-industrial lobbying is a factor. I've also been thinking that the point of these wars might be to destabilize the ME and our countries. After all, the introduction of hordes of durkas is going to make like exponentially unsafe in Europe and the US. This might just be a step on the road to world government.
Nicholas Jackson
>No, there should be no trade with durkas It's too late.
>We have enough oil in the US That's not how the USD being backed by petrodollar works. USA is financing its widening deficit based off OPEC countries transacting oil in USD and pricing it according to US interests. The dynamics of this market largely determine USD's worth via "petrodollar recycling":
Consider how Gaddafi was assassinated after he wanted to trade oil in gold, breaking free from petrodollar. This has happened numerous times.
>I'd rather not have anything to do with Durkas in any capacity. Then why do you keep strengthening the Durkas? The Shah was anti-Durka, but he was backstabbed due to no longer being an OPEC puppet. The USA and UK have fucked up the region of the ME considerably to the point that they're now funding ISIS and Al-Nusra, and strengthening Saudi Arabia who radicalizes Muslims by financing mosques in the West and spreading Wahhabi hate literature.
>but that's still better than being a durka. Not all Middle Easterners are durkas, idiot. Look at Assyrians, Armenians, etc.
>Better to stay out of the ME and let the savages kill eachother, The Middle East would have had stable powers if the USA stayed out. Sassanian, Samanid, and Safavid empires were all stable. Hell, Habsburg actually had an alliance with the Safavids to repel the Ottomans.
USA actually intervenes because it doesn't want any power to grow and become a global economic competitor.
>They have always been savage, and a serious threat to western civilization. There was no significant problem until the USA poured billions of dollars into Saudi Arabia and GCC nations, which spread Wahhabi fanaticism. Most of these terrorist attacks on Western soils come from Wahhabi-influenced Sunnis.
Nicholas Richardson
Yup Dues vult boi.
Joshua Wilson
>too late
Again, it's not too late because 1) the USA has oil 2) non-durka countries have oil. 3) the US government engages in all sorts of excess spending in foreign aid to useless countries, which can be cut.
>US government funds terrorist groups
Again, I know this, which was one of the reasons I voted Trump. There is no way I can single handedly get rid of the USG. Aside voting and complaining about these problems the other options is to get myself killed.
>thinks the middle east would been a nice place
No, the ME has been a hellhole since the advent of Pisslam. It's always going to be a hellhole as long as Islam remains dominant. Islam has been a problem for Europe since it's inception (pic related). Of course when I say "durka" I'm talking strictly about Muzzies. There are non-Muslims in the ME but they have no power. I wouldn't mind a straight swap, where we send them all the Muslims living in Europe and the US and they send us all the Christians living in durka land.
Blake Russell
>1) the USA has oil I explained to you that's not how the USD being backed by petrodollar works. It's like all my complex explanations go over your head. Do you even have an education?
>2) non-durka countries have oil. Saudi Arabia has the most crude oil, and the William E. Simon's deal with them was important to US economy. If you actually read the article I linked it goes more in-depth: "William E. Simon made a deal with KSA to "neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth... The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending."
>3) the US government engages in all sorts of excess spending in foreign aid to useless countries, which can be cut. That's just neocon propaganda. USA is building military bases around these countries, making them economically dependent on them, and more. It's a part of USA's realpolitik strategy.
>Again, I know this, which was one of the reasons I voted Trump And what has Trump done? He acknowledged Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11 a few years ago, but now he kowtows to them, sells them 100 bn dollars worth of weapons, and more. USA is the laughing stock of the world, selling weapons to the main perpetrators of its greatest tragedy.
>the ME has been a hellhole since the advent of Pisslam I'm personally not fond of either Islam or Christianity, but you do realize the Islamic Golden Age largely came to an end due to Mongols? And you do realize Nietzsche, Goethe, and Oscar Wilde loved Sufi poetry such as Hafiz, Omar Khayyam, and more? These figures were more liberal, freely mixing Greek Neoplatonism in their philosophy.CONTINUED
Camden Robinson
Problem is that it's toolate to pull out. Al Quaeda and ISIS are already thinking about merging. You'd have a new caliphate planning revenge for the attacks against the first one mere months after leaving.
Only way to end it quickly at this point is by going holocaust mode and systemically eradicate jihadi's entire extended families children included..
Thats not really an option, but by trying to slowly build up local govts as is the current policy, its pretty much guaranteed to blow back up in our faces sooner or later
James Cooper
>Khomeini sources Gibs me dat!
Adrian Murphy
Daily reminder that terrorism was entirely brought in by CIA. Real Muslims are busy killing jihadis and Jews, like Hezbollah.
Hudson Gomez
>The USA are the ones creating enemies and then fighting them for no reason. kek
Matthew Edwards
You make a valid point about just about everything, and then you go and ruin it with Islamic Golden Age BS. >there was no Islamic Golden Age. >muslims simply conquered Egyptian, Syrian, Persian and Greek Christians and claimed all their philosophy, alchemy and engineering as their own. >as soon as these communities were sufficiently repressed to stop being well educated Islam stopped progressing as well.
Lucas Rogers
The issue you don't get, because you are poorly read and sticking to your dogmatic interpretations, is that USA (and CIA declassified documents exist supporting this), has largely used funding Islamist extremists as a tool for its petrodollar objectives. Rather than finance reformist movements of Islam or even non-Islamic nationalist movements (they exist), the USA does the craziest thing: Financing the biggest fucking extremists like ISIS, Wahhabists, and more. It's fucking insane.
You keep saying you are scared of Durkas and so forth, but honestly AT THIS POINT they have more reason to be afraid of you retards. Why? Because you keep supporting the radical elements in the regime, so that even if they were to go back, they'd be killed.
Consider this, let's say Europe was ontop of oil reserves full of crude oil. Different radical groups emerge and use sectarian differences in Christianity to take over more territory and gain more access to more oil reserves. Then other Machiavellian powers would probably finance and arm one group of radicalists over another, in a bidding to make some gains too. This is analogous to what has happened to the Middle East, where USA has supported Saudi Arabia's spread of Wahhabi fanaticism, where they even finance mosques in the West radicalizing the Sunni, and more.
Of course, you want an easy boogey man out of all this, hence why you think like a cave man.
Listen, I hate both Christian and Islam. Besides a few mystics in both, like Meister Eckhart or Rumi, I do not really respect the Abrahamic traditions on account I find myths like Binding of Isaac stupid even from a metaphorical standpoint. However, my issue is with you making this into some kind of religious war. It's fine if you want to think like Breivik, but why not help finance non-Islamist movements instead of being hypocrites that give rise to ISIS and then cry when it bites your asses? Take responsibility.
Eli Garcia
>Hezbollah are not terrorists
Jose Ward
Islamic Golden Age occurred despite Islam, and was largely done by Persians located within Greater Khorasan. They were more eclectic and influenced by Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Greek philosophy, and Islam. In a sense, you can call them faux-Muslims compared to the Orthodoxy of Al-Ghazali or modern Muslims. Regardless, their Golden Age came to an end after Mongol invasions and growth of Orthodox interpretations that opposed Greek philosophy's enriching aspects. For example, check Avicenna.
Jace Gutierrez
>a Jew Name one attack that Hezbollah carried out in Europe or America. Whoops.
>only attacks in Europe or America can be defined as terrorism
Matthew Mitchell
Only attacks against civilians are terrorist attacks. So you are a Jew, huh.
Isaiah Gonzalez
By being a bot
Wyatt Gutierrez
>Definition of terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Tyler Jones
The "war on terror" was created by Jews in order to get the United States entrenched in a never-ending holy war against Israel's enemies.
That is why they planned and orchestrated 9/11. Jews are the #1 purveyors of global terrorism. And if you have any doubt that they were behind 9/11, just look up the Lavon Affair en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair they got caught red-handed in the act.
John Brown
I'm not sure if Hezbollah carried out a single attack against civilians even in Israel. I don't think they did. Can you prove me wrong?
Luis Thompson
>The Arab League, United States, France, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, and Israel have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
Jackson Hernandez
So, you fail to find an example of the actual terror attack. Okay, buddy.
The USA and all those other nations label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia being a literal terrorist state and financing of ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra/etc., because Hezbollah is against their hegemonic objectives. Hezbollah has never really done anything 9/11 on foreign soils, finance attacks against on innocents on Western soil, and more. In fact, they speak out against stuff like Paris Attacks, 9/11, and so forth, their primary objective being destruction of Israel.
Don't get me wrong though, Hezbollah is not that great, but at least they don't kill Christians (they protected them in Syria) and serve as a buffer to growth of Sunni radicals. It's like the USA and its allies have created the situation where it's better to keep Hezbollah than to outright end them, considering they slow progression of Wahhabism, which is the main ideology behind these terrorist attacks on foreign soil.
Israel is a destabilizing force in ME because it add another pole competing for power: Israel, Saudi Arabia + GCC, Turkey, and Iran are all regional rivals, hence the ensuing madness. Saudi Arabia + GCC and Israel have gotten closer though and work to support groups like ISIS and Al-Nusra to be destabilizing forces to Iran.
Jason Clark
None of those are on Western soils, which was his point.
Andrew Long
>Cut all ties with the Middle East >Pull all armed forces, aid missions and embassies out >Build relationships with Russia and South America >Fuck Gulf oil >Fuck the Saudis >Seal the muslim world off and let them get on with it
Christian Brooks
It's just not connected to reality. Even Russia has been increasing ties with Saudi Arabia lately.
Joshua Butler
Someone should follow the movie swordfish and fight terrorism with terrorism
