Of Importance

In Iraq, the know the place where we spent over a trillion dollars and lost 4,487+ troops…yeah that place! Well that place just saw fit to slaughter 52 Iranians. I know you are thinking…So? Bear with me. Those Iranians were Iraqi friendly but more importantly pro-American Iranians that are/were opposed to the Ayatollah and wanted democracy in Iran. These Iranians fought with Saddam and were protected by America right up until Obama decided to just abruptly end it. I know you are still thinking so? Well the so is basically you have Malik president of Iraq, who is Shia, capitulating to Iran, also Shia. Remember Bush was warned repeatedly about Malik. Who is running Iraq? Is it the Ayatollah? Is American influence gone already after all we have done there? Iraq accepted responsibility for these Iranians why were they butchered? The noose is tightening in the ME and it isn’t looking good. We have Shia formulating and cementing their numbers culminating in Syria backed by Russia and China. This may seem insignificant but on a broader scale it’s implications are not minor by any means. A massive fight is about to take place between Sunni and Shia and if the West isn’t careful it will be the pawns in the chess game.

Iraq

H/T Fox

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • This whole thing is an evil mess. Syria is a proxy war, and dear leader sides with Sunnis. Shia are no better really, but Sunni’s are the ones who spread the terror around for whatever reasons they feel led to. Shia usually keeps the terror close to home unless they have a viable way to spread it.
    This is getting interesting. What it really boils down to is who will come out on top, the imam Mahdi of Shia Islam, or the Caliphate of the Sunni.
    Which every way it goes, God help those who just want to live in peace. God help those who are neither of these, and Please Lord change and soften hearts in the Middle East, but also around the world.

    • Marky_D

      As I understand it both sects of the death cult believe the Mahdi/hidden imam nonsense. It was Saudi crazed wahabists who laid siege to the grand mosque in mecca because they were convinced the Mahdi was with them.

      • keyesforpres

        Yeah, their all murderous nuts.

    • sjmom

      Dear leader should either go and fight himself or stay out of it but no need to drag us in to it.

      • Marky_D

        To be fair, he’s probably got family members already out on jihadist duty!

      • NPC

        Isn’t that what leaders do? Leadership 101 says “follow me” leadership 2013 says “go ahead, I’ll catch up with you all later”.

    • BlueGood

      I still like Sarah’s Solution…..”Get the Heck Home and let Allah figure it all out”

    • aposematic

      Nailed it: Proxy War! Saudi influence (Sunni) against Iran influence (Shia). And don’t forget that the US by proxy is also, at least for now, in a warm war: US chose Sunni side giving weapons/money support v. Russia/China choosing Shia side giving weapons/money. The wild card is the US support for Hamas/Palestinians–also supported by both Iran and Saudi? Maybe hating Israel takes precedent.

  • sjmom

    Precisely why I think we need to stay out of Syria. Unless Israel is affected I don’t see a need to get involved especially in a war Shia against Sunni.

    • Marky_D

      Totally agree. Unfortunately for the Europeans amongst us, any Islamic civil war will likely spill onto our streets too.

    • deTocqueville1

      It will be a war, brutal and gastly, for the heart of Islam.

  • Rshill7

    Airdrop McCain and Graham in there…minus the parachutes.

    Oooh, that was harsh. Ok, give them pair of shoots. Each should be equipped with a strategically-bitten pop-tart. Pow pow.

    • Marky_D

      Strategically-bitten pop-tarts? Have you considered the counselling fees?

      • Amjean

        You might not have heard of the child who bit portions of a pop tart off until it resembled a gun. It was all over the web some time ago. I believe that is what the poster was referencing.

        • Marky_D

          Yeah I heard. I was referencing Mark Steyn’s mocking of that event. He suggested that there would be swathes of school children that would have to go into counselling having seen the offending pop-tart. Just love Mark Steyn’s humour! 🙂

    • That was priceless and I SO wish!!!

    • Swamp Fox

      ^5 — One of the funniest things I’ve read lately. The visual is beautiful!!!

    • keyesforpres

      Nah, I say give them real parachutes and let the savages have their way with them.

  • Hillary Shackley

    Shame on OBAMA… May those troops who died fighting to liberate Iraq R.I.P.

  • 12grace

    I feel badly for the brave 52 Iranians that were murdered by the barbarians. Some things America can do to stop terrorism is to protect our borders, stop illegal immigration by enforcing our laws and getting them off or welfare and out of our country. And then replace our current administration with an administration that actually loves our country, Constitution and our people.

    • keyesforpres

      Also, stop the legal immigration of ALL muslims.

  • antidrone

    I’m still mad at Bush for getting us involved in this “nation building” crap! In the middle east tribalism rules. There is NO civil society on which to build constitutional democracies! The ideology of death and oppression called Islam prevents anything like democracy or any kind of representative government from succeeding. We should have supported “our S.O.B.’s” Mubarak, Qaddafi etc. because the only way to keep these barbarians contained is by force of arms. From here on we should learn from our mistakes and support and defend Israel and adopt a doctrine of containment, that is: keep the Islamocrazies from spreading like vermin to new territories and (as Gov. Palin put it) “let Allah sort it out”! The more the Shia and Sunni etc. keep killing each other, the fewer of them will have to be dealt with by the civilized world.

    • kong1967

      Well, so much for containment. We’re letting them migrate to the states by the tens of thousands. We will be Britain. It’s just a matter of time.

    • deTocqueville1

      Agree, with a culture of tyranny and hate it is mpossible to build a civil society based on a culture of virtue.

    • keyesforpres

      Exactly! Support Israel……..stand with the civilized man and quit letting these inbred, 7th century savages emigrate here.

  • spin43

    Will Obama shoot missiles into Iraq?

    • kong1967

      Maybe like Clinton’s missile strikes that hit empty tents in order to distract everyone from his scandals.

    • welltempered2

      Best thing to do is tell Obama that Iraq has some wonderful golf courses. That’ll get the bombs dropping. Same strategy over the entire middle east.

  • kong1967

    It has always been a danger for Iran to be the dominant influence in Iraq. I find myself wishing Saddam was still in power and we held him in check another way.

    One thing I’ve learned over the years is that ruthless dictators in the ME are necessary. We keep removing them and they are the only ones that can keep the lid on radical Islam. They don’t play games, they don’t play fair, and they have no rules of engagement. We need them about now.

    • Patriot077

      I’ve come to that conclusion too, Kong. No matter how brutal these dictators may seem to us, we must realize that our understanding of the way of life in the M.E. is insufficient to try to force any regime to impose our own standard. Mubarek and Gadafi (sp?) managed to keep the radicals in check and posed no threat to the US, if only because they feared us. Pretty sad to look back on these guys as good leaders, but they were for the time and conditions. And definitely preferable to those who have come since.

      • kong1967

        I’ve seen Gadafi spelled multiple ways in the media, so your spelling is as good as any. Reagan put the fear into him and he stopped messing with us. Mubarek kept the peace and was pro-west.

        Violence is all they know. It’s what they teach their kids from birth. Hate. I saw a video, as you probably did as well, of kids playing “kill the jew”. They hate everyone and get along with no one. As far as I’m concerned, we should turn the entire area into glass.

    • 57thunderbird

      I agree.A dictator is the only thing that keeps these savages in check.

  • Live free or Die Slaves

    Just think ladies you too could be forced to ware a berka in the summer heat and do exactly what your told by your man. (Disclaimer) If for some reason you don’t meet his expectations you will only be punished to the extent documented in the following video:

    But act now and your man could receive an additional 70 virgin’s for his afterlife. And if you disagree just refer back to the video listed above and you too will agree as well this is the best religion in the world……OR ELSE! And as a part of this special offer forced on you we will allow you to read the fine print and gruesome history you too will be forced to take part in and be happy about it in the video below….OR ELSE (refer back to the video listed above)!

    http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

    So thank you for taking part in this special offer you have no choice in.

  • deTocqueville1

    Thanks for the commentary and reminder Laurel.

  • Conservative_Hippie

    Good article Lauren.

    I just want to say that those 4,487+ troops that we lost did not die in vain. Whenever one blood drop is shed in the name of Freedom and Liberty it is never in vain!

    I do agree with you that tensions in the Middle East are brewing! If you believe in the Bible and End Time’s prophecy, this may be what is called the 70th week of Daniel approaching!

  • Steve Angell

    Link http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/20/massacre-52-iranians-at-exile-camp-in-iraq-draws-international-attention/

    Horrific. Includes video.

    These included the people that informed on Iran about them continuing their Nuclear Development. This cleared the way for Obama’s meeting with Iran President. Is Obama ultimately responsible?

  • tinlizzieowner

    There is no such thing as an Islamic Democracy. Islam is the ‘the state’. There are only 2 choices, an Autocratic, Islamic, Dictatorship or a Theocratic, Islamic, Dictatorship.

    • notpilgrims2

      You are right that there is no such thing as a religious oppresive democracy. That is called a theocracy. Iraq has religious principles established in its laws. But what you can have is a country with a majority of people believing a certain religion while they don’t establish it in law.

      • tinlizzieowner

        “An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single individual.” ‘Autocratic, Islamic, Dictatorship’ = Saddam, Mubarak, etc..
        “Theocratic rulers are guided specifically by their religious beliefs and
        might see themselves as emissaries of their god who are meant to rule their people.” ‘Theocratic, Islamic, Dictatorship’ = The Mullahs, Iran.

      • keyesforpres

        Islam IS Sharia law.

  • Ive said all along, and people vehemently disagreed with me, that in GW1 leaving saddam in place was a smart tactical and strategic decision to act as a check against iran.
    In GW2 I agree he needed to be dealt with but I always feared actually taking him down would open the gates of hell.
    I think I was right.
    Iran has always been our bitter enemy and has funded so many terrorist activities its mind boggling. They were supposedly funding the turks in germany that liked to attack and knife american soldiers in late 80s.

    I’ve also said we should nuke iran and nuke it good, no survivors.
    I stand by that still.

    • notpilgrims2

      We shouldn’t nuke Iran and genocide everyone who lives there. That would be wrong and murderous.

      Just a few years ago a number of conservatives said we should “help” the Iranian people who were rebelling against the government. How would genociding them help them?

      We should keep an eye on Iran and prevent them from murdering innocent people with nuclear weapons (while at the same time not murdering people unnecessarily with our own nuclear weapons). A good foreign policy will work to promote our interests, not a bad foreign policy where we get involved in bombing and invading every single country like Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

      • we can sing campfire songs with them too.
        and they will continue to kill our citizens as they have been for decades.

        • notpilgrims2

          They, um, aren’t killing our citizens. We aren’t at war with them. When was the last time Iran nuked us or invaded us? They are making a bunch of bluster, but lets see if their actions meet their talk. It won’t because America is stronger than them.

          The only way they would kill Americans is if we invaded. Then they would kill our soldiers, and we would get nothing for it. If we overthrow their regime, a new wave of terrorism and a bad new government will come in, just like in Iraq. Read this article: Iraq is a mess. We fought there and didn’t get what we wanted and just lost people. Libya is a mess. Most of the Middle Eastern countries we overthrew the leaders of recently are now a mess learn.

          Also, conservatives said they supported the Iranians when some of them were rebelling against Ahmadinejad. If we nuke them, we certainly won’t be supporting their people. Especially if we kill every single one of them. How many nukes would we need to do that, anyway? We would also kill a lot of innocent people living in the nearby countries. Yeah, you really hate God’s people or–as I say–the people who were created through evolution.

          • they have been funding terrorists forever.
            I’ve personally dealt with the iranian funded turks trying to kill amaericans in germany.
            but yeah, ignore them.

            • notpilgrims2

              We should use drones and the NSA to cut down on terrorism.

              Maybe the government should do something to help our interests in Iran. In fact, Bush did something good, by attacking their computers with a virus.

              But killing every single Iranian would certainly not be a good idea to serve our interests or to stop terrorism.

            • 57thunderbird

              Ignore not pilgrims.He or she is a leftist sttist and only comes here to stir up trouble.It’s a troll.

              • the problem is that way of thinking regarding iran crosses political lines. as a country we are too much of a coward to declare war on iran and end its issues once and for all.

                • 57thunderbird

                  We should have dealt with Iran 3 decades ago,when the whole mess began in the 70’s,unfortunately the peanut farmer was president then.

                • notpilgrims2

                  Now Obama is president.

                  People say he’s weak, but they alternately opposed his plans for striking Syria. Not sure which criticism it is each day.

                • its not hard to understand.
                  both sides are no good. so stay out.
                  obama only floated striking to prop up his ego after making another stupid statement.

                • 57thunderbird

                  Yup.Just trying to cover his own a_s,after making a statement he could not hide from.

                • notpilgrims2

                  He said some b______t about “red lines” during the campaign. So what? Who cares? Why should we just go to war because Obama (not us) said something about “red lines”? It was the American media that made a big deal about Obama’s statements. If the America media didn’t hype them up, then we might not have been pushed to almost act in the first place. You are saying that Obama couldn’t hide from them. The conservative media didn’t help him hide from them. They often said that if he didn’t act he would be weak. Meanwhile, they said that it was wrong to act. So, if it was actually wrong to act, then they never should have mentioned the “red line” in the first place and argued for war based on the “red line.” If it was wrong to act then they should have been arguing NOT to act, not arguing TO act.

                • keyesforpres

                  Obama never should have said the red line statement in the first place.
                  You have said you are Jewish and yet you support Obama. Why? He sat in that “church” of his for 20 years listening to anti-Semitic bilge.
                  There is also that video that the LA Times has and refused to release of Obama at the dinner with a Palestinian terrorist supporter.
                  As a Jew how could you support him?

                • notpilgrims2

                  Exactly. Obama did (ultimately) stay out. So doing that deal with Putin was the right thing to do. So he shouldn’t be criticized for it since it was the right thing to do.

                • keyesforpres

                  He is STILL arming the terrorists. You do know that the CIA is sneaking weapons into the al Qaeda terrorists in Syria right now?

                • notpilgrims2

                  I said something a while back about how American presidents (Bush included) like to “spread democracy.” It’s the same reason we invaded Iraq. Now we are arming the rebels who are fighting a dictator. Could be a bad idea because some of the rebels are linked to al Qaeda.

                  That’s exactly why it would be a bad idea to strike Assad. So I’m glad that Obama stayed out and didn’t strike Assad. But that doesn’t make him a “weak” bad president for not striking. Not striking was the right decision.

                • 57thunderbird

                  He only wanted to strike Syria to help out his buddies in the MusBrohood.He loves those terrorists.

                • notpilgrims2

                  Striking Syria is a “strong” move. ie it shows someone taking military action, even against an international consensus. Then he was attacked for not doing that and criticized for being “weak” for doing something else where he was seen as not having taken the lead. If he struck Syria he definitely would have taken the lead and thus been “strong.” But if striking Syria is the wrong thing to do, then you can’t really attack him for not striking Syria. You have to say not striking Syria was the right move. Instead some people called him weak.

                  And al Qaeda is the main threat in Syria–as are other radical Muslim extremists–but al Qaeda is a bigger threat than the Muslim Brotherhood (if the Brotherhood is in Syria).

                • keyesforpres

                  Al Qaeda IS the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is the father of most of today’s terrorist groups. Don’t you know that by now???

                • notpilgrims2

                  Al Qaeda is a radical Muslim terrorist group. The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Muslim group.

                • keyesforpres

                  Obama is arming the ‘rebels’…terrorists. Most are foreigners. Many were released from Saudi prisons and are al Qaeda. It is treason for O to arm these savages.

                • notpilgrims2

                  Right, I oppose arming the rebels, because al Qaeda has a small presence among them, and many of them are crazy. So that’s why I was against Obama striking Assad. I’m glad he didn’t strike.

                  Anyway, Assad is no good, too, and it’s the “spread democracy” idea that is the reason we are arming rebels, the same reason we invaded Iraq.

                • agreed.

                • notpilgrims2

                  War with Iran would probably be bad. War with Iraq was bad.

                  And nuking Iran would certainly be bad, even moreso if we killed everyone.

                  Its good that our leaders are not going to war as hastily as you think we should.

                • yup pussies repeat that type of thinking all over the place.

                • notpilgrims2

                  After Libya and Iraq got messed up and resulted in a dead ambassador, you still have the same thinking. Seems you are right.

                  No amount of dead Americans is enough to make you change your mind, and (ironically) you cite protecting America as a reason for doing bad policy that kills more Americans, lol. Repeat, repeat, repeat, all the same from you.

                • 57thunderbird

                  Obama’s fault.Every thing he touches in the ME turns to sh_t.He is an incompetent fool on the world stage as well as the domestic front.Just an all around buffoon.

                • notpilgrims2

                  Iraq is also a mess, and that was Bush who got us stuck in it. Obama had nothing to do with invading Iraq and even rhetorically opposed it. Libya is certainly his fault, but not Iraq.

                • keyesforpres

                  Obama pulled us out of Iraq and left it a mess.

                • notpilgrims2

                  Obama opposed the whole thing in the first place. Pulling out didn’t cause a mess. Invading Iraq caused a mess. We should have gotten out of there quickly and not gone in in the first place. The longer we stayed, the more money and lives were spent. And little benefit to us.

          • keyesforpres

            Iran was responsible for many of the roadside bombs in Iraq that killed our soldiers. They were responsible for the bombing of our barricks in the 1980s in Lebanon as well.

            • notpilgrims2

              Obama opposed invading Iraq. We wouldn’t have any Americans killed by roadside bombs if we didn’t invade Iraq.

              Of course Iran opposes us, so it makes sense that they would join the Iraqi opposition in fighting us. When you fight a war, people die. The anti-war crowd could have told you that. They don’t want people to die in wars. Although, sometimes its necessary, but it wasn’t in Iraq.

      • keyesforpres

        Ever heard of the 12th imam? Iranian leaders believe he either fell down or jumped down a well. These leaders believe that if they bring about chaos (nuking Israel), the 12th imam (The Mahdi) will reappear out of the well and establish a world wide caliphate. THAT is why we can’t negotiate with these 7th century savages.

  • halfmadjesus

    Hey, this why we should have built permanent military bases in Iraq, not pulled the troops out. Particularly since we’d already spent so much blood and treasure there — securing the win, it’s called. But Obama’s traitorous, liberal ilk was too invested in a US loss in Iraq to ever do so. Just another thing to blame Bush for down the road when it all goes to $hit — 100% certain future prediction!

    • notpilgrims2

      Obama opposed the Iraq War. He was right. Look at Iraq now. Bush supported the war and caused it. So he would be responsible for all the bad stuff that happened because of the war. (What? Should he blame himself invading on someone else’s decision to invade? Obama is the one who blames other people.) This is why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

      • keyesforpres

        Well we did and Obama shouldn’t have pulled us out like he did. PERIOD.

        • notpilgrims2

          No, we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Obama was against invading. It is too bad we invaded Iraq. We can’t change that. Once we invaded, Iraq was going to get messed up. We had to play the cards we were dealt and should have pulled out because staying in would only mean wasting more lives and money and not getting anything for it.

      • halfmadjesus

        Knowing what we know now about the intelligence that led us into war in Iraq, I can buy the argument that we shouldn’t have invaded it post-9-11. I at least see that point of view as rational. However, it’s my opinion that Saddam Hussein needed to go during the Gulf War, and Bush senior and Clinton let him hang around continuing to be a nose-thumbing, UN inspector evicting, suicide bomber-funding irritant that we finally had to deal with.

        Regardless, after the troop surge, the insurgency in Iraq was defeated. It doesn’t matter if we should or shouldn’t have gone in, or what you personally think about that — we won. Therefore, it’s stupid to look at the results of Obama’s bungling things since he’s been president as evidence the whole endeavor was a giant mistake — that’s a liberal’s logic, basically. Obama had it within his power to secure our victory in Iraq by NOT trying to be the guy who “ended the war” and appease his base for an election, and keep forces there in significant enough numbers to maintain security. But, he chose not to — because, as I pointed out, liberals basically wanted us to fail in Iraq all along, so undermining any long-term stability there achieves that goal, and Obama would rather focus on his domestic plans for redistributing wealth than anything else.

        “All the bad stuff” that happened in Iraq includes freeing 30 million people from the control of brutal, murdering dictator, BTW. But liberals will never give a damn about that fact.

  • 57thunderbird

    I have felt for a very long time that the ME was about to implode.It will be a bloody war.I see it as a sign of the end of the age.I knew when we left Iraq it would slip into chaos.

  • MadMadJack

    What it means is eventually WWIII on a scale never seen before..

    • 57thunderbird

      A scale of biblical proportion!

    • notpilgrims2

      It won’t be a world war. Let it stay constrained in Syria or some other country. We don’t need to get involved there. Look at what already happened to Iraq (noted in this post). It didn’t turn out like we hoped it would. So we should have learned from Iraq not to get involved in conflicts so easily.

      • keyesforpres

        You do know that Obama is arming al Qaeda there now don’t you? That is treason.

        • notpilgrims2

          We shouldn’t get involved in Syria. We shouldn’t have gotten involved in Iraq. Some people attacked Obama for not striking Syria.

          In Syria, neo-conservatives, such as Bush, like to “spread democracy.” Obama agrees with them. He wants them to overthrow Assad, who is in fact an Iranian puppet, but the other side also is bad, because they have some al Qaeda members in their group. McCain argues that the main opposition groups are “moderate.” Moderate in comparison to al Qaeda, sure, but they’re still probably going to install a Muslim government when they take over, and they won’t be able to control the other militias.

      • Laurel

        If you don’t want to get involved then I suggest you step on the necks of the environmentalists and drill here and drill now.

        • notpilgrims2

          We don’t need to get involved in Syria. If we do, that would likely help al Qaeda. We shouldn’t have gotten involved in Iraq. As noted in this article, Iraq is a mess.

          Sidenote: We should also drill for oil in the US. And we should frack. That said, you sound like a liberal, saying “Iraq was a war for oil.” You said that war should be related to oil.

          • Laurel

            What in the name of heaven are you talking about?!!!!

            Hey…psssttt….look up top and see who wrote the article.

  • wraith67

    Putin sees the Middle East as a cash cow for arms sales – his people were in Iraq talking to insurgents between 03 and later. The Russians are an equal opportunity death merchant, nothing personal (as one might say). Generally, I would bet that he wouldn’t actually do that much to defend Syria other than offer a sympathetic shoulder and “hey, we’ve got more of those things that the US just blew up.” Having said that, now Russia has told the US to stay out, and Putin isn’t a waffler and ditherer like Obama, so he’s probably got things on the ground now that will make a point (like SA300 missiles). He could also put Russians (advisors) in sensitive places – known to the world that his troops were there as a Russian Redline. The Russians have boats there, which means they have subs…and the Chinese have anti Carrier boats there, which means they have subs there too. It’s idiocy to assume that we can dismiss all that, we haven’t played “how to fight a first world country” in a long time.

    I don’t think Russia is ideologically committed to the effort, but one of the things they keep saying that is accurate, is that we’re supporting Al Qaeda, and cannibals and murderers (in general and of Christians in particular) – our “thing” is supposed to be for “Human Rights” so how is it we’re supporting terrorists? Overthrowing Assad just puts his chemical weapons in the hands of AQ – and there’s no such thing as good terrorists and bad terrorists. Its not a win. The FSA (Free Syrian Army) is being slaughtered by Al Qaeda at this very moment, there’s no force there for us to support, corpses don’t fire US provided weapons well at all, or keep US provided weapons out of the hands of real terrorists.

    As to whether the Shiites and Sunnis are gathering strength and rearing for a fight – well of course, they’ve been doing that for 1400 years, there’s just a lot of money in it now.

    On Iraq? It was a total waste of time and lives, I don’t know why you’re even posing the question Scoop. We won when Saddam hung, but you cannot win an insurgency unless you are native, or if an occupying force, intend to stay there forever. The bad guys only have to live till after you leave and they can resume operations as they did in Iraq.

  • You know, these Muslim will never solve their problems amicably. There’s always gotta be maximum bloodshed. Everything they tell you they are is the opposite. Then they come to the West, and instead of to integrate, a plurality of them start doing the trash that they were doing when they were in their own country. Which led to the downfall in the first place. What madness.

    • 57thunderbird

      As long as they continue in their tribal mentality,these savages will never stop fighting and killing.They have been doing so since the beginning of time,Keep watch when you hear people say peace,peace,because then comes sudden destruction.

      • keyesforpres

        Yes, it goes back to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

        Mohammad made a 10 year peace treaty and with people of Mecca. Two years into the treaty, Mohammad attacked. Thus, setting the stage for the breaking of treaties. It’s what muslims do…..make a treaty when they are losing and use that time to gather their strength and attack later. They NEVER will honor peace treaties.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/really_missing_the_point_on_hudna.html

    • notpilgrims2

      “Everything they tell you they are is the opposite. ” No it’s not. Osama bin Laden said he was going to launch a jihad, and he did.

      “Then they come to the West, and instead of to integrate, a plurality of them start doing the same trash that they were doing when they were in their own country.”

      A majority of them don’t commit terrorist acts, as you noted by saying, “plurality,” which is really quite impossible, since a plurality is less than 50%, and the number who don’t commit terrorism or other similar radicalism is greater than 50% by definition.

      We SHOULDN’T allow extremist Muslim radicals or terrorists to the West. That’s for sure. But we shouldn’t bar moderate Muslims. “Hi, you are moderate and good. You will integrate. But since someone else (i.e. not you) is crazy, we won’t let you in.”

      • keyesforpres

        You never know when a muslim will go jihadi. Muslims are a tiny minority right now, that is the only reason you don’t see more jihadi incidences here. There have been some though. Did you know the DC snipers were jihadists?
        Are you paying attention to CAIR’s litigation jihad?
        Are you aware that ALL muslim groups in this nation are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood? Including the Muslim Student Association, Muslim Veteran’s Association, and the Islamic Medical Society?
        Are you aware that Obama put muslims in charge of key positions in the Dept. of Homeland Security? You know, the same dept. that has bought over 1 BILLION hollow tipped bullets?
        Did you know the UN is run by the OIC? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation? They are determining refugee status for us!! They are not allowing Christians to come here from muslim lands. Only muslims. They are bringing in THOUSANDS every month. From Portland, Maine, through Nashville, TN, out to the Pacific North West.
        CAIR is trying to get muslim holidays for some of our public schools. That is the cultural jihad.
        Islamization doesn’t happen overnight. It takes decades.
        Wherever islam takes root….freedom dies.

        • keyesforpres

          Also, there are numerous muslim terrorist training compounds in the US now and the authorities won’t do anything about it.

        • notpilgrims2

          If we just let moderate Muslims in, they won’t commit terrorist attacks. You are saying just because one person is a terrorist, other people shouldn’t come.

          Okay, let’s test that theory: Some crazy guy killed George Tiller “the Baby Killer.” Now we shouldn’t let Christians or conservatives immigrate to the US because they will automatically kill an abortionist. Okay, get out of the US Keynes4Prez. “But, but, I didn’t kill any abortionists or commit any acts of terrorism!” “It doesn’t matter. Other people killed an abortionist.”

          Um… You are attacking Obama for not discriminating based on religion. Why should he? You are saying he shouldn’t let Muslims serve in the government. Shouldn’t we evaluate people based on their character and qualifications? You said we shouldn’t. You said we should discriminate. How would you feel if some racist said Keynes shouldn’t be allowed to run for president because of his race?

          Other factual mistakes you made:
          The Muslim Brotherhood is the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s a radical Muslim group. Al-Qaeda is Al-Qaeda. It’s a radical Muslim terrorist group. You said that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn’t the Muslim Brotherhood but was actually Al-Qaeda, but actually the Muslim Brotherhood IS the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda is Al-Qaeda.

          You said the UN is run by an Islamic group. No. The UN is a group made up of many countries in the world. The US, Russia, France, China and England are the most powerful countries with control over the UN. They are on the Security Council. They can veto things.

          Your argument style is very funny. You just make an obviously false claim and then don’t cite any sources. Just belive “Keynes4Prez”, the internet commenter and authoritative source on anything, lol.

      • It’s not what happens in the West that bothers me, it’s what happens in the East. Let me explain.

        If the so called “moderates” are substantially larger than the jihadis, or at least those that are sympathetic to the jihadi movement, then we’d see a completely different perspective on the Middle East. I’m not necessarily saying that they should mimic American government, but some stability and more public sway in their public institutions would be welcome. We should see strong and robust democracies with a respect for the rule of law — meanwhile respecting the minority, without crushing them. But what do we see? Let’s look at a country like Turkey, which was radically transformed by the Europhile, Mustapha Ataturk. The country grew in prosperity and standing in the world stage. However, they have been racked with a very tumultuous history of military coups and disturbances. Even now, Turkey (which is a member of Nato) is being led by an Islamist, who is increasingly imposing his islamic perspective on country that, in spite of it’s 99% Muslim population, has managed to maintain it’s relatively secular government.

        This is less about bin Laden and more about the reflection of their scripture being made manifest by their actions. Honor killings, the punishment for apostasy, their opinions about other belief systems, and on, and on, and on. You need to sit down and take a hard look at Islam. This is a belief system that really needs to be understood, to grasp why the ME is the way it is today.

  • notpilgrims2

    Iraq’s government is illiberal. It is relatively supportive of Iran: they support Iran’s position on Assad and on nuclear development. There are also a lot of terrorist attacks in Iraq. It is a religious government–it has support for a religion established in its constitution. So basically it is far from being a Western democracy and is opposed to America in many aspects.

    By the way, the Republicans supported invading Iraq, and the Democrats opposed it.

    Anyway, we should perhaps learn from our misadventure there. It is good to see at least that Republicans weren’t as happy to support a Syria misadventure, but I hope they hold the same position when a Republican retakes office.

    • Gary Barber

      Actually both Dems and Republicans voted for the Iraq War – it’s just when no WMD’s were found, that the Dems turned on the War and claimed Bush lied. In fact, Dems had been saying Sadam had WMD’s back when Clinton was President. Look at the facts, not the Dems attempts to rewrite history.

      • notpilgrims2

        Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. Saying there are WMDs is not the same as saying we should invade Iraq. It could be that there are WMDs but we shouldn’t invade Iraq, which would have been a better option.

        Looking at the facts: A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the war resolution than did Democrats. As the war wore on, a large amount of Democrats furthermore tried to defund the war. Many more called on Bush to cut and run. Bush opposed cutting and running. Those are the facts.

        If the Iraq War was a good idea, you should stand behind it. Instead you are trying to shift blame to the Democrats who were much less responsible than the Republicans.

        • Gary Barber

          Clinton also did not kill or capture Bin Laden even though he had chances to go after him.

          I am not shifting blame to Democrats. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of you and other liberals about the Iraq War – A war that we in fact did WIN – Unlike the “good war” Afghanistan which we are not even trying to win anymore. Afghanistan will become a MUCH bigger mess than Iraq since even our allies know we do not care about it and the policies we are fighting under have made Afghanistan the deadliest war by far of any war since Vietnam. And btw 70% of the casualties have come in Afghanistan under Obama. It is only after Obama totally pulled out of Iraq that it has become the quagmire that it is today. After the Surge that so many Democrats badmouthed, we had Iraq in a place where they had a chance to become their own country. The fact is that Iraq’s current situation is not Bush’s fault and you know it. But since Biden hardly tried to get an agreement for our troops to stay there, it is now an Iranian puppet helping Iran send fighters to Syria, and having terrorist bombings every week.

          “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
          — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

          • notpilgrims2

            Obama did kill or capture bin Laden.

            You say Clinton didn’t? I’m not going to argue whether he should or shouldn’t have. That’s immaterial to the Iraq controversy. If anything it probably proves that he WOULDN’T have invaded Iraq, because your argument paints him as being not prone to taking military actions. (Although he did in a case involving Bosnia, but that operation wasn’t as much of a failure and mess for the US as the Iraq War was. We didn’t bomb Bosnia for 8 years and then end up with a mess years later that hurt us.)

            You say we “WON” in Iraq because we overthrew Saddam, but Iraq is now a mess.

            I’m not a liberal.

            Many conservatives are also against the Iraq War and other foreign entanglements in Middle Eastern politics. For example, many conservatives opposed striking Syria. If we did, it might help al Qaeda. Libya now is also full of terrorism and militias. Witness what happened at Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

            You talk about Iraq like it’s “their own country.” Right now its full of terrorism, hitting record numbers of terrorism. But if it is “their own country,” that is part of the problem. Why are they supporting Iran? Why aren’t they very democratic in the Western sense? Them supporting Iran doesn’t help us. That basically shows the flaw of “spreading democracy.” We should fight for our own national security interests, not other country’s democracy, which might be at odds with our national security interests.

            You say, Now Iraq is a puppet state, as if we could have prevented it? Maybe we could have if we installed a pro-American dictator. For a short time there, Saddam was helping us out. But that wasn’t Bush’s goal. Bush said, Spread democracy. Spreading democracy doesn’t help prevent Iraq from becoming an Iranian puppet state. If the Iraqi people vote to support pro-Iranian policies, then that’s democracy. Bad for America’s national security interests. Bush’s idea.

            • deTocqueville1

              Circularity is not persuasive.

              • Laurel

                Precisely. I think he needs to go back the article again.

            • keyesforpres

              Obama didn’t capture or kill Osama. It was Bush’s policies that led to finding Osama. They knew Osama was there for months and Obama refused to give the orders to go get him. Penetta and others went behind Obama’s back to get him. Look it up.
              Also, that picture of them watching it in “real time” was a fake. Look that up too. Try “American Thinker photo shopped picture of Osama raid” and it will bring up the article and they show why the picture was photo shopped.

              • notpilgrims2

                Obama didn’t capture Osama. The Navy Seals did. Obama was the one who was involved in making the decision to do so. Obama became president in 2009. He made the decision to do the strike on bin Laden in 2011. That was still during his term of office, not Bush’s.

                Bush did a good job of implimenting intelligence programs that, at the time, Obama opposed. He didn’t end up being the one to successfully have the US capture bin Laden though.

                I saw the picture of Obama in the room. I already saw it. Then someone who opposed Obama said it was photoshopped. Okay. That’s like saying that Bush wasn’t ontop of the World Trade Center rubble because it was “photoshopped.” If you look both the photos, you can tell they are not photoshopped.

                Why would they need to? If they wanted to take a photo, they would just tell Obama, “Sit here. We’re taking a photo.” They already have him in the White House. They wouldn’t need to photoshop it.

            • Laurel

              You need to re-read article and then learn to separate. Your logic is circular. Just because Iraq was mishandled, and continues to be so by Obama, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have gone into it to begin with.

              • notpilgrims2

                We shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place precisely because it would be a bad idea that would fall apart and hurt our interests. We can tell its doing bad now.

                Think back to the time of the debate. Many people said, “We can’t nation build in Iraq. … They won’t welcome us with flowers.” Those people were right. It’s not like no one was saying that it would be a bad idea at the time. Lots of people were saying it. Additionally lots of people were saying he didn’t have WMDs. He didn’t. Additionally lots of people were saying that even if he did, he wouldn’t use them to strike America. He wouldn’t have. (That one is a what-if, but there’s no reason he would have wanted to strike the US.)

                I find it funny that some people who still think the Iraq War was a good idea think the Syria War is a bad idea.

                • Laurel

                  Ok…that is nothing but opinion you gave me that is rooted in very bad speculation, and what does Syria have to do with Iraq? You are comparing apples to horse apples.

        • 57thunderbird

          No,Clinton didn’t invade Iraq.Instead he allowed the Muslims in Bosnia to draw us into the conflict and assist them is their Christian genocide,just like they are doing in Syria by stealing and using chemical weapons on the general populace and blaming it on the Assad regime.

          • notpilgrims2

            He decided to intervene in Bosnia. We weren’t “drawn in.” We didn’t have to. But, anyway, Bosnia didn’t cause as many problems for us as Iraq. Few died, and the country didn’t become a hot bed of terrorism with spillover consequences to us or a supporter of Iran’s nuclear program.

            You do make the point that “Clinton didn’t invade Iraq,” which was exactly what I was saying. Does this post discuss Bosnia? No, it discusses Iraq, so that’s why I was talking about Iraq in response to the article about Iraq rather than bringing up an unrelated country.

            • deTocqueville1

              Just problems for everyone else and Europe specifically as is now apparent.

            • keyesforpres

              We installed a muslim gov’t in the middle of Europe. Don’t think that won’t cause us problems down the road.

              • notpilgrims2

                Bosnia isn’t a nuclear weapon building country like Iran, and it’s not a failed state like Pakistan. Nor is it an Iranian client state like Iraq. So obviously Bosnia doesn’t pose many threats to us. Point out an actual threat that Bosnia poses to us.

            • Laurel

              Really? What are all those Muslims from Bosnia doing in the ME then?

          • deTocqueville1

            Exactly. Clinton was too busy with Monica and then impeachment and of course his futile and distracting engagement in Bosnia.

        • Laurel

          No he bombed an aspirin factory in Iraq in an effort to distract from his adultery taking place in oval office while on a national security call.

          You are silly.

      • Laurel

        Actually Democrats politicized war before WMD’s and those actually were found as well as the set up’s for more. They turned it against it and politicized it immediately to take control of Congress. If you take a look at history Democrats have a habit of doing this. It’s their main play.

    • 57thunderbird

      The dems were for it before they were against it.But don’t let the facts get in your way.Pesky facts.

      • deTocqueville1

        Progressives never let facts overtake their predictions or their past.

        • 57thunderbird

          Pathetic isn’t it? 🙁

    • Laurel

      Ummm…you perhaps should check voting records before speaking in the future. Democrats overwhelmingly supported Iraq and actually were banging that drum during Clinton administration.

  • steve budin

    Iraq was a great diversion. A way to accomplish many things that were in our strategic defense interests. We needed an area ( outside of nyc and usa) to become the new terrorist battleground. . We needed 90% of the terrorist focus to be on defeating us in iraq rather then bombing us at home. Guess what. It worked. No terror attacks on us soil while iraq war was being fought. It also gave us at times .. up to 125k troops on the border with iran. It was not a coincidence that we saw no nuclear enrichment from iran during the iraq war… in fact.. didnt hear a peep from iran. They sat in the corner and watched like scared Little boys. It also was the only war we have won in the last 12 years. When that traitor obama pulled out and broke all the promises and assurances that the previous administration made to the iraqi people, we lost everything that we fought so brilliantly for. They said the iraq war was about oil… Morons. Where is the oil ?????? Gas is $4. Did we take their oil? No.. of course not. But still we are knocking the iraq war and comparing it to syria. Wake up. They are 2 diff things completely. Syria is the bad guys vs the bad guys. Only thing to do there is sit back and watch them kill eachother. In egypt however, where it is clearly the good guys vs the bad guys. We do nothing while obama continues to roll around in bed with his muslim brotherhood brothers… check please!

    • Clare

      In Egypt, it is not clearly the good guys vs. the bad guys. The bad guys are Islamists, the good guys are Secularists. Both Muslim, both follow the same koran. The Secular Muslims are just a bit saner than the Islamists but this ideology is bad to the bone. I understand this distinction by reading Shoebat’s analysis.

      • keyesforpres

        ALL muslims are wired for terrorism.

      • Laurel

        Not necessarily. It’s not that simple. For starters no one is allowed to be an officer of any type in the military if they have any terrorist affiliation of any tyoe including family members.

        And the secularists are the one’s defending the Coptic Christians. Let’s not throw out the baby with bathwater.

    • Laurel

      Syria actually is a war for oil as well as ME dominance. Oil in Iraq went to China and ours is $4 due to QE.

  • TIMERUNNERSC

    Today we remember our lost service men and women. We missed them, love them and thank them. We will not forget you.

    May God Jehovah Bless America as we bless the Lord, amen
    May you have a blessed Sunday.

    • mediaaccess

      We’ve already forgot them – that’s why we have a Marxist – Islamist in the White Hosed.

      • TIMERUNNERSC

        @mediaaccess, Sorry my young friend but not knowing the group your with, the “We’ve Group” you mention. Not at all being unkind.

        But the we the people The American Tea Party Movement and many other freedom and liberty groups do not know the word Forgot or surrender, we Americans remember everything and are keeping records (logs), still standing and fighting to defend our American Republic as founded by our founding fathers by the hand of God. So do not be to quick to think the worst. You haven’t seen the worst. And as of today the worst isn’t very close, but even so we all must stay engaged if we are interested in leaving freedom, liberty, or a nation…America.

        as always respectfully.
        Tea Party American

  • USMC 64-68

    Dear Leader and the progressive democrats surrendered Iraq by sabotaging the status of forces agreement. The Tyrant had one thing in mind only – to get out of Iraq, which was his agenda to make it look like he was the one who ended the war. Never mind that he trashed the sacrifices of our warriors who died for nothing.

    The democrats have a pattern of doing this – in every war they have surrendered to the communists and guaranteed our defeat.

    They have bloody hands, and the blood is our own people.

    • Laurel

      I see you get it! What is worse though is they are making a broader mess that is going to cost dearly. We have a huge Shia alliance forming in the ME. The one thing Shia has that Sunni never developed is a military. In the case of Iraq the military is trained by the USA.

  • iaintlyin

    Maybe we’ll find out a little more about 0’s(and thus, the USA’s) religious thoughts. I happen to believe he’ll side with the Shiites.

  • Now that barack is willing to meet with the Iranian president, I wonder what the over/under is that he bows?

    I’m guessing he bows. My real question is, will he scrape?

    • HCTUB

      He’s ready for the meeting , I hear .

      If they voted the way pelosi voted , with not knowing what was in the bill , it should be repealed , null and void . How can you pass a bill that way.
      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h