Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Blindly accepting Muslim immigrants is anti-liberal
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LoveBeingAMuslimah" data-source="post: 69806421" data-attributes="member: 323708"><p>Clarissa Ward said it perfectly yesterday on CNN. Assad is the lifeline for ISIS (or ISIS breathes because of Assad).</p><p></p><p>If Assad was dealt with in 2011-2013, ISIS wouldn't have become what it is today. If Assad is not taken out now, you risk the Sunni Syrians (really the only ones who can defeat ISIS for good) feeling that though they hate ISIS, maybe the best choice for them pragmatically (as Michael Weiss said of the Sunnis in Iraq) is to join forces with ISIS against the bigger threat to Syrian Sunnis. Assad/allies are the one that killed 200k (96% of the documented civilian casualties) of their civilian brethren.</p><p></p><p>Plus, Assad actually supports ISIS (by being a big oil customer/partner and by largely avoiding targeting ISIS though the regime targets the rebels repeatedly) because he needs it in order to remain. It is the rebels who have been the most effective against ISIS despite almost 0 support even though they have about 9 countries/groups fighting against them (including ISIS). And this success is sustainable. That should tell you that the rebels are the best equipped to take on ISIS, especially when they can dedicate all of their resources and energy against it once the regime falls.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Couldn't have anything to do with the recent history of Buddhismic violence against Muslims, could it? Of course it's understandable that people who throw babies on machetes/swords splitting them in half or burn people alive just because they're Muslims support Trump. Because that's the type of people they are and the type of person they'd support would be someone who says dangerous things against Muslims like some extremist, hateful Buddhist monks do. Radical Buddhism is dangerous and as a Muslim, I would fear for my life if one of these Buddhists came to the US. Perhaps Trump should consider imposing a ban on certain Buddhists. I mean, that's the sentiment that was described just on this thread regarding Muslims so that should be the case if that logic was applied here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LoveBeingAMuslimah, post: 69806421, member: 323708"] Clarissa Ward said it perfectly yesterday on CNN. Assad is the lifeline for ISIS (or ISIS breathes because of Assad). If Assad was dealt with in 2011-2013, ISIS wouldn't have become what it is today. If Assad is not taken out now, you risk the Sunni Syrians (really the only ones who can defeat ISIS for good) feeling that though they hate ISIS, maybe the best choice for them pragmatically (as Michael Weiss said of the Sunnis in Iraq) is to join forces with ISIS against the bigger threat to Syrian Sunnis. Assad/allies are the one that killed 200k (96% of the documented civilian casualties) of their civilian brethren. Plus, Assad actually supports ISIS (by being a big oil customer/partner and by largely avoiding targeting ISIS though the regime targets the rebels repeatedly) because he needs it in order to remain. It is the rebels who have been the most effective against ISIS despite almost 0 support even though they have about 9 countries/groups fighting against them (including ISIS). And this success is sustainable. That should tell you that the rebels are the best equipped to take on ISIS, especially when they can dedicate all of their resources and energy against it once the regime falls. Couldn't have anything to do with the recent history of Buddhismic violence against Muslims, could it? Of course it's understandable that people who throw babies on machetes/swords splitting them in half or burn people alive just because they're Muslims support Trump. Because that's the type of people they are and the type of person they'd support would be someone who says dangerous things against Muslims like some extremist, hateful Buddhist monks do. Radical Buddhism is dangerous and as a Muslim, I would fear for my life if one of these Buddhists came to the US. Perhaps Trump should consider imposing a ban on certain Buddhists. I mean, that's the sentiment that was described just on this thread regarding Muslims so that should be the case if that logic was applied here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Blindly accepting Muslim immigrants is anti-liberal
Top
Bottom