Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kaslin
If we are going to go after terrorists on the basis of strategic importance, then we wouldn't go after Boko Haram, but only ISIS and Al Qaeda.

BUT... Some like Bill O’Reilly bring up the word “Nazi” in connection with terrorists like ISIS because of their barbarity, and people like Sean Hannity speak about all the good we did in toppling Saddam and how this ended the brutality he inflicted upon his citizens.

So, if we are going to allow a bait-and-switch to moral reasons, then we must go after ISIS AND Boko haram and also put boots on the ground in Africa, too, as Boko haram beheads people, rapes women, enslaves children, massacres thousands, wants a caliphate and has publicly aligned itself with UISIS, and ISIS has returned the favor.

If we go by O’Reilly and Hannity, we must put boots on the ground to deal with ISIS and Boko haram, too.

8 posted on 02/11/2015 3:41:05 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Laissez-faire capitalist

And why not? Isn’t Boko Haram as much a terrorist organization as are Al Qaeda and ISIL?


12 posted on 02/11/2015 3:45:26 PM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson