Posted on 01/26/2017 6:23:28 PM PST by springwater13
The White House is drafting a presidential directive that calls on Defense Secretary James N. Mattis to devise plans to more aggressively strike the Islamic State, which could include American artillery on the ground in Syria and Army attack helicopters to support an assault on the group’s capital, Raqqa, officials said.
President Trump, who is to make his first visit to the Pentagon as commander in chief on Friday, will demand that the new options be presented to him within 30 days, the officials said. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said that he had a secret plan to defeat the Islamic State, but he also said that he would give his commanders a month to come up with new options.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
If they're goat-raping towelheads....send em back anyway.
Once termites start nibbling around the edges, the only way to stop them is to wipe them out. They don't have to be physically here to lob a nuke or other dirty device our way.
There are already enough "sleepers" ensconced on our ground to cause problems for some time to come - as we root them out, those in foreign lands will get itchy to find ways to attack - if we're totally reactive, we are saying that we are willing to sacrifice x-amount of American lives (Obama's policies) in order to not have to go where they breed.
It sucks, but reality is reality no matter how much we wish we could just mind our own business and let them do the same - they won't stick to themselves because it is their business to hurt us in any way they can.
Then you’d have to nuke many millions of people, possibly 1.6 billion people, because that is how many Muslims there are now on the planet (and growing very fast). Right now that is 23% of the world’s population.
Do you think the rest of the world would not have something to say about that, about us exterminating millions of people indiscriminately with nuclear bombs?
The other option is to be willing to sacrifice our own People by being purely reactive - waiting for them to attack is not a smart thing to do, but if we do end up reacting to an attack, we have to be merciless in our response.
Singing kumbaya and sitting on our thumbs only emboldens them. As Golda Meir once said, there can only be peace when they start to love (or mourn) their own children more than they hate us.
Then what exactly do you mean by “exterminate them”.
If you’re talking about the extremists only, how would that be done? Also, even if it were done, there are more extremists waiting in the wings, and more after that. Muslims have one of the highest birthrates in the world. And many of them groom their young to become extremists and terrorists. It’s a high calling.
You will never “exterminate” them because the next wave is always coming of age.
The best option we have is to contain them in their own lands where they can be as extremist as they want among other Muslims. That has been the way of centuries, except when Spain had to push them out of the continent ... but they should never have let them in in the first place. Nor should we or any country that cares about peace and stability.
Let them stay in their own countries and lands. They will then have to deal with their own problems of overpopulation, underdevelopment and resource scarcity.
How do you accomplish that when their goal is to infiltrate out land to kill us? Do you wait for them to find a way to get a nuke to go off within our borders, or do you take action to ensure they can't make that happen?
You take extreme measures to keep them out ... as Trump is doing.
You do not let in millions of them unvetted as Europe is doing.
I agree with your main premise but don't see how we can ignore them and hope they never develop the capability to hit us without actually stepping foot on our land.
They, like our own Left, will never cease their efforts, and recognition of that is key to being postured to protect our People.
That is a problem. That is why we have also to ban nuclear material being allowed in these countries and especially in Iran. However, at present, Europe is within missile range. We are not. If anything Europe should be very worried, but as usual, they are not.
Now we have problems with Canada and Mexico letting in anyone they want. This is a huge problem. But we can focus on tracking nuclear material and other surveillance means to do targeted strikes against cells that are working on nuclear devices (Iraels Mossad does this).
But a full scale war with these people and airstrikes is not going to do it. First of all it will not work. Secondly it will make the problem worse.
Containment is our best strategy at the moment. It is not perfect but it is better than going to war with almost 1/4 of the world’s population.
Hard to track nuclear material when we don't have feet/eyes/ears on the ground - look at the confusion about what Iran actually has stockpiled/refined, not to mention N. Korea. Satellites and hearsay do not make an effective way to keep our thumbs on the situation.
At any rate, I wish we could do as you wish we would do. The world is way too small to take the chance. A relatively small boat, in international waters could be the death knell for thousands of out People if we aren't willing to engage in a robust manner.
Enjoyed debating with you, but it seems we might as well just agree to disagree for now.
Happy FReeping.
“We don’t need to get involved in a 1000 year old religious civil war.”
Sorry, but your comments are about eight years to late & would have been better directed toward the First Black/Muslim President (Subversive Traitor-in-Chief)
If Obama were tried for treason based on circumstantial evidence alone, (i.e, his Foreign Policy & Jihadist immigration directives), a conviction would be automatic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.