At the time, they were one of dozens of groups, any one of which might evolve in to something else. Are you saying we knew which one would do that? Even now, I'm not so much convinced that ISIS is a cohesive, centrally managed group.
Deflection and ad hominem? You still haven't commented on the topic, which is what you complained about them not doing.
Honestly, the international situation in the Middle East is reminding me more and more of Kissinger. We fucked things up in the region, its in chaos, and they are all fighting each other - the occasional pin pricks of terrorism are nothing to the states (if everything to the victims), we are making sure no one gains dramatic control over the oil reserves, and keeping the sects fighting makes sure the Caliphate never actually happens, which is the big boogeyman of Western fears. And the US is becoming less and less involved over time. That's Kissinger's line - the only thing wrong with the war between Iraq and Iran is some day it might end.
I do not advocate gun control on this forum. You straw man ignoramus. My position has always been that cultural attitudes are the problem in the US where guns are concerned and that is where the debate should be focused, namely that it is not about the amount of guns or their availability, it is how American society views them. But, let's be honest, you though "hey, he's British", he must be default support rigid con control!". Arsehole.
I'm going to go to the track, bet on a horse, then try to get a refund for my ticket because the situation changed during the race. I mean, after I try to explain that I didn't really bet on that particular horse in the first place.
Not necessarily gun control, but I did think you in the past had suggested something would work in the United States because it worked in another country.
I'd hate to see what would happen should they become so. So far, they are doing whatever they want. Obama had an opportunity to shut down these groups before they became more of a threat and he failed to do so. He was so eager to pull out the troops that he ignored and even dismissed the potential dangers. This whole, "that was then, this is now" argument is just a bunch of partisan bullshit. The ISIS threat evolved because Obama did nothing to hinder it. If it was a Republican president, you guys would be jumping all over him. Obama fucked up, just admit it. And it doesn't seem like his current plan to deal with ISIS is instilling any confidence in either Pubs or Dems. I use the word "plan" loosely.
Nope, sorry. When I have mentioned other countries I have pointed out that other first world countries don't have the same problems, including those with more relaxed gun laws, in an effort to illustrate that the US issue is one of culture. So claiming I am a notable advocate of gun control is an out and out lie. Shame you're too much of an arsehole to apologise. Oh, but it's everyone else who is the problem, right Dayton?
Y'know, I'm at the point where I'd like to abolish the second amendment for a year just to see the mayhem as an act of petty vengeance. I wouldn't tell people it was coming back after the year either. Just "it's abolished", *mic drop, walks off*.
It was also my line in some of the early threads about the Syrian civil war. I noted that a Syria embroiled in a civil war involving mostly despicable elements was a Syria less likely to bother US interests -- no need to do more than contain. As long as the equilibrium is one of stalemate, then the theory works quite nicely. The question is whether we've reached that tipping point and a new, less useful equilibrium. Is contained turmoil in Iraq likewise a good thing? To be honest, I'm not sure, but I wouldn't want it spilling over further in to either Saudi Arabia or Iran.
If I implied you advocated gun control then I apologize. You do compare the United States to other countries though.
No you shouldn't. Comparisons are useless at best (inflammatory at worst) when you compare nations radically different in size, population, environmental, racial makeup, and a host of other features.
Absolutely. It's possible to make a humanitarian argument against the policy (although I doubt an effective response is available). But from a purely strategic interest point of view, the West is better off if ME fanatics focus their anger on internal enemies.
I'm going to proclaim that the sun rises in the north. If it ends up rising in the east, the situation has changed - we had no way to predict it would rise in the east based on our intelligence data.
Technically the "sun rising" anywhere is an Earth bound perception based description and not one that describes an actual astronomy event accurately.
Wow..........I think the point went way, way, way over your head to where it borders on an "astronomy event."
It's also a tragedy for the shooter's family. He had graduated from UT with a degree in electrical engineering and had trouble landing a job. At some point he got a DUI, became depressed, and realized that everything his family and friends had told him about living in the modern world, getting ahead, having fun, raising a family, and enjoying life was a delusion, and that truth was only found in fighting for Allah.
I doubt if there was an ISIS connection. "Lone wolves" don't leave a trail back to ISIS (or any terrorist group). ISIS can be totally insulated but still get their objectives met just the same. I think this is the tactic terrorists will use more and more often - stir up trouble, encourage others to do the same, if one guy gets caught it doesn't expose an entire cell and ruin their plans. Terrorists planning, equipping themselves, and executing (no pun intended) their evil acts. Impossible to infiltrate or monitor, no back-stabbing or infighting among members to muck it up. If this ball gets rolling things can get very ugly very fast.
It hasn't been ruled out yet. The FBI is investigating multiple trips the shooter took to the Middle East.
