nfreeman

Neo -- that was a great post.

Well, you've asked the same question multiple times, and I've answered it multiple times. I'm done. I haven't spoken with my friend on the terminology issue. He's a lifelong Democrat and pretty much in the tank for Obama though (and published a long article to that effect last fall, although he subsequently criticized Obama's approach to Syria), so I doubt he's of the same opinion that I am on that point.

Well, your items #1 and #2 above are really counting angels on the head of a pin. You accused me of not being an independent based on my views in this thread, to which I responded that there are plenty of independents who feel the way I do. And I objected to your patronizing attitude towards those who disagree with you on this point, at which point you threw up a straw man about intelligence. After more back-and-forth, I still don't see a coherent response to either of those points, so I'll move on to #3 -- which, regrettably, is just a reprise of the patronizing attitude towards those who disagree with you. As for #3 -- I've read a great deal about terrorism and the ME, and am friends with a fairly senior professional in the field -- enough that I feel qualified to opine on it in conversation and on this board. You are of course free to disagree with my (generous) assessment of my own abilities in this matter, as I am free to feel the same way about others here -- but "you don't know what you're talking about" and "you're just regurgitating left-wing/right-wing talking points" and "no, YOU are" doesn't really make for interesting conversation.

Who feels this way? All 60-odd million people who are going to vote for Trump? They're all motivated by bigotry? If not all of them, what percentage of them are bigots? And what is the basis for your number? There are plenty of bigots, nut cases and generally objectionable people on both sides. The Orlando mass murderer was a registered Democrat, as it happens, as are virtually all of his CAIR enablers -- but no one is accusing all liberals/progressives/democrats of being bloodthirsty Muslim lunatics -- just the ones that really are.

For the record, the constitution protects US citizens, not those seeking to immigrate here.

Do you think only Republicans are dissatisfied with the president's approach to the ME? Leaving aside independents, all 3 of his secretaries of defense have publicly criticized him on this (which is extraordinary). And while you may not have used the word intelligence (and for the record neither did I), you essentially said that those criticizing the president for not using certain words are reacting emotionally and don't know what they are talking about -- reminiscent of the president's "bitter clingers" view of the great unwashed in the flyover states.

Perhaps some of us simply think the president is incompetent and has consistently made terrible decisions in this crucial matter of national security, and we care about the words he uses because they are indicative of a wrongheaded mindset and because we think the right words are needed to build public support for the correct approach to the war. And perhaps you might consider avoiding the liberal habit of assuming that those who disagree with you are mouth-breathing neanderthals. I expect better from you.

Do you appreciate the difference between reasonable conversation and pointless pedantry? Do you appreciate the difference between reality and fantasy? In reality, Muslims are slaughtering people all over the world by the thousands in barbaric fashion in the name of Islam, with the emotional, financial and logistical support of millions of other Muslims. In reality, almost every Muslim nation in the world is a brutal dictatorship (with the most notable exception, Turkey, quickly sliding back that way from a brief democratic respite). In reality, homophobia, misogynism and anti-semitism are shockingly widespread among Muslims worldwide. Again: this does not mean that all, or even most, Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Everyone should be judged individually. But we should not pretend that world Islam is not beset with major pathologies that endanger everyone.

OK, but if people (not just you) are going to put forth poverty as the reason for the pathologies riddling world Islam, someone should explain why plenty of the killers are from comfortable, middle-class backgrounds. I said it and I stand by it. These are bloodthirsty acts of mass murder that are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and that are urged on, sanctified and celebrated by literally millions of other Muslims. Does that mean all Muslims are bloodthirsty killers? No, of course not. I believe the vast majority of US Muslims want to live normal, peaceful American lives. But the US is unique in that respect, and the percentage of Muslims worldwide who support or justify these acts is staggering, and depressing.

Neither the San Bernadino killers nor the Orlando killer were poor.

Although I agree with the first part of this, the 2nd part is out of line.

You are mistaken on pretty much everything in this post, but as a starting point you should understand that there is a recognized distinction between "Islamist" and "Islam."

sabills -- If I may ask, where did you take those waterfront photos? They look great.

Reino for Hall? Hmmmm. The perfect daydream conversation for this thread. It's almost, but not quite, impossible to see it happen, and the principal pieces are close enough in value to make it interesting. The 2 players had very comparable rookie seasons, although Reino was a year older and Hall produced the same offense in 65 games that Reino produced in 79 (albeit with Hall getting about 1.5 min more ice time per game). Hall also produced more shots. Hall has not scored more than 27 goals in his 6 NHL seasons, but has scored over 20 in 5 out of 6 (if his 16 goals in the lockout season are extrapolated). He has missed a fair amount of games with injuries in 3 out of 6 seasons, although not in 2 of his last 3 seasons. So, Hall, who will be 25 this fall, has a good NHL track record and a great junior record to evaluate him on. Reino, OTOH, has a great junior career (including World Juniors) and a nice NHL rookie season. Hall has more speed; Reino probably has a better hockey IQ and hopefully will be more durable. I don't think Edmonton would make the proposed trade -- I think getting Hall and the improvement in draft slots is too much to expect. I could talk myself into them agreeing to Hall-for-Reino-plus-Pysyk, but even that is a stretch -- they would likely insist on McCabe. And I don't think GMTM would make the trade without the draft pick swap, but I could maybe see him doing it with pick swap. It's definitely a more likely fantasy trade.

Good to see ya Whisky!! I wish I shared your optimism about this attack triggering meaningful change in the country's approach to the Islamist menace. The president's remarks do not instill confidence on that point.

Tell me more about these acts "around the glove." I like the idea of introducing a soft-core porn element into this thread. In regrettable seriousness -- if the Iraq war is the direct cause of terrorism in the world today, what caused 9/11 and the zillion other terror attacks before the Iraq war? For that matter, why has France -- which staunchly opposed the Iraq war -- been relentlessly targeted for terror attacks?

1 - Are passports not issued by governments? More importantly, Saddam's administration was well aware that Yussuf was operating in Iraq. It wasn't like he was hiding in a cave deep in the mountains -- or for that matter sequestered in a compound in a huge city in Pakistan. 2 - Leaving aside the highly loaded statement that "Bush lied," and the necessary conclusion that a large number of Congressmen, cabinet members, other heads of state and other intelligence agencies also must have lied for some strange reason -- IMHO the reason for starting the Iraq war wasn't just WMDs, or support for jihadis, or kicking out the weapons inspectors, or shooting at coalition aircraft. It was all of those factors together, PLUS the critical fact that Saddam had the 4th-biggest army in the world, was openly shooting at and defying the US (and the rest of the UN) and was seen in the Muslim world as their strong horse. The US, having suffered a grievous wound on 9/11, had to show the jihadis throughout the Muslim world that they had no hope of winning the war -- and the way to do that was to beat their resident tough guy to a bloody pulp in front of everyone.

OK, but the Iraqi government gave him a passport, and he went to ground there after pulling off a huge attack. I don't see how that can be viewed as anything other than Iraqi support. Do you think Saddam didn't support anti-US Islamist groups?

Here's what you said: I don't see how anyone could view that post as adult discourse with no name-calling. And I'm not interested in arguing the semantics of calling someone "ignorant" with Ricky Bobby. When you have a conversation with someone, you don't tell him/her that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. As to your question about why the president's words matter: I've posted several times in this thread on that very issue. But instead of calling you "ignorant," and despite my aversion to quoting myself, I'll just repeat the relevant portions of those posts: PA -- while I agree with 11 that no one threatened to muzzle anyone, I also think it's important that posters not tell those with whom they disagree that they aren't entitled to voice their opinions. I won't speak for 11 (although I highly doubt that was his intention), but my intention was certainly not to tell K-9 that he isn't entitled to voice his opinions about the president, Iraq, terrorism, messaging, the price of oil somehow being immune from supply and demand (hah! I haven't forgotten that one!), or anything else. It was just to tell K-9 to change the tone of his communications. This thread is necessarily going to engender stronger opinions and emotions -- especially right after a terror attack -- than any other thread on this board will. Even so, for the thread to have any value, it can't degenerate into yelling insults at each other (and I say that as someone who has crossed the line myself and who is trying to avoid doing so again).

The bolded is probably true, but the war between Islamism and Western civilization was and remains far broader than 9/11 and payback therefor. It's also worth noting that Ramsi Yousef, the architect of the 1993 WTC bombing, entered the US on an Iraqi passport and was given refuge in Iraq after that bombing, and was the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Muhammed, one of the planners of 9/11.

Sir: either tone down the name-calling and converse like a grown-up, or keep quiet.

I appreciate the usage of "arguendo." As for your question: the US implemented the surge in Iraq in early 2007, following a couple of years of stasis featuring regular IED and other attacks and related casualties. It was highly effective. I assume what you're really alluding to is the decision to embark upon the Iraq war, and that you think doing so was a poor decision. If my assumption is correct, I don't agree, but you're probably in the majority. Here's an unimpeachable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Leaving aside the snark in the 2nd sentence, because we're trying to have a reasonable conversation here -- yes, I agree with the GWB approach. The world, the US and the ME were all much safer places in 2008 than they are now.

You're right -- "win quickly" was a poor turn of phrase. I meant that the war should be fought with ferocity, so that battles are won quickly and decisively -- so that the bad guys see there is no hope of winning. But it is and will remain a long war. Operationally, I think the US needs a large and permanent military presence (between 50K and 100K troops) in the ME from which to project power, and it needs to exercise that military presence frequently and determinedly. When there are no safe havens from which Islamists can plan and operate, and when they lose battles decisively and often, their ability to execute and their appeal to prospective recruits will be substantially impaired. The president has been trying to avoid offending Islam for 8 years. This policy can't be described as anything other than a crashing failure. I've said this before, but there is a notion in Islam of respecting "the strong horse." That means, as mentioned above, that militancy attracts support and volunteers when it appears to be working, and loses support and manpower when it is clearly not working. At this point in time the average disaffected loser Muslim youth sees ISIS as the strong horse and the US as the weak horse -- and part of the reason the US looks like the weak horse is that the president continuously seems afraid of offending Islam. Until that changes we won't be able to win this war.

I'd say the war has been ongoing since the 1970s. I didn't say Obama was a pacifist -- just an incompetent, and someone incapable of realizing that he has erred. It's always someone else's fault. Do you think Obama's strategy for dealing with militant Islam has been effective?