“After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” Obama said. “The coming months will be a season of homecomings. Our troops in Iraq will definitely be home for the holidays.”
This is just as nutty as the OP. You think President Trump would sit around with his advisers and contemplate rounding up all Muslims in the US and gas them? And people in this thread agree with you; oy, it’s worse than I thought.
You do realize that the timetable for our departure from Iraq was set by the Bush administration, right?
Obama wasn’t saying anything that hadn’t already been public knowledge for three years.
Also, that war was over.
You know who else had great plans for colonization and mass “relocation” of certain populations…?
As opposed to what? Sneaking 80,000 troops out of Iraq in the dead of night, without telling our allies? Or are you suggesting we should continue to spend *$2 billion a week *in a state of perpetual warfare in a country that doesn’t want us there?
Why would Obama be advertising that he is currently sending less than 50 special forces troops to Kurdish controlled areas of Syria, thus putting an extra target on these US soldier’s heads, and telling the enemy exactly what the US is doing? Instead of holding a press conference, why shouldn’t Obama just invite representatives of ISIS to the Whitehouse and he could simply brief them personally?
I agree with Trump when he says that our leaders are stupid. I am not sure if it is stupidity, incompetence or deliberate acts of evil, but I do believe that it’s wrong.
*White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the U.S. would be deploying “less than 50” Special Operations forces, who will be sent to Kurdish-controlled territory in northern Syria. *
presumably he means muslims that go to the mosque and outwardly act as muslims but like to get drunk in private and are not actually religious. This is the only part of the OP’s post that isn’t completely nutty. There are certainly plenty of people born in muslim countries that go along with the formalities due to societies expectations but aren’t particularly devout.
I really would like to know about this “test” he thinks can be developed? A test for extremism? Like a blood test? Do tell us more?
This is comedy gold.
A test. That essentially looks into a person’s soul. And it determines with “extremely high accuracy” their religious beliefs. Will it be like a DUI breathalyzer, and alarms go off when it detects your blood / Islam content is above .04?
Do you suppose there might possibly be a military advantage to intimidating the enemy and letting them know exactly what we’re capable of? Or do you think that the jihadists wouldn’t notice that there were American soldiers shooting at them and we could just keep it a secret indefinitely?
I suppose you think Truman was committing treason when he dropped leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki telling the people to get out.
Can somebody explain what the context of this thread is all about? Islam is a religion, not a country.
We’re gonna bomb Allah, apparently.
evidently the original poster of this thread has fantasies of freeing the west from the threat of islam with some kind of global crusade. But there definitely won’t be any genocide involved… no sir, not one little bit.
I’d say nuke Him from orbit, but not sure how we’d do that. But we are AMERICA, FUCK YA! Weeze can do anything!! 
:smack:
Are you making the mistake of thinking the original post is a rational idea? 
It would obviously be a waste of time and energy to go after something that doesn’t exist, but there are certain things that do exist, and should it ever be necessary, then the West could always go after viable targets of importance that do exist, such as that black stone and the square building that houses it in Saudi Arabia, just as an example.
It is not so much an idea as it is a prediction of what can become a likely outcome, based on how the world currently has become and current events that are taking place and will be taking place in the future.
He’s not advocating genocide. He’s predicting the outcome of a total war between two, in his point of view, incompatible cultures. He’s not wrong. If the U.S waged total war with any group of 3rd world countries the result would be annihilation.
You realise that the Romans did exactly that. Completely destroyed the second temple, ruthlessly crushed Jewish uprisings, occupied Judea for hundreds of years. 2000 years later the Jews still exist, but the Roman empire doesn’t.
So anyone who is advocating total war against any third world countries is advocating genocide. How is that not the inescapable conclusion?
How certain are you, then? Because I’d like to arrange that wager. I’ll give you five to one odds.