What the current way of dealing with "islamofacsism" amounts to

noxagol

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
3,063
I was in an argument the other day and I came up with a good analogy that made it click in this guys head. I was telling him how our current foreign policy makes us less safe and we need to just leave people alone. He said we need to fight fire with fire and to that I said "What we are doing now is fighting fire with gasoline"
 
Well, we can fight fire with fire. Going after terrorist who attacked us on 9/11, like Ron Paul wants to do, is fighting fire with fire. Occupying and nation-building Iraq and Afghanistan is not, and is, as you say, fighting fire with gasoline. Complete lunacy.
 
Last edited:
Well, we can fight fire with fire. Going after terrorist who attacked us on 9/11, like Ron Paul wants to do, is fighting fire with fire. Occupying and nation-building Iraq and Afghanistan, is not, and is, as you say, fighting fire with gasoline. Complete lunacy.

I will agree with you on Iraq, but in regards to Afghanistan the Taliban WAS a terrorist government and the main supporter and harborer of terrorists, that is where many trained. We had every right to rout them, because if we just let them stay they would continue to find ways to kill Americans given that they were the extreme of the extreme. Even if we did leave Saudi like we did and minimize our presence in the middle east they would still seek to kill us, like I said, these people were the worst their was. The only way you deal with some of these crazies is with a language they know well, by force. So all in all, I tend to respectfully disagree with many of you on this issue. There are times when we do not need to get all butt hurt about pissing some people off. And before some of you go crazy notice I only said we had the right to "rout" them, not necessarily occupy them, although it has gone well overall.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top