War on Terror

How Not to Fight Islamic Terrorism

Overseas attacks haven't worked, and pursuing more of them will only make things worse at home.

|

In the aftermath of the horrific massacre in Orlando, Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both conveyed their condolences to the victims and their families. Though each highlighted different causes of the violent act, both were generally in agreement on one point: the way to keep Americans safe from homegrown radicalization is to continue attacking the Islamic State (ISIS) in the Middle East and elsewhere. If the winner makes good on this promise in 2017, the threat of self-radicalized domestic terrorism will likely continue and possibly even worsen.

Following such a horrific act of violence, it is completely reasonable that political leaders would seek to calm a frightened public. The people need to know that their government is going to solve the problem and keep them safe from future attacks. What's unreasonable, however, is if in an attempt to sound tough and reassuring, leaders advocate policies that would almost certainly worsen the situation.

In speeches following the attack, both candidates told voters what they would do to solve the threat of violent jihadi terror. Clinton believes that the threat could not be contained. "We must defeat it," she said. The current "coalition effort in Syria and Iraq has made recent gains…" and as President she would ramp "up the air campaign, accelerating support for our friends fighting to take and hold ground."

Meanwhile, Trump flatly stated that if he were to be elected as Commander-in-Chief, he would "defeat ISIS overseas."

There is the seductive belief that if only we go "over there" to destroy ISIS, that the threat of homegrown radicalism will be solved. It will not. If we make this attempt with renewed vigor as both candidates are calling for, the result will almost certainly be the increase in the threat of domestic terrorism, not its diminution. It's not hard to understand why.

I have spent considerable time on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq over a 25-year period in both a military and civilian capacity. I can categorically state that short of a Nazi-like genocidal wiping out of entire populations, it is militarily impossible to go to these overseas locations and destroy the ideology of violent jihadism. Our attempts to do so since 2001 in Afghanistan, 2003 in Iraq, and the numerous places we've used special forces and drone strikes to kill Islamic radicals of various stripes since then has succeeded only in expanding the threat.

Our efforts have been much like trying to put out an oil fire with water. It only makes the flames bigger.

Longtime diplomat and Middle East expert, Chas Freeman, recently explanied that using military power in this way "radicalizes and creates volunteer recruits for our worst enemies. We need to halt this, not double down on it."

Another way not to fight an oil fire is to use an even larger water hose. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested subjecting the entirety of America's Muslim population to wholesale suspicion, coming close to considering them guilty until they can be proven innocent.

"We're going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists," Gingrich said, "and we're going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship… We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis… We're going to presently have to go take the similar steps here."

The Un-American Activities Committee predictably turned into a witch hunt, destroying the lives of hundreds of people who were no threat to the United States. Former President Harry Truman said of the committee it was "the most un-American thing in the country." Moving against the American Muslim population like this would serve to radicalize many far more effectively than the best ISIS propaganda.

You put out an oil fire by suffocating it. As painfully demonstrated by the San Bernardino attacks last December and the Orlando attacks last week, the threat of radicalized, domestic Islamic jihadism is real and growing. Instead of fighting the threat with means that will only spread its flames, we need to change course and deprive it of oxygen instead.

First is to stop the bleeding and suspend policies based on the belief that the United States can impose a set of values and a political system of our preference on others alien to it. Second, we must do all we can diplomatically, politically, and economically to contain the fire of Islamic radicalism to where it currently burns. Working with allies, friends, and even competitors on areas of mutual benefit can help stop the spread by chocking off funds, interdicting resupply chains, and blocking routes by which new radicals join the fight.

Third, we need to stop making far more enemies than we ever eliminate by suspending the use of targeted killing and bombing terrorist targets from the air. This is the most controversial step because it seems counterintuitive to suggest that we can best battle terrorists by ceasing to bomb them. But overwhelming evidence confirms that such tactics are counterproductive and work against our interests.

Instead of bombing, we would use the military to help contain terrorist organizations like ISIS where they currently exist, and then employ new, diplomatic measures that have a chance to undermine the terrorists.

Given the disastrous policies administrations of both parties have employed over the past couple decades, it will take many years of doing things right to bear fruit. What must be avoided at all costs is to exacerbate the current volatile situation by continuing to employ tactics that have routinely failed to attain outcomes beneficial to the United States.

We must resist the temptation to try and put out this violent Islamic oil fire with more counterproductive water-based policies.
 

NEXT: Sympathy for Gator Family Contrasts Sharply with Rage Toward Gorilla Mom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Disagree. More special forces in more countries finding more targets for more murder droning. That is how to win.

    1. My friend ‘Natasha Bruce’ makes $95/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for siX mOnths but last month her paycheck was $20850 just working on the internet for a few hours. Try it out on following website,.. Go to this website and read more_______________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    2. So basically you’re proposing the United State do what ISIS itself is doing: getting operatives to murder the citizens of other countries?

      Adopting the tactics of your enemy. What could possibly go wrong?

      I also notice you don’t specify WHICH countries will be targeted. Are France or Belgium on your list? There appear to be ISIS people there. Should those two nations be added to the drone hit list? What about Saudi Arabia (which was where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from which apparently first funded ISIS)?

      1. You’ve been trolled bruh.

        1. ^Homie clutched the shit out of those pearls, though!

      2. USA should attack Canada; that is where the 9-11 guys flew from, no?

      3. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $94/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $14000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. I work through this Website.. Read more on this site._____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    3. My co-worker’s step-mother makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14108 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
      I work through this Website.. See here._______ http://www.earnmore9.com

  2. Fuel-air explosives? Works for oil fires, might work for ISIS.

  3. Maybe I’m missing the point, but this article seems to offer the basic idea of just containing ISIS in place and then somehow ‘undermining’ them while keeping them from infiltrating other countries. I’m no fan of our 25-year adventure in the ME, but I’m not clear on how this plan is much more than ‘train them for new jobs’ type wishful thinking.

    1. The problem is ISIS serves as a banner for any loser in the west to pick up and start murdering people. So containing them doesn’t really do any good, when the threat is people like the guy in Orlando deciding that killing for ISIS is the thing to do.

      1. Bullshit, John, the killings in Orlando were the result of gay-hating Christians and the NRA!

        1. Teach gay terrorists not to self-hate!

          1. Very insightful. Seems like muslims deal with self-loathing by taking everybody out with them.

            1. I mean, maybe if muslims were to have a reformation, they could start by encouraging faithful losers to slit their wrists, overdose on pain killers, or swallow a single bullet without troubling any other muslim or infidel.

  4. First is to stop the bleeding and suspend policies based on the belief that the United States can impose a set of values and a political system of our preference on others alien to it. Second, we must do all we can diplomatically, politically, and economically to contain the fire of Islamic radicalism to where it currently burns. Working with allies, friends, and even competitors on areas of mutual benefit can help stop the spread by chocking off funds, interdicting resupply chains, and blocking routes by which new radicals join the fight.

    Earth to Davis, it is 2016. They don’t have to go anywhere to join the fight. They can just pick up the banner where they are and start killing people. If anything we probably want to make it easier for radicals to get to Syria and join the fight. Better that they go there and die at the hands of the Syrian military than stay where they are and do something like what happened in Orlando.

    1. Neither you nor I are experts, but religious radicalism is usually fomented because of economic restriction. ISIS and Al Qaeda activity is the furthest thing from peasant revolts – its almost all the result of displaced bureaucrats (and I consider religious clerics and most teachers as nothing more than holier-than-thou bureaucrats) exacting revenge for whatever failures of their own doing reduced their bureaucratic power. ISIS leadership is almost all ex-government fucksticks.

      we must do all we can diplomatically, politically, and economically to contain the fire of Islamic radicalism

      No, we don’t have to do one damned thing. All we have to do is STOP ALL FOREIGN AID. 100% of the money gets funneled to bureaucrats – the exact opposite of economic freedom. It’s welfare, nothing more and nothing less. And people on welfare know the most effective way to get more welfare is to bitch about how inadequate it is – every government agency behaves exactly this way.

      The only thing a government can do for the economics of another country is fuck it up. Private citizens of one country trading with the private citizens of another country are the only solution – and that is dead last on the official list of possible solutions.

      1. Right on, Finger. Govts always mess up everything.
        USA, stop foreign aid to everybody, stop invading other nations, let citizens defend themselves. Stop the war on drugs, gambling or private sexual matters. LEAVE US ALONE

      2. “Neither you nor I are experts, but religious radicalism is usually fomented because of economic restriction.”

        This is actually a myth. It’s not the poor or the poverty-stricken that are more likely to be radicalized, but the Middle and Upper classes instead. Osama Bin Laden was a fairly successful man, economically speaking, and had a college degree. Jihadi John graduated from the University of Westminster and was a secure salesman before becoming terrorist. Lastly, Omar Mateen had an Associate’s in Criminal Justice Technology (ironically) and was getting along financially fine before Orlando.

        These are three brief examples, but sociologists surveying thousands of terrorists have discovered that they fit these three are fairly close to the average. Additionally, if economic success could reduce the chance of radicalization, it’s doubtful that thousands of Westerners would have become foreign fighters for ISIS, as we have seen.

        1. ^Agreed. The “poverty breeds crime/terrorism/whatever” argument is really just a play for virtue-signaling and more government-sponsored welfare.

    2. We need to be more ruthless, but judicious in using our power. Also, it needs to be made clear that an attack on the US will be met with extermination. They need to fear us enough that they give up.

  5. Third, we need to stop making far more enemies than we ever eliminate by suspending the use of targeted killing and bombing terrorist targets from the air. This is the most controversial step because it seems counterintuitive to suggest that we can best battle terrorists by ceasing to bomb them. But overwhelming evidence confirms that such tactics are counterproductive and work against our interests.

    That sounds nice except that none of the people who are attacking us seem motivated by our bombing. They are motivated by the desire to be a part of a world wide Utopian movement. The guy in Orlando didn’t do what he did because we were bombing Afghanistan. He did what he did because he hated gays and figured murdering them would get him to heaven and help advance the cause. The attackers in Paris and California had similar motivations. Maybe targeted killing doesn’t accomplish anything. But it is absurd to pretend that stopping it is somehow going to reduce the attractiveness of this ideology. If this guy has spent time in the Middle East he of all people should understand that people don’t join these movements out of some personal desire for revenge, or at least not the ones who are attacking us here in the US.

    1. The guy in Orlando didn’t do what he did because we were bombing Afghanistan. He did what he did because…

      …he was as nutty as the guy on the corner here shaking his fists in rage and screaming about the CIA mind-control lasers.

      1. Crazy ideology attracts crazy people. Who knew? And he was almost as crazy as you Mary.

    2. The guy in Orlando didn’t do what he did because we were bombing Afghanistan.

      Actually, he literally said (according to witnesses) that was one of the reasons he did what he did. So your credibility on this subject is… dubious.

      1. Just ignore the other reasons he gave. Believe what fits your narrative

  6. Instead of bombing, we would use the military to help contain terrorist organizations like ISIS where they currently exist, and then employ new, diplomatic measures that have a chance to undermine the terrorists.

    What does that even mean? How does the military contain anything without bombing? And what diplomatic measures? With whom? ISIS? I guess we can just talk them out of the whole thing.

    This is a stupid and content free article.

    1. What is your solution, John?

      1. We make a deal with Putin and Assad to allow us to wipe out ISIS. I really don’t care if Assad runs Syria. He is a bad guy and will act against US interests but we survived him and his father running things for 50 years. I would then launch a punitive expedition and wipe ISIS off the planet. Ideally I would do that with local ground forces supported by US air power similar to what we did in Afghanistan in 2001. And I would give no quarter. Anyone associated with ISIS would end up dead and their body burned and denied an Islamic burial. When ISIS had been destroyed, I would go home with the simple warning that we will come back if necessary. No nation building and no concerns over what kind of a country Iraq or Syria become. It is up to them but they would certainly understand that supporting attacks against the US was a bad idea.

        1. We make a deal with Putin and Assad to allow us to wipe out ISIS.

          The United States engaging in a full-on ground war versus ISIS wouldn’t make things even worse?

          1. Maybe but I really don’t care. It wouldn’t make things worse for use it would wipe out our enemies there and tell the rest of them what a bad idea it is to attack the US. As far as the actual condition of Syria, that is the Syrian’s problem not ours. If it makes things worse for them, perhaps they will think twice the next time someone shows up preach the jihad against the US.

            1. I agree. Like when the Romans had enough of the Carthaginians bullshit. They exterminated them and salted the land so no on e else could rise up to be a problem.

              Enough is enough.

          2. Notice, no one in ISIS is telling their supporters to attack Russia or China. And both of those countries treat Muslims a lot worse than we do and Russia is actively bombing them. Fear does wonders sometimes.

          3. “The United States engaging in a full-on ground war versus ISIS wouldn’t make things even worse?”

            Not only that, they are HOPING for a ground war against the infidels.

            http://www.clarionproject.org/analysi…..e-end-days

            1. Once they’re wiped out what do we care what they believe?

              1. The problem is you would just sow that seed amongst the less inclined. I honestly don’t think it would work.

            2. And why is that a bad thing? If what they want is a straight up fight and death, why not give it to them? The fact that they are claiming that they are ushering in some final fight against the infidel makes fighting them and destroying them that much more effective. How exactly will they attract followers after their promised final fight ends with them getting wiped off the face of the earth?

              1. Well for starters, it would look very much like we are fulfilling our role in seeing that the prophecy is coming true.

                And I think Overt is basically right, you cannot destroy an idea with military force. ISIS is primarily an idea. Look at your own WW2 analogy. What really discredited Nazism was the moral revulsion against the Holocaust. But we see, even despite Germany’s defeat, that the essential idea of *fascism* lives on. Just ask your typical lefty prog who wants to jail climate change “deniers”.

                1. What really discredited Nazism was the moral revulsion against the Holocaust.

                  And ISIS does truly revolting things with their captives. In the 1940s, the West was willing to admit that Nazis were morally abhorrent; nowadays, we can’t even get our “leaders” to admit that what’s taking place is Islamic terrorism. What’s more, there is this mentality of, “Well, some bad stuff happened in the history of our country, so we have no moral standing to complain when ISIS Ralph Reed and his Moral Majority throw gays off rooftops.”

                  1. What really discredited Nazism was the moral revulsion against the Holocaust.

                    No, what discredited Nazism was losing the war. Communism was just as bad or worse. Yet, it is not discredited. And everyone knows the sins of communism. Had the Germans won the war, Nazism would not be discredited.

                    1. Had the Germans won the war, Nazism would not be discredited.

                      While I completely agree with this sentiment, it doesn’t apply in the case of radical islam. With the Nazis the entire premise of the movement was the creation of a Nation that was superior in race, ideology, genetics, etc that would out compete every other nation.

                      On the other hand, radical islam’s entire premise right now is that of rebels harassing a powerful but morally corrupt empire (the West). We degraded the shit out of Al Qaeda, but they are still around. We crushed the Taliban, but they retreated and regrouped.

                      The idea that we can crush ISIS and therefore crush the ascendancy of radical islam is a pipe dream. If a handful of people survive slaughter, they “prove” the premise that their ideology can survive. As long as they can continue this asymmetric war, they will continue to grow or some other organization will do the same.

                    2. There are too many Muslims worldwide. The problem will keep on growing until that changes.

                2. Well for starters, it would look very much like we are fulfilling our role in seeing that the prophecy is coming true.

                  Yes it would, right up until they lost and the battle turned out the wrong way. Then it would make them look like idiots.

                  1. You know how prophecies go. They are rarely clear and specific. It will turn out that Dabiq really *wasn’t* the location for the final battle of the apocalypse predicted by the Koran. It will be somewhere else. And then the descendent organization of ISIS will go there and start blowing shit up.

                    1. Here is the actual prophecy:

                      Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq.

                      (The Arabs used “Romans” to refer to Europeans.)

                3. What really discredited Nazism was the moral revulsion against the Holocaust.

                  But as you well know, the Holocaust only discredited Naziism. It did nothing to discredit socialism, despite the fact that the Holocaust could only happen in a socialist environment.

              2. And a cause in which the supporters are dying faster than they can recruit new followers is not exactly an attractive cause.

        2. What exactly has Assad done, in say the last twenty years, that acted against US interests?

          The whole anti-Assad thing is built on Cold War nostalgia and neo-con* war boner stroking.

          *or whatever term you prefer for the Kristol-McCain axis of delusion.

          1. Not much really. I see no reason why the US should care if he runs Syria. Are we really going to confront Russia over whether Assad runs Syria? Hell, help the guy and Russia out. You can destroy ISIS and maybe patch up relations with Russia a bit.

            1. And there isn’t really a better option to replace Assad of which I am aware.

        3. When ISIS had been destroyed, I would go home with the simple warning that we will come back if necessary.

          Remind me how long it took us to find just the leader of Al Qaeda. Nevermind that they are still active.

          John, you’re saying we need to keep doing more of the same stuff that hasn’t been working for the past 3 decades. According to Einstein you are insane.

          1. Do you know how it would have worked had we not done those things? It’s like assuming things in Iraq would be so much better had Saddam and Sons remained in power all this time.

          2. No we have been involved in nation building the last three decades. You are just not listening to what I am saying

      2. Second, in the US, I would change the immigration law to put the screws to the Muslim population. Muslims allow this kind of shit to exist in their communities because they have no reason to stand up and stop it. They are not the ones targeted and standing up can get them killed. If you are here on a green card and your kid or your husband commit some terrorist act, your green card is revoked and you are sent home never to be allowed to return. And any person here on a green card of VISA who preaches killing gays or implementing Sharia law gets deported, end of story.

        Third, we stop taking refugees and immigrants from the Middle East or Somalia. We just can’t afford to do it right now. Sorry but they are going to have to figure out how to play with others before they can be allowed into the country.

        Lastly, I have the feds step in and implement universal conceal and carry in all 50 states. Unless you are a felon, you can conceal and carry no permit required anywhere in the country. Make the country into a pack not a heard and give people the ability to stop this shit once it starts.

        Those are pretty drastic measures, but they are the only options I see.

        1. ” And any person here on a green card of VISA who preaches killing gays or implementing Sharia law gets deported, end of story.”

          Hmm, so John likes hate speech laws now…

          1. John can’t get the warmonger dick out of his mouth long enough to think things through.

            Pick up a gun and fight them yourself if you’re so intent on it John, stop hiding behind people.

            1. Did you work all night thinking of such a clever retort?

              1. I really appreciate it when some internet fuck stain is willing to send people to die because they’re too terrified to take care of it themselves. Gets me all goose-pimply to know there’s slime like you chomping at the bit to have their countrymen and women killed over some backwards tribal conflict in buttfuck nowhere.

                You’re a brave man, John. I don’t know how you do it.

                1. Everyone knows you are a troll Mustang. You don’t need to remind us every single thread.

                  Go fuck yourself. You are nothing but a piece of shit leftist who has come here to fuck up the board. Everyone reading this knows that. You are not fooling anyone.

                  Go back to DU or KOS or wherever you came from. No one gives a shit here.

                  1. Okay John. It’s not like I’ve actually been on the ground fighting there or anything. You just don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

                    1. Good for you. I was there too. A lot of people were. Don’t pull the I have volunteered card with me. So did I, twice.

                    2. I have, and John is right.

                  2. I’ll make sure to look for you the next time I’m boarding to deploy again. I’m sure you’ll be the guy in front of everyone HOOAHing us all into a frenzy cause you’re so brave.

                    1. Please do. And I don’t want to go anymore than you do. But no one made me or you sign up and we have no right to bitch if we end up having to go.

                      And maybe you missed it, but I am talking about exterminating these people and going home not spending the next ten years pretending Iraq can somehow stop being a shit hole. You know actually fighting a war and going home rather engaging in an aid program with guns.

                      And I am not even sure we need to send ground forces. Let the Iraqis and Syrians do it with our air power.

          2. For immigrants sure. If you have a green card you are not a citizen and you are here at the pleasure of the government. I am not saying you go to jail. I am saying you and everyone associated with you are no longer welcome in the country.

            If you want to be a strict religious Muslim, do it somewhere else.

            1. And such a precedent would never ever ever be used against the prog left for, say, going after strict religious Christians…

              1. er, used *by* the prog left

              2. Let them. If it turns out that they deport a few strict Christians, well that won’t be great but it is a price that will have to be paid.

              3. The government has the power to control immigration on whatever terms it wants to set. If strict Christian immigrants were to demonstrate as a group an increased likelihood of the propensity for religious-inspired violence and mayhem, then sure, keep out those groups as well.

                1. If the Westboro assholes have the right to say GOD HATES FAGS, then the jihadist assholes have the right to say ALLAH HATES FAGS. The fact that one group consists of citizens and the others don’t, is irrelevant. Every person has a natural right to speak freely that transcends the Constitution.

                  1. They don’t have a right to say that if they are here on a green card. If those assholes had green cards and could be deported, I would happily deport them too.

                    If the bottom of your slippery slope is that the Westboro trolling company might get shut down, you are not making much of a point.

                    And the leftist would never shut that down. It is their operation. Who do you think runs that place? Leftists

                    1. “They don’t have a right to say that if they are here on a green card. ”

                      Look, either you believe in natural rights, or you don’t.

                      If you believe the Constitution does not *grant* rights, but *protects* pre-existing natural rights, then both citizens and non-citizens have the natural right of free speech. The Constitution only establishes the *legal obligation* to protect that free speech right for citizens, but any just government has an obligation to protect free speech rights for *everyone*.

                      What you are implicitly saying, John, is that the Constitution *grants* free speech rights to citizens and citizens only, and everyone else is SOL. Is that really what you believe?

                      “If the bottom of your slippery slope is that the Westboro trolling company might get shut down, you are not making much of a point.”

                      Oh no. That’s never the bottom. Shutting up the unpopular ones is only the beginning.

                    2. Look, either you believe in natural rights, or you don’t.

                      No you either believe in national sovereignty or you don’t. Natural rights have nothing to do with it. Either we have the collective right to determine who can move here or we don’t. If you don’t think we do, then we can’t deport anyone for any reason. If we do, then we can deport a non citizen for any reason we want.

                      What you are implicitly saying, John, is that the Constitution *grants* free speech rights to citizens and citizens only, and everyone else is SOL. Is that really what you believe?

                      Yes it does. That just means we can’t throw you in jail. The Constitution in no way guarantees non citizens the right to remain in the country.

                    3. “Either we have the collective right to determine who can move here or we don’t. If you don’t think we do, then we can’t deport anyone for any reason.”

                      That is a non-sequitur. If a green card holder has violated someone’s rights, then deporting that person is an appropriate punishment depending on the severity of the violation. Saying that the government may deport some potential immigrants for some legitimate reasons doesn’t mean that the government ought to deport any potential immigrant for any capricious reason.

                      A *just* government protects the natural rights of *everyone*, citizens or not.

                      No one said that non-citizens have the right to stay in the country. And a government has the *authority* to kick out non-citizens for arbitrary and capricious reasons. That doesn’t mean they should.

                    4. That is a non-sequitur.

                      No it is not. They have no right to be here in the first place. You think they should only be deported if they violate someone’s right. And that is nice but there is nothing that requires that to be the case.

                  2. There is no constitutional right of foreigners to enter the country, however.

            2. How many strict religious Christian aliens are there in the US?

              1. I don’t know. Why does it matter? Are you suggesting that the government should deport all the “strict religious” folks from all faiths?

                1. I don’t have all the answers. I do think we have laws against inciting violence, however. If such people are found guilty of that – send them packing.

                2. No, just Muslims.

          3. Foreigners do t get the same constitutional rights citizens do.

            1. ‘Don’t’

        2. The problem is that the cat is out of the bag- ISIS showed how a social media campaign can inspire more attacks than any coordinated unit like al Qaeda.

          Some of the solutions you offer may be politically difficult, but we just might be able to do them. However, it won’t fix the problem. Let’s say we coordinate with Russia and Syrian dictators to “destroy” ISIS. Do you really think there won’t be 50 new Imam utopians springing up all over the world with that as a grievance, and using the same inspiration tactics? ISIS is close to being like the Viet Cong after the Tet Offensive. Militarily they were shattered, but they were winning the PR war back home. While ISIS is not winning sympathy with the average american, they are inspiring a small subsection of the

          Whether you like it or not, Islamic American Citizens aren’t going anywhere. These kids were born and grew up here. And I agree with you that rabble rousers will use any excuse- whether it is bombing afghanistan, or meddling in Syria, or allying with Russia to prop up Assad- to inspire a tiny, tiny fraction of those American islamists to attack soft targets at home.

          At the end of the day, I don’t see how your strategies will do any more to solve the problem than the author’s.

          1. . Do you really think there won’t be 50 new Imam utopians springing up all over the world with that as a grievance, and using the same inspiration tactics?

            Maybe. But they will have a harder time because their movement will look like a loser. Second, when their are, if we stop fucking with them over there and caring what happens to the governments over there, they would have every incentive to stop encouraging attacks on the US. Do they ever encourage attacks on China or Russia? No because they are actually afraid of those countries. Make it clear that if they want to cleanse the Middle East and create the new Caliphate, it is none of our business unless they want to tell their followers to make it our business.

            Whether you like it or not, Islamic American Citizens aren’t going anywhere. These kids were born and grew up here.

            That depends on how bad things get. Let there be enough attacks and the population will turn on them and it will be the government protecting them from the population instead of the other way around. And most of them are not radicals. They just have no reason to care about the ones who are radicals. If we want this stuff to stop, we need to give them a reason to care.

            1. But they will have a harder time because their movement will look like a loser.

              See this is where I think you fail to appreciate the sentiment. By most rational assessments, every single muslim fighting in the modern era has been an utter catastrophe. From the Israelis handing muslims their asses, to the US beating the shit out of them in Gulf 1, 2 and Afghanistan. The number of actual “wins” on the muslim side are extremely small.

              Assad could steamrole over ISIS and put its leaders’ heads on pikes outside the city, and that will be forgotten with one or two major attacks against soft targets in the US. For them “Winning” is not solely conquering a small city (though that helps). They declare huge victories with a single attack on a soft target. “Winning” is staying alive in some shithole cave in the Pakistani mountains and periodically orchestrating an ambush or suicide bombing. Winning is stabbing a westerner in the side and running off to your hole to hide.

              In such a reality, there is no “Wiping Out” ISIS. So long as there is someone to show that you can inflict terror against an otherwise superior western force, you will not be considered a loser.

              1. Then we will have to keep killing them. What other choice is there?

              2. If that’s actually true, and their bullshit is so inevitable, the logical solution is to reduce the number of Muslims worldwide to a more manageable level.

    2. You want to send in 30,00 troops? Or maybe carpet bomb whole cities killing everyone? I say,leave the middle east and the Afgans to their fate,

      1. I would do that, but I would wipe out ISIS first. They need to be made an example of. After that, not our problem.

      2. Yea, no. Their fate quickly becomes our problem.

      3. Worked until 2001. Now what? And if you subscribe to to sheldon richman school that it’s all still our fault because we were on sacred saudi soil with their consent if not request, then you have to support any and all actions by the minutemen on the southern border.

    3. How does the military contain anything without bombing?

      Same thing I wondered. The military kills the enemy. Destroys his equipment. Whatever weapons they use, just what is he suggesting that the military *do*?

  7. The U.S. will always have a duty to protect it’s citizens from violence regardless of what is happening elsewhere unless one wants to make a case of clear self-defense.

    While I am sure much of what Reason says here may very well be true, it also seems like libertarian political spin to back its view on foreign policy too.

  8. It was the conventional wisdom for a thousand years that the right place for Muslims is Muslim countries. So containment is an old strategy. Seems to have worked pretty well too.

  9. I can categorically state that short of a Nazi-like genocidal wiping out of entire populations, it is militarily impossible to go to these overseas locations and destroy the ideology of violent jihadism.

    A Final Solution? Don’t give John a boner.

    1. I think “destroying” ISIS will change the situation to the extend they will not hold the attraction they seem to hold now. That is an acceptable rationale for me though I do agree it will not destroy an idea.

    2. Actually, the way the Nazis were defeated was to pound them into dust so that they no longer had any will left to fight. I don’t think anyone has seriously advocated committing genocide, and in fact genocide and containment are not the only options.

      1. This is different. The Nazis were soldiers being paid by their government. When their government lost, they stopped fighting. ISIS is an idea. Sure in the territory they control they have paid soldiers, but these attacks around the world are not being done by paid soldiers. And we didn’t have Nazi inspired terrorist attacks around the world during WWII that I am aware of. You’re not going to squash a faith with arms. I don’t know that the solution is, but I am sure that ISIS isn’t a nail, so a hammer is probably not the best tool.

        1. It’s an idea that is promulgated by it’s perceived success in standing up to and attacking America and the West. Once it is demonstrated that that is folly which will only get you annihilated, that idea would lose a lot of its appeal.

          1. It’s an idea that is promulgated by it’s perceived success in standing up to and attacking America and the West.

            If you say so. Seems like most of the attackers wind up dead. I don’t understand the appeal in that.

            1. Most of the lone-wolf or small group martyrs in the US and Europe wind up dead. Not so much for their “caliphate” in the middle east.

        2. You can absolutely squash a faith with arms. They have a finite number of believers, do they not?

      2. the way the Nazis were defeated was to pound them into dust so that they no longer had any will left to fight.

        You win wars by destroying the enemy’s will to fight. You contain wars by degrading their will and ability to fight.

        Taking down ISIL won’t destroy the will to fight, but it will degrade their will and ability to fight. Fighting for stalemate only feeds their delusion that they can bring down the Great Satan.

  10. short of a Nazi-like genocidal wiping out of entire populations, it is militarily impossible to go to these overseas locations and destroy the ideology of violent jihadism.

    That’s just silly. Nuke them.

  11. Following such a horrific act of violence, it is completely reasonable that political leaders would seek to calm a frightened public. The people need to know that their government is going to solve the problem and keep them safe from future attacks.

    *outright, prolonged laughter*

    1. Yep. The only way the government can prevent future attacks is by destroying liberty and punishing innocent people. Even that won’t work. Something about paving the road to hell…

      1. They can prevent *some* future attacks by not importing more attackers.

  12. What should the US do? I say find a man to kiss. #chooselove.

    1. Amanda Hugginkiss?

  13. As the congenially acerbic John Derbyshire says just about every week on his podcast “This is what separate countries are for.”

    1. Tell me about it.

      /Europe

  14. The only possible slim chance that the world of normal, civilized human beings has of ever getting these rabid animals under control is to force them to stay in their own disgusting shitholes and let them kill each other until they decide they’ve finally had enough (maybe 50 to 100 years or so).

    And I’m not even very optimistic that will work, but it’s the only shot.

    1. Europeans fought wars for over a thousand years to free themselves from Islamic oppression. Then, after a 150 year pause, they completely forgot the whole thing.

      1. I do think there is a very real possibility that the religion simply cannot be reformed by any means.

        If that is the case, then we’re fated to be at war with them basically for the rest of existence.

        1. I think there is going to be some violence as see separate ourselves again. I don’t think there needs to be perpetual war as long as borders are respected.

  15. We make a deal with Putin and Assad to allow us to wipe out ISIS.

    I guess our adaptation of captured space alien brave wave technology is farther along than I had realized. Area 51 is really starting to pay off.

    1. Why would they not agree to that? Assad wants to stay in control of Syria and the Russians would like him to do that as well. They both are attacking ISIS right now. So why would they care if we wiped ISIS out and left the place to Assad?

  16. One of the key propaganda points for ISIS is their success. They say “look at how much we’ve done. We’ve even pushed back the great united states”. That draws people in because people gravitate towards success, and to who they think will win. We have to show the world that their gains are flimsy, their army is pathetic, and they truly are weak.

    1. Yet most of the ‘ISIS collaborators’ prosecuted by the US government are low level criminals and mentally ill and semi-retards. You think that they will be impressed with a propaganda war that plays out in the NYT editorial page? Or do you think we should blanket the airwaves with “ISIS is losing! We are finally winning! Don’t join ISIS! Get a real job!” agitprop?

      1. Well, the “We are winning” campaign will only work if we really are pounding ISIS into dust.

        1. “The voice of your brothers’ blood cries out to me from the dust.”

          1. Serious punitive expeditions in the past managed to put a halt to that shit, by demonstrating the danger and folly of attacking the West. I guess at this point we should just bend over, spread our cheeks, and take it.

            1. “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

              1. Yeah, I don’t believe in that crap, I believe in the right to effective self-defense.

      2. Exactly that. The best way to deter people from joining them is to make sure people understand it is a losing cause.

        1. Because you understand the psychology of the mentally challenged. You are the retard-whisperer.

          1. You are the retard-whisperer.

            He does seem to understand you, so there is that.

            1. The way these wars start, including WW I, II, drug war, war on terror, etc – is by the bullies ganging up on the peace lovers and intimidating them into silent consent. And if that doesn’t work they threaten to ‘crack skulls’. Let us know how that strategy is working for you in the information age:

              1. Man. They must have picked on you something terrible in school. Oh, crap. I think I’m turning into a retard-whisperer.

                1. Thanks for demonstrating how it works, though I’m a little perplexed as to how this dynamic wasn’t identified earlier. Please, proceed:

                  1. Libertarians are bullies now? That’s a new one.

                    1. If by ‘Libertarian’ you mean Trumpkin-in-denial, then yes, they are bullies now.

              2. Holy fuck, the radical Islamists are peace lovers now?

      3. “ISIS is losing! We are finally winning!”

        Isn’t that exactly what Obama has been doing but as usual failing

        1. He *says* they are losing.

          If he makes it a *reality* then we might have something.

    2. One of the key propaganda points for ISIS is their success.

      Winner. What many don’t get is that Muslims are actual people with motivations of their own. Everything they do, think, and feel was not instigated by what we’ve done.

      1. ^White liberal progs do this to all their various constituencies. Reduce them to passive abuse-receivers with no agency. Ergo, they need white liberals to advance their “grievances”.

  17. How about if the US government stops overthrowing governments and stops dumping large quantities of taxpayer paid for weapons into those countries?

    1. That would be good, but it won’t undo the problems already created, so those problems will have to be addressed on their own.

  18. Even Bernie said “We must utterly destroy ISIS.” They are all delusional. ISIS is not the ‘anti-Western’ fanatics that the FBI/CIA wants you to think. First of all, understand that ISIS is partly a reaction of rebels to Assad in Syria, which is considered by the US government to be an even greater threat. Syria uses ISIS for cheap wheat and oil and have no incentive to get rid of them. The ranks of ISIS are filled by ‘graduates’ from Saudi Arabia funded Madrassas, meaning there is no limit to refilling it with thoroughly brainwashed recruits and make them spout endless Koranic anti-Western propaganda until they are blown to bits. Russia and Turkey are also heavily involved – exploiting ISIS for both cheap gas and to provoke the Western Secular Caliphate to bomb its oil production facilities to boost the price of oil. So yes, killing ISIS will do nothing, only provide the justification for more repressed homos to go on rampages in other countries. ISIS’s Western contingent is just a collection of petty criminals and drug users. They are no real threat to civilization despite the hysterical cries from oil industry and law enforcement shills. Obama is clearly conflicted about ISIS but he’s right about a lot of it and I only wish he would speak out more.

    1. ISIS isn’t a threat to civilization but allowing organizations like ISIS to encourage their followers to attack the US is over the long term very much a threat. If ISIS were not taking credit for what happened in Orlando and encouraging people to do more, I would largely agree with you. They are however doing just that. So, they can’t be ignored. Wipe them off of the face of the earth and let everyone know that you can do whatever you like but understand if you start encouraging your followers to attack us, we will be back and you will be dead.

      1. No, the person who gets credit for Orlando is the guy’s father, who was a Taliban extremist and homophobe. Obviously the guy was stuck in a loveless marriage (and entertained self-SWAT fantasies) and wanted out and figured daddy would be proud if he took out a few people with him. ISIS has nothing to do with this – no more than Syria or al-Nusrah or the Taliban or Hesbollah. This is obviously a witch hunt. Trump is also responsible with his violent rhetoric. Bombing ISIS is just the WSC (Western Secular Caliphate) equivalent of ‘throwing stones at the devil’ and history shows this tradition usually doesn’t end well.

        1. ISIS has everything to do with it. IF they don’t want that to be the case, they shouldn’t have taken credit for it and encouraged people to do more.

          And yes, the father needs to have his citizenship revoked and the whole lot of them need to be sent back to Afghanistan.

          1. Crazy people are going to do crazy things. If ISIS wasn’t available, he would have been inspired by something else.

            1. OK you people really are total idiots. I can only laugh. Please, proceed:

            2. Bullshit. There has always been crazy closet cases. There hasn’t always been people murdering 50 people in a gay bar. Does ISIS attract fucked up people who hate gays in the first place? Sure. I am sure a lot of Nazis hated Jews to start with and that is why they were attracted to Nazism.

              What radical Islam and Nazism and other genocidal ideology does is give people who would otherwise have been petty criminals or just nasty fucks a reason to become mass murderers. Absent radical Islam, the guy in Orlando would have just been another wife beating repressed queer. What made him a terrorist and a mass murderer was radical Islam.

              1. Absent radical Trumpkinism, you would have just been another wife beating repressed queer. What made you a terrorist and a mass murderer was Mein Drumpf.

              2. What made him a terrorist and a mass murderer was radical Islam.

                So… The devil made him do it.

            3. He wasn’t just a paranoid schizophrenic having a psychotic break. He was in fact inspired by radical Islam and ISIS to murder infidels and gays in order to secure his place in heaven. Remove the perceived success of Islamic Jihad and ISIS against the West, and you remove the inspiration to follow a failed ideology.

              Or I suppose we could just resign ourselves to accepting constant similar attacks which will deter large gatherings of people to shop, attend entertainment venues, travel, etc. and endure the resultant effect on our economy and well-being.

              1. Wow you really have some powerful insights into the mind of a psychopath. So following your logic, killing more brainwashed Saudi maddrassah graduates will solve the problem. Please explain this dynamic in greater detail:

                1. You really are a dishonest idiot. The Orlando killer flat out said he was acting on his radical Islamist religious beliefs, so no mind-reading or particular insights needed. And simply not allowing people like the brainwashed Saudi maddrassah graduates into the country would likely be pretty helpful.

    2. dajjal, they’re all saying ISIS–they mean Islam.

  19. Let your freak flag fly.

  20. Our efforts have been much like trying to put out an oil fire with water. It only makes the flames bigger.

    Donald Trump will make water so powerful that fire won’t know what hit it. He will wet the shit out of fire!

    Trump: Make Water Wet Again

    1. A big enough explosion will actually put out a fire.

      1. Interestingly enough, a big enough fire hose will actually put out any fire as well, even an oil one.

        “According to Larry H. Flak, a petroleum engineer for Boots and Coots International Well Control, 90% of all the 1991 fires in Kuwait were put out with nothing but sea water, sprayed from powerful hoses at the base of the fire”

        Wiki source

  21. The US political establishment’s conception of Islamic terrorism is based on a flawed paradigm that ‘they’ hate us because of something that we’ve done, with the corollary that we can diffuse the situation by being nice to them. Bush republicans, democrats and libertarians all share this basic conception. The idea that they are motivated solely by a murderous ideology is just inconceivable. No it must be because the don t understand us, or have been dominated by dictators or are reacting to actions we’ve taken. It’s ultimately narcissistic hubris. Obama’s rant the other day perfectly demonstrated this world view.

    1. Yep. Muslims have motivations beyond us being meanies.

  22. The long term solution is prosperity.

    It’s especially true of Afghanistan that the root causes of terrorism in Afghanistan aren’t in Afghanistan. They’re in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere. When those places are prosperous and free, we’ll see far fewer people lining up to become terrorists and jihadis in Afghanistan.

    Until prosperity kicks in, fighting the root causes of terrorism in Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan by fighting a war in Afghanistan is like trying to solve the root causes of gang membership in Compton by fighting the drug cartels in Colombia.

    That being said, there is a an argument to be made for retaliation–if retaliation is the only thing our self-proclaimed enemies understand.

    1. The long term solution is prosperity.

      Nonsense.

      The radicalized Muslims are by and large prosperous, middle to upper class people. You, like most Americans just can’t accept that an ideology can motivate people to act against their material interests. Prosperity, not only fails to disarm that ideology but actually enables it by giving the believers more resources.

      1. Prosperity isn’t the only solution, and the lack of it isn’t their only problem. I should have added freedom, too. (I think I did, elsewhere). That prosperity and freedom are the solution to the problems associated with poverty and authoritarianism shouldn’t be controversial on a libertarian website. Last stats I saw showed that some 25% of the jihadis in Afghanistan were Libyans. They didn’t leave Libya behind because it was free and prosperous.

        Meanwhile, the reason why some middle class Muslims in the West may be attracted to the ideology could be different than the reasons impoverished youth in Libya may be attracted to the ideology. Think about the difference between why rich liberals in Santa Cruz, California are attracted to communism and why indigenous Mayans may be attracted to communism. Just because they went to the same place doesn’t mean they went for the same reasons.

        1. I should have added freedom, too

          Not everyone *wants* freedom.

      2. The radicalized Muslims are by and large prosperous, middle to upper class people.

        And in a socialist society – which is what most ME countries are – the middle and upper class people are either government employees or purchased economic protection from them. And they get pissed off when they lose their cushy jobs and outrageous incomes and power bases. See: Illinois.

        1. “The radicalized Muslims are by and large prosperous, middle to upper class people.”

          This is more interesting to me in terms of domestic terrorism.

          The Boston marathon bombers, the shooter on that base in Texas, the guy who perpetrated the Miami Massacre, the 9/11 hijackers, the guy that shot up the place in San Bernardino. . .

          These were relatively well off people, some of them highly educated, who went off the rails.

          What’s driving those guys (like the communist kids in Santa Cruz, California) isn’t the same as what’s driving Libyans and Pakistanis to go fight in Afghanistan or for ISIS in Syria. Bombing Syria and Iraq to rubble won’t stop those relatively prosperous people from flipping out and shooting everyone around them. The causes for that may be different. Although in some cases, they may be similar.

          For instance, I think we can find more than one of those domestic terrorists who’d lost their wife for whatever reason. One of the ways that prosperity makes guys less susceptible to terrorism is because they can afford to get married, start a family, be respected in their communities, etc. Getting divorced by your wife makes all American guys a special kind of crazy, but when wives divorce their husbands, it’s often over a lack of prosperity.

          1. Anyway, I’m not saying that if only there were no dictators in North Africa and the Middle East and they had prosperity across the region instead, there wouldn’t be any domestic terrorism in the United States by Muslims who claim affiliation because they read some website and go over the edge.

            But I am saying that invading Afghanistan or Syria isn’t the solution to that either. ISIS and Al Qaeda will starve for lack of recruits when their would-be recruits decide to stay home, get married, and live prosperous lives instead of joining the jihad. That probably won’t happen so long as the region remains under the control of vicious dictators.

    2. Ummm, Saudi Arabia, the overflowing toilet that’s flooding the civilized world with shit, is one of the richest countries on earth! Trillions of dollars have flowed into there over the decades.

      I actually like you Ken, but you seriously do need to pull your head out of your ass.

      1. It’s also a vicious dictatorship, and they’re especially harsh against those who oppose the Saudi government–Islamist or not. Certainly, the clerics support repression by the royal family against dissent so long as the clerics are given a free hand elsewhere by the House of Saud. Meanwhile, that oppression really does breed revolt.

        Think of it this way: Just because the IRA is Catholic doesn’t mean the Pope supports the IRA. The Pope may, in fact, wish the IRA would disappear and let the peace process go forward.

        In fact, there are 15,000 members of the House of Saud. That some of them support jihadis for various reasons (even against the interests of other ruling family members) is hardly surprising.

        And just because some of the members of the House of Saud support jjihadis elsewhere in the world or at home is no reason to think that the oppression of dissent has nothing to do with why so many Saudis voluntarily go jihadin’.

        If the House of Saud in its present form fell, a faction that genuinely supports terrorism might take control–and that would be very bad in the short term. Over the long term, authoritarian dictatorships like Saudi Arabia’s are the ultimate cause of a lot of terrorism, but the cause is indirect. They do a lot more for terrorism with their oppression of dissent than they do by some family members directly funding terrorism.

        1. One other important statistic:

          The GDP per capita in Saudi Arabia is a little over $25,000 a year–about half of what we have in the United States.

          And that oil wealth in Saudi Arabia isn’t distributed evenly. It disproportionately goes to the royal family and the well connected.

        2. How does any of this really matter? If Saudi Arabia was a democracy, they would be even more radical and crazy.

          1. I believe that authoritarianism is the ultimate cause of an awful lot of the world’s problems.

            “If Saudi Arabia was a democracy, they would be even more radical and crazy.”

            I think that a lot of the problems we see there are standard responses to authoritarianism, just like I think gangs are a function of the authoritarian drug war.

            No, legalizing marijuana won’t mean the end of gangs overnight, and there would be gangs to do things like protection rackets even if there weren’t a drug war. But the authoritarianism of the drug war makes the gang problem many time worse than it would be. And, no, I don’t think that if we legalized marijuana, it would make the gangs even more violent.

            That’s the way I see authoritarianism in Saudi Arabia. Our relationship with them was driven by pragmatic considerations during the Cold War, especially in keeping all that oil available to the world market rather than have it effectively embargoed against us behind the iron curtain. Since the wall came down, our relationship has been driven by their willingness to fight against our shared enemies.

          2. To whatever extent the Saud regime is good for U.S. security interests, because of terrorism in the short run, their authoritarianism is also a threat to American security over the long run. I’m not saying we should topple their government. I opposed and still oppose the Iraq War for various reasons, too. I’m just pointing out what the real cause of the problem is in places like Syria and Afghanistan. The bulk of those fighters and terrorists would be a non-issue if it weren’t for authoritarianism and a lack of prosperity in their home countries.

            Invading Afghanistan or Syria isn’t going to address the problem of authoritarianism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, that’s basically the topic of this thread, right? I’m just pointing out why that is. Freedom and prosperity are incompatible with authoritarianism, and the places where terrorists and jihadis have flooded from since the wall came down have been from places with a tremendous amount of authoritarianism.

      2. Prosperity for the landed elite, for the average Saudi, not so much. Same goes for most of the Gulf States.

  23. “I can categorically state that short of a Nazi-like genocidal wiping out of entire populations, it is militarily impossible to go to these overseas locations and destroy the ideology of violent jihadism.”

    I think this is a confusing analogy–using loaded terms. Whatever the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg was, it wasn’t genocidal and it was used to fight the Nazis. It was retaliation by the British for Nazi bombing, too–like the firebombing of Tokyo (in addition to whatever else it was) was retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

    If ISIS doesn’t want to be held accountable for a shooting in Miami, then maybe they shouldn’t claim responsibility for it. It’s easy to claim responsibility for murdering Americans when you know there won’t be any negative consequences for doing so. There need to be negative consequences for those who enthusiastically rejoice in taking responsibility for murdering Americans, and we have both the means and ability to deliver those negative consequences.

    Does ISIS have Fallujah? Do we have Fallujah under siege already? Have the civilians already largely fled?

    1. “There need to be negative consequences for those who enthusiastically rejoice in taking responsibility for murdering Americans, and we have both the means and ability to deliver those negative consequences”–[without putting American troops at risk], I should add.

      1. You should have added. Yeah, that was good.

  24. Even Bernie said “We must utterly destroy ISIS.”

    Why? Why now? There have always been fervent mystics in the human tribe. My sub-tribe in the US and West is getting more mystical by the moment.

    1. It’s a reasonable argument to bug out and say “not our problem”.

      I think there’s a place for us joining with other nations to destroy international criminal regimes, particularly expansionist ones. If ISIS aint a case for that, it’s hard to see one.

      But the article doesn’t make that case. He wants us to contain ISIS militarily in some unspecified way (just not with bombs! never bombs!). It’s the worst of all possible worlds. They still hate us, we get bled, and they get to feel like they’re fighting the Great Satan to a standstill.

      Fight, or don’t. Arguable. Fight not to win – dumb.

  25. Our efforts have been much like trying to put out an oil fire with water. It only makes the flames bigger.

    Fight fire with fire, fanaticism with fanaticism.

    1. Fight fire with fire, fanaticism with fanaticism.

      The funny thing Brooks is that you think that is some clever piece of snark when it is in fact the truth. How exactly do you think fanatics are defeated if not by fanatical efforts? The Japanese were real fanatics. Fighting these camel fuckers is child’s play compared to fighting the Japanese. And we ended up fire bombing the entire country and doping two nuclear weapons. That doesn’t strike you as pretty fanatical on our part?

    2. We need to accept that we are in an existential struggle with an alien ideology and begin to fight it with psychological and ideological, as well as material means. Bending over backwards so as not to offend believers of the ideology, and sympathizers, is a fatal mistake.

      We should use their biases against them. Feed the bodies of terrorists to pigs, and then pay some imams to issue decrees that those people cannot go to paradise. Openly mock ‘the brave Warriors’ that murder helpless unarmed people. Ask what kind of demon God wants its followers to do such things. Etc.

      1. What’s so alien about socialism?

  26. The gay community understands that this violent act was caused by repressed homophobia and hopelessness, and that “ISIS” is just an excuse. They understand that ‘destroying ISIS’ will solve nothing, as these wackos will just choose another doomed cause to hitch their wagon to. Same for the Charleston shooting – the black community didn’t seek revenge by killing more people. Let’s follow these examples of tolerance and learn from them. Teach your children right and wrong and then you don’t have to worry that they will act out the destiny of their middle name – “Storm”, or that they will get bewitched by highly produced videos uploaded to the youtubes by extremist preachers extolling the glories of heaven and radicalizing them to jihad against you.

    1. I will tell you what I told sarcasmic. What radical Islam and Nazism and other genocidal ideologies do is give people who would otherwise have been petty criminals or just nasty fucks a reason to become mass murderers. Absent radical Islam, the guy in Orlando would have just been another wife beating repressed queer. What made him a terrorist and a mass murderer was radical Islam.

      Pointing out that a fucked up gay hating murderous ideology attracts fucked up idiots who hate gays doesn’t in anyway mean the ideology is not a problem.

      1. “a fucked up immigrant/muslim/black hating murderous ideology attracts fucked up idiots who hate immigrants/muslim/blacks” – you mean like Trumpkinism?

        1. Sure. And if Trump supporters start committing mass murder, we can talk about what a problem it is. Since they haven’t, it has nothing to do with this conversation.

        2. “a fucked up white people/Christian/gun owner hating murderous ideology attracts fucked up idiots who hate white people/Christians/gun owners” – you mean like Leftism/Progressivism?

  27. Our efforts have been much like trying to put out an oil fire with water. It only makes the flames bigger.

    Throwing a bucket of water on an oil fire will starve it of free oxygen. It will not get bigger other than you just spread it around by not throwing enough water on it.

  28. Simply STOP being afraid.

    The objective of any terror plot is to bring about political change by instilling fear in the enemy. It is a nearly perfect weapon, as it requires few resourses and at its very inception, was a way for a small force, with next to nothing, could take on a military juggernaut, like the US or Former Soviet Union. And it works…obviously.

    The only chink in the armor of terrorism is that it requires the victims to fear, in order to be effective. Cowardice is voluntary. Simply stop, and you’ve defeated the terrorists. Accept the fact that, in a free society, it is impossible to be completely safe and that these attempts will happen and there is nothing you can do to stop a determined terrorist.

    When they happen, you hunt down the perpetrators, like the criminals they are, and you bring them to justice…AND THEN YOU GO BACK TO LIVING YOUR LIVES AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED! This is the ONLY way to defeat terrorism. Attempting to preemptively eliminate terror is a fool’s errand and trying to, YES, means the terrorists have won. You will expend vast quantities of treasure with little or no return.

    Unfortunately, politicians never let a tragedy go to waste and will use your fear to grab more power. And the American citizenry has gone from “home of the brave” to great big giant pussies in recent decades.

    You want to beat terrorism? Man up and grab a nut!

    1. That is nice but the world doesn’t work that way. Can you draw Muhammad or make a movie critical is Islam? No you can’t. But if everyone would just stop being afraid, you probably could.

      You are only not afraid because you are not under any threat. You are not gay and will never draw Muhammad. Let these attacks relate to something you do do or kill someone closer to you and you would have a different view.

      People won’t just go back to living their lives. They will stop doing things that they rightly figure might get them killed. And when they do that, there goes your freedom. So you are pissing in the wind if you think the answer to this is just pretend it didn’t happen.

      1. Mohammed drawing: ~

        Fuck Islam.

        There.

        Wasn’t so hard.

        Fuck socialism too. And Trump. And Clinton. And Sanders. And Abe Lincoln.

        1. Put it on a billboard with your name and picture and get back to me. Y

    2. Hey Franky! Thanks for not reluctantly, and after careful deliberation and following industry ‘best practices’, droning me today. You’re the best, man! And brilliant comment btw. I commit to ‘not being afraid’ today. Though to be honest, you really do scare me.

    3. And I’ll happily debate anyone except John, who the Army never trained in strategic force application (or he slept through it), on this.

      1. That approach works until it doesn’t. Back in the 80’s we used to shrug off a couple of attacks a year without worrying about it because we were more concerned about nuclear war. And, significant numbers of Middle Eastern Muslims were not being imported into the Western countries.

        When it gets to be too much – and the Brown Shirts or Religious Police or whatever are roaming the streets, not worrying isn’t an option.

        1. When it gets to be too much

          It’s not a matter of too much.

          It is a function of this being the ONLY way to defeat terror.

          First, they are an enemy you cannot see. For every one you do see, there are hundreds more lurking in the shadows. You cannot fight (conventionally) what you cannot see.

          Second, inserting troops/bombs into their strongholds does nothing more than piss off the noncombatant population, driving them to the terrorists cause. And who’d blame them. A bomb, in the process of taking out a real bad guy in the next house over, kills your wife and kids. Who’s that dude gonna side with? For everyone you kill, you make another.

          Finally, you can’t get them all. ISIS is a perfect example. ISIS was AQI (AQI didn’t exist prior to the US invading Iraq). We had all but wiped out AQI in Iraq, or so we claimed. And yet, here they are, proving my point, that you can NEVER get them all. All a terror/insurgent group needs to do when the chips are down is blend back into the civilian population and wait. They regroup, recruit, rearm and they are back in business. And the invading force (us, in this case) will not be there forever. The terrorists live there. They can wait.

          And you don’t need to take my word for it. The proof is all around us. 15 years of the same failed plan and we are NO BETTER OFF than we were 15 years ago. Probably worse.

          And if that’s not enough proof, ask the Soviets how their Afghan fiasco turned out.

      2. As with all things Frank, you know just enough about this subject to be dangerous. It is never that you don’t know anything. It is that you know just enough to come to justify the exact wrong answer. And you are so bull headed you have proven to be untrainable. You never change your mind about anything or admit that anyone other than you has a point.

        Think about that for a while. Just exactly who have you ever debated about anything? What do you do other than pick a position and never change it? Have you ever evolved or changed your mind about any subject or though “gee maybe the other guy has a point?”

    4. Yeah Frank just tell people not to be afraid. After 50 years of terrorism against the western world, why didn’t anyone ever think of this before? Its almost like it is easier said than done or something.

      No shit Frank. If everyone would just ignore it, it wouldn’t have an effect. You are right about that. How you plan to get people to do that is an interesting question.

      1. After 50 years of trying to bomb terrorists from the air or trying to beat them by other conventional means, why don’t you admit that that approach doesn’t work. The whole point is that what we’ve been doing doesn’t work. It just feeds the beast. Frank’s way is the only way to beat terrorism. Nothing else will work. We’ve tried.

        You are right about that. How you plan to get people to do that is an interesting question.

        True, people tend to be more driven by a desire for vengeance or assurances of security than by logic. We’ll likely be stuck with terrorism for a very long time because people like you are unwilling to do the one thing that will actually put an end to it.

    5. Thanks frisco, it was about time someone was clear about this.

      The correct response to an attack is to go on living. Track down the bad guys (or their supporters) and try them in open court, and then throw away the key one they’re convicted. But even from the get-go, clean up the mess, say a prayer for the dead (if that’s your thing), and then move on.

      1. They want to die. What good does it do to track them down after they have killed those people? They have plenty more people waiting to do the same. And they all get a free mass murder according to you.

    6. I propose we start referring to them as “furorists”. People should be inspired to stalwart fury by their actions, not feckless, ball-shrinking terror.

      It doesn’t matter whether or not ISIS takes responsibility for his actions. From all of the evidence, in his mind, he was performing the action in the name of radical Muslim doctrine. Thus, it should be viewed as a radical Muslim action.

      1. Thus, it should be viewed as a radical Muslim action.

        Religion has nothing to do with it. All terrorist actions have a political agenda. They attempt to wrap it up in religion in order to sway the mindless followers. In religion they have a pre-packaged group faithful to their god. If you, as a terrorist, can make it look like the attack is for religious purposes, your support and recruitment becomes easier.

        This is nothing new. This was essentially, The Crusades. And is the same thing Bush did when he framed the Iraq war as a question of Patriotism. He wrapped it up in the flag so that anyone questioning his decision was deemed a traitor.

        1. Religion had nothing to do with it?

          You are the most offensively stupid person I have ever seen. It just appalling how fucking stupid you are.

          I guess Nazism had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

    7. When they happen, you hunt down the perpetrators, like the criminals they are, and you bring them to justice…AND THEN YOU GO BACK TO LIVING YOUR LIVES AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED! This is the ONLY way to defeat terrorism.

      We should stop being so maudlin and over reacting to the deaths. You have a point there.

      But we can do better than simply accepting the deaths and shrugging. Most of these guys end up dead, and want to end up dead, so there is nothing to prosecute.

      The guy was a fan of ISIL. We let ISIL happen by bugging out of Iraq. We didn’t destroy them after they happened.

      Destroy their dream. Erase their state. Make it clear that their dream has no chance.

  29. Are most people afraid and want to be protected or pissed off and want something done about the problem? There’s a difference. I see more people pissed off than afraid,

    1. Me too. But Frank will tell you wanting something done is just being afraid. You duty in Frank’s view is to die quietly.

      1. “Are most people afraid and want to be protected or pissed off and want something done about the problem?”

        Both. The gun grabbers are afraid and want to be protected even if they give up their own freedom – and others – to achieve it. The more reasonable response is to look at the problem and ask what can be done about it. The government isn’t the answer and part of the anger is that they are actually in the way and enabling it. The answer is to allow people to defend themselves and to support them when they do. The second is to discredit the enemy. If ISIS is really a bunch of overcompensating homophobes, make sure the world knows the shooter was a closet homosexual and that that is probably a big motivation for the ISIS leadership.

        1. Leave it up to the public. They will solve it eventually but you won’t like the solution. You guys think people are just going to stand around and die. They won’t

    2. Are most people afraid and want to be protected or pissed off and want something done about the problem?

      Prolly both. But, as is repeated here often, “doing something” doesn’t mean you’re doing the right or effective thing.

      To say you want to “kill em all” or “wipe them from the face of the earth” is very satisfying. But it’s also very impossible. Folks need to come to grips with exactly what our military is capable of doing. Terror arose, as a form of warfare, as a direct result of the US/USSR superpowers. It arose specifically as a way that a weak group could take on and defeat a conventionally superior force. IOW, terror was designed to beat powerful conventional forces.

      To take on terror, one must understand how terror works and attack it at the source of its power. That power is fear. Take away the fear and they have no weapon.

      1. “Take away the fear and they have no weapon.”

        Orlando would directly refute that statement.

        and your statement “It arose specifically as a way that a weak group could take on and defeat a conventionally superior force” is not complete”

        “….defeat a conventionally superior force that does not have the political will/support to accept the collaterial damage necessary to defeat guerila forces”

        Islamic terror arose from the direct lessons of Vietnam, where the US failed solely due to a lack of political will. Guerilla forces can only take on convential forces that are unwilling or unable to hit back with their full force. Western peoples no longer have that will. There is a very big reason why China doesn’t have much if any issue with Islamists even though they have significant presence in Islamics areas in SE asia and Africa.

    3. Appearing pissed off is a way to mask the reality that you are afraid.

      1. Perhaps in your circle of associates, but a significant number of folks are just plain ‘pissed’ without an ounce of fear for third world followers of a pedophile.

  30. I can categorically state that short of a Nazi-like genocidal wiping out of entire populations,

    You can count on America to do the right thing after exhausting all other possibilities.

    1. Nah. We like to repeat failed possibilities as much as we can to make sure they really don’t work. Usually we only end up doing the right thing by accident or oversight.

  31. Although I agree with your basic premise, those whose lives were impacted the most during the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings were actively engaged in feeding Soviet propaganda to the country. They weren’t innocents.

  32. Giving money to Israel hasn’t helped, either.

    1. Not sure how you are making that claim. The Israel, Jordan nexus is a veritable bastion of sanity in the ME. Lebanon would be also if it wasn’t for Syria stirring the pot.
      Egypt was quite nice also until we screwed up and disrupted the quite successful suppression of the Muslim Brohood and associated losers.

      Withdrawing financial support for Israel as well as Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt would like lead to further nightmares in that cesspool of the globe.

  33. Realistically, it’s either fight them over there or have more of our liberties taken from us over here. Listen to the rhetoric after Orlando, and tell me it’s not just a matter of time before we, the ignorant, lazy fat asses of America, give away our rights in exchange for the politicians’ promises to “do something, do anything”. A sad choice yet here we are. I think first we should try to strike a deal with the Kurds that arms them to the teeth and also encourages them to seize territory rather than just defending their existing turf. You take territory from ISIS, we give you more weapons. A lend-lease situation with a carrot at the end of the stick. Whatever we do, this is a fire that won’t go out by ignoring it.

    1. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 i purchased afterearning 18,512 bucks..it became my previous month’s payout..only a littleover.17k greenbacks ultimate month..three-five ?h?ours ??job ?a day…with weekly payouts..it is realy thesimplest. task i’ve ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. in the past. and now making overhourly.

      Go to the website>>>> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  34. Chas Freeman is a well known Hamas, Hezbollah and PFLP apologist. Of course he says there’s no practical way to fight these people.

  35. “We’re going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists,” Gingrich said, “and we’re going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship.”

    The Orlando shooter was born in New York City.

    Possession of US citizenship for those born in the US is protected by the 14th Amendment. To therefore deprive a person born in the US of that citizenship would require changing the 14th Amendment.

    Secondly, treason against the US is defined by section 3 of article 3 of the US Constitution, which requires that it “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”.

    Does merely “pledging allegiance” to a group of foreign individuals constitute either of those grounds? Especially when Congress has not yet declared war on ISIS and therefore ISIS is arguably not (yet) an enemy of the US. Merely a criminal gang (like the Mafia, which also, BTW, killed Americans).

    Furthermore, a pledge of allegiance would seem to be an exercise of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. and therefore protected under that Amendment.

    All of which may mean that the First Amendment AND the Constitution’s treason definition AND the Fourteenth Amendment will all need to be amended for Gingrich to get his way.

    1. Wouldn/t a traitor lose their citizenship upon execution for treason? I don’t see problems with the 14th amendment in that situation.

      Declaring allegiance to a state or non-state actor that has themselves declared war on the US is the very definition of treason.

      1. Wouldn/t a traitor lose their citizenship upon execution for treason?

        Nope. No more than any other US citizen loses their citizenship merely by dying.

        Declaring allegiance to a state or non-state actor that has themselves declared war on the US is the very definition of treason.

        Not according to the US constitution.

        I would also point out that simply because somebody declares war against the US does NOT necessarily mean the US is at war against them. Nazi Germany declared war against the United States in 1941 BEFORE the US Congress did so.

        (I would also argue that a declaration of war from a non-state act isn’t really a declaration of war. Only nation-states can declare war. But that is another matter.)

        But even apart from that the pledge itself would be protected speech under the First Amendment. Which means a peson could not be prosecuted for that alone. (After all, even burning the American flag is seen as protected speech under the First Amendment according to the courts.) If you don’t like that then you might want to start lobbying to repeal the First Amendment.

  36. The extremism of veganism exposing the greatest lie speech by bitesizevegan has been age restricted unfairly for showing the truth of where meat comes from.
    https://youtu.be/kUTgZ7s_hiw

    Tell everyone to reupload bitesizevegans age restricted speech and to tell YouTube to fire whoever Age restricted bitesizevegan’s videos.

    No video should be age restricted. its important that people see reality so that they can make informed decisions as consumers and so if they disagree with behavior they can encourage people to not do it and not support those who do instead of just pretending it doesn’t exist or protecting the perpetrators from exposure so they can continue their bad behavior without consequence or being told why its wrong and what better things they should do instead and try to convince them to stop, and so that individuals won’t know the risks or truth of what they fund and about individuals and companies.

    1. I like steak. I like chicken. I like pork. I would prefer to raise and slaughter my own animals because fresh is better, but my HOA doesn’t allow it. I’m thinking of keeping veal in tiny cages in my basement, but concerned the equipment would get me raided as a pot-grower.

      If it helps, I’ll eat your portion too.

  37. Instead of bombing, we would use the military to help contain terrorist organizations like ISIS where they currently exist

    If not bombing, what exactly is the military supposed to be *doing* to “contain” ISIS?

    Your advice is fundamentally contradictory. Either we fight, or not. Fighting to contain will create enemies too, won’t it? Fight, but commit to never actually winning, seems the like worst of all possible worlds. You create enemies, *and* embolden them with success.

    Fight, or don’t. If you’re going to fight, win.

    People like to be on the winning side. That’s the draw of ISIL. They’ve taken dirt, and held it. They have a state. They have won that much. Giving them a psychodrama where we kinda sorta fight, but never to win, seems the absolute worst thing to do. They stand up to the Great Satan, and hold them off! How mighty they are! Dog is Great!

    Note: buybuydandavis has nothing to do with you. Can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Dan Davis.

  38. We can’t bomb our problems away, but we must also open our borders and accept millions of individuals from the most radicalized regions on earth – the libertarian solution.

    That’s why libertarian foreign policy isn’t mainstream. The second part is iffy.

    1. Republicans ignorant of LP Migration Plank content are here in force again, I see. People who cannot understand “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property” and read “All persons born” as “All ova fertilized” are like that.

      1. Huh?

        Read this very publication. They’re for “freedom of movement” without regard to borders.

  39. In the ’90’s (and ’01) AQ mounted attacks against the World Trade Center (’93 & ’01), the embassies in Kenya and Tanganyika (’98), and the USS Cole (’00). After driving AQ out of Afghanistan in ’01-’02, and using Iraq as flypaper for a Jihadist killing field wiping out AQ-in-Iraq, they were a hollow shell reduced to mounting attacks against peripheral targets. ISIS arose because our withdrawal from Iraq (’12) and our announced withdrawal from Afghanistan (scheduled for ’16) left a power vacuum that they were more than willing to fill as the President was handing control of the ME over to the Iranians setting up an intensified sectarian battle that has been ongoing for 1200-years between Shia Iran and Sunni “Arabia”.
    And now you want to bring that battle here? That is madness!
    The destruction of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, plus a strict containment policy mounted against the Persians, will take the steam out of this conflict and reduce it once more to the street demonstrations that it specialized in during Ramadan and other Holy Days for the past Millennium.
    Allowing this conflict to spread and fester in the USA will make going out for pizza in San Francisco no more safer than it is in Haifa.

  40. Can we revisit the “Nazi-like genocide”? ’cause I kinda think history would categorize our similar options as more equivalent to “Roman imperialism”.
    The Nazis terrorized innocent civilians to further propaganda and social engineering goals.
    The Romans brutalized neighboring hostile barbarian tribes to provide ‘homeland security’.

    Let’s discuss the argument that our pansified interventions in Iraq and Afganistan were doomed not on the principle, but rather on the lack of intestinal fortitude to see it through.
    Perhaps we try a little more brutality and remove the will of Islamists to fight.

    For instance…. Public execution of Omar’s father and wife for enabling that mental douchebag and send the child to a nice Mormon family in Utah to raise as a Christian. Couple tactical nukes on any ISIL concentration in Syria. Rinse and Repeat.

    1. Ah yes… leave it to a conservative to yearn after the old Lebensborn, Hitlerjugend nand Final Socution approach. Attention Saracen readers: desperate Christianic Staat infiltrators plant these messages here as false flag operations you may safely ignore. Please visit Teaparty and Landoverbaptist.org for source code.

      1. Ah yes, the paranoid who is unable to argue so claims “conspiracy” to drown out things he doesn’t like.

        good luck with that

  41. Expect the victorious Dems, in their struggle to ignore the LP, to attribute every missing vote to rabid GOP televangelists straining at the leash to nuke Mecca. This they will water down and soak up just as they did the econazi planks after the Greens pulled away some votes (government jobs). We can sit back and watch the Calico Cat of ku-klux cross-burning and the Gingham Dog of Saracen beheadings eat each other up for four more years while we play armchair quarterbacks. With any luck, crusaders and jihadis will mutually annihilate and we can then copy planks from the Canadian Libertarian Party and ignore moosulman and klannish antiabortionists alike.

    1. I would like to suggest that you are in desperate need of getting laid for your own mental health. Take a trip to Amsterdam….it’s quite nice this time of year.

      disclaimer….I am not a psychiatrist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

  42. Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here..

    Copy This Link…

    ???www.BuzzMom90.Com

  43. Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here..

    Copy This Link…

    ??? http://www.BuzzMom90.Com

  44. So close.

    This–

    I can categorically state that short of a Nazi-like genocidal wiping out of entire populations, it is militarily impossible to go to these overseas locations and destroy the ideology of violent jihadism

    Should read like this–

    I can categorically state that short of a WW2 style effort, it is militarily impossible to go to these overseas locations and destroy the ideology of violent jihadism

    Stop nation building. Stop fixing while we’re fighting. Reduce every part of Islam to only those that understand that jihad equals suicide. THEN work on making the Middle east livable.

  45. From my favorite magazine, a sensible commentary — until “Instead of bombing, we would use the military to help contain terrorist organizations like ISIS where they currently exist”

    Isn’t that what bombing does? The statement needs good, concrete examples. As it is, it tends to undermine your thesis.

  46. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  47. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  48. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  49. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  50. Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here..

    Copy This Link…

    ===== http://www.maxincome20.com

  51. Evan . if you, thought Gladys `s story is impossible… on saturday I got a new Alfa Romeo since getting a check for $5834 recently and-in excess of, ten thousand this past-munth . it’s definitly the best work Ive ever done . I began this 4 months ago and almost immediately started bringing in at least $80.. p/h . you could look here …

    ………………. http://www.MaxPost30.com

  52. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  53. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  54. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  55. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  56. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  57. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  58. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

  59. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

  60. I left my office-job and now I am getting paid 98 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    =======> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  61. The best counter to the jihadists was the Nathaniel Branden Institute, but the religious conservatives who most closely resemble mohammedan prohibitionists never mention NBI. The LP can’t replace the GO-Pee soon enough to suit me.

  62. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??.

    =========[]> http://maxincome20.com

  63. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  64. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  65. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  66. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  67. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.