Exactly. This half assed approach is what is getting their own people killed. Still nobody's fault but their own.

At the end of the day, you have to look at body count. Not even the greatest terrorist threat in the world is even remotely close to how many civilians are being killed every day because of your adherence to these awesome "rules of engagement"

MM are you saying islamists should wage conventional war against the West?

conventional war isn't a viable option. diplomacy appears to be off the table. what other options are there? if you're an extremist faction looking to retaliate against the US, what options do you have?

when the most powerful military force in the world starts shitting on your country, there isn't much you can do except resort to guerrilla tactics

Ok so we are back to extending the expectation of violent response to everyone. If nobody can be faulted for violent retaliation, then why fault the US government for a more robust response?

Why is that?

Because when we said we wanted to subjugate and control every element of their country in exchange for all of their natural resources, they said no.

What options do we have to fight ISIS? If we sent troops, they would simply put away their flags and their Toyota pickups and blend in with civilians and plant IED's. Then come out again once we were gone.

Conventional war isn't a viable option, diplomacy appears to be off the table. What other options are there? We might as well go to countries that harbor terrorists, round them up, and slaughter them, right?

Do you see how toxic this reasoning is? There is no excuse for terrorism or for warcrimes. When we beat the shit out of Japan and totally occupied their country and rewrote their Constitution, did they start blowing up American civilians? No, they accepted the reality of their position, and got to work building themselves a better life.

Human history is a litany of peoples being defeated and abused, but rebuilding and ultimately being okay. This was rarely if ever the result of terrorism. Even the American revolution and American Civil War were largely conventional conflicts against vastly superior, arguably oppressive powers with minimal guerrilla activity and very little killing of civilians.

The only way these people are going to be okay in the long run is by building a better life for themselves, not by killing American abusers.

Oh, when was it again that we said that? To whom did we send this message? Who responded? And who is taking action?

we dont.

we stop.

we let muslims in the region fight htem.

if they loose we care as much about what happens after as we did in Iran.

we stop pretending we are humanists, trying to help them from suffering when the truth is we are spending money to make money on war.

We fight the war at home, the war on poverty. Not people.

Not an easy feat when your country lies in ruins and half the civil population has been wiped out as "collateral damage"

Let the middle east take care of their own problems. By making them our problems we have turned our people into targets

Rhetorical question

Post-war American South, Germany, Russia, Eastern Byzantine empire etc etc etc all managed just fine rebuilding from the ravages of war and brutal invasion.

Yes

No. If you argue people should resort to murder and warcrimes when they feel no other alternative exists, you also argue for American genocide in countries harboring terrorists.