Nothing "flew over my head" chalkus, I just responded in a limited way because I had no desire to co-opt this entire thread for debate purposes. Bobjr commented on our discussion, I guess that's an indirect green light that I can proceed? I don't know.
My phone won't let me copy and paste, so if anything that sounds suspect you'll have to verify yourself. Apologies for the inconvenience. Anyways, I'm not ashamed to compare right wingers to Islamic fundamentalists in this instance. They have a surprising amount in common, especially when it comes to obsession with controlling women's bodies, reproduction and pushing religious dogma. Sure, they aren't the exact equivalent of terrorists, in the sense they go out of their way to blow things up to make their point, but the policies they support still yield death and destruction. That isn't grossly exaggerating either. When you can't get access to healthcare and you're sick, you die. When women don't have easy and safe access to abortion and contraceptives, their death toll rises too. Threatening to massively cut food stamps and SNAP benefits, or worse eliminate them altogether, would cause plenty to starve. The alternative to welfare is people starving in the streets! Cutting disability would obviously raise casualties as well.
Creationism in schools isn't just bad policy. It's theocratic bullying, and it opens the door to more theocratic encroachments. The more and more entrenched religion is in government, the harder it is to fight.
Now, ISIS also did not start in Syria. They invaded Syria. They started in Iraq. Sadaam would have never allied with ISIS, and he had a much more brutal and strong grip over the country than Assad did with Syria. Sadaam had secret police and informants everywhere, a group like ISIS would have been stamped out like a bug at the first whiff of dissent. He was so strong as a dictator that neighbors would turn eachother in as rebels or dissidents in order to get rewards like life saving medicine, which was in short supply because of Iraqs crippling sanctions too. If we didn't invade Iraq, it is highly unlikely that me and you would be here right now talking about ISIS.
Even if there are more Muslim terrorist groups than Christian ones, that doesn't mean that Muslim terrorist groups are a greater threat to the U.S. Ascertaining threat isn't just a numbers game. Proximity, power, and agenda are bigger, more important factors to consider. At any rate, I don't know what else to say if you believe the U.S. government would sooner be taken down by overseas groups who sometimes blow up buildings than bible wielding politicians threatening to dismantle it from the inside.
Obama's handling of the situation was to be expected. He wasn't able to drum up enough public support. 90% of the public opposed intervention in Syria, even if chemical weapons were being used. What's he guilty of? Representing the country?
@ Silver Seoul & Bobjr
I don't think whether most Muslims disagree with ISIS has weight in determining whether Islam is or isn't a factor in this mess. Most Christians don't agree with the KKK, yet the bible still condones slavery. Calling them Islamic doesn't legitimize them, the teachings of Islam legitimize them. Until all the clerics and mullahs get together and apply some white out to their holy book, in other words until an Islamic reformation takes place, that will continue to be the case.
