Biden scrambles to relist the Houthi's as terrorists.

@Raiders22

 Well lets address that reply and make a point in the process. Not sure why I waste time on this because your messages speak your narrative and show that you are not interested in discussion at all, but lets do it anyway-

You commented on a few things, Iraq, Russia, Trump-wall and my claims about all of those, then you conclude that because YOU told me to research that thus your perspective and that of your cut/paste sources are correct and that is how you prove it. I dont recall you giving much of any details on your own outside of disagreeing and then some third party rhetoric. You are entitled to your views but you are not entitled to suggest that I was proven wrong by you saying for me to go research more. 

So lets revisit the three topics, well lets not revisit it because you never addressed it the first time. Iraq I stated how was Saddam considered a terrorist all of a sudden when it fit a narrative for Bush to invade? There was no linkage to Saddam and 9-11, that was fraudulent and erroneous, yet because the GOP called him a terrorist it is so. Did you give your own details as to why he was a terrorist? What acts to other people did he perform that would be categorized as terrorism? I know a ton about Saddam and I have my views, I do not consider him a terrorist, I consider him a regional dictator that kept religious extremists from killing each other and if anything there were more freedoms for more of the population with Saddam than what happened when we stupidly put religious leaders in charge and now it is a mess and will keep being a mess. I do not consider Saddam a terrorist, you did not reply to my contention just that I needed to research more and boom you are now proven right per your post 45.

The other topics I listed you did the same, you tell me to learn more and then it means you know more and that your perspective and third party sources are correct, that does not make it so.

@wallstreetcappers

  I have no need to be "coy", nor do I have to peruse some conservative site to find news. You can call it partisan if you want but we can all see what has been going on. I agree that Biden isn't behind all of it, but, like Trump, he'll get the blame because it's his admin. This is a problem with our gov't. in general........many, not all, do what appeases their party instead of doing what we would consider "correct". But what is "correct"? We can agree to disagree on that because we have to to get along........but as long as it can be discussed.....

@wallstreetcappers

 You commented on a few things, Iraq, Russia, Trump-wall and my claims about all of those, then you conclude that because YOU told me to research that thus your perspective and that of your cut/paste sources are correct and that is how you prove it. I dont recall you giving much of any details on your own outside of disagreeing and then some third party rhetoric. You are entitled to your views but you are not entitled to suggest that I was proven wrong by you saying for me to go research more.

These are the things you mentioned -- not me.  It was not my opinion.  I 'copied and pasted' the numbers simply to back it up.  Then I referenced the experts that showed what the true cost would be.  This is not third party rhetoric, these are simply folks that ran the numbers.  

You are entitled to your opinions.  Absolutely I can say you were proven wrong when I gave you the data in black and while.

Now you can choose to ignore and you can choose not to like it because it proved you wrong -- but that still simply leaves you with your uniformed 'opinion'.  That is why I suggest you look further into it.

Again, it is not a putdown on you.  Just as you say you do not like businessmen commenting on politics and thinking their opinion is correct or matters -- someone that has NOT studied any other subject should not think they are well-informed on it.

They also should not be easily offended when someone has a differing opinion and tries to show them that it is backed up by facts, etc.

@Raiders22

 You did not prove me wrong, you took what I said out of context and used it to TRY and prove me wrong. I never said the T's was a cost of 1 year or 5 years and in FACT I said at least once the issue is MULTI generational, to truly commit to what your party envisions it is a cost which will span for decades and generations IF your party is serious about doing it correctly. The cost is not the build cost alone, the TOTAL cost is the true cost. I love it you continue to take words I say and place them in your partisan narrative to TRY and prove me wrong. I also do not care that you cut/pasted some data from a source which supports your contention, but it is erroneous and most obviously understated. The TRUE cost is the FULL and complete cost for the project and that includes FULL and complete build to FULL specifications, which is at a higher mark than that joke of a segment Trump put up...a FULL comprehensive wall that meets the intended goal, not some half job to say you did it, a real full scale higher than you are imagining, deeper than you are imagining for the FULL distance of the border...not some cut rate San Diego or small segment Texas metro border town wall, I am saying the entirety and in large full scale...AND the technology to monitor it, AND the personnel required to police it in real time, the FULL distance, complete technology. The cost of maintenance, repair, improvements and technology increases...THIS is the true cost, then forecast it for 100 years. THERE is your true cost Raiders.

And yes it is T's in cost, thanks for understating the true cost so you can TRY to prove me wrong....get past trying to prove people wrong and start having open conversation without the crutch of partisan third party nonsense, YOU make the point and YOU have discussion and be open to not needing to prove people wrong.

@wallstreetcappers

 So lets revisit the three topics, well lets not revisit it because you never addressed it the first time. Iraq I stated how was Saddam considered a terrorist all of a sudden when it fit a narrative for Bush to invade? There was no linkage to Saddam and 9-11, that was fraudulent and erroneous, yet because the GOP called him a terrorist it is so. Did you give your own details as to why he was a terrorist? What acts to other people did he perform that would be categorized as terrorism? I know a ton about Saddam and I have my views, I do not consider him a terrorist, I consider him a regional dictator that kept religious extremists from killing each other and if anything there were more freedoms for more of the population with Saddam than what happened when we stupidly put religious leaders in charge and now it is a mess and will keep being a mess. I do not consider Saddam a terrorist, you did not reply to my contention just that I needed to research more and boom you are now proven right per your post 45.

No, I did not bring him up--you did.  You always deflect and cloud the subject.  

Again, who cares if you think he was a terrorist or not?  You were not the one making this determination using intelligence reports and past actions and current actions.

You are simply someone that does not like Bush and want to use it just for the 9/11 issue.

If you do not know the history of Hussein and his links and support of terrorism -- I do not know what to tell you.  I certainly do not want to keep offending you by telling you that you are ill-informed on the subject and should study it.  

But no rational intelligence agents would agree with you.  I am sorry that is just a fact.  That history stretches back a good deal.

But what would you like me to tell you -- that I think because he supported and supplied acts of terrorism for many years, that I classify him as a terrorist.  Absolutely, I do.

Sure he was a dictator that kept the rivals in check.  But he was also, by definition that most folks use, a terrorist.

BUT that was not the original topic.  You threw him in the mix.  I guess trying to make some vague comparison to what is going on in the Middle East now and show how flexible your definition of a 'terrorist' is.  

The USA are not the only ones that say this, but you keep saying it like they are the ones saying it so they can pick and choose who to give the title to.

All intelligence agencies say they are terrorists and none say the Israelis are.  That is simply your designation.

The you tried to cloud the issue by laying blame on the victims, in a sense.  At best you tried to absolve them of their acts by somewhat justifying them.

Human rights are absolutely bad -- but are a separate classification by everyone.  

Even Ryan signed onto the disclosure.  So, when you get him and Sanders to agree on anything it is not a partisan issue.  So, there is nothing wrong with taking that issue up as well.  But that does not mean they should drop the terrorism issue.

Your original question was about Israel and that's very little to do with Hussein.

Great post MUGG.

add to that cancelling the Keystone pipeline on day 1, pissing on the oil/gas industry in the process, only to reverse himself later when he pushed them to drill more ! 

And how about that southern border, too.

'Dipshit Joe has been an absolute shitshow.  I'm sure Jimmy Carter rests easy at night , knowing he is no longer the worst AND weakest president in U.S. history.  

@wallstreetcappers

 You did not prove me wrong, you took what I said out of context and used it to TRY and prove me wrong. I never said the T's was a cost of 1 year or 5 years and in FACT I said at least once the issue is MULTI generational, to truly commit to what your party envisions it is a cost which will span for decades and generations IF your party is serious about doing it correctly. The cost is not the build cost alone, the TOTAL cost is the true cost. I love it you continue to take words I say and place them in your partisan narrative to TRY and prove me wrong. I also do not care that you cut/pasted some data from a source which supports your contention, but it is erroneous and most obviously understated. The TRUE cost is the FULL and complete cost for the project and that includes FULL and complete build to FULL specifications, which is at a higher mark than that joke of a segment Trump put up...a FULL comprehensive wall that meets the intended goal, not some half job to say you did it, a real full scale higher than you are imagining, deeper than you are imagining for the FULL distance of the border...not some cut rate San Diego or small segment Texas metro border town wall, I am saying the entirety and in large full scale...AND the technology to monitor it, AND the personnel required to police it in real time, the FULL distance, complete technology. The cost of maintenance, repair, improvements and technology increases...THIS is the true cost, then forecast it for 100 years. THERE is your true cost Raiders.

Again, you have said this over and over and repeatedly.  It is incorrect.  No data, facts, or experts say this.  

I gave you the ENTIRE interstate system project build AND maintenance thus far.  It is the largest project of its kind and is ongoing and very comparable for upkeep.  It is NOWHERE near that price, yet.  This is a project that is getting closer to the 100 year mark quite quickly.

Then I gave you the example of how much a trillion actually is because most people cannot fathom how large of a number it is.

I know you do not want a wall -- I get that.  I do not think it is needed, as I have often said on here.

BUT to keep saying what you say over and over just does not make sense and sounds like you simply made it up.

There are many better ways to argue against a wall than making up an unrealistic number.

But I get that you have really dug in on this issue.  So, I had quit addressing it until you brought up these other things in here.

@Rush51

He knew why -- his 'folks' told him to.  

They just never tell him which way to exit off a stage.

@Raiders22

I brought Saddam in because he was labeled a terrorist and is in the region and my contention as I stated it above is that the term is used when it serves a purpose and my contention was that the classification was used to generate a narrative for 9-11 and I suggested he was a regional dictator but not a terrorist. Now if you think he was the conversational reply would be to say you think he was and WHY you think he was with details and information, which is what I gave in my contention. You as above merely said that others agreed with you and that intel agencies would of course agree with you...and because you say so it is so again. I do not discuss or debate by saying some third party person agrees with me so you are stupid for thinking otherwise and that is your proof of being right. None of what you said is any proof of your contention and you did not give any insight as to WHY you feel as you do, rather that I dont like Bush and that all the government intel agrees with you, well congrats and we cannot support your claims and that proves nothing anyway. I said that Saddam was a regional dictator and kept the religious groups from killing each other, that is actually a fact and is broadly known he did that. It is also known and a fact that we took him out and put in a religious party to take over and that has been a disaster and has no chance at success and that more people had more rights with Saddam than do now, that is also a fact. 

I correlated the original topic with this because it is on point, we classify the group you started the post as terrorists in the past then when we needed a different angle for a different objective we consider rescinding the designation then we bring it back, I also said on point that we cherry pick how we apply our judgments, we slip them on and off when we want and often we do nothing because it serves or corporate and government purposes..all this points to the ORIGINAL topic, that Biden isnt rushing to change anything and that HE is the reason, we are flip flopping all over the place we seem to use or not use the term when we feel it serves our interests and we do not use it when it for sure is applicable. I'd strongly suggest the way the Saudis treat women, minorities, gays, dissenters that they are domestic terrorists to their own people...yet we do zippo about it. 

Human rights are absolutely bad? what the crap does that mean...lol way to gloss over the topic with 5 words.

@Raiders22

 Asphalt roads are the same as a border wall...lol super comparison. Costs of asphalt 100 years ago were just a TEEENY bit lower than now, if you were to build the national road system what would that cost? And do we have technology and infrastructure to monitor ever single mile and the police at the ready to arrest a speeder in Wyoming?

Where did I say I didnt want a wall? Can you show me this? I said if your party wants it and wants it done CORRECTLY with technology and real time policing then that is what it will cost you. I am light on the number honestly...but reality is that you do not want a wall, you want to TALK about a wall you want to complain and blame that we do not have a wall but to HAVE a wall means a 100 year commitment to it and all that entails and that you want no part of. I am saying if you REALLY want it then do it as I explained in another thread, do it OVER the perceived needs NOW...exceed what in your wildest dreams would be required and fit it with top of the line technology and monitoring, get the proper people in place to immediately police every bit of it...DO IT RIGHT. You dont want that...

Yep, that  is true.... let's kick Joe's ass "and"  his puppet masters to the curb in the general election.   Bunch of O`bama holdovers is who I suspect are pulling the strings.   But it doesn't really matter.  This whole administration has been an unmitigated disaster.  

I am not sure, however sideways, defending terrorism is the line of reasoning you should take.  That road is littered with potholes and is not well maintained.

When you try to make it seem as if a known supporter of terrorists is NOT a terrorist and bring in a counter of human-rights abuses -- none of that changes the original topic.

Human rights are absolutely bad? what the crap does that mean -- simple it means what it says.  They are bad but that is not terrorism.

@wallstreetcappers

  Asphalt roads are the same as a border wall...lol super comparison. Costs of asphalt 100 years ago were just a TEEENY bit lower than now, if you were to build the national road system what would that cost?

All of that was addressed over there.  If you cannot take the largest single project ever undertaken like that and compare it, what do you use pp just your imaginary number?  The numbers are what the numbers are.

@wallstreetcappers

 You have gotten way off the original topic I addressed.  This was the original question:

So when are we putting Israel on the list of terrorists? I dont know why we try to classify groups like we do, what does it accomplish?

@wallstreetcappers

 To which I replied:

I would say when they make this list:

Nearly all of the world’s deadliest terror attacks in past 20 years have been committed by Islamic extremists: 

- Sep 2001 NYC: most deadly in history w/2,977 killed. 

- Oct 2002 Bali, Indonesia: Nightclub bombings killed over 200 people (almost half were Australians). US consular office also targeted. Militants with Jemaah Islamiyah convicted for the attacks.

-March 2004 Madrid: train bombings killed 193 & injured nearly 2,000.

-Sep 2004 Beslan, Russian Fed: school siege by Islamic militants led to 334 dead, most of whom were children

-Aug 2007 Mosul, Iraq: car bombings targeting Yazidis killed 500

-Dec 2008 Congo: Ugandan rebel cult group led by Joseph Kony killed 620 people celebrating Christmas

-May 2014 Gamboru & Ngala, Nigeria: Jihadist Group Boko Haram killed more than 300 

-July 2014 Tikrit, Iraq: ISIS killed 1500 Shia & non-Muslim cadets

-July 2016 Baghdad: ISIS killed 340 in Shia district

-Oct 2017 Mogadishu, Somalia: bombing killed 600 by al-Shabab member

-Nov 2017 Bir al-Abed, Egypt: mosque frequented by Sufis attacked by 40 militants, killing more than 200

-July 2018 Sweida, Syria: 258 known to have been killed in bombings & shootings by ISIS

-April 2019 Colombo, Sri Lanka: Nearly 300 killed in bombings on churches & hotels

This is your religion of peace

Obviously an older list -- but you can add to it more of the same.

@wallstreetcappers

 That is what people consider the classical definition of 'terrorists'.

So when Israel starts committing acts like that to get put on a list like that -- then they will be called 'terrorists'.

Great post, RAIDERS.. Adding to your list,  I can remember the airline explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland ( attributed to Gaddafi and Libya) in the 80's, the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya in late 90's, and bombing of USS Cole destroyer in 2000 .. all Arab/Muslim connections like your list..

What's frustrating to me is that the Arab/Muslim world has contributed very little to global society for a very long time.  They have done nothing, and their terrorists have only taken away through their violence on innocent civilians... . And heck , the one vital commodity they do have (i.e. the oil underneath Saudi Arabia and other countries)  was extracted using the innovation from the West.  

Why is it that these people are so unproductive, and revolt to Western society, democracy,  and free trade... That is the million dollar question IMHO.  At this point, it's no longer an attack on Israel ; this is an attack on the West.. 

The Houthi attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea is a pin point example attacking free markets & free trade.  They hate the West, they hate progress, they hate democracy and everything it stands for.  

Why is it that these people are so unproductive, and revolt to Western society, democracy,

I see it this way Rush. They have a deep rooted culture based on Islam.  Men are superior, women are subordinate, etc. They don't want change. Change to them is turning your back on God. They punish theives by cutting off hands, adulterer women are executed. Imagine their minds hearing and seeing gay men are having sex in the halls of congress. Federal trans employee steals womans luggage. Theives are allowed to loot stores. Everything western now is what they have been taught is absolute evil.

We see them as backwards and outdated. They see us as an absolute evil. Who is really right? 

Why do you think Afghanistan fell so easily to the Taliban? Those folks had a long huge taste of western culture and they for the most part refused to fight for it. 

If they wouldn't kill innocent people,  I would say who cares who's right,.... But The West (including Israel) aren't the ones blowing up innocent civilians in airplanes , cars, trains, and whatever mass casualty situation they can dream up.  For a culture w deep roots to religion,  they sure are a sick people. 

@Rush51

It is not just attacks against the West.  Look at Iraq and Pakistan today.  The more concentrated the population becomes the more the violence increases. You can see a tremendous fall from what that area used to be and what they contributed to the world.

There are a few ways to explain it and look at it.

But the easiest way to understand it is from a religious standpoint.  

But a lot of folks do not want to view it that way and look for more natural explanations.  You can study the history and make links from ancient times to current times.  You can even show a casual link to when they reenacted the caliphate in '14 after some time, since around the late 1200s.  When Franz Ferdinand was assassinated that essentially led to the end of 3 empires:  Austrian-Huangary, Russian, and the Ottoman.  The  assumption is once established a caliphate never really can be gone against even at a later date.  So even after WWI there was a sense of need for this even though they had been exposed to secularization at that point.

Then you go look after WWII -- well into the '50s and '60s what was going on with the sentiment of the folks about the way they felt about the colonizers.  So, now you had the move from the old populism to more of an authoritarian setup.  So, now they had a couple of things to unite against:  the Western World in their affairs and 'Liberating Palestine'.  

Once Sadat was killed the political leaders essentially decided it was very wise to acknowledge the 'religious' leaders, as it were.

So, now you can see a big rallying of the folks even by the political leaders, for example, Hussein after the Guff War.  Because you have 'invaders' from the West.

So, now they continue to inflame the folks by saying the West continues to try to exert influence on them and want them to have their way of government and things like that.  Of course, a lot of that is true, the West does want them to become more 'democratic' because they think it would quell the violence there and elsewhere.  But history has shown this is just another 'reason' the IS uses to keep the folks fired up.  If it was not that it would be something else.

You can see how the West -- and Bush deserves a lot of praise for this -- was 'happy' about the Arab Spring.  But then look how quickly they squashed all of that and went right back to the more authoritarian regimes.  The case has been made that Tunisia was the only one that came out better.  But looking back now, that looks specious at best.

When all a people have known for generations now is overwhelming domination of their will and promoting a caliphatic mindset you get a united front that declares 'by any means necessary' they will reestablish the 'old' caliphate.

They then will have more and more 'extreme' splinters and factions that will simply confront each other.  Now their mindset has very little to do with innovations and contributing to society.  They simply want to reach their goal and that goal will always involve extreme violence because violence is at the very heart of what they are 'ordered' to use.

@UNIMAN

Certainly you are correct and I am not disagreeing at all.

BUT there have been societies that believed in those same things, to an extent; the morals and enforcing them and punishing the abuses.  For example, the Puritans or whatever else early society you want to pick.  

BUT none of them led to the extreme overall violence of becoming a terroristic society.

It is way deeper than being a society that believes in 'extreme' morals and has overly 'harsh' punishment for disobeying them.  

Yes, you can say we both see each other as 'evil' and who knows which is right.  BUT only one of the groups is actively trying to terrorize the other and kill them off.