Literate wrote

-T-Mobile- wrote

Miss wrote Should have never gotten involved in the first place.

So you think that we should have stood back and watch them slaughter even more people? They are to dangerous to just leave alone.

I think he means before ISIS started gaining their strength. Back when the US first got involved in affairs in the Middle East.

-T-Mobile- wrote

Literate wrote

-T-Mobile- wrote

Miss wrote Should have never gotten involved in the first place.

So you think that we should have stood back and watch them slaughter even more people? They are to dangerous to just leave alone.

I think he means before ISIS started gaining their strength. Back when the US first got involved in affairs in the Middle East.

Isis only began in 2003 at that point there was already a war they were still powerful and they were funded by al-qaeda but the only thing wrong was there want enough people in their jihadi army.

Literate wrote

-T-Mobile- wrote

Literate wrote

-T-Mobile- wrote

Miss wrote Should have never gotten involved in the first place.

So you think that we should have stood back and watch them slaughter even more people? They are to dangerous to just leave alone.

I think he means before ISIS started gaining their strength. Back when the US first got involved in affairs in the Middle East.

Isis only began in 2003 at that point there was already a war they were still powerful and they were funded by al-qaeda but the only thing wrong was there want enough people in their jihadi army.

Powerful in what way? If they didn't have the numbers, which at the moment is their main source of power, what else made them equally powerful back in 2003?
People have turned to ISIS as a solution to their problems, even if those problems weren't directly caused by the US, it's obvious that US intervention has been a catalyst for their growth.

-T-Mobile- wrote

Literate wrote

-T-Mobile- wrote

Literate wrote

-T-Mobile- wrote

Miss wrote Should have never gotten involved in the first place.

So you think that we should have stood back and watch them slaughter even more people? They are to dangerous to just leave alone.

I think he means before ISIS started gaining their strength. Back when the US first got involved in affairs in the Middle East.

Isis only began in 2003 at that point there was already a war they were still powerful and they were funded by al-qaeda but the only thing wrong was there want enough people in their jihadi army.

Powerful in what way? If they didn't have the numbers, which at the moment is their main source of power, what else made them equally powerful back in 2003?
People have turned to ISIS as a solution to their problems, even if those problems weren't directly caused by the US, it's obvious that US intervention has been a catalyst for their growth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ] Its too much to write at the min do your research.

"This morning at 9:40, our Rafale planes carried out a first strike against a logistics depot of the terrorist organization Daesh [the Arabic acronym for Islamic State] in north-east Iraq. The objective was hit and completely destroyed," President Francois Hollande's office said in a statement.

"Other operations will follow in the coming days," the statement added.

Eight civilians, three of them children, have been killed in the US-led air strikes on Al-Qaeda Nusra front positions, Reuters reported, citing Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Washington carried a series of airstrikes on the city of Raqqa in the early hours of Tuesday. At least 30 militants died in the strikes, which were carried out on IS positions in Syria. Washington informed Damascus about the operation, according to a representative of Syrian Foreign Ministry.

The strikes targeted residential buildings in Aleppo allegedly used by Al-Nusra Front, according to Rami Abdulrahman, who runs the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

-Dylan_ wrote Keep bombing them! This is the first time I have agreed with Obama's decisions during his whole entire presidency.