ISIS

[VtaGeezer]

David Haines, captured aid worker, is the latest victim of the same British-born black-garbed butcher with whom we're becoming ghoulishly familiar.  They had him make a rather long statement before he got the knife; I don't quite understand how they get the victims to kneel quietly and make forced statements against their govts so calmly.  Do they not know what's coming after the tirade?  Are they threatened with an even slower, more painful death?  Rhetorical questions...no one outside ISIL can answer.

RIP, Mr. Haines. 

[SciFiAuthor]

Not too long ago Assad, in particular his beautiful wife, were the toast of the town. So liberal etc for the Middle-East, protecting religious minorities, etc. Then, suddenly, he turned into the ultimate bad guy. So he has relations with Iran? So he has support of Russia? I would rather let Assad take back his territory and wipe out the likes of ISIL/ISIS/IS and Al Qaeda. These Arab Spring radicals that we support and arm too often turn crazy and fundamentalist. I'm getting convinced that Muslims, or the vast majority of them in the Arab world, need to have a strong leader who (basically) keeps them inline. They don't want democracy and cannot practice it. Take away the strong-man and it descends into internecine conflict, family feuds, Sunni/Shia clashes, genocides, etc.
Make the Saudis and the Qatar "royal" families pay to clean up this mess and defend themselves from the Islamic radical beast that they have unleashed. They fund most of the radicalism around the world with their schools and backwards (or even more backwards) version of Islam.

I'd be fine with letting Assad do as he pleases, but I'm not sure Assad can do it now militarily without using his chemical weaponry. That's not going to fly internationally. Otherwise I generally agree, the middle east functions best under strongmen.

[PB the Deplorable]

David Haines, captured aid worker, is the latest victim of the same British-born black-garbed butcher with whom we're becoming ghoulishly familiar.  They had him make a rather long statement before he got the knife; I don't quite understand how they get the victims to kneel quietly and make forced statements against their govts so calmly.  Do they not know what's coming after the tirade?  Are they threatened with an even slower, more painful death?  Rhetorical questions...no one outside ISIL can answer.

RIP, Mr. Haines.

I think they do several mock executions first, at least it was reported they did that with James Foley.  Then when it's for real the victim may not quite realize it.

[b_dubb]

Soon very soon the desert will be fused into smooth poiished glass where there used to be a sand wasteland. I hate that I just said that but these ISIS fucks need to be stopped.

[Uncle Duke]

Soon very soon the desert will be fused into smooth poiished glass where there used to be a sand wasteland. I hate that I just said that but these ISIS fucks need to be stopped.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner becoming only the second man in history to order the use of a nuke?  We both know that's not going to happen, but at this point I have to admit I like the way you think.

What's really sad is, these "ISIS fucks" really are the "junior varsity" Obama said they are.  The problem is, Obama (and in fairness, probably the West in general) will not send in the varsity to put a stop to their mayhem.  If the current intelligence analysis is accurate, we're talking about two light infantry divisions with no air power, very limited armor and artillery, undertrained/untrained troops, and a logistics/supply system that depends heavily on what they can scrounge from their enemies.  They are not fighting as an insurgency, but more so a conventional force that has relied on terror and atrocities to act as a force multiplier.  They've kicked ass when unopposed and massacring women and children, but have struggled when confronted with even organized para-military forces like the Kurdish militias.

Air strikes alone will not stop ISIS. The key to destroying these assholes is ground forces, highly mobile professional troops with unlimited air power acting a airborne artillery.  I believe these guys have read their own press clippings and would be stupid enough to stand and fight.  A combined ground force of the 101st Airborne, the French Foreign Legion and British Paras backed by special forces, air power and the C3I and logistics might of the US would make short work of these cowards.  Ironically, I think the French would be the only one of the Western nations not causality adverse enough to deploy ground troops.  Sprinkle in some Arab forces (the Jordanians and Qataris are outstanding) like GHW Bush was able to do in DS to show the Muslim world it's not another Crusade, and ISIS will fall quickly.

[albrecht]

I think they do several mock executions first, at least it was reported they did that with James Foley.  Then when it's for real the victim may not quite realize it.

Not that it matters because it is so awful but if ISIL/ISIS/SI just follows what happens just south of our open-border vis-a-vis beheadings and the like often the people are already tortured but, usually, drugged up and so barely make a motion when being beheaded (by knife or chainsaw even.) Small relief, I guess, to families but the fact that the administration cares nothing about it is amazing. I suggest (I don't look at these videos because I don't like them or want to gratify such actions) but borderlandbeat, blog del narco, etc. For years stuff, and worse, happens-- just over our open-border. But NOW we care? Thousands of miles away? What about the thousands, literally, of killed women just near Juarez? It is insane our policies.

[Yorkshire pud]

Not that it matters because it is so awful but if ISIL/ISIS/SI just follows what happens just south of our open-border vis-a-vis beheadings and the like often the people are already tortured but, usually, drugged up and so barely make a motion when being beheaded (by knife or chainsaw even.) Small relief, I guess, to families but the fact that the administration cares nothing about it is amazing. I suggest (I don't look at these videos because I don't like them or want to gratify such actions) but borderlandbeat, blog del narco, etc. For years stuff, and worse, happens-- just over our open-border. But NOW we care? Thousands of miles away? What about the thousands, literally, of killed women just near Juarez? It is insane our policies.

Is there a thread where you can't resist mentioning Mexico?

[PB the Deplorable]

Not that it matters because it is so awful but if ISIL/ISIS/SI just follows what happens just south of our open-border vis-a-vis beheadings and the like often the people are already tortured but, usually, drugged up and so barely make a motion when being beheaded (by knife or chainsaw even.) Small relief, I guess, to families but the fact that the administration cares nothing about it is amazing. I suggest (I don't look at these videos because I don't like them or want to gratify such actions) but borderlandbeat, blog del narco, etc. For years stuff, and worse, happens-- just over our open-border. But NOW we care? Thousands of miles away? What about the thousands, literally, of killed women just near Juarez? It is insane our policies.

His BFF is '60s domestic terrorist Bill Ayres, how bothered by terrorism can he be? 

Running guns to the Mexican cartels under Fast and Furious, how much could he care about what they are doing?

Allowing young cartel and gang members who are coming over the border with the other 'children' are allowed to stay, how interested is he in containing the cartels and gangs?

He pulls us out of Iraq before it is secure, ignores 'Arab Spring' revolutions until the Moslem Brotherhood and al-Qaeda hijack them - then steps in to help them, drags his feet as ISIS grows, terrorizes, and seizes land, goes golfing after a journalist is beheaded.  It's getting more and more difficult to argue or believe that he is pro-American, pro-Western, takes terrorism seriously, and can be trusted to fight ISIS instead of surreptitiously helping them.

[Yorkshire pud]

His BFF is '60s domestic terrorist Bill Ayres, how bothered by terrorism can he be? 

Running guns to the Mexican cartels under Fast and Furious, how much could he care about what they are doing?

Allowing young cartel and gang members who are coming over the border with the other 'children' are allowed to stay, how interested is he in containing the cartels and gangs?

He pulls us out of Iraq before it is secure, ignores 'Arab Spring' revolutions until the Moslem Brotherhood and al-Qaeda hijack them - then steps in to help them, drags his feet as ISIS grows, terrorizes, and seizes land, goes golfing after a journalist is beheaded.  It's getting more and more difficult to argue or believe that he is pro-American, pro-Western, takes terrorism seriously, and can be trusted to fight ISIS instead of surreptitiously helping them.

Like all those who love to hate Obama you reduce the incredibly complicated situations in the world in places most of the West hasn't a clue about to simple 'should have/ shouldn't have done this'.

If Obama had gone to sanction military action in the ME in the way Bush skewed and lied to generate false justification to attack Iraq, you and the others would be the first to scream he should hold fire. Warfare is never straightforward, never easy and rarely driven  by holding all the information that can force a volte face when action has been prosecuted.

[Rudolf Zlabinger]

So Obama took over leadership again, that's American pride I ever appreciated, although I think, there were other subjects in the sense of International Law, as countries, national compounds, military compounds, and also persons qualified for world´s leadership, that could carry that burden. The president of America obviously is the most approved person for this heavy duty.

So Obama successfully unified the Arabic area and the whole Islam including Iran against this crowd of murderers in the lampooned name of Allah, and soon NATO automatically is involved on behalf of Turkey.

The half of defeat of ISIS however is already achieved: they are excluded from the Islamic world forever. That was the pride of ISLAM, I am very impressed of and has far reaching consequences for all Islamist terror organizations at all.

Besides all, the authorities of their ridicule Kalif´s now are broken, no Moslem will feel to be a subservient of them anymore and also the most of radical members of Islam would not execute "orders" of them, as it was to be apprehended until nearly yesterday. Therefore ISIS nevermore is a threat to the world as it was, but is to extinct in any case.

The topics subject is now, Thank goodness, obsolete for this reason, and I really felt an enormous gasp of relief recognizing this nearly incredible fact.

But lets this topic active for another reason: To never forget what Obama and also Islam did for us and discuss about this issue now with other eyes, if you are interested furthermore. 

[FightTheFuture]

Like all those who love to hate Obama you reduce the incredibly complicated situations in the world in places most of the West hasn't a clue about to simple 'should have/ shouldn't have done this'.

If Obama had gone to sanction military action in the ME in the way Bush skewed and lied to generate false justification to attack Iraq, you and the others would be the first to scream he should hold fire. Warfare is never straightforward, never easy and rarely driven  by holding all the information that can force a volte face when action has been prosecuted.

Keep in mind, Bush went to Congress and received near unanimous approval for the use of force in the Middle East. He also stood before the United Nations, which subsequently led to further unanimous votes by the UNSC.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Warfare is never straightforward, never easy and rarely driven  by holding all the information that can force a volte face when action has been prosecuted.

Which is why a person with his worldview should never have been elected

[PB the Deplorable]

... If Obama had gone to sanction military action in the ME...

There was never any reason for this.  All he had to do was leave Iraq with a status of forces agreement in place and enough troops so a group like ISIS doesn't fill the vacuum while the Iraqi government grew and strengthened.  That is not difficult to analyze, and it has little to do with the complexities you mention.  Because he didn't, it gets harder.  And more people die.

It would have been nice if he'd had at least a word of support for the original 'Arab Spring' protestors in Iran, Libya, Egypt, Syria, but he didn't.


To act as if no one should be commenting is absurd - you attack Blair, Bush, and a few others over the Iraq war all the time.  I think the objection is more likely about people pointing out the various Obama failures.

[FightTheFuture]

David Haines, captured aid worker, is the latest victim of the same British-born black-garbed butcher with whom we're becoming ghoulishly familiar.  They had him make a rather long statement before he got the knife; I don't quite understand how they get the victims to kneel quietly and make forced statements against their govts so calmly.  Do they not know what's coming after the tirade?  Are they threatened with an even slower, more painful death?  Rhetorical questions...no one outside ISIL can answer.

RIP, Mr. Haines.

more than likely, the victims are injected with a significant dose of diazepam prior to their fate. At least, that was the modus operandi of al Qaeda in Iraq.

[Yorkshire pud]

Keep in mind, Bush went to Congress with fabricated evidence and false accusations although German, French and CIA intelligence had strong and irrefutable evidence the 'whistleblowers' were in fact just lying, and received near unanimous approval for the use of force in the Middle East. He also stood before the United Nations, which subsequently led to further unanimous votes by the UNSC, based on the same false evidence.

FIFY


http://youtu.be/p3K9twuuU7g

[Yorkshire pud]

There was never any reason for this.  All he had to do was leave Iraq with a status of forces agreement in place and enough troops so a group like ISIS doesn't fill the vacuum while the Iraqi government grew and strengthened.  That is not difficult to analyze, and it has little to do with the complexities you mention.  Because he didn't, it gets harder.  And more people die.

Oh that would have been popular wouldn't it? FOX news leading the way with 'Why should our boys and girls be in an Arab country when they should be home with their loved ones; and cut to yellow ribbons and suitably angry father of soldier with voice over saying 'Tell us Mr President why are our soldiers still there?'

It would have been nice if he'd had at least a word of support for the original 'Arab Spring' protestors in Iran, Libya, Egypt, Syria, but he didn't.

Again, how he would be pilloried (or any leader for that matter). It was and is such a state of flux, it's impossible to know who your enemy's enemy is.

To act as if no one should be commenting is absurd - you attack Blair, Bush, and a few others over the Iraq war all the time.  I think the objection is more likely about people pointing out the various Obama failures.

I have no problem pointing out the failures, but let's not forget the root cause. Amputating a leg is fine, but don't forget that it came to that because gangrene set in. I remember well Blair's former defence secretary John Reed saying with a smile that when British troops were to be deployed on a 'policing' mission to Afghanistan he'd be surprised if a single shot would be fired. Over 400 have been killed so far, hundreds more catastrophically maimed. That's the result of being an arrogant asshole who isn't going to be the one facing the enemy who politicians assume will just roll over and get their tummy tickled.

[PB the Deplorable]

FIFY

If George W Bush 'lied us into war', how is it the Congress on both sides of the aisle - including those on the intelligence committees who saw the same intel - voted with him? 

I personally didn't agree with the war, because Saddam Hussein was about as good of a ruler they were going to get there, but this crap about Bush 'lying us into war', and how the 'real' intel was hidden out of view and ignored is the typical, disgusting, Left wing rewriting of history. 

[Yorkshire pud]

If George W Bush 'lied us into war', how is it the Congress on both sides of the aisle - including those on the intelligence committees who saw the same intel - voted with him? 

Watch the video PB... It will make you weep.

I personally didn't agree with the war, because Saddam Hussein was about as good of a ruler they were going to get there, but this crap about Bush 'lying us into war', and how the 'real' intel was hidden out of view and ignored is the typical, disgusting, Left wing rewriting of history.

Nope...Watch the video. Don't take my word for it...The 'left wing rewriting history' includes the former chief intelligence officer of the CIA in Bush's admin; former head of the British Army; top ranking intelligence officers from UK, Germany, France and USA. Watch the video. You don't even need to get much further in than about three min before you'll feel there's something worth watching to the end. That is of course if you want to have an alternative view to your perpetual rant about 'left'.

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh that would have been popular wouldn't it? FOX news leading the way with 'Why should our boys and girls be in an Arab country when they should be home with their loved ones; and cut to yellow ribbons and suitably angry father of soldier with voice over saying 'Tell us Mr President why are our soldiers still there?'...

Fox News?  Your description more closely resembles the tactics of Big Media when the President is a Republican.  Fox is more fair and balanced than that.

Here's a little secret:  the people who criticize Obama do it for cause, not just to insult him at every turn.  Due to his background, people were suspicious of him from the start.  Even though well camouflaged, they thought they had a pretty good idea of who he was and what his policies would be about - and they were 100% right about him, unfortunately.   The people who don't like him and his policies don't like him for a reason - and it's not because he's a Democrat, or because he's black.

We still have troops in Korea, Japan, and Germany.  These are now forward and resupply positions, and they help keep the peace.  Americans were prepared for a residual contingent of troops to be left in Iraq, although probably not indefinitely.  If Obama felt they weren't, he could have gone on TV and explained it.

... Again, how he would be pilloried (or any leader for that matter). It was and is such a state of flux, it's impossible to know who your enemy's enemy is...

Who was pillorying him over Iraq? 

He cut and ran for political reasons.  Because he wanted to claim the war was over prior to an election.  That's why he said al-Qaeda was 'on the run', while they were taking over in Libya and in much of the rest of the Sahara, and it's why he called ISIS the 'JV team'. 

... I have no problem pointing out the failures, but let's not forget the root cause...

No one has forgotten the root cause.  Bush has been much criticized, and rightly so. 

That does not absolve Obama.  He willingly took the job knowing winding down Iraq was going to be a major issue on his plate.  He had a duty to do it properly, whether he gave a hoot or not.  His failure is his failure.

[MV/Liberace!]

This is almost painful to watch, as Carney feels obliged to tow the old company lie against McCain who is in full command of the facts


FULL Heated Exchange: McCain vs. Jay Carney on CNN - 9/10/2014

I've heard so much about this supposed McCain smack down vs. Carney, and now that I've finally seen it, I have to say I'm not particularly impressed with Mccain's position. He actually IS talking about an American occupying force which would remain, by definition, in perpetuity. Anything other than perpetuity implies the Islamic regimes of the world will some day be able to manage themselves without our involvement which is an entirely ridiculous assertion. Carney is correct to say this is not what the American people want. It's partly WHY Obama was elected. Mccain fails to explain why the average American should care what ISIS takes control of over there. Other than the potential effect ISIS could have on the global oil market by taking control of key oil resources, I can't bring myself to care what they "conquer".  I see no reason to sacrifice one more american soldier's life to protect the Islamic world from its self. Let's instead spend the money on protecting our own borders and more closely selecting who is allowed to enter the United States legally or otherwise.

[PB the Deplorable]

Watch the video PB... It will make you weep.

Nope...Watch the video. Don't take my word for it...The 'left wing rewriting history' includes the former chief intelligence officer of the CIA in Bush's admin; former head of the British Army; top ranking intelligence officers from UK, Germany, France and USA. Watch the video. You don't even need to get much further in than about three min before you'll feel there's something worth watching to the end. That is of course if you want to have an alternative view to your perpetual rant about 'left'.

I made it about 6 minutes in.  So far they've alluded to a couple officials from Saddam's regime who want money for... something. 

I don't doubt there was less intel and worse intel than what we were told.  They should have done more, like known in advance exactly where to look and for what, and if it wasn't there or they couldn't get the info, to stop and reconsider.  That's hindsight. 

Keep in mind the atmosphere in the early days after 9/11, then the anthrax scare.  Saddam had already gassed the Iranians in his war with them.  He had already gassed the Kurds.  He had tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past (until Israel bombed the site) and we didn't have a good handle on where he was with that project, but it was thought to be restarted.  Didn't he claim to have them or be close at one point?

And Bush and our allies were supposed to forget all that and meet with members of his government, who would tell them everything they had heard was wrong?


If we want to have a real investigation, with real penalties for malfeasance, I'm all for that.  Anyone can make a video showing what they want you to see and hear, and it may well be true, but we still have a situation that needs to be addressed going forward. 

[Yorkshire pud]

I made it about 6 minutes in.  So far they've alluded to a couple officials from Saddam's regime who want money for... something. 

I don't doubt there was less intel and worse intel than what we were told.  They should have done more, like known in advance exactly where to look and for what, and if it wasn't there or they couldn't get the info, to stop and reconsider.  That's hindsight. 

Keep in mind the atmosphere in the early days after 9/11, then the anthrax scare.  Saddam had already gassed the Iranians in his war with them.  He had already gassed the Kurds.  He had tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past (until Israel bombed the site) and we didn't have a good handle on where he was with that project, but it was thought to be restarted.  Didn't he claim to have them or be close at one point?

And Bush and our allies were supposed to forget all that and meet with members of his government, who would tell them everything they had heard was wrong?


If we want to have a real investigation, with real penalties for malfeasance, I'm all for that.  Anyone can make a video showing what they want you to see and hear, and it may well be true, but we still have a situation that needs to be addressed going forward.

If you only got to 6 minutes and then assume what the rest is, it's hardly worth commenting.  'Going forward' is management speak for 'Let's forget about it shall we?'.

As you're not going to watch it, but make assumptions to it's purpose (after all it's only intelligence officers who are being interviewed), there's not much more to say.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

I really don't see the connection between America's military action overseas and its immigration issues.  One's a military action and the other one is a policing problem.  I don't get how one has anything to do with the other.  But, then perhaps I'm biased.  Apart from the drug issues, I think America should be embracing immigration.  Without a steady addition of immigrants I honestly believe America would collapse.  I believe concern over immigrants taking American jobs is misplaced.  On the top end they're driving the economy disproportionately to their numbers, creating a good deal of the innovation and successful businesses, and creating jobs.  On the bottom end they're doing the work no one else will do.  I think a lot of Americans take their lifestyles for granted, are unproductive, and don't take education seriously whereas immigrants largely are willing to work hard and value education.  I know I'll take a lot of flack for this and it's off topic, but I'm still perplexed at how these two issues are being linked.

[Yorkshire pud]

I really don't see the connection between America's military action overseas and its immigration issues.  One's a military action and the other one is a policing problem.  I don't get how one has anything to do with the other.  But, then perhaps I'm biased.  Apart from the drug issues, I think America should be embracing immigration.  Without a steady addition of immigrants I honestly believe America would collapse.  I believe concern over immigrants taking American jobs is misplaced.  On the top end they're driving the economy disproportionately to their numbers, creating a good deal of the innovation and successful businesses, and creating jobs.  On the bottom end they're doing the work no one else will do.  I think a lot of Americans take their lifestyles for granted, are unproductive, and don't take education seriously whereas immigrants largely are willing to work hard and value education.  I know I'll take a lot of flack for this and it's off topic, but I'm still perplexed at how these two issues are being linked.

It's okay. Canada is far enough away for them to not bother to hunt you down and scream at you. 

[PB the Deplorable]

... Mccain fails to explain why the average American should care what ISIS takes control of over there... I see no reason to sacrifice one more american soldier's life to protect the Islamic world from its self...

A couple reasons are 1) we created this mess when we invaded Iraq and disposed Saddam.  We have a moral obligation to leave them with a stable country as best we can, and 2) ISIS WILL attack us here, unless we destroy them there first.

... Let's instead spend the money on protecting our own borders and more closely selecting who is allowed to enter the United States legally or otherwise.

Absolutely

I really don't see the connection between America's military action overseas and its immigration issues...

Because people from all over the world are walking in across our southern border illegally.  Including Arabs and Muslims.  We should know who's coming in and at least try to keep terror cells to a minimum.

When it comes to Islamic terrorists, cartel and gang members, it is a National Security issue.

[PB the Deplorable]

If you only got to 6 minutes and then assume what the rest is, it's hardly worth commenting.  'Going forward' is management speak for 'Let's forget about it shall we?'.

As you're not going to watch it, but make assumptions to it's purpose (after all it's only intelligence officers who are being interviewed), there's not much more to say.

Well, you told me 3 minutes.

One would think they would start with the good stuff, not some guy in Paris knows some guy who knows another guy. 


To be honest, these one-sided videos aren't really my medium.  Living in and around Berkeley CA all these years has jaded me to this stuff.  It's too easy to present the one side, leave out certain details, twist certain details, find people willing to lie for various reasons, etc. 

It's like 'global warming' - the Left has lied so long about so much so often, I just don't believe anything they have to say anymore that I can't verify elsewhere.  An I don't usually really bother to try to verify it elsewhere.  If there ever is a real problem, they will have cried 'wolf' too often, and it will be too bad.

[MV/Liberace!]

I really don't see the connection between America's military action overseas and its immigration issues. 

The only link is financial, as I see it. We are bombing the piss out of the world based on the notion that it makes America safer. I don't think it makes America safer in the overwhelming majority of cases, and it's not something we can afford financially. If we save that money and instead spend it on enforcing our borders (which we are currently unwilling to invest the necessary financial resources in) coupled with more selective immigration, I think the safety of the American people is far better promoted, both domestically in the short term, and abroad long term.

[MV/Liberace!]

A couple reasons are 1) we created this mess when we invaded Iraq and disposed Saddam.  We have a moral obligation to leave them with a stable country as best we can

I think eleven + years is enough. If the Iraqi people haven't figured it out in that time, backed by the best weaponry and military training in the world, they're not going to. Furthermore, I think they had the leader they deserved in Saddam when they allowed him to enslave their nation for over three decades. I am unwilling to spill one more drop of American blood on those people.

and 2) ISIS WILL attack us here, unless we destroy them there first.

Better immigration control can address this.

[Rudolf Zlabinger]

Dear Paper*Boy,

2) ISIS WILL attack us here, unless we destroy them there first.

As you can read in one of my recent postings, the global threat by IS is broken. They cannot reach America anymore. Thanks to Obama and thanks to the ISLAM. They have to be neutralized of course, as they are murderers and for other reasons, and that seems to be granted. Beyond that it is the pride of America to take revenge.

I think you agree so far.

All the best, Rudolf

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, you told me 3 minutes.

One would think they would start with the good stuff, not some guy in Paris knows some guy who knows another guy. 


To be honest, these one-sided videos aren't really my medium.  Living in and around Berkeley CA all these years has jaded me to this stuff.  It's too easy to present the one side, leave out certain details, twist certain details, find people willing to lie for various reasons, etc. 

It's like 'global warming' - the Left has lied so long about so much so often, I just don't believe anything they have to say anymore that I can't verify elsewhere.  An I don't usually really bother to try to verify it elsewhere.  If there ever is a real problem, they will have cried 'wolf' too often, and it will be too bad.

yeah okay.