DescentBB

Here we go again, another 'war on terror' against a group that really isn't interested in much beyond their concept of a caliphate in Syria and Iraq(both nations artificial constructs of Europeans). Hell, these people refused to give aid to the Palestinians. Total current toll in terms of American life? Two.......yes, two freaking people, both of whom should have been aware of the risks of kidnapping.
I heard, upon my return yesterday, of a recent poll of Americans which stated that over 40% of our citizens feel we are LESS safe that before 9/11. On what basis they would make such a claim eludes me. At present, there is no group beyond maybe Al-Q in the Arabian Peninsula with the funds, expertise and inclination to attack us, and THEY'VE been decimated.
Now, I think the Obama administration has responded in an abyssmal manner, catering more to the upcoming election cycle and failing to resist the urge to revenge the deaths of two people. Further, they have been all over the place in the process: we need Congress to approve, we don't need Congress, this isn't a war, this IS a war, we won't repeat mistakes of the past, we might arm 'rebel groups'(core 'mistake of past') We elected Obama precisely(at least many of us) to RESIST the goofy American tendency to knee-jerk revenge thinking in foreign affairs, to stay above that sort of thing, and here, at the end of the term, the wheels come off? I'm very disappointed in this recent turn of events. As you know, I was cheering that Obama didn't stick to the 'red line' stuff and wade into Syria, and I applauded him for sticking to the plan and leaving Iraq. The only heartening part of the present actions is that at least we aren't led by John McCain, who STILL wishes to go to war worldwide, still wishes us to have massive troop presence in Iraq, doesn't wish to leave Afghanistan,etc. So, it could be worse, but could be much better, IMHO.

WELL...........

If Obama had listened to his senior advisors, AND heeded the predictions that Bush made before he left office, then maybe he wouldn't be dealing with any of this now. he wanted to do it his own way. and this is what he got. ***SHRUG***

on a side note. A few months ago it was OK to give away the terrorist farm for one (probable) deserter, but when Two our citizens get their heads brutally chopped off by the same brand of terrorists, it's now no big deal????

Not to mention that ISIS has access to over $500 million dollars to fund their terrorism. not exactly chump change

But I'm glad you're finally realizing that he's all about the election with Obama and not about leadership, something that several of us told you about last election

CUDA wrote:WELL...........

If Obama had listened to his senior advisors, AND heeded the predictions that Bush made before he left office, then maybe he wouldn't be dealing with any of this now. he wanted to do it his own way. and this is what he got. ***SHRUG***

how so? Seriously, the American public wanted out of Iraq, the Iraqis wouldn't even offer immunity for advisors from the US, what would you have done?
Left tens of thousands of Americans there, after campaigning on removing them, fast?

on a side note. A few months ago it was OK to give away the terrorist farm for one (probable) deserter, but when Two our citizens get their heads brutally chopped off by the same brand of terrorists, it's now no big deal????

that was a soldier of ours, not an independant journalist who had ventured in when warned not to. Sort of different.

Not to mention that ISIS has access to over $500 million dollars to fund their terrorism. not exactly chump change

got any proof of this one? Seriously, I hear that number, but see nothing to back it up. Sort of like the guesswork on recruitment numbers.

But I'm glad you're finally realizing that he's all about the election with Obama and not about leadership, something that several of us told you about last election

but, one might note, I never said it's ALL about the election, ALL the time, as you claim. It's just on this one, he seems to be caving to the election interests, on many other things he hasn't. Nuance my friend, not blind hatred......once again, sort of different.

Wow, it only took 2 posts to get to the "H" word...

on a related note: I've heard just about enough from Mrs Foley. I get it, you wanted to do everything you could for your son. However, it has been illegal to pay cash ransom to terrorist groups(if for no other reason than to discourage a flood of kidnappings), and further, your kid had already been rescued once before, if I recall. To whine about the administration not doing enough sound suspiciously political in nature, although I have no proof.

Spidey wrote:Wow, it only took 2 posts to get to the "H" word...

Noticed that did you

A Leopard cant change it's spots.


that's the default argument of the left

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Wow, it only took 2 posts to get to the "H" word...

Noticed that did you

A Leopard cant change it's spots

sorry, but that is my opinion of the criticism you stated in 2012. If you look back, you really never came up with any proof that I was incorrect. And, frankly, MY opinion here might prove to be wrong. He might have some deeper reason to be doing what he's doing. I just don't see it, and the back and forth of definitions and verbiage sort of confirms that.

so instead of trying to honestly Debate the matter you fall back on the "H" card. that's no different then being a race baiter

CUDA wrote:so instead of trying to honestly Debate the matter you fall back on the "H" card. that's no different then being a race baiter

can we try and return to the present time, then? It wasn't me tossing out the glib remark about 'we told you so', when you didn't really do much other that parrot the goofiness that was the Bengazi witchhunt and other stuff. Do you have any opinion worth sharing on the CURRENT situation with ISIS? For instance, could you explain how Obama could have(as you claimed) prevented ISIS from forming had he taken Bush's advice? Because, I for one don't see that at all. In fact, once the Shiite government got in and ran roughshod over the Sunnis, all the US troops in the world wouldn't have prevented the formation of ISIS, as we now see it(it was technically already formed a decade ago).

callmeslick wrote:a group that really isn't interested in much beyond their concept of a caliphate in Syria and Iraq(both nations artificial constructs of Europeans)

They told you they are not interested in the whole Ummah being represented/submissive to/and contained within? You should probably alert Reuters or something with that breaking news.

And "artificial constructs of Europe" are nothing to be concerned about? Doesn't that loophole you just created include the U.S.A.?

callmeslick wrote:At present, there is no group beyond maybe Al-Q in the Arabian Peninsula with the funds, expertise and inclination to attack us, and THEY'VE been decimated.

Did you know that ISIS is al Queda in origin and, just as many had predicted, once the vacuum was created by us leaving the area they rose from their deathbed / JV bench and are growing with all the speed and vigor of a cancer.

what's this got to do with Benghazi?? I haven't mentioned Benghazi.

and you're spewing a lot of speculation there. base on your Opinion.

Obama cared about nothing but getting the troops out of Iraq. that's what he ran on can we say "all about the Election"??,
he was advised against pulling out by his senior military advisors. he disregarded their advise and pulled out anyways.
he was warned by Bush EXACTLY what the consequences of this action would be if we left Iraq, but he pulled out anyways.
And FYI everyone of his predictions about an early withdrawal came true.

but to Obama, ISIS was just the JV team, (HIS WORDS) and there is nothing to worry about they as cannot hurt us. now we have two dead Americans and there is recent intelligence warning about ISIS coming over our southern border.

the $500 million figure was from Pataki, is he right?? who knows, what we do know is ISIS has access to the oil fields of northern Iraq. so it probably is correct

Obama made his own bed. now he has to lay in it.

woulda, coulda, shoulda. he made Bad politically motivated choices that have blown up in his face "politically" and he has NO ONE to blame but himself

This is like a bad dream, no one can be this obtuse.

1. Five people is not the "terrorist farm"
2. Are these journalists blind to just how hostile an area they are in? Remember Daniel Pearl Cuda? You know, the journalist that was beheaded (and many, many others) during the Bush presidency?...no no of course you don't.
3. What side we picking this time? A year from now we'll be arming these same people because then we'll have a new enemy to play with. Anyone willing to wager just how much American equipment they're using?

Guess what Cuda? America has to sleep in the bed it's made. This is what we get for meddling in the affairs of every country, dropping randoms bombs, toppling countries, and doing everything else that they hate us for. I don't see them streaming into Canada to do bad things. Wait wait, this must be the result of America's "peaceful influence" right Will?

What a joke.

Unlike Z, I do not wish to be at the mercy of America's enemies, even though I agree that it is largely at the feet of our government. I don't believe our government's involvement so neatly justifies the actions of its enemies..

My thoughts on this; initial one anyways.

There is no way that the troop withdrawl and the presence of ISIS is related, and I hope people in the US government have at least a little sense and not send troops back.

We don't need another ten years in the sandbox.

Better face the reality Thorne. We've dropped thousands of bombs, killed scores of militants, destroyed the leadership of al qaeda, yet new groups that are unafraid continue to pop up. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll reach the point where the enough bombs have been dropped and they'll surrender? Is this what we're going to do for the rest of our existence?

Hilariously enough, point #3 that I made seems to be relevant this very night because ISIS has agreed to a cease fire with Syrian rebels to fight against Assad...you know the same rebels we've been arming this whole time? So what side do we pick now?

Z.. wrote:This is like a bad dream, no one can be this obtuse.

1. Five people is not the "terrorist farm"
2. Are these journalists blind to just how hostile an area they are in? Remember Daniel Pearl Cuda? You know, the journalist that was beheaded (and many, many others) during the Bush presidency?...no no of course you don't.
3. What side we picking this time? A year from now we'll be arming these same people because then we'll have a new enemy to play with. Anyone willing to wager just how much American equipment they're using?

Guess what Cuda? America has to sleep in the bed it's made. This is what we get for meddling in the affairs of every country, dropping randoms bombs, toppling countries, and doing everything else that they hate us for. I don't see them streaming into Canada to do bad things. Wait wait, this must be the result of America's "peaceful influence" right Will?

What a joke.

I agree with you, Z, that when the United States is forced to create new enemies, because of their own wrong foreign policy, it is permanently stored in the memory of the peoples of other countries. In fact, today the United States create conditions for their isolation in the long term.
I just want to add.
Think about why the United States is constantly call other countries "rogue states", "terrorists", "aggressors", "threat to national security", "not democratic", etc.?
Why the United States regularly organized military conflicts in different countries?
Why the United States makes Europe say that they do not want to talk and to apply economic sanctions, which is obviously unfavorable for most of Europe?
Why Barack Obama said that only the United States can save the world order?
Why representatives of the press service of the State Department say any nonsense, they even put themselves up to ridicule is no longer able in any way to justify and explain the actions of the United States?

The answer is obvious. Because the United States is constantly teetering on the brink of economic disaster. United States by any means trying to form a world public opinion that only the United States is the most stable peaceful country, where the world's business may invest funds without fear (and even this fragile artificial stability is already in doubt, as it is unknown when and against any investor USA will again apply economic sanctions). Even at the cost lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other countries. Because the United States put a lot of effort to Europe looked weak, dependent, unreliable partner, unable to have their own opinion, and therefore unattractive economies for investment. If tomorrow there will be world peace, stability and confidence in the future for all countries, the United States will lose their attractiveness as a center of concentration of world capital. Economy of the USA with their huge foreign debt just crashes during the month.
Regarding the United States and Russia, I will not say anything, because the one who wants to see the real situation, he sees it, but for those who do not want to understand anything, all the arguments will still be useless. I can only say that for me personally, the United States has always been a country more friendly than unfriendly to Russia. But in light of recent events, the United States became for me quite clearly tangible e n e m y. Forgive my tactless frankness. I do not live in Iraq, Syria and Libya, so I can tell only Russian opinion.

Z.. wrote:Better face the reality Thorne. We've dropped thousands of bombs, killed scores of militants, destroyed the leadership of al qaeda, yet new groups that are unafraid continue to pop up. Do you honestly believe that one day we'll reach the point where the enough bombs have been dropped and they'll surrender? Is this what we're going to do for the rest of our existence?

Hilariously enough, point #3 that I made seems to be relevant this very night because ISIS has agreed to a cease fire with Syrian rebels to fight against Assad...you know the same rebels we've been arming this whole time? So what side do we pick now?

Z, these folks over there are not in a state of war with us. If they were I could respect it. If I were to try to draw an analogy of the situation using different countries, I might suggest that this is like the fans of a U.S. sports team trying to overthrow Russia, while most other American's just don't like Russia. If you ask me we're dealing with a death cult. America may be the enemy, and I believe it is, and even to it's own people, but that doesn't mean a normal response is to strap on a bomb and blow yourself up.

my further thoughts: What makes a group like ISIS a true problem is recruitment. The current revision of status has them at 30,000 fighters, over half of whom are foreigners to the region, many from the West. The US meddling in ANY fashion is the key element that they use to recruit fighters and raise money. That was PRECISELY what Obama was trying to avoid with the JV dismissal last year. As for CUDAs comment above about the relationship of pulling out of Iraq to the election, sure THAT is political, but THAT is how our nation is supposed to conduct military and foreign affairs(the WILL OF THE PEOPLE). Bottom line was this: the US citizenry has no interest in ground wars there, or any real expenditure. Now, sadly, the US public gets all worked up when these loons behead folks dumb enough to go over there and get captured. Then, the winds of politics change. I note that, to date, there is no Congressional action to either support or deny support for the efforts against ISIS. That is NOT how our system is supposed to operate, so if Obama is to be slammed for 'political' choices, what does that say about Congress, thus far hiding under the table and hoping that the elections get done with before they have to vote?
Z makes very good points that every American should consider. Why aren't Canadians being threatened or targetted like the US? Maybe, just maybe, it's because Canada doesn't spend its resources running around the planet trying to 'fix' things.

Journalists are as neutral as Canadians. I don't think I'd be getting too cocky if I was a Canadian.

Will Robinson wrote:Journalists are as neutral as Canadians. I don't think I'd be getting too cocky if I was a Canadian.

boy, talk about avoiding reality!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Journalists are as neutral as Canadians. I don't think I'd be getting too cocky if I was a Canadian.

boy, talk about avoiding reality!

Yes, it was. That is, the silly unrealistic expectation that Canadians aren't going to ever be the targets of a group like ISIS because the Canadian brand of meddling is acceptable.
It was quite unrealistic to suggest that which you did.

Kind of like our President suggesting that because his half sister is muslim and he had spent time with them that the day he became President the US would be in less danger from radicals. An equally unrealistic view of reality.

for what it's worth, Will, there hasn't been one attack from outside the nation upon our soil during Obama's watch. Not that his relatives have a damn thing to do with that, but you telling the same overblown, out-of-context story that we've taken apart before doesn't prove much, either.

You live in a fantasy land. You never took apart the "story".
You disappeared from the thread when I posted the link to the audio the first time and the second time it came up and you tried this same crap about his comments somehow not meaning what he obviously was trying to get the listeners to infer was just as absent of substance as your presence was after the first time I linked it.

Hell, when you listen to it you hear the interviewer wa surprised and even tried to help him walk back the stupid naive assertion but he insisted on driving it home.

As I recall that time you tried to 'take it apart' you played some silly semantic game about 'muslims don't mean all muslims' or something along those lines.
It is painfully obvious he had, and still has, a flawed view of the world outside the bubble he lives in... his community agitator credentials don't work in it worth a damn....he cant play the 'muslim card' the way he plays the race card here. The Muslims in the world are not beholding to his Party's machinations.

Will Robinson wrote:Journalists are as neutral as Canadians. I don't think I'd be getting too cocky if I was a Canadian.

PLEASE tell me you're joking.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Journalists are as neutral as Canadians. I don't think I'd be getting too cocky if I was a Canadian.

PLEASE tell me you're joking.

Which general category of those two peoples do you think is more neutral in the eyes of an islamic radical? And explain how relative to the radicals beliefs.

United States operates under the auspices of NATO. Canada is a member of NATO. Therefore, Canada equally with the United States bears the burden of all the costs and responsibility for all war crimes USA. Even if Canada is not directly involved in the wars, organized by the United States, Canada, in any case, is complicit in these crimes.

callmeslick wrote:for what it's worth, Will, there hasn't been one attack from outside the nation upon our soil during Obama's watch. Not that his relatives have a damn thing to do with that, but you telling the same overblown, out-of-context story that we've taken apart before doesn't prove much, either.

define "outside our nation"

Because it would seem to me that the tsarniev <sp> brothers, born outside our nation, trained outside our nation. Would possibly qualify as an attack from outside our nation.

Am I the only one that can see the clear distinction between “meddling” and taking on a group of freakazoids?

If you can't see the relationship between meddling and the formation of new enemies, then you might as well find a different conversation. Whether or not we feel our actions our justified throughout the world, there are untold numbers of people that do not. Add to that the idea that Islam can be an extremely violent religion, and that some of those people believe every word, and you have a powder keg next to a fire. Eventually it's going to explode.

Think of this. Who gave Saddam the chemical weapons he used on his own people? Who gave arms and built facilities for the Afghans? America is terrible at picking sides. Do you really believe they hate us for our freedoms? Or is it because they all know someone that was killed by America's primary weapon of peaceful influence?

Nothing justifies beheading a journalist. Some of those people live like it's the fifth century, but simply carpet bombing area after area is not going to get us anywhere. Just saying.

Freakazoids or no, I believe the American government is in the practice of meddling--however they try to justify it--in order to gain something from the area (or just control the outcome, since there seem to be some people who believe we should).

Z wrote:Nothing justifies beheading a journalist. Some of those people live like it's the fifth century, but simply carpet bombing area after area is not going to get us anywhere. Just saying.

Killing people who murder Americans is the responsibility/mandate of our government, but carpet bombing in a country we are not at war with is making far too bold, at best--it needs to be their government's responsibility to police the treatment of our citizens on their soil in the interest of governmental solvency and international relations, and our government's only role is to hold them to that responsibility. When we step in and take on their role, we are declaring their government insolvent and undermining it instead of holding it to a higher standard and strengthening it.
This administration's main failing in the middle-east is that the words they claims will make a difference, with the people they claims we ought to be speaking to, mean absolutely nothing if we don't correct our actions. We don't need to hold peace talks with freakazoids--our actions would speak loud and clear if they were right, and if they still wanted to be murderous after we set our house in order we would find occasion to deal with them.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:for what it's worth, Will, there hasn't been one attack from outside the nation upon our soil during Obama's watch. Not that his relatives have a damn thing to do with that, but you telling the same overblown, out-of-context story that we've taken apart before doesn't prove much, either.

define "outside our nation"

Because it would seem to me that the tsarniev <sp> brothers, born outside our nation, trained outside our nation. Would possibly qualify as an attack from outside our nation.

I thought about that, but everything that has come out suggests that they hatched their plot here, and had no known outside support for it, and definitely no outside influence upon the planning.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Freakazoids or no, I believe the American government is in the practice of meddling--however they try to justify it--in order to gain something from the area (or just control the outcome, since there seem to be some people who believe we should).

The definition of “meddling” involves “unwanted” or “without permission” You seem to have evolved the definition to some degree.

I guess using your definition, we should stop our “meddling” in west Africa and bring our health care workers home.

No, I haven't evolved the definition--when I say, "there seem to be some people who believe we should", I'm refering to people in our own government.

This is a very unique situation where US "meddling" is invited. Our actions in Iraq will be at their request and it has some support of regional players. Syria is a different matter of course. While I generally take a non-interventionist stance I will say that as long as the US is working together with these countries to solve problems I can support it. I'm am optimistic that this whole situation could be a bit of a wakeup call for many Muslims who look at the IS with disgust and say "That is not my Isalm." It could be the beginning of a major cultural shift where this interpretation of Islam is condemned at large. Hopefully.

Edit: words. Typing too fast.

Extremist US democracy differs from Muslim extremism only by the amount of money and weapons.

Ya we cut of peoples heads all the time. In fact we have a prime time reality show based on it.
We call it Survivor Islam

its based off the Russian occupation of eastern europe during the cold war

vision wrote:This is a very unique situation where US "meddling" is invited. Our actions in Iraq will be at their request and it has some support of regional players. ....

I think you are rationalizing. It is not unique at all.
We have been invited by Israel to help them and had some marginal support from other players...Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

And that I imagine you have qualified as 'severe meddling'

In all instances anyone from the outside giving any kind of assistance is simply picking sides between warring tribes/religions as far as they are concerned. Your rationalizing doesn't excuse anything just as any done by anyone else who picked a side in the conflict also has no excuse. Half of them will call you enemy no matter what you tell yourself.

Will Robinson wrote:And that I imagine you have qualified as 'severe meddling'

Thanks for imagining my viewpoints. Try backing it up with something next time.

Will Robinson wrote:Half of them will call you enemy no matter what you tell yourself.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Is it directed toward me? I never said anything about us being called an enemy or savior. Are you imagining my thoughts again?

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And that I imagine you have qualified as 'severe meddling'

Thanks for imagining my viewpoints. Try backing it up with something next time.

So we are to believe you don't blame any of the unrest in the middle east on U.S. support for Israel?
You have never pointed to that as a cause or justification for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, al Queda, ISIS, etc. terrorizing people?

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Half of them will call you enemy no matter what you tell yourself.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Is it directed toward me? I never said anything about us being called an enemy or savior. Are you imagining my thoughts again?

I was speaking generically. You, Bush, Anwar Sadat, etc. it doesn't matter who you are or why you think you have a justified motive for 'meddling' you become an enemy all the same.

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Journalists are as neutral as Canadians. I don't think I'd be getting too cocky if I was a Canadian.

PLEASE tell me you're joking.

Which general category of those two peoples do you think is more neutral in the eyes of an islamic radical? And explain how relative to the radicals beliefs.

Well, you certainly don't see any Canadians being beheaded, do you? And I certainly don't see any radicals chanting 'death to Canada' either.

and as for the second part of the question, can you rephrase? it doesn't make any sense.