ISIS beheads American Journo

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

That right and there is no reason to put ourselves in the middle of that fight. The first thing I learned as bartender straight out of college was never to get in the middle of a fight. They will both turn on you. It is the same in the Middle East.

They are getting airstrikes from Arabs, we can welcome this along with the back flush that is sure to come from the Kingdom. We see now that there a cost to those bows received. The ISIS threat is greater to Saudi Arabia than anyone else, it is time they get into the mix. Iran is making threats again, so what else is new. If Iran does send, we will be forced to jump all in and decapitate them just as we did in Iraq. Our best play right now is better monitoring the exact location of key players for later elimination.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren
That right and there is no reason to put ourselves in the middle of that fight. The first thing I learned as bartender straight out of college was never to get in the middle of a fight. They will both turn on you. It is the same in the Middle East.

Did any of the bar fighters ever threaten to come your house?
And did they do it after some other ones really did show up earlier on?

[Robert Goren]

The point I am trying to make is that going back into in to Iraq to fight IRIS will not lessen a chance of terrorist attack in the US one iota.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

So as a militant terrorist group such as ISIS continues to grow and evolve, we are to ignore them regardless unless we're provoked. If not, at what stage do we recognize they've become too large and refined and may present a real threat?
We've become a baby-faced nation (particularly since Obama) that's content with allowing these groups a free hand as long as we're not attacked, ie 911.
The soviets took this position with the Nazis at the start of the war and wow did they suffer for it. This isn't a lot different, really.

I understand your perspective. It gets tricky for someone like me.

I would say I don't trust some members of the private sector with various economic or political agendas and huge influence on policy to make those calls. I think we need to err on the side of passiveness unless we or someone with a similar foreign policy is provoked/attacked. But I could see a point where it's even obvious to people like me that we have to do something.

I just hate making that leap because I know all the hyper aggressive nitwits like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Cheney etc... will take us on a path of blood, anger, hate, and endless war and I know Wall St will use government to rape and pillage any country it can get its claws into.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

The point I am trying to make is that going back into in to Iraq to fight IRIS will not lessen a chance of terrorist attack in the US one iota.

The Generals do not agree with you.
NOT taking care of it there will increase the odds.
Doesn't have to be our boots, but boots are needed.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Tom

The Generals do not agree with you.
NOT taking care of it there will increase the odds.
Doesn't have to be our boots, but boots are needed.

The Iraqi army is 250,000 strong.
The ISIS terrorists number between 10,000 to 15,000.
With U.S. air support they should be very able to mop the floor with ISIS in Iraq.
In Syria, let Bashar al-Assad's troops fight them for now.
(Remember - killing ISIS in Syria equates to helping al-Assad and he's been responsible for murdering over 100,000 citizens himself.
The only intervention in Syria that might be considered is to vaporize their supply and training bases there.)

Also, Arabia, Egypt, and Iran see these blood thirsty savages as a major threat to them as well.
This is an Arab civil war between different Muslim factions.
At this time, the only boots on the ground should be Muslim's.
If in the unlikely event that these maniacs are able to establish a "Caliphate" under their own flag, and they become a greater threat to the Western World, then at least we'll know exactly where they are to be able to send them to kingdom come.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Tom

The Generals do not agree with you.
NOT taking care of it there will increase the odds.
Doesn't have to be our boots, but boots are needed.

The Generals told Bush that they could take Iraq in a few months in 2002. They were right, they did. But fighting did not stop. Controlling a piece of ground does not mean stopping the fighting. ISIS will not lay down like the NAZIs did in WWII after we took physical control of Germany. That is the part you don't get. ISIS or whatever the current name is for radical Islam is not going to go way because we send a bunch of troop into Iraq. We could kill 15,000 members of ISIS and another 30,000 or more would take their place. As much as I wish that was not true, I am afraid it is.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

The Generals told Bush that they could take Iraq in a few months in 2002. They were right, they did. But fighting did not stop. Controlling a piece of ground does not mean stopping the fighting. ISIS will not lay down like the NAZIs did in WWII after we took physical control of Germany. That is the part you don't get. ISIS or whatever the current name is for radical Islam is not going to go way because we send a bunch of troop into Iraq. We could kill 15,000 members of ISIS and another 30,000 or more would take their place. As much as I wish that was not true, I am afraid it is.

And again, the only answer to your proposed scenario is that WE ALL (everyone in the world), convert to Islam. That's the only way, ACCORDING TO YOU and YOUR OWN WORDS, to make the radical threats go away.

ACCORDING TO YOU, nothing will stop them. We kill 15,000 of them, ACCORDING TO YOU, and another 30,000 take their place. WHY IS THAT? Because THEY WON'T STOP UNTIL THE WORLD IS CONVERTED TO ISLAM.

So what don't you get? Why don't you agree with my statement?

If you want peace with them, the only way to do that is to convert as they demand.

So let's all convert. That way, the world will be be one giant love-fest, right Robert?

Who's with me?

[Tom]

In preparation, I looked up what our Arabic names would be.

Me, Badr Salah
PA (Mike) Kardal Muhtadi
Robert, Majdy Dabir

[dartman51]

The following is from an e-mail I received from a friend, that does a good job of explaining the Muslim community.


MUSLIMS ARE NOT HAPPY
They're not happy in Gaza ...
They're not happy in Egypt ...
They're not happy in Libya ...
They're not happy in Morocco ...
They're not happy in Iran ...
They're not happy in Iraq ...
They're not happy in Yemen ..
They're not happy in Afghanistan ...
They're not happy in Pakistan ...
They're not happy in Syria ...
They're not happy in Lebanon ...
They're not happy in Bharhain...
They're not happy in Tunesia...

SO, WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY?

They're happy in Australia ...
They're happy in Canada ..
They're happy in England ..
They're happy in France ..
They're happy in Italy ..
They're happy in Germany ..
They're happy in Sweden ..
They're happy in the USA ..
They're happy in Norway ..
They're happy in Holland ..
They're happy in Denmark ..
They're happy in Switzerland...
They're happy in Belgium...
They're happy in Spain...

Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is!

AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?

Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE "HAPPY IN!"

AND THEN........ They want to change those countries to be like....

(catch this now)
THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

Is this batshit crazy or what ???????????????

[Tom]

Is this batshit crazy or what ???????????????

Yes....it is.

[davew]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

And again, the only answer to your proposed scenario is that WE ALL (everyone in the world), convert to Islam. That's the only way, ACCORDING TO YOU and YOUR OWN WORDS, to make the radical threats go away.

ACCORDING TO YOU, nothing will stop them. We kill 15,000 of them, ACCORDING TO YOU, and another 30,000 take their place. WHY IS THAT? Because THEY WON'T STOP UNTIL THE WORLD IS CONVERTED TO ISLAM.

So what don't you get? Why don't you agree with my statement?

If you want peace with them, the only way to do that is to convert as they demand.

So let's all convert. That way, the world will be be one giant love-fest, right Robert?

Who's with me?

me, do you have a copy of Islam for dummies?

[Clocker]

Obama admitted at his press conference yesterday that he had no strategy for dealing with ISIS. The liberal media immediately went into full melt-down mode.

Liberal commentators from The New York Times and The Washington Post expressed alarm over President Obama’s admission that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to confront ISIS, with Times columnist Nicolas Kristof saying “he’s got a problem.”

On Friday, liberal guests on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” took their turns savaging the president’s poor messaging at a press conference on the ultra-violent Islamist group the day before.

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson claimed that the “urgency” of the threat expressed by other White House officials “contrasted with what the president said — or didn’t say.”

“I just want to be clear on that fundamental question,” he said. “Not, you know, when the planes are going to start bombing Aleppo or whatever, not tactical movements. But what’s our end here?”

New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof got in on the action too. “I’ve generally been a fan of President Obama’s foreign policy,” Kristof noted. “So when I look at a speech and press conference and say, ‘There’s nothing there’ — either vis a vis Ukraine or vis a vis Syria — then he’s got a problem.”

Full story.

[rastajenk]

An amazing moment in Presidential history. Maybe even a defining one, but not in a good way.

[Marshall Bennett]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Obama admitted at his press conference yesterday that he had no strategy for dealing with ISIS.

He as well as telegraphed it to the enemy that we are unprepared.
A clear-cut classic case of aiding the enemy which could easily be construed as an act of treason. Impeachment is almost too good for the worthless SOB.
If we're attacked in the immediate future he should be held accountable for any casualties and stand trial. In a perfect world he'd been arrested following his speech and never see the light of day again.
What a fkn jerk !!