[video=youtube_share;BOM1MBt9-R4]http://youtu.be/BOM1MBt9-R4[/video] It's not the administration pushing for "boots on the ground". It's CNN and co.
Right? I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully they don't annex most of the Middle East before we so something substantial to stop them. Reich/Caliphate.... Same thing.
How do they figure the US cannot fight house to house effectively? I seem to remember kicking insurgent ass doing just that a few years back. Of course, dropping a JDAM on the house is much more effective.
I have not been for a military incursion of another country in twentyfive years, but in this instance I am. ISIS has to go I dont care if we do it, Iran does it, or the Illuminati does it as long as those guys go. (Illuminati was a joke by the way)
Ja, that's the program. We have psychos from the State Dept. talking about how "good" we are at killing and capturing these "terrorists," and of course saying flat out that we need to KILL, KILL, KILL! them all. Every negative thing they do is blown up in the media accordingly. ISIS is hardly the first or the last organisation to commit atrocities, but they are getting special State Dept. & media attention none the less. Again, there is a program at work here. - - - Updated - - - Why? Wait, don't answer that. I know: Because the media has brainwashed you into this position. All they have to do is focus on this group long enough and you'll hate them with every fibre of your being. You are being manipulated.
Nope not it at all the reason is I have read their magazine. The one ISIS promotes and writes, by the third edition I had no doubt about their intentions or their beliefs. If any group could be called evil in this world it is them. I dare you to read those magazines and look at their pictures that they proudly include and not say to us all that they have to go. I was sickened and saddened by it and I cannot believe that any civilised man would not be outraged by what they themselves have celebrated and advertised. You can get to them from this article, go ahead read them then come back to us. http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq
Any country who participates in the international economic system should be clamoring for war against Daish, AQ, and all like them. This doesn't sound familiar at all; it is unprecedented. Subnational groups have seized territorial control over wide swaths of several sovereign states, almost simultaneously. Extremists run northern Iraq and much of Syria, and in Syria they still have a chance to topple the govt. They have toppled the Yemen govt. Mali. They are giving the Libyan govt a run for their money. Northern Pakistan. Afghanistan. Northeastern Nigeria. When has this happened in history? What do you think these extremists are going to do when they control the oil of more and more countries? Hint, check out how that Libyan oil production is coming along since Benghazi. Or check out Syria or Iraq's oil production. What are the consequences on the international economic system if these guys keep succeeding in toppling govts and stopping oil production (or sending it all to China and Russia)? Don't many countries completely rely on the ME for oil? Again, people should be clamoring for war against these guys. Ceding control of a major part of the international economic system to bunch of zealot bandits is unacceptable.
Attacking people like these - offensively rather than defensively, no less - will only strengthen their resolve. They're fanatics. Meanwhile, because our media is completely biased, we have heard very little about what our allies in Saudi Arabia have been up to, what with beheading and crucifying people for non-crimes and all. Meanwhile, how much have we heard about Rwanda and the Central African Public? http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/02/13/3270671/central-african-republic-rwanda-yugoslavia/ It’s difficult to blame the international community for the prolific number of comparisons between the current crisis in the Central African Republic and the Rwandan genocide. There are parallels to be sure, and the “never again” mentality of activists and governments alike has drawn from the mythos surrounding the failure to act in Rwanda for two decades now. But we’re looking to the wrong crisis of the 1990s in doing so. What’s going on in the Central African Republic is not akin to genocide as what occurred in Rwanda. A more accurate comparison at this point would be to the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. At present, it’s difficult to overstate the wanton violence being captured on the streets of the capital city, Bangui, and other areas around the Central African Republic. Last week, reporters were witnesses as an army ceremony turned into a lynching. The body of the man — accused of being a former member of the rebel forces that deposed the government almost a year ago — was set ablaze after being hacked apart. Peacekeepers from the African Union nearby did not step in to intervene, leaving the man to his fate. Since fall of last year, the warning bells have sounded, detailing the worst-case scenario in the aftermath of the marauding rebels and the subsequent rise of the neighborhood militias designed to combat them. “We are seeing armed groups killing people under the guise of their religion and my feeling is that this will end with Christian communities, Muslim communities killing each other,” U.N. special advisor on the prevention of genocide Adama Dieng told reporters in late October. “If we don’t act now and decisively I will not exclude the possibility of a genocide occurring in the Central African Republic.” ... Why is 0bama so excited about ISIS and their publicity stunts, but apparently not overly concerned with the same sort of thing going on over on his home continent? A: politics and agendas. He follows a script, as do our media. A script from Langley or elsewhere in the bowels of this nation's, this western world's, real authority, the people behind the screen.
What they want and what they accomplish are hardly the same thing. Plus, you're grouping everyone together into horribly simplistic groupings. That's fallacy #1 that supports warfare, this grouping and labeling of people into this camp or that. Like with the Germans in WWII - did the civilians of Dresden deserve to be firebombed over what their government and military were attempting to do? I think not, but that's a warcrime that was committed by the "good guys" who won the war in the end, so it turns out it wasn't a warcrime after all. Same for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of course, and all those who have suffered since thanks to radiation poisoning and so on. War is state-sponsored murder and genocide, and all who participate in it are guilty of such.
Why are so many so intent on going to war with ISIS? Because they pose a true threat to US national security, or because they are just really nasty? There are a lot of really nasty people in the world, are we getting back into the "nation building" thing and being the world policeman again? Lets say we go to war against ISIS, we defeat them.....then what? We try to import democracy and repeat the Iraq story? Are we going to stay in Iraq for 50 years, or are we just going to hang around until the American people get tired or until a politician decides America doesn't belong there, and then walk away wasting 1,000's of Amercain soldiers lives and letting Iraq (and Syria this time) return to the same hell hole it is today? Its not as if these countries in the region are very "nice" to begin with, and they don't seem particularly interested in fighting against ISIS themselves. You would think that if ISIS was such a threat, then these regional countries would be going to war. If they aren't so concerned, why is the US? And why the war drums in the US? Who benefits? Is this just more "market building" by the defense industry, is this just an excuse for further increases in the anti-terror bureaucracy, does DC need a distraction from domestic issues (war is the classic out for governments in domestic trouble), is obama just pissed at having his attempt at war with Syria (the red line incident) revoked and wants another go at it? Just wondering if people have really thought this through.........
And with another thought, do we really want to engage in such a war with the current Commander in Chief, a man who has shown incompetence in every area of foreign affairs he has dealt in, who is routinely overmatched by other foreign leaders, who has based his entire term in office on treating terrorists as just misunderstood people who are victims of their own poor economics, a man who cannot even say the words "Islamic" and "extremist"? In fact, a man who seems more interested in avoiding domestic "islamophobia" than in accurately identifying the enemy and his motives. A man a man who cannot even say the words "Islamic" and "extremist" and who goes to great lengths to paint ISIS in as favorable light as possible for fear of putting a blemish on Islam.
I think it's vital to everyones' understanding about this whole issue to read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Most important in the development of an educated opinion about and response to the issue is to consider the motives of ISIS. So much of what I see in discussions on this forum and in other places is playing right into their hands. Remember, we can kill the current practitioners, but what we are dealing with is the ideology. BTW- Thats' an amusing cooking tip from Battle 3, however, when one lights a BBQ with a page from the Koran, (or the entire Koran), one is obligated to cook pork.
Obama doesn't love America... but if he wanted to set the ME for internal war he's done a beautiful job. Think about it, he destabilised Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and Egypt, left it open for ISIS and now the remaining states have to deal with it and each other. From here it looks like a very good thing. Leave them to their own devices.
I think Nasrallah got it spot on what is the U.S policy in the Middle East. Why would the USA get rid of ISIL/ISIS/Daesh at this stage when ISIL is doing pretty good job on behalf of the USA and Israel? Whatever they did or do benefits both the USA and Israel. By the way, it is advisable to read the whole speech. A pretty accurate analysis of what's going on in the Middle East. That's why he is hated by Israel and the USA. He reads their game well. Bottom line, there are no moderate Sunni Muslims in Syria. As long as the USA provides arms and training for them, the USA is indirectly supporting ISIS. All those arms and trained fighters eventually end up with ISIS. Hezbollah Secretary General Nasrallah: "The game is over in Syria" Full speech delivered by Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during the memorial anniversary of the Resistance Leader Martyrs held in Sayyed Ashuhada Compound on February 16, 2015.
I beg to differ. The middle east doesn't need America to ruin it. The middle east is, and always has been, the cesspool of humanity. The middle east was ruined long before America was even a gleam in anyone's eye.
We (the U.S.) are already at war. They killed 3,000 innocent souls on 9/11. Even before that they bombed the WTC. They vow to fly the ISIS flag over the White House. They slaughter Christians by the thousands. In fact, anyone who does not believe as they do is considered lower than an animal to be slaughtered. (This especially includes you 'Kafir' atheists and gays) This fundamentalist branch of Islam, (ISIS, Al Queda, et al) is a cancer upon that religion and needs to be cut out. We can let it go until it metastasizes and spreads its vile poison on freedom of thought and blossoms into a world war or, we can do what needs to be done right now and declare war and mobilize our armed forces. I do agree with Obama that we need to somehow address the abject, dirt-poor conditions that some people in the ME live in that can be a catalyst for them in joining groups like ISIS and Al Queda however, we are powerless without a basis of military dominance.
That does, of course, need to be addressed eventually, but Obama struggles to see this complex issue in its entirety. Military dominance - as always - is absolutely essential before we even talk about living conditions within the ME - how can you engage in nation-building when you're struggling to contain a rebel group that blindly slaughters innocents and rapidly acquires territory? There are many reasons why civilians join ISIS, with current living conditions being just part of that. Also, just because civilians oppose ISIS doesn't mean they reserve kind sentiments for the West. I don't think anyone on either side supports an occupying force. Air strikes can only do so much, so a ground force is inevitable. Its going to get really ugly.
The problem with raging for war is that we'll inevitably regret it. We don't have the ability to wage a successful war against ISIS without the cooperation of that region. Oh sure we can push them over through raw military brute force but for them to stay down is a long lasting problem that can only be addressed by the people of that region following a long term plan to combat radical Islam. Remember the USA isn't looking for territory. We don't want to be there forever. Sooner or later those people will have to look after themselves, and up till now they've had a poor showing.
Americans increasing support for military action against ISIS has nothing to do with the media and instead has everyhing to do with ISIS' actions. See enough beheadings or people being burned alive and suppiort cant help but increase.
All true also consider that many are force to 'join' ISIS or die. That cannot be thwarted without a strong military presence now because many of the central governments in that area are weak and incapable of protecting the people.
