Obama's Speech on ISIS: Live Blog and Reactions

Update: The White House just issued this Fact Statement on its plan to fight ISIS. DOD Secretary Chuck Hagel released this (non-reassuring) statement.

Update: Why Obama's Strategy Has No Chance of Success. See also, Juan Cole.

Update: I think this was a mostly emotional speech. I also think it was risky to be so insulting to ISIS, when they are still holding so many Western hostages, including a female American aid worker.

I disagree with Obama that our years of efforts have been successful in Yemen and Somalia. We took out a few leaders, so what? They just appoint new ones. (It's no different than our ineffective approach to the drug cartels.) AQAP and al-Shabbab have not been diminished. The state of affairs in Yemen and Somalia ranges from unstable to chaotic. Al Qaida central just opened a new branch in the Indian sub-continent.

Obama's strategy has no timeline, he gave no indication of what would be considered a "success" so we would have an end point. I don't even think he referenced the Peshmerga or Turkey as a coalition partner. He said we would work to shut off the point of entry for recruits, but how, if Turkey isn't part of the effort? [More...]

He didn't mention the Chechen fighters or leaders. How long will it take to re-train and recruit new Iraqi soldiers? I don't think the Iraqi armed forces and Syrian rebels are any match for ISIS. The Syrian rebels have been in decline. They don't like ISIS because ISIS isn't helping them, but they are really interested in defeating Assad, not fighting ISIS.

Did Obama really outline a strategy for defeating ISIS? I'm not sure he even presented one to contain them. All we really got was "Back to Iraq" and prepare for an indefinite drain on our military and financial resources.

Last note for now: Another thing he didn't mention, but we all can count on, is increased surveillance of our communications, while the Government seeks to ferret out those who might leave here to join ISIS.

Original Post

Here's a thread for President Obama's Speech on ISIS, which starts now.

Update: There will be no American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. He doesn't need Congressional approval but he seeks it to show we are unified.

Some of his comments seem designed to push ISIS' buttons. He says they are not Islamic and they are "certainly not a state." He called them rapists. He said they have no vision but the slaughter of those who stand in its way.

His threat: "If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven." [More..] He said there is no information that ISIS is a present threat to America. But he said "if left unchecked", they could be. He said ISIS leaders have threatened America. He said they have been joined by thousands of trained and battle hardened fighters who could pose a danger if they return to their home countries.

He said Iraq has now formed an inclusive Government. We will send an additional 475 armed forces members to Iraq but they won't be in a combat role. They will mostly train Iraqi forces.

We will ramp up our assistance to the Syrian opposition groups. "Train and Equip."

He said the mission will take time and there are risks, especially to service men and women.

Bottom line: The mission has changed. It is no longer limited to protecting our personnel and facilities and humanitarian efforts. It is expanding to confront ISIS, wherever they may be, including Syria.

Obama finished with a curious switch to what sounded like a campaign speech, lauding our economic recovery. That was a disconnect for me, it was unnecessary, off topic and after talking about the "bipartisan" support for fighting ISIS, sounded blatantly partisan.

Now we will see how ISIS reacts. I suspect we'll see "Message Number Three" to Obama within days, if not tomorrow.

< Australia Says Obama Asked It to Send Special Forces to Iraq | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Reacts? This is Orwellian (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CityLife on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 09:15:20 PM EST
    We really should remember that Obama already bombed ISIS
    And that ISIS reacted with threats: "The rhetoric-filled message promises retribution for American airstrikes in Iraq and mentions the terrorists' attempts to trade Foley for American-held jihadists or for a ransom." and then the beheadings:  "In a horrifying act of revenge for U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq, militants with the Islamic State extremist group have beheaded Foley."
     The media has done a very good of confusing the sequence of events.

    The first bombings (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:29:25 AM EST
    Were to keep a large group of people from being massacred and protect a very import and dangerous site.  A massive dam.

    So let's not pretend we just went over to drop some bombs because we were bored.  


    That said (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:49:25 AM EST
    I have not seem cable news this happy in a long time.

    Speech to nowhere (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Slado on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 10:21:47 PM EST
    Obama isn't far off from his JV comments.  

    Like Yemen?   First of all most Americans probably don't even understand the reference and for the ones that do they quickly realize this comparison is crazy.

    ISIS is nothing like Yemen.

    This president continues to see things how he wishes they were and as Jeralyn says he laid out no endgame.   Just some mishmash about why he should drop a ton of bombs and kill lots of people.

    Nothing is getting resolved and this president will hand this mess over to the next one.


    what, in your opinion (none / 0) (#7)
    by ZtoA on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 10:38:09 PM EST
    should his, or 'the' "endgame" be? Is there such a thing as an "endgame" at this point in time?- or with these 'players'? What do you think a political leader should offer as and "endgame" at this point in time?

    This is an actual question. What speech from a political leader would you have been satisfied with tonite?


    the endgame should have been (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 11:16:53 PM EST
    the cessation of strikes when they were no longer needed for humanitarian reasons. All else is mission creep. This should not be our war. But we have now made ISIS our problem, and that's unfortunate because of course there will now be no endgame, it will be perpetual. All that's missing is an annex to Guantanamo, but that's probably coming.

    I don't think the humanitarian mission (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    Is finished yet

    ISIS has groups of women and so sadly, very young girls, that they are keeping imprisoned and raping every day.  Some of the young girls have lost the ability to even speak now.

    As a woman, the humanitarian mission isn't over for me.


    Amen (none / 0) (#45)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    You betcha (none / 0) (#26)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:57:41 AM EST

    Obama says ISIL is not a state and not Islamic.  That would be funny if not so divorced from reality.  

    Not Islamic!  Obama trots out the old "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

    As to a state, they have an army, collect taxes, control territory, and establish laws and courts among other attributes of a state.  It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.  


    ISIS is Islamic the same way the people (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 08:13:57 AM EST
    who plant bombs at abortion clinics or demand a Biblically-based government in this country are Christian.

    ISIS believes it is Islamic (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 10:00:24 AM EST

    ISIS believes it is Islamic.  The people it recruits believe if is Islamic.  The horrors they commit are done in the name of Islam.  That it does not meet Obama's concept (or Bush's or anyone elses for that matter) of what is "Islamic" is quite irrelevant.

    This an administration that can't admit that the Fort Hood shooting was religiously motivated.  This even though the shooter was in communication with an Imam (later bombed as a terrorist) that counseled killing his fellow soldiers and now wants to be a citizen of ISIS.


    Probably because ... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    An investigation conducted by the FBI concluded that his emails with the late Imam Anwar al-Awlaki were related to his authorized professional research and that he was not a threat.
    From December 2008 on, Hasan sent Awlaki as many as 20 e-mail messages, but a counter-terrorism specialist who reviewed the emails at the time considered that "they were consistent with authorized research Major Hasan was conducting."


    They prefer to base their conclusions on facts and evidence, rather then speculation.

    Weird, huh?


    People who kill (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 11:22:01 AM EST
    Abortion doctors think they are Christians.

    Yeah, almost the same (3.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:17:08 PM EST

    The lone nut case or two on one hand and an ideology strong enough to draw numerous recruits from around the world ready to die (not just kill) for what they feel is their religion.  

    Another glaring difference is that you will be hard pressed to find a Christian church that supports clinic bombing in any way.  Radical mosques on the other hand appear to be involved in both recruitment and cheerleading.


    The other reason the Right can't (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:55:57 PM EST
    abide any sort of "moral equivalencies" is that they couldn't have gotten anyone elected to head the department of animal control in the last few decades without the Falwells, Ralph Reeds, John Hagees and Robertsons whipping their respective flocks into pro-GOP frenzy.  

    Reed, who's hardly a kooky cult leader with a handful of followers, has stated that he wants return to Old Testament Law.  


    I guess (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 06:53:04 PM EST
    you missed the documentary Jesus Camp. Yes, there are organizations that do the same thing here in America sad to say. Churches that want to train the children to be just like the Palestinian children who are willing to blow themselves up for their faith.

    Ludicrous (none / 0) (#116)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    Do Christians openly advocate for the death of non believers?  

    Ibrahim was condemned to die by hanging after she declined to profess she is a Muslim, the religion of her father. Sharia law considers her a Muslim and does not recognize her marriage to a Christian. She is unlikely to change her mind despite giving birth in prison, says her husband Daniel Wani, who also is a Christian.

    Do Christian openly advocate for the death of homosexuals?  

    As the debate on whether to decriminalize homosexuality in Malawi or not rages on, Muslim Association of Malawi (MAM) has suggested the need to revise the penalty of those found guilty of homosexuality to be condemned to death.

    Both examples are not ISIS or Al Quada.  We're talking about the Islamic governments of entire countries that make leaving the faith or being gay a crime.   A crime possibly punished by death.

    Stop the PC madness.

    To quote Bill Maher..."That's liberal BullS$t"


    Have you been paying attention (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:11:17 PM EST
    To Russia?

    Moscow Forum Attended By American Activists Ends With Call For More 'Gay Propaganda' Bans

    They haven't gotten around to officially advocating death for gays but that is exactly the practical result of the policies.  People are dying.


    Big difference (none / 0) (#163)
    by Slado on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    Putin is not doing it in the name of Jesus.

    the Muslim countries are doing so based on their interpretation of the Koran.

    It's not a fair comparison.


    Of course he is (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 06:01:05 PM EST
    Every bit as much as anyone - which is to say in both cases it's an excuse to act in long held fears and prejudices.
    There are more admonitions about eating shellfish in the bible than about homosexuality.  I suspect it's the same in the Kuran

    Putin has launched a campaign to shore up support in the Russian "heartland," that mythical place far from the bustling streets of Moscow where headscarved peasants embrace core Russian concepts that don't actually exist anymore.

    In the absence of any ideology -- any core belief to tie together the Russian state and nation -- the easiest way to fill the vacuum has been by turning to the Russian Orthodox Church, a deeply corrupt, reactionary, and Kremlin-loving institution...

    The second easiest thing has been to demonize the "Other," creating an internal enemy for everyone to fear.... Demonizing gays allows Putin to tell the "heartland": I will protect you and your "traditional" families; you are the real Russia....

    Then there is this (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    The report details the bizarre interactions a U.S. Army medic and her colleagues had with Afghan men in the southern province of Kandahar.

    In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually -- "because they were not homosexuals."

    Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."

    The group of interpreters who had contracted gonorrhea joked in the camp that they actually got the disease by "mixing green and black tea." But since they refused to heed the medics' warnings, many of them re-contracted the disease after receiving treatment.

    The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant.

    The report said: "When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.'"

    The Pashtuns get all the press but the practice is not unique to them.  Bacha Bazi has a long history in the Middle East


    I only mention this (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 06:59:54 PM EST
    To the point that their relationship with same sex relationships is if anything even more confused and conflicted than our own.

    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:15:11 PM EST
    And there is Uganda

    The bill, introduced first in 2009, originally included a death penalty clause for some homosexual acts. It was briefly shelved when Britain and other European nations threatened to withdraw aid to Uganda, which relies on millions of dollars from the international community.

    Being guided and funded by right wing American Christians.

    My niece is there right now.


    One thing (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:39:35 PM EST
    And this is opinion, of the 10 or so countries where  homosexuality can carry the death penalty 8 or 9 are Arab countries.  Most with oil wealth.  And the ones with less wealth can rely on the rich ones fir support.  The only reason there are not more christian countries on the list is that, as was the case in Uganda, economic pressure can be brought to force them toward more civility.  

    Not a fair comparison (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    Priests, pastors and nuns do not run schools to indoctrinate young Christians in an ideology that leads to suicide bombings and murder.

    Yes there are some kooky Christians but this tired comparison and moral equivalency is as divorced from reality as Obama's statement.

    Islam has a problem and these people call themselves the "Islamic State...".   They are funded by other Muslims, sheltered by Muslims and get their ideology from Muslim religious leaders who then go on Western TV and act like nothing they are doing is wrong.

    Muslim Cleric calls for Islamic State in England

    It's a silly comparison in every way and people need to stop making it.

    Not all Muslims are bad.  Islam in and of itself is not bad but far too many Muslims are practicing a brand of Islam that is perverse and must be confronted.   Not acknowledging as much and hiding behind PC rhetoric as the president did last night is not a good start.

    What is even weirder is our president telling Muslims what their religion is about.  Talk about condescending PC BS.


    Try reading the comment again (none / 0) (#37)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    I'm saying that ISIS saying they're Islamic is like the abortion bombers and Dominionists are representative of Christianity.

    Do try to pay attention, slado.


    And I'm saying (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    It's a terrible comparison.

    ISIS is not a group that is supported only by itself.  It get's moral, religious and even financial support from many other Muslims, clerics and leaders.

    That is the real problem with radical Islam.  The fact that it is not an isolated bunch of kooks.   Too many of these groups get support or are ignored by what we'd normally consider actual or moderate Muslims.

    That's the big difference.  If they were a bunch of skin headed Nazi's you'd be making a better point but too many in the Muslim world agree with their ideology for your comparison to be true.

    They do not represent all of Islam, but they represent far to big a piece of it IMHO.

    Agree to disagree.


    You stated (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 11:48:36 AM EST

    ISIS is not a group that is supported only by itself.  It get's moral, religious and even financial support from many other Muslims, clerics and leaders.

    Eric Rudolph certainly got support from so-called "Chrisitans" when he was on the run after the bombing at the
    Olympics, but because he wasn't a Muslim that fact was overlooked, IMHO.


    Not even close (2.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    As a matter of scale your comparison is ridiculous.

    Bil Maher says it best.  

    Until the Western World is prepared to really acknowledge the problems with radical Islam we're doomed to continued failure.

    The thinking that this strand of Islam is isolated and not part of a bigger problem within Islam dooms us to failure because you can't possibly stamp out an ideology without defeating it on all levels.    Stomp it out in one place and it quickly pops up in another place, in the case of ISIS worse then what was there before.

    To truly defeat this ideology we must confront all the issues in Islam such as the awful treatment of women, gays and religious minorities throughout the Muslim world.   Any opinions about that or is it just like Christians?

    I have never understood the reflexive reaction of many "progressives" to compare Islam and Christianity.   I guess if you consider all religion dumb and don't know anything about either this comparison is easy even though it's intellectually lazy.

    If that is not the case and you do know the difference then you're just choosing to equate the too because you detest the right and their "religion" (even though 24% of Evangelicals are democrats) so much you don't care how ridiculous the comparison is.


    Here's the (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 06:56:46 PM EST
    problem though how do you stamp out a religion? Lord knows it has been tried by many people in history and always failed. Islam was attempted to be stamped out by the crusades. Judiasm by Hitler. The list goes on and on and it's full of failures.  Even the Romans tried to stamp out Christianity and that did not work out so well either.

    Don't forget (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 06:58:52 AM EST
    National Socialists and International Socialists also tried.

    We can't stomp out religion (none / 0) (#119)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 05:02:16 PM EST
    But as we've done in our Western democracies we must demand these countries adopt freedoms for minorities, women and gays.

    Here in the US the vast majority of Americans are religious but the vast majority of Americans believe people have the right to worship who they want.

    That is not the case in the majority of Islamic countries.   In these countries unless your male and heterosexual your life pretty much sucks.

    Check out this from the Washington Post.  

    Kind of sucks to be gay in that part of the world.  

    All the countries where it is punishable by death to be homosexual are Islamic.    Not talking about ISIS here.  We're talking about the governments of 10 countries where being gay is a crime punishable by death.

    How do we stop this?  By shouting from the rooftops that not only is this happening but it's wrong.   By not pretending that all religions are the same and demanding that countries we have diplomatic relationships with treat all their citizens with fair and equal rights.

    IMHO the west has turned a blind eye to what it's like for minorities, women and gays in these countries.   We never hear about it and our leaders and diplomats never talk about it.

    It's shameful to me.  How are these countries allowed to function at the UN and vote on security and human rights resolutions?   How do we have diplomatic and military relationships with these cesspools of culture?   It boggles my mind.


    This is only technically correct (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    All the countries where it is punishable by death to be homosexual are Islamic.  

    And it's hair splitting.  Just because the country doesn't implies the death penalty doesn't mean thousands don't die.  Often at the hands of authorities and many more go unprotected.  
    To act like fatal homophobia is the wholly owned by Islam is disingenuous at best.

    Russia Not Only Country With Anti-Gay Laws
    Many other countries, from Iran to Cameroon, have harsh anti-gay laws.

    "What's happening in Russia is horrific; but to make it even worse, Russia is not alone," said Jessica Stern, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. "The sad truth is that many countries around the world have preceded Russia in singling out LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people."

    Obama spoke to that point last week in an appearance on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno, noting that Russia is not the only nation to legally discriminate against the LGBT community.

    Despite positive recent developments for LGBT people in the United States and other parts of the world, consensual same-sex relationships remain a crime in at least 76 countries, according to a United Nations report released in 2011.

    Just so we are clear (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:23:00 PM EST
    About western involvement in Uganda-

    American evangelicals such as Scott Lively and California pastor Rick Warren have a history of involvement in Uganda where they focus their missionary work. As a result, Warren and others have become influential in the shaping of public policy in Uganda, Nigeria and, to a lesser extent, Kenya.[22] Stephen Langa, the March 2009 workshop organiser, specifically cited an unlicensed conversion therapist named Richard A. Cohen, who states in Coming out Straight, that was given to Langa and other prominent Ugandans,

    Divisions emerged in the Anglican community however. In response to the Anglican Church of Canada intervention, the Bishop of Karamoja Diocese, Joseph Abura, wrote an editorial saying, "Ugandan Parliament, the watch dog of our laws, please go ahead and put the anti-Gay laws in place. It is then that we become truly accountable to our young and to this country, not to Canada or England. We are in charge!"[88] While the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty, its archbishop, Henry Luke Orombi, has not taken a position on the bill.[

    And the death penalty part may have been removed but I doubt if welcome wagon is the point here -

    In April 2009, a local Ugandan newspaper printed the names of suspected homosexuals, another printed tips on how to identify gays for the general public,[67] and, in October 2010, another named Rolling Stone (unaffiliated with the American Rolling Stone) published a story featuring a list of the nation's 100 "top" gays and lesbians with their photos and addresses. Next to the list was a yellow strip with the words "hang them". Julian Pepe, a program coordinator for Sexual Minorities Uganda, said people named in the story are living in fear and attacks have begun prompting many to abandon their jobs while some have relocated. The paper's editor justified the list to expose gays and lesbians so authorities could arrest them,

    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:25:08 PM EST
    It's fine to say Islam is fatally homophobic.  Even to say they are currently top of the list.  But don't say they have a corner on the market.

    And even more troubling things are getting much in many so called Christian countries.  The very progress we have made is sadly causing it.   There is no better example than Russia.


    Mordigam and Jim (2.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 01:21:04 AM EST
    stop the insults to each other. Mordigan, stop with your dog insults. I'm going to delete them when I see them.

    Why on Lycra fabrics (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 05:12:18 AM EST
    Goodbye, Y'all (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 05:20:58 AM EST
    If had been fun, but I'm going to stop commenting here from now.

    See you all in the funny papers.

    Hate to think we're going to bomb Syria (none / 0) (#1)
    by toggle on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    Because of a gaffe, but it looks that way.

    We are going to bomb (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 08:01:04 AM EST

    We are going to bomb the enemies of Assad (who he wanted to bomb only last year).  This must be truly brilliant foreign policy on display.

    Thanks for the summary (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 08:49:40 PM EST
    A downpour arrived at 8:58 and is still happening.  Surprised I have an internet connection. But no DISH.

    I flew over that yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ZtoA on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 10:07:08 PM EST
    from LA to Chicago, and it was horrible. I have to use a cane these days and was in line for the loo and could not return to my seat because of the sudden violent turbulence (and I've never, never experienced anything like that) - even tho the flight attendant was 'yelling' at me (she was not trying to be mean at all). It got so bad I actually started getting tears (crying, since I truly could not stand let alone move) which made me all the more embarrassed. A man from the loo ahead of me helped me to his open seat in row 4 and he took my seat in a much further back row. Then his wife and I had the best time talking (despite more and more turbulence) for the next hour and a half.  Thank you Trude K from the Philippines.

    Anyhow, I thought Obama's speech was perfect. Not too specific, which I thought was good. Obligatory 'god bless america' stuff for the last 5 minutes. Got thru his difficult 'war speech' with dignity and in a pretty good way. Bush W's post 9/11 speech was way worse, but still he didn't fall apart in it. Obama did what was called for at this moment. No more. And that, IMO, was just fine -- even good.  


    I agree (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:24:43 AM EST
    Sorry about the other.  

    7:58 (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 08:54:33 PM EST

    Some quotes from the speech re: the threat (none / 0) (#8)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 11:08:41 PM EST
    "If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States."

    "While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies."

    "Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of foreigners -- including Europeans and some Americans -- have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks."

    could, might, may (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 11:11:25 PM EST
    speculation not fact.

    ISIS leaders threatened the U.S. warning it not to conduct airstrikes. It didn't threaten the U.S. before. ISIS supporters and ISIS fighters don't speak to ISIS. No ISIS leader threatened an attack inside the U.S. before the airstrikes.


    He also said (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 11:24:17 PM EST
    "We cannot do for iraqis what they must do for themselves."

    Here's the full sentence. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 10, 2014 at 11:59:27 PM EST
    "American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region."

    Isn't he saying that the US can make a significant difference, but it must be done with the Irais and the Arab partners in the region? Isn't it a combination of these 3 factors/groups?


    yes, but the question is who does what (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:31:48 AM EST
    You seem to be hoping he's saying we're going in to fight. I'm hoping he's saying we're leaving the ground ops to the Iraqis and other groups.

    I think he's over-estimating the participation that will be forthcoming from other middle eastern countries. I also don't think the Sunni groups, tribes, rebels and Kurds will be on board with our goal of destroying ISIS. I think the Kurds want to be left alone and given independence, the Sunnis don't trust the Iraqi government (the new one isn't much more inclusive than the old one), the rebels only want to fight Assad and the tribes will switch allegiances back and forth. Many think they are better off with ISIS than they were with Malaki and certainly than with Bashad.

    None of the other allied countries are offering troops on the ground to fight ISIS -- just some special ops guys.

    Maybe the airstrikes will be lucky and take out the ISIS high level military commanders like Omar Shishani and Abu Wahib, but even then, that won't be the end of ISIS.

    ISIS is already governing in many places, ensuring food, water, gasoline,road repairs,  toys for kids, traffic control, police to resolve disputes and Sharia courts. They aren't just a vision-less, terrorist group. They have a vision, which is building a unified state, and they are working hard to establish it, asking us to stay out of their way, and showing us there will be consequences if we don't.

    Threatening to kill people who think being killed is an honor and who look forward to it isn't much of a deterrent.

    Yes, they are brutal and barbaric, but so are the groups they are fighting. The Shia militias behead, they all kidnap and torture. Assad is killing civilians daily and indiscriminately.

    It's like Obama wants to use all these so-called partners as proxies, only we don't have the same interests. I don't see it working. And I don't see the reason to risk American lives and huge dollars that only benefit the war industry.


    For me, the speech was a start. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:48:54 AM EST
    He is a reluctant, and I think overly cautious, leader when it comes to war/combat, especially in the Middle East. I see this as an ongoing process, and this was a big step for Obama. I would have done other things and moved faster, but I like the direction this is starting to go. I realize that many on this site don't agree, and don't like the direction.

    Are there going to be enough people to train Iraqis? I doubt it.

    Are the other Arab countries going to step up enough? Perhaps not. But as I've said before, I think the US has to do things, in part because others won't--and some things need to get done.

    Do we really already have boots on the ground? I think we pretty do and will, especially with special ops.

    I understand the political problem of putting boots on the ground, and that is a big and important line. However, I'm not so sure that airstrikes, combined with the Iraqis and Kurds on the ground, will be enough. Not having boots on the ground, meaning our's or someone's, was probably a big problem in Libya. And Libya doesn't look like a success.

    I"m not sure that Yemen or Somalia are good examples of what will be necessary to defeat ISIS, or what we should do to defeat ISIS.

    Is Syria going to be difficult? Yup, that looks to be very difficult. However, even some airstrikes should be helpful.

    I'm not sure what to make of the ISIS governing stuff. I know some of it is going on. However, I've also read that alot of people in some of those cities dislike or hate ISIS. Can't get a feeling for how much good governing ISIS is really doing.


    I guess I may be the only person in the world (none / 0) (#13)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:00:38 AM EST
    who liked the speech.

    No, Green ... I did also (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    The speech was direct, to the point, and said what needed to be said.  The tone evidenced strength without unwarranted braggadocio.

    The President's statement encapsulated background, reasons & goals for a coordinated military response, and spoke plainly about the nature of the American role in the face of genocide/humanitarian threats.  Importantly, as well, he did not attempt to recast the threat from ISIS as immediate to the US ... rather he spoke his belief that the clear regional threat would grow if unchecked.  

    The focus on American air power coupled with the very direct statement that we would not employ ground combat troops is sufficient for me in this situation.  While it makes me sick that we are entering yet another military phase of this ongoing post 9/11 life, I find that it makes me sicker to turn away from what is most certainly the reality of the growing conflagration in Iraq and Syria.  For me, no amount of wishing it weren't so has worked to convince me to deny that it is so.  Pretense about "strength" is one thing ... we've seen that in earlier military forays often enough ....  What it comes down to for me is choosing to trust the man that I twice voted for to be President in this most serious decision that a President can make.


    The problem is Obama has zero (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    credibility in my view.

    The speech would have been OK if he'd told us how he was going to congress to get approval for further action and what he was going to do with it once he got it.   What the goal was and how we were going to get there and what victory would look like.    

    He didn't do any of that and then as Obama is prone to do he had to take credit for things and turn what should have been a strict war speech into a political speech.   There is were he failed miserably.

    As for the war speech part one is reminded of his previous statements and now his 180 degree turn in the other direction...

    August 8th to Thomas Friedman -

    With "respect to Syria," said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has "always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards."

    Obama says ISIS is a "JV" team and then lies about it to Chuck Todd.

    Then because he can't stand his awful poll numbers on foreign policy he has the gall to take credit for leading the world against Russian's aggressions towards Ukraine?   You mean the same Russia that now owns Crimea and has troops inside Ukraine?   The same Russia that if a peace deal is finalized will get exactly what it wants?   Yes, let's take all the credit for that.

    Then he wants creidt for removing chemical weapons from Syria but we now know they are violating those terms and were also supposed to ignore his failures last year with the Red Line and his attempts to remove Assad..."Assad must go".   Yes Mr. President, good job all around.  We should just take your word for it.

    Then he compares the upcoming War to Yemen and Somalia?   Two totally different situations where all we've done is killed a few warlords or terrorist leaders inside a failed state.   How's that a good plan?

    The speech was awful because waking up today I have zero confidence we will do any good over there because A) we don't have a real plan and B) this president is very likely to change his mind the second anything bad happens, which it will.


    I hate to (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    tell you this but congress does not want him to come to them. They do not want to have to vote on this. They would rather him do it and then if it fails they can criticize him for going it alone. A vote takes away all their win/win scenarios. This strategy was exposed by none other than Kingston, Jack.

    US counterterrorism experts testify. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27:58 AM EST
    "The Islamic State group doesn't pose an immediate threat of an attack in the United States, senior U.S. officials testified Wednesday, but warned that the danger from the militants is spreading beyond the Middle East to Europe and other parts of the world."

    "They have the ability to attack American targets overseas with little or no warning, the officials said."

    "Francis Taylor, the Homeland Security Department's undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, said the Sunni extremist fighters in Iraq and Syria have capabilities most terrorist organizations don't possess. But he said his department is currently unaware of any credible threat to the U.S. homeland from the Islamic State."

    ""The United States is not immune," [Nicholas] Rasmussen, [deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center] warned. If the militants are left unchecked, he said, the threat will grow to all states the group considers "apostate" -- or those which reject what it believes to be the true faith. The U.S. would be one of these, he said."


    we can all cherrypick a view (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:43:06 AM EST
    we agree with, that doesn't make it more credible than the opposing view. Just because a group has the capability of doing harm to us doesn't mean they will act on that capability. Our provocation will certainly increase the risk.

    I'd encourage you to read some scholars and experts in Islamic and Arab affairs who have been studying the Jihadi movements of various groups for years. Obama invited several to dinner Monday night to discuss ISIS. I've learned a lot from them. Former Bush officials who are now with think tanks (and I'm not saying you cited any, just pointing out they are out there urging war) and present government officials whose job it is to sell and advance the Administration's chosen strategy are not great sources, in my view. 'Night.


    I've read some of stuff from scholars. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:55:44 AM EST
    While I like scholarly articles in general, I actually don't agree with much of what those articles have said. I think their thinking is far too narrow, especially as it relates to a group like ISIS. While I don't pretend to know much about the jihadi stuff, like what's really behind it, I just don't buy the argument that ISIS will leave us alone if we leave them alone. Doesn't make any sense to me that it could even be possible. Many people in government and the military, or formerly in the government and the military, including many in the Obama administration, seem to have the same views as I do.

    Gotta get to bed. 6:30am meeting tomorrow.


    Goes without saying... (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 02:38:32 AM EST
    Many people in government and the military, or formerly in the government and the military, including many in the Obama administration, seem to have the same views as I do.

    Of course they do.
    The ones you believe have track records that leave something to be desired, imo, but, if those are the people whose opinions resonate with you, so be it.

    Those would, I would assume, be the people trotted out by the media to shill for government policy. As they did the first time around in 2002.

    Of course, anyone can say the same to support the view that what Obama is doing is dangerous, costly in every sense, and even, to use his phrase, "dumb".

    But I suggest that instead of relying on people with an agenda, you read carefully the facts presented by Jeralyn.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 06:10:24 AM EST
    I just don't buy the argument that ISIS will leave us alone if we leave them alone.

    And ISIS/ISIL is Islamic. It may be completely doing wrong just as other extremist religious groups are doing but when Obama claims they are not Islamic then Obama removes the motivation for the moderate Muslims to step up and work for reform. And to be fair, Bush did the same thing.

    Part of leading is telling people what you want them to do.

    Whether we like it or not radical Islam has declared war on us. We may find it silly for them to think they can take over the world but they do and have worked on a two pronged front to do so.

    And before I go farther.... There is no grand conspiracy. Just groups working more or less to accomplish common goals. And yes, they fight each other but at the end of the day the west remains the Great Satan.

    One is changing the west's culture to accommodate Islam's various doctrinal demands. While accommodating them works fine when Muslims are a small minority when they grow larger then it is no longer practical. Thus their demands will be enforced on everyone. Check Europe's demographics.

    We have seen the military/terrorism approach for years. They seek to intimidate. They don't want the western press around. Behead a couple of reporters and they won't be. Keep launching rockets on Israel while claiming Israel is killing innocents and getting the western media to amplify the claim will eventually work. And we can get ready for this times ten when we really start to hurt them by bombing.

    I have posted this before and bin Ladin is dead but his comments are as instructive as Hitler's in Mein Kampf. From the 3/97 interview with Peter Arnett of CNN.

     REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: ........So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.


    But all in all Obama made a good start. We'll probably get the same amount of support Bush got and we'll probably lose some as terror attacks in Europe scare countries off.

    It is a small small world and getting smaller every day. We cannot afford to let a group like ISIS grow any stronger.


    What ISIS is really good at (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 06:49:07 AM EST

    But we're still talking about a conventional military force smaller than a division. That's a real but very limited amount of combat power. What this means is that, no matter how many scare headlines you read, ISIS will never take Baghdad, let alone Shia cities to the south like Karbala. It won't be able to dent the Kurds' territory to the north, either. All it can do--all it has been doing, by moving into Sunni cities like Mosul and Tikrit--is to complete the partition of Iraq begun by our dear ex-president Bush in 2003. By crushing Saddam's Sunni-led Iraq, the Americans made partition inevitable. In fact, Iraq has been partitioned ever since the invasion; it's just been partitioned badly, into two parts instead of the natural three: the Kurdish north, and the remainder occupied by a weak sectarian Shia force going by the name of "The Iraqi Army." The center of the country, the so-called "Sunni Triangle," had no share in this partition and was under the inept, weak rule of the Shia army.

    The War Nerd

    Don' be afraid.  Be informed instead.


    Read my comment (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    before replying.

    Once again.

    Whether we like it or not radical Islam has declared war on us. We may find it silly for them to think they can take over the world but they do and have worked on a two pronged front to do so.

    when Muslims are a small minority when they grow larger then it is no longer practical. Thus their demands will be enforced on everyone. Check Europe's demographics.

    We have seen the military/terrorism approach for years. They seek to intimidate.

    BIN LADIN: ........So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    The defeat of ISIS as a military threat is a foregone conclusion. What we must do is stay the course and give Islam time to reform itself as the Christian church did.


    For one thing, it's radical Sunniism (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 09:26:04 AM EST
    there is no pan-Islamic menace as such, and that you've fallen for the ISIS propaganda campaign makes for interesting reading, but not much more.

    Heck, if AQ hasn't been able to infiltrate and perform terrorism here since 9/11, why do you think ISIS will do any better, with lesser resources than available to AQ?


    You fail to grasp several points (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    1. It doesn't matter. ISIS is Sunni. So is Hamas.

    2. Hezbollah is Shite

    3. Iran is Shitie

    4. Saudi  Arabia is mostly Sunni with maybe 10% Sunni with strong Wahhabi ties as does

    5. Quatar and UAE

    6. Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni...

    So what?? They will fight among themselves but all of the radicals in them oppose the west.

    "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies.

    We can and have played defense. It has not been perfect. Since 9/11

    1. The Ft Hood massacre

    2. Boston Marathon bombings

    3. El Al ticket counter attack in LA

    4. Little Rock Army killings

    Plus we have had some close calls

    1. The shoe bomber - foiled

    2. The underwear bomber - foiled

    3. The Ft Dix  attack - foiled

    4. JFK fuel farm attack - foiled

    5. Portland Xmas attack - foiled

    6. Denver posioner

    And who knows what we don't know??

    But either way defense will, sooner or later, fail.


    SS, DD (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:05:21 PM EST
    If all you can do is repeat the same tired cliche about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." , then you haven't learned anything.

    I didn't know that all these separate attacks you've listed were somehow the result of a single Islamacist entity that coordinated them all.  The things one learns here.............


    I see that you can't refute a fact (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 11:57:25 PM EST
    that is accepted and has been accepted by any reasonable person.

    And no one said the attacks were coordinated.

    But thanks for making things up.

    And you have learned nothing.

    Try thinking of this.

    It doesn't matter if they were or were not coordinated.

    They happened.


    Then why list them together (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:12:54 AM EST
    If they weren't coordinated?  Why should we be worried when you're more likely to be killed in an automobile crash or from a bullet from one of your fine, upstanding fellow Americans, statistically speaking?

    You do realize that these attacks, and others like them won't bring down this country by themselves, don't you? They need fear-mongering as well, and, I must say, you do a great job at it here.

    Try thinking about that for a while, won't you?


    Wasn't Jim just listing (none / 0) (#85)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    acts of terrorism, or attempts, since 9/11?  He didn't seem to say they were coordinated.

    That's my point (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    AQ hasn't coordinated any attacks in the US since 9/11, so how likely is it that ISIS will succeed where their jihadi rivals failed?

    After 9/11, the US (none / 0) (#100)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    went after Al Qaeda and was much more vigilant. That had a large impact on what Al Qaeda could do, and stopped various terrorists plots, including some from Al Qaeda, I believe (but don't recall).
    While I don't think ISIS is focused on attacks in the US at this time. My view is that if ISIS is allowed to advance, grow and get stronger and more established, eventually, ISIS will start focusing on the US and providing financial or other support to those that may attack the US. Thus, it is important to impede and weaken ISIS now. While destroying them would be great too, I don't know if that is doable.

    Also, even one or two isolated single-person bombings or suicide bombings in the US, whether from people supported by ISIS or any terrorist organization, or done by a lone wolf, is something that I would also like to prevent or minimize. I think Europe is going to see some of these attacks in the future, as there are way more new ISIS terrorists with European passports than there are US passports, and the proximity and logistics are probably better for terrorists in Europe.


    I agree with you, that bombings (none / 0) (#102)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    and the like should be prevented as much as possible.  I'm just saying that the threat they pose is more psychological than physical, which, of course, is the whole point of terrorism, because a fearful opponent is more likely to make a blunder or false move in response.  

    People like James don't need to be bombed or shot at to give ISIS credibility, if I were in charge of psyc ops for ISIS, I would circulate James' comments here to improve the morale of my underlings on a weekly basis.


    If you think telling the troops that (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    someone believes they should be killed then you know nothing about morale.

    Telling the troops that a scared old man (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:29:16 PM EST
    who couldn't say boo to a goose wants you killed is what I'm specifically talking about here.

    You can insult and try to change the (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:34:55 PM EST
    meaning of what you wrote but you can't.

    (Non-sarcasm alert) (none / 0) (#122)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 05:47:53 PM EST
    I'm not worried about others think of our exchanges here,James.  The question is, why are you so obsessed with spinning my comments into mere insult?

    I seem to remember a Southern American saying about the hit dog is the one that barks the hardest.............


    Because that is what you do (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 08:46:59 PM EST
    and quoting old sayings changes nothing.

    Come on. Debate me.


    Im only using half my wits (none / 0) (#133)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:11:18 PM EST
    because I want this to be an even contest. I have, conspiracy theories aren't debate, in case you haven't noticed.

    I haven't posited any conspiracy theories (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:55:27 PM EST
    So why do you make things up??

    Come on. Try and make some points to support your positions.


    Your whole take on the issue smacks (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:24:20 PM EST
    of the lunacy of a typical conspiracy theory.  

    You take bits and pieces of things going on around the country, weave it together with the rhetorical equivalent of bailing wire and chewing gum, and seriously think it's worth debating about.


    Woof, woof .


    You obviously want to disregard the (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 09:54:42 AM EST

    a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

    Some people doing similar things that other people do/have done is not a conspiracy. I cannot believe you don't know that. What I believe is that you have assumed the role of Humpty Dumpty:

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

    Now, explain to me why 180 to 240 million, world wide, radicalized Muslims are not a threat yet you fear Christians.


    You're the one tying disparate events and actions (none / 0) (#143)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    together as if they were related.  Regardless of what it says in the dictionary, that's the behavior of a conspiracy theorist.

    As ever



    Oh, really?? (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    You are now saying that related activities are the result of a conspiracy? Let's get a definition of:


    1. associated; connected.
    2. allied by kinship, marriage, or common origin.

    They are connected due to the fact that the terrorists are radical Muslims. They share a common origin in they are members of Islam who draw their inspiration to kill from a common origin, the Koran.

    None this meets the the definition of a conspiracy.

    Your straw man is burning.

    Now. Tell me why these acts have happened.


    You're the one who claims to detect a common (none / 0) (#145)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    pattern from the disparate events that you wove together to make your 'point' about the 'danger' of Islamic terrorism in this country.

    If the tinfoil hat fits...............


    Let's again go to the dictionary (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 12:50:23 PM EST

    a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement:

    I claim only what is obvious.

    Radical Muslims commit acts of terrorism around the world. The US is part of the world.

    They do so based on their belief in jihad and their acts meet the definition of a pattern.

    The actual acts themselves are disparate in that flying airplanes into buildings is not the same as setting off a bomb on a city street.

    But the goal is to kill and intimidate.

    Now. Tell me why Islam is the same as Christianity.


    I see them both as equally bad (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    like the abortion clinic bombers, the ones who want to limit a womans right to choose what she does with her body or if she gets to use contraception if her employer objects to it morally, etc, they're just as bad as the Muslims who believe women should be wrapped up in public and, of course, are against treating women as human beings with the same rights and privileges as men.

    You're just an old crank who likes to get hysterical about a menace that is about as probable as an attack on Washington DC by little green men from Mars in their flying sauces.

    Arf, arf.


    Now we have the truth (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    If they are both equally bad, why should you support either. That is your position.

    First of all you have to look at the basis for their respective beliefs. The New Testament is the basis for Christianity. It teaches love and forgiveness.

    Do some individuals drastically fail? Yes. But their acts are condemned. The whole history of Christianity shows a slow continued expansion of human rights and liberalism.

    You cannot say that about Islam.

    And even HL provides 16 methods of contraception so your example is horribly flawed.

    Now let's look at what, of all people, had to say:

    Bill Maher on the differences between Christianity and Islam

    A pretty gritty and definitive picture, eh? And remember. Maher is an Atheist.

    I see your complete position as based on a lack of information and bias. It results in De Nile which just happens to be in a Muslim country. ;-)

    And yes, I am old. Try it. You will find the alternative most depressing.


    I meant you're old in your outlook (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:26:19 PM EST
    and your limited viewpoint.  Your sclerotic world view isn't because of your age, I'm sure you were a cranky old man by the age of 25.  Just a theory on my part.

    As for Islam, it's clear that you don't know chalk from cheese when it comes to Islam.  Here are a few verses on forgiveness from the Qur'an:

    That is so. And if anyone inflicts an injury the same as the one done to him and then is again oppressed, Allah will come to his aid. Allah is All-Pardoning, Ever-Forgiving. (Surat Al-Hajj, 60)

    Those of you possessing affluence and ample wealth should not make oaths that they will not give to their relatives and the very poor and those who have made hijra in the way of Allah.* They should rather pardon and overlook. Would you not love Allah to forgive you? Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surat An-Nur, 22)

    The repayment of a bad action is one equivalent to it. But if someone pardons and puts things right, his reward is with Allah. Certainly He does not love wrongdoers. (Surat Ash-Shura, 40)

    Sorry to put a dampener in your hamper.


    That, of course, is your own limited (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 03:35:04 PM EST

    And you choose to ignore my positions supporting gay rights, including marriage, women's right to choose, minority rights, drug law reform, single payer health care insurance and my position that we should close the borders, issue green cards to those already here who qualify. Which, of course, would bring the undocumented out of the shadows and force employers to pay them a decent wage because the source of undocumented workers who can't complain about the working conditions and low wages would be dried up.

    You do so because I am for a strong national defense because without a country no one has rights.

    And you do so because I am willing to point out that the culture in Mexico and other CA and SA countries is the main contributor to their many problems. That is obvious to anyone who has studied history.

    If these be "limited" view points in your opinion I cannot help you.

    And I won't get into a tit for tat argument re the  Koran beyond this and before I start I note that the Old Testament has been fulfilled by the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

    Christians live under the New Testament. And the most important law is Love.

    And I will even agree that so-called Christians have done terrible things. The difference is this is that their actions are condemned. Plus this:

    The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

    Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.  


    And we can see the results in ISIS and all the other Muslim terror groups out there today and
    their history over the past 40 years or so.

    As for "dampening" anything about me, thanks for the chuckle. And thanks for being my straight man.


    Why list them together? (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    Why list the ingredients of a a cake together??

    Because together they make a cake.

    And why do you seem to think we should just ignore these and the motive?

    We both know that the motive was a hatred of America based on their warped understanding of Islam.

    Can terror attacks bring down the country??

    What they can do is intimidate, change how we live and greatly harm the economy. Remember the harm caused by 9/11??

    Eventually a series of successful attacks will result in our agreeing to incorporating some of what the radicals Muslims want into our legal system. And then some more. After all, no belief system is superior to any other system. Don't you agree?? (saercasm alert)

    To them it is a long war. A very long war.

    I have said before that you are a pacifist. Tell that I am wrong. Tell me what you would do about ISIS and the radical Muslim threats in general.

    BTW - We can add a 19 year old in NJ to the list.


    James, are you serious? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:24:54 AM EST

    Eventually a series of successful attacks will result in our agreeing to incorporating some of what the radicals Muslims want into our legal system. And then some more. After all, no belief system is superior to any other system. Don't you agree?? (sarcasm alert)

    Yes, that makes perfect sense, that a death toll smaller than the number of people we lose every year will bring us to our knees, eventually.

    I think your POV is chicken manure.(Non-sarcasm alert)


    Well, you just couldn't refute the comment (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    so you, again, resort to a vulgar nasty personal attack.

    Do you remember Spain withdrawing troops from Iraq after the attack on the train caused a change in government??

    Terrorism has no effects? Really??

    Have noticed that the murder of two American by ISIS has resulted in huge consequences??

    It is not the numbers killed. It is who and how as much as anything else.

    And it isn't just a few over a few years. It is the continual pressure over years and years.

    For example, on a global scale, we have some Americans now agreeing that Hamas is right in launching rockets against civilians in Israel and the press carrying water for Hamas.

    This is the result of years of propaganda being taught in our colleges and some high schools.

    Do you agree with this?

    Minneapolis Community and Technical College has a policy that "strictly prohibits religious displays." For example, this past Christmas season a memo from Dianna Cusick, director of legal affairs and President Phil Davis, warned against any public display of holiday cheer: "As we head into the holiday season, all public offices and areas should refrain from displays that may represent to our students, employees or the public that the college is promoting any particular religion."

    Nevertheless, the college is planning to use taxpayer funds to install facilities for Muslim ritual foot-washing. School officials are going on a junket to visit a community college in Illinois to view similar facilities there.


    That is a clear violation of church and state yet we have bowed our head to a demand not from radical terrorist Muslims..... but from just Muslims.

    Should we also be allowed to put a cross on the courthouse square??

    What's next?? No pork served in restaurants????

    And remember, CAIR claims to be against Sharia law in the US yet they opposed a OK law that keeps it out. Let me see. I am against it but I am against a law that is against it.

    Sure. No doubt. Yes indeed. And I also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Unicorns.

    It is called a "slippery slope." And we are on it.


    Giving an accommodation to another (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    religion is opening the door for jihadis to run rampant through America.

     As for vulgar, your (sarcasm alert) insult was only vile snark, so I'll be sure to eschew such things in my future replies to you,


    Building worship enabling facilities (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    is a violation of the First Amendment.

    And you didn't answer my question. Why not?

    The facts are simple. You can't refute my points.

    In the meantime.....speaking of accommodating another religion....

    A San Diego public school has become part of a national debate over religion in schools ever since a substitute teacher publicly condemned an Arabic language program that gives Muslim students time for prayer during school hours.

    Carver Elementary in Oak Park added Arabic to its curriculum in September when it suddenly absorbed more than 100 students from a defunct charter school that had served mostly Somali Muslims.


    BTW - The NJ young man killed by a radical Muslim was Brandon Tevalin.

    Tell me again that we have nothing to worry about.


    yeah, these are real menaces (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    to our way of life.

    BTW - The NJ young man killed by a radical Muslim was Brandon Tevalin.

    Tell me again that we have nothing to worry about.

    Never said that, James, just that we as a country aren't going to fall to Islamicists because of a death toll that is somewhere between that from snakebites and children who accidentally find and use guns on themselves or others.

    You're really stretching here, a place for foot-washing isn't the same as a mosque or chapel, and I'm hard-pressed to see whose 1st Amendment rights are being violated here besides people like you.

    And you didn't answer my question. Why not?

    The facts are simple. You can't refute my points.

    You can't draw the line from these little things to a takeover by extreme Islamicists.  I didn't answer your question for the same reason I wouldn't answer a question about if the moon was made of blue cheese or not.


    The separation clause doesn't say (2.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:52:31 PM EST
    you can't have a Xmas tree on the court square but you can't.

    And it doesn't say it's okay to spend money to enable people to worship the way they want. Maybe the state will start paying our church's heating bill. After all, it will be uncomfortable to have to worship in the cold.

    The line I draw comes from no go zones in various European cities to non-Muslims to the examples I gave you here... And I said it was a two pronged approach.

    Islamic extremists are stepping up the creation of "no-go" areas in European cities that are off-limits to non-Muslims.

    Many of the "no-go" zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.

    The "no-go" areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.

    In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities - including what it calls "Londonistan" - into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.


    Terrorist attacks and no peace for a long time and then the offer that if all we do is just this "little thing" and/or "that little thing" all will be okay.

    Culture doesn't change rapidly. But it does change. Sometimes it is for the good. Sometimes it is for the bad.

    And all cultures being morally equal is a long time position of the Left. So my asking it was not needed. I know the answer.


    I am of the Left (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    and I believe my secular culture is superior to the patriarchal, Christianist/Dominionist culture popular in this country, but that you have a bee in your bonnet about the so-called Left in this country is nothing new.

    Keep screaming, James, as you are fond of telling others here, it defines you for what you are.


    It is amazing how you want to tell (1.50 / 2) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 08:44:08 PM EST
    me that the First Amendment doesn't apply if Muslims are involved and then tell me that you are concerned about Christians while at the same time telling me that radical Islam presents no threat to the country.

    And then cap it off by agreeing that all cultures are equal. Heck, even Bill Maher knows better.

    ROSE: Well I do. But I don't believe --

    MAHER: So to claim that this religion is like other religions is just naive and plain wrong. It is not like other religious. The New York Times pointed out in an op-ed a couple weeks ago that in Saudi Arabia just since August 4th, they think it was, they have beheaded 19 people. Most for non-violent crimes including homosexuality.


    Our test. Our goal is to give the Muslim world time to reform itself. We can't do it for them but it must be done.


    Your worry about the Muslims (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:03:49 PM EST
    overriding the Christians in this country because of some sort of 'political correctness' that 'Leftists' are in favor of cultural relativism and trashing the 1st Amendment, but you rail to tie anything above the logic of folk sayings and paranoid from various things taking place in this country.

    Call me crazy, but I believe that the Christian majority in this country is not as imperiled as you seem to think it is.

    And, BTW

    Woof, woof.


    Try and make a point besides (2.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:06:39 PM EST
    quoting some folk saying.

    I mean, do you actually believe such??

    And try and grasp that what we speak of will be done, if we allow it, over a long period of time. Do some research on the no go zones in Europe and understand that they did not happen over night.

    Go back and study the reactions of Spain to the radical Muslims attacks on trains.

    Can you imagine an evangelical group of children been allowed special prayer times??

    Can you imagine a school building a special facility to facilitate prayers by a Jewish group??

    There appears to be some 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. Estimates are that between 10 and 15% are radicals. That is between 180 and 260 million radicals.

    How would you combat them??


    Try and make a point besides (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:06:39 PM EST
    quoting some folk saying.

    I mean, do you actually believe such??

    And try and grasp that what we speak of will be done, if we allow it, over a long period of time. Do some research on the no go zones in Europe and understand that they did not happen over night.

    Go back and study the reactions of Spain to the radical Muslims attacks on trains.

    Can you imagine an evangelical group of children been allowed special prayer times??

    Can you imagine a school building a special facility to facilitate prayers by a Jewish group??

    There appears to be some 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. Estimates are that between 10 and 15% are radicals. That is between 180 and 260 million radicals.

    How would you combat them??


    My reaction (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 02:41:35 AM EST
    is that Obama has ensured our continuing downward spiral.
    In every respect.

    My reaction can be summed up thusly:

    One picture will save many sentences.

    New York Times Opinion Shocker! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 08:43:31 AM EST
    We're doomed (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 10:23:27 AM EST
    Not an ounce of imagination in the entire speech, no ability to understand context, no ability to understand the power of non-military means.

    The people who run this nation are not just idiots, they are pathological incompetents.

    We'll make the same mistakes again and again, spit in the founding father's faces, piss into the wind, then wonder why our eyes are burning. It takes stupidity of an unprecedented nature to go about things the way we do. It takes a stupidity that values freedom about as much as a speck of dust.

    We'll murder a bunch of people, enrage millions more, make the situation worse, then sit around and wonder why.

    So inexcusably stupid it's a wonder we can walk.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 11:16:53 AM EST
    My dad often says..."Nothing good will come from this".

    Think that applies here.


    I accidentally rated your comment (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 11:26:26 AM EST
    So I changed it to a 5 just because I did not want to be judge mental.  
    I got the feeling the speech was largely political.  Very little real informayption.  Not saying that's a good thing, just that I don't think we can have much of an idea what happens next from the speech.  It felt like he was trying to reassure the terrified public (they are terrified) and tell them what they needed and wanted to hear.

    I am willing to see what happens now.


    Part of leading is the process of reassuring (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27:49 PM EST
    And ... I don't think it would be wise for any leader to define the specific steps (or even semi-specific steps) that happen next.  At this stage, what specifics would be important for us as the public to know and to have publicized other than the decision to escalate air strikes, the decision to rule out US combat troops on the ground, the lead-up factual interpretation that got us and the situation to the present, the stated purpose of protection in the specified region against genocidal attacks (see Bosnia in the 1990s and the results when ignored as in Rwanda) and the ultimate protection against the spread of the ISIS brand from where it would directly threaten us, the general approach to coordinating with the directly effected countries and general $$$ & training aid it support ... ???

    Capt:  Consider that a Presidential speech spelling out a decision to use any kind of military force necessarily must address a broad audience.  Many in that audience may just be rousing from the summertime; many may be scared; many may have heard things about "threats" and trouble without a focus.  When the President speaks to the whole public with the intent of consolidating support for military action, any explanation has to be relatively brief and direct and (cough) "political."


    Dear Lord, now you are reaching for (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    The Weekly Standard simply because they are shopping around a narrative you choose to subscribe to and promote?

    And be frightened of pushing ISIL's buttons?  Really? These guys are such cowards they make videos while hiding their faces.  I don't know what the punks were thinking, obviously they are nowhere near as savvy as the media constantly attempts to paint them.  Everyone who has been in a video and identified, your life options are over.  I hope your only life plan was die fighting exactly where you are, because the only other thing that can happen to you now is spending the rest of your life in prison.

    I don't think the British citizen that beheaded Foley imagined he would be identified.  But whoever he is, the world WILL know you, your life outside of war in Syria is over.  Same will follow for the masked person in the Sotloff video, if it is a different individual...your life outside of the Syrian civil war is finished.  They have no future.  Perhaps they are okay with that, but they are adults and I doubt it.  Islamic extremists like to convince young kids to destroy their lives, the adult men plan to live on for a long successful time.

    they are more than OK with it (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    It's what they aspire to, the greatest honor in their world. According to some of their British members who answer questions from would-be recruits online, they sign up for martyr missions, and there is a waiting list.

    Are martyrdom operations voluntary or you must do them if you are picked?
    No you put your name of the list 9 days ago

    is there a waiting list for martyrdom operations? Yes 9 days ago

    who can put his name on the list?
    They first ask the reasons why you want to do it etc but almost anyone that is sane and adult and has the right intentions 9 days ago

    As to the Weekly Standard article, yes I cited it because I agree with what it says.  I don't care about the magazine's politics. Kimberly Kagan, the co-author is the President of the Institute for the Study of War (her bio) which has been making the daily maps of events in Iraq that almost all the analysts and experts cite. Frederick Hagan is the resident scholar at the AEI.


    I don't think you understand ISIS at all (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    Jeralyn. It is like every other such fundy Islamic organization, the leaders only plan to use the brainwashed youth.  That is all they are doing, that's who signs up for martyrdom.  A bunch of EMO kids. ISIL leadership is a bunch of opportunists, and nothing deeper than that.

    And the credentials you find appealing.  Sorry...all too funny.  Kimberly Kagan is the President of an "Institute" she founded :). And Hagan is a resident scholar of AEI?  OMG!


    I think you (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    are discounting what I think is an obvious fact: That all nations embarking on military "action"  brainwash their citizens to some extent.

    Look how Americans in Abou Ghraib and Gitmo were trained not only to torture their prisoners, but to enjoy doing so.

    And what did we do to Vietnam, and were brainwashed, or numbed, not to feel any of it.

    The Nazis, in recent history, proved that people can be brainwashed to do anything. To the weak. To children.

    We have been brainwashed, or desensitized to the fact that we target "high value" people and knowingly bomb in areas in which civilians are located - and we call them "collateral damage" and feel nothing.

    Look what we did during the horrific "shock and awe" bombing by America under Bush. We left them without hospitals, without electricity. Without food -- and without water! And what did we feel about it? How do we feel about it? Obama just thanks Bush for his "service" - and we are brainwashed to think that that is as it should be.

    I think it's time for some compassion and understanding of the grievances of peoples from other countries - especially those on whom we and our allies have trodden for decades.

    People, like the Americans in Abou Ghraib are not born fiends.
    Neither are Muslims extremists. Their behavior is horrific, but we should spend a little time to try to determine what caused and enabled them to behave that way - and to feel OK about it. Even prideful about it.

    This is not "bleeding heart" liberal thought.
    It is a means to an end. That end being the defusing of a very dangerous situation.

    Hasn't twelve years of fiddling around and killing in the mideast taught us that that is not the answer?


    Huh, Lentinel? (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    Americans are Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were not "trained" to enjoy torturing prisioners. By the way, I know there were various or many abuses, but don't think there was any waterboarding in those places. What was the tortue at those places?

    Substitute (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by sj on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    the word "desensitized" for "trained" and see the core of what lentinel is saying, rather than finding a nit or two to pick so that you can reject or easily deflect the point without your bothering your pretty little head.

    Sorry, I'm not a mind-reader. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    Perhaps you should direct your comment at Lentinel, suggesting being more precise with words, instead of accusing me of nit-picking.

    You don't need to read minds (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    You need to read words.

    sj, here are the words in question. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:24:09 PM EST
    "Look how Americans in Abou Ghraib and Gitmo were trained not only to torture their prisoners, but to enjoy doing so."

    It says Americans were "trained" to "enjoy" torture. Maybe you are the one who needs to read the words. There is really no other meaning of those words. Americans were not trained to enjoy torture.

    If Lentinel meant to say something else, then Lentinel should either said something else or used different words, or corrected the first statement.


    Oy (none / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:34:45 PM EST
    I see that reading for comprehension and intent is not your forte. It explains why some people choose to pick nits rather than exploring concepts.

    Green26 you are not allowed (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    to say that words have specific meanings.

    I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

    `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

    Thru the Looking Glass - Lewis Carroll


    Thanks, Jim. (1.50 / 2) (#140)
    by Green26 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 01:19:45 AM EST
    SJ, or whoever that poster is, is totally out to lunch. Doesn't have a clue. Has no credibililty on the board.

    Bwahahahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:57:16 AM EST
    SJ, or whoever that poster is, is totally out to lunch. Doesn't have a clue. Has no credibililty on the board.

    This statement comes from the newcomer who sides with jimakappj???  


    What was the torture? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    the juncture between the time when they began to beat and smother the prisoner to death and when the victim expired.

    Try that example on for size.



    Successful nations build community (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 08:45:32 PM EST
    We find, sometimes struggle to find commonality and group shared humanity. That is not what ISIS does.  If they did they wouldn't have to hide their faces like garden variety terrorists (which is all they are).  They aren't soldiers.  Soldiers of nations don't have to hide their faces, and they wear their names on the front of their clothing...this isn't just US military.  And nations work to build community.

    I think it's sad how smitten too many have become with ISIL.  We won't be hearing much from them though in short order.  Soon they will fall off the media radar and their importance and power in the public eye will soon match reality.

    People who wear their names on the front of their shirts and don't have to hide in shame and fear of justice have decided that ISIL is done.  


    Who is (none / 0) (#76)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 06:16:23 AM EST
    "smitten" with ISIS?

    Please MT.

    Have you noticed the lack of support we are getting from Arab countries in this endeavor?

    I do not praise ISIS or ISIL or whatever you want to call them.

    I am simply saying that A) this is a problem that should be dealt with by the people in the region. And B) I do not believe in making this a black and white situation in which we represent virtue and they represent evil.

    I also believe that what the administration is doing is shifting the focus of ISIS from the region to us. Something, imo, that we don't need.


    And something you should remember (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 08:56:40 PM EST
    That too many of your view forget or can't even seem to comprehend, an active duty soldier blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib.  It wasn't something accidentally revealed or discovered.

    I can't speak (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 06:35:17 AM EST
    for others of "my view".

    I do know that Joe Darby, the whistleblower on Abu Ghraib, found that when he returned home he was labeled a traitor. By citizens.
    I believe that happened due to the mindset thrust upon us by the Bush administration and their amoral cohorts in the media.

    I do know that the soldier formally known as Bradley Manning has not faired very well either.

    These are brave people.

    I did not mean to infer, and I don't believe I did infer, that everyone in the military has been brainwashed to accept and perform the unspeakable. As you mentioned, Darby is a great example of one who retained his humanity intact and acted upon it - even to the extent that he feared for his life for having done so.

    Just that people in general are made to do things by their powerful governments. They are made to obey orders - sometimes under threat of incarceration or even death should they disobey - and they are given the mental carrot of being convinced that what they are doing is for the greater welfare of their country.

    And the citizenry has been brainwashed, imo, to the extent that these "whistleblowers" have been depicted as traitors.

    People are people.


    Labeled a traitor my ass (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    Not by anyone we know.

    Everyone who serves, because they don't hide behind black masks and unknown identities are subject to various forms of public scrutiny.

    I have gotten a very hard time at times for being a military family member.  I have even been in tears for days over some things said to me.  I grieved it, thought the reality of it all through, grew thicker skin and lived on..moved on.  It isn't an easy haul, particularly during turbulent years.  I have received more support than attacks though...and isn't that mostly what all real life is like in a freedom of speech democracy?  None of us ever gets complete public approval for our choices.  It really isn't a possibility.

    If I want to tally up every horrible thing ever said to me or my husband or other friends in uniform and their families, believe me it could look real evil, real vile.  But the whole truth is those instances are a section or a sliver of the entire truth and reality.  


    I am just (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    reporting what Darby experienced when he tried to return home.

    Read the article to which I linked above.
    He details in his own words what he experienced.

    I have seen "instant" polls being taken about Manning: "Hero or traitor?". These are aimed at civilians.

    I did not come from a military family, but many in my family served, and one did not come back. We miss him every day.

    I would like to reiterate that I am not out to defame military families.

    I am simply out to express that when our government depicts a conflict as good v/s evil, I think a little more circumspection is in order.

    Especially taking into account our recent history.


    Taking on ISIL is a conflict of (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:27:37 AM EST
    Good vs Evil.  All of our NATO allies are with us.  We have regional challenges but Jordan has always been with us.  Saudi Arabia removed Bandar from his intelligence position months ago and they have committed to working with us.  We have strong allies in Qatar, our Qatar ties are more prominent than any single Qatar citizen that sent ISIL funds.

    There are two players on a battlefield considered sacred, it doesn't mean they don't those their lives there but all fighting forces of civilized nations agree they are never targeted, and to intentionally target them is a war crime.  Those players are medical responders and journalists.  And I reiterate, these individuals do take on risk and lose their lives, but to purposefully target them for killing is a war crime!

    I tend to think that journalists should be somewhat responsible for the risky situations they seek out, but my husband is positively adamant.  Journalists in his opinion are the "clergy" of the exercise of freedom in a war zone.  Without them, the voters of all nations can be easily led, easily strung along.  Journalists in war zones are the clergy of vital truths.

    And raping 13 yr old girls repeatedly until they lose the ability to speak, raping other women repeatedly and then having them call home to report to their families their pain and all that has been done to them...for me, in all that I understand sanity, basic well being, community and democracy to be comprised of, fighting ISIL at this point IS a conflict of good vs evil.


    Ok MT. (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    The NYTimes sees the Arab response to our plans somewhat differently than you do.


    And as for our allies in NATO, imo we wind up doing most of the fighting and paying most of the expenses.

    But I am mostly concerned with your welfare here and hope that everything goes as you want.


    If you were really concerned about my (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:25:44 AM EST
    Welfare you would not support ISIL becoming more of a global threat than they already are.

    They have no intention of leaving the United States alone forever or European countries either.  They have been extorting money from ME countries by threatening to send suicide bombers too. So I don't think any ME countries at this point will be in front of cameras declaring war.  Support will be a little quieter than that. If ISIL becomes more of a threat, that will equate to boots on the ground too, and that does concern my welfare.

    And that is something that those who serve must deal with too, miscalculations of State that lead to all out war.  The President is IMO making all the correct decisions that lead us away from that possibility and probability, not into it.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 05:23:35 PM EST
    do not support ISIL becoming more of a global threat.

    I think that Obama's approach will do just that.

    You don't.

    Since he is going to do what he is going to do, no matter what I think, I hope that you are right.

    But I don't think so.



    ISIS denies the rape charges (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    and there are reports of young women alleging rape by Peshmerga soldiers as well. One of the photos going around accompanying the reports of a young woman alleging rape by ISIS is taken from an old movie. I have no idea if the rape allegations are true or not, but ISIS tends to publicize its punishments, from crucifixions to beheadings, and it has published many reports denying the rape allegations and laying out why they are false.

    ISIS has also executed its own fighters who have abused women. I have no intention of arguing the issue as to who is right, I just don't want unproven allegations reprinted here as fact. You can write there are claims or reports that ISIS did this or that, but please don't state it as fact if ISIS has denied it and there's no documentary evidence (photos, videos, etc) to prove otherwise.

    I disagree this is about good vs evil. I think it's about ISIS' intent to impose its warped view of Islam on the rest of the Middle East. Understanding what ISIS is and is not, and why they do what they do (and they do provide reasons for their brutal deeds) will prove more helpful in convincing others not to join them. As to democracy, ISIS detests it. One of their main goals is to establish a state where there is no democracy. So it's not a question of whether our understanding of democracy differs from their's, as they don't recognize any form of democracy. They think democracy is evil and contrary to their view of Islamic teachings.

    Your concept of de


    I think I'm good (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    Sticking with the United Nations on this Jeralyn.

    I disagree, generally. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:33:34 AM EST
    Bradley Manning is closer to being a traitor than someone who is brave and should receive praise. He was not a true whistleblower. He probably has some mental and other issues too. You can't have a single person deciding to give information to the enemy or the press/internet, in my view. This is extremely dangerous, and almost all of them deserve what they ultimately get, in my view.

    I don't know much about the other situation you cite, but it doesn't surprise me that he has gotten grief for what he did. There are also important concepts of teamwork and loyalty that come into play and many people believe are critically important.

    Many or even most whistleblowers, whether of the type of who follow established whistleblower procedures (and thus are protected) or ones who don't (and thus are generally not protected), ultimately end up not liking how they are treated or where they end up. My direct experience is with business or employment whistleblower situations, combined with a decent amount of reading on the subject.


    Manning was an intel analyst (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    He had been through extensive schooling and training and fully understood what the ramifications for what he did would be.  He was legally bound by agreements he made that not everyone who wears a uniform are exposed to or even asked to sign.  By the legal definitions, he committed acts of treason.

    I have a lot of empathy for Manning.  I hope Manning doesn't spend the rest of now her life in prison.  I think many serving understand that some extreme stressors were in play, and I think that will be taken into consideration in how many years she remains in prison.

    If we are a nation of laws though, Manning committed acts of treason.


    You stated that very well, Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:28:29 PM EST
    I,mostly, agree with your position.

    I, too, feel that a single individual, who, for better or worse, took a solemn oath of secrecy to not disseminate information that, due to his unique position, he has been entrusted with.

    Simply being a whistle blower does not, automatically, indemnify that person from the punishment that may result if the secrets he/she exposes causes harm, or, potentially, causes harm to the United States.

    I had a pretty high security rating towards the end of my service, and, a lot of the "secrets" I was privy to seemed silly, at least on the surface. But, because most items with high security ratings are fragmented, and, compartmentalized, the information one person has, is on a "need to know" basis, and, is meaningless, by itself. "Mickey Mouse loves Minnie" may be a joke, or, may mean war is imminent. And, since high security information has nonsensical, diversionary information imbedded in it, the holder or recipient of the information does not know, or, have the entire communique.

    I don't sleep better at night knowing Glenn Greenwald is the arbiter of what National secrets should remain secret, or, what should be disseminated.


    I don't see how you can think you (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:08:15 PM EST
    understand them relying solely on third party sources that fit your viewpoint. Your comments on ISIS have become increasingly emotional and lack factual support. Feel free to keep commenting, but again, do it without ridicule or insults. Please recognize that those who hold views different than yours are not necessarily wrong. There is more than one lens through which to view ISIS.

    And if you are ready and willing (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 03:12:09 PM EST
    To die for ISIL, why hide your face?

    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    You are not thinking clearly here, imo.  

    If you are interested in travel, and wreaking havoc AND the authorities have a picture of your face, you will be stopped well before any damage can be done.

    Not to mention it keeps their enemies busy spending money and time in an attempt to ID the person.


    Read their smack talk (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 03:23:51 PM EST
    They are invincible.  Allah is on their side.  They are the true followers, god's chosen.  The rest of us, we are already beaten. Why hide your face if you really believed all that BS?  Why hide your face unless you intend to have a life after ISIL?

    To me the black masks and robes (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by fishcamp on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 04:08:20 PM EST
    are reminiscent of many ancient cultures and religions and have a fascination factor in drawing in new young members.  Masks have been used for centuries to depict both comedy and tragedy.  Uniforms seem to draw men to serve even here in the US armed forces.  These ISIS people may be the first of the militant desperadoes in the ME to use this method to attempt to frighten us into believing they are tough bad a$$es.  They'll be both amazed and dead when they run into a few Marines.

    True (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    I agree with all that.

    If it works they'll go with it.  I think it's great for recruitment.  I also think ISIL fighters have been hiding behind an anonymity, and that if it is breached that terrifies them.

    They can hide from themselves a bit if others in the room don't know their faces and the atrocity.  They hope to get away with being a sort of "two different people".


    Why hide their faces? Maybe you should ask (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    all the American and American trained drug warriors and SWAT teams and special-ops operators who do exactly the same thing, eh?

    OK (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    You are in a frenzy.  Got it.

    I think that if you are planning on giving up your life, getting arrested, or stopped before you can blow yourself and others up may get you less points in the afterlife.

    Being invincible does not mean being sneaky is off limits.

    Most all of our Marvel superheros hid their face, and they were pretty much invincible.


    Come on (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 04:01:37 PM EST
    You can wear a disguise when you go to suicide bomb if that's your big worry.

    I think the Brit actually falsely believed he had some anonymity to protect, even though it is now being revealed they believe he is a past hostage negotiator.  He's been on Special Operations screen for awhile.

    True believers don't negotiate, true believers don't attach dollar figures to their Jihad.

    Come on squeaky, there is a huge psychological gap here between what that yahoo says he believes and his actions :). And he's been around for awhile.

    You wanna see a true believer though, try that rapper kid that starred in a video.  No mask, and he's an EMO kid :). Islamic fundy perfect


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    We disagree...

    one reason is because (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 06:59:08 PM EST
    they don't want their families at home harassed. They know they are being watched and many who have been identified have had their homes raided. Most if not all of their families disapprove of their decisions, but that doesn't mean they don't stay in touch or care about their families in G.B.

    What families? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 07:02:12 PM EST
    Families in Syria or Iraq?

    "What families?" (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:31:06 AM EST
    Last I heard, MT, even parthenogenesis requires a mother.

    They are all wearing masks (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:35:34 AM EST
    Not just fighters from the UK.  Almost every single one of them is wearing a mask.  My husband is a member of a military.  He doesn't have to wear a mask to keep me safe.  I don't think Canada or Australia or Germany or Belgium or Poland to just name a few have this problem either.

    CIA? Black OPS Iraq? Mercs? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:51:29 AM EST
    I understand your POV is a US soldier with a name tag... honor etc..

    There are plenty of US fighters who are working in secret. Not to mention that there are plenty of US strategies that are also secret.

    To make a big deal about ISIS guy wearing a mask is really not a strong point, imo.


    If they had public support (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:09:05 AM EST
    They wouldn't all need masks

    they do not all wear masks (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    Only a small number wear masks. Watch the videos. And it's usually the same four or five wearing masks. Some are trainers and others are bodyguards for the leaders.

    Masks are also a way to keep the trainees and low ranking fighters from identifying them to authorities or other groups if are caught or defect.

    They do keep in touch with their families back home, and they also have families in Iraq and Syria. ISIS fighters who are married live with their families. Those who are single live on a base with each other. Britain and Belgium have been raiding homes of the families of identified fighters.

    The major military leader of ISIS in Iraq, Abu Wahib, never covers his face, even as he beheads people. Either does the military leader in Syria, Omar Shishani (although I also haven't seen him behead or shoot anyone.)


    Some more ISIS tidbits. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 06:18:40 PM EST
    "President Obama has authorized the Pentagon for the first time to target and kill individual leaders of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a key component of his plan to go on the offense against the Sunni extremist group, according to U.S. military officials."

    "Among them is a detachment of about 125 personnel who will fly armed U.S. surveillance aircraft from inside Iraq for the first time since Obama authorized the start of the air campaign against Islamic State last month. The aircraft will be based in northern Iraq in the city of Irbil. U.S. officials are still determining which types of planes will be sent, but the detachment will not include drones, Kirby said."

    Washington Post article.

    They have been flying surveillance drones (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:24:47 AM EST
    Over Raqqa since August 26th.  We will find Baghdadi.  We will find "The Beatles" too.  Their days are numbered, and pretty sure they have already come to understand that now.

    Number of airstrikes in Yemen and Somalia (none / 0) (#83)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    in 2014. I believe I saw that there had been 16 and 2, respectively. Not so sure that those places are models for what the US is doing and plans to do, in Iraq/Syria. Seemed like an odd reference for Obama to make.

    Why do you think Obama made this speech (none / 0) (#84)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    and decision? I'd like to think that he made the speech/decision because he and his advisors believed this was the right plan/strategy for the US. I see that some critics are saying it was because of the polls moving towards wanting the US to take action, and perhaps his declining numbers. I had wondered if some Dem politicians wanted this because of the upcoming mid-term elections. Maybe some did, but I see that a number of Dems do not want to have to go on record for this action, or perhaps against it either, ahead of the elections.

    He made it because of the decision he made (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    to not leave enough troops in Iraq to keep the peace.

    That decision has led to everything else.


    Heh, heh, heh (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 08:49:34 PM EST
    The decision he made?!?

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    Isn't it funny how jim and others of his ilk (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:56:32 PM EST
    conveniently 'forget' what Bush/Cheney did?  

    Of course they have to forget (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    otherwise they'd have to assume some responsibility for voting that family values/neocon travesty into office in the first place..

    As it is, they're now so embarrassed that a lot of them have chosen to hide out in the Don't Blame Us (ie Tea Party) Party.


    his decision was based on Iraq's refusal (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:51:39 PM EST
    to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) granting U.S. troops legal immunity. Your argument is a typical conservative meme not supported by facts. See, New York Times and Associated Press.

    Jihadist Women using Twitter to recruit (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    Pictures of kittens and designer footwear are tweeted out alongside extremist rhetoric, descriptions of the "good life" in Syria, and pictures of battlefield gore.

    "The content of the Umm's accounts strains to make extremism appear like a normal lifestyle decision," wrote Jytte Klausen, a Brandeis University professor and founder of the Western Jihadism Project, which focuses on jihadi activities in the West, in an academic paper on the Umms. "An example is a posting of pictures with their children dressed in [IS] fan gear, much as Manchester United fans dress up their kids for fun."