|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 15, 2014 20:28:04 GMT -7
So the Mighty O speachifies our new war that's not a war plans. First we're going to gin up lots of support from the allies (the ones we've made such great stides in getting them to love us post-Bush). Then we're not going to put any boots on the ground except for the boots who are already on the ground and the thousands more being sent to augment them. Next, we're going to pound hell out of ISIL via airpower, but there doesn't seem to be any plan yet on how to have ordinance distinguish between the head-choppers and those innocent people they seem to blend in with when the sounds of jet engines are overhead.
All week expert after expert from liberal to conservative think tanks are saying there is no way to route the bastages out short of... boots on the ground to do the routing. Since it won't be our military's boots, whose boots will they be? Also remarkable is the lack of willingness on the part of any Arab nations to lend much of a hand. Guess all that appeasement was for naught, eh Mr. Sec. of State?
This whole approach is chowder headed. Being deliberate is nothing more than an excuse given today for uncertainty about what action to take tomorrow. Note, if you will, the near perfect vacuum created by the distinct lack of anyone calling for an "exit strategy." Could be because everyone is really wondering wth is going to be our entrance strategy.
Maybe it's time to promise Hezbollah an independent Palestine state if they take on and defeat ISIS. Then if they do happen to succeed, they can have that area in southeastern Syria where ISIS hangs it hat now. Kerry can always claim they just didn't understand all the nuances of his promises; that he was actually for a Palestinian state including east Jerusalem before he was against it. And the Golfer-in-Chief can get back to yukking it up on the links instead of being dangerous by seeking something to work on.
|
|
|
Post by Stetto, man... on Sept 16, 2014 6:14:34 GMT -7
Galvins Messiah plans to arm "moderate" Islamic rebels in Syria. I haven't seen a "moderate" Islamist in my life, even the warrior McMilquetoast went to meet with these so-called "moderates" in Syria and was later found to be posing with ISIS subhumans. ISIS is absorbing or killing any resistance to them, so who is the Golfer-in-Chief actually handing armaments to? Yup, and I have no doubt he is well aware of it...
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Sept 16, 2014 6:24:21 GMT -7
What's sad is Obama lost Iraq, not just the war, but precipitated a break up by removing our presence and replacing with lip service weakening it to the point it was ripe for any insurrection again much less invasion. They have segregated further than what they were, and now nothing will keep it together ultimately. There will be a Shia state in the south puppeted by Iran, there will be a Sunni state of some sort that holds Baghdad and maybe west and the Kurds might be able to hold onto a homeland in the north if Turkey doesn't get involved.
The Kurds are the one thing this current strategy all hinges on, but the president is intent to focus on arming Syrians, again. The same ones we armed that turned out to be infiltrated by ISIS, which we even knew at the time.
It will remain unstable for a long time unless someone is dominant militarily, The Kurds could be if we fully supported them, but we don't do that anymore, our favor changes daily, even though we have a significant CIA presence with the Kurds. The Iraqi govt has apparently turned loose Shiite militias in Tikrit to the north to fight ISIS, and some are simply purging as many Sunni as they come across.
I know the critics will be screaming this is all Bush's fault, but Iraq was hardly stable to start with having to use military intervention to keep Saddam from killing his own people. What would have happened when the Arab spring rose? Oh I know that would have never happened right? On one hand the dissenters claimed a freedom movement was not precipitated by invading Iraq, on the other they try and blame it for the unrest. But the fact is under Bush and his doctrine, free elections were held for the 1st time, and for a short while, when we actually oversaw it, the Iraq govt functioned. Under this clown we have had nothing but a slide back into turmoil, violence and escalating Islamic radicalism. And this latest "plan" is just more of the same. Eastwood was right, empty chair.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 18, 2014 7:29:02 GMT -7
Galvins Messiah plans to arm "moderate" Islamic rebels in Syria. I haven't seen a "moderate" Islamist in my life, even the warrior McMilquetoast went to meet with these so-called "moderates" in Syria and was later found to be posing with ISIS subhumans. ISIS is absorbing or killing any resistance to them, so who is the Golfer-in-Chief actually handing armaments to? Yup, and I have no doubt he is well aware of it... While it might be true that not all Muslims support the type of tyrannical and bloodthirsty actions, i.e. - the soc-called "peaceful" or "moderate" Muslims, they are, in the end, irrelevant. History teaches us this time and time again. Most per-WWII era Germans were peaceful people; yet in less than 10 years they were murdering over 20 million people in the name of National Socialism. The peaceful Germans were irrelevant. In Russia, were most people were peaceful, Stalin et al managed to kill scores of millions of people all in the name of Communism; the peaceful Russian people were irrelevant. Most Japanese in pre-WWII days were peaceful people; but that didn't stop Japan from sweeping through southeast Asia killing millions, mostly with shovels and bayonets, all in the name of the Emperor; the peaceful Japanese were irrelevant. On Sept. 11, 2001, we had over 2 million peaceful Arab Muslims living in the United States; it only took 19 radical jihadist Arab Muslims to take out the WTC and a wing of the Pentagon, killing 3,000 people in a single morning; the peaceful Muslims were irrelevant. The lesson in history is clear - it doesn't matter how many peaceful Muslims there are in the world. Culling data put out by western government intelligence services, the number of radical Muslims falls between 15 and 20-something percent. Out of a world population of a couple billions of Muslims, that means the percent that are radical in belief falls between 200 to just over 300 million. In other words, the number of radical Muslims in the world is approximately the population of the US. Bearing in mind the irrelevancy of the peaceful Muslims, that's a lot of radicals to deal with. According to Robert Spencer, a recognized world authority on Islam, there are 4 major schools of Sunni-type Muslim jurisprudence, and three major Shia schools. ALL of them teach that it is an obligation of Muslims to force submission of anyone not a Muslim. In other words, the often-cited "misinterpreting" of the Qur'an by radical jihadists is exactly the interpretation put out by all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This is why people like Jihadi John, a British citizen, gets his head filled with mush by the local Imam in England then wants to go cut off heads in Syria... because that's the kind of Muslim his mainstream Islamist teachers taught him to be. By way of example, the Catholic church teaches contraception is evil, and various studies have shown up to 80% of Catholics do not practice what their church preaches. But that does not change WHAT their church teaches. Similarly, because there are some Muslims who do not put into practice this idea of everyone being forced to submit to Islam, it does not erase the fact that that teaching IS the mainstream of all modern Islam. The next time you have an hour to kill on a rainy day, go to You Tube and look up Robert Spencer and hear what he has to say. His explanations of how this sort of teaching works in the minds of Muslims goes a long way to explaining why most US efforts in these countries fail, and that is because we refuse to believe that people will follow the very things the learn in the madrassas. We enjoy a peace and peaceful relations by respecting differences between people; they do not, and more importantly, will not, because they are commanded by their faith to force conversion or impose a second-class citizenship on any they feel like leaving alive to coexist with. So, to point to the so-called "moderate" Muslims, who are or may be apostates in their stance on jihad, and expect them to rise up and call for some sort of overthrow in the mainstream teachings of Islam is simply a fantasy that will never be more than a vaporous wish. This is why we have never seen, and will never see, any serious effort in this regard; Muslims deep down do not find Islam defective in any way, therefore why should anyone attempt to fix what ain't broken?
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 18, 2014 20:26:20 GMT -7
Story in the news tonight about John Effing Kerry responding to a question about whether to call the Islamic State IS, ISIS, or ISIL. Our illustrious Sec. of State said he's calling them "The enemy of Islam." Can this guy just once open his mouth without inserting his foot all the way to the ankle??? What ISIS/ISIL/IS doing is exactly what Islam demands they do. Fight if necessary to establish a Caliphate that will be ruled by Sharia law, straight out of the Qur'an. For Kerry to call them "The enemy of Islam" means that a Syrian (Muslim) rebel will now have to take Kerry's word on Islamic doctrine over their own theological authorities, all of whom (see above) teach that what ISIS is doing is exactly as they are supposed to do. The Saudis have been the biggest fire-fanners in all of this, as much of what is preached in western mosques comes right from the Saudi Islamic kettle stirrers. No surprise, really, that when this kind of drivel reaches the ears of Muslims who aren't in any fight like Jihadi John, the only place they want to be is IN one. It's the same drivel being taught in many mosques here in the US. It's the same reason Muslims wanted a mosque built at ground zero in NY - because that would be a sign every good Muslim would recognize, that Islam put NYC under their submission, which is the goal of Islam always and everywhere. It's high time people stopped viewing it as a religion because it's much more than that. It's religion plus government, a theocracy that offers peace only to members, provided you define peace as marrying off your 9 yr old daughter and stoning her if she objects. It's going to take the same thing to defeat it this time as it did last time; a big army with the sole goal of driving them out of wherever they're at. It might be this army rises because the fight is brought to us first, or it might be because people finally wake up to the reality that not everyone in the world sees the world through western lenses, meaning for many all the idiotic seventh century social ideas Sharia rule brings is just fine with them. So here's my question for Muslims - if Sharia is so danged good, why are you in the US, Canada, Australia, or Great Britain? Why aren't you living under the very laws your own religion claims is the perfect set of laws? Could it be you really don't like the oppressive rule you know it is, but still cling to Islam as an identity in order to characterize yourselves as victims? I've pretty much had my fill of Muslims, all of them. From here on out, I'm going to go out of my way to treat them all as second class citizens as they perceive is the right way to treat non-Muslims. My justification will be, you aren't a non-Muslim and therefore can't be accorded the same respect due non-Muslims. Course you could always convert. Interesting thing I learned recently, that there is no such thing as conversion to Islam; it's RE-verting. They consider everyone to be a Muslim at birth, then the rest of us just fall away from it, thus if we seek it, we're somehow returning to the fold. Sounds like something the Clinton white house would make up. Weird!
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Sept 19, 2014 6:03:19 GMT -7
Yes, Wahabism is a radical interpretation of Islam, but even they have issued a fatwa against the terrorism of ISIS. Which is pretty convenient I guess since they still pretty much support the idea of Sunni superiority, but just don't like the negative perception of their idea in practice. Not to mention a rogue state across their border they have no control over and threatens their power probably more motivation to condemn their acts than anything else.
But the Leadership in Mecca is most concerned with perception, they had issued a fatwa again public rallies and marches for support for Gaza, and instead want people to send money to gaza to help resist Israels 'aggression'. My guess is it looks bad when seen on US tv, but want to support Hamas yet.
But we are not going to confront them until we lose our cities, either in control or damage, because for far too many they would rather believe the govt did 9-11 than even consider people are so motivated by their evil to accomplish goals normally beyond them. And even if so they do not believe its justified to act before those things actually happen. Perfectly fine with sacrifice how ever many others in the belief it will not be them or theirs.
But at some point we as all free people will have to confront and fight Islam, it is not compatible with anything but itself, and not even that when its left to itself.
|
|
|
Post by zrct02 on Sept 19, 2014 6:46:14 GMT -7
That is easy. They are looking forward to the day Islam takes over. Currently they are merely enduring the Western culture. What the libs do not understand is that you are correct. Islam is not a religion. Mohammed was a warlord. He was able to carry his message even better than Hitler. The Koran is just his 'Mein Kampf'.
There will be another 9/11 type strike. If we don't nuke an arab state in response, the American people should revolt. Needless to say, I have no feeling for Muslims at all. They are sub-human animals fit only for extermination.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 19, 2014 12:13:58 GMT -7
One of the reasons the Saudis don't support ISIS is because ISIS has already put them on notice that as their caliphate grows, eventually it will be strong enough to topple the reign of the Saudi royal family. They may be Muslims, they may have Sharia-based laws, but the king is not a religious leader, thus isn't qualified to lead even a region within a caliphate. Another reason is, unlike Al Queda, ISIS won't accept their bribery to do whatever evil they won't, just don't do it in Saudi Arabia. Far as ISIS is concerned, the Saud family might as well be Americans, and they'll be the target of ISIS someday when they can get around to it.
I don't think ISIS is going to seriously try to "take over" Iraq. I think all they want is a stepping stone into the Persian Gulf, and it will be there that they do the most damage. Immediate access to Iranian targets, an opportunity to mine or hinder shipping from all of the gulf nations, and to disrupt the all important flow of oil.
The French apparently hit ISIS in northeastern Iraq yesterday. The French have an aircraft carrier but I don't know if they flew off of it or out of a foreign base, the story didn't say. I was too busy being amazed that France actually did something. First time for everything I suppose.
This would be my plan for ISIS. First, in any city they control there would be no electrical power and no running water. No cell phone towers, no radio antennas, no TV stations. I would tell them up front that the price of beheading any individual regardless of national origin would be the immediate destruction of 100 mosques, occupied or not, to be chosen at random. Do it again and the target will be the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, and any further beheadings will result in the destruction of the Kaaba in Mecca. It's a monument to a meteorite anyway, so I would have no problem blasting it back into orbit. Even better would be to use a dirty bomb, leaving it radioactive for about 5 million years, then they could have it back for use.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 21, 2014 18:58:39 GMT -7
What ISIS/ISIL/IS doing is exactly what Islam demands they do. Fight if necessary to establish a Caliphate that will be ruled by Sharia law, straight out of the Qur'an. For Kerry to call them "The enemy of Islam" means that a Syrian (Muslim) rebel will now have to take Kerry's word on Islamic doctrine over their own theological authorities, all of whom (see above) teach that what ISIS is doing is exactly as they are supposed to do. And the ISIL spokesraghead speaks, calling Kerry an "old uncircumcised geezer" and Obama a "mule of the Jews." And his major point: neither Kerry nor Obama are qualified to make Islamic theological or jurisprudential decisions. The unstated point is that what ISIL is doing is perfectly in line with the Qur'an and Islamic authorities. Story HereIf I can figure this out, how come our Dept. of State can't and how come our WH can't?
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Sept 21, 2014 19:06:22 GMT -7
Does anyone really think they have not figured this out? When the Kim Jungs state something so obviously moronic to their masses, its for a specific purpose to crate perception in those who are compelled to believe them, and this what this supposed to do, to give him the reason for the anti warriors to give him a pass for killing and more war because its not the same war. And some will even buy it or pretend to, like Pelosi, Cummings, Mosley Braun etc, even though the rest of us are thinking its time for straight jackets for them.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 22, 2014 4:55:52 GMT -7
Actually, I do think they haven't figured this out. I think they fully believe the standard left line of "religion of peace" and all of that; that these IS Muslims are exceptions to the rule. If they didn't really believe that, then why do they and their water-carrying media work so hard to continue spreading that fertilizer, and why do they tolerate zero alternative views?
ABC ran a special not too long ago where they had some woman on there who tried to sell the idea that those pursuing jihad - supposedly for a reward in paradise of 72 virgins - were actually working with a poor translation. She claimed the true translation would be the word "raisin" instead of "virgin." So, go fight for Allah, risk your life, if you lose it you will be rewarded in paradise with... 72 raisins. Yeah, that make me want to run right out and risk my life for something I could get at the grocery for under a dollar.
ABC was most happy to use this little tidbit to portray the jihadists as an Islamic version of Tea Party bitter clingers. But the "bad translation" theory doesn't pan out when you read the rest of the Qur'an. If it's really "raisins," then these raisins have some very unusual qualities. The Qur'an says they will be wide-eyed, have soft eyes, will marry the person rewarded with them, will remain faithful to them, and will even have large, full breasts. I've never seen a raisin like that.
Seems they will do anything to keep people from seeing the reality of this institutionalized bias and bigotry. They can almost say it with a straight face because they really do believe it is a religion of peace, but their idea of peace is everyone a Muslim and everyone living under Sharia law. Everyone.
If any western church stoned a person for being a homosexual or sentenced some teenagers to 40 lashes with a whip for dancing to music, the left would not stop until that church was as reviled as Hitler. Yet the Muslims do that in any number of countries like Saudi, Iran, Somalia, etc. and the left defends them all over the media, and the media defends them also. Why, if that's not bias, does that happen?
|
|
|
Post by Stetto, man... on Sept 22, 2014 5:41:13 GMT -7
That's because the similarities between leftist ideology and Moslem theology are staggering when seen face to face. They are akin. The only difference beyond style of dress and reference material is that modern socialist/communist/Galvinist doctrine in America has not (yet) adopted the bloodthirsty practices of their deified icons Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, Che, etc. They will, though. They've been conditioning and desensitizing the faithful for generations.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Sept 22, 2014 5:44:45 GMT -7
I think its more because they want a weakened America rather than believe their own rhetoric about religions, I think the plan is to let Islamic militants become stronger so they have the excuse its too costly to stay involved, get us out of all foreign involvement militarily, and the whirled peas will be passed around. Its our fault the world is burning to start with in their eyes. I don't think they really believe anyone is peaceful and inconsequential unless they can control them totally. These people are statists of the highest order, everything they do is to subjugate us because we are the last line in defending liberty. I also don't think they give a damn about American lives being lost to them on the process, you have to break eggs to make an omelet after all, something the left and libertarians seem to share.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 22, 2014 20:10:40 GMT -7
They might want that but the first time another terrorist blows up a marathon or carbombs a hospital or a school, there will be hell to pay. I do not see people accepting again some politically correct BS answer in response, like we need a TSA to frisk us before we can travel on main roads. No, this time I think people will demand PC step aside and will demand serious controls on people who choose to associate with a religion/political system that calls for the death of unbelievers.
Now ISIS can talk trash from half a world away, but that's just how they conduct business. Remember Baghdad Bob? Same thing; didn't matter the truth of anything he said, his job was just to cite the party line always and everywhere. Same for ISIS. They can call all they want on individuals to conduct acts of mayhem, but it's fruitless unless some idiot is attracted to it and makes an attempt. If it fails, the WH will just call it workplace violence like the Ft. Hood thing. If it succeeds, doesn't matter what the WH says, someone's head will need to be on a pike before people settle down. One 911 is all we're going to stand for. Any other attempt on that scale and I think it's going to be war on Muslims wherever and whenever. I'd hate to see it come to that, but when the political leadership doesn't appear to care, then eventually people will rise up and say enough. Holder won't have enough DOJ to handle them all, given that some DOJ are still tied up in the ongoing investigation of George Zimmerman and we see how effective a use of staff that is.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 22, 2014 20:18:05 GMT -7
On a related note, why is it that we're doing airstrikes, TLAM missile strikes, supposedly in Syria, and we don't get a single report on damages? We don't know if a single piece of ordnance hit where it was aimed, and we have no idea who or what was destroyed.
Any other war, we'd hear an endless stream of talking heads all concerned about whether or not we bombed too close to a school or a mosque or a barber shop. Now the media seems it couldn't care less, satisfied knowing only that an attack was made. Where are the body counters? Where are the financial gurus telling us how ineffective it is to launch a million dollar missile at some guys in a tent in the middle of the desert? The silence is deafening.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Sept 23, 2014 5:46:05 GMT -7
I'm not so sure of that. It hasn't up until now, the media and admin does its bets to paint it the fault of the rightwing until facts come out showing its islamists, and then ist simply not terrorism or its based on some sort of personal vendettas, like the Boston bombers, its almost never laid at the feet of where it belongs, so the public gets confused, ta least those who voted for this clown.
As to the reporting of targets and damage, because ISIS has purged all westerners, I doubt there are many reporters there to see it. But I suspect you can look to Russia Times and Al Jazeera for it shortly. Not that it would be reported or made an issue by this bunch of sycophants here.
And I love the call to support the president now that we are in a fight again, funny how they are so afraid to reap what they have sown in that regard. I think its a colossal waste of time and money if we are not going to back any of this up with a presence, and 3rd party armed militias and Iraqi national forces have a proven not to be one already without direct US support. But Iran is already prepping for it.
|
|
|
Post by zrct02 on Sept 23, 2014 7:28:21 GMT -7
I don't think this administration will go to war with anyone except the people of the US that oppose his highness. As for me, I no longer have any feelings for Muslims. I consider them to be sub-human creatures best dealt with by extermination.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Sept 24, 2014 18:41:59 GMT -7
OK I will give credit where credit is due. You want Muslims to come out and condemn and criticize Islamists like we do, aifdemocracy.org/ I have watched a couple interviews with this guy, and he has no shared interest with militant Islam.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Sept 26, 2014 10:45:04 GMT -7
I admire his seeing the obvious problems with Islam and his willingness to change. However, as Spencer points out, the instant any person or group veers the slightest bit off the path of "official" Islam, they are branded an apostate making their viewpoints irrelevant and heretical. What he is trying to do is separate the politics from the religion, as though that's going to represent real progress. The problem is, it's the religion itself that declares non-Muslims second class citizens, dogs, etc. and it's not just a good idea to suppress those non-Muslims, doing so makes you more HOLY.
I get that he doesn't want Sharia law imposed on others, and I presume on him either since it would be a death sentence. But it isn't the Sharia legal tenets that are the problem because Sharia only applies to Muslims unless unbelievers willingly submit to it. That's why throughout history most Muslim conquests have been preceded by a choice between submitting to Sharia and paying a jizya tax, or death. Once they choose to submit, it's perfectly fine for the second class citizen treatment. But the problem is you still have straightforward, declarative sentences in the Qur'an that direct Muslims to act a certain way (modeled after Muhammad) in order to seek perfection. It's those ways where all the problems originate.
For example, in any other faith, a person who gives up that faith because of persecution, etc. is generally considered damned. Not so in Islam; if a Muslim is persecuted, it's acceptable for them to lie, to make people think they have abandoned Islam by any outward appearance. That means a Muslim could remain a good Muslim by joining the local Baptist church and going through all the outward motions provided in his heart he remained true to Islam. That means you can't tell whether any Muslim is sincere when they depart Islam because it may be a ruse designed to make you drop your guard. This doctrine of Islam is the precise reason why there was a Spanish Inquisition, because the King and Queen of Spain at that time were concerned that Muslims who converted to Christianity might be doing so only as a ruse with the ultimate intention of disrupting or overthrowing their monarchy. They requested an inquisition be conducted by the church in order to better determine which of these converts might be attempting deception. Those who were found so were turned over to the government and the government, not the church, handled any sentencing or punishment.
Finally, this fellow has no authority to officially teach Islam or to alter its doctrines. That authority rests only in the major schools of jurisprudence for each particular flavor of Islam. It's the same concept as saying if we can only get enough Catholics to support abortion, the Pope will change his mind. He isn't going to change his mind because it's not about his mind it's about preserving a teaching that is as old as the religion. Islam will have the same view; just because one guy rounds up millions of people who would "like" it to change doesn't impact that it's the same teaching that's been in place since Muhammad was given the revelations. Chance of changing it now or any time in the future equals precisely zero no matter how many Muslims wish it to be so.
The only chance they have is to officially schism away from mainstream Islam and start their new faith, but true schismatics are usually those who have some standing in the original faith, not someone outside it who suddenly wants to construct a pseudo religion.
For those reasons I don't see any chance for it changing. The only way it will be defeated is for Muslims to reject it wholesale or by some form of force that reduces the number of Muslims so drastically that it holds the rest of them in check from trying to become the next ISIS.
|
|
|
Post by Stetto, man... on Sept 26, 2014 14:41:42 GMT -7
I'm wondering how many domestic beheadings will occur before this child-king makes a flipping sound. First was today. They will multiply exponentially once the domestic subhumans figure out that they have support of our own gov'ment. Trust in authority and Mideast neighbors will collapse, and viola, the end game the curb jockey in chief wanted all along.
|
|