its also a modern rosetta stone so if our world gets wiped out people or aliens, or whatever can use it to figure out of some of the worlds major languages.
Well, as long as whoever did it hired professional translators to do it and didn't just Google translate the other languages. That'd be pretty unfortunate if someone was using a foreign equivalent of Engrish to try and figure out extinct languages.
I often wonder if there were less people in the world would we value each others existence and possible individuality more than we value our need to belong to something to feel special and then force our ideals one each other.
I think, honestly if there were less people, things would be worse, rather than better... Because there'd be more reason to defend "us" against "them". I mean, look at all of the wars prior to say... 1200, and see how many of them were about that "us vs. them" mentality as opposed to where we're at now, where there are so many people, and depending on where one lives, there's some modicum of respect for the individual.
I think that's a fair point.
seems like they use mostly terror tactics, ie killing people randomly that are not them and then the next day everyone wants to "repent" and join them. Would be interesting to see how many actually join them as idealists in their army, i'm guessing not many.
above link is some people claiming ISIS leader is Mossad agent trained to create rogue islamic jihad group to destabilize middle east for Israel to take over. Claims further that iraq has IDed isis mortar shells as being israeli in origin, and that ISIS is using M4s as shown in some of their training videos from US make. Claims that ISIS was US/Israeli trained in Jordan.
The UK/USA invasion of Iraq left the country with a hollowed out, deeply unpopular government, and a power vacuum that has been filled by ISIS. Now most dakka members know this, and some dakka member were there when it happened!
In other words, it's a mess the west created.
Now, I don't like to see people suffer, but if we follow the logic of other people, then we should be invading China.
Why? Well, thousands of innocent people are murdered every year by the Chinese state. Let's send in the marines!
Da Boss wrote: Haven't these guys got a lot of their weapons due to McCain convincing the Saudis to arm them?
This entire mess is disgusting.
Actually they got a lot of their weapons taking them from the Iraqi and Syrian armies. IIRC these are the guys who more or less wiped out the guys that the US wanted armed in Syria.
Iraq’s parliament just chose a new President who refused to rename Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki to a third term. Maliki declared the move unconstitutional and his own State of Law Party pulled support from him. Now his forces are seizing government buildings in Iraq, have closed the airport, and are surrounding the Green Zone.
His speech refusing to step down occurred at midnight and was followed by the military action.
Zaid Al-Ali @zalali
Follow
Rumour mill is spinning wildly in baghdad. people are saying that there was just an explosion in president's compound
4:36 PM - 10 Aug 2014
Hayder al-Khoei @Hayder_alKhoei
Follow
Scary reports from Baghdad. Special Forces out in force, Green Zone shut down. Heavy military presence outside Presidential palace & ISCI HQ 4:36 PM - 10 Aug 2014
#BreakingNews #Maliki: Fuad Masum, will be tried on charges of conspiring against the Constitution..! #Iraq #ISIS
Duuuuude... this may be huge! And if al-Maliki really arrests the new president (who is a Kurd I think) as threatened, that may indeed be the excuse the Kurds need to head for the exits.
The cynical voice in my is saying that a coup in Iraq would make things easy for the U.S. to abandon Maliki and deal with the Kurds exclusively from now on...
Iraq’s parliament just chose a new President who refused to rename Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki to a third term. Maliki declared the move unconstitutional and his own State of Law Party pulled support from him. Now his forces are seizing government buildings in Iraq, have closed the airport, and are surrounding the Green Zone.
His speech refusing to step down occurred at midnight and was followed by the military action.
Zaid Al-Ali @zalali
Follow
Rumour mill is spinning wildly in baghdad. people are saying that there was just an explosion in president's compound
4:36 PM - 10 Aug 2014
Hayder al-Khoei @Hayder_alKhoei
Follow
Scary reports from Baghdad. Special Forces out in force, Green Zone shut down. Heavy military presence outside Presidential palace & ISCI HQ 4:36 PM - 10 Aug 2014
#BreakingNews #Maliki: Fuad Masum, will be tried on charges of conspiring against the Constitution..! #Iraq #ISIS
Duuuuude... this may be huge! And if al-Maliki really arrests the new president (who is a Kurd I think) as threatened, that may indeed be the excuse the Kurds need to head for the exits.
The cynical voice in my is saying that a coup in Iraq would make things easy for the U.S. to abandon Maliki and deal with the Kurds exclusively from now on...
What do you mean your cynical voice? Are you suggesting the USA has done this before in say...Vietnam?
Jihadin wrote: I do not see a justification on putting "Boots on Grounds" in Iraq. Though I can see relocating the Christians being moved to Kuwait and processed to the US as refugee's
Give (EDITED) the Kurds a bunch of stuff. Help them get to the mountain and get those people out. Then stay out.
Realistically, no reason for the US to be involved further. These are tribal proxy wars between the Gulf States and Iran. Besides the Kurds I don't see anyone in their own country breaking a sweat to keep it together.
What do you mean your cynical voice? Are you suggesting the USA has done this before in say...Vietnam?
Carpe Diệm
Also, Egypt more recently. Maliki seems to be getting a lot of fire from the rear however. There have been calls for him to step down from within his own party at this point due to his mismanaging the situation. b The courts have also, thus far, refused ot rule against the President.
Jihadin wrote: I do not see a justification on putting "Boots on Grounds" in Iraq. Though I can see relocating the Christians being moved to Kuwait and processed to the US as refugee's
Give Kuwait a bunch of stuff. Help them get to the mountain and get those people out. Then stay out.
Realistically, no reason for the US to be involved further. These are tribal proxy wars between the Gulf States and Iran. Besides the Kurds I don't see anyone in their own country breaking a sweat to keep it together.
Frazz, it looks like you and I are the only isolationists on this thread
Is too late for us to register for the 2016 US presidential elections, and run on an anti-intervention ticket?
If you can deliver Texas, then I can guarantee that with my liberal credentials, the North will support us!
It's high time there was a third way in American politics!
Jihadin wrote: I do not see a justification on putting "Boots on Grounds" in Iraq. Though I can see relocating the Christians being moved to Kuwait and processed to the US as refugee's
Give Kuwait a bunch of stuff. Help them get to the mountain and get those people out. Then stay out.
Realistically, no reason for the US to be involved further. These are tribal proxy wars between the Gulf States and Iran. Besides the Kurds I don't see anyone in their own country breaking a sweat to keep it together.
Frazz, it looks like you and I are the only isolationists on this thread
Is too late for us to register for the 2016 US presidential elections, and run on an anti-intervention ticket?
If you can deliver Texas, then I can guarantee that with my liberal credentials, the North will support us!
It's high time there was a third way in American politics!
Jihadin wrote: I do not see a justification on putting "Boots on Grounds" in Iraq. Though I can see relocating the Christians being moved to Kuwait and processed to the US as refugee's
Give Kuwait a bunch of stuff. Help them get to the mountain and get those people out. Then stay out.
Realistically, no reason for the US to be involved further. These are tribal proxy wars between the Gulf States and Iran. Besides the Kurds I don't see anyone in their own country breaking a sweat to keep it together.
Get out your map of Kuwait and Iraq. Look up what the Kuwaiti military has and does not have. No way they can support the type of operation it would take to move what few forces they have those distances and be able to keep the logistics lines running for the op. For us to build them to the capability level needed would take way to long and cost way too much. As for the 'Help Them' part, what help would you be willing to give that would end up being less extensive than the limited air strikes we are currently under taking?
The point still stands to some extent. The Kurds would/will need air (strikes and supply drops) and intel support along with training support for anything we directly supply them. The exact same stuff we are doing now.
CptJake wrote: The point still stands to some extent. The Kurds would/will need air (strikes and supply drops) and intel support along with training support for anything we directly supply them. The exact same stuff we are doing now.
Which I am fine with for a short period of time. Then get out and stay out.
We've cluster ed every time we tried to do something in North Africa and the Middle East since...WWII?
Nothing wrong with Islam, nor its rule.. the Sharia. the use... however should be confined to personal or specific community, not an entire polity. Christian fundamentalist plotting the same attempt to make theocratic christian state is evil to the same degree as Isis.
Christian fundamentalist plotting the same attempt to make theocratic christian state is evil to the same degree as Isis.
As soon as Christian fundamentalists declare a Christian Kingdom then you can talk. until then your statement has only a tangential link to reality in any form.
Christian fundamentalist plotting the same attempt to make theocratic christian state is evil to the same degree as Isis.
As soon as Christian fundamentalists declare a Christian Kingdom and execute folks breaking their rules and extorting money from others via coercive means such as kidnapping, then you can talk. until then your statement has only a tangential link to reality in any form.
Christian fundamentalist plotting the same attempt to make theocratic christian state is evil to the same degree as Isis.
As soon as Christian fundamentalists declare a Christian Kingdom then you can talk. until then your statement has only a tangential link to reality in any form.
I am saying that fundamentalism is evil. no matter which religion the movement upholds.
Christian fundamentalist plotting the same attempt to make theocratic christian state is evil to the same degree as Isis.
As soon as Christian fundamentalists declare a Christian Kingdom then you can talk. until then your statement has only a tangential link to reality in any form.
I am saying that fundamentalism is evil. no matter which religion the movement upholds.
To be fair, you really need to back that up with examples of how actions attributed to that fundamentalism justify the 'evil' label. I have not seen a lot of recent youtube videos of fundie Christians hacking off the heads of little girls.
Frazzled wrote: As a fundamentalist advocate of the Great Wiener Dog, only cat lovers need fear, for they are as unclean as they are unholy.
Repent ye cat loving sinners!
My little Stitch & Loki will resist to the very end your crazy wiener dog brigades! Hell, Loki will just devour everything in sight, since she's also part piranha-velocishark-raptor-devourerofworlds&allthingsfluffy...
As soon as Christian fundamentalists declare a Christian Kingdom then you can talk. until then your statement has only a tangential link to reality in any form.
As soon as Christian fundamentalists declare a Christian Kingdom then you can talk. until then your statement has only a tangential link to reality in any form.
Christianity has changed much since basically ALL of those have become a thing.... No longer is a "fundamentalist" Christian going around lopping off heads.... Depending on your definition of "Christian" some ARE however, illegally marrying underage girls/illegally marrying more than one woman....
Come on Jake From Northern Iraq to Southern Iraq and across the border into Kuwait.
Cut ISIS in half on the convoy's. If even looks threatening bomb the ....Kuwait logistical can support it They can't leave from the locations
As soon as Christian fundamentalists declare a Christian Kingdom then you can talk. until then your statement has only a tangential link to reality in any form.
whembly wrote: Maliki is now *blaming* the US for supporting the new Kurdish President.
What a mess...
Arabs believed Kurds are Jews (and shouldn't boss 'em around)... they believed that within their proper, they are the only kind to boss... oh! sense of Majority nationalism, the presence of minority ruling over the mass is not easy unless the leader (or the System) is fair. some said that Kurds were one of the 'Lost Israelite tribes'
Wow its like none of that gak happened in the last THOUSAND YEARS.
Actually the last two of those happened in the last two centuries, and the Vatican, at least, is still an ongoing thing....
If you want comparatively recent, I give you South Vietnam under Diệm. There was, after all, a reason the US replaced him, and all those monks were setting themselves on fire.... as ARVN burned Buddhist temples and imprisoned and executed non-Catholics....
nels1031 wrote: I'd argue none on that list are particularly fundamentalist.
Killing Buddhists becuase they aren't Christian seems fairly fundamentalist. I would argue that Christians of that ilk are an extreme minority, not that they don't exist.
nels1031 wrote: I'd argue none on that list are particularly fundamentalist.
Killing Buddhists becuase they aren't Christian seems fairly fundamentalist. I would argue that Christians of that ilk are an extreme minority, not that they don't exist.
A minority catholics within the land of Easter Religions is still dangerous in the view of majority. especially with any form of despotism exists in that country.
The most recent of Christian fundamentalist nation (or closest things to) is... lemme say.. Central African Republic. I've heard the reports that the Christian government ordered series of massacre on Muslim population. the methods of execution is what I don't really know, but it is likely the fire is used. Because any fundamentalism treats other religions as heresy. (and crime).. and in classic Christian 'law'. Heresy should be burned alive. How did muslim fundamentalist deal with heretics? what do they use to dispose these 'worthless blob of flesh'? fire? firing squad? crucification? mobbing? or else?
So, are these new "Evaluation Teams" really going to be forward observers for CAS missions?
Is this goig to be like how we "supported" the Northern Alliance in the early days of the Afghan war but use local Pesh Merga with our air support to help lift the siege?
Frazzled wrote: Why evac? Why not just "arc light" with supporting cast members from those wacky always lovable peshmurga?
Why are we not secretly coordinating with Iran and Syria to hit them in Iraq while they hit them in Syria?
That be interesting to see. Obama talking to Assad to make that happen. Think Iran threw a couple battalion of "fighters" at ISIS already. We bypassed the Mal'Imascrubwasteofspace to providing small arms to Kurds.
It's going to have to happen on the Kurds side because frankly, no one can really trust the Iraq military to step the "F" up and perform beyond the status quo
nels1031 wrote: I'd argue none on that list are particularly fundamentalist.
The brave speak the truth, completely agree. Empires were a historical norm for centuries, it was not considered wrong to expand your political borders through empire building. Don't judge the past with modern eyes. Someday we wil be judged by future generations.
Frazzled wrote: Why evac? Why not just "arc light" with supporting cast members from those wacky always lovable peshmurga?
Why are we not secretly coordinating with Iran and Syria to hit them in Iraq while they hit them in Syria?
That be interesting to see. Obama talking to Assad to make that happen. Think Iran threw a couple battalion of "fighters" at ISIS already. We bypassed the Mal'Imascrubwasteofspace to providing small arms to Kurds.
It's going to have to happen on the Kurds side because frankly, no one can really trust the Iraq military to step the "F" up and perform beyond the status quo
Having said that beyond humanitarian I'm not that concerned. I like the Kurds, but thats about it. If ISIL is such a major threat Iran and Turkey should be curbstomping them.
Back in my day, Middle Eastern countries had no problem ganging up (and losing).
Frazzled wrote: Why evac? Why not just "arc light" with supporting cast members from those wacky always lovable peshmurga?
Why are we not secretly coordinating with Iran and Syria to hit them in Iraq while they hit them in Syria?
That be interesting to see. Obama talking to Assad to make that happen. Think Iran threw a couple battalion of "fighters" at ISIS already. We bypassed the Mal'Imascrubwasteofspace to providing small arms to Kurds.
It's going to have to happen on the Kurds side because frankly, no one can really trust the Iraq military to step the "F" up and perform beyond the status quo
Having said that beyond humanitarian I'm not that concerned. I like the Kurds, but thats about it. If ISIL is such a major threat Iran and Turkey should be curbstomping them.
Back in my day, Middle Eastern countries had no problem ganging up (and losing).
Back in OUR day we just had to worry about Russia. Now its Russia and ISIS
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) claims to have beheaded an American photojournalist and has threatened the life of another American journalist if President Obama doesn't stop airstrikes in Iraq.
A graphic video obtained by NBC News purportedly shows James Wright Foley, a freelance journalist for the U.S.-based news service GlobalPost who was kidnapped while reporting from Syria two years ago, reciting threats against America before he is executed by an ISIS militant. The militant heard in the video speaks in English.
The terrorist video shows footage of Obama speaking from the White House on the day he told Americans he had authorized airstrikes in Iraq.
Foley was kidnapped at gunpoint near the town of Taftanaz in northern Syria on Thanksgiving Day in 2012. He had not been heard from during his time in captivity. "We’ve heard nothing. Nothing. We last knew that he was abducted on Thanksgiving Day in the Idlib province, but we don’t know who took him or why," Foley's father, John, said on TODAY last year.
ISIS releases video showing the beheading of U.S. freelance journalist James Foley and threaten to execute murder another journalist, Steven Joel Soltoff .
The President won't do anything. Not because we don't negotiate with terrorists (ha!) but because the lives of those journalists just aren't important enough to warrant the President going back on his promise not to send in troops. Seriously, the Kurds had better realize they're on their own there.
Not really Bre. We're giving them small arms armament and "Little Yellow" bird friend of mine at Bragg (who keeps in touch with me since he is now a Contract Oversight NCO) dropped word that Javelins have been shipped
The Islamic State (IS) has released a video online purporting to show the beheading of US journalist James Foley, who went missing in Syria in 2012.
The jihadist militant group said the killing was revenge for US air strikes against its fighters in Iraq.
Foley's mother Diane said on Facebook she was proud of her son: "He gave his life trying to expose the world to the suffering of the Syrian people."
The White House said if the video was genuine, the US would be "appalled".
If (the video is) genuine, we are appalled by the brutal murder of an innocent American journalist”
Caitlin Hayden
US security spokeswoman
Foley, 40, has reported extensively across the Middle East, working for the US publication GlobalPost and other media outlets including French news agency AFP.
British accent In the video, titled A Message to America, a man identified as James Foley is dressed in an orange jumpsuit, kneeling in desert-like terrain beside an armed man dressed in black.
He gives a message to his family and links his imminent death to the US government's bombing campaign of IS targets in Iraq.
Clearly under duress, he says: "I call on my friends, family and loved ones to rise up against my real killers, the US government, for what will happen to me is only a result of their complacency and criminality."
Then the masked militant, who speaks with a British accent, delivers a warning to the US government: "You are no longer fighting an insurgency. We are an Islamic Army and a state that has been accepted by a large number of Muslims worldwide.
The apparent murderer speaks with a British accent, as the BBC's Frank Gardner reports. Some listeners may find parts of this audio disturbing.
"So any attempt by you Obama to deny the Muslims their rights of living in safety under the Islamic caliphate will result in the bloodshed of your people."
After he speaks, the militant appears to start cutting at his captive's neck before the video fades to black.
RJCarrot wrote: I had a SOFA agreement once.... My buddy needed a place to crash and I was like, you can crash on my SOFA if you keep my house clean....
Washington (CNN) -- U.S. special operations units were sent into Syria this summer to rescue American journalist James Foley and other hostages held by Islamic militants, a U.S. official told CNN.
Several dozen of the most elite U.S. commandos from units like Delta Force and Navy SEAL Team 6 flew in aboard helicopters but couldn't find the hostages, including Foley, whose grisly execution was captured on video and released this week by ISIS, the terror group that refers to itself as the Islamic State.
"Unfortunately, the mission was not successful because the hostages were not present at the targeted location," Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said on Wednesday.
It's the latest revelation about Foley's final days in the hands of ISIS, which taunted his family in an e-mail a week ago, saying he would be killed.
"The message was vitriolic and filled with rage against the United States. It was deadly serious," said Philip Balboni, CEO of the online publication GlobalPost, which employed Foley.
ISIS beheads American reporter Was the ISIS militant a British citizen? Obama: No faith teaches this 'The world's most ruthless terrorists'
"Obviously, we hoped and prayed that would not be the case. ... Sadly, they showed no mercy."
Balboni told the Wall Street Journal that the captors originally demanded a ransom sum of 100 million euros ($132.5 million) from Foley's family and GlobalPost.
Then came the message sent to Foley's family last week. "There was no demand," Balboni said.
Obama: ISIS is a 'cancer'
Obama says ISIS a 'cancer' that must be eradicated
In the video, which CNN is not showing, Foley is seen on his knees as a man cloaked in black, his face covered, stands behind him.
Foley is then executed.
The video of his killing also shows another U.S. journalist, believed to be Steven Sotloff. The militant in the video, who speaks English with what sounds like a British accent, says the other American's life hangs in the balance, depending on what President Barack Obama does next in Iraq.
But the threat did little to curb U.S. military operations in Iraq, with American warplanes carrying out at least 14 airstrikes against ISIS targets.
Calling ISIS a "cancer," Obama said the United States "will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and replace it with a sense of hope and civility."
Several ISIS operatives were killed in the special operation earlier this summer that tried to rescue Foley and others, the U.S. official said. No U.S. personnel were killed, but one was slightly wounded. Fighters jets and surveillance aircraft provided overhead protection to the troops.
Who is the ISIS?
Foley's father: They showed no mercy
Messages from Foley's captors began last fall, Balboni of GlobalPost said. Foley, a freelance journalist, was on assignment when he disappeared on November 22, 2012, in northwest Syria, near the border with Turkey.
"The captors never messaged a lot. There was a very limited number with a very specific purpose. ... They made demands," Balboni said.
Some messages were political and some were financial.
Then came the final message last week, without any demand.
Foley's family, according to Balboni, responded in an e-mail, pleading for mercy and asking for more time.
Will ISIS attacks spread to U.S.? Who is James Foley? W.H. reacts to journalist's beheading
They did not hear back.
The captors showed no mercy, Foley's father, John, told reporters on Wednesday, breaking down in tears.
Foley's family appears to have been among the journalist's final thoughts.
In the execution video posted Tuesday to YouTube, Foley reads a message, presumably scripted in part, if not all, by his captors. "I wish I had more time. I wish I could have the hope for freedom to see my family once again," he can be heard saying.
Foley's parents, flanked by one of his brothers, talked to reporters about their son's plight.
"Jim was innocent and they knew it," his mother, Diane, said. "They knew that Jim was just a symbol of our country."
His father broke down several times.
"We beg compassion and mercy" for the other American journalist shown in the video, said John Foley. Sotloff, a contributor to Time and Foreign Policy magazines, was kidnapped at the Syria-Turkey border in 2013.
"They never hurt anybody," John Foley said. "They were trying to help. There is no reason for their slaughter."
James Foley, 40, previously had been taken captive in Libya. He was detained there in April 2011 along with three other reporters, and released six weeks later.
Afterward, he said that what saddened him most was knowing that he was causing his family to worry.
His parents talked about asking him why he wanted to return to conflict zones.
"Why do firemen keep going back to blazing homes?" John Foley told reporters. "This was his passion. He was not crazy. He was motivated by what he thought was doing the right thing ... that gave him energy to continue despite the risk."
His mother said she remembered him telling her, "Mom, I found my passion. I found my vocation."
Source: Foley tortured, beaten
Disturbing details about Foley's final months began to emerge Wednesday.
A source who claims to have been held last year with Foley told CNN's Bharati Naik that he, Foley and another journalist were held from March to August 2013 in a prison in the Syrian city of Aleppo near Masha al-Adfaa hospital.
At the time, the source -- who spoke on condition of anonymity -- said they were being held by al-Nusra Front, a Syrian rebel group with ties to al Qaeda in Iraq.
At one point, according to the source, there were almost 100 people -- including other European journalists -- in the prison.
The source believes Foley and the other journalist, who was not Sotloff, were transferred to an ISIS training camp.
Foley and the other journalist, according to the source, were tortured in prison -- mostly beaten.
Foley and the other journalist, who the source declined to identify, said they gave him contact numbers and e-mail addresses to pass on messages to their family members.
The source told CNN he lost the contacts and did not get in touch with the families. He said he did, however, give the information about the journalists to Western government authorities in November 2013, including details about where Foley was being held.
French journalist Nicolas Henin told France Info radio he had been held with Foley in northern Syria prior to his release in April.
Henin, who has never before spoken about Foley because he didn't want to jeopardize his safety, said he was held for seven months with the American journalist.
Hostages were held in groups. At one point, he shared a cell with Foley.
Foley "was in a difficult state," Henin said. "He already suffered a lot during his first months (of captivity) and thankfully we shared a phase (in our detention) that was less difficult."
Foley, according to Henin, said he had been initially kidnapped by a group of jihadists who were fighting in Syria.
The Committee to Protect Journalists estimates there are about 20 journalists missing in Syria, many of them held by ISIS.
Among them is American Austin Tice, a freelance journalist who was contributing articles to The Washington Post. Tice disappeared in Syria in August 2012. There has been no word of or from him since his abduction.
What to know about ISIS
Searching for clues
U.S. and British counterterrorism analysts are examining every frame and piece of audio of the execution video for clues about where it took place and who the executioner is, U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CNN.
The voice in the video seems to have a British accent so they're trying to match any individuals known to the British government who may have gone to Syria to fight in that nation's civil war.
The analysts are looking at clothing, climate, terrain, language and wording and whether there are any National Security Agency or UK phone intercepts matching the voice, the officials said.
U.S. Official: ISIS 'credible alternative to al Qaeda'
Foley's killing recalled the murder of Daniel Pearl, The Wall Street Journal correspondent who was kidnapped while reporting in Pakistan in January 2002. His killing was captured on video and posted online by al Qaeda.
Pearl's mother, Ruth Pearl, responded to Foley's death with a tweet posted by the Daniel Pearl Foundation Twitter account that reads: "Our hearts go out to the family of journalist James Foley. We know the horror they are going through."
Foley's death also harkened to the videotaped beheadings of Americans Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley carried out by al Qaeda during the height of the Iraq War.
RJCarrot wrote: I had a SOFA agreement once.... My buddy needed a place to crash and I was like, you can crash on my SOFA if you keep my house clean....
Washington (CNN) -- U.S. special operations units were sent into Syria this summer to rescue American journalist James Foley and other hostages held by Islamic militants, a U.S. official told CNN.
Several dozen of the most elite U.S. commandos from units like Delta Force and Navy SEAL Team 6 flew in aboard helicopters but couldn't find the hostages, including Foley, whose grisly execution was captured on video and released this week by ISIS, the terror group that refers to itself as the Islamic State.
"Unfortunately, the mission was not successful because the hostages were not present at the targeted location," Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said on Wednesday.
It's the latest revelation about Foley's final days in the hands of ISIS, which taunted his family in an e-mail a week ago, saying he would be killed.
"The message was vitriolic and filled with rage against the United States. It was deadly serious," said Philip Balboni, CEO of the online publication GlobalPost, which employed Foley.
ISIS beheads American reporter Was the ISIS militant a British citizen? Obama: No faith teaches this 'The world's most ruthless terrorists'
"Obviously, we hoped and prayed that would not be the case. ... Sadly, they showed no mercy."
Balboni told the Wall Street Journal that the captors originally demanded a ransom sum of 100 million euros ($132.5 million) from Foley's family and GlobalPost.
Then came the message sent to Foley's family last week. "There was no demand," Balboni said.
Obama: ISIS is a 'cancer'
Obama says ISIS a 'cancer' that must be eradicated
In the video, which CNN is not showing, Foley is seen on his knees as a man cloaked in black, his face covered, stands behind him.
Foley is then executed.
The video of his killing also shows another U.S. journalist, believed to be Steven Sotloff. The militant in the video, who speaks English with what sounds like a British accent, says the other American's life hangs in the balance, depending on what President Barack Obama does next in Iraq.
But the threat did little to curb U.S. military operations in Iraq, with American warplanes carrying out at least 14 airstrikes against ISIS targets.
Calling ISIS a "cancer," Obama said the United States "will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and replace it with a sense of hope and civility."
Several ISIS operatives were killed in the special operation earlier this summer that tried to rescue Foley and others, the U.S. official said. No U.S. personnel were killed, but one was slightly wounded. Fighters jets and surveillance aircraft provided overhead protection to the troops.
Who is the ISIS?
Foley's father: They showed no mercy
Messages from Foley's captors began last fall, Balboni of GlobalPost said. Foley, a freelance journalist, was on assignment when he disappeared on November 22, 2012, in northwest Syria, near the border with Turkey.
"The captors never messaged a lot. There was a very limited number with a very specific purpose. ... They made demands," Balboni said.
Some messages were political and some were financial.
Then came the final message last week, without any demand.
Foley's family, according to Balboni, responded in an e-mail, pleading for mercy and asking for more time.
Will ISIS attacks spread to U.S.? Who is James Foley? W.H. reacts to journalist's beheading
They did not hear back.
The captors showed no mercy, Foley's father, John, told reporters on Wednesday, breaking down in tears.
Foley's family appears to have been among the journalist's final thoughts.
In the execution video posted Tuesday to YouTube, Foley reads a message, presumably scripted in part, if not all, by his captors. "I wish I had more time. I wish I could have the hope for freedom to see my family once again," he can be heard saying.
Foley's parents, flanked by one of his brothers, talked to reporters about their son's plight.
"Jim was innocent and they knew it," his mother, Diane, said. "They knew that Jim was just a symbol of our country."
His father broke down several times.
"We beg compassion and mercy" for the other American journalist shown in the video, said John Foley. Sotloff, a contributor to Time and Foreign Policy magazines, was kidnapped at the Syria-Turkey border in 2013.
"They never hurt anybody," John Foley said. "They were trying to help. There is no reason for their slaughter."
James Foley, 40, previously had been taken captive in Libya. He was detained there in April 2011 along with three other reporters, and released six weeks later.
Afterward, he said that what saddened him most was knowing that he was causing his family to worry.
His parents talked about asking him why he wanted to return to conflict zones.
"Why do firemen keep going back to blazing homes?" John Foley told reporters. "This was his passion. He was not crazy. He was motivated by what he thought was doing the right thing ... that gave him energy to continue despite the risk."
His mother said she remembered him telling her, "Mom, I found my passion. I found my vocation."
Source: Foley tortured, beaten
Disturbing details about Foley's final months began to emerge Wednesday.
A source who claims to have been held last year with Foley told CNN's Bharati Naik that he, Foley and another journalist were held from March to August 2013 in a prison in the Syrian city of Aleppo near Masha al-Adfaa hospital.
At the time, the source -- who spoke on condition of anonymity -- said they were being held by al-Nusra Front, a Syrian rebel group with ties to al Qaeda in Iraq.
At one point, according to the source, there were almost 100 people -- including other European journalists -- in the prison.
The source believes Foley and the other journalist, who was not Sotloff, were transferred to an ISIS training camp.
Foley and the other journalist, according to the source, were tortured in prison -- mostly beaten.
Foley and the other journalist, who the source declined to identify, said they gave him contact numbers and e-mail addresses to pass on messages to their family members.
The source told CNN he lost the contacts and did not get in touch with the families. He said he did, however, give the information about the journalists to Western government authorities in November 2013, including details about where Foley was being held.
French journalist Nicolas Henin told France Info radio he had been held with Foley in northern Syria prior to his release in April.
Henin, who has never before spoken about Foley because he didn't want to jeopardize his safety, said he was held for seven months with the American journalist.
Hostages were held in groups. At one point, he shared a cell with Foley.
Foley "was in a difficult state," Henin said. "He already suffered a lot during his first months (of captivity) and thankfully we shared a phase (in our detention) that was less difficult."
Foley, according to Henin, said he had been initially kidnapped by a group of jihadists who were fighting in Syria.
The Committee to Protect Journalists estimates there are about 20 journalists missing in Syria, many of them held by ISIS.
Among them is American Austin Tice, a freelance journalist who was contributing articles to The Washington Post. Tice disappeared in Syria in August 2012. There has been no word of or from him since his abduction.
What to know about ISIS
Searching for clues
U.S. and British counterterrorism analysts are examining every frame and piece of audio of the execution video for clues about where it took place and who the executioner is, U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CNN.
The voice in the video seems to have a British accent so they're trying to match any individuals known to the British government who may have gone to Syria to fight in that nation's civil war.
The analysts are looking at clothing, climate, terrain, language and wording and whether there are any National Security Agency or UK phone intercepts matching the voice, the officials said.
U.S. Official: ISIS 'credible alternative to al Qaeda'
Foley's killing recalled the murder of Daniel Pearl, The Wall Street Journal correspondent who was kidnapped while reporting in Pakistan in January 2002. His killing was captured on video and posted online by al Qaeda.
Pearl's mother, Ruth Pearl, responded to Foley's death with a tweet posted by the Daniel Pearl Foundation Twitter account that reads: "Our hearts go out to the family of journalist James Foley. We know the horror they are going through."
Foley's death also harkened to the videotaped beheadings of Americans Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley carried out by al Qaeda during the height of the Iraq War.
Failed Darkside operations needs to stay in the Dark because once known it becomes a propaganda subject for the Bad Guys.
Bad optics for him to go golfing after the journalist got beheaded. Wonder how the certain media going to view him now
The Department of Defense (DOD) violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees. Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer. As a consequence of using its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, DOD also violated the Antideficiency Act.
Not holding my breath for Holder* to prosecute this...
Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
But this front-page and sentiments like this... I think, it's kinda harsh.
I mean, yeah this administration's foreign policy is weak-sauce, but it Obama's policies didn't put this reporter there.
Maybe the criticism is the excessive vacationing / fundraising... or something.
The British Prime Minister David Cameron is doing the exact same thing.
Was on holiday.
Got called back to London to deal with Iraq issues and the pressure to recall Parliament.
Went on a second holiday.
Got called back to London again to deal with the fallout over a British jihadist murdering American journalists.
Oh, and get this. Apparently the PM doesn't get good cell phone reception in Cornwall.
Meanwhile, our Deputy Prime Minister who is supposed to be running the country during the Prime Ministers absence is also on holiday, or something. Nobody really knows, it seems.
During an International Crisis and a civil war rising out of a power vacuum and mess we helped to create in a country from which we recently withdrew our troops...you'd think our leaders would have the sense to stick around in London close to the government, with events progressing as quickly as this.
Why don't they just holiday IN London? Take their family to the theatre, museums, cinema, bowling etc. Then if a crisis pops up, they can deal with it quickly then be back with their family the same day.
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Meanwhile, our Deputy Prime Minister who is supposed to be running the country during the Prime Ministers absence is also on holiday, or something. Nobody really knows, it seems.
Perhaps it was the Deputy PM's voice that was heard on the video
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Money?
It cost money to transport the detainees. The law makes it explicit that the administration needs approval from Congress in order to do that.
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Money?
It cost money to transport the detainees. The law makes it explicit that the administration needs approval from Congress in order to do that.
Money already funded to the US military for the Fiscal year. We have a base in Qatar. For alI know we could of have stuck them in a C130 for the entire freaking trip there blind folded and cuffed.
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Money?
It cost money to transport the detainees. The law makes it explicit that the administration needs approval from Congress in order to do that.
Money already funded to the US military for the Fiscal year. We have a base in Qatar. For alI know we could of have stuck them in a C130 for the entire freaking trip there blind folded and cuffed.
Right... but, Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Money?
It cost money to transport the detainees. The law makes it explicit that the administration needs approval from Congress in order to do that.
Money already funded to the US military for the Fiscal year. We have a base in Qatar. For alI know we could of have stuck them in a C130 for the entire freaking trip there blind folded and cuffed.
Right... but, Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Money?
It cost money to transport the detainees. The law makes it explicit that the administration needs approval from Congress in order to do that.
Money already funded to the US military for the Fiscal year. We have a base in Qatar. For alI know we could of have stuck them in a C130 for the entire freaking trip there blind folded and cuffed.
Right... but, Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer
What UCMJ article was broken?
Not UCMJ... the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014.
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Money?
It cost money to transport the detainees. The law makes it explicit that the administration needs approval from Congress in order to do that.
Money already funded to the US military for the Fiscal year. We have a base in Qatar. For alI know we could of have stuck them in a C130 for the entire freaking trip there blind folded and cuffed.
Right... but, Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer
What UCMJ article was broken?
Not UCMJ... the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014.
whembly wrote: Right... but, Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer
That's a pretty technical breach, even if we interpret the meanings of words in the way necessary to read it as a breach at all.
Don't get me wrong, I think the way Obama and his administration behaved in that prisoner exchange was terrible. But it was terrible because they struck a deal and released prisoners without any kind of review or oversight, not because money was spent to transport the prisoners to the drop off point.
I think trying to find some kind of technical breach of appropriations law only distracts from the real issue... in this sense it's much like the Perry indictment, the legalese response really just serves to distract from the bad behaviour.
Jihadin wrote: Bergdahl health was in jeopardy they said...so hence they could not inform Congress on what was going down. Military doctors seems to be performing in a Outstanding Stellar Fashion for Bergdahl
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
Money?
It cost money to transport the detainees. The law makes it explicit that the administration needs approval from Congress in order to do that.
Money already funded to the US military for the Fiscal year. We have a base in Qatar. For alI know we could of have stuck them in a C130 for the entire freaking trip there blind folded and cuffed.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. I doubt there was any need or requirement to put those guys in a cushy private Gulfstream 2000 and serve them tea and lemonade.
The noisy hold of a C130 with the heater turned off for a transatlantic flight (18 hrs?) is all they should get. Sorry no midflight movie or MRE even.
whembly wrote: Right... but, Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer
That's a pretty technical breach, even if we interpret the meanings of words in the way necessary to read it as a breach at all.
Don't get me wrong, I think the way Obama and his administration behaved in that prisoner exchange was terrible. But it was terrible because they struck a deal and released prisoners without any kind of review or oversight, not because money was spent to transport the prisoners to the drop off point.
I think trying to find some kind of technical breach of appropriations law only distracts from the real issue... in this sense it's much like the Perry indictment, the legalese response really just serves to distract from the bad behaviour.
Remember, Al Capone was sentenced for tax evasion. Sometimes you go with the this type of charge because it is the easiest to prove.
Doesn't matter... The law prohibits the President from using money without proper permission or appropriation for any purpose. If Bergdahl's health was the true reason, then this administrations should've gotten Congressional approval... stat.
whemb, maybe you've never had to deal with getting something approved by congress, but 'stat' could be in 2-4 years. Hell, I've heard, and this may be an exaggeration, that the Pentagon assumes that a declaration of war might take as much as a month after the enemy starts landing troops along the Chesapeake, the way things currently are.
I might draw your attention to his Holiness, the Pope, recently urging countries to step up their game against ISIS. He doesn't quite say 'Deus Vult' but it's there if you read between the lines.
Islamic State threat 'beyond anything we've seen': Pentagon BY MISSY RYAN
WASHINGTON Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:25pm EDT
(Reuters) - The sophistication, wealth and military might of Islamic State militants represent a major threat to the United States that may surpass that once posed by al Qaeda, U.S. military leaders said on Thursday.
"They are an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon.
Hagel's assessment of Islamic State, which gained strength during Syria's civil war and swept into northern Iraq earlier this summer, sounded a note of alarm several days after the group posted a video on social media showing one of its fighters beheading an American hostage kidnapped in Syria.
Asked if the hardline Sunni Muslim organization posed a threat to the United States comparable to that of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Hagel said it was "as sophisticated and well-funded as any group we have seen."
"They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of ... military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything we've seen."
Hagel spoke as the United States continued attacking Islamic State targets in Iraq. In the past two weeks, U.S. drones and fighter jets have conducted 89 airstrikes against militant targets in northern Iraq.
So far, President Barack Obama has sought to limit his renewed military campaign in Iraq to protecting American diplomats and civilians under direct threat. Obama ended the war in Iraq that killed thousands of American soldiers and consumed U.S. foreign policy for nearly a decade,
Even after the gruesome killing of U.S. journalist James Foley, Obama is seen as unlikely to deepen his near-term military involvement in either Iraq or Syria as he seeks to avoid becoming embroiled in another messy Middle Eastern conflict.
But U.S. officials say they have not ruled out escalating military action against Islamic State, which has increased its overt threats against the United States since the air campaign in Iraq began.
'APOCALYPTIC, END-OF-DAYS VISION'
"We haven't made a decision to take additional actions at this time, but we truly don't rule out additional action against ISIL if it becomes warranted," Ben Rhodes, a senior Obama aide, told National Public Radio earlier on Thursday, using another name for Islamic State.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said officials were worried about the possibility that European or U.S. nationals, radicalized after fighting in Iraq or Syria, would return to their home countries.
Dempsey suggested Islamic State would remain a danger until it could no longer count on safe havens in areas of Syria under militant control.
"This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of- days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated," Dempsey said.
"To your question, can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a non-existent border."
So far as the Post, the frontpage photo was in bad taste and pretty misleading. The President OK'd a rescue operation and has had the military prosecuting 7 or 8 strikes a day for the last two weeks. That's a pretty aggressive response against an enemy that I would argue we can't legally fight at all - there is no AUMF against ISIL, after all. The Al-Aqaeda AUMF definitely does not apply, the Iraq one is a pretty far stretch, and if we're going war powers act, he better get congressional approval soon - and I haven't seen any indication President Obama intends to seek any approval for military force against ISIL at all.
BaronIveagh wrote: whemb, maybe you've never had to deal with getting something approved by congress, but 'stat' could be in 2-4 years.
In Whembly's defense, the law doesn't require approval, it requires congressional notice.
I argued doing the prisoner swap was the right thing, and I still feel that way, but also feel it was handled badly.
Had to chuckle when I heard the Pope of all people was sticking his nose in. Might as well declare a Crusade, because that's what the entire Muslim world is going to assume anyway.
Ouze wrote: I'm not religious but a crusade would be sort of awesome, in a way. I mean, gleaming armor, tabards with red crosses - those were pretty pimp outfits.
right?
When the blazing midday sun is beating down on you, chainmail and heavy armour would be my first choice as well. Who needs suncream?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Had to chuckle when I heard the Pope of all people was sticking his nose in. Might as well declare a Crusade, because that's what the entire Muslim world is going to assume anyway.
The gak is REALLY about to hit the fan now.
Agreed. Who have thought that invading a country, killing thousands, and creating a power vacuum to be filled by murderous islamists, could ever happen? Certainly not me and certainly not all those middle eastern experts. !
It's a shame that America didn't have a historical lesson to draw on, say, a small country in SE Asia, which we'll call Cambodia for argument's sake, that was bombed endlessly, and ended up suffering a murderous genocide when the government collapsed and somebody else filled the vacuum...
Yes, we The West have a nasty habit of creating our own enemies and leaving nought but misery and despair in the wake of our liberal interventionism.
"It's for their own good" we say as we bomb countries back into the stone age and topple government's and dictators, "we're sowing the seeds of democracy".
Then when the cost proves too great, we turn tail and run, all the while declaring "Mission Accomplished!" and boasting of the wonderful utopias we've created, and, leaving the poor sods to fend for themselves and pick up the pieces.
As I understand it Libyas not doing too good these days after we helped "liberate" it, yet our war mongering media and governments seems to have lost interest.
Iraq is our unresolved mess, and if the Iraqi government requests aid then I think we have an obligation to do so, but invading it in the first place was a mistake. Striking against Bashar Asad and removing him from power like Saddam would left Syria in similar state to Iraq.
By trying to police the world and remaking in our own image, countries that are actually very different to us culturally we've helped leave the world in a worse state.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Yes, we The West have a nasty habit of creating our own enemies and leaving nought but misery and despair in the wake of our liberal interventionism.
"It's for their own good" we say as we bomb countries back into the stone age and topple government's and dictators, "we're sowing the seeds of democracy".
Then when the cost proves too great, we turn tail and run, all the while declaring "Mission Accomplished!" and boasting of the wonderful utopias we've created, and, leaving the poor sods to fend for themselves and pick up the pieces.
As I understand it Libyas not doing too good these days after we helped "liberate" it, yet our war mongering media and governments seems to have lost interest.
Iraq is our unresolved mess, and if the Iraqi government requests aid then I think we have an obligation to do so, but invading it in the first place was a mistake. Striking against Bashar Asad and removing him from power like Saddam would left Syria in similar state to Iraq.
By trying to police the world and remaking in our own image, countries that are actually very different to us culturally we've helped leave the world in a worse state.
The irony is that the West will probably have to ally with Assad, despite trying to get him removed these past three years!
This highlights a major problem with the west - ever since the end of the cold war, what is their geo-political goals, what is their long term, strategic view? There is none. Europe blundered in Ukraine, Britain and America fethed up in Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan and the USA watched China steal a march on them in Africa.
As bad as he is, Putin is the only leader these days with strategic goals - the protection of Russian interests in East Europe and the ME. The west seems to be thrashing around like a beached whale.
whembly wrote: Right... but, Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer
That's a pretty technical breach, even if we interpret the meanings of words in the way necessary to read it as a breach at all.
Don't get me wrong, I think the way Obama and his administration behaved in that prisoner exchange was terrible. But it was terrible because they struck a deal and released prisoners without any kind of review or oversight, not because money was spent to transport the prisoners to the drop off point.
I think trying to find some kind of technical breach of appropriations law only distracts from the real issue... in this sense it's much like the Perry indictment, the legalese response really just serves to distract from the bad behaviour.
Its not technical. It was put into place specifically to stop Gitmo transfers. It was an apparently well founded fear.
Iraq is our unresolved mess, and if the Iraqi government requests aid then I think we have an obligation to do so, but invading it in the first place was a mistake. Striking against Bashar Asad and removing him from power like Saddam would left Syria in similar state to Iraq.
By trying to police the world and remaking in our own image, countries that are actually very different to us culturally we've helped leave the world in a worse state.
Your point about Syria is spot on. Don't get me wrong - there's no love lost between myself and Syria as half of the targets in our training were "Commando Suri" (Syrian commandos), but at the same time if we are picking and choosing between a heavy handed yet rational dictator, and a completely insane group of Islamic Death Cultists (tm), Assad is definitely the safer option.
We're talking about a part of the world where people have been ruled by force for centuries. ALL leaders there are heavy-handed. Saddam was a jerk but at least he could be bought...not much you can do about a guy who thinks that the afterlife matters more than this world.
People ask, I answer People say to me “Hey Uncle, if you’re so smart, what would you do if you were the president?” And I say “Not play golf while my microphone is still warm”
So, this came up today at lunch. If I was president and a citizen was beheaded and it was put on youtube in a manner taunting America for being pussies. I thought for a few and basically said this:
I’d get 10 different special forces groups of different degrees of skill (not that one is better or worse, I’d just want some SEALs and Green Berets because their skill sets are different) and 10 sniper teams. I’d send them to the areas in Iraq that are controlled by ISIS. And I would tell them that their objective is not to secure gak. Not to monitor strategic any thing. We’re not taking towns, securing infrastructure or rescuing anyone. We’re not restoring peace.
Your goal is to kill terrorists. Kill all members of ISIS you encounter. Kill fething terrorists. No hostages. Get a body count and move on. Kill them quickly and don’t play nice. Ignore borders. Then I’d disclose the body count in a weekly address to the nation.
I don't know about disclosing weekly body counts, but... hey, let loose the SF dawgs!
People ask, I answer People say to me “Hey Uncle, if you’re so smart, what would you do if you were the president?” And I say “Not play golf while my microphone is still warm”
So, this came up today at lunch. If I was president and a citizen was beheaded and it was put on youtube in a manner taunting America for being pussies. I thought for a few and basically said this:
I’d get 10 different special forces groups of different degrees of skill (not that one is better or worse, I’d just want some SEALs and Green Berets because their skill sets are different) and 10 sniper teams. I’d send them to the areas in Iraq that are controlled by ISIS. And I would tell them that their objective is not to secure gak. Not to monitor strategic any thing. We’re not taking towns, securing infrastructure or rescuing anyone. We’re not restoring peace.
Your goal is to kill terrorists. Kill all members of ISIS you encounter. Kill fething terrorists. No hostages. Get a body count and move on. Kill them quickly and don’t play nice. Ignore borders. Then I’d disclose the body count in a weekly address to the nation.
I don't know about disclosing weekly body counts, but... hey, let loose the SF dawgs!
At which point the usual suspects would start shouting about unauthorized use of military force, the President overreaching his authority and the like.
People ask, I answer People say to me “Hey Uncle, if you’re so smart, what would you do if you were the president?” And I say “Not play golf while my microphone is still warm”
So, this came up today at lunch. If I was president and a citizen was beheaded and it was put on youtube in a manner taunting America for being pussies. I thought for a few and basically said this:
I’d get 10 different special forces groups of different degrees of skill (not that one is better or worse, I’d just want some SEALs and Green Berets because their skill sets are different) and 10 sniper teams. I’d send them to the areas in Iraq that are controlled by ISIS. And I would tell them that their objective is not to secure gak. Not to monitor strategic any thing. We’re not taking towns, securing infrastructure or rescuing anyone. We’re not restoring peace.
Your goal is to kill terrorists. Kill all members of ISIS you encounter. Kill fething terrorists. No hostages. Get a body count and move on. Kill them quickly and don’t play nice. Ignore borders. Then I’d disclose the body count in a weekly address to the nation.
I don't know about disclosing weekly body counts, but... hey, let loose the SF dawgs!
At which point the usual suspects would start shouting about unauthorized use of military force, the President overreaching his authority and the like.
More likely ISIS would media blitz the US Military killing innocent civilians..
We're performing about 7 or 8 drone strikes a day against ISIL, so it's not like we're not doing anything. And again, even this is, I think, technically a violation of the War Powers Resolution.
The Department of Defense (DOD) violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees. Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer. As a consequence of using its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, DOD also violated the Antideficiency Act.
Not holding my breath for Holder* to prosecute this...
*Ouze! I spelt his name right!
Hard drives have already been lost
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'm not religious but a crusade would be sort of awesome, in a way. I mean, gleaming armor, tabards with red crosses - those were pretty pimp outfits.
The Department of Defense (DOD) violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees. Section 8111 prohibits DOD from using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer. As a consequence of using its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, DOD also violated the Antideficiency Act.
Not holding my breath for Holder* to prosecute this...
*Ouze! I spelt his name right!
Hard drives have already been lost
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'm not religious but a crusade would be sort of awesome, in a way. I mean, gleaming armor, tabards with red crosses - those were pretty pimp outfits.
Medium of Death wrote: Iraq has been left in a shameful state. Almost guaranteed to have been better under Saddam, which is very sad.
Really? Not much different when he used nerve agent on ethnic groups like the Kurdish people, dropped paratroopers in on villages, destroying familes and killing people.
Has anyone actually watched the Foley beheading? I'm obviously not going to link it here. Note - I'm absolutely not interested in conspiracy theories or otherwise, nor do I have any real reason to believe it's fake. Just want to raise a few points.
Normally those videos are completely graphic - they show the entire procedure. There are videos of scores of Nepalese contractors being beheaded, Americans being beheaded, etc. The procedure usually involves them reading (in Arabic) a long diatribe, then tackling the condemned and sawing his head off. In this case, you see the terrorist pull Foley's head back and run the knife back and forth at his throat, but there's no blood while this is happening. Then, you see a decapitated body that looks like Foley with the head placed on the back - this is standard operating procedure for Islamic terrorists during beheadings.
Does anybody else think it's strange that the video completely omits the actual beheading procedure, and that the beheading is carried out the way it is? Why do you think they chose to film it this way?
Could be during the actual head separation the scum bags mask came loose so they edited it out. Could be they are saving the gruesome part for another release. Could be something as simple as camera or operator error. Could be their pre-execution focus groups liked this method better.
Just heard that an American in Syria was killed fighting for the Islamic State. Some guy named Douglas McCain.
The claim 140 to 150 Americans are fighting in Syrian, but we aren;t exactly sure who they are fighting for. Some might by the Islamic State but their are a bunch of other groups the Americans could be aligning with inluding the Syrian Government.
If you join a military/paramilitary/terrorist group that is opposed to the US, isn't there some method of having your citizenship revoked?
I mean, I'm all for disagreeing with the US gov and taking a political position that is in direct opposition to it... but fighting with ISIS and beheading journalists and participating in sustained ethnic/religious cleansing operations against civilians is an order of magnitude beyond "disagreeing" with the US gov. Heck, at that point you aren't opposed to the US you are opposed to all of human civilization.
I'd really like to see some citizenships revoked, is what I'm saying.
Asd I said, we don't really know whois fighting for who.
Also, can anyone point me to the provision int eh constitution tat talks about where we can revoke citizenship? I'm genuinely curious so I can read it for myself. I don't seem to recall it talking about revoking, only granting.
Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.
When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.
But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".
Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.
Membership in Subversive Groups: Your citizenship may be revoked if the U.S. government can prove that you joined a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Membership in such organizations is considered a violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. Examples include the Nazi Party and Al Qaeda.
The Constitution prevents the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping individuals of their citizenship. However, a person will no longer be a U.S. citizen if, by a preponderance of the evidence, officials can prove that the individual intended to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
Federal law lists a number of "potentially expatriating acts." If done voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, the following acts will cause you to lose citizenship:
Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
Taking an officer position in the armed forces of a foreign state
Being convicted of treason
Taking an oath or affirmation to a foreign state
Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality
Can you renounce U.S. citizenship?
You can, but to be valid, you must (1) sign an oath of renunciation (2) in front of a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer (3) while in a foreign country. You're also not allowed to renounce your child's citizenship, although he or she may do so if old enough to understand the consequences of doing so.
Minors may revoke their renunciation if done within six months of turning 18. Adults who renounce U.S. citizenship lose citizenship for life.
So if you can prove an expatriating act (joining IS may be one, the courts have yet to decide) and prove intent to renounce even if they did not go through the formal procedure of showing up at a DoS office overseas and filing the appropriate papers (this intent will rightfully be an absolute bitch to prove in court) in theory you could strip citizenship.
There was a bill in the senate to remove the 'intent' element from the requirement. I don't think it would pass and doubt it would hold up in court even if it did.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was one guy they caught in NY (I think) attempting to fly to Syria and join up they arrested. I personally would have let him get on the plane, and when it landed OCONUS would have had a DoS rep meet the punk with the relevant renunciation paperwork all filled out and tried to get him to sign it. Once he did I would have voided his passport (electronically if he refused to give it up) and wished him well.
Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.
When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.
But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".
Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.
To play devil's advocate, we are more than willing to bend (or break) the rules for things such as drunk driving.
Implied Consent chemical test refusals are one example. They are blatant violations of the 5th amendment, basically blackmailing you to provide chemical evidence testifying against yourself under threat of license suspension FOR A YEAR. Obtaining a warrant and jamming a needle into someone's arm violates the 4th amendment - there's nothing more unreasonable than seizing someone's tissue. It's no different than cutting off someone's fingertips because you want to run the prints.
However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have complained hard and long enough to get their way. All we need is a Mothers Against Islamic Jihad to make some headway in violating these peoples' constitutional rights.
Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.
When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.
But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".
Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.
Not charging them with a crime. Just not allowing them to come back into the country without reapplying. Beats going to war and killing thousands of people or having them come back and kill thousands of us.
Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.
When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.
But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".
Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.
To play devil's advocate, we are more than willing to bend (or break) the rules for things such as drunk driving.
Implied Consent chemical test refusals are one example. They are blatant violations of the 5th amendment, basically blackmailing you to provide chemical evidence testifying against yourself under threat of license suspension FOR A YEAR. Obtaining a warrant and jamming a needle into someone's arm violates the 4th amendment - there's nothing more unreasonable than seizing someone's tissue. It's no different than cutting off someone's fingertips because you want to run the prints.
However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have complained hard and long enough to get their way. All we need is a Mothers Against Islamic Jihad to make some headway in violating these peoples' constitutional rights.
Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.
When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.
But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".
Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.
To play devil's advocate, we are more than willing to bend (or break) the rules for things such as drunk driving.
Implied Consent chemical test refusals are one example. They are blatant violations of the 5th amendment, basically blackmailing you to provide chemical evidence testifying against yourself under threat of license suspension FOR A YEAR. Obtaining a warrant and jamming a needle into someone's arm violates the 4th amendment - there's nothing more unreasonable than seizing someone's tissue. It's no different than cutting off someone's fingertips because you want to run the prints.
However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have complained hard and long enough to get their way. All we need is a Mothers Against Islamic Jihad to make some headway in violating these peoples' constitutional rights.
I'm British...probably not the most appropriate person to share a debate on the American Constitution.
Implied Consent chemical test refusals are one example. They are blatant violations of the 5th amendment, basically blackmailing you to provide chemical evidence testifying against yourself under threat of license suspension FOR A YEAR.
Show me where you have the RIGHT to a driver's license. It is a privilege, not a right. The 5th amendment is still allowing you to refuse breathalyzer or pee test.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Obtaining a warrant and jamming a needle into someone's arm violates the 4th amendment - there's nothing more unreasonable than seizing someone's tissue. It's no different than cutting off someone's fingertips because you want to run the prints.
First: Removing blood is 1000x times less evasive than removing someone’s fingertips. Keep the hyperbole in check, please.
Second: They have a warrant for a blood sample? Cry me a river.
Because they have the right to a fair trial, same as everyone else.
When they're tried fairly in a court of law, with legal representation, and found guilty then by means let's strip them of citizenship and banish them for life. Or, failing that, jail them for a very long time.
But until guilt is proven, they are "innocent".
Civil Liberties don't mean gak if we can just arbitrarily deny them to people we don't like or who we suspect.
Not charging them with a crime. Just not allowing them to come back into the country without reapplying. Beats going to war and killing thousands of people or having them come back and kill thousands of us.
Seriously, come on already.
So you think a Government, any government, should have the right to strip people of citizenship without justifying it in a court of Law? Thats draconian and totalitarian in the extreme. NO government should have the power to do that. Those American and British insurgents fighting in the Middle East still have the same constitutional/legal rights as you and I. If our governments can't justify stripping them of their citizenship by proving in Court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is a terrorist, then they have no right to do it.
If American/British citizens are suspected of extremism and participating in the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, then put them on trial, present the evidence against them in Court and prove their guilt.
I despise Islamic extremism as much as anyone but I'd rather my country / America not turn into the Fourth Reich in the process, by stripping away OUR civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror.
The problem, as has already been noted, is proving intent to renounce.
It's also possible that some of the Americans could be aligned with the Free Syrian Army, which is more secular and opposed to both the Syrian government as well as the more extremist groups such as ISIS. I believe there were Americans joining the FSA before ISIS was even really a thing.
At the end of the day, even Anwar al-Awlaki didn't lose his citizenship, so I doubt a small time fighter in Syria or Iraq would either.
There's a Bill making its way through Congress where it denies benefits to the individual family if they fight for/die for ISIS. More of a deterrence for the individual to go over. Because one has to prove this individual fought for/fighting with ISIS for it to go into effect. Basically getting captured or killed would be the confirmation.
Jihadin wrote: There's a Bill making its way through Congress where it denies benefits to the individual family if they fight for/die for ISIS. More of a deterrence for the individual to go over. Because one has to prove this individual fought for/fighting with ISIS for it to go into effect. Basically getting captured or killed would be the confirmation.
What kind of benefits are they trying to deny? I mean, Life insurance generally has a clause that prohibits a payout if the subject of the policy dies while committing a felony, or dies in an act of war (act of war being an active combatant, not some dude who happens to live on the street where fighting is happening). There are VERY few life insurance companies that provide coverage and payout of benefits in the event of an act of war...
What if his/her spouse was falsely collecting unemployment under their name while they were off fighting. Then they would have to pay it back.
Apply for Disability from injuries sustain in a conflict
The Constitution prevents the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping individuals of their citizenship. However, a person will no longer be a U.S. citizen if, by a preponderance of the evidence, officials can prove that the individual intended to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
Federal law lists a number of "potentially expatriating acts." If done voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, the following acts will cause you to lose citizenship:
Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
Taking an officer position in the armed forces of a foreign state
Being convicted of treason Taking an oath or affirmation to a foreign state
Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality
Can you renounce U.S. citizenship?
You can, but to be valid, you must (1) sign an oath of renunciation (2) in front of a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer (3) while in a foreign country. You're also not allowed to renounce your child's citizenship, although he or she may do so if old enough to understand the consequences of doing so.
Minors may revoke their renunciation if done within six months of turning 18. Adults who renounce U.S. citizenship lose citizenship for life.
So if you can prove an expatriating act (joining IS may be one, the courts have yet to decide) and prove intent to renounce even if they did not go through the formal procedure of showing up at a DoS office overseas and filing the appropriate papers (this intent will rightfully be an absolute bitch to prove in court) in theory you could strip citizenship.
There was a bill in the senate to remove the 'intent' element from the requirement. I don't think it would pass and doubt it would hold up in court even if it did.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was one guy they caught in NY (I think) attempting to fly to Syria and join up they arrested. I personally would have let him get on the plane, and when it landed OCONUS would have had a DoS rep meet the punk with the relevant renunciation paperwork all filled out and tried to get him to sign it. Once he did I would have voided his passport (electronically if he refused to give it up) and wished him well.
So would charging suspected home-grown militants who go over and fight with ISIS or any other declared terrorist organisation with treason be a decent way to go about stripping them of citizenship?
I do believe that most western governments consider entities like ISIS to be an enemy of the state. A citizen going over to fight for them is effectively defecting to the enemy at that point, which would make them traitors.
I seriously wish our governments would do something to keep these gakkers from ever returning, before they get a chance to blow up a bunch of innocents.
The Constitution prevents the U.S. government from involuntarily stripping individuals of their citizenship. However, a person will no longer be a U.S. citizen if, by a preponderance of the evidence, officials can prove that the individual intended to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
Federal law lists a number of "potentially expatriating acts." If done voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, the following acts will cause you to lose citizenship:
Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
Taking an officer position in the armed forces of a foreign state
Being convicted of treason Taking an oath or affirmation to a foreign state
Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality
Can you renounce U.S. citizenship?
You can, but to be valid, you must (1) sign an oath of renunciation (2) in front of a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer (3) while in a foreign country. You're also not allowed to renounce your child's citizenship, although he or she may do so if old enough to understand the consequences of doing so.
Minors may revoke their renunciation if done within six months of turning 18. Adults who renounce U.S. citizenship lose citizenship for life.
So if you can prove an expatriating act (joining IS may be one, the courts have yet to decide) and prove intent to renounce even if they did not go through the formal procedure of showing up at a DoS office overseas and filing the appropriate papers (this intent will rightfully be an absolute bitch to prove in court) in theory you could strip citizenship.
There was a bill in the senate to remove the 'intent' element from the requirement. I don't think it would pass and doubt it would hold up in court even if it did.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was one guy they caught in NY (I think) attempting to fly to Syria and join up they arrested. I personally would have let him get on the plane, and when it landed OCONUS would have had a DoS rep meet the punk with the relevant renunciation paperwork all filled out and tried to get him to sign it. Once he did I would have voided his passport (electronically if he refused to give it up) and wished him well.
So would charging suspected home-grown militants who go over and fight with ISIS or any other declared terrorist organisation with treason be a decent way to go about stripping them of citizenship?
I do believe that most western governments consider entities like ISIS to be an enemy of the state. A citizen going over to fight for them is effectively defecting to the enemy at that point, which would make them traitors.
I seriously wish our governments would do something to keep these gakkers from ever returning, before they get a chance to blow up a bunch of innocents.
Frazzled wrote: You know these guys only give racists a reason for being racists when they do that.
I know, right? These donkey caves are making my Thanksgiving Day dinners hell, because now my redneck racist relatives finally have "proof" to back up their pants on head assertations.
Obama: Here is an extensive lists of everything we have done against ISIS, what our priorities are, what our plans are, what our goals for our partners are, blah blah blah here now dealing specifically with missions in Syria, [I]We don't have a strategy yet[/i}, the press is acting like we have a fully drawn up battle plan but we are not there yet, once we know exactly what to do we will ask for authorization.
whembly: guys guys did you hear!!!! Obama said he doesn't have a strategy about ISIS!!!!
Ouze: actually...he gave lots of strategy, here is the transcript...
whembly: classic Obama gaffe, doesn't know what he is doing, did I already mention my "everybody does it" comeback?
About ISIS in general like your original claim? Read the transcript.
Of course if you want to backtrack from your original statement of "He shrugged about ISIS & said "we got nothing" and now suddenly change it to "Obama does not have a strategy about ISIS in Lybia" then I would still direct you to the transcript, where your specific claim of "I have no strategy" is part of a longer reply dealing specifically with that narrow question.
About ISIS in general like your original claim? Read the transcript.
Of course if you want to backtrack from your original statement of "He shrugged about ISIS & said "we got nothing" and now suddenly change it to "Obama does not have a strategy about ISIS in Lybia" then I would still direct you to the transcript, where your specific claim of "I have no strategy" is part of a longer reply dealing specifically with that narrow question.
Obama said:
But I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet. I think what I've seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we're at than we currently are.
d-usa wrote: So you said he had no plan, then you said it was a gaffe, then you went back and said he had no plan, now it's a gaffe again?
Let us know when you make up your mind.
Let me know when you've turned off your instinctive programming to defend Obama-anything.
Whembly, you're not one to say a thing in that regard TBH.
True... but I can 'cuz...
Freedom!®
EDIT: for the record... all this piling on is no different than any other gaffe. Ya'll would do the same thing to the opposite party. Can we at least be honest with that?
Our focus right now is to protect American personnel on the ground in Iraq, to protect our embassy, to protect our consulates, to make sure that critical infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected.
Where we see an opportunity that allows us, with very modest risk, to help the humanitarian situation there, as we did in Sinjar Mountain, we will take those opportunities after having consulted with Congress.
But our core priority right now is just to make sure that our folks are safe and to do an effective assessment of Iraqi and Kurdish capabilities.
My take away from this part was:
Objective is to protect our personnel (embassy and consulate) and, when there is little risk, help out with humanitarian aid/threats to refugees/displaced persons.
That bothered me. Force protection should never be the mission. If that is the real goal, pull the DoD personnel home and accomplish it at much lower costs than even a moderate bombing campaign.
He went on to say:
What is true, though, is that the violence that's been taking place in Syria has obviously given ISIL a safe haven there in ungoverned spaces. And in order for us to degrade ISIL over the long term, we're going to have to build a regional strategy.
Okay, got it, we need a regional strategy (VERY surprised we don;t have one he can effectively communicate) and it will rely on partners, Hooah.
What is the national objective of this strategy we need (why do we need it, what will it be designed to do?) and what is the US national security issue(s) or interests accomplishing this objective hopes to address?
That is what I want to hear from national level leaders.
You cannot establish a real strategy let alone plan operations and campaigns without knowing what the objectives are. It is bass ackwards to go from strategy to objectives/goals. Our elected leaders ought to know this and ought to be able to communicate it. "Degrade ISIL" is operational level at best, not strategic nor national level, and a true regional strategy ought to encompass lines of effort and operation to achieve much broader longterm national objectives and goals.
'We're working on it, but it's not yet ready to reveal'.
Which makes sense, as 'This is our plan' is never televised by competent leaders where it might be overheard by, say, the enemy.
It sure beats Bush's 'Let's Get Em!' plan. This might even include say, a plan for what we do after they're in ashes and we've won.
My concern isn't that they're taking time to work on a plan. My concern is that, this has been a growing problem for years, that finally exploded months ago, and now they're finally taking time to work on a plan.
From the previous Syria thread, I definitely didn't see any great ideas. Remember when it looked like we might take action in Syria?
So we didn't. Now, ISIL has shown up, and while that's pretty unfortunate, it's disingenuous to now say it was a totally clear cut decision to act then, when it was various extremists having a fundamentalist hoedown. As a matter of fact, that situation still hasn't changed since then, right? It's still douchebag vs turd sandwich? So I really don't have a problem with taking time to come up with some kind of regional plan involving allies, and lots of them. The American people do not want another war, certainly not one where we jump in first and figure out an exit strategy later, and I think the President is right to be cautious.
Ouze wrote: From the previous Syria thread, I definitely didn't see any great ideas. Remember when it looked like we might take action in Syria?
So we didn't. Now, ISIL has shown up, and while that's pretty unfortunate, it's disingenuous to now say it was a totally clear cut decision to act then, when it was various extremists having a fundamentalist hoedown. As a matter of fact, that situation still hasn't changed since then, right? It's still douchebag vs turd sandwich? So I really don't have a problem with taking time to come up with some kind of regional plan involving allies, and lots of them. The American people do not want another war, certainly not one where we jump in first and figure out an exit strategy later, and I think the President is right to be cautious.
That petty officer probably needs to do a bit more homework on the subject. There were more options than just "fighting for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war." Not all of the militias are Al Qaeda affiliates. There were (and are) some significant players who were more moderate and more secular, like the Free Syrian Army, who we could have supported. The reason some of the militias accepted Al Qaeda support in the first place was because no one else would help them. We drug our feet, and this is the result. If we decide not to take a leadership role and let events play out without us, our enemies will dictate how the situation develops in our absence. I'm not saying we needed to put troops on the ground, but we've literally done nothing right up until the point things get so bad that we are forced to do something, which isn't really an effective way to approach problems like these.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Can't you just follow that time honoured American tradition, and just sell guns, tanks and planes to the Iraqi Government?
Let them sort out their own country.
I don't however have a problem with UK/USA airdropping in humanitarian supplies for refugees, so long as our pilots are not in danger.
ISIS don't have sophisticated AA capabilities do they?
We already did that. A lot of the vehicles and weapons we gave them have been captured by ISIS. The Iraqi military forces are not reliable at this point.
Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality
So taking a job as a janitor for the British consulate can potentially cost me my citizenship?
No. There is no functional way for you to have your birthright citizenship taken away against your will, period, full stop. There is a specific form you need to fill out and bring to a US embassy and have signed before witnesses. I believe CaptainJake posted it earlier in the thread.
The theoretical involuntary method previously posted has never been invoked a single time that I am aware of, ever, and I suspect it would not fly in court even if tried.
It is possible but rare to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. It seems to only actually happen if you were formerly a Nazi or otherwise involved in war crimes.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Can't you just follow that time honoured American tradition, and just sell guns, tanks and planes to the Iraqi Government? Let them sort out their own country. I don't however have a problem with UK/USA airdropping in humanitarian supplies for refugees, so long as our pilots are not in danger.
ISIS don't have sophisticated AA capabilities do they?
We already did that. A lot of the vehicles and weapons we gave them have been captured by ISIS. The Iraqi military forces are not reliable at this point.
Then what can possibly be done now, short of putting American troops on the ground? Arm the Kurds?
Working for a foreign government when you are of that nationality
So taking a job as a janitor for the British consulate can potentially cost me my citizenship?
Well, if you're british, I suppose so... I think the better example would be James Bond applies for, and receives US citizenship, then goes back to work for MI6
Ouze wrote: Hey guys, remember what when we armed the Sons of Iraq? Whatever happened to those guys?
Another result of our completely hands off policy. They were primarily Sunnis. Once we left the Sunnis were pushed out of a lot of positions, like the Iraqi government and military officer corps (which is a big reason the Iraqi army is not an effective fighting force at this point).
Ouze wrote: Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.
I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.
Ouze wrote: Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.
I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.
While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.
It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.
Ouze wrote: Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.
I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.
While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.
It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.
You're most likely correct, but with the current administration we're unlikely to even attempt it.
Ouze wrote: Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.
I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.
While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.
It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.
You're most likely correct, but with the current administration we're unlikely to even attempt it.
So you'd rather them attempt it, have it fall through when it inevitably gets left because of the will of the people, and then Sons of Iraq gets repeated? Because that's basically what would happen without some kind of binding legal agreement forcing them to stay there across multiple administrations until the end of the plan. Which would require a plan everyone is happy with. Which etc etc.
I'm really just saying how its a bit silly to say 'well they won't even try' when really any kind of positive outcome would require more than that.
Ouze wrote: Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.
I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.
While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.
It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.
You're most likely correct, but with the current administration we're unlikely to even attempt it.
Good. Finally learning the lessons of history about sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
Ouze wrote: Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.
I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.
While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.
It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.
You're most likely correct, but with the current administration we're unlikely to even attempt it.
So you'd rather them attempt it, have it fall through when it inevitably gets left because of the will of the people, and then Sons of Iraq gets repeated? Because that's basically what would happen without some kind of binding legal agreement forcing them to stay there across multiple administrations until the end of the plan. Which would require a plan everyone is happy with. Which etc etc.
I'm really just saying how its a bit silly to say 'well they won't even try' when really any kind of positive outcome would require more than that.
Doing nothing obviously isn't working. I don't want to attempt something and have it fall through. I want to attempt something and be more focused on doing the right thing rather than doing what is most politically expedient.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Good. Finally learning the lessons of history about sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
My opinion is more along the lines of "you break it, you buy it." We have a responsibility to do the right thing. If we had really learned a lesson we wouldn't have been in such a rush to pull out so completely and irresponsibly, which is why we are in the position we are in now.
We have a responsibility to do the right thing for the American people. Big chunks of the world are going to be relatively gakky places regardless of how many American kids we send to get blown up or how much of our treasury we empty, because the people that live there have gakky ideologies. I'm not an expert on history but I don't believe it's typically incumbent on the winning nation to rebuild the losing nation after a war.
I only support combat operations to the point that ISIL doesn't pose a threat to the American people, as Al Qaeda eventually became.
I'm way more interested in rebuilding Detroit than I am Baghdad.
Ouze wrote: We have a responsibility to do the right thing for the American people. Big chunks of the world are going to be relatively gakky places regardless of how many American kids we send to get blown up or how much of our treasury we empty, because the people that live there have gakky ideologies. I'm not an expert on history but I don't believe it's typically incumbent on the winning nation to rebuild the losing nation after a war.
I only support combat operations to the point that ISIL doesn't pose a threat to the American people, as Al Qaeda eventually became.
I'm way more interested in rebuilding Detroit than I am Baghdad.
We aren't exactly going to war with nations anymore though. Nothing is that simple, and our primary enemies since 2001 have not been countries, but non-state aligned forces. Our responsibility is to the American people first, that's true. But we can't sit back and ignore things on the global stage. What's in the interest of the American people is America maintaining a position of global leadership and influence - this happens to be better for the world as a whole as well. It's not that America does everything good and is right about everything, because we absolutely do have problems and have made major mistakes, but more that the next closest up-and-coming options (countries like China and Russia) are way worse.
I'm not saying we need to do everything for the Iraqis, but leaving them high and dry the way we did was wrong, and we're reaping the consequences of that now.
Whoa whoa - we didn't leave them high and dry. They refused to sign the SOFA which required us to remove troops, otherwise I'm sure we'd still have at least some presence there now. .
Ouze wrote: Whoa whoa - we didn't leave them high and dry. They refused to sign the SOFA which required us to remove troops, otherwise I'm sure we'd still have at least some presence there now. .
Okay, that is fair, you are right about that. However, and I realize this is just my personal opinion, I feel like we could have pushed a little bit harder for a SOFA and probably could have gotten it. But since it wasn't going to be that easy, an opportunity was seen to wash our hands of the situation early, and that is what was done, rather than trying to encourage coming to an agreement on a SOFA.
Hordini wrote: That petty officer probably needs to do a bit more homework on the subject. There were more options than just "fighting for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war." Not all of the militias are Al Qaeda affiliates.
There is only one option available to him. Fight who he is told to fight. I suppose a second option would be to find a way to get himself discharged from the Navy, but if he hasn't hit his 20 yet, that might not really seem like an option to him.
Troops don't get to choose who they will or will not fight along side during war.
Hordini wrote: That petty officer probably needs to do a bit more homework on the subject. There were more options than just "fighting for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war." Not all of the militias are Al Qaeda affiliates.
There is only one option available to him. Fight who he is told to fight. I suppose a second option would be to find a way to get himself discharged from the Navy, but if he hasn't hit his 20 yet, that might not really seem like an option to him.
Troops don't get to choose who they will or will not fight along side during war.
While you are correct, that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
Well, lets not get bogged down in that; I was just using it as an example of how US intervention was a fairly polarizing idea. There definitely was at no point a clear, popular mandate for going into Syria.
Ouze wrote: We have a responsibility to do the right thing for the American people. Big chunks of the world are going to be relatively gakky places regardless of how many American kids we send to get blown up or how much of our treasury we empty, because the people that live there have gakky ideologies. I'm not an expert on history but I don't believe it's typically incumbent on the winning nation to rebuild the losing nation after a war.
I only support combat operations to the point that ISIL doesn't pose a threat to the American people, as Al Qaeda eventually became.
I'm way more interested in rebuilding Detroit than I am Baghdad.
We aren't exactly going to war with nations anymore though. Nothing is that simple, and our primary enemies since 2001 have not been countries, but non-state aligned forces. Our responsibility is to the American people first, that's true. But we can't sit back and ignore things on the global stage. What's in the interest of the American people is America maintaining a position of global leadership and influence - this happens to be better for the world as a whole as well. It's not that America does everything good and is right about everything, because we absolutely do have problems and have made major mistakes, but more that the next closest up-and-coming options (countries like China and Russia) are way worse.
I'm not saying we need to do everything for the Iraqis, but leaving them high and dry the way we did was wrong, and we're reaping the consequences of that now.
You really believe that we did not go to war with Iraq?
I really want to see some of those arseholes who were on the television prior to the Iraq invasion come out and say "Hey, you know what, it turns out we were totally wrong. Sorry!"
Ouze wrote: Whoa whoa - we didn't leave them high and dry. They refused to sign the SOFA which required us to remove troops, otherwise I'm sure we'd still have at least some presence there now. .
Points to History.
Actually, the US has really left the Kurds to swing in the breeze on occasion.
I have to point out that sometimes the interests of the American people and the wishes of the American people are two different (occasionally opposite) things.
Ouze wrote: We have a responsibility to do the right thing for the American people. Big chunks of the world are going to be relatively gakky places regardless of how many American kids we send to get blown up or how much of our treasury we empty, because the people that live there have gakky ideologies. I'm not an expert on history but I don't believe it's typically incumbent on the winning nation to rebuild the losing nation after a war.
I only support combat operations to the point that ISIL doesn't pose a threat to the American people, as Al Qaeda eventually became.
I'm way more interested in rebuilding Detroit than I am Baghdad.
We aren't exactly going to war with nations anymore though. Nothing is that simple, and our primary enemies since 2001 have not been countries, but non-state aligned forces. Our responsibility is to the American people first, that's true. But we can't sit back and ignore things on the global stage. What's in the interest of the American people is America maintaining a position of global leadership and influence - this happens to be better for the world as a whole as well. It's not that America does everything good and is right about everything, because we absolutely do have problems and have made major mistakes, but more that the next closest up-and-coming options (countries like China and Russia) are way worse.
I'm not saying we need to do everything for the Iraqis, but leaving them high and dry the way we did was wrong, and we're reaping the consequences of that now.
You really believe that we did not go to war with Iraq?
We were at war with Iraq for a little over a month (basically during the invasion). After that we were battling an insurgency and sectarian violence, but we weren't at war with Iraq as a nation after Saddam was out of power.
Ouze wrote: Whoa whoa - we didn't leave them high and dry. They refused to sign the SOFA which required us to remove troops, otherwise I'm sure we'd still have at least some presence there now. .
Points to History.
Actually, the US has really left the Kurds to swing in the breeze on occasion.
I have to point out that sometimes the interests of the American people and the wishes of the American people are two different (occasionally opposite) things.
Apparently these melonfething gakheads have now beheaded a second American freelance journalist, and are threatening to execute a British captive if the US doesn't stop its air strikes.
All I can say is, why aren't we turning their main stronghold(s) into the world's largest man made firestorm yet?
Because... the Obama administration is paralyzed at the moment.
For good reasons too... there appears to be "no good answers".
If you bomb the shizzle out of ISIS, you're empowering Assad/Syria and Iran. If we maintain status quo with some drones here and there... you're empowering ISIS.
*shrug*
No good solutions really. Except maybe... maybe... open up an air base in Kurds territory to run sorties and arm the Kurds to the teeth.
Ouze wrote: Hey guys, remember what when we armed the Sons of Iraq? Whatever happened to those guys?
Another result of our completely hands off policy. They were primarily Sunnis. Once we left the Sunnis were pushed out of a lot of positions, like the Iraqi government and military officer corps (which is a big reason the Iraqi army is not an effective fighting force at this point).
The Maliki gov't had agreed to include them in certain things and to take over the payments we were making to keep them (at best) on the side of the Iraqi Gov't or at least neutral (not helping the AQI types or otherwise supporting anti Gov't of Iraq militias), he reneged on both those. They quit getting paid, and were mostly excluded from or diminished in Iraqi politics and oil funds caused them to not be too happy or supportive of Maliki and crew. When the opportunity to either passively, or in some cases actively, support (or at least tolerate) anti Maliki/anti-Shia forces in the form of ISIS/ISIL/IS some of them jumped on it.
CNN is saying a new video from ISIS just came in...
They beheaded the 2nd American prisoner that they have and are threatening to do the same to a Brit captive of theirs. I'm at work so will have to link to the article when I get home.
Frazzled wrote: So your best allies, if they aren't paid, are going to start beheading people? SOunds like a great country.
Not necessarily, first, the Sunni tribes making up the SOI were never Maliki's best allies, and second, they are not necessarily lopping heads, they just are not attempting to hinder those that are for the most part. Sure, some of them may have actively joined ISIS, but a lot more is a 'sure, screw Maliki, his gov't, and the camels they rode in on'.
Frazzled wrote: So your best allies, if they aren't paid, are going to start beheading people? SOunds like a great country.
Not necessarily, first, the Sunni tribes making up the SOI were never Maliki's best allies, and second, they are not necessarily lopping heads, they just are not attempting to hinder those that are for the most part. Sure, some of them may have actively joined ISIS, but a lot more is a 'sure, screw Maliki, his gov't, and the camels they rode in on'.
whembly wrote: I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".
Should it?
Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?
They allegedly did it in answer to US bombing, which would pretty much fit my definition of Act of War. So, yeah, in this case I would call it an Act of War, though from an enemy using asymmetric warfare against us.
The real questions in my mind are:
Other than retribution (for which I would personally support very targeted strikes and even 'boots on the ground' raids) what the heck is our national strategy for the region (to include goals and objectives), how does a couple journalists getting capped really affect that? Note that ISIS/ISIL/IS taking over towns and slaughtering hundreds to thousands of other folks didn't seem to merit more than strikes with the stated goal of 'protecting US personnel at our Iraqi embassy and consulate and where we have minimum risk aiding the humanitarian crisis'.
Do ISIS show intent and capability to strike actual US interests either home or abroad, and if so, what targets must go BOOM to destroy the capability and or change the intent?
What elements of national power (the whole DIME construct) can and should be used to further our national goals and objectives for the region and what strategies encompassing all of them would give us the best chance at achieving those goals and objectives (and this should go WAY beyond ISIS).
There are more. My opinion is Doing Something because Beheading! may be silly unless it either complements a much broader regional strategy or at least does not hinder a comprehensive regional strategy. And I want our national leaders to explain the whole deal to We the People.
Frazzled wrote: So your best allies, if they aren't paid, are going to start beheading people? SOunds like a great country.
Not necessarily, first, the Sunni tribes making up the SOI were never Maliki's best allies, and second, they are not necessarily lopping heads, they just are not attempting to hinder those that are for the most part. Sure, some of them may have actively joined ISIS, but a lot more is a 'sure, screw Maliki, his gov't, and the camels they rode in on'.
Maliki is gone though...
He was not when the SOI guys and other Sunnis let ISIS in. And the new gov't has taken what actions to bring the Sunnis back into the fold?
whembly wrote: I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".
Should it?
Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?
In addition, an act of war by whom? I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognize the IS as a sovereign state.
Well... I'm sure if we wanted to, we could "Declare War" on a specific group, ie like we did with Al Queda. We just didn't formally "Declared War" via the constitution... just it was "authorized" by Congress.
I'm just trying to grasp the dfferences though...
If some group/state starts killing American citizen to "terrorize" at the US. Is that casus belli enough to go full-on engagements?
Or, should this be treated like a normal murder crime (ie, FBI investigates)???
He was not when the SOI guys and other Sunnis let ISIS in. And the new gov't has taken what actions to bring the Sunnis back into the fold?
Why should they? If Sunnis want an independent "Sunnistan" ok. Not seeing how that relates to mass beheadings, crucifictions, etc. etc. Not seeing either the Kurds or the Shiites doing that.
whembly wrote: I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".
Should it?
Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?
They allegedly did it in answer to US bombing, which would pretty much fit my definition of Act of War. So, yeah, in this case I would call it an Act of War, though from an enemy using asymmetric warfare against us.
The real questions in my mind are:
Other than retribution (for which I would personally support very targeted strikes and even 'boots on the ground' raids) what the heck is our national strategy for the region (to include goals and objectives), how does a couple journalists getting capped really affect that? Note that ISIS/ISIL/IS taking over towns and slaughtering hundreds to thousands of other folks didn't seem to merit more than strikes with the stated goal of 'protecting US personnel at our Iraqi embassy and consulate and where we have minimum risk aiding the humanitarian crisis'.
Do ISIS show intent and capability to strike actual US interests either home or abroad, and if so, what targets must go BOOM to destroy the capability and or change the intent?
What elements of national power (the whole DIME construct) can and should be used to further our national goals and objectives for the region and what strategies encompassing all of them would give us the best chance at achieving those goals and objectives (and this should go WAY beyond ISIS).
There are more. My opinion is Doing Something because Beheading! may be silly unless it either complements a much broader regional strategy or at least does not hinder a comprehensive regional strategy. And I want our national leaders to explain the whole deal to We the People.
whembly wrote: I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".
Should it?
Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?
In addition, an act of war by whom? I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognize the IS as a sovereign state.
Well, I'm of the opinion that ISIS/IS wants to call themselves a "sovereign state" so we should treat these acts as though they were done by the government of France, or Germany, or the UK.
Non-state actors can't be involved in a war? That surprises me.
Me too.
I suppose it's a case of 'reality vs law' under the law, they're not supposed to be able to. In reality, it happens pretty much every war.
Personal opinion:
This is one of those cases where 'nation building'; is going to be required for any meaningful victory. Neither Assad nor Isis should be allowed to stay, but it's going to take careful planning to do it in a way that does not make things even worse.
I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:
If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?
I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:
If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?
If the Cartels were driving around in T72 tanks and besieging cities to go with their beheadings, they probably would be on the radar too.
However, the cartels tanks look like something from Beyond Thunderdome, and therefore are less of a issue.
I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:
If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?
If the Cartels were driving around in T72 tanks and besieging cities to go with their beheadings, they probably would be on the radar too.
However, the cartels tanks look like something from Beyond Thunderdome, and therefore are less of a issue.
Well, the cartels have planes and boats they regularly cross into our territory, as well as uparmored vehicles. Think ISIS can get a T72 into El Paso? And the cartels do control cities, their method of conquest may be different but their power in their territory is as complete.
I'm just saying I would like to see someone from the admin give a decent answer as to how one group is a threat to national security deserving nightly visits from a carrier air group plus an assortment of ground based attack wings, and the other doesn't even merit securing our borders. Cartels and their associated gangs are killing more US folks in the US than ISIS is...
Non-state actors can't be involved in a war? That surprises me.
Me too.
I suppose it's a case of 'reality vs law' under the law, they're not supposed to be able to. In reality, it happens pretty much every war.
Personal opinion:
This is one of those cases where 'nation building'; is going to be required for any meaningful victory. Neither Assad nor Isis should be allowed to stay, but it's going to take careful planning to do it in a way that does not make things even worse.
The Assad Regme is the only thing keeping ISIS and other extreme groups in check right now.
Remove Assad, and you'd have a repeat of Libya post revolution. Rival groups of extremists rampaging across Syria, fighting amongst themselves to fill the power vacuum left behind.
Well, the cartels have planes and boats they regularly cross into our territory, as well as uparmored vehicles. Think ISIS can get a T72 into El Paso? And the cartels do control cities, their method of conquest may be different but their power in their territory is as complete.
I'm just saying I would like to see someone from the admin give a decent answer as to how one group is a threat to national security deserving nightly visits from a carrier air group plus an assortment of ground based attack wings, and the other doesn't even merit securing our borders. Cartels and their associated gangs are killing more US folks in the US than ISIS is...
They're killing a lot more Mexicans than Isis is too. I notice you left them out.
The cartels have not proclaimed themselves a sovereign government, nor do they, compared to ISIS, really have an army. While they do have defacto control of a wide stretch of Mexico,
As to why they're not being visited by carrier groups:
One: the cartels operate in small groups and usually do not engage the Mexican army openly. This makes airstrikes a little trickier.
Two: Unlike ISIS, the cartels have not sworn to destroy the United States, they like the US right where it is, and to continue what it has been doing. Namely buying their coke and selling them guns.
Three: The cartels, unlike ISIS, work closely with the CIA. Very closely.
The Assad Regme is the only thing keeping ISIS and other extreme groups in check right now.
Um, no. Until About mid August, Assad actually did nothing against Isis, and in fact, helped them against the few remaining secular rebels. Only when Isis began to threaten Assads own forces (and the US began bombing them) has he done a damn thing about them. Probably out of feat that if he did not look like he was doing something, the US would invade and depose him.
Well, the cartels have planes and boats they regularly cross into our territory, as well as uparmored vehicles. Think ISIS can get a T72 into El Paso? And the cartels do control cities, their method of conquest may be different but their power in their territory is as complete.
I'm just saying I would like to see someone from the admin give a decent answer as to how one group is a threat to national security deserving nightly visits from a carrier air group plus an assortment of ground based attack wings, and the other doesn't even merit securing our borders. Cartels and their associated gangs are killing more US folks in the US than ISIS is...
They're killing a lot more Mexicans than Isis is too. I notice you left them out.
The cartels have not proclaimed themselves a sovereign government, nor do they, compared to ISIS, really have an army. While they do have defacto control of a wide stretch of Mexico,
As to why they're not being visited by carrier groups:
One: the cartels operate in small groups and usually do not engage the Mexican army openly. This makes airstrikes a little trickier.
Two: Unlike ISIS, the cartels have not sworn to destroy the United States, they like the US right where it is, and to continue what it has been doing. Namely buying their coke and selling them guns.
Three: The cartels, unlike ISIS, work closely with the CIA. Very closely.
One: I doubt you'll find I advocate air strikes against the cartels. Having said that, we have been using drone and other air strikes against small groups of insurgents in several places around the globe; operating is small groups does not equal inability to be hit by air power. But you know that.
Two: Cartels may not have sworn to destroy the US, but considering the costs we incur annually due to the 'War On Drugs' do you want to make the case the cartels do not in fact cause quite a bit of damage to the US and US interests? Would a stable Mexico as an adjacent nation be better for us than what is currently across the border?
Three: Whatever. Show some decent sources to back that up, then explain why it is even relevant seeing as the CIA has been training and providing other support to anti Assad forces which have now been co-opted by ISIS.
My point was and continues to be, we have organizations, that though they have not come out and declared themselves Sovereign States, do in fact own territory and provide gov't type services within the territory they control, organizations that are as brutal (if for a different motivation) as ISIS, and do in fact harm our national security, all in the state we share a border with. And yet the countless beheadings they perform, and the fact they've killed US LEOs and not just journalists covering a war zone, does not seem to merit our gov't or media making too much of a fuss. I honestly find it interesting and would love to hear the administration's take on it.
From a real threat perspective, what capability do we think ISIS has that can 'destroy the US' or even do real harm? Can they blow up some buildings in the region they operate in? Probably. Can they kidnap and kill a few folks in the region they operate in? Maybe. Can they perhaps influence/aid the self radicalization of some MAJ Hassan types which result in a couple dozen deaths in the US? Maybe. None of that equates to a real capability to 'destroy the US' regardless of intent. If we want to say they are destabilizing the region and making oil/energy too expensive and hurting our economy, we would also have to look at what is going on in the Ukraine and its effect on energy prices. If we want to say IS (which to be honest is pretty much a Sunni Uprising at this point) threatens allies in the region, then lets see what those allies are doing to combat the threat (Saudi, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and so on...)
Non-state actors can't be involved in a war? That surprises me.
Me too.
I suppose it's a case of 'reality vs law' under the law, they're not supposed to be able to. In reality, it happens pretty much every war.
Personal opinion:
This is one of those cases where 'nation building'; is going to be required for any meaningful victory. Neither Assad nor Isis should be allowed to stay, but it's going to take careful planning to do it in a way that does not make things even worse.
The Assad Regme is the only thing keeping ISIS and other extreme groups in check right now.
Remove Assad, and you'd have a repeat of Libya post revolution. Rival groups of extremists rampaging across Syria, fighting amongst themselves to fill the power vacuum left behind.
I think the problem is also that, there's legitimately no way to "nation build" in the ME region without the US, or whoever is there making things look like we're colonizing again.... And apparently Empires are bad, mkay?
I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:
If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?
Ummmm, barrels and barrels of Oil?
Plus, no other nations are trying to meddle with Mexico's internal affairs. The Monroe Doctrine is still in effect.
I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:
If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?
Ummmm, barrels and barrels of Oil?
Plus, no other nations are trying to meddle with Mexico's internal affairs. The Monroe Doctrine is still in effect.
One: I doubt you'll find I advocate air strikes against the cartels. Having said that, we have been using drone and other air strikes against small groups of insurgents in several places around the globe; operating is small groups does not equal inability to be hit by air power. But you know that.
No, it does not equate a immunity, but it does make things trickier. Hitting people with a drone in an open area is easy. Hitting people with a drone in a crowded urban environment is somewhat tougher if you're concerned about collateral damage.
Two: Cartels may not have sworn to destroy the US, but considering the costs we incur annually due to the 'War On Drugs' do you want to make the case the cartels do not in fact cause quite a bit of damage to the US and US interests? Would a stable Mexico as an adjacent nation be better for us than what is currently across the border?
The majority of the costs of the War on Drugs are not spent fighting the Mexican Cartels, but are instead spent in military aid to certain Central and South American countries and Prisons in the US. What military aid gets actually used on, frankly, varies wildly from country to country.
Three: Whatever. Show some decent sources to back that up, then explain why it is even relevant seeing as the CIA has been training and providing other support to anti Assad forces which have now been co-opted by ISIS.
Wikipedia wrote:The oldest Mexican Cartel, the Guadalajara cartel, was benefited by the CIA for having connections with the Honduran drug lord Juan Matta-Ballesteros, a CIA asset, who was the head of SETCO, an airline used for smuggling drugs into the US and also used to transport military supplies and personnel for the Honduran Contras, using funds from the accounts established by Oliver North.
It is also alleged that the DFS, the main Mexican intelligence agency, which is in part a CIA creation and later became the Mexican Center for Research and National Security(CISEN), had among its members the CIA's closest government allies in Mexico. DFS badges, "handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual 'license to traffic.'
It is also known that the Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely, among other reasons, because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nazar Haro, a CIA asset.
Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, known as the Godfather of the Mexican drug business and the first Mexican drug lord, provided a significant amount of funding, weapons, and other aid to the Contras in Nicaragua. His pilot, Werner Lotz stated that Gallardo once had him deliver $150,000 in cash to a Contra group, and Gallardo often boasted about smuggling arms to them. His activities were known to several U.S. federal agencies, including the CIA and DEA, but he was granted immunity due to his "charitable contributions to the Contras"
Vicente Zambada Niebla, the son of Ismael Zambada García one of the top drug lords in Mexico, claimed after his arrest to his attorneys that he and other top Sinaloa cartel members had received immunity by U.S. agents and a virtual licence to smuggle cocaine over the United States border, in exchange for intelligence about rival cartels engaged in the Mexican Drug War.
Also, most of the anti-Assad forces the US supported either were more or less wiped out, or continue to fight against both Assad and ISIS, something that has also escaped the attention of both the Media and members of this board. If the US was truly interested in hurting the Cartels, they could reduce their income by 1/5th simply by making pot fully legal in California. That's a crippling blow without even firing a shot.
From a real threat perspective, what capability do we think ISIS has that can 'destroy the US' or even do real harm? Can they blow up some buildings in the region they operate in? Probably. Can they kidnap and kill a few folks in the region they operate in? Maybe. Can they perhaps influence/aid the self radicalization of some MAJ Hassan types which result in a couple dozen deaths in the US? Maybe. None of that equates to a real capability to 'destroy the US' regardless of intent. If we want to say they are destabilizing the region and making oil/energy too expensive and hurting our economy, we would also have to look at what is going on in the Ukraine and its effect on energy prices. If we want to say IS (which to be honest is pretty much a Sunni Uprising at this point) threatens allies in the region, then lets see what those allies are doing to combat the threat (Saudi, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and so on...)
I think you grotesquely underestimate them, and absolutely nothing I say will change your preconceived notions. 'Destroy the United States'? probably not. Cause large scale havoc, possibly in the US? Yes. These guys are bigger, better funded, and more capably led, then AQ was when they killed 3k Americans. And we saw what the clever use of a handful of motivated competents managed there.
ISIS beheading video #2 was also incredibly strange...not sure what the deal is with these guys. Totally doesn't follow their usual MO of tackling the guy and sawing his head off, and filming the entire thing...This whole one guy standing behind the victim, shallow cutting motion back and forth across the throat, fade to black then a head on a body is incredibly strange...
Jihadin wrote: Might as well throw in Romney view of Putin/FDR
Naw. The 80's called and they wanted their foreign policy back.
Apparently they called Russia also and Putin took the call.
Putin going back in time to call himself is believable. How can a man who's bare chested riding a stallion with worthy breeding rights (both man and horse in Russia) lie to himself
Seems Assad has stepped up his game, bombing an mostly empty training camp and an ISIS owned bakery, following the loss of an entire province to ISIS last month.
Tell me how this guy is useful again? I keep forgetting.
Seems Assad has stepped up his game, bombing an mostly empty training camp and an ISIS owned bakery, following the loss of an entire province to ISIS last month.
Tell me how this guy is useful again? I keep forgetting.
That Bakery was funding terrorism. Totally a legit target.
ed every time we tried to do something in North Africa and the Middle East since...WWII?
