Now now, I use the term in an almost generic sense. Don't take it personally. Sticks and stones, all that stuff. Anyhoo, it's just a tactic lefties use to try to personalize the debate and distract from the topic itself in an effort to shut up opposition. I will simply continue to carry on the discussion. More: ISIS Threatens America: ‘We Will Raise The Flag Of Allah In The White House’ The terror group President Barack Obama threatened to strike in Iraq Thursday evening is itself threatening to strike the American homeland. “I say to America that the Islamic Caliphate has been established,” Abu Mosa, a spokesman for the terror group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), told VICE Media in a video interview posted online Thursday. “Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq.” “We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House,” he added. http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/08/isis-threatens-america-we-will-raise-the-flag-of-allah-in-the-white-house/ Does anyone think this stays overseas if we do nothing?
I would like to point out that Saudi intelligence and Mossad have cooperated on numerous exercises and actual missions. Shared intel and funds repeatedly. http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat...ncy-plans-for-potential-attack-on-Iran-331961 http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...sited-saudi-arabia-for-talks-on-iran-1.304032 http://my.firedoglake.com/barrylando/2014/03/08/saudis-bankrolling-israels-mossad-more-confirmation/ http://rt.com/news/stuxnet-iran-nuclear-mossad-565/
Hope the above post wasn't too much of a shock to ATW treeman and the crew. Rough day on the boards for the crew. Where's bigtexxx when you need him...
More: U.S. officials: New round of airstrikes near Irbil American officials say the U.S. launched a second round of airstrikes against Islamic State targets near Irbil on Friday, using drones and fighter jets. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the strikes by name, say unmanned aircraft struck a mortar near Irbil and four Navy F/A-18 fighter jets struck a seven-vehicle convoy outside Irbil. The jets flew off the USS George HW Bush aircraft carrier. The Friday afternoon strikes followed a morning strike on an Islamic State artillery gun that was firing on Kurdish troops near U.S. personnel. President Barack Obama said late Thursday that the U.S. would launch airstrikes on the militant group that was threatening American military trainers in the northeastern Iraq city. The officials say the convoy was destroyed. http://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-round-airstrikes-near-irbil-195520622--politics.html While this is helpful, more needs to be done. POTUS mentioned ordering these strikes in the context of protecting Irbil - which is necessary, of course - but is that sufficient? Blunt them at Irbil and they will simply attack somewhere else. They will also adapt their tactics - we won't be seeing any convoys if their convoys are getting hit. These guys aren't stupid - they are very flexible. And they will simply start hiding behind civilians if we become a serious threat to them. They know our ROE will not be as loose as the Israelis' are. We can keep any large formations away from Irbil - but they likely aren't really after Irbil anyway. They are likely forcing the Kurds to concentrate around Irbil - they have no choice - while they (ISIS) consolidate their gains in the north. The Kurds are spread thin and can't hold the territory they have if hey have to concentrate around Irbil.
Uh... why would this be a shock? It's well known that the Israelis and the Saudis (and other Arab countries) regularly work together when their interests coincide. It's also well known that the Saudis and the Israelis work together where their mutual enemy Iran is concerned. That has nothing to do with and is a far cry from ridiculous conspiracy theories that the Jews created the most rabid, deranged , and violent terrorist organization to come along in generations. At any rate, ISIS is simple the rebranded AQI, which was founded by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi (remember him?) in 2003. Are you claiming that Zarqawi was a Mossad agent?
Barbaric: Iraq official: Militants hold 100s of Yazidi women BAGHDAD (AP) — Hundreds of women from the Yazidi religious minority have been taken captive by Sunni militants with "vicious plans," an Iraqi official said Friday, further underscoring the dire plight of Iraq's minorities at the hands of the Islamic State group. Kamil Amin, the spokesman for Iraq's Human Rights Ministry, said hundreds of Yazidi women below the age of 35 are being held in schools in Iraq's second largest city, Mosul. He said the ministry learned of the captives from their families. "We think that the terrorists by now consider them slaves and they have vicious plans for them," Amin told The Associated Press. "We think that these women are going to be used in demeaning ways by those terrorists to satisfy their animalistic urges in a way that contradicts all the human and Islamic values." http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-official-militants-hold-100s-yazidi-women-190650001.html Evil.
You have relatively quickly managed to become one of the more annoying posters on this subforum. Not nearly as r****ded as "Exiled", but still...
Except this group came over the border from Syria. Unless you are recommending we should've gone into Syria and from what I recall you were vocally opposed to the US getting involved in Syria. First you say they are the same people and now you say there were all but wiped out when the US left. Anyway as you note the war next door helped to fuel what was going on and again I will point out you were against the US getting involved in Syria. I agree that many of these are the same people but if US pressure after 8 years couldn't wipe them out how much longer would it have taken too? The problem I have with those of you who argue that we should've stayed is that it is so nebulous about how long we should've stayed or whether if we stayed would've actually prevented it. Let's say we take the 2017 date. Can you say for sure that the militants don't just wait out the US until then? Does the US staying until 2017 prevent war from breaking out in Syria? It's not pointless because this very much has bearing on what happens from here. In 2011 the US was very sick of a decade of war and the US still is. Further if we go back and drive off ISIS yes that might save Iraq but for how long? The basic problem with Iraq has little to do with whether US troops are there or not but whether Iraq can govern itself. Can they come up with a government that all Iraqis support and more importantly whether they are willing to fight for that. If that doesn't happen Iraq will just continue to be black hole that sucks up blood and treasure.
You're right, there is no option right now. The better course of action probably would've been to never go to Iraq in the first place, however. The situation over there for the last decade is really what I was poking fun at. FWIW, I support these air strikes on ISIS myself, as long as they remain air strikes and strategic attacks. A ground invasion? Not so much.
What do you mean "nonsense"? It's well established historical fact. Have a look at this: Zarqawi Letter http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/31694.htm The National Counterterror Center seems to agree with me, too. Al-Qa‘ida in Iraq (AQI) Al-Qa‘ida in Iraq (AQI), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and more recently the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was established in April 2004 by long-time Sunni extremist Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi, who the same year pledged his group’s allegiance to Usama Bin Ladin... Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became AQI’s next leader, and the group has continued conducting high-profile attacks in Iraq and has made efforts to expand within the region. Suicide bombers and car bombs during the first half of 2013 caused about 1,000 Iraqi deaths, the highest monthly violent death tolls since 2008. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in April 2013 declared the group was operating in Syria and changed its public name to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. When al-Baghdadi announced the creation of the ISIL, he claimed AQI had founded the al-Nusrah Front in Syria and that the groups were merging. Al-Nusrah Front, however, denied the merger and publicly pledged allegiance to al-Qa‘ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/aqi.html More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10892898/Iraq-crisis-Q-and-A-Who-or-what-is-ISIS-Is-it-part-of-al-Qaeda.html More: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24179084 So you have your Alex Jones conspiracy nonsense, I will stick with the State Department and the National Counterterror Center.
Why do the liberals continue to bring this up? It's a false choice. We cannot turn back time and do that. I believe the only reason the libs bring it up is to somehow make it look "less bad" for Obama's pathetic foreign policy decisions.
They came from Iraq into Syria. They are AQI. Look at my above post, it is all explained there. They are the same people - they reconstituted. Do you not understand what that means? They also added to their ranks when they broke all of their buddies out of Baghdad Central Prison last year. This is all established history. It's open source. Look it up. (Again, just read what I posted above - it's all there) I was against the US bombing Assad and helping these guys out. I still don't want us to go into Syria. Do you? And if you do... Do you still want to be on ISIS's side? US pressure after 8000 years isn't going to wipe these guys out - we are never going to wipe them out. But that doesn't mean you stop killing them where you find them, and it doesn't mean you walk away. The Iraqis weren't ready to handle it when we left; the idea was to stay until they were ready. Again, not a complicated concept. Setting a target date of 2017 as the Pentagon did isn't nebulous. As for the latter, we will never know. We kno FOR SURE what happens when we leave. THIS is what happens when you walk away. There are no guarantees in war - never are. You can't run a war if you can't operate with uncertainty. War is all about managing uncertainty. You DO have to go with what is most likely. Or at least, you should, because most of the time that's what happens. And it's generally never a good idea to ignore your military advisors during a war, BTW. They are the SMEs. Who knows. Irrelevant question. I agree. It's ultimately up to the Iraqis, and I personally have little faith in them to get their act together. But you know what? There are some failed state outcomes we can live with - like an Iraq that breaks up into three states, which is fine by me - and some we can't, like a terrorist proto-state hell-bent on genocide and exporting terrorism abroad. It simply can't be allowed to happen.
I believe they do it to divert attention and change the narrative. Same reasons why they focus their personal attacks against you and I instead of having an actual discussion. It saves them from having to look the truth in the face.
Understand that for air strikes to be truly effective - especially CAS (close air support) - you need people on the ground calling in the strikes. JDAMs are designed to hit fixed targets like infrastructure. LGBs are fine for hitting mobile targets, armor, columns, etc - but as soon as the BGs disperse or start using camo, target identification and selection becomes much more difficult. And the more difficult those elements, the less effective your strikes will be, and the more likely collateral damage is. They will start hiding behind civilians - it's what these guys do. Hide behind women and children while shooting at you. They will adjust their tactics and remain in the cities as much as possible. This won't be another Libya, these guys are smarter than Khadaffi's goons were. Either accept that the effects of strikes will be extremely limited (in spite of Hagel's reassurances), or understand that we need at least some people on the ground. Add in the likelihood that if we put some SOF as advisers on the ground - and not just sitting in CPs in Baghdad and Irbil - the Kurds would likely be far more effective against ISIS, in addition to having people who could direct CAS and air strikes. The longer we wait, the more oil ISIS sells, and the more time they have to consolidate gains and dig in. I don't think anyone wants to send in a large ground force - and I don;t think it's necessary at this point to turn the tide - but some ground component will likely be required if that becomes our goal. Which, in my opinion, it should be.
There's something else we need to realize when contemplating our next course of action: Iraq is already broken. It is already partitioned. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall, and of the king's horses and all of the king's men won't be able to put that ***** back together again. The administration needs to understand that their strategy needs to change. Replacing Maliki at this point is not going to fix the situation. The Sunnis - while they may well turn against ISIS at some point - are not coming back into the fold. The Kurds are on the cusp of independence; they seized Kirkuk without the blessing of the Baghdad government, the Turks appear ready to give their blessing for Kurdish independence, and for all intents and purposes the Kurd region is acting independent already. As for the Shiites, the Iranians have more influence with them than we do (thanks to our leaving when we did), and they still control vast oil assets in the south. It is extremely difficult envisioning any scenario that has Iraq staying together as a coherent, unified nation at this point. Even if, somehow, ISIS is removed from the equation (it won't be), what is the real incentive for either the Sunnis or the Kurds to come back to Baghdad on their knees? It's broken. We need to accept that and deal with it, and move forward with that calculus in mind. Our priorities at this point need to be: 1) Preventing the Kurds from falling to ISIS 2) Preventing - as much as possible - a humanitarian / genocidal disaster from unfolding 3) Trying to turn the Sunni tribes against ISIS (ISIS has already started killing Sunni tribesmen again for un-islamic behavior, which turned the Sunnis against AQI in 2007 - we need to leverage that) 4) Preventing ISIS from opening any new fronts (I am thinking Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi, here) 5) Rolling back ISIS in their existing territory 6) Preventing ISIS from exporting any terror to the West 7) Preventing Iran from taking advantage of the situation to the extent that they will have effective control over Baghdad If POTUS comes up with a plan that addresses these priorities, then he will be doing as good a job as could be expected in a terrible situation. It is within our capability to do this. If he half-a$$es it, then a lot of people are going to die.
Here's a little though exercise: Imagine that immediately after 9/11, Al Qaeda declared it was consolidating with the Taliban, and declared a new caliphate in Afghanistan. It stated publicly that it intended to attack the West - in particular, the US again - until its last breath, and it would never stop attacking until it had achieved its goal of creating a global ummah. It then proceeded to attack all of its neighbors, who fell like dominoes, and consolidated their wealth to use towards its aims. How fast do you think the USMC, the USAF, the USN, and (bringing up the rear ) the US Army would have been all over that, eh? And how do you think that is materially different than the situation we are witnessing unfolding before our eyes now? Except of course for the fact that ISIS is far more capable than AQ ever was. And they have more money. And they are seeing success on a level AQ never did... You get the point... Secondary question: If we are going to allow ISIS to carve out a caliphate in the Middle East, then why bother having a presence in Afghanistan? Or anywhere else for that matter?
This is the kind of extrapolating nonsense that killed 60,000 kids in Vietnam. WE ARE ALL OUT OF MONEY AND NO-ONE WANTS TO DIE FOR BLOG POSTS.
