Yeah it's a strange, but comfortable, circle people choose, a self-confirming confirmation bias. You have one of your own you know. I do too, but from the inside it's hard to see.
Everyone has one, but there are certain values that are objectively right or wrong - like not killing someone for their beliefs, or wanting someone to be dead or in fear for the rest of his life over a cartoon, etc. etc. etc.
They dont care about the facts. Israel's spy agency knew about the attacks, and got 4,000 Jews out of there The blame-the-Jews theory is very popular in the Middle East. In a 2008 poll conducted in Egypt, as many as 43 percent of Egyptians thought Israel was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks. Among the most persistent post-9/11 rumors was that 4,000 Jews did not show up for work that September morning at the World Trade Center because Mossad, Israel's spy agency, warned them against it. Although an exact tally doesn't exist, the consensus is that anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the victims of the 9/11 attacks - up to 450 people - were Jewish religiously or had Judaism as their primary cultural affiliation. The U.S. Census has generally put the percentage of Americans who are Jewish at a maximum of 2 percent in recent years. It would be nonsensical of the Jews to leave hundreds behind as martyrs to cover their trail. Even if they had, it's not as if Israel has been made any "safer" by 9/11 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/9-11-conspiracy-theories-wont-stop/
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Two Minnesota men charged with trying to aid ISIS <a href="http://t.co/hQ5QVcjyJm">http://t.co/hQ5QVcjyJm</a> <a href="http://t.co/MuCRqBkwEG">pic.twitter.com/MuCRqBkwEG</a></p>— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/537393628432584705">November 25, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Did a search to find this post, judo, because I ran across an article in Jane's about the use of the F-22. Apparently it was used far more than was previously thought, at least here (and that includes me). Here's the quote: Gen Harrigian, a former F-22 Raptor pilot, noted that the aircraft saw their first-ever combat missions over Syria because planners looking at threat environment there determined they wanted the Raptor for its stealth, speed, and particularly its integrated avionics for better "situational awareness not just for the pilot in the airplane but really for the entire [equipment] package that's going to execute the mission". He confirmed that the aircraft have participated in more than just the opening three sorties over Syria, but not always in a strike role and sometimes just as a situational awareness tool for data sharing. Future F-22 use depends on specific targets, target locations, and the overall environment such as day or night operations, Gen Harrigian added. http://www.janes.com/article/43838/usaf-use-of-f-22s-target-dependent-jtacs-crucial-for-air-support Just as I thought, the Raptors were used because they made the other aircraft safer due to the far better "integrated avionics" of the F-22. Initially, while we didn't expect the Syrian regime to attack our aircraft, as they had been given a heads up (and certainly wouldn't want us to land on them like a ton of bricks if they had), but we couldn't be sure. In other words, the Raptors were used for a good reason, not simply to end questions raised about why they haven't been used at all, ever, which was apparently just a side benefit. -
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>ISIS militants claim to have captured Jordanian pilot, according to statement on ISIS-affiliated Twitter account. <a href="http://t.co/ws7MIAWgtz">http://t.co/ws7MIAWgtz</a></p>— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) <a href="https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/547687362202193920">December 24, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This needs an update. So basically, their participation in the fight is being brokered by the Iranian negotiators with the US by way of the Iraqi PM (who is assuring militant Shiites that the US will not carry out further air strikes in Tikrit). I'm not exactly sure why the Shiite militants care but it more than likely is some kind of allegiance to their Iranian connections. Both the US and Iran are expected to come to some kind of deal in regards to the Iranian nuclear program fairly soon. I guess that means the US biting the bullet and allowing the Iranians to resume oil exports and to continue their support of the Iraqi government. There are also some insinuation that the US put out a hit on a couple of Iranian military advisers. This also will put the US in an awkward position with its biggest ally Saudi Arabia.
Ramadi, city in the al-Anbar province, west of Baghdad, may fall to ISIS. <iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rHSPmt0uF-4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Ramadi has fallen. However, Baiji is still being fought over with ISIS trenched down in certain sections with Iraqi security force hostages. <iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BMPKSU7Mxxc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ISIS kills hundreds as it captures the Iraqi city of Ramadi <a href="http://t.co/MTVA7iejw2">http://t.co/MTVA7iejw2</a> <a href="http://t.co/LZPblIuCmA">pic.twitter.com/LZPblIuCmA</a></p>— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/600379717523505153">May 18, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
ISIS now taking over area containing Syria's largest natural gas fields which are used to supply most electricity to Assad controlled Syria. Likely just a move to blow up some more antiques.
Congratulations Big Puffery, you've just been appointed Iraq Czar. What's your plan? Mount a 100,000 man invasion force? Carpet bomb Ramadi? Side with the Shia Militias? Spend another trillion on the Iraqi army? Act unilaterally without allies? How do you balance Saudi, Iranian and Turkish interest? Give me one alternative to what Mr. Obama is doing. Lead Puffery! lead!
Hint: lobbing in bombs from above isn't working. Need more ground troops (note I said MORE. There are already ground troops there)
->How many more? ->What will be their role? ->Why will this work better than almost every instance of American military history?
lmao seriously? Is this what they teach you in Canadian junior college? You're talking to the two time, back-to-back World War champion. You're just a Canadian subject of the Queen (of ENGLAND). *snicker*
So, in this comparision, is Iran the Soviet Union? And are ISIS the Vietcong, Taliban, Somali Warlords, the Canadians of 1812--or the Japanese? Objection--relevance to the Queentalk. She's irrelevant in any case. Also want to note you didn't answer any of my other questions.
You're the Czar man, don't 'hint hint', lead! You criticize Mr. Obama and the Joint Chiefs with smirk, you must know something about the state of Iraq, you must have your own actionable ideas. put up or shut up How many American troops are you willing to commit to this religious civil quagmire, how many American deaths are acceptable, how much more debt for Iraq are you willing to take on? would you raise taxes to pay for it? edit* Oh, I see Texx got his new talking points yesterday: No, the GOP Has Not Lost Its Lust for War http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/05/republicans-war-hawks-libertarians
As I recall there were more participants in the world wars and not a bunch of countries sitting around expecting the US to invade so that the US can go deeper in dept... Let Germany, France, and Israel handle it.
