ISIS

[Yorkshire pud]

American gets beheaded and Obama goes golfing. Jordanian is brutally murdered and their king says he will fly sorties.

Hmmm; but lets' return in a few weeks and see if Jordan's response was the better one....

[3OctaveFart]

He is displaying actual leadership, something the philosopher king only talks about in his lofty speechifying.

[Eddie Coyle]

The references comparing the mostly tiny radical groups of the 60s/70s to ISIL with its operational army of around 30,000, substantial weapon resources, and holding an area the size of Belgium are puzzling and lack proportionality. 

    I'm taking an admitted provincial view of this, and I view as ISIS as a particularly horrific organization, but I think the average American(traveling abroad) was more at risk between 1970-1990 than today. If ISIS begins hijacking/blowing commercial airplanes out of the sky...again, it's a major caveat, but outside of the events of 9/11, the ordinary American traveler faces fewer threats than they did in 1985.

      That said, I'm astonished that ISIS hasn't taken that tact yet. Hijacking a New York bound flight out of Rome or Athens ala TWA 847 and taking 250 hostages. Or a Dawson's Field scenario. I'm pleasantly surprised it hasn't happened. How long does this last?

[albrecht]

    I'm taking an admitted provincial view of this, and I view as ISIS as a particularly horrific organization, but I think the average American(traveling abroad) was more at risk between 1970-1990 than today. If ISIS begins hijacking/blowing commercial airplanes out of the sky...again, it's a major caveat, but outside of the events of 9/11, the ordinary American traveler faces fewer threats than they did in 1985.

      That said, I'm astonished that ISIS hasn't taken that tact yet. Hijacking a New York bound flight out of Rome or Athens ala TWA 847 and taking 250 hostages. Or a Dawson's Field scenario. I'm pleasantly surprised it hasn't happened. How long does this last?

I'm glad that they haven't but, really, I think soft-targets and more generalized mayhem would be a worse scenario than even skyjackings- which now due to fairly good security and/or IT developments with regard to "fly by wire" are harder to do. And soft-target terrorism is quite easy to do by "motivated" (that is not caring about getting caught) actors in the USA and Europe with relative ease of obtaining weapons, household chemicals, gasoline, etc that could be used and relative freedom of movement, unsecured buildings, mass gatherings, etc. Thankfully aside from a few- but awful- shootings we have been spared that. One more reason to "profile" and keep vigilant against malcontents (of any type) and an eye on fifth columnist Muslims already living in our countries.

[Eddie Coyle]

I'm glad that they haven't but, really, I think soft-targets and more generalized mayhem would be a worse scenario than even skyjackings- which now due to fairly good security and/or IT developments with regard to "fly by wire" are harder to do. And soft-target terrorism is quite easy to do by "motivated" (that is not caring about getting caught) actors in the USA and Europe with relative ease of obtaining weapons, household chemicals, gasoline, etc that could be used and relative freedom of movement, unsecured buildings, mass gatherings, etc. Thankfully aside from a few- but awful- shootings we have been spared that. One more reason to "profile" and keep vigilant against malcontents (of any type) and an eye on fifth columnist Muslims already living in our countries.

      The train bombings in Madrid and London jump right out as soft target bullseyes of recent memory. The nightclubs in Bali as well. Definitely "easier" than the skyjack method and perpetrated by those who are more than willing to die. The Kosher supermarket in Paris a month ago could be a disturbing augur. Stateside, the Marathon bombing was terrible, but carried out by amateurs with minimal training. I shudder to think the damage that an organized outfit could have pulled off. They had a kill zone of thousands between bomb 1 and 2.

     

[RealCool Daddio]

Here's what; We hold Rush (the world's greatest rock band, not the dik) and Neil Young hostage. What will Canada do then?

[attachimg=1]

American woman, I said, get away

American woman, listen what I say

Don't come hanging 'round my door

Don't want to see your face no more

I don't need your war machines

I don't need your ghetto scenes

[VtaGeezer]

      Ironically, I think YP is an atheist like I am. So this tiff is nationalist instead of religious. Which is probably progess!

As with Middle Eastern Muslims, being a Catholic or a Prod in Belfast is a whole lot more about your lineage than your practice of any particular flavor of Christianity.  I doubt many rosaries were found in the pockets of captured provisionals.

[Eddie Coyle]

  I doubt many rosaries were found in the pockets of captured provisionals.

    More likely balaclavas and Armalites along the funeral procession and burial of the departed. I'm willing to bet most Provos had the relgiosity of Whitey Bulger.
   

[albrecht]

    More likely balaclavas and Armalites along the funeral procession and burial of the departed. I'm willing to bet most Provos had the relgiosity of Whitey Bulger.
   

It always, sort of, interested me how in certain sports Ireland is united (RU) and in others divided (football) (indeed actually I will include the same interest with regard to GB, UK, and the individual countries thereof are united or divided- depending on the sport and competition.) Also the "troubles" and sectarianism are also interesting in that I saw WAY, WAY more sectarianism and conflict in Glasgow, for example, than in Limerick- that is actually in Ireland- but still loves rugby (what more an English public school sport could be?) But also had hurling and gaelic football (in fact I recall some controversy about allowing "soccer" to be played on gaelic football pitches.)

[Yorkshire pud]

He is displaying actual leadership, something the philosopher king only talks about in his lofty speechifying.

You think so? I would suggest it's more to do with pandering to a vociferous and revenge hungry home crowd. Hardly strategeic thinking is it?  Being a leader isn't getting in the second punch. Being a leader is about thinking through what the long term aim is, and how to get there with the least amount of trouble. As I said; see what the results of Jordan's action is in a few weeks from now.

[FightTheFuture]

Caesar Obamus, upon being afforded another opportunity to demonstrate leadership on the geopolitical stage, once again, opts for his patented, signature schtick: moral equivalence with a band of 8th century savages. Invoking The Crusades, no less! At the national prayer breakfast, of all places.

Yes, in the jaundice eyes of our boyish emperor, we are no better then the savages that cut the heads off of children, and burn people alive. And, let us not forget, we once participated in the slave trade! Hell, what moral high ground? if you believe Obama, we'be no authority to claim it

[Gd5150]

I would suggest it's more to do with pandering to a vociferous and revenge hungry home crowd...see what the results of Jordan's action is in a few weeks from now.

We already know how the Obama?Democrat stradegy of bury your head in the sand and do nothing will turn out. How do we know?

It was President Jimmy Carters response when the Islamic Extremists started this war in the 1970's by throwing the Shaw of Iran out for the Islamic Fundementalist Iatola Komanie. How's that been working out for us? Hint, less than optimal.

It was Bill Clintons response when they bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. And when they bombed the African embassys in 1998. And when the bombed the USS Cole in 2000. How did this stradegy work out? 911.

Now lets look at how evil hungry revenge worked. Reagan bombed Lybia in 1986 after Gaddafi's terrorist bombing of Pan AM flight 103. Democrats were outraged, claimed it would have no effect. Of course they were wrong, Gaddafi was irrelevent for his last 25 years. His military destroyed.

HW Bush defended lead the world in defending Kuwait and kicked Saddam Hussein out after he invaded. Despite calls for impeachment from Democrats like now 25 year Senator Barbara Boxer. She also claimed the US would lose 500,000 soldiers. Hussein never invaded Kuwait or anyone else ever again.

After years and years of ignoring UN demands of allowing inspectors in, W Bush lead the charge to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And now, Suddam Hussein is now longer threatening the world with his "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons" - Bill Clintons words, 1998 address to the nation. Hussein is now dead and thus irrelevent, and thus no longer a problem.

So yeah, we'll see how a real leaders actions work out. We already know how the do nothing stradegy works.

[MV/Liberace!]

...throwing the Shaw of Iran...

if frys girl were here, she'd have your balls in a sling for typing that.

[Juan]

I miss Fry's Girl

[NowhereInTime]

We already know how the Obama?Democrat stradegy of bury your head in the sand and do nothing will turn out.

"bury your head in the sand"?  Analysis from someone who has not a whit of understanding how this world works.  This nation is actively engaged, on multiple tiers (diplomatic, clandestine, third party back channel, and military/coalition) , with so many different crises (prioritized by treaty and national security interest like: Ukraine, South China Sea, Iran, North Korea, Syria/Kurdistan,) that no one person can follow all the maneuvers.  Especially since so many of them won't see the light of day.

How do we know?

Short answer, we don't.  Long answer; you can see we are accelerating our involvement in Ukraine; smashing Putin with sanctions, overtly supplying non-lethal aid to Ukraine army, covertly supplying real time intelligence and some lethal aid.  We are involved in air and drone strikes in Syria, specifically to aid the Kurds, who are our only real allies in that whole part of the world.  Stuxnet was exposed by the French, but before that did you know it was setting the Iranian nuclear program back years?  Of course not.  We weren't supposed to know.

It was President Jimmy Carter...

Who helped negotiate peace, a peace lasting to this day, between ancient enemies Egypt and Israel.  Thanks for noticing.

... to th response when the Islamic Extremists started this war in the 1970's  British, French, and Russian Imperialists started this war [/font]by throwing the Shaw of Iran out for the Islamic Fundementalist Iatola Komanie. by colonizing throughout the middle east to secure trade routes and resources How's that been working out for us? Hint, less than optimal.

Fixed it for you.  And, yes, our involvement (deposing Mohammad Mossadeq - democratically elected secularist) has been less than optimal.

It was Bill Clintons response when they bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

Well, no, several conspirators were caught, prosecuted, and are incarcerated, including Omar Abdel Rahman who orchestrated this attack.  Because we handled this for what it was, a crime, and not the start of a war of civilizations.

And when they bombed the African embassys in 1998. And when the bombed the USS Cole in 2000. How did this stradegy work out? 911.

Really? This "strategy" resulted in 9/11?  Not the Bush Administration's wholesale refusal to pursue intelligence from the Phoenix Memo?  Not the Bush FBI forcing out Counter Terror Agent John O'Neill, who died on 9/11, because he wouldn't shut up about Al-Qaeda and Bush's Saudi friends? 

You get a half point here because Bubba missed a chance to kill bin-Laden in '98, but did authorize strikes on Al-Qaeda positions with cruise missles in Afghanistan.  Your side thought they were an attempt to distract from Lewinsky-gate.  Wrong, as history has born out.

Now lets look at how evil hungry revenge worked. Reagan bombed Lybia in 1986 after Gaddafi's terrorist bombing of Pan AM flight 103.

Again, flying loose with the truth.  Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 for retaliation against a terror bombing in Germany that killed US service personnel.  Pan-Am 103 occurred in December 1988, within a month of Reagan's term ending, and after he had already begun to succumb to Alzheimer's

Of course, you being you, you will now claim that St. Ronald anticipated Pan-Am 103 (a retaliation for the US bombing run over Libya in 1986, BTW) and, in a clear case of conservative omniscience, bombed Libya ahead of time.

And the resulting devastation from St. Ronnie's run led to a coup that ousted Qaddafi... in 2011?!?

Democrats were outraged, claimed it would have no effect. Of course they were wrong, right; Gaddafi was irrelevent for his last 25 years. (Except when he killed all those people on Pan-Am 103, for example) His military destroyed.

Truth means nothing to you.  Classic conservative; shameless and self-serving.

HW Bush defended lead the world in defending Kuwait and kicked Saddam Hussein out after he invaded. Despite calls for impeachment from Democrats like now 25 year Senator Barbara Boxer. She also claimed the US would lose 500,000 soldiers. Hussein never invaded Kuwait or anyone else ever again.

Could it be because Clinton maintained the aggressive no-fly stance from GHW?  Nah.

After years and years of ignoring UN demands of allowing inspectors in, W Bush lead the charge to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And now, Suddam Hussein is now longer threatening the world with his "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons" - Bill Clintons words, 1998 address to the nation. Hussein is now dead and thus irrelevent, and thus no longer a problem.

Didn't you just get done saying GHW had made Iraq irrelevant?  Then why did Junior need to invade?

So yeah, we'll see how a real leaders actions work out. We already know how the do nothing stradegy works.

To sum up then:

1) Jimmy carter started the War with Islam by letting the Shah (that great humanitarian) fall to the Ayatollah.  (Forget the Camp David Peace accords - they were a feint.)

2) Bill Clinton caused 9/11 by capturing, prosecuting, and incarcerating the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing.

3) Ronald Reagan, in an act of beatific proportions, anticipated the Lockerbee bombing of Pan-Am 103, and pre-bombed Libya two years before it happened, rendering Libya inert and, ever so slowly, causing the fall of Qaddafi 25 years later.

4) GHW, in his brilliant coalition (I do mean that) to drive Iraq out of Kuwait so devastated the Iraqi military as to render it, too, harmless.  Just to make sure, however, W started his heroic ten year campaign to rid the world of Saddam and bring peace and happiness to the Middle East.

5) Barack Obama, upholding a campaign pledge to find bin-Laden and bring him to justice, national sovereignty be damned, had Osama hunted and killed, avenging 9/11. 

Oh, you didn't mention that?...my bad...

I have printed a copy of your pollyanna drivel so the next time someone says to me either "you can't make this stuff up" or "truth is stranger than fiction", I can show them this to prove them wrong.

[NowhereInTime]

I miss Fry's Girl

I do too.

[VtaGeezer]

It was President Jimmy Carters response when the Islamic Extremists started this war in the 1970's by throwing the Shaw of Iran out for the Islamic Fundementalist Iatola Komanie. How's that been working out for us? Hint, less than optimal.

It was Bill Clintons response when they bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. And when they bombed the African embassys in 1998. And when the bombed the USS Cole in 2000. How did this stradegy work out? 911.

Now lets look at how evil hungry revenge worked. Reagan bombed Lybia in 1986 after Gaddafi's terrorist bombing of Pan AM flight 103. Democrats were outraged, claimed it would have no effect. Of course they were wrong, Gaddafi was irrelevent for his last 25 years. His military destroyed.

HW Bush defended lead the world in defending Kuwait and kicked Saddam Hussein out after he invaded. Despite calls for impeachment from Democrats like now 25 year Senator Barbara Boxer. She also claimed the US would lose 500,000 soldiers. Hussein never invaded Kuwait or anyone else ever again.

After years and years of ignoring UN demands of allowing inspectors in, W Bush lead the charge to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And now, Suddam Hussein is now longer threatening the world with his "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons" - Bill Clintons words, 1998 address to the nation. Hussein is now dead and thus irrelevent, and thus no longer a problem.

So yeah, we'll see how a real leaders actions work out. We already know how the do nothing stradegy works.

Wow.  Where to start? A great example of how so many conservatives' zeal has no relationship with reality.  I especially like how Ronaldus the Great bombed Libya in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of PanAm 103 which happened in 1988. Such foresight was his hallmark.

[Juan]

Reagan bombed Lybia in retaliation for a Lybian bombing of a German nightclub. Said bombing killed Americans.

[Eddie Coyle]

It was President Jimmy Carters response when the Islamic Extremists started this war in the 1970's by throwing the Shaw of Iran out for the Islamic Fundementalist Iatola Komanie. How's that been working out for us? Hint, less than optimal.

     This can't be serious. It reads like a Ray Stevens lyric sheet.

     Oh, and Ford began the process of pushing out "The Shaw" in 1975-76, they viewed "The Saw-dees" as having more stability and weren't as demanding as Pahlavi was. CIA knew the "The Shaw" had severe health issues in '76.

[VtaGeezer]

Reagan bombed Lybia in retaliation for a Lybian bombing of a German nightclub. Said bombing killed Americans.

Yes; two American soldiers died from the Berlin bombing. The US attack on Libya killed 60 Libyans, and two US aircrew were lost. The bomb on Pan Am 103 in retaliation for the US attack killed 270, 2/3 of them American. 

[VtaGeezer]

     This can't be serious. It reads like a Ray Stevens lyric sheet.

     Oh, and Ford began the process of pushing out "The Shaw" in 1975-76, they viewed "The Saw-dees" as having more stability and weren't as demanding as Pahlavi was. CIA knew the "The Shaw" had severe health issues in '76.

Carter could do nothing to stop a full blown revolution against a US-installed despot; direct US interference would have have been an even bigger disaster than the Embassy hostages. 

[Yorkshire pud]

We already know how the Obama?Democrat stradegy of bury your head in the sand and do nothing will turn out. How do we know?

It was President Jimmy Carters response when the Islamic Extremists started this war in the 1970's by throwing the Shaw of Iran out for the Islamic Fundementalist Iatola Komanie. How's that been working out for us? Hint, less than optimal.

That would be the Shah of Iran? The one who was placed there in the first place under false pretenses? That one.

It was Bill Clintons response when they bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. And when they bombed the African embassys in 1998. And when the bombed the USS Cole in 2000. How did this stradegy work out? 911.

Hmmm, didn't stop being best pals with Saudi Arabia did it? 19 of the hijackers were Saudi. Not just with Clinton, each and every Western leader before and since.

Now lets look at how evil hungry revenge worked. Reagan bombed Lybia in 1986 after Gaddafi's terrorist bombing of Pan AM flight 103. Democrats were outraged, claimed it would have no effect. Of course they were wrong, Gaddafi was irrelevent for his last 25 years. His military destroyed.

And then all forgiven; It's still in debate who did bring down 103, because there is very little actual evidence to say it was who was convicted.

HW Bush defended lead the world in defending Kuwait and kicked Saddam Hussein out after he invaded. Despite calls for impeachment from Democrats like now 25 year Senator Barbara Boxer. She also claimed the US would lose 500,000 soldiers. Hussein never invaded Kuwait or anyone else ever again.

I know crazy shit wasn't it? SH best friends with the West and then he wasn't...but not before he'd used Western supplied poison gas on his own citizens...and we knew about it, but still friends, because no oil was involved...

After years and years of ignoring UN demands of allowing inspectors in, W Bush lead the charge to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And now, Suddam Hussein is now longer threatening the world with his "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons" - Bill Clintons words, 1998 address to the nation. Hussein is now dead and thus irrelevent, and thus no longer a problem.

SH poses no threat as he has no WMD --Condi Rice, 2001. Yet incredibly, he was deemed to be best friends with Bin Laden and coluded with him to bring down the WTC... A) They detested each other (B L and SH) and SH had no WMD, but some in the US still believe he brought down the WTC.

So yeah, we'll see how a real leaders actions work out. We already know how the do nothing stradegy works.

Oh bless you....you really do have your nightly Fox News TV time pinned to the wall don't you?

[Eddie Coyle]

Carter could do nothing to stop a full blown revolution against a US-installed despot; direct US interference would have have been an even bigger disaster than the Embassy hostages.

     The people of Iran despised him and his SAVAK crypto-Nazis. The Americans at Isfahan were the Ugliest type, treating the area like Havana circa 1955. And our government grew tired of his constant threats of looking elsewhere for military support. Recipes for disaster.

     We meddled in '53 and the blowback occurred in '79. It should have been a lesson.

[Juan]

     . It should have been a lesson.

What pols ever learn a lesson?

[Eddie Coyle]

What pols ever learn a lesson?

    Point taken. If it does occur it's after their career has ended and they're pushing a book.

[3OctaveFart]

You think so? I would suggest it's more to do with pandering to a vociferous and revenge hungry home crowd. Hardly strategeic thinking is it?  Being a leader isn't getting in the second punch. Being a leader is about thinking through what the long term aim is, and how to get there with the least amount of trouble. As I said; see what the results of Jordan's action is in a few weeks from now.

I can understand it is jarring to see a monarch who is loved by his people.

Oh well, at least our Unicorn King still has the millennials who thought it might be fun in their first election to throw their support behind a guy who has never had a real job in his life.

I can also understand why Jordan is a mark for the Israel-hating left- it works in concert with the West and Israel. It is as reasonable a partner as you can hope for at this point in that region of the world.

[Gd5150]

How long will it take the left to fall for the ISIS claim that the Jordanian bombing killed American hostage Kayla Mueller?

A: 5 minutes
B: 5 seconds
C: too late they already have
D: all of the above

Answer: D of course

[Yorkshire pud]

How long will it take the left to fall for the ISIS claim that the Jordanian bombing killed American hostage Kayla Mueller?

A: 5 minutes
B: 5 seconds
C: too late they already have
D: all of the above

Answer: D of course

You're back so soon? After hanging by your own petard I thought you'd have been away to lick your wounds...


Now, are you sure it's '(Big intro...) 'The left'? Because going by your very own and documented tenuous grasp of facts and reality, you can't be trusted to believe what you think.




Are you sure? Have you got a grown up to write what you think down and read it back?

[Yorkshire pud]

I can understand it is jarring to see a monarch who is loved by his people.

Oh well, at least our Unicorn King still has the millennials who thought it might be fun in their first election to throw their support behind a guy who has never had a real job in his life.

I can also understand why Jordan is a mark for the Israel-hating left- it works in concert with the West and Israel. It is as reasonable a partner as you can hope for at this point in that region of the world.

Oh For fuck sake... STOP banging on about the 'hating this or that left'...It's bollox. Can you find Jordan on a map of the world? If the West understood the Middle East as much as it arrogantly likes to think it does, it wouldn't be in the shit it is now.

Jordan is a Constitutional Monarchy and seems as one of the more moderate--He did after all meet with the then pope in about 2005 I think to get closer with Rome..He's not just an Arab centric monarch  (He was after all educated in England (Oxford)and the USA and went to Sandhurst I believe)...But he did that after attending the Islamic Education college in Amman.

Your point? He's a nasty Muslim turned good or he's always been a great guy ?

[3OctaveFart]

The Jordanian king and queen are friends of the American people- without being marionettes.

Here's our liege in his armored fighting vehicle awaiting clearance from the tower.