|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakersken80 wrote: | http://www.examiner.com/article/isis-creating-own-air-force-to-counter-u-s-and-allies-air-strikes
Oh, no ISIS has some Vietnam era fighter jets with poorly trained pilots...their a real threat to the USAF and USN....  |
It's not the threat to our military that's the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38789
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C M B
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 19865
Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They did get
Blackhawks
Abrahms
Bradleys
SAMs
Plenty of armor, bullets, guns etc and cash ..
^^all from good old USA when we left..
I can start my own US terrorist thread too?
First line will be
When was the last time Iraq attacked America?
When was the first time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBallerBrand
Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 5802
Location: LA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lets just allow isis to form their caliphate in whichever land that they want, as long as they stop the violence. once they are all in one place, nuke the (bleep) out of these (bleep) retards
_________________
Billions Billions Billions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| C M B wrote: | | http://www.bbc.com/news/world-31481797 |
I saw the video of the Jordanian pilot's death. The movielike editing and effects (slow motion, dissolves, sound effects) make it more rank than it already is, believe it or not. They poured gas on him and on the ground inside the cell and lit a line of fuel leading to him with a torch. He was immediately engulfed, the only fortunate thing being that it didn't take very long. He stood for about 6-7 secs covering his face and then he got down on his knees and pressed against the bars to get his head away from the flames, but he died frozen in that pose a few secs after that, his body stiffened and fell backwards onto his back. They dumped a load of cement debris on his body with a frontloader. That guy was unbelievably brave/stoic/whatever other superlative. The humanity he and the others displayed in refusing to be broken by torture and death is amazing.
I think every last civilian Westerner in the region should get out until this group has been extinguished. I don't think they should be living in that kind of risk even for humanitarian aims. There's risk volunteering in Syria under normal circumstances, but it's just too heightened when ISIS is actively trying to kidnap more Westerners. The times are way too violent and uncontrollable, especially when the only commitment to killing them off is with airstrikes. Even the nations closest to this situation don't get angry enough to strike back until one of their own is butchered. I know that aid workers are nobler people than I and most the rest of us, but they can always go back in time. They're not safe in that region and their capture only serves ISIS. The 24 yr old woman that was killed could've had a lifetime of service and more specifically, future service in the Middle East (yrs later) by finding another part of the world to work in in the meantime. Her aunt was sounding like she wanted to believe she died for a cause, but her wasted future has to feel utterly senseless to her family behind the scenes. The stoicism is all they have left to hold onto now.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| non-player zealot wrote: | | I think every last civilian Westerner in the region should get out until this group has been extinguished. I don't think they should be living in that kind of risk even for humanitarian aims. There's risk volunteering in Syria under normal circumstances, but it's just too heightened when ISIS is actively trying to kidnap more Westerners. The times are way too violent and uncontrollable, especially when the only commitment to killing them off is with airstrikes. Even the nations closest to this situation don't get angry enough to strike back until one of their own is butchered. I know that aid workers are nobler people than I and most the rest of us, but they can always go back in time. They're not safe in that region and their capture only serves ISIS. |
I know that it sounds cold, but I quit caring very much about these people some time ago. I know they mean well, but they are basically volunteer hostages. They take the risks, and sometimes they wind up in a video. Maybe we'll kill an extra 10 jihadis in their memory, but otherwise I mostly regard them as cautionary tales for future do-gooders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Primarily, I think the violent tendencies of religious adherents is going to vary based on the culture they exist in. I think religions adapt (albeit very slowly) to culture, look how much Christianity has changed over the last 100 years in this country alone. Religion may be stupid and regressive in a lot of ways, but ultimately, they want to survive to keep recruiting and bringing in the donation money, so they'll adapt if they have to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Re-engaging in the Middle East over terrism (intentional mispelling thank you,) is foolish at best. Our habit of intervention hasn't helped change (bleep), ISIS is proof of that. You take out ISIS, some other group will take their place once you eventually leave again. Nothing is going to change until that region reaches a point of critical mass in their rejection of these radicals, which will probably come from generational change, especially in regards to the over-respecting of religious pretense.
Even if you think it's okay to do what we did in Iraq, you can't cradle a far off foreign country like that forever, eventually you have to let it go, and what it will do at that point is dependent on the population there. Rarely does real organic change come to a population from the outside, unless through sheer brute domination, and we're obviously not going to do that.
So, abandon the Middle East militarily for good, let them figure that (bleep) out for themselves. Nothing good has come from our foreign policy there, especially when it's not genuinely motivated by any real moral code, but rather (at least partially) by economic interest. If we keep intervening, you can just expect the same damn results, and we'll continue the cycle of hostility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | Re-engaging in the Middle East over terrism (intentional mispelling thank you,) is foolish at best. Our habit of intervention hasn't helped change (bleep), ISIS is proof of that. You take out ISIS, some other group will take their place once you eventually leave again. Nothing is going to change until that region reaches a point of critical mass in their rejection of these radicals, which will probably come from generational change, especially in regards to the over-respecting of religious pretense.
Even if you think it's okay to do what we did in Iraq, you can't cradle a far off foreign country like that forever, eventually you have to let it go, and what it will do at that point is dependent on the population there. Rarely does real organic change come to a population from the outside, unless through sheer brute domination, and we're obviously not going to do that.
So, abandon the Middle East militarily for good, let them figure that (bleep) out for themselves. Nothing good has come from our foreign policy there, especially when it's not genuinely motivated by any real moral code, but rather (at least partially) by economic interest. If we keep intervening, you can just expect the same damn results, and we'll continue the cycle of hostility. |
I disagree with this.
These terror groups are smart. They know to nip anything and everything in the bud. They're social media savvy. They're technologically connected. They're vicious and unmerciful. It's way too hard for change to come from the inside nowadays without help.
Outside help is needed just to try to keep some semblance of peace to buy time for kids to grow up expecting peace. For culture to change. For mindsets to change. For a generation to grow up with a different reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | Re-engaging in the Middle East over terrism (intentional mispelling thank you,) is foolish at best. Our habit of intervention hasn't helped change (bleep), ISIS is proof of that. You take out ISIS, some other group will take their place once you eventually leave again. Nothing is going to change until that region reaches a point of critical mass in their rejection of these radicals, which will probably come from generational change, especially in regards to the over-respecting of religious pretense.
Even if you think it's okay to do what we did in Iraq, you can't cradle a far off foreign country like that forever, eventually you have to let it go, and what it will do at that point is dependent on the population there. Rarely does real organic change come to a population from the outside, unless through sheer brute domination, and we're obviously not going to do that.
So, abandon the Middle East militarily for good, let them figure that (bleep) out for themselves. Nothing good has come from our foreign policy there, especially when it's not genuinely motivated by any real moral code, but rather (at least partially) by economic interest. If we keep intervening, you can just expect the same damn results, and we'll continue the cycle of hostility. |
I disagree with this.
These terror groups are smart. They know to nip anything and everything in the bud. They're social media savvy. They're technologically connected. They're vicious and unmerciful. It's way too hard for change to come from the inside nowadays without help.
Outside help is needed just to try to keep some semblance of peace to buy time for kids to grow up expecting peace. For culture to change. For mindsets to change. For a generation to grow up with a different reality. |
Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not what's necessary. And FTR, I'm not saying they can't get help, but getting help from a bunch of Westerners they see as hostile and have no respect for? Yeah, we've seen how helpful that's been in the past. We only feed the cycle of hostility and fuel these people even more. Any change we can offer will not be organic, and will not be lasting. The region will ultimately reflect the population. We will never understand them like they understand themselves, so we shouldn't be trying to pull strings there. We've proven we're not good puppetmasters in that area, time for us to retire.
And besides, it's not our responsibility anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | Re-engaging in the Middle East over terrism (intentional mispelling thank you,) is foolish at best. Our habit of intervention hasn't helped change (bleep), ISIS is proof of that. You take out ISIS, some other group will take their place once you eventually leave again. Nothing is going to change until that region reaches a point of critical mass in their rejection of these radicals, which will probably come from generational change, especially in regards to the over-respecting of religious pretense.
Even if you think it's okay to do what we did in Iraq, you can't cradle a far off foreign country like that forever, eventually you have to let it go, and what it will do at that point is dependent on the population there. Rarely does real organic change come to a population from the outside, unless through sheer brute domination, and we're obviously not going to do that.
So, abandon the Middle East militarily for good, let them figure that (bleep) out for themselves. Nothing good has come from our foreign policy there, especially when it's not genuinely motivated by any real moral code, but rather (at least partially) by economic interest. If we keep intervening, you can just expect the same damn results, and we'll continue the cycle of hostility. |
I disagree with this.
These terror groups are smart. They know to nip anything and everything in the bud. They're social media savvy. They're technologically connected. They're vicious and unmerciful. It's way too hard for change to come from the inside nowadays without help.
Outside help is needed just to try to keep some semblance of peace to buy time for kids to grow up expecting peace. For culture to change. For mindsets to change. For a generation to grow up with a different reality. |
Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not what's necessary. And FTR, I'm not saying they can't get help, but getting help from a bunch of Westerners they see as hostile and have no respect for? Yeah, we've seen how helpful that's been in the past. We only feed the cycle of hostility and fuel these people even more. Any change we can offer will not be organic, and will not be lasting. The region will ultimately reflect the population. We will never understand them like they understand themselves, so we shouldn't be trying to pull strings there. We've proven we're not good puppetmasters in that area, time for us to retire.
And besides, it's not our responsibility anyway. |
I think the amount of involvement the West should have should really just be for peace keeping. I'm not saying that we need to impose our way of life on others. But I think that most people, when given the option to be good to others versus bad to others, they will want to be good. They are only bad to others if they think that it is necessary to serve a purpose.
I think that growing organically can only be done if you can think without fear.
And yes, it's not our "responsibility". That's true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wish we didn't have significant economic and strategic interests tied up in the Middle East. Then we could do what FanOBynum says, and I'd be just fine with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | Re-engaging in the Middle East over terrism (intentional mispelling thank you,) is foolish at best. Our habit of intervention hasn't helped change (bleep), ISIS is proof of that. You take out ISIS, some other group will take their place once you eventually leave again. Nothing is going to change until that region reaches a point of critical mass in their rejection of these radicals, which will probably come from generational change, especially in regards to the over-respecting of religious pretense.
Even if you think it's okay to do what we did in Iraq, you can't cradle a far off foreign country like that forever, eventually you have to let it go, and what it will do at that point is dependent on the population there. Rarely does real organic change come to a population from the outside, unless through sheer brute domination, and we're obviously not going to do that.
So, abandon the Middle East militarily for good, let them figure that (bleep) out for themselves. Nothing good has come from our foreign policy there, especially when it's not genuinely motivated by any real moral code, but rather (at least partially) by economic interest. If we keep intervening, you can just expect the same damn results, and we'll continue the cycle of hostility. |
I disagree with this.
These terror groups are smart. They know to nip anything and everything in the bud. They're social media savvy. They're technologically connected. They're vicious and unmerciful. It's way too hard for change to come from the inside nowadays without help.
Outside help is needed just to try to keep some semblance of peace to buy time for kids to grow up expecting peace. For culture to change. For mindsets to change. For a generation to grow up with a different reality. |
Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not what's necessary. And FTR, I'm not saying they can't get help, but getting help from a bunch of Westerners they see as hostile and have no respect for? Yeah, we've seen how helpful that's been in the past. We only feed the cycle of hostility and fuel these people even more. Any change we can offer will not be organic, and will not be lasting. The region will ultimately reflect the population. We will never understand them like they understand themselves, so we shouldn't be trying to pull strings there. We've proven we're not good puppetmasters in that area, time for us to retire.
And besides, it's not our responsibility anyway. |
Damn, I agree with this person here ... I love seeing more of this and less of the pathetic "they hate our freedom and Western values" manipulation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | Re-engaging in the Middle East over terrism (intentional mispelling thank you,) is foolish at best. Our habit of intervention hasn't helped change (bleep), ISIS is proof of that. You take out ISIS, some other group will take their place once you eventually leave again. |
It seems like every time the US tries to portray strategic military involvement from afar as a noble thing in that part of the world especially, it makes the situation even worse than it was before. Unfortunately, the reality is that some of these nations are only kept in check (meaning out of our hair) by thug dictators like Saddam, although Obama disputes that. I don't see the logic there, but I'm not the Prez, so...
Our military and Presidents often choose to view our actions on an ideological basis instead of just trumping up the cold-hard strategic goals. The Bushes especially used plainspeak and argued the simplistic concept of good vs evil, i.e. "evildoers". The operation in Panama to seize Noriega was named Op Just Cause. The strategic goals were actually to use Army Rangers to recover a captured CIA agent and to take back US business assets. Mirroring the Usama raid, their helicopter also lost lift and came down in front of the prison that held the hostage, causing them to take a bunch of small arms fire before getting coverage by nearby ground units (contingency plan #1). Just Cause actually sounds like GHW Bush speak. The public were confused about Grenada as well, but Ronnie identified in a speech what was probably the gov't and military's largest single concern -- an extremely long runway being built that could accommodate large Russian bombers. Not in OUR hemi! Grenada was in 1983, that was the same year the Ruskies shot down a passenger jet thinking it was a US bomber. Paranoia had us on a deadly precipice, especially with Ronnie giving all that bluster towards them, calling them evil, typical Republican tactic.
All that is not even to mention the situations that have resulted in direct blowback. The Gulf War with a myriad of nations in the coalition didn't mean s/ to Usama. His self-stated beef was the staging of US military out of Saudi Arabia to attack another Middle Eastern state. It had to be done though. Having to mobilize and put boots on ground to stop Saddam from taking control of the wealth and oil infrastructure of Kuwait was basically a smaller bite of the sh sandwich than just standing by and giving him the money to modernize his military. Kuwait is one of those uber-rich Middle Eastern states that sell gold bullion at the international airport.
Most people think oil was the bottom line, but I think the CIA and govt wanted to get rid of him not for his past, but for his future as an aid to terrorists, as a constant seeker of nuclear capability, and as a presence that complicated the region in general. Same with Qaddafi and the other cowboy dictators and despots over there. Now, America isn't as optimistic with the Arab Spring as it was before they began ganging female reporters (Lora Logan is still out of sight). The CIA and gov't probably figured they could wait until some plausible excuse to unseat/kill Saddam presented itself and most of America bought that 9/11 was a plausible enough excuse for an actual WAR until the 7 year itch set in.
Also, we dabble so much over there because we need every single semi-Westernized Middle East state to remain as a buffer. It would be a blow to our psyches if a neutral or supportive Arab nation cut all lines to the West and installed an Ayatollah. And, US basing rights in the region are always in short supply. Clinton has talked about an opportunity to assassinate Usama that disappeared because the Uzbeks wouldn't allow basing rights (to quote Borat: "BLEEP YOU, Uzbekistan!!"). What sucks is that our interventions are often just a question of the size of the bite of the sandwich. No-win situations.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX!
Last edited by non-player zealot on Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:03 am; edited 7 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| non-player zealot wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | Re-engaging in the Middle East over terrism (intentional mispelling thank you,) is foolish at best. Our habit of intervention hasn't helped change (bleep), ISIS is proof of that. You take out ISIS, some other group will take their place once you eventually leave again. |
It seems like every time the US tries to portray strategic military involvement from afar as a noble thing in that part of the world especially, it makes the situation even worse than it was before. Unfortunately, the reality is that some of these nations are only kept in check (meaning out of our hair) by thug dictators like Saddam, although Obama disputes that. I don't see the logic there, but I'm not the Prez, so.
Our military and Presidents often choose to view our actions on an ideological basis instead of just trumping up the cold-hard strategic goals. The Bushes especially used plainspeak and argued the simplistic concept of good vs evil, i.e. "evildoers". The operation in Panama to seize Noriega was named Op Just Cause. The strategic goals were actually to use Army Rangers to recover a captured CIA agent and to take back US business assets. Mirroring the Usama raid, their helicopter also lost lift and came down in front of the prison that held the hostage, causing them to take a bunch of small arms fire before being rescued by ground units (contingency plan #1). Just Cause actually sounds like GHW Bush speak. "U.S. Americans" were confused about Grenada as well, but Ronnie identified in a speech what was probably the gov't and military's largest single concern -- an extremely long runway being built that could accommodate large Russian bombers. Not in OUR hemi!
All that is not even to mention the situations that have resulted in direct blowback. The Gulf War with a myriad of nations in the coalition didn't mean s/ to Usama. His self-stated beef was the staging of US military out of Saudi Arabia to attack another Middle Eastern state. It had to be done though. Saddam taking control of the wealth and oil infrastructure of Kuwait was basically a bigger bite of the sh sandwich than Iraq with the capacity to modernize is military. We also need every single semi-Westernized Middle East state to remain as a buffer and US basing rights in the region are in short supply. What sucks is that our intervention is often just a question of the size of the bite. No-win situations. |
Yeah, and tossing a Chalmers Johnson or John Perkins view of the world into the equation ... all of this isn't going to end well. Well, American Exceptionalism and such ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C M B
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 19865
Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
80s pregame hi-5 with AC Green enthusiasm!
| Netanyahoo wrote: | Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Jewish people in Europe to migrate to Israel following attacks on Jews in recent weeks.
"This wave of attacks will continue. I say to the Jews of Europe - Israel is your home," he told a cabinet meeting. |
What a nut. Surprised he didn't use the Shakespeare line on Denmark.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buck32
Star Player
Joined: 30 Apr 2001
Posts: 7328
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe how naive are the western European governments. Why is it so difficult to make laws that will make European-born Muslims who go to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS forfeit their passports? If they want to go die for their prophet just let them go but never allow them back.
Some governments are even trying to stop Muslim kids from going, I mean WTF? They want to go and blow themselves up so let them do it.
Most of these "jihadists" are mostly criminals anyway, who think joining jihad will absolve them of their previous crimes. Not unlike murderers and rapist who think being born-again christians while in prison will just take away all their previous crimes.
_________________
“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Buck32 wrote: | I can't believe how naive are the western European governments. Why is it so difficult to make laws that will make European-born Muslims who go to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS forfeit their passports? If they want to go die for their prophet just let them go but never allow them back.
Some governments are even trying to stop Muslim kids from going, I mean what the heck? They want to go and blow themselves up so let them do it.
Most of these "jihadists" are mostly criminals anyway, who think joining jihad will absolve them of their previous crimes. Not unlike murderers and rapist who think being born-again christians while in prison will just take away all their previous crimes. |
I consider myself fortunate to have not really known true despair (I mean, real absence of hope ... not the ups-and-downs of life for many) in my lifetime.
Maybe that statement is true of you, as well. Maybe it's not.
Either way ... I'd wager that though it might seem implausible to you, true despair has the uncanny power to seduce many, including "non-criminals" to its shores. It hasn't been so long since Patrick Henry was making some pretty controversial statements that I'm guessing would sound an awful lot like declarations of terrorism to today's chickenhawks and their faux brethren ...
As an aside, I came across a couple of interesting notes during light reading this morning. One is an unconfirmed report and another was a blogger's curt response to a bubble-dweller (as I recall):
1. Former CIA director Robert Gates is reported to have kept a maxim on his desk that read, "As a general rule, the way to achieve complete strategic surprise is to commit an act that makes no sense or is even self-destructive."
Sounds like ISIS read his book ...
2. The U.S. is in the Middle East for two reasons, oil/energy and to counter any alliance made by Russia and a Middle Eastern state that may threaten it's oil/energy supply. (I'd add a third reason: a government overflowing with geopolitical numbskulls being led around by opportunistic, "true believer" manipulators.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
focus
Star Player
Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Buck32 wrote: | I can't believe how naive are the western European governments. Why is it so difficult to make laws that will make European-born Muslims who go to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS forfeit their passports? If they want to go die for their prophet just let them go but never allow them back.
Some governments are even trying to stop Muslim kids from going, I mean what the heck? They want to go and blow themselves up so let them do it.
Most of these "jihadists" are mostly criminals anyway, who think joining jihad will absolve them of their previous crimes. Not unlike murderers and rapist who think being born-again christians while in prison will just take away all their previous crimes. |
They probably consider them citizens and want to prevent them from going bad, or worse, doing bad. Abandoning kid citizens sounds like bad policy, mostly because kids can make dumb decisions. We don't abandon even adult criminals, right?
But if they do go and are actually know to join ISIS or some other like group, I agree, why let them back, or at least back in jail or fully explain their activities and why they are renouncing them.
Never heard of this absolve of previous crimes as the motivation theory. Is this speculative? I don't know much about how these ISIS wannabes came about or where from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: |
1. Former CIA director Robert Gates is reported to have kept a maxim on his desk that read, "As a general rule, the way to achieve complete strategic surprise is to commit an act that makes no sense or is even self-destructive."
Sounds like ISIS read his book ... |
I think Nixon read that book too (Xmas '72 bombings). His cronies that were there for his daily diatribes said he wanted to be unpredictable and give the impression that was a crazy guy with his finger always hovering over the kill button. That was his strategy to get the North back to the negotiation table.
Love your writing btw. Pearls, man, pearlz...
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBallerBrand
Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 5802
Location: LA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what do you guys think the probability is that ISIS will attack (or attempt to) the US? on our own soil, i mean?
_________________
Billions Billions Billions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger O. Thornhill
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 12435
Location: Deep Space 9
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 15 wrote: | | what do you guys think the probability is that ISIS will attack (or attempt to) the US? on our own soil, i mean? |
Does that include U.S. embassies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/guantanamo-tom-cotton_n_6708432.html
I cannot imagine that this kind of rhetoric helps to diffuse hostility toward the U.S. abroad (incl. and perhaps especially with ISIS) ... and when we sometimes find ourselves wringing our hands trying to explain why those hell-bent on our destruction harbor such ill intentions toward us - this will not be a problem for those programmed by neocon fiction; they already have it all figured out  - think of rounding errors like this guy and think of our disastrous foreign policy decisions over the past fifty + years ...
Forget about being embarrassed to be from the same country as this guy; I'm embarrassed to be from the same species ... really, the only mystery I'm working through is how this pile of protoplasm has somehow managed to render such a solid academic and professional track record ... it's truly astounding to see someone with a CV like his running around with that worldview. Old Testament deities are less bitterly vengeful ...
Two of the better comments down below at HP:
#1: Mr. Cotton is emotionally and psychologically unsuited to be given any serious responsibilities, unless we have decided that vengeance is a mature and sensible basis for the formulation of foreign policy. I am hopeful that we have not yet reached that level of moral and intellectual debasement, but I could be wrong.
and
#2: [corrected by me] It doesn't take much more than a bit of power to overcome one's sense of responsibility to make sure that justice is done. Some of these detainees were simply picked up as possibles and have been incarcerated ever since.
PS: In watching the video again ... setting aside for a moment the cognitive deficit and emotional volatility, how the F can this guy not find properly-fitted shirts on $174K per annum (plus the other perquisites that find their way into the congressional purse from time to time)? A real pet peeve ... if you're going to get yourself in a huff about subject matter that you apparently don't fully understand, at least get some GD shirts that fit, FFS ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
