thread to talk about obama being at fault for the paris terrorist attacks

[DQ12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isis is a group, not a country. It's not quite as easy as 'go bomb the mooslims!'

They've got some fairly well defined geographic boundaries in several countries.  Although, of course it being something other than a traditional state does complicate things (especially with regard to the sitting government in Syria).

That's the part that bothers me the most. This is a group of bad dudes, obviously, and they need to be stopped. But the 'bomb them all' mentality is frightening, especially when the anti-Muslim sentiment is so carefree and open in this country right now.

The inability of what seems to be at the very least a vocal majority to separate radical factions of a religion vs an entire religion is insane to me.

I agree.  But regardless of whether Islam has been weaponized by extremists or inherently lends itself to extremism, ignoring some of the core tenans of Islam as a significant (maybe the most significant) motive in the anti-western ideology that permeates through the Middle East is ignorant. 

I used to think it was mostly geopolitical motives with a touch of Islam ideology mixed in.  Now I'm not so sure they're not waging a bonafide holy war.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isis is a group, not a country. It's not quite as easy as 'go bomb the mooslims!'

They've got some fairly well defined geographic boundaries in several countries.  Although, of course it being something other than a traditional state does complicate things (especially with regard to the sitting government in Syria).

For all intents and purposes, Syria is no longer a sovereign nation. A majority of its territory is now controlled by ISIS. Bashar is killing his own people just to retain control of Damascus. I really don't give two effs whether he remains "president" after the sand settles, but Syria's "sovreignty" is hardly a hurdle to going in and taking care of business. Let him bitch to the UN if he wants - the UN does not have a veto over NATO action.

[DQ12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isis is a group, not a country. It's not quite as easy as 'go bomb the mooslims!'

They've got some fairly well defined geographic boundaries in several countries.  Although, of course it being something other than a traditional state does complicate things (especially with regard to the sitting government in Syria).

For all intents and purposes, Syria is no longer a sovereign nation. A majority of its territory is now controlled by ISIS. Bashar is killing his own people just to retain control of Damascus. I really don't give two effs whether he remains "president" after the sand settles, but Syria's "sovreignty" is hardly a hurdle to going in and taking care of business. Let him bitch to the UN if he wants - the UN does not have a veto over NATO action.

I was speaking from a logistical and strategy perspective.  Russia and Assad make things a little different than it would be if we were fighting a clearly defined state.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isis is a group, not a country. It's not quite as easy as 'go bomb the mooslims!'

They've got some fairly well defined geographic boundaries in several countries.  Although, of course it being something other than a traditional state does complicate things (especially with regard to the sitting government in Syria).

That's the part that bothers me the most. This is a group of bad dudes, obviously, and they need to be stopped. But the 'bomb them all' mentality is frightening, especially when the anti-Muslim sentiment is so carefree and open in this country right now.

The inability of what seems to be at the very least a vocal majority to separate radical factions of a religion vs an entire religion is insane to me.

I agree.  But regardless of whether Islam has been weaponized by extremists or inherently lends itself to extremism, ignoring some of the core tenans of Islam as a significant (maybe the most significant) motive in the anti-western ideology that permeates through the Middle East is ignorant. 

I used to think it was mostly geopolitical motives with a touch of Islam ideology mixed in.  Now I'm not so sure they're not waging a bonafide holy war.

Islam inherently lends itself to extremism. But it isn't really relevant to our perogative to eradicate ISIS.

For those not up to speed, ISIL/ISIS is that "JV team" Obama has been dithering over for years as they have expanded their reach, committed terrorism, and slaughtered thousands of innocents.

[chuckjames]

I'd be curious to hear what Dax, FSD, KSUW think the US should do now.  I'm really not sure what the appropriate response is moving forward.

I would encourage the French to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and use the combined resources of the 28 NATO members to launch an air, sea, and ground attack in Syria and Iraq to eradicate ISIS and its infrastructure. Obama's "containment" bullshit failed. The United States should participate both through, and in cooperation with, NATO. I do not trust NATO to take full command of America's military involvement, but it's the easiest way to ensure that every member nation has some skin in the game.

And then what? Our record of nation-state building isn't too great.

[Emo EMAW]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isis is a group, not a country. It's not quite as easy as 'go bomb the mooslims!'

They've got some fairly well defined geographic boundaries in several countries.  Although, of course it being something other than a traditional state does complicate things (especially with regard to the sitting government in Syria).

That's the part that bothers me the most. This is a group of bad dudes, obviously, and they need to be stopped. But the 'bomb them all' mentality is frightening, especially when the anti-Muslim sentiment is so carefree and open in this country right now.

The inability of what seems to be at the very least a vocal majority to separate radical factions of a religion vs an entire religion is insane to me.

I agree.  But regardless of whether Islam has been weaponized by extremists or inherently lends itself to extremism, ignoring some of the core tenans of Islam as a significant (maybe the most significant) motive in the anti-western ideology that permeates through the Middle East is ignorant. 

I used to think it was mostly geopolitical motives with a touch of Islam ideology mixed in.  Now I'm not so sure they're not waging a bonafide holy war.

Islam inherently lends itself to extremism. But it isn't really relevant to our perogative to eradicate ISIS.

For those not up to speed, ISIL/ISIS is that "JV team" Obama has been dithering over for years as they have expanded their reach, committed terrorism, and slaughtered thousands of innocents.

Hey KSUdub is this the same ISIS that was on a highway in a nice tight convoy headed to Mosul that we totally could have bombed to smithereens but Obama decided not to? 

[DQ12]

I'd be curious to hear what Dax, FSD, KSUW think the US should do now.  I'm really not sure what the appropriate response is moving forward.

I would encourage the French to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and use the combined resources of the 28 NATO members to launch an air, sea, and ground attack in Syria and Iraq to eradicate ISIS and its infrastructure. Obama's "containment" bullshit failed. The United States should participate both through, and in cooperation with, NATO. I do not trust NATO to take full command of America's military involvement, but it's the easiest way to ensure that every member nation has some skin in the game.

And then what? Our record of nation-state building isn't too great.

What would you propose? 

[OK_Cat]

I heard a story that everyone's favorite internet hacker collective, Anonymous, is going to go head-to-head with ISIS on the web. That will be interesting to me, because this is a new age of warfare, and crippling their ways to communicate and recruit will be important.

[chuckjames]

I'd be curious to hear what Dax, FSD, KSUW think the US should do now.  I'm really not sure what the appropriate response is moving forward.

I would encourage the French to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and use the combined resources of the 28 NATO members to launch an air, sea, and ground attack in Syria and Iraq to eradicate ISIS and its infrastructure. Obama's "containment" bullshit failed. The United States should participate both through, and in cooperation with, NATO. I do not trust NATO to take full command of America's military involvement, but it's the easiest way to ensure that every member nation has some skin in the game.

And then what? Our record of nation-state building isn't too great.

What would you propose?

I honestly don't know. To me it seems like trying to force a western "liberal" democracy on them hasn't worked out too well yet. While I think the majority probably want that, you have a very determined minority that is willing to kill at will to prevent that. So are we willing to sacrifice our people and our money to try and change a place that doesn't want to be changed? Does ISIS need to be destroyed? Absolutely. But I'd like for us to have a better end game strategy than "we will be greeted as liberators".

[Emo EMAW]

I'd be curious to hear what Dax, FSD, KSUW think the US should do now.  I'm really not sure what the appropriate response is moving forward.

I would encourage the French to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and use the combined resources of the 28 NATO members to launch an air, sea, and ground attack in Syria and Iraq to eradicate ISIS and its infrastructure. Obama's "containment" bullshit failed. The United States should participate both through, and in cooperation with, NATO. I do not trust NATO to take full command of America's military involvement, but it's the easiest way to ensure that every member nation has some skin in the game.

And then what? Our record of nation-state building isn't too great.

What would you propose?

I honestly don't know. To me it seems like trying to force a western "liberal" democracy on them hasn't worked out too well yet. While I think the majority probably want that, you have a very determined minority that is willing to kill at will to prevent that. So are we willing to sacrifice our people and our money to try and change a place that doesn't want to be changed? Does ISIS need to be destroyed? Absolutely. But I'd like for us to have a better end game strategy than "we will be greeted as liberators".

Have you ever left your home to drive somewhere, and you didn't know exactly how to get there, but you knew you'd figure it out along the way?

[DQ12]

What would you propose?

I honestly don't know.

Me neither. 

[chuckjames]

I'd be curious to hear what Dax, FSD, KSUW think the US should do now.  I'm really not sure what the appropriate response is moving forward.

I would encourage the French to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and use the combined resources of the 28 NATO members to launch an air, sea, and ground attack in Syria and Iraq to eradicate ISIS and its infrastructure. Obama's "containment" bullshit failed. The United States should participate both through, and in cooperation with, NATO. I do not trust NATO to take full command of America's military involvement, but it's the easiest way to ensure that every member nation has some skin in the game.

And then what? Our record of nation-state building isn't too great.

What would you propose?

I honestly don't know. To me it seems like trying to force a western "liberal" democracy on them hasn't worked out too well yet. While I think the majority probably want that, you have a very determined minority that is willing to kill at will to prevent that. So are we willing to sacrifice our people and our money to try and change a place that doesn't want to be changed? Does ISIS need to be destroyed? Absolutely. But I'd like for us to have a better end game strategy than "we will be greeted as liberators".

Have you ever left your home to drive somewhere, and you didn't know exactly how to get there, but you knew you'd figure it out along the way?

Well yea but it seems like that has been our policy in the Middle East for 50 years and we still haven't got there.

[chuckjames]

Russia having such close ties to Assad makes this all even more complicated. I mean I guess the easiest thing to do is go in there, take out ISIS and leave Syria to Assad. It's an awful plan but its better than staying there and trying to build a nation.

[sonofdaxjones]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isis is a group, not a country. It's not quite as easy as 'go bomb the mooslims!'

They've got some fairly well defined geographic boundaries in several countries.  Although, of course it being something other than a traditional state does complicate things (especially with regard to the sitting government in Syria).

That's the part that bothers me the most. This is a group of bad dudes, obviously, and they need to be stopped. But the 'bomb them all' mentality is frightening, especially when the anti-Muslim sentiment is so carefree and open in this country right now.

The inability of what seems to be at the very least a vocal majority to separate radical factions of a religion vs an entire religion is insane to me.

I agree.  But regardless of whether Islam has been weaponized by extremists or inherently lends itself to extremism, ignoring some of the core tenans of Islam as a significant (maybe the most significant) motive in the anti-western ideology that permeates through the Middle East is ignorant. 

I used to think it was mostly geopolitical motives with a touch of Islam ideology mixed in.  Now I'm not so sure they're not waging a bonafide holy war.

Islam inherently lends itself to extremism. But it isn't really relevant to our perogative to eradicate ISIS.

For those not up to speed, ISIL/ISIS is that "JV team" Obama has been dithering over for years as they have expanded their reach, committed terrorism, and slaughtered thousands of innocents.

Maybe he really doesn't want to do anything about them? 

I mean he said just 12 hours before the terrorist attack in Paris that they've been contained.   They guy is either a total clown or he knows exactly what's happening and is purposely choosing to do nothing or the bare minimum.   

Honestly, did anyone believe for a second that continually tossing fuel on the Syrian "civil war" (that just happens to have a lot of non Syrians fighting in it) wouldn't have massive refugee ramifications?

[chuckjames]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isis is a group, not a country. It's not quite as easy as 'go bomb the mooslims!'

They've got some fairly well defined geographic boundaries in several countries.  Although, of course it being something other than a traditional state does complicate things (especially with regard to the sitting government in Syria).

That's the part that bothers me the most. This is a group of bad dudes, obviously, and they need to be stopped. But the 'bomb them all' mentality is frightening, especially when the anti-Muslim sentiment is so carefree and open in this country right now.

The inability of what seems to be at the very least a vocal majority to separate radical factions of a religion vs an entire religion is insane to me.

I agree.  But regardless of whether Islam has been weaponized by extremists or inherently lends itself to extremism, ignoring some of the core tenans of Islam as a significant (maybe the most significant) motive in the anti-western ideology that permeates through the Middle East is ignorant. 

I used to think it was mostly geopolitical motives with a touch of Islam ideology mixed in.  Now I'm not so sure they're not waging a bonafide holy war.

Islam inherently lends itself to extremism. But it isn't really relevant to our perogative to eradicate ISIS.

For those not up to speed, ISIL/ISIS is that "JV team" Obama has been dithering over for years as they have expanded their reach, committed terrorism, and slaughtered thousands of innocents.

Maybe he really doesn't want to do anything about them? 

I mean he said just 12 hours before the terrorist attack in Paris that they've been contained.   They guy is either a total clown or he knows exactly what's happening and is purposely choosing to do nothing or the bare minimum.   

Honestly, did anyone believe for a second that continually tossing fuel on the Syrian "civil war" (that just happens to have a lot of non Syrians fighting in it) wouldn't have massive refugee ramifications?

You'll just call me an Obama hack. And I am to a certain extent. But maybe when he was saying "contained" he was meaning we have contained ISIS in the amount of land they can "govern". I mean he should have used better language I agree. But I think that is what he meant by contained.

And I believe if we had done nothing in Syria people would be calling Obama soft for allowing Putin's boy to run roughshod over civilians.

[michigancat]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/isil-whos-calling-the-shots-213360

[star seed 7]

Conspiracy time with dax 

[The Big Train]

I heard a story that everyone's favorite internet hacker collective, Anonymous, is going to go head-to-head with ISIS on the web. That will be interesting to me, because this is a new age of warfare, and crippling their ways to communicate and recruit will be important.

it is going to be very enjoyable to watch

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Whatever the end game is, it's going to be messy. There will no democracy in Syria because a free and democratic society is completely foreign to Arabs and Islam. But it doesn't really matter. ISIS must be obliterated. NATO can keep temporary security forces in place, but ultimately it will be up to the "Syrians" (or whatever that region becomes). If we have to go back in a few years and kill some more people, fine. The current situation is untenable. Responding with overwhelming military force is the only remaining solution at this point.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/14/cong-source-syrian-refugees-coming-to-u-s-for-last-two-fiscal-years/#ixzz3rgK8QQhn

The Obama administration is looking to increase the number of Syrian refugees who may be admitted into the U.S. as well as speed up the process. The administration plans to do this, Reuters reports, by opening new screening outposts in Iraq and Lebanon. As of now, the administration promised to accept as many as 100,000 refugees each year by the end of 2017. The present annual cap is at 70,000.
 
“While all refugees are vetted against all known intelligence community holdings, the Committee is concerned that the lack of current, reliable intelligence on the ground in Syria makes it very difficult to determine with any certainty who is entering the United States. We could very well be accepting individuals connected to ISIS, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda or any one of the terror groups currently operating in Syria,” a committee aide told the Daily Caller in an e-mail.
 
Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul , an outspoken critic of the administration’s move to admit Syrian refugees into the United States held a committee hearing in June investigating Syrian refugee admissions.

[Emo EMAW]

I'd be curious to hear what Dax, FSD, KSUW think the US should do now.  I'm really not sure what the appropriate response is moving forward.

I would encourage the French to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and use the combined resources of the 28 NATO members to launch an air, sea, and ground attack in Syria and Iraq to eradicate ISIS and its infrastructure. Obama's "containment" bullshit failed. The United States should participate both through, and in cooperation with, NATO. I do not trust NATO to take full command of America's military involvement, but it's the easiest way to ensure that every member nation has some skin in the game.

And then what? Our record of nation-state building isn't too great.

What would you propose?

I honestly don't know. To me it seems like trying to force a western "liberal" democracy on them hasn't worked out too well yet. While I think the majority probably want that, you have a very determined minority that is willing to kill at will to prevent that. So are we willing to sacrifice our people and our money to try and change a place that doesn't want to be changed? Does ISIS need to be destroyed? Absolutely. But I'd like for us to have a better end game strategy than "we will be greeted as liberators".

Have you ever left your home to drive somewhere, and you didn't know exactly how to get there, but you knew you'd figure it out along the way?

Well yea but it seems like that has been our policy in the Middle East for 50 years and we still haven't got there.

Well you said it yourself they need to be destroyed.  I agree.  Let's do that first and plan the next steps along the way.  Waiting to have a fully concocted plan to do step 1 is not an option, especially considering how dynamic and complex everything is over there, right now.

[sonofdaxjones]

Army Reserve Center broken into and assault weapons stolen in Worcester, MA (multiple Boston area news outlets).   This is an area of significant refugee influx over the last two years.   

Not a conspiracy, just the news and the facts.   TIFWIW

http://www.wcvb.com/news/army-reserve-armory-broken-into-saturday-night/36464176

[ednksu]

I've got 15000 posts on this board, I'm not going back through to show how long I've been talking about this stuff.

You're nuts if you think these "independent actors" gain any significant traction without a hidden hand, most would be crushed within a matter of days without outside assistance. 

I keep bringing up Libya because apparently in your world it didn't happen.  It is a direct correlation to Syria and there's absolutely no doubt that the US was using Libya to both recruit fighters and ship arms into Syria.  It is proof that the US is both directly and indirectly responsible for the ongoing war in Syria and thus allowing ISIS to strengthen.  Not to mention the fact that US burned Libya to the ground and then turned around and went home, turning the area into a Islamic terrorist safe haven.  How positively effed up is that in a post 9-11 world?  It's so bad that now other local actors are having to take action, like Egypt (but guess who still wants the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt but then decided to sell those arms to Egypt anyway?).

Where do we know the attackers came from or at least why they did what they did?  That's right, Syria.

Was there any real movement to overthrow Assad 8 years ago?  No, there wasn't. 

The rest of your drivel is utterly irrelevant to Paris.  Most of it is either outright apologism or just rehashing what's been known for years.

If you can't handle the criticism of the most whack a doodle foreign policy administration in post WWII US history don't participate in the thread.

It's clear by how pissed off you get and how you constantly post irrelevant bullshit that you know deep in your silly little head where culpability lies.

1) You've got that many posts and you can't think of one in this thread or any recent thread because they don't exist. 
2) Yes I do believe they are acting without a hidden hand, because all the legitimate analysis, all the bitching we are doing about their actions, and all the westerners they are causing to get killed say otherwise.
3) Libya has no direct correlation to Syria because they are two different countries, two different people(s), two different histories, two different political systems.  The fact that you see all Muslim majority nations as a monolithic structure is the problem.  It's the exact same mindset that mumped us in Iraq when we were supposed to be welcomed as liberators.  History is on my side, ignorance thy name is still Dax.  So I can't really respond to your points about who is "responsible" when you're too lazy to at least read the wiki on the Arab Spring because anyone who believes the US caused it is too ignorant to deal with. 

4) To this point about where the brown people came from....Yeah it's Europe you idiot.  There has been one who might be connected to a passport from Syria.  The rest are Europeans.  They didn't come from Syria, they came from France and Belgium.  These are called facts, they come from real news, not talking point spewing news networks.

5) Obviously there wasn't a large movement to overthrow Assad, then a US ally.  That is because the Arab Spring changed that.  Square your rhetoric with facts here. 

6) Apologism or facts.....it's sad you can't see the difference. 

7) Irrelevant to you, directly at the heart of the matter of who is acting in the region, supporting Daesh, and continuing this war.  I'm sorry I can't live in your world where brown muslims are to blame for everything and they are all part of a complex US plan to start wars and then attack us, or however your convoluted conspiracy theory works. 

[ednksu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isis is a group, not a country. It's not quite as easy as 'go bomb the mooslims!'

They've got some fairly well defined geographic boundaries in several countries.  Although, of course it being something other than a traditional state does complicate things (especially with regard to the sitting government in Syria).

That's the part that bothers me the most. This is a group of bad dudes, obviously, and they need to be stopped. But the 'bomb them all' mentality is frightening, especially when the anti-Muslim sentiment is so carefree and open in this country right now.

The inability of what seems to be at the very least a vocal majority to separate radical factions of a religion vs an entire religion is insane to me.

I agree.  But regardless of whether Islam has been weaponized by extremists or inherently lends itself to extremism, ignoring some of the core tenans of Islam as a significant (maybe the most significant) motive in the anti-western ideology that permeates through the Middle East is ignorant. 

I used to think it was mostly geopolitical motives with a touch of Islam ideology mixed in.  Now I'm not so sure they're not waging a bonafide holy war.

I think it's on point that we are fighting a religious war with Daesh simply because of their ideology.  You could claim that AQ was a political war more than a religious one because Islam was a backing force to their ideology whereas Daesh is literally fighting to make a world ready for the return of the prophet.  Their mission is built around a religious goal to bring about effectively the end of the world.  It's a death cult and one that is very different from the other terrorist bodies the West has faced before. 

[ednksu]

Russia having such close ties to Assad makes this all even more complicated. I mean I guess the easiest thing to do is go in there, take out ISIS and leave Syria to Assad. It's an awful plan but its better than staying there and trying to build a nation.

I'm interested to see what Putin and Obama have "agreed" to regarding a political process in Syria.  Gotta love G8 countries being "the decider" for other countries.