Foley siblings call for US Hostage policy change

[djAdvocate]

Aug 23, 2014 15:51:55 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

What would stop them in general, if anything.

A policy of total annihilation.  We find out who they are and wipe them out completely.  We also wipe out anyone who trained, or trained with them.  We wipe out their religious leaders.  We wipe out their families.  We wipe out the families of their religious leaders, and anyone who trained, or trained with them.  You fuck with a single American and we end you, everyone you know, and everyone they know.  Period.  No negotiation, no ransoms, no trades, no deals, no sympathy, no understanding.  Fuck these animals.  They want to tear each other apart I say we stand back and let them, but we draw the line in the sand, you mess with us and you die.

The world hates us already, we might as well stop footing around.

sounds like (a script for) an ISIS recruiting video. 

it also sounds like what we were trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.  all we did was open the door for ISIS.  as dem put it quite correctly, this would never have happened under Saddam, which is precisely why the MB and OBL hated him.

[Sum Dum Gai]

sounds like (a script for) an ISIS recruiting video.

Maybe, but I'll bet $100 bills to donuts that we'll be more effective at it than they will.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 23, 2014 16:46:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

sounds like (a script for) an ISIS recruiting video.

Maybe, but I'll bet $100 bills to donuts that we'll be more effective at it than they will.

Egypt has been fighting this battle since the 50's.  Israel, since the 70's.  Russia, since the 70's.  the US since the 00's.  it is bigger than ever.

the results of overwhelming force thusfar have been.....underwhelming?

[Shooby]

www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/22/Pentagon-Asked-if-ISIS-is-Still-JV

Sooo Mr. Obama is Isis still JV?

[Tennesseer]

Aug 23, 2014 18:30:37 GMT -5 Shooby said:

www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/22/Pentagon-Asked-if-ISIS-is-Still-JV

Sooo Mr. Obama is Isis still JV?

Call the White House.  Obama does not post here.

[Shooby]

How do you know? Obviously fluffing them off shows how out of touch he is .

[djAdvocate]

Aug 23, 2014 18:30:37 GMT -5 Shooby said:

www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/22/Pentagon-Asked-if-ISIS-is-Still-JV

Sooo Mr. Obama is Isis still JV?

that question was answered in the video.

imo, the answer is no.  which means that the Iraqi Military is "Little League".  very discouraging.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Aug 23, 2014 16:52:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 23, 2014 16:46:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Maybe, but I'll bet $100 bills to donuts that we'll be more effective at it than they will.

Egypt has been fighting this battle since the 50's.  Israel, since the 70's.  Russia, since the 70's.  the US since the 00's.  it is bigger than ever.

the results of overwhelming force thusfar have been.....underwhelming?

We've never had a policy of overwhelming force, except on the Taliban which was decimated in about a month. Since then we've been trying it your way with attempting to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's and Afghani's. We've all seen how well that's working.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 23, 2014 19:22:12 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Aug 23, 2014 16:52:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Egypt has been fighting this battle since the 50's.  Israel, since the 70's.  Russia, since the 70's.  the US since the 00's.  it is bigger than ever.

the results of overwhelming force thusfar have been.....underwhelming?

We've never had a policy of overwhelming force, except on the Taliban which was decimated in about a month.

the Taliban is running half of Afghanistan, now.  within (5) years they will be running all of it.

Since then we've been trying it your way with attempting to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's and Afghani's. We've all seen how well that's working.

shittily.  that is because the approach is 180 degrees opposite of what your average Iraqi wants.

it would be like China setting up a base in Florida, and telling us how to run our elections.  how would we react?

[Sum Dum Gai]

Aug 23, 2014 21:54:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 23, 2014 19:22:12 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

We've never had a policy of overwhelming force, except on the Taliban which was decimated in about a month.

the Taliban is running half of Afghanistan, now.  within (5) years they will be running all of it.

Since then we've been trying it your way with attempting to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's and Afghani's. We've all seen how well that's working.

shittily.  that is because the approach is 180 degrees opposite of what your average Iraqi wants.

it would be like China setting up a base in Florida, and telling us how to run our elections.  how would we react?

No argument from me there. Military brass is too out of touch with what the civilian population in the middle east wants to conduct effective operations on their soil without pissing them off. It's not their skill set.

[Phoenix84]

The government shouldn't pay ransom. If the victems families want to pay, then they should be allowed to.

But the government paying just invites more kidnappings as it becomes a cash cow for these lowlifes.

[happyhoix]

So I see we may be considering some kind of cooperation with Syrian douche bag leader Bashar "I'll kill my own citizens if I want to" Al Assad in order to go after ISIS, because they're using part of Syria as their base of operation.

Not crazy about working with that tyrant. However, as one of the morning commentators said today, if Hitler was invading hell we would try to work out a deal with Lucifer.

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 27, 2014 9:24:06 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

The government shouldn't pay ransom. If the victems families want to pay, then they should be allowed to.

But the government paying just invites more kidnappings as it becomes a cash cow for these lowlifes.

Anybody paying ransom encourages more kidnappings, but I can't fault a family for trying whatever they can to get loved ones returned.

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2014 16:23:03 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 22, 2014 14:21:23 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I basically agree with you here that the parents are free to obtain release for their children. However they were not "children" but adult offspring who are responsible for their own actions which placed them in harms way. Few private citizens have the $$ to really help terrorist organizations in any way, so that really isn't an issue. I'm against governments paying their release for all the usual arguments.

You assumed i used the word 'children' as if the two men were 5-year-olds.  I used the word 'children' in the manner of them being the sons (or daughters) of the parents in my post.  Singularly, they may refer to their son or daughter as 'son' or 'daughter' when speaking of one of their 'offspring', but when in conversation, most parents, regardless of their multiple offspring's ages, will collectively refer to them as 'children" as in 'My children have wonderful families of their own.'    

But yes, you are correct these were adult men who placed themselves in situations where danger does exist.  But they are the children of the parents mentioned in my post.

Sorry, wasn't trying to be offensive about the children reference. I didn't assume you meant 5 year olds. I've just seen to many child references to young adults (often with long criminal records) and it can be an annoyance to me at times. Five years ago my MIL transferred control of her family trust fund to me. Yet when talking to her friends on the phone she'll say stuff like "the kids are over". It is humorous.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

We used to pay ransom / tribute to the Muslim caliphate.  We discovered it didn't work- most notably, Thomas Jefferson discovered it didn't work.  What he learned from the Muslim Book of Jihad was that there was no negotiating with the caliphate, there was only defeating it militarily.  And he set about doing just that.

The following document is a type-signed Act of Congress enabling the President to pay the extortion fee to the Emperor of Morocco as a way to avoid conflict in what is now known as the Barbary Wars.The signatures include Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, President of the Senate, John Adams, and President of the United States, George Washington:


Congress of the United States:

At the Third Session,

Begun and held at the City of Philadelphia, on

Monday the sixth of December, one thousand

Seven hundred and ninety.

____


An Act Making an Appropriation for the Purpose Therein Mentioned


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress, assembled, That for the purpose of effecting a recognition of the treaty of United States with the new Emperor of Morocco, [1] there be, and hereby is appropriated a sum not exceeding twenty thousand dollars, to be paid out of the monies which prior to the first day of January next, shall arise from the duties imposed upon spirits distilled within the United States, and from stills by the act entitled, “An act repealing after the last day of June next, the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad, and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” together with the excess of duties which may arise from the duties imposed by the said act on imported spirits beyond those which would have arisen by the act entitled “An act making further provision for the payment of the debts of the United States.” And the President is hereby authorized to take on loan, the whole sum by this act appropriated or so much thereof as he may judge requisite, at an interest not exceeding six per cent per annum, and the fund established for the above mentioned appropriation, is hereby pledged for the repayment of the principal and interest of any loan to be obtained in manner aforesaid, and in case of any deficiency in the said fund, the faith of the United States is hereby also pledged to make good such deficiency.


Frederick August Muhlenberg,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

John Adams, Vice-President of the United States,
and President of the Senate.


Approved, March the third, 1791.

George Washington, President of the United States.
www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=146444

By 1800 a new slogan was beginning to appear across the new country, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

[happyhoix]

DJP and MMM - since you guys have more knowledge/experience about the ME area, maybe you can answer a question for me.

It always amazes me that even a county as fairly modern as Saudi Arabia still treats its women as secondary citizens. Women can't drive, it was only recently that women were allowed to work in shops, as shop girls. They are limited on where they can go, how they dress in public, what part of a restaurant they can eat in, etc. And yet I think a large number of Saudi women are fairly well educated.

I have heard that the Muslim religion doesn't impose these limits on women, that in fact Muhummad had a wife that was a businesswoman. I've heard the restrictions are more cultural than religious.

You guys mentioned that with Goggle and Twitter and other social media outlets, the ME is opening up and will continue to move away from the radical islamist movements as they modernize. What do you think the role of women will be? Do you think it might be possible for the women to have their own revolution and force their societies to adopt more female friendly rules on behavior, dress and legal rules?

I have this fantasy that one day, half the women in Saudi Arabia will grab their husband's car keys and keep driving around the city in massive moving road blocks until the government agrees to lighten the hell up, but I don't know if that is even something ME women would consider.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2014 12:28:39 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

DJP and MMM - since you guys have more knowledge/experience about the ME area, maybe you can answer a question for me.

correction: i have no experience in the Middle East.  i just have an obsessive interest with suicide terrorism.  i am not really qualfied to talk about Islam, the Middle East, or anything else of that sort UNLESS it pertains to suicide bombings.

It always amazes me that even a county as fairly modern as Saudi Arabia still treats its women as secondary citizens. Women can't drive, it was only recently that women were allowed to work in shops, as shop girls. They are limited on where they can go, how they dress in public, what part of a restaurant they can eat in, etc. And yet I think a large number of Saudi women are fairly well educated.

I have heard that the Muslim religion doesn't impose these limits on women, that in fact Muhummad had a wife that was a businesswoman. I've heard the restrictions are more cultural than religious.

You guys mentioned that with Goggle and Twitter and other social media outlets, the ME is opening up and will continue to move away from the radical islamist movements as they modernize. What do you think the role of women will be? Do you think it might be possible for the women to have their own revolution and force their societies to adopt more female friendly rules on behavior, dress and legal rules?

I have this fantasy that one day, half the women in Saudi Arabia will grab their husband's car keys and keep driving around the city in massive moving road blocks until the government agrees to lighten the hell up, but I don't know if that is even something ME women would consider.

i honestly can't answer to any of that.  i have very narrow expertise, as i already mentioned.  but mmhmm knows a great deal.

[mmhmm]

Aug 28, 2014 12:28:39 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

DJP and MMM - since you guys have more knowledge/experience about the ME area, maybe you can answer a question for me.

It always amazes me that even a county as fairly modern as Saudi Arabia still treats its women as secondary citizens. Women can't drive, it was only recently that women were allowed to work in shops, as shop girls. They are limited on where they can go, how they dress in public, what part of a restaurant they can eat in, etc. And yet I think a large number of Saudi women are fairly well educated.

I have heard that the Muslim religion doesn't impose these limits on women, that in fact Muhummad had a wife that was a businesswoman. I've heard the restrictions are more cultural than religious.

You guys mentioned that with Goggle and Twitter and other social media outlets, the ME is opening up and will continue to move away from the radical islamist movements as they modernize. What do you think the role of women will be? Do you think it might be possible for the women to have their own revolution and force their societies to adopt more female friendly rules on behavior, dress and legal rules?

I have this fantasy that one day, half the women in Saudi Arabia will grab their husband's car keys and keep driving around the city in massive moving road blocks until the government agrees to lighten the hell up, but I don't know if that is even something ME women would consider.

Your fantasy has already been realized in Saudi - a couple of times. There are a lot of women in Saudi who want to drive and they've done so, right in the face of everyone. Their husbands have supported their efforts.

It is a cultural thing as opposed to an Islamic edict, but many of the women in Saudi actually like things just the way they are. They're driven anywhere they want to go by either husbands, or drivers. Their groceries are carried to their car for them, as are any other purchases they deign to make. They actually run the house. You see a lot of Saudi men out stopping the streets in the evenings because their wives have decided they're underfoot. Things aren't always as they're purported to be by our press. There are even women who like to wear their ubaiyas in public. The clothes under those black shrouds are often high-level designer stuff. It is their culture and not all want to see it change.

Abdullah has surprised me with his efforts to modernize. Girls go to school, even to university. They can work now, and can serve in the government. It's different than it was even 30 years ago, and there is definitely more to come. How long it will take before women can drive cars legally I don't know, though. There's a big cultural rift that will need to be bridged before that can happen.

[happyhoix]

Your fantasy has already been realized in Saudi - a couple of times. There are a lot of women in Saudi who want to drive and they've done so, right in the face of everyone. Their husbands have supported their efforts.

What about countries that aren't as wealthy, like Afganistan? I've read some books about life, there, and how, prior to Russia coming in, it was governed by war lords and women were considered chattel of their husbands and fathers, not allowed to go anywhere without permission, rarely having jobs,  and rarely being allowed to get an education. Women had to go to hospitals only for women, and get inferior care then what men got.  Then under the Russians women were allowed to go to school and get jobs, but once the Russians pulled out, they were obligated to either immigrate from the country or go back to being chattel of their husbands, once the war lords took over again.

I guess for those women, change will be very hard to make, since, unlike the wealthy Saudis, most of the women are uneducated and unexposed to the outside world? I read A Thousand Splendid Suns by Hosenini and was just appalled at how poorly women are treated in Afganistan. I understand we shouldn't try to change someone else's culture, but damn, it's hard to accept a culture that allows husbands and other family members to beat and even kill women, or forces children to marry old men.

[mmhmm]

Your post (to which I responded) asked about Saudi Arabia. I know very little about Afghanistan other than what I've read. I do know their rules are much more strict than those of Saudi. While I agree it's hard for us to accept a culture so very different from our own, I don't think we're going to change that culture by trying to beat our ways into them. Saudi has come a long way. Perhaps, over time, Afghanistan will do the same. It has in the larger population centers but the rural areas (which constitute most of the country), as usual, lag far behind.

[Phoenix84]

Aug 23, 2014 9:23:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 23, 2014 1:32:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Guess I am with PBP on this- I could give a shit what religion you are claiming- when you execute people on camera for your bullshit propaganda you have signed your own death warrant. I haven't backed a war in my life but I will back a mission to kill everyone of these )*(&*&^'s .  Send it in strong- forget the partisan bullshit- agree to wipe these people off the map.

again, i don't think this has much to do with religion.  what Pape discovered is that the only role religion plays in suicide terrorism is reinforcing "otherness".  in other words, it is rare for suicide terrorists to attack those of their own religion.  but about half of the world's terrorism is done by people whose religions are other than Islam.  i know you know that, EVT, because we have discussed it.  so, like you, i don't give a damn about the religion of the terrorist, either- nor do i think it leads to any understanding of their actions.  we in the West tend to think it does.  but that is the wrong path if you want to make any sense of this.  it is about "otherness".  it is about "alien occupation". 

i would posit that our response of rage and vengeance is precisely what they want.  but i will admit that it is rather hard to control that.  do keep in mind one thing, however: that instinct is what got us into Iraq- so it is a good thing to try to fight, if you have the will.

I wonder really, if we did leave them alone, would they leave us alone?  If we picked up stakes and left them to live in the 5th century would they leave us alone?  Or do they need an enemy, someone to blame for their problems?

I don't really know the answer, but I kind of get the feeling sometimes that the west is just a scapegoat, just as much as an alien occupying force.

It is interesting you propose that religion is not the driving force behind much of terrorism.  How do you explain the calls for global Jihad and the establishment of a worldwide Islamist theocracy governed by Sharia law?  I'm not saying your wrong, your points make sense, but many of these leaders are calling for a worldwide theocracy.  Why shouldn't we believe them?

[happyhoix]

It is interesting you propose that religion is not the driving force behind much of terrorism. How do you explain the calls for global Jihad and the establishment of a worldwide Islamist theocracy governed by Sharia law? I'm not saying your wrong, your points make sense, but many of these leaders are calling for a worldwide theocracy. Why shouldn't we believe them?

I saw a ME expert talking on TV last night who said it isn't the religious people driving ISIS, it's thugs who thrive on anarchy. Who like killing people and causing chaos.

I don't know if that's true, or whether this guy was just trying to avoid painting all muslims with the same violent brush.

[mmhmm]

Aug 29, 2014 12:32:04 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

It is interesting you propose that religion is not the driving force behind much of terrorism. How do you explain the calls for global Jihad and the establishment of a worldwide Islamist theocracy governed by Sharia law? I'm not saying your wrong, your points make sense, but many of these leaders are calling for a worldwide theocracy. Why shouldn't we believe them?

I saw a ME expert talking on TV last night who said it isn't the religious people driving ISIS, it's thugs who thrive on anarchy. Who like killing people and causing chaos.

I don't know if that's true, or whether this guy was just trying to avoid painting all muslims with the same violent brush.

I agree with what the expert you saw is saying. There is nothing in Islam that justifies what these thugs are doing. Nothing.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2014 12:19:57 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Aug 23, 2014 9:23:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

again, i don't think this has much to do with religion.  what Pape discovered is that the only role religion plays in suicide terrorism is reinforcing "otherness".  in other words, it is rare for suicide terrorists to attack those of their own religion.  but about half of the world's terrorism is done by people whose religions are other than Islam.  i know you know that, EVT, because we have discussed it.  so, like you, i don't give a damn about the religion of the terrorist, either- nor do i think it leads to any understanding of their actions.  we in the West tend to think it does.  but that is the wrong path if you want to make any sense of this.  it is about "otherness".  it is about "alien occupation". 

i would posit that our response of rage and vengeance is precisely what they want.  but i will admit that it is rather hard to control that.  do keep in mind one thing, however: that instinct is what got us into Iraq- so it is a good thing to try to fight, if you have the will.

I wonder really, if we did leave them alone, would they leave us alone?  If we picked up stakes and left them to live in the 5th century would they leave us alone?  Or do they need an enemy, someone to blame for their problems?

it depends on what you mean by "leaving us alone".  if by "leaving alone" you mean NOT attacking us here if we didn't set up camp in places they consider their turf, yeah- i think it would stop.  but we are clearly not going to do that for a variety of reasons.

I don't really know the answer, but I kind of get the feeling sometimes that the west is just a scapegoat, just as much as an alien occupying force.

we are the number one purveyor of certain ideas.  they could live with that, so long as we were not actively promoting those ideas through diplomacy and worse in countries like Quatar and Saudi Arabia.

It is interesting you propose that religion is not the driving force behind much of terrorism.  How do you explain the calls for global Jihad and the establishment of a worldwide Islamist theocracy governed by Sharia law?  

the call for theocracy is common when there is a foreign occupier.  take for example the Tamil Liberation movement.  they are predominantly Budhist, and they are fighting and incursion of Hindii.  but is this a religious liberation?  if you look at it carefully, it is actually anti-materialist.  it is a Marxist movement, essentially.  religion plays a role because the invading force is of a different religion.  that is precisely the same reason for the nutty caliphate.  it is because the invading force is not Muslim, and they figure if everyone is a Muslim, the basic disagreement will go away.  it is, of course, complete nonsense.  it didn't work for Sayyid Kutb, and it won't work for ISIS.

I'm not saying your wrong, your points make sense, but many of these leaders are calling for a worldwide theocracy.  Why shouldn't we believe them?

believe what?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2014 12:32:04 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

It is interesting you propose that religion is not the driving force behind much of terrorism. How do you explain the calls for global Jihad and the establishment of a worldwide Islamist theocracy governed by Sharia law? I'm not saying your wrong, your points make sense, but many of these leaders are calling for a worldwide theocracy. Why shouldn't we believe them?

I saw a ME expert talking on TV last night who said it isn't the religious people driving ISIS, it's thugs who thrive on anarchy. Who like killing people and causing chaos.

I don't know if that's true, or whether this guy was just trying to avoid painting all muslims with the same violent brush.

no, i think that is entirely accurate.  religion is just another weapon to a terrorist.  and a recruitment tool.

edit: but remember, the chaos is not the GOAL.  what this expert is claiming is that there are competing goals, and i think that is spot on.  the fundamentalists have one goal in mind, and the mercenaries another.

[happyhoix]

it is because the invading force is not Muslim, and they figure if everyone is a Muslim, the basic disagreement will go away. it is, of course, complete nonsense.

They should come over here and see how some of the Christian denominations fight like cats and dogs.

Throw in the Catholics and watch the fur REALLY fly.

From what I can tell, the Muslim religion is just as full of sects and break away groups and fundamentalist groups as the Christians are.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2014 15:00:38 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

it is because the invading force is not Muslim, and they figure if everyone is a Muslim, the basic disagreement will go away. it is, of course, complete nonsense.

They should come over here and see how some of the Christian denominations fight like cats and dogs.

Throw in the Catholics and watch the fur REALLY fly.

From what I can tell, the Muslim religion is just as full of sects and break away groups and fundamentalist groups as the Christians are.

that is precisely it.  but even here, you will hear of the unity under Christ by certain sects.  delusional to say the very least.

[happyhoix]

but even here, you will hear of the unity under Christ by certain sects. delusional to say the very least.

This is one reason I never thought prayer in school would work. Even if you eliminate the non Christian religions, how do you decide what prayer is acceptable? Methodists and Baptists and Presbyterians don't even say the Lord's prayer the same way. And around where I live, deep in the Bible belt, there are bound to be fist fights in the school parking lot after the PTA meeting discussing which prayer to say. 

There is a prominent Baptist sect around here that won't allow women to stand up and speak in church, because men aren't supposed to receive preaching from women. Women can't collect the offering or help with communion. I doubt they'd want their little boys receiving the Gospel from female teachers. It would be a blood bath.  

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2014 15:58:50 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

but even here, you will hear of the unity under Christ by certain sects. delusional to say the very least.

This is one reason I never thought prayer in school would work. Even if you eliminate the non Christian religions, how do you decide what prayer is acceptable? Methodists and Baptists and Presbyterians don't even say the Lord's prayer the same way. And around where I live, deep in the Bible belt, there are bound to be fist fights in the school parking lot after the PTA meeting discussing which prayer to say. 

There is a prominent Baptist sect around here that won't allow women to stand up and speak in church, because men aren't supposed to receive preaching from women. Women can't collect the offering or help with communion. I doubt they'd want their little boys receiving the Gospel from female teachers. It would be a blood bath.  

the neo-conservative elements in politics and religion are terrified of social nihilism that comes from the weak parent/weak God model.  they pine for the day when you were told what to believe, and dammit, you just did it.  no mamby pamby pretentious questioning.  no reform.  no rebellion.  no protest.  obedience.  OBEY.  that is what they want.  stop questioning, and have a still mind and heart.

[dondub]

They should come over here and see how some of the Christian denominations fight like cats and dogs.

Throw in the Catholics and watch the fur REALLY fly.

 Around these parts Catholics are considered to be Christian. In fact the Jesuits I had were quite sure the Catholics were the originals in that regard.