U.S., Arab Allies Strike ISIS in Syria

[mmhmm]

IMO, the ones who have upped the ante in the terror war are ISIS. Do I believe we're going to take a hit on home ground? Yes, I do. I believe it will come from within - one of our own. The Aussies managed to catch one before it went down. Hope we're able to do the same. ISIS is a whole different can o' worms.

[mmhmm]

The Syrians were warned in advance of plans to target ISIS infrastructure in Syria. So far, the Syrian government has remained quiescent. Why is anyone's guess, but it just may be they feel they'll benefit from this, as well. With other Arab countries working with the coalition, they may also feel they'd best side with the majority. We'll have to wait and watch.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 21:44:00 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

IMO, the ones who have upped the ante in the terror war are ISIS. Do I believe we're going to take a hit on home ground? Yes, I do. I believe it will come from within - one of our own. The Aussies managed to catch one before it went down. Hope we're able to do the same. ISIS is a whole different can o' worms.

i guess.  but here is why i cringe at our response.  ANYONE can provoke the US in the same way.  ANYONE. 

i really fear for this nation.  i think we have opened ourselves to endless terrorism, mmhmm.

i thought Obama was smarter than this.  i was wrong.  dead wrong. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 21:48:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The Syrians were warned in advance of plans to target ISIS infrastructure in Syria. So far, the Syrian government has remained quiescent. Why is anyone's guess, but it just may be they feel they'll benefit from this, as well. With other Arab countries working with the coalition, they may also feel they'd best side with the majority. We'll have to wait and watch.

why indeed?  have no you guesses?

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2014 22:01:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2014 21:44:00 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

IMO, the ones who have upped the ante in the terror war are ISIS. Do I believe we're going to take a hit on home ground? Yes, I do. I believe it will come from within - one of our own. The Aussies managed to catch one before it went down. Hope we're able to do the same. ISIS is a whole different can o' worms.

i guess.  but here is why i cringe at our response.  ANYONE can provoke the US in the same way.  ANYONE. 

i really fear for this nation.  i think we have opened ourselves to endless terrorism, mmhmm.

i thought Obama was smarter than this.  i was wrong.  dead wrong. 

Anyone can (and could before this point) provoke anyone, dj. This is a very different kind of organization. Very different. I'm not convinced the coalition is a bad idea. In fact, at this point I'm tending toward it being a better idea than I originally imagined it to be. I'll reserve judgment, though, until I have more information - if I'm able to obtain it.

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2014 22:02:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2014 21:48:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The Syrians were warned in advance of plans to target ISIS infrastructure in Syria. So far, the Syrian government has remained quiescent. Why is anyone's guess, but it just may be they feel they'll benefit from this, as well. With other Arab countries working with the coalition, they may also feel they'd best side with the majority. We'll have to wait and watch.

why indeed?  have no you guesses?

I learned enough in 20+ years of dealing with these folks not to do a lot of guessing, dj.

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2014 22:44:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

... Anyone can (and could before this point) provoke anyone, dj. ...

Does one doing the provoking deserve the full, potentially deadly, hit it can cause or should restraint be used in a situation in which one being provoked is more powerful than the one provoking?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 22:44:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 23, 2014 22:01:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i guess.  but here is why i cringe at our response.  ANYONE can provoke the US in the same way.  ANYONE. 

i really fear for this nation.  i think we have opened ourselves to endless terrorism, mmhmm.

i thought Obama was smarter than this.  i was wrong.  dead wrong. 

Anyone can (and could before this point) provoke anyone, dj.

clearly, that is not true, in the case of the US.  take Boko Haram as an example.  they are just as well armed, and just as fanatical, as ISIS.  they have ALSO called for a caliphate- their own.  they are a danger to the region.  they are "Islamic" to an equal degree.  yet when was the last time you read about them? 

This is a very different kind of organization. Very different. I'm not convinced the coalition is a bad idea. In fact, at this point I'm tending toward it being a better idea than I originally imagined it to be. I'll reserve judgment, though, until I have more information - if I'm able to obtain it.

oh, my position is hardly cemented.  but i am not convinced that this group is much different than, say, the Taliban.

oh, did you get the Pape book yet? 

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2014 23:24:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2014 22:44:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Anyone can (and could before this point) provoke anyone, dj.

clearly, that is not true, in the case of the US.  take Boko Haram as an example.  they are just as well armed, and just as fanatical, as ISIS.  they have ALSO called for a caliphate- their own.  they are a danger to the region.  they are "Islamic" to an equal degree.  yet when was the last time you read about them? 

This is a very different kind of organization. Very different. I'm not convinced the coalition is a bad idea. In fact, at this point I'm tending toward it being a better idea than I originally imagined it to be. I'll reserve judgment, though, until I have more information - if I'm able to obtain it.

oh, my position is hardly cemented.  but i am not convinced that this group is much different than, say, the Taliban.

oh, did you get the Pape book yet? 

I did get the Pape book but have only just started it. It's been busy around here lately!

I believe this group to be very different than the Taliban. Very different than anything we've seen before. Different, even, than anything the Middle East has seen before.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 23:37:34 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 23, 2014 23:24:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh, my position is hardly cemented.  but i am not convinced that this group is much different than, say, the Taliban.

oh, did you get the Pape book yet? 

I did get the Pape book but have only just started it. It's been busy around here lately!

ill lower my post count if that keeps you moving. 

I believe this group to be very different than the Taliban. Very different than anything we've seen before. Different, even, than anything the Middle East has seen before.

but not really different than Boko Haram.  so the question stands: why do they get a collective yawn, while ISIS gets the full panty twist?

[mmhmm]

Boko Haram is closer than the Taliban, but still not the same, dj - at least, that's how I see it. Boko Haram doesn't get a yawn from me; however, Boko Haram hasn't been known to recruit membership in their little "community" from our country. Boko Haram isn't made up of recruited mercenary sociopaths. Boko Haram is made up of sociopaths from the local population.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 23, 2014 23:56:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Boko Haram is closer than the Taliban, but still not the same, dj - at least, that's how I see it. Boko Haram doesn't get a yawn from me; however, Boko Haram hasn't been known to recruit membership in their little "community" from our country. Boko Haram isn't made up of recruited mercenary sociopaths. Boko Haram is made up of sociopaths from the local population.

Why would the sociopaths' countries of origin matter when determining whether or not a group is worthwhile taking out?

(Incidentally, your typical ISIS or Boko Haram warrior is neither sociopathic nor psychopathic. Many are sadists and zealots, but not even these meet the clinical definition of sociopathy or psychopathy. Like it or not, these men fight for a cause.)

[mmhmm]

Sept 24, 2014 1:13:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 23, 2014 23:56:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Boko Haram is closer than the Taliban, but still not the same, dj - at least, that's how I see it. Boko Haram doesn't get a yawn from me; however, Boko Haram hasn't been known to recruit membership in their little "community" from our country. Boko Haram isn't made up of recruited mercenary sociopaths. Boko Haram is made up of sociopaths from the local population.

Why would the sociopaths' countries of origin matter when determining whether or not a group is worthwhile taking out?

(Incidentally, your typical ISIS or Boko Haram warrior is neither sociopathic nor psychopathic. Many are sadists and zealots, but not even these meet the clinical definition of sociopathy or psychopathy. Like it or not, these men fight for a cause.)

SOME of those men are fighting for a cause, Virgil. I've said that before. SOME of those men are fighting because it's an opportunity to kill in the most horrendous ways without any constraints on them. There is no cause involved other than their own bloodthirsty desires.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 23:56:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Boko Haram is closer than the Taliban, but still not the same, dj - at least, that's how I see it. Boko Haram doesn't get a yawn from me; however, Boko Haram hasn't been known to recruit membership in their little "community" from our country. Boko Haram isn't made up of recruited mercenary sociopaths. Boko Haram is made up of sociopaths from the local population.

Boko Haram has arms from the Nigerian military, is about the same size, is inordinately brutal, and has threatened the world with a caliphate.  in all of those ways they are IDENTICAL to ISIS (except that ISIS is supplied by the Syrian rebels).  in all of those ways they have NOTHING in common with the Taliban.

the Taliban actually operated as a government in Afghanistan.  they built schools and churches.  they provided medical treatment to the poor.  i am not excusing their more assholeish activities, their social repression, and their armed defense of their authority, but i am not really seeing the parallel to Boko Haram AT ALL.

so, as much as you are trying to brush it off, i ask again:

WHY ISIS AND NOT BOKO HARAM?

[mmhmm]

Not trying to brush it off, dj. I have no way of knowing why decisions are made to take on one thing and not another, so I'm not really able to answer. My gut feeling is it's because Boko Haram offers no threat to the US. ISIS does.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 1:13:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 23, 2014 23:56:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Boko Haram is closer than the Taliban, but still not the same, dj - at least, that's how I see it. Boko Haram doesn't get a yawn from me; however, Boko Haram hasn't been known to recruit membership in their little "community" from our country. Boko Haram isn't made up of recruited mercenary sociopaths. Boko Haram is made up of sociopaths from the local population.

Why would the sociopaths' countries of origin matter when determining whether or not a group is worthwhile taking out?

(Incidentally, your typical ISIS or Boko Haram warrior is neither sociopathic nor psychopathic. Many are sadists and zealots, but not even these meet the clinical definition of sociopathy or psychopathy. Like it or not, these men fight for a cause.)

i think we are flipping out over the beheadings.  that is precisely what ISIS wants.  so, really, the difference i see between ISIS and BH is that ISIS has a better PR campaign for messing with our minds.  that is the only TANGIBLE difference i see.  they have better commercials.  that's it.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 11:38:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Not trying to brush it off, dj. I have no way of knowing why decisions are made to take on one thing and not another, so I'm not really able to answer. My gut feeling is it's because Boko Haram offers no threat to the US. ISIS does.

perhaps neither do.  entertain that idea some time over the next month.

[mmhmm]

Sept 24, 2014 11:37:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2014 23:56:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Boko Haram is closer than the Taliban, but still not the same, dj - at least, that's how I see it. Boko Haram doesn't get a yawn from me; however, Boko Haram hasn't been known to recruit membership in their little "community" from our country. Boko Haram isn't made up of recruited mercenary sociopaths. Boko Haram is made up of sociopaths from the local population.

Boko Haram has arms from the Nigerian military, is about the same size, is inordinately brutal, and has threatened the world with a caliphate.  in all of those ways they are IDENTICAL to ISIS (except that ISIS is supplied by the Syrian rebels).  in all of those ways they have NOTHING in common with the Taliban.

the Taliban actually operated as a government in Afghanistan.  they built schools and churches.  they provided medical treatment to the poor.  i am not excusing their more assholeish activities, their social repression, and their armed defense of their authority, but i am not really seeing the parallel to Boko Haram AT ALL.

so, as much as you are trying to brush it off, i ask again:

WHY ISIS AND NOT BOKO HARAM?

Your first paragraph says exactly what I said, dj. Boko Haram is closer to ISIS than the Taliban. I drew no parallel between Boko Haram and the Taliban. Boko Haram, while blathering about creating a caliphate has not recruited members from Western countries in the way ISIS has done.

[mmhmm]

Sept 24, 2014 11:39:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 24, 2014 11:38:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Not trying to brush it off, dj. I have no way of knowing why decisions are made to take on one thing and not another, so I'm not really able to answer. My gut feeling is it's because Boko Haram offers no threat to the US. ISIS does.

perhaps neither do.  entertain that idea some time over the next month.

I've already entertained it. I just see it differently than you do. I'm anxious to get some input from someone who actually knows something other than what is fed us by the press.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 11:42:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 24, 2014 11:39:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

perhaps neither do.  entertain that idea some time over the next month.

I've already entertained it. I just see it differently than you do. I'm anxious to get some input from someone who actually knows something other than what is fed us by the press.

i am not paying attention to the press, but i don't seem to be able to get through to you. 

so, how does ISIS threaten the US more than BH?

[billisonboard]

Sept 24, 2014 11:39:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

... that is the only TANGIBLE difference i see.  they have better commercials.  that's it.

Oil?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 11:48:32 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 24, 2014 11:39:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

... that is the only TANGIBLE difference i see.  they have better commercials.  that's it.

Oil?

Nigeria has oil.  i have been waiting for that.

i think it is more strategic than that.  and that is fine.  Obama should just say that he wants to take on ISIS because he wants to control what is going on in the ME.  that would be, imo, and honest assessment.  and then the American people could decide whether that is a "noble and just cause" or not.  instead, we are getting lied to, imo.  Obama is a waterboy for the PNAC.  it is really sad.  pathetic, actually.  it is precisely the same logic that got us into Iraq in the first place.  we didn't learn a damned thing.  but wheras there were a MILLION PEOPLE in the streets in 2003, i don't even think there are 1000 now.  repugnant.  upsetting.  disillusioning. 

i am starting to think that charismatic leaders are a really bad idea.

[mmhmm]

Sept 24, 2014 11:46:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 24, 2014 11:42:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've already entertained it. I just see it differently than you do. I'm anxious to get some input from someone who actually knows something other than what is fed us by the press.

i am not paying attention to the press, but i don't seem to be able to get through to you. 

so, how does ISIS threaten the US more than BH?

Several ways. Funding is one. Access to members with passports for Western countries is another. Sheer size and reach is another.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 12:05:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 24, 2014 11:46:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am not paying attention to the press, but i don't seem to be able to get through to you. 

so, how does ISIS threaten the US more than BH?

Several ways. Funding is one. Access to members with passports for Western countries is another. Sheer size and reach is another.

i am thinking you don't know much about BH.  i can't blame you.  they are virtually uncovered in the West.  but we can fix that. 

i have a machine to ship, so i gotta go.  i can provide you with details later.  but for now: BH has plenty of funding.

[b2r]

  In short...much like IS or BH...Liberals do not allow differing opinion! You're welcome!

[deziloooooo]

Sept 24, 2014 11:53:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 24, 2014 11:48:32 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oil?

Nigeria has oil.  i have been waiting for that.

i think it is more strategic than that.  and that is fine.  Obama should just say that he wants to take on ISIS because he wants to control what is going on in the ME.  that would be, imo, and honest assessment.  and then the American people could decide whether that is a "noble and just cause" or not.  instead, we are getting lied to, imo.  Obama is a waterboy for the PNAC.  it is really sad.  pathetic, actually.  it is precisely the same logic that got us into Iraq in the first place.  we didn't learn a damned thing.  but wheras there were a MILLION PEOPLE in the streets in 2003, i don't even think there are 1000 now.  repugnant.  upsetting.  disillusioning. 

i am starting to think that charismatic leaders are a really bad idea.

I really doubt that you are really open to possible arguments as to the possible necessity of combating ISIS..thinking you are "all knowing on all things and not really concerned or interested in views that don't support your own thinking.." but with all that being said..here is a event going on over there..granted not involving us but indirectly and directly, IMHO, a event that will involve us and our allies , support of these refugees..140,000 kurds fleeing into Turkey away from ISIS...and the refugees are not just these but hundreds of thousands more spread all over..and we are involved because we do spend millions and millions in aid here..forgetting the misery of the folks involved..


www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/syria-kurds-kobane-201492410309256379.html

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 12:35:54 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Sept 24, 2014 11:53:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nigeria has oil.  i have been waiting for that.

i think it is more strategic than that.  and that is fine.  Obama should just say that he wants to take on ISIS because he wants to control what is going on in the ME.  that would be, imo, and honest assessment.  and then the American people could decide whether that is a "noble and just cause" or not.  instead, we are getting lied to, imo.  Obama is a waterboy for the PNAC.  it is really sad.  pathetic, actually.  it is precisely the same logic that got us into Iraq in the first place.  we didn't learn a damned thing.  but wheras there were a MILLION PEOPLE in the streets in 2003, i don't even think there are 1000 now.  repugnant.  upsetting.  disillusioning. 

i am starting to think that charismatic leaders are a really bad idea.

I really doubt that you are really open to possible arguments

i really doubt that you have any idea what i am open to.  so, why don't we just stick to the discussion, and leave ME out of it, eh?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 12:44:15 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

BH is in Africa. ISIL is in the middle of the freakin' Middle East.

see post 54.  i mentioned this.  like....boldly?

ISIL now controls a large swath of Iraq and Syria, and functions as a quasi- sovereign state; one which threatens further expansion as well.

the Taliban and BH control a large swath of land in their respective areas, and function as pseudo-states, as well. 

ETA- the beheadings could have been made to order by the ptb here, btw.  What better way to get a skeptical public on board for what needs to be done?

see my comment about PR.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 12:35:54 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

here is a event going on over there..granted not involving us but indirectly and directly, IMHO, a event that will involve us and our allies , support of these refugees..140,000 kurds fleeing into Turkey away from ISIS...and the refugees are not just these but hundreds of thousands more spread all over..and we are involved because we do spend millions and millions in aid here..forgetting the misery of the folks involved..


www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/syria-kurds-kobane-201492410309256379.html

betting we don't do shit about it.  we sat by and watched as 1M were killed or starved in Rwanda.  our concern for human tragedy is, for the most part, non-existent.  but it is often bandied about when our strategic interests are at play. 

so, we will holler and moan about how Saddam is gassing his citizens, conveniently forgetting that we supplied the gas not 5 years prior.

[mmhmm]

Sept 24, 2014 12:23:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 24, 2014 12:05:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Several ways. Funding is one. Access to members with passports for Western countries is another. Sheer size and reach is another.

i am thinking you don't know much about BH.  i can't blame you.  they are virtually uncovered in the West.  but we can fix that. 

i have a machine to ship, so i gotta go.  i can provide you with details later.  but for now: BH has plenty of funding.

Nope. I do know about "BH". You might want to check your "thinking" for assumptions.