Obama on ISIS "We have no strategy"

[House]

When Obama takes no action he virtually invites terrorists to kill Americans with impunity.

Much bullshit. If they had swooped in and snatched a fella out of one of the states, you'd have a point and I wouldn't argue it. But that didn't happen.

What DID happen was plain ol' occupational hazard. If reporters don't want to wind up 200 pounds lighter, they should stop playing around in the terrorist's sandbox.

So you think it was no different from him getting blown up in a IED or something, right?

Depends on what he was doing near an IED. If he had one in his basement and was playing around with it, absolutely.

If he was traveling to an outpost at the request of the military, then that wouldn't be the same at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

When Obama takes no action he virtually invites terrorists to kill Americans with impunity.

Much bullshit. If they had swooped in and snatched a fella out of one of the states, you'd have a point and I wouldn't argue it. But that didn't happen.

What DID happen was plain ol' occupational hazard. If reporters don't want to wind up 200 pounds lighter, they should stop playing around in the terrorist's sandbox.

So you think it was no different from him getting blown up in a IED or something, right?

Depends on what he was doing near an IED. If he had one in his basement and was playing around with it, absolutely.

If he was traveling to an outpost at the request of the military, then that wouldn't be the same at all.

The analogy seems to have fallen apart. You think the reporter was playing around with ISIS members in his members?

 

[House]

When Obama takes no action he virtually invites terrorists to kill Americans with impunity.

Much bullshit. If they had swooped in and snatched a fella out of one of the states, you'd have a point and I wouldn't argue it. But that didn't happen.

What DID happen was plain ol' occupational hazard. If reporters don't want to wind up 200 pounds lighter, they should stop playing around in the terrorist's sandbox.

So you think it was no different from him getting blown up in a IED or something, right?

Depends on what he was doing near an IED. If he had one in his basement and was playing around with it, absolutely.

If he was traveling to an outpost at the request of the military, then that wouldn't be the same at all.

The analogy seems to have fallen apart. You think the reporter was playing around with ISIS members in his members?

Your analogy chief, not mine.

He was dicking around in an area he had no business. I have no interest in putting our men's lives on the line over a reporter's blind ambition.

 

[The Rabbi]

When Obama takes no action he virtually invites terrorists to kill Americans with impunity.

Much bullshit. If they had swooped in and snatched a fella out of one of the states, you'd have a point and I wouldn't argue it. But that didn't happen.

What DID happen was plain ol' occupational hazard. If reporters don't want to wind up 200 pounds lighter, they should stop playing around in the terrorist's sandbox.

So you think it was no different from him getting blown up in a IED or something, right?

Depends on what he was doing near an IED. If he had one in his basement and was playing around with it, absolutely.

If he was traveling to an outpost at the request of the military, then that wouldn't be the same at all.

The analogy seems to have fallen apart. You think the reporter was playing around with ISIS members in his members?

Your analogy chief, not mine.

He was dicking around in an area he had no business. I have no interest in putting our men's lives on the line over a reporter's blind ambition.

Yeah that's all it was. Nothing to see here. Blame the victim. Typical liberal.

 

[House]

Yeah that's all it was. Nothing to see here. Blame the victim. Typical liberal.

1) I'm glad you agree that's all it was. I also agree there's nothing to see here.
2) I don't recall this being a discussion about blame. More like one about accountability and personal responsibility.
3) That my advocacy for personal responsibility reads as "liberal" to you tells me that you're talking out your ass.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I suggest a solution that has not been tried but could very well work as long as whiners you stay out of the way.

Whiners would have nothing to do with whether your plan to nuke three million human beings in order to exterminate forty thousand inhuman barbarians would work. Your method of mass killing would work - to kill.

The problem is that your solution is so amoral that it will never be considered or executed by a government that represents a morality based constituency.

Your desire that the US public cease to be morality-based and become you and approve of a solution to slaughter millions is a solution that will never happen. So it is not a solution at all.

 

[tinydancer]

Now we find that the OP is just total BS, for hater dupes only. Out of context idiocy...

Go fuck yourself and others like you. I have been on ISIS for over the two past years.

You can look up all my posts and my threads about them .

 

[tinydancer]

There may be up to 100 American citizens that have joined ISIS. Need I remind some of you conservatives how much you ranted about it being a crime for the President to kill such people without due process?

Yeah..remember that?

Maybe the Conservatives would like to act as human shields for this poor misunderstood dirtbags.

Maliki begged him to. Obama refused.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah that's all it was. Nothing to see here. Blame the victim. Typical liberal.

1) I'm glad you agree that's all it was. I also agree there's nothing to see here.
2) I don't recall this being a discussion about blame. More like one about accountability and personal responsibility.
3) That my advocacy for personal responsibility reads as "liberal" to you tells me that you're talking out your ass.

"Personal responsibility" is the mantra of the narcos. And it's irrelevant here. A terrorist group kidnapped an American and beheaded him in a brutal public manner. And your response is, well he probably deserved it. All that does is encourage more of the same.
THe narco-libertarian mindset on foreign policy is a total failure and makes for nothing but misery and death all over the world.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Maliki begged him to. Obama refused.

Obama made specific demands on Maliki prior to becoming Maliki's air force against the Sunni community in Iraq.

MALIKI REFUSED. M-A-L-I-K-I R-E-F-U-S-E-D


When Maliki Begged for something he should have done what was asked of him immediately if not sooner.

Not every beggar deserves a handout. And Maliki is one.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Go fuck yourself and others like you. I have been on ISIS for over the two past years.

You can look up all my posts and my threads about them .

This is the oldest post found by you using the search words "ISIL" and "ISIS" and it is dated June 11. So what did you refer to these terrorists as for over two years?

For some reason the government refuses to recognize that terrorists and paid mercenaries are trying to topple Assad.
There are no rebels.
But there are these maniacs who now control a portion of Syria and are now invading Iraq.
Blood-soaked fanatics who make Al Qaeda look amateur: Formidable army of 12,000 black-clad fanatics who rule by beheading, amputation and crucifixion

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) rules nation-sized swathe of land

Grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but has eclipsed them in power and brutality

Boasts 12,000 fighters, many of whom have flooded in from abroad

Grew stronger thanks to unrest in Syria - and is well-armed and well-funded

Rules its territory with a ruthless take on Islamic law, involving brutal punishment

Territory: The above map shows the areas of Iraq and Syria currently controlled by Isis forces

Blood-soaked fanatics who make Al Qaeda look amateur | Mail Online

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I have been on ISIS for over the two past years.

So what? The US government has been on Maliki for over three years. So even today you are late to the game. Get with it. Get informed:

In October 2011, Barack Obama and his national security committee sat down for the most important conference call they had held on Iraq. On the videolink from Baghdad was Nouri al-Maliki, a man whom the US had backed as a second-term leader a year earlier.
Folders and briefing pads were piled in front of the Americans. In Baghdad, Maliki sat with only a translator. He wanted no discussion about an extension of the US presence in Iraq, not even a token contribution for training or mentoring. Maliki's stance was welcomed by many in the room, who viewed Iraq as a politically consuming misadventure.
But they were just as surprised as the hawks at the Iraqi leader's defiance. After eight long years, most of them as partners of sorts, it had come to this; there was no longer anything to negotiate. Maliki's Iraq would go it alone; the US could turn the lights off when it left.
For almost three years since, that seminal meeting has defined the relationship between the Obama White House and Maliki – a rising single-minded strongman and the increasing irrelevance in Iraq of a conquering superpower.
As US eyes turned away from Iraq, Iraqi eyes looked elsewhere for support. Some in Washington began to wonder whether, after almost $1tn (£590bn) and close to 4,500 combat losses, Iraq really wanted a strategic partnership with the US at all. The turmoil surrounding the Arab uprisings put answers to that on hold, for a while at least. It also pushed Maliki towards a deeper relationship with Iran.
With much of the Sunni Arab world in uproar, Maliki wanted the safety in numbers that his Shia neighbours offered. While embracing Iran, Maliki put distance between his government and Iraq's Sunni minority, arresting several tribal leaders, laying siege to a protest camp in Ramadi, and brazenly issuing an arrest warrant for the Sunni former vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi days after US forces left.
He set about co-opting key institutions left behind by the Americans; the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, which was soon stacked with officials from his Dawa party, and Iraq's elite special forces unit, which became his praetorian guard.
Some in Washington started believing that Maliki's moves were consolidating power along nakedly sectarian lines. "It was more out of making sure that power could never be stripped from him," said one senior US diplomat.
Another American official who acted as senior US adviser to the Iraqi government from 2004-11 said: "The only thing that I saw with my eyes that could be construed as sectarian was his appointments, especially in the military." While they were not all sectarian, most were; and the competence of the candidate was not an issue.
Evermore disturbed, Washington protested loudly and made calls for political inclusiveness. But the former occupier no longer had the leverage – or apparently the will – to force Maliki to act.
Today, as the state he tried to build through a ruthless consolidation of power, and a strong dose of paranoia, crumbles around him, critics and foes are circling. First among them is the US. Slighted by three years of neglect and stunned by the three-day capitulation of the Iraqi military, Washington is strongly signalling it has lost faith in Maliki.
The embattled leader has sensed the change in mood and on Wednesday said he would not resign in return for US airstrikes against insurgents.
On Thursday, when asked if Maliki should step aside, Obama said: "It is not our job to choose Iraq's leaders, but I don't think there is any secret that, right now at least, there are deep divisions between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders."
He said the White House had told Maliki that "as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen" the central government would be unable to stem the sectarian crisis engulfing the country.
Obama urged the Iraqis to form a new government, holding out the inducement that it would "make it much easier to partner than it is right now".
The move away from Maliki is precipitous. In testimony to the Senate on Wednesday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, said repeatedly that the Iraqi government had failed on its commitment to combat sectarianism.
More ominously for a government that urgently seeks US military aid, Dempsey and the defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, told a Senate panel already champing at the bit for the Iraqi prime minister's downfall that military intervention would be futile without concerted action from Maliki to embrace Sunnis.

How Nouri al-Maliki fell out of favour with the US World news The Guardian

Obama was not going to be stupid like US conservatives are and bail out the man who ruined Iraq ... and made it vulnerable to the ISIS invasion of last June.

Maliki is gone.... Why don't you celebrate that fact like the rest of the thinking world?

 

[House]

Yeah that's all it was. Nothing to see here. Blame the victim. Typical liberal.

1) I'm glad you agree that's all it was. I also agree there's nothing to see here.
2) I don't recall this being a discussion about blame. More like one about accountability and personal responsibility.
3) That my advocacy for personal responsibility reads as "liberal" to you tells me that you're talking out your ass.

"Personal responsibility" is the mantra of the narcos. And it's irrelevant here. A terrorist group kidnapped an American and beheaded him in a brutal public manner. And your response is, well he probably deserved it. All that does is encourage more of the same.
THe narco-libertarian mindset on foreign policy is a total failure and makes for nothing but misery and death all over the world.

What is it, man? Liberal or libertarian? If you get called out on one for being the idiot you are, you just hop to the other and hope everybody else is as stupid as you are and doesn't notice?

Your blathering is beneath me. You're clearly an ignorant fool.

 

[Sallow]

There may be up to 100 American citizens that have joined ISIS. Need I remind some of you conservatives how much you ranted about it being a crime for the President to kill such people without due process?

Yeah..remember that?

Maybe the Conservatives would like to act as human shields for this poor misunderstood dirtbags.

Maliki begged him to. Obama refused.

Mailiki begged for what?

 

[Sallow]

96 bombings in an area that damn large over that amout of time does not constitute "bombing the shit out of".

Stop filling your bowl of Fruit Loops with Koolaid Sallow.

You've watched the vids?

They aren't bombing open desert. The are bombing convoys. And actually? Seems the people of Iraq have finally joined the fight...since they are pushing back and taking territory.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. Seems the people of Iraq have finally joined the fight...since they are pushing back and taking territory.

With Tinydancer's hero {Maliki} going away, the Sunnis in Iraq will accelerate their participation in the fight against IS terrorists in Iraq.

Obama's is wisely therefore demanding a comprehensive strategy involving other Sunni powers in the region to do the same type of ground operation in Syria that will not incude battalions of US ground troops like Bush stupidly sent into Iraq in March 2003.

 

[Camp]

. Seems the people of Iraq have finally joined the fight...since they are pushing back and taking territory.

With Tinydancer's hero {Maliki} going away, the Sunnis in Iraq will accelerate their participation in the fight against IS terrorists in Iraq.

Obama's is wisely therefore demanding a comprehensive strategy involving other Sunni powers in the region to do the same type of ground operation in Syria that will not incude battalions of US ground troops like Bush stupidly sent into Iraq in March 2003.

She has trouble with choosing sides. Claiming to be a Ukrainian Canadian she sides with the Russian separatist led by Moscow Russians. If you mention Zarqawi about ISIS she will be lost. Forget about the mention of Tawid. It points the finger at Bush for the creation of ISIL and that is not what the talking points are supposed to sound like.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah that's all it was. Nothing to see here. Blame the victim. Typical liberal.

1) I'm glad you agree that's all it was. I also agree there's nothing to see here.
2) I don't recall this being a discussion about blame. More like one about accountability and personal responsibility.
3) That my advocacy for personal responsibility reads as "liberal" to you tells me that you're talking out your ass.

"Personal responsibility" is the mantra of the narcos. And it's irrelevant here. A terrorist group kidnapped an American and beheaded him in a brutal public manner. And your response is, well he probably deserved it. All that does is encourage more of the same.
THe narco-libertarian mindset on foreign policy is a total failure and makes for nothing but misery and death all over the world.

What is it, man? Liberal or libertarian? If you get called out on one for being the idiot you are, you just hop to the other and hope everybody else is as stupid as you are and doesn't notice?

Your blathering is beneath me. You're clearly an ignorant fool.

Honestly the difference between liberals and libertarians seems like a spelling error sometimes.
Your ad homs indicate you have nothing further to add of substance and you've been pwned in this discussion. Which is good because your opinion is misguided and frankly shameful and heartless.

 

[The Rabbi]

. Seems the people of Iraq have finally joined the fight...since they are pushing back and taking territory.

With Tinydancer's hero {Maliki} going away, the Sunnis in Iraq will accelerate their participation in the fight against IS terrorists in Iraq.

Obama's is wisely therefore demanding a comprehensive strategy involving other Sunni powers in the region to do the same type of ground operation in Syria that will not incude battalions of US ground troops like Bush stupidly sent into Iraq in March 2003.

Obama has no strategy. His first move was to get rid of Maliki. Things gotten any better? Nope. He doesnt know what he's doing. He doesnt know what to do. He knows to play golf and raise money from the 1% while his ass kissers like you declare the GOP is the party of the rich.

 

[Oldstyle]

What would a good strategy be? Put 100,000 troops back in Iraq so we can fight them there instead of over here?

Ah, yeah...

Given a choice of where we fight ISIS...I'd pick THERE over HERE all day long and twice on Sunday!

Let me guess, Carbineer...you're one of those people who naively believe that we don't REALLY have to fight them anywhere? That if we leave them alone they'll somehow forget about us?