The Great Divide: Truth vs Lies

[TooTall]

The State Department admitted that in 2013 it allowed IRANIAN BOMBMAKERS mix in with Iraqi refugees and make it into the US.

The FBI, CIA, and DHS have all admitted that there are NO official records with which to vet these Syrian refugees. The best they can say is, 'Well, we don't have them in OUR files', which HARDLY means they are not a threat.

Obama HIMSELF admitted yesterday that the average background check for these people takes 12 - 18 MONTHS; YET....Libs, however, are in a freaking rush / panic to bringing in thousands of Syrians by the end of the year.

They declare:
- We HAVE to take them in here
- If we do not take them in we are evil and heartless

B$!

We do NOT have to bring them to the United States in order to protect them, give them shelter, give them food... we can do that without EVER bringing them here. WHILE we do all of this ELSEWHERE we could be ensuring 100% that these people are not threats.


END IGNORANCE - PIMP-SLAP A LIBERAL WHEN THEY START SPEWING THIS CRAP!

One humanity agency stated on USMB that 12 Syrian refugees could be fed clothed and housed in a safe middle eastern country for the cost of 1 being brought to the US. That means we could feed, clothe and house 120,000 for the same cost as the 10,000 Obama wants to bring here. It looks to me like Obama is screwing 110,000 refugees by helping 10,000.

 

[TooTall]

There is a disturbing number of elected officials in government contradicting each other on national security. Obama says the refuges are being vetted. The FBI director and congressional representatives say oh no they are not. Obama says ISIL is contained yet a prominent Democratic party senator and national security expert says oh no they are not.

Obama, "ISIL is contained"

Senator Feinstein, "I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding." When asked about the threat level Feinstein said, "I have never been more concerned. They just put out a video saying it is their intent to attack this country. And I think we have to be prepared."

Federal law requires Obama to consult with both the House and Senate judiciary committees on admitting refuges to the US and he must meet the burden of proof required for refugee status required by federal law. He can't just wave a wand and declare someone is a refuge.

ISIS has lost 25% of the territory it held at its peak. That is more than containment.

"Why did Obama declare ISIS 'contained' the day before Paris attack?
Washington (CNN)On Thursday, President Barack Obama declared in an interview that ISIS had been "contained," asserting that the terror cell had been stalled in Iraq and Syria.

The next day, ISIS claimed responsibility for one of the worst terror attacks in European history, shattering what had been a growing sense of momentum in the global fight against extremists and driving home the frightening ability of ISIS to inspire and possibly coordinate attacks outside their power base in Iraq and in Syria."
Obama declared ISIS 'contained' day before Paris attack - CNNPolitics.com

What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain. What we have not yet been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control structures. We've made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of foreign fighters."

When Obama said "we have contained them," it’s within a plainly defined scope: ISIS’s territorial ambitions in Iraq and Syria.

They have expanded into Africa, the US and Europe. That is not contained.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going with Bush the Decider. When he broke up the Iraqi State and then Bugged Out. Unforeseen consequences of his ill advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Ohhh, Bush bugged out of Iraq, did he?


Lie much?

Actually, it's all you do. You haven't the tiniest hint of integrity.

Recall the shoe throwing event. What was that press conference all about? Was there some kind of document the decider was forced to sign or get the troops out by the end of 2008?

You're living the dream in the bubble aren't you?

You had your chance....and now for the truth.

Obama made a huge mistake in refusing to negotiate an agreement to leave US troops in Iraq.
This is the source of the problem with ISIS: they're there because we weren't.

"Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq

Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean
Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq



a. "This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast.
The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Flips on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq

Obama rejected it.



Caught you again, huh?

 

[BlindBoo]

he President, who won the 'Lie of the Year' award for ObamaCare

Liar.

It was the rhetoric over a specific part of the AHC law.

Btw, did the Republicans ever apologies for their lies of the year claiming it was a Government takeover(2010) or the whopper about "Death Panels" (2009)?

A look back at PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year

The President's 'lie' was 97% true. Sarah Palin's death panel lie of the year was 100% false.

The President, who won the 'Lie of the Year' award for ObamaCare, is now the front runner in a far more dangerous category: "Vetting Syrian Terrorists....er, Refugees.'


This morning the battle between truth and dishonesty was played out between proxies for the two side:
Representatve Peter King, and Mika Brzezinski....

It was dynomite:


"Rep. King To MSNBC’s Brzezinski: ‘You Are 1,000 Percent Wrong’ On Refugee Vetting Process


1. ....a heated debate over the viability and quality of the vetting process that would allow Syrian refugees into America.

2. ....King explained, “I’m extremely concerned because what the president is telling us is not true. We cannot vet the refugees from Syria.”

PETER KING: I’m extremely concerned because what the president is telling us is not true. We cannot vet the refugees from Syria. There are no databases to work against. There are no government records. And when I talk to people involved in the vetting, they have no confidence at all in the people that are being allowed in. There’s no way. People talk about thorough vetting, there is no vetting as a practical matter. That is the reality.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Hold on a second. There is vetting.

KING: There is not. Mika —

BRZEZINSKI: “There are face-to-face interviews, there’s health screenings. Often it takes two years for a family to get here.

KING: Mika, you’re entirely wrong. You are wrong, you are wrong.

BRZEZINSKI: Actually, sir, I think you’re wrong.

KING: I met with the people doing the interviews. I’m talking to the people involved in the highest levels of government. They tell us that they have no confidence at all. This is not proper vetting. I’m telling you that.

BRZEZINSKI: But the vetting is happening whether you like it or not.

KING: No, it is not a real vetting. You can’t vet if you have nothing to base it against. You are wrong, Mika. You are 1,000 percent wrong, W-R-O-N-G.

BRZEZINSKI: So meeting face-to-face and screening them and interviewing them and often making them wait months and years — that is not a vetting process?

KING: That is not vetting. That is not vetting. No, it is not. You cannot vet unless you have material to base it —

BRZEZINSKI: So should we say, ‘Syrians, stay out of America, you’re not welcome here?’

KING: Mika, we’re not saying Syrians. We’re saying these refugees. Unless we know who the refugees are, we cannot be allowing them in. My job is to protect Americans, not to feel good about myself, not to say that I’m doing something humanitarian. If Americans get killed because we are letting people in because they are not properly vetted — they cannot be properly vetted. How many times am I supposed to tell you this, Mika? You are wrong. They cannot, and it puts American lives at risk."
Rep. King To MSNBC’s Brzezinski: ‘You Are 1,000 Percent Wrong’ On Refugee Vetting Process [VIDEO]

We can blindly accept proven liar Peter King's say-so?

Peter King says Senate CIA report found detainees were not killed, did not suffer 'lasting injuries'

You have that backwards: you are the proven liar, known, in fact, as the NYLiar.

Can you refute politifact's assessment of Peter King a liar? If you can, proceed. If you can't, shut up.

Interesting, since the left leaning, very left leaning, politifact rated Obama's lie number one does that mean you do not trust a word that is uttered by him? If so then you are one of the smart ones on the left.

Generally I don't even look at any factcheck rating. I try to find the source material and judge for myself. Generally speaking if someone take a snippet or a phrase like "I like to Fire People" or "you didn't Build that" and creates a specious narrative, all you have to do is find the transcript, read what they said and then make your own call. The Factcheck sites usually have a link to the source material.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What we've learned here, from the RW geniuses, is that Politifact is unreliable and should be ignored whenever you see a bad report on a Republican,

but Politifact has unimpeachable abilities whenever you see a bad report on a Democrat.

What a shock.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is a disturbing number of elected officials in government contradicting each other on national security. Obama says the refuges are being vetted. The FBI director and congressional representatives say oh no they are not. Obama says ISIL is contained yet a prominent Democratic party senator and national security expert says oh no they are not.

Obama, "ISIL is contained"

Senator Feinstein, "I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding." When asked about the threat level Feinstein said, "I have never been more concerned. They just put out a video saying it is their intent to attack this country. And I think we have to be prepared."

Federal law requires Obama to consult with both the House and Senate judiciary committees on admitting refuges to the US and he must meet the burden of proof required for refugee status required by federal law. He can't just wave a wand and declare someone is a refuge.

ISIS has lost 25% of the territory it held at its peak. That is more than containment.

"Why did Obama declare ISIS 'contained' the day before Paris attack?
Washington (CNN)On Thursday, President Barack Obama declared in an interview that ISIS had been "contained," asserting that the terror cell had been stalled in Iraq and Syria.

The next day, ISIS claimed responsibility for one of the worst terror attacks in European history, shattering what had been a growing sense of momentum in the global fight against extremists and driving home the frightening ability of ISIS to inspire and possibly coordinate attacks outside their power base in Iraq and in Syria."
Obama declared ISIS 'contained' day before Paris attack - CNNPolitics.com

What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain. What we have not yet been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control structures. We've made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of foreign fighters."

When Obama said "we have contained them," it’s within a plainly defined scope: ISIS’s territorial ambitions in Iraq and Syria.

They have expanded into Africa, the US and Europe. That is not contained.

What territory do they control in Africa, the US or Europe?

 

[BlindBoo]

Caught you again, huh?

Here's the heart of the Big Bush Bugout.

Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:

1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.

2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

And just for good measure so there was no misunderstanding :

4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Go Fish.

 

[easyt65]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Go Fish.

Sorry, your source is NOT credible...

 

[easyt65]

What territory do they control in Africa, the US or Europe?

The terrifying rise of ISIS: Map that shows how terror group's tentacles now reach from Algeria to Afghanistan

• ISIS began as Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 and militants had just 1,000 soldiers, but it has grown to more than 30,000
• Reach of ISIS now spans Middle East and northern Africa, with only the Mediterranean sea separating from Europe

LINK: Map shows the terrifying march of ISIS from Algeria to Afghanistan

 

[PoliticalChic]

he President, who won the 'Lie of the Year' award for ObamaCare

Liar.

It was the rhetoric over a specific part of the AHC law.

Btw, did the Republicans ever apologies for their lies of the year claiming it was a Government takeover(2010) or the whopper about "Death Panels" (2009)?

A look back at PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year

The President's 'lie' was 97% true. Sarah Palin's death panel lie of the year was 100% false.

The President, who won the 'Lie of the Year' award for ObamaCare, is now the front runner in a far more dangerous category: "Vetting Syrian Terrorists....er, Refugees.'


This morning the battle between truth and dishonesty was played out between proxies for the two side:
Representatve Peter King, and Mika Brzezinski....

It was dynomite:


"Rep. King To MSNBC’s Brzezinski: ‘You Are 1,000 Percent Wrong’ On Refugee Vetting Process


1. ....a heated debate over the viability and quality of the vetting process that would allow Syrian refugees into America.

2. ....King explained, “I’m extremely concerned because what the president is telling us is not true. We cannot vet the refugees from Syria.”

PETER KING: I’m extremely concerned because what the president is telling us is not true. We cannot vet the refugees from Syria. There are no databases to work against. There are no government records. And when I talk to people involved in the vetting, they have no confidence at all in the people that are being allowed in. There’s no way. People talk about thorough vetting, there is no vetting as a practical matter. That is the reality.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Hold on a second. There is vetting.

KING: There is not. Mika —

BRZEZINSKI: “There are face-to-face interviews, there’s health screenings. Often it takes two years for a family to get here.

KING: Mika, you’re entirely wrong. You are wrong, you are wrong.

BRZEZINSKI: Actually, sir, I think you’re wrong.

KING: I met with the people doing the interviews. I’m talking to the people involved in the highest levels of government. They tell us that they have no confidence at all. This is not proper vetting. I’m telling you that.

BRZEZINSKI: But the vetting is happening whether you like it or not.

KING: No, it is not a real vetting. You can’t vet if you have nothing to base it against. You are wrong, Mika. You are 1,000 percent wrong, W-R-O-N-G.

BRZEZINSKI: So meeting face-to-face and screening them and interviewing them and often making them wait months and years — that is not a vetting process?

KING: That is not vetting. That is not vetting. No, it is not. You cannot vet unless you have material to base it —

BRZEZINSKI: So should we say, ‘Syrians, stay out of America, you’re not welcome here?’

KING: Mika, we’re not saying Syrians. We’re saying these refugees. Unless we know who the refugees are, we cannot be allowing them in. My job is to protect Americans, not to feel good about myself, not to say that I’m doing something humanitarian. If Americans get killed because we are letting people in because they are not properly vetted — they cannot be properly vetted. How many times am I supposed to tell you this, Mika? You are wrong. They cannot, and it puts American lives at risk."
Rep. King To MSNBC’s Brzezinski: ‘You Are 1,000 Percent Wrong’ On Refugee Vetting Process [VIDEO]

We can blindly accept proven liar Peter King's say-so?

Peter King says Senate CIA report found detainees were not killed, did not suffer 'lasting injuries'

You have that backwards: you are the proven liar, known, in fact, as the NYLiar.

Can you refute politifact's assessment of Peter King a liar? If you can, proceed. If you can't, shut up.

Interesting, since the left leaning, very left leaning, politifact rated Obama's lie number one does that mean you do not trust a word that is uttered by him? If so then you are one of the smart ones on the left.

Generally I don't even look at any factcheck rating. I try to find the source material and judge for myself. Generally speaking if someone take a snippet or a phrase like "I like to Fire People" or "you didn't Build that" and creates a specious narrative, all you have to do is find the transcript, read what they said and then make your own call. The Factcheck sites usually have a link to the source material.

"....or "you didn't Build that" and creates a specious narrative, all you have to do is find the transcript, read what they said and then make your own call."

Like this?




Or this?

 

[BlindBoo]

So who FORCED Bush to sign

The United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. At the request of the Iraqi government the UNSC did not renew the authorization for 2009 as it has since President Bush requested the occupation mandate back in 2003. Without a new mandate the President was forced to negotiate the SOFA he signed in Nov. 2008 or else he would have had to remove all the troops by then end of 2008. Why wasn't he able to secure a long term presence or residual force? Because the Iraqis didn't want Americans in their country and wanted us out since 2003.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Caught you again, huh?

Here's the heart of the Big Bush Bugout.

Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:

1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.

2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

And just for good measure so there was no misunderstanding :

4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Go Fish.

You're fibbing.

"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. "
Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com



1. Bush left Iraq with an agreement that allowed US troops to remain until 2012.

2. The windbag, Obama, took charge in 2009

3. Obama declined to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement that would have left troops, and he actually removed same before he had to.

4. Political landscapes, like nature, abhor a vacuum.

5. Therefore, through Obama's efforts, ISIS had free reign.

QED Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

 

[BlindBoo]

What territory do they control in Africa, the US or Europe?

The terrifying rise of ISIS: Map that shows how terror group's tentacles now reach from Algeria to Afghanistan

• ISIS began as Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 and militants had just 1,000 soldiers, but it has grown to more than 30,000
• Reach of ISIS now spans Middle East and northern Africa, with only the Mediterranean sea separating from Europe

LINK: Map shows the terrifying march of ISIS from Algeria to Afghanistan

Kurds take 10 villages from Islamic State in north Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/world/middleeast/sinjar-isis-iraq-syria.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/u...isis-controlled-oil-fields-in-syria.html?_r=0

You know when the US was containing Japan in WWII, out of desperation they began using suicide bombers to attack us with too.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of
2008.

But you and the other Communists here said that Bush "went it alone?"

This means you were deliberately lying.

At the request of the Iraqi government the UNSC did not renew the authorization for 2009 as it has since President Bush requested the occupation mandate back in 2003. Without a new mandate the President was forced to negotiate the SOFA he signed in Nov. 2008 or else he would have had to remove all the troops by then end of 2008. Why wasn't he able to secure a long term presence or residual force? Because the Iraqis didn't want Americans in their country and wanted us out since 2003.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

So you are saying that the UN supported the initial invasion of Iraq and that you and the other leftists have been lying all along?

 

[BlindBoo]

Obama declined to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement

The source document is what I quoted. Negotiations continues throughout 2011. You were correct on one point, the President did pull the last troops out 13 days before the Dec 31 deadline.

 

[BlindBoo]

The United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of
2008.

But you and the other Communists here said that Bush "went it alone?"

This means you were deliberately lying.

At the request of the Iraqi government the UNSC did not renew the authorization for 2009 as it has since President Bush requested the occupation mandate back in 2003. Without a new mandate the President was forced to negotiate the SOFA he signed in Nov. 2008 or else he would have had to remove all the troops by then end of 2008. Why wasn't he able to secure a long term presence or residual force? Because the Iraqis didn't want Americans in their country and wanted us out since 2003.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

So you are saying that the UN supported the initial invasion of Iraq and that you and the other leftists have been lying all along?

No, the invading forces didn't request the mandate until after the occupation went FUBAR.

Your welcome.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, the invading forces didn't request the mandate until after the occupation went FUBAR.

Your welcome.

Well THAT sure isn't true, not that anything you post ever is.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BlindBoo]

No, the invading forces didn't request the mandate until after the occupation went FUBAR.

Your welcome.

Well THAT sure isn't true, not that anything you post ever is.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was the UNSCR that President Bush reneged on. Our ambassador got several of our allies to sign it by telling them we would come back to the council to ask for a separate resolution to authorize military action. There was no autorization for military action in that resolution. And the Mandate for the occupation is different altogether.

Another swing and a miss

You strike out a lot don't you?

 

[CowboyTed]

(1) Nobody writing on this message board has ever been hurt by "terrorists." In fact, nobody on this message board has even SEEN a terrorist.
(2) Everyone on this message board has been affected by our government's overreaction to terrorism. They play on your fears and insecurities to strip away your freedoms.

The OP abets this effort.

Gads, you're a fool.

Translation: reliable Democrat voter.

750,000 refugees in 14 years.
3 charged with terrorist acts.

 

[TooTall]

There is a disturbing number of elected officials in government contradicting each other on national security. Obama says the refuges are being vetted. The FBI director and congressional representatives say oh no they are not. Obama says ISIL is contained yet a prominent Democratic party senator and national security expert says oh no they are not.

Obama, "ISIL is contained"

Senator Feinstein, "I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding." When asked about the threat level Feinstein said, "I have never been more concerned. They just put out a video saying it is their intent to attack this country. And I think we have to be prepared."

Federal law requires Obama to consult with both the House and Senate judiciary committees on admitting refuges to the US and he must meet the burden of proof required for refugee status required by federal law. He can't just wave a wand and declare someone is a refuge.

ISIS has lost 25% of the territory it held at its peak. That is more than containment.

"Why did Obama declare ISIS 'contained' the day before Paris attack?
Washington (CNN)On Thursday, President Barack Obama declared in an interview that ISIS had been "contained," asserting that the terror cell had been stalled in Iraq and Syria.

The next day, ISIS claimed responsibility for one of the worst terror attacks in European history, shattering what had been a growing sense of momentum in the global fight against extremists and driving home the frightening ability of ISIS to inspire and possibly coordinate attacks outside their power base in Iraq and in Syria."
Obama declared ISIS 'contained' day before Paris attack - CNNPolitics.com

What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain. What we haveseveral not yet been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control structures. We've made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of foreign fighters."

When Obama said "we have contained them," it’s within a plainly defined scope: ISIS’s territorial ambitions in Iraq and Syria.

They have expanded into Africa, the US and Europe. That is not contained.

What territory do they control in Africa, the US or Europe?

Who said anything about controlling territory? They just attacked a Raddison Hotel in Mali and have killed hundreds of innocent people in several other African countries. Did you hear about the recent bloodbath in Paris?
Now wonder you are called BLIND BOO!