What to do About ISIS?

[USS Utah]

Been reading a lot of suggestions about what to do with ISIS and other terrorists. Some want to go all in to wipe them out while others seem to think simply bringing everybody home is the answer. The best course likely lies somewhere in between. After Iraq and Afghanistan, the last thing this country is prepared for is another long occupation. Containment may really be the answer, though probably a more muscular approach than what we have been doing.

I am a believer in airpower, but not in an airpower-only approach. Boots on the ground are necessary -- but they don't have to be American boots. If the indigenous troops are up to the task, great. Tbe bombing campaign has been successful, in no small part because it supported troops on the ground who have stopped and even rolled back ISIS gains.

We will likely have to adopt the methodology of the British after their failed Afghan campaign of 1839-42. In 1839, the Brits marched into the Stan to create buffer state between their Indian colony and Russia. In the end, even the friendly government they installed in Kabul turned on them and the British were massacred as they marched out in the winter if 1842.

After that, the Brits would return to Afghanistan a few more times, but each time they would conduct short, sharp campaigns and then leave. It is a strategy we could have adopted after 9/11, not just with Afghanistan but also with Iraq, a containment strategy which would have left terrorists and other bad guys rotting on the vine, even as we conducted occasional short, sharp campaigns to keep them in their boxes.

Rather than invading Iraq in 2003, we should have strengthened the box Saddam was already in. But, this kind of containment strategy requires patience, and after ten years of containing Saddam in the 1990s, we were already losing patience. Without the requisite patience, then, would a containment strategy be any more successful than a counterinsurgency strategy?

[LA Ute]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/jimmy-carter-obama-waited-long-isis/story?id=26050505

[NorthwestUteFan]

This is a tough situation, enhanced because ISIL is really more of an ideology than an actual State. It is more of a virtual movement with a goal of establishing a Homeland in a place they do not occupy.

"Boots on the Ground", or "Bomb them Back to the Stone Age" feel good to say, but won't really accomplish anything unless we are committed to a true occupation of a sovereign nation halfway around the world.

Perhaps one of the largest failures of intelligence was putting a Shia leader in charge of Iraq after Saddam was deposed, thinking that they would somehow mend a thousand years of division with the Sunnis and forget the previous forty plus years of oppression by Saddam's (Sunni) Baathist regime.

With a relative power vacuum among the minority Sunnis and facing oppression from the Shia majority, a new group of leaders stepped in. The most notorious was Abu Mussab al Zarqawi. He molded the IS group into a ferocious geurilla terrorist group, but also somehow convinced the young fighters themselves that they are doing wonderful things for the world, and that life is better with the Islamic State.

We saw just how fierce they can be in the two Battles for Fallujah. Those were 11 years ago. The goal now for IS is to have a glorious and final battle on their home lands vs the US (and Western countries). They use clips from US news programs in their propaganda, particularly from Fox News. They have sold the notion that the US is weak and impotent, and that we plan to put boots on IS lands, which will only lead to increased propaganda for IS.

Maybe they see a huge battle in their own territory as their version of the Battle of Armageddon. But whatever it is they want, we absolutely must not take the bait.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The US spent almost $30B training Iraqi forces to take over security in the country. But when the Iraqi forces faced IS, the Sunni forces would either refuse to fight and run away, or would take their weapons with them and join IS.

And Maliki (Shia) didn't do his country any favors by acting as a pawn for the Iranian government, often against Sunni interests, rather than doing what was necessary to unite his country.

The US has been heavily bombing IS sites for quite some time now, and is approaching 30,000 bombs dropped this year alone.

Unfortunately Pres Obama has treated IS with contempt (and acting on bad intelligence) when he called them "the JV team suiting up for the Lakers", and again when he said they were contained. Unfortunately it can be very hard to contain an idea like this, and a cell of only a few people can cause mass casualties and create major disruptions, particularly when they willingly carry out suicide missions.

On the other hand we have people on the other side of the political spectrum pledging to fight harder, to bomb them back to the stone age, and to put boots on the ground.

Dan Carlin compared this situation to Muhammed Ali vs George Foreman, and I think the comparison is valid. IS (Ali) swoops in and strikes with these tiny little jabs, and the US (Foreman) answers with a huge, powerful roundhouse and expends tremendous energy doing so. Foreman isn't equipped to okay the dance/feignt/jab game, but he can't ignore the jabs, because they sting and they add up over time and take their toll.

[LA Ute]

So, NWUF, are you saying that the United States is doing everything he can and should do about Isis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

So, NWUF, are you saying that the United States is doing everything he can and should do about Isis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably. But I am not entirely certain what else to do to go forward.

It is probably a good thing in the long run to let Russia and Iran take a leading roll in the battle against IS. But we will need to accept that their goals are not necessarily aligned with our goals, and their vision of a peaceful Middle East might not mirror our vision.

If not for the horrible human toll, I would almost want to wall it off and allow them to figure out their own natural borders, rather than keep redrawing the same post-Ottoman Empire borders (which were drawn by England, Russia, and the US after WWI).

[LA Ute]

Here's a Politico piece with various experts' ideas about what to do about ISIS. I don't know enough to endorse anyone of them, but none of them thinks the current effort is going well.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/paris-attacks-isil-strategy-obama-213382?cmpid=sf#ixzz3s8xCNzDj

[NorthwestUteFan]

Those are interesting opinions. It is very good to read info from all sides like that.

I am convinced that the army to defeat ISIL _MUST_ be Islamic. Preferably it would be a coalition of neighbor states including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, etc. IS and al Baghdadi thrive on a 'Forces of Allah vs the West' narrative, so keeping our distance seems wise.

Sunnis are radically apocalyptic, to the point where they celebrated the murder of over 150 schoolchildren in Peshawar region of Pakistan last year, and another 150 university students in Kenya this past April, because they have 'saved' the students from following the evil pathways of secular education.

Apocalyptic beliefs will allow them to blame any collateral casualties on the 'Christian invaders', and they will gain more sympathy from villages that previously opposed them.

It is worth noting that part of the instability in Syria can be attributed to climate change. Syria is 4 years into one of the worst droughts in recorded history. This drought has forced farmers and other rural people into the cities to compete for increasingly scarce resources. This has led to overcrowding and heightened tensions across the region. It was a powderkeg inside a nitroglycerin factory and it only needed a spark to start the conflagration.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The House passed, and the Senate fast-tracked, legislation to ban refugees from Syria. This is an incredibly small-minded move. The refugees coming to the US from Syria have to undergo extensive background checks and interviews, and the process requires between 18-24 months.

At least 7 (and potentially 8, based on analysis of a forged Syrian passport found near his body) of Paris attackers could have easily and legally flown to the USA 3 weeks ago and nobody would have noticed or cared. They were French or Belgian citizens and could have waltzed through Immigration at any airport with their EU passports. 20M+ people enter the US annually with a VISA waiver, which takes only 24 hrs to obtain.

Kicking out Syrian Refugees is on the order of attacking Brazil after Pearl Harbor. An exceptionally high percentage of the Syrian refugees are the VICTIMS of terror, not the terrorists themselves.

ISIL wants all of these people kept home in Syria so they can be forced to be part of the Caliphate.

[LA Ute]

The House passed, and the Senate fast-tracked, legislation to ban refugees from Syria. This is an incredibly small-minded move. The refugees coming to the US from Syria have to undergo extensive background checks and interviews, and the process requires between 18-24 months.

At least 7 (and potentially 8, based on analysis of a forged Syrian passport found near his body) of Paris attackers could have easily and legally flown to the USA 3 weeks ago and nobody would have noticed or cared. They were French or Belgian citizens and could have waltzed through Immigration at any airport with their EU passports. 20M+ people enter the US annually with a VISA waiver, which takes only 24 hrs to obtain.

Kicking out Syrian Refugees is on the order of attacking Brazil after Pearl Harbor. An exceptionally high percentage of the Syrian refugees are the VICTIMS of terror, not the terrorists themselves.

ISIL wants all of these people kept home in Syria so they can be forced to be part of the Caliphate.

I think we need to take the refugees. It's the American thing to do. I think you're a bit off on the facts, though. Didn't Congress require more stringent screening of the refugees, not that they be blocked? NY Times story:


WASHINGTON — The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to drastically tighten screening procedures on refugees from Syria, seizing on the creeping fear stemming from the Paris attacks and threatening to undermine President Obama’s Middle East policy.

The bill, which passed, 289 to 137, with nearly 50 Democrats supporting it, would require that the director of the F.B.I., the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence confirm that each applicant from Syria and Iraq poses no threat. The bill’s fate is uncertain in the Senate.

The White House called the demands “untenable” and said that the president would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

The sweeping majority of the House vote was a rejection of Mr. Obama’s moral appeal on the issue and the most vivid manifestation of the rapidly shifting politics within the United States, where Americans are at once war weary yet also frightened by the threats made by the Islamic State. More than two dozen governors, including one Democrat, have said they would try to block Syrian refugees from entering their state, and a recent Bloomberg poll shows that more than half of the nation agrees with them.

I don't know enough to say whether the screening is actually feasible. How long will it take to screen 10,000 people? Will we find the dozen or so ISIS types who are probably among them? I can see why people are nervous but don't know if this is the way to address the problem.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Right now they pull an application if any single thing shows up on the record. But if the FBI director or Sec of Homeland Security has to individually certify each applicant, then the program is effectively dead.

I was probably conflating tjr actions of Congress with the statements by 30+ governors who said they will not allow refugees.

Tightening up the Visa Waiver program would seem to be far, far more effective than tightening the already tight process on screening Refugees.

Of all the current methods for a potential terririst to enter the USA, perhaps the most difficult would be as a Syrian refugee.

[LA Ute]

Here's a piece by that right-wing nut Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-president-oh-bummer/2015/11/24/9ed001c6-92f4-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USS Utah]

I am seeing a lot of arguments and ideas regarding how to fight ISIS and how to deal with Syrian refugees that have a lot of emotional appeal. But that appeal does not mean that the arguments or ideas will be practical tactically, operationally or strategically.

In fighting ISIS and other terrorist organizations we first must decide who the enemy is. Is the enemy all Muslims or just those who choose to join terrorist groups? If it is the former, we are in serious trouble since Muslims greatly outnumber Americans. If it is the latter, then we must be careful not to alienate Muslims who might be neutral or even willing to ally with those who fight the terrorists. By alienating those who would at worst stay on the sidelines, we will only create more enemies to fight.

Denying entry to all refugees or carpet bombing the middle east have great emotional appeal, but on the battlefield will have little utility. We bombed enemy populations indiscriminately during the Second World War, but post war studies found that such bombing did not negatively impact the morale of those populations, or lead to the defeat of their nations. What won the war was defeating the enemy on the battlefield.

Before you can defeat or destroy the enemy on the battlefield you first have to identify him. In a conventional war this is made easier because the enemy is wearing uniforms and traveling in marked vehicles. On an unconventional battlefield, which is the kind we face now, the enemy is deliberately hiding among the local populations.

In counterinsurgency doctrine, the local population is considered the center of gravity, or the prize to be won away from the insurgents. The goal is to separate the population from the insurgents to protect them.and to persuade them to support the government. You can't do that if you are bombing or attacking indiscriminately.

Counterinsurgency may not be a viable strategy, if only when used by an occupying power, and certainly when that power lacks the commitment to execute that strategy over the long haul -- meaning, over a period of decades. But when it comes to operating on the battlefield against insurgents, counterinsurgency doctrine will be effective where conventional tactics, doctrine and strategy will not be.

Find, fix and kill. That is what we want to do with the enemy. To do that we must separate them from the population. Once we do that, lethal force becomes much more effective.

[LA Ute]

From a speech by Hilary Benn, Britain's Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons. This is the Labour Party's foreign policy spokesman. The last two paragraphs are the key ones:

*****

Now Mr Speaker, no-one in this debate doubts the deadly serious threat we face from Daesh and what they do, although sometimes we find it hard to live with the reality. We know that in June four gay men were thrown off the fifth storey of a building in the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor. We know that in August the 82-year-old guardian of the antiquities of Palmyra, Professor Khaled al-Assad, was beheaded, and his headless body was hung from a traffic light. And we know that in recent weeks there has been the discovery of mass graves in Sinjar, one said to contain the bodies of older Yazidi women murdered by Daesh because they were judged too old to be sold for sex.

We know they have killed 30 British tourists in Tunisia, 224 Russian holidaymakers on a plane, 178 people in suicide bombings in Beirut, Ankara and Suruc. 130 people in Paris including those young people in the Bataclan whom Daesh – in trying to justify their bloody slaughter – called ‘apostates engaged in prostitution and vice’. If it had happened here, they could have been our children. And we know that they are plotting more attacks.

So the question for each of us – and for our national security – is this: given that we know what they are doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self-defence against those who are planning these attacks? Can we really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security when it is our responsibility? And if we do not act, what message would that send about our solidarity with those countries that have suffered so much – including Iraq and our ally, France.

Now, France wants us to stand with them and President Hollande – the leader of our sister socialist party – has asked for our assistance and help. And as we are undertaking airstrikes in Iraq where Daesh’s hold has been reduced and we are already doing everything but engage in airstrikes in Syria – should we not play our full part?

It has been argued in the debate that airstrikes achieve nothing. Not so. Look at how Daesh’s forward march has been halted in Iraq. The House will remember that, 14 months ago, people were saying: ‘they are almost at the gates of Baghdad’. And that is why we voted to respond to the Iraqi government’s request for help to defeat them. Look at how their military capacity and their freedom of movement has been put under pressure. Ask the Kurds about Sinjar and Kobani. Now of course, air strikes alone will not defeat Daesh – but they make a difference. Because they are giving them a hard time – and it is making it more difficult for them to expand their territory.

Now, I share the concerns that have been expressed this evening about potential civilian casualties. However, unlike Daesh, none of us today act with the intent to harm civilians. Rather, we act to protect civilians from Daesh – who target innocent people.

Now on the subject of ground troops to defeat Daesh, there’s been much debate about the figure of 70,000 and the government must, I think, better explain that. But we know that most of them are currently engaged in fighting President Assad. But I’ll tell you what else we know, is whatever the number – 70,000, 40,000, 80,000 – the current size of the opposition forces mean the longer we leave taking action, the longer Daesh will have to decrease that number. And so to suggest, Mr Speaker, that airstrikes should not take place until the Syrian civil war has come to an end is, I think, to miss the urgency of the terrorist threat that Daesh poses to us and others, and I think misunderstands the nature and objectives of the extension to airstrikes that is being proposed. And of course we should take action. It is not a contradiction between the two to cut off Daesh’s support in the form of money and fighters and weapons, and of course we should give humanitarian aid, and of course we should offer shelter to more refugees including in this country and yes we should commit to play our full part in helping to rebuild Syria when the war is over.

Now I accept that there are legitimate arguments, and we have heard them in the debate, for not taking this form of action now. And it is also clear that many members have wrestled, and who knows, in the time that is left, may still be wrestling, with what the right thing to do is. But I say the threat is now, and there are rarely, if ever, perfect circumstances in which to deploy military forces. Now we heard very powerful testimony from the honorable member for Eddisbury earlier when she quoted that passage, and I just want to read what Karwan Jamal Tahir, the Kurdistan regional government high representative in London, said last week (http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/for-us-kurds-western-intervention-is-a-lifeline/) and I quote: ‘Last June, Daesh captured one third of Iraq over night and a few months later attacked the Kurdistan region. Swift airstrikes by Britain, America and France, and the actions of our own Peshmerga, saved us. We now have a border of 650 miles with Daesh. We’ve pushed them back, and recently captured Sinjar. Again, Western airstrikes were vital. But the old border between Iraq and Syria does not exist. Daesh fighters come and go across this fictional boundary.’ And that is the argument Mr Speaker, for treating the two countries as one, if we are serious about defeating Daesh.

Now Mr Speaker, I hope the house will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House. As a party we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have – and we never should – walk by on the other side of the road.

And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion tonight.
[CHEERS]

*****

I'd like to hear something like those last two paragraphs from our current Commander in Chief or Secretary of State.

Here's the entire speech -- go to about 12:00 for the stirring part:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evoJVk03rN0

[LA Ute]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj8heYJebHY

[LA Ute]

This helps see the complexity of the challenge:

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/new-faces-of-terror/

[GarthUte]

This is a tough situation, enhanced because ISIL is really more of an ideology than an actual State. It is more of a virtual movement with a goal of establishing a Homeland in a place they do not occupy.

"Boots on the Ground", or "Bomb them Back to the Stone Age" feel good to say, but won't really accomplish anything unless we are committed to a true occupation of a sovereign nation halfway around the world.

Perhaps one of the largest failures of intelligence was putting a Shia leader in charge of Iraq after Saddam was deposed, thinking that they would somehow mend a thousand years of division with the Sunnis and forget the previous forty plus years of oppression by Saddam's (Sunni) Baathist regime.

With a relative power vacuum among the minority Sunnis and facing oppression from the Shia majority, a new group of leaders stepped in. The most notorious was Abu Mussab al Zarqawi. He molded the IS group into a ferocious geurilla terrorist group, but also somehow convinced the young fighters themselves that they are doing wonderful things for the world, and that life is better with the Islamic State.

We saw just how fierce they can be in the two Battles for Fallujah. Those were 11 years ago. The goal now for IS is to have a glorious and final battle on their home lands vs the US (and Western countries). They use clips from US news programs in their propaganda, particularly from Fox News. They have sold the notion that the US is weak and impotent, and that we plan to put boots on IS lands, which will only lead to increased propaganda for IS.

Maybe they see a huge battle in their own territory as their version of the Battle of Armageddon. But whatever it is they want, we absolutely must not take the bait.

I don't remember on which radio station I heard it, but there was a former Green Beret who said what you said about ISIS...that it was more an ideology than a state. His thoughts were to allow troops to engage with them on the battlefield and give them a good ol' fashioned butt kicking, then only stick around long enough to curb stomp them a bit more, just for the sake of humiliation. Then leave. No nation building, no financial aid to rebuild; give them nothing. If they start trouble, come in and humiliate them again. Repeat as necessary.

He pointed out that it won't kill the ideology, but what it would do is cause fewer and fewer to join the ISIS die hards each time there is a humiliating and crushing defeat on the battlefield. His belief was that eventually - and it wouldn't take too many campaigns really - the rest of the area will get tired of the ISIS types and the problem will take care of itself.

I'm not sure how effective that would be, but it would be something that would expose ISIS as the cowards that they really are, as they would have to fight or shut knock off that crap. This Green Beret said that ISIS is a bully and should be treated as such.

[Ma'ake]

ISIS is the undesirable result of previous military campaigns, the aspects we completely ignored.

ISIS needs to be defeated militarily in Iraq and Syria, but I think Ted Cruz' call for carpet bombing them is a horrendously bad idea. (He can't be that dumb, can he?) This is exactly what ISIS is trying to provoke, an overreaction that will catalyze great sympathy for them and their cause, among 1 Billion Muslims.

We're getting reports from disaffected ISIS "converts" that life in the Islamic State is increasingly miserable. The disenfranchised need to spread the word in the Islamic world, moderate Muslims need to describe a different, better path.

The challenge for moderate Muslims is that the West - mostly the US - has been playing the role of the oppressive Infidels, perfectly. Within Islam, moderates are increasingly viewed as dupes of the West (at best).

If we're not smart about this, we're going to have a long term, multi-generational conflict on our hands.

[LA Ute]

ISIS is the undesirable result of previous military campaigns, the aspects we completely ignored.

You recognize, of course, how hotly debated this premise is? :fight:

[LA Ute]

Gallup: Americans Name Terrorism as No. 1 U.S. Problemhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/187655/americans-name-terrorism-no-problem.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

[Ma'ake]

You recognize, of course, how hotly debated this premise is? :fight:

Hmmmm... I guess Muslims just have a weird way of treating liberators? ;)

The premise is simplistic, but all that resistance we encountered in Fallujah? Wasn't a spontaneous, one time event, didn't appear out of thin air. Pleasing Allah is a potent motivator.

ISIS has been very successful in speaking Islam-ese to Muslim youth around the world, exploiting their psyches of feeling disrespected and marginalized.

We need to avoid feeding that narrative, we need to give moderate Muslims a foothold in their battle for "hearts and minds".

Fighting ISIS is like trying to smash mercury balls from a thermometer. If we carpet bomb everyone - including all the non-combatants - in ISIS held areas, be prepared for radicalized Islamic youth in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.

[LA Ute]

Hmmmm... I guess Muslims just have a weird way of treating liberators? ;)

The premise is simplistic, but all that resistance we encountered in Fallujah? Wasn't a spontaneous, one time event, didn't appear out of thin air. Pleasing Allah is a potent motivator.

ISIS has been very successful in speaking Islam-ese to Muslim youth around the world, exploiting their psyches of feeling disrespected and marginalized.

We need to avoid feeding that narrative, we need to give moderate Muslims a foothold in their battle for "hearts and minds".

Fighting ISIS is like trying to smash mercury balls from a thermometer. If we carpet bomb everyone - including all the non-combatants - in ISIS held areas, be prepared for radicalized Islamic youth in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.

I'm no proponent of carpet-bombing or boots on the ground. I'm just quibbling with the premise that G.W. Bush et al. "created" ISIS, which is more of a Democratic National Committee talking point than a serious bit of foreign policy analysis, IMO.

[U-Ute]

I'm no proponent of carpet-bombing or boots on the ground. I'm just quibbling with the premise that G.W. Bush et al. "created" ISIS, which is more of a Democratic National Committee talking point than a serious bit of foreign policy analysis, IMO.

True. The idea that W somehow singlehandedly caused the rise of ISIS is overly simplistic. They arose from years of miscalculated efforts by the west. The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussen was just the latest significant event.

[USS Utah]

We're getting reports from disaffected ISIS "converts" that life in the Islamic State is increasingly miserable. The disenfranchised need to spread the word in the Islamic world, moderate Muslims need to describe a different, better path.

If so, then ISIS is making the same mistake al Qaeda in Iraq made in its attempts to create a caliphate in Al Anbar province. This led to the Anbar Awakening, which the so called Surge sought to extend into Baghdad, not without some success (the basic strategy in Iraq was summed up by General Daniel P. Bolger in his recent book, Why We Lost, as "al Qaeda out, Sunnis in, Iraqis in control). The Awakening, however, was squandered by the Maliki government which continued to oppress the Sunni minority in Iraq. Maliki thus pushed back out those Sunnis who had opted in to support the government. This contributed to the rise of ISIS. We couldn't just remove Maliki, or any other Shiite who was oppressing the Sunnis because we had given sovereignty back to Iraq. Still, we did have a chance to get rid of Maliki when he lost, however narrowly, an election.

Invading Iraq was a mistake, which we compounded by how badly we managed the conflict after the fall of Saddam.

[NorthwestUteFan]

True. The idea that W somehow singlehandedly caused the rise of ISIS is overly simplistic. They arose from years of miscalculated efforts by the west. The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussen was just the latest significant event.

Saddam held them in check. Sometimes it takes a very bad man to contain an even worse situation. W merely pulled the plug and the worse elements flooded in to fill the void.

[LA Ute]

Saddam held them in check. Sometimes it takes a very bad man to contain an even worse situation. W merely pulled the plug and the worse elements flooded in to fill the void.

There wasn't a void until President Obama decided to...oh, never mind.

[NorthwestUteFan]

There wasn't a void until President Obama decided to...oh, never mind.

ISIL were the 'insurgents' we fought in the Second Battle of Fallujah. That was in 2004. What could President Obama have done back then as a first-term junior Senator to cause the situation?

[LA Ute]

ISIL were the 'insurgents' we fought in the Second Battle of Fallujah. That was in 2004. What could President Obama have done back then as a first-term junior Senator to cause the situation?

We're not going to get anywhere with this discussion. Many people, smart and well-informed people, believe that the United States should have pressed harder to keep sufficient forces in Iraq to preserve what had been achieved there. I know what the response to that is. Let's just not go there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

The Kurdish Peshmerga is fighting the good fight and are using ISIL's religion against them. The fighters believe they are fighting in the name of Islam, and they will go to a glorious Heaven if they die in battle.

With one catch . If thry are killed by a woman they will not go to Heaven. It is even worse if they are killed by a Christian woman.

So the Kurds have built a decent size division (500) made up of only women. They use propaganda to great effect, posting pictures of female Kurdish soldiers with statements like "She killed over 100 Daesh..."

This has to be terrifying for young men who see women as little more than personal,breeding, playthings.

And the women are fierce. For obvious reasons they will refuse to allow themselves to be captured. They will fight to the death, and save the last bullet for themselves.

This is an interesting angle. And it shows just how backward and dogmatic ISIL can be.

More info here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-are-afraid-of-girls-kurdish-female-fighters-believe-they-have-an-unexpected-advantage-fighting-a6766776.html

[NorthwestUteFan]

We're not going to get anywhere with this discussion. Many people, smart and well-informed people, believe that the United States should have pressed harder to keep sufficient forces in Iraq to preserve what had been achieved there. I know what the response to that is. Let's just not go there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are throwing cheap shots and complaining when I show you to be wrong.

Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes, second to "Let's go fight a ground war in Iraq, it will be easy!", was dismantling the Iraqi army (esp. the Republican Guard). Instead of sending them home, they should have kept them functional, paid their salary, fed them, and charged them to keep the peace and rebuild their country.

[LA Ute]

You are throwing cheap shots and complaining when I show you to be wrong.

Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes, second to "Let's go fight a ground war in Iraq, it will be easy!", was dismantling the Iraqi army (esp. the Republican Guard). Instead of sending them home, they should have kept them functional, paid their salary, fed them, and charged them to keep the peace and rebuild their country.

We just disagree. No biggie. I didn't mean any cheap shots. (I'm actually surprised you feel that I did.). It's just that both sides of that issue have entrenched positions, and I'm kind of sick of the discussion. Besides, I like you and have no desire to get into a political debate with you that's not going to go anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

We just disagree. No biggie. I didn't mean any cheap shots. (I'm actually surprised you feel that I did.). It's just that both sides of that issue have entrenched positions, and I'm kind of sick of the discussion. Besides, I like you and have no desire to get into a political debate with you that's not going to go anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One thing I think we can agree on: this situation was made over by a bunch of sociopaths on both sides of the aisle who use the situation to try and score political points and I don't see anyone on the horizon with the political will to change that. Our election process all but ensures that this will continue.

[LA Ute]

One thing I think we can agree on: this situation was made over by a bunch of sociopaths on both sides of the aisle who use the situation to try and score political points and I don't see anyone on the horizon with the political will to change that. Our election process all but ensures that this will continue.

I agree.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Another problem is that we seem to live in a political dichotomy, with only two 'official' opposing sides.

But the countries who are being affected by ISIL have multiple factions struggling for power, and multiple factions within those factions. And the way we view those factions is heavily influenced by our political ties to other groups in the region.

One example is the Kurds. We seem to have a very healthy reciprocal relationship with the Kurdish peoples in the various countries. The US would likely support the creation of a single Kurdish nation carved out from Kurdish-held territories in Iraq, Syria, etc. But our strong ally Turkey is vehemently opposed to this, so we stick with the arbitrary borders drawn up after WWI (borders drawn by USA, UK, USSR, and France which supported their various interests in the former Ottoman Empire).

In Syria we have a ruthless dictator (Assad) doing horrible things to his own people. But when compared to most of the other factions in hid country, he seems to be the only same person in the room with dozens of other factions trying to murder each other.

[USS Utah]

We're not going to get anywhere with this discussion. Many people, smart and well-informed people, believe that the United States should have pressed harder to keep sufficient forces in Iraq to preserve what had been achieved there. I know what the response to that is. Let's just not go there.

What we achieved with the surge was to give the Iraqis a window of opportunity for political reform while we exited gracefully. Maliki was actively undermining what had been achieved before Obama took the oath of office. At best, a residual force would have kept us from being taken totally by surprise by the rise of ISIS in the summer of 2014.


Besides, I like you and have no desire to get into a political debate with you that's not going to go anywhere.

It really shouldn't be a political debate in the first place. If we can't put politics aside we are doomed to learn the wrong lessons, IMHO.

[LA Ute]

It really shouldn't be a political debate in the first place. If we can't put politics aside we are doomed to learn the wrong lessons, IMHO.

That would be fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Dan Lamothe on Chuck Hagel's book.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/19/why-former-pentagon-chief-chuck-hagels-coming-out-against-the-white-house-matters/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

The Islamic State creates a new type of jihadist: Part terrorist, part gangster

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-islamic-state-creates-a-new-type-of-jihadist-part-terrorist-part-gangster/2015/12/20/1a3d65da-9bae-11e5-aca6-1ae3be6f06d2_story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

I think the most accurate way I can describe President Obama, after reading far too many accounts from former loyalists and very bright people is that he is a Professor President. He entered office with many laudable ideologies but when reality struck and continues to strike he is unable to depart from those ideologies and thus bumbles so many seemingly clear things. In other words he is unable to do the right thing because of what he thinks should be the right thing.

I for one am tired of the incessant citing of the massive gaffes of GWB as an excuse. That is the mess inherited and the mess that he ran to inherit, none of it was a surprise. We can't operate on how things should be, but rather how they are. That bell has been rung. So yes it would be ideal if GWB didn't destabilize the region (duh) but we can't operate off that ideal because that isn't how things are. Our leaders should recognize that and stop shrugging their shoulders or be surprised with what is happening.

I harped on this before as well but they all need to get out of rhetoric in claiming victory or saying that terrorism has been contained. We also shouldn't be telling our enemy where our line is drawn in what we will do. It is fine internally to say, "We will not put troops on the ground..." But it doesn't need to be said.

I won't even get into the idiocy and damage the right is doing in the debates to fuel terrorism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

I think the most accurate way I can describe President Obama, after reading far too many accounts from former loyalists and very bright people is that he is a Professor President. He entered office with many laudable ideologies but when reality struck and continues to strike he is unable to depart from those ideologies and thus bumbles so many seemingly clear things. In other words he is unable to do the right thing because of what he thinks should be the right thing.

I for one am tired of the incessant citing of the massive gaffes of GWB as an excuse. That is the mess inherited and the mess that he ran to inherit, none of it was a surprise. We can't operate on how things should be, but rather how they are. That bell has been rung. So yes it would be ideal if GWB didn't destabilize the region (duh) but we can't operate off that ideal because that isn't how things are. Our leaders should recognize that and stop shrugging their shoulders or be surprised with what is happening.

I harped on this before as well but they all need to get out of rhetoric in claiming victory or saying that terrorism has been contained. We also shouldn't be telling our enemy where our line is drawn in what we will do. It is fine internally to say, "We will not put troops on the ground..." But it doesn't need to be said.

I won't even get into the idiocy and damage the right is doing in the debates to fuel terrorism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose you now believe we should have left Saddam in power and allowed him to thumb his nose at UN weapons inspections and no-fly zones. He should have been left free to spend billions on arms and weaponry after completely disregarding all restrictions placed on him after the original Gulf War? So we didn't destabilize the fawkin' G.D. crazy ass region.

[USS Utah]

I suppose you now believe we should have left Saddam in power and allowed him to thumb his nose at UN weapons inspections and no-fly zones. He should have been left free to spend billions on arms and weaponry after completely disregarding all restrictions placed on him after the original Gulf War? So we didn't destabilize the fawkin' G.D. crazy ass region.

I think there were options short of invading, removing Saddam from power and occupying Iraq.

The sanctions regime was eroding, and absolutely needed to be strengthened. And we had to get inspectors back into Iraq. There were also military operations short of invasion and occupation, but would have been steps employed more than once over time to keep Saddam in his box.

[Devildog]

I think there were options short of invading, removing Saddam from power and occupying Iraq.

The sanctions regime was eroding, and absolutely needed to be strengthened. And we had to get inspectors back into Iraq. There were also military operations short of invasion and occupation, but would have been steps employed more than once over time to keep Saddam in his box.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Where were these voices then?

[Rocker Ute]

I suppose you now believe we should have left Saddam in power and allowed him to thumb his nose at UN weapons inspections and no-fly zones. He should have been left free to spend billions on arms and weaponry after completely disregarding all restrictions placed on him after the original Gulf War? So we didn't destabilize the fawkin' G.D. crazy ass region.

I might also suppose you didn't read the rest of what I wrote.

The point is we can sit around and whine about what happened in the past, but we can't change it and need to operate on how things actually are, not how we'd like them to be. Obama seems to be incapable of doing just that.

[Devildog]

I might also suppose you didn't read the rest of what I wrote.

The point is we can sit around and whine about what happened in the past, but we can't change it and need to operate on how things actually are, not how we'd like them to be. Obama seems to be incapable of doing just that.

What exactly was your commitment in Iraq?

https://www.funker530.com/u-s-soldier-verbally-annihilates-dirtbag-iraqi-police/

[Rocker Ute]

What exactly was your commitment in Iraq?

https://www.funker530.com/u-s-soldier-verbally-annihilates-dirtbag-iraqi-police/

I can correctly identify it on a map 50% of the time. What exactly do you think I'm being critical of?

[Devildog]

I can correctly identify it on a map 50% of the time. What exactly do you think I'm being critical of?

Saddam could not be allowed to continue in power. His regime was oppressive and corrupt and he was an avowed enemy of the U.S. and was shooting missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. We did what we had to do. He WAS VIOLATING EVERY CONDITION OF THE CEASE FIRE ARMISTICE THAT ENDED THE ORIGINAL GULF WAR.

ISIS is a result of Obama's weak ass. We should have left an American reaction force large enough to have steadied the new Iraqi army when they were first bloodied. If we had done this then, there would be no ISIS sanctuary there now. We walked away from our entire commitment there and left nothing to insure that what we had invested succeeded. He wanted to claim that he got us out of there. Well he did at a cost of everything that was worked for.

[Rocker Ute]

Saddam could not be allowed to continue in power. His regime was oppressive and corrupt and he was an avowed enemy of the U.S. and was shooting missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. We did what we had to do. He WAS VIOLATING EVERY CONDITION OF THE CEASE FIRE ARMISTICE THAT ENDED THE ORIGINAL GULF WAR.

ISIS is a result of Obama's weak ass. We should have left an American reaction force large enough to have steadied the new Iraqi army when they were first bloodied. If we had done this then, there would be no ISIS sanctuary there now. We walked away from our entire commitment there and left nothing to insure that what we had invested succeeded. He wanted to claim that he got us out of there. Well he did at a cost of everything that was worked for.

You do realize I'm being critical of Obama about his foreign policy and handling of Iraq right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

You do realize I'm being critical of Obama about his foreign policy and handling of Iraq right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm critical of Obama too. I believe he is a complete pussy. Seriously weak. I despise that America's foreign policy appears to the entire world as impotence. This guy is Urkel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTeOcVelYi0

[LA Ute]

Islamic State’s Deep, Poisonous Roots

http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-states-deep-poisonous-roots-1451684170


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Saddam could not be allowed to continue in power. His regime was oppressive and corrupt and he was an avowed enemy of the U.S. and was shooting missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. We did what we had to do. He WAS VIOLATING EVERY CONDITION OF THE CEASE FIRE ARMISTICE THAT ENDED THE ORIGINAL GULF WAR.

ISIS is a result of Obama's weak ass. We should have left an American reaction force large enough to have steadied the new Iraqi army when they were first bloodied. If we had done this then, there would be no ISIS sanctuary there now. We walked away from our entire commitment there and left nothing to insure that what we had invested succeeded. He wanted to claim that he got us out of there. Well he did at a cost of everything that was worked for.

The ISIS sanctuary would be in Syria...and/or Egypt, and/or Libya, and/or Tunisia, and/or...

How are we supposed to turn over a democracy to the Iraqi people, as long as we're babysitting them?

You need to blame this one on the Cheney / Bush Administration, who asserted it would "months, if not weeks", and "we'll be greeted as liberators".

Long term occupation of nations is precisely the kind of economic drag our global economic enemy (China) would prefer. At some point, the training wheels need to be taken off, and people need to be accountable for their own freedom. If they're unwilling, or dysfunctionally divided themselves, do we just babysit them indefinitely?

Remember when we brought the Shah out of retirement to take over Iran, after we & the Brits deposed Mohammed Mosadegh in 1954? How well did that intervention go?

*Because* of that intervention, 25 years later, Iran had the Islamic Revolution and we had the American embassy in Teheran turned into a hostage center, until Reagan sold weapons to the Iranians, so he could get money to fund terrorists trying to overthrow a different government, Nicaragua.

(In turn, how did *that* intervention go? Daniel Ortega is the elected president of Nicaragua, which is a whole lot more stable and safe than the nation the Contras were operating from, Honduras, which has turned into a hell-hole.)

To a hammer, everything else is a nail, and military guys would have us in a shoot out with the Chinese in the South China Sea, right now.

We would need the draft and enormous amounts of tax money to play whack-a-mole in the Islamic world *and* be battling the Chinese, *and* be fighting in Ukraine, *and* be engaged in Georgia, etc.

[Devildog]

The ISIS sanctuary would be in Syria...and/or Egypt, and/or Libya, and/or Tunisia, and/or...

How are we supposed to turn over a democracy to the Iraqi people, as long as we're babysitting them?

You need to blame this one on the Cheney / Bush Administration, who asserted it would "months, if not weeks", and "we'll be greeted as liberators".

Long term occupation of nations is precisely the kind of economic drag our global economic enemy (China) would prefer. At some point, the training wheels need to be taken off, and people need to be accountable for their own freedom. If they're unwilling, or dysfunctionally divided themselves, do we just babysit them indefinitely?

Remember when we brought the Shah out of retirement to take over Iran, after we & the Brits deposed Mohammed Mosadegh in 1954? How well did that intervention go?

*Because* of that intervention, 25 years later, Iran had the Islamic Revolution and we had the American embassy in Teheran turned into a hostage center, until Reagan sold weapons to the Iranians, so he could get money to fund terrorists trying to overthrow a different government, Nicaragua.

(In turn, how did *that* intervention go? Daniel Ortega is the elected president of Nicaragua, which is a whole lot more stable and safe than the nation the Contras were operating from, Honduras, which has turned into a hell-hole.)

To a hammer, everything else is a nail, and military guys would have us in a shoot out with the Chinese in the South China Sea, right now.

We would need the draft and enormous amounts of tax money to play whack-a-mole in the Islamic world *and* be battling the Chinese, *and* be fighting in Ukraine, *and* be engaged in Georgia, etc.

This is a different spin on history. Did you think it a coincidence that the hostages were released the day before Reagan took office? Long before any Iran -Contra scandal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfKGUF9uDxU


I'll admit... I like the hammer and nail analogy. To the Romans... a desert called peace... lasted a thousand years.

[Devildog]

To a hammer, everything else is a nail, and military guys would have us in a shoot out with the Chinese in the South China Sea, right now.

Us? Or the rhetorical us? The military guys you speak of are the ones that do the fighting, bleeding, and dying away from home and family... it sure isn't most of, us. The real sacrifices are made by a mighty few.

I'm posting this one just because I want another Reagan. We could sure as hell use another leader like him again. Especially coming on the heels of the embarrassing, America apologizing, weakling that has been running the show recently.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk

[concerned]

Us? Or the rhetorical us? The military guys you speak of are the ones that do the fighting, bleeding, and dying away from home and family... it sure isn't most of, us. The real sacrifices are made by a mighty few.

I'm posting this one just because I want another Reagan. We could sure as hell use another leader like him again. Especially coming on the heels of the embarrassing, America apologizing, weakling that has been running the show recently.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpH5L8zCtSk

What do you think Reagan would have done against ISIS? Reagan committed American troops to be part of a peacekeeping force in the Lebanese civil war. After more than 200 Marines were blown up in their barracks, he immediately withdrew all troops and cancelled the mission. He was accused of being a "weakling" and "cutting and running." But he realized the folly of putting American soldiers in harms way for an ill-defined mission. The only other time he committed American troops was Granada.

Sounds like you would have been one of those accusing Reagan of being a weakling.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/when-reagan-cut-and-run/

[LA Ute]

I don't think FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or either Bush would have called ISIS the "jayvee" or said that ISIS is "contained" when it clearly wasn't. I don't think any of them would have described the problem primarily as a law enforcement matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

Agreed those were very poor word choices. What policy difference would you make or should he have made if he had not said them?

P s. You forgot Clinton. Have you erased him from your memory?

[LA Ute]

Agreed those were very poor word choices. What policy difference would you make or should he have made if he had not said them?

P s. You forgot Clinton. Have you erased him from your memory?

I didn't forget Clinton. Or Carter. I was listing those presidents who represented the USA's post-WWII internationalist foreign policy tradition. Clinton only flirted verbally and half-heartedly with that approach. Carter, Clinton and now Obama (especially Obama) are McGovernites. That's not a pejorative, just a description.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

I didn't forget Clinton. Or Carter. I was listing those presidents who represented the USA's post-WWII internationalist foreign policy tradition. Clinton only flirted verbally and half-heartedly with that approach. Carter, Clinton and now Obama (especially Obama) are McGovernites. That's not a pejorative, just a description.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Clinton not an internationalist? You either have erased him from your memory or you have a very specific and exclusive definition of internationalist to exclude him from your definition. Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. You are just using a label of McGovernite (whatever you tell us that means.)

Obama and the US military obviously underestimated the threat from ISIS, and were slow to react. But it is not clear to me that the strategy has not turned a corner. ISIS has significantly less territory than it had a year ago. the Kurds have taken the supply route to Mosul and significant territory in Iraq and Syria near the Turkish border. If the Iraqi's retake Mosul this year after retaking Remadi, esp. without any Shia militia participation, that will be huge.

ISIS is becoming contained geographically; containing the ability to export terrorism to Europe or the US is much more difficult, and probably can never be completely achieved, esp. without a political solution in Syria.

[LA Ute]

Clinton not an internationalist? You either have erased him from your memory or you have a very specific and exclusive definition of internationalist to exclude him from your definition. Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. You are just using a label of McGovernite (whatever you tell us that means.)

Obama and the US military obviously underestimated the threat from ISIS, and were slow to react. But it is not clear to me that the strategy has not turned a corner. ISIS has significantly less territory than it had a year ago. the Kurds have taken the supply route to Mosul and significant territory in Iraq and Syria near the Turkish border. If the Iraqi's retake Mosul this year after retaking Remadi, esp. without any Shia militia participation, that will be huge.

ISIS is becoming contained geographically; containing the ability to export terrorism to Europe or the US is much more difficult, and probably can never be completely achieved, esp. without a political solution in Syria.

I think Clinton was a half-hearted internationalist. I don't mean McGovernite as a pejorative (you probably voted for him, I'm guessing). Maybe "non-interventionist" is the best term.

Anyway, here's a pretty objective report on Obama's foreign policy going into his final year in office. Looking at his four main objectives -- "a nuclear deal with Iran, restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, a global climate-change agreement and a new trade pact with Asia," wouldn't you agree that the first three of those are goals George mcGovern would have loved?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/president-obamas-recent-foreign-policy-strides-a-fragile-legacy-1450624694

[concerned]

I think Clinton was a half-hearted internationalist. I don't mean McGovernite as a pejorative (you probably voted for him, I'm guessing). Maybe "non-interventionist" is the best term.

Anyway, here's a pretty objective report on Obama's foreign policy going into his final year in office. Looking at his four main objectives -- "a nuclear deal with Iran, restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, a global climate-change agreement and a new trade pact with Asia," wouldn't you agree that the first three of those are goals George mcGovern would have loved?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/president-obamas-recent-foreign-policy-strides-a-fragile-legacy-1450624694

Not only did I vote for McGovern, I campaigned for him door to door in Manchester, New Hampshire before the N. H. primary (I was 18; you have to forgive my youth; still, I couldn't vote for Nixon). But many many other people love the four objectives you lay out; those objectives may have been radical in 1972, but not 2015. The Republican Senate did the heavy lifting on the trade pact, esp. Orrin Hatch.

[LA Ute]

Not only did I vote for McGovern, I campaigned for him door to door in Manchester, New Hampshire before the N. H. primary (I was 18; you have to forgive my youth; still, I couldn't vote for Nixon). But many many other people love the four objectives you lay out; those objectives may have been radical in 1972, but not 2015. The Republican Senate did the heavy lifting on the trade pact, esp. Orrin Hatch.

But I was talking about the first 3, not the trade agreement. Foul!

I voted for Tricky Dick in 1972. The first election I could vote in. I made it by three weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Clinton not an internationalist? You either have erased him from your memory or you have a very specific and exclusive definition of internationalist to exclude him from your definition. Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. You are just using a label of McGovernite (whatever you tell us that means.)

Obama and the US military obviously underestimated the threat from ISIS, and were slow to react. But it is not clear to me that the strategy has not turned a corner. ISIS has significantly less territory than it had a year ago. the Kurds have taken the supply route to Mosul and significant territory in Iraq and Syria near the Turkish border. If the Iraqi's retake Mosul this year after retaking Remadi, esp. without any Shia militia participation, that will be huge.

ISIS is becoming contained geographically; containing the ability to export terrorism to Europe or the US is much more difficult, and probably can never be completely achieved, esp. without a political solution in Syria.

The thinking that Isis is being contained geographically is a dangerous one, I hope our foreign policy experts and leadership don't think that way any more.

Even if the contain the current geographic bounds of the major ISIS action, it will fracture and spread out in a much more smaller cell sort of operation. They are social media savvy and we have seen a number of ISIS motivated incidents in the US already. That part will get worse.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

The thinking that Isis is being contained geographically is a dangerous one, I hope our foreign policy experts and leadership don't think that way any more.

Even if the contain the current geographic bounds of the major ISIS action, it will fracture and spread out in a much more smaller cell sort of operation. They are social media savvy and we have seen a number of ISIS motivated incidents in the US already. That part will get worse.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a state or a caliphate, it is becoming more contained than it was; it isn't expanding into new territory, but is retreating. But you are right, containing ISIS is like squeezing jello in your hand. It is going to leak out somewhere.

[NorthwestUteFan]

As a state or a caliphate, it is becoming more contained than it was; it isn't expanding into new territory, but is retreating. But you are right, containing ISIS is like squeezing jello in your hand. It is going to leak out somewhere.
This is true. But it is relatively easy to clamp down on their sources of funding via freezing international banking transfers, and bombing/controlling their oil supply trucking routes as the US, France, and the Kurds have done recently.

The other thing that needs to happen (and IS happening) is to let the world at large know how horribly ISIL is treating the existing residents of the areas, and also what happens to the people who join JAIL and move to the region (particularly the women, who essentially get forced into marriages to be sexual slaves). If the good people who are getting forced out can tell how horrible the Daesh people really are, then they will gain fewer 'converts' to the Islamic State and the tide of immigrants into the IS areas will slow to a trickle.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This isn't directly about ISIS/Daesh, but rather about the people running from those animals.

Scott Carrier is a resident of Utah, a producer of short stories for national radio programs, a former UVU professor, and now produces the Home Of The Brave podcast. (he is also the brother of David Carrier who is a biology prof at Utah).

He went to Europe to report on the Syrian immigrant crisis, and then travelled the length of the Balkan Route the immigrants are following. He interviewed people from a dozen different countries along the way, and the stories he tells are heartbreaking and compelling.

Give them a listen, beginning with Episode 25 (through 29). www.homebrave.com. These are perhaps Pullitzer Prize-worthy stories.

Also listen to his experiences in Afghanistan after the invasion with his young English-speaking translator (episode 6), and the follow-up where he brings the translator to Utah to attend UVU (Episode 7).

Great stuff. I promise you will enjoy them.

[LA Ute]

Der Spiegel on the Syrian debacle:


The war has long since ceased being solely about Syria. The country has become Ground Zero of global geopolitics, an unholy mixture of Russia’s desired return to superpower status, an increasingly authoritarian Turkey, tentative US foreign policy, the Kurdish conflict, the arch-rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Islamist terror and the inability of a divided, crisis-ridden EU to do much of anything.

The war in Syria has transformed from a civil war into a world war.

It has long since reached Europe in the form of millions of refugees, terror attacks in Paris and attacks on tourists in Tunisia and Istanbul. And America, which has long been the leader of the West and guarantor of security in Europe, has refused to get involved. . . .

The man who could answer many of these questions is saying very little these days about Syria, despite the recent drama. In the past, Barack Obama has said that Assad must step down and he still refers to him as “a brutal, ruthless dictator.” At the same time, though, Obama is doing nothing to counter him and there are no signs that he has anything up his sleeve either.

The New York Times recently wrote that it is difficult to distinguish between Putin’s and Obama’s Syria strategies. Meanwhile, historian and journalist Michael Ignatieff and Brookings Institution fellow Leon Wieseltier lamented in the Washington Post, “It’s time for those who care about the moral standing of the United States to say that this policy is shameful.”

It is very clear at this point that the US has no strategy beyond its half-hearted efforts to provide training and arms to rebels — and to otherwise rely on negotiations. But none of this has born any fruit, as events in early February demonstrated.

Secretary of State Kerry worked for three months to get the warring parties to a negotiating table under the auspices of the United Nations — moderate rebels, representatives of the regime, Iranians, Saudi Arabians and Russians. But Moscow then turned around and launched its offensive right as the talks began. Within 48 hours, the Russian air force carried out 320 airstrikes in northern Syria alone. It was no coincidence that the storm on Aleppo began at that exact moment. The aim was that of destroying any possibility that the opposition would have a say in Syria’s future.

“All sides were aware that a continuation of the talks would become increasingly difficult for the opposition as the regime intensified its military offensive,” diplomats in Geneva said. After two days, the UN mediator Staffan de Mistura suspended talks. Right now, it doesn’t look as though the opposition will be prepared to return to Geneva on Feb. 25 as planned. And why should they?

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1077140.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Dear der Spiegel;

Quit bitching about the lack of US involvement as you bang the war drum. You complained nonstop over the last 15 years about US involvement in the Middle East, and now you want America to escalate the situation because you fear Russian involvement? And yet somehow in the same article you claim the US and Russian goals are indistinguishable. The differences should be readily apparent by simply looking at the regimes the US and Russia choose to back, and with whom each country trades goods (and oil).

The US Military has forged itself into perhaps the most deadly and effective urban war machine in the history of the world. But this comes with a tremendous cost in blood and money, and an especially high cost in the lives of 'collateral damage'.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is at its core an ideology. The ideology spreads by either overrunning a new area, or through missionary propaganda to the outside world. Daesh already uses statements from US politicians and from US tv programs in their propaganda, and increasing the US involvement in the region will only serve to justify their extremist ideologies. Their stated goal is to fight a glorious war vs Western Civilization, which is anathema to their 8th-century CE idealism.

The best way to rid the world of this cancer is to 1) surgically cut it out where possible; 2) cut off its supply network and seize its assets wherever possible to starve it where it exists; 3) make life better for the oppressed people around the world for whom this movement would be more attractive than their current lives; and 4) get the word out that life under Daesh is horrible, even for true believers.

Germany is doing yeoman's work by allowing safe harbor for all refugees who can get themselves inside her borders. Continue to tell the horror stories of those who have escaped the atrocities.

Sincerely,
'Murrica

[LA Ute]

Dear der Spiegel;

Quit bitching about the lack of US involvement as you bang the war drum. You complained nonstop over the last 15 years about US involvement in the Middle East, and now you want America to escalate the situation because you fear Russian involvement? And yet somehow in the same article you claim the US and Russian goals are indistinguishable. The differences should be readily apparent by simply looking at the regimes the US and Russia choose to back, and with whom each country trades goods (and oil).

The US Military has forged itself into perhaps the most deadly and effective urban war machine in the history of the world. But this comes with a tremendous cost in blood and money, and an especially high cost in the lives of 'collateral damage'.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is at its core an ideology. The ideology spreads by either overrunning a new area, or through missionary propaganda to the outside world. Daesh already uses statements from US politicians and from US tv programs in their propaganda, and increasing the US involvement in the region will only serve to justify their extremist ideologies. Their stated goal is to fight a glorious war vs Western Civilization, which is anathema to their 8th-century CE idealism.

The best way to rid the world of this cancer is to 1) surgically cut it out where possible; 2) cut off its supply network and seize its assets wherever possible to starve it where it exists; 3) make life better for the oppressed people around the world for whom this movement would be more attractive than their current lives; and 4) get the word out that life under Daesh is horrible, even for true believers.

Germany is doing yeoman's work by allowing safe harbor for all refugees who can get themselves inside her borders. Continue to tell the horror stories of those who have escaped the atrocities.

Sincerely,
'Murrica

Do you like red or green Kool-Aid? President Obama serves both. ;)

[LA Ute]

This is an op-ed by that right-wing nut Joe Lieberman:

The absence of U.S. leadership makes the world more dangerous than ever (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-absence-of-us-leadership-makes-the-world-more-dangerous-than-ever/2016/02/24/65e586a8-d8ac-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)

[NorthwestUteFan]

Today, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will pull its troops out of Syria. I don't quite know how to take that news, and I have no idea how the events in Syria will play out. It seems this would create a big power vacuum, and that could be a big problem.

This is huge news.

[LA Ute]

Today, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will pull its troops out of Syria. I don't quite know how to take that news, and I have no idea how the events in Syria will play out. It seems this would create a big power vacuum, and that could be a big problem.

This is huge news.

I heard he was leaving forces there, so it doesn't look like a total pullout. He's removing only the “main part” of Russian forces in Syria (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).


And the Kremlin made clear it was keeping its new air base in the coastal Mediterranean province of Latakia, in addition to the naval refueling station it has kept nearby in Tartus since Soviet times.

Mr. Putin has a history of unpredictability and is known for public statements that do not always align with Russia’s actions. In eastern Ukraine, for example, fighting by Moscow-backed rebels has continued even though Mr. Putin has pledged to honor a peace treaty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/world/middleeast/putin-syria-russia-withdrawal.html?_r=0

[Rocker Ute]

It is called playing current US foreign policy like a fiddle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

It is called playing current US foreign policy like a fiddle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What would you do differently?

Russia obviously has a different set of priorities in Syria. They have an important Mediterranean naval base and an Air Force base in Syria, and of course they want to keep the current regime intact. They see the Assad regime as a valid stabilizing force in the region and as a valuable trade partner, who is under attack by those awful Kurds and other tribes, as well as ISIS. This was Russia's biggest military venture since the fall of the USSR.

In The West we see Assad as a stabilizing force, who is also a dangerous tyrant who attacks his own people (especially the Kurds), and who is perpetrating the continued occupation of Libya, continues to attack Israel, and is the terror-supporting puppet of Iran's mullahs. And sometimes he deals with trouble from ISIS.

The truth of Assad lies somewhere in between (and the statements made by Syrian refugees paint him as a monster-with-a-cause in the mold of Pinochet or even Pol Pot).

-------
A bit of good news: the top ISIS commander, the Chechen-born Abu Omar al-Shisani (born Tarkhan Batirashvili), was killed in an Air attack this week. Maybe US foreign policy is actually working.

[Rocker Ute]

Maybe US foreign policy is actually working.


Apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/politics/iran-rocket-launch/index.html

[NorthwestUteFan]

Apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/politics/iran-rocket-launch/index.html
It sure is a good thing our foreign policy (with assistance from England, Germany, France, Russia, and all the IAEA countries) forced Iran to export all of their enriched uranium and to destroy 2/3 of their centrifuges.

[Rocker Ute]

It sure is a good thing our foreign policy (with assistance from England, Germany, France, Russia, and all the IAEA countries) forced Iran to export all of their enriched uranium and to destroy 2/3 of their centrifuges.

Yes it is.

So they are testing multi-stage rockets because... Well let's just trust it is what they say it is for, not like they've ever lied in the past.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

If they are lying and actually put nuclear weapons on that that one rocket and launched it at Tel Aviv, Israel would simply push a few buttons and destroy the entire country of Iran 50 times over in less than 15 min. Iranians are not that stupid, and they know Netanyahu is more than just crazy enough to actually launch against them.

Back to my original post today, it appears that Russia simply wanted to clear away some of Assad's enemies. I don't know what effect that will have in the region, but I expect a Republican president would go out of his way to put boots on the ground in that region. And that is the last thing we need to do right now.

[Rocker Ute]

Nevermind, redacted. Or as Richard Nixon would say, "<expletive deleted>."

[NorthwestUteFan]

Nevermind, redacted. Or as Richard Nixon would say, "<expletive deleted>."
Did you even read the article you posted? Because it doesn't seem as though you read the article. Which you posted.

[Rocker Ute]

Did you even read the article you posted? Because it doesn't seem as though you read the article. Which you posted.

Yes, but I decided I really was bored 'discussing' it with you so I redacted it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Yes, but I decided I really was bored 'discussing' it with you so I redacted it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I couldn't tell from your Twitter-style posts whether you really understood any of the issues. No worries.

[Rocker Ute]

I couldn't tell from your Twitter-style posts whether you really understood any of the issues. No worries.

You can continue to lob insults if you wish, I'm bored discussing it with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

You can continue to lob insults if you wish, I'm bored discussing it with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Intent obviously doesn't translate well on a forum. I apologize for offending you.

This is the way I read it. Again, it is difficult to discern intent based on a few sentence fragment posts.

You made an assertion and posted a link. The link seemed largely to disprove your assertion. I posted additional facts to refute your assertion. You declared victory over my ignorance, took your ball, and went home. No harm, no foul.

________
Anyway, the top ISIS leader is dead, most of their money supply is drying up, and it seems like they should be circling the drain. Perhaps they are now even desperate and will strike out with greater fury. Time will tell.

[Rocker Ute]

I know you well enough to understand 'intent'. I haven't declare victory (discussions aren't contests with me anyway) and I redacted what I said because frankly I wanted to disengage from the childishness, at least on my part. Apparently you can't accept that which is fine. I am not insulted either, just bored. Let it go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

I don't care one way or another. I just wondered how to reach the conclusion you asserted.

NBD

[Rocker Ute]

I don't care one way or another. I just wondered how to reach the conclusion you asserted.

NBD

Lol - okay you want to talk - this feels like when my wife wants to talk and it won't go away until we do.

Which conclusion? I've reviewed my posts recently.

First assertion: Putin is playing US Foreign Policy like a fiddle.

I'll admit this is factually incorrect. He can't be doing that because most experts don't know what our foreign policy is (LA has posted a few articles to that tune).

I don't really have an interest in reminding you all that has happened in Syria but we can start with the pretend red line and end with the power vacuum now created by the Russian exit. You are familiar enough with the Middle East to know of the usual outcome with a power vacuum. We've already committed to not put boots on the ground in a variety of Middle East incidents (and while I'm not saying we SHOULD I still don't understand why you would ever tell your enemy what you will or will not do).

You then stated that apparently US foreign policy was working. Thus came my second assertion that it apparently was.

I was joking mostly because at that very moment were articles coming out from virtually every news source about Iran testing intercontinental missiles. There is a debate as to whether that violates our current agreement (but little doubt it violates other previous agreements) but obviously none of our allies are happy about it. This article of course ends with an Iranian authority mimicking my 5 year old who has stolen her sisters toy and denies it by saying, "What toy? How could I have taken her toy when I don't have that toy and you probably just lost that toy..."

So after you stated it was a good thing they had nearly no nuclear capability because of our agreement I agreed but stated in an attempt to be humorous that I trusted why they were testing a system to launch 'satellites' you know for fun or whatever, because it isn't like they've ever lied to us in the past. That was my third assertion.

You retorted that Iran would be stupid to launch a missile at Israel because Israel would bury them 50x over.

But we all know that isn't the reason that Iran wants a nuclear weapon and I also noted that we aren't exactly dealing with stable and rational folk here.

But then I went and redacted that because frankly it was silly to discuss any further my general disagreement with our current free form foreign policy. You should also know that my disagreement with current foreign policy isn't an endorsement of previous foreign policy either. If that region is an indication of anything it is that our foreign policy or lack thereof has resulted in the following years and decades of pain.

So going back to Syria, it benefits Russia a great deal to have Assad in power and as you mentioned their goals are not the same as ours. Their withdrawal essential leaves us holding the bag now and has painted us in a bit of a corner. Allowing Assad to remain is leaving a madman, who you personally equated to Pol Pot, in power. Supporting opposition or putting boots on the ground will be a quagmire ala Iraq with no guarantee things will be better. That is my definition of Putin playing us like a fiddle.

Iran may not be in technical violation of our current agreement but in my business we would say that isn't an 'act of good faith'. Forgive me for not trusting a country that also claims they have no homosexuals.

I never really spoke about the current progress with ISIS. Kudos for killing their current head and drying up their resources. Further kudos for keeping it largely regional and mostly out of our country for now. I won't put up the 'Mission Accomplished' banner just yet as we don't know who might step up or what equally or more dangerous groups might come from the fractures. I will also note that the vacuum of peer in Iraq resulted in ISIS (and yes I know the pullout was Bush's plan too) and I fear the same will happen in Syria.

This is of course all in a nutshell. And just my faulty opinion too. It will be easy for you to pick apart now which I hope gives you the relief for that itch you seem to relentlessly need to scratch.

I apologize and you can see now why I wanted to stop discussing it. And that'll be the end of my participation on the matter.

I'll just remind you that I voted for Obama, so I get to complain about him too. It is disheartening to realize that the past 16 years is going to likely be followed by at least 8 more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A long but really interesting read from The Atlantic:

What ISIS Really Wants

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

When you've lost Tom Friedman, you've lost non-flyover country.

Does Obama Have This Right? (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/opinion/does-obama-have-this-right.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-l-friedman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1)

Snip:


Obama’s primary goal seems to be to get out of office being able to say that he had shrunk America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevented our involvement on the ground in Syria and Libya (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), and taught Americans the limits of our ability to fix things we don’t understand, in countries whose leaders we don’t trust, whose fates do not impact us as much as they once did.

After all, the president indicated, more Americans are killed each year slipping in bathtubs or running into deer with their cars than by any terrorists, so we need to stop wanting to invade the Middle East in response to every threat.

That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?

[LA Ute]

A balanced critique of both right and left:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-fatal-fatalism-in-the-middle-east/2016/05/22/962d7e28-1e99-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[LA Ute]

Some thoughts from a U. of Tennessee law professor:

Glenn Reynolds: An untraditional war
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-omar-mateen-islam-terrorism-column/85794088/

[Two Utes]

Some thoughts from a U. of Tennessee law professor:

Glenn Reynolds: An untraditional war


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-omar-mateen-islam-terrorism-column/85794088/

Wait a minute. I thought the only issue is guns. If we limit gun access these things all go away. Right?

[LA Ute]

Wait a minute. I thought the only issue is guns. If we limit gun access these things all go away. Right?

The problem is that all the recent massacres have occurred in gun-free zones, so people are starting to examine the effectiveness of that approach.

[Diehard Ute]

The problem is that all the recent massacres have occurred in gun-free zones, so people are starting to examine the effectiveness of that approach.

This one happened at a club with a uniformed off duty Orlando Police officer working there

He exchanged fire with the suspect. But he's got a handgun to try and stop someone with an assault rifle. That's not likely to happen, even when the person with the handgun is well trained (most concealed carry folks aren't)

People who are to the point of actually going through with something like this don't care if someone shoots at them.

There are some things we could do to make places safer, but neither side is willing to discuss those things. They'd rather turn everything political and make it all or nothing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Two Utes]

This one happened at a club with a uniformed off duty Orlando Police officer working there

He exchanged fire with the suspect. But he's got a handgun to try and stop someone with an assault rifle. That's not likely to happen, even when the person with the handgun is well trained (most concealed carry folks aren't)

People who are to the point of actually going through with something like this don't care if someone shoots at them.

There are some things we could do to make places safer, but neither side is willing to discuss those things. They'd rather turn everything political and make it all or nothing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. I am all for discussing stricter gun laws. But people are so entrenched on both sides, they simply use the tragedy to spout about their position. Twitter is starting to become unruly.

[LA Ute]

Agree. I am all for discussing stricter gun laws. But people are so entrenched on both sides, they simply use the tragedy to spout about their position. Twitter is starting to become unruly.

You can divide a room more quickly by mentioning gun control than by raising any other subject, IMO. It's amazing to watch.

[LA Ute]

The problem is that all the recent massacres have occurred in gun-free zones, so people are starting to examine the effectiveness of that approach.

Just to be clear, this was TIC.

[LA Ute]

Thought-provoking piece here:

THE ORLANDO MASSACRE AND THE CRISIS OF HUMANISM

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-orlando-massacre-and-the-crisis-of-humanism/18452#.V18NtHErLIV

As usual I do not endorse everything this guy says. Most of it, though -- especially the point that interest groups tried to make this atrocity into something that fit their own political agenda:


The most striking thing about the reaction to Orlando is how speedily observers made it about themselves; how swiftly they marshalled this massacre to political ends, whether to the traditional political ends of promoting right or left agendas or to the ends of the new politics of identity and its obsession with cultivating narratives of victimhood. The bodies were still warm when political ghouls on the left were claiming the massacre as proof that we need greater gun control and clampdowns on homophobia, and political ghouls on the right were using it to push their case for greater border controls and clampdowns on Islamist speech. From across the spectrum, people used the remains of that blood-stained gay club as a foundation for the construction of their shallow political case: a deeply ugly spectacle.

[LA Ute]

This one is from the right. (Disclaimer: I don't own a gun, although I am thinking about it; and I don't belong to the NRA or any other such organization.) I think he makes some excellent points. That said, I am not crazy about the availability of assault rifles or the ease with which mentally ill people can get guns. We should figure out a way to do something about those problems, but both sides are soooo intractable.

Lashing out at a familiar bogeyman, the NRA, is far easier than looking our real enemy in the face.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436545/orlando-shootings-gun-control-nra-not-our-enemy-isis-is-enemy

[Diehard Ute]

This one is from the right. (Disclaimer: I don't own a gun, although I am thinking about it; and I don't belong to the NRA or any other such organization.) I think he makes some excellent points. That said, I am not crazy about the availability of assault rifles or the ease with which mentally ill people can get guns. We should figure out a way to do something about those problems, but both sides are soooo intractable.

Lashing out at a familiar bogeyman, the NRA, is far easier than looking our real enemy in the face.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436545/orlando-shootings-gun-control-nra-not-our-enemy-isis-is-enemy

Control is the buzz word, but I think most people would be shocked at how difficult it is to enforce our current gun laws

As a police officer I have no way to verify if someone I stop is prohibited from owning a firearm due to something like a mental illness.

With a lot of effort I can sometimes determine if someone is restricted for past criminal history, but it's a very confusing and difficult task.

Then we have to get a conviction, which now days is very hard. Jury's often acquit if there aren't fingerprints and DNA on weapons, even if we physically took the weapon from the suspect.

There are ideas out there, such as a license like a driver license that is verified yearly. This license wouldn't track what weapons you own or buy, it would simply alert authorities that you're legally allowed to own a weapon. But even something like this is too much for many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Not knowing much about guns, I defer to others as to whether this article is accurate:

The Next Time Someone Calls an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/627943-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-assault-rifles-and-the-ar-15/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=guns

[kccougar]

Not knowing much about guns, I defer to others as to whether this article is accurate:

The Next Time Someone Calls an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This


http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/627943-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-assault-rifles-and-the-ar-15/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=guns

The legislative definition of an assault rifle or weapon is so convoluted that it is a losing argument to try to classify them. Simply put it this way, there isn't a single law enforcement agency in this country that arms their soldiers or first responders with the same weapon that is legally available to most Americans and generally referred to as an AR-15 or sport rifle.

[Diehard Ute]

The legislative definition of an assault rifle or weapon is so convoluted that it is a losing argument to try to classify them. Simply put it this way, there isn't a single law enforcement agency in this country that arms their soldiers or first responders with the same weapon that is legally available to most Americans and generally referred to as an AR-15 or sport rifle.

Huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kccougar]

Huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the military, SWAT, etc use select-fire rifles.

[Diehard Ute]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the military, SWAT, etc use select-fire rifles.

Military has select fire.

Some SWAT teams do, although most select fire weapons on SWAT are sub guns, not rifles.

The vast majority of the law enforcement officers in the US have the same AR's or shotguns sold at any gun store, if that. Many don't have any long gun as many departments make officers purchase their own weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

I'm not sure what the point of the article is. It seems to be saying "he didn't use an assault rifle so a ban on assault rifles wouldn't have affected Matten's purchasing habits". While true that makes the case that any ban should reach down to any semi-automatic large capacity rifle.

[U-Ute]

I think this town hall discussion by President Obama makes a salient point about the problems with any legislation about guns.

https://twitter.com/patrick4ont/status/742029536469082112

[Diehard Ute]

People need to quit caring about the firing mechanism. Even a semi auto rifle can be fired very quickly, 30 rounds in several seconds

It's the muzzle velocity of a rifle that makes it deadly. Rifle rounds go right through most law enforcement vests, through car doors, walls etc. And a rifle round does much more damage to a human body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

President Canute and Orlando (http://www.wsj.com/articles/president-canute-and-orlando-1465859587): Barack Obama discovers too late that he cannot order the tide of war to recede (http://www.wsj.com/articles/president-canute-and-orlando-1465859587).

Quite critical of President O.

[LA Ute]

This is a fine piece of writing and very balanced, I think:

Banning Guns and Muslims Isn’t the Answer to Orlando (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/banning-guns-and-muslims-isn%E2%80%99t-answer-orlando)

[LA Ute]

Great speech by Utah's Lt. Governor at last night's vigil -- at about 38:00.

https://medium.com/@coxsp/tribute-to-orlando-c014acd6fb3f#.ymcfy9ppz

[USS Utah]

This one happened at a club with a uniformed off duty Orlando Police officer working there

He exchanged fire with the suspect. But he's got a handgun to try and stop someone with an assault rifle. That's not likely to happen, even when the person with the handgun is well trained (most concealed carry folks aren't)

People who are to the point of actually going through with something like this don't care if someone shoots at them.

There are some things we could do to make places safer, but neither side is willing to discuss those things. They'd rather turn everything political and make it all or nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vEVhrK_0AE

[LA Ute]

"After 9/11 and the Boston Bombings, Americans grieved together and comforted each other. They resolved to fight their attackers as one nation. Insofar as there was partisan dissension, it was mostly contained to cranks on either side. But the attacks at San Bernardino and Orlando have yielded an altogether different response, dominated by hostility, mistrust, and outrageous partisan attacks. Part of this is because the latter two attacks took place during a hotly-contested election season that has brought fevered populism to the fore on both sides of the aisle. But perhaps the most important reason Americans have been divided, rather than united, in the face of terror over the last year is simply because the terrorists elected to kill their victims with bullets. If Omar Mateen had planted Tsarnaev-style pressure-cooker bombs in the crowded Pulse nightclub on Saturday night, he may well have claimed just as many casualties. But the attack would not have immediately set off a political firestorm over gun control.

"Guns occupy a critical space in America’s increasingly acerbic culture wars, a manifestation of the broader social convection currents taking place below the surface. For Jacksonians who are losing faith in the ability of established institutions to preserve order, the Second Amendment is a bulwark against totalitarian movements, like Islamism, that would undermine American liberty. Under this deeply held view, attacks by ISIS-enthusiasts strengthen, rather than weaken, the case for gun rights. But for cosmopolitan liberals, gun rights are an anachronism—a symbol of all the wrong-headed views espoused by working class whites. Set these two warring camps against each other in the context of an ongoing terror threat, and you push an already divided society even further down the path of tribalism and fracture.

"The attackers in Orlando and San Bernardino accomplished something the attackers in Boston and New York didn’t: They drove a wedge between patriotic Americans, and managed to ensure that our grieving over the dead was polluted from the outset by a din of vicious political assaults. By any measure, they and their fellow travelers must consider this a great success. Perhaps terrorists who choose to carry out their massacres with guns are actually “taking advantage” of American society in a rather different way than many liberals think."

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/13/how-to-tear-a-nation-apart/





"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[LA Ute]

Now Can Big Data Fight Terror?

We need comments from Rocker and other techno-geeks (I use that term with love).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/now-can-big-data-fight-terror-1465943758


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[U-Ute]

Congress wouldn't fund such a project after the NRA freaks out.

[NorthwestUteFan]

A congressman attempted to talk about research into gun control on Monday, and Paul Ryan immediately shut him down on parliamentary procedures before he could even complete a sentence.

There is no way that a big data project investigating guns would ever see the light of day in Congress. If it is going to happen it will need to be privately funded (or at a university but without federal grants).

[U-Ute]

Gen. McChrystal pens an op-Ed piece.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/home-should-not-be-a-war-zone.html?smid=tw-share&referer=https://t.co/xygThdN9SK

[USS Utah]

Stavridis: The Front Line is in Cyberspace


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAUkiGZ4nyY

Also: "Take a deep breath, look at the tactical, don't throw away a strategic advantage."

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4944640443001/stavridis-we-dont-need-an-anti-immigrant-policy-in-this-country/?#sp=show-clips/daytime

[LA Ute]

I am curious to see how many here will dismiss this editorial simply because of the author's identity.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[sancho]

I am curious to see how many here will dismiss this editorial simply because of the author's identity.


I didn't look to see who wrote it. I dismissed it simply because of the poster's identity. :)

[NorthwestUteFan]

I am curious to see how many here will dismiss this editorial simply because of the author's identity.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus
"Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many...".

Did he forget about George Bush somehow? That is some astonishing hubris on the part of a man who should probably face a war crimes tribunal for his role in breaking that part world.

Did he somehow forget that he led the charge to depose Sunni Baathist leader Saddam Hussein (who had previously kept the more militant groups under control through tremendous force), which created the power vacuum under which the Sunni Baathist ISIL rose to power? Did he forget his role in claiming Iraq had obtained WMDs, and that a quick military action in Iraq would lead to peace in the Middle East, when in fact it led to the deaths of half s million Iraqis and unleashed hell? Did he somehow forget that the puppet regime he pushed to install in Iraq was incredibly corrupt and led to further instability in the region? Does he somehow not realize the level of intervention that would have been required to change the Iraqi regime again to install a government who WANTED a large US military presence to 'maintain the peace'?

Dick Cheney needs to eat a huge helping of shut the fuck up when it comes to Iraq.

[concerned]

I didn't look to see who wrote it. I dismissed it simply because of the poster's identity. :)


Me too. Cheney has no credibility at all and should just go silent into that good night. Now the State Dept. dissenting memo is a different question.

[LA Ute]

Me too. Cheney has no credibility at all and should just go silent into that good night. Now the State Dept. dissenting memo is a different question.

Are you or NWUF prepared to defend the president's handling of Syria? The "red line" and all that followed?

How about Libya? I would like to hear NWUF tell me about the brilliance of that catastrophe.

Is it possible that perhaps his characterization of ISIS as a "jayvee" team was a dumb thing for the president to do?

Just what are the outstanding foreign-policy successes of the Obama administration??

I will stop there.




"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[concerned]

Are you or NWUF prepared to defend the president's handling of Syria? The "red line" and all that followed?

How about Libya? I would like to hear NWUF tell me about the brilliance of that catastrophe.

Is it possible that perhaps his characterization of ISIS as a "jayvee" team was a dumb thing for the president to do?

Just what are the outstanding foreign-policy successes of the Obama administration??

I will stop there.




"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

You have moved the goal posts. The original question was whether I would discredit anything Dick Cheney said. The answer is yes, even if he said the sky is blue. Nothing he has ever said has proven true and he did more damage to American foreign policy than any other person since1900, at least.

Defending obama's foreign policy is a different question. Goldeberg's extensive analysis in the Atlantic last month and his recent follow up is a very insightful analysis of the successes and failures.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I will put this into words that LA will understand.

Dick Cheney writing an article critical of how another president has made mistakes in Iraq (without acknowledging the reasons we were there and without offering anything resembling a solution) would be similar to Barack Obama writing an article decrying how the next president broke the healthcare industry (without acknowledging the ACA and without offering anything resembling a solution).

[USS Utah]

Are you or NWUF prepared to defend the president's handling of Syria? The "red line" and all that followed?

How about Libya? I would like to hear NWUF tell me about the brilliance of that catastrophe.

Is it possible that perhaps his characterization of ISIS as a "jayvee" team was a dumb thing for the president to do?

Just what are the outstanding foreign-policy successes of the Obama administration??

I will stop there.




"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus


Let me put it a different way. I think Trump is the worst person to ever win a major party nomination for president, but there is not a single person on the left or in the Democratic party that I want to hear any criticism of Trump from.

[USS Utah]

You have moved the goal posts. The original question was whether I would discredit anything Dick Cheney said. The answer is yes, even if he said the sky is blue. Nothing he has ever said has proven true and he did more damage to American foreign policy than any other person since1900, at least.

Defending obama's foreign policy is a different question. Goldeberg's extensive analysis in the Atlantic last month and his recent follow up is a very insightful analysis of the successes and failures.

Make it since 1993. I can't think of anything particularly bad he did as Sec Def to Bush I.

[Applejack]

I didn't look to see who wrote it. I dismissed it simply because of the poster's identity. :)
A good shortcut

[LA Ute]

You have moved the goal posts. The original question was whether I would discredit anything Dick Cheney said. The answer is yes, even if he said the sky is blue. Nothing he has ever said has proven true and he did more damage to American foreign policy than any other person since1900, at least.

Defending obama's foreign policy is a different question. Goldeberg's extensive analysis in the Atlantic last month and his recent follow up is a very insightful analysis of the successes and failures.

I didn't make myself clear. My fault. My question was really whether people would actually respond to the points Cheney raised, all of which are worthy of consideration, or would respond ad hominem. Both you and NWUF did the latter. You both also changed the subject from the points Cheney raised in his op-ed to GW Bush's prosecution of the Iraq War. The fact is, Iraq was in good shape when Bush left office. Now it's a mess, and that happened in Obama's watch. That's also a fact. After 50 years or so from now, when historians perhaps can be objective about that war, a lot of focus will be placed on Obama's handling of the status of forces agreement negotiations that preceded the ISIS troubles.

It's really just a clash of philosophies we're talking about: conservative/neoconservative foreign policy that believes in projecting American power and defending American interests and in nation-building (that latter part of the philosophy is not one I'm fond of), on the one hand; versus a left-liberal approach (which has been around since George McGovern) that is skeptical of American power and of American exceptionalism generally, and that tends to see the USA as a malign influence in the world that must be restrained. The people on both sides of the debate are sincere. They're not bad people.


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[LA Ute]

A good shortcut

Wrong board.


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[LA Ute]

This more recent Jeffrey Goldberg piece is very interesting (thank you, concerned). Excerpt:


None of this is meant to be an argument that Obama does enough, or does enough of the right things, in the struggle against ISIS. I could (and will!) write a critique of the administration’s tactical approach, particularly as it relates to Syria. And Obama could bring more emotional intelligence to bear on this problem: He is eloquent in condemning the fearmongers, but he sometimes fails to acknowledge the legitimate fears of non-racist, non-paranoid Americans who would prefer not to be killed by terrorists acting in the name of Islam. The United States is under intermittent attack from an organization called the Islamic State, which, as Graeme Wood has pointed out (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/) in this magazine, represents one, extreme, branch of Islam. There is no point in trying to convince Americans that what is happening is not happening. But neither is there a point in encouraging hysteria and division.

Privately, Obama expresses the deepest loathing for ISIS and other radical Islamist groups. ISIS, he has noted, stands for—quite literally—everything he opposes. Nevertheless, his approach to the challenge of Islamist terrorism is sometimes emotionally unsatisfying; it is sometimes insufficient to the challenge; and he himself is sometimes too fatalistic about the possibility of change in the Middle East.

Donald Trump’s approach, on the other hand, is simply catastrophic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/obama-radical-islam/487079/

I gained an appreciation for Obama's views, if Goldberg has them right. (I still don't buy them all.) Why is this type of nuanced thinking hidden, while policy views summarized as "Don't do stupid sh** are made public? Even Hillary Clinton criticized that one. Anyway, it's too bad that it takes a sympathetic interviewer to articulate what the President of the USA really thinks about one of the central national security issue of our time.

[Rocker Ute]

It was a sympathetic piece but also underscored that there is no actual foreign policy in the White House (yet also remains a far better policy than anything Trump will establish). At least with HRC we'll see a principled foreign policy again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

It was a sympathetic piece but also underscored that there is no actual foreign policy in the White House (yet also remains a far better policy than anything Trump will establish). At least with HRC we'll see a principled foreign policy again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It has been kind of like watching Boylenball: hard to tell what they are trying to do out there. With HRC we won't always like what she's doing but we'll at least be able to tell what it is.


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

[Rocker Ute]

It has been kind of like watching Boylenball: hard to tell what they are trying to do out there. With HRC we won't always like what she's doing but we'll at least be able to tell what it is.


"It's men in shorts." -- Rick Majerus

The Boylenball of foreign policy sums that up quite nicely actually. Add to it the ardent defenders of what he is doing, just like Boylen had his, and you've got a near perfect match.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I guess this fits here, since the Congressional sit-in on gun control began with the Orlando murders.

Which Fast Food Joint Did Dems Call During Their Sit-In? (http://ijr.com/2016/06/635456-conservatives-will-get-a-kick-out-of-which-fast-food-joint-dems-called-during-their-sit-in/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=afternoon-newsletter&utm_medium=owned)(Hint: It was Chik-fil-a.)

[USS Utah]

Admiral James Stavrisis, USN (ret.) on How the Next President Should Fight -- and Defeat -- ISIS:

http://time.com/4379914/next-u-s-president-isis/

[LA Ute]

This is Al Qaeda, not ISIS, but it is an interesting wrinkle:

Al Qaeda urges lone wolves to target whites, to avoid 'hate crime' label (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/27/al-qaeda-urges-lone-wolves-to-target-whites-to-avoid-hate-crime-label.html)

[LA Ute]

Interesting analysis of ISIS' recruiting techniques, citing the Orlando killer as a typical example.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/isis-and-the-culture-of-narcissism-1467069159

[LA Ute]

An unusually interesting discussion:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e3nfppqP_Q

[Ma'ake]

Meanwhile, Iraqi forces have run ISIS out of Fallujah, which is certainly notable. It seems the Iraqis may be starting to better grasp the "you better stick together and defend yourselves, because the US won't be there to rescue you indefinitely" concept. I'll take it!

As far as ISIS instructing lone wolf attackers, to prevent that would require the Edward Snowden all-stars at the NSA to step up their games, and deeper, more systematic monitoring of US citizens, and possibly limiting the firepower that any given wife-beater can assemble. In other words, the "thoughts and prayers" inaction will prevail, especially since football season is coming up.

I would give a higher chance to Trump moving into Buckingham Palace, and giving tips to Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II, on how to be more "hot", like Ivanka.

You know, on further reflection, this idea has some merit, as it would get The Donald out of America, and distract the British from the political chaos and financial instability they've unleashed upon themselves, and who knows, maybe QE might start chasing Justin Bieber. You just never know.

[Rocker Ute]

An unusually interesting discussion:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e3nfppqP_Q

Bill Maher's racism and hate is just framed in a different way, he isn't much different from Trump in many ways. I find his rhetoric against Islam and the fact it is tolerated chilling.

[LA Ute]

Bill Maher's racism and hate is just framed in a different way, he isn't much different from Trump in many ways. I find his rhetoric against Islam and the fact it is tolerated chilling.

I thought Michael Steele was the most rational person on that panel.

[sancho]

Bill Maher's racism and hate is just framed in a different way, he isn't much different from Trump in many ways. I find his rhetoric against Islam and the fact it is tolerated chilling.

Yes, and what's worse, he's not funny. He came to a fork in the road - could be truly funny or just preachy and mean, and he took the road more traveled by.

[Applejack]

Yes, and what's worse, he's not funny. He came to a fork in the road - could be truly funny or just preachy and mean, and he took the road more traveled by.

Agreed. I can't stand Maher. His smug "humor" is not funny.

[LA Ute]

Yes, and what's worse, he's not funny. He came to a fork in the road - could be truly funny or just preachy and mean, and he took the road more traveled by.

It is his shtick. It draws eyeballs to his show.

[Rocker Ute]

It is his shtick. It draws eyeballs to his show.

The problem is he seems to be a thought leader among some left leaning people. I hear his arguments repeated in a lot of different places as if it is progressive thinking (uf.n is just one place that comes to mind).

I've mentioned this before but after visiting the Dachau concentration camp and seeing that it was right in the middle of town in full view I began to research how the Germans got to the point where that could be tolerated. They are my people after all. The parallels to what is going on with people like Maher and Trump is disturbing. So very subtly it starts with "They're the source of all of our problems..." and "They are trying to attack our way of life..." then it evolves into "They are less than us..." and "They are different from us..." and once people are convinced of that the rest is easy.

The only thing giving me hope is he fact that Trump is plummeting in the polls right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Just saw the news about Nice, France. At what point do we start to get numb to this? How tragic will that be, if it happens?

[Rocker Ute]

Just saw the news about Nice, France. At what point do we start to get numb to this? How tragic will that be, if it happens?

I would submit we are essentially there. This will descend into some argument by morning time.

[LA Ute]

'THEY ARE MERKEL'S DEAD!' German far-right blames Angela Merkel’s open-door migrant policy for Berlin truck attack

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2440378/german-far-right-and-security-experts-blame-angela-merkels-open-door-migrant-policy-for-berlin-truck-attack-by-refugee/

Things are pretty tense in Europe.

[LA Ute]

This is depressing.

Teacher quits after primary school students threaten to behead her
https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/34663197/punchbowl-primary-school-teacher-says-year-5-students-threatened-to-behead-her-kill-her-family/#page1

[LA Ute]

What do you all think? Much of this resonates with me. Then again....



After Manchester: it’s time for anger (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-manchester-its-time-for-anger/19849#.WSYDpmnyuCi)

[tooblue]

The obvious lesson about terrorists — they hate us for who we are, not what we do

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-the-obvious-lesson-about-terrorists-they-hate-us-for-who-we-are-not-what-we-do


We backwards “right-wingers” who express pointed concerns about militant Islam are often dismissed by progressives as reactionary and provocative, even as bigots. But Islamists are not at war with conservatives. They’re at war with Western society generally. And among the things they most loathe is its permissiveness.

[UTEopia]

What do you all think? Much of this resonates with me. Then again....



After Manchester: it’s time for anger (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-manchester-its-time-for-anger/19849#.WSYDpmnyuCi)





I disagree. We are presently unable to control and prevent the perpetrators of these heinous acts and those who support them as we balance civil liberties, privacy, etc. with security/safety. We can and should do our best to discourage those among us who would retaliate indiscriminately against a particular population based on any emotion (anger/hate). I am not fearful of anger/rhetoric directed at the actual perpetrators of these heinous actions and those who sponsor them. I do fear, however, that some of those who fan the flames through expressions of anger and hate at those other than the direct participants and those who sponsor them in times like these really don't care whether their anger actually leads to any meaningful action other than satisfying their own emotions and enciting themselves and others to engage and endanger people who are not part of the problem. I don't think this makes us safer in the short or longterm. During the campaign, Trump said we should kill the terrorists and their families. I'm opposed to that thinking and policy. I'm also opposed to simply carpet bombing the entire middle east until nothing exists to demolish those who are engaged in these actions. I'm opposed to those who cry for a "final solution" against Islam.

We need to be smarter, not angrier.

[UTEopia]

What do you all think? Much of this resonates with me. Then again....



After Manchester: it’s time for anger (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-manchester-its-time-for-anger/19849#.WSYDpmnyuCi)





I don't think this resonates with you. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘final-act-of-bravery’-men-who-were-fatally-stabbed-trying-to-stop-anti-muslim-rants-identified/ar-BBBzQgo?li=BBnbcA1

[LA Ute]

I don't think this resonates with you. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘final-act-of-bravery’-men-who-were-fatally-stabbed-trying-to-stop-anti-muslim-rants-identified/ar-BBBzQgo?li=BBnbcA1

I said "much" of that Brendan O'Neil op-ed resonates with me, and I expressed doubt about it ["but..."],and I asked what others here thought. You're the only one to respond so far, and you did so thoughtfully. Thanks for that.

There's a huge difference between wondering whether, on the one hand, we should be less passive about terrorist attacks, and should instead be a little more angry and seek to annihilate the perpetrators in some intelligent way; and, on the other hand, supporting, accepting or excusing the mindless violent attack on innocent people reported in the story you linked. So of course that one did not resonate with me. I'll just leave it at that.

[Devildog]

I don't think this resonates with you. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘final-act-of-bravery’-men-who-were-fatally-stabbed-trying-to-stop-anti-muslim-rants-identified/ar-BBBzQgo?li=BBnbcA1

You are trying to use one isolated, probably mental health related incident to compare to ISIS and the planned and premeditated terror they conduct. Appeasement. Pure and simple appeasement. Rationalized and justified appeasement.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

I understand that you mean well... but this is exactly how not to handle terrorism.

[Mormon Red Death]

You are trying to use one isolated, probably mental health related incident to compare to ISIS and the planned and premeditated terror they conduct. Appeasement. Pure and simple appeasement. Rationalized and justified appeasement.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

I understand that you mean well... but this is exactly how not to handle terrorism.
Thank you for replying in a respectful manner. This might have been your best post ever

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

There Is No Intelligence Solution to Britain’s Rivers of BloodAfter three jihadist attacks in as many months, the United Kingdom is facing a protracted insurgency—not mere terrorism
http://observer.com/2017/06/london-bridge-isis-attack-british-m15/

[USS Utah]

ISIS Is on Its Heels, but is Fighting to the Death:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/world/middleeast/isis-iraq-fight.html

[Ma'ake]

ISIS Is on Its Heels, but is Fighting to the Death:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/world/middleeast/isis-iraq-fight.html

Reading that article reminded me of when Bill Maher's show got cancelled after he said about the 9-11 hijackers that it was dumb to call them cowards.

We drop the MOAB on a ISIS cave/tunnel complex in Afghanistan, and they've moved back in. Faith in action? This transcends over to religion, but how do the more informed religionists of today view this kind of insanity? Being led by Satan, or just plain nuts?

[LA Ute]

Reading that article reminded me of when Bill Maher's show got cancelled after he said about the 9-11 hijackers that it was dumb to call them cowards.

We drop the MOAB on a ISIS cave/tunnel complex in Afghanistan, and they've moved back in. Faith in action? This transcends over to religion, but how do the more informed religionists of today view this kind of insanity? Being led by Satan, or just plain nuts?

Seems to me it is a mixed bag. It includes a lot of fanaticism, probably some sincere religious beliefs for some of the perpetrators, and a lot of lust for power. There's not a scintilla of it that I, as a religious person, would call righteous. On a purely ethical level, I would not call any of it honorable either. By and large ISIS is an army of monsters.

[USS Utah]

Reading that article reminded me of when Bill Maher's show got cancelled after he said about the 9-11 hijackers that it was dumb to call them cowards.

We drop the MOAB on a ISIS cave/tunnel complex in Afghanistan, and they've moved back in. Faith in action? This transcends over to religion, but how do the more informed religionists of today view this kind of insanity? Being led by Satan, or just plain nuts?


I thought of just one word: Götterdämmerung

The word is often used in reference to the orgy of self-destruction that coincided with the fall of Nazi Germany.

[U-Ute]

Because ISIS is fighting in an "infinite game" where we think it is a "finite game" with a structured set of rules of "who won?"

_osKgFwKoDQ

[Ma'ake]

The Niger incident reveals that al Qaeda / ISIS are taking a "ball of mercury" approach to being defeated in their geographic caliphate in Syria / Iraq.

Trump announces a looser standard for using drones, extending the remote control warfare mode started under Bush, expanded under Obama. (It insulates us from the immediate blood cost of warfare, but maybe it's like warfare using credit cards with extravagant initial offers. The crows ain't anywhere near coming home to roost... but they'll be coming, in ways that may not even be warfare.)

As we spread troops less densely and more broadly in the muslim world, it's clear a trap is being set. US over-reacts by raining death from above, in increasingly greater geographic areas, at the same time Trump alienates historic allies and pulls us out of economic agreements and environmental conventions.

I'm seeing more & more accounts by Utahns, who travel to Europe and get very sobering reactions of concern from our friends about the direction the US is taking.

[U-Ute]

An interesting side I have never heard about: Muslim hacktavists taking down ISIS's internet capabilities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-hacked-propaganda-amaq-mailing-list-emails-subscribers-published-islamic-state-online-caliphate-a8049771.html

[USS Utah]

Raqqa in Ruins, ISIS in Retreat:

http://time.com/raqqa-ruins-isis-retreat/

[LA Ute]

Nadia Murad has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Dr. Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who I understand has been a relentless advocate for women.

Nadia was abducted in northern Iraq in August 2014, when ISIS took over her village. Her abductors gave the Yazidi people—a Kurdish and Arabic-speaking religious minority—two choices: Convert to Islam or die. Nadia refused to give in. She is Yazidi.

She was 21 years old, and was kidnapped along with 3,000 other Yazidi women and girls who were traded as sex slaves from one ISIS fighter to another. They forced her to pray, dress up, and apply makeup in preparation for her rapes, which were often committed by gangs.

Since she escaped she’s been a highly visible advocatefor her people and against the ISIS savagery.

https://twitter.com/nobelprize/status/1048136457389531136?s=12

Here’s a fairly long (24:00) and disturbing BBC report on the Yazidi struggle:


https://youtu.be/xVzyAMxzLm8

[LA Ute]

This fits here as well as anywhere. Mike Pompeo gave a speech in Cairo last week that is stunning in its bluntness. I recognize the premises underlying Obama foreign policy, although I don’t accept most of them at all, and I know very intelligent, reasonable people disagree on these matters. Pompeo did us all a service, I think, by laying out the differences in stark detail. Some excerpts:


Remember: It was here, here in this city, that another American stood before you.

He told you that radical Islamist terrorism does not stem from an ideology.

He told you that 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals, particularly in the Middle East.

He told you that the United States and the Muslim world needed, quote, “a new beginning,” end of quote.

The results of these misjudgments have been dire.

In falsely seeing ourselves as a force for what ails the Middle East, we were timid in asserting ourselves when the times – and our partners – demanded it.

We grossly underestimated the tenacity and viciousness of radical Islamism, a debauched strain of the faith that seeks to upend every other form of worship or governance. ISIS drove to the outskirts of Baghdad as America hesitated. They raped and pillaged and murdered tens of thousands of innocents. They birthed a caliphate across Syria and Iraq and launched terror attacks that killed all across continents.

America’s reluctance, our reluctance, to wield our influence kept us silent as the people of Iran rose up against the mullahs in Tehran in the Green Revolution. The ayatollahs and their henchmen murdered, jailed, and intimidated freedom-loving Iranians, and they wrongly blamed America for this unrest when it was their own tyranny that had fueled it. Emboldened, the regime spread its cancerous influence to Yemen, to Iraq, to Syria, and still further into Lebanon.

Our penchant, America’s penchant, for wishful thinking led us to look the other way as Hizballah, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime, accumulated a massive arsenal of approximately 130,000 rockets and missiles. They stored and positioned these weapons in Lebanese towns and villages in flagrant violation of international law. That arsenal is aimed squarely at our ally Israel.

When Bashar Assad unleashed terror upon ordinary Syrians and barrel-bombed civilians with sarin gas, a true echo of Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurdish people, we condemned his actions. But in our hesitation to wield power, we did nothing.

Let’s turn to Iran.

President Trump has reversed our willful blindness to the danger of the regime and withdrew from the failed nuclear deal, with its false promises. The U.S. re-imposed sanctions that should never have been lifted. We embarked on a new pressure campaign to cut off the revenues the regime uses to spread terror and destruction throughout the world. We joined the Iranian people in calling for freedom and accountability.

And importantly, we fostered a common understanding with our allies of the need to counteract the Iran regime’s revolutionary agenda. Countries increasingly understand that we must confront the ayatollahs, not coddle them. Nations are rallying to our side to confront the regime like never before. Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, and Jordan have all been instrumental in thwarting Iran’s efforts to evade sanctions.

Full text of speech here:

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/01/288410.htm

[UTEopia]

I think the foreign policy adopted by the Obama administration was greatly influenced by the attitude of many in the Country after Iraq and Afghanistan and which attitude continues to be the focus of our foreign policy debate. How much blood and money are we willing to invest in protecting other countries around the world? Historically, we have been willing to spend both blood and money most everywhere except Africa. Too often those we support and train end up being our enemies down the line.

[LA Ute]

I say we let her come back to the country, prosecute her, and let her spend a few decades in prison. If she really wants to come back to the United States, that’s what should await her here. OTOH, there’s no telling what might happen if she gets in front of the right judge and jury in the wrong federal judicial circuit, let’s say the Ninth.

Timeline of the ISIS Bride

https://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/timeline-of-the-isis-bride/

[Ma'ake]

I say we let her come back to the country, prosecute her, and let her spend a few decades in prison. If she really wants to come back to the United States, that’s what should await her here. OTOH, there’s no telling what might happen if she gets in front of the right judge and jury in the wrong federal judicial circuit, let’s say the Ninth.

Timeline of the ISIS Bride

https://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/timeline-of-the-isis-bride/

I think a measured approach might be better. 3-5 years on prison, let her out to be a mom. Just because the Caliphate is gone doesn't mean the battle for "hearts and minds" is won in the Muslim World. There should be punishment for joining ISIS and being a support element for all the horrible things they did, but also there's no shortage of horror stories coming out from the regretful "ISIS wives".

If she wants to come back to America, let's put on our best side and swing some support for the decency to be found in secular republics among the hundreds of millions of muslims who are decent people.

The alternative is to loudly reject her return and let her go on a "book tour" of sorts through the Muslim world saying Christian America is a group of hypocrites on following Jesus' message of forgiveness. This would lend indirect tacit support for the sleeper cell attacks we're going to see, and serve to extend the ongoing war for hearts and minds among Muslim youth.

[LA Ute]

I think a measured approach might be better. 3-5 years on prison, let her out to be a mom. Just because the Caliphate is gone doesn't mean the battle for "hearts and minds" is won in the Muslim World. There should be punishment for joining ISIS and being a support element for all the horrible things they did, but also there's no shortage of horror stories coming out from the regretful "ISIS wives".

If she wants to come back to America, let's put on our best side and swing some support for the decency to be found in secular republics among the hundreds of millions of muslims who are decent people.

The alternative is to loudly reject her return and let her go on a "book tour" of sorts through the Muslim world saying Christian America is a group of hypocrites on following Jesus' message of forgiveness. This would lend indirect tacit support for the sleeper cell attacks we're going to see, and serve to extend the ongoing war for hearts and minds among Muslim youth.

I was hasty in recommending several decades. Something along the lines of what you suggest might be OK. If her case ends up in the Ninth Circuit she could actually go free (I’m not kidding) and that would be a very bad thing.

[Rocker Ute]

I was hasty in recommending several decades. Something along the lines of what you suggest might be OK. If her case ends up in the Ninth Circuit she could actually go free (I’m not kidding) and that would be a very bad thing.

What would the punishment be for a US citizen to advocate and encourage people on social media to carry out mass killings and to directly support terrorism?

It seems like it would be larger than 3-5? Google just said it could be 10-20 years (depending on some various factors).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

What would the punishment be for a US citizen to advocate and encourage people on social media to carry out mass killings and to directly support terrorism?

It seems like it would be larger than 3-5? Google just said it could be 10-20 years (depending on some various factors).

I doubt it will be 3-5 years but I am not a criminal law guy. I know there are sentencing guidelines at the federal level.

[LA Ute]

I started wondering about the coverage of the Easter atrocity after a day or so. Why were journalists so careful to avoid mentioning that the victims were Christian, or that radical Islam might have been involved? I usually assume that mass murders of white people result in such caution because of a desire not to provoke racial animus. But here the 300+ victims were brown people. (That’s the term my South Asian Indian colleagues use in describing non-caucasians.)

I’m still wondering. Now ISIS, truthfully or not, has taken responsibility for the murders. This column, although more acerbic than necessary, addresses the issue in detail:

Taqiyya for Easter

https://www.steynonline.com/9317/taqiyya-for-easter

It’s short. Read the whole thing.

[Applejack]

I started wondering about the coverage of the Easter atrocity after a day or so. Why were journalists so careful to avoid mentioning that the victims were Christian, or that radical Islam might have been involved? I usually assume that mass murders of white people result in such caution because of a desire not to provoke racial animus. But here the 300+ victims were brown people. (That’s the term my South Asian Indian colleagues use in describing non-caucasians.)

I’m still wondering. Now ISIS, truthfully or not, has taken responsibility for the murders. This column, although more acerbic than necessary, addresses the issue in detail:

Taqiyya for Easter

https://www.steynonline.com/9317/taqiyya-for-easter

It’s short. Read the whole thing.

I'm not sure what your news sources are (JK, I can guess), but NPR, that liberal bastion, has reported extensively on the fact that (a) the victims were Christian and that (b) the perpetrators of the attacks were linked to ISIS.

[LA Ute]

I'm not sure what your news sources are (JK, I can guess), but NPR, that liberal bastion, has reported extensively on the fact that (a) the victims were Christian and that (b) the perpetrators of the attacks were linked to ISIS.

CNN, NY Times, LA Times. (Someone sent me the link to Mark Steyn, who’s a conservative pundit I read once in a while when directed there. He’s 100% predictable.) If NPR is handling this correctly, good for them. I’m still not seeing, among liberal outlets, the same level of outrage about Sri Lanka that we saw over the New Zealand atrocity, which certainly outraged me.

[Ma'ake]

CNN, NY Times, LA Times. (Someone sent me the link to Mark Steyn, who’s a conservative pundit I read once in a while when directed there. He’s 100% predictable.) If NPR is handling this correctly, good for them. I’m still not seeing, among liberal outlets, the same level of outrage about Sri Lanka that we saw over the New Zealand atrocity, which certainly outraged me.

Just listened to the NYT podcast The Daily, which covered the Sri Lankan attacks today. They described the context in SL as a small nation with a 10 year peace from the Tamil-Senhalese civil war, most recently dealing with a dysfunctionally divided government where the President is trying to fire the Prime Minister. There was a little regarded Muslim preacher who has for years been claiming Muslims have the right to kill non-Muslims, but he & his small group of followers had only done things like deface statues, previously.

Indian Intel informed the Sri Lankan government about a plot to blow up churches, but the authorities didn't take it seriously, based on this preacher's track record. The NYT reporter interviewed is based in India, flew to Sri Lanka to cover the aftermath, and said based on covering suicide bombings in Iraq and other places, the level of sophistication required to pull off that kind of attack with those types of explosives clearly implicates external expertise, presumably ISIS.

He said there are FBI and other investigative agencies from other nations now in Sri Lanka, and the big question is how ISIS was able to assist and train an otherwise backward domestic group which previously had only accomplished vandalism.

The NYT didn't shy away from the incident being an act of Islamic terrorism, but noted it initially confused many, who assumed the attack was related to historic and ongoing tensions between the Tamilians and Senhalese (Hindus and Buddhist). It certainly fooled me, initially.

[LA Ute]

Just listened to the NYT podcast The Daily, which covered the Sri Lankan attacks today. They described the context in SL as a small nation with a 10 year peace from the Tamil-Senhalese civil war, most recently dealing with a dysfunctionally divided government where the President is trying to fire the Prime Minister. There was a little regarded Muslim preacher who has for years been claiming Muslims have the right to kill non-Muslims, but he & his small group of followers had only done things like deface statues, previously.

Indian Intel informed the Sri Lankan government about a plot to blow up churches, but the authorities didn't take it seriously, based on this preacher's track record. The NYT reporter interviewed is based in India, flew to Sri Lanka to cover the aftermath, and said based on covering suicide bombings in Iraq and other places, the level of sophistication required to pull off that kind of attack with those types of explosives clearly implicates external expertise, presumably ISIS.

He said there are FBI and other investigative agencies from other nations now in Sri Lanka, and the big question is how ISIS was able to assist and train an otherwise backward domestic group which previously had only accomplished vandalism.

The NYT didn't shy away from the incident being an act of Islamic terrorism, but noted it initially confused many, who assumed the attack was related to historic and ongoing tensions between the Tamilians and Senhalese (Hindus and Buddhist). It certainly fooled me, initially.

Both Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton, in their condolence messages, referred to the victims as "Easter worshippers." That got an eyeroll out of me.

[chrisrenrut]

Both Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton, in their condolence messages, referred to the victims as "Easter worshippers." That got an eyeroll out of me.

Seems like much ado about nothing. Does any religion celebrate Easter other than Christians?

Btw, I miss Solon. His post on the origins of Easter on the other board was awesome.

[concerned]

Both Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton, in their condolence messages, referred to the victims as "Easter worshippers." That got an eyeroll out of me.

You can't be serious. The phrase emphasizes that the victims were in a house of worship on the highest of holy days--not just Christians in a marketplace on a Thursday. Makes it even more detestable. You are really looking for things to eyeroll about.

[sancho]

the other board

utefans?

[Irving Washington]

You can't be serious. The phrase emphasizes that the victims were in a house of worship on the highest of holy days--not just Christians in a marketplace on a Thursday. Makes it even more detestable. You are really looking for things to eyeroll about.
Could also include twice a year Catholic worshipers, for that matter.

[LA Ute]

You can't be serious. The phrase emphasizes that the victims were in a house of worship on the highest of holy days--not just Christians in a marketplace on a Thursday. Makes it even more detestable. You are really looking for things to eyeroll about.

By couldn’t they simply say “Christians?” Seems like a forced and awkward nod to some notion of political correctness.

I pulled this randomly from NBC News:


COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — Sri Lanka's defense minister said Tuesday that the coordinated Easter Sunday attacks that killed at least 321 people were in retaliation for the recent Christchurch mosque massacrein New Zealand.

Seems like an editor made sure of careful wording there. The same terms appear over and over in recent accounts from multiple news outlets.

From Rakib Ehsan, an English writer who professes Islam:


Following the mosque massacres in Christchurch, political figures across the Western world did not hesitate in accurately describing what they were – white-supremacist terrorist attacks on Muslims in their places of worship during Friday prayers.

In the aftermath of Christchurch, Hillary Clinton expressed her solidarity with the global Muslim community – the Ummah – and said ‘we must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalisation of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms’. Former US president Barack Obama tweeted that himself and his wife Michelle were grieving with the people of New Zealand and the ‘Muslim community’. Our own prime minister, Theresa May, correctly labelled Christchurch as a ‘horrifying terrorist attack’.

Now, contrast this with the language used by the same three figures following the coordinated series of Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka. Affectionate expressions of solidarity with persecuted Christian communities have been missing. The Christians killed in their own churches have been referred to by Clinton and Obama as ‘Easter worshippers’. Despite the clearly sophisticated, well-planned nature of the terrorist attacks, which very much had the aim of killing a large number of Christians, the British PM – a vicar’s daughter – referred to them as ‘acts of violence’.

The differences in tone and nature between the condemnations of the Christchurch and Sri Lanka terrorist attacks are striking. After Christchurch, there was no hesitation about stating the religious backgrounds of the victims and directing emotion and affection towards Muslim communities. Politicians took no issue with categorising the events in Christchurch as terrorism.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/24/wheres-the-solidarity-for-sri-lankas-christians/

The mass murder of Muslims while worshipping in New Zealand sickened and horrified us all. So did the highly coordinated mass murder of six times as many Christians while worshipping on the holiest day of their year. But the New Zealand religious massacre — a lone wolf operation — brought extended and justifiable cries of outrage against white supremacy and guns, while Sri Lanka seems to have brought mainly expressions of sadness amid an apparent reluctance even to state the obvious goal of the killers or to express suspicion that the perpetrators were part of radical Islam. I’m not a student of these things, but I think the difference is notable and I don’t get it.

[concerned]

By couldn’t they simply say “Christians?” Seems like a forced and awkward nod to some notion of political correctness.

I pulled this randomly from NBC News:



Seems like an editor made sure of careful wording there. The same terms appear over and over in recent accounts from multiple news outlets.

From Rakib Ehsan, an English writer who professes Islam:




O for crying out loud. Fox News and the AP used "Easter Worshippers" in reference to the Notre Dame fire. Trump tweeted condolences to the victims of a "terrorist attack on churches and hotels." No mention of Christians or Easter. You are really stretching to find outrageous p.c. here.

[LA Ute]

O for crying out loud. Fox News and the AP used "Easter Worshippers" in reference to the Notre Dame fire. Trump tweeted condolences to the victims of a "terrorist attack on churches and hotels." No mention of Christians or Easter. You are really stretching to find outrageous p.c. here.

We must once again agree to disagree. I really don’t think this is a big deal, but I really, sincerely don’t understand why Clinton or Obama couldn’t say something about the Sri Lanka atrocity that is similar to what they said about Christchurch:

“In the aftermath of Christchurch, Hillary Clinton expressed her solidarity with the global Muslim community – the Ummah – and said ‘we must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalisation of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms’. Former US president Barack Obama tweeted that himself and his wife Michelle were grieving with the people of New Zealand and the ‘Muslim community’.”

The Occam’s Razor response is that they are playing to their base, consciously or not. What else could it be?

[sancho]

The Occam’s Razor response is that they are playing to their base, consciously or not. What else could it be?

No, this is a conspiracy theory response. The Occam's Razor response is that they were expressing sincere sympathy and did it in a way that upset some people. There is no simpler explanation than that.

The majority will always be treated differently in language than a minority. This may be right or wrong, but it's true. Christianity is the majority religion in the US, so we have trained ourselves to speak about Christianity differently than other faiths. Don't try to read too much into it. I think the nuttiness of the left when it comes to PC'ness is creating an equal and opposite nutty reaction on the right.

[Applejack]

Reading anti-Christian sentiments into the term "Easter Sunday" is delusion.

[chrisrenrut]

utefans?

I was thinking it was on the former cougaruteforum.com, but it actually went further back than that to cougarguard.com. Her is the link:
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7516&

[LA Ute]

No, this is a conspiracy theory response. The Occam's Razor response is that they were expressing sincere sympathy and did it in a way that upset some people. There is no simpler explanation than that.

The majority will always be treated differently in language than a minority. This may be right or wrong, but it's true. Christianity is the majority religion in the US, so we have trained ourselves to speak about Christianity differently than other faiths. Don't try to read too much into it. I think the nuttiness of the left when it comes to PC'ness is creating an equal and opposite nutty reaction on the right.

No conspiracy theory involved. My thinking was leading me to the same view that you express in the second half of your post. I think you are right -- that is the primary reason for the different nature of the sympathy and outrage expressed regarding atrocities against Christians, as opposed to other groups. They are still the majority group in the USA and in the West, so they (we) are less sensitive to attacks. Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, making up over 22% of the world population, but there are only 3.5 million in the USA.

So in the West you can tell jokes about Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, Latter-day Saints (Mormons) etc., because they are seen as part of the majority (although LDS are in a slightly different category) and they all pretty much take it in stride. But you can't tell jokes about Muslims, Hindus, etc., because they're minority groups and the general sense is that they need protection in the West. I agree with this view.


Reading anti-Christian sentiments into the term "Easter Sunday" is delusion.

I don't think the sentiments are anti-Christian, as noted above. (Interesting that you would move so quickly -- reflexively? -- to the conclusion that I do think so, however.) They are just carefully written not to offend. Remember, I'm just trying to understand the different reactions to horrible crimes against different groups. And the reaction is indeed different, and it deserves discussion more than ridicule.

Here's how these attitudes play out. For example, can you imagine Obama and Clinton revising their statements about Christchurch to fit the Sri Lanka situation?


“In the aftermath of Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton expressed her solidarity with the global Christian community and said ‘we must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalisation of religious hatred in all its forms’. Former US president Barack Obama tweeted that himself and his wife Michelle were grieving with the people of Sri Lanka."

Hard to imagine. Instead, Obama said:


"The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka."

Pretty good. But on Christchurch, he said:


"Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms."


He couldn't also grieve with the Christian community over Sri Lanka? He can choose the words he wants to use, but why choose those?

Clinton was even more watered down on Sri Lanka"


"On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka."

Was this really an attack on "tourists" and "travelers?" Was it really "a holy weekend for many faiths?" Apart from Christianity and Judaism (both Easter and Passover fell on the same weekend this year) who else was celebrating?

On Christchurch, Clinton said:


"My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped."

I don't think she could have said:


"My heart breaks for Sri Lanka & the global Christian community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of religous hatred in all its forms. "Islamic terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped."

That's a non-starter. The political blowback from the left would have been ferocious

[Applejack]

No conspiracy theory involved. My thinking was leading me to the same view that you express in the second half of your post. I think you are right -- that is the primary reason for the different nature of the sympathy and outrage expressed regarding atrocities against Christians, as opposed to other groups. They are still the majority group in the USA and in the West, so they (we) are less sensitive to attacks. Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, making up over 22% of the world population, but there are only 3.5 million in the USA.

So in the West you can tell jokes about Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, Latter-day Saints (Mormons) etc., because they are seen as part of the majority (although LDS are in a slightly different category) and they all pretty much take it in stride. But you can't tell jokes about Muslims, Hindus, etc., because they're minority groups and the general sense is that they need protection in the West. I agree with this view.



I don't think the sentiments are anti-Christian, as noted above. (Interesting that you would move so quickly -- reflexively? -- to the conclusion that I do think so, however.) They are just carefully written not to offend. Remember, I'm just trying to understand the different reactions to horrible crimes against different groups. And the reaction is indeed different, and it deserves discussion more than ridicule.

Here's how these attitudes play out. For example, can you imagine Obama and Clinton revising their statements about Christchurch to fit the Sri Lanka situation?



Hard to imagine. Instead, Obama said:



Pretty good. But on Christchurch, he said:



He couldn't also grieve with the Christian community over Sri Lanka? He can choose the words he wants to use, but why choose those?

Clinton was even more watered down on Sri Lanka"



Was this really an attack on "tourists" and "travelers?" Was it really "a holy weekend for many faiths?" Apart from Christianity and Judaism (both Easter and Passover fell on the same weekend this year) who else was celebrating?

On Christchurch, Clinton said:



I don't think she could have said:



That's a non-starter. The political blowback from the left would have been ferocious

The reason Obama didn't say he stands with Christian's is because he is christian. Pretty simple.

Why do we care again what Hillary Clinton says anyway?

[LA Ute]

The reason Obama didn't say he stands with Christian's is because he is christian. Pretty simple.

Take cover. The grammar police are coming! ;)


Why do we care again what Hillary Clinton says anyway?

Because she is a progressive icon and I am beating up on progressives in this part of the thread.