The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jordan-bosstick

Jordan:

Great topic, probably the most important topic we could be discussing right now. You are absolutely correct that ISIS must be stopped and they must be stopped at all cost because in their future there is not a United States of America (meaning that all Americans have either converted or been killed).

Limited airstrikes are not enough to deal with the problem. Containment is not an option; annihilation of ISIS is the only solution. Had we kept fighting the war on terror, as set out by George Bush, ISIS would never have formed.

But hindsight is 20/20 and Obama had a personal vendetta with George Bush. Obama is willing to sacrifice our freedom to prove his point. That personal vendetta is what got Obama elected. If you recall nobody voted for Obama because of his track record or his experience (he had none), they voted for him because they were encouraged by Obama’s anti-Bush stance. Ironically, Bush gets more vindicated each day that Obama is in office.

Although limited airstrikes are not enough, there are military solutions. Sadly our commander-in-chief is too scared to act (or he doesn’t want to act to defend our freedom perhaps because our freedom is contrary to his desires).

“U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that American aircraft are continuing to attack the strongholds of “Islamic state” in Iraq, but noted that there is no military solution to what is happening in Iraq.” http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/301355#.U_jAYktsDnk

One thing is for sure; sure enough that you can bet your life on it. That is that there IS A SOLUTION to this problem. I wholeheartedly guarantee that there is a solution. Why am I certain of this? Why can I guarantee that?

Simple answer. Either ISIS survives and achieves its goal, in which case we no longer exist, or they don’t and there is no in-between because they will either conquer the world or die trying (no exceptions).

Interestingly, if there is a solution and that solution is not military, then that solution must be political. How many here think we can sit down at the negotiating table with ISIS and ask them to stop?

If we defeat ISIS, life as we know it goes on and a solution will have been found, contrary to what the Commander-in-Chief has already concluded. If ISIS wins, the United States of America will no longer exist and I will be dead, as will probably everyone who reads this, and any survivors are welcome to collect on that guarantee at that time.

One other thing seems to be for sure, as long as Obama is the president that solution will not be found because we won’t even look for it. It is in our very survival interest to find a solution and I believe that in two years when Obama is no longer president we will find that solution, but as long as Obama is president we will not even seek that solution. I only hope there is still a United States of America by then, but I must say it doesn’t look good for freedom.

To restate my position I believe there are two ways out of this. One is to wait until Obama leaves office and hope that we get a competent president next time. The other is to turn the clocks back to the point that we never elected Obama in the first place, because had we not elected an incompetent president we would not be in this situation. Since that can’t happen, I am afraid the only solution is to wait.

Obama brought us into this mess with his inability to lead this nation over the last six years. In my opinion he is doing everything possible to keep us down.

Why are we doing ANYTHING “humanitarian”? Airdrops of food is humanitarian and I actually support that. Dropping bombs on ANYONE is not “humanitarian” even if you are dropping them on people you don’t like.

Dropping bombs in the name of “humanity” is not “humane” it is MURDER. If you are going to drop bombs you had better do it in war (or don’t do it at all).

If we consider those who we are dropping bombs on to be our enemy (ISIS, and they truly are our enemy) then we are NOT performing a “humanitarian” mission, we are engaged in “WAR” and at that point if we are at “WAR” then we need to act like we are at war. In other words we need to either fight-to-win, or go home and await capture and death. Going at this half-hearted is actually worse than what our politicians irresponsibly caused to happen in Vietnam because it will drag it on and cost us many dollars and many lives.

Our commander-in-chief has given up. He is in way-over-his-head and cannot perform his job of defending the United States.

We can only hope that the American people will take enough interest in the value of their own freedom to elect a competent president next time. We took a “strike” in the 2008 elections and we took a second strike in the 2012 elections. If we strike out again in 2016 that will be strike three.

We will lose everything we have built in the last 200 plus years of being a free country. We need to be careful who we vote for in 2016, kinda like our lives depend on it.

This country learned a lesson over the last six years and that is if we elect an incompetent person to do the job, that person will by definition underperform at that job. Imagine that, an incompetent person not being able to perform his job. Actually many of us knew this before the first election in 2008 and even more knew it before the second election in 2012. Sadly, in both cases the number of informed people were out-numbered by the number of uninformed. Hopefully a few of those have learned the same lesson the rest of us have learned.

Profile photo of Policy MAKES me SIGH
Policy MAKES me SIGH @policysigh

@jordan-bosstick @kevlar in my opinion this is what needs to be done:

1. Bomb the shit out of them in Iraq.
2. Bomb the shit out of them in Syria.
3. Investigate anyone that has traveled to Syria lately.
4. Revoke passports and travel privileges of anyone that is suspected of fighting or training with ISIS.
5. Freeze assets of any known financial supporters of ISIS.
6. Use special operatives to take out remaining high level ISIS officials.
7. Sanction all countries and governments supportive of ISIS
8. Put in place better intelligence gathering for followers of Islam.

People might be pretty critical of this list, especially number 8. But sorry everyone, I’m not afraid to say it. The Islamic faith is extreme. I watched a very informative interview about Islam. Is basically explains that there is no such thing as Islamic extremism. There is orthodox Islam. What we refer to as “extremists” are actually following the exact words of the Quran. Making them orthodox not extreme. This is a faith that wishes to impose itself on the entire world. Through violent force. We cannot be sympathetic to this kind of rhetoric and violence.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jordan-bosstick
@policysigh

Policy:

Nicely done. Short and to the point. I only wish my posts could be that short and still get the point across in a clear and distinct manner. I think perhaps one reason my posts are longer is that I try to think of and pre-emptively defeat any counter argument to my position before it is ever made. I think I have some success with that because not many people can destroy my arguments and most don’t even try.

I love your list and would like to add to it. For the purposes of comparison and to put things in a consistent language, consider that ISIS and al Qaeda are both terrorist groups bent on the destruction of the western world and certainly bent on the destruction of freedom.

Your list with my additions:

#1 “Bomb the shit out of them in Iraq.”

George Bush did exactly that. He bombed the crap out of the terrorists in Iraq including Saddam Hussein a terrorist leader, and the same terrorists (al Qaeda) who gave rise to ISIS. The terrorists were nearly driven out of Iraq and the remaining problem was mostly internal to Iraq.

That remaining internal issue should have been dealt with by the State Department (specifically NOT the U.S. military) because it was the failure of the negotiations between the State Department, combined with the United Nations and the rest of the free world, and Iraq combined with their French supporters who were in violation of the oil-for-food program (and who subsequently guaranteed Saddam Hussein that we would not attack which gave him the confidence to defy U.S. and U.N. demands to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their job) that got us into that war in the first place (I have written many papers on this on this website).

We had Iraq well on the way to being cleaned up. Obama surrendered on behalf of the United States of America.

#2 “Bomb the shit out of them in Syria.”

George Bush had not led the military into Syria yet but you can rest assured that Syria was on the list because Bush publicly declared, and congress supported the notion that we (and our allies) were at war not only with terrorists but those nations who supported terrorism. This, by the way is one of several ways that the war in Iraq was legal, contrary to the un-researched but oft-spouted talking points of the left.

We actually saw how Qaddafi, when he realized that George Bush meant business, offered his WMDs up to the United States in order that his country not be next. Had Obama capitalized on this instead of surrendering I believe this giving up of WMDs and supporting terrorism would have taken the world by storm and the world now would be a much safer place today.

No country would in their right mind risk destruction by the United States and allies after they saw a couple countries go down. Qaddafi gave in after only two countries went down. After a couple more went down we would probably have all the rogue dictators giving up their support of terrorism. We were well on the way to victory.

Obama surrendered on behalf of the United States of America.

#3 “Investigate anyone that has traveled to Syria lately.”

Bush was doing this before Obama surrendered on our behalf. Not just with Syria but any country that supported terrorism. Bush was being proactive in the execution of the war on terror. Obama just surrendered the first chance he got because making that campaign promise was the only way he could get elected, and he owed a big debt to those uninformed voters.

#4 “Revoke passports and travel privileges of anyone that is suspected of fighting or training with ISIS.”

I find this interesting. George Bush took out a few American citizens who were caught fighting alongside the terrorists. I loathe sticking up for Obama but a few months ago, maybe a year ago, there was a great debate about the president of the United States having authorization to target and kill U.S. citizens.

The president, who is also the commander-in-chief, has the sole responsibility to defend the United States of America. He has no other job than that (I’m not trying to make lite of this duty because it in itself is a full time job). I have written numerous papers on how this is his most important and really ONLY duty. Therefore, if an American citizen is a declared enemy of the United States of America, yes I believe the president should be able to take him out. Should that authority be used wisely? Yes, but I do believe the president should have that authority.

I think the problem arose when many of the what I would consider the intelligent and informed people argued against this because they didn’t necessarily reject the concept (though some flat rejected it) but more that they accepted the concept but didn’t believe Obama was trustworthy enough to be given that authority.

I agree with them that Obama is not trustworthy but I believe that power is inherent in the commander-in-chief when he is tasked with defending the United States.

#5 “Freeze assets of any known financial supporters of ISIS.”
George Bush did this. In retaliation, Obama surrendered on behalf of all Americans.

#6 “Use special operatives to take out remaining high level ISIS officials.”

George Bush did this in a very aggressive manner early in the program. Obama surrendered on our behalf.

#7 “Sanction all countries and governments supportive of ISIS.”

George Bush did this. Obama surrendered on our behalf.

#8 “Put in place better intelligence gathering for followers of Islam.”

George Bush did this aggressively and Obama surrendered on our behalf. George Bush did not necessarily gather intelligence on members of Islam so much as the members of Radical Islam. You make a very good point that the difference is negligible but back in the day there was a tendency to (myself included) recognize Islam as a legitimate religion.

Nowadays, for reasons you point out and because of the extreme reluctance of “good” Islam to denounce “radical” Islam, the line between these groups is disappearing rapidly and they are all starting to look like terrorists (I hate to say this folks but ask yourself what “good” Islam is doing to help rid the world of “bad” Islam).

As for the subject of “intelligence” on those who want to destroy us, Obama has failed here more than most other places where he has clearly failed. On the other hand George Bush initially excelled in this area.

The field of intelligence is both difficult and dangerous. It is difficult for many reasons but one is that you have to determine what is real and what is false (counter-intelligence).

I am not a fan of torture (unless absolutely necessary). That said, waterboarding is not torture it is enhanced interrogation. There are many methods of enhanced interrogation such as sleep deprivation. The anti-war (and by extension anti-freedom) do-gooders in this country were successful, under the leadership of Obama, in getting nearly all enhanced interrogation techniques classified as torture and as a result we have completely lost our ability to gather intelligence from captured enemy.

Sleep deprivation is now considered torture and the other night I couldn’t get to sleep because the neighbor’s two-year-old daughter was screaming all night. Little do my neighbors know I have filed against them in federal court for violation of federal torture statutes. My attorney says this is an open and shut case and I should be able to collect millions from the recently married couple.

Obama has been fighting a nearly and often drone-only war and though I support the use of drones, the exclusive use of drones nearly assures you never capture prisoners you can interrogate. But what the heck, under the new Army Field Manual all you can do is ask them questions in a most polite manner and if they don’t answer you can’t do anything because we have given them protected rights reserved for Americans.

I do have one question for you and it falls under #8 (intelligence). If we captured some of these illegal enemy combatants in an effort to extract intelligence from them, we would have to have a place to put them. We are turning known terrorists loose from Gitmo as fast as we can and doing so regardless of how much it damages our national security.

We didn’t wait until the war was over like all nations throughout history have done but we let them go WHILE we were still at war with them. As long as we are turning them loose we will not be capturing new terrorists to replace them (defeats the purpose), so where do you propose we put these terrorists we should be capturing (for intel purposes) but aren’t?

Policy, I’m not critical of your list. In fact I love your list and think it is very accurate. My only purpose is to add to it.

Profile photo of Sean Maguire
Sean Maguire @macnak

I am likley in a majority that hasn’t any quick fix regaurdless of how desperate the situation. The region is so intertwined with competing interests that it is tough to swallow the bitter reality that no bomb will secure the lives of innocents. I believe that the treatment and sadly not the cure is the best that humanity can offer against true evil. I believe that we utilize quietly special operations, CIA assets, and a variety of contractors to remove threats surgically while making a great show of economic psi on those that would stand by and let the west seek the solution. The money will always be what moves those in power to act.

Profile photo of zachery.burson
zachery.burson @zachery-burson

Policy, I would be interested to see this video that explained that Orthodox Muslims are what we call the extremists. I ask this because in my study of the Qur’an and the culture of Islam I didn’t find the “kill everyone who is different” part. I may have missed it. That said your list is a good idea but there is a problem with “bombing them” You need boots on the ground for multiple reasons. One, someone has to plant the flag and Two, sending in infantry means less chance of civilian casualties. We need the people of Iraq to stand behind us. We need their trust. This is important in out watch of Iran. In the end I agree with most of your points, they just need some slight changes. I agree about the passports and freezing accounts. This is war whether or not people want to see it as such and we need to take precautions to protect ourselves. As far as what to do with ISIS, Kevlar is right the only way to end this is to eliminate them, but also keep in mind it is very hard to eliminate an idea. That is in the end what ISIS is. The war on terror will never be over because there will always be people who hate others. As a last note, the current administration is taking action, it may have taken two American deaths but they are moving to more of a full military movement and are speaking on Sept 25 to the international community to help take action against ISIS.

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

@jordan-bosstick @kevlar @policysigh @jlriggs57aol-com @zachery-burson @macnak

To make matters even more complicated, the rebels Obama had planned to assist to fight against ISIS are having some troubles.

First, 45 of the top rebels willing to fight against ISIS have now been killed in some sort of explosion: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/11/ISIS-Opposition-Killed-Bomb

So essentially, their entire leadership, which we were planning to train and assist, according to Obama, are now DEAD.

Second, just a few days after they are all killed the remaining ISIS opposition leadership signed a non aggression pact with ISIS stating that they would not fight each other until they defeat the Assad government, which, strangely enough, is the US goal as well.

So… it looks like ISIS isn’t going anywhere until Assad is gone. This whole issue is getting more and more complicated.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140912/syria-rebels-non-aggression-pact-near-damascus

So what happens after they get rid of Assad? Will the opposition suddenly rise up with the help of the US?

ISIS is growing every minute. The world’s crazies are heading to Syria to join the fight. The CIA just came out and said that ISIS is much larger than expected. With at least 40,000 soldiers.

This whole thing is such a mess.

September 15, 2014

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@twocents
@jordan-bosstick
@kevlar
@policysigh
@zachery-burson
@macnak

I don’t have much time to post, but this will do for now.

Zachery, you must have missed a few.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

September 15, 2014

Profile photo of Tina Reeves
Tina Reeves @jtr1

In most current conflicts throughout the world there is one common denominator and that is Islam. I think we have to get Islam reclassified as a cult and political ideology rather than a religion, because that in reality is what it is.

In Britain, muslim men can claim state benefits for up to four wives when it is absolutely illegal to have more than one wife. They get round the system because the Government allows them to claim for the wives as dependants. They also get interest free loans and mortgages because it is “against their religion to pay interest”. Not only is this discriminatory but it is also unfair.

It took me a long time to figure out why the British government, whenever ISIS commits atrocities, states that it has nothing to do with Islam. The reason can be seen on the following link – https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/367154/UKTI_UK_Excellence_in_Islamic_Finance_Reprint_2014_Spread.pdf

It would appear our government has sold Islamic Bonds (underwritten in Sharia Law) to the extent that around 40% of the country is owned by muslims. I wonder whether it is the case with all countries whose presidents state ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.

I believe if we could change their status they would leave our countries because they would lose all the concessions they are given on the basis of their “religion”. If we don’t clamp down on it,we won’t have to worry about the returning jihadists because there are already enough of their supporters in our respective countries possibly waiting for the signal to commit similar atrocities in our own homelands. To an extent it is already happening.

We also have to get rid of the governments who are supporting them in their efforts to erode our Western society. This means gathering support and voting for any party that agrees with us. We have one in the UK but naturally we have to convince the majority that they must vote for change. There are muslim apologists who really are either not very bright or have been brainwashed by muslims. These people will only realise their mistake when their “friendly” muslim neighbour arrives with a sword to cut of their heads.

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

@jtr1 very interesting information and perspective. I have never heard this perspective before that the government has sold Islamic bonds. Very interesting. I will have to do some more research on this. Haven’t had time go through the report you posted but it seems like a credible source if the information is in there.

@jlriggs57aol-com
@jordan-bosstick
@kevlar
@policysigh
@zachery-burson
@macnak

Profile photo of Tina Reeves
Tina Reeves @jtr1

@twocents – it’s the most credible source you can get – it’s on the UK Government website. Having said that it is not easy to find and they recently rewrote it and changed the link address. The sheer volume of organisations/banks offering Sharia finance is unreal not to mention the amount of schools and educational institutions that are financed by muslims. The fact that this has all been put in place without consulting us or having us vote on it makes me believe that there is some form of hidden agenda that we don’t know about.

I believe that ISIS was probably created with Western participation but having created the monster it has now got out of control.

However, I was heartened to learn that at least one country has seen the light and is finally doing the right thing – Norway. http://www.norwaypost.no/index.php/news/latest-news/30293

Profile photo of Jordan Bosstick
Jordan Bosstick @jordan-bosstick

@jtr1
@jlriggs57aol-com
@twocents
@kevlar
@policysigh
@zachery-burson
@macnak

It seems the situation with ISIS is only getting worse. This was the headline I woke up to this morning: ISIS Burns 45 alive in IRAQ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2957471/ISIS-burn-45-people-death-captured-Iraqi-town-Baghdadi-Islamists-attack-homes-security-forces-families.html

ISIS is using every chance they can to attract more followers. I think headlines like this attract the crazies to join their cause.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@jordan-bosstick
@jtr1
@twocents
@kevlar
@policysigh
@zachery-burson
@macnak

Jordan, I agree with you anytime something like this is shown, where this thug group is getting away with murder and there are little to no consequences, it does help them in their recruitment. What also helps these groups grow is when they see the leader, of what used to be the most powerful country in the world, dragging his feet, making excuses, and basically turning a blind eye, to what is going on, they have to think this group has a great deal of power.

I am not pro-war, but it looks like we will have to do what was done in the past to stop these terrorists.

Some people know and some do not. The Crusades were done to slow down or stop the spread of Muslim terror. The Muslim extremists were doing the same thing then as they are doing now, “Join us or die”. The link below has a lot of good information on this.

http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

Do I think we can reason with ISIS? No. Do I think we will end up fighting them? Not during obozo’s reign. Maybe when and if he is out of office and someone with a pair gets elected.

We will never improve as a nation, we will never be respected as a nation, we will never grow as a nation, as long as we have a socialist coward as our leader.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS