Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Your President doesn't have a plan.

Notice the weak and timid response to this horrific killing?  Notice the lack of anger or resolve?  Do you sense any desire to press forward and deliver justice....American style justice to these animals?

I don't.

The world is burning and we have pure pussy in the White House.

Islamic terrorist have the upper hand.  They are "shaping" the battlefield (I used the Pentagon-ese shaping on purpose) and are inside OUR decision making loop.

Tally up the atrocities.

They have Europe on edge after the attacks in Paris.  They barbarically murdered the Jordanian pilot.  Their affiliates in Nigeria are rampaging like a pack of wolves on a sheep farm.

Lets face facts.

The terrorists are winning and our President doesn't have a clue.

Coffee Man said it best in his comment to this event...
...was talking with my 17 year old son about these zealots. Somehow they think that taking the world back to 500 A.D. is the best. I may be wrong but wasn't Thomas Aquinas tasked by the Vatican to bring the "advanced sciences" of the Muslim world to the western masses in a way that was palatable to the Catholic Church?
How time progresses......back in the 1100-1200's, Muslims were the forward leaning thinkers of the time and the western world was backwards. Now, how times have changed.

When are we, as a civilized society, going to rise up against these atrocities and call it what it is? And then have the intestinal fortitude to do something about it?
The Middle East isn't worth the life of one American Serviceman.  It does deserve several thousand tons of high explosives. 


  1. Who's going to pay for the explosives? The US Congress can't even put together a budget to stop automatic sequestration. Sequestration is a "default" position, not the "don't pay debt" default, but the "no one can agree on anything, so everything is on autopilot" default.

    If I really wanted to send ISIS a message, I'd get Japan to post a 1k bounty on any ISIS killed, to the limit of 200 million. Basically "you kill our people and the money you demand becomes blood money on your heads". Get every Tom, Dick and Harry with a gun out for a bonus. Best of all, no troops on the ground. Just a lot of "big game hunters". Won't be surprised if some American, African or Greek traveled there to get himself some "easy money".

    Just have to make sure no one can just chop some random person and call him ISIS for the money.

    1. we have more than enough bombs in storage to handle the job. fuck your theory about a bounty. that's western lore and means nothing. its doesn't send a message it communicates a lack of seriousness.

      Japan isn't even relevant when it comes to this conversation. they haven't invested blood treasure and personnel in the region the way that the USA has.

      no. this is a bood debt that the terrorist owe the US. the UK can sit and coddle their home grown terrorist to their delight. i don't give a fuck. what i do want is for us to either shit or get off the pot.

      extract blood or don't give a shit and leave the region. for me this has become an either or.

    2. You might start considering Syria and Iran your best buddies and start considering the gulf states as the root of all this . Which ever way you turn Saddam ,Gadafi ,Asad would be much better for both locals and the world than the anarchy that followed their toppling and which enabled the space for likes of ISIS

    3. you're missing the point.

      it doesn't matter how this all came about. i'm tired of the speculation, the theories, the lies, the propaganda and the like. i don't care anymore.

      all i see is an enemy that must be killed and a need to get it done post haste.

      everything else is irrelevant. the only thing that matters is doing the work that needs to be done, packing up our tools and leaving those idiots to sort it out for themselves.

      the Middle East is a cesspool and its past time we stopped wading in shit.

    4. You have a sad, but true point there..

      Dictators generally do not like other parties having power in their nations, that includes terrorists like Al Kaida ( and now ISIS). Wile it is rather satisfying to have seen Sadam go, wile I would not cry a tear about Assad, the consequences are horrid.
      Some of it is timing, and follow up. For Sadam I have always thought the time to get rid of him was the first Gulf War, not the second. I am sure most people here, interested in military matters also know how the Allies, mostly the US stabilized Japan and to an extend Germany after WW2. They kept old power structures in place and tweaked them. Not altogether morally correct, but practical.

      There is a funny way in which over time friends become enemies and the other way around. Look at today, our biggest allies against ISIS are the Kurds, who not 5 years ago were considered terrorist themselves by NATO. Iran is, at least in a practical sense, on our side. All it takes to forget about a (perceived) lesser evil is a greater one..

      Anyway, about an all out American offensive against ISIS or for that matter Putin.. or any problem we now face. Admittedly I do not live in the USA , ( at the moment, I am married to an American and love the country) but it looks to me like most Americans do not want an all out war. Their wants are closer to home. Of course, over time this can change, like it did in Jordan by this single act of barbarism, but until it does I do not see either side willing to do more then rhetoric and small measures. Bombs being in storage or not, military deployment takes money, a lot of it and that takes a president and a parliament willing to provide it. these bombs and all else used need to be replaced, or you run the risk of being caught with your pants down the next time force is needed.

      Do not get me wrong, personally I am in favor of a much bigger stick being used in several parts of the world along side a good follow up to try and prevent trouble in the future.

    5. first lets talk Kurds.

      NATO is an irrelevant and useless body. it acts on the consensus and that alone makes it weak. but as far as NATO and the Kurds are concerned I point to Turkey. i personally still have faith that they will be a great ally and i don't understand the problem they have with the Kurds but they're the reason that the Kurds were on their terror list. the Kurds have been allies to the US since the first Gulf War.

      second, no one is talking about a freaking military deployment. i'm talking about orbits of B-52's dropping bombs on anything we THINK MIGHT BE a terrorist gathering. will we accidentally hit targets we shouldn't? yes. should we do it anyway? yes.

      i am constantly amazed at the refusal of people to act when its clear that the enemy is at the doorsteps and violence is the only answer.

      as far as needing partners in the region? why? we don't need them. all we need to do is punish these bastards, say to hell with the rest of the world and then dare anyone to raise a hand against an American again.

      all you so called civilized people fail to realize the nature of the enemy we face. they will give no quarter so neither should we.

    6. Soloman: That is short term thinking. Kill these enemies and new ones will be there. Frankly he only upside I see with ISIS is that a lot of people over there also are sick of them.

      Leaving the region is only an option if/when you are no longer dependent on them for your oil and weapon sales. Even worst Western Europe is dependent on the Arabs and Russia for fuel.. not to mention on the USA for security.
      Its a sick world, but if it wasn't there would be no need for a Marine Corps...

    7. you don't get it do you? there will always be enemies! no matter what we do and how we do it there will always be someone that needs to be killed. the best you can hope for is that there are breaks in the action between the times when killing needs to be done.

      we could get a few years break if we decimated ISIS once and for all.

      if you're a pacifist then this isn't the place for you.

    8. You are right on why the Kurds were on that list1

      But, with all due respect, I fear you fail to realize what enemy we all face. Wile there always are evil people abusing situations to gain power or do some demented divinely inspired thing,, it is things like indiscriminate bombing that provides the fertilizer for them to grow.
      You can not ignore the reasons for a problem, because they show how the next problem gets created. If you truly want to make 'your' people as safe as you can make them you need to do both: kick butt and try to avoid creating the next problem doing so.

      Its like being a doctor.. curing the illness by killing the patient is not productive.

      Let me also point out that I do not understand you advocating B52's as a solution, when it is the Marines who are the best at providing solutions I suggest.

    9. " there will always be enemies! no matter what we do and how we do it there will always be someone that needs to be killed."

      I agree 100 % . Where I differ from you is that I think you can reduce the number FUTURE enemies and increase the times between conflicts by more intelligent use of force and the right follow up.
      Invest a dollar extra now to save 2 dollars later on.

      Am I a pacifist? You be the judge.. I do not like violence, but think it is needed at times . I think a strong military is a necessary evil, something you should not ignore even in times of peace, because peace will not last for ever.
      Human nature is what it is and everyone who believes we can achieve peace and security by words alone is as misguided as the person who thinks we can achieve it with violence alone.

    10. Ps.. I do not think me favoring a bigger stick then used now is rather pacifistic, I would say its more realistic.. but then who wouldn't consider themselves a realist?

    11. B-52's are the solution because i don't plan on holding ground. all i want to do is destroy and kill. 500 pound bombs dropped from 40,000 feet to deliver death, destruction and a message is all i desire.

      will they want revenge?


      do i care?

      no. we've seen what passive, restrained, and surgically applied violence does in the region. we've seen what partnerships, engagement and nation building has done.

      in my opinion ... not much.

      all i desire at this time is spilled blood, mothers crying in the streets and rubble where their were once buildings.

    12. And what are the chances of you getting the B-52 run you desire? I'd say not much.

      People work on 2 levels. Emotionally and practically.

      Practically, the bounty plan might work.

      Emotionally? I wish the French went nuclear, with a clean sweep op to follow up, so Sol asking for a B-52 is rather mild.

    13. we use predator strikes all the time. how hard would it be to sell the idea of using B-52 strikes to destroy ISIS infrastructure and training bases? not hard at all. how hard would it be to put up a bounty on the faces of masked individuals? extremely.

      the French? couldn't care less. the politics are murky and to be honest they have a homegrown problem to take care of. if the French want to be helpful then they can start at home and finish the job in Mali.

    14. It seems to all come down to the goal one has.

      My goal would be to keep people as safe as possible, for as long as possible.
      First of my countrymen and their allies, secondary the innocents in the region if possible.

      Your goal is to 'destroy and kill', so basically revenge.

      To me the use and the aim of having armed forces is to protect. Protect citizens, protect national interests and if so desired protect others elsewhere. Improve the lives of those you serve, not make it worst.

    15. revenge? no. eradication of the threat without leaving a trace of it alive? yes! we have seen several decades of half measures when it comes to warfare. even Israel has fallen prey to that stupidity. in its past Israel would destroy its enemies and drive them wailing back to their huts. now? they're constantly bombed, rocketed and its citizens killed.

      its time to give the enemy what they've given us. kill them all.

  2. ''i don't understand the problem they have with the Kurds but they're the reason that the Kurds were on their terror list. the Kurds have been allies to the US since the first Gulf War.''

    Kurds nation without a state

    Kurds have no allies all sides prosecute them , even US lets them down every time that is politicaly oprotune

    1. no allies? then why do they turn to the US for aid and weapons? again, you can save your links. i don't care. i don't even care if the people of the region persecute them. they're great ISIS hunters. even if we can't be friends we can be temporary allies to kill a mutual enemy.

  3. Need to turn all of the middle east to glass including and especially Israel. That will solve the problem.

    1. To be honest, that would also work as a solution towards security of your citizens.. if it was possible.

      However if you believe in anything involving some God or Karma, that would surely end anyone involved in hell.

      Innocent victims are of course unavoidable in any warfare, but there is a big difference to killing babies, woman and children on purpose.
      Basically George, your way of thinking is no better then any terrorist. In my mind our western society ( and many other parts of the world) are better then that!

    2. i believe in God but damn sure don't understand him. how he could allow this type of barbarity to go on is beyond me. in the absence of God its up to us to solve the problem. if he judges us to have acted badly then i only have one question for him before he tosses me into hell.

      that question will be where the fuck were you sir?

      did you not see the video of the guy being burned alive? he was praying to his god and he did not save him. why would a guy allow that? it makes no sense.

    3. I understand what you say there perfectly.. I have very similar feelings.

      That video makes me very angry and sad. Nowhere and never will I defend any of these terrorists. No historical mistake, no history, no vicious circle, no rationale, no reason is a valid excuse for these barbaric acts. They are Al Kaida on speed.. terrorism combined with medieval scorched earth, rape everyone warfare. Anyone here who calls on killing everyone and all of them will get my full support!

      You know my reservations, ifs and buts, I will not repeat them here, but non have anything to do with compassion for these barbarians.

    4. What everyone fails to realize is the fact is that none of these ideas will solve the problem that the civilized world faces, things are more complex than that.

      Problem #1: Radical Islam is more popular than ever, it is also at the heart of this conflict. Radical interpretations of religious texts have fueled war and destruction for thousands of years, why certain people think today is different is beyond me.

      Problem #2: Most, if not all, of the Middle East is stuck in deep tribal and social conflict that also goes back thousands of years, only made worse with the Sykes-Picot Agreement (thanks Britain and France) that hopelessly screwed that part of the world. Getting a "Coalition" together is a farce, there are no WW2 type allies in the Middle East (with the Exception of Israel), there are only loosely committed actors who do enough to seem like an ally for political benefit and US favor.

      Problem #3: While the majority of Muslims may not openly and actively call for violence to further their beliefs, they are more than happy to passively support it. When push comes to shove, they would rather someone spread their beliefs using ways they don't openly agree with than have no one spread them at all.

      Everyone here is right, there will always be enemies and there are a number of ways to deal with them. What most people fail to realize is that this IS NOT WW2, this issue is not that of a handful of rouge states; it's a laundry list of rouge states with rouge actors inside them, normal states with rouge actors inside them, or rouge actors with no state at all. We can't bomb our way to victory, we can't invade our way to victory. - there are just too many targets in too many places for that to work

      We can, and should, use the forces that are proven for scenarios and enemies like this, our various Special Operations Forces and rapid response groups. Deliberate and surgical targeting of these Radical Islamist/Terrorist groups, combined with foreign policy that actually aims to support practical democracy rather than ineffectual "Nation Building" would greatly destroy or diminish the threat that the civilized world faces.

      However, it is important to remember that until the time that someone in the Islamic World gives two-tenths of a shit about fixing and reforming their religion, we will be back at this at a later date, against more nut-jobs

    5. why should we put boots on the ground in the region when we've tried that for the last 20 years without success? sorry buddy but SOCOM today isn't the Special Ops of the Vietnam war. they're aren't light, they require tons of support and they're only good for raids.

      additionally i could care less about solving the problems of the region. just need to punish them enough to make them think twice about attacking the US.

      we make the issue complex because we're looking to solve the problem instead of killing people and their things.

      fuck a solution, just get some bloodshed.

    6. I never said that we could, or should, be solving the problems of the Middle East, in fact, I specifically said that that was the Job of Muslims. However, we do need to be active in that region at times in order to protect ourselves, our allies (Israel and some others), and yes I happen to be of the opinion that women and children have the right to NOT HAVE THEIR HEADS CUT OFF by some Islamic Douche-Bag because they "weren't 'Muslim' enough"!

      Whether you like it or not, SOCOM has been the most effective military element of the Global War on Terror, aside from the Intelligence Services/Agencies. Is SOCOM the MACV-SOG from Vietnam? No. Is it better than conventional troops or Air-Power alone? Absolutely.

      If you honestly think that you can "punish them enough to make them think twice about attacking the US" then you are just as lost as many other people on this. What you say you want will never happen. We are contrary to everything they believe in (Freedom/Tolerance Everybody?). You are never going to change their minds or make them think twice with any amount of military force, it's just the way it is.

  4. Sol, I am with you 100%. I would like to see nothing but a giant flying wedge of B-52's flying over that hell...unleashing hell. Wave after wave of them.

    If they are not ISIS, then they are collaborators or need for either.

    There will ALWAYS be enemies. These little thugs are not new. They have always been there but a few years ago we were locked in a Cold War (maybe you read about it, it was in all the newspapers!!) and these little distractions were just that.

    Our current political climate in this country is clueless. That will change when a catastrophic event happens and wakes us up again. It is a mater of time I feel before they bring this to our shores.

    In this day and age, clueless is dangerous.

    1. yes sir! our problem is that clueless reaches all the way up to our national security team. they have 100 percent visibility on the issue but don't seem to have a plan of action.

    2. I can not help but react to this: "If they are not ISIS, then they are collaborators or sympathizers.."

      Where have you been, under a rock? The worst victims of ISIS is the local population. They have no compassion for anyone. Even if you consider all Muslims enemies, then realize that region has many Christians and Jews living in it. Solomon himself posted about the Kurds rescuing Yazidis.

      In other words, besides your 3 categories of -terrorists- , - collaborators- and - sympathizers- you are missing one: -VICTIMS- !

      Sadly life is not simple....

    3. If life is that brutal in occupied territory, won't the residents have fled already?

    4. Oh yeah, and there is the possibility of encouraging people like buntalaloco to take up terrorism to combat "anti-muslim genocide".

    5. I am sure many have fled, but it seems to be policy of ISIS to prevent as many as they can from doing so. Not surprising, like one of the reactions before said: they have learned to hide among innocents, because they know how dangerous airpower can be if they do not.

      Frankly, if some tribe/ village refuses to flee I do not feel like punishing them for that either,some even fight/fought back. Taking a stand should be encouraged.

      Butalaloco prolly has better things to do, lol, like planning the murder of Putin?

      Anyway, genocide is genocide, irregardless of the victims religion. The only way one can justify 'turning a whole region to glass' is if one actually believes non-American lives (or in my case non-Dutch ones) are intrinsically worth less regardless of their actions.
      Anyone who thinks that about their own kind is basically no better then a Nazi and frankly a little insane, because the only way the place where you were born can matter is if you believe some higher power arranged it that way. That comes rather close to teachings of Islam we despise also.

  5. As I was speaking of earlier....King Abdullah from Jordan was in closed sessions with Congress shortly after finding out about his pilot. He was heard to be quoting Clint Eastwoods character in "Unforgiven" William Munny "Any man I see out there, I'm gonna kill him. Any son of a bitch takes a shot at me, I'm not only going to kill him, I'm going to kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down."

    Sounds a bit upset.

    1. There is a tribal thing going on there. King Abdullah is part of one himself. Not only did these terrorists kill a member of the tribe, they also metaphorically spat in his face. They jerked him around by negotiating wile the pilot was already dead.

      The tribal sensibilities that at times works against us can also have its advantages.

  6. So, the Middle East isn't worth the life of a serviceman, but we should be bombing them back to the stone age?

    If it isn't worth our involvement, it isn't worth our bombs either.

    to be certain, I don't understand our foreign policy nor do I see a strategy. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

    OTOH, it isn't in the interests of the US to go after every fucking Islamic terrorist group in the fucking world because none of them are a threat to the US. Oil? We can develop it in other parts of the world.

    How many shitholes are we involved in due to Islamic terrorism/insurgencies? Yemen, Iraq, Syria, East Africa, Libya, Mali, Afghanistan, Phillipines. We need to stop playing whack-a-mole with these fuckers and ask WTF are we doing there?

    In Grand Strategy terms, a bunch of guys in sandals with AK are not a threat to the US.

    If we really want to go after them, then doing it as Low-Intensity Conflict with SOCOM and Drones, identifying local allies and arming them is the best way. And that is probably being done right now.

    While it is tempting to talk about B52 leveling entire regions, the reality is that our enemies already know what airpower can do and that is the reason they mix in with the civilian populace and hide. They aren't going to stand around waiting to get their One-Way ticket to heaven punched by US airpower.

    After WWII, the US flooded Europe with goods, food, etc. We were fighting starvation, poverty, homeslessness in a Europe devastated by the War. But we were also fighting all of the communists, native and Soviet-sponsored, who were trying to organize in the remnants of Western and Central Europe. Our generosity and largesse basically undermined all of the communist agenda because they didn't have a gripe. to further their cause.

    Behind that was counter-espionage to undermine native Communist parties, political and economic efforts to work with left of center parties and trade unions to ensure they got a piece of the pie.

    It was a Grand Strategy that incorporated economic, political and military elements to build up our allies and create an obvious example for the entire world to see why Soviet communism wasn't the inevitable solution.

    I don't think radical Islam rises to that threat level, but for argument's sake, if it was, what plan do we have for these regions with Islamic insurgencies besides military-oriented ones?

    1. wrong Paralus.

      the idea of them not being worth our bombs flew out the window when they did the 9/11 attacks in New York, committed the attrocities in Paris and stole/raped/murdered like wild dogs in Nigeria.

      additionally we've tried the SOCOM route and got exactly no where. they're the masters of the raid but when it comes to even conducting training missions (read up on the debacle in Mali) they've lost a step. more low key actions are NOT the answer. its time to fight fire with carpet bombing.

      military history in general is inconclusive when it comes to these types of people. the only real successful campaign that was mounted against these bastards was led by the Templar Knights.

  7. why do the "good" progressive thinking people try so hard to say human nature is bad. It is in our nature to protect our own no matter how we define that. If Jordan is our allie then the burning of their pilot is a burning of our own. we have seen innocent civilians have all kinds of atrocities done to them to instill fear in the region and outside of it to keep people from wanting to fight them. The good people stand up and talk about how bad it is and do dumb@ss # movements on twitter that mean nothing. they need to fear us. Now those that know the region better would know the details better on how to go about instilling the level of fear I want them to have. I kinda like the bombing of their and anyone we can relate to them homes. Go old testament style and leave no trace of their blood line.

  8. We (and i use we intentionally) need to give special forces teams an open hunting licence, support them with air strikes and wipe them off the face of tge earth.
    Expand whats already happening.

  9. CM,

    Your extremist views are not compatible with a civilized culture. Eradicating an entire society with carpet bombing would mean expunging some 26 million lives in Iraq alone, some 70% of which would be women and underage children who have _no social authority_ with which to enact 'doctrinal changes' in any combatant force.

    As an exercise in comparative history: In the period 200BCE-0CE, what would be come Western Culture enacted crucifixion in the thousands as a captial punishment by slow asphyxiation or exsanguination and dehydration as heat stroke. The pain of which was /incredible/.

    In the period 200-1,000CE, we learned from the Huns and later Tartars to drag men behind a horse at a full gallop for a couple miles and then to pull the quivering, bleeding, raw meat, limb from screaming limb by 'quartering' behind three more. The Vikings and the Saxons both practiced the Blood Eagle as the living vivisection of a single warrior to serve as a sent-home-on-boat warning against those who would make the mistake of further raiding and pillage on the group.

    In the period 1,000-1,800CE, we began burning 'witches', who were largely helpless non-combatants, in the tens of thousands, for saying (Blasphemy) or thinking (Heresy) that they had a right to own their own spiritual beliefs. That this was an act of political warfare by a church proves why religion is, inherently, an evil act.

    In the period 1,800-2,100, we industrialized warfare so that death tolls spiraled to first the hundreds of thousands (Napoleonics and Civil War) and then the hundreds of millions (WWI & II through Vietnam); all the while refusing to acknowledge the validity of mercy, even within our own signed treaty constraints in such acts as the _utterly unnecessary_ atomic strikes on two civilian/dual use targets without the required 24hrs warning.

    We may not like the /manner/ by which ISIL does what it does but in both extent and method, Western Culture makes these poor fools look like the utter amateurs they are when it comes to brutal murder as mass casualty.

    This man was not a U.S. citizen. He was however a Warrior. Which means that, like it or not, he knew the risks of serving. And though, I am sure, he didn't consider slow incineration would be among the risks he faced, the fact remains that, ISIL directly executed a combatant.

    1. Whereas the majority of the targets which we hit with drone strikes in Pakistan, in civilian populated areas, could not help but result in non-combatant deaths far in excess of the few terrorists who were legitimately targeted.

      As I said before: The best way to get rid of ISIL is to figure out who is funding/sourcing their maneuver fuel and commo and take that away from them. Then, when they are isolated, move in to begin city-by-city fragmentation of their controlled territory as the isolation of their forces in being.

      It will be dangerous, dirty, work. But it will have the enormous advantage of operating under a traffic lockdown of zero-fuel transport which means no reinforcement or reoccupation.

      Company sized units in smaller towns and battalion sized units in larger ones, will thus be able to sweep and clear WITHOUT having to hold terrain. I would recommend mass deployment of LTL technologies like ADS and LRAD to help speed things along.

      If you truly believe that our interference in another nation's civil war is morally necessary under conditions where the combatants show no sign of threatening ourselves or our allies, outside their own borders, then it is also encumbent upon you to chose the method which justifies that 'greater good' requirement with the _absolute minimum_ amount of force necessary to end the fight with low casualties.

      For myself, this is not our affair. I have no sympathy for Islam as a religion of war but also no condemnation for it, so long as they butcher only their own. Combatants from our forces who foolishly wish to commit to war under a President who was not even in office (and whose political philosophy thus unknown) at the time they signed up, have no business complaining about their present circumstances.

      Instead, they should equip themselves with a cyanide capsule and an extra clip for their PDW with the certain knowledge that they will not be taken alive. Because taking the Big Risk is what it means to serve but how you go out should be your own affair to the extent that it doesn't interfere with The Mission.

      This man's family has my regrets. I am sorry if they had to see their brother/son/husband/father die this way.

    2. Civilized is what your allowed to be after war. War is not civilized. They are trying to kill you all the while you are trying to kill them.

    3. nailed it. i agree 100% Tony.

      the issue is that these people have declared war on us but as usual we have people that are too scared to look them in the eye and say're fucked up, you're a fucking terrorist and you're going to feel American steel at your throat. you fuck with one of ours and we will kill ten of yours.

      no. instead we have people trying to define the situation. trying to make excuses for the troubles instead of dealing with these bastards in the same way that they deal with us. they deserve no sympathy, no mercy and no quarter

  10. look if you want to perform genocide to all muslim people just say so , because you equate evil with islam and muslims who have nothing to do with the extremist who used religion as an excuse for violence.

    and funny how you seem to forget the history of middle east since ottoman empire's defeat , and the continuous western intervention and meddling in middle east that feed the fires of discontent. it is easy nowadays to stroke a broad brush blaming every muslim inthe world for all the inconvenience in the west ..

    Lets do hoest comparison, 12 people dead in paris and whole western world screamed revenge... yet 25 civilians massacred intentionally by US marines in haditha and not a single word of protest is heard among westerner..

    it boils down to this : westerner dont consider non caucasian human beings as worthy of human rights..

  11. No 30% should die. 30% is the number of extremist or supporters of them.

  12. And the other 70% should not die, but are unfortunate collateral damage that could not be avoided .. when sending B52's. Like I said before, I have no problem with killing ISIS. The problem is there are no real smart bombs with build in IFF. You will kill more innocents then targets. You might even get a hostage or two, like this Jordanian pilot.

    The upside is that ISIS is not a direct threat to us. There is time and space for restraint. My solution would be the use of airpower also, but more discriminate, in support of allies , denying ISIS the use of conventional military equipment. The strength of ISIS against its opponents is their ability to outgun them. I know I am a little hypocritical with my next suggestion, which is majorly arming ISIS's opponents. One of the problems we have is that we are throughout history arming our own future enemies, I realize that, but consider it the lesser evil in this case.
    A second option would be to stop messing with the middle east altogether, in an other thread there was talk about proxy wars, in a way we have been proxies of Saudi Arabia in fighting its wars. We basically chose a side in this inter-muslim war. Of course we chose the side with the most oil.. In my opinion Iran is not more evil, or more dangerous to us then S.A. Just as a lil side note: who do you think is financing about 95% of the radical mosks, the ones employment hate-Imams, in The Netherlands and the rest of Europe? It begins with an S..

    Of course the second option, not messing in foreign affairs that do not directly threaten the US, or the west is a lot less.. 'fun' The USA would not need near as much military strength if it did not have to 'project power' . Western Europe.. wel.. we are screwed anyway if we do not get our affairs in order and get a credible DEFENSE. But wile our defense is lacking, half the military resources , if not more, over here also go to the ability to intervene overseas.

    Look at The Netherlands: we barely have a credible air force now , to defend our self and won't have one when its just 37 F35's.. but these stealthy fighter-bombers are very useful when going 'expeditionary' . We have no tanks.. but we do have 2 amphibious warships, a marine corps and an air mobile brigade.

    I am not saying this is wrong, I like that 'we' have this capability, but it should be ON TOP OF a credible defense, not instead of tanks and fighters.

    My conclusion: You either do it right, or you do not do it!

  13. When are we going to recognize that these zealots are at WAR with the West and our cultures? They are not going to be satisfied with what they have. We WILL be is a matter of time. While our elected leaders take a hands off approach to this and balk at supporting those who want to take the fight to them, they are plotting. Not in how to take out the next village, buit in how to strike deep inside us and twist that knife even worse.

    I am suprised, with as porous as our southern and northern borders are, they have not struck the heartland in an awful way. What is Washington DC going to tell us when a small town in Nebraska or Oklahoma is hit by these madmen? A Mumbai type attack? They will all die, but the damage to our society will be huge and have ripple effects for decades.

    It is coming, when is the question.

    1. There is 'they are coming' and 'they are COMING' ! We all know they won't be coming 'Red Dawn' style.

      If you however talk about terrorist hits, then they are already there, or at least have been along for a visit. No amount of destruction short of killing literally everyone in the world but you and a few Quakers will guarantee you safety from that.
      In fact the more we mess around in the Middle-East , the higher the motivation for some types will be to do reprehensible things. No level of border protection beyond a total ban on travel and a huge wall will prevent that either. A fake passport and a cruise ship will do.
      This does not mean we should just give in and stop doing everything some potential terrorist finds reprehensible, I will never advocate giving in to bullies. I just want us to be realistic.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.