Democrats & Liberals Archives

Terror Strikes Paris

Dozens are dead in Paris as a result of a series of coordinated terrorist attacks. Unsubstantiated rumors indicate that the perpetrators utilized Kalashnikov rifles and suicide bombs. Many suspect this is the work of Islamism.

Here is what has been reported:

The most gruesome incident took place at the Bataclan, a Parisian nightclub where a concert featuring the Eagles of Death Metal, an American Band. Here, over a hundred people were executed after being taken hostage.

10 people were killed at Le Carillon and Le Petit Cambodge, a bar and a Cambodian restaurant located near the headquarters of le Charlie Hebdo.

Two or three explosions reported at the Stade de France, where an association football match between France and Germany unfolded.

MAP

I will update this entry after more information is available. For updates, please refer to the following:

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-34815972
http://www.france24.com/en/20151113-several-simultaneous-shootings-paris-casualties-reported
http://www.afp.com/en/news/

My heart goes out to the French people as they mourn their dead.

UPDATE #1:
ISIL appears to have claimed responsibility:


UPDATE #2: French media are reporting a death total of 128.

Posted by Warren Porter at November 13, 2015 6:51 PM
Comments
Comment #400552

How in the hell did these terrorists get guns? They were in a country that does not allow it’s citizens to own anything other than a shotgun, and then only if you live on a farm; and the whole country is a gun free zone. So how did these guys get guns? Someone needs to tell these Islamic terrorist, guns are illegal.

Of course, we have all the PM’s and the UN condemning these “atrocious” acts; but I don’t guess Islamic terrorist care about words of condemnation. We’ve even got Obama condemning the bad guys for these “evil acts”. Of course, Obama could not bring himself to calling them ISLAMIC terrorists. But 9 hours earlier Obama did say we have beaten ISIS, and they are no longer a threat.

Of course the terrorist were heard saying” this is for Syria “, as they were gunning down people. But, the European leaders have brought this on themselves. Thousands of Syrians have entered Europe and raped and robbed their host countries; at the same time Obama is in the process of bringing 10k Syrian refugees into our own country. To watch Obama in action, one would think he was a Muslim. He wants to shut down GITMO and bring the worst of the terrorist onto America soil, while releasing thousands of criminals onto the streets of America. Makes a person wonder who’s side Obama is on.

By the way WP, several of the terrorist used pump shotguns. Before you get to hung up on assault rifles.

It’s going to happen here……….

Posted by: Blaine at November 13, 2015 11:52 PM
Comment #400554

It’s difficult to understand how anyone with two brain cells to rub together cannot see this traitor in the white house for the threat that he is. He is a Trojan horse bent on spreading Islam throughout this country. Those attacks we’re seeing in Europe will soon be here, and the tolerant left will use them to push gun control, never realizing they will be signing their own death warrants.

Posted by: dbs at November 14, 2015 7:22 AM
Comment #400555

A terrible tragedy and already people are point fingers at Obama and the Left? Now, that is depressing.

As awful as last night’s events were, they were not without precedent. Not only did roughly 3000 Americans die on September 11, 2001, but also roughly 200 Spaniards died on March 11, 2002 and over 50 Londoners died on July 7, 2005. Now, I do not see how this incident relates to gun control, which is mostly about preventing deaths due to suicide and petty crime. Gun control cannot be expected to stop terrorism as a sufficiently motivated assassin will always be able to obtain the weapon he or she wants provided his or her pockets are deep enough.

But, the European leaders have brought this on themselves. Thousands of Syrians have entered Europe and raped and robbed their host countries; at the same time Obama is in the process of bringing 10k Syrian refugees into our own country.

Still to early to tell, but I highly doubt the perpetrators came from the pool of asylum seekers who sought to emigrate to Europe in the last few months.

Obama is in the process of bringing 10k Syrian refugees into our own country. To watch Obama in action, one would think he was a Muslim. He wants to shut down GITMO and bring the worst of the terrorist onto America soil, while releasing thousands of criminals onto the streets of America. Makes a person wonder who’s side Obama is on.

This is absurd. Firstly, ordinary Muslims have already condemn this attack. Secondly, Obama has been the most aggressive US President in the War on Terrorism, assassinating terrorists with impunity from the air and from the ground. Thirdly, how in the world does the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo to a facility on American soil in any way diminish our ability to keep them from rejoining the fight against America?

Frivolous accusations of treason are exactly the last thing we need right now.

It’s going to happen here……….
A baseless prediction. Why is ISIL settling for attacks in Europe? These amateurs can’t even attack a high profile target, settling for soft targets such as bars, restaurants and concert halls. Evidently, their capabilities are not that great. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2015 8:35 AM
Comment #400557

Warped, If you only had limited fire power such as Shot guns, which targets would be easier to cause Terror in High profile or easy targets such as Bars and Restaurants and concert halls? If I wanted to cause as much MAYHEM as possible my choice would be the soft targets far less chance of someone shooting back and I could kill or wound as many people as possible. Why Europe, easier target.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 14, 2015 9:47 AM
Comment #400558

KAP,

Absolutely. ISIL has none of the capabilities that Al Qaeda had in 2001. They are limited to using guns to shoot people in everyday places. No longer can they shock us by destroying iconic landmarks and killing not just hundreds, but thousands of people.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2015 10:10 AM
Comment #400559

Part of the point of a terrorist attack is to polarize. It seeks to force people to take sides- maybe not immediately, but eventually. That is one of the goals of the Paris bombers. It appears they belonged to ISIS, which is no surprise. Anyway, the idea is to split everyone into one of two camps: Muslim and everyone else. That is why Obama refuses to call them ‘Islamic terrorists.’ Giving them the cover of Islam helps them fulfill their goal. Most Muslims do not support ISIS. This should be obvious. The hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to Europe are seeking to escape ISIS.

Btw, the idea that gun ownership would deter suicide bombers is ludicrous. Some of the attacks happened so fast, no one had time to react. Turning a city street into a shooting gallery will never be a solution.

If you are one of the ones who have been successfully terrorized, and grant the terrorists a religious cover, then I am sorry for you. I am sorry you lack the strength to stand up to extremists and radicals. The United States may be a great country, but no one said every American is great.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2015 11:12 AM
Comment #400560

phx8, Let’s call them what they are Islamic terrorist. We have religious extremist in every faith the only difference so far is that most haven’t resorted to terror. We also have political extremist in this and other countries most except for in a few haven’t resorted to terror.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 14, 2015 12:03 PM
Comment #400561
A terrible tragedy and already people are point fingers at Obama and the Left? Now, that is depressing.

WP, and who should the fingers be pointed at? There is not one single issue involving Republicans that the left has not made into a political issue. You name me one issue that the left has not made political? Obama is the worst; he can wait to make issues political. Every single time a cop shoots a black, he makes it political; every time a black or Hispanic is charged, tried, and sentenced to prison, Obama makes it political. What is depressing and what is splitting the country in half is Obama’s ability to make everything about race and political. He is the worst president we have ever had, and it’s only a few leftist on WB, the liberal media, and the paid agitators of political rally’s that are defending Obama. The rest of the country is seeing what is happening to America.

It is Obama’s foreign policies that have got us into this position of terrorism and murder in Europe. America has always LED; simply because Europe is weak. Now, Obama has given that right to lead to Putin and Russia. When we gave away the position of leadership, we also gave away our resect. What country in their right mind would fight against a terrorist group, when they know Obama and the US policy is to abandon them?

Now, I do not see how this incident relates to gun control, which is mostly about preventing deaths due to suicide and petty crime. Gun control cannot be expected to stop terrorism as a sufficiently motivated assassin will always be able to obtain the weapon he or she wants provided his or her pockets are deep enough.

WP, perhaps you could explain to us the difference between gang related terrorism in the US and Islamic terrorists? You don’t see how a terrorist incident relates to gun control? To keep myself from cursing, I will just say once again, “you are a silly little naïve boy”. My question was, how was it possible for the terrorist to get guns in a gun free country? It’s a rhetorical question; we know terrorists can get guns, just like criminals in the US can get guns…what gun control does is take away the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. You can’t seem to understand how 2nd amendment rights plays in to our society, can you? It just doesn’t compute in the head full of mush you have for a brain. I would venture to say, there were a lot of people in France yesterday, looking down the business end of a gun barrel, that wished they had something to shoot back. What is the difference between a “petty crime” involving a victim being shot dead, and being shot dead by a terrorist? Both result in death. Yet, your side wants to do away with the 2nd amendment right to protect ourselves. The problem is, more and more Americans are buying guns to protect themselves. You tell me WP, what happens when these young fighting age Syrian “refugees” who have flooded Europe, decide to create an army and go after the civilian population? How will the civilians protect themselves? By the way, one number shows that 70% of the Syrian refugees are young, fighting age, single Islamic men.

Still to early to tell, but I highly doubt the perpetrators came from the pool of asylum seekers who sought to emigrate to Europe in the last few months.

WP, this comment is conjecture. You have no idea where they came from. It is already a known fact that ISIS has slipped Islamic terrorists into the refugees. How hard do you think it is for radical terrorists to sway the minds of refugees, who believe they are not being treated fairly in the European countries? About as hard as it is for these same Islamic terrorists to convert and fill the heads to blacks in America. Especially those in prison.

This is absurd. Firstly, ordinary Muslims have already condemn this attack. Secondly, Obama has been the most aggressive US President in the War on Terrorism, assassinating terrorists with impunity from the air and from the ground. Thirdly, how in the world does the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo to a facility on American soil in any way diminish our ability to keep them from rejoining the fight against America?

Again WP, you are naïve; first, NOTHING a Muslim tells an infidel (non-believer) can be believed. It is not a sin to lie to an infidel; therefore it is not against the Koran. It doesn’t matter what a Muslim believes; he is answerable to his cleric. A Muslim will believe whatever he is taught. Secondly, the goal of Islam is worldwide domination. If they would attack and kill people in Europe for Europe’s involvement in the Syrian conflict, which by the way Islam sees as a continuation of the Crusades, then tell me how they feel about the US (the great Satan).

I can’t believe you honestly believe Obama is the “most aggressive US President in the War on Terrorism”. This is a joke. Obama has fired and dismissed any General or military leader that has advised him on how to efficiently deal with terrorism. Killing a few leaders with drone attacks does not make one aggressive on terrorism. Obama and his administration have continually said they have no plan to deal with terrorism. You stupid little shit, bringing GITMO terrorists to American soil gives the teams of lawyers the perfect opportunity to get them released to fight again. Close to 30% of the prisoners Obama has released from GITMO have already gone back to killing Americans. Tell me WP, what price do you put on the death of an American military man? Is it ok to release a prisoner if he kills one American soldier, two, three…how many, in your book, qualifies as enough to keep the terrorist in GITMO?

Frivolous accusations of treason are exactly the last thing we need right now.

What would you call a president who has done everything he can to protect Islamic terrorists? Obama has stabbed Israel in the back, he has forsaken our middle-east and European allies, and even after yesterday’s attack, Obama still can’t bring himself to call the attackers “ISLAMIC TERRORISTS”. Unless you claim the lame excuse Obama lover phx8 has given, “Giving them the cover of Islam helps them fulfill their goal. Most Muslims do not support ISIS. This should be obvious. The hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to Europe are seeking to escape ISIS.”

That’s why Europe is now trying to find a way to stop them from coming in, and trying to figure out how to get them out. Perhaps phx8 could explain why 70% of the refugees are young, military age, and single?

It’s going to happen here………. A baseless prediction. Why is ISIL settling for attacks in Europe? These amateurs can’t even attack a high profile target, settling for soft targets such as bars, restaurants and concert halls. Evidently, their capabilities are not that great.

WP, ISIS people have already been caught trying to cross US southern borders. Obama wants to bring 10k of these refugees into America. In the past 2 days, the first 180 young, single, and military age refugees landed in New Orleans. To be distributed throughout the country. Not vetted, and lost in the crowd. The only thing I can say, since you live in the populated north east corridor, is to not get caught in big crowds. Like the Boston Marathon. You will be praying to a God who does not know you, and wishing for a weapon that you decide to give away.

Then we have this stupid comment from phx8, “Part of the point of a terrorist attack is to polarize. It seeks to force people to take sides- maybe not immediately, but eventually.”

I guess Obama has been using the same play book as the terrorists. Obama is the most divisive and polarizing president we have ever had.

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 1:01 PM
Comment #400562
KAP,

Absolutely. ISIL has none of the capabilities that Al Qaeda had in 2001. They are limited to using guns to shoot people in everyday places. No longer can they shock us by destroying iconic landmarks and killing not just hundreds, but thousands of people.
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2015 10:10 AM

So who is most dead; those shot by guns or those killed at “iconic landmarks”?

KAP, Obama has a problem calling Muslims “Islamic Terrorists”, but he has no problem calling Christians and members of the NRA terrorists, hereand here.:

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 1:21 PM
Comment #400563

Blaine, I kinda wonder if our left wing people haven’t seen the news casts of ISIS riding through city streets in tanks. Heck if you want mass killing a few rounds from a tank will do the trick. But here in the U. S. I guess they have to rely on what they get off the streets and in Europe also. As far as Obama and his problems, the one you refer to is just one of many.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 14, 2015 1:48 PM
Comment #400564

It was just announced on the news that at least on of the terrorist in France was a recent Syrian refugee. Kinda blows WP’s theory out of the water. If ISIS can attack people in France, they most certainly can in the US. By the left’s own reasoning, it would be easier for terrorists to make bombs and get weapons in the US than in Europe. WP’s own deductions is that gun control in America would not stop them from getting weapons. Muslims in the US don’t even try to assimilate into American society. So who knows what goes on in their communities and mosques? DeBlasio has cut back on the ability to watch mosques. It’s almost like the left is creating the correct atmosphere for terrorists to plan their attacks through political correctness.

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 3:43 PM
Comment #400565

Show of hands please.

Is it impossible, difficult, moderately possible, or easy for foreign born terrorist to enter the United States at this time?

Should the US exercise greater, the same, or less diligence at our border crossings?

Do “Sanctuary Cities” offer more opportunities for foreign-born terrorist to congregate and plan an attack on US soil or not?


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2015 3:52 PM
Comment #400566

Europe created that same atmosphere through political correctness. Their liberal leaders have cried it is the right thing to do; Germany went so far as to welcome refugees with open arms, to replace their dwindling work force. They even promised to build them mosques, so they could invite their terrorist mullahs to indoctrinate the Muslim communities. Politians and the left cannot compute the agenda of Islam. Their goal is world domination and it has been since the crusades. They were in Spain, Portugal, and even drove the Catholic Church in Istanbul. Moderates or hardliners, it doesn’t make any difference; when radical mullahs preach world domination and death to the infidels, all Muslims will obey, or they will be executed by their own religious leaders.

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 3:58 PM
Comment #400567

Royal, as I said, the left and Obama are creating the atmosphere for breeding terrorism in the US.

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment #400568

Just a couple of years ago Obama called ISIS a JV team; and now the Obama administration calls global warming our biggest threat. Our biggest threat is the incompetence or the current administration.

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 4:36 PM
Comment #400569

Blaine, MMGW is the biggest threat to the pocketbooks of American taxpayers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2015 5:05 PM
Comment #400570

Blaine, there is no arguing with you. It is clear from the above that your opinions are rooted in hatred. It is a hatred of people who are not like you. It is a hatred of people who profess a faith different than your own. It is a hatred that blinds you to truth. I do not fault you for your hatred, I am certain you are trying your best to be a righteous man. However, your mind has been poisoned and it continues to rot away as long as you cling to your fallacies. As a result, you regurgitate lie after lie in your comments.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of others here, I will address some of what have written:

first, NOTHING a Muslim tells an infidel (non-believer) can be believed. It is not a sin to lie to an infidel; therefore it is not against the Koran. It doesn’t matter what a Muslim believes; he is answerable to his cleric. A Muslim will believe whatever he is taught.
Islam does not encourage its adherents to lie. Period. In particular, it is strictly forbidden except when one’s life is threatened. Lying when under duress is part of a doctrine known as Taqiyya. Some western authors antagonistic to Islam have warped this doctrine and falsely construed it to mean something that it isn’t. You have swallowed these lies lock, stock and barrel.

Recognize that your belief in a perverted interpretation of Taqiyya is an essential premise for all your other arguments. Without assuming that all Muslims lie to all infidels, there is no way for your beliefs to maintain logical coherence. If Muslims are no different than you and I, then the allegation that all Muslims are in alliance with ISIL melts away.

bringing GITMO terrorists to American soil gives the teams of lawyers the perfect opportunity to get them released to fight again.
We are a nation of laws. We do not imprison people in this country based upon the whims of conjecture. If a lawyer is able to prove that his client was detained unjustly, then we have no right to incarcerate him. To do otherwise is to take a crap on the Constitution on which our country was founded. Do not confuse the release of prisoners to host nations overseas with their imprisonment on US soil.
Tell me WP, what price do you put on the death of an American military man? Is it ok to release a prisoner if he kills one American soldier, two, three…how many, in your book, qualifies as enough to keep the terrorist in GITMO?
It is never OK to release a prisoner if one has evidence demonstrating that said prisoner poses such a danger to US interests. In that case, the evidence should be presented to a jury so that the prisoner can be convicted and rot the rest of his life away in Florence, Colorado.
I can’t believe you honestly believe Obama is the “most aggressive US President in the War on Terrorism”. This is a joke. Obama has fired and dismissed any General or military leader that has advised him on how to efficiently deal with terrorism. Killing a few leaders with drone attacks does not make one aggressive on terrorism.
Once again, lies have blinded you. Under Obama, terrorist leaders have learned to live in fear every day from the ever-present automated aircraft that patrol the skies across the Middle East. Bush was a timid commander-in-chief who let UBL escape at Tora Bora whereas when Obama received intelligence that he was holed up in Abottobad, he gave the order to neutralize. The contrast is a stark one between bumbling incompetence and clear leadership. And the evidence is clear. Over 3000 Americans died of terrorism during Bush’s presidency. Under Obama, the total is less than 1% of that.
ISIS people have already been caught trying to cross US southern borders. Obama wants to bring 10k of these refugees into America. In the past 2 days, the first 180 young, single, and military age refugees landed in New Orleans. To be distributed throughout the country. Not vetted, and lost in the crowd.

Your allegation that ISIL has been caught trying to cross the southern border is pure poppycock. Likewise, the allegation that refugees seeking asylum in the US will not be vetted is nothing but a boldfaced lie.

The only thing I can say, since you live in the populated north east corridor, is to not get caught in big crowds. Like the Boston Marathon. You will be praying to a God who does not know you, and wishing for a weapon that you decide to give away.

I feel sorry for you, Blaine. Your life must be rather miserable. Always being afraid of various boogeymen and never feeling secure is an unhealthy way to live. Add to that the burden of sifting through ream after ream of conservative propaganda and we have a recipe for much anguish. The media you consume has darkened your heart and clouded your mind. I will add you to my prayers. Hopefully you will win your battle against your demons before it is too late.

Meanwhile, I shall continue to live my life as I always have. The threat of a truncated life at the hands of a violent perpetrator does not deter me as it is not rational to fear such an infrequent occurrence more than the combined threat of the plethora of mundane paths to premature death. I live a great life, having been blessed with far too many opportunities to succeed and gain the happiness that we all seek. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #400571
Is it impossible, difficult, moderately possible, or easy for foreign born terrorist to enter the United States at this time?

Should the US exercise greater, the same, or less diligence at our border crossings?

Do “Sanctuary Cities” offer more opportunities for foreign-born terrorist to congregate and plan an attack on US soil or not?

Considering that we have gone 14 years without a major terrorist attack in this country, I am going to wager that it is difficult for noncitizens of Middle Eastern origin seeking to commit acts of terrorism from entering this country.

There is an entire industry built around smuggling Mexicans and Central Americans across out southern border. The people who run that industry have huge incentives to keep Arabs out of the US, lest the US get the motivation to shut them down.

Regarding “Sanctuary Cities”.

Recall that all terrorist attacks committed in the US have been done by people who entered legally (9/11, Boston Marathon and WTC ‘93). If we are relying on enforcement of immigration law to keep terrorists out, we are in trouble.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2015 6:08 PM
Comment #400572

Warren, I am surprised that you admit that at present there is no “motivation” to shut down illegal alien smuggling on our borders.

The lack of major terrorism in the US for the last fourteen years certainly does not indicate we can expect the same in the future. ISIS hasn’t been around too long.

Terrorism committed in the past only by those who entered here legally gives me little confidence that we need not be more vigilant at our borders.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2015 6:28 PM
Comment #400573

The coyotes that control the southern border have powerful economic incentives to keep terrorists out. Unlike US law enforcement, they also have the privilege to use racial profiling to screen potential customers. The costs of a “motivated” border defense are too much in my opinion. Arming the border like we have armed South Korea’s border would cost many billions of dollars. We don’t have that kind of money. I’d rather put up with a terrorist attack once every decade.

Ultimately, it is the unsecured border with Canada that is far more troubling.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2015 7:36 PM
Comment #400574
Blaine, there is no arguing with you. It is clear from the above that your opinions are rooted in hatred. It is a hatred of people who are not like you. It is a hatred of people who profess a faith different than your own. It is a hatred that blinds you to truth. I do not fault you for your hatred, I am certain you are trying your best to be a righteous man. However, your mind has been poisoned and it continues to rot away as long as you cling to your fallacies. As a result, you regurgitate lie after lie in your comments.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of others here, I will address some of what have written:

First WP, are we arguing…I thought this was a discussion site. Secondly, your comments about my “Hatred” are a smokescreen…an attempt to minimize what I say and set yourself above the fray. But I’m not sure who the others are that “benefit” from your response that was not for me. I don’t hate anyone; I just face facts. Are you accusing me of hating Muslims because I understand their agenda?

Islam does not encourage its adherents to lie. Period. In particular, it is strictly forbidden except when one’s life is threatened. Lying when under duress is part of a doctrine known as Taqiyya. Some western authors antagonistic to Islam have warped this doctrine and falsely construed it to mean something that it isn’t. You have swallowed these lies lock, stock and barrel.
Recognize that your belief in a perverted interpretation of Taqiyya is an essential premise for all your other arguments. Without assuming that all Muslims lie to all infidels, there is no way for your beliefs to maintain logical coherence. If Muslims are no different than you and I, then the allegation that all Muslims are in alliance with ISIL melts away.

Talk about “logical coherence”; this comment lacks all logical coherence. I believe we have had this discussion before. You need to study up on Taqiyya just a little bit more. This is what Mohammed said about the art of Taqiyya:

Muhammad—whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be followed in every detail—took an expedient view on lying. It is well known, for instance, that he permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to placate one’s wife, and in war.[11] According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of law, “The ulema agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war.”[12] Moreover, according to Mukaram, this deception is classified as taqiyya: “Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.”[13]

So according to Mohammad there are three situations that permit lying. The third is lying to the enemy during warfare. Are we at war with Islam? Yes, we are. Then we go a little further in understanding the warfare of Islam:

That Islam legitimizes deceit during war is, of course, not all that astonishing; after all, as the Elizabethan writer John Lyly put it, “All’s fair in love and war.”[24] Other non-Muslim philosophers and strategists—such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes—justified deceit in warfare. Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense. The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur’an, “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.”[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states: “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily.”[26]

So, we find that lying to the enemy during warfare is legal; and we also find that warfare with the infidel is perpetual… never ending until what?

“war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur’an, “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.”[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states: “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily.”

http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

As I stated in my original remark; the goal of Islam is world domination and not one single word of a Muslim can be believed if it is being spoken to an infidel and it is for the benefit of perpetual war and the setting up of the Caliphate. This is what’s so scary about Obama and John Kerry’s discussions and promises from Iran on the treaty and nuke deal. Obama and Kerry think they have a binding deal; but it’s nothing more than a lie to justify and end. Israel understands this mind set, and it is for this reason they thought Obama and Kerry were being lied to.

We are a nation of laws. We do not imprison people in this country based upon the whims of conjecture. If a lawyer is able to prove that his client was detained unjustly, then we have no right to incarcerate him.

The reason these men were placed in GITMO was because they were apprehended on the battle fields. The goal is to keep them off the battlefield. And as I said, 30% of those Obama released are fighting Americans again. As prisoners of war they do not deserve the rights of the Constitution. They are enemy combatants and deserve no rights not listed in the Geneva Convention.

Once again, lies have blinded you. Under Obama, terrorist leaders have learned to live in fear every day from the ever-present automated aircraft that patrol the skies across the Middle East.

Are the Pentagon officials, who think Obama’s middle-east plans are failed policy, blinded by lies too?

Your allegation that ISIL has been caught trying to cross the southern border is pure poppycock. Likewise, the allegation that refugees seeking asylum in the US will not be vetted is nothing but a boldfaced lie.

Don’t you just feel like a fool when you have no idea what you are talking about. This comes from living in that little bubble world WP:

Islamic terrorists have entered the United States through the Mexican border and Homeland Security sources tell Judicial Watch that four have been apprehended in the last 36 hours by federal authorities and the Texas Department of Public Safety in McAllen and Pharr.

JW confirmed this after California Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine Corp Major and member of the House Armed Services Committee, disclosed on national television that at least ten Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) fighters have been caught crossing the Mexican border in Texas. The veteran lawmaker got the astounding intel straight from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Homeland Security agency responsible for guarding the 1,933-mile southern border.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/10/jw-confirms-4-isis-terrorists-arrested-texas-last-36-hours/

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 9:13 PM
Comment #400575

Evidently, Obama knows as much about ISIS as Warren Porter does about Taqiyya

Obama under fire for saying that ISIS has been ‘contained’ just hours before Paris attack as he heads to Turkey for G-20 Summit In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday, Obama said he didn’t believe ISIS was gaining strength The interview aired just hours before ISIS claimed responsibility for the horrific attack in Paris that killed 128 people on Friday Several social media users, including Donald Trump, have criticized Obama ISIS has grown during the Obama administration from a group he once called al Qaeda’s ‘JV team’ to the force it is today Obama set off for the two-day G-20 summit in Antalya, Turkey, on Saturday

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318751/Obama-fire-saying-ISIS-contained-hours-Paris-attack-heads-Turkey-G-20-Summit.html#ixzz3rWTkZHWd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 9:25 PM
Comment #400576

Warren porter said:

“Likewise, the allegation that refugees seeking asylum in the US will not be vetted is nothing but a boldfaced lie.”

We know they will infiltrate the refugees; James Clapper admitted they would. Perhaps WP could tell us how they will be vetted? One government official just said, “if their not in our data base of terrorists, we won’t be able to catch them”. So how do we vet them WP? Since what I say is a “boldfaced lie”? To WP it’s a lie, but to Clapper it is something to worry about.

Not long before President Obama declared that at least 10,000 more Syrian refugees would be flown into the United States for resettlement, his director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, warned about the dangers of ISIS operatives infiltrating Western countries through the flood of migrants.

“As they descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background?” said Clapper. “We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees. That is a huge concern of ours.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/11/director-of-national-intelligence-warns-isis-may-infiltrate-syrian-refugees/

Posted by: Blaine at November 14, 2015 10:36 PM
Comment #400578

What have we come to as a country when s**t for brains conservatives are outclassed by Islamic leaders in Iran and elsewhere? Blaine the propaganda outlets referenced in your foolish comments are pathetic. Making political hay out of such tragedy is incredibly ignorant. Your foolish rants are evil.


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/14/the-president-of-iran-shows-more-class-than-gopers-joins-muslims-supporting-france-images/

Posted by: j2t2 at November 15, 2015 2:02 AM
Comment #400579

j2, I provided links to facts, and you link to “addictinginfo.org”??? Is this site supposed to be your serious rebuttal to the facts? This is what makes you and ph the fools of WB.

Posted by: Blaine at November 15, 2015 7:48 AM
Comment #400580

Anyone think the rights of the French people having been taken away by their wonderful progressive gov’t may have played a major part in the tragedy that struck them yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbEr2PffTsM

Posted by: dbs at November 15, 2015 9:18 AM
Comment #400581

Saturday Nite Live and the Saturday Nite Democrat “Debate” were both a joke

The so-called debate was just talking points that had absolutely no merit.

Solutions? There was not one solution to Americas problems that was given. Three blind mice.

If this is the best that they can offer America, then they should pack their bags and go home.

The show was not even a good “B” show. Even the moderator was off track.

What was even offered as a solution to the Paris attack.
nothin’, nsns, zilch, zero

That was was expected by many people

Posted by: tom humes at November 15, 2015 11:01 AM
Comment #400582

Sorry Blaine, but given our previous interactions on this forum, it is quite obvious that you cannot be trusted to report facts. Time and time again, you come here and regurgitate lies that you read in far right wing media without bothering to employ the most basic of filters to ascertain if what you repeat is true or not.

Your insistence that Muslims are perpetually at war with the infidel and that this war justifies deceit on the part of all Muslims is simply wrong. But this is a dogma for you. No weight of evidence could ever persuade you. In Plato’s Republic, there is a story of men in a cave who only see the world in the form of shadows cast on a wall. Just like those men, it is impossible for you to conceive of a world beyond that cave. Your hatred has shackled you to that wall. Now, Christ once said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” The truth is that Muslims are people. People who are no different from your or I. They are people who laugh and cry no differently than we do. Your dogma refuses to accept the possibility that we are equal. Instead, you wear a badge of smugness; the thought of your moral superiority comforting your otherwise insecure soul.

Sending me links to sites such as “meforum.com” does not help your cause. Of course, a website promoting Judeo-Christian viewpoints is going to denigrate Muslims. In particular, Raymond Ibrahim is an Egyptian Copt with a long record of writing slander about Islam. Ultimately, his writing deceives you. If you want a thorough refutation of Raymond Ibrahim’s screed, click here. However, it will do you no good as long as you remain shackled to the cave wall. The worst tragedy is that by advocating this perverted definition of Taqiyya, you are promoting the very radical Islamism that we seek to eliminate.

The reason these men were placed in GITMO was because they were apprehended on the battle fields. The goal is to keep them off the battlefield. And as I said, 30% of those Obama released are fighting Americans again. As prisoners of war they do not deserve the rights of the Constitution. They are enemy combatants and deserve no rights not listed in the Geneva Convention.

All people have rights. That was the doctrine espoused by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence. If these people were apprehended as they fought against Americans, then it should not be a problem to imprison them in accordance with our laws.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2015 11:01 AM
Comment #400583
Islamic terrorists have entered the United States through the Mexican border and Homeland Security sources tell Judicial Watch that four have been apprehended in the last 36 hours by federal authorities and the Texas Department of Public Safety in McAllen and Pharr

What Judicial Watch didn’t tell you was that these four people were part of the PKK, a Kurdish group fighting against ISIL. Those individuals were scrutinized and deported for unlawful entry, but did not pose a threat to the US.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2015 11:27 AM
Comment #400584

I forgot my link: Four individuals detained near McAllen had no affiliation with ISIL.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2015 11:38 AM
Comment #400585

Warped, Read the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. They can be detained until all hostilities end and as far as I can see hostilities are still on going. These guys that are in Gitmo could have been killed on site because they do not wear the uniform of a country. The MILITARY has jurisdiction over them and bringing them into our civilian jurisdiction would be a monumental mistake.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 15, 2015 12:49 PM
Comment #400586

So warren Porter determines I am a liar, based on the fact that my beliefs are not in line with his. Well, Warren Porter is a liar every time he espouses his beliefs in Global Warming. He accuses me of selective web sites, and yet every link he uses to prove Global warming are selective links to global warming worshippers. Warren Porter accuses me of living in a cave, and yet warren Porter lives in the bubble of global warming believes. Not able or willing to listen to an opposing position. So I guess we aren’t that much different. The main difference is that warren Porter thinks highly of himself; that he is smarter than all the ignorant people in flyover country. This is typical for leftist.

Posted by: Blaine at November 15, 2015 12:57 PM
Comment #400587
j2, I provided links to facts, and you link to “addictinginfo.org

Facts! such exaggeration Blaine. Breitbart, as is “Judicialwatch”, is a discredited propaganda site not a news organization that provides “facts”. So don’t get ahead of yourself Blaine you offered propaganda and opinion. The Iranian president shared his thoughts and concerns with the people of France as demonstrated in the link I provided.

Is this site supposed to be your serious rebuttal to the facts?

No, not at all Blaine if you would have bothered to comprehend the comments I made you would have realized I wasn’t offering a rebuttal of your nonsense I was suggesting the president of Iran did a better job of supporting France in their time of mourning than opportunistic American conservatives did by using the terrorist attacks as a tool for political gain, Imbibing in their ODS and general blaming and shaming of the innocent.


This is what makes you and ph the fools of WB.

I would suggest your inability to discern the basics of what I wrote, the confusion you have exhibited in your response to what was written, the total lack of reasoning ability you have demonstrated with your illogical grouping of phx8 with what I wrote and your general hatefulness towards anyone not like you qualifies you for the fool award here on WB.

Now I may get runner up for bothering to react to your ignorant comments, your lack of credible sources and their inane logic but hey somebody has to educate you right? Your jealousy and hatred shown by lumping phx8 with us as fools when you have so many rightist to choose from here on WB would suggest you have earned the bigger fool award with honors,IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 15, 2015 1:39 PM
Comment #400588
The MILITARY has jurisdiction over them and bringing them into our civilian jurisdiction would be a monumental mistake.

I never said we ought to use the civilian justice system.
We ought to bring them to trial in a military court before incarcerating them in a military prison. Indefinite detention in Guantanamo without affording doesn’t serve US interests.

So warren Porter determines I am a liar, based on the fact that my beliefs are not in line with his

You don’t understand. You are not a liar because of your beliefs, you are a liar because you lie. Your comments consistently contain claims that are verifiable not true. Whether or not those four men detained near McAllen were members of ISIL is not a matter of opinion or belief.

Here at Watchblog, I have enjoyed plenty of discussions with people who disagree with me. Rich KAPitan, Royal Flush, kctim, Rhinehold, Jack and many others have demonstrated that it is possible to have a fruitful debate without resorting to deceptions and lies.

As for global warming, we can discuss that issue another day. The world will gather in Paris in December to brainstorm a new agreement to govern GHG emissions. Without a doubt, that will present another opportunity for me to write an entry about climate change.

The main difference is that warren Porter thinks highly of himself; that he is smarter than all the ignorant people in flyover country. This is typical for leftist.
Obviously, you don’t know me nor my beliefs. So you resort to fallacious assumptions.
He accuses me of selective web sites, and yet every link he uses to prove Global warming are selective links to global warming worshippers.
I’m not going to dissect the global warming issue (see what I wrote above), but I will say that I work hard to ensure that the information I cite here is factual. I may initially read something in a blog, but I will trace the claim back so I can cite primary sources whenever I can. For instance, the proof that the 4 men detained near McAllen were Kurds came to me via Buzzfeed. Ultimately, I am not any smarter than any else, but I do my due diligence to write honestly. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2015 2:19 PM
Comment #400589

Warped, According to the Geneva Convention we can hold the enemy combatants indefinitely until hostilities end without charging them. That is the whole purpose of the Detention Facility at Gitmo. Read the Geneva Convention. Bringing them here to the U.S. would be a monumental mistake again. They are not mistreated at the Military detention center Gitmo, in fact it is more like their climate in the M.E. then here in the U.S. Just leave well enough alone, keep them where they are.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 15, 2015 2:43 PM
Comment #400590

KAP,

Ultimately, the reason to close the Guantanamo detention center goes beyond the letter of the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention assumes all people fall into one of two groups: Uniformed lawful combatants and civilians. Whether these detainees should be treated as prisoners-of-war or as captured civilians can be debated. What cannot be debated is that they have the basic right not to be treated cruelly simply because they are people. They have a right to a fair trial and a right to cross examine the evidence against them.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2015 4:06 PM
Comment #400591

Warped, Yes they do have a right to a fair trial or release, AFTER HOSTILITIES STOP, that young man is the clincher for keeping Gitmo open. POW’s especially those NON UNIFORMED combatants which are those that are held at Gitmo by rights could have been killed on sight because they were NON UNIFORMED. Bringing them here and reading them their rights and putting them through civilian courts is a slap in the face to all who have been killed by those A**HOLES. IMO they should be tried just like the Nazis were at the end of WW2. IMO if you liberals have your way it will be a BIG MISTAKE, leave them where they are it is NOT against the Geneva Convention to detain a NON UNIFORMED COMBATANT.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 15, 2015 4:31 PM
Comment #400592

Defense of terrorism and those who practice it at the expense of human life is despicable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 15, 2015 4:46 PM
Comment #400593

The party nominee for president who makes the best case for keeping American lives and jobs the safest from those who would take one or both will win the election.

There are no issues as important (not even MMGW) as safety. Life and death issues and pocketbook concerns will trump all others.

If a terrorists attack occurs on American soil before the election the democrats are toast.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 15, 2015 6:21 PM
Comment #400594

KAP,

I repeat, I am in favor of military tribunals and imprisonment in military facilities. I have not suggested that any of these people should be tried in our civilian justice system. Guantanamo has become a symbol of alleged mistreatment of detainees, whether or not the rumors of mistreatment are actually true or not, they are invaluable recruiting tools for our enemies.

Royal Flush,

You are exactly right, although I find it regrettable. Even in the worst case scenario, terrorists do not pose a substantial risk to American life. Even if a thousand people died each year from terrorism, the deaths would neither damage the American economy nor threaten the country’s existence. Defending against terrorism is important, but it really shouldn’t take precedence over more pressing issues.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2015 9:35 PM
Comment #400595

Warped, What difference would it make if they were housed in Gitmo or here in the U.S.? The same alleged mistreatments could be done here in a Military Facility as in Gitmo. It’s a little bit harder for some of the detainees buddies to get them out of the facility at Gitmo then it would be on Main land U.S. You put them in a Max Security facility then you have the same recruiting tool. You know as well as I do, Warped, Obama is going to run them through the civilian justice system rather then the Military system if he can do it before the next person gets the W.H.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 15, 2015 9:59 PM
Comment #400596

Guantanamo Bay is hidden from the world. Nobody knows what happens there apart from field trips organized by the military. It is precisely the environment that allows rumors of cruelty and torture to spread. Indeed they have as the detention center has been used by foreign governments to justify the mistreatment of their own prisoners.

Supermax security prisons are just a bit more visible to public scrutiny. Enough, to demonstrate that prisoners are treated humanely. We already house some terrorists in these facilities already, such as Ramzi Yousef, and unlike Guantanamo there are no allegations of mistreatment. At Guantanamo, there is no oversight from our justice system to prevent the torture of inmates. In Florence, Colorado, detainees have access to enough of the American judicial system to ensure their humane treatment.

ou know as well as I do, Warped, Obama is going to run them through the civilian justice system rather then the Military system if he can do it before the next person gets the W.H./blockquote> I’m sure that for a few notable cases, Obama would likely utilize the civilian justice system. But these would only be the most heinous of cases where a conviction was absolutely assured. These are the people we don’t want to return home even after hostilities end.
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2015 10:17 PM
Comment #400597

Warped, I’ve been to Gitmo, it’s not hidden from the world. The Navy as well as the Marines and their families are there if they are married. I don’t know where you got that idea but it is false. Mail goes in and out just like anywhere else and what goes on there is NOT top secret. “At Gitmo there is no oversight by our justice system to prevent torture of inmates” “NEWS FLASH” Warped the Red Cross goes there regularly to check on the prisoners and to see if they need anything, there are also JAG officers stationed there. By the way Warped, what guarantee is there that some of the U.S. hardened criminals won’t take matters into their own hands and quietly do away with those A**HOLES, you do know that it is a possibility because what do those hardened criminals have to loose? What do we do put them in solitary confinement to prevent it. That would be worse then Gitmo. Next time you go rambling about a place you better check first to see if the person your going to ramble to doesn’t know more then you do. I’ve been to Gitmo more then once, so I know more then you do about the place.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 15, 2015 10:53 PM
Comment #400598

By the way Warped, There is also a Chaplains Corp even an Islamic one there, they have phone service, tv, Internet, even schools for the kids. Gitmo is NOT like “Area 51”. I’m sure if Obama wanted a Justice Dept. Rep. to go there, there would be no problem. So your statements about Gitmo are totally ridiculous.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2015 12:06 AM
Comment #400599

Regardless of the facts on the ground, Guantanamo has earned a reputation that tarnishes our relationships abroad. Keeping it open at this point only serves a single purpose: to maintain a legacy of the Bush administration rather than admit that they got things wrong.

The international community regards the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo as torture. Forcibly feeding detainees, holding them indefinitely without trial and denying them basic rights such as the right to sleep are all considered violations of international law. Not to mention waterboarding and other forms of torture that we have practiced. None of this is acceptable.

These guys are the scum of the Earth and we have the evidence to prove it. Put them on trial for all the world to see their evil. Convict them, throw them into a cell in Florence, Colorado and let them rot away in obscurity. But no, we keep at Guantanamo where they gain fame and notoriety. Ultimately, all the detention center there does is generate propaganda that induces more young souls to be recruited by Islamist organizations.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2015 7:39 AM
Comment #400600

Warped, They are POW’s there is a difference.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2015 9:58 AM
Comment #400601

Warped, Google “Gitmo prisoners” their living conditions are better then most prisons.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2015 10:00 AM
Comment #400602

Warren, just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate you taking the time Friday for this. I wasn’t able to get online much over the weekend and the links you provided came in very handy the few times I was able to.

Posted by: kctim at November 16, 2015 10:30 AM
Comment #400608

“What would you call a president who has done everything he can to protect Islamic terrorists?”

Come on guys, this kind of stuff is no different than the BS about Bush stealing the election, letting 9-11 happen, or lying us into war.

While President Obama does indeed go out of his way to protect Islam, it is absurd to suggest that he supports terrorism by protecting terrorists.

Posted by: kctim at November 16, 2015 1:41 PM
Comment #400609
They are POW’s there is a difference.

What makes Ramzi Yousef a POW while everyone else isn’t? Yousef was arrested by Pakistan’s ISI in 1995 after being betrayed by an associate and extradited to the US where he was put on trial and convicted. At no time did he ever don a uniform of a foreign military.

their living conditions are better then most prisons.
I know they are, but the perception around the world is different. And, even if GTMO provides a comfortable living space 364 days of year, it does not abrogate any torture that takes place on the 365th day.

Still, you have made many good points. It may be that we leave some of these guys in GITMO, but it would make me feel much better if we at least charged these guys with a crime of some sort.

kctim,

Thank you for noting your appreciation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2015 2:00 PM
Comment #400610

Warped, I believe they will be charged as soon as hostilities stop they will either be charged with a crime or released. Our perception as a Nation to the world is in the tubes. With what happened this past weekend in Paris our leadership IMO needs to change it’s strategy on what is going on in the M.E. and also on accepting refuges. The same can happen here as did in Paris. Though I’m not privy about sending troops to Syria or Iraq it may be what is needed. Also if POW’s are captured Gitmo seems to be a good place for them.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2015 2:20 PM
Comment #400611

kctim,
More coming out about what the Bush administration knew prior to 9/11. There were more warnings from intelligence than people realize. The warnings were ignored:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353

Did Bush steal the closest election in American history? The popular vote went to Gore. The electoral votes of Florida carried Bush into the White House. The FL recounts were controversial, to say the least. Local rulings went both ways. The election was only decided when the Federal Supreme Court intervened and ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush, thanks to five conservative justices.

Did the Bush administration lie this country into war? Of course it did. I don’t think anyone seriously questions this.

These are NOT the equivalent of suggesting Obama protects Islamic terrorists.

“What would you call a president who has done everything he can to protect Islamic terrorists?”

It is a terrible thing to say, and completely, totally false. It is a lie. To question a close election, or question whether the Bush administration had a better chance of stopping 9/11 had they taken warnings seriously, or to question going into Iraq because the administration claimed Iraq had WMD’s (it did not) and because Saddam Hussein’s government had connections with Al Qaida (it did not)- all these are reasonable questions, regardless of which side one comes down on.

The terrible smear cast at Obama is not reasonable, and you need to make the distinction. No decent American would say such a thing. It takes a truly terrible human being to throw that out there.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2015 2:42 PM
Comment #400612

Phx8

No decent American would say that President Bush stole the election, allowed thousands of Americans to die on 9-11, or lied to take the nation into war to avenge his father, for oil, to kill brown people, or for whatever other conspiracy theory is out there. But here you are offering your ‘proof’ that all of that is true. Sigh.

Do you honestly believe that myself or others couldn’t come up with ‘reasonable questions’ that “show” how President Obama coddles islamic terrorists?

Do you really have to rely on conspiracy theories and excuses about everything, just to protect Obama at all costs?
Sheesh

Posted by: kctim at November 16, 2015 3:13 PM
Comment #400613

phx8,

I think it needs to be acknowledged that people on our side have indeed said unreasonable things. It is one thing to dispute the handling of the 2000 recount, but it is quite another to explain what occurred as “theft”. It is one thing to criticize the Bush administration’s errors during the summer of 2001, it is quite another to allege that the Bush administration “let” the attacks happen. Some even allege that Bush dynamited the WTC and only used Al Qaeda as a scapegoat and that is reprehensible.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2015 3:17 PM
Comment #400614

Can’t forget how Bush also blew up the levees in NO so all those black people would die.

Posted by: kctim at November 16, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #400615

Still, it is salient to review what people said and thought 12 years ago as we decided to invade Iraq. From a contemporaneous article in the Christian Science Monitor:

In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don’t know who’s already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: “They’re all in it together - all of them hate this country.” The reason: “prosperity.”

I see the echoes of Thomas Wilson in the words of conservatives on Watchblog. Let that be a warning to anyone who thinks we need a ground invasion of Syria.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2015 3:24 PM
Comment #400616

WP,
I don’t think anyone has ever said Bush “let” the attacks on 9/11 happen. There was a small group of Truthers. They were the fringiest of the fringe, and never given any kind of widespread credence. They were even banned from posting on DailyKos. Did the Bush administration fail to act on intelligence? Absolutely.

Is “steal” too strong a word? Perhaps. The election was certainly controversial, and that is an understatement.

And the country was misled into the Iraq War. The Bush administration lied. That is a fact and it has been abundantly documented.

And that is the problem with treating people like kctim and Blaine as if they were making reasonable points. They are not. And it encourages the worst kind of delustional and destructive beliefs. Today, about half of the GOP believes Obama is a Muslim. Large numbers of Republicans believe a lot of things that are simply not true- that Global Warming is hoax, that unemployment numbers are fixed, that economic statistics are the result of fraud and cooking the books, and so on.

That is how we end up with conservative Republicans putting Trump and Carson at the top of the polls.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with disagreeing about controversial issues. But accepting the false logic of ‘both sides do it, therefore both sides should be given equal weight, leads down a terrible path, and that is precisely what we are seeing right now.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2015 3:56 PM
Comment #400617

Let me see if I have this straight, Phx8.
Your partisan conspiracy theories aren’t delusional or destructive, but my point about not falling for such idiocy, is? And that brilliant ‘logic’ comes after you cede the point about Bush stealing the election and letting 9-11 happen. And posting a link to an opinion site ‘proving’ Bush lied.

Well, that sure as f&*% explains how we end up with liberal democrats putting Clinton at the top of the polls, now doesn’t it.

“Today, about half of the GOP believes Obama is a Muslim.”

And 99% of liberals believe those on the right are racist Christians who hate gay people.

“Large numbers of Republicans believe a lot of things that are simply not true”

As do liberals. Like that abortion doesn’t end a life, that Christians are just as bad as muslims, that the 2nd Amendment isn’t an individual right, that options are the same as choice, that Bush stole the election and let Americans die.

If you are going to TRY and argue against “the false logic” of ‘both sides do it.’ you should have your own sh1t together first.

Posted by: kctim at November 16, 2015 4:42 PM
Comment #400618
There was a small group of Truthers. They were the fringiest of the fringe, and never given any kind of widespread credence. They were even banned from posting on DailyKos.

Precisely. And in Comment #400608, kctim compares Blaine and dbs with those truthers. I do not interpret his comment as a comparison to the very real matter where negligence within the Bush Administration failed to connect the dots regarding the 9/11 attacks.

Is “steal” too strong a word? Perhaps. The election was certainly controversial, and that is an understatement.
“Steal” implies that Gore would have won the recount if conducted properly. Even when counting undervotes in the manner preferred by Gore’s legal team, Bush still comes out on top. It is impossible for Bush to steal an election that he would’ve won anyway. Does this absolve the SCOTUS and FL state government’s irresponsible decisions which diminished the integrity of the election? Absolutely not. But to characterize it as theft is hyperbole.
And that is the problem with treating people like kctim and Blaine as if they were making reasonable points. They are not. And it encourages the worst kind of delustional and destructive beliefs. Today, about half of the GOP believes Obama is a Muslim. Large numbers of Republicans believe a lot of things that are simply not true- that Global Warming is hoax, that unemployment numbers are fixed, that economic statistics are the result of fraud and cooking the books, and so on.
Ultimately, you have to learn to distinguish between people like kctim and people like Blaine. Simply put, Blaine speaks with a forked tongue. His mind has rotted after consuming so much conservative media that he no longer can distinguish truth from fiction. This is why he is so eager to regurgitate right-wing conspiracy theories in his comments. Of course, he always has a link to a conservative blog to “prove” his point. Time after time, I provide neutral, official or objective sources that directly contradict his allegation and instead of apologizing he morphs into attack mode, calling me names out of frustration. Ultimately, Blaine is not capable of having a reasonable discussion here at WatchBlog.

On the other hand, I have read kctim’s comments for over a decade now. While I often disagree with what he writes, I can trust him to at least get his facts straight most of the time. Reasonable people can still disagree at the interpretation of those facts, and we often do, but kctim never engages in silly conspiracies and remains a reasonable person to converse with on WatchBlog. Lumping kctim in with Blaine does us all a disservice.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2015 6:37 PM
Comment #400619

A fair assessment, WP. I will back off. And kctim, I apologize for associating you with Blaine. That was unfair to you.

Oh, but I still have a lot to say! In general, I would just point out that there is a major difference between controversial issues which hinge on philosophical differences, such as the question ‘when does life begin,’ and simple denials of facts. In addition, there are many examples of partisanship. However, there are also cases where facts are facts, and one side is right while the other is wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2015 7:05 PM
Comment #400620

Warren,

“His mind has rotted after consuming so much conservative media that he no longer can distinguish truth from fiction.”

Close.

Blaine’s problem is that he is comfortable with his ignorance, and doesn’t have the slightest inclination to move out of that comfort zone to perhaps learn, let alone accept, something new.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 16, 2015 7:10 PM
Comment #400621

Syrian refugee resettlement in the United States could become a large election issue if Obama presses his desire against the current stated position of about 15 states and growing public opposition.

Frankly, I don’t believe the president’s position will garner votes for the democrat nominee if he/she agrees with it. Presenting the issue as morally correct is debatable and unlikely to overcome common sense when we hear ISIS bragging that they already have assets in place in the US.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 16, 2015 7:37 PM
Comment #400622

LOL…

1. There are no protagonists in the world who trigger, cause or antagonize a terrorist. Radicals — especially radical jihadists, endeavor to disrupt the West and impose their twisted ideology onto all “non-believers!”

Let’s be clear…this is NO action that suborns terrorism. Not Gitmo, not cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, not inflammatory rhetoric, not retaliatory airstrikes…nada.

They are simply evil.

2. The Office of Personnel Management cannot even properly “vet” many of its own employees? How in the world can anyone properly vett refugees from Syria?

It’s not cold, mean, callous, indifferent or xenophobic to turn away the refugees (man, woman child or elderly - each is a certain magnet to draw in potential ISIS sympathizers or terrorists in the near future).

3. FBI Director James Comey has said that the intelligence agency has over 900 ongoing active investigations on homegrown ISIS threats in all 50 states.

France has declared this attack as “an act of war!” France might invoke Article 5 of NATO.

Obama lectures us.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 16, 2015 8:19 PM
Comment #400623

phx8 said:

“Did the Bush administration fail to act on intelligence? Absolutely.”

I actually don’t disagree with that.

Did William Jefferson Clinton “fail” to take out OBL when he had the chance? Absolutely. Clinton backed off after fearing King Abdullah or some other Saudi prince was allegedly hunting with OBL; thus Clinton did not want to cause an international incident if OBL died along with the royal.

I guess Clinton DID create an international incident…only it came 3 0r 4 years later in 9/11.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 16, 2015 8:27 PM
Comment #400624

Rocky,

I hope you are wrong regarding Blaine, but I fear you are right.

Phx8,

In general, I would just point out that there is a major difference between controversial issues which hinge on philosophical differences, such as the question ‘when does life begin,’ and simple denials of facts. In addition, there are many examples of partisanship. However, there are also cases where facts are facts, and one side is right while the other is wrong.

Absolutely. And it was wrong for kctim to bring up issues where reasonable people with different philosophies can disagree. Demonstrable falsehoods, on the other hand, are a different matter. The idea that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by the Bush administration or other domestic actors is demonstrably false. The idea that Gore would be President if it were not for the actions of the Supreme Court and FL state officials is demonstrably false. Conversely, abortion issues, interpretation of the 2nd amendment and other issues are things that deal with matters that are entirely subjective.

However, on the issue of demonstrable falsehoods, let me remind everyone, that four Kurds were detained and deported near McAllen, Texas. Blaine cited this incident and claimed that those four Kurds were part ISIL. This was absolutely and objectively false. This is not the sort of behavior that is conducive to the culture we wish to maintain at Watchblog. Watchblog is a unique place where people of different viewpoints can come together and discuss their beliefs in a civil and constructive manner. Integral to this is a basic respect for the facts, which Blaine lacks.

Regarding the events in McAllen, Blaine has not supplied further comments addressing this incident and he will not address this incident because there is no way to even spin this in a manner where he doesn’t need to admit to lying. And this isn’t even the only lie of his on this thread. Like most of his comments, I only bother to address a sample of the lies he writes. For instance, Blaine claimed a 30% recidivism rate among prisoners from GTMO under Obama. However, he is dead wrong.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 12:07 AM
Comment #400625

Clinton would not have taken out OBL if he had acted on the intelligence given to him. He thought he had the chance to kill OBL with a missile strike in Kandahar, Afghanistan in December 1998, but held off because of concern about civilian casualties. As it turned out, OBL left the targeted location unexpectedly. If Clinton had launched the strike, there would have been a lot of civilian casualties, but OBL would have escaped. There was another strike aimed at him in August 1998. Obviously that did not get him either.

“Clinton’s recorded statements from 2001 referred to a proposed strike in December 1998, after intelligence indicated that Bin Laden was staying at the governor’s residence in Kandahar. That proposed attack was addressed in the 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004.

According to the report, the missed chance made some lower-level officials angry, but later intelligence appeared to show that bin Laden had left his quarters.

“The principals’ wariness about ordering a strike appears to have been vindicated: Bin Laden left his room unexpectedly, and if a strike had been ordered he would not have been hit,” the commission wrote.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/bill-clinton-hours-911-attacks-killed-osama-bin/story?id=24801422

Posted by: phx8 at November 17, 2015 12:12 AM
Comment #400626

I observe the comments regarding OBL GWB and Clinton with incredulity. Water under the bridge, not concerning to me. We do have a sitting President that gave orders to take out OBL and a Seal team accomplished that mission. Anyone else may have hesitated since it meant an incursion into another country, he did not hesitate. I stand by his actions then and now.

The ages of the terrorists that wreaked their havoc on Paris were roughly early twenties to late twenties. Given their age they would have had to have been radicalized after the tenure of Clinton and GWB or started at a very early age. It is this radicalization that needs to be confronted, here and abroad. This is now a generational ideological war that encompasses propaganda, religious zeal, and terrorists. There must be a coalition of concerned countries and leaders that meet this radicalization and defeat it, if at all possible.

In regards to the efficacy of commenters:

“Today, about half of the GOP believes Obama is a Muslim.”

There is this to support that contention

“And 99% of liberals believe those on the right are racist Christians who hate gay people.”

There is no evidence to support that contention, none. Except in the mind of a radical.

Radicalization can be benign and at first seem inconsequential. We must confront the radical statements that are made with logic and truth. By excusing commenters radical statements that are not based in truth, we are no different than members of the Muslim community who don’t confront radical statements that are not based in truth.

With that said I believe that myself and our President and many other Americans would never seek to stymie criticism. But that criticism should be based in logic and truth or else we are no different than others that turn a blind eye to radicalization.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 17, 2015 9:48 AM
Comment #400627

Kctim, likes to group many different ideas, facts theories and such into his own “conspiracy theory ” labeling. It serves to make the real crazies sound less crazy. As an example he tells me the starve the beast strategy is a conspiracy theory despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Using his definition of the tired old “well the other side does it to” line of logic, one would be forced into accepting the ISIS terrorism acts are at the same level as some of the radical Christian acts and therefore all Christians are guilty of these acts just as conservatives tell us Obama and all Muslims are guilty for the acts of ISIS.

Of course the lack of logic one must display to accept this as a fact tells us it isn’t so. Just as many of the things kctim likes to group into the discussion are not so. The logic is partisan and it serves to hide the rightist crazies from the world, by putting all of these acts thoughts and theories on the same level.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 17, 2015 10:25 AM
Comment #400628

“kctim compares Blaine and dbs with those truthers”

It was not my intention to compare anybody with anybody else. I was merely voicing my opinion that it is wrong to question a President in such a manner. I said the same thing when Bush was our President. I said the same thing about Obama just a few years ago.

dbs and Blaine are both valued contributors here and if either of you took my statement as an unfair or personal attack, I apologize.

Posted by: kctim at November 17, 2015 10:43 AM
Comment #400629

kctim,

I wouldn’t consider someone who ranted about Bush stealing the 2000 election, someone who alleged that Bush was an accomplice on 9-11 or someone who was unable to understand the nuance behind the overly simplistic conclusion that “Bush lied, they died” to be a valuable contributor. Would you?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 11:13 AM
Comment #400630

J2, when you start providing factual ‘evidence’ to support your theories, I’ll stop calling them conspiracy theories. Take your ‘starve the beast’ theory for example: Your ‘evidence’ for this is what someone said and the support of spending cuts. This ‘evidence’ is what leads you to falsely claim that Republicans and Conservatives want no government and are trying to ‘starve’ it out of existence.
The actual facts show that Republicans and Conservatives do NOT come even close to doing that when they are in power. In fact, as you yourself have pointed out, they show the opposite to be true.
That makes your so-called evidence nothing but an opinion based on their support of spending cuts.

As far as the “tired old “well the other side does it to” line of logic,” perhaps you could maybe explain why the lefts first reaction to muslim terrorism is to blame the West, blame the Crusades, or to make ridiculous comparisons showing Christians to be just as bad?
Let me guess, that’s somehow ‘different’ and I’m just grouping that into the discussion.

Your ‘facts’ are almost always opinions, J2. Those opinions are what you use to create the outrageous theories you ramble on about. I have nothing to do with them being considered conspiracy.

Posted by: kctim at November 17, 2015 11:17 AM
Comment #400631

Warren,
Yes, I actually do. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t ever respond to speaks, J2 or the post 2008 Phx8. :)


In all honesty, I really believe that all who contribute here should be valued. Agree or disagree, this only works if we all can post our opinions and others can post theirs.
Rarely will opinions be changed, but at least both sides of the issue and the reasoning behind it, are out there for people to read and use to form their own opinion on.

Personally, my goal on here isn’t to prove others wrong and ‘win,’ it’s to learn and to maybe make somebody look up facts.

Posted by: kctim at November 17, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #400632

Here is a radical statement grouping that is not based in any logic or truth:

“perhaps you could maybe explain why the lefts first reaction to muslim terrorism is to blame the West, blame the Crusades, or to make ridiculous comparisons showing Christians to be just as bad?”

or

“And 99% of liberals believe those on the right are racist Christians who hate gay people.”

I could find many, many more but let’s just ask how those two statements could be found to have any truthful substance. There might be some evidence of some people feeling that way but to group “the left” as all having that is dishonest and not truthful.

It would seem that the goal of those two statements would be to propagate an untruthful and unsubstantiated radical claim.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 17, 2015 12:02 PM
Comment #400633
The actual facts show that Republicans and Conservatives do NOT come even close to doing that when they are in power.

But they do kctim, that is why you must accept this as real. It was conservatives and repubs who passed the unfunded medicare part D.

http://careandcost.com/2011/07/17/who-passed-medicare-part-d-and-why-you-should-care/

It was conservatives/repubs who lowered taxes and declared war, if this alone isn’t enough to demonstrate proof then nothing is. But of course you still atren’t convinced so here is a link that goes into detail, that links to a full history of the strategy and the outcomes.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/11/26/Bartlett-Starve-The-Beast

Posted by: j2t2 at November 17, 2015 12:16 PM
Comment #400634

J2, you and Bartlett are of the opinion that Republicans and Conservatives intentionally cut taxes and do not “lift a finger to cut spending” because they “universally believe” that doing so will ‘starve the beast.’ It can’t be because they believe tax cuts stimulate the economy or because the left won’t let them make serious spending cuts, no, it’s all some nefarious covert plot to kill government.

Should everyday Republicans and Conservatives hold their reps responsible for tax cuts and not standing up for spending cuts? Yes. Should they believe that Republican and Conservative leaders are intentionally trying to starve government so that it will fail? No.

Posted by: kctim at November 17, 2015 1:12 PM
Comment #400635

j2t2 wrote; “…conservatives tell us Obama and all Muslims are guilty for the acts of ISIS.”

What a load of “hootah”. Name the conservatives who claim this or shut up.

If I misunderstood your statement blame yourself.


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2015 2:10 PM
Comment #400636

No kctim, no it is not an opinion. It is a fact. The conservatives/repubs have used this for years Bartlett is a conservative who served in the Reagan administration he is speaking of fact not opinion. You need to stop opinionating and read the various links I have posted regarding this issue.

“Starving the beast” is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending[1][2][3] by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Posted by: j2t2 at November 17, 2015 2:17 PM
Comment #400637
Yes, I actually do. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t ever respond to speaks, J2 or the post 2008 Phx8. :)


In all honesty, I really believe that all who contribute here should be valued. Agree or disagree, this only works if we all can post our opinions and others can post theirs.
Rarely will opinions be changed, but at least both sides of the issue and the reasoning behind it, are out there for people to read and use to form their own opinion on.

Personally, my goal on here isn’t to prove others wrong and ‘win,’ it’s to learn and to maybe make somebody look up facts./blockquote>

I’m primarily here to learn. For better or for worse, a college campus is a poor environment to engage with conservative opinions. Watchblog has been my outlet from the ivory tower.

As for your claim regarding S4A and Phx8, I would like to remind you that on only handful of occasions have people referred to the 2000 election as “stolen” and in all those instances the reference was initiated by either you or Rhinehold. Simply put, it is wrong to characterize WatchBlog liberals as purveyors of conspiracy theories.

I also want to note a distinction that resists your attempt to equivocate. The 2000 election in Florida, the missed cues during the summer of 2001 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq are all genuine controversies. All three events are examples of misdeeds or mistakes on the part of the Republicans. It was hyperbolic to describe the election as stolen, to elevate the negligence of 2001 to complicity or to allege lying when the situation was more nuanced, but what Blaine and dbs describe above is no mere hyperbole. Let me remind you, dbs called Obama a “Trojan Horse”. That is incomparable with anything written by a Watchblog liberal. It is as despicable as the “truthers” who allege 9/11 was an inside job. Likewise, Blaine said “To watch Obama in action, one would think he was a Muslim…makes one wonder what side Obama is on.” This is equally absurd and deserves ostracization.

Name the conservatives who claim this or shut up
Did Blaine not allege on this very forum that all Muslims are complicit in a conspiracy to establish a future with a worldwide caliphate and no freedom for infidels like us? While this is certainly the goal of ISIS, to claim that 1 billion Muslims are practicing taqiyya in order to advance that goal is the most disgusting thing I have every read here at Watchblog.
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 3:10 PM
Comment #400638

J2, when you first mentioned ‘starve the beast’ in the other thread, I read up on it on my own. When you provided the Bartlett link, I read it and the one he wrote a few years ago where he “went into great detail explaining” his opinion on the “origin and development of STB.” That’s how I was able to quote from it and how I knew Bartlett was who wrote it.

That is why I have criticized Republicans and Conservative numerous times in my posts for their failure to cut spending with their tax cuts.
That is also why I differentiate between what you want people to think: ‘starving the government so that it will fail,’ and what the idea behind it really is: ‘reduced spending.’ The former being conspiracy, the latter being a differing opinion.

There is no plan to cut taxes in order to cause government to fail.

Posted by: kctim at November 17, 2015 3:16 PM
Comment #400639

Warren writes; “Watchblog has been my outlet from the ivory tower.”

Glad to accommodate you Warren. It is sad that exposure to conservative views is unavailable on your campus. There is a general renunciation of “free speech” taking place at many public and private institutions of “higher” learning in the US.

I don’t believe one can characterize Blain as the voice of conservatism.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2015 3:27 PM
Comment #400640

It is not a new development that academia certainly has its troubles when it comes to political diversity. This isn’t to say that every conservative trope or stereotype is true. Life in the ivory tower is far more apolitical than one would expect. Basically, of the 2 dozen faculty that I know very well, I know maybe two or three of which are actually left wing activists. Everyone else is mostly a mystery. Of course, the department trends secular so any conservatives that do exist are more likely libertarian and not socially conservative. One of these days, I will write an entry about this sensitive topic. There is really a lot more nuance than at first glance.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 4:03 PM
Comment #400641

Warren writes; “One of these days, I will write an entry about this sensitive topic. There is really a lot more nuance than at first glance.”
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 4:03 PM

Looking forward to reading it Warren.

As a Veteran of Viet Nam at University in 1968 we had many heated discussions regarding that conflict among both Vets and others. No opinion or voice was squelched by other students or University personnel.

Higher education institutions are meant to be, and best promote leaning, when all voices and opinions are heard and respected.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2015 4:37 PM
Comment #400642

Correction of my post above.

“meant to be mentally challenging,…”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2015 4:41 PM
Comment #400643

I will add that I have never witnessed any squelching of voice or opinion in any setting. The problem I complain of is more one of a lack of diversity rather than anything else.

Of course, the humanities have their own problems, which we have reared their heads recently at Yale and Mizzou, but I digress…

Back on topic, here is some wisdom from down under:
ISIL is weak.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 5:28 PM
Comment #400644

Today wasn’t a good day for Ben Carson.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 6:29 PM
Comment #400645

Following is a quote from the ISIL link Warren provided.

“ISIL don’t want you to know they would quickly be crushed if they ever faced a proper Army on a battlefield.”

Warren, give Oobama and NATO this information immediately and save lives.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2015 7:28 PM
Comment #400646

The point being made is that ISIL would have zero chance of repelling a US/NATO ground invasion. Obviously no one wants to do that because it means taking responsibility for a war torn country. Still, ISIL’s credibility rests on their ability to control and expand their territory and in that arena they are slowly losing to our Kurdish and Syrian allies.

The truth ISIL doesn’t want people to know is that even if their attacks in killing a million Westerners, it won’t do a thing to expand the territory they control, let alone establish a worldwide caliphate. ISIL has only one route to victory and that route involves cleaving the Muslim world from the Western one. With 1 billion allies, then they might actually pose a threat. Fortunately, most Muslims oppose ISIL today, but if we do the stupid thing and let ISIL scare us, then that support will dry up.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 8:05 PM
Comment #400647

“The point being made is that ISIL would have zero chance of repelling a US/NATO ground invasion.”

Your point is well taken, Warren. Consider also that Russia may very well join in such an attack. It would be a cakewalk. But, so was the Iraq invasion of 2003 and the Afghanistan invasion. The aftermath, though, was not such a cakewalk.

The great danger of ISIL is that it will succeed in convincing the Muslim world or at least the Sunni Muslim world that the West is at war with them or disregards their humanitarian needs. In order to accomplish that goal, ISIL wants to lure the West into a another large scale invasion of Muslim lands.

Let’s be clear, though, that ISIL is not representative of mainstream Sunni Islam nor the Shia branch (Iran). It is a fundamentalist sect of the Sunni branch of Islam (Wahabbism) emanating from Saudi Arabia.

We should also remember where ISIL came to power. It was in the Sunni Arab areas of Iraq and Syria. It exploited the grievances of the Sunnis toward the Shia dominated government of Iraq and the Shia Alawite government of Assad in Syria.

We need to keep our heads and tread carefully in crafting a counter strategy. First and foremost is a realistic geographic, ethnic and religious political realignment of the key contested areas of the Middle East. Create a country for the Kurds. Give the Sunnis autonomous control of their areas of Iraq and Syria. Give the Alawites control of their area of Syria.

I think that there is actually some momentum toward a political realignment. The Kurds are certainly earning their bones toward full independence with their resistance in both Iraq and Syria of ISIL. The Russians appear to be stabilizing the Alawite (Assad) areas of Syria and signaling a cease fire for negotiated settlement of the Syrian war. The missing element is some Sunni leadership that isn’t calling for a world wide caliphate. The Sunni nations now need to step up with and alternative.


Posted by: Rich at November 17, 2015 9:29 PM
Comment #400648

Rich, I sure hope things turn out as you describe. I still fear too much infighting among ISIL’s enemies. Turkey and Iran certainly won’t be happy to see a Kurdish state. Likewise, Iran and Russia will certainly be unhappy to see Assad’s grip diminished.

Ultimately, the downing of the Russian plane in Egypt will likely prove to be ISIL’s undoing. Until now, most of Russia’s efforts “against ISIL” have been against US interests, but now that will hopefully change.

I think Obama made a big mistake when he promised a few years ago that Assad’s days were numbered. It totally binds his hands now when we might want to create a rump state for Assad and his Alawite friends to control. Still, Obama and Kerry are bright diplomats. They were able to salvage the collapsing sanctions against Iran by crafting the current JCOPA that has held up so far, so they might be clever enough to get things done.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 17, 2015 10:06 PM
Comment #400649

Rich,
Well said. The funny thing is, we are actually doing very well against ISIS right now. Between the Paris attack, the downing of the Russian airliner, and the ensuing fear mongering, the positive developments are being ignored. We have the Russians and the French fully on board as allies, ISIS has been losing ground, and recently some of its most notorious members have been killed.

Unfortunately, conservative Republicans deal in fear. That is what they sell. There have been a lot of denunciations of the Obama administration’s policy, but when pressed, none of those conservative Republicans have any new ideas; in fact, they iterate exactly what the Obama administration is already doing. But, like I said, they sell fear. It worked in 2014, when the GOP demanded voters be afraid of ISIS, ebola, and illegal immigrants. It is all nativism and xenophobia. They never did present any positive ideas, unless one counts quarantining some West African countries, against the advice of epidemiologists. Fortunately Obama ignored them, made the right decisions, and followed the expert advice, even though it cost the Democrats at the polls. Subsequent events proved Obama to be right.

We are now seeing fear drive conservatives to demand the country turn its back on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. It is so unworthy of America, to be so paralyzed by fear, even to the point of turning our collective back on those in need. Obama is saying and doing the right things. But conservatives sell fear. They sell nativism and xenophobia.

Speaking of which… talked to someone involved in Nevada politics this afternoon. Hillary is a lock to win there. That’s no surprise. More interesting is that Trump has a very strong organization there, and he looks like a lock in NV too. The latest nationwide poll shows Trump at 31% and Carson at 22%. Together they constitute more than 50% of polled Republicans. And the second choice of Trump supporters is Carson, and vice versa- which means it is looking more and more likely that Trump will be the nominee.

I find it very, very difficult to wrap my head around that.

Posted by: phx8 at November 17, 2015 10:26 PM
Comment #400650

Seeing Obama and Putin in a seeming serious face to face conversation at the G20 gives me some hope that an agreement for a cease fire and negotiated settlement are in the works. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/g20-barack-obama-and-vladimir-putin-agree-to-syrian-led-transition

Obama may need to eat some crow over his Assad statements. But, there is a greater interest to be served. Putin may also have to give up Assad in exchange for a friendly Alawite transition government.

The strange thing about the recent attacks of ISIL is that they seem designed to bring the wrath of the world down upon them. Even Turkey has been attacked by ISIL. We should be careful and remember the old proverb that revenge is a dish best served cold.


Posted by: Rich at November 17, 2015 11:07 PM
Comment #400651

Rich,
Cooperation is always a good thing for us. Enough common interests are shared to make for some unlikely bedfellows. No one is saying much, but the Iranians and Hezbollah will work with us too, and since Iran controls the Iraqi government, they will have a big say in any changes of borders. Same goes for the Kurds and Turkey.

“The strange thing about the recent attacks of ISIL is that they seem designed to bring the wrath of the world down upon them.”

As terrible as the attacks were, it only took a relatively small number of people to carry them out. Does this actually represent a change in strategy for ISIS? Did it come from the leadership? Maybe. They are losing on the ground. A town critical to ISIS, Srinagar, was just lost. The town is a heap of rubble now, but ISIS is gone. Srinagar turned out to be a meat grinder for them. Supposedly they sent a lot of their foreign fighters there, and those fighters were turned into so much cannon fodder.

Given some crucial losses, the ISIS leadership might be changing its strategy. Maybe. The idea would be to turn the conflict into a ‘Muslims v the rest of the world’ fight. Such a strategy would depend on the US and its allies lashing out in anger and fear, and suckering us into doing stupid things…

Posted by: phx8 at November 17, 2015 11:46 PM
Comment #400652
That is also why I differentiate between what you want people to think: ‘starving the government so that it will fail,’ and what the idea behind it really is: ‘reduced spending.’ The former being conspiracy, the latter being a differing opinion.

kctim, starve the beast has proven not to work, If you have read Bartlett you know why and have been given proof.
So we have conservatives pushing failed economic policy also burying us in debt by charging the war to our children They have ran up debt, spending like drunken republicans, with unfunded mandates such as Part D to win elections, while signing a pledge with a guy who wants the government small enough to drown in the bathtub. Yet you tell me it is to cut spending! The plan has failed and that my friend is factual not an opinion. Why would conservatives in government continue down this path except to fail?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 18, 2015 12:55 AM
Comment #400653

Rich, phx8 and WP I’d like your opinions on something I heard last night about ISIL/ISIS and their ability to control parts of Syria and Iraq. It was posited that this conflict is not really ours, Russia’s or France’s to resolve. Anything we or our allies and even Russia does there will have to be left to the people of the region to control, even if we are successful. The idea is that this is what has happened so far in Iraq, when we left there was a vacuum that was filled by ISIL/ISIS. The idea would be that this cannot be resolved without the complete and total acceptance by moderate Sunni countries to eliminate ISIL/ISIS and take the necessary steps to prevent the same vacuum after that happens. Given the make up the region, this doesn’t seem likely. How on earth could a coalition of western countries manage supporting those moderate Sunnis to step up and own their own regional disputes?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 9:33 AM
Comment #400654

First comment was held for approval so I will remove a link to the map of the Middle East and see if that works.

Rich, phx8 and WP I’d like your opinions on something I heard last night about ISIL/ISIS and their ability to control parts of Syria and Iraq. It was posited that this conflict is not really ours, Russia’s or France’s to resolve. Anything we or our allies and even Russia does there will have to be left to the people of the region to control, even if we are successful. The idea is that this is what has happened so far in Iraq, when we left there was a vacuum that was filled by ISIL/ISIS. The idea would be that this cannot be resolved without the complete and total acceptance by moderate Sunni countries to eliminate ISIL/ISIS and take the necessary steps to prevent the same vacuum after that happens. Given the make up the region, this doesn’t seem likely. How on earth could a coalition of western countries manage supporting those moderate Sunnis to step up and own their own regional disputes?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 9:36 AM
Comment #400655

The easy way to prevent such a power vacuum would be to prop up Assad, but I honestly don’t think it is necessary to eliminate ISIL. As long as we can establish strong competing states nearby, ISIL will be contained. Notably, this will mean an independent Kurdish state and a resolution to the Syrian civil war along the lines mentioned above (division of Syria into Alawite and Sunni Arab nations).

I fear eliminating ISIL will embolden Iran. Right now, ISIL is the biggest thorn in Iran’s back as it threatens not only their ally in Assad, but also the influence they have in Lebanon through Hezbollah.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2015 10:22 AM
Comment #400657

WP thanks. Containing ISIL is going to be a notable accomplishment if that is even possible. Agreed about Assad, President Obama may indeed have to swallow his words and at least temporarily move to secure Assad’s rule, temporarily. The progression since 2003 to it’s present state would seem to suggest that this region must control it’s own enemies. The Western Allies and Russia will only exacerbate the ability of ISIL to convince Muslims that they are second class citizens in even the most free countries on earth. This is what they want to propagate. Any assistance given by the Western Allies and Russia will be used by ISIL to foment Muslim’s into believing that the caliphate is the only solution to their ability to exist. The Gordian Knot of Shia and Sunni sects once again rears it’s ugly confluence in any discussion regarding a solution.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 10:37 AM
Comment #400658

J2, Bartletts piece is on the opinion page and is a one sided view written for effect.

If government spends only what it has, then tax cuts will hold down government spending. If government wishes to add another program, it must shrink other government programs in order to pay for it, or it must raise taxes to ‘feed the beast.’
That is fact.

That is not what Republicans have been doing. They have been promising tax cuts and agreeing to unlimited spending, for votes. Bush, Cantor, Boehner et al, paid for it at the polls.
That too, is fact.

“Why would conservatives in government continue down this path except to fail?”

Fear.
For some reason, the people have been led to believe that any cuts in spending or growth of government, equals hate, racism, sexism etc… so Republicans are more worried about reelection than they are about the deficit and debt.

To claim there is some plot to make government fail, one has to ignore the facts that spending has only continued to increase and government has only continued to grow.

Posted by: kctim at November 18, 2015 10:39 AM
Comment #400659

If all but a few muslims are moderates, then why must the West cater to them?

Posted by: kc_tim at November 18, 2015 10:54 AM
Comment #400660

Speaks,
Well, it certainly is a hot mess, isn’t it? There really aren’t any good solutions. Most of the politicians piping up do not actually offer any solutions. They just appeal to our sense of anger and outrage. The Obama administration has been practicing containment. We can bomb ISIS into oblivion and sic the Kurds on whoever is left, but it still begs the question: if not ISIS, then who will be in charge? There aren’t any moderate Sunnis. And no one wants to deploy 150,000 US troops to keep the peace. It would be ruinously expensive, and since we do not speak the language or share a culture in common, we risk becoming just one more faction in a multi-factional civil war. And how much of a threat does ISIS actually present? They have launched a couple of spectacularly murderous assault, but does that really represent a change in ISIS strategy, or is it the work of a relatively small number of radicals? How do international attacks aid the construction of an Islamic caliphate?

The only solution that makes even an iota of sense is to redraw the borders, but that is tremendously complicated in and of itself. If we establish a Sunni state in eastern Syria and western Iraq, what is to say it will be any less horrible than ISIS?

The whole thing fell apart when a JV team in Syria marched into Iraq with 1,700 poorly armed fighters, and the Iraqis switched sides. The army deserted, and overnight ISIS went from being a JV team to an army of 20,000 or more fighters armed with American weapons. At some point, we have to convince the Sunni tribal leaders and generals to become moderates. Bombing the region into oblivion doesn’t exactly encourage that.

Unless we can convince our partners to redraw the region’s borders, it seems like the Obama administration’s policy of containment is the least bad choice.

Posted by: phx8 at November 18, 2015 10:54 AM
Comment #400661
I find it very, very difficult to wrap my head around that.

phx8, we have many many people in the flyover states that are getting their electrolytes in their Brawndo juice. The flaws of Trump that normally would disqualify someone for any office in the public sector is his strength.

For years we have heard the Mexicans are taking our jobs and have seen construction crews replaced with Mexican crews and wages going down, despite productivity gains. We have heard our government is being turn into a Sharia law because of the black Muslim in the presidents office. We have heard the poor (read “the blacks”) are sucking up all our money from the government and they live so much better than we do by not working. We have heard Obama is coming for our guns and he is sending gay guys to collect them along with the militarized police that he invented. We have heard…. well you get the point.

Most of all we want honesty in politics, we want transparency and when Trump gets on stage and show us how cool it is to not be politically correct we eat it up. We are the reality TV generation and we vote.

So I’m not surprised that Trump is still around.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 18, 2015 11:13 AM
Comment #400663

phx8 thanks. This is exactly why I voted for President Obama twice. Call the cowards out, he is not running for re-election and is using the bully pulpit to point out their irrational fears. Thanks Obama!

Hot mess would be the mild description but an apt one. Redrawing the borders seems to be something that needs to happen and is happening. Regarding any intervention by us in the decision of boundaries and borders should give us pause to reflect on one of the first defining moments of our attempts to define the problem and seek a solution.

Fear, anger and xenophobia sells well to an audience that can’t manage any synapse capability to have an original thought. Now who would have thought that could happen?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 11:36 AM
Comment #400668

phx8 asked ” How do international attacks aid the construction of an Islamic caliphate?”, the don’t but what they are meant to attempt to accomplish is instilling fear and hatred of “the other”. That in and of itself still will not aid the caliphate however the outcome of that xenophobia, possible second class citizenry for Muslims in the free world, can then be used as a tool to encourage Muslims to turn to the caliphate for existence. I would agree with you that ISIL/ISIS is not very powerful but the message that they are trying to foment in Muslims might become very strong if their tactics produce the desired effects. Thanks again for your opinion.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 2:37 PM
Comment #400670

“Reid said, “I don’t think at this stage that we should be pausing until we get the facts,” referring to the entry of Syrian refugees into the U.S.

What? Why wait for facts says the brilliant liberal senator.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who will take over as the Democratic leader in the chamber in 2017, said “a pause may be necessary” on the entry of Syrians fleeing civil war.


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/schumer-immigration-plan-syrian/2015/11/17/id/702593/#ixzz3rsI0J8r4


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 18, 2015 2:58 PM
Comment #400671

I think that you are generally correct, Speak4all. That is why the international community needs to proceed cautiously. However, it is equally true that the international community cannot simply sit back waiting for moderate Sunnis to materialize while their citizens are being terrorized and killed. The killers need to be dealt with even if the long term outcome is imperfect.

The key issue, in my opinion, is resolving the political power structure in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq. Clearly, it has been the epicenter of violent Sunni extremism since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Insurgency, al-Qaeda in Iraq and now ISIL all have their roots in that area. The Sunnis will not quietly accept Shia dominated rule and suppression.

There is, however, some precedent of a solution. The Awakening in 2007-2008 demonstrated that given resources, protection and support, the Sunni tribal leadership will reject extremism and reduce violence. Unfortunately, the Maliki Shia government abandoned the progress of the Awakening, reneged on power sharing and actively suppressed the Sunnis.

The stumbling block to generating a new “Awakening” is the structure and intransigence of the Iraqi Shia government. The Obama administration recognizes this issue and has conditioned assistance to the Iraqi government on political reform giving more power to the Sunnis. Unfortunately, the Sunnis don’t trust the Iraqi government. Perhaps for good reason.

So, how do we unwind the mistakes of our occupation from 2003-2011? How do we achieve a balancing of power in Iraq? The Iranians may be the primary actor. One can only hope that there was a side agreement with the Iranians as a condition of lifting the sanctions that they will pressure the Iraqis to provide a more balanced power sharing with the Sunni Iraqis.

Posted by: Rich at November 18, 2015 3:04 PM
Comment #400672

One more scary thought is that Saudi Arabia may face serious economic problems if world oil prices continue at their low levels. The Kingdom has been drawing on its financial reserves for a while now. If this continues for much longer, the Saudis will begin to experience serious economic disruptions. That may lead to social and political instability and the emergence of a radical government.

Posted by: Rich at November 18, 2015 3:21 PM
Comment #400676

Rich, thanks. Interesting, that comment that you made regarding the possible agreement on lifting the sanctions in trade for Iran’s pressure on Iraqi’s to include Sunnis. This could be a possibility? Perhaps WP has studied the agreement further than I have to be able to comment on that? That could help.

I am not so certain that the Saudis would experience economic problems just yet, but I am by no means an expert. I had thought all along that since the death of Abdullah that his successor was attempting to control the oil market by keeping oil prices low. I had thought that this was his muscle flexing in that region and his way towards exerting his influence. But again, I could be wrong.

I posited something a while back about a comparison of the Christian and Islamic theologies. The Christian theology at around 1400 years of existence went through a very terrible time with the Catholic Spanish Inquisition. Given that the Islamist theology is roughly 1400 years along perhaps this is their very terrible time?

Thanks again for your opinion. It does not disagree with most of my, WP’s or phx8’s summations. The way forward is indeed fraught with disaster at nearly every turn. We should plan for the worst and hope for the best?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 3:39 PM
Comment #400680

I’m no expert on the JCPOA, but as far as I know, it is already set in stone, so it is near impossible that the US would be able to establish new conditions upon Iran before lifting sanctions. Perhaps if we are lucky, Iran will decide that clamping down on Iraq serves its own interests.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2015 4:46 PM
Comment #400684

WP thanks again. I did hear someone talking about this very thing last night on one of the shows I watch but I really can’t recall which or who it was. I’ll try to do some research on that. I too don’t believe that the Iranians would make those moves unless it was in their best interest to do so. This may happen but likely as not. But for clarity sake I do believe that we are using a more thoughtful approach by not rushing to judgement and charging in with six guns blazing and bombs a bursting.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 5:06 PM
Comment #400685

I wasn’t suggesting an express written agreement of any sort but an implicit understanding of increased cooperation in bringing a semblance of stability and balance of power in the Middle East.

Posted by: Rich at November 18, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #400687

And you know the JCPOA just might help bring that about Rich. We can only hope.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #400688

“The President’s the person who created this entire situation,” the New Jersey governor said. “He didn’t keep his word when he drew a red line in Syria. He allowed the situation in Syria to happen, he hasn’t set up a no-fly zone that could create a safe haven for these refugees to live safely in their own country, rather than having to scatter all across the world. And he’s the one who’s casting aspersions? It’s a joke. And he’s a joke on this issue.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/politics/chris-christie-obama-created-syrian-refugee-crisis/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 18, 2015 5:20 PM
Comment #400689

I’ll listen to the likes of Governor Christie when I need to screw up traffic but not much else.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 18, 2015 5:23 PM
Comment #400692

So typical of Speaks. See, hear, and watch only that which is politically acceptable and ignore facts when possible.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 18, 2015 6:03 PM
Comment #400693

Royal,

Obama drew a red line in Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons. That’s true. It’s also true that Syria got rid of its chemical weapons after their use was confirmed and Obama threatened retaliation. So how did Obama not keep his word?

Posted by: Rich at November 18, 2015 6:08 PM
Comment #400694

“Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that President Obama damaged U.S. credibility by drawing a “red line” against Syria’s use of chemical weapons and then failed to back it up with military force when Syria crossed the line.

“It was damaging,” Mr. Panetta, who also served as CIA director for Mr. Obama, told Yahoo News.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/7/panetta-decries-obama-red-line-blunder-syria/

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 18, 2015 6:29 PM
Comment #400695

Laying blame for ISIS at the feet of U.S. Presidents and/or their foreign policy is very short sided. ISIS represents a much larger argument that has been ongoing for quite sometime now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elham-manea/time-to-face-the-isis-ins_b_5688631.html

Posted by: George in SC at November 18, 2015 7:12 PM
Comment #400713

Commendations to the French police in the tracking and killing of the supposed mastermind of the Paris attack, Abdelhamid Abaaoud.

It’s just too bad more wasn’t able to be done to identify him prior to the Paris attack.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 19, 2015 2:55 PM
Comment #400786

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nHS1OsvEW0

Posted by: dbs at November 21, 2015 10:07 AM
Comment #400927
Laying blame for ISIS at the feet of U.S. Presidents and/or their foreign policy is very short sided.

And this is coming from the side that has been and still is blaming Bush for all the world’s woes. It’s only wrong to blame presidents if it is a democrat president…

Posted by: Blaine at November 28, 2015 9:54 AM
Post a comment