[Sophie11]

I am praying along side of you Kitty!

[Abby10]

Glad to hear you made it safely, Kitty. Praying for you here back home.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by janmcn

The president's daily briefing on August 6, 2001 said "Al Queda determined to attack US". What could be more clear than that? And the president's response was "okay, you covered your ass, now get out of here". Look it up.

Boogie already responded to your point (ie generalized report of a threat in the PDB vs specific actionable intelligence) so I won't repeat it here. I also agree with Chi about if something happens on your watch, you own it. That’s also true. However, let’s not get diverted but rather focus on this thread which is the contrast between the UK and US’s response to the current 2014 Islamic threat.

13 years after 9/11, the threat from Radical Islam is clear to all except those who wish to deny it. That is to say, the threat is objectively true, and especially as manifested in ISIS. It also includes a soon to be nuclear armed Iran. I’m assuming you agree that a clear and present threat to the US from Radical Islam (Shia and Sunni) exists. If not, please speak up because that’s the fundamental assumption for what I’m about to argue next … that if a mass casualty attack now occurs on US soil, it will be an impeachable offense.

My reason for arguing this is the threat is clear, and yet unlike the UK, we have no strategy to deal with it. That is a failure of executive leadership on a major scale, and a dereliction of the constitutional duty for any Commander in Chief to protect the country. This assertion applies to any President, current or future, and regardless of party. It is not meant to be a partisan statement so please don’t make it one.

We are no longer talking about a bunch of rag tag guys living in caves who periodically surface with viable attacks. ISIS controls a large territory, is a de facto state, has captured large amounts of US military equipment, and controls hundreds of millions of dollars with more coming in every day. They have a charismatic leader who has a doctorate in Islamic Studies who views himself as the modern day Caliph. They even produce an annual report and use “metrics.” See this link, but be advised it is most unpleasant to read. Al Qaeda disavowed ISIS as even they thought their methods were too brutal.

ISIS, Inc. ? Jihadists attract investors, fighters with annual reports & glossy PR ? RT News

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is their leader. The Washington Post describes him as a “…shrewd strategist, prolific fundraiser and ruthless killer.” He is apparently our generation’s Hitler who, if left unchallenged will only grow stronger.

How ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the world’s most powerful jihadist leader - The Washington Post

al-Baghdadi was a US captive and released years ago before people realized what he is truly capable of. His last words to his captors were “ see you in New York.” That’s rather chilling.

The bottom line is … we need an aggressive strategy that emphasizes offense. We need to go after them where they live and not wait for them to attack us where we live. ISIS needs to be destroyed, root and branch, and not “managed.” We need leadership to show us the way to victory and protection from the threat. Do you really disagree with any of that? If so, please explain why.

I also repeat that, given today’s circumstances, should a mass casualty attack or series of attacks occur in the US homeland in 2014 or beyond, any President who fails to protect us will be viewed as deserving of impeachment by pretty much everyone across the ideological spectrum.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Boogie already responded to your point (ie generalized report of a threat in the PDB vs specific actionable intelligence) so I won't repeat it here. I also agree with Chi about if something happens on your watch, you own it. That’s also true. However, let’s not get diverted but rather focus on this thread which is the contrast between the UK and US’s response to the current 2014 Islamic threat.

13 years after 9/11, the threat from Radical Islam is clear to all except those who wish to deny it. That is to say, the threat is objectively true, and especially as manifested in ISIS. It also includes a soon to be nuclear armed Iran. I’m assuming you agree that a clear and present threat to the US from Radical Islam (Shia and Sunni) exists. If not, please speak up because that’s the fundamental assumption for what I’m about to argue next … that if a mass casualty attack now occurs on US soil, it will be an impeachable offense.

My reason for arguing this is the threat is clear, and yet unlike the UK, we have no strategy to deal with it. That is a failure of executive leadership on a major scale, and a dereliction of the constitutional duty for any Commander in Chief to protect the country. This assertion applies to any President, current or future, and regardless of party. It is not meant to be a partisan statement so please don’t make it one.

We are no longer talking about a bunch of rag tag guys living in caves who periodically surface with viable attacks. ISIS controls a large territory, is a de facto state, has captured large amounts of US military equipment, and controls hundreds of millions of dollars with more coming in every day. They have a charismatic leader who has a doctorate in Islamic Studies who views himself as the modern day Caliph. They even produce an annual report and use “metrics.” See this link, but be advised it is most unpleasant to read. Al Qaeda disavowed ISIS as even they thought their methods were too brutal.

ISIS, Inc. ? Jihadists attract investors, fighters with annual reports & glossy PR ? RT News

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is their leader. The Washington Post describes him as a “…shrewd strategist, prolific fundraiser and ruthless killer.” He is apparently our generation’s Hitler who, if left unchallenged will only grow stronger.

How ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the world’s most powerful jihadist leader - The Washington Post

al-Baghdadi was a US captive and released years ago before people realized what he is truly capable of. His last words to his captors were “ see you in New York.” That’s rather chilling.

The bottom line is … we need an aggressive strategy that emphasizes offense. We need to go after them where they live and not wait for them to attack us where we live. ISIS needs to be destroyed, root and branch, and not “managed.” We need leadership to show us the way to victory and protection from the threat. Do you really disagree with any of that? If so, please explain why.

I also repeat that, given today’s circumstances, should a mass casualty attack or series of attacks occur in the US homeland in 2014 or beyond, any President who fails to protect us will be viewed as deserving of impeachment by pretty much everyone across the ideological spectrum.

According to your theory that "any president who fails to protect us will be viewed as deserving of impeachment" states clearly that George W Bush should have been impeached.

How about if the residents of TV organize a "war" march at the polo grounds? We could invite all our elected officials and tell them we want to fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here, and we support a big tax increase to pay for this war.

There could also be recruiters at our march so that TV residents could volunteer their sons and daughters and grandchildren to fight in this war.

And don't forget the press. We need all the publicity we can get for our "march" supporting the next war.

[Boudicca]

Well said, Sophie11. your one sentance sums up the feelings Gracie and I share. We hope and pray there really IS a plan going on behind the scenes on the part of our leaders. Kitty, prayers for your safety, also.

[Boudicca]

[COLOR="blue"]How about if the residents of TV organize a "war" march at the polo grounds? We could invite all our elected officials and tell them we want to fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here, and we support a big tax increase to pay for this war.

There could also be recruiters at our march so that TV residents could volunteer their sons and daughters and grandchildren to fight in this war.[/COLOR
And don't forget the press. We need all the publicity we can get for our "march" supporting the next war.
While not exactly on point comments, Janmcn, I am very proud that we, as a nation, still enjoy the freedom to publically express our feelings about our government.

[quirky3]

Originally Posted by Rags123

I posted a few links on the ISIS philosophy, which if you read are very interesting concerning the caliphate's, etc.

I did just a bit of research on how the Muslim world perceives this situation, since from I can see, nobody in our media is covering that aspect (could have missed it)

From the Islamic Monthly......


"Dear ISIS & Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi,

You are not “The Islamic State.”

There is nothing Islamic about beheading foreign journalists, indiscriminately targeting religious minorities and instilling wanton terror within the general civilian population where your terrorist thugs operate.

As I mentioned during a July 2012 CNN television interview, you are so crazy that even Al-Qaeda’s leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri has distanced himself from the actions of your terrorist organization.

Seriously, you know that you’re a bunch of lunatics when even Al-Qaeda says that you are too ‘cray-cray’ for their taste."

Let

From ONISLAM.NET



"
CAIRO – India Sunni and Shiite Muslims have united against the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISL), asserting that the actions of destroying holy sites, supporting sectarianism and divisions between Muslim groups cannot be attributed to a true Islamic state.


India Muslims Rise Up Against ISIL - Asia-Pacific - News - OnIslam.net

I will never understand our media and the attempt to control our thinking. There are always two sides to every story and you cannot judge or decide hearing only one side. This is not a defense of anyone, but we need to understand both sides.

Thank you so much for reinforcing the hugh distinction between the Islamic States and terrorists. It is so important to keep in mind.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by quirky3

Thank you so much for reinforcing the hugh distinction between the Islamic States and terrorists. It is so important to keep in mind.

I think it is vital to understand what we are talking about. This is not about religion or politics BUT it is important and should be treated seriously and without political comment.

I look forward to listening to the President (I apologize for referencing the CIC, and it is not meant to be political...he IS the CIC) and I do it with some hope that he has been successful in garnering support and recognizes that he must talk to the american people on this.

BUT I do hope others read these links to understand the problem and how it may or may not affect our country.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Whatever the President decides to do will require congressional approval. Our congress will not debate this issue for two weeks. Let's hear from people with top, top, top secret clearances, then before the vote is taken, we can all voice our opinions to our elected representatives.

Nothing to disagree with there about the process, debate etc ... except having worked in that area for many years, I can tell you strategies are always on the table and evolve. Saying you don’t have one is never an acceptable answer. Maybe he misspoke ... let's hope, and Boogie had some good comments here. However, given other factors that imply lack of seriousness, the comment did not build any confidence in my view. My issue with that is, whether misspoken or not, it portrayed confusion and weakness, and that emboldens enemies vs deterring them.

However, more to the point, I get the distinct sense --especially with your most recent comments --that you don't think the threat is significant or real, hence you say wait until the people with clearances speak and the process completes. Or maybe you just feel you don’t have enough information to come to a conclusion. Am I summarizing where you stand on the threat correctly??

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I think that although a lot of people would like to see some kind of action being taken, many are tired of war and are afraid of seeing "boots on the ground" again.

The president has said that the boots on the ground option is off the table. I don't know that he'll be able to keep that promise. But, like his predecessor said, this is a different kind of war. Things will go on every day that the American public will not know about. It will be a war of covert operations and intelligence, more so than any war in the past.

We have a bit of a dichotomy here in that much of the American public doesn't want to see us in another Iraq situation, but they would also feel better if they could see something happening. That "something happening" however, would include video of body bags of American soldiers on the news every night. (We know how much the news media loves to show that.)

The way this war is being waged, (I hope) will not be visible to us. So we will be left with this uncomfortable feeling that nothing is being done.

Neither one of these options makes the American public comfortable.

There’s no doubt that all of us are sick of the Middle East, Radical Islam and the whole rotten bunch. No one wants their kids or grandkids to go to war, nor does anyone relish the thought of body counts. No one wants American boots on the ground. I think this is a normal reaction and actually classically American … big oceans, no one can invade us, let’s just live in our isolationist bubble and call it a day.

The problem is what’s it’s always been … there is evil in the world. Whether one is religious or not, it’s just the way the world is and has always been. Evil uncontested will continue to expand, especially if and when it senses weakness … which is the case today by the way. Evil is analogous to a cancerous growth. What usually happens is we avoid the inevitable until it becomes too big (Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, invasion of Kuwait, etc) to ignore anymore and we’re forced to take action. Those who perpetrate evil (Hitler, al-Baghdadi, etc) keep at it until crushed. Not negotiated or managed … crushed as in killed. Just because we think we are not at war, or because we don’t want to be at war, does not mean we can avoid war. ISIS is at war with America whether we like it or want it .. .it doesn’t matter.

As far as clandestine efforts in the war, I certainly support that, and know for a fact it is going on with good effect. But, when all is said and done, it takes Presidential leadership and congressional support to state the objective – plainly and openly --, create a strategy and then persevere until victory occurs, and provide the resources need to win. Think WWII or Gulf War 1991. Regretfully, it will most likely take American troops at some point IMHO.

A final point … there is no excuse for not having a strategy by this point. Strategies will usually evolve which is fine. The intel community has known about ISIS for several years and senior policymakers get briefed on it every day. ISIS is NOT a new development … it just started getting public press when they overran Mosul in June of this year.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

There’s no doubt that all of us are sick of the Middle East, Radical Islam and the whole rotten bunch. No one wants their kids or grandkids to go to war, nor does anyone relish the thought of body counts. No one wants American boots on the ground. I think this is a normal reaction and actually classically American … big oceans, no one can invade us, let’s just live in our isolationist bubble and call it a day.

The problem is what’s it’s always been … there is evil in the world. Whether one is religious or not, it’s just the way the world is and has always been. Evil uncontested will continue to expand, especially if and when it senses weakness … which is the case today by the way. Evil is analogous to a cancerous growth. What usually happens is we avoid the inevitable until it becomes too big (Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, invasion of Kuwait, etc) to ignore anymore and we’re forced to take action. Those who perpetrate evil (Hitler, al-Baghdadi, etc) keep at it until crushed. Not negotiated or managed … crushed as in killed. Just because we think we are not at war, or because we don’t want to be at war, does not mean we can avoid war. ISIS is at war with America whether we like it or want it .. .it doesn’t matter.

As far as clandestine efforts in the war, I certainly support that, and know for a fact it is going on with good effect. But, when all is said and done, it takes Presidential leadership and congressional support to state the objective – plainly and openly --, create a strategy and then persevere until victory occurs, and provide the resources need to win. Think WWII or Gulf War 1991. Regretfully, it will most likely take American troops at some point IMHO.

A final point … there is no excuse for not having a strategy by this point. Strategies will usually evolve which is fine. The intel community has known about ISIS for several years and senior policymakers get briefed on it every day. ISIS is NOT a new development … it just started getting public press when they overran Mosul in June of this year.

It sounds to me that you believe that we are currently doing nothing. I don't think that's the case. President Bush talked about the fact that this was going to be a very kind of war. He said that we often not be aware of things happening. Just because you don't see tanks and missiles and men in uniform shooting bad guys does not mean that we are doing nothing.

This is part of the ongoing war on terror and most of it will be fought behind the scenes by covert operatives. ISIS is just the current battle. We will degrade and destroy them and unfortunately, another radical group will pop up. I really don't think that this is a winnable war. It is more like our war on crime. We know that there will always be crime but we will never stop fighting it. The same goes for terrorism.

Like I said, in some ways a lot of people would feel better if they saw our soldiers on the ground over there. They would feel that we are at least "doing something." But doing something just to do something even if it's the wrong thing would be foolish. It may also be that in a clandestine operation like this, it might be foolish for the president and congress to state it's objectives and strategy plainly and openly. Like I said we may never know what's going on and that will make a lot of us very uncomfortable.

Maybe boots on the ground will have to happen. I personally believe that we are not going to destroy ISIS without boots on the ground at some point but I don't have all of the information. Maybe the Iraqi and Syrian armies can destroy this threat with only our support such as the air strikes that seemed to be pretty effective. That would be ideal. But do't think that just because we don't see ground operations that we are doing nothing.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

It sounds to me that you believe that we are currently doing nothing. I don't think that's the case. President Bush talked about the fact that this was going to be a very kind of war. He said that we often not be aware of things happening. Just because you don't see tanks and missiles and men in uniform shooting bad guys does not mean that we are doing nothing.

This is part of the ongoing war on terror and most of it will be fought behind the scenes by covert operatives. ISIS is just the current battle. We will degrade and destroy them and unfortunately, another radical group will pop up. I really don't think that this is a winnable war. It is more like our war on crime. We know that there will always be crime but we will never stop fighting it. The same goes for terrorism.

Like I said, in some ways a lot of people would feel better if they saw our soldiers on the ground over there. They would feel that we are at least "doing something." But doing something just to do something even if it's the wrong thing would be foolish. It may also be that in a clandestine operation like this, it might be foolish for the president and congress to state it's objectives and strategy plainly and openly. Like I said we may never know what's going on and that will make a lot of us very uncomfortable.

Maybe boots on the ground will have to happen. I personally believe that we are not going to destroy ISIS without boots on the ground at some point but I don't have all of the information. Maybe the Iraqi and Syrian armies can destroy this threat with only our support such as the air strikes that seemed to be pretty effective. That would be ideal. But do't think that just because we don't see ground operations that we are doing nothing.

No, I never said nor meant to imply that we are doing nothing. The Intel Community, SOCOM and certainly the US Navy is doing a lot. I also agree that just to “do something” would be foolish …ie see my earlier points about the need to have an effective strategy. I also complete agree that clandestine ops are best left out of the news … something that politicians of both parties always find hard to resist when there’s been a major operational success (eg killing Bin Laden). The problem is publicity reveals sources and methods which should be avoided at all costs because revealing them renders them useless for future ops.

I also think the phrase ‘war on terror’ has always been a misnomer. If you think about it, terror is actually nothing more than a tactic. Bush was afraid to call the war what it is – a war against Radical Islam. A lot of it will need to be done behind the scenes … no disagreement. But, and here’s the rub, if we ever want to win this war we at least need to be honest about it. We need to call it what it really is because the people have to understand that, plus why we’re doing it and why it’s critical. This is where President leadership plays the most prominent role.

To do the job right, IMHO, and in addition to lots of covert action, winning will take full scale military action but this time with the ROE significantly liberalized so that we don’t just defeat ISIS temporarily but liquidate them and the cancerous culture they have spawned. To paraphrase a former President who laid out a simple but effective strategy for winning the Cold War, and with regards to the current War Against Radical Islam, our goal has to be “We win, they lose.”

A final comment … not having a strategy at this point, with ISIS having been around for a year or longer now, is not indicative of a “thoughtful approach” or deliberative consideration of options. (This is obvious since it seems to change in reaction to the news with the latest morphing from “managing ISIS” to “chasing ISIS to the Gates of Hell”). No, the lack of a strategy is dithering and dereliction of duty. The failure to do this puts all of us in danger, with no distinction to party, ideology, race, creed etc. All Americans will be impacted, even if a lot of them don’t realize that yet.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Do you really think that we can "win" this war? The war on terror is the same as the war on crime. It will never be won.

If you want to call it the war on radical Islam go right ahead. It doesn't matter. Crime is not an entity either but we still wage war against it. Radical Islam is not an entity either, it's a mindset. So we're having a war against a mindset if that makes you happy.

As soon as one terrorist group is defeated another one will pop up. This war is ongoing and will never end. It is the state of the world from now on. We don't have a country to defeat. There is no way to define total victory only victory in battles.

As far as not having a strategy, I think that if you and I believe that there has been ongoing activity against these groups then there has been a strategy all along.

ISIS may have been around for a while, in fact they are actually an offshoot of al-Qaeda, but I don't think that anyone believed that they would become so powerful.

[Chi-Town]

With Saddam Hussein gone al Qaeda took advantage of the entryway to Iraq. They morphed onto the Islamic State. Pure and simple. Think Twitter.

[sunnyatlast]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

With Saddam Hussein gone al Qaeda took advantage of the entryway to Iraq. They morphed onto the Islamic State. Pure and simple. Think Twitter.

Much too simple, given what was known and spoken by the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council in 2003.

Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003:

"…..POWELL: What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraqis' behavior -- Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort -- no effort to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction……"

"……..But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.
(Slide 39)

POWELL: You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch -- imagine a pinch of salt -- less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal……"

Entire Speech Text:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...itycouncil.htm


==========================