London
 

Anyone who has ever stayed in London by the Marble Arch can appreciate the problem the UK faces. In that area you would have a hard time telling if you were in Iran or London. It is all Muslims. The UK faces serious problems when it comes to Muslims who want to kill Christians. :rant-rave:

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.

I agree with all three points that you make ...

However, we can't play defense forever. The longer we wait, the harder it gets. ISIS needs to be destroyed. If (and it's a big if) we have the will we can do it. Right now, the will does not exist.

The longer we wait the bigger the price we will pay in both American lives and all the lives in the middle east as they grow stonger and richer and more bold than they are now.
They have absolutely no fear of being interfeared with by us. All they have to do is watch the daily news here and know the current administration is not about to do ANYTHING.

ISSA is obviously not a priority. All tha needs to be done is tell the military to contain ISSA wher they are. Also adopt the UK LEAD by watching the borders (:1rotfl::1rotfl:) and not let the Americans who have been to Syria and other known terror training grounds back into this country. Next those Americans who are here and openly bragging they support ISSA, either put them on a plane to Syria without a passport OR send the to Gitmo for the duration.

This would require some planning and a strategy (:1rotfl:). But we will wait until there is an attack on our home ground then do the usual knee jerk reaction still witout a plan as usual.

Unfortunately, this is the de facto strategy ... wait until we're attacked and then do something. I call it the "ostrich strategy." That's impeachable in my view ... and if an attack occurs, it will become a groundswell across the spectrum.

Are you talking about September 11, 2001 when we did nothing until we were attacked? And who should be impeached?

Apples and oranges ... there was no specific, actionable intelligence at the time (I'm referring to the President's Daily Briefing ... which I've read since it was declassified later on). There was no way to do prevent it. The same conditions applied to President Clinton ... I'm not trying to make this partisan.

I think you will agree that the threat level today from ISIS is clear and direct. Or maybe you don't? in addition, when the current President says he has no strategy, that means (to me) he is not taking the action needed to protect the American people. That is what is impeachable ... especially if a mass casualty attack occurs. That by the way would apply to any president regardless of party. It's a failure of the most important constitutional duty any President has.

When something happens on somebody's watch then there's ownership. Pure and simple.

AND....they own it all on day one....an executive fact of life not subscribed to by way to many folks

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.

Forget about what happened years ago...or one year ago or last week.

See what is happening NOW. OR what is NOT happening now.

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.

It may be clear, but it is very unspecific. In order to take some sort of action, I think that clear, credible and specific information is needed. President Clinton also received this type of report several times and had basically the same response.

"Al Queda determined to attack US". Really? When? Where? How? Are they even capable of doing this?

This type of report was typical and was coming to the president on a daily basis for years. It's like saying that someday, your neighbor is going to punch you in the face.

We had defenses up but no one, up until that time, ever considered the idea that someone would hijack airliners and crash them into buildings.

Here's what the president actually said regarding our strategy:

Now first, let me state that I am a republican and fairly conservative. I would much have preferred that Mitt Rommey be sitting in that office right now. But, we shouldn't be going off half cocked making mountains out of molehills and trying to twist every little the president says into something that it's not.

As I said in another post, I don't think that we are doing nothing. As President Bush said, we will not see much of what is happening in this war against terror. Mush will be clandestine operation. How many of us saw everything that went into the killing of Osama bin Laden?

I don't think that everything in our entire government, military, and CIA have completely changed because the man in the oval office changes.

Like many of us, I am uncomfortable with not seeing and knowing every step we are taking, but I'm hoping and praying ( and believing) that we are doing something.

Hey Gang. Kitty..i am in Tel Aviv, to pray.for god's will to http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...st-since-nazis on earth as it is in heaven.