Originally Posted by Guest

While no where as simplistic as you state, you are correct.

That is history.

Iraq has asked at least twice for help in fighting ISIS. Our President has said the U.S. and the coalition of 60 countries would destroy ISIS. They began their requests about two years ago. Syrian Rebels asked for help about 3 years ago when the gassing was taking place. We left Yemen and said it was "solid", a great example of our work.

The questions seems to be.....

Where is the 60 nation coalition ?

How much help are we willing to give Iraq, and what is our resolve in doing what we said, ie. Destroying ISIS ?

Since ISIS has now spread to Syria, Libya, Yemen , etc. and even to the continent of Africa, what is our resolve to destroy them ?

If we do not mean to destroy ISIS, why did we say it ?

If terrorism is our enemy, why are we negotiating with the ONLY state in the region that officially sponsors terrorism; Iran ?

Why are we saying that the leading sponsor of terrorism in the region, Iran...may have nukes, but we want them to wait a few years ?

Why are we not arming (and I might paraphrase this because it seems by reports to be changing) the tribes we were told by our military in the first place needed to be armed..the Sunnis ?

A few questions I have anyway.

...and you ask good questions. I do not answers.

Originally Posted by Guest

So, in your vast (or half vast) mindset, the US should have maintained a 30,000 troop presence in Iraq, given Iraq even more money, and be the security force for Iraq for the next umteen years? What a great idea!

Bring back the real military warriors of GW Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney and parachute them into the mess they created. You can go along with them, too, as their puppy dog.

Why are we discussing history instead of the present and future ?

Instead the discussion should be on the matter at hand, don't you think ?

Originally Posted by Guest

Why are we discussing history instead of the present and future ?

Instead the discussion should be on the matter at hand, don't you think ?

Wow, I can't believe you actually said that. However, it helps us better understand why you don't seem to understand the issue.

History is the best guide we have towards a more complete understanding of the matter at hand, and then charting a course for action. For example, the early history of Islam is instructive, especially since ISIS is trying to mimic the 1.0 version.

Originally Posted by Guest

Wow, I can't believe you actually said that. However, it helps us better understand why you don't seem to understand the issue.

History is the best guide we have towards a more complete understanding of the matter at hand, and then charting a course for action. For example, the early history of Islam is instructive, especially since ISIS is trying to mimic the 1.0 version.

Ok.....as am amateur historian, I will agree with your statement about learning from history.

I know from history that Islamic aggression is to conguer, and is not restricted to killing other muslims. Mohammed himself led a conquest simply to plunder and there are many other examples, which would be pertinent IF you believe that this is a MUSLIM undertaking and not a TERRORIST undertaking.

If, as you imply, this is a war conducted by ISLAM, then all bets are off on what we should do. If it is TERRORISTS and NOT associated with ISLAM at all, and instead, as you say, a MIMIC of ISLAM then we are fighting terrorists and there is only to learn from recent history. That recent history tells us what we are seeing. A 20th century barbaric attack on anyone who is not believing in what they believe in, which we are not sure now what that is. They use 20th century tools to kill....the internet, videos, etc. Not much learning from the past there.

My point is, speaking of what an Iraq did or did not do in 2011 does not help the conversation at all. IF we want to defeat ISIS, and we believe they are terrorists and not representatives of Islam, as you seem to imply, then what history are we to learn from ?

ISIS was formed a few years ago....If you are saying that Islamic terrorism is the foe, then I would agree and will tell you that what we learn from history about Islamic terrorism is this.....

They are driven by a belief that Sharia law is an all encompassing system of politics, etc. They believe that all entities of the state should merge under Sharia law. Islamic extremists believe they are obligated to install this form of governance in Muslim-majority territories, countries and, eventually, the entire world.

It is the "entire world" part that bothers me, and thus any recent historic event in Iraq teaches me nothing except their ability to grow and fill vacuums when they exist.

I am open to hear what you meant and what history I should be reading to further my understanding.

A few links, not quoted in my post but might be of interest to you...

The Evolution Of Islamic Terrorism - An Overview | Target America | FRONTLINE | PBS

Understanding Islamic Extremism

A review of Understanding Islamic Terrorism: The Islamic Doctrine of War. By Patrick Sookhdeo. » Bill Muehlenberg

I am sorry....I will end with a quote from the last link to better hope you understand.

"Indeed, traditional Muslims consider it blasphemous when non-Muslims rule over Muslims. While moderate Muslims today may not want to see Islam promoted by the edge of the sword, militant Muslims and terrorists certainly do, and they feel they have proper theological and historical justification for doing so."

"Consider also the Islamic understanding of peace. Peace is seen more as a negative, temporal and limited concept, while war, as defined above, is seen as a positive, ongoing and complete concept. Thus peace may be viewed as an interlude in jihad until all of the non-Muslim world submits to the house of Islam. Permanent peace in fact can only occur in the house of Islam. As long as some are outside that rule, real peace is not possible."

Originally Posted by Guest

Here is a real hero -

WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT…

Keith Broomfield. Yesterday, the US State Department said that the 36-year-old American was killed while fighting ISIS in Syria. Earlier this year, he took it upon himself to join the Kurds in Syria – aka the semi-autonomous ethnic group that's also in parts of Iraq and Turkey. They've been the most successful group in the fight against ISIS. Because of that, some Westerners have jetted off to Syria to join in. Reminder: the US is leading a coalition of countries launching airstrikes against ISIS, but hasn't committed any ground troops. Broomfield was a civilian who went on his own, and is thought to be the first US citizen to die while fighting with the Kurds.

I respectfully suggest that all you neocons who so want war should join with the Kurds.

I say "res ipsa loquitur" the thing speaks for itself


Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

I respectfully suggest that all you neocons who so want war should join with the Kurds.

So even in your own words when supposedly speaking with "respect" includes name calling and intended didding.

Pretty much sums up the persona.

Originally Posted by Guest

So even in your own words when supposedly speaking with "respect" includes name calling and intended didding.

Pretty much sums up the persona.

...and The Village Curmudgeon trolls in with his usual rant.

Originally Posted by Guest

...and The Village Curmudgeon trolls in with his usual rant.

Ahhhh yes the cloak of anonymity and the bravado it contains!

Another indicator of persona....when one does not know who the individual is, what they have done in life and what they do currently....and takes upon themselves for their personal satisfaction and the compelling need to make their point.....consistently stoping to the level of always having to call ANY opposition names.

Continuously depicting the shallow level of participation and disrespect of anybody that does not follow your suit.

In a passing nano-second of considfor your type I just wonder if folks who behave like that from behind a keyboard are that way in real life....eye to eye. Human behavior stidies would strongly support the conclusion of no.

Times up. Now onto something of significance like measuring passing clouds.

Originally Posted by Guest

Ahhhh yes the cloak of anonymity and the bravado it contains!

Another indicator of persona....when one does not know who the individual is, what they have done in life and what they do currently....and takes upon themselves for their personal satisfaction and the compelling need to make their point.....consistently stoping to the level of always having to call ANY opposition names.

Continuously depicting the shallow level of participation and disrespect of anybody that does not follow your suit.

In a passing nano-second of considfor your type I just wonder if folks who behave like that from behind a keyboard are that way in real life....eye to eye. Human behavior stidies would strongly support the conclusion of no.

Times up. Now onto something of significance like measuring passing clouds.

Well, it does allow them to totally ignore whatever the subject of the thread might be.

Originally Posted by Guest

...and The Village Curmudgeon trolls in with his usual rant.

I suppose this supplies the answer.

YES, it will always involve the calling of names.

I would love to see these "trolls" reply to posts 59 and 64, just as an example.

It won't happen because that would be conforming to what this forum is about, AND it flies in the face of the objectives of a troll.

Originally Posted by Guest

I would love to see these "trolls" reply to posts 59 and 64, just as an example.

It won't happen because that would be conforming to what this forum is about, AND it flies in the face of the objectives of a troll.

I do not think they would read an entire post of that length. They will make their judgement and pigeon hole the writer based on how quickly they ascertain a common accepatable allegiance.

Secondly there is a fair amount of understanding of the writing to reach an independent conclusion.

I defy anybody to argue against the intent and purpose of the last two paragraphs of post number 64....if they can get that far. And it DOES NOT require a political persuasion....unless one is a Muslim, Muslim terrorist or radical Muslim sympathizer (I know I step on some toes with these ategorizations...unfortunately warranted for general accuracy and intent).

Originally Posted by Guest

I suggest reading "Team of Teams" by General Stanley McChrystal. Quote "ISIS is using frightening tactics and digital communication" to bring constantly changing modern warfare to the Middle East.

Regardless of what we believe about Muslims,the U.S. military and intelligence community are fighting the fight. I was in the military long enough to know that both ends of the political spectrum are well represented and are doing their best to prevail. America has past the point of no return with the political blame game. We as a nation and our politicians regardless of political stripe had better face reality. These terrorists are not dumb. The U.S. has been lucky because so far ISIS has only been using rookies here in the U.S.of A. READ THE BOOK!

ISIS is working toward a much more definitive statement here in America than can be supplied by the so called rookies.

Like Al Queda before them, they will be pbide their time, let the false senses of security set in and then will come forth with a much bigger event than 9/11.

We all pray that is not the case. Just look at the march of horror they continue to be on in the middle east. They are clearly outnumbered, yet even USA trained armies drop their weapons and run.

The open borders and general lack of illegal immigration enfrcement along with the permissive don't upset anybody rules of engagement or even investigation....are all to the benefit of ISIS achieving their mission here at home.....some day.