(R rated violence) Video of Captured Iraqi’s – How ISIS Deals With the Enemy

 

President Obama’s policies allowed ISIS to grow and his policies 6 years later have done little to nothing to stop the carnage.  Half measures would be better than Obama’s plan, he doesn’t even use half measures.  ISIS must be exterminated without mercy, Obama isn’t up to that.  He can’t even call a Muslim a terrorist because behind his rose colored glasses a good Muslim couldn’t possibly be a terrorist!  His idealized view of what Islam is bears little resemblance to the truth.  Obama may fool some of us, but he sure can’t fool all of us.   We know who the enemy is and what must be done.

 

This entry was posted in Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to (R rated violence) Video of Captured Iraqi’s – How ISIS Deals With the Enemy

  1. Chris says:

    “He can’t even call a Muslim a terrorist because behind his rose colored glasses a good Muslim couldn’t possibly be a terrorist!”

    This sentence doesn’t even make sense.

    “He can’t even call a Muslim a terrorist”

    You know that’s not true. He has called many, many Muslims “terrorists.” He doesn’t use the phrase “Muslim terrorist” for the same reasons Bush stopped using the phrase. I’ve explained these reasons at least three times over the past day, and no one has taken issue with them–you’ve just continued to ignore them.

    “because behind his rose colored glasses a good Muslim couldn’t possibly be a terrorist!”

    Huh? Of course a good Muslim can’t be a terrorist. If they are a terrorist, they are by definition not good; they are bad.

    What specific measures would you take against ISIS that Obama hasn’t taken?

    • Tina says:

      The Presidents refusal to name the enemy goes beyond the reasons you cite, Chris.

      Bush did not change the language in training manuals. Bush did not shred pertinent intelligence information that would target suspicious Muslims or tie the hands of the security arm of our government. Bush did not invent terms like “workplace violence” and “overseas contingency operations” to avoid talking about terrorist attacks and war. Bush did not go out of his way to praise Muslims and wag his finger at Christians. Bush did not set out to divide the American people. When Bush spoke he spoke to all Americans. Bush did not disrespect the enemy or play down the threat. He also didn’t have to explain why he didn’t use the term Islamic terrorist. He established the clear distinction when he first communicated with the American people and solidified the difference every time he spoke. His resolve to destroy the terrorists, and any who supported them, remained true throughout his two terms and politics played no part in his decisions. Obama negotiated with Iran, a state sponsor of terror. Obama doesn’t inspire confidence or give us a sense that he is clear about our enemy and so he is questioned and criticized.

      Examples of Bush rhetoric:

      “This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims.” – President George W. Bush Addresses the Nation World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia November 8, 2001

      “Here in the United States our Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields. Muslim members of our Armed Forces and of my administration are serving their fellow Americans with distinction, upholding our nation’s ideals of liberty and justice in a world at peace.” – Remarks by the President on Eid Al-Fitr The Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. December 5, 2002

      “America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. This year, may Eid also be a time in which we recognize the values of progress, pluralism, and acceptance that bind us together as a Nation and a global community. By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all.” – Presidential Message Eid al-Fitr December 5, 2002

      “These terrorists…we have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.” — George W. Bush, 9/20/01

      The message remained the same:

      The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation — the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism — the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest. As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They’re successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be: This war will be difficult; this war will be long; and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty. – GEORGE W. BUSH, speech at the American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake City, UT, August 31, 2006

      Like slavery and piracy, terrorism has no place in the modern world. – GEORGE W. BUSH, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, September 23, 2008

      He spoke with clarity and truth!!!

      Obama muddies the water:

      “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

      The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

      “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

      “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

      “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”

      One more to consider:

      The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me? – GEORGE ORWELL, 1984

      • Chris says:

        1) Saudi Arabia is also a major state sponsor of terrorism. You do not care when president’s negotiate with state sponsors of terror (as they always have done and always will do), or you would have criticized Bush–or, hell, even Reagan, for doing the same. Stop pretending to care about this so you can use it as a cudgel to bash Obama.

        2) “Bush did not…” Look, I don’t think Obama did half those things either, and you have not convinced me he has after eight years.

        3) I can find quotes from Obama almost identical to those Bush quotes, and vice versa. You are being selective.

        • Tina says:

          Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Saudi Arabia is a nation ruled by a king with a huge family. the King has never been shown to be a sponsor of terrorism. The King has been an ally. As an ally we work with the King to fight terrorism. that is not the same thing as making a secret deal with a nation that the UN has sanctioned, that we know funds terrorism, that we know is working toward having nuclear capability and has been no friend or ally, especially a deal where they now have access to billions of dollars and we got nothing in the deal.

          Of course I was selective, we can;t fit everything each of them has said on this blog. A sampling of quotes does show differences in their rhetoric. Go ahead and find me a quote from Bush where he says anything similar to, ““Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”

          Being a Christian nation isn’t about the number of Christians we have. It’s about how the founders’ deeply held Christian morality shaped the creation of the nation and a Constitution that has withstood the test of time and been an inspiration to others.

          And do you think this statement is true: “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

          I don’t. Being a good fences kind of person it’s none of my business how they live in the ME…UNLESS they spawn groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS that decide to come here to make trouble and kill folks. Then it is my business and I don’t want a mealy mouthed weak president who refuses to lead in the White House when it happens. Changing intelligence and security policies that worked and worked well makes no sense. Shredding intelligence information because it contained word the president decided were off limits makes no sense…not when it’s life and death.

          You are unwilling to admit that this president has failed and failed spectacularly and his word game is just a small part of it.

          • Chris says:

            Tina: “Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Saudi Arabia is a nation ruled by a king with a huge family.”

            …and is also a state sponsor of terror. You have no idea what you are talking about.

            http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Saudi+Arabia+state+sponsor+of+terrorism

            “that is not the same thing as making a secret deal”

            The deal was not secret. You have no idea what you are talking about.

            “we got nothing in the deal.”

            We did not get nothing in the deal. You have no idea what you are talking about.

            “Go ahead and find me a quote from Bush where he says anything similar to, ““Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

            He never did say that, but that has absolutely nothing to do with either president’s position on Islam or Islamic terror.

            “And do you think this statement is true: “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

            I don’t.”

            Well, Bush did. He went as far as saying “Islam is peace.” You’re still employing a huge double standard; Bush’s positive statements about Islam indicate to you that he was tolerant while recognizing the radical threat, while Obama’s positive statements about Islam indicate he doesn’t understand the threat at all. You’re drawing distinctions where none exist.

  2. Libby says:

    We know how ISIS deals with just about everyone. We don’t need to see the pictures.

    Ah, Lytton. Where are you when we need you?!

    We will lend all the material support required to the Iraqi National Army, but they have to do the heavy lifting.

    Lytton Strachey was an author, a Bloomsburian, a homosexual, and a conscientious objector during WWI. Only his friends knew the homosexual part. At his hearing, the interrogating officer pulls out that venerable chestnut: “What if you were
    to come upon an enemy soldier raping your sister?!” And Lytton says: “I should attempt to come between them.” And from the courtroom filled with his supporters arises a restrained exhalation of upper class British delight. Rent “Carrington”; it’s a good movie. It’ll take your mind off things,

  3. Tina says:

    Shades of the Nazi’s…and Russia.

    There are evils that take hit you in the gut. The current Islamic threat affects the people in every nation their ambitions take them to…and every citizen regardless their religion, race, or creed. It’s despicable that this President divides the nation for politics rather than putting the whole of his efforts into fighting these monsters, even if it costs him political favor.

    The Obama administration is responsible for the rise and spread of ISIS, this Islamic “state,” which he smugly referred to as the JV team when it was still small enough to squash like a bug.

    While he was feeling smug, and playing golf, ISIS was busy taking control in the void created in Syria when Obama failed to act after issuing that empty red line threat, in Northern Iraq, and in parts Libya.

    The President always say’s, “We’re making progress,” but it’s always backwards “progress.”

    We need to remember he represents America…what a poor performance by a once great nation. The people must turn away from the party that has given the world this monstrous mess.

    • Chris says:

      “The Obama administration is responsible for the rise and spread of ISIS, this Islamic “state,” which he smugly referred to as the JV team when it was still small enough to squash like a bug.”

      I can’t even follow your argument any more. Or more accurately, you can’t. The original claim was that Obama was wrong to call it a JV team because it wasn’t; it was already pretty strong. (There was some merit to this claim.) And now the claim is that it really was a JV team at the time? I don’t think you actually know or care what your problem with this guy is, you just know he’s a problem, so you’ll say anything to go against him even if contradicts what you said before. You don’t even notice. This is called Obama Derangement Syndrome.

      • Chris says:

        This would explain why you like Trump: he just says stuff, and doesn’t take time to think about it. He doesn’t care when what he says is proven wrong with facts. He contradicts himself and doesn’t notice. And if he were president, you’d feel comfortable knowing that it’s OK for you to do these things to.

      • Tina says:

        “The original claim was that Obama was wrong to call it a JV team because it wasn’t; it was already pretty strong. (There was some merit to this claim.) And now the claim is that it really was a JV team at the time? ”

        The argument is the same. When he called it a jv team it was not the monster it is now. Then he could have squashed it like a bug. Instead he and Hillary supported ISIS and AQI against the Syrian government and that strengthened ISIS. He built that!

        Interesting perspective from November 2015 at Forbes:

        President Barack Obama is spinning like a top. After systematically dismantling years of work and marginalizing the sacrifice of countless Americans who fought the War on Terrorism during the Bush years, he’s now flailing to articulate some semblance of an anti-terror policy. French President Francois Hollande directly countered Obama’s own words in his address to Parliament Monday saying of the fight against ISIS, “It’s not about containing. It’s about destroying this enemy.”

        The American President is rhetorically groping his way through crisis yet again, trying in vain to sound tougher at a time when the “JV team” is flooding Europe with refugees and Jihadists. Obama himself is supporting allowing 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. even though the CIA has indicated there are already more than 900 active domestic ISIS investigations. This week, half of the governors in the United States have refused to allow resettlement of Syrian refugees within their borders.

        Two distinct but related battles are being waged here. One is between the values of freedom, tolerance and participatory government against the international radical Islamist movement. The other is an ideological fight between the Bush and Obama anti-terror strategies and indeed both men’s view of the world in which we live.

        Bush saw the distinction between the terrorist ideology and freedom in very stark terms. He believed and his policy reflected that this is a global threat from dozens of groups–not just Al Qaida or ISIS–that will stop at nothing to kill as many people as they can. Iraq, for better or worse, may have become the perceived core of his War on Terror, but in reality it was only a piece of a much larger, global strategy that was hunting, disabling and killing terrorists every day. He understood that the environment that aids terror leaders in radicalizing followers stems from a lack of freedom and opportunities for advancement in many societies.

        Democrats mocked him for calling the War on Terror the War on Terror. He was derided as an alarmist for suggesting that these radical Islamists wanted to turn Iraq or another country into a caliphate. He was condemned as an imperialist for pursuing a broad strategy of active deterrence using all the assets provided to him by the U.S. government be they diplomatic, political, economic or military. He was compared to Hitler and branded a war criminal by prominent American thought leaders, media personalities and politicians.

        To be fair, Republicans for their part have spent so much time running away from many of the policies of the Bush Administration, they are now faced with bringing murky proposals for interdicting terrorism into more specific relief.

        President Bush’s Administration conducted anti-terror operations in more than 160 countries in conjunction and with the cooperation of governments around the world. While Obama and Democrats in Congress lamented that U.S. policy had made us “unpopular” on the world stage, Bush’s strategy helped keep not only Americans, but perhaps billions more around the world safe. Dictators and state actors who harbored or supported terrorists knew that Bush was willing to strike.

        After all the Bush-bashing over the last decade or more, ask yourself this question: How many of those ISIS training camps, ammunition storage facilities, vehicles and other sites that have been on our target list for months if not years, would still exist today if George W. Bush was President? President Obama still hasn’t answered questions about why more air sorties haven’t been ordered since the rise of the Islamic State to destroy those locations even though our satellites are cataloguing and monitoring ISIS facilities and movements daily.

        Bush understood two truths very well. First, pluralistic societies that provide personal and economic freedom and opportunity don’t feed the ranks of terrorist groups the way citizens under authoritarian regimes do. Second, this terror threat must be met with overwhelming force because it is a growing international movement which will either be destroyed on foreign soil or will hit us again here at home.

        When Bush left office, political and economic stability was in sight in Iraq, with Al Qaeda decimated by the Surge. Local populations were working together with Coalition and Iraqi forces against foreign fighters and terror groups. We had American troops on both sides of the Iranian border. Leaders like Muammar Gaddafi were shaking in their boots. In the case of the former Libyan dictator, he had even turned over his chemical weapons to the U.S.

        Our allies knew that George W. Bush could be counted on to fight this enemy.

        Contrast the Bush strategy with what we’ve seen out of the Obama White House. Obama’s view of the world is either grounded on fanciful notions of the power of his own personal magnetism or just a willful blindness to just how wrong he was about the very nature of the role the U.S. plays on the world stage.

        Mr. Leading from Behind’s approach is founded upon the same Progressive ideology borne out of a Europe that sought to appease Hitler. Democrats in the U.S. and too many European leaders have long viewed terrorism as a domestic law enforcement matter as opposed to a war fought by militaries on an international scale. Bush understood that the paradigm was shifting. This war would be different, but it was a war nonetheless.

        There is no way to compare the two Presidents without noticing huge differences in attitude, approach, speech, execution, and commitment…and of course at this point in each presidency, the state of the world and the state of the war on terror. In all respects Obama has not met the challenge of the office he pursued. This, more than anything defines the reason it’s frustrating to the American people that he will not use certain words. The real frustration and upset is bigger…it encompasses his entire miserable seven and a half years where instead of “progress” we see an explosion of terror activity, a Middle East in chaos, refugees surging into the west, and a president who makes friends with our enemies and snubs and disappoints our allies.

  4. Libby says:

    Yeah, well you need to pull back from the gut a little. We are doing what can be done.

    I am very curious about Mr. Haney’s assertions. And if his claim about destroyed information is true I will be annoyed. 1) You don’t waste work-product; and 2) it’s my understanding that in the intelligence game there is no worthless information. Anything you can’t use now, you can maybe use later.

    See, we have ground in common. However, it might also be good to back off the Obama obsession, if you possibly can. The day you assert that the man is running a kiddie-porn ring from the Oval Office, I’m sending the paramedics to your house.

    In my reading today I learned that there are only 145 days to go. A beacon of hope.

    • Tina says:

      We do have common ground and I’m glad about that.

      Have to ask why you think I should back off on Obama? When Bush was leaving office did you back off or hit the accelerator? We both know the answer to that one.

      Obama represents your party. Your candidate was part of the Obama administration. The record is of extreme importance to the future and its pretty bad. The people need to know. Most don’t even tune in till October but for those who do, my position is peddle to the medal full steam ahead!

      Do you not find it hilarious that the Democrats have built a wall around their convention and will demand ID?

      • Libby says:

        Yes, but I berated The Shrub for stuff he actually did. Well, I suppose I should not have accused him of lying about Hussein, as we now know that he was lied to.

        The O-man may favor one reporter over another during any given encounter with the press, but he has never refused any outlet credentials.

        It may be that OA policy halted a productive investigation, but it is highly unlikely that the O-man himself ordered anything shredded, you have absolutely no proof of such a thing, and so you should not say it.

        Now, I know I’m beating the proverbial dead horse, here, your candidate having abandoned anything like veracity, integrity, decency, and you, of course, following suit … but The ELE’s assertion that Obama was personally complicit in he Orlando shooting, that was deranged. I mean, the idea that he could think such a thing, let alone say it, indicates a very deep psychological disturbance.

        Or, he could just be quite cynically pushing your buttons. Because Obamaphobia is not something you, alone, suffer from. It has been rampaging the web, lo, these many years. You need to get help for that.

        And, alas, I think both conventions have resembled armed camps since Bobby was shot, yet another benefit of our heavily armed culture.

  5. dewster says:

    Tina who is the enemy n Syria? The CIA funded Rebels or the rebels they are fighting armed by the Pentagon?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.