Posted by Tina
As French President Holland declares war on ISIS, ISIS threatens targeted attacks in Washington DC and five states in the U.S.:
“We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.
In response to the attacks in France and the chaos surrounding the refugees fleeing to Europe, Governors in several U.S. states announced they will not accept refugees: Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas wrote a letter to President Obama advising him to scrap federal plans to accept more Syrian refugees into the country. Gov. Robert Bentley announced that he would refuse Syrian refugees saying: “I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way.” Michigan already has accepted refugees adding to it’s already large Arab-American population. But Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder now says he will postpone efforts to accept refugees “until federal officials fully review security procedures and clearances.”
California is one of the states that has agreed to accept refugees. So far Governor Brown remains aligned with our President who claims we must accept refugees. This NYT map shows areas where Syrian refugees have settled in Northern California.
Meanwhile President Obama believes it’s possible to screen refugees. Maybe he thinks they’ll get a California drivers license, with voting privileges as they enter the country. Obama continues to lecture Americans against bigotry, in particular after Republican candidates have said we should suspend accepting Syrian refugees and George Bush suggested that we should first concentrate efforts to take in Christian refugees being slaughtered en masse in the Middle East. The President would take action against a republican before he would admit terrorists are infiltrating along with with refugees. He treats Iran with more respect than he treats nations that stand for tolerance and freedom, including our own.
Obama does not trust the American people. He sees the whole of the American people (whites) as undisciplined bigots who would go on a killing rampage at the drop of a hat. Our history proves he is sorely mistaken or an out and out liar. Are there nut cases that might do that in America? Sure, but they don’t compare in any way shape or form to the committed, sizable Muslim terrorists that threaten our lives, AND THE LIVES OF MUSLIMS, on a daily basis. Obama is not qualified to lead this nation much less a coalition force in a war to destroy this enemy. Is it any wonder that Posted by Tina
As French President Holland declares war on ISIS, ISIS threatens targeted attacks in Washington DC and five states in the U.S.:
“We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.
In response to the attacks in France and the chaos surrounding the refugees fleeing to Europe Governors in several U.S. states announced they will not accept refugees: Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Louisisana, and Arkasas. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas wrote a letter to President Obama advising him to scrap federal plans to accept more Syrian refugees into the country. Gov. Robert Bentley announced that he would refuse Syrian refugees saying: “I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way.” Michigan already has accepted refugees adding to it’s already large Arab-American population. But Michigans Governor Rick Snyder now says he will postpone efforts to accept refugees “until federal officials fully review security procedures and clearances.”
California is one of the states that has agreed to accept refugees. So far Governor Brown remains aligned with our President who claims we must accept refugees. This NYT map shows areas where Syrian refugees have settled in Northern California.
Meanwhile President Obama believes it’s possible to screen refugees. Maybe he thinks they’ll get a California drivers license, with voting privileges as they enter the country. Obama continues to lecture Americans against bigotry, in particular after Republican candidates have said we should suspend accepting Syrian refugees and George Bush suggested that we should first concentrate efforts to take in Christian refugees being slaughtered en masse in the Middle East. To date the President has done nothing about the slaughter. He would take action against a republican before he would do anything against terrorists committing mass killings of Christians, Muslims terrorizing the world, or Muslims infiltrating along with refugees. He treats Iran with more respect than he treats fellow American Republicans and the nations that stand for tolerance and freedom, our allies.
President Obama does not trust the American people. He sees this country as a nation of bigots that would go on killing spree against Muslims at the drop of a hat. Our history proves him wrong. Americans have been incredibly tolerant and patient on the whole. America’s sons and daughters have given life and limb to free Muslims and defeat the murderous Muslim thugs killing them and waging terror on the world. Are there a few nutcases in America that would target Muslims in America? Yes, but their numbers are few and the rule of law would ensure they paid for their crimes. Is it any wonder Charles Goodwin has suggest it’s time for Obama to “Lead us or resign.”
Obama continues to be contemptuous of those in the opposition party who represent the people “too busy” to explain himself or engage in debate with his critics:
“What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership, or American winning or whatever other slogans they come up with, that has no relationship to what actually is going to work to protect the American people” and America’s allies, Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Turkey. “I’m too busy for that.”
I’m concerned that he’s “too busy” abetting our enemies.
#ObamaFail Obama On His ISIS Strategy: I’m Not Interested In ‘American Leadership, Or America Winning’ Nov 15 2015
What a putts. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to be “interested” in a lot of things:
1. Policies that keep America safe.
2. Rhetoric that names the enemies that are at war with western nations and western culture
3. Change of course when what he’s doing is obviously not working.
4. Working with Congress
5. Trusting the American people to know the difference between a Muslim that has assimilated in America or desires to live in peace and a Muslim Jihadist.
6. A unified America
7. A strong America with a vibrant economy
He is interested in using Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” (Anyone who disagrees with him) Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” … You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Think Lady Liberty on that one. Today the progressive left is invoking the “give us your tired…” to justify bringing thousands of syrian refugees to America rather than addressing the problem (which they should have been doing long before now) in other ways. If Obama were not distrusted in the ME he might be able to use diplomacy to get Saudi Arabia, for instance, to set up camps. We could provide security, food, water and medical assistance.
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Obama constantly lectures us, covertly accusing us of not being compassionate, understanding, tolerant, or inclusive. he overtly ridicules anyone who doesn’t hold his views. he does it all with that lofty superior attitude that’s become incredibly offensive. Obama uses all 12 of the tactics while he lies and lies and lies about what is happening and how “effective” he’s been. The man is a joke and he needs to go.
I’ve said this before, but it needs repeating. To win this ideological battle one would have to kill every man, woman and child associated with ISIS.
This started as a battle between clans and one clan has the support of ISIS. This tribal battle was kept in check by a ruthless dictator and now that he’s gone we are left with a mess.
If we, as a nation, are willing to commit hundreds of thousands of our sons and daughters to this fight, so be it. But, will we have the grit to see this endeavor through to its end? The cost will be extreme in both lives and dollars. I don’t believe that the United States can see this campaign to fruition, for we are too divided politically and too short sighted for such a long term battle.
With all due respect Pete, there are a few holes in your assessment.
Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida were organized and supported by that dictator prior to 911 and the war to take out that dictator among other things.
Way back in 1993 when the Trade Center was car-bombed the perpetrators, were Al Qaida affiliated. According to Wikipedia Ramzi Yousef “spent time at an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan,[5] before beginning in 1991 to plan a bombing attack within the United States. Yousef’s uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Ali Fadden, who later was considered the principal architect of the September 11 attacks, gave him advice and tips over the phone, and funded his co-conspirator Mohammed Salameh with a US$660 wire transfer.”
The other thing is your (understandable) suggestion that we would have to “kill every man, woman and child associated with ISIS.” We didn’t have to kill every man woman and child in Germany to defeat the Nazi’s. IF, the west would commit and do whatever is necessary to defeat this enemy many of the young recruits would be less likely to fight. This organization is growing now because it’s perceived that they have coward the west and they are winning.
I absolutely agree that so far the people in America (Half or so) have been unwilling to see the effort to defeat this ruthless enemy through to the end. It’s a pattern that makes the decision to go to war that much more difficult. War is messy. Things don’t always go the way you hope they would. But once started an effort MUST be continued to the end…even with a change in leadership. In this case it’s on the American people for electing Obama…twice.
Under Bush we had made considerable progress. We were eight years in to a war he estimated with his advisers would take twenty years. He had fought in on many fronts and mistakes and setbacks happened but we were winning. The void created when Obama took over with his apologetic attitude, his mixed messages, and his foggy (if any) hit and miss strategy gave the enemy reason to regroup and devise new strategies and that they did. The gains we had made began to crumble and the enemy was emboldened…just as Bush warned. Many of the losses we’ve had since then are tragic because the mission has been muddy at best and we keep losing ground.
From what I’ve heard coming out of our generals and CIA types on television it might not be necessary to put that many boots on the ground. It may be that more special forces aligning with the Kurds (and others) can accomplish the task. Remember this effort is unconventional. We need to defeat the radicalism and we can do that by pressuring and closing mosques if we have to, by cutting off funding (Iran deal was a very big mistake) and more intelligence on the ground. More than anything we need leadership that knows what it’s doing, will listen to advisers and make tough decisions, and face down those who undermine the effort. Bush had to fight two wars. The war against terrorists and their sponsors and the war with the left press. That has to stop or at least be contained by a majority population that will not put up with it.
But as you said, and I’ve said a million times, we have to be committed. Maybe it’s time to grow up and face grown up responsibilities, putting it off just makes the trouble go on and on and on.
“Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida were organized and supported by that dictator prior to 911 and the war to take out that dictator among other things.”
By “that dictator,” do you mean Saddam Hussein? Because if so, you’re very, very, very, very wrong. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were absolutely not organized and supported by Hussein. They were enemies, and no relationship was ever discovered.
Saudi Arabia, however, organized and supported bin Laden and Al Qaeda. How did Bush treat Saudi Arabia?
“The other thing is your (understandable) suggestion that we would have to “kill every man, woman and child associated with ISIS.” We didn’t have to kill every man woman and child in Germany to defeat the Nazi’s.”
The difference between terrorists and Nazis is fundamentally obvious, and it has nothing to do with our commitment to eradicating them. Jeez.
Yes Chris, “that dictator” was Saddam Hussein. The left rhetoric was that Hussein was not involved. it had to be so the media could attack GWB on that point. But he was involved, had been for years, and I showed you the evidence before on that. perhaps you missed it. Let’s try again:
Under Clinton WN.com: “1999: Osama bin Laden / Saddam Hussein alliance”
American thinker 2008:
Your left wing media pals played you!
From the American Thinker:
“In conclusion, the Pentagon Papers clearly show that Saddam had direct ties to the EIJ. Saddam was both financing and training EIJ members from as far back as 1990. The support Saddam was providing was ongoing. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the EIJ merged with al-Qaeda in 1998. Therefore, Saddam was financing and training al-Qaeda.
The Pentagon papers only stated the EIJ link, not specifically the al-Qaeda link. The second in command of al-Qaeda and the person who masterminded 9/11 is Ayman al-Zawahiri. Ayman al-Zawahiri was the leader of the EIJ prior to its 1998 merging with al-Qaeda. This truth has been subverted by the media. All the major media outlets have just quoted what is written in the Executive Summary of the document which states that there is no “smoking gun[18].” But upon further investigation of the EIJ, a direct link between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq is seen.”
The best spin relies on making very complex issues seem cut-and-dried. The American Thinker has certainly done that here, suggesting that Iraq’s support of EIJ in the early 90s somehow proves a “direct link” to Al Qaeda in the 2000s. Of course, it does nothing of the sort; the link is about as indirect as could be.
From the Washington Post’s Fact Checker:
“But there are only two documents that are published in the report that relate to Egyptian Islamic Jihad: Iraqi intelligence service memos, both from 1993, which make clear that Iraqi interest in doing business with the EIJ was focused on the objective of overthrowing the Mubarak regime in Egypt. “We [previously] agreed on a plan to carry out commando operations against the Egyptian regime,” one memo said. There is no evidence that such operation ever took place, however; indeed, the other document says Iraq asked the movement “to refrain from moving against Egypt” at the time.
The Cheneys also point to another section of the 9/11 report, regarding the 1988-1992 period: “The most important Egyptian in Bin Laden’s circle was a surgeon, Ayman al Zawahiri, who led a strong faction of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Many of his followers became important members in the new organization, and his own close ties with Bin Laden led many to think of him as the deputy head of al Qaeda. He would in fact become Bin Laden’s deputy some years later, when they merged their organizations [in 1998].”
So the Cheneys’ connection between al Qaeda and Iraq here rests on the assumption that before 1993, Zawahiri was actively involved in al-Qaeda’s overriding goals, and thus Iraq’s support of his organization should be regarded as de facto support of al-Qaeda. But that conclusion is disputed.
Fawaz Gerges, in the acclaimed 2005 book, The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global, notes that Zawahiri is barely mentioned in the 9/11 report, mainly in the footnotes; he criticizes the commission for relying too much on statements of a few “captured operatives” and for underplaying the major role Zawahiri would play as the chief ideologist of transnational jihad.
But Gerges concluded that Zawahiri’s ideology did not emerge until the late 1990s—after Iraq’s apparent aid to his Egypt-focused group:
“A closer look at his [Zawahiri’s] rhetoric and action from the 1970s through the late 1990s shows clearly that the overthrow of the Egyptian government was the first strategic priority. More than any of his cohorts, Zawahiri was emphatic about the need to keep the fight focused on the near enemy and to avoid being distracted by external adventures, including helping the Palestinians. Like most jihadis, Zawahiri was bred on anti-Westernism and anti-Americanism, although the latter were not on his radar screen until the late 1990s. His words and deeds speak louder than his postmortem rationalization.”
In other words, the connection highlighted by the Cheneys is a bit facile–and also likely outdated.
Advocates of a connection also point to a statement made in court in 2000 by Ali Mohamed, an al-Qaeda operative: “In the early 1980s I became involved with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization. In the early 1990s, I was introduced to al Qaeda — al Qaeda is the organization headed by Osama bin Laden — through my involvement with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.”
But that does not automatically mean that Iraqi support for EIJ translated into support for al-Qaeda. Mohamed, in fact, describes how al Qaeda received support from Hezbollah and Iran; he does not mention Iraq.”
AT’s assertion also doesn’t pass a simple smell test. The Pentagon report they cite was published in March 2008, while Bush was still in office. Had there been any proof of a direct link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, it would have been in the report.
The rest of the article simply details Saddam’s other terrorist ties, which are undisputed. What is disputed is a connection with Al Qaeda.
The AT concludes:
“All the major media outlets have just quoted what is written in the Executive Summary of the document which states that there is no “smoking gun[18].”
You mean they reported what the Pentagon report actually said, rather than what the American Thinker wanted them to say? How dare they.
Degrading and Ultimately Dishonest: Obama Changes Nothing After Paris
http://freebeacon.com/blog/degrading-and-ultimately-dishonest-obama-changes-nothing-after-paris/
Evidently Pete thinks we should give in to ISIS and capitulate to the caliphate. Some plan that is. Please excuse me if I say to Pete, drop dead you defeatist dork.
Just received this from Rep. Doug LaMalfa. He’s a cosponsor on a bill to temporarily stop refugees from entering America.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3314/text
It will be interesting to see how this plays out with governors putting pressure on the situation.
And even if you kill every man woman and child the world would turn against the US.
Also this fear mongering against all Muslims is ignorant. As The IS stated they want the US to hurt Muslims in this country so they will come home to train and come back to terrorize. it’s like the right can not get it. They think like WW2.
The world has changed and so has war.
Grit? Not manifested on this site.
Craven. You.re gonna see a lot of craven expressed around here.
What is the matter with you pie? Where did I say we should give in to ISIS? I never presented a plan, but if I did, it would require complete sacrifice by the citizens of the United States. Not some half baked invasion like we did in Iraq. I would be ALL IN!
How dare you call me names and put words in my mouth! It’s people like you that pushed me away from my Republican roots! This is exactly the type of divisiveness I wrote of. And you, Ms. Guevara, present a perfect example of why the GOP is imploding. I can’t believe you get away with this tripe!
Craven Libby? That’s a more apt description for progressives and their current apologetic leader. You’re upside down girl!
Dewey, who has said “all Muslims?”
Name them.
As someone said on Twitter, if only there was some kind of seasonably appropriate story about impoverished Middle Easterners being turned away by the cold hearted.
Chris the world needs a refugee solution but forcing the acceptance of massive numbers of people, quite a few of whom are young and quite possibly radicalized is not a good solution. Other solutions could be considered yet there seems to be no effort to do that. We are not dealing with refugees from a natural disaster. The notion that we can successfully vet each one is silly.
A dedicated, competent leader would have been making plans for this outcome, negotiating with the Saudi’s, for instance, to create safe spaces for the refugees long ago. It would have been better for them to remain closer to home in a familiar environment.
It’s been several years, Chris…what the he77 has Obama been doing about this outcome of war.
Sadly, it looks like he has helped to facilitate a means to disseminating terrorist fighters around the world under the guise of being innocent victims. Whose side is he on?
Tell me, how much “heart” was there in allowing the strong rise of ISIS in the first place (jv team) or in failing to address this problem humanely by establishing no-fly-zones and refugee camps? How much “heart” was involved in subjecting the innocent among these people to a dangerous crossings of the Aegean to get into Greece?
How humane is it to ask the people in a small village in Germany to accept MORE refugees than the number of people that live in that village? Or is it simply that you find it easier to condemn people that have no desire to oppress and murder people than you do the terrorists that are at the core of all of this misery? Juveniles “play” on Twitter!
You know we’re in trouble when Left-leaning Socialist Hollande’s response to the Paris attacks makes 1000% more sense than Obumble’s “One Flew Over The CooCoo’s Nest” remarks.
Those air strikes conducted by the French included oil tanker trucks.
Cutting off the money supply would be a good idea, had we not just delivered billions into the hands of terror sponsoring IRAN.