I'm glad I don't have to make this decision. No one wants more war, yet no one wants ISIS gaining more ground. I don't think control can be gained simply by bombing them. I don't know that to be true it's just what I read time after time said by people who know a hell of a lot more than I do. Very little is said about the Taliban any more and the same goes for al-Qaeda, it's all ISIS, all the time.

Its a result of shitty, political, politically correct foreign policy. These chumps are not afraid of America. Morality is dead and it started with a crooked line in the sand.

(09-02-2014, 03:57 PM)Maggot Wrote: These chumps are not afraid of America.

I think that's true.

I don't believe that the IS fighters are afraid of any country's leadership or military -- not Syria's, not Iraq's, not the US's, not the UK's, not Russia's, not China's... They don't give a shit about NATO or the UN either, IMO. What is there to be afraid of when you welcome your own combat death and don't value the lives of others?

I don't know if that "kill or gloriously die for the caliphate" bullshit is something their very wealthy financers and profiteers would truly welcome for themselves, from their safe comfortable homes -- doubt it. But, I do believe the fighters are a fearless gang.

Anyway, today several world leaders publicly denounced IS again, following the authentication of the Sotloff beheading video. Among them...

UNITED KINGDOM:
"This country will never give into terrorism ... a country like ours will not be cowed by these barbaric killers," UK Prime Minister David Cameron said. Cameron and his Foreign Minister also confirmed that they've sent rescue ops to Syria, but were unable to locate the hostages.

UNITED STATES:
"Those who make the mistake of harming Americans will learn that we will not forget ... that our reach is long and that justice will be served," President Obama said.

Obama addressed his much criticized statement last week that he has no strategy on ISIS. He said he was referring to a military strategy in Syria that "might" require congressional approval.

"Our objective is clear. That is to degrade and destroy (ISIS) so it's no longer a threat," he said. "We can accomplish that. It's going to take some time, it's going to take some effort."

"We've been putting together a strategy that was designed to do a number of things. ... What we have to make sure is we have a regional strategy in place," Obama said.

Sec of State Kerry said the latest video shows ISIS' "unfathomable brutality" and he confirmed that rescue ops had been sent to Syria but had been unable to locate the hostages. VP Biden promised that the US will get justice and "follow IS killers to the gates of hell".

AUSTRALIA:
Australian PM Tony Abbott: “We’ve seen in the century just gone, the most unspeakable things happen, but the atrocities that were committed by the Nazis, by the communists and others, they were ashamed of them, they tried to cover them up.

“This mob, by contrast, as soon as they’ve done something gruesome and ghastly and unspeakable, they’re advertising it on the internet for all to see which makes them, in my mind, nothing but a death cult and that’s why I think it’s quite proper to respond with extreme force against people like this.”

I don't like sounding so heartless but what the hell are they all waiting for, an invitation? I don't think they can play by the same rules they always have. Go in there and kill those fuckers by any means they can. Jesus. All this fricken talking is getting no where. Do something.

So, do you support the US and/or NATO invading Syria and sending in ground forces? Or, do you think we should airstrike and just accept that there will likely be a lot of unintended casualties in the process?

If we go in boots on the ground, unless the US and its allies change their previous positions in regards to Assad's regime, we'll be targeting IS but also facing combat with the Syrian military and a bunch of other terrorist groups who are in the midst of their own war for power amid the country's civil war.

Those are serious questions -- I'm interested in what you and others think can or should be done. I've thought a lot about it and wanna see those IS fuckers stomped. For me -- considering all of the surrounding factors -- it's a very tricky situation where the costs of each option that I can imagine might well exceed the gain both short and long term.

Oh Hot D, I wish I knew. I'm just so tired of the killing. I care about the lives of Americans first & foremost. I wish there were a way to keep the innocent people safe there but there really isn't. They have to help themselves. I guess if I have to answer it would be to bomb them off the face of the earth. I don't want to see our military on the ground there but I don't know how much can be accomplished by bombing. If we think these beheadings are atrocious what do you think they will do to any American servicemen they get their filthy hands on. I'm sure there is something worse than being beheaded.

I hear ya.

Here's my thinking:

-If we airstrike IS in Syria and kill a bunch of civilians and legitimate freedom fighters and Syrian military soldiers in the process, we've got a whole new group of enemies on our hands; the next generation of terrorists with an Anti-American and Anti-West set of objectives. I think we'd have to invest in Syria long-term to try to keep it stabilized.

-If we swallow pride and align with Assad's military, I think IS would be in major effin' trouble. That's a lot of collective force and the Syrian govt has the required intel. We'd need to live with Assad in power in the immediate future and be open to him re-establishing a secular (albeit dictatorial-like) government. But, in the process, we'd likely be ruffling the feathers of some of our ME allies like Turkey and Qatar for strengthening their enemy Assad and (by-default) aligning with Russia, China, and Iran. Netanyahu in Israel hates Assad (and everyone else, IMO), but does he hate IS more? That, I don't know, but I can already hear him crying.

-If we do nothing and contend that the people of Syria have to do it themselves, the people continue to be slaughtered. There are tons more innocent Syrians dying than there are western journalists. The Syrian civilians are sitting ducks for terrorists -- join us, flee, or be killed are their options. They are without defensive forces and just have to lay low or immigrate; waiting to see if it's Assad or IS that comes out on top. The war's been on for 3 years + now with no clear end in sight. But, letting it ride in Syria, increasing our homeland security, and hoping for the best is an option.

-If we stay out, but try to determine which of the militants are really truly "good guys" and which are "terrorists" and then arm the "good guys", we'd better arm them hard and heavy to compete with IS and hope like hell that they can win. I don't think it would be easy to differentiate between them at this point, and don't know how many good guys there are left. If the good guys don't stand a chance and we arm them anyways, we should expect another Message to America from IS; this time thanking us for all of the additional weapons, new recruits, and propaganda opportunities.

Iraq is much easier (by comparison) in that we have intel and partners on the ground in the country and can isolate IS targets for airstrikes. But, eradicating IS in Iraq doesn't eradicate them in Syria -- just a hop, skip, and a jump away. So...

It's depressing to ponder it. I hope the global military strategists have much more optimistic ideas and options in their bags of tricks than my mind can conjure.

Tomorrow night, 10 September 2014, President Obama addresses the nation (his plan to push back IS in Syria included)

Here's what's expected, according to various reports:
--Obama may raise the long-term potential for airstrikes in Syria, though there is no sign that any such action is imminent. Military surveillance flights have started over Syria, the Islamic State has a "virtual safe haven."

--The administration does not plan to send American troops there or to act without support from allies.

--Obama told NBC's Meet the Press over the weekend that he will not send ground troops into combat, and this strategy will not be the equivalent of the Iraq War launched in 2003. This plan "is similar to the kinds of counter-terrorism campaigns that we've been engaging in consistently over the last five, six, seven years," Obama said. He said, "The next phase is now to start going on some offense."

-- The justification for action is that the Islamic State has captured large sections of Syria and Iraq. Obama and other Western officials say it plans to use its "caliphate" to launch attacks on U.S. and European interests.

--House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, one of four congressional leaders who met with Obama today, expressed support for some of the president's options, including "training and equipping the Syrian opposition,'' said an aide to the speaker.

Obama's State of Nation Address -- Syria Plan

In last night's State of the Nation address, Obama confirmed that the United States will take action against terrorists who threaten Americans, wherever they may be located. He mentioned the brutal killings of American journalists Foley and Sokoloff and said that while there is no credible intelligence that IS has plans to attack America, if left unchecked IS poses a threat to the US.

Obama noted that the Islamic State is not Islam and that no religion condones the killing of innocent civilians; the large majority of those killed by IS are Muslim (he also touched on the killings of Christians and other religious minorities in the region).

In regards to Syria specifically, he denounced Assad again and said that Assad's regime will never regain its legitimacy.

As for US action against IS(IL) in Syria, I got the impression that he is strongly leaning towards airstrikes and strongly considering arming some of the opposition/rebel forces to better defend themselves against IS. IMO, he is also hoping that arming local opposition will work against Assad -- I don't happen to agree with him on that point.

Whatever action he ultimately takes, Obama asked for support from Congress and he's already secured verbal support from both Republican and Democratic congresspersons on many of his plans while reiterating that he has the authority to act autonomously.

He also spoke about an international coalition to fight IS and his role in working with NATO on multi-national counter-terrorism measures (which must include Arab participation).

Here's a transcript of the address: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347515100/...amic-state

VOTE UNDERWAY TODAY -- US ACTION IN SYRIA

Today, the Senate will be voting on a package that was approved by the House yesterday. It addresses arming Syrian rebels and is attached to a government spending bill, fueling criticism that lawmakers are avoiding a separate vote on arming the Syrian rebels.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, told CNN's "New Day" she had serious concerns. "I'm going to vote for the continuing resolution because I don't want government to shut down," she said. "Right now, the Senate isn't even scheduled to have a separate vote on the Syrian resolution, and that's just plain wrong."

Sen. Collins said she's worried that it will be difficult to vet the "so-called moderate Syrian opposition." "We spent billions of dollars and a decade training the Iraqi security forces. And look what happened when they were confronted with the ISIS threat -- they basically cut and run, with the exception of the Kurdish forces in the north."

Meanwhile, the terror group, which refers to itself as the "Islamic State," has captured 16 predominantly Kurdish villages in northern Syria over the past 24 hours, a Syrian opposition group said Thursday. A former Syrian rebel leader claims ISIS is more dangerous than the Syrian government.

For weeks, US intelligence and military targeting specialists have been working around the clock on a list of targets.

"I think it's very hard to sort out the moderate rebels from the extremists and I have a real worry that once we send these rebels back into the battle space there is very little we can do to prevent them from locking arms with al Qaeda or elements of ISIS," said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

But Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. intelligence community will play an important role in vetting the rebels. She also said training could take up to a year before arms are provided. "All of those people criticizing this choice, I have yet to hear their better idea," Senator McCaskill said.

Full story: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/18/world/...?hpt=hp_t1
----------------------------------------------

Airstrikes in Syria are coming soon, IMO (along with the backlash that will be associated with hitting unintended targets in the effort to strike ISIS camps/members). I think it's inevitable.

Arming some of the "rebels" to fight IS in Syria will start in 2015, IMO. Vetting them, training them in Saudi Arabia, monitoring them...big job with a lot of associated political risk.

This is a recent map (mid August 2014) depicting which forces are now in control of which areas of Syria.



Lotta groups with a dog in this race.

(Map precedes IS taking over some of the area designated as being under Kurdish control)

US CONGRESS APPROVES PLAN TO TAKE ACTION IN SYRIA

The Senate added its conflicted stamp of approval to President Barack Obama's request to arm and train Syrian rebels against the Islamic State, voting to fund what amounts to the start of a new war without an actual war vote.

The measure -- attached to a must-pass bill to fund the government until Dec. 11 -- spends $500 million to start training and arming Syrian rebels and to expand on the campaign launched in August against the extremist advance in Iraq.

The bill passed 78 to 22, and heads to the White House, where President Barack Obama, who ran as an anti-war president, is likely to sign it. It allows Obama in effect to begin hostilities against an enemy in Syria, relying on the war declarations passed with the authorizations to use military force in 2001 and 2002 that targeted al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps the highest profile opponent, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), argued that he would have voted for a war authorization, even as he condemned intervention and mocked the idea of arming Syrian rebels under the old war declarations.

"As [Secretary of State John] Kerry understands it, we could use that [2001] authorization of force to attack the same people we're giving the weapons to. Think about the insanity of this," Paul said. "We're giving weapons to people fighting in trenches with al Qaeda. We could actually attack under that formulation the very people we're giving the weapons to. It's absurd."

Still, before voting against funding, Paul said ISIS was a real threat. "I think there are valid reasons for being involved, and I think we are doing the right thing, but just in the wrong way."

Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/18...46112.html

Syria Update

Well, the US mission in Syria is pretty much a mess, though it has been reported that US airstrikes may have hit and may have killed the top IS leader in Iraq.

The Syrian rebel force that the US and partners are backing and training is reportedly seeing a lot of troops leaving to join Nusrah and other groups labeled as "terrorists" by the US. The defecting troops don't like it that the US is involved expressly for the purpose of thwarting IS and not also to dethrone Assad. I wonder how the Syrian strategy might change when the Republicans dominate Congress next year.

And, sadly, IS just released another beheading video -- gorier than the previous ones. This time, the footage shows IS holding the captive's severed head. They don't show him giving any forced anti-American speech and instead show clips of IS fighters decapitating Syrians and then spout a lot of recruitment rhetoric.



Peter Kassig, also known as Abdul-Rahman Kassig (he converted to Islam in Syria -- it's not clear if that was by choice or force) was 26 when he was beheaded. He'd previously served in Iraq. Kassig was from Indianapolis, Indiana and is pictured above with his parents. RIP.

Kassig was able to write letters to his parents while he was being held captive and indicated that it was most likely he would be killed -- kept telling them not to worry and how much he loved them. He knew the risks well when he decided to make it his mission to help Syrian refugees, but felt compelled to help others.

At a press conference today, his father Ed Kassig said, “Please pray for Abdul-Rahman, or Pete if that is how you knew him, at sunset this evening.… Lastly, please allow our family the time and privacy to mourn, cry—and yes, forgive—and begin to heal.” I don't know how you heal and forgive in a case like this, but I wish them peace.

Kassig's story: http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davids...ter-kassig

With oil prices low the funding from other nations on the sly is decreasing. IS has been rumored to be running out of food and have resorted to eating cats & dogs. I say remove all aid to anyone in Syria and starve them into submission.

I haven't seen Peter's beheading but I did see the group of Syrian soldiers they beheaded. I've seen several beheadings at this point and this latest one with the soldiers is by far the biggest group I've seen done all at once. ISIS insists they did it because the soldiers were killing children in Syria and then they went on to post some proof. It's atrocious to see a child with it's throat cut. My God. I don't know why I creep on terrorists.

Here's a link if anyone wants to look. I don't know how long it will stay up, Twitter is usually pretty good about getting this shit off their site in a timely fashion.

Link

Nooooooooo. I haven't watched any of those videos.

They're holding a 26 year old woman (who hasn't been named that I know of). The current thinking is that even ISIL wouldn't behead a woman. We'll see. I don't want to think about what she's going through regardless.

Yes, they will behead her. Women are held in very low regard and add to that that she will be seen as the enemy before she is seen as a female.

I don't watch the actual beheading, I only see the aftermath and since I've been creepin' on terrorists I've got some weird kind of disconnect going on. I see the horror of course but it's so surreal as to be not real, if that makes any sense.

Off With Their Heads

IS executed 22 Syrians by decapitation and released the video just after the one showing the beheading of American hostage Peter Kassig.



The US and allies' increased support of Syrians fighting IS is reportedly helping to stop the advancement of IS in Syria, but the terrorist organization is sure not running off with its tail between its legs. The mass execution video is a means by which to increase its exposure, remind resisters of the threat the ISIS fighters pose, and a vehicle to attract recruits from all over the world.

Here's an analysis of the video titled, "Though the Unbelievers Despise It" from the US-based terrorism research organization TRAC (Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium) and UK-based counter-extremism think tank Quilliam :

-The video would have cost at least $200,000 to produce, according to TRAC. Similar to a feature film, the video features multiple takes using HD cameras to create images of a professional quality.

-Nearly all the killers appear unmasked and are clearly identifiable. There are 22 ISIS fighters of varying ethnicities and nationalities, all wearing the same camouflage uniforms. They are led by the militant known to the British press as "Jihadi John," the masked fighter with a British accent responsible for the killing of western hostages.

-Only one of the killers has been identified: Maxime Hauchard, a Muslim convert from France. Several other countries are now investigating whether any of their citizens are in the video.

-Lighting and shadows reveal the video was shot over a 4 to 6 hour period. The video was shot in multiple takes, and contains several inconsistencies. The order of the killers and prisoners in the line-up is switched in several places. In certain frames, fighters are seen chatting with one another, apparently passing time between takes.

-Two of the ISIS fighters wear clip-on microphones, but their audio is not recorded. It's possible their recorded messages were either cut out or have been saved for a future release.

-Three of the killers are have been edited out of the video, seen only in transitional sequences. This includes a fighter in a balaclava, the only masked militant other than "Jihadi John." TRAC believes the second masked militant may be acting as a body double for "Jihadi John," someone who acts as a decoy in case of an airstrike.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/w...-analysis/

I saw the aftermath. I'm not blase' about it but I've seen the aftermath of many beheadings at this point, they still shock me but not to the degree they did in the beginning. None of them ever appear to fight which still blows my mind, I always wonder if they are drugged. I'd be a wildcat or as much of one as I could be. I'm not going quietly, that's for sure.