Fuck Muhammad!!!

[HairOfTheDog]

ISIS -- Where are we now?

President Obama's Speech:
President Barack Obama reiterated today that the global battle to defeat ISIS, almost in its second year, will not be over any time soon and that putting additional U.S. forces in the region isn't an option his administration is considering.

'This will not be quick. This is a long-term campaign,' he said today during a statement following a meeting with his national security team at the Pentagon, later telling reporters that the U.S. and its partners are engaged in a 'larger battle for hearts and minds' and Muslims.

ISIS 'is opportunistic, and it is nimble,' he said in many places, its fighters have embedded themselves in local communities.

'It will take time to root them out and doing so must be the job of local forces on the ground with training and support' of the U.S. and a 60-nation coalition, he said, noting as his administration has said many times in the last several months, that will periods of progress and periods of setback.

The U.S. over the weekend stepped up its attacks on ISIS in Syria, launching 'the most sustained set of airstrikes to date' against the group, according to Brett McGurk, the U.S. envoy to the international coalition that is fighting ISIS.

The attack, which consisted of 18 airstrikes on targets in Raqqa, Syria, coincided with America's Independence Day, July 4. A year ago, on June 30, 2014, drove through the streets of Raqqa, declaring a caliphate across Iraq and Syria.

All told, the U.S. and it's allies have dropped more than 5,000 bombs on the extremist group since last August, Obama said today.

But military action alone will not wipe out the terrorist group, he said. 'Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they're defeated by better ideas, a more attractive and compelling vision,' Obama said.

That is why the coalition against ISIS must discredit the group's ideology, paying special attention to the online communities and social networks the terrorist group frequents.

'We will constantly reaffirm with words and with deeds that we will never be at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists who distort Islam,' Obama said, 'and whose victims are mostly Muslims.'

The U.S. is relying on Muslim communities around the world to push back against ISIS forcefully and teach young people the true teachings of Islam.

'This larger battle for hearts and minds is gonna be a generational struggle. It's ultimately not going to be won or lost by the United States alone,' he said. It will be decided by countries and communities that ISIS has set its sights on.

Those countries must reject ISIS' 'warped' interpretation of Islam and sectarianism and address the types of 'economic grievances that Obama said terrorists exploit in order for ISIS to be driven out.
'This will not be quick': Obama on the battle against ISIS. That is why, he said, the U.S. has no plans to send in additional troops to Iraq at this time.

Obama said, 'It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like [ISIS] but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists.'

It is 'vital' to global security and the future of those countries that local ground forces are able to protect their homeland. 'If we try to do everything ourselves' across the Middle East, Obama said, we'll be playing 'whack a mole and there will be a whole lot of unintended consequences.'

That will 'ultimately make us less secure,' he said, standing his ground.

[HairOfTheDog]

^ The GOP Hawks' Rebuttals:
Defense hawks in Congress were quick to blast the president for again refusing to chart a course that will lead to victory.

'President Obama’s comments today reveal the disturbing degree of self-delusion that characterizes the Administration’s campaign against [ISIS],' Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain said.

McCain said the problem is not that the U.S. is 'doing nothing' to fend off the group, 'it is that there is no compelling reason to believe that anything we are currently doing will be sufficient to degrade and ultimately defeat' it.

'None of the so-called progress that the President cited suggests that we are on a path to success, and when you are not winning in warfare, you are losing,' the GOP lawmaker said.

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton said Obama's 'rhetoric doesn’t match reality.' 'Over the last year, ISIS has expanded its reach exponentially—and the group's influence continues to grow,' the Arkansas Republican said. 'It’s time for the President to acknowledge reality and make the hard decisions required to defeat ISIS once and for all.'

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner derided the president, as well, in a statement, saying that 'a speech isn’t a strategy.' 'At no point in his remarks did President Obama indicate he’s doing anything to change course and actually build the broad, overarching plan that’s needed to take on these savage terrorists and win,' said the GOP leader's press secretary, Cory Fritz.

[HairOfTheDog]

One doesn't have to like Obama or agree with his view of Islam to know he's right about it being wrong for the U.S. to send a bunch of ground troops over to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia...in attempt to claim victory against ISIS in the Middle East/Africa on behalf of the whole wide world.

The GOP hawks who suggest old school war strategies and tactics either don't know or don't care how that helps spawn, not destroy, ideological terrorism (the enemy) in today's world. But, some Republicans get it. Libertarians typically get it. Democrats often get it.

The Muslims in the Middle East need to fight the problem in unity on their own ground in order to win that long term war (or at least not be defeated by it). The U.S. and NATO allies can help them but should not be fighting their ground war. And, the U.S. and NATO countries need to be aggressive in addressing organized and lone wolf terrorism (Islamic and otherwise) in their own countries; sharing information, strategies, and best practices.

That's my opinion.

[Duchess]

That's my opinion.

...and a damn good one it is. You're always the voice of reason & I've come to count on that.

All of that said sincerely.

[HairOfTheDog]

Thank you Duchess.

I suspect some here will have a very different opinion.

I hope they weigh in and call it like they see it too.

[BlueTiki]

ISIS -- Where are we now?

President Obama's Speech:
'It will take time to root them out and doing so must be the job of local forces on the ground with training and support' of the U.S. and a 60-nation coalition, he said, noting as his administration has said many times in the last several months, that will periods of progress and periods of setback.


'This larger battle for hearts and minds is gonna be a generational struggle. It's ultimately not going to be won or lost by the United States alone,' he said. It will be decided by countries and communities that ISIS has set its sights on.

^ The GOP Hawks' Rebuttals:
Defense hawks in Congress were quick to blast the president for again refusing to chart a course that will lead to victory.

McCain said the problem is not that the U.S. is 'doing nothing' to fend off the group, 'it is that there is no compelling reason to believe that anything we are currently doing will be sufficient to degrade and ultimately defeat' it.

"Winning the hearts and minds . . . "

Maybe . . . just maybe . . . we should perfect that skill domestically BEFORE exporting it overseas, to combat radical ideology.

You know . . . race relations, accepting GOP ideology, Chicago black-on-black crime, Donald Trump.

Besides, to win supporters against radical Islam, you are essentially teaching hate and intolerance.

That's not the American way . . . unless you do it under the Stars and Bars.

The US has spent almost a half a billion dollars to "train" local forces.

Obviously, throwing money at the locals isn't leading to embracing a"better idea", by the both the radicalized and non-radicalized countrymen.

In reality, how do we know that the people who are under the control of these terrorists reject this strict interpretation of Islam?

Where are the Arab Spring type rebellions against these thugs?

Obama got it wrong with ISIS, ISIL, IS or whatever acronym is the current flavor.

He was and continues to be bested by these Junior Varsity radicals.

I don't believe the "hawks" (as you have labeled them) got it wrong.

What we are doing isn't getting it done and (to me) a wet team is far more powerful, using the same type of tactics as these radicals employ, than a FB page.

I see no new definitive strategy, from the Administration, to effectively eliminate these terrorists.

Play to win or get the fuck out.

It's hard for me to believe that Obama doesn't get "Win or go home."

Especially since he's such a hoops fan.

Time to abandon NCAA rules when playing a street game opponent.

And he's not willing to go there.

[HairOfTheDog]

I can't take credit for labeling them "hawks" Tiki.

It's a term that's been around since the 1800s for those favoring war or military engagement; applied to both parties. It's still applied today. Not all of those in the GOP support sending boots on the ground, so "hawks" is an efficient and accurate term for those who do.

Anyway, are you in favor of the U.S. sending group troops to the Middle East to fight IS / ISIS then?

[BlueTiki]

I can't take credit for labeling them "hawks" Tiki.

Anyway, are you in favor of the U.S. sending group troops to the Middle East to fight IS / ISIS then?

I know what "Hawk" means and its origin.

I was under the impression it was your classification and not a quote from the news source . . .

No. Not in favor of sending troops, military/financial/humanitarian aid or "advisers" to the region.

I would be in favor of sending in covert wet teams who would kill every living relative and offspring of these radical fighters and employ the same type of tactics used by the IS thugs.

I would want it to be secret and stealth.

I would want it to be bloody and horrific.

I would want it to define what terror really is.

[HairOfTheDog]

I figured you knew, Tiki.

I use "hawks" myself now and again, but only post 523 is my view/opinion.

The two posts above it are content summaries from having watched Obama's speech and read subsequent recaps/responses from media sources; here are a few:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/politics/o...-pentagon/
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...ot-working
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...minds.html

It would be great if some kind of undercover special ops could wipe out IS in the way you suggested; certainly better than sending our men and women into combat against forces that are deeply imbedded within civilian communities and spanning a few countries.

It would be even greater if the U.S. didn't need to be involved at all, IMO.

But here we are....yet again.

[BlueTiki]

I've got a feeling Damascus is the new Saigon.

However . . . I believe Putin won't let it fall.

Strange bedfellows.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm punchy tonight.

You've got me imagining Putin and Assad, two strange fellows indeed, in bed together, with a tall hairy Iranian dude and a skinny little Chinese guy standing guard at the door.

I wish I'd had a chance to visit Damascus; always wanted to. I hope the city, and the country for that matter, can someday soon get back to where it once belonged. Syria's a fucking mess, to state the blatantly obvious.

Personally, I think the U.S. would be smarter to align with Assad to fight IS, Al Nusra, et all ...and stabilize the country under the existing secular regime. Then, deal with the real and/or perceived peace-time and war-time atrocities of Assad's rule. But, that would take swallowing a lot of pride and handing Assad and Putin a gloating opportunity. It won't happen soon, if ever.

Syrians weren't being killed before they "Sprang". They lived side by side, all different religions, in the most stable Middle Eastern country.

I think the U.S.'s/ Obama's support of the Arab Springs turned out to cheering for losers (at least in the short term); I hear you on that. While I don't think we/ he incited them, we sure don't seem to have anticipated what came after Spring time.

[BlueTiki]

I think the U.S.'s/ Obama's support of the Arab Springs turned out to cheering for losers (at least in the short term); I hear you on that. While I don't think we/ he incited them, we sure don't seem to have anticipated what came after Spring time.

My apologies . . . I wasn't clear.

Instead of citizens fleeing as refugees, I would like to see them take a stand against the IS oppressors.

If they are not willing to make a stand or die to be free, why should we commit American and coalition lives and treasure?

An "Arab Spring" stand against the IS thugs is what I would like to see.

[HairOfTheDog]

Some of the Syrian rebels/revolutionaries/Springers -- whatever you wanna call them -- have been fighting the interloping thugs for years. And, thousands of Syrian rebel troops have been trained by coalition forces in Turkey over the last year and are battling IS now.

But, since they share a common goal of getting rid of Assad, there seems to have been a good deal of intentional and unintentional partnering between other rebels factions and the IS thugs; making it reportedly difficult on the streets to differentiate between those who are fighting for a new democratically-elected secular regime vs. those who want to establish an Islamic caliphate. The IS thugs wormed their way in with some rebel factions under the false pretense that they were part of the "freedom fighter" forces, I suspect, and were welcomed by other rebel factions who were getting their asses kicked for a while by the Syrian Army.

I believe there's no chance you'll see the Arab Spring stand against the IS thugs in full until/unless Assad is ousted. Then, they'll be battling each other to fill that power vacuum, IMO.

P.s. The Kurds, always badass, have been taking on IS hard in both Iraq and Syria. If everyone had the same strength and determination, it would likely have been a much warmer Spring.

[BlueTiki]

The United States is only training 60 Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, falling short of the 5,400 fighters a year the Pentagon outlined as the core of non-regime, pro-western army.

The figure was given by Ashton Carter, the US defence secretary, as he addressed questions from the Senate’s armed forces committee on the Obama administration’s much-criticised policy on the Middle East.

"This number is much smaller than we had hoped for at this point," Mr Carter said.

In January, the Pentagon said $500 million agreed by Congress in October would be spent training 5,400 “moderate” rebels who would fight Isil. The aim was to find 3,000 in the first year, and in February the Pentagon was vetting the first of 6,000 rebel volunteers.

This took until June to whittle down to a shortlist of 1,500 - the aim was to remove any with a record of fighting for extremist groups.

So far, just 60 have actually begun training.

STORY

Over 3.5 million refugees have flooded over Syria's borders to neighboring countries.

Dontcha think maybe . . . let's say . . . one percent of them . . . would be willing to take arms against both IS and Assad?

Is that really asking too much?

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, today's publicly-released low numbers are news to me, but don't really surprise me Tiki. It's disappointing though, for sure.

I know that Kurds from Iraq were allowed to pass through Turkey and got some additional training before crossing into Syria, but those certainly can't be counted as Syrian rebels.

Honestly, I don't blame the Syrian refugees all that much for running instead of fighting. I really believe that most Syrians were happy before the momentum of Arab Springs in Egypt and other countries incited "rebels" in Syria to follow suit.

I wish Assad had been more moderate in his initial response to the uprisings. But, what's done is done. He came down too heavy, the rebels gained some members, and IMO the whole country went to shit when regional Islamic terrorists saw an opportunity to exploit the confusion and upheaval and swarmed in to pursue a lucrative land grab. It may well have been a very good thing if Syrian citizens had the right to bear arms. The potential for infiltration is one reason I support the second amendment in today's environment.

Anyway, who/what would the Syrian refugees really be fighting for/against? I don't think they even know; they're just trying to stay alive and get their families out of the line of three-way fire. I'd guess they don't want to sign up to kill or die when they don't even know who they're killing or dying for.

It sounds like there were, in fact, thousands of 'moderate rebel' candidates for the training in Turkey as Obama claimed 7 months ago. It doesn't surprise me one bit that most had fought with the "terrorist" forces previously though; I think I discussed that assumption in the "Syria" thread a couple of years back.

So, either Obama and company were surprised and gravely underestimated the incestuous nature of the fighters (something even a casual observer like me could clearly see), or he lied about the number of QUALIFIED fighters expected to be trained. Either way, it reflects very poorly on Obama and his administration.

[Maggot]

I think Muhammad can milk cows and fish.

[BlueTiki]

Anyway, who/what would the Syrian refugees really be fighting for/against? I don't think they even know; they're just trying to stay alive and get their families out of the line of three-way fire.

Their lives; their future.

They're running to preserve it . . . maybe they don't see it as worth fighting for.

I dunno.

[Mohammed]

Here's a theory of mine. I came upon it because all of a sudden you have this Islamophobia happening all across Europe. Friends of mine that I grew up with are all of a sudden "Look at all these Muslims and what they're doing!" Funnily enough, we grew up among Muslims and their Mosques. Berlin is the second largest Turkish city after Istanbul.
And that's since the 60s. Muslims ran Spain for 700 years and just didn't go further north than Spain because they went "Fuck, it stinks up here!"
They gave Europe medicine, architecture, oranges, lemons and wine. So all this anti Islam, anti Muslim, is rather .... recent.
A few sparks of this fundamental Islam happened a hundred years back. The guy who started it was kicked out of his village and laughed about for his new age radical version of ... Islam. A version of Islam that destroys any and everything that is not Allah, which explains all the destruction of ancient sites and shrines.
So how did it suddenly become so popular?
Enter World War 1.
WW1 was basically the Kingdoms of Europe suddenly finding themselves in deep shit because of fuck all. A cousin was killed, one Kaiser faxed another, Austria to Germany, I'm with you no matter what, and because the Serbs were with the Russian Royal House, which was with the French, English, etc, in the matter of 10 days, those faxes turned to "I am with you brother!" to "The fuck did we do?!"
Anyway, so after that war you had a population that was utterly punished, Germany, and lost plenty for not even being at fault in the first place. In comes a funny looking little guy, taking advantage of a royally pissed of population, but a population with a huge amount of resources, both technically and intellectually.
In comes Hitler and the Nazi movement.
Enter Iraq!
First comes Khomeini, who for some reason became rather popular with the French, because Total, the Government Oil company competing with BP, Shell, Exxon and Co., and even America said "Ok, let's try this guy.", and they flew him into Iran while the Shah was having brunch at the Ritz Carlton in Florida, which made the Shah say "Mashalla, fuck this Dom Perignon!". But nobody expected Khomeini to be as nuts as he was. Iran had the 5^th largest Army on the planet that time! All financed by guess who.
So the guy went a bit nuts, and the only thing America could do, was to look for a new friend.
Welcome Saddam!
So Saddam was propped up as the new best buddy of the States, and did he enjoy it. And now we come to the important bit.
After some time, as is usual when you're a buddy of the States, you start feeling all mighty and powerful, and kick the shit either out of your own country, which is still ok with America, or the one next door, which is not. So Saddam walks into Kuwait, because he fucking can, but clearly Bush Sr. thinks different.
And now we come to the new movement part.
First I was "It's all Bush's fault!" meaning Bush Jr. of course, but I was wrong.
When Bush Sr. did his first war, he made a crucial mistake. He took out all the infrastructure of Iraq. Why? Because he said so. He told Saddam "I'm gonna fuck your shit up!" Meaning the country, streets, bridges, power stations, pretty much everything, BUT Saddam.
Saddam still had all his billions and was very little hurt. His officers, his ruling structure, all was still intact.
Say hi to the UN.
So then, looking at all that devastation in the country, the UN and it's fabulous Security Council right out of Star Trek, comes up with the Oil for Food Program. Sounds like a good idea, but unlike the Marshal Plan in Germany, it was a bit like "Let's keep Hitler and just give him money to build up his trashed country."
Saddam made huge amounts on that Oil for Food Program, and so did his cronies. Even the UN guy in charge.
Anyway, so by now we have just a pissed off and desperate population and a crazy guy on top of them.
And now comes Bush Jr.
He starts his war. And has no idea what to do later. But what does he do? He pretty much condemns all the local military, plus everything that is Bhaat party, which is pretty much everybody in the fucking country after 30 years of Saddam. Teachers, Doctors, anybody who wanted to move up, you simply had to be Baath party.
And what we have right now with Daesh, is pretty much the same that happened with the Nazis!
A well equipped army, the know how, using religious scapegoats, as did Hitler with the Jews, and even down to the children factor which is becoming so popular with Daesh right now, as did the Nazis with the Hitler Jugend.
It is not about religion, but just like the KKK or Bader Meinhof simply about politics and an ideology.
And what happens if you piss off the wrong people.
We all know what happened because of the Nazis, who knows, maybe the next Olympic Games down the road will be held in Baghdad.
Frightening no?!

[HairOfTheDog]

Interesting Mo.

So, then, what do you think?

Do you think that the U.S., Britain, France, etc... should send ground troops into the most heavily IS-dominated regions in attempt to stop the Nazi-like Islamic State in your analogy? Would we need to oust the Assad regime in Syria, even though it too is fighting against IS, in order to consider it a victory? Is it time for WWIII in your view?

Or, do you think it's wiser for Muslim Middle Eastern countries to be left to lead the charge on their own lands with support/aid from the U.S., NATO, et all?

[Mohammed]

And that is exactly what Obama managed to figure out!

America is coming to bring you freedom and democracy, fuck that, it is impossible. Because once you do, all the locals hate you. Hence, get out, just provide the material, but not the nation, i.e. we'll give you all the warfare but are not involved, and let Muslims kick the shit out of Muslims.

Don't you think it's a joke by now? At least here in Yemen, Mukalla and Hadramout, which is the size of Texas, is now Al Qaeda. Why? Because the former government, Hadi, ran away because of the Hooters, which hates Al Qaeda, but America, hence Saudi, who is bombing us, is with Hadi, is now somehow supporting Al Qaeda, because fuck the guys who hate Al Qaeda.

It's complicated.