Sec.Defense Hagel warns ISIS is-

[justplugit]

I think we should send a message to isis with a few B2's loaded with 1000 lb bombs on 9/11/.

[afterhours]

so let me get this right, we know where the isis headquarters is in Raqqa Syria and it still stands ?????? neither borders nor walls should be able to shield those sob's.

[FishermanTim]

Originally Posted by afterhours

so let me get this right, we know where the isis headquarters is in Raqqa Syria and it still stands ?????? neither borders nor walls should be able to shield those sob's.

You mean you don't want to "talk" with them, to try and reach some peaceful solution? Apparently our leaders seem to want to.

I say send them back to the dark ages, and let those that survive discover fire and the wheel all over again!!!

[spence]

Wow, France is already in the fight...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...33.html?hp=r10

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making the assumption the President didn't want to leave a residual force. By Obama's own words we did but the Iraqi's didn't.

"By Obama's own words" is not a convincing reason to base any assumptions on. He has gone back and forth, contradicted, lied, about so much that his words are, at best, meaningless. Publicly (for mass political consumption and influence on outcomes of elections) he campaigned on complete withdrawal of forces. Behind closed doors, or for select public, private, or political groups, he dithered about some forces, or no forces, or maybe this or that.

At this point, as Hillary might say, what difference does it make. Except for some who want to make his position, whatever that is or was, right, it is obvious that American military presence was necessary to protect the so-called democracy and sovereignty or the newly formed Iraq. There was no truly broad democratic basis for how the country was ruled. Religious and ethnic factions would oppose democratic rights for opposing factions or groups. And there certainly was no guaranty of individual liberties--oh, that's right, those are no longer possible in the progressive 21st century view. Centralized power is necessary rather than frictional democratic or individualistic "rights."

People need to look at the constraints in the decision and not just fall back on what's now a talking point.

And yet you must keep falling back on Obama's and his administration's talking points. The "constraints," in the decision, foremost, should have considered the security of the United States. It is that security, I presume, which constrains us to repel ISIS. That would have been easier with a security force in place rather than having to start all over again.

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

Except in movies, there is no magic fix in war. The fix is victory. The annihilation of the enemy. Finishing and securing the victories that had been accomplished would have prevented us going back to a "large scale confrontation" and allowed us to continue the war against jihadism on a stronger footing. Peculiar as it may seem, rather than dissuading others from joining you, being victorious and powerful actually attracts others to partner with you.

Yes, I'm sure the Iraqi Muslims who openly thanked Jim were just repressed savages.

The monsters I referred to (and assumed you were also referring to) were the "militant" Islamists (the true believers or "good Muslims" who followed the actual commands of Mohammed and his scriptures, of the Koran and the hadiths). They have been present since the beginning of Islam, and rulers who wished to include a wider range of citizens had to depress that original edict to do jihad of the sword to those who do not convert.

Didn't the first Islamic Caliphate bring about great advances in mathematics, astronomy and medicine while their western counterparts were sacking neighboring villages and fending off Vikings?

You're mixing things up here. When Islamic rule was "enlightened," it was at the expense of orthodox Islam. Again, the rulers had to oppose that orthodoxy. To suppress it. That has always been so when "wise" rulers or tyrants needed or wanted to include a broader scope of culture, whether social, economic, or religious in their society. The "great advances" under Islamic rule to which you refer were in conjunction and association with nascent Western ideas. And the Western counterparts to whom you refer who were sacking and fending were not a part of the new and expanding Western philosophies.

The dictatorships associated with the Middle East today are as much a product of Western conquest and geopolitics as they are self determination. It's a lens that's convenient to drop...

That is a "talking point" of anti-western commentators--apologists for some new world order which requires the hegemony of progressive utopianism. If the "conquests" were Western in philosophical terms, the middle East would have been transformed and the present day conflicts would not exist. The "conquests" had various motivations whose primary interests were not to westernize, but to exploit. Exploitation, war, conquest, and such things, predate westernism and will continue, possibly, to outdate it, as primordial human "instincts" of sorts.

And, certainly, some of those "conquests" and "geopolitics" were in response to Middle Eastern and Islamic conquests and geopolitics. The crusades were a response to Islamic conquests. Much of the wars with Islamic countries during the past 7 centuries or more have been in response to Islamic "conquests" and invasions of Europe.

It depends on the "lens" through which you look. And which lens you wish to drop. The enlightened Muslims are not the original Muslims. The current "radical" Islamists actually are the original Muslims. And they will, as did the original ones, conquer you by war, deception, or whatever means necessary to instill some original notion of a "caliphate."

And they will not negotiate or compromise. Destroy and defeat them or let them have their way. If we withdraw militarily from the Middle East, they will have their way. If that is what we wish, or if we don't care, then at least arm our military to the teeth and see to it that our homeland is secure.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"By Obama's own words" is not a convincing reason to base any assumptions on.

I was citing the most recent source I had seen. He didn't make it up...

And yet you must keep falling back on Obama's and his administration's talking points. The "constraints," in the decision, foremost, should have considered the security of the United States. It is that security, I presume, which constrains us to repel ISIS. That would have been easier with a security force in place rather than having to start all over again.

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

Except in movies, there is no magic fix in war. The fix is victory. The annihilation of the enemy. Finishing and securing the victories that had been accomplished would have prevented us going back to a "large scale confrontation" and allowed us to continue the war against jihadism on a stronger footing. Peculiar as it may seem, rather than dissuading others from joining you, being victorious and powerful actually attracts others to partner with you.

That's a lot of wishful thinking and gross over-simplification. Define "finish". Define "victory". Define the "war against jihadism" in clear and absolute terms.

The monsters I referred to (and assumed you were also referring to) were the "militant" Islamists (the true believers or "good Muslims" who followed the actual commands of Mohammed and his scriptures, of the Koran and the hadiths). They have been present since the beginning of Islam, and rulers who wished to include a wider range of citizens had to depress that original edict to do jihad of the sword to those who do not convert.

I've never read that the Koran advocates killing those who don't convert. If that's some bastardization by the militant Islamists perhaps they're not being good Muslims after all. Like the Bible, anything can be spun out of context to fit an agenda. Now if you excuse me I need to go stone my son.

You're mixing things up here. When Islamic rule was "enlightened," it was at the expense of orthodox Islam. Again, the rulers had to oppose that orthodoxy. To suppress it. That has always been so when "wise" rulers or tyrants needed or wanted to include a broader scope of culture, whether social, economic, or religious in their society. The "great advances" under Islamic rule to which you refer were in conjunction and association with nascent Western ideas. And the Western counterparts to whom you refer who were sacking and fending were not a part of the new and expanding Western philosophies.That is a "talking point" of anti-western commentators--apologists for some new world order which requires the hegemony of progressive utopianism. If the "conquests" were Western in philosophical terms, the middle East would have been transformed and the present day conflicts would not exist. The "conquests" had various motivations whose primary interests were not to westernize, but to exploit. Exploitation, war, conquest, and such things, predate westernism and will continue, possibly, to outdate it, as primordial human "instincts" of sorts.

That's a gem. Had the savages just done what we said everything would be hunky dory. Because non-Muslim or Western philosophies haven't ever had disagreements either right?

And, certainly, some of those "conquests" and "geopolitics" were in response to Middle Eastern and Islamic conquests and geopolitics. The crusades were a response to Islamic conquests. Much of the wars with Islamic countries during the past 7 centuries or more have been in response to Islamic "conquests" and invasions of Europe.

Many of the Crusades were just as much about Christian conquest than anything else. Great book:

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Crusa...g+the+crusades

It depends on the "lens" through which you look. And which lens you wish to drop. The enlightened Muslims are not the original Muslims. The current "radical" Islamists actually are the original Muslims. And they will, as did the original ones, conquer you by war, deception, or whatever means necessary to instill some original notion of a "caliphate."

And they will not negotiate or compromise. Destroy and defeat them or let them have their way. If we withdraw militarily from the Middle East, they will have their way. If that is what we wish, or if we don't care, then at least arm our military to the teeth and see to it that our homeland is secure.

Again, that's just not reality. The global economies are interwoven and state actors play all sides. There is time for outright violence but the real solution is a much longer proposition.

Other interesting books I've read on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Muslim-Ba...lim+bad+muslim

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Islam-...eywords=irshad

The last one is unique. First off to read about Islam from a Canadian lesbian, but it also has a very good description of what jihad really means.

[afterhours]

"Commander of Grief" as far as I'm concerned.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I was citing the most recent source I had seen. He didn't make it up...

I was commenting on the general unreliability of "Obama's own words." Even in the instance of your "most recent source" he is weaseling about him wanting to leave residual forces but Maliki not wanting it. If he REALLY wanted to leave behind adequate troops to maintain the new government, he could have worked it out. Maliki would have accepted the forces but didn't want to agree with providing the legal immunity that the status of forces agreement required. Maliki was probably CYAing to satisfy sectors of his population. That could have been worked out in several ways (e.g.--bribery, intimidation, behind doors agreement to be implemented later, or simply agreeing to Maliki's demands and disregarding them if need be, etc. etc.). That's called realpolitik, which progressives would surely understand and subscribe to, as they normally do.

That's a lot of wishful thinking and gross over-simplification. Define "finish". Define "victory". Define the "war against jihadism" in clear and absolute terms.

"Victory"--final and complete defeat of the enemy.

"Finish"--completing, in this case, the victory, the final and complete defeat of the enemy.

"War against jihadism"--in this case, engaging in the war against us by those who desire a victory over us supported by notions of "jihad of the sword" mentioned in the Quran and hadiths.

I realize that these cannot be recognized as "absolute terms" by you since you do not believe in absolutes. But they are absolutely acceptable to me and my mundane use of words to communicate ideas in the functional way language was invented to do.

I've never read that the Koran advocates killing those who don't convert. If that's some bastardization by the militant Islamists perhaps they're not being good Muslims after all. Like the Bible, anything can be spun out of context to fit an agenda.

There are verses which originalists and fundamentalists "interpret" to do so. Of course, later apologists would dispute such interpretation and claim they only refer to specific instances not general commands.

e.g. verse 9:5 Sahih International:
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

and verse 9:29 Sahih International:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

But it is not only the Quran which informs Muslims on their faith, but also the Hadiths. The Quran was supposedly the word of Allah which in turn was expressed by Muhammad. The Hadiths were edicts, words and accounts of Muhammad.

e.g. Sahih Muslim Book 19 Hadith Number 4294:

Chapter : Appointment of the leaders of expeditions by the Imam and his advice to them on etiquettes of war and related matters.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated. When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

Now if you excuse me I need to go stone my son.

Uh . . . what with the Adrian Peterson's and Ray Rice's, et al. peculiar examples of Western family jihad, go for it.

That's a gem. Had the savages just done what we said everything would be hunky dory. Because non-Muslim or Western philosophies haven't ever had disagreements either right?

I was responding to your "Western conquest" producing dictators. "Western" in that context is merely a geographic notation not a philosophical or political one. As I said, the "conquests" were not intended to "westernize" but to exploit. If the intention was to westernize and the conquests were successful, then, yes, everything in terms of current crusades and jihads would be relatively "hunky dory." Actually, the Iraq war, in my opinion, was more about westernization than WMDs or exploitation. Had it been "victoriously finished" we would have a "hunky dory" relationship. And it was about toppling a dictator not producing one.

And talk about a "gem"--your comment that the first Caliphate was bringing about great advances while western counterparts were sacking neighbors and fending off Vikings was such a "gem." How do you think early Islam spread so fast and vast if not by conquest (including sacking and fending). And, BTW, the western counterparts had preceded the Caliphates by several centuries in bringing about great advances, as well did the Middle Easterners who preceded the Muslims. And much of the "great advances" the Muslims were "bringing about" were informed by those of their western counterparts. And what is the most gleaming gem is the aftermath--what great advances are the Islamists bringing today?

Many of the Crusades were just as much about Christian conquest than anything else. Great book:

So what? Amazing how you don't like nor wish to discuss "old" stuff such as the Constitution (not anywhere near as old as the Crusades) but you want to dredge up "old news" like the crusades.

Again, that's just not reality. The global economies are interwoven and state actors play all sides. There is time for outright violence but the real solution is a much longer proposition.

OMG . . . talk about "wishful thinking, gross oversimplification," and the necessity to "define in clear and absolute terms," your above comment is all of that.

Other interesting books I've read on the subject:

The last one is unique. First off to read about Islam from a Canadian lesbian, but it also has a very good description of what jihad really means.

Yeah, that does sound unique. I'm sure that the Canadian lesbian has a unique perception of Islam. And probably a new and unique version of jihad to add to all the different types of jihad already described by more prosaic imams and such.

[scottw]

great thing about this president is that given time he's usually proven wrong and incompetent on pretty much everything he does or states...which then proves Spence wrong about pretty much everything despite the Canadian Lesbian expertise etc...

you know it's bad when Chris Matthews is tired of the lies and incompetence....this was very reassuring "We have a very good health system that takes universal precautions on all patients, with the gloves."

"CHRIS MATTHEWS: I'm just trying to follow the logic here. Everybody's being told, don't worry unless they have the infectious symptoms, you can see them, that you don't have to worry about catching them. Yet, this guy picked up the disease apparently from somebody who did not have the infectious symptoms.

DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: Again, don't hypothesize because we just don't know. We have no idea what he did or didn't do and how he got it. I'm sure that's going to be vital information to try to understand the transmission, but the idea that there's going to be a widespread outbreak here, I think is just, again, it's a bit of fear mongering. We have a single case. This is not a big, widespread --

MATTHEWS: Yeah, yeah, but I'm just going back to the president's statement, doctor, and that is that the president said it would be unlikely if we had a case in this country. Unlikely to even have one case. You want to see the tape again?

EMANUEL: He said there wouldn't be an Ebola outbreak.

MATTHEWS: No, and in the second part of his sentence he said in the unlikely case someone brings it here. In the unlikely case someone brings it here. Well, they've done it. We're living in the world of the unlikely already. That's all I'm saying. I'm not fear mongering. I'm stating the facts and I wonder if everybody else is.


EMANUEL: The reason we can be assured here that this isn't going to be a major outbreak is we have a CDC that can do very good contact tracing. We have a very good health system that takes universal precautions on all patients, with the gloves. And you're not regularly in contact with people's bodily fluids the way it is much more common in Liberia. I think those things distinguish it. And I don't think we should get into a panic because we were reassured it would never be in the United States.

MATTHEWS: No, the president said it was unlikely two weeks ago. Well, it's not the unlikely, it has happened. It's here."

cue president pass the buck to blame someone for not warning him......

http://www.nationaljournal.com/again...dency-20140929

[justplugit]

What ,Chris Matthews has moved off the O line a bit?
Slowly but surely the Libs are seeing the light.
Even Beckel has been softening his line.