ISIS ransom

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

We should just drop joints and pornography until they all get addicted. Then they just kill themselves and solve the problem.

Consider this. Some fisherman in the Indian Ocean encounter a large American yacht. The masked fisherman are at first mistaken for terrorists but by holding aloft a fresh swordfish, business is conducted.The natives are amazed that such large boats exist particularly just for pleasure, the natives drink the American booze and smoke the American cigarettes and then go back to short to listen to the Mullah rant about how bad America is.

Drones? porn? Liquor? Nothing will change the Mullah's speech.

Quote: boymimbo

As long as Americans (or any other country) wage unjust/questionable wars where innocent people are killed as incidental casualties you will have a generation of people who will have a subset of its population who will do everything in their power to avenge their countryman's deaths.

Foley was beheaded. How many tens of thousands of Iraqis met similar horrific fates due to "coalition" bombs dropped from above? I know I am going to get the ire of people on this forum for this one, but when you have an overpowering and untouchable enemy, asymmetric warfare becomes your only option.

And bending over to the other party's wants isn't the solution either. I am morally outraged too, but that outrage goes back a dozen years or so now.

I actually agree with you. Its so unfortunate that in the world of the media, some deaths get all the attention. And some deaths get no attention.
All lives are important.
This reminds of the Movie Gandhi. The train Gandhi is on slows down as it passes some carnage. The white English minister sees a dead English soldier and is horrified at that single death. All the surrounding dead locals are ignored and Gandhi notices this.
Take Benghazi, conservatives are fixated on this due to politics. No mention of all the American deaths due to an invasion to look for weapons of mass destruction that never existed and was a lie.

There you go again...Blame America First!! It is, of course, our fault that Muslim Extremist Terrorists want to kill us. If we just stayed inside of our unprotected borders and did nothing, none of this would have happened. Who cares that the Iraqi's invaded Kuwait? Who cares what countries those guys take over? Oh yeah...and for God's sake, don't pump any oil out of the ground here in the United States. Let that dictator gas his own people and then falsely claim there were "no" weapons of mass destruction.

--If we closed our border, produced all of our own energy, etc., we could ignore a lot more of the rest of the world. The people who would have us do nothing anywhere anytime are the same ones who don't want to produce oil here AND who want open borders.

--yes, there were not as many weapons of mass destruction as EVERYONE thought. It wasn't just one person who thought that it; it was a consensus. It also was one person who stonewalled the world and could have let the truth come out--but he didn't. He did, however, use those weapons of mass destruction on his own people. Don't let the facts get in the way of the whole "no weapons of mass destruction" distortion of the truth.

--Sadly, these particular fanatics want to kill you. Not just me, not just others like me, but all of us who won't agree with them and become Muslim Extremist Terrorists (MET) just like them. Perhaps our efforts, not all correct or done well, propelled some into the MET group, but they would still be there and hating EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS NOT LIKE THEM AND DOES NOT LIKE THEM WITH THE INTENT OF CONVERTING OR KILLING ALL OF THEM.

Is this country perfect? Of course not. We're led by human beings; human beings who make mistakes. That is a far cry from making everything bad in the world our fault somehow. We've helped a hell of a lot of people throughout the world. We've made mistakes. We've been wrong. That doesn't make these MET-types OUR fault.

"All lives are important"...yes...it is important that we end the lives of those who would torture and kill people just because they don't share the same religion. They aren't over there killing tons of Americans and the ones the do kill will resonate more here (DUH!!) but the stoning of unfairly tried folks, the killing of anyone who won't convert, etc. needs to be challenged at every turn.

Someone tried to say that Catholics trying to stop abortions is the same as MET's killing people unlike them. That is the biggest pile of rubbish that one can spread---Catholics (and all religions) are far from perfect; however, right this minute they are not out killing people for not becoming Catholic. Stop the "moral equivalency" bullshit.

It would be wonderful, Ron, if we just had a poison pill and do away with the METs, but we don't. So what is the next best thing? Think about that.

Is the next best thing to bomb a general area and take out the METs and a bunch of innocent Iraqis at the same time? Collateral damage? That would be akin to the police taking out not only the shooter but all the bystanders within 100 feet too. Would that be acceptable? It becomes acceptable to us first off because it isn't reported and it's people who we don't know 8,000 miles away. The result of killing the innocents is that you breed a society of people who will become METs because their innocent family members were killed by an American bomb, just as you would be pissed off that the police department decided to take out the shooter by using 100 handgrenades instead of a well-placed bullet.

So I will say that that approach is not the next best thing because it defeats the purpose and just breeds more METs. Personally, I prefer an insolar approach where America defends its borders, provides aid and assistance to those who are in need, pursues peace at all costs, and executes justice rightly and correctly.

Quote: boymimbo

It would be wonderful, Ron, if we just had a poison pill and do away with the METs, but we don't. So what is the next best thing? Think about that.

I agree--we can't just wish them away. It isn't just what is the next best thing because we won't close our borders. The political will is not there and the people are not, as a whole, demanding it. They will do so if we are attacked...but the idea for now is to try and stop attacks from happening.

Quote: boymimbo

Is the next best thing to bomb a general area and take out the METs and a bunch of innocent Iraqis at the same time? Collateral damage? That would be akin to the police taking out not only the shooter but all the bystanders within 100 feet too. Would that be acceptable? It becomes acceptable to us first off because it isn't reported and it's people who we don't know 8,000 miles away. The result of killing the innocents is that you breed a society of people who will become METs because their innocent family members were killed by an American bomb, just as you would be pissed off that the police department decided to take out the shooter by using 100 handgrenades instead of a well-placed bullet.

No, they next best thing is to develop assets in the air and on the ground that can kill them when they are not integrated with the "bystanders"...drone attacks, infiltration, intelligence development, and all the other dirty little things that can be done without tons of collateral damage (hopefully as close to zero as possible). If they are in a convoy between towns, blow them up. If they are in town, strike efficiently. Do not let them rest comfortably anywhere.

Quote: boymimbo

So I will say that that approach is not the next best thing because it defeats the purpose and just breeds more METs. Personally, I prefer an insolar approach where America defends its borders, provides aid and assistance to those who are in need, pursues peace at all costs, and executes justice rightly and correctly.

Again, no real will to defend the border yet. Pursuing peace at all costs? Really? You can't pursue peace with people who do not want you to exist and think the only way to live is their way. Pursue peace where peace is possible. Let the people who won't allow peace know that you are not afraid of them or to hurt them should they make any move to hurt you.

Quote: RonC

There you go again...Blame America First!! It is, of course, our fault that Muslim Extremist Terrorists want to kill us.

The British Petroleum Company created Kuwait. Found some goat herder and made him an Emir. So Iraq invading Kuwait was meaningless from a historical point of view.

Collateral Damage? When the State of Israel recruited Terrorists and duped them into attacking the World Trade Center, they didn't much care about collateral damage as long as they roped US Troops and the US economy into a senseless series of Mini-Vietnams to make the Middle East safer for Israel.

>We've helped a hell of a lot of people throughout the world. We've made mistakes. We've been wrong.
We've been wrong all the time over and over and over again.
>That doesn't make these MET-types OUR fault.
NO, but it does make them our problem.


>"All lives are important"...yes.
NO. Not in the Orient, Not in the Middle East.

Iraq :: Radical Islam :: Print this Article
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN HAD PHOTO OP WITH ISIS TERRORISTS IN SYRIA IN 2013
06-23-2014 1:05 am - Pamela Geller
Unfortunately for America, the breathtaking lack of understanding of the jihad crosses party lines. Back in 2013, I sharply criticized John McCain for his vocal support of the jihad rebels in Syria. He adamantly insisted that these were moderates. Moderates only to fantasists or the delusional.

McCain’s ignorance was laid bare back in May 2013 when Senator McCain snuck into Syria to meet with the so-called opposition. In the meeting, John McCain proudly posed with some of those “rebels.” I wrote this at the time:

… two of the men posing with McCain were involved in the “kidnapping of 11 Shiite pilgrims one year ago.” This is what happens when clueless polticians inject themselves into situations in which they clearly do not belong. What was McCain thinking, sneaking into Syria to meet with jihadists?

Senator McCain went to Syria to meet with the opposition. The Free Syrian Army and Al Nusrah, the two main armed factions of the Syrian resistance are jihadist groups run by the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda (here).

He was warned by us repeatedly. But the blowhard blew harder. In an Anderson Cooper interview, Senator McCain claimed, “We can identify who these people are. We can help the right people.” And who does he think the right people are?

Those “right’ people, ISIS, are running this photo as part of an online ad campaign. John McCain the face of a thousand beheadings. Isn’t it nice to know that the US government is talking out of one side of their mouths and doing the complete opposite on the other side?

Remember in 2013 when John McCain made that trip to Syria to hang out with ISIS radicals? Now, ISIS is using that photo of them hanging with John McCain as propaganda for themselves. The 2013 photo in this article of John McCain is being circulated by members of ISIS as a photo of him with members of some of their members in Syria… The poster does not specify which of the men is actually from ISIS or “Al Qaeda In Iraq” as they were once called.

-----------------------------------
SOURCE: http://pamelageller.com/2014/06/john-mc-cains-isis-photo-op-jihad-army-runs-ad-campaign-featuring-photo-jhn-mccain.html/


Quit creating, funding, training, arming terrorists and they will be busy killing each other.


BP is responsible for the Mosedegh overthrow as well as our very own CIA, it is common knowledge
- See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_310_35726.php#sthash.wUq3TyJf.dpuf

We [IDF] co-created Hamas, Al Ciada, The muslim brotherhood and isis. How in the world does anyone think they just arrived on the scene in a carvan of new vehicles, armed and trained. These arn't your run of the mill spray and pray terrorists. I suspect personally there are some well trained mercs in there behind some of those masks. Who the hell makes all those new flags for these gangsters? Where is they're medical facility located? When you can answer that you are a good long way to the answers you seek.

I don't think these are the terrorists you are looking for [in my best obe wan kenobe voice].

Where the hell is "Blackwater in all this" [aka as Academi, aka Xe] did they just dissapear? Assets, its all about the assets. And the pipeline to Europe. The question isn't if there will be a replacement of natural gas to europe, it's who will be filling the pipe. Remember Bandar Bush and Vlad? Come on people who trained these guys? Where? These guys are marching thru that part of the ME like Genghis friggin Khan. And yet the Iragi Kurds are making delivery's.

Please put down the MSM and step away from your tv sets. The truth is out there [fox mulder]
ps Scully was HOT

Maybe the Crusades have never ended?

Quote: boymimbo

So I will say that that approach is not the next best thing because it defeats the purpose and just breeds more METs. Personally, I prefer an insolar approach where America defends its borders, provides aid and assistance to those who are in need, pursues peace at all costs, and executes justice rightly and correctly.

It still doesn't seem likely the American public will go for more massive invasions.

If you try to analyze the Iraqi reaction about the initial invasion, they care even less about the defending the territory they were holding than some here do.
Reminds me of the sign in my Dentist's office. "A Dentist can't do for a patient what a patient is unwilling to do." (or something like that)

Quote: Fleastiff

The British Petroleum Company created Kuwait. Found some goat herder and made him an Emir. So Iraq invading Kuwait was meaningless from a historical point of view.

Quote: wikipedia

In 1521, Kuwait was under Portuguese control.[34] In the late 16th century, the Portuguese built a defensive settlement in Kuwait.[35]

In 1613, the town of Kuwait was founded in modern-day Kuwait City. Kuwait was initially under the control of the Bani Khalid clan, who built fishing villages in present-day Kuwait Bay. In 1650, the Bani Utubs settled in Kuwait. The Bani Utub settlers gradually migrated in the sixteenth century from Najd to Basra and Kuwait. The Bani Utubs had originally migrated to Basra, they occupied 2000 houses and were described as a powerful group who owned 150 ships, which they used for merchant shipping and for transporting goods for Basra's merchants.

Are you suggesting that BP existed in 1521? If so I need to search my titles back further than 1859.

Or do you get your info from Iraqi TV?

Kuwait was first recognized as a "country" in 1752 when Shaikh Sabah I Al-Sabah began the country. The "country" has been ruled by the same family since, including throughout its influence by the Ottomans, through the British Protectorate, through the discovery of oil (1938, BP), through its independence in 1961.

So, despite what the Kuwaitis want us to believe, it didn't become a country until 1961.

Quote: Kuwaiti Embassy

1-Sheikh Sabah 1 Bin Jaber: 1756 - 1762.
2- Sheikh Abdallah I: 1762 -1812.
3- Sheikh Jaber I: 1812-1859.
4- Sheikh Sabah II: 1859- 1866.
5- Sheikh Abdallah II: 1866 -1892.
6- Sheikh Mohammad I: 1892 - 1896.
7- Sheikh Mubarak AI-Sabah: 1896 - 1915.
8- Sheikh Jaber II:1915-1917.
9- Sheikh Salem AI-Mubarak: 1917-1921.
10- Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah: 1921 -1950
11- Sheikh Abdallah AI-Salem AI-Sabah: 1950 -1965.
12- Sheikh Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah: 1965-1977.
13- Sheikh Jaber AI-Ahmed AI-Jaber AI-Sabah, 1977-2006.
14- The Father-Figure Shiekh Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Salem Al-Sabah (15 January 2006 - 29 January 2006).
15- Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, the Amir of the State of Kuwait.

But maps from the 18th / 19th century don't show Kuwait with a border. Only after the British Protectorate do borders appear.