ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels that Obama wanted to support.
Options
Jabu_Rule
Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
As the United States begins to deepen ties with moderate Syrian rebels to combat the extremist group ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, a key component of its coalition appears to have struck a non-aggression pact with the group.
According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army.
The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS.
The AFP report cited information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group monitoring the Syrian civil war, which said parties to the agreement "promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." The term Nussayri refers to the Alawite ethnic group that Assad and many of his supporters belong to. AFP said the agreement was signed in a suburb of the Syrian capital, where ISIS has a strong presence.
Welp, so much for that plan.
Comments
-
Just when America's horrible plan to start a war in Syria couldn't get worse, now ISIS is making allies with the same rebels Obama wants to give money and weapons too. If the rebels can make peace with ISIS, then this clearly makes the war about taking down Assad (for the rebels). And we all know Assad and Iran are the only countries in the region with the ? to take on ISIS head on.
What is this war REALLY about? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Just when America's horrible plan to start a war in Syria couldn't get worse, now ISIS is making allies with the same rebels Obama wants to give money and weapons too. If the rebels can make peace with ISIS, then this clearly makes the war about taking down Assad (for the rebels). And we all know Assad and Iran are the only countries in the region with the ? to take on ISIS head on.
What is this war REALLY about?
I can understand their eagerness to get rid of a dictator. They are fooling themselves if they don't think that they are making friends with a worse enemy within ISIS. But then again, maybe they aren't as moderate as they claim, and they're willing to turn it up a notch and change their beliefs to suit ISIS. The Republicans pushed Obama to make such a foolish move. McCain should go back over there to patch things up. There is also Russia as a factor. There is no win in this particular engagement for America. -
the only way to fix all these problems in the middle east is total invasion and total war followed by with a long term occupation. isis taking over syria would be a horror no one trust america over there so we can have no allies nor should we back anyone that is not under our direct control.
syria borders with israel and i don't think israel is going to stand for any of that ? if isis takes syria ? is going to get worse and the risk that it's only going to spread. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Just when America's horrible plan to start a war in Syria couldn't get worse, now ISIS is making allies with the same rebels Obama wants to give money and weapons too. If the rebels can make peace with ISIS, then this clearly makes the war about taking down Assad (for the rebels). And we all know Assad and Iran are the only countries in the region with the ? to take on ISIS head on.
What is this war REALLY about?
I can understand their eagerness to get rid of a dictator. They are fooling themselves if they don't think that they are making friends with a worse enemy within ISIS. But then again, maybe they aren't as moderate as they claim, and they're willing to turn it up a notch and change their beliefs to suit ISIS. The Republicans pushed Obama to make such a foolish move. McCain should go back over there to patch things up. There is also Russia as a factor. There is no win in this particular engagement for America.
I agree but why did Obama have to cave in to the Republicans? Obama should take a hint that most of the rest of the world doesn't want to get involved in this mess. Neither Israel, Britain, Germany, or Turkey want to do airstrikes in that region, shouldn't that give Obama a hint that MAYBE the Middle East needs to settle this civil war for itself? There is no way to win in this, financially or militarily. I know Russia is a factor because they want Assad to stick around and America would rather its own puppet get in place there. -
the only way to fix all these problems in the middle east is total invasion and total war followed by with a long term occupation. isis taking over syria would be a horror no one trust america over there so we can have no allies nor should we back anyone that is not under our direct control.
syria borders with israel and i don't think israel is going to stand for any of that ? if isis takes syria ? is going to get worse and the risk that it's only going to spread.
? no, you still think your disastrous plan is a good idea? If Israel doesn't want to stand for this, then why aren't they committing to air strikes against ISIS??!! ? Israel and ? your plan, we can't afford it. Soldiers in the VA are going years without treatment, and you want a total war the rest of the world doesn't want. Let Assad, Russia, and Iran fight this, and by the way, Saudi Arabia beheads people and has people that support terror too, should we go to war against them? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »the only way to fix all these problems in the middle east is total invasion and total war followed by with a long term occupation. isis taking over syria would be a horror no one trust america over there so we can have no allies nor should we back anyone that is not under our direct control.
syria borders with israel and i don't think israel is going to stand for any of that ? if isis takes syria ? is going to get worse and the risk that it's only going to spread.
? no, you still think your disastrous plan is a good idea? If Israel doesn't want to stand for this, then why aren't they committing to air strikes against ISIS??!! ? Israel and ? your plan, we can't afford it. Soldiers in the VA are going years without treatment, and you want a total war the rest of the world doesn't want. Let Assad, Russia, and Iran fight this, and by the way, Saudi Arabia beheads people and has people that support terror too, should we go to war against them?
lean to read, I basically said that if isis takes syria, israel won't stand for it ISIS would be too much of a threat BEING SO CLOSE TO ISRAEL, and we can afford an invasion if we do what is needed. american soliders don't get proper treatment not because we cannot afford it but because there is incompetence in the system.
russia is not going to do a ? thing except maybe loan weapons, iran would probably win against isis but that would only create more stress between sunni and shia in the mid-east. I personally would not advocate an invasion of saudi arabia simply because at least the state is organized and is a more stable society. I would however assassinate who ever funds groups like isis.
if we went to a total war in the mid east i believe many of the nations in the rest of the world would follow us it would affect their economies too much if they did not do so and if they don't after we win we can use the oil as a tool to punish them for their lack of support.
what is the alternative leave isis alone until they get stronger and eventually attack israel which is one of their goals. then when israel goes retaliates in the extreme way it is prone to do thereis more death and more destruction all of which the usa will share blame for no matter what we do or don't do. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »the only way to fix all these problems in the middle east is total invasion and total war followed by with a long term occupation. isis taking over syria would be a horror no one trust america over there so we can have no allies nor should we back anyone that is not under our direct control.
syria borders with israel and i don't think israel is going to stand for any of that ? if isis takes syria ? is going to get worse and the risk that it's only going to spread.
? no, you still think your disastrous plan is a good idea? If Israel doesn't want to stand for this, then why aren't they committing to air strikes against ISIS??!! ? Israel and ? your plan, we can't afford it. Soldiers in the VA are going years without treatment, and you want a total war the rest of the world doesn't want. Let Assad, Russia, and Iran fight this, and by the way, Saudi Arabia beheads people and has people that support terror too, should we go to war against them?
lean to read, I basically said that if isis takes syria, israel won't stand for it ISIS would be too much of a threat BEING SO CLOSE TO ISRAEL, and we can afford an invasion if we do what is needed. american soliders don't get proper treatment not because we cannot afford it but because there is incompetence in the system.
russia is not going to do a ? thing except maybe loan weapons, iran would probably win against isis but that would only create more stress between sunni and shia in the mid-east. I personally would not advocate an invasion of saudi arabia simply because at least the state is organized and is a more stable society. I would however assassinate who ever funds groups like isis.
if we went to a total war in the mid east i believe many of the nations in the rest of the world would follow us it would affect their economies too much if they did not do so and if they don't after we win we can use the oil as a tool to punish them for their lack of support.
what is the alternative leave isis alone until they get stronger and eventually attack israel which is one of their goals. then when israel goes retaliates in the extreme way it is prone to do thereis more death and more destruction all of which the usa will share blame for no matter what we do or don't do.
Wishful dreaming on your part, the powerful nations of the world want nothing to do with bombing ISIS right now. So what makes you think they would join a total war? You're too paranoid about ISIS, if Syria, Iran and Russia are already fighting and containing them, then there's no need to get involved. America not minding its own business is on its own making ISIS more popular, and the more involved America gets, the more popular ISIS is becoming. Don't take my word for it, this is what Middle Eastern experts are saying.
And if Israel can take on ISIS on its own, LET THEM. If Israel retaliates in an extreme way as you fear, then that's the result of America defending everything Israel does for the last 60 years. Of course America would get the blame for any atrocities Israel would commit, it gives Israel weapons and money all the time. Israel loves total war, that's what you want right? It's no different then America waging total war in the Middle East, America is known for its history of committing war crimes itself. So frankly, your strategy is EXACTLY what ISIS wants. ISIS just chopped off the head of a British hostage today, so your wishes of escalating the war will come true, only a matter of time.
You admit Iran and its Shia allies can beat ISIS and if that causes stress in the Shia-Sunni relationship, LET THOSE MIDDLE EASTERN NATIONS HANDLE THAT. We can work with the winners, the way America does business with the corrupt, beheading loving Saudi Arabian govt. -
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »the only way to fix all these problems in the middle east is total invasion and total war followed by with a long term occupation. isis taking over syria would be a horror no one trust america over there so we can have no allies nor should we back anyone that is not under our direct control.
syria borders with israel and i don't think israel is going to stand for any of that ? if isis takes syria ? is going to get worse and the risk that it's only going to spread.
? no, you still think your disastrous plan is a good idea? If Israel doesn't want to stand for this, then why aren't they committing to air strikes against ISIS??!! ? Israel and ? your plan, we can't afford it. Soldiers in the VA are going years without treatment, and you want a total war the rest of the world doesn't want. Let Assad, Russia, and Iran fight this, and by the way, Saudi Arabia beheads people and has people that support terror too, should we go to war against them?
lean to read, I basically said that if isis takes syria, israel won't stand for it ISIS would be too much of a threat BEING SO CLOSE TO ISRAEL, and we can afford an invasion if we do what is needed. american soliders don't get proper treatment not because we cannot afford it but because there is incompetence in the system.
russia is not going to do a ? thing except maybe loan weapons, iran would probably win against isis but that would only create more stress between sunni and shia in the mid-east. I personally would not advocate an invasion of saudi arabia simply because at least the state is organized and is a more stable society. I would however assassinate who ever funds groups like isis.
if we went to a total war in the mid east i believe many of the nations in the rest of the world would follow us it would affect their economies too much if they did not do so and if they don't after we win we can use the oil as a tool to punish them for their lack of support.
what is the alternative leave isis alone until they get stronger and eventually attack israel which is one of their goals. then when israel goes retaliates in the extreme way it is prone to do thereis more death and more destruction all of which the usa will share blame for no matter what we do or don't do.
Wishful dreaming on your part, the powerful nations of the world want nothing to do with bombing ISIS right now. So what makes you think they would join a total war? You're too paranoid about ISIS, if Syria, Iran and Russia are already fighting and containing them, then there's no need to get involved. America not minding its own business is on its own making ISIS more popular, and the more involved America gets, the more popular ISIS is becoming. Don't take my word for it, this is what Middle Eastern experts are saying.
And if Israel can take on ISIS on its own, LET THEM. If Israel retaliates in an extreme way as you fear, then that's the result of America defending everything Israel does for the last 60 years. Of course America would get the blame for any atrocities Israel would commit, it gives Israel weapons and money all the time. Israel loves total war, that's what you want right? It's no different then America waging total war in the Middle East, America is known for its history of committing war crimes itself. So frankly, your strategy is EXACTLY what ISIS wants. ISIS just chopped off the head of a British hostage today, so your wishes of escalating the war will come true, only a matter of time.
You admit Iran and its Shia allies can beat ISIS and if that causes stress in the Shia-Sunni relationship, LET THOSE MIDDLE EASTERN NATIONS HANDLE THAT. We can work with the winners, the way America does business with the corrupt, beheading loving Saudi Arabian govt.
isis wants to fight, they want to bite more than they can chew we should give it to them they have to be utterly utterly defeated and humiliated. how many russian troops are in syria?? none as far as we know russia is not really doing a ? thing russia is limited to eastern europe they don't get involved too deep anyplace else. and if it's anyone containing isis it's the usa they would have done genocide a few weeks ago if not for usa
yes we have been backing israel for 60 years it's too late to stop now if we can abandon such an ally then we can abandon anyone which would mean we lose respect worldwide. which means all the nations that depend on our power will increase there military spending out of fear that we are not dependable which could mean increased world wide tensions. and just to let you know israel has not gone to total war since it's founding.
you want to work with the winners??? are you crazy the winners would most likely be iran it's not in the interest of the usa for there to be a stronger iran.
listen there is no ? way to deal with isis we have to ? them and keep killing people like them until no more exist.. they don't give a ? what we do there objective is to rule it's like dealing with the borg resistance is futile that is the mindset of groups like isis
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
they need to keep making videos like that until people in the western word wake up to the threat that islam is -
Israel tells US it will act if IS reaches Jordan
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-reportedly-tells-us-it-will-act-if-is-reaches-jordan/n talks with US officials about the Islamic State this week, Israel has made clear that should the extremist group start operating in neighboring Jordan, it will not hesitate to act, Channel 2 reported Friday citing diplomatic sources
According to the report, Israel believes US airstrikes in Iraq have already yielded results on the ground, helping Kurdish forces make inroads in recapturing territory overtaken by the extremist group.
The TV report did not specify what actions Israel might take if Islamic State started impacting upon Jordan, but Israel is wary of its eastern neighbor being challenged by the brutal terror group, and would seek to guard against further inroads that would directly threaten Israel. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »the only way to fix all these problems in the middle east is total invasion and total war followed by with a long term occupation. isis taking over syria would be a horror no one trust america over there so we can have no allies nor should we back anyone that is not under our direct control.
syria borders with israel and i don't think israel is going to stand for any of that ? if isis takes syria ? is going to get worse and the risk that it's only going to spread.
? no, you still think your disastrous plan is a good idea? If Israel doesn't want to stand for this, then why aren't they committing to air strikes against ISIS??!! ? Israel and ? your plan, we can't afford it. Soldiers in the VA are going years without treatment, and you want a total war the rest of the world doesn't want. Let Assad, Russia, and Iran fight this, and by the way, Saudi Arabia beheads people and has people that support terror too, should we go to war against them?
lean to read, I basically said that if isis takes syria, israel won't stand for it ISIS would be too much of a threat BEING SO CLOSE TO ISRAEL, and we can afford an invasion if we do what is needed. american soliders don't get proper treatment not because we cannot afford it but because there is incompetence in the system.
russia is not going to do a ? thing except maybe loan weapons, iran would probably win against isis but that would only create more stress between sunni and shia in the mid-east. I personally would not advocate an invasion of saudi arabia simply because at least the state is organized and is a more stable society. I would however assassinate who ever funds groups like isis.
if we went to a total war in the mid east i believe many of the nations in the rest of the world would follow us it would affect their economies too much if they did not do so and if they don't after we win we can use the oil as a tool to punish them for their lack of support.
what is the alternative leave isis alone until they get stronger and eventually attack israel which is one of their goals. then when israel goes retaliates in the extreme way it is prone to do thereis more death and more destruction all of which the usa will share blame for no matter what we do or don't do.
Wishful dreaming on your part, the powerful nations of the world want nothing to do with bombing ISIS right now. So what makes you think they would join a total war? You're too paranoid about ISIS, if Syria, Iran and Russia are already fighting and containing them, then there's no need to get involved. America not minding its own business is on its own making ISIS more popular, and the more involved America gets, the more popular ISIS is becoming. Don't take my word for it, this is what Middle Eastern experts are saying.
And if Israel can take on ISIS on its own, LET THEM. If Israel retaliates in an extreme way as you fear, then that's the result of America defending everything Israel does for the last 60 years. Of course America would get the blame for any atrocities Israel would commit, it gives Israel weapons and money all the time. Israel loves total war, that's what you want right? It's no different then America waging total war in the Middle East, America is known for its history of committing war crimes itself. So frankly, your strategy is EXACTLY what ISIS wants. ISIS just chopped off the head of a British hostage today, so your wishes of escalating the war will come true, only a matter of time.
You admit Iran and its Shia allies can beat ISIS and if that causes stress in the Shia-Sunni relationship, LET THOSE MIDDLE EASTERN NATIONS HANDLE THAT. We can work with the winners, the way America does business with the corrupt, beheading loving Saudi Arabian govt.
isis wants to fight, they want to bite more than they can chew we should give it to them they have to be utterly utterly defeated and humiliated. how many russian troops are in syria?? none as far as we know russia is not really doing a ? thing russia is limited to eastern europe they don't get involved too deep anyplace else. and if it's anyone containing isis it's the usa they would have done genocide a few weeks ago if not for usa
yes we have been backing israel for 60 years it's too late to stop now if we can abandon such an ally then we can abandon anyone which would mean we lose respect worldwide. which means all the nations that depend on our power will increase there military spending out of fear that we are not dependable which could mean increased world wide tensions. and just to let you know israel has not gone to total war since it's founding.
you want to work with the winners??? are you crazy the winners would most likely be iran it's not in the interest of the usa for there to be a stronger iran.
listen there is no ? way to deal with isis we have to ? them and keep killing people like them until no more exist.. they don't give a ? what we do there objective is to rule it's like dealing with the borg resistance is futile that is the mindset of groups like isis
Ahh, good old fashioned ? Cheney thinking. Okay, I want to see what a war like this looks like. When things get messy, let's see how strong your resolve is. ISIS intimidates you quite easily I see. We've done over 160 air strikes to them, and the rest of the world does nothing. If Jordan and Turkey aren't too worried about ISIS overreaching, then we shouldn't be either. I'm not worried and nervous about ISIS the way you are, and most of the world isn't either. Why? BECAUSE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SMART ENOUGH TO MIND THEIR OWN ? BUSINESS -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »the only way to fix all these problems in the middle east is total invasion and total war followed by with a long term occupation. isis taking over syria would be a horror no one trust america over there so we can have no allies nor should we back anyone that is not under our direct control.
syria borders with israel and i don't think israel is going to stand for any of that ? if isis takes syria ? is going to get worse and the risk that it's only going to spread.
? no, you still think your disastrous plan is a good idea? If Israel doesn't want to stand for this, then why aren't they committing to air strikes against ISIS??!! ? Israel and ? your plan, we can't afford it. Soldiers in the VA are going years without treatment, and you want a total war the rest of the world doesn't want. Let Assad, Russia, and Iran fight this, and by the way, Saudi Arabia beheads people and has people that support terror too, should we go to war against them?
lean to read, I basically said that if isis takes syria, israel won't stand for it ISIS would be too much of a threat BEING SO CLOSE TO ISRAEL, and we can afford an invasion if we do what is needed. american soliders don't get proper treatment not because we cannot afford it but because there is incompetence in the system.
russia is not going to do a ? thing except maybe loan weapons, iran would probably win against isis but that would only create more stress between sunni and shia in the mid-east. I personally would not advocate an invasion of saudi arabia simply because at least the state is organized and is a more stable society. I would however assassinate who ever funds groups like isis.
if we went to a total war in the mid east i believe many of the nations in the rest of the world would follow us it would affect their economies too much if they did not do so and if they don't after we win we can use the oil as a tool to punish them for their lack of support.
what is the alternative leave isis alone until they get stronger and eventually attack israel which is one of their goals. then when israel goes retaliates in the extreme way it is prone to do thereis more death and more destruction all of which the usa will share blame for no matter what we do or don't do.
Wishful dreaming on your part, the powerful nations of the world want nothing to do with bombing ISIS right now. So what makes you think they would join a total war? You're too paranoid about ISIS, if Syria, Iran and Russia are already fighting and containing them, then there's no need to get involved. America not minding its own business is on its own making ISIS more popular, and the more involved America gets, the more popular ISIS is becoming. Don't take my word for it, this is what Middle Eastern experts are saying.
And if Israel can take on ISIS on its own, LET THEM. If Israel retaliates in an extreme way as you fear, then that's the result of America defending everything Israel does for the last 60 years. Of course America would get the blame for any atrocities Israel would commit, it gives Israel weapons and money all the time. Israel loves total war, that's what you want right? It's no different then America waging total war in the Middle East, America is known for its history of committing war crimes itself. So frankly, your strategy is EXACTLY what ISIS wants. ISIS just chopped off the head of a British hostage today, so your wishes of escalating the war will come true, only a matter of time.
You admit Iran and its Shia allies can beat ISIS and if that causes stress in the Shia-Sunni relationship, LET THOSE MIDDLE EASTERN NATIONS HANDLE THAT. We can work with the winners, the way America does business with the corrupt, beheading loving Saudi Arabian govt.
isis wants to fight, they want to bite more than they can chew we should give it to them they have to be utterly utterly defeated and humiliated. how many russian troops are in syria?? none as far as we know russia is not really doing a ? thing russia is limited to eastern europe they don't get involved too deep anyplace else. and if it's anyone containing isis it's the usa they would have done genocide a few weeks ago if not for usa
yes we have been backing israel for 60 years it's too late to stop now if we can abandon such an ally then we can abandon anyone which would mean we lose respect worldwide. which means all the nations that depend on our power will increase there military spending out of fear that we are not dependable which could mean increased world wide tensions. and just to let you know israel has not gone to total war since it's founding.
you want to work with the winners??? are you crazy the winners would most likely be iran it's not in the interest of the usa for there to be a stronger iran.
listen there is no ? way to deal with isis we have to ? them and keep killing people like them until no more exist.. they don't give a ? what we do there objective is to rule it's like dealing with the borg resistance is futile that is the mindset of groups like isis
Ahh, good old fashioned ? Cheney thinking. Okay, I want to see what a war like this looks like. When things get messy, let's see how strong your resolve is. ISIS intimidates you quite easily I see. We've done over 160 air strikes to them, and the rest of the world does nothing. If Jordan and Turkey aren't too worried about ISIS overreaching, then we shouldn't be either. I'm not worried and nervous about ISIS the way you are, and most of the world isn't either. Why? BECAUSE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SMART ENOUGH TO MIND THEIR OWN ? BUSINESS
You still don't get it it's not what isis is now it's what they will become if we don't stop them, the rest of the world is not worried because we are here and they know that when push comes to shove we will deal with the problem. turkey has a real powerful army so they don't have to be worried about isis right now jordan needs to worry -
seems a LITTLE unfair, depending on what you call the region: Israel certainly does, but tends to have to sit this stuff out; countries like Jordan might not actually have the muscle to project that level of force; countries like Egypt probably would take on ISIS, no problem, depending on the specifics. in turn, Assad wouldn't be doing ? if this wasn't happening IN Syria.kingblaze84 wrote: »And we all know Assad and Iran are the only countries in the region with the ? to take on ISIS head on.
this is not Obama caving to Republicans; this is either Obama caving it to people in his administration or Obama playing politics. hell, the only non-interventionists in Congress (right or wrong) seem to be Republicans.kingblaze84 wrote: »I agree but why did Obama have to cave in to the Republicans? Obama should take a hint that most of the rest of the world doesn't want to get involved in this mess. Neither Israel, Britain, Germany, or Turkey want to do airstrikes in that region, shouldn't that give Obama a hint that MAYBE the Middle East needs to settle this civil war for itself?
also... considering Israel has literally conducted airstrikes in Syria during this conflict, it's likely they're not 100% anti-airstrike.
and look, whatever you think of foreign policy and Middle Eastern stuff and all the rest, if your position is "they cut off a hostage's head, so we should sit this out," it's about as weak of a position as it gets.
Jordan is certainly worried about ISIS, which is why they use their intelligence operations to assist the US in times like these. come on, now. Turkey's just being prickly because they're right in the neighborhood, and maybe that's a more legitimate sign of concern, but i doubt they're not worried about ISIS on any level.kingblaze84 wrote: »If Jordan and Turkey aren't too worried about ISIS overreaching, then we shouldn't be either. I'm not worried and nervous about ISIS the way you are, and most of the world isn't either. Why? BECAUSE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SMART ENOUGH TO MIND THEIR OWN ? BUSINESS
also, i really don't the "REST OF THE WORLD IS SMART ENOUGH TO MIND THEIR OWN ? BUSINESS" thing when there's a limited amount of countries that COULD do a damn thing if they wanted to. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
The ? is fraud as hell. Our bi-weekly propaganda programming. What is this guy, reading off cue cards? Or did he remember all this under duress when his life is about to end. At least this time, there is more blood spatter on the surrounding ground to make it more believable.
Ironically, look at the small mushroom shaped rock on the bottom right of the screen and the small patch of grass on the top right. They are in the exact same place between the beheading and the threat of the second. What are they doing, standing directly on top of the body in the threat of the second....
Until next week....another head will roll off with the latest programming of what were supposed the think. Maybe next time they'll step it up and actually show us the head coming off.
Here's another link:
http://leaksource.info/2014/09/13/graphic-video-islamic-state-beheads-british-aid-worker-david-haines/ -
leftcoastkev wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
The ? is fraud as hell. Our bi-weekly propaganda programming. What is this guy, reading off cue cards? Or did he remember all this under duress when his life is about to end. At least this time, there is more blood spatter on the surrounding ground to make it more believable.
Ironically, look at the small mushroom shaped rock on the bottom right of the screen and the small patch of grass on the top right. They are in the exact same place between the beheading and the threat of the second. What are they doing, standing directly on top of the body in the threat of the second....
Until next week....another head will roll off with the latest programming of what were supposed the think. Maybe next time they'll step it up and actually show us the head coming off.
Here's another link:
http://leaksource.info/2014/09/13/graphic-video-islamic-state-beheads-british-aid-worker-david-haines/
Hmm I've heard some people say this. Some say the contrast in the backgrounds looks odd but it looks real to me. Who you think is making these videos? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »the only way to fix all these problems in the middle east is total invasion and total war followed by with a long term occupation. isis taking over syria would be a horror no one trust america over there so we can have no allies nor should we back anyone that is not under our direct control.
syria borders with israel and i don't think israel is going to stand for any of that ? if isis takes syria ? is going to get worse and the risk that it's only going to spread.
? no, you still think your disastrous plan is a good idea? If Israel doesn't want to stand for this, then why aren't they committing to air strikes against ISIS??!! ? Israel and ? your plan, we can't afford it. Soldiers in the VA are going years without treatment, and you want a total war the rest of the world doesn't want. Let Assad, Russia, and Iran fight this, and by the way, Saudi Arabia beheads people and has people that support terror too, should we go to war against them?
lean to read, I basically said that if isis takes syria, israel won't stand for it ISIS would be too much of a threat BEING SO CLOSE TO ISRAEL, and we can afford an invasion if we do what is needed. american soliders don't get proper treatment not because we cannot afford it but because there is incompetence in the system.
russia is not going to do a ? thing except maybe loan weapons, iran would probably win against isis but that would only create more stress between sunni and shia in the mid-east. I personally would not advocate an invasion of saudi arabia simply because at least the state is organized and is a more stable society. I would however assassinate who ever funds groups like isis.
if we went to a total war in the mid east i believe many of the nations in the rest of the world would follow us it would affect their economies too much if they did not do so and if they don't after we win we can use the oil as a tool to punish them for their lack of support.
what is the alternative leave isis alone until they get stronger and eventually attack israel which is one of their goals. then when israel goes retaliates in the extreme way it is prone to do thereis more death and more destruction all of which the usa will share blame for no matter what we do or don't do.
Wishful dreaming on your part, the powerful nations of the world want nothing to do with bombing ISIS right now. So what makes you think they would join a total war? You're too paranoid about ISIS, if Syria, Iran and Russia are already fighting and containing them, then there's no need to get involved. America not minding its own business is on its own making ISIS more popular, and the more involved America gets, the more popular ISIS is becoming. Don't take my word for it, this is what Middle Eastern experts are saying.
And if Israel can take on ISIS on its own, LET THEM. If Israel retaliates in an extreme way as you fear, then that's the result of America defending everything Israel does for the last 60 years. Of course America would get the blame for any atrocities Israel would commit, it gives Israel weapons and money all the time. Israel loves total war, that's what you want right? It's no different then America waging total war in the Middle East, America is known for its history of committing war crimes itself. So frankly, your strategy is EXACTLY what ISIS wants. ISIS just chopped off the head of a British hostage today, so your wishes of escalating the war will come true, only a matter of time.
You admit Iran and its Shia allies can beat ISIS and if that causes stress in the Shia-Sunni relationship, LET THOSE MIDDLE EASTERN NATIONS HANDLE THAT. We can work with the winners, the way America does business with the corrupt, beheading loving Saudi Arabian govt.
isis wants to fight, they want to bite more than they can chew we should give it to them they have to be utterly utterly defeated and humiliated. how many russian troops are in syria?? none as far as we know russia is not really doing a ? thing russia is limited to eastern europe they don't get involved too deep anyplace else. and if it's anyone containing isis it's the usa they would have done genocide a few weeks ago if not for usa
yes we have been backing israel for 60 years it's too late to stop now if we can abandon such an ally then we can abandon anyone which would mean we lose respect worldwide. which means all the nations that depend on our power will increase there military spending out of fear that we are not dependable which could mean increased world wide tensions. and just to let you know israel has not gone to total war since it's founding.
you want to work with the winners??? are you crazy the winners would most likely be iran it's not in the interest of the usa for there to be a stronger iran.
listen there is no ? way to deal with isis we have to ? them and keep killing people like them until no more exist.. they don't give a ? what we do there objective is to rule it's like dealing with the borg resistance is futile that is the mindset of groups like isis
Ahh, good old fashioned ? Cheney thinking. Okay, I want to see what a war like this looks like. When things get messy, let's see how strong your resolve is. ISIS intimidates you quite easily I see. We've done over 160 air strikes to them, and the rest of the world does nothing. If Jordan and Turkey aren't too worried about ISIS overreaching, then we shouldn't be either. I'm not worried and nervous about ISIS the way you are, and most of the world isn't either. Why? BECAUSE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SMART ENOUGH TO MIND THEIR OWN ? BUSINESS
You still don't get it it's not what isis is now it's what they will become if we don't stop them, the rest of the world is not worried because we are here and they know that when push comes to shove we will deal with the problem. turkey has a real powerful army so they don't have to be worried about isis right now jordan needs to worry
This is complete nonsense. Then we might as well send troops to all over the world, China is on the rise, should we send troops there? They are bullying some Asian nations according to some. Russia is being aggressive in Ukraine, should we send troops to Russia? Boko Haram is making moves in Nigeria, and growing in some areas, should we send troops to there? If the neighbors of ISIS won't fight back, then how serious is this threat? America doesn't have a good track record in the Middle East, this should be obvious to you by now. But because you rely on emotion and not logic, you remain lost on how destructive American foreign policy is.
Iran warns U.S. airstrikes in Syria will explode Middle East
http://www.examiner.com/article/iran-warns-u-s-airstrikes-syria-will-explode-middle-east
--Iran has boots on the ground and the article notes American involvement will be a great motivator for MORE jihadists to get involved in the war -
seems a LITTLE unfair, depending on what you call the region: Israel certainly does, but tends to have to sit this stuff out; countries like Jordan might not actually have the muscle to project that level of force; countries like Egypt probably would take on ISIS, no problem, depending on the specifics. in turn, Assad wouldn't be doing ? if this wasn't happening IN Syria.kingblaze84 wrote: »And we all know Assad and Iran are the only countries in the region with the ? to take on ISIS head on.
this is not Obama caving to Republicans; this is either Obama caving it to people in his administration or Obama playing politics. hell, the only non-interventionists in Congress (right or wrong) seem to be Republicans.kingblaze84 wrote: »I agree but why did Obama have to cave in to the Republicans? Obama should take a hint that most of the rest of the world doesn't want to get involved in this mess. Neither Israel, Britain, Germany, or Turkey want to do airstrikes in that region, shouldn't that give Obama a hint that MAYBE the Middle East needs to settle this civil war for itself?
also... considering Israel has literally conducted airstrikes in Syria during this conflict, it's likely they're not 100% anti-airstrike.
and look, whatever you think of foreign policy and Middle Eastern stuff and all the rest, if your position is "they cut off a hostage's head, so we should sit this out," it's about as weak of a position as it gets.
Jordan is certainly worried about ISIS, which is why they use their intelligence operations to assist the US in times like these. come on, now. Turkey's just being prickly because they're right in the neighborhood, and maybe that's a more legitimate sign of concern, but i doubt they're not worried about ISIS on any level.kingblaze84 wrote: »If Jordan and Turkey aren't too worried about ISIS overreaching, then we shouldn't be either. I'm not worried and nervous about ISIS the way you are, and most of the world isn't either. Why? BECAUSE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SMART ENOUGH TO MIND THEIR OWN ? BUSINESS
also, i really don't the "REST OF THE WORLD IS SMART ENOUGH TO MIND THEIR OWN ? BUSINESS" thing when there's a limited amount of countries that COULD do a damn thing if they wanted to.
I didn't say America has to completely sit this one out, I'm all for sending humanitarian aid. But taking sides in an Iraqi civil war that was largely started because of America being nosy and greedy for petrodollar status is not the wise thing to do. It gets us tangled up in ? conflicts that in America's case always makes the situation worst in the Middle East. It's not our battle and even Iran is saying America should not get involved in Syria. Mind you, Iran has boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria already, and they are actively fighting ISIS publicly. America makes things worse there and that's why I don't want us getting involved militarily.
I know Jordan and Turkey have done minor things to contain ISIS but they so far aren't sending in massive amounts of troops to take on ISIS, so I see no reason for America to be so threatened by them. Turkey has a big military and is part of NATO, so what the ? . Jordan and Saudi Arabia have tons of military weapons and armor from America, what are they using it for, playing GI Joes? This is all a big scam to me, a scam for the military industrial complex to get another excuse to extract oil and resources from uncooperative lands. I do not trust the motives of this corrupt American govt, and most Americans polled do not trust the govt, so I'm far from the fringe. Yes it's sad hostages are dying but this a problem America and the west created to begin with.
Amazingly, you are correct in that there are more REPUBLICANS then Democrats now (publicly at least) who are anti-US military action. What the hell happened to the Democrat party? I have a hard time recognizing the difference btw the two when it comes to foreign policy lately. -
These ISIS ? need to be stopped.
-
@kingblaze84
How we deal with the mid-east and how we deal with china are night and day reactions, china may be evil but it's a logical and organized state. and we already have troops in japan and south korea just incase. Russia has historically held influence in eastern europe especially in ukraine i am more than willing to respect their power in that region to a point. and anyway these are real nations with nuclear weapons so how we treat them should reflect that reality unlike isis
the nigerian army needs to link with america and destroy boko haram by any means. i am running on pure logic when it come to the mid-east you down play how dangerous so called islamic extremism is. it's one of the ultimate long term threats to human civilization and must be destroyed.
all the nations you mentioned are not really doing a ? thing they are pinching isis, but isis needs a ? bullet to the head.
you like some other so called mid -east experts don't present any solutions to the problems all you want to do is hide and hope that some one else fixes the problems that in some cases we caused but that's called being irresponsible like it or not iraq is a problem we have to fix -
humanitarian aid without projecting power (like we have done in Syria) is in many respects a recipe for throwing money at a situation only to gain zero credit for it. should we blow ? up to get a little credit? maybe not, but it is what it is.kingblaze84 wrote: »I didn't say America has to completely sit this one out, I'm all for sending humanitarian aid.
see, i still take issue with this because it completely ignores the fact that Iraqis are, in fact, independent actors, many of whom choose to have sectarian beefs and feud for personal gain. Maliki's probably an overused example, but Americans did not force him to be a selfish, short-sighted ? .kingblaze84 wrote: »But taking sides in an Iraqi civil war that was largely started because of America being nosy and greedy for petrodollar status is not the wise thing to do.
there is a large element of free-riding from countries like Saudi Arabia, but i'm not sure everyone involved has the military power that you believe they do. some of this comes back to, as i have said before, a military that never gets used not really being an impressive or effective thing, despite how much you spend on it. i would submit that Jordan's contributions are more subtle but not "minor."kingblaze84 wrote: »I know Jordan and Turkey have done minor things to contain ISIS but they so far aren't sending in massive amounts of troops to take on ISIS, so I see no reason for America to be so threatened by them. Turkey has a big military and is part of NATO, so what the ? . Jordan and Saudi Arabia have tons of military weapons and armor from America, what are they using it for, playing GI Joes?
remember how the Democrats all voted for the Iraq War?kingblaze84 wrote: »Amazingly, you are correct in that there are more REPUBLICANS then Democrats now (publicly at least) who are anti-US military action. What the hell happened to the Democrat party? I have a hard time recognizing the difference btw the two when it comes to foreign policy lately.
and then their excuse was "Bush lied to us" and Democrats ate it up because it suited their narrative of Their Side being the honest and just one?
and yet it's the same kind of people (hello Feinstein) who have the same unquestioning attitudes now.
so maybe instead of saying "what happened to the Democrats," it's time to say "wait, nothing happened to them, they're the same people they were all along."
-
humanitarian aid without projecting power (like we have done in Syria) is in many respects a recipe for throwing money at a situation only to gain zero credit for it. should we blow ? up to get a little credit? maybe not, but it is what it is.kingblaze84 wrote: »I didn't say America has to completely sit this one out, I'm all for sending humanitarian aid.
see, i still take issue with this because it completely ignores the fact that Iraqis are, in fact, independent actors, many of whom choose to have sectarian beefs and feud for personal gain. Maliki's probably an overused example, but Americans did not force him to be a selfish, short-sighted ? .kingblaze84 wrote: »But taking sides in an Iraqi civil war that was largely started because of America being nosy and greedy for petrodollar status is not the wise thing to do.
there is a large element of free-riding from countries like Saudi Arabia, but i'm not sure everyone involved has the military power that you believe they do. some of this comes back to, as i have said before, a military that never gets used not really being an impressive or effective thing, despite how much you spend on it. i would submit that Jordan's contributions are more subtle but not "minor."kingblaze84 wrote: »I know Jordan and Turkey have done minor things to contain ISIS but they so far aren't sending in massive amounts of troops to take on ISIS, so I see no reason for America to be so threatened by them. Turkey has a big military and is part of NATO, so what the ? . Jordan and Saudi Arabia have tons of military weapons and armor from America, what are they using it for, playing GI Joes?
remember how the Democrats all voted for the Iraq War?kingblaze84 wrote: »Amazingly, you are correct in that there are more REPUBLICANS then Democrats now (publicly at least) who are anti-US military action. What the hell happened to the Democrat party? I have a hard time recognizing the difference btw the two when it comes to foreign policy lately.
and then their excuse was "Bush lied to us" and Democrats ate it up because it suited their narrative of Their Side being the honest and just one?
and yet it's the same kind of people (hello Feinstein) who have the same unquestioning attitudes now.
so maybe instead of saying "what happened to the Democrats," it's time to say "wait, nothing happened to them, they're the same people they were all along."
I agree America isn't completely responsible for Iraq's problems, Maliki was a ? off and he committed war and political crimes against his own people, especially the Sunnis. He badly mistreated him, and it's one reason why ISIS got so big. Legit grievances turned to an all out war against anything affiliated with the corrupt Iraqi govt, a war that in the end, only the region can help settle down.
Perhaps the Middle East doesn't have the military we hope for, but it's no reason for America to babysit them. Iran has a very capable military and if Turkey is pushed to the limit, their military will surprise many people. They're a member of NATO and as we all remember, the Turks had a very powerful Ottoman Empire for a long time. I'm sure a lot of that military prowess they had in the past didn't COMPLETELY go away. While Saudi Arabia and Jordan probably don't have the most capable forces, they still have BILLIONS of dollars worth of air planes and equipment. With ALLLL that oil money, I'm sure they could do more to take on ISIS. I am NOT willing to fight battles for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They have filthy rich oil money and tons of American equipment, ? their laziness. If ISIS overreaches, I'm confident the regional players will then step up. It's not like America is seen as the good guy in the region anyway.
Fully agreed on the Democrats, it's why I consider myself an independent. -
@kingblaze84
How we deal with the mid-east and how we deal with china are night and day reactions, china may be evil but it's a logical and organized state. and we already have troops in japan and south korea just incase. Russia has historically held influence in eastern europe especially in ukraine i am more than willing to respect their power in that region to a point. and anyway these are real nations with nuclear weapons so how we treat them should reflect that reality unlike isis
the nigerian army needs to link with america and destroy boko haram by any means. i am running on pure logic when it come to the mid-east you down play how dangerous so called islamic extremism is. it's one of the ultimate long term threats to human civilization and must be destroyed.
all the nations you mentioned are not really doing a ? thing they are pinching isis, but isis needs a ? bullet to the head.
you like some other so called mid -east experts don't present any solutions to the problems all you want to do is hide and hope that some one else fixes the problems that in some cases we caused but that's called being irresponsible like it or not iraq is a problem we have to fix
I'm not downplaying Islamic extremism, I've said several times it is a danger to the world. But most Muslims aren't terrorists and most just want to live a normal life, so there's no need to wage neverending wars against them. Like Alkindus said in another thread, many of them are already fighting the battles for us. You hate Iran and Assad, but what's the alternative, sending in American troops who are hated in that region to be tortured and beheaded? America makes things worse in the region, why can't you ? see that. I don't want to see Americans fight civil wars for other countries.
ISIS is being pinched and maybe isn't being hurt too much by the regional forces, but at least ISIS isn't an imminent threat to America. Not my words, those are the words of Obama and the military. If ISIS isn't an imminent threat, then no need to fix the problem. I am very confident the region will take care of ISIS down the line and IF THEY DON'T, ISIS needs to be dealt with the way we deal with let's say, North Korea. North Korea is always threatening to send nuclear bombs to America, but you don't see America rushing in to take out NK leadership. ISIS is a rogue nation at this point, and America getting involved will only make them bigger legends in the region. America and the west have an evil history in that region, so western nations getting involved will only build more recruitment for ISIS. ISIS recruitment has INCREASED since America began bombing them. Let Iran and Assad fight ISIS and let the Sunnis whine like little ? about it. I don't see the Sunni nations doing ? , so if Iran and Assad fighting ISIS causes sectarian beef, ? IT. The Sunnis and Shiites have been killing and ? each other for 1400 years anyway, nothing will change no matter what we do. We might as well stay out of it. -
http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:thedailyshow.com:6489d794-ca27-44d3-8616-828216f4b2f9
Jon Stewart making fun of people who are whining and scared shitless of ISIS, when American govt officals are admitting ISIS is NOT an imminent threat to America -
and honestly, sometimes you might need an outside broker to get past stuff like that. whether or not the US is the best choice for that is, i guess, the debate.kingblaze84 wrote: »I agree America isn't completely responsible for Iraq's problems, Maliki was a ? off and he committed war and political crimes against his own people, especially the Sunnis.
debatable due to my "when was the last time it did ? " thesis, which i suppose doesn't prove it's NOT capable.kingblaze84 wrote: »Iran has a very capable military-
going to be honest: "the Ottoman Empire was once powerful" is the worst argument for Turkey's competence i have heard in a long time. we could also point out that for a long time, the Ottoman Empire ran all these drama-filled Middle Eastern nations, so they should be able to control them now...kingblaze84 wrote: »-and if Turkey is pushed to the limit, their military will surprise many people. They're a member of NATO and as we all remember, the Turks had a very powerful Ottoman Empire for a long time. I'm sure a lot of that military prowess they had in the past didn't COMPLETELY go away.
anyway, i DO remain seriously disappointed in the Turks.
but this still comes back to whether or not they can actually DO ? with all that oil money. not going to argue the merits of whether or not they should do more (or all) of the real work, but i would submit that if some groups mistrust Iran because of the Shiite thing, others might distrust SA... anyway, though, maybe an interesting stance is less "they should handle this" and more "they should use this as an opportunity to see what they can handle." flights alongside the US, for example, would be a good start.kingblaze84 wrote: »While Saudi Arabia and Jordan probably don't have the most capable forces, they still have BILLIONS of dollars worth of air planes and equipment. With ALLLL that oil money, I'm sure they could do more to take on ISIS.
well, anyway, single-issue voter here, ? those guyskingblaze84 wrote: »Fully agreed on the Democrats, it's why I consider myself an independent.
