ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels that Obama wanted to support.
Options
Comments
-
@FuriousOne
Yes we're at war with ISIS. And yes the cat is out the bag we can all admit that and of course that cat brings more enemies and money spent all over the Middle East and the MIC/war profiteers, while America continues to crumble at home. I heard about Khorasan on CNN last week and predictably, it's one of a growing number of enemies created by America's horrible and evil foreign policy in the Middle East. I have no problem striking against imminent threats but America's butting in a civil war means we're never going to leave the Middle East now. America creates much of the problems it claims it wants to solve, ask yourself why most people around the world agree with me. I don't see NATO getting involved in this giant mess, hmm I wonder why. Where's Turkey? Where's China? China is a lot closer to Iraq then we are, OH YEAH I FORGOT, they don't like butting in civil wars in the Middle East. How wise of them, how stupid for America.
You say Obama won't make the same mistakes as Bush but he already has by being a busy body. If you REALLY wanna take on and destroy ISIS in this new war, America MUST send more ground troops into Iraq AND Syria. Air strikes can't do it alone and nations are (wisely) reluctant to send in ground troops on their own because they know getting involved in a civil war in that region will bring backlash. You say the Taliban doesn't ? with ISIS but how wrong you are. Taliban members are already saying they admire ISIS for being brave against America and some are openly declaring they want to be part of them. All who rise shall fall, but when so many people start rising, it's inevitable someone will slip through the cracks. If you really support this good for you. But remember all the people warning on the ever increasing enemies this policy will bring.
http://time.com/3260322/taliban-afghanistan-isis-islamic-state-hezb-e-islami/
An Afghanistan-based militant group with links to the Taliban is considering aligning itself with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the BBC reports. -
goldjordan 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.
WORLD WAR THREE FOR PEACE
I lol'd -
in and of itself, i don't see a problem with this argument: some agree, some disagree, but there's logic behind it. but i don't think it's based on, you know, how close to the Middle East the US is located, is all.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well as I said before, I don't want America getting involved. It will build more recruitment for ISIS and Khorosan (new Al-Qaeda affiliated group), making a generational, long war more likely and expensive.
remember, though, that Vietnam was not just the US versus guerrillas.kingblaze84 wrote: »Okay, you will see for yourself how horrible this all ends up. ISIS if anything will be more dangerous when they start fighting guerilla warfare, remember Vietnam and the 50K dead Americans. -
the weird thing about this phrasing (not just from you) is... aren't the guys flying the planes "troops?"FuriousOne wrote: »This isn't a War. They are bombing from the air. Nobody said anything about committing troops. Even so, I'm sure Obama will deal with this situation effectively like he has dealt with other threats in the past without troops.
considering that Obama is using an even weaker version of Bush's argument to support his military action --something he, before being president, specifically ripped-- Obama is LITERALLY doing "Bush ? ."FuriousOne wrote: »Like i said, Obama be making classic maneuvers but you keep expecting him to do Bush ? .
"In May 2013, Mr. Obama argued in a speech that the 2001 law ... to wage war against al-Qaida had become obsolete and ought to be repealed. 'Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states,' Mr. Obama said."
-
the weird thing about this phrasing (not just from you) is... aren't the guys flying the planes "troops?"FuriousOne wrote: »This isn't a War. They are bombing from the air. Nobody said anything about committing troops. Even so, I'm sure Obama will deal with this situation effectively like he has dealt with other threats in the past without troops.
considering that Obama is using an even weaker version of Bush's argument to support his military action --something he, before being president, specifically ripped-- Obama is LITERALLY doing "Bush ? ."FuriousOne wrote: »Like i said, Obama be making classic maneuvers but you keep expecting him to do Bush ? .
"In May 2013, Mr. Obama argued in a speech that the 2001 law ... to wage war against al-Qaida had become obsolete and ought to be repealed. 'Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states,' Mr. Obama said."
Excellent post. Obama is using Bush doctrine to justify his to me, illegal war in Syria. -
why do people insist on believing that Bush and Obama (regardless of any personal beliefs he might have) are particularly different, especially when it comes to their foreign policies?
anyway, as for the isis business? it's not our beef. if anything, it's israel's beef, and israel can destroy isis 200x over and should (and without our help). -
the weird thing about this phrasing (not just from you) is... aren't the guys flying the planes "troops?"FuriousOne wrote: »This isn't a War. They are bombing from the air. Nobody said anything about committing troops. Even so, I'm sure Obama will deal with this situation effectively like he has dealt with other threats in the past without troops.
considering that Obama is using an even weaker version of Bush's argument to support his military action --something he, before being president, specifically ripped-- Obama is LITERALLY doing "Bush ? ."FuriousOne wrote: »Like i said, Obama be making classic maneuvers but you keep expecting him to do Bush ? .
"In May 2013, Mr. Obama argued in a speech that the 2001 law ... to wage war against al-Qaida had become obsolete and ought to be repealed. 'Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states,' Mr. Obama said."
First off, i'm thinking we are talking about troops on the ground. I'm not talking some small task force, i'm talking large amounts of troops. Still, i will give you the credit that there are troops engaged.
Secondly. Whatever he said in 2001 has nothing to do with how he has actually handled engagements that he started. He's been very effective, which is what i'm pointing out. ISIS doesn't have anything that can take out those planes. I don't recall Bush going after Al Qaeda effectively which is why Bin Laden was dancing around. I also recall Bush creating a pretext of "Iraq has WMDs" in order to invade wholesale. ISIS hasn't been hiding their hand pretending that they are a threat.
They quit overt unlike the so called threat that was Saddam. I don't see Obama making that same decision. Afghanistan is a different story which I've always stated. Even still, Bush didn't handle the intelligence properly to prevent 911 in the first place. It's easy to talk rhetoric when you don't see the situation first hand. This would give Bush a pass but he handled everything wrong and went after the wrong targets in the first place. -
why do people insist on believing that Bush and Obama (regardless of any personal beliefs he might have) are particularly different, especially when it comes to their foreign policies?
anyway, as for the isis business? it's not our beef. if anything, it's israel's beef, and israel can destroy isis 200x over and should (and without our help).
I don't remember them chopping the heads off of Israeli citizens or massacring them because they don't practice their version of their religion. This actually has nothing to do with Israel currently. I'm sure Israel like most countries in the region is on ISIS list. -
FuriousOne wrote: »why do people insist on believing that Bush and Obama (regardless of any personal beliefs he might have) are particularly different, especially when it comes to their foreign policies?
anyway, as for the isis business? it's not our beef. if anything, it's israel's beef, and israel can destroy isis 200x over and should (and without our help).
I don't remember them chopping the heads off of Israeli citizens or massacring them because they don't practice their version of their religion. This actually has nothing to do with Israel currently. I'm sure Israel like most countries in the region is on ISIS list.
ISIS didn't chop off the heads of those Americans until America became busy bodies and interfered with a civil war. I hate terrorism, but America is currently the BIGGEST terror state in the world. I say this as someone who was born and raised in America. I thought things would change under Obama, but he's only a lessor form of warmonger compared to Bush.
Israel could take on ISIS, they are right next to them. Same with Turkey. Yet ironically, those nations (wisely)don't feel the need to become busy bodies in Iraq and interfere with a civil war. Only American politicians feel the need to become busy bodies all the time. The world will laugh as America sinks itself into another mess that it won't win, word to Afghanistan, rising anti-Americanism all over the PLANET, and the last time we went into Iraq. ISIS according to the USA now has members from 80 NATIONS....I told you America getting involved would lead to growing popularity for ISIS.
-
shout out to reason.comkingblaze84 wrote: »Excellent post. Obama is using Bush doctrine to justify his to me, illegal war in Syria.
i think you're right, but i would make a few points:FuriousOne wrote: »First off, i'm thinking we are talking about troops on the ground. I'm not talking some small task force, i'm talking large amounts of troops. Still, i will give you the credit that there are troops engaged.
01. this is me being pedantic about the phrase "troops" simply because it's not like the administration can be distinct about what they mean;
02. i think we all know that limited numbers of personnel can blow up, depending on events, and we've seen the steady increase(s) so far;
03. people giving Obama a pass on this would largely not have done the same for Bush (we'd have Vietnam comparisons out the ass at this point). now, the converse is absolutely true... but currently, Obama is the present. we have, in fairness, ripped Bush's imperial presidency for YEARS now.
the thing is, though, it absolutely does. he literally said at the time that what he's doing RIGHT NOW is wrong and shouldn't be done. now, if he made an argument as to why his position has changed? i'd be cool with that. instead, we get the decree of "this is what i am doing" with no legitimate explanation. what is it about the AUMF that was total ? under Bush, but now totally legitimate for Obama?FuriousOne wrote: »Secondly. Whatever he said in 2001 has nothing to do with how he has actually handled engagements that he started.
however, the actual comparison IS Afghanistan to ISIS, because Obama is relying on the "why we went into Afghanistan" to go after ISIS right now.FuriousOne wrote: »He's been very effective, which is what i'm pointing out. ISIS doesn't have anything that can take out those planes. I don't recall Bush going after Al Qaeda effectively which is why Bin Laden was dancing around. I also recall Bush creating a pretext of "Iraq has WMDs" in order to invade wholesale. ISIS hasn't been hiding their hand pretending that they are a threat. They quit overt unlike the so called threat that was Saddam. I don't see Obama making that same decision. Afghanistan is a different story which I've always stated.
ultimately, i would say this: IF ISIS is a legit threat (let's agree on that point) and/or IF there are totally legit reasons otherwise to go after ISIS (i'll grant this as well) and IF you're Obama touting bipartisan support on this issue (which he has done) ... then why the hell are we not taking this to Congress? hell, part of why you have all those Democrats ? about the pretext of Iraqi WMDs is that Bush GOT THEM TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE WAR.
many points on the poor handling of Iraq (and by extension, Afghanistan) i will concede, although i would, for example, blame Rumsfeld more and Bush less. sometimes you delegate. but again, i do concede many points you raise regarding the execution.
honestly, i'm not even arguing that Obama's making the wrong decision to go after ISIS, but i am saying that i'd like the constitutional law scholar to occasionally give a ? about the ? things he complained about in order to become president. -
the thing is, though, if they do that to recruit, then they might still chop off hostage heads regardless of what the US does.kingblaze84 wrote: »ISIS didn't chop off the heads of those Americans until America became busy bodies and interfered with a civil war.
you should remember there are some reasons why Israel doesn't get involved in these coalitions...kingblaze84 wrote: »Israel could take on ISIS, they are right next to them. Same with Turkey. Yet ironically, those nations (wisely)don't feel the need to become busy bodies in Iraq and interfere with a civil war.
-
the thing is, though, if they do that to recruit, then they might still chop off hostage heads regardless of what the US does.kingblaze84 wrote: »ISIS didn't chop off the heads of those Americans until America became busy bodies and interfered with a civil war.
you should remember there are some reasons why Israel doesn't get involved in these coalitions...kingblaze84 wrote: »Israel could take on ISIS, they are right next to them. Same with Turkey. Yet ironically, those nations (wisely)don't feel the need to become busy bodies in Iraq and interfere with a civil war.
HMM, why shouldn't Israel join this coalition? Isn't Israel supposed to be our so-called greatest ally in the region? What the ? are they good for then....? Aside from being an albatross around America lol.
As far as ISIS chopping off American heads just to help recruit terrorists, that's not totally true. Remember, they didn't do anything to those hostages UNTIL America began bombing ISIS and interfering with their civil war. The president of Iran, one of the few brave nations to actually have boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, said today himself that America is the reason for the rise of ISIS and other extremist groups. He also correctly said American/western foreign policy and aiding the terrorists I MEAN Moderate rebels is pouring gasoline on the fire. He's saying the same thing many Europeans and people in general worldwide are saying.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388833/rouhani-blames-west-rise-islamic-state-demands-apology-andrew-johnson?
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, whom the Obama administration has considered enlisting in the fight against the Islamic State, blamed the growing threat of the jihadist group on the West’s involvement in the Middle East.
During his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, Rouhani said, “Today’s anti-Westernism is the offspring of yesterday’s colonialism; today’s anti-Westernism is a reaction to yesterday’s racism,” according to a live translation. “Certain intelligence agencies have put blades in the hands of madmen who now spare no one.”
“All those who have played a role in founding and supporting these terrorist groups must acknowledge their errors, which have led to extremism,” he continued. “They need to apologize not only to the past generations, but also to the next generation.” -
I think "rising Anti Americanism" is over blown.
These oil rich middle eastern nations stay asking Team America for help "on the low" when super high Octane radical muslims get killer happy, or when Iranian nuke programs progress "a little to far" for comfort. Remember those wiki leaks?
These dictators (from non oil rich countries) are just as much in cahoots with the created fervor against the U.S too. They profit off of instability. They get foreign aid, they get an unstable country full of internal strife, and an absolute hold on power over their citizens.
With that said. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a big starter of all of this. -
you might want to take a deep breath and remember it's for the same reason, for example, that they didn't get involved in the 1991 war with Iraq.kingblaze84 wrote: »HMM, why shouldn't Israel join this coalition? Isn't Israel supposed to be our so-called greatest ally in the region? What the ? are they good for then....?kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as ISIS chopping off American heads just to help recruit terrorists, that's not totally true. Remember, they didn't do anything to those hostages UNTIL America began bombing ISIS and interfering with their civil war.
it's also a LITTLE hypocritical for Iranians to talk about this kind of stuff, considering it's pretty easy to immediately point the finger at them for aiding terrorists, promoting the rise of extremist groups, etc, etc.kingblaze84 wrote: »The president of Iran, one of the few brave nations to actually have boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, said today himself that America is the reason for the rise of ISIS and other extremist groups. He also correctly said American/western foreign policy and aiding the terrorists I MEAN Moderate rebels is pouring gasoline on the fire.
also, "one of the few brave nations?" can't really use this phrase while demanding the US not use boots on the ground. unless, of course, the issue isn't BRAVERY (also, as always, overrating Iranian military prowess may be going on).
hmmm...kingblaze84 wrote: »“All those who have played a role in founding and supporting these terrorist groups must acknowledge their errors, which have led to extremism,” he continued. “They need to apologize not only to the past generations, but also to the next generation.”
so did Rouhani apologize before lecturing others to do so?As the Taliban rampaged through Afghanistan, Iran had several friends inside, notable among them Ahmad Shah Mahsoud and Bourhan Aldin Rabbani. Each commanded a brigade-size force.
Soleymani failed to significantly empower friendly forces or weaken the Taliban, but he was able to connect with Al Qaeda and influence the Taliban through Osama Bin Laden himself.
One of Bin Laden’s early wives and several of his children resided in Iran for several years, and Iran had been known to provide support for Al Qaeda branches in Africa and to provide safe passage for jihadists from traveling from Afghanistan to Iraq.
Lately Islamic State spokesman Abu Adnan has also accused Al Qaeda of protecting Iranians. In a video released on May 12, 2014, Abu Adnan said top Al Qaeda leaders had ordered Islamic State not to attack Iran, as that could put Al Qaeda supply lines in jeopardy.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
ISIS didn't chop off the heads of those Americans until America became busy bodies and interfered with a civil war. I hate terrorism, but America is currently the BIGGEST terror state in the world. I say this as someone who was born and raised in America. I thought things would change under Obama, but he's only a lessor form of warmonger compared to Bush.
I think we should put a few things into perspective.
This all started with the toppling of Saddam and his Sunni led party which brought rise to the Maliki shiite led government pushing the minority Sunni muslims further into Syria. Correct me if Im wrong.
ISIS grows slowly with black market oil production and instability in Syria. They build comradery with locals in western Iraq who HATE the Maliki government and eventually topple the WEAK dejected Iraqi army paid for BY OUR TAX DOLLARS fairly easy giving them even more power with newer updated weaponry... This is pulling America in because we don't want all that we have invested over the past years to go down the tubes.
Secondly, ISIS, In their attempts to seize more land in IRAQ and terrorizing the Yazidi's on the hill..... The US gets pulled in even further cause everyone is like ... "U.S Do something!!"
Not only that but the Kurds needed help also. We like the Kurds. The Kurds, I'm hearing, don't consider themselves Arabic or persian or whatever. Anyways we like the Kurds so we decided to help them reclaim some of that territory they embarrassingly lost to ISIS (they're a proud bunch).
As much as we are apart of the problem (Bush H.W & W). We get pulled into this sh*t also (Obama).
-
I'm officially calling this thread ? . The Syrian rebels are down to fight ISIS. There is no cease fire agreement.
I knew there was a reason this story wasn't making headlines. -
soul rattler wrote: »I'm officially calling this thread ? . The Syrian rebels are down to fight ISIS. There is no cease fire agreement.
I knew there was a reason this story wasn't making headlines.
I just realized i forgot the link to the original article. Things do change quick in the heat of battle. Look how many ceasefires Israel and Gaza had.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/isis-deal-syria_n_5814128.html
Truthfully, when you look the article only indicates that it was a few groups, not all of the Rebels. I'm sure the US Intelligence, Minus McCane, has a tap on who's really down. -
FuriousOne wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »I'm officially calling this thread ? . The Syrian rebels are down to fight ISIS. There is no cease fire agreement.
I knew there was a reason this story wasn't making headlines.
I just realized i forgot the link to the original article. Things do change quick in the heat of battle. Look how many ceasefires Israel and Gaza had.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/isis-deal-syria_n_5814128.html
Truthfully, when you look the article only indicates that it was a few groups, not all of the Rebels. I'm sure the US Intelligence, Minus McCane, has a tap on who's really down.
Gotcha. And since the rebels have more in common with one another than they do ISIS, a cease fire probably wouldn't last if a majority of rebels agreed to keep fighting. -
Russia Tells Iraq It's 'Ready' to Support Fight Against ISIS
nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/russia-tells-iraq-its-ready-support-fight-against-isis-n212136Russia said Friday that it would help to support Iraq in the fight against ISIS. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the pledge to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said via state-run news agency Itar-Tass. "During the meeting, Lavrov confirmed Russia’s support for Iraq’s independence, territory integrity and sovereignty," the foreign ministry said. "Moscow is ready to continue supporting Iraq in its efforts in fighting the terrorist threat, and, first of all, the one from the Islamic State."
The U.S. has been trying to build a broad coalition to tackle ISIS. Russia's foreign ministry did not mention this Washington-led group Friday, saying only that Russia would protect Iraq’s interests. At least one foreign ministry official has previously said Russia would not join. While Lavrov made the pledge to Iraq, Moscow has been far more cautious over its ally Syria, which has also been partially overrun by ISIS. President Vladimir Putin told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday that any airstrikes in the country should be carried out with Syria's consent. -
UK Parliament votes to authorize airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq
cnn.com/2014/09/26/world/europe/uk-parliament-iraq-isis/British lawmakers meeting in emergency session approved a motion Friday to participate in airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq.
The 524-43 vote came after Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament that the country had a "duty to take part" in international efforts to combat the extremist group.
The terror group is an organization of "staggering" brutality, he said, which has already killed one British hostage and threatens the lives of two more.
"This is not a threat on the far side of the world," he said, but one which menaces European nations directly.
Several Western terror suspects detained Why is the UK not involved in airstrikes? U.K. Amb. speaks on ISIS and Scotland Blair on British ISIS jihadists Blair: A need to hit ISIS on the ground
In addition to an ISIS-inspired attack on a Jewish museum in Brussels earlier in the year, Europe's security agencies have disrupted six other ISIS-linked plots, he said. -
please tell me i'm not the only person who started shaking my head at THIS quoteFuriousOne wrote: »"During the meeting, Lavrov confirmed Russia’s support for Iraq’s independence, territory integrity and sovereignty," the foreign ministry said.
-
please tell me i'm not the only person who started shaking my head at THIS quoteFuriousOne wrote: »"During the meeting, Lavrov confirmed Russia’s support for Iraq’s independence, territory integrity and sovereignty," the foreign ministry said.
This ? is hilarious. Russia must be playing checkers rather then chess. -
Experts agree American busy bodies will eventually send in American troops to take on ISIS, as air strikes against ISIS are basically a waste of time if one wants to "destroy" ISIS....experts also agree a political, NOT a military solution, will solve this conflict
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-against-isis-its-started-but-do-we-know-what-were-doing-9760131.html
Chief among the concerns is the strategy itself. Writing exclusively in The Independent on Sunday today, former SAS commanding officer Richard Williams said: "Friday's debate lacked any meaningful reference to the political solution that must be considered in Iraq if these bombs are to mean anything. Bombing that is not geared to an Iraqi political purpose will only create propaganda opportunities for Isis, as they seek to legitimise their hold over Western Iraq."
"That process will only work [this time] if the end result is a political settlement, that that community feels happy with, satisfied with, ie they have skin in the political game, they've got some say in governing themselves and that didn't happen because Maliki chose a different path. The other lesson we need to learn is that we can't do nation-building, it has to be up to the local community to decide who they want to govern themselves."
Dr Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, agreed that a US-UK invasion is "inevitable as local ground forces are pretty useless". He added that air strikes would force Isis to "blend into the civilian population", which would result in the death of more innocent people when targets are attacked.
"We might win some short-term battles but we will create more grievances that will empower the Isis cause in the long run," said Dr Ahmed.
-
A great article on how America's foolish action in Syria is ALREADY UNITING America's enemies in the region and worldwide against America and put a bull's eye on American citizens' backs, thereby INCREASING the terror threats against Americans
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/did-obama-just-unify-americas-enemies-111347_Page2.html#.VChsaZUtDIU
Did Obama Just Unify America’s Enemies?
Why bombing Syria could turn out to be a disastrous mistake.
By CLINT WATTS
September 26, 2014
Whatever the scenario, in taking the lead against ISIL, the United States has painted a bull’s-eye on its citizens. A more indirect U.S. strategy to counter ISIL with proxies and supporting allies could have deflected the group’s most passionate members from hitting the U.S. homeland. But now, the United States has moved itself up in ISIL’s targeting priorities, from one of many to the very top of the list. Abu Muhammed al-Adnani, ISIL’s official spokesman, said in an official statement released this week, “O Americans, and O Europeans, the Islamic State did not initiate a war against you, as your governments and media try to make you believe. It is you who started the transgression against us, and thus you deserve blame and you will pay a great price.”
There’s also the danger that the United States is uniting, rather than dividing, its terrorist adversaries. ISIL’s rejection of Al Qaeda’s senior leadership weakened the latter group’s grasp on foreign fighter flows and donor cash. By striking both ISIL and Al Qaeda’s official arm in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, the United States may be encouraging ISIL and Al Qaeda to return to coordinating rather than competing against each other. There are already hints of this happening elsewhere. Last week, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, two Al Qaeda affiliates losing manpower and momentum to the hot new kid on the block — ISIL — called for unity among jihadi groups in the fight against America. If Nusra and ISIL, rather than eroding each other’s support and competing for resources, join forces to combine ISIL’s resources and skill at insurgency in Iraq and Syria with Al Qaeda’s international terrorism knowhow, the danger to the United States and its interest around the world could multiply rapidly. In other words, the United States could win some tactical victories by hitting both groups hard in Syria, but might be committing a massive strategic blunder by uniting a jihadi landscape it desperately sought to fracture over the past decade.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/did-obama-just-unify-americas-enemies-111347_Page2.html#ixzz3EdyUZv8k
--To the Americans who support America being busy bodies around the world, remember this article, and all those who warned that NOT MINDING OUR OWN ? BUSINESS in that region continues to make the terror threats worse. Remember we are the same people who warned Americans in 2003 that the war in Iraq would turn into a disaster. -
@kingblaze84 Those articles you posted are coulda woulda. Speak to me when you have evidence support an actuality. We are minding our business. It is our business to ? up any terrorist that threatens these Unite States.
