B-Man Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 Meanwhile.................................back in the Islamic Terrorism thread.................... Secularist writer Avijit Roy hacked to death in front of wife. http://ow.ly/JGSCY Avijit Roy, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was a fierce warrior against radical Islamists: Number of Christians Kidnapped by ISIS Soars; CBS and NBC Yawn NewsBusters, by Curtis Houck Original Article It’s the ideology, stupid New York Post, by Editorial Original Article ISIS Onslaught Engulfs Assyrian Christians as Militants Destroy Ancient Art New York Times, by Anne Barnard Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Appears we're doing a whole lot of fiddling while the Middle East burns; and, as with actual fire, winds can cause fire to spread rapidly. Real fire can't jump an ocean, but virtual fire may just do it then express itself as actual fire in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Appears we're doing a whole lot of fiddling while the Middle East burns; and, as with actual fire, winds can cause fire to spread rapidly. Real fire can't jump an ocean, but virtual fire may just do it then express itself as actual fire in the near future. This link here is to one of the best articles I've read from Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard. It's lengthy, but absolutely encapsulates Obama, his foreign policy foibles, and essentially why his 'trust me on Iran' approach is the last thing we should do. Really worth the read. A small bit... So when Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood it wasn’t a terrorist attack but “workplace violence.” And when Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight over Detroit, he was an “isolated extremist.” And when Faisal Shahzad attempted to detonate an SUV in Times Square five months later, it was a “one-off” attack. And when jihadists attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, it was a simple protest gone awry. The problem in each of these instances wasn’t just that the descriptions were incorrect. It’s that the administration knew they were wrong and made the false claims anyway. Numerous eyewitnesses reported that Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he shot. According to court documents in the case of the Christmas Day bomber, Abdulmutallab confessed that he’d been trained and dispatched by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula a full three days before Obama publicly labeled him an isolated extremist. The administration was aware that the Pakistani Taliban had claimed responsibility for Shahzad even before he attempted his bombing. And top intelligence officials on the ground in Libya repeatedly reported that al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists participated in the attacks and that there was no demonstration. In the year before the 2012 presidential election, the Obama administration and campaign officials routinely claimed that al Qaeda was “on the run” or “on the path to defeat” or “decimated.” But top analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency were regularly providing Obama detailed assessments showing that the opposite was true. “When asked if the terrorists were on the run, we couldn’t respond with any answer but ‘no,’ ’’ said Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, former director of the DIA, after he was forced out of his job a year early. “When asked if the terrorists were defeated, we had to say ‘no.’ Anyone who answers ‘yes’ to either of those questions either doesn’t know what they are talking about, they are misinformed, or they are flat-out lying.” Or all three. There’s little question that the administration misrepresented what it knew about our jihadist enemies. It’s equally clear that the administration chose to set aside information that contradicted its campaign narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Very interesting article. Hard to refute the points the author makes given the citations, etc. At every turn POTUS reinforces for me the fact that he's out of touch with main stream America and doesn't (A) realize it; (B) give a damn; C) understand the office of the President; (D) All of the above. I favor choices B and C. He exhibits all the acumen of a nine year old on a school playground when it comes to foreign affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Very interesting article. Hard to refute the points the author makes given the citations, etc. At every turn POTUS reinforces for me the fact that he's out of touch with main stream America and doesn't (A) realize it; (B) give a damn; C) understand the office of the President; (D) All of the above. I favor choices B and C. He exhibits all the acumen of a nine year old on a school playground when it comes to foreign affairs. If you look at his actions after many of these things happen, you see a pattern of him jumping on a plane to collect money or play golf. Part of me feels he equates terrorists to a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum to get their way. He likely figures that if he goes along as though nothing has happened, the terrorists will stop throwing a tantrum since they're not getting any attention from him. The problem is, he's not just a parent. He's the leader of what used to be the most powerful nation on earth, and EVERYONE watches him. Ultimately they all see him and walk away believing that he simply doesn't really care so long as it doesn't interfere with what HE wants to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) It’s the ideology, stupidNew York Post, by Editorial Original Article nice, racist, one-sided commentary piece you posted there. how come you never post religious radicalism other than islam? like this recent little ditty from just 2 days ago.... Suspected Israeli nationalists torch Christian seminary in Jerusalem Suspected Israeli nationalists set fire to a Christian seminary in Jerusalem and vandalized an elementary school in Nablus on Thursday, officials said. The attacks, which came a day after a similar group burned a mosque near Bethlehem, have been characterized as hate crimes by Israeli officials and "terrorism" by Palestinians. According to local media reports, the assailants poured flammable liquid into a bathroom window of the Greek Orthodox seminary and ignited it. Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said "anti-Christian" slogans were scribbled in Hebrew on the seminary's walls — including “Jesus is a son of a whore” and “the redemption of Zion.” http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/26/suspected-israeli-nationalists-torch-christian-seminary-in-jerusalem.html Here's the bottom line: take any ethnic or religious group of any material size and you will find some really good and really bad apples who identify with them. Until you clean up your own house(s), you're in no position to throw stones at any others. The only path is good apples within any of these groups -- i.e. the clear majority in all of them -- to band together and form their own collective, like for example ... Israel and the Palestinian territories are small places where there's endless fighting. Almost everyone has been touched by the bloodshed at some point and it often leads to bitterness, calls for revenge ... and more fighting. Yet there are groups trying to break this cycle, like The Parents Circle, which is made up of Israeli and Palestinian parents who have lost kids to the violence yet have joined together in support of peace and reconciliation. http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/09/13/346854919/israeli-palestinian-parents-share-their-painful-stories-of-loss People like this are heroes, the ones who keep trying to stir up trouble who author the stuff you post are garbage Edited February 28, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 nice, racist, one-sided commentary piece you posted there. Jealous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) nice, racist, one-sided commentary piece you posted there. how come you never post religious radicalism other than islam? like this recent little ditty from just 2 days ago.... I grow weary of constantly correcting blow-hards like you. It was an editorial. The only racist part was in your mind....................such as it is. I would also note your lack of comment on the other three news report articles. . Edited February 28, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I'm certain it's this thread that was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. No wonder DC Tom took a sabbatical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Let's hope our government wakes up to the real world before something like the following is needed here. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/27/onward-christian-soldiers-us-filmmaker-self-styled-revolutionary-trains/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I'm certain it's this thread that was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. No wonder DC Tom took a sabbatical. It's not nice to imply that Tom is a camel in fact I'm pretty sure he hasn't had a hump in decades, but if you miss him........ Let's hope our government wakes up to the real world before something like the following is needed here. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/27/onward-christian-soldiers-us-filmmaker-self-styled-revolutionary-trains/ You're a !@#$ing Idiot ............ his spirit lives on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 JUSTICE: Jury sentences Hasan to death for ’09 Fort Hood massacre. “Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist convicted in the November 2009 shooting rampage that left 13 dead and 31 wounded, was sentenced to death Wednesday by a military jury. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, saying Hasan’s murderous rampage at the sprawling military base here left tragic and devastating loss for victims and loved ones.” Justice, but justice delayed. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 JUSTICE: Jury sentences Hasan to death for ’09 Fort Hood massacre. “Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist convicted in the November 2009 shooting rampage that left 13 dead and 31 wounded, was sentenced to death Wednesday by a military jury. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, saying Hasan’s murderous rampage at the sprawling military base here left tragic and devastating loss for victims and loved ones.” Justice, but justice delayed. Gee, it seems like only last week when gatorman claimed there were no acts of terrorism on US soil since Obama was elected president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Gee, it seems like only last week when gatorman claimed there were no acts of terrorism on US soil since Obama was elected president. That's why they called it 'workplace violence'. Besides, everything that has happened since 2009 was the fault of the 'previous administration'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Veronica, OK thanks. Two more questions -- one is a two parter -- related to the items left quoted above: What percentage of truly elite people in any field publicly call themselves elite? Why is it that percentage? 2. wrt to the mask I get the overall principle. I'm just wondering why THAT mask. It is from a terrible movie based on premises that are horribly flawed and false, plus it was simply a crappy movie. Is Anon purposely making people think they are flawed and disorganized and dumb? Or do they really like crap movies? IMO a Scream mask or a Shrek mask or even a pumpkin head would be more intriguing. I think a giant eyeball like the Replacements wore would be good. I think Mr. Wawwwrrrowwwrrow can probably get you a discount. Apparently you haven't met very many heart surgeons.... There are a wide variety of professions where, it's bad business to NOT claim elite status, publicly, and often. Thus the % I would assign to heart surgeons is at least 80. Think for a second: you have a heart problem. Who do you want doing the work? The guy who is mamby pamby? No. You want the guy who is going to look you in the eye and say "there are maybe 15 guys in the country who can get this done, and I'm one of them". Same thing for a project manager, same thing for an engineer. Hell same thing for an architect. What you don't know is more than I care to write, but, it can be summed up in a single sentence: It's not bragging if you can do it. Some people get to laugh and say that, and other people...they never get to say it, and get their panties bunched when they hear it. Often, it's tactically advantageous to publicly state your elite status, especially in what I do, because it shakes up the room == it forces people to respond, or not, and in their response lies the truth of exactly who they are/how they are going to act on this project. That info is infinitely useful when you find yourself constantly working with people you don't know, have few ways to draw it out, and you need to know the answers now. Tactics are...just that. Thus, as I said: your silly implications aside, it can be a tactic, or, like you: a tool. Despite your lame attempt here? All you've accomplished is ask an elite person a question, that any other truly elite person would never ask, as they already know both the question and the answer. -------- That mask? Why not? The whole point of Anon is: Anon. The work is the state of mind is the work. You've just told me things you think are cool(er). Which means you've just given up info about yourself that I can use to profile you. Sure it's only a small thing, but, why would you give up anything, especially if you are planning some bad antics? There are probably 3 Anon buddies in some abandoned warehouse right now, laughing about co-opting that mask as a way to throw off the FBI profilers. There are probably FBI profilers right now trying to track sales of that mask and link them to attack origins, etc., which will once again lead them to the useful idiots. Thus, the mask, just like everything else Anon does, is a facade. A mask of a mask. And, why does any super hero wear a mask? To protect his identity first, then, to intimidate. The movie is stupid. But, the symbolism of Guy Fawkes is not. Most educated people know who he was. You see a guy with that mask on, your expectations are set. The only difference is: Fawkes was caught. Anon will never be, and will always exist in one form or another, as long as the internet exists. The mask is here today, gone tomorrow. Jimmy Carter must be feeling pretty good about himself right now. You know how many shows have "Winners/Losers" on Friday? I've been voting for Jimmy Carter as a winner on Special Report nearly every Friday for a solid year now. Maybe our difference is this: why bother looking for BO to lead. He has not yet. I look for the GOP for vision and they have come up small for years now. Immigration - no plan. Tax reform - nothing. Foreign policy - too scared. The GOP has congress in control and what have they done other than vote to overturn the ACA, and complain about BO. Talk about leading....the big problem I see is this lack of direction could very well mean 8 years of Hillary. What crap. Why bother? Because leading is in his F'ing job description? Why it is always everybody else's fault but Obama's? Still can't shake off the self-congratulations and personal win for electing the first black POTUS, huh? Boy you did a wonderful thing there. It's been great for you, and the rest of us. Good thing you decided to be so righteous. It was time for a black president, and man, you stepped right up and did it, didn't you? You and every other shitheel that voted for him deserve a trophy. How proud you must be...for electing an obvious incompetent! Obama has done more to ensure that another black D will NEVER be elected POTUS than the entire existence of the KKK. Or, depending on your perspective, worse, he has ensured that the most conservative candidate in 2016, another black man, does get elected. If he won't lead, he needs to resign. Today. You are absolutely high if you think Obama's refusal to do his job somehow == good for Hillary. Politics don't work that way, son. Hillary was the man's SoS. The entire world is a much more dangerous place as a result. Those 2 sentences are all the Rs need. And you somehow think that any of that is going to rub off on the GOP House? I'll ask again? Are you high? In a country where most of the D voters can't tell you the difference between the House and Senate, you think attacking some amorphous group they don't know is going to help Hillary? High. With a House that hasn't had this many Rs since almost 100 years ago? High. This analysis is sheer inanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Now that the administration has determined that a top Iranian general is leading the Iraqi troops in the assault on Mosul, maybe someone in the upper echelons of the executive branch will catch on to the fact that Iran has designs on extending their influence every bit as much as Putin in the Ukraine? Do any of POTUS peeps see the writing on the wall, and could they for a minute wonder about the viability, longevity, and honorability of any pact we make with Iran regarding nuclear arms? Does the fact that John Kerry is racing around the Middle East trying to shore up support for the "pact" w/ Iran cause anyone in take a breath and re-think the whole debacle? Given the consensus that Iran is the/a leading supporter of terrorist organizations, could someone with some gray matter call into question the "pact" being negotiated? I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Former US Marine: "We created the mess" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Appears we're doing a whole lot of fiddling while the Middle East burns; and, as with actual fire, winds can cause fire to spread rapidly. Real fire can't jump an ocean, but virtual fire may just do it then express itself as actual fire in the near future. Is there a progress update on the war/$ authorization legislation to fight ISIS that the white house has sent the GOP led congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Is there a progress update on the war/$ authorization legislation to fight ISIS that the white house has sent the GOP led congress? Why yes. Dems block Obama AUMF on ISIS? In yet another fiasco in legislative engagement, the White House-proposed authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) specific to ISIS has floundered in the Senate. Much like Barack Obama’s budget proposals, the AUMF not only can’t get Republican support, it has failed to get key Democratic support in the Senate as well. As a result, Politico’s Manu Raju and Burgess Everett report, the bill may not even get a vote in committee: Key Democrats are hardening their opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposal for attacking Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, raising fresh doubts the White House can win congressional approval of the plan as concerns grow over its handling of crises around the globe. In interviews this week, not a single Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed support for the president’s war plan as written; most demanded changes to limit the commander in chief’s authority and more explicitly prohibit sending troops into the conflict. … In an interview, Corker issued a stark warning: If Democrats refuse to lend any support to Obama’s request for the Authorization for Use of Military Force against ISIL, he may scrap a committee vote, making it less likely the full Senate or House would even put it on the floor, much less pass it. The comments put pressure on the White House to deliver Democratic votes or witness the collapse of a second war authorization plan in Congress in as many years. Translation: You wanted this, you work for it. President Obama doesn’t actually need a new AUMF to attack ISIS, not in Iraq, nor Syria, Libya, nor anywhere else. The White House and State Department have argued — accurately — that both the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and the 2002 AUMF authorizing military operations in Iraq allow the Obama administration to pursue ISIS. ISIS morphed from al-Qaeda in Iraq, led originally by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and explicitly affiliated with so-called “core AQ.” Since then ISIS and AQ have had fallings-out, but they still fall under both AUMFs, which is why the US has been conducting air strikes against ISIS positions in both Iraq and Syria. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/05/dems-block-obama-aumf-on-isis/ Edited March 6, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 So - there appears to be absolutely no support for a large military effort in the ME - whether it is the GOP, the DEM or the general public... Why yes. Dems block Obama AUMF on ISIS? In yet another fiasco in legislative engagement, the White House-proposed authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) specific to ISIS has floundered in the Senate. Much like Barack Obama’s budget proposals, the AUMF not only can’t get Republican support, it has failed to get key Democratic support in the Senate as well. As a result, Politico’s Manu Raju and Burgess Everett report, the bill may not even get a vote in committee: Translation: You wanted this, you work for it. President Obama doesn’t actually need a new AUMF to attack ISIS, not in Iraq, nor Syria, Libya, nor anywhere else. The White House and State Department have argued — accurately — that both the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and the 2002 AUMF authorizing military operations in Iraq allow the Obama administration to pursue ISIS. ISIS morphed from al-Qaeda in Iraq, led originally by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and explicitly affiliated with so-called “core AQ.” Since then ISIS and AQ have had fallings-out, but they still fall under both AUMFs, which is why the US has been conducting air strikes against ISIS positions in both Iraq and Syria. Key Democrats are hardening their opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposal for attacking Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, raising fresh doubts the White House can win congressional approval of the plan as concerns grow over its handling of crises around the globe. In interviews this week, not a single Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed support for the president’s war plan as written; most demanded changes to limit the commander in chief’s authority and more explicitly prohibit sending troops into the conflict. … In an interview, Corker issued a stark warning: If Democrats refuse to lend any support to Obama’s request for the Authorization for Use of Military Force against ISIL, he may scrap a committee vote, making it less likely the full Senate or House would even put it on the floor, much less pass it. The comments put pressure on the White House to deliver Democratic votes or witness the collapse of a second war authorization plan in Congress in as many years. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/05/dems-block-obama-aumf-on-isis/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts