ABC: Secret Service 'Aware' of Apparent ISIS Flag Photo in Front of the White House

[China]

Pope Francis endorses use of force against ISIS in Iraq

 

The Pope last night backed military action in Iraq to stop the bloody persecution of thousands of Christians by Islamist fanatics.

 

In a dramatic intervention, Pope Francis said military force could be justified against the murderous extremists of Islamic State in order to counter their ‘unjust aggression’.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[PeterMP]

Yeah, when it's convient... like for the last 2 decades. and twenty years before that....

We aren't on board for Kurdish indepednence, because that would bring us into conflict with important allies like Turkey.. But we certainly have created and maintained a security zone in northern Iraq for the Kurds since the very early 1990's. This has included air strikes, US military boots on the ground, and military aid. We've had numerous joint opperations between the US and the Peshmerga against Saddam's Iraq, Iranian forces, and now ISIS..

 

But that isn't supporting them.

 

Allowing them to sell their oil would be supporting them.

 

That's protecting US interest in the region.

 

We want to see Iran and Saddam's Iraq destablized.  "Support" the Kurds.

 

We created a "safe zone" for the Kurds because it was in our interest. It helped us keep a finger on what was going on in Iraq and helped destabilize the Saddam's Iraq.  It also slowed the flood of Kurdish refugees entering Turkey when Turkey didn't want any more Kurds coming into Turkey where Turkey is an actually ally of ours.

 

And we certainly haven't done much since the fall of Saddam to help them because we are worried that would use that help to create a Kurdish state.

 

The Kurds in Iraq have not been supported by the US in terms of training or equipment until very very recently out of fear that those weapons and training would be used in the creation of a Kurdish state.

 

We don't let them sell their oil because we fear it would destabilize the Iraqi central government and those funds would be used to create a Kurdish state.

 

In our list of objective of the ME, supporting the Kurds is like 200th.

 

And it happens when it is convenient and coincides with some other objective.

 

We use the Kurds.  Nothing more and nothing less.

What is worse than this?

This...

 

 

If they can govern all of that, more power to them.

These guys are doing this for the purpose of expanding territory and creating a global Caliphate centered in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, by cleansing the area of 'apostates', people of other religions. and people they don't get along with and reaching out across the world to increase their support, their wealth, and their fighting ability and strike out at those they view as their enemies (a list that is constantly changing).

 

The worse case scenario....  Who knows.  9-11?  Worse?   Much worse?  I don't get why people are going out of their way to downplay something that's generally agreed to be an issue by most foreign policy and jihad/terrorism experts.

 

I think it should be down played because I will submit to you that I think it is very likely the US alone has lost more lives "fighting" terrorism in the ME and spent more money doing so than ME/Islamic terrorists have caused in terms of lives lost and economic damage done on attacks IN ALL western democracies.

 

 

The price that we've paid ALONE is not equivalent to the costs across all western democracies.

[Predicto]

  I don't get why people are going out of their way to downplay something that's generally agreed to be an issue by most foreign policy and jihad/terrorism experts.

 

I'm downplaying the significance of a tweet of a picture of a cell phone with an ISIS logo displayed on it.  

 

I'm not downplaying the significance of ISIS in general.

[dfitzo53]

I'm downplaying the significance of a tweet of a picture of a cell phone with an ISIS logo displayed on it.  

 

I'm not downplaying the significance of ISIS in general.

This is exactly what I'm getting at.

Nobody in this thread has been able to explain why the tweet matters.

[visionary]

Sorry if I confused anyone. I've moved on from the tweet. I'm sure it's been looked into and investigated by now.

I'm mainly responding to Peter's comments bout ISIS.

[PCS]

Well ISIS sent a message to the President in response to the recent bombings apparently. In the form of a youtube video showing them beheading missing photojournalist James Wright Foley. Pretty horrific. 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/kidnapped-american-journalist-james-wright-foley-beheaded-isis-militants-article-1.1909374

 

 

 

Needless to say the video was taken down. 

[abdcskins]

This may sound callous, but the Middle East is such a horrible part of the world.  Iraq and Syria are such a wasteland of hatred and war.  Sad.

[Zazzaro703]

Feel sorry for the Foley family and the journalist who is next and will most likely have a video suffering the same fate soon.

[JMS]

This may sound callous, but the Middle East is such a horrible part of the world.  Iraq and Syria are such a wasteland of hatred and war.  Sad.

Two thoughts

(1) Iraq was actually a pretty ok place prior to the US invasion.. high Literacy, large middle class, educated population.... As far as domestic population goes the Bathists ( Saddam ) didn't do all that bad a job.. coarse the political opposition didn't have a very long life expectancy.. but otherwise.

(2) I think that your post really encapsulates the danger here. For decades the US would jump at any threat to the ME. We would create a plan and give billions in order to thwart bad guys from coming to power or threaten our allies there. That was when the west depended upon the ME for a big chuck of our oil. That's all changed in the last few years. Today we are a net exporter of oil and a larger oil producer than Saudi. We don't really require the ME to keep our economy going. We got lots of oil, and Canada has even more which they are treaty bound to sell us first and most of the Canadian oil isn't even developed... At 4$ a gallon our energy needs are set..

So maybe we start thinking... screw the ME... let ISIS take over. What do we care?

This new American Blaze attitude is kind of the danger.. I mean given the Iraqi and Syrian Armies haven't had much luck against then, nor the Peshmerga force of the Iraqi Kurds. And the only way Isis has been turned down so far is by US assistance. It's looking kind of bleak in the ME right now...

Isis armed with the top us weapons, is more than a match for any of the countries in that region. I mean if they've smacked around Syria, Iraq, and the Peshmerga who is really going to be able to defeat them? Who is left? You've got Jordan, Saudi and Iran in the neighborhood. Iran already has two divisions in Iraq fighting Isis... they aren't having much luck against them either. Not sure we want Iran to get more involved...

[steve09ru]

Not sure if this has been posted (sorry if it has, is dated yesterday)

http://rare.us/story/cnns-jake-tapper-captures-alarming-image-while-reporting-in-ferguson/

[Predicto]

Not sure if this has been posted (sorry if it has, is dated yesterday)

http://rare.us/story/cnns-jake-tapper-captures-alarming-image-while-reporting-in-ferguson/

 

 

I interpret that sign as meaning "The Police in Ferguson are treating us just like Isis treats the people in Iraq."  Over the top exaggeration, kind of like calling them Nazis. 

 

I don't interpret that sign as intended to mean "I am a Sunni extremist terrorist who seeks the destruction of the United States and the creation of an Islamic Califate."

 

What do you think it means?

[dfitzo53]

I interpret that sign as meaning "The Police in Ferguson are treating us just like Isis treats the people in Iraq."  Over the top exaggeration, kind of like calling them Nazis. 

 

I don't interpret that sign as intended to mean "I am a Sunni extremist terrorist who seeks the destruction of the United States and the creation of an Islamic Califate."

 

What do you think it means?

I dunno, I think that's reading a lot into it.  What makes you interpret it that way?

 

Not that I'm all that worried about it.  I just don't see how you came to that conclusion from two words on a t-shirt.

[visionary]

Or maybe that they were being treated as if they were ISIS (i.e. the military level equipment).

 

 

Doubt it's more than an attempt at a clever comparison of some sort.

[JMS]

But that isn't supporting them.

 

Allowing them to sell their oil would be supporting them.

Committing troops to secure their territory isn't supporting them?.. We've done that for two decades.

Giving them weapons and training their troops isn't supporting them?.. We've done that for more than two decades.  Giving them money, logistical support, and a voice at the very highest levels of international politics isn't supporting them?

The only thing that counts as support is supporting their independent statehood? That's all that counts as support?

 

No we don't support Kurdish independence; but by that metric we don't support Taiwan either, and never have;  which is an absurd line of reasoning..

[JMS]

So today we have Senator Inhofe, the ranking Senate Armed Forces comitte member, warning ISIS or ISIL has the intent and is developing the capability to destroy a major American City.

http://www.okcfox.com/story/26331734/senator-inhofe-warns-of-potential-terrorist-attacks-on-us-soil

 

 

And you have the three Star General who was in charge of the War in Afghanistan for 3 years calling for the US to  immediately engage ISIL.

 

 

 

 

Former top general calls on Obama to wipe out Isis in wake of Foley killing

John Allen, who commanded Afghanistan war, writes op-ed amid varying US views on how to respond to journalist’s beheading

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/general-john-allen-obama-isis-james-foley-killing

From General Allen's op Ed refferenced above...

 

 

The U.S. is now firmly in the game and remains the only nation on the planet capable of exerting the kind of strategic leadership, influence and strike capacity to deal with IS. It is also the only power capable of organizing a coalition’s reaction to this regional and international threat. As a general officer commanding at several levels in the region, I can say with certainty that what we’re facing in northern Iraq is only partly a crisis about Iraq. It is about the region and potentially the world as we know it.

...

This group is not a flash in the pan that will go away of its own accord or if we don’t poke at it. It is not benign. IS is reinforced by Sunni tribal elements from Syria and Iraq, and most alarmingly, is aided by a witch’s brew of foreign fighters from Chechens to Uighurs to Pashtuns, but also including Europeans and Americans. The Caliphate’s Western recruits will be felt in the European and American homelands for years to come regardless of the fate IS and its cause.

...

 

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/08/gen-allen-destroy-islamic-state-now/92012/

 

 

Lastly I think it interesting to note the implecations of the Foley murder.   A huge tool in identifying the British man ( british accented man seen on the Foley murder tape)  is going to be the NSA's vast database of telephone conversations......

 

This ISIS group could make us all Police state supporters.

 

 

 

ISIS E-mail to James Foley's Family Released As Nations Begin Hunt for Killer

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/08/james-foley-email-isis-search

 

The N.S.A. and the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters (G.C.H.Q.) both have extensive metadata databases culled from communication in Syria, and identifying the time the video was created may reportedly help generate leads.

Many of the tools agencies might use to identify the man in the video have significant drawbacks or weaknesses, according to Bloomberg. Voice-recognition software is not particularly good at identifying an individual voice, the voice heard in the video might not even belong to the man who appears on camera, and a passport database is largely unhelpful without any surrounding clues.

[Predicto]

I dunno, I think that's reading a lot into it.  What makes you interpret it that way?

 

Not that I'm all that worried about it.  I just don't see how you came to that conclusion from two words on a t-shirt.

 

I interpret it that way from seeing a lot of protest signs over the years.

 

I've seen hundreds where people are saying "We are being oppressed and I'm going to exaggerate how bad you are to get an emotional response.  

 

I have never seen a single sign that was saying "I'm a terrorist infiltrator from the Middle East why don't you arrest me before I can commit a terrorist act."

So today we have Senator Inhofe, the ranking Senate Armed Forces comitte member, warning ISIS or ISIL has the intent and is developing the capability to destroy a major American City.

http://www.okcfox.com/story/26331734/senator-inhofe-warns-of-potential-terrorist-attacks-on-us-soil

 

 

And you have the three Star General who was in charge of the War in Afghanistan for 3 years calling for the US to immidately engage ISIL.

 

 

 

I'm interested in what the general has to say.

 

Senator Inhofe is probably the stupidest and most intellectually dishonest man in the entire Senate, and absolutely nothing he says should be given any credence at all.  

[JMS]

Senator Inhofe is probably the stupidest and most intellectually dishonest man in the entire Senate, and absolutely nothing he says should be given any credence at all.

Ok, you have a valid point.. He agreed with my theme so I used his quote...

To my credit I didn't use the Rick Perry quote, (which I now include for comedic value). I fealt Inhofe's voice had a little more credibility than Perry's..

 

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Claims ISIS Terrorists May Have Already Entered U.S. From Mexico

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/08/22/have-isis-terrorists-already-entered-us-from-mexico-texas-gov-perry-others/

But considering your point, you are right...The lesser of two evils is still evil......Now I feel a little dirty .

 

I'm interested in what the general has to say.

It's pretty striking from a respected military voice like General Allen. He's had so much experience in the ME, it's hard to dismiss his rather alarming categorization of recent events..

Read his entire Op-Ed..

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/08/gen-allen-destroy-islamic-state-now/92012/

[PeterMP]

Committing troops to secure their territory isn't supporting them?.. We've done that for two decades.

Giving them weapons and training their troops isn't supporting them?.. We've done that for more than two decades.  Giving them money, logistical support, and a voice at the very highest levels of international politics isn't supporting them?

The only thing that counts as support is supporting their independent statehood? That's all that counts as support?

 

No we don't support Kurdish independence; but by that metric we don't support Taiwan either, and never have;  which is an absurd line of reasoning..

 

1.  Taiwan doesn't WANT to be (officially) an independent state so doing that for Taiwan wouldn't be supporting them.

 

2.  We don't not just support their statehood.  We don't support things that we THINK might enable them be form a state.  We could say, you can sell oil, but we don't support a Kurdish state.

 

3.  We helped them secure their own territory because it helped us achieve other objectives (e.g. destabilize Iraq).

 

4.  And we haven't been arming the Kurds since the fall of Saddam.  In fact, we upset the Kurds be selling high tech weapons to the Iraqi central government.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120729/DEFREG03/307290008/Kurds-Secret-Weapons-Deal-Iraqi-Official

 

And after the fall of Saddam, the Kurds felt the need to buy weapons secretly from Bulgaria (reportedly).

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202297.html

[JMS]

1.  Taiwan doesn't WANT to be (officially) an independent state so doing that for Taiwan wouldn't be supporting them.

Pete, Taiwan was an independent country for decades after the Communitsts took over mainland China. We recognized them, and the UN recognized them. They even competed in the Olympics.

That all changed in 1971, ( Nixon )... with UN resolution 2758.. when we for the first time recognized the Peoples Republic of China as the legitimate ruler of Taiwan... and stripped Taiwan of representation in both the UN as well as the embassy in DC. This resolution, 2758, is what resolved Taiwan's legal status, and Taiwan never got a vote in it..

The only thing which keeps Taiwan from declaring themselves an independent nation is (1) the almost certain attack they would face from China, (2) the uncertain assistance of their allies like the US which is not pledged to come to their assistance, as we once were.

Nixon is the one who created the one china policy.. Not Taiwan.

 

2.  We don't not just support their statehood.  We don't support things that we THINK might enable them be form a state.  We could say, you can sell oil, but we don't support a Kurdish state.

We don't support their statehood... we don't support their acting like an independent state.. like selling oil independently and collecting oil revenues independently... cause of coarse then they'd be an independent state... We do support an independent military, independent regional government, Independence intelligence organization; independent aid packages, independent military advisers etc... But we don't see the Kurds as independent.

 

3.  We helped them secure their own territory because it helped us achieve other objectives (e.g. destabilize Iraq).

We've never tried to destabilize Iraq.. If we wanted to destabilize Iraq we would support Kurdish independence... and we never have. Rather we have sought Kurdish security as a part of greater Iraq... we've been consistent on that since 1990 when we fought the first gulf war.

 

4.  And we haven't been arming the Kurds since the fall of Saddam.  In fact, we upset the Kurds be selling high tech weapons to the Iraqi central government.

Saddam's regime fell in April 2003. Nixon provided aid to the Kurds in the early 70's, and Bill Clinton signed the "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" which included direct military aid for the Kurds. So I don't know what your trying to say. We've been supporting the Kurds for a lot longer than since the fall of Saddam.

As for selling weapons to the Iraqi central government.. yeah we were selling them weapons too... We did not support an independent Kurdish country. We have supported the Kurds in their goal for territorial security for decades.

 

And after the fall of Saddam, the Kurds felt the need to buy weapons secretly from Bulgaria (reportedly).

So what, that doesn't mean we weren't selling them weapons too.

[PeterMP]

Pete, Taiwan was an independent country for decades after the Communitsts took over mainland China. We recognized them, and the UN recognized them. They even competed in the Olympics.

That all changed in 1971, ( Nixon )... with UN resolution 2758.. when we for the first time recognized the Peoples Republic of China as the legitimate ruler of Taiwan... and stripped Taiwan of representation in both the UN as well as the embassy in DC. This resolution, 2758, is what resolved Taiwan's legal status, and Taiwan never got a vote in it..

The only thing which keeps Taiwan from declaring themselves an independent nation is (1) the almost certain attack they would face from China, (2) the uncertain assistance of their allies like the US which is not pledged to come to their assistance, as we once were.

Nixon is the one who created the one china policy.. Not Taiwan.

The ROC government Taiwan mantained it was the formal government of all of China into the 1990's well after Nixon adopted the US's one China policy.

Decreased martial law has lead to further democratization, and the pro-independence forces are badly losing elections.

There is no evidence that there is anything approaching a pro-independent a large movement on Taiwan. Part of it certainly fear of mainland Chinese reprisals (both economically and militarily).

But our actual support of Taiwan is in arguably clearly greater than that of the Kurds as we both directly supply arms to Taiwan consistently and allow them to sell things in the US directly.

 

We've never tried to destabilize Iraq.. If we wanted to destabilize Iraq we would support Kurdish independence... and we never have. Rather we have sought Kurdish security as a part of greater Iraq... we've been consistent on that since 1990 when we fought the first gulf war.

Really?

So we invaded a country that we weren't trying to destabilize?

I'd say that's pretty much a destabilizing move.

We don't support an independent Kurdish state because it has impacts beyond Iraq.

 

Saddam's regime fell in April 2003. Nixon provided aid to the Kurds in the early 70's, and Bill Clinton signed the "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" which included direct military aid for the Kurds. So I don't know what your trying to say. We've been supporting the Kurds for a lot longer than since the fall of Saddam.

I'm saying we haven't been giving the Kurds arms since the fall of Saddam. They wanted weapons, we weren't giving them to them (i.e. not supporting them) so they went out and found another source.

And yes Nixon and Clinton gave aid to the Kurds.

And in the middle, Reagan watched as an Iraqi government, that we supported, used chemical weapons to kill them (without doing anything even though some were calling for sanctions) and Bush watched as hundreds were killed a day for days by Iraqi attack helicopters.

One could go back to the Shah days, to Iran-contra, and the current activities against the ISIS and claim we have supported Iran for decades using the same logic.

Carter gave aid to Iran. Reagan sold arms to Iran. Obama is working with Iran.

We support Iran.

Yes, we've supported territorial security for the Kurds in IRAQ (note not in Turkey because the Turkish military has been active in Kurdish areas in Turkey and supporting Turkey) because it fit other objectives of ours.

[JMS]

But our actual support of Taiwan is in arguably clearly greater than that of the Kurds as we both directly supply arms to Taiwan consistently and allow them to sell things in the US directly.

Well, We give weapons to the Kurds, We sell weapons to Taiwan. But the point is in both cases we provide weapons to what we recognize as a territory of an independent country over the objections of that country. We do so in both cases with limited arms, to enable defense.

So we invaded a country that we weren't trying to destabilize?

We didn't destabilize them.. we didn't have too.. We kicked their butts. We never wanted to destabilize Iraq, we wanted to strong Iraq with a strong central government because anything else would destabilize the entire region and invite other countries to move in... Like Iran or Turkey or worse, which would be a nightmare...

BTW... did you catch that the Iranians reportedly have two divisions inside Iraq fighting ISIS...

 

I'm saying we haven't been giving the Kurds arms since the fall of Saddam. They wanted weapons, we weren't giving them to them (i.e. not supporting them) so they went out and found another source.

We were giving them weapons Pete, we were just giving the Iraqi national military better weapons.. We weren't giving the Kurds the kinds of weapons which would allow them to defeat the Iraqi government.. We were certainly giving them weapons, funding their intelligence agency, conducting joint exercises with their military... etc..

If we weren't funding the Kurdish security they would have been over run by the Shia and Sunni militia's which were kicking the snot out of our occupation forces... We didn't loose a single soldier in the Kurdish lands... because armed kurdish forces were working with us...

Our plan has always been three different Iraq's under one federated central government.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601506.html

Senate Endorses Plan to Divide Iraq

By Shailagh Murray

The Washington Post

Wednesday 26 September 2007

Action shows rare bipartisan consensus.

Showing rare bipartisan consensus over war policy, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a political settlement for Iraq that would divide the country into three semi-autonomous regions.

The plan, conceived by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), was approved 75-23 as a non-binding resolution, with 26 Republican votes. It would not force President Bush to take any action, but it represents a significant milestone in the Iraq debate, carving out common ground in a debate that has grown increasingly polarized and focused on military strategy.

The Biden plan envisions a federal government system for Iraq, consisting of separate regions for Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations. The structure is spelled out in Iraq's constitution, but Biden would initiate local and regional diplomatic efforts to hasten its evolution.

"This has genuine bipartisan support, and I think that's a very hopeful sign," Biden said.

[visionary]

Another American found fighting for ISIS

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/american-douglas-mcauthur-mccain-dies-fighting-isis-syria-n189081

[Slateman]

Douglas McAuthur McCain

 

That can't be his real name

[visionary]

Douglas McAuthur McCain

 

That can't be his real name

I was wondering about that too, lol.

[PeterMP]

Well, We give weapons to the Kurds, We sell weapons to Taiwan. But the point is in both cases we provide weapons to what we recognize as a territory of an independent country over the objections of that country. We do so in both cases with limited arms, to enable defense.

We didn't destabilize them.. we didn't have too.. We kicked their butts. We never wanted to destabilize Iraq, we wanted to strong Iraq with a strong central government because anything else would destabilize the entire region and invite other countries to move in... Like Iran or Turkey or worse, which would be a nightmare...

BTW... did you catch that the Iranians reportedly have two divisions inside Iraq fighting ISIS...

 

We were giving them weapons Pete, we were just giving the Iraqi national military better weapons.. We weren't giving the Kurds the kinds of weapons which would allow them to defeat the Iraqi government.. We were certainly giving them weapons, funding their intelligence agency, conducting joint exercises with their military... etc..

If we weren't funding the Kurdish security they would have been over run by the Shia and Sunni militia's which were kicking the snot out of our occupation forces... We didn't loose a single soldier in the Kurdish lands... because armed kurdish forces were working with us...

Our plan has always been three different Iraq's under one federated central government.

 

 

1.  There was an extended period of time in which our policy with respect to Iraq was regime change, which meant trying to create a situation where the regime was unstable and fail, which meant destabilizing the regime.  Even directly prior to and after the invasion, we wanted to destabilize the regime so that it would fail and the war would be easier.

 

2.  What weapons have we given the Kurds post the creation of the current Iraqi government.  Please provide a like detailing the arms shipments from the US to the Kurds.

 

3.  To compare the weapons we've provided to Taiwan and the Kurds is laughable.