Bitcoin Forum

Another US journalist (Steven Sotlof) killed by the IS. Appears to have been murdered by the same individual.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...156273317.html

Of all the things I've heard said about GWB, timid responses were not among them. I doubt anyone considered him overly cautious. He certainly believed in American military adventurism.

However, the basis of Obama's foreign policy seems to be that if it doesn't directly affect American interests, or American citizens, he really doesn't want to interfere too much. These people are essentially forcing him to address people getting murdered specifically because they are American. They are making it his business.

I'm not moved by it. If someone comes to the US, kills a journalist on our soil, films it, posts it, then leaves, we have a problem. But in this case, I can't help but see this as an occupational hazard. This is to say, I don't think it is reasonable to expect US foreign policy to be built around the idea that anyone with an American passport can traipse around the globe and dig into the most awful places, reporting on the most awful people and events, and whoever messes with said passport-holder, that's who we go to war with.

Israel's massacres against the Palestinians are utterly condemnable and so is the silence of most Western nations but this does not in anyways justify the beheading of people. Such a despicable and disgraceful act.

Hamas and ISIS are practically indistinguishable. Israel responded appropriately to terrorist attacks. The west needs to respond similarly to ISIS attacks.
Obama gave up the fruits of victory in Iraq and walked away. The foolishness of his badly broken foreign policy is now apparent.

Broken link?

Cameron seems to be on full fear mongering mode about this one btw

Try this one : http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/islamic-state-murders-second-us-journalist-20149217156273317.html

2 US journalists beheaded by the ISIS militants, who are fighting against the US. At the same time, Russian journalist Andrei Stenin was murdered by Right Sector extremists, who are supported by the US in Ukraine. I just hope that Obama condemns all these murders. Murder of journalists should be dealt with, whether they are done by the anti-US or the pro-US factions.

Perfectly said!

They are acting out of fear, nothing else, ISIS is starting to feel the heat, loosing lots of territory faster than it took to gain it.
But what is really really funny is that US has not even started and has made ISIS retreat like roaches.
I think US has not even used more than 4 fighter jets and a couple of drones, the advantage on the battle field is just huge.

The left, of course, would rather talk about Ferguson, Michael Brown, and Darren Wilson, and ignore Obama's fecklessness. We don't send American troops back into that cesspool.  Obama pulled them out and gave up all the ground they had gained, now we do NOT ask them to go back and die some more for the same real estate and the same raghead assholes.

I got news for you the united states have been executing muslims since 9/11 with drones,now its up to you to choose which is more babaric,useing a missile to blow you to pieces or a beheading,which is very common,the syrians having been doing it so has the saudies,and its was done in lebanon.
Remember Obama had said the united states is at war with isil,which was like the death sentice on the american held hostages.

Why do you think it is necessary to always lie.  It was Bush and condie that gave all the ground back and you know it but continue to lie.  What is wrong with your brain that you keep spewing out what you know damn well are lies.  

Anyone with two functioning brain cells knows that is not true, and can readily prove it. 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075685/Over-Last-U-S-troops-leave-Iraq.html
   1.  Over and out: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq | Mail Online
   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075685/Over-Last-U-S-troops-leave-Iraq.html
    Daily Mail
    Dec 18, 2011 - The departure is slightly earlier than the planned date of December 31. ... U.S. troops have finally left Iraq - after nearly nine years, more than a ...
   2. Deadly Iraq war ends with exit of last U.S. troops - CNN.com
    www.cnn.com/2011/12/17/world/meast/iraq-troops-leave/
    CNN
    Dec 18, 2011 - In a final tactical road march, the last U.S. troops in Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait Sunday morning, ending almost nine years of war. ... Analysts: Questions remain as U.S. troops leave .... Timeline: Key dates in the war.
   3. Rewriting History - Media Matters for America
    mediamatters.org/research/2014/.../200380
    Media Matters for America
    Aug 10, 2014 - When President Obama announced in October of 2011 that no U.S. troops would be left in Iraq, he said he was fulfilling a campaign promise.
   4. Last Convoy of American Troops Leaves Iraq - NYTimes.com
    www.nytimes.com/.../last-convoy-of-american-troo...
    The New York Times
    Dec 18, 2011 - BAGHDAD — The last convoy of American troops drove into Kuwait on Sunday morning, punctuating the end of the nearly nine-year war in Iraq ...

Yet another useful idiot that doesn't 'know  the difference between fact and fiction or the truth from a lie. It makes you wonder about the education system in this country when so many willfully ignorant people are running around who are totally incapable of absorbing facts regardless of how many times those facts are presented.

In the meantime, obama has taken more than a year to even acknowledge isis existed and according to obama his military has no plan of action to propose because they are just as inept as obama and our intel team is even worse because they never figured out that isis could grow and become so violent. But according to todays presser its asads fault that isis was created because asad fed the terrorists and supplied them with arms and a means to grow. I don't think the state dept spokeswomans talking points author realized that blaming asad only points to the fact that Romney was right and obama was wrong.

What on Earth are you babbling about this time? Bush handed Obama a peaceful Iraq, and Joe Biden even bragged that Obama would get the credit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOcPCrGRs6k
This was in 2010, long after Bush left office! Then, against all advice to the contrary, Obama pulled out all the troops and left Iraq defended only by very green troops, and we saw what happened when they faced ISIS! They ran.

In the last option for a do-over Romney won by about 6%, I wonder if that poll were taken today if Romney would win by double digits and if he did could we the people demand a real do-over by November 2014 with a transition by the end of that month.

And.. they will do it again...
and again...
As the USA has the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy.
They sacrifice it's people to make the public opinion on the ISIS worse..
I won't be surprised

With our borders wide open for Mexican cartels and crooked officials to rake in the bucks off terrorists needing guidance and the ability of isis to recruit Americans inside the US it may be too late to kill them before they kill us. But rest assured, obama has another speech to tell us how safe we are, how much better off the world is now that he has healed the waters and saved America and the world. So before anything happens obama has a lot of nice smoke to blow up your ass and make you feel warm and fuzzy.

No one is asking the United States to intervene directly in Iraq. But I can't understand why they are not helping the Peshmerga. The Kurdish fighters are armed only with light weapons and they are finding it increasingly difficult to take on the ISIS. But off course, there is the strong pressure from Turkey against arming the Kurds.

Obama sending 350 more military personnel to Iraq
mission creep


more...http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-sending-350-more-military-personnel-to-iraq/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-sending-350-more-military-personnel-to-iraq/)

we never actually took "that ground" we cleared it for the Iraqis. Then, in accordance with an agreement negotiated by the previous President, what's-his-name (seems that mentioning his name - even in accurately speaking about things he did, either good or bad enrages some on the right).

I cant help thinking this is a manipulation of the CIA, MI6, and Mossad to get us whipped up into war mode. And I am afraid of what this portends for the next presidential election. Can we get so blood thirsty we turn on our own who disagree with the war path?


It would be nice if we could stop all the manipulation. To what ends are we being manipulated?

Time to end this once and for all.   If Obama doesn't do something, it's going to get very ugly over here, when ISIS shows up and starts hitting soft targets.  Americans will not take it.

Instead of reacting with no knowledge you might just try and learn about what the problems in the Middle east are.  You show you have no idea,  What is Saudi doing right now and how does that effect what we do.  How do we handle Syria if we kill off Isis who is also fighting Assad.  What are the rest of the powers doing and how will that all effect what we do.  So without that type of Knowledge that you don't have it might be wiser to take time and learn instead of showing how much information you don't have.

  The real problem is that the righties just look and see how they can make Obama look bad and don't really give a damn about how it will effect the US and the people in the middle east.

... and RPGs, and assault rifles, and howitzers, and tanks, and helicopters, largely from the US, Germany, and Russia (both Soviet and "modern"). What will the Kurds do with these weapons if they should kill enough ISIS for ISIS to make peace with them? Stay within their traditional borders, content with victory and the safety they've brought their people?

The idea that you would school anyone and suggest they learn the facts when you can't even tell the difference between a fact and a lie is absurd. And as far as Saudi is concerned, they used to be a trusted ally but today they are distancing themselves from the obama admin after kicking him out of the country. And when the Saudis worked with other nations to do a fly over they didn't bother to engage with the US or even let them know their plans, but I have to ask, what do you think the Saudi are doing and what affect does that have on what obama does or more to the point what obama doesn't do since he doesn't seem to be able to do much besides golf and fund raise. Below is a little update from Saudi as you call it, now what do you think obama is going to do in response to the information the Saudi provided? According to obama our inept military has no plan and our intel has no idea how violent and fast moving this group is so who the hell if going to formulate a plan lit? obama the great warrior with all his military background as a community organizer? What will his plan be? To throw money at the problem like his solution to every other problem the US or the world has ever faced? If obama had aided the civilian rebels during his first term the rebels would have defeated asad by his second term instead of the terrorists joining the rebels and taking over the fight in the name of terrorism. Had obama left forces in iraq isis wouldn't have been able to recruit from iraq or invade iraq but obama didn't give a damn about the future of iraq he only cared about appeasing you lefties by pulling out every last troop and now we face a far greater risk thanks to the inept asshole in the oval office, the very same inept asshole that you laud as a great leader.

President Obama approved sending 350 additional troops to the Iraqi capital to increase security at the Baghdad embassy compound and its support facilities.

The Pentagon said late Tuesday that the new personnel will build upon previous deployments that were announced in June, boosting security in Iraq to about 820 people.
-snip-

With the 350 new arrivals, there will be 1,113 personnel in Iraq.

My suggestion is NOT to kill all the Muslims in case they might become radicalized.  That's the point. My suggestion is that we continue to deal things in an intelligent, civilized fashion.   We do not kill people because of what they might one day do.  We don't kill people because of what someone who shares their religion does. When someone shows signs that they may be becoming radicalized, we watch them. If they try something, we try to head them off. If we're unsuccessful in prevention, we react - we arrest, we try, we imprison, or even execute. But we DON'T preemptively commit genocide. It's not who we are.

[/b]

That would be a well earned success.

ISIS terrorists could be in America in just months if 'neglected,' warns Saudi king
Saudi King Abdullah predicted that bloodthirsty jihadists will quickly spread throughout Europe and the United States if left unchecked, according to remarks reported Saturday by official Saudi media. On the same day Abdullah delivered his warning, U.S. fighter jets and unmanned drones launched five strikes against ISIS near Iraq's Mosul Dam.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-terrorists-america-warns-saudi-king-article-1.1922590#ixzz3CCOj374A

Howitzers, and tanks, and helicopters? I don't think that the Kurds have a lot of these items. (I am talking about the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, and not about those in Turkey). Right now they are the most "secular" fighting force out there in that region. Arming them is much better than arming the cowards of the Iraqi army, as the US have been doing till now.

A number of actions taken by Obama have increased the power base of radical Muslims.

A number of inactions taken by Obama have incresed the power base of radical Muslims.

A number of domestic attacks by radical Muslims have been relabled by Obama to not be attacks by radical Muslims.

This guy, Obama, sure is starting to look like he likes radical Muslims.

I dont know what Obama is cooking right now. 2 innocent foreign are dead because of this thing called freedom. Obama should move now. He said he is not threatened by it but still he should strike back now.

May be Obama is thinking that the ISIS pose no threat to mainland US and therefore he doesn't need to bother about them. Also, his term will come to an end in 2-years time. He don't want to tarnish his reputation by undertaking another war, causing thousands of American casualties. But what will happen if the ISIS launch a terror attack in the mainland US?

And you are atypical. This sort of thing has an impact on the president, even though I generally agree with the policy of moving away from military adventurism when at all rational. I may not like it, but it's also reality. The US isn't ready yet to take a less aggressive world view.

This is very sad. Unfortunately, this will keep happening until ISIS is stopped.

Or, when obama is no longer president.

I can't see how military adventurism or aggressive world views tie into the current situation.

The air attacks against IS, that these murders are purportedly a response to, are neither adventurism nor the result of an aggressive world view. In fact our response in that region so far is markedly less aggressive than the last time we played air strikes/ground assault and assholes over there, so I really don't get what you mean.

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that Obama has a tendency to stay away from adventurism, which I support philosophically. What ISIS is doing is putting pressure on Obama to engage in Syria, which is probably a bad idea. I say that not because I in any way want to see any ISIS members survive...I hope they all get their asses killed...but rather it's a guarantee of long term military action that will almost inevitably end up with American troops in a shooting war in the midst of a civil war with Islamic terrorists...Iraq pt 2 if you will. It's very hard to stop mission cree, which Obama is seeing right now.

Firstly, military adventurism is an obsolete term that is now widely considered devoid of geopolitical or formal academia designation. The term was previously employed in substantial indexes to describe Imperial Japan's transnational aggression and territorial expansion. Why does this information hold reverence to your asinine assertions? Because Imperial Japan conducted their aggressive incursion policies for a period most historians agree to be approximately fifty years. We're talking about combat engagements with various countries in protracted ground conflicts with oscillating claims of terrestrial estate and occupation. President Obama has been in office for seven years; how can his Administration's limited statecraft endeavors even begin to grasp "military adventurism"? Of course Obama doesn't fucking have 'it' "in his hope chest". Special operation forces raids and precision airstrikes in third-world countries, besides his inherited problems like Iraq and Afghanistan, are more aligned with military doctrines like manhunting and enemy transportation denial. It is highly unlikely that President Obama would mobilize conventional ground attack elements to combat regional, mobile terrorists while occupying proximate countries for fifty years.

This seems more like a protracted hostage situation, with 'no more air strikes' being the demand that if not fulfilled, leads to another dead hostage. This framing of the situation does target the president directly, but not because he is Obama: the president is the only person who can 'stop' the next murder.

There really is only one way any president should respond to this. In public anyway.

I doubt there are very many people in the middle east that believe that the US currently isn't meddling and playing games in each of these conflicts. If you were to speak to people from the area, the huge amount of paranoia would probably shock you. Even worse than the Russians. And they believe, rightly or wrongly, that Obama is just weaker and more devious, while believing that ISIS is controlled by the US through countries like SA and Qatar.

Oh, I believe that the airstrikes shouldn't be stopped. I think obama actually should bomb more, because if he doesn't, ISIS is going to grow, and more journalists beheaded.

The only thing even partially logical is your perspective on a "less intrusive foreign policy". Increased economic sanctions and the aforementioned raid/airstrike aspects tend to support that notion.

It's quite the clusterfuck when you look into it.

But I don't see Obama as having military adventurism in his hope chest. He may well be stuck with it, though. I hope he finds a good solution, although I'm not overly optimistic, because as I've mentioned before, I find his negotiation/diplomacy skills to be his weakest suit. I tend to believe he wants to steer the US towards a less intrusive foreign policy, but his timing just hasn't worked out. Events sometimes force policy.

They are not humans but animals.If they are against the western government why don't they just ask for a direct war and see what is gonna happen to them.These bastards must be cut into pieces and feed their pieces to vultures.

ISIS is savage and cruel. They must be stopped at all costs.

Or may be another good idea would be to give a few second hand bomber jets (albeit temporarily) to the Kurdish Peshmerga. Also, how he will bomb the ISIS positions within Syria? The Syrian government will not give permission for the US jets to enter its sovereign territory, and in case if the US does that then they will face a lot of heat in the UN.

I do not agree with your assessment of Obama's skill as a statesman though, and I do not believe that the world in general sees him as weak or feckless, as some pundits would have us believe. I think that to the extent that America's position has weakened in his time respective to international relations, it has done so due to two factors - congressional dysfunction (which isn't exactly new, but has for sure worsened) and the Wikileaks/Snowden revelations. Those revelations cost us the moral high ground, and my opinion is that Obama's vocal desire for coalition building as well as his cooperation with local forces around the globe has gone a long way to restore our position as responsible world leaders, albeit in a different light.

I know you're big on the presidency as a bully pulpit but I do not believe that this is a view which is really compatible with the state of the union, the state of technology, etc.; for a lot of the same reasons, I do not consider myself an advocate for democracy. Especially now.

Anyway, I've been wondering if these recent killings of American journalists have anything to do with the theories going around now which purport that ISIS is backed by the US. I actually like to see theories, not because I think they're true or because I want them to be true, rather I like what it means for ISIS' hopes of eventually uniting all of Sunni Islam under one banner.

lol... how can anyone claim that the ISIS was created by the US, when they have already declared that their no.1 enemy is the United States? The parent organization of the ISIS is Al Qaeda, which is again an anti-US setup. All of the ISIS leaders are having long histories of Al Qaeda activity. So if the ISIS is indeed created by the US, then we will have to say that the Al Qaeda is also an invention of the Americans.

Obama will create another war. Just one operation killing the head of the ISIS or an airstrike maybe. I think america should also make a threat.

Maybe a day of airstrikes in their region and blame it to russia.

Obama & Kerry have made plenty of threats. Obama even tries to use "angry eyes" when he makes them on public TV. :D I imagine he'll probably start dying his hair soon... wouldn't want to look weak.

Killing the ISIS head will not achieve anything. ISIS is not an organization which is concentrated around one individual. In no time the leader will be replaced. Did the US managed to destroy Al Qaeda, after the assassination of Osama bin Laden? If Obama wants to defeat ISIS, then my advice to him will be:

#1. Make sure no financial support reaches the ISIS from Qatar and Saudi Arabia
#2. Make sure that the mercenaries are not able to cross over from Turkey to Syria (right now the Turkish authorities are allowing this, as the ISIS is fighting Kurds as well)
#3. Revoke the citizenship of all those European / American / Australian mercenaries fighting for ISIS and freeze their assets
#4. Give weapons and training to secular groups which are fighting the ISIS, such as the Peshmerga
#5. Use air strikes to destroy the ISIS heavy weaponry.

ISIS has very unreasonable ,
If they uphold Al-Quran , they not do like that..
Their actions outside the way in Al-Quran,Killing is an act accursed for Allah.
Someone must stop them,
Let's pray them stop and gone :)

this is a trap, the same one Bin Laden used successfully to cripple America.

they are provoking America intentionally so that they spend another trillion dollars bombing a bunch of people on camels thereby bankrupting America completely.
once the food stamp checks stop coming all they have to do is sit and watch the united states tear itself apart.

Beheaded the third british already..

any updates about these guys? I heard they are now operating in several muslim countries too.

They've spread a bit, controlling more land mass than government-controlled sections in Syria and Iraq, mostly pushing in North Syria, now. They continue to be organized in Sinai and to its West, which they claim as their Levant. NATO & relateds' non-ground military actions in Syria will likely succeed in keeping Assad in power but fail to actually root out ISIL. ISIL continues to hold many Iraqi and Syrian oil fields. However, the US & rest of NATO have been successful in recruiting Kurds and trying to get them on the West's side, great because the Kurds control a good many oil fields and had ambiguous diplomatic goals. NATO's actions will also prevent ISIL from properly taking Syria over and setting up a true government. Turkey still considers what to do with ISIL. ISIL gave an outline of countries they want to take (old-time Levant) which doesn't include Turkey, and given Turkey hates Assad (it's their condition for joining the war against ISIL), Turkey isn't willing to go all-out and burn all ISIL bridges, getting itself involved in a long occupation just yet. -And anyway, ISIL needs to sell its oil at a steep discount -- Turkey is maybe keeping that in mind and wondering if NATO will refuse both to oust Assad and commit ground troops, and maybe they also wonder what the USG would do if Turkey were to negotiate with ISIL.

Without (yet another) military occupation, it's basically just a slowly failing quarantine. I'll be surprised if it doesn't turn into a ground war for NATO. US/Turkey diplomacy is what everything's waiting on while ISIL continues pushing out. If it fails, NATO almost has to put boots on the ground and occupy Iraq and Syria. IMO.

+1

whether the news is true? there should be a study back if the news is true? but what if there is a non-Muslim kills a Muslim but not seheboh this news? whether the media is only in favor of one group only and discredit the other group? where is a journalistic independence, which is always preaching the factual and reliable, hopefully the media not only in favor of one group ...  >:(