Liberals/Admin not taking isis terrorists seriously

[umair127]

And the liberals, the administration and the liberal media is not taking isis and their terrorist threats seriously... the NY times feels that isis should not be labeled as evil... or terrroists... or monsters.... cnn even questions labeling isis as evil...
and then you read the obama administrations take on isis....

George Stephanopoulos Frets Over U.S. Taking Action Against ISIS: ‘Is There A Danger Here of Overreacting?’

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/08/24/george-stephanopoulos-frets-over-us-taking-action-against-isis-there-#ixzz3BPfLwoBx

    This Week with George Stephanopoulos

    August 24, 2014

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On the bigger questions, Bill Kristol, it struck me how quickly this has all moved. From ISIS being a minor threat, the president talking about it several months ago as the junior varsity, to now an imminent threat, the words of Chuck Hagel, to the United States. And I guess I wonder, is there a danger here of overreacting?

    BILL KRISTOL:  I wish there were but I think the fundamental danger remains underreaction. Back in January when the president said to David Remnick, we have decimated Al Qaeda, core Al Qaeda as they like to say. It's just the JV now. The ambassador, our ambassador to Iraq, appointed by President Obama, Robert Beecroft was telling Martha Raddatz, she reported this on your show and here on ABC that we have a huge problem. There’s this group ISIS that has taken over Fallujah and Ramadi and has ambitions to go north. Someone asked the ambassador, I believer in private, well what is the White House doing about this? He kind of shrugged. So I think the president, I would like a little overreaction by the president now. He's coming back from his vacation. He should go to Congress right away to get an authorization. But meanwhile, he's acting under the War Powers Act and he shouldn’t wait. He shouldn't wait. There's a huge amount of bombing and damage that could be done to ISIS tomorrow if the president orders it.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: And given the president's rhetoric on Thursday, a cancer on the world, there’s going to be a dramatic escalation of action as well to match that rhetoric.

    PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah, what was very interesting the past week, was the comments of Chuck Hagel. Not a burly, pro-war figure. Someone who has been skeptical in the past saying, this is the biggest and worst thing we have seen in a long time. The comments of General Dempsey saying, essentially the same thing. Something big and bad is happening here. It's part of the reason the president was so criticized for not saying what, in fact, I think Hagel and Dempsey said. Do you know what I mean? They were making presidential-type statements.

isis is slaughtering people left and right... threatening everyone... especially the us.... they are savagely creating an islamic caliphate... they have now taken over a syrian military base and have access to weapons they didn't have before.... and yet the liberals don't really see any danger....

[Lethn]

Who was the one that started Iraq in the first place? Oh wait I know!

[zolace]

The ABC’s of not fighting terrorism

Terrorism thrives because many leaders make excuses for not fighting it, rather than making policies for defeating it. Here are some of the most malignant excuses:

Excuse No. 1: The terror problem is exaggerated.

“Osama bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is on the run,” President Obama said a few months before calling the terror group that now controls much of Iraq and Syria a “JV” outfit — junior varsity.

http://nypost.com/2014/08/25/the-abcs-of-not-fighting-terrorism/

[sana8410]

And the liberals, the administration and the liberal media is not taking isis and their terrorist threats seriously... the NY times feels that isis should not be labeled as evil... or terrroists... or monsters.... cnn even questions labeling isis as evil...
and then you read the obama administrations take on isis....

George Stephanopoulos Frets Over U.S. Taking Action Against ISIS: ‘Is There A Danger Here of Overreacting?’

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/08/24/george-stephanopoulos-frets-over-us-taking-action-against-isis-there-#ixzz3BPfLwoBx

    This Week with George Stephanopoulos

    August 24, 2014

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On the bigger questions, Bill Kristol, it struck me how quickly this has all moved. From ISIS being a minor threat, the president talking about it several months ago as the junior varsity, to now an imminent threat, the words of Chuck Hagel, to the United States. And I guess I wonder, is there a danger here of overreacting?

    BILL KRISTOL:  I wish there were but I think the fundamental danger remains underreaction. Back in January when the president said to David Remnick, we have decimated Al Qaeda, core Al Qaeda as they like to say. It's just the JV now. The ambassador, our ambassador to Iraq, appointed by President Obama, Robert Beecroft was telling Martha Raddatz, she reported this on your show and here on ABC that we have a huge problem. There’s this group ISIS that has taken over Fallujah and Ramadi and has ambitions to go north. Someone asked the ambassador, I believer in private, well what is the White House doing about this? He kind of shrugged. So I think the president, I would like a little overreaction by the president now. He's coming back from his vacation. He should go to Congress right away to get an authorization. But meanwhile, he's acting under the War Powers Act and he shouldn’t wait. He shouldn't wait. There's a huge amount of bombing and damage that could be done to ISIS tomorrow if the president orders it.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: And given the president's rhetoric on Thursday, a cancer on the world, there’s going to be a dramatic escalation of action as well to match that rhetoric.

    PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah, what was very interesting the past week, was the comments of Chuck Hagel. Not a burly, pro-war figure. Someone who has been skeptical in the past saying, this is the biggest and worst thing we have seen in a long time. The comments of General Dempsey saying, essentially the same thing. Something big and bad is happening here. It's part of the reason the president was so criticized for not saying what, in fact, I think Hagel and Dempsey said. Do you know what I mean? They were making presidential-type statements.

isis is slaughtering people left and right... threatening everyone... especially the us.... they are savagely creating an islamic caliphate... they have now taken over a syrian military base and have access to weapons they didn't have before.... and yet the liberals don't really see any danger....

Lets ask you righties a question.  Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria.  You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad.  So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad.  You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against.

[umair127]

And the liberals, the administration and the liberal media is not taking isis and their terrorist threats seriously... the NY times feels that isis should not be labeled as evil... or terrroists... or monsters.... cnn even questions labeling isis as evil...
and then you read the obama administrations take on isis....

George Stephanopoulos Frets Over U.S. Taking Action Against ISIS: ‘Is There A Danger Here of Overreacting?’

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/08/24/george-stephanopoulos-frets-over-us-taking-action-against-isis-there-#ixzz3BPfLwoBx

    This Week with George Stephanopoulos

    August 24, 2014

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On the bigger questions, Bill Kristol, it struck me how quickly this has all moved. From ISIS being a minor threat, the president talking about it several months ago as the junior varsity, to now an imminent threat, the words of Chuck Hagel, to the United States. And I guess I wonder, is there a danger here of overreacting?

    BILL KRISTOL:  I wish there were but I think the fundamental danger remains underreaction. Back in January when the president said to David Remnick, we have decimated Al Qaeda, core Al Qaeda as they like to say. It's just the JV now. The ambassador, our ambassador to Iraq, appointed by President Obama, Robert Beecroft was telling Martha Raddatz, she reported this on your show and here on ABC that we have a huge problem. There’s this group ISIS that has taken over Fallujah and Ramadi and has ambitions to go north. Someone asked the ambassador, I believer in private, well what is the White House doing about this? He kind of shrugged. So I think the president, I would like a little overreaction by the president now. He's coming back from his vacation. He should go to Congress right away to get an authorization. But meanwhile, he's acting under the War Powers Act and he shouldn’t wait. He shouldn't wait. There's a huge amount of bombing and damage that could be done to ISIS tomorrow if the president orders it.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: And given the president's rhetoric on Thursday, a cancer on the world, there’s going to be a dramatic escalation of action as well to match that rhetoric.

    PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah, what was very interesting the past week, was the comments of Chuck Hagel. Not a burly, pro-war figure. Someone who has been skeptical in the past saying, this is the biggest and worst thing we have seen in a long time. The comments of General Dempsey saying, essentially the same thing. Something big and bad is happening here. It's part of the reason the president was so criticized for not saying what, in fact, I think Hagel and Dempsey said. Do you know what I mean? They were making presidential-type statements.

isis is slaughtering people left and right... threatening everyone... especially the us.... they are savagely creating an islamic caliphate... they have now taken over a syrian military base and have access to weapons they didn't have before.... and yet the liberals don't really see any danger....

Lets ask you righties a question.  Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria.  You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad.  So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad.  You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against.

....the liberals and the media are not taking isis seriously... they are more worried about calling them names than they are of the wholesale slaughter committed by isis.... that is one of the biggest problems... ignoring isis is only going to make them stronger.. they are going to kill more and more people, they are going to get strong militarily by taking over other countries military bases.... all the while the liberal media is worried about calling them evil..

[sana8410]

Simple fact is that the countries over in the middleeast don't want to do anything about ISIS and until they and Europe get behind a movement to rid the middle east of ISIS then all we can do is kill a few of them then wait till they regroup and we do it all over again.  Do you really think that this would solve the problem.

[zolace]

more useful idiots:

The see no evil left in the US
Matthew Clark:

    Leftist university professor Michael Boyle of La Salle University took to the pages of the New York Times to condemn all of us who refer to ISIS as “evil” or a “cancer.”
    And unsurprisingly, the New York Times happily printed the drivel, under the headline: “The Problem With ‘Evil.’”

    The professor claims that such terminology is a “disturbing return of the moralistic language once used to describe Al Qaeda,” and using such language is a “moral hazard.”

    Instead he refers to ISIS as “a successful insurgent group that wants a seat at that table.”

    With complete moral clarity, I can say he’s wrong.

    To reject value judgments – that a jihadist army that beheads journalists and is waging genocide against Christians is evil – is to ignore reality.

    He states that we are turning this into a religious war by use of such terminology, that it somehow advances their cause by helping portray jihadists “as engaged in a war against the Christian West.”

    But they are. No one accused ISIS of genocide before they started indiscriminately slaughtering Christians after first demanding they “convert or die.”

    To bury our heads in the sand and ignore the aim of our enemy is to ignore reality. How can you defeat an enemy if you refuse to recognize its aims, if you ignore and snobbishly deny its atrocities?

    ISIS doesn’t want a “seat at th[e] table.” It wants to dominate the table. ISIS, by its own words and actions, is establishing a radical Islamic Caliphate.

    It wants Christians and Jews eradicated. It beheads children. It sells women as sex slaves.

    If that’s not “evil,” then there is no evil.
    ...

ISIL would cut of Boyle's head along with the heads of the rest of his family if they could and he does not think that is evil?  That group does not want to negotiate with anyone at any table.  It wants the whole world to accept the weird religious views of the group or be pushed into a mass grave or have their heads severed from their body.   The willful blindness of the see no evil left is sometimes stunning.

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/?v=0

[umair127]

Simple fact is that the countries over in the middleeast don't want to do anything about ISIS and until they and Europe get behind a movement to rid the middle east of ISIS then all we can do is kill a few of them then wait till they regroup and we do it all over again.  Do you really think that this would solve the problem.

and as I said.. the liberals and the media not taking isis terroirsts seriously...and your attitude infects the leftists in the media and in the administration... even if isis does attack this country in some way... and thats what they are promising to do... the libeals and the media will brush away critisizm and blame everyone for the attack other than the murderous terrorists....

you are the perfect example of what I posted.....

[zolace]

Simple fact is that the countries over in the middleeast don't want to do anything about ISIS and until they and Europe get behind a movement to rid the middle east of ISIS then all we can do is kill a few of them then wait till they regroup and we do it all over again.  Do you really think that this would solve the problem.

Oh, I see, you think life in Syria would be better if isis were running the country because even they are better than asad. Got it. For a while there I was beginning to think the left wasn't worried about isis because they are more afraid of the terrorist tea party here in America cause you just know they're out there plotting and planning on taking over America just like isis is doing in iraq and you lefties are sure you would be the first to be slaughtered and your bodyless heads displayed on youtube. Cause harry reid told you so.

[umair127]

Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French?  There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world.

[zolace]

Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French?  There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world.

First lets ignore that we went into iraq to stop terrorists and then obama left the country without the ability to protect themselves. Then lets ignore that our allies are under attack. Then lets ignore that isis now has the man power and the money to attack Americans inside the US. then lets forget that whoever becomes controlled by isis becomes our enemy.  Then lets forget that obama aided the muslim brotherhood in Egypt which failed miserably. then lets forget that iraq asked for US aid a year ago to stop isis while in the early formation stages. Then lets forget that obama helped invade Libya and then left that country a hotbed mess for terrorists to take over. And lets forget that if we had aided the Syrian rebels in their civil war before terrorists did we wouldn't be in any of this mess right now. Obviously you have no problem sitting back and watching the slaughter of innocent humans much like many Americans did before Japan invited us into world war II. In other words you don't understand foreign policy, the need for the US to have allies and why we need to stop terrorists before they come here.

[sana8410]

I have a few questions for anyone who sees Isis as a direct threat to the US:

 

1. Their declared primary purpose is religious, extending religious bloodshed in the ME to six centuries. Does anyone think any US action could change that reality as a basis for war there? (If so, explain Iraq/Afghanistan).

 

2. Other than the actions either taken by this administration or being considered (arming the Kurds, bombing and droning Isis in Iraq and perhaps Syria, and restoring creditability to the Iraqi government) what would you suggest? Boots on the ground? Nukes?

 

3. It is not news that ME terrorists want to kill westerners and, if given the opportunity will do so today. Does anyone think an Isis terrorists any different from any other terrorist? How so? And if they are no different, then are we not doing pretty good at preventing their success? If they are different then how come they have no succeeded at a US attack ever?

 

4. Isis is unlike al qaeda in more important respect; they occupy land. That means if they succeed in a US attack they can be found and killed much more easily than those who hid in the mountains of Pakistan. Wanna harm the US....we will come visiting you from the air with punishments you will not avoid. So why should we seek yet another "preemptive" war?

 

[zolace]

Obama reminds me of the guy who always shows up to the party when everyone else is getting ready to leave, his responses always late and always tepid at best. Instead of a few periodic potshots at these creatures from ISIS, Obama should have been engaging them in earnest right from the get-go and we might not have this national security crises in Iraq we have today.

[umair127]

Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French?  There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world.

First lets ignore that we went into iraq to stop terrorists and then obama left the country without the ability to protect themselves. Then lets ignore that our allies are under attack. Then lets ignore that isis now has the man power and the money to attack Americans inside the US. then lets forget that whoever becomes controlled by isis becomes our enemy.  Then lets forget that obama aided the muslim brotherhood in Egypt which failed miserably. then lets forget that iraq asked for US aid a year ago to stop isis while in the early formation stages. Then lets forget that obama helped invade Libya and then left that country a hotbed mess for terrorists to take over. And lets forget that if we had aided the Syrian rebels in their civil war before terrorists did we wouldn't be in any of this mess right now. Obviously you have no problem sitting back and watching the slaughter of innocent humans much like many Americans did before Japan invited us into world war II. In other words you don't understand foreign policy, the need for the US to have allies and why we need to stop terrorists before they come here.

We didn't go into Iraq to fight terrorists. If you think that's the case, we're wasting our time here, because you don't even understand the issue.  Second, Obama didn't leave Iraq without the ability to defend itself. The Bush Administration negotiated a demobilization time table, and we spent the better part of 10 years arming and teaching the Iraqis to defend themselves.  When the time came, and we had to pull out, Obama even offered to extend our stay, but the Iraqi government refused to renew the agreements that allowed our people to operate there without fear of reprisal from the Iraqi government if they decided they didn't like any of our soldiers.  At least TRY to get your facts straight.  If we want to concern ourselves with the potential for ISIS to attack inside the US, then we need to address that possibility and use intelligence to prevent it. That does NOT mean spending our resources over there starting yet another war with no end game on multiple fronts over there in the middle east.  And lastly, stop pretending you give a shit about those "innocent humans" being killed by ISIS. You don't care about them any more than you care about the hundreds of thousands of minimum wage workers at Burger King stores all over America. You trot them out as pawns to try and vilify others  who don't share your politics. That's ALL you use them for and the entire extent of your care for them.  You're not fooling anyone.  This is  about one thing and only one thing - you hate Obama and glom onto anything that opposes him, no matter what it is, and most of the time, you don't even understand the issues. You are one of those people who never shuts up long enough to actually LEARN anything. Why does ISIS exist? Is it because Obama left Iraq? No, it's not. It's because George W Bush invaded Iraq and CREATED the power vacuum they seek to fill. We have no business trying to police the entire world. And the mess things are in exists in large part because we have TRIED to do that. And in the mean time, we are bankrupting our own country in doing so.

[5 Guys Burgers]

Who was the one that started Iraq in the first place? Oh wait I know!

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/01/gall.bush.lincoln.gi.jpg

If you researched anything about Iraq, you would know that a lot was brewing there and if we had not taken action their whole country would have fallen a lot sooner and would have had no protection and no standing army. As it stands right now they do have a standing army but Obama deserted them. All they need is 3,000+ advisors and tech and radar and spy capabilities and their own army can do what needs to be done. When all us troops pulled out a lot of chaos ensued as what should be done and when and where the enemy is.

When the US left the iraqi army(once again abandoned by a democrat) was disorganized. take away a major structual foundation to an army and it doesnt function.

i know you want to be a lil beach and talk ur hard stuff tho.

l2read i guess?

[sana8410]

Finally, an opinion:
 
In the US we have a powerful political factor that has a constant taste for war, and it is neverending. If we are at peace for a week folks like McCain are seeking wars out for us.
While that helps the defense industry, it does not help Americans. We won nothing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. But in each case we spent our wealth and American blood. How many of these wars must we fight before we turn on those who endlessly demand more blood for no purpose?

[zolace]

Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French?  There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world.

First lets ignore that we went into iraq to stop terrorists and then obama left the country without the ability to protect themselves. Then lets ignore that our allies are under attack. Then lets ignore that isis now has the man power and the money to attack Americans inside the US. then lets forget that whoever becomes controlled by isis becomes our enemy.  Then lets forget that obama aided the muslim brotherhood in Egypt which failed miserably. then lets forget that iraq asked for US aid a year ago to stop isis while in the early formation stages. Then lets forget that obama helped invade Libya and then left that country a hotbed mess for terrorists to take over. And lets forget that if we had aided the Syrian rebels in their civil war before terrorists did we wouldn't be in any of this mess right now. Obviously you have no problem sitting back and watching the slaughter of innocent humans much like many Americans did before Japan invited us into world war II. In other words you don't understand foreign policy, the need for the US to have allies and why we need to stop terrorists before they come here.

We didn't go into Iraq to fight terrorists. If you think that's the case, we're wasting our time here, because you don't even understand the issue.  Second, Obama didn't leave Iraq without the ability to defend itself. The Bush Administration negotiated a demobilization time table, and we spent the better part of 10 years arming and teaching the Iraqis to defend themselves.  When the time came, and we had to pull out, Obama even offered to extend our stay, but the Iraqi government refused to renew the agreements that allowed our people to operate there without fear of reprisal from the Iraqi government if they decided they didn't like any of our soldiers.  At least TRY to get your facts straight.  If we want to concern ourselves with the potential for ISIS to attack inside the US, then we need to address that possibility and use intelligence to prevent it. That does NOT mean spending our resources over there starting yet another war with no end game on multiple fronts over there in the middle east.  And lastly, stop pretending you give a shit about those "innocent humans" being killed by ISIS. You don't care about them any more than you care about the hundreds of thousands of minimum wage workers at Burger King stores all over America. You trot them out as pawns to try and vilify others  who don't share your politics. That's ALL you use them for and the entire extent of your care for them.  You're not fooling anyone.  This is  about one thing and only one thing - you hate Obama and glom onto anything that opposes him, no matter what it is, and most of the time, you don't even understand the issues. You are one of those people who never shuts up long enough to actually LEARN anything. Why does ISIS exist? Is it because Obama left Iraq? No, it's not. It's because George W Bush invaded Iraq and CREATED the power vacuum they seek to fill. We have no business trying to police the entire world. And the mess things are in exists in large part because we have TRIED to do that. And in the mean time, we are bankrupting our own country in doing so.

His approval of the military strategy is a sound decision, the use of drones, bombing runs at ISIS, finally working in collusion with the Kurds (even on a small scale) is at least a step in the right direction. Demanding the Muslims of the ME bear the heavy lifting of ground fighting, also a good strategy.

I think in this case, Obama really does exemplify American foreign policy in our period of wannabe isolationists. We always do the right thing...after we've explored every other option.

[Lethn]

Who was the one that started Iraq in the first place? Oh wait I know!

If you researched anything about Iraq, you would know that a lot was brewing there and if we had not taken action their whole country would have fallen a lot sooner and would have had no protection and no standing army. As it stands right now they do have a standing army but Obama deserted them. All they need is 3,000+ advisors and tech and radar and spy capabilities and their own army can do what needs to be done. When all us troops pulled out a lot of chaos ensued as what should be done and when and where the enemy is.

When the US left the iraqi army(once again abandoned by a democrat) was disorganized. take away a major structual foundation to an army and it doesnt function.

i know you want to be a lil beach and talk ur hard stuff tho.

l2read i guess?

Yeah, there were also supposed to be nuclear weapons weren't there?

[Mike Christ]

Why would they label IS as evil?  They're doing the same exact things, just wearing a different banner.

[shogdite]

If you researched anything about Iraq, you would know that a lot was brewing there and if we had not taken action their whole country would have fallen a lot sooner and would have had no protection and no standing army. As it stands right now they do have a standing army but Obama deserted them. All they need is 3,000+ advisors and tech and radar and spy capabilities and their own army can do what needs to be done. When all us troops pulled out a lot of chaos ensued as what should be done and when and where the enemy is.

When the US left the iraqi army(once again abandoned by a democrat) was disorganized. take away a major structual foundation to an army and it doesnt function.

i know you want to be a lil beach and talk ur hard stuff tho.

l2read i guess?

It was Bush who was in charge when the entire Iraq army was disbanded, probably one of the most retarded decisions made by a modern US president.

If Saddam was still in power, ISIS probably wouldn't exist.