Islamic State 'beheads second US journalist'

[umair127]

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.

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.

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.

[1714760349]

1714760349

[sana8410]

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.

[zolace]

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

Or, when obama is no longer president.

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.

[umair127]

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

Or, when obama is no longer president.

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.

[purplebanana]

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

Or, when obama is no longer president.

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.

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.

[sana8410]

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.

[umair127]

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.

[MoonRise]

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

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.

[fussel-fuel-four]

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

[bryant.coleman]

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.

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.

[zolace]

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

Or, when obama is no longer president.

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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.

[bryant.coleman]

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.

[Get.BTC.Now]

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?

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.

[BJay87]

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

[Kluge]

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?

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.

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

[bryant.coleman]

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.

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.

[pajrinn]

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

[Robert Paulson]

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.