Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/james-foley-executed-isis_n_5692695.html



This rings horrifically similar to the brutal killing of Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan 12 years ago, and comes shortly after the horrific mass genocide of the men of over 175 families in Kocho, Iraq (and kidnapping their women and children under 12). How should the US respond to this situation? How does this compare to prior jihadist terrorist actions? What geopolitical implications will this have?

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/james-foley-executed-isis_n_5692695.html



This rings horrifically similar to the brutal killing of Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan 12 years ago, and comes shortly after the horrific mass genocide of the men of over 175 families in Kocho, Iraq (and kidnapping their women and children under 10). How should the US respond to this situation? How does this compare to prior jihadist terrorist actions? What geopolitical implications will this have?

Why should the US do anything? Of course I'm playing devils abdicate, but where are the good Islamic people? Why are they not crying out against this?

If the US does anything we will just be hates for it. It is a no win situation.

Unfortunately nothing will happen , the pres has not even bothered to comment and if he does it will be his "we cannot allow this" rhetoric followed by zero action.

We shouldn't do anything.

Or rather, if we do do something, this incident should have zero influence on that decision. Random American journalist who volunteered to wander around a warzone getting killed isn't worth going to war over.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
We shouldn't do anything.

Or rather, if we do do something, this incident should have zero influence on that decision. Random American journalist who volunteered to wander around a warzone getting killed isn't worth going to war over.

I happen to agree with this statement, he should no business going into Syria. No matter what flag you choose to take, you also accept the risk of being in a bad part of town.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
where are the good Islamic people? Why are they not crying out against this?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/08/the-muslims-who-are-condemning-isis/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/27/stunning-pictures-of-thousands-of-british-muslims-gathring-to-denounce-isis-and-hear-messages-of-peace-_n_5538169.html

http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12551-cair-condemns-isis-violence-and-rejects-calls-to-join-extremists-fighting-abroad.html

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/08/the-muslims-who-are-condemning-isis/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/27/stunning-pictures-of-thousands-of-british-muslims-gathring-to-denounce-isis-and-hear-messages-of-peace-_n_5538169.html

http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12551-cair-condemns-isis-violence-and-rejects-calls-to-join-extremists-fighting-abroad.html

Where are the rest of them!?

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/08/the-muslims-who-are-condemning-isis/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/27/stunning-pictures-of-thousands-of-british-muslims-gathring-to-denounce-isis-and-hear-messages-of-peace-_n_5538169.html

http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12551-cair-condemns-isis-violence-and-rejects-calls-to-join-extremists-fighting-abroad.html

Thanks. Now they need to go take care of Isis.

I don't feel like it is any more their responsibility than say mine or yours, though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't feel like it is any more their responsibility than say mine or yours, though.

If Catholics were rampaging through Europe, killing everyone, I think the Christian nations of the world should stop them.

I don't see Saudi Arabia, Iran or any other Islamic nations doing shit.

I think the reason is that they are on Isis's side, and want them to win. Am I wrong?

I also think America wants them to win. Once Isis becomes a real nation, we can just nuke all of their cities and win the war.

Now this isn't what I want, and I am being a bit cynical, but it makes sense to a small degree.

Well, I can't speak for Saudi Arabia or Iran, but I am talking about for peaceful, western Muslims, that have no allegiance with ISIS or terrorism whatsoever and that condemn it just as much as you and I. I don't think they have any special responsibility solely because their Religion is in broad terms based on some similar history.

Governments have their own reasons, often contradictory ones within their own ranks, and global politics is a complicated and confusing thing, with ramifications often not clear (imo not even to the highest people in charge), so I am sure some people want ISIS to create their own state for whatever reasons, but we shouldn't paint all muslims with one brush, many of them, probably most in Europe and America, have no connection to or sympathy for Islamic terrorism whatsoever.

If ISIS were to attack Iran, I'm fairly certain Iran would attack them back, as an example.

I doubt the US gov wants Iraq under the control of a radical terrorist group. But who knows in the end.

We should continue doing what we're doing now - bombing them and acting as support for the local forces who are fighting against them. No need to engage in full scale warfare with these creatures.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If Catholics were rampaging through Europe, killing everyone, I think the Christian nations of the world should stop them.

Why would 'Christian' nations have a special obligation to deal with them?

It isn't a Muslim thing, it's a matter of regional and global security. Countries like SA, Jordan, Iran, and Turkey should do all they can to combat ISIS because ISIS is a direct threat to them and to the region, not because they're 'Muslim' nations and they have to clean up their 'own' messes.

Originally posted by BackFire
We should continue doing what we're doing now - bombing them and acting as support for the local forces who are fighting against them. No need to engage in full scale warfare with these creatures.

Agreed, or send in Delta or Seals for quick missions.

What I don't get is why they have not bombed the training camps yet, and where they are getting the people and resources to continue after devastating loses.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Why would 'Christian' nations have a special obligation to deal with them?...

It was a comparison. You are taking what I said out of context. But you always do that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was a comparison. You are taking what I said out of context. But you always do that.
How was I taking it out of context? You were suggesting that Christian nations would have a special obligation to deal with Christian fundamentalist terrorists.

True or not: you believe Muslim nations have a special obligation to deal with Muslim terrorism because they're Muslim? If this isn't what you're saying, then your hypothetical comparison is meaningless.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
...
True or not: you believe Muslim nations have a special obligation to deal with Muslim terrorism because they're Muslim? If this isn't what you're saying, then your hypothetical comparison is meaningless.

They should excommunicate them or whatever Muslims do. If a Buddhist goes around killing people in the name of Buddhism, every Buddhist organization in the world should excommunicate him. The only people who can take their religious angle away is other Muslims. No one else can do that. So, true it is all of the Muslim nations in the world that have a special obligation to deal with Muslim terrorism because they're Muslim.

Just nuke the bastards.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Just nuke the bastards.

You got to get them all together in one place first.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You got to get them all together in one place first.

I wasn't being serious lol

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Just nuke the bastards.

Glass em

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Glass em

I have the image of Wild Bill in my head, from the Green Mile....yelling, "We're Cookin Em Now".

The Joint Chiefs have advised Obama to not send in ground troops as it would be a slaughter, these ISIS guys are hardened veterans hammered into shape by countless campaigns in the forge of war. They can easily engage and take out an enemy 15+ times their size.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They should excommunicate them or whatever Muslims do. If a Buddhist goes around killing people in the name of Buddhism, every Buddhist organization in the world should excommunicate him. The only people who can take their religious angle away is other Muslims. No one else can do that. So, true it is all of the Muslim nations in the world that have a special obligation to deal with Muslim terrorism because they're Muslim.
And excommunication will do what exactly?

I'll bet you there are clerics who have already formally denounced ISIS. The thing about Islam (and really all religions) is that the temporal hierarchies are only effective in controlling adherents to a point. All it takes is some mother****er who thinks he's God's chosen instrument and suddenly the words of Popes, Clerics, Ayatollahs, and what have you mean nothing because they're really just guys and they don't know God's will as well as he does. The other issue is that with Sunnis there isn't really any kind of political hierarchy with the clergy, or hasn't been since the time of the Caliphates.

As it is, very few Muslims actually believe that groups like ISIS are carrying out God's will, and the ones who do aren't likely to be swayed by declarations and symbolic actions of religious figureheads.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And excommunication will do what exactly?

I'll bet you there are clerics who have already formally denounced ISIS. The thing about Islam (and really all religions) is that the temporal hierarchies are only effective in controlling adherents to a point. All it takes is some mother****er who thinks he's God's chosen instrument and suddenly the words of Popes, Clerics, Ayatollahs, Dailai Lamas, and what have you mean nothing because they're really just guys and they don't know God's will as well as he does.

That is the entire point of them wanting to form a Caliphate.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That is the entire point of them wanting to form a Caliphate.

That and the rampant buttsex that ensues

Originally posted by Robtard
That and the rampant buttsex that ensues

No buttsex with boys, but little girls had better watch out.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I wasn't being serious lol

And I wasn't?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No buttsex with boys, but little girls had better watch out.

No, Islam doesn't allow you to put it in any pooper, not man, not woman, not beast.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, Islam doesn't allow you to put it in any pooper, not man, not woman, not beast.

Unless you are a prophet!

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't feel like it is any more their responsibility than say mine or yours, though.

This

It is outrageous. This whole thing. Why can't their be a task force that arrests people belonging to groups recognised as international terrorists? Or can they do that and their just crap?

Anyhow my heart goes to the US right now. I know it was just one man but just how it happened is just outrageous.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
We shouldn't do anything.

Or rather, if we do do something, this incident should have zero influence on that decision. Random American journalist who volunteered to wander around a warzone getting killed isn't worth going to war over.


I disagree. The sick bastards made this guy make an anti-American statement about how our airstrikes are the cause of him being executed and then sawed his head off for the whole world to see. They even made him say "I wish I wasn't an American". Intensity and frequency of airstrikes should be increased several times over. A message has to be sent to terrorist thugs like this that the killing of American citizens will have dire consequences. We already knew how sick they were when they recently killed, kidnapped, and buried people alive including women and children over there. Now, they've gone and murdered an American.


Fortunately, I haven't seen this video. I did some searches for it online because my curiosity got the better of me but it seems to have been removed from everywhere already. I'm actually kind of glad that I can't watch the video. I only saw still images of this poor man beheaded. He was lying face down on the ground with his head on his back. It made me wince a little when the image popped-up on my screen.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, Islam doesn't allow you to put it in any pooper, not man, not woman, not beast. I'm pretty sure it allows you to buttphuck men and goats.

The internet wouldn't lie to me.

Originally posted by BackFire
We should continue doing what we're doing now - bombing them and acting as support for the local forces who are fighting against them. No need to engage in full scale warfare with these creatures.

Agreed

Originally posted by Star428
I disagree. The sick bastards made this guy make an anti-American statementWho cares?

1) They already know that. 2) "Sending a message" is not a good reason to go war, especially when our country is already broke and tired of war.

The only reason we should go to war is for self-defense, at this point. ISIS can make all the anti-US statements they want so long as they keep that shit in the Middle East where no one cares.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Who cares?

1) They already know that. 2) "Sending a message" is not a good reason to go war, especially when our country is already broke and tired of war.

The only reason we should go to war is for self-defense, at this point. ISIS can make all the anti-US statements they want so long as they keep that shit in the Middle East where no one cares.


LOL. Where did I say we should go to war? Please enlighten me. I never said that so please don't put words in my mouth. I said the intensity and frequency of airstrikes should be increased. That does not mean I think we should engage in an all-out war with them.

Oh, btw, it's funny how you quoted only partial of my sentence as if I were calling them sick because they just made him make an anti-American statement. Way to quote somebody out of context, dude. I'll remember that next time I quote something of yours.

Then your post in response to mine was pointless.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Then your post in response to mine was pointless.


Pointless? LOL. Ok, whatever you say. You said we should do nothing. I disagreed and said airstrike intensity should be increased. But, since you in your all wiseness declared it "pointless" I guess that makes it so.

Originally posted by Mindset
I'm pretty sure it allows you to buttphuck men and goats.

The internet wouldn't lie to me.

You're only allowed to butt-pump other men if it's for Jihad purposes. ie the "Anal Jihad".

ik5GZap_-_A

Originally posted by Star428
Pointless? LOL. Ok, whatever you say. You said we should do nothing. I disagreed and said airstrike intensity should be increased. But, since you in your all wiseness declared it "pointless" I guess that makes it so. Where did I say we should stop our airstrikes? I said there's nothing more to do. We're already bombing them and arming local militia- that's good enough.

The answer is HAARP.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The answer is HAARP.

Again, you have to have the enemy all in one place, like a country, for that to work.

Airstrikes are not a long term solution. ISIS will continue to kill Americans regardless of what we do. We can't really fight a conventional war with these guerillas, so American boots on the ground will end up costing more
American lives. ISIS has threatened to bring the bloodshed inside our own borders, so we can't ignore them.

I think we need to worry about protecting our own borders right now, no only to prevent further ISIS terrorrists from coming in, but to contain the influx of illegal aliens from Latin America. Obama is not the man to handle this, but I digress.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Airstrikes are not a long term solution. ISIS will continue to kill Americans regardless of what we do. We can't really fight a conventional war with these guerillas, so American boots on the ground will end up costing more
American lives. ISIS has threatened to bring the bloodshed inside our own borders, so we can't ignore them.

I think we need to worry about protecting our own borders right now, no only to prevent further ISIS terrorrists from coming in, but to contain the influx of illegal aliens from Latin America. Obama is not the man to handle this, but I digress. "to prevent further ISIS terrorists from coming in"


WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
"to prevent further ISIS terrorists from coming in"


WTF are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure ISIS have guys here already

Do you know?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you know?

I think they were trying to tell us that, or make us believe that, because of the British accent of the executioner.

ISIS press officer who said jihadists would 'raise the flag of Allah in the White House' reported dead in Syria airstrike.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730929/ISIS-press-officer-said-jihadists-raise-flag-Allah-White-House-reported-dead-Syria-airstrike.html

http://i61.tinypic.com/1zlfa0g.jpg

I just saw the beheading video of Steven Sotloff.

It's sad that Obama (or rather the US government in general) will never listen to his dying plea.

This acts of terrorism will never end, all because of the US sticking it's nose on other countries' affairs + births of soon-to-be Islamic extremists.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I just saw the beheading video of Steven Sotloff.

It's sad that Obama (or rather the US government in general) will never listen to his dying plea.

This acts of terrorism will never end, all because of the US sticking it's nose on other countries' affairs + births of soon-to-be Islamic extremists.
You think that anything he said was of his own choice? Do you understand the meaning of the word 'duress?'

Also, there's not a damn person outside of ISIS itself who wasn't calling for or at least tolerant of the US airstrikes against ISIS. Even Iran was relieved when the bombs started falling.

It isn't really "interfering" in another country's affairs if that country's government asked for the intervention.

Why did America intervene in Ukraine and Iraq?
Obviously, it's for economic reasons. Nothing else.

America doesn't give 2 shits about Folley, Sorloff, or any victims of their so-called wars.


PS: I'm on neither's side, but US should stop colonizing other countries for their financial gain.
Workout their trade routes, explore other resources for profit, etc.
That's where the gov't should be spending their revenue on, not on bio-chemical weapons testing on Fallujah.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I just saw the beheading video of Steven Sotloff.

It's sad that Obama (or rather the US government in general) will never listen to his dying plea.

This acts of terrorism will never end, all because of the US sticking it's nose on other countries' affairs + births of soon-to-be Islamic extremists.

I won't watch death vids, but what was the guy's "dying plea"?

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I just saw the beheading video of Steven Sotloff.

It's sad that Obama (or rather the US government in general) will never listen to his dying plea.

This acts of terrorism will never end, all because of the US sticking it's nose on other countries' affairs + births of soon-to-be Islamic extremists.

Damn right, he can't even get the name of ISIS correct. He's such a dumbass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uy87NKMmuM&bpctr=1409782903

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Damn right, he can't even get the name of ISIS correct. He's such a dumbass.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QZaWYaclNEw/TQVWXPxmj1I/AAAAAAAAAOo/LCC9515O93g/s1600/smug_obama_hate.jpeg

Originally posted by Robtard
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QZaWYaclNEw/TQVWXPxmj1I/AAAAAAAAAOo/LCC9515O93g/s1600/smug_obama_hate.jpeg

But this is the man who keeps blaming everything on Bush, and Bush hasn't been president for 6 years.

The Democrats are some of the biggest haters I have ever met. Just remember some of the very nasty things said about Bush.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But this is the man who keeps blaming everything on Bush, and Bush hasn't been president for 6 years.

The Democrats are some of the biggest haters I have ever met. Just remember some of the very nasty things said about Bush.

If you don't think Bush's war has lasting impacts that we still see (and will see for coming years), then you're blind.

Such as?

On a side note, I do beleive the Republican party is (or at least was) craftier than the Democratic. I still think they sandbagged McCain in 2008 by giving him that impossibly stupid woman (no way she wasn't vetted) as a running mate so he couldn't win. Knowing that America was going to be a complete mess after Bush for years to come, it would be smarter to have a Dem President to take the flak.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't think Bush's war has lasting impacts that we still see (and will see for coming years), then you're blind.

Such as?

On a side note, I do beleive the Republican party is (or at least was) craftier than the Democratic. I still think they sandbagged McCain in 2008 by giving him that impossibly stupid woman (no way she wasn't vetted) as a running mate so he couldn't win. Knowing that America was going to be a complete mess after Bush for years to come, it would be smarter to have a Dem President to take the flak.

So it's okay for you to hate, but not people on the other side. They call that hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So it's okay for you to hate, but not people on the other side. They call that hypocrisy.

Not sure how you got that from what I said. Hate on Obama all you like, he doesn't care.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Why did America intervene in Ukraine and Iraq?
Obviously, it's for economic reasons. Nothing else.

America doesn't give 2 shits about Folley, Sorloff, or any victims of their so-called wars.


PS: I'm on neither's side, but US should stop colonizing other countries for their financial gain.
Workout their trade routes, explore other resources for profit, etc.
That's where the gov't should be spending their revenue on, not on bio-chemical weapons testing on Fallujah.
I would think that the people who actually beheaded the reporters deserve more of the blame and condemnation than the US government.

Calling Folley and Sorloff "victims" of "America's wars" is all kinds of stupid. Full stop. They're victims of bandits with a radical ideology who are trying to wage psychological warfare through acts of brutality.

Once again: but for ISIS themselves, no one in Iraq is sorry that America is getting involved with airstrikes. To stop those airstrikes just to save the life of one reporter (assuming it worked) would be pointless because it would have meant the deaths of hundreds of Kurds, Shi'ites, and members of religious minorities. Before American air power was brought to bear ISIS was slowly grinding down the Peshmerga, and the Iraqi Army was powerless to roll back their advances.

If America hadn't gotten involved, someone else would have, likely Iran, and no one wants to see a messy Iranian ground invasion of Iraq.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure how you got that from what I said. Hate on Obama all you like, he doesn't care.

That's not the point. Democrats have no right to call anything thing that other people say hate without being hypocrites. Democrats are the masters of hate. So the idea behind the poster is hypocritical and makes Obama look like a fool.

Not to mention that while in the past America (under a different POTUS) may have attempted imperialist power grabs for territorial resources, the intervention in the ISIS conflict is clearly one of humanitarian aid.

EDIT: this is a reply to OV

I'm noticing an increasing trend among a certain portion of the American public who are so tired of war and jaded that they've lost all sense of perspective and don't envision any scenario where it's justified for America to use military force abroad.

Right now America is doing the job it was supposedly doing in 2003. This is the time when it actually makes sense to get involved in Iraq.

America can't just invade a country and then wash its hands of the mess it makes just because the American public wants a clean break/cold turkey separation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That's not the point. Democrats have no right to call anything thing that other people say hate without being hypocrites.

Democrats are the masters of hate.

So the idea behind the poster is hypocritical and makes Obama look like a fool.

Well I disagree in the blanketed sense of things. Certain points, sure.

I disagree that Democrats are "the masters of hate".

I think that picture was just humor; it's the reason I posted it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well I disagree in the blanketed sense of things. Certain points, sure.

I disagree that Democrats are "the masters of hate".

I think that picture was just humor; it's the reason I posted it.

I don't find it funny at all. Perhaps more golf will make me feel better. Now that's funny.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't find it funny at all. Perhaps more golf will make me feel better. Now that's funny.

I'd not use golf jokes about Obama while being a staunch Bush supporter, it will backfire.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd not use golf jokes about Obama while being a staunch Bush supporter, it will backfire.

I was never a Bush supporter. I was just never a Bush hater. I know that is hard for you to tell the difference.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That's not the point. Democrats have no right to call anything thing that other people say hate without being hypocrites. Democrats are the masters of hate. So the idea behind the poster is hypocritical and makes Obama look like a fool. I'm glad you've finally dropped the "I'm politic-neutral!" stance- it really wasn't fooling anybody.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I'm glad you've finally dropped the "I'm politic-neutral!" stance- it really wasn't fooling anybody.

You don't even know what politic-neutral is. I'm talking to a Democrat. It's assumed that Republicans are masters of hate. Or can there be only one master of hate?

Quit teaming up on Shaky, he's my friend

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was never a Bush supporter. I was just never a Bush hater. I know that is hard for you to tell the difference.

You voted for Bush but didn't support him? That is odd.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Quit teaming up on Shaky, he's my friend

I can handle the haters!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't even know what politic-neutral is. I'm talking to a Democrat. It's assumed that Republicans are masters of hate. Or can there be only one master of hate?

If there is a political "Masters of Hate", it would probably be the religious far right. Those are some haters right there.

Originally posted by Robtard
You voted for Bush but didn't support him? That is odd.

Who would you know? I always vote for Alfred E Neuman.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can handle the haters!

Oh I know, you the man.

Originally posted by Robtard
If there is a political "Masters of Hate", it would probably be the religious far right. Those are some haters right there.

Really? Ya, they can be very hateful, but I've had atheists screaming at me. It is extremes that lead to hate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't even know what politic-neutral is. I'm talking to a Democrat. It's assumed that Republicans are masters of hate. Or can there be only one master of hate? So you're basically a contrarian?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who would you know? I always vote for Alfred E Neuman.

Pretty sure you've said you did. Though I could be mixing it up and thinking of the time you said you'd be voting for McCain.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? Ya, they can be very hateful, but I've had atheists screaming at me. It is extremes that lead to hate.

So you think the Democratic (Masters of Hate) party are extremist. Odd.

Obama failed to rescue the journalists and he had multiple opportunities.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Obama failed to rescue the journalists and he had multiple opportunities.

Such as?

Originally posted by Robtard
So you think the Democratic (Masters of Hate) party are extremist. Odd.

Both political parties in the US are extremists. Or to put it more correctly; are currently being run by extremist element.

Originally posted by Robtard
Such as?

Such as the multiple times he failed to send in SF to rescue them but worried about his image if the mission failed.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Such as the multiple times he failed to send in SF to rescue them but worried about his image if the mission failed.

And you have proof of this?

Originally posted by Robtard
And you have proof of this?

?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/world/meast/isis-james-foley/

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/world/meast/isis-james-foley/ Can you quote the part where is says or even implies: " failed to send in SF to rescue them but worried about his image if the mission failed."?

Thanks, don't feel like reading the whole article.

Shaky's probably a conservative republican, or just a democrat hater.

Originally posted by Robtard
Can you quote the part where is says or even implies: " failed to send in SF to rescue them but worried about his image if the mission failed."?

Thanks, don't feel like reading the whole article.

He sent them in a month late and they failed to rescue the reporters.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He sent them in a month late and they failed to rescue the reporters.

You just said he failed to send in SF; now he sent then in late? Which is it.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Shaky's probably a conservative republican, or just a democrat hater.
I'm not a member of ether party. If I had to pick a party it would be Libertarian, but I'm not.

Both parties are haters.

They cut off the porn bad part.

In all seriousness, they're playing it precisely into big $'s hands.

http://halzzimmios.com/home/product_images/k/197/dubai_pearl_1__34457.jpg

http://dannews.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/burj_khalifa.jpg

Look who else gets paid

http://thesupercarkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bugatti-veyron-16.4-grand-sport-c904415102013230834_4.jpg

http://www-tc.pbs.org/marktwain/scrapbook/05_gilded_age/images/05_cover.gif

Is that top picture real? It looks amazing.

Looks like a render.

Where will it be built? And what's the name of the building?

The Dubai Pearl.

It's going to be built in Dubai.

Wow, I gotta go back there to visit this marvelous beauty.

"Dubai Pearl is a 73 story , 300 m (984 ft), tall residential skyscraper under construction along Al Sufouh Road in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. It consists of four mixed-use towers connected together at the base and by a sky bridge at the top. Construction is set for completion in 2016.

The structural design was carried out by Dubai based engineering firm e-Construct*

Construction was started in 2009, and the project will cost $4 billion (Dh14.6 billion). Once completed Dubai Pearl will accommodate 9,000 residents and its commercial sector will employ 12,000 people."

Originally posted by Robtard
You just said he failed to send in SF; now he sent then in late? Which is it.

Both

Originally posted by Robtard
You just said he failed to send in SF; now he sent then in late? Which is it.
I am guessing he's trying to imply that sending them in late is tantamount to failing to send them altogether.

Though I have my doubts about the veracity of his claim.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Dubai Pearl. 1d34NHn5MHg

Originally posted by Epicurus
I am guessing he's trying to imply that sending them in late is tantamount to failing to send them altogether.

Though I have my doubts about the veracity of his claim.

It's the truth, can't reveal my source.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
It's the truth, can't reveal my source. lol

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
1d34NHn5MHg You guys are more interested in Dubai's buildings than you are interested in the fact that only the Middle East's upper class dwells in decadence in Dubai; and that they do so because America's military can destroy, and America's upper class can outsource for reconstruction, so long as the fake agenda known as Isis is funded by these individual Americans whom I will mutilate in a basement.

Originally posted by Oneness
You guys are more interested in Dubai's buildings than you are interested in the fact that only the Middle East's upper class dwells in decadence in Dubai; and that they do so because America's military can destroy, and America's upper class can outsource for reconstruction, so long as the fake agenda known as Isis is funded by these individual Americans whom I will mutilate in a basement.

I'm pretty sure that in Dubai they outsource their own labor by bringing in Indian laborers and paying them a pittance while saving money by cutting every safety-corner possible cos dead Indian laborers are free in the end. *takes a deep breath*

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm pretty sure that in Dubai they outsource their own labor by bringing in Indian laborers and paying them a pittance while saving money by cutting every safety-corner possible cos dead Indian laborers are free in the end. *takes a deep breath* Firstly, yes, you've described a form of outsourcing nothing like American CEOs harvesting Dubai's oil for oversea profit fed by leaching off of honest Americans.

Second, do you know where Dubai is? It's so close to India that it's impossible for what you've said to be true, not to mention that GM and the War on Terror is most likely the reason why there're rich Arabs in Dubai in the first place.

Did you know capitalism is transnational and that it is, in fact, multiculturally collaborated?

And, yes, I'm far more long-winded than you.

More than capitalism, all currencies are more evil than the Antichrist. In my world no one is wealthy and everyone lives a decadent and overly extravagant life because there're resources we can harvest freely due to our technological sophistication.

You are just precious.

We all know it's true that everything is within everyone's grasp.

We all know what business is, limiting and dictating what and who we can have.

Yet I'm the only one whose been driven insane by my hatred of it.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm the only one whose insane Cropped for accuracy.

Originally posted by Oneness
More than capitalism, all currencies are more evil than the Antichrist. In my world no one is wealthy and everyone lives a decadent and overly extravagant life because there're resources we can harvest freely due to our technological sophistication.
Oneness and his commie agenda.


Btw, Robtard is right.
Dubai was built (well, pretty much every Mideast country) by minimum-wage Indian/Pakistani laborers

Originally posted by Oneness
Firstly, yes, you've described a form of outsourcing nothing like American CEOs harvesting Dubai's oil for oversea profit fed by leaching off of honest Americans.

Second, do you know where Dubai is? It's so close to India that it's impossible for what you've said to be true, not to mention that GM and the War on Terror is most likely the reason why there're rich Arabs in Dubai in the first place.

Did you know capitalism is transnational and that it is, in fact, multiculturally collaborated?

And, yes, I'm far more long-winded than you.

I would vote for you for President, lead the way brother.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Oneness and his commie agenda.


Btw, Robtard is right.
Dubai was built (well, pretty much every Mideast country) by minimum-wage Indian/Pakistani laborers Minimum-wage laborers does not account for the price of the raw materials nor for the wages and salaries of the engineers.

Nor does it account for the sudden surge of business in the middle east directly correspondent for price America has paid in money and blood since 9/11.

9/11, sketchy in and of itself. With many an inconsistency, the third tower that went down, for incidence.

Do not forget, we've trained terrorists in that part of the world in the Vietnam era.

C3V98lnJX1k

VcNl4Ig1jR0

Bush was right.

Obama what were you thinking?

Time Immemorial, no one will believe you. Hate dictates that Bush could never be correct.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
VcNl4Ig1jR0

Bush was right.

Obama what were you thinking? Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Time Immemorial, no one will believe you. Hate dictates that Bush could never be correct. Hmm, invade a country, destroy the infrastructure, kill the dictator scumbag that kept the extremist in check and then "magically predict" that the country would fall to shambles afterwards.

Yes, clearly Bush is a soothsayer.

Also see: U.S. Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

I don't know what the right answer is anymore.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I don't know what the right answer is anymore.

Blaming Obama on the US withdrawal of Iraq isn't one of them; those plans had already been put into place before he took office.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
VcNl4Ig1jR0

Bush was right.

Obama what were you thinking?
I don't get what this is supposed to prove. What exactly was Bush right about? The fact that Iraq had WMDs? Or about the blindingly obvious fact that the disastrous American-led war would destabilize Iraq to the point that after withdrawal, it would go into chaos?

And while we're going about blaming Obama for all the evil sh1t happening around the world, let's not conveniently forget that Bush was the one who created this mess to begin with. Or the fact that US forces would have had to withdraw sooner or later irrespective of what Obama's intentions were.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hmm, invade a country, destroy the infrastructure, kill the dictator scumbag that kept the extremist in check and then "magically predict" that the country would fall to shambles afterwards.

Yes, clearly Bush is a soothsayer.

Also see: U.S. Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

See how hate twists everything. It's no use talking to you about it. You have been brainwashed. Enjoy the hate.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I don't get what this is supposed to prove. What exactly was Bush right about? The fact that Iraq had WMDs? Or about the blindingly obvious fact that the disastrous American-led war would destabilize Iraq to the point that after withdrawal, it would go into chaos?

And while we're going about blaming Obama for all the evil sh1t happening around the world, let's not conveniently forget that Bush was the one who created this mess to begin with. Or the fact that US forces would have had to withdraw sooner or later irrespective of what Obama's intentions were.

Well you are pretty smart, why don't you run for office or something and fix something. There are smart people here, someone should step up.

The world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. He was the guy who paid the families of suicide bombers, and killed his own people with WMD that he reportedly didn't have.

And of course we didn't find any of the WMD that we gave him. That would have been embarrassing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
See how hate twists everything. It's no use talking to you about it. You have been brainwashed. Enjoy the hate.

The hell. Hate?

What was I wrong about? Did you look up the US/Iraq SOFA as I said.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. He was the guy who paid the families of suicide bombers, and killed his own people with WMD that he reportedly didn't have.

Do you think Iraq and her people are better off right now than in 2003/pre US invasion?

The official stance of the US government is that Saddam did not have the WMDs that the Bush cabinet claimed and that was the sole reason for the invasion. If you don't recall, it went something like this:

Bush: "Saddam, you need to turn over your WMDs."
Hussein: "But I don't have any, UN inspectors verified this."
Bush: "I'm warning you, turn over your WMDs or else."
Hussein: "What the hell, bro. I don't have any. France, Germany, Russia and others are even saying you're wrong here."
Bush: "I warned you, now you and your sons have 48hrs to leave Iraq."
Hussein: "Dude, we don't have any WMDs and I'm not leaving my own home."
Bush: "You were warned, buddy! You tried to kill my dad!"

*Iraq invasion commences*
*Zero WMDs found*

I won't say they're better off, but Saddam was a horrific dictator and needed to be ousted. But it was a rodent-like tactic to lie to the public to incite the war, and further use 9/11, which had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or Saddam, to fuel anti-Arabic sentiment so people would enlist.

I find it ironic that in using the excuse of "The War on Terror" to incite America to oust the Saddam regime, they may have benefited the terrorists even more than before, as in ousting Saddam, they allowed al-Zarqawi's Iraqi Al-Qaeda branch to form due to the governmental collapse, which in turned morphed into the ISIS terrorist regime we see today, and now, with American patriotism exhausted and cynical due to being wasted on the the Iraq war, sending in troops to help isn't even an option.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
See how hate twists everything. It's no use talking to you about it. You have been brainwashed. Enjoy the hate.
Says the guy who watches Fox News.

Oh the irony.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think Iraq and her people are better off right now than in 2003/pre US invasion?

The official stance of the US government is that Saddam did not have the WMDs that the Bush cabinet claimed and that was the sole reason for the invasion. If you don't recall, it went something like this:

Bush: "Saddam, you need to turn over your WMDs."
Hussein: "But I don't have any, UN inspectors verified this."
Bush: "I'm warning you, turn over your WMDs or else."
Hussein: "What the hell, bro. I don't have any. France, Germany, Russia and others are even saying you're wrong here."
Bush: "I warned you, now you and your sons have 48hrs to leave Iraq."
Hussein: "Dude, we don't have any WMDs and I'm not leaving my own home."
Bush: "You were warned, buddy! You tried to kill my dad!"

*Iraq invasion commences*
It's no use Robtard.

The conservative Republicans will keep denying Bush's responsibility for the invasion of Iraq, and shift the blame to the current Democratic president.
As is expected from the Republicans.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. He was the guy who paid the families of suicide bombers, and killed his own people with WMD that he reportedly didn't have.

WTF?

I don't know from which planet you came from, but this has to be one of the most minformed posts I have ever read in this forum.
This can't be further from the truth.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Says the guy who watches Fox News.

Oh the irony...

You must really HATE Fox News. Good job being a tool for the Democrats.

Lol

Fox News is a blatant GOP propaganda machine. Just tuned in a second ago and tonight they're going to have a 1 hour story on Benghazi (aka slandering Obama's foreign affairs cabinet and administration).

The other day they were discussing Obama's "no strategy" comment (which they of course took out of context with the TTLY objective headline "Obama administration admits it lacks strategy" and whereas CNN and MSNBC were conversing with foreign affairs officials and military and governmental personnel, and geopolitical strategists and analysts, Fox was conversing with reliable analyst Stacey Dash of Clueless fame

The Onion is more a more reliable and objective news source than Fox (and Glen Beck/ Rush Limbaugh) at this point.

To be fair, Stacey Dash was sexy in her Clueless days.

Even sexier in her Illegal In Blue days

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well you are pretty smart, why don't you run for office or something and fix something. There are smart people here, someone should step up.
I am not a US citizen nor a US resident, so that's not possible. As far as smart people rising up to change things, Obama was exactly that sort of person. Granted, he didn't live upto all of his promises but that's the way politicians role in any part of the world.

Obama's doing the best job he can do at this point. There are a lot of outside factors and circumstances plaguing Obama that would be disadvantageous to anybody put in the same position. He is trying to help but not trying to overstep his bounds and become Iraq's personal bodyguard. You criticize him for his patience, Time Immemorial, yet you pose no effective solutions to his complex problems. He is not a genie and being POTUS does not make you an autocrat. He is only human and must be pragmatic with the circumstances that are occurring in Iraq and Ukraine, neither one of which are due to his actions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
See how hate twists everything. It's no use talking to you about it. You have been brainwashed. Enjoy the hate. I got what you meant.

You asserted that the hateful people in which TM would have been addressing, will never agree with him regardless of how valid his point is because hate distorts logic.

These Reps are riding the high horse, thinkin they'd make the better solutions when in fact their leaders where the ones responsible for this mess in the first place.


Bush's invasion of Iraq was what sparked the formation of ISIS, directly or indirectly.

Furthermore, and this was her main point I believe, was that you shouldn't attempt to win opponents over with your argument - because no one in power should be considered opposed to each-other, because we should all be about protecting our country.

Now; TM, forgive Shakyam's naivity and trust in the goverment - she's completely unaware of politicians in the Legislative Branch. Too many have the their fingers deep in the federal reserve bank which can opt to encrypt and transfer any funds, free from unwanted eyes, through the Department of Treasury.

Originally posted by Oneness
Too many have the their fingers deep in the federal reserve bank which can opt to encrypt and transfer any funds, free from unwanted eyes, through the Department of Treasury.

And you know this happens exactly like this how?

Originally posted by Robtard
And you know this happens exactly like this how? Persuasive YouTube videos.

Originally posted by Robtard
And you know this happens exactly like this how? Compelling arguments.

Compelling as I find that exactly the kind of thing that'd be going on given the weakness of a capitalist's ideal upper-class-based system + legislative decision>liberty of the people + the executive & judicial systems.

So recently the Syrian Government began to finally attack ISIS with airstrikes.

Unfortunately all they've managed to hit have been civilians waiting for bread.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So recently the Syrian Government began to finally attack ISIS with airstrikes.

Unfortunately all they've managed to hit have been civilians waiting for bread.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So recently the Syrian Government began to finally attack ISIS with airstrikes.

Unfortunately all they've managed to hit have been civilians waiting for bread. Don't underestimate the danger of yeast.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So recently the Syrian Government began to finally attack ISIS with airstrikes.

Unfortunately all they've managed to hit have been civilians waiting for bread. haermm