Did the US occupation create ISIL?
US Ambassador Paul Bremer, former Administrator of Iraq, on whether his policies led to the rise of ISIL.
In this Head to Head special from Washington DC, Mehdi Hasan challenges Paul Bremer, who was appointed by President George W Bush to run the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in the wake of the Iraq war, on whether his policies led to the rise of ISIL.
“I've taken full responsibility for the mistakes I've made."
As the man in charge of the so-called reconstruction effort in post-Saddam Iraq, Bremer ordered the disbanding of the Iraqi army and banned members of the Ba'ath Party from holding public office. These measures, critics say, were directly responsible for Iraq’s descent into chaos.
With no panel or audience, we discuss the US track record in Iraq and the region, from the 2003 invasion to the rise of ISIL. We ask him how personally responsible he feels for the birth of ISIL and whether the US should put a significant number of soldiers back on the ground in the region.
Did the US Occupation create ISIL? with Paul Bremer will be broadcast on Friday December 4 at 2000 GMT and will be repeated on Saturday December 5 at 1200 , Sunday December 6 at 0100 and Monday December 7 at 06.00.
Follow us on: https://www.facebook.com/AJHeadToHead ; and @AJheadtohead
Head to Head is Al Jazeera's forum of ideas, a gladiatorial contest tackling big issues such as faith, nationalism, democracy and foreign intervention in front of an opinionated audience at the Oxford Union.
Watch previous Head to Head shows here.
Source: Al Jazeera
The same horse’s ass he always was. George Bush was proud of him, of course.ReplyDelete
This guy belongs in prison.ReplyDelete
ISIS didn't exist when Bush left office.ReplyDelete
A mostly peaceful situation prevailed.
Obama taking the troops out led to ISIS.
Pot screws up the information flows in the brain. That's why it used to be called 'loco weed'.
Harms your grades too, if you are a student.
Crime rates go up too, as in Colorado.
Just HALF a joint of cannabis 'causes psychosis-like effects in healthy people that's similar to schizophrenia', say experts
Active ingredient in cannabis delta-9-THC is linked to psychosis effects
Scientists do not fully understand mechanisms that cause these effects
Yale team found delta-9-THC increases random neural activity, or noise
Believe increased neural noise plays role in psychosis triggered by drug
Experts say effects are similar to the symptoms of schizophrenia
By Lizzie Parry For Dailymail.com
Published: 16:22 EST, 3 December 2015 | Updated: 19:08 EST, 3 December 2015
Smoking cannabis can induce psychosis-like effects, similar to the symptoms people diagnosed with schizophrenia endure, scientists have said.
While past research as come this this conclusion in the past, the mechanisms underlying these effects are less clear.
Now, a team of scientists at Yale School of Medicine have found the active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) increases random neural activity, known as neural noise, in the brains of healthy drug-users.
Yale scientists found at doses roughly equivalent to half or a single joint, the active ingredient in cannabis, delta-9-THC, produces psychosis-like effects and increased neural activity in the brains of healthy people
Yale scientists found at doses roughly equivalent to half or a single joint, the active ingredient in cannabis, delta-9-THC, produces psychosis-like effects and increased neural activity in the brains of healthy people
Their findings suggest increased neural noise may play a role in the psychosis-like effects of cannabis.
Dr Deepak D'Souza, a professor of psychiatry at Yale, said: 'At doses roughly equivalent to half or a single joint, delta-9-THC produced psychosis-like effects and increased neural noise in humans.'
First author of the study, Dr Jose Cortes-Briones, a postdoctoral associate in psychiatry at Yale, added: 'The dose-dependent and strong positive relationship between these two findings suggest that the psychosis-like effects of cannabis may be related to neural noise which disrupts the brain's normal information processing.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3345090/Just-HALF-joint-cannabis-causes-psychosis-like-effects-healthy-people-s-similar-schizophrenia-say-experts.html#ixzz3tQU36o00
December 5, 2015Delete
The science is clear: Marijuana is a major public health risk
By Sierra Rayne
Discussions about the impact of legal marijuana on crime rates inevitably lead to substantial debate, although the data from the legalization experiments in Colorado and Washington State give compelling support to opponents of legalization. There is significant evidence that crime has increased in these two jurisdictions following pot legalization.
The other side of the issue involves the health impacts of marijuana consumption. And here there is far less room for rational disagreement. A large number of scientific studies collectively show the adverse health effects of marijuana.
Indeed, the breadth and depth of these studies is far too large for a single comprehensive review that would be readable for a mainstream audience. Thus, what follows is just a subset of the major findings reported by the scientific community in 2015 alone..............
Among a half dozen other things, it screws up one's short term memory which can be very bad on school grades.
Need evidence of his arrogant stupidity go to 11:30ReplyDelete
THE QUESTION POSED:ReplyDelete
Did the US occupation create ISIL?
The 60% Shia and the 20% Kurds, who had been gassed by Saddam, would not have been pleased if the Saddam's Sunni officers had remained in charge of the Iraqi Army.ReplyDelete
I disagree. My answer is "No".
There is no way to settle the argument. It is something of a hypothetical. Like the argument over Iran getting nukes.
To me it is obvious that the trouble began after Obama took the troops out.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
You're certainly full of it, aren't you.Delete
Changing the subject to the refujihadis -
December 5, 2015
As to Syrian Refugees, Muslim Leaders Choose Common Sense Over PC
By John Lillpop
To the genteel American woman who declined to call police about the suspicious behavior of young Middle Eastern men during the San Bernardino killing spree because “she did not want to racially profile,” it should ease her conflicted mind somewhat to know that, although PC myopia has blinded Barack Obama and most Democrat politicians to the ugly, inconvenient truth about the prevalence of terror among young Muslim men, some of the most powerful and wealthy Muslim leaders in the world actually rely heavily on profiling to protect their wealth and power from young Muslim men prone, at least statistically, to Jihad.
Between 10 and 12 million Syrians have been displaced by the bloody civil war raging in their country. Most still remain within Syria’s borders, but around four million have fled over the borders into neighboring countries, mostly Turkey Jordan and Lebanon, and beyond.
Yet amidst cries for Europe to do more, it has transpired that of the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula, that is, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, not one has taken in a single refugee from Syria. Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people.”
While our PC- muddled president hides behind “widows and orphans” in a juvenile effort to discredit those who urge a “pause” in the rush to import potentially dangerous refugees, wise Muslim leaders refuse to admit refugees based on the same logic used by Congressional Republicans while urging restraint and caution!
The big question: How can Barack Obama be so consistently out of synch with reality, common sense, and intelligent thought?
The answer to that final question is"
He is a dumb shit moslem sympathizer.
ISIS didn't exist when Bush left office.
Nonsense. Try reading something beyond that puerile AT.
So What Then Exactly Is ISIS?
ISIS (or ISIL to some) is a terrorist organization that spawned during the 2003 invasion of Iraq under the tutelage of terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It is and has always been composed of various insurgent factions. However, its leadership (and its name) have changed countless times since 2003. It wasn’t until al-Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in 2006 that the group began to identify itself as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). Seven years after al-Zarwai’s demise and two years after the start of the Syrian Civil War, the group officially adopted the name ISIS (or ISIL).
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1306844/isis-vs-isil-which-one-is-it/#usDBMUhoT9PlqWXv.99
I put up this source to make it simple for you; however, if you don't like it, you can go to...
A mostly peaceful situation prevailed.
Hardly peaceful, unless you consider the deaths of around 400 US servicemen and the wounding of many more peaceful, this despite the fact that the US troops had been pulled out of all Iraqi cities by 2009 and was drawing down as dictated by the Status of Forces Agreement Bush signed in 2008. They were mainly fighting Shia militant groups. Nouri al Maliki, the CIA vetted and Bush approved PM was consolidating power and in the process of sticking it to the Sunnis. A nice place to visit..
Obama taking the troops out led to ISIS.
See the link I put up above. There was no al Queda in Iraq until 2004, a year after Bush invaded. Call them Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, ISI, al-Nusra Front, ISIL, ISIS, or IS, it is all one organization with the only thing changing being the names and leadership. If you want to blame anyone for creating ISIS, blame GWB.
Pot screws up the information flows in the brain. That's why it used to be called 'loco weed'.
I've noticed. Stop smoking it.
Why was there that period of calm after the Surge, Quirk-O ?Delete
Why did hell only break loose after O'bozo was elected and took the troops out ?
You're not on weed, you're on skunk, Dude.
Jeez, and at your age too....
There was a period of relative calm, Quirk.Delete
Then you will be half way there.
Why was there that period of calm after the Surge, Quirk-O ?
1. The Us was paying the Sunni Sheiks to fight the militants rather than US troops.
2. The SOFA Bush signed called for all US troops to be out by 2011. This led some militant leaders, most prominently al-Sadr, to withdraw their troops from the fight. Al Sadr was looking for a prominent position in the new political situation in Iraq.
3. Baghdad was segregated. The opposing groups were forced into their own sections of the city and walled off so as to make direct confrontation more difficult. While effective, it also resulted in a massive displacement of people who were forced out of their homes creating many internal as well as external refugees. About 3/4 of the millions of Iraqi external refugees caused by Bush' war ended up in so. So it is easy to speculate that a good portion of the external refugees from Baghdad ended up there too and are likely part of the 'Syrian refugees' you are now so afraid of.
About 3/4 of the millions of Iraqi external refugees caused by Bush' war ended up in so.
s/b ...ended up in Syria.
There was a period of relative calm, Quirk.
You idea of relative calm and mine are way different.
ISI has been in Iraq since 2004. It began its expansion into Syria in the vacuum created by the Syrian civil war in 2011. It can change its name all it wants in line with its growing pretensions, ISI, ISIL, ISIS, IS but its still the same group of thugs.
It was 3 years later in 2014, when with their growing power, Iraq looked like a plum to be picked. They rolled through Iraq like shit through a pig. Was it because there weren't a few thousand US troops there, scattered around the country in lily-pad installation or was it because Bush' hand-picked PM, al-Maliki, had allowed the corruption in the military that brought it to such a useless state. The same al-Maliki who's own corruption and discrimination against the Kurds and especially the Sunni had turned Iraq into a sectarian miasma where even ISIS would be welcomed?
I'll go with the latter.
"They rolled through Iraq like shit through a pig."Delete
Because Obama let them drive their brand new Hiluxes in plain sight in broad daylight across Iraq, filled with men and weapons, instead of taking them all out with a few Warthogs.
...Just like he could have been taking out Oil Tankers in Syria a year ago, but didn't.
You have at least admitted there was a period of relative calm.
In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”
The headline is misleading. The SOFA could have easily been extended. The Iraqis were objecting to the provision that US troops would not come under Iraqi law. Obama could have easily overcome this objection, with a little money if no other way. That may have been exactly what the Iraqis were after in bringing up this concern.
Again, there was a relative calm until O'bozo got elected and took all the troops out and all hell broke loose.
The Joint Chiefs told him not to do this.Delete
He of course did it anyway.
'Nothing to Do With Islam'
By Mona Charen
December 04, 2015
In the aftermath of Paris and before San Bernardino, Hillary Clinton articulated the forced catechism of the left: "Let's be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."
What happens when a major political party becomes so wedded to political correctness that it feels constrained to deny reality? Clinton could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to squeeze her eyes shut about the threat of Islamic extremism, a threat that is glaringly, blazingly obvious.
The first part of what Clinton said was true. Islam is not our adversary. There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and if all of them were violent extremists, we'd have a planet drowning in blood. Most Muslims are peaceful. Beyond that, they practice charity, care for the sick and encourage good works.
But there is a fever sweeping the Muslim world that has infected a significant minority of Muslims -- and because Muslims are so numerous, that minority amounts to hundreds of millions. It began in the 1920s with the Muslim Brotherhood. Its Shia incarnation has captured the government of Iran. Saudi oil money has facilitated its spread to places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Obama, deluded from the get-go that our enemy was not Islamic extremism but merely "al-Qaida," stood by while the Islamic extremists in Iraq and Syria morphed into a new entity called ISIS. Obama never saw it coming because he was determined to believe, with Clinton and other Democrats, that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam......
if all of them were violent extremists, we'd have a planet drowning in bloodDelete
Thank God all of them are not violent extremists !
Or India would have lost many more than the 80,000,000 (eighty million) Hindus that they actually did lose to moslems over the centuries.
O Mona...Mona....but you did get this right -
President Obama, deluded from the get-go that our enemy was not Islamic extremism but merely "al-Qaida," stood by while the Islamic extremists in Iraq and Syria morphed into a new entity called ISIS.
Interesting read -ReplyDelete
Ex-US Intelligence Chief on Islamic State's Rise: 'We Were Too Dumb'
Interview Conducted By Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark
Michael Flynn, 56, served in the United States Army for more than 30 years, most recently as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he was the nation's highest-ranking military intelligence officer. Previously, he served as assistant director of national intelligence inside the Obama administration. From 2004 to 2007, he was stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, where, as commander of the US special forces, he hunted top al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the predecessors to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who today heads the Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. After Flynn's team located Zarqawi's whereabouts, the US killed the terrorist in an air strike in June 2006.
In an interview, Flynn explains the rise of the Islamic State and how the blinding emotions of 9/11 led the United States in the wrong direction strategically.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How should the West fight this enemy?
Flynn: The sad fact is that we have to put troops on the ground. We won't succeed against this enemy with air strikes alone. But a military solution is not the end all, be all. The overall strategy must be to take away Islamic State's territory, then bring security and stability to facilitate the return of the refugees. This won't be possible quickly. First, we need to hunt down and eliminate the complete leadership of IS, break apart their networks, stop their financing operations and stay until a sense of normality has been established. It's certainly not a question of months -- it will take years. Just look back at the mission we created in the Balkans as a model. We started there in the early 1990s to create some stability and we are still there today............
........... SPIEGEL ONLINE: The US invaded Iraq even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
Flynn: First we went to Afghanistan, where al-Qaida was based. Then we went into Iraq. Instead of asking ourselves why the phenomenon of terror occurred, we were looking for locations. This is a major lesson we must learn in order not to make the same mistakes again.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Islamic State wouldn't be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad. Do you regret ...
Flynn: ... yes, absolutely ...
SPIEGEL ONLINE: ... the Iraq war?
Flynn: It was huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision.
So this guy, who now thinks we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place, now proposes that we go back in.......for years.....
I wonder what he thought back in 2003 ?
America’s Pathological Denial of RealityReplyDelete
In America of 2015, natural conclusions about the San Bernardino jihadists are considered irresponsible, at best.
December 4, 2015
This past July, two senior Defense Intelligence Agency analysts assigned to US Central Command submitted a formal complaint to the Defense Department’s inspector general. The two claimed that their intelligence reports on Islamic State were doctored and distorted as they made their way up the feeding chain to Obama. Fifty intelligence analysts have stated their agreement with the allegations in the complaint.
The doctored reports systematically rendered portraits of the US campaign against Islamic State as successful and Islamic State as a nearly spent force, along the lines of the narrative presented by Obama and his advisors. According to the analysts, the picture painted by the doctored reports bore little resemblance to their far more negative conclusions.
According to the Daily Beast’s report, intelligence analysts began complaining to their superiors about the distortion of their reports in October 2014. Some of those analysts were urged to retire early, and some did.
According to the publication, “one person who knows the contents of the written complaint… said it used the word ‘Stalinist’ to describe the tone set by officials overseeing CENTCOM analysis.”
Following the jihadist attacks on Paris on November 13, Obama maintained his insistence that climate change is a graver threat to US national security than terrorism. It could be that this prioritization of concerns is playing a role in the administration’s apparent determination not to seriously fight Islamic State.
In an interview with Charlie Rose last month, former CIA director Michael Morell explained that the administration decided not to bomb Islamic State’s oil infrastructure “because we didn’t want to do environmental damage.”
According to the Guardian, Islamic State makes between one to four million dollars per day from oil sales.
Perhaps the shooters in San Bernadino were just mad at their boss. Maybe Farooq suffered from clinical depression or ADD, or PTSD, or something.
And maybe Islamic State, with its new colony Sirte in “liberated” Libya, just 400 miles from Italy, is on the run. Maybe as well, Turkey is just a patsy and Russia is really Islamic State’s largest trading partner, or maybe Israel is, or Ireland.
But if facts are to be taken seriously, then the fact is that in December 2015, the US is acting with pathological devotion to ideological narratives that bear no relationship to reality.
IRAQ IN 2011 - IT IS FAR WORSE SINCE ISIL TOOK OVER LARGE AREASReplyDelete
The American public still for the most part has no idea what the United States did to Iraq.
Until we Americans take responsibility for the harm we do others with our perpetual wars, we can never recover from our war sickness, which drives us to resort to violence in international affairs in a way no other democracy routinely does.
Population of Iraq: 30 million.
Number of Iraqis killed in attacks in November 2011: 187
Average monthly civilian deaths in Afghanistan War, first half of 2011: 243
Percentage of Iraqis who lived in slum conditions in 2000: 17%
Percentage of Iraqis who live in slum conditions in 2011: 50%
Number of the 30 million Iraqis living below the poverty line: 7 million.
Number of Iraqis who died of violence 2003-2011: 150,000 to 400,000.
Orphans in Iraq: 4.5 million.
Orphans living in the streets: 600,000.
Number of women, mainly widows, who are primary breadwinners in family: 2 million.
Iraqi refugees displaced by the American war to Syria: 1 million
Internally displaced [pdf] persons in Iraq: 1.3 million
Proportion of displaced persons who have returned home since 2008: 1/8
Rank of Iraq on Corruption Index among 182 countries: 17
Rank of Iraq on Corruption Index among 182 countries: 178
The number of displaced persons, both internal (within Iraq) and external (refugees, mainly in Jordan and Syria) ranged from estimates of 3.5 million to 5 million or more, which were directly attributable to the war. Virtually all first-hand accounts blamed violence as the cause of moving, or threats of ethnic or sectarian cleansing of neighborhoods.ReplyDelete
The ravages of displacement, which remains at about 3 million, are bad enough. But it is also another indicator of the scale of mortality. All wars since 1945 have ratios of displaced to fatalities of 10:1 or less, typically more in the range of 5:1. If this typical ratio holds for the Iraq War, that indicates mortality of about one million Iraqis.
To put the number into context 3.5 million (at the low end of 3.5 - 5 million) exceeds the entire population of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.ReplyDelete
Where is the shame, the outrage, the pity or the justice for this criminality?
An Invitation to Collective SuicideReplyDelete
Let’s consider the two parties in Washington. I’m not referring to the Republican and Democratic ones, but our capital’s war parties (there being no peace party, of course). They might be labeled the More War Party and the Much (or Much, Much) More War Party.
Headed by President Obama, the first is distinctly a minority grouping. In a capital city in which, post-Paris, war seems to be the order of the day, it’s the party of relative restraint, as the president has clearly grasped the obvious: for the last 14 years, the more wholeheartedly the U.S. has gone into any situation in the Greater Middle East, militarily speaking, the worse it has turned out.
Having promised to get us out of two wars and being essentially assured of leaving us in at least three (and various other conflicts on the side), he insists that a new invasion or even a large-scale infusion of American troops, aka “boots on the ground,” in Syria or Iraq is a no-go for him. The code word he uses for his version of more war -- since less war is simply not an option on that “table” in Washington where all options are evidently kept -- is "intensification." Once upon a time, it might have been called "escalation" or "mission creep." The president has pledged to merely "intensify" the war he’s launched, however reluctantly, in Syria and the one he’s re-launched in Iraq. This seems to mean more of exactly what he’s already ordered into the fray: more air power, more special forces boots more or less on the ground in Syria, more special ops raiders sent into Iraq, and perhaps more military advisers ever nearer to the action in that country as well. This is as close as you’re likely to get in present-day America, at least in official circles, to an antiwar position.
In the Much (or Much, Much) More War party, Republicans and Democrats alike are explicitly or implicitly criticizing the president for his “weak” policies and for “leading from behind” against the Islamic State.
They propose solutions ranging from instituting "no-fly zones" in northern Syria to truly intensifying U.S. air strikes, to sending in local forces backed and led by American special operators (à la Afghanistan 2001), to sending in far more American troops, to simply putting masses of American boots on the ground and storming the Islamic State’s capital, Raqqa. After fourteen years in which so many similar "solutions" have been tried and in the end failed miserably in the Greater Middle East or North Africa, all of it, as if brand new, is once again on that table in Washington.
Aside from long-shots Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, any candidate likely to enter the Oval Office in January 2017 will be committed to some version of much-more war, including obviously Donald Trump, Marco (“clash of civilizations”) Rubio, and Hillary Clinton, who recently gave a hawkish speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on her version of war policy against the Islamic State.
Given that stark reality, this is a perfect moment to explore what much-more war (call it, in fact, “World War IV”) might actually mean and how it might play out in our world -- and TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich is the perfect person to do it.
Tom - http://www.tomdispatch.com
The Folly of World War IV
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Assume that the hawks get their way -- that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what?
Answering that question requires taking seriously the outcomes of other recent U.S. interventions in the Greater Middle East. In 1991, when the first President Bush ejected Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait, Americans rejoiced, believing that they had won a decisive victory. A decade later, the younger Bush seemingly outdid his father by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and then making short work of Saddam himself -- a liberation twofer achieved in less time than it takes Americans to choose a president. After the passage of another decade, Barack Obama got into the liberation act, overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in what appeared to be a tidy air intervention with a clean outcome. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably put it, “We came, we saw, he died.” End of story.
In fact, subsequent events in each case mocked early claims of success or outright victory. Unanticipated consequences and complications abounded. “Liberation” turned out to be a prelude to chronic violence and upheaval.
Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists.
The United States bears a profound moral responsibility for having made such a hash of things there. Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. Per the famous Pottery Barn Rule attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, having smashed Iraq to bits a decade ago, we can now hardly deny owning ISIS.
That the United States possesses sufficient military power to make short work of that “caliphate” is also the case. True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality.
In that regard, the glibly bellicose editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, is surely correct in suggesting that a well-armed contingent of 50,000 U.S. troops, supported by ample quantities of air power, would make mincemeat of ISIS in a toe-to-toe contest. Liberation of the various ISIS strongholds like Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and Palmyra and Raqqa, its “capital,” in Syria would undoubtedly follow in short order.
In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, the American mood is strongly trending in favor of this sort of escalation. Just about anyone who is anyone -- the current occupant of the Oval Office partially excepted -- favors intensifying the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. And why not? What could possibly go wrong? As Kristol puts it, “I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there.”
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?Delete
It’s an alluring prospect. In the face of a sustained assault by the greatest military the world has ever seen, ISIS foolishly (and therefore improbably) chooses to make an Alamo-like stand. Whammo! We win. They lose. Mission accomplished.
Of course, that phrase recalls the euphoric early reactions to Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Enduring Freedom in 2001, Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan intervention of 2011. Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker.
THE REST OF THIS BLEAK STORY:Delete
For several years during the last decade, sustaining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pushed the annual federal deficit above a trillion dollars.ReplyDelete
As one consequence, the total national debt now exceeds annual GDP, having tripled since 9/11. How much additional debt the United States can accrue without doing permanent damage to the economy is a question of more than academic interest.
We should mind our own business, get out of NATO, abandon the Middle East, dump every absurd ally from Israel to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt and hope that the mess that we started burns itself out.ReplyDelete
There is no chance that will happen and we will suffer the crash and burn consequences of an ignorant public in a corrupt society, led by the worst human beings money can buy.ReplyDelete
I recall you saying at one time that we had to destroy ISIS.Delete
Now you are advocating Fortress America.
Give up on and get out of Europe and the Middle East.Delete
OK, but what about the Far East ?
Are we to abandon South Korea, remove our nuclear umbrella from Japan, vacate Guam ?
A Fortress American strategy would seem to allow for it.
SOUTHWEST ASIA, December 5, 2015 — U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.ReplyDelete
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Strikes in Syria
Fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 11 strikes in Syria:
-- Near Hawl, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb, and four ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Raqqah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Ayn Isa, one strike produced in inconclusive results.
-- Near Dayr Az Zawr, three strikes struck an ISIL gas and oil separation plant well-head.
-- Near Mar’a, three strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL building and wounded an ISIL fighter.
Strikes in Iraq
Bomber, fighter, ground attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 12 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
-- Near Habbaniyah, one strike suppressed an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Kisik, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and two ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Ramadi, seven strikes struck five separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL bunker, two ISIL vehicle bombs, 15 ISIL fighting positions, 12 ISIL buildings, three ISIL light machine guns, three ISIL rocket-propelled grenades, an ISIL anti-air artillery piece, an ISIL assembly area, five ISIL staging areas, an ISIL weapons cache, and denied ISIL access to terrain.
-- Near Sinjar, one strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb and an ISIL fighting position.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.
three ISIL rocket-propelled grenadesDelete
How in the world can they be so certain they destroyed exactly three ISIL rocket-propelled grenades ?
Anyway, today's report lacks any mention of ISIL 'sleeping positions' being destroyed. I wonder if this is a change in targeting methodology, or simply that no opportunities arose ? Or maybe they just wanted to give the bad guys a rest.
I am becoming a little suspicious of these reports, especially since I have read that all the intelligence reports were changed upon being passed up the food chain to Obama to make things look rosy so he could report good news from the front to the nation.
To imply we are getting less than accurate reporting is almost as wrongheaded as it would be to contend that the President, MSM, and etc go out of their way to avoid calling mass shooting incidents like San Bernadino "Islamic Terrorism."Delete
Iranian Christian woman fled persecution only to become victim in San Bernardino terror attack - 12/5/15 Escaped Islamic persecution only to die at the hands of Islamic extremists. More at ATReplyDelete
Good Lord. What a sad sad tale. She goes half way around the world to get away from it, and can't get away from it.
Doug mentioned this.ReplyDelete
I would have said it's unbelievable but not anymore.
Here's the story -
ISIS Czar a Terrorist Sympathizer Once Fired by Obama for Hamas Ties
DECEMBER 02, 2015
A radical foreign policy adviser fired by President Obama years ago for meeting with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas is back as the administration’s new czar in charge of countering the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS).
The White House downplayed the new appointment by burying it deep in a press briefing delivered at a Paris hotel during the recent climate summit. “The President recently elevated Rob Malley, the NSC [National Security Council] Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, to serve now as the Senior Advisor to the President for the Counter-ISIL Campaign in Iraq and Syria,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during the briefing at the Marriott Rive Gauche Hotel and Conference Center. Before moving onto the next topic Earnest said the president has directed Malley to “support our reinvigorated diplomatic track toward a political transition in Syria…”
Malley has a well-documented history of sympathizing with extremists, which makes this appointment rather outrageous. Judicial Watch wrote about Malley last year when Obama made him the senior director at the NSC even though the president had dumped him as a foreign policy adviser for meeting with and having regular contact with Hamas, long classified a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Malley’s family had close ties to Yasser Arafat, founder of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Fatah movement, and Malley was an adviser in Bill Clinton’s White House. He consistently exonerates Palestinians and condemns Israel.
Over the years he has published a number of newspaper opinion pieces urging the United States to reach out and negotiate with terrorist enemies like Hamas, Hezbollah and Muqtada al-Sadr. A website that documents the networks and agendas of the political left offers details about Malley’s scary past and provides links to the egregious articles he’s published, including several co-written with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat. In 2007 Malley published an op-ed piece in a mainstream newspaper expressing strong support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a murderous tyrant who has been credited with helping ISIS rise.Delete
Malley grew up in France and his Egyptian-born father was a key figure in Egypt’s communist party and a close friend of Arafat’s. His parents were fervently anti-Israel and huge supporters of several leftist revolutionary liberation movements, especially the Palestinian cause. Malley published a piece in a mainstream newspaper declaring that Israel was responsible for the failure of Bill Clinton’s peace talks with the Palestinians. Malley attended the 2000 event, which was held at Camp David because it was the site of the landmark 1978 Israeli-Egyptian peace accords.
Shortly after Obama got elected president Israel’s largest news site revealed that the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported that Hamas engaged in talks with Obama for months through his “fired” adviser. The article quotes Ahmad Yousuf, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh’s political advisor, saying this: “We were in contact with a number of Obama’s aides through the Internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to come out with any statements, as they may have a negative effect on his election campaign and be used by Republican candidate John McCain (to attack Obama).”
How can Americans possibly confide in Malley to help dismantle what is arguably the world’s deadliest and most brazen terrorist group? A Florida-based Jewish weekly helps answer this, albeit with another question: “With a history of dissing Israel, snuggling up to Hamas, shielding Assad, and promoting the containment of a nuclear-armed Iran, is it any surprise that Malley is Obama’s choice to spearhead the U.S. response to ISIS?”
Marion Le PenReplyDelete
Think of her as the Sarah Palin of France -
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen: the new wonder-girl of France's far-right
The niece of Marine Le Pen won her first election at the age of 22 and trounced a former prime minister, Alain Juppe, in a televised debate - image
By Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, Paris
3:49PM GMT 05 Dec 2015
She is the new girl wonder of the French far right, a glamorous 25-year-old poised to break down many mainstream conservatives’ qualms about casting their vote for the Front National.
Since she was elected the youngest MP in French parliamentary history, aged 22 three years ago, while a second year Sorbonne law student, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, niece of Front President Marine and grand-daughter of its obstreperous founder Jean-Marie, has had the fastest learning curve in French politics since Bonaparte’s.
On Sunday, buoyed by the shock of the Nov 13 Islamic shootings in Paris, the list she heads is widely expected to come in first in the Provence-Côte d’Azur region, with polls giving her some 40 per cent of the vote. Even if the third-ranking Socialists drop out of the race to favour her Gaullist opponent in next Sunday’s runoff, Marion, as she’s known, has the most chances to swing into office, giving the Front National a shot at ruling one of France’s most dynamic regions, and the second most populous after Paris.
Her aunt may well lead a Front victory in the North, a depressed region with high unemployment, little prospects for development, and bleak cities like Roubaix and Tourcoing, the French answers to Bradford in terms of a tense ethnic mix. The last authorised polls before Sunday’s vote even gave a lead to the FN in six out of 13 French regions, although this is not expected to translate into many actual victories...............
Maybe France is finally waking up from its long slumber.
Wake UP, America
Beautiful, intelligent young Lady, the soul of France !Delete
Jeez, you buried my novel for today, Bob.ReplyDelete
"To imply we are getting less than accurate reporting is almost as wrongheaded as it would be to contend that the President, MSM, and etc go out of their way to avoid calling mass shooting incidents like San Bernadino "Islamic Terrorism.""
(I am becoming a little suspicious of these reports, especially since I have read that all the intelligence reports were changed upon being passed up the food chain to Obama to make things look rosy so he could report good news from the front to the nation.)Delete
Gen. Flynn Slams Obama for Ignoring Accurate Intel, Taking on 'Really Lousy Policies'ReplyDelete
General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2011-2014, had some very harsh words for President Barack Obama. Flynn accused the president of taking on some "really lousy policies" regarding ISIS even though he had access to very accurate intelligence, and suggested that Obama lied about what he knew. He also said that the intel-skewing scandal investigation needs "to start right at the top."
We created the perfect storm in the Middle East. We cottoned to Saudi Arabia, tolerated the Wahabbists, exploited the wealth, intervened in country after country, supported the Mujahideen, attacked and bombed country after country and destabilized the only regimes that could keep the lid on. We supported the Neocon dream and it turned into the nightmare some of us expected. It is simply too late to do anything other than stop all of the above. We will pay for this for 100 years. It is only a matter of time and one of these fanatics will get a nuclear weapon.ReplyDelete
San Bernardino is worse than 911, because it is infinitely repeatable. 911 was not. San Bernardino will return again and again and we will still not get the message.
The only Republican that could have stopped this was Ron Paul and the only candidate on the Democratic side is Bernie Sanders.
Jimmy Carter, Democrat, gave us the mullahs in Iran.Delete
O'bozo. Democrat, nearly gave us a moslem brotherhood Egypt.
HIllary, Democrat, gave us Libya.
Saudi Arabia is where the cheap oil was.....anyone would have done the same.
We foolishly, as it turns out, supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan, though the effort did help in the bringing down of the Soviet Union.
Things aren't so simple as to roboticly blame the Republican 'neo-cons'.
And you voted for Bush, McCain.
It's all your fault.
San Bernardino is worse than 911, because it is infinitely repeatable. 911 was not. San Bernardino will return again and again and we will still not get the message.Delete
This is exactly why we should not allow more moslems of any stripe into the USA.
The Syrians are marinated in violence. Let them stay in Turkey, or somewhere else.
The Gulf States don't want any of them, and most are Sunnis.
The Gulf States know they are just trouble with a capital T.
We are fools.
Listen to the ignorant prick on the video above. Has he learned anything. Washington is loaded with many just like him.That includes every Republican candidate except Rand Paul. Hillary Clinton is worse because she should know better but does not. Everyone of these geniuses have everything on the table except common sense and a clue as what to do except rely on a professional military that has not won a war in 70 years. You think the next 70 years of the same will make a difference?ReplyDelete
Donald Trump’s lead over his Republican rivals is widening, according to a new poll by CNN. According to the survey, 36 percent of registered Republicans say they support the businessman, a commanding lead over presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, who hold much less impressive support rates of 16 percent and 14 percent respectively. Marco Rubio, who has seen a slight increase in support since October, holds 12 percent of Republican voters in the poll, while Jeb Bush has lost almost all support from the Republican party at 3 percent. More than half of those polled indicated that they believe Trump has the best chance of any Republican candidate of winning, while 55 percent say that Trump’s influence as president would be best for the U.S. economy. In an analysis of the collected data, CNN identified a clear pattern among voters involving education. Of the voters who hold college degrees, the GOP presidential race is fairly even with Cruz leading at 22 percent, Carson and Rubio tied at 19 percent, and Trump sitting at fourth place with 18 percent of support. However, when only looking at those without college degrees, Trump holds a secure lead, with 46 percent support among those with a high school education or less, compared to just 12 percent for Cruz, 11 percent for Carson, and a mere 8 percent for Rubio.ReplyDelete
Read more at: http://www.immortal.org/21262/donald-trump-lead-republican-rivals/
Working class whites, one of Trumps bases of support, like Trump because he has hired so many people in his life.ReplyDelete
They want some decent good paying jobs.
Also they like his no-bullshit approach on immigration.
DOES JERSEY FATS HAVE A CLUE?ReplyDelete
Republican presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn't think highly of a New York Times editorial calling for stricter gun control laws in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting.
"It's typical liberal claptrap from the New York Times," Christie told "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson in an interview set to air Sunday. "The fact is that what we need to be focused on here are two issues: taking criminals who commit crimes with handguns and putting them in jail. And we have to work on our mental health system in this country to give doctors and caregivers greater latitude to involuntarily commit folks who have mental health issues and who don’t want to take their medication and help themselves.”
HUH? SAY WHAT?
Listen up fats. Google: how to modify an AK 47 to automatic?
Besides a Youtube video showing you how, you get About 140,000 results (0.38 seconds)
Now fats, Google AK-47 for sale
About 22,300,000 results (0.51 seconds)
No problem there? Will bombing Syria stop that? Will mental health clinics help? Those guns were bought legally by legal resident and a born in the USA American. The tuned up at a legal firing range and bought 3000 rounds of ammunition.
DOES JERSEY FATS HAVE A CLUE?
The killers in San Bernardino used AR-15 knock-offs. Guess how many are in the US? About 10 million. Can it be any easier to repeat San Bernardino?ReplyDelete
Are you becoming a gun grabber too ?
A better way is to crack down on the moslems that are here, and NOT let any more into the USA.Delete
The Constitution and Sharia don't mix, like oil and water.
The only prayer that you have is to have the cooperation of other Muslims. Facts be damned.ReplyDelete
The solution that you offer is to play into the hands of ISIS so they can say. “See, we told you so.”
Your solution is to alienate all of them.
The moslems aren't picking on the United States.ReplyDelete
They pick on who ever the neighbor is:
India - (80 million dead over the centuries)
Who ever is the 'infidel' neighbor.
Close to 100% of the conflicts today are between the moslems and somebody else, the infidel neighbor.Delete
Argentina arrests Syrians traveling on false Greek passports.......DrudgeDelete
The other day a bunch of moslems were arrested on the Texas/Mexican border.
Some were carrying a type of metallic canister in their backpacks, seemingly for bombs.
Some were carrying a type of metallic canister in their backpacks, seemingly for bombs.Delete
It is a poor man’s rice and beans lunch pail.
You really should have taken you analytical skills into any of the intelligence services.Delete
And your solution is?ReplyDelete
1) No more moslems in USA, those here monitored closelyDelete
2) Recognize a Kurdish State
3) Support Israel
4) Support Sisi
5) ISIS - I don't really know
6) Do not confiscate our guns, do not monkey with our right to be armed - the Constitution is clear, the Supreme Court has ruled, end of story.
Speaking of Science
Could fear of terrorism be deadlier than terrorism itself? A neuroscientist weighs in.
By Erin Blakemore December 4
Shenhar-Tsarfaty is quick to point out that correlation is not causation. “We didn’t prove causality,” she insists. But high fear of terror predicted higher pulse rates in 4.1 percent of the cohort. C-reactive protein markers were higher, too.
Though her work took place in Israel, Shenhar-Tsarfaty’s study could be relevant in any place that is grappling with real or perceived threats of terror. If 4.1 percent of Americans were to experience potentially fatal cardiovascular events from their fear of terror, their risk of death would be much greater than the likelihood that they could die in a terrorist attack.
Maybe “fear of terror” belongs on the long list of things more likely to kill you than terror itself.
Quirk just might be on to something for once, with his correlation is not causation mantra.
Maybe he got it from this intelligent lady, it being impossible he thought of it himself.
7) Support alternative energy. Build nuclear power plants. Get off oil.Delete
Dumbnuts, electricity will not fuel the 300 million vehicles in the fleet.Delete
You should take your analytical skills and sell them in India
Dumbpecker/ass Jack is Back, electricity from nuclear power plants can power our new electric car fleet, and save the earth from climate change too.Delete
Your should take your analytical skills and sell them to your pals in Hamas.
President Trump may not have enough munitions to 'bomb the shit out of them' -ReplyDelete
The U.S. is running out of bombs to drop on ISIS
By Jeremy Diamond and Barbara Starr, CNN
Updated 1:54 PM ET, Fri December 4, 2015
The Air Force says it is dropping bombs 'faster than we can replenish them' in fight against ISIS
More than 20,000 bombs and missile have been dropped over the past 15 months
Washington (CNN)The U.S. Air Force has fired off more than 20,000 missiles and bombs since the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS began 15 months ago, according to the Air Force, leading to depleted munitions stockpiles and calls to ramp up funding and weapons production.
As the U.S. ramps up its campaign against the Islamist terror group in Iraq and Syria, the Air Force is now "expending munitions faster than we can replenish them," Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh said in a statement.
"B-1s have dropped bombs in record numbers. F-15Es are in the fight because they are able to employ a wide range of weapons and do so with great flexibility. We need the funding in place to ensure we're prepared for the long fight," Welsh said in the statement. "This is a critical need."
The bombing campaign has left the U.S. Air Force with what an Air Force official described as munitions depot stocks "below our desired objective."
Obama: U.S. safe against ISIS attack
More from the U.S. military's holiday wish list
The official told CNN that the Air Force has requested additional funding for Hellfire missiles and is developing plans to ramp up weapons production to replenish its stocks more quickly. But replenishing that stock can take "up to four years from time of expenditure to asset resupply," the official said.
"The precision today's wars requires demands the right equipment and capability to achieve desired effects. We need to ensure the necessary funding is in place to not only execute today's wars, but also tomorrow's challenges," the official said.
Which nations are attacking ISIS?
The Air Force's publication of the number of missiles and bombs dropped comes amid continued criticism from Republicans -- in particular those running for president -- who insist the Obama administration has been too timid in the fight against ISIS, with many on the right calling for the U.S. to loosen the rules of engagement and lead a more aggressive fight against the militant group.
American pilots have fired weapons in less than half of the nearly 18,000 sorties they have in the first 10 months of 2015, according the latest figures available.
That's up from 2014, when pilots fired their weapons just one third of the time.
NYT: Muslims are 25 times more likely to commit terrorist attacks
By Ed Straker
December 5, 2015
The New York Times has been in a full court press to show that terrorism has nothing to do with Muslims. They have presented sympathetic articles about parents who claimed to be wholly ignorant of their sons' intentions. They showed articles of Muslims worried about backlash after one of their own goes out and kills a bunch of Americans. They have even started a new propaganda campaign to say that motives don't matter; we just have to get rid of guns!
But one of their efforts backfired when they produced a graph showing who are the perpetrators of terrorist violence in America. The graph shows that, depending on the year, Islamic terrorists account for "only" 40%-60% of the fatalities in terrorist attack. Look, they are saying, half of the terrorist attacks have nothing to do with radical Islam!
But there's just one problem: Muslims make up only about 2% of the population of America. If they are killing half the victims of terrorism, that means that a Muslim perpetrator is 25 times more likely to kill someone in a terrorist attack than a non-Muslim. Unintentionally, the Times makes the case that Muslims are much, much more likely to carry out terrorist attacks than non-Muslims, though I'm sure it was not their intent.
Furthermore, the handy chart doesn't look at the religion of those who commits massacres in the Middle East. That would be about 99% Muslim. If a Muslim "refugee" wants to enter the U.S., statistically he or she is at least 25 times more likely to be a terrorist than if he is a non-Muslim. Statistically speaking, that means we are taking great risks admitting Muslims like the parents of Syed Rizwan Farook or his bride, Tashfeen Malik.
How do we "vet" the children of immigrants who haven't even been born yet? The answer is, we can't, so we shouldn't allow any further Muslim immigration while we are at war with an unidentifiable and nontrivial subset of their population.
Editor's note: The calculations in the blog rely on the generous estimate that Muslims in America number over 6 million, a figure that is highly inlfated. If we took the more realistic number of 3 million, the ratio would by 50 times, not 25 times as likely. (Hat tip: Richard Baehr)
This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts
SB jihadi to Christian coworker: “Christians and Jews deserve to die”
December 5, 2015 7:29 pm By Robert Spencer 27 Comments
Farook also threatened Nicholas Thalasinos, whom he eventually murdered. A friend of the victim recounted:
The islamic terrorist who took the Life of my friend & bro in Christ, Nicholas Thalasinos, on yesterday in San Bernadino, CA, had been threatening him, telling him that islam will rule the world, Christians and Jews deserve to die; and that he (Nicholas) was going to die.
But, they aren’t reporting that in the “news” …
I wonder why …
San Bernardino threats
Did Thalasinos report these threats to police? If so, what did they do — ascribe Thalasinos’ concerns to “Islamophobia”? Or did he not report them, and if not, did he fear charges of “racism”?
Farook told a Jewish coworker: “You will never see Israel.”
Thanks to Pamela Geller for the video and all links.