Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Yeah like we got one poll recently with a big Nunn lead and another with a big Perdue lead when previously it seemed to be neck and neck. Carter also seems to be doing well in the governor's contest.

Nunn's led in every Landmark poll since April. Rasmussen is the only one in which Nunn and Purdue have flipped. Every other poll has had Purdue winning.

It's the same in the Gov race, Carter has led in every Landmark poll. Rasmussen is the only other one to show him with a lead and he dropped from 7 to 1 point between the two recent polls. Every other poll has had Deal winning.

I had Nunn favored earlier in the year, but the Landmark thing is fishy.

 

[speculawyer]

Unlike Mr. Wiles I don't find atheism, homosexuality, pornography, sexual promiscuity or abortion to be America's problems, nor do I believe that Ebola could solve them if they were America's problems or that Ebola could solve America's problems. And I don't support Rick Wiles position that the Republican Party is good for America.

So what exactly am I in denial over here?

But you line up with them nonetheless. For example on economics issues.

You vote for them on economic issues, you vote for them on everything else.

 

[PhoenixDark]

No threat to the US? How do you come to that conclusion?

There is no evidence that they pose a threat to the homeland. The most common scare, ie that "many" of their members have US passports and thus could enter the US, could be argued of similar groups over the last 13 years. It's amazing what a bit of media bullshit and viral videos can do. I guess we forgot the aughts.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm failing to see your point, but I'm disappointed that these "scary" videos have convinced so many people that we must intervene and deal with ISIS. They pose no threat to the United States, and there are multiple countries willing to shitcan them, specifically Iran. It's not our problem.

You could say the same thing about every threat besides the British in 1812, Japan in 1941 and Al Qadea in 2001.

You're arguing isolationism.

I don't understand how you can say it's not our problem (or that it isnt a problem for us) when they're setting up camps for US citizens to train I jihadism, they're threatening oil supplies, furthering the instability in the region which prevents other problems from being tackeld, they're potentially threatening a NATO ally, and have killed Americans.

There is a lot of interest there. Its easy to say there is no problem for us until there is but it's also wrong, the America firsters are rightfully laughed at today but at the time it seemed obvious, Europe's problems didn't affect us and Japan's invasion of half of Asia 'wasn't our problem'

You can very easily argue what the best solution is, how much we should do, who we should work with, cost benefit analysis etc. Its not even certain we should do anything, But the cold, automatic and quite naive 'not our problem' is nonsense, it is our problem. There are just no answers on how to solve it.

And no you don't have countries willing to stop them? Where are they? You can keep saying people don't like them but I've seen nothing but internet commentors and pundits assert this with no evidence.

 

[benjipwns]

But you line up with them nonetheless. For example on economics issues.

You vote for them on economic issues, you vote for them on everything else.

What in the fuck are you talking about?

I have voted for one Republican this century and it was for a local office and he was running against another Republican. And it was because I liked the fucker for being weird.

And the character limit for posts probably couldn't hold all the Republican economic stances I'd oppose since Nixon.

You're arguing isolationism.

No, he's not. Non-intervention and isolationism are different.

Its easy to say there is no problem for us until there is but it's also wrong, the America firsters are rightfully laughed at today but at the time it seemed obvious, Europe's problems didn't affect us and Japan's invasion of half of Asia 'wasn't our problem'

Wow, that was fast.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There is no evidence that they pose a threat to the homeland. The most common scare, ie that "many" of their members have US passports and thus could enter the US, could be argued of similar groups over the last 13 years. It's amazing what a bit of media bullshit and viral videos can do. I guess we forgot the aughts.

But if you allow them time and opportunity surely they will get their chance. If they want to do it badly enough what's stopping them?

 

[benjipwns]

But if you allow them time and opportunity surely they will get their chance. If they want to do it badly enough what's stopping them?

Israel will bomb his reactor before anything happens, they did it before, we don't need to invade and depose Saddam. It's not worth the cost because he might give weapons to terrorists.

oops, what year is it again?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nunn's led in every Landmark poll since April. Rasmussen is the only one in which Nunn and Purdue have flipped. Every other poll has had Purdue winning.

It's the same in the Gov race, Carter has led in every Landmark poll. Rasmussen is the only other one to show him with a lead and he dropped from 7 to 1 point between the two recent polls. Every other poll has had Deal winning.

I had Nunn favored earlier in the year, but the Landmark thing is fishy.

PPP had Nunn winning in July

I don't take Rasmussen seriously.

 

[benjipwns]

PPP had Nunn winning in July

I don't take Rasmussen seriously.

Then you're down to Landmark and a PPP poll (that wasn't listed on the page I was looking at, so my fault) from a month and a half ago?

 

[PhoenixDark]

You could say the same thing about every threat besides the British in 1812, Japan in 1941 and Al Qadea in 2001.

You're arguing isolationism.

I don't understand how you can say it's not our problem (or that its a problem for us) when they're setting up camps for US citizens to train I jihadism, they're threatening oil supplies, furthering the instability in the region which prevents other problems from being tackeld, they're potentially threatening a NATO ally, and have killed Americans.

There is a lot of interest there. Its easy to say there is no problem for us until there is but it's also wrong, the America firsters are rightfully laughed at today but at the time it seemed obvious, Europe's problems didn't affect us and Japan's invasion of half of Asia 'wasn't our problem'

You can very easily argue what the best solution is, how much we should do, who we should work with, cost benefit analysis etc. Its not even certain we should do anything, But the cold, automatic and quite naive 'not our problem' is nonsense, it is our problem. There are just no answers on how to solve it.

And no you don't have countries willing to stop them? Where are they? What have they done outside of possibly work

Funny, I'm more used to seeing neoconservatives use, not alleged liberals.

Terrorist organizations will always exist. I'm not opposed to combating them when necessary, covert operations,etc; I'm not a strict isolationist. But what I cannot stand for is mindless meddling in the Middle East, airstrikes that don't accomplish long term goals, giving money to questionable allies in foreign countries (the Syrian rebels are nearly as barbaric as ISIS), and mission creep. Some of the exact same arguments used against AQ are being used now, to once again justify ineffective foreign policy missions.

Iran is quite willing to take on ISIS, and is more than likely already engaging at some level. And of course Assad would love for us to jump in.

The warmongering going on right now is sickening, and I'm shocked that people who were conscious in 2001-2003 are falling in line. They're using the same fucking playbook for Christ's sake.

 

[thepotatoman]

Yeah like we got one poll recently with a big Nunn lead and another with a big Perdue lead when previously it seemed to be neck and neck. Carter also seems to be doing well in the governor's contest.

Kentucky poll tomorrow from SurveyUSA.

I might call it quits on hoping for Kentucky if it's another 4+ point lead for McConnell.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Israel will bomb his reactor before anything happens, they did it before, we don't need to invade and depose Saddam. It's not worth the cost because he might give weapons to terrorists.

oops, what year is it again?

Why are you bringing up Saddam and Iraq when this is much more in line with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

 

[benjipwns]

The warmongering going on right now is sickening, and I'm shocked that people who were conscious in 2001-2003 are falling in line. They're using the same fucking playbook for Christ's sake.

“We found the laptop and the power cord in a room,” he continued, “I took it with me. But I have no clue if it still works or if it contains anything interesting.”
As we switched on the Dell laptop, it indeed still worked. Nor was it password-protected.

Which one is the folder with all the Natalie Portman pictures?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why are you bringing up Saddam and Iraq when this is much more in line with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

There's not a single piece of evidence to suggest ISIS is half as capable as Al Qaeda. I know Obama took shit for saying it, but ISIS remains a JV basketball team. The Revolutionary Guard would turn them into mince meat if given the green light. And considering the US and Iran have allegedly talked about it, we just might get to see it.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There's not a single piece of evidence to suggest ISIS is half as capable as Al Qaeda. I know Obama took shit for saying it, but ISIS remains a JV basketball team. The Revolutionary Guard would turn them into mince meat if given the green light. And considering the US and Iran have allegedly talked about it, we just might get to see it.

What did Al Qaeda have that they don't?

 

[speculawyer]

There's not a single piece of evidence to suggest ISIS is half as capable as Al Qaeda. I know Obama took shit for saying it, but ISIS remains a JV basketball team. The Revolutionary Guard would turn them into mince meat if given the green light. And considering the US and Iran have allegedly talked about it, we just might get to see it.

Really?

Al-Qeada never held a square inch of territory whereas ISIS has a many thousands of acres. Granted it is worn-torn Iraq but they do hold territory which is something AQ never did.

 

[benjipwns]

What did Al Qaeda have that they don't?

Unlocked cockpit doors?

Al-Qeada never held a square inch of territory whereas ISIS has a many thousands of acres. Granted it is worn-torn Iraq but they do hold territory which is something AQ never did.

ISIS is a successor/splinter group to al-Zarqawi's "al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Al-Qaeda holds territory in Mali and has in Yemen and parts of Afghanistan.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Unlocked cockpit doors?

Well, I guess that's that. Terrorism is over, we've got locked doors.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Funny, I'm more used to seeing neoconservatives use, not alleged liberals.

Terrorist organizations will always exist. I'm not opposed to combating them when necessary, covert operations,etc; I'm not a strict isolationist. But what I cannot stand for is mindless meddling in the Middle East, airstrikes that don't accomplish long term goals, giving money to questionable allies in foreign countries (the Syrian rebels are nearly as barbaric as ISIS), and mission creep. Some of the exact same arguments used against AQ are being used now, to once again justify ineffective foreign policy missions.

Iran is quite willing to take on ISIS, and is more than likely already engaging at some level. And of course Assad would love for us to jump in.

The warmongering going on right now is sickening, and I'm shocked that people who were conscious in 2001-2003 are falling in line. They're using the same fucking playbook for Christ's sake.

You are aware neocons international policy is an extension of liberalism (the us version) its just much more idealistic the the democratic international liberalism.

And you can make arguments about policy,which your not doing besides just saying 'no' to everything and highlighting random assortments of failures to say everything must be a failure going forward . Isolationists (which dispite your protestations is the best way to describe your philosophy) like to pretend because they can draw a line between events that they're obviously right about the cause of conflicts and crisis. Because they always said no to any action and result must be the fault of the action, ignoring the agency of the other actor and potential worse outcomes. How do they square the fact they prevented us action a year ago arguing itd make or worse and now the same things they said would happen because of us action are happening anyway?

And again where is this evidence of ISIS being targeted by Iran. I keep seeing it repeated by 'middle east experts™' oddly never seen any ecidence for it. Where are their airstrikes defending the Kurds? Defending non-muslims? The best they're probably doing is defending shia towns. Their defense does nothing to promote a lasting solution to the problem and pretends that a (fictional) Iranian action can somehow do anything besides his the conflict from CNNs cyron.

Warmongering? Obama has been screaming from the rooftops 'no ground troops' defending fighting people who want all out war and generally taking things slowly. The fact peter king and Cheney are calling for more bombs says nothing beside they fact they've never met a war they don't like. This is nothing like Iraq and unless your trying to draw these rediculous comparisons (the empty wheel article) ignoring the overall public mood, public statements, diplomatic manuveres and political situation the make the people sound like theyre just stuck repeating the same thing to everything rather than actually listening to what's being said and what's happening.

And the fact your willing to let probably the most murderous ideology since Nazism exist as just something that happens is quite sad. This isn't Hezbollah, hamas,Taliban ETA or the IRA who have limited goals and can be accommodated by and large. These people have openly stated they want a Islamic caliphate and everybody not an observent Sunni Muslims is an enemy. They've also acted on this.

And your criticisms of no long term strategy are recycled talking points used by the right wing (which I've in moments of frustration) which isn't accurate. Obamas foreign policy has a strategy which is to generally reverse the US directed reinvention of the middle east and to promote their own control over their future with limited direct action when certain actions or threats emerge coupled with an attempt at diplomacy.

There's not a single piece of evidence to suggest ISIS is half as capable as Al Qaeda. I know Obama took shit for saying it, but ISIS remains a JV basketball team. The Revolutionary Guard would turn them into mince meat if given the green light. And considering the US and Iran have allegedly talked about it, we just might get to see it.

Quite repeating internet 'convential wisdom'.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Really?

Al-Qeada never held a square inch of territory whereas ISIS has a many thousands of acres. Granted it is worn-torn Iraq but they do hold territory which is something AQ never did.

They "hold territory" in the same way that a vagrant living in an abandoned Detroit apartment holds territory. Al-Qeada had sanctuary in Afghanistan. They also had impressive/experienced leadership and branches in multiple countries. ISIS is saturated in two countries, in one of which it's getting manhandled by an actual military force (Syria). And unlike AQ, they have done a bang up job of alienating potential allies with their barbarism.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Unlocked cockpit doors?


ISIS is a successor/splinter group to al-Zarqawi's "al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Al-Qaeda holds territory in Mali and has in Yemen and parts of Afghanistan.

No they don't control and act as a government in those areas or any area. al-Shabaab is the only group in Somalia that really "hold territor"y. They fact that they operate in a area without control isn't the same thing as what Isis is doing. Where they are functioning as the state power in some areas

They "hold territory" in the same way that a vagrant living in an abandoned Detroit apartment holds territory. Al-Qeada had sanctuary in Afghanistan. They also had impressive/experienced leadership and branches in multiple countries. ISIS is saturated in two countries, in one of which it's getting manhandled by an actual military force (Syria). And unlike AQ, they have done a bang up job of alienating potential allies with their barbarism.

You literally are flatly stating untruths, if you think this is quite clear why you think we shouldn't do anything and Isis is a JV team.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

They "hold territory" in the same way that a vagrant living in an abandoned Detroit apartment holds territory. Al-Qeada had sanctuary in Afghanistan. They also had impressive/experienced leadership and branches in multiple countries. ISIS is saturated in two countries, in one of which it's getting manhandled by an actual military force (Syria). And unlike AQ, they have done a bang up job of alienating potential allies with their barbarism.

If they were getting manhandled this situation would have been over months ago. I find your underestimation of ISIS to be very concerning. Why would you ever underestimate an organization of their nature? I'd rather overestimate them every time.

 

[speculawyer]

They "hold territory" in the same way that a vagrant living in an abandoned Detroit apartment holds territory. Al-Qeada had sanctuary in Afghanistan. They also had impressive/experienced leadership and branches in multiple countries. ISIS is saturated in two countries, in one of which it's getting manhandled by an actual military force (Syria). And unlike AQ, they have done a bang up job of alienating potential allies with their barbarism.

Oh really.

They go ahead and take it from them. I'm sure a tough guy like you can stand up to some vagrant.

 

[benjipwns]

And the fact your willing to let probably the most murderous ideology since Nazism exist as just something that happens is quite sad. This isn't Hezbollah, hamas,Taliban ETA or the IRA who have limited goals and can be accommodated by and large. These people have openly stated they want a Islamic caliphate and everybody not an observent Sunni Muslims is an enemy. They've also acted on this.

I wonder how many times this exact argument was expressed on littlegreenfootballs or powerlineblog or NRO in the last decade. Has to be in the tens of thousands.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I wonder how many times this exact argument was expressed on littlegreenfootballs or powerlineblog or NRO in the last decade. Has to be in the tens of thousands.

You can respond you know instead of quoting and saying nothing and hoping someone can decern what your criticism is. I read nothing in NRO about foreign policy, don't read littl green footballs and nor powerline. So I'm not sure what these post means or is attempting to say.

Do you really think Islamic radicalism isn't the most murderous ideology since Nazism? Do you have any others?

This 'this is a over exaggeration' criticism kind of lost its luster when videos from raqqah kind of show this very stuff happening. People just don't seem to believe these people when they openly state their beliefs.

 

[benjipwns]

You can respond you know instead of quoting and saying nothing. I read nothing in NRO about foreign policy, don't read littl green footballs and nor powerline. So I'm not sure what these post means or is attempting to say

PD already said it. This is 2002 again.

Do you really think Islamic radicalism isn't the most murderous ideology since Nazism? Do you have any others?

When are we setting the "since" their birth or just their existence? Because I don't remember if Nazism was "born" before Maoism off the top of my head. But Maoism did more murdering after Nazism fell than during it's height. And then there's some others.

Islamism does have a pretty high body count, but it also predates Nazism for its birth. Qutb's refinement is much more modern but I don't like him getting all the credit all the time.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

PD already said it. This is 2002 again.


When are we setting the "since" their birth or just their existence? Because I don't remember if Nazism was "born" before Maoism off the top of my head. But Maoism did more murdering after Nazism fell than during it's height. And then there's some others.

Islamism does have a pretty high body count, but it also predates Nazism for its birth. Qutb's refinement is much more modern but I don't like him getting all the credit all the time.

Its nothing like 2002

OK so you're gonna change the definitions of murderous. I'm stating is the first global ideology, since Nazism, that has a stated as part of its ideology the murder of people who don't fit with the state.

And I'm glad you can constantly name drop peopel and their ideologies in your posts.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It's 1996 all over again.

 

[benjipwns]

OK so you're gonna change the definitions of murderous. I'm stating is the first global ideology, since Nazism, that has a states part of its ideology the murder of people who don't fit with the state.

Uhhh, what. Maoism murdered tens of millions who "didn't fit."

Maoist political parties continue to exist all over the globe. I think there's even a few Islamist Maoist parties.

And I'm glad you can constantly name drop peopel and their ideologies in your posts.

If you're talking about modern Islamism, Qutb is a pretty fucking important dude.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You are aware neocons international policy is an extension of liberalism (the us version) its just much more idealistic the the democratic international liberalism.

And you can make arguments about policy,which your not doing besides just saying 'no' to everything and highlighting random assortments of failures to say everything must be a failure going forward . Isolationists (which dispute your protestations is the best way to describe your philosophy) like to pretend because they can draw a line between events that they're obviously right about the cause of conflicts and crisis. Because they always said no to any action and result must be the fault of the action, ignoring the agency of the other actor and potential worse outcomes. How do they square the fact they prevented us action a year ago arguing itd make or worse and now the same things they said would happen because of us action are happening anyway?

Random assortments? You constantly apologize for America (and Israel iirc) and attempt to push back against the basic, accurate assertion that US intervention in the Middle East has been a disaster for a century. It's not a random assortment of gripes, it's a pretty long pattern of failure. Nothing good comes of our involvement in the long run. Right now we're witnessing Iraq fall to pieces thanks to two administrations bad policy (moreso Bush, obviously).

And again where is this evidence of ISIS being targeted by Iran. I keep seeing it repeated by 'middle east experts™' oddly never seen any ecidence for it. Where are their airstrikes defending the Kurds? Defending non-muslims? The best they're probably doing is defending shia towns. Their defense does nothing to promote a lasting solution to the problem and pretends that a (fictional) Iranian action can somehow do anything besides his the conflict from CNNs cyron.

Iran is arming Kurds right now. They have contacted the US and UK with respect to mutual interests involved in destroying ISIS. Qassem Suleimani has been operating a shadow war in Iraq for some time. Privately Iran has reached out to the US and UK. This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's reality. Their interests may be narrow, but the elimination of ISIS is a part of it.

Warmongering? Obama has been screaming from the rooftops 'no ground troops' defending fighting people who want all out war and generally taking things slowly. The fact peter king and Cheney are calling for more bombs says nothing beside they fact they've never met a war they don't like. This is nothing like Iraq and unless your trying to draw these rediculous comparisons (the empty wheel article) ignoring the overall public mood, public statements, diplomatic manuveres and political situation the make the people sound like theyre just stuck repeating the same thing to everything rather than actually listening to what's being said and what's happening.

The warmongering is undeniable. The media is pounding away daily, and are currently lambasting the president for his (admittedly dumb) comment about having no strategy on ISIS. You can discuss air strikes all you want, but mission creep remains the threat. Airstrikes are not going to stop ISIS. Nor will they prevent the next atrocity. So what's next?

Meanwhile I'm reading GAF and seeing liberals make similar arguments that neoconservatives were making in 2002. How much longer until one of you cites Ahmed Chalabi?

And the fact your willing to let probably the most murderous ideology since Nazism exist as just something that happens is quite sad. This isn't Hezbollah, hamas,Taliban ETA or the IRA who have limited goals and can be accommodated by and large. These people have openly stated they want a Islamic caliphate and everybody not an observent Sunni Muslims is an enemy. They've also acted on this.

Again, funny how the names change; this charge was also given to AQ a decade ago. ISIS are a delusional group with no means of advancing their goals. They aren't COBRA. Their actions have posed no threat to the US, and they're currently hoping to recruit more barbarians to replenish the forces they're losing daily in Syria. They have little to no means of sustaining the land they hold, they're surrounded by enemy regimes...where exactly is the threat?

And your criticisms of no long term strategy are recycled talking points used by the right wing (which I've in moments of frustration) which isn't accurate. Obamas foreign policy has a strategy which is to generally reverse the US directed reinvention of the middle east and to promote their own control over their future with limited direct action when certain actions or threats emerge coupled with an attempt at diplomacy.

And this applies to Iraq how exactly? We're carried out airstrikes to allegedly prevent mass killings, all while ISIS marches throughout the country committing mass killings. So what's the plan? Airstrikes are ineffective and will not accomplish our alleged goal. So what's the strategy? According to Obama, there is none. And I'm not surprised, given that ground forces aren't on the table.

 

[Cloudy]

We have no one but ourselves to blame for ISIS. The american people loudly stated their demand to stay out of syria or hands off syria. Let them handle it or fight it out themselves was what I heard this time last year.

What will would we have had to confront these people before the videos and scary rhetoric started hitting home. Probably close to none and even now if it's put to a vote in Congress who knows if it would pass.

But last year the attack was going to be on Assad's forces not ISIS.

I'm failing to see your point, but I'm disappointed that these "scary" videos have convinced so many people that we must intervene and deal with ISIS. They pose no threat to the United States, and there are multiple countries willing to shitcan them, specifically Iran. It's not our problem.

Most folks are too simple-minded to realize though. Especially when the media is looping ISIS tape 24/7

I just hope Obama can resist being dragged into a quagmire. It must be hard getting attacked from all sides as feckless...especially from backbench pols too chicken-shit to even vote to authorize. And add the fact that the military is trying to roll him again.

There's no more elections so there's no excuse not to stick to his guns on this. The GOP and warmongers in the media will try to hang ISIS around his neck and absolve Bush but he has to realize it only sticks if the US gets sucked into Syrian conflict.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

But last year the attack was going to be on Assad's forces not ISIS.



Most folks are too simple-minded to realize though. Especially when the media is looping ISIS tape 24/7

I'm not attacking about the specifics of the attack. I'm talking about the mentality of "not my problem".

 

[PhoenixDark]

Oh really.

They go ahead and take it from them. I'm sure a tough guy like you can stand up to some vagrant.

It's not my problem.

Good to see that at least one hasn't lost his mind

 

[Cloudy]

I'm not attacking about the specifics of the attack. I'm talking about the mentality of "not my problem".

The mentality of being the world police is more destructive than doing nothing (unless it's a direct threat to US interests).

How's getting rid of Saddam working out for Iraq? And the absence of Gaddafi in Libya? Weakening Assad or forcing regime change last year would probably have been a similar disaster and the US would've had to own it for going in unilaterally.

I don't think Obama will make that mistake in Syria

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Can you guys illustrate what exactly you're arguing with me about? All I'm saying is that there should be no underestimation of ISIS and if they must be confronted then they should be.

Don't use my posts as a catalyst to argue with Dick Cheney's foreign policy views.

 

[Cloudy]

Can you guys illustrate what exactly you're arguing with me about? All I'm saying is that there should be no underestimation of ISIS and if they must be confronted then they should be.

There are a lot of terrible people around the world. Why aren't you for confronting Boko Haram in West Africa? And what happened to Al Qaeda? Why ISIS and in Syria of all places?

I'll tell you why. Cos the media hypes them up and created a new terrorist bogeyman out of them.

The US should do what the UK is doing. Monitor for homegrown terrorists and protect Americans abroad. All this stuff about taking the fight to ISIS is just asking to get mixed up in a foreign civil war

 

[Joe Molotov]

Newt's Zombie ReaganxISIS fanfic, how did I miss this? :lol

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There are a lot of terrible people around the world. Why aren't you for confronting Boko Haram in West Africa? And what happened to Al Qaeda? Why ISIS and in Syria of all places?

I'll tell you why. Cos the media hypes them up and has made a successful bogeyman out of them.

The US should do what the UK is doing. Monitor for homegrown terrorists and protect Americans abroad. All this stuff about taking the fight to ISIS is just asking to get mixed up in a foreign civil war

From what I can tell the US has not abandoned going after Al Qaeda unless you know something I don't. ISIS is a more pressing threat than Boko Haram would you not agree? What exactly has the media done that they themselves haven't done in their own words and actions? They put their videos out and they made their threats.

Would you also not agree that part of an even defensively minded strategy would be strikes against ISIS in Syria? Wasn't one of the things we learned after 9/11 is that terrorism knows no borders? That securing Afghanistan only lead to groups like AQ in Yemen and other hotspots? Why is Syria suddenly this untouchable hallowed ground where terrorists can find sanctuary.

 

[benjipwns]

ISIS is a more pressing threat than Boko Haram would you not agree?

To who?

 

[East Lake]

I think they're at the very least a threat to headless journalists or other captives that they'll likely extract hundreds of millions of dollars (or euros) from whatever home country they came from.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

To who?

To anyone that doesn't prescribe to their version of hard-line Sunni ideology.

 

[benjipwns]

Boko Harem is also a militant Sunni group.

 

[pigeon]

The warmongering is undeniable. The media is pounding away daily, and are currently lambasting the president for his (admittedly dumb) comment about having no strategy on ISIS. You can discuss air strikes all you want, but mission creep remains the threat. Airstrikes are not going to stop ISIS. Nor will they prevent the next atrocity. So what's next?

See, this is where I think your argument fails. I'm obviously not in favor of a prolonged engagement or putting any boots on the ground. But what makes you so sure that airstrikes won't work? Our goal isn't to get rid of ISIS, because that's not a problem we can solve. We have a defined mission -- to protect Kurdistan -- and airstrikes, in combination with diplomacy with, yes, Iran, are a possible way to accomplish that. So what's the problem?

 

[Cloudy]

From what I can tell the US has not abandoned going after Al Qaeda unless you know something I don't.

You're right but they're not so scary when we aren't being told about how scary they are 24/7

ISIS is a more pressing threat than Boko Haram would you not agree?

I don't think either of them are a threat to America outside of radicalizing people here. Bombing Syria doesn't mitigate that threat

What exactly has the media done that they themselves haven't done in their own words and actions? They put their videos out and they made their threats.

Idle threats that are amplified by a sensationalist media.

Would you also not agree that part of an even defensively minded strategy would be strikes against ISIS in Syria?

No. I completely disagree

Wasn't one of the things we learned after 9/11 is that terrorism knows no borders? That securing Afghanistan only lead to groups like AQ in Yemen and other hotspots? Why is Syria suddenly this untouchable hallowed ground where terrorists can find sanctuary.

There is no evidence of any attacks against the US being launched from Syria. And even if there was, the country is in the middle of a civil war right now. Even their neighbors who are most vulnerable to terrorists coming over aren't getting involved. Isn't that telling? Any nation that kicks that hornet's nest is going to own the fallout for years...

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Boko Harem is also a militant Sunni group.

I said they were the more pressing threat. You asked to who. Boko Haram's Sunni militarism is likely less of a threat as it currently stands.

 

[East Lake]

I wonder if AQ fundraising is going up as ISIS takes the spotlight. More room to score some deals.

Kidnapping Europeans for ransom has become a global business for Al Qaeda, bankrolling its operations across the globe.

While European governments deny paying ransoms, an investigation by The New York Times found that Al Qaeda and its direct affiliates have taken in at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008, of which $66 million was paid just last year.

In news releases and statements, the United States Treasury Department has cited ransom amounts that, taken together, put the total at around $165 million over the same period.

These payments were made almost exclusively by European governments, who funneled the money through a network of proxies, sometimes masking it as development aid, according to interviews conducted for this article with former hostages, negotiators, diplomats and government officials in 10 countries in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The inner workings of the kidnapping business were also revealed in thousands of pages of internal Qaeda documents found by this reporter while on assignment for The Associated Press in northern Mali last year.

In its early years, Al Qaeda received most of its money from deep-pocketed donors, but counterterrorism officials now believe the group finances the bulk of its recruitment, training and arms purchases from ransoms paid to free Europeans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/w...ens-europe-becomes-al-qaedas-patron.html?_r=1

 

[benjipwns]

I said they were the more pressing threat. You asked to who. Boko Haram's Sunni militarism is likely less of a threat as it currently stands.

Again, to who? To people in Nigeria they are much more of a threat than ISIL. I would say that for people in Syria, Boko Haram is probably less of a threat yes.

To the United States both of their threats is small enough to be considered non-existent.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

You're right but they're not so scary when we aren't being told about how scary they are 24/7



I don't think either of them are a threat to America outside of radicalizing people here. Bombing Syria doesn't mitigate that threat



Idle threats that are amplified by a sensationalist media.



No. I completely disagree



There is no evidence of any attacks against the US being launched from Syria. And even if there was, the country is in the middle of a civil war right now. Even their neighbors who are most vulnerable to terrorists coming over aren't getting involved. Isn't that telling? Any nation that kicks that hornet's nest is going to own the fallout for years...

Why should idle threats not be taken seriously? How can you define an idle threat from a real threat? Where is that line drawn? Why should their existence be downplayed? Like I said before I'd rather them be overestimated than underestimated.

If there was evidence would you feel differently? At what point before 9/11 was Al-Qaeda worth going after? Is it fair to say that ISIS is determined on their goals? They certainly seem full of zeal at the moment.

Again, to who? To people in Nigeria they are much more of a threat than ISIL. I would say that for people in Syria, Boko Haram is probably less of a threat yes.

To the United States both of their threats is small enough to be considered non-existent.

How is their threat non-existent? I don't understand how one can just downplay their existence and their stated intentions. If Major Hassan could do what he did and the Tsarnaev brothers could do what they did. All it would take is for a few people to slip through the cracks which almost always invariably seems to happen.

 

[benjipwns]

At what point before 9/11 was Al-Qaeda worth going after?

We went after al-Qaeda for nearly a decade, we lucked into both Bojinka and the Millennium Plot but the Embassies, USS Cole and 9/11 still happened.

How is their threat non-existent? I don't understand how one can just downplay their existence and their stated intentions. If Major Hassan could do what he did and the Tsarnaev brothers could do what they did. All it would take is for a few people to slip through the cracks which almost always invariably seems to happen.

McVeigh, Holmes, Cho and Lanza all did what they did too. The threat is still minuscule. Air strikes won't change it very much.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

We went after al-Qaeda for nearly a decade, we lucked into both Bojinka and the Millennium Plot but the Embassies, USS Cole and 9/11 still happened.

Isn't this validation of my point? I'm not saying pursuing ISIS is some guarantee that they can't carry out on attack but why downplay their threat? What purpose that does serve other than complacence?