• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi 'killed in US-led air strikes in Syria'

Yep, then another one and another one.......Hopefully we can keep it up until they run out of replacements.

That might happen.....

By the time my Grandchildren are dead.

(BTW, My son is only 10 right now, so do the math on that one).
 
Wow, it's a lot easier to hit our suspects when we aren't telling convoys ahead of time that we'll be bombing them. JFC, I'm glad he's dead but Obama's military is completely incompetent. He should have been killed a long time ago.

Yes because Bush's military got Osama so quickly. :lamo
 
the fact is that bush was a ***** that was scared to go to pakistan to kill obl. Obama was willing to kill obl. Those are facts. Since facts don't fit you agenda you have to make things up.

I made up nothing. Well over 500 AQ leaders were captured and imprisoned or killed. We cut off the vast majority of the funding for AQ by freezing the accounts of a multitude of people and even nations that were supporting AQ. We were aggressively and successfully recruiting tribal leaders to join the fight against AQ (one of the real turning points in our defeat of AQ). We had made joining AQ such a massive negative, that they were struggling to find recruits. All of this is facts and none of this kind of approach is being used today. Then you claim that because Pres. Bush wasn't willing to violate the national sovereignty of an ally, that he's a "*****". Guess what? All the crap about Pres. Bush violating int'l law came true with Pres. Obama when HE violated int'l law by illegally entering a sovereign nation that we weren't at war with with a military force.
 
I made up nothing. Well over 500 AQ leaders were captured and imprisoned or killed. We cut off the vast majority of the funding for AQ by freezing the accounts of a multitude of people and even nations that were supporting AQ. We were aggressively and successfully recruiting tribal leaders to join the fight against AQ (one of the real turning points in our defeat of AQ). We had made joining AQ such a massive negative, that they were struggling to find recruits. All of this is facts and none of this kind of approach is being used today. Then you claim that because Pres. Bush wasn't willing to violate the national sovereignty of an ally, that he's a "*****". Guess what? All the crap about Pres. Bush violating int'l law came true with Pres. Obama when HE violated int'l law by illegally entering a sovereign nation that we weren't at war with with a military force.

What? Bush illegally went into iraq and afghanistan. And pakistan lost their right to sovereignty when they knowingly hid the worlds most wanted terrorist.
 
Right. If the story is true, I'm glad, but... Will it actually make a difference?
Hard to tell. al-Baghdadi went to lengths to re-invent his lineage so that his claim to the title 'caliph' appeared to possess some legitimacy.
 
Simpleχity;1065971387 said:
Hard to tell. al-Baghdadi went to lengths to re-invent his lineage so that his claim to the title 'caliph' appeared to possess some legitimacy.
Oh, completely agree. But... and I know this distinction will not occur to many of his followers... if he is replaced so easily then his claim to title was bogus, the whole thing was a sham.
 
What? Bush illegally went into iraq and afghanistan. And pakistan lost their right to sovereignty when they knowingly hid the worlds most wanted terrorist.

No, we had a Constitutionally correct declaration of war against Iraq and Afghanistan. We never had that with Pakistan. A nation doesn't give up it's sovereignty just because we say they do. Also, if you want to rationalize Iraq by YOUR standard, then we were trying to stop the #1 guy on Human Rights Watch, UN council on Human Rights and Amnesty Int'l's list of human right's violators for multiple years (OBL was small potatoes compared Saddam). Which really didn't matter since we had every legal reason to carry out OIF, since Iraq had repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement it was under.
 
No, we had a Constitutionally correct declaration of war against Iraq and Afghanistan. We never had that with Pakistan. A nation doesn't give up it's sovereignty just because we say they do. Also, if you want to rationalize Iraq by YOUR standard, then we were trying to stop the #1 guy on Human Rights Watch, UN council on Human Rights and Amnesty Int'l's list of human right's violators for multiple years (OBL was small potatoes compared Saddam). Which really didn't matter since we had every legal reason to carry out OIF, since Iraq had repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement it was under.

Lie. Last war congress declared was world war 2. And if you want to bitch about iraq's human rights violation, what about saudi arabia. They are less democratic and had more human rights violations than iraq. They also played a role in 9-11. So yeah. Iraq and Afghanistan was unjustified.
 
Right. If the story is true, I'm glad, but... Will it actually make a difference?

Simpleχity;1065971387 said:
Hard to tell. al-Baghdadi went to lengths to re-invent his lineage so that his claim to the title 'caliph' appeared to possess some legitimacy.

Hard to say indeed - but my initial instinct is to doubt it. ISIL has already been through the death of two leaders, including its charismatic founder. They have multiple people ready to step into leadership billets, a defined process for selecting the new Caliph, and the ability to generate "genealogical proof" of descendancy from the Quraysh Tribe at will. If anything, some of the literature out there points out that religious terror groups tend to become more violent when their leadership is killed.
 
Hard to say indeed - but my initial instinct is to doubt it. ISIL has already been through the death of two leaders, including its charismatic founder. They have multiple people ready to step into leadership billets, a defined process for selecting the new Caliph, and the ability to generate "genealogical proof" of descendancy from the Quraysh Tribe at will. If anything, some of the literature out there points out that religious terror groups tend to become more violent when their leadership is killed.
I think I read this book... oh, yeah, 1984.

Everything from the government took an abrupt turn at the drop of a hat. No explanation, no questioning.
 
Took a while to get Bin Laden too. :roll:

If true, this is good news. I will reserve my "way to go Obama," praise until after I'm convinced the dude's dead. Call me skeptic.

But you gotta admit, that Obama is a terrorist killin' mo'-fo'. (Well, maybe you ain't gotta admit it, but it's true. :mrgreen: ) And he does it with minimum American blood spilled. Gotta love that part. (Well, maybe you ain't gotta love that part if you prefer a good war with lot's of boots on the ground and American lives and limbs taken. :( )


I guess it is minimum American blood spilled if you don't count the 49/53 in Orlando and those in Boston, San Bernardino and Chattanooga.
 
No, we had a Constitutionally correct declaration of war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was no declaration of war against Iraq/Afghanistan. Congress authorized a military engagement. There is a difference for a reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom