• 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!

Boko Haram swears formal allegiance to ISIS

What information do you have? I'm getting my facts primarily from Reddit and Wiki, and only occasionally mainstream Western media sources.

The fact of the matter is that airstrikes are incredibly effective against ISIS. Keep in mind that they're fighting a conventional war at this point, not an insurgency. They rely on troop formations, convoys, etc. just like any traditional state. Our strategy is making this spectacularly difficult for them, since any sizable gathering of troops and/or vehicles is a prime target for air power. As long as ISIS is a group that utilizes territorial control, bombing them will continue to work.

I get my information partly from longwarjournal.com and partly from various analysts and articles linked to on that site. And I do find the achievements you claim for U.S. airstrikes "incredible." An average on seven combat sorties a day over the last half-year, some of the aircraft involved in them probably returning with their ordnance because they could not locate the target, cannot do nearly as much as you suggest. The lack of troops on the ground to spot targets for aircraft further handicaps this pinprick air "campaign."

The fact the jihadists recently were able to occupy Khan al-Baghdadi, five miles away from al Asad air base, at which more than 300 Marines are training local forces, is hardly a testimony to progress. That is only about 75 miles up river from Baghdad. The fact the jihadists were able to attack and control the western outskirts of Kirkuk recently, right on the edge of the Kurdish region, also casts doubt about the effectiveness of the effort against them.

This President is a limpwristed incompetent who is not all that fond of things American. He is not about to do much more than he has been doing. The only two hopeful signs I have seen are, first, the ordering to Kuwait of a army brigade which among other heavy equipment normally has about 100 tanks. How much of their equipment will be with them, or their ultimate destination or mission, remains to be seen.

Second, there is evidence that the U.S. is building up supplies of munitions and armored vehicles at the former civil airfield near Irbil, in cooperation with the Kurdish provincial government. Both the location of this base and the fact it has an unusually long concrete runway--15,000 feet--suit it to a pretty large military effort of some type. (The relatively short distances from there to the uranium enrichment galleries at Fordoz and Natanz would also seem to make it a good place from which to launch strikes against them and other parts of Iran's atom bomb program--but without a real president, it's safe to dismiss that possibility.)
 
Big deal. Neither group has an air force or a navy and are hundreds of miles apart. They are not even on the same continent.

What assistance can one lead to the other? Practically nothing.

This is virtually a non-story to me.

Jeez...is the West terrified easily or what?
 
In a related story...

Obama to Nigerian Christians: Change Laws on Abortion, Homosexuality If You Want Protection from Boko Haram


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/nigerian-bishop-obama-lets-boko-haram-kill-christians-because-they-oppose-abortion-homosexuality/

Noting that homosexuality is punishable by death and Nigeria has/had death squads out hunting homosexuals and rape exists at epidemic levels; Nigerian government can't protect women from rape or provide economic opportunity for a woman to support a child, but they are fully willing and able to drive into a coat hangar abortion scenario. They don't have to legalize gay marriage, but executing people for exercising their right of self-determination raises doubt over the value of investing in their defense.
 
Last edited:
Big deal. Neither group has an air force or a navy and are hundreds of miles apart. They are not even on the same continent.

What assistance can one lead to the other? Practically nothing.

This is virtually a non-story to me.

Jeez...is the West terrified easily or what?



Heya DA. :2wave: ISIS controls Benghazi and Sirte.....they are also openly cruising the streets of Tripoli.

Also Ansar al Sharia spread from Yemen to Africa even before ISIS did. But BO peep didn't want to speak out about that since that went against his mantra that he had AQ on the run.

What happened was.....BO Peep and the lost sheep couldn't figure out that AQ had morphed like a Hydra. Naturally they never were the brightest bulbs in the bunch.
 
Oooh Kobie wants to go technical over his posts. Okay.....90% of the time. How you lookin now?

I post a lot. I didn't know I was supposed to meet some link quota for you.
 
I post a lot. I didn't know I was supposed to meet some link quota for you.

No one even said you didn't post a lot.....but thanks for validating out why you can't figure **** out.
 
No one even said you didn't post a lot.....but thanks for validating out why you can't figure **** out.

Do you actually have anything worthwhile to say?
 
In a related story...

Obama to Nigerian Christians: Change Laws on Abortion, Homosexuality If You Want Protection from Boko Haram


Obama to Nigerian Christians: Change Laws on Abortion, Homosexuality If You Want Protection from Boko Haram | The Gateway Pundit

Noting that homosexuality is punishable by death and Nigeria has/had death squads out hunting homosexuals and rape exists at epidemic levels; Nigerian government can't protect women from rape or provide economic opportunity for a woman to support a child, but they are fully willing and able to drive into a coat hangar abortion scenario. They don't have to legalize gay marriage, but executing people for exercising their right of self-determination raises doubt over the value of investing in their defense.

Bishop Emmanuel Badejo may have said the US is delaying help for Nigeria against Boko Haram because of laws on homosexuality and abortion but this is not true and it is not the reason for Nigeria not getting help in time against Boko Haram. The "gatewaypundit" website article is painfully ignorant of facts on the ground and has little factual basis behind it.

I lived in Nigeria and I do not recall death squads now or ever hunting down homosexuals. Homosexuality in Nigeria is actually quite common, even among muslims and it only becomes a problem when a homosexual decides to go against African tradition and refuses to father any offspring i.e. becomes a "western lifestyle homosexual."

If a Nigerian homosexual marries a woman, fathers children and lives a homosexual life, nobody is bothered. (As long as he has done his "duty" and fathered children.)

These death squads may exist in Borno state under Boko Haram's IS style conditions but none of my Nigerian friends still in Nigeria have ever seen or heard about death squads for homosexuals. The British and US governments have both got very legitimate concerns over the training and seriousness of the Nigerian position on Boko Haram and that is one of the major reasons for the withholding of greater training or equipment.

If you look at events on the ground, Boko Haram made a serious mistake in attacking Chad, Cameroon and Niger this year - these states have all had major successes in attacking and defeating Boko Haram and have also been involved in defeating BH in Nigeria. In fact those successes are all notably lacking by the far better armed and larger Nigerian army.

Why? Because of the traidional Nigerian problems of incompetence, corruption and poor training.

Nothing to do with Barack Obama / abortion / homosexuality / rape.
 
Greetings, matchlight. :2wave:

So this religious war could go on for another 1300 years? Why are we even involved then? New fanatics are probably being born as we speak... :shock:

The idea that we can sit back and let these hotheads slaughter each other over whose version of Islam is correct, or over some other disputed issue, may be comforting--but doing that would be very dangerous for this country. These jihadists have more resources and an even larger and better-connected safe haven than the people behind 9/11 had in Afghanistan in the years before those attacks. They are also every bit as fanatically determined to kill as many of us as they can.

We are seeing is partly the result of this president's failure to leave a force of 15-20,000 in Iraq, as military experts recommended. That would have been a somewhat smaller version, probably differing in some other ways, from the force the U.S. has maintained in South Korea since the Korean War petered out in 1953. The U.S. military has to be based somewhere, and we have been basing much of it there, in Germany, and elsewhere overseas for many years. Iraq had been made peaceful enough that the risk to a powerful residual force, supported by unlimited air power, would have been fairly low. And yet this president, for his personal political gain, used the existence of a status of forces agreement he could certainly have changed, if he had had the will, as an excuse to leave Iraq wide open to what has now happened.

The chaos in Iraq and Syria is also partly the result of six years of Obama's continual appeasement of the mullahs who rule Iran. They see no threat from him, and that has encouraged them not only to extend their influence in Iraq, but also to increase both their support of the Assad regime in Syria and of their proxy force Hizballah in Lebanon. This westward Shiite pressure from Iran encouraged the Sunni jihadists in Syria to fight Assad, and it also encouraged nations across the Persian Gulf from Iran to provide covert aid to these jihadists. Which they have been doing. In order to line up Obama's largely symbolic five-nation Arab "coalition" against the jihadists in Syria and Iraq, the U.S. had to agree that Qatar, et al. would only fly air strikes (such as they were) against ISIS forces, but not against those of al Nusra, or other jihadists they identified as affiliated with al Qaeda.
 
You post a lot but never seem to say anything. I'd like to see more substance to your posts.

:shock: ..... :lol: .....
funny.gif
..... :lamo .....
smiley_ROFLMAO.gif
 
The idea that we can sit back and let these hotheads slaughter each other over whose version of Islam is correct, or over some other disputed issue, may be comforting--but doing that would be very dangerous for this country. These jihadists have more resources and an even larger and better-connected safe haven than the people behind 9/11 had in Afghanistan in the years before those attacks. They are also every bit as fanatically determined to kill as many of us as they can.

We are seeing is partly the result of this president's failure to leave a force of 15-20,000 in Iraq, as military experts recommended. That would have been a somewhat smaller version, probably differing in some other ways, from the force the U.S. has maintained in South Korea since the Korean War petered out in 1953. The U.S. military has to be based somewhere, and we have been basing much of it there, in Germany, and elsewhere overseas for many years. Iraq had been made peaceful enough that the risk to a powerful residual force, supported by unlimited air power, would have been fairly low. And yet this president, for his personal political gain, used the existence of a status of forces agreement he could certainly have changed, if he had had the will, as an excuse to leave Iraq wide open to what has now happened.

The chaos in Iraq and Syria is also partly the result of six years of Obama's continual appeasement of the mullahs who rule Iran. They see no threat from him, and that has encouraged them not only to extend their influence in Iraq, but also to increase both their support of the Assad regime in Syria and of their proxy force Hizballah in Lebanon. This westward Shiite pressure from Iran encouraged the Sunni jihadists in Syria to fight Assad, and it also encouraged nations across the Persian Gulf from Iran to provide covert aid to these jihadists. Which they have been doing. In order to line up Obama's largely symbolic five-nation Arab "coalition" against the jihadists in Syria and Iraq, the U.S. had to agree that Qatar, et al. would only fly air strikes (such as they were) against ISIS forces, but not against those of al Nusra, or other jihadists they identified as affiliated with al Qaeda.

We're trying to halt or slow this mess, and we have to agree to their rules on who can do what? This sounds like "half-fixing" a problem to me - getting rid of some, so others can take over the leadership role. Did we agree to this?
 
The idea that we can sit back and let these hotheads slaughter each other over whose version of Islam is correct, or over some other disputed issue, may be comforting--but doing that would be very dangerous for this country. These jihadists have more resources and an even larger and better-connected safe haven than the people behind 9/11 had in Afghanistan in the years before those attacks. They are also every bit as fanatically determined to kill as many of us as they can.

We are seeing is partly the result of this president's failure to leave a force of 15-20,000 in Iraq, as military experts recommended. That would have been a somewhat smaller version, probably differing in some other ways, from the force the U.S. has maintained in South Korea since the Korean War petered out in 1953. The U.S. military has to be based somewhere, and we have been basing much of it there, in Germany, and elsewhere overseas for many years. Iraq had been made peaceful enough that the risk to a powerful residual force, supported by unlimited air power, would have been fairly low. And yet this president, for his personal political gain, used the existence of a status of forces agreement he could certainly have changed, if he had had the will, as an excuse to leave Iraq wide open to what has now happened.

The chaos in Iraq and Syria is also partly the result of six years of Obama's continual appeasement of the mullahs who rule Iran. They see no threat from him, and that has encouraged them not only to extend their influence in Iraq, but also to increase both their support of the Assad regime in Syria and of their proxy force Hizballah in Lebanon. This westward Shiite pressure from Iran encouraged the Sunni jihadists in Syria to fight Assad, and it also encouraged nations across the Persian Gulf from Iran to provide covert aid to these jihadists. Which they have been doing. In order to line up Obama's largely symbolic five-nation Arab "coalition" against the jihadists in Syria and Iraq, the U.S. had to agree that Qatar, et al. would only fly air strikes (such as they were) against ISIS forces, but not against those of al Nusra, or other jihadists they identified as affiliated with al Qaeda.

And as the west does nothing their power and influence will only grow.

We are spectators in the game of world domination and although the next US President may well be the leader the west needs, will (s)he arrive in time?
 
We're trying to halt or slow this mess, and we have to agree to their rules on who can do what? This sounds like "half-fixing" a problem to me - getting rid of some, so others can take over the leadership role. Did we agree to this?

President Pinprick, maybe looking ahead to his party's prospects in 2016, felt the need to have several Arab nations join the U.S. effort against the jihadists in Syria and Iraq. Their puny air forces have contributed next to nothing, but just the existence of this "coalition" helps Pinprick cover his rear. I can just hear him: "Americans are seeing that the local folks, too, are joining our efforts to drive back the forces of hatred and violence. The extremists who set fire to a Jordanian pilot only fanned the flames of freedom."

The whole business of trying to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, et al. by showing them how nice and reasonable Americans are--how we are so fastidiously careful always to use only the tiniest, most accurate weapons possible to avoid hurting any innocent people--only makes those "innocent" feel contempt for us as spineless fools. So the jihadists hang out comfortably in Raqqa and Mosul and Tikrit and Ramadi, confident that Pinprick won't dare touch them there. And, sad to say, they are right. Why any of the cities these bastards control still has bridges, or electricity, or running water, or phone service, or a sewage system, or fuel, or passable roads, or airports, or any of the other accoutrements of modern life after all this time is beyond me. We should let all those "innocent" Iraqis act like they have no choice but to shelter the savages in their cities, I guess, without paying any price whatever for turning a blind eye to them. Forty thousands French civilians were killed in the course of driving the Nazis out of their country after Normandy, of course--but we are more civilized now than in 1944.

The main thing is to resist our tendency as Americans, clinging to our guns and Bibles, to be bloodthirsty cowboys. After all, arms are for hugging, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and violence never solves anything. Surely a more nuanced, sophisticated approach is called for--what a European, say, would do. We need to let the local Muslims see we are sensitive to their needs and feelings, and want them to feel empowered. Who can doubt that making sure we never make them feel all icky and invalidated is more important than exterminating the lice who are decapitating and crucifying little children and Christians, and burning people alive in steel cages, as they meanwhile plot to come here and murder as many Americans as they can? Yes, sure the extremists push people accused of homosexuality off tall buildings, and sure, they execute a dozen teenage boys for watching a soccer match on TV, and sure, they sadistically taunt prisoners on camera before sawing off their heads, and sure, they bury little kids alive and rape and enslave women. But all that's only because they don't have jobs!
 
President Pinprick, maybe looking ahead to his party's prospects in 2016, felt the need to have several Arab nations join the U.S. effort against the jihadists in Syria and Iraq. Their puny air forces have contributed next to nothing, but just the existence of this "coalition" helps Pinprick cover his rear. I can just hear him: "Americans are seeing that the local folks, too, are joining our efforts to drive back the forces of hatred and violence. The extremists who set fire to a Jordanian pilot only fanned the flames of freedom."

The whole business of trying to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, et al. by showing them how nice and reasonable Americans are--how we are so fastidiously careful always to use only the tiniest, most accurate weapons possible to avoid hurting any innocent people--only makes those "innocent" feel contempt for us as spineless fools. So the jihadists hang out comfortably in Raqqa and Mosul and Tikrit and Ramadi, confident that Pinprick won't dare touch them there. And, sad to say, they are right. Why any of the cities these bastards control still has bridges, or electricity, or running water, or phone service, or a sewage system, or fuel, or passable roads, or airports, or any of the other accoutrements of modern life after all this time is beyond me. We should let all those "innocent" Iraqis act like they have no choice but to shelter the savages in their cities, I guess, without paying any price whatever for turning a blind eye to them. Forty thousands French civilians were killed in the course of driving the Nazis out of their country after Normandy, of course--but we are more civilized now than in 1944.

The main thing is to resist our tendency as Americans, clinging to our guns and Bibles, to be bloodthirsty cowboys. After all, arms are for hugging, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and violence never solves anything. Surely a more nuanced, sophisticated approach is called for--what a European, say, would do. We need to let the local Muslims see we are sensitive to their needs and feelings, and want them to feel empowered. Who can doubt that making sure we never make them feel all icky and invalidated is more important than exterminating the lice who are decapitating and crucifying little children and Christians, and burning people alive in steel cages, as they meanwhile plot to come here and murder as many Americans as they can? Yes, sure the extremists push people accused of homosexuality off tall buildings, and sure, they execute a dozen teenage boys for watching a soccer match on TV, and sure, they sadistically taunt prisoners on camera before sawing off their heads, and sure, they bury little kids alive and rape and enslave women. But all that's only because they don't have jobs!

Well said! :thumbs:
 
President Pinprick, maybe looking ahead to his party's prospects in 2016, felt the need to have several Arab nations join the U.S. effort against the jihadists in Syria and Iraq. Their puny air forces have contributed next to nothing, but just the existence of this "coalition" helps Pinprick cover his rear. I can just hear him: "Americans are seeing that the local folks, too, are joining our efforts to drive back the forces of hatred and violence. The extremists who set fire to a Jordanian pilot only fanned the flames of freedom."

The whole business of trying to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, et al. by showing them how nice and reasonable Americans are--how we are so fastidiously careful always to use only the tiniest, most accurate weapons possible to avoid hurting any innocent people--only makes those "innocent" feel contempt for us as spineless fools. So the jihadists hang out comfortably in Raqqa and Mosul and Tikrit and Ramadi, confident that Pinprick won't dare touch them there. And, sad to say, they are right. Why any of the cities these bastards control still has bridges, or electricity, or running water, or phone service, or a sewage system, or fuel, or passable roads, or airports, or any of the other accoutrements of modern life after all this time is beyond me. We should let all those "innocent" Iraqis act like they have no choice but to shelter the savages in their cities, I guess, without paying any price whatever for turning a blind eye to them. Forty thousands French civilians were killed in the course of driving the Nazis out of their country after Normandy, of course--but we are more civilized now than in 1944.

The main thing is to resist our tendency as Americans, clinging to our guns and Bibles, to be bloodthirsty cowboys. After all, arms are for hugging, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and violence never solves anything. Surely a more nuanced, sophisticated approach is called for--what a European, say, would do. We need to let the local Muslims see we are sensitive to their needs and feelings, and want them to feel empowered. Who can doubt that making sure we never make them feel all icky and invalidated is more important than exterminating the lice who are decapitating and crucifying little children and Christians, and burning people alive in steel cages, as they meanwhile plot to come here and murder as many Americans as they can? Yes, sure the extremists push people accused of homosexuality off tall buildings, and sure, they execute a dozen teenage boys for watching a soccer match on TV, and sure, they sadistically taunt prisoners on camera before sawing off their heads, and sure, they bury little kids alive and rape and enslave women. But all that's only because they don't have jobs!
Had the Coalition fought as they did in WWII the Middle East would be at peace now, trade would flourish, and more people would be free. Instead it is as you describe. We see that few western democracies now want to fight, largely because of the uncertainty of what 'fight' really means anymore.

We never fought the Germans or the Japanese to win 'their hearts and minds'. Both came after a real drubbing, and now they have abolished their previously aggressive attitudes to become the most peaceful, if not docile, nations on the planet. The only way Islamists are going to learn to live in peace is that the same lesson has to be applied. Only then will their hearts, but especially their minds, follow.
 
Had the Coalition fought as they did in WWII the Middle East would be at peace now, trade would flourish, and more people would be free. Instead it is as you describe. We see that few western democracies now want to fight, largely because of the uncertainty of what 'fight' really means anymore.

We never fought the Germans or the Japanese to win 'their hearts and minds'. Both came after a real drubbing, and now they have abolished their previously aggressive attitudes to become the most peaceful, if not docile, nations on the planet. The only way Islamists are going to learn to live in peace is that the same lesson has to be applied. Only then will their hearts, but especially their minds, follow.

I agree completely. Sherman had it right, I think, when he said you cannot refine war--that it is all hell. Peace cannot come until the enemy has been whipped thoroughly enough that he has no doubt he is beaten. And you are right to say it is their minds which must be changed. I would not care if every Muslim on earth hated this country, if they had all been taught better than to try to do anything about it.
 
Boko Haram....another threat Obama ignored.

Actually, that's not true. When those poor girls were abducted, his wife did something: She showed up on the internet with a sign directing people to a stupid hashtag. What was it again, btw? #pleasedontbesomean ?
 
I'm curious as to what, exactly, the people who stomp their feet and scream about how incompetent Obama is would like to see him do about ISIS that he's not already doing.


An Op/Ed from the Washington Times by retired Navy Three Star James “Ace” Lyons . . . CINCPACFLT
“A strategy, but not a pro-U.S. One”

By James A. Lyons - - Monday, February 9, 2015

The "wise men" — Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, plus Madeleine Albright, who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 29, lamented that the Obama administration has no coherent strategy to address the ongoing monumental world changes, particularly in the Middle East. Mr. Kissinger stated that multiple changes are occurring simultaneously between and within various states such as Iraq, Syria and Libya. The changes involve the traditional Sunni-Shia sectarian violence and atrocities that have gone on for hundreds of years, but the new phenomenon is the Islamic State and its declaration of a caliphate.

All of the former secretaries concurred on the obvious point that we have to identify our objective and then develop a strategy to achieve it. If the administration's objective is to defeat the Islamic State and other Islamic radical movements, we do not have a strategy. However, it is wrong to imply that the Obama administration does not have a strategy or that its members are incompetent.

Their strategy by now should be clear to all thinking Americans. It is embedded in the Barack Obama-Valerie Jarrett strategy to "transform America." It is an anti-American and anti-Western, but a pro-Islam, pro-Iran and pro-Muslim Brotherhood strategy.

The Obama administration's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood took place long before January 2009. It is critical to remember that the Muslim Brotherhood's creed is to destroy America from within by "our own hands," and substitute the Draconian Islamic Shariah for our Constitution. President Obama's June 4, 2009 Cairo outreach speech to the Muslim world, where he invited the leaders of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend and sat them prominently in the front row, should have been a wake-up call. Furthermore, when he declared that he considered it his responsibility as president of the United States to fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear — that actually said it all.

End of Part 1... of 2 parts
 
An Op/Ed from the Washington Times by retired Navy Three Star James “Ace” Lyons . . . CINCPACFLT
“A strategy, but not a pro-U.S. One”

By James A. Lyons - - Monday, February 9, 2015

Part 2 of the Op/Ed

His September 2012 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, where he stated in reference to the Benghazi debacle that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," showed where his sympathies lie. What most Americans don't understand is that the Libyan war was unnecessary because Col. Moammar Gadhafi was willing to abdicate. New secret tapes from the Pentagon clearly undermine the claim of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that there was an impending humanitarian crisis in Benghazi. After just a 45-minute meeting with Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, Mahmoud Jibril, in the Paris Westin Hotel, Mrs. Clinton was convinced of the need to go to war in Libya. She chose to ignore all the advice of our military and intelligence leaders that did not support her determination to go to war.

Gen. Carter Ham, the AFRICOM commander, was actually negotiating at the time with key Gadhafi confidants for a 72-hour truce. This has been verified by several credible sources, including then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich. As the tapes show, Mrs. Clinton wanted a war regardless of the fact that no U.S. Interests were at stake, and regional stability could be threatened by our intervention. In fact, Mrs. Clinton is apparently the one who ordered the Pentagon to cease negotiations. With the incestuous relations between key administration officials and the major TV networks, this has not been reported or has been underplayed.

The net effect of Mrs. Clinton's policy decision was that we switched sides on the global war on terrorism and provided arms and material support to al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-controlled militias. Some of these were the same militias that later attacked our facilities in Benghazi, killing four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Fortunately, Rep. Trey Gowdy's select committee investigating the Benghazi tragedy has indicated that it will review these new tapes before calling Mrs. Clinton to testify.

It was during the Libyan war that the Obama administration declared its new "leading from behind" strategy, which signaled our withdrawal from our world leadership role. The unilateral disarmament of our military forces in a world undergoing monumental change made no sense but certainly was welcomed by our enemies and the Islamic supremacists. Our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq certainly can be viewed as an "appeasement" signal to Iran in Mr. Obama's senseless quest for any type of nuclear weapons agreement with the evil regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The concessions might already border on treason.

The latest move by the Obama administration — hosting a group of leaders aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood at the State Department, whose objective is to obtain support for the overthrow of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi — was unconscionable. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt shortly thereafter announced a call for a "long, uncompromising jihad." We should not forget that it is President el-Sissi who has called for the reformation of Islam. In fact, as a follow-on effort, leading Sunni clerics should establish a forum to revise interpretation of Islam's 7th century violent Koranic verses. This would be a dramatic act since it has not been tried in more than 1,300 years.

The character of the Obama administration is very clear — never more so than with the continued release of hardened terrorists from Guantanamo Bay. The limited air strikes against the barbaric Islamic State should be seen as further evidence as to where White House sympathies lie. With the administration's disastrous immigration policies and the resettlement of an unknown number of Muslims throughout the country, Congress must act now to preserve our Constitution and the American way of life. As a first order of business, both the House and the Senate should start censure proceedings against Mr. Obama for his unconstitutional acts.

• James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
 
Oh wow, a Moonie Times op-ed piece.
 
Well it helps with the Psych Game.....especially if we help then check out by fire. Wherein they can't attain Paradise or any part of their so called heaven. Means they wont be part of Allah nor the afterlife.

We just need to set examples for them so that can't miss the point.

Also they fear the Djinn. Coming at night.....in the dark. Where they can't scream for help.

The problem is, we all know that doesn't work. People used to pretend that air dropping bacon on them would stop them in their tracks. It won't. They'll just change their beliefs so it isn't a problem anymore. That's what they did with bacon, some imam just declared that if it wasn't voluntary, it didn't count.
 
The problem is, we all know that doesn't work. People used to pretend that air dropping bacon on them would stop them in their tracks. It won't. They'll just change their beliefs so it isn't a problem anymore. That's what they did with bacon, some imam just declared that if it wasn't voluntary, it didn't count.
That might have worked if this was a food fight we were in but I'd prefer to hear more serious strategies.
 
Back
Top Bottom