Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktTurns out the official line about the ISIS as proclaimed by our President (you will recall the blanket statements – not Islamic, and AQ’s junior partner) were as ignorant in their dismissiveness as they were dangerous in their denial. This excellent Atlantic article spells out what we actually know about these militant medieval religious zealots, their appeal, and their goals.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
All Things in Moderation 
Frist!
… they want the apocalypse, so ultimately the only solution is to give it to ’em. I guess. At least, their own personal apocalypse.
LikeLike
Note that this article is from last March. Prophetic, in the modern sense.
LikeLike
@markinaustin: Indeed.
OT: Despite being bone-crushingly poor in America, white feminist comes to understand her White Privilege:
http://occupywallstreet.net/story/explaining-white-privilege-broke-white-person
What Morgan Freeman thinks about White Privilege:
http://toprightnews.com/watch-morgan-freeman-buries-idea-white-privilege-surprised-cnn-anchor/
White privilege: In pictures and commentary:
http://turtleboysports.com/top-11-reasons-that-white-privilege-is-not-a-real-thing/
When people talk about white privilege, what they are really talking about is contextual privilege. Where you are born, who your parents are, where you get to go to school, how much money your parents can leave you, who your friends are: all these things lead to advantages and disadvantages, but are not only not conferred automatically by skin pigmentation but are drastically different among people of the same skin pigmentation. I could buy the argument of “American Privilege” or “Rich Parents Privilege” or “Wealth Liberal Family Privilege” but skin pigmentation privilege is not a distinct, separate thing that trumps everything else. Not saying it never confers advantages, but even when it does it’s more “cultural tribal affiliation privilege”, conferring benefits within certain contexts, rather than a blanket privilege conferred automatically on everybody of a certain skin pigmentation.
LikeLike
Reading the article in its entirety also points up the importance to ISIS and its recruiting effort that it maintains geographical territory in a Sunni area. They are not like AQ, which operates as a network of terror/piracy cells, they see themselves as an expanding physical state. So they must be bombed early and often, and Shia Iran can be encouraged to support Shia Iraqi efforts on the ground against ISIS. ISIS will go after Shia first, btw, which is the whole basis of their “struggle” in Iraq and Syria.
Apparently, like the worst true believers everywhere, they have no real allies, only a call to martyrs. So there is the “problem” with creating more martyrs, but it is insignificant compared with the problem of letting them expand in comfort.
LikeLike
I’ll be honest–I’ve been mainly ignoring the bickering (from both sides) about use of the words “Islam”, “Islamic”, “Radical Islam” and the like, since I don’t think the arguments are useful or productive. But it would be pretty silly to say that ISIS isn’t Islamic.
LikeLike
Is the left’s insistence on admitting Syrian refugees based on this constant need to prove their non-racist bona fides?
Or is it just that they hate Republicans more than Islamic terror?
LikeLike
Why can’t the Muzzies take care of it? If the can’t/won’t, why can’t the Europeans take care of it? If they won’t, let the Ruskies or Chinese do it?
Last resort? Nukes.
If one American serviceman is so much as injured in this it should be grounds for impeachment on the POTUS that put them in harms way.
LikeLike
McWing:
If one American serviceman is so much as injured in this it should be grounds for impeachment on the POTUS that put them in harms way.
Does your calculus change if/when Times Square gets blown up?
LikeLike
Or is it just that they hate Republicans more than Islamic terror?
So they’re like the Palestinians?
LikeLike
Prolly cause he’s a Jooooooo.
https://twitter.com/DaviSusan/status/666701610849030144
LikeLike
“Or is it just that they hate Republicans more than Islamic terror?”
I think so. The past few days at the PL have made that very clear to me. The terrorists have no agency and don’t know any better. it’s a pretty racist viewpoint, but that’s what progressive thought is at its core. But the Rs and/or RW .. they’re the really enemy and the cause of all the problems in the world.
LikeLike
nova:
The terrorists have no agency and don’t know any better. it’s a pretty racist viewpoint, but that’s what progressive thought is at its core.
I think that is very true.
LikeLike
I found this to be an interesting take.
http://wartard.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-west-v-isis-air-strikes-just-mean_6.html
LikeLike
Nukes.
LikeLike
McWing:
Nukes.
But not yet? At least one American was killed in Paris. ISIS has been taking and killing American hostages for some time.
LikeLike
I’m with McWing. an Ohio-class sub is quite an advantage.
that or you do guerrilla warfare better than them. not columns of tanks and infantry. but guys who will go in an start chopping of heads. not hyperbole. like putting heads on stakes type stuff. be crueler. so the locals see “hey, that was the ISIS recruiting center. now it’s just a pile of corpses who were beaten to death with a a bat.
LikeLike
Curious if the Progressives believe a sovereign nation is allowed to decide for itself who can and cannot enter it?
If not the Progressives don’t believe in “sovereignty”,correct?
LikeLike
Nukes before troops, yes.
LikeLike
McWing:
Nukes before troops, yes.
I get that, but I guess what I am wondering is whether we should be nuking them already. And if not, what should we wait for.
LikeLike
Would the left support blocking all single male refugees, and only admitting women, children, and families?
LikeLike
We’re waiting for the Saudi’s and Jordanians to step up, failing that then the EU, next Russia and/or China. Unless we’re attacked before those options are exhausted. If we’re never attacked, do nothing.
LikeLike
McWing:
Unless we’re attacked before those options are exhausted. If we’re never attacked, do nothing.
So do the hostage takings and beheadings of American citizens not constitute an attack? Because those have already happened. What about publicly issued threats to attack inside American borders, because that has happened already too.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/isis-threatens-attack-dc-video/story?id=35242900
If your position is nukes or nothing, I am trying to figure out if you think ISIS should have free range to do anything to Americans anywhere in the world as long as they aren’t attacking inside US borders, or if you think we should already be nuking ISIS now in response to attacks and threats against Americans that have already taken place.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Depends on the contexts of the attacks on Americans.
LikeLike
McWing:
Depends on the contexts of the attacks on Americans.
OK, how about the context of Peter Kassig?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/mystery-abdul-rahman-peter-kassig
Or the context of Nohemi Gonzalez?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/friends-of-american-killed-in-paris-attacks-speak-out/
And what about the threats issued by ISIS to attack inside our borders? Ignore them unless/until they make good? Or nuke them now?
LikeLike
Now you guys are just trolling.
LikeLike
Michi — i can assure you that I am not. every time these guys go to crap in a hole.i want them thinking, is today the day somebody slits my throat. that’s how you beat ISIS.
LikeLike
Scott, in those two instances those individual’s security is the responsibility of the host country. If it can’t be provided perhaps they shouldn’t be there.
LikeLike
McWing:
Scott, in those two instances those individual’s security is the responsibility of the host country. If it can’t be provided perhaps they shouldn’t be there.
That’s reasonable. So how about the threats ISIS has issued? In light of the Paris events I think it would be hard to dismiss them as nothing more than idle threats. Should we ignore them until such time as they successfully make good on them, or should we nuke them now?
LikeLike
Ultimately I think we have to wait.
LikeLike
McWing:
Ultimately I think we have to wait.
That's the problem, I think, with a nuke-or-nothing policy. You end up doing nothing when you should do something, because nuking is not yet justified.
LikeLike
while you wait, you can implement my guerrilla warfare option.
LikeLike
nova:
while you wait, you can implement my guerrilla warfare option.
That would require some boots on the ground, even if they weren’t general issue army boots. I think McWing is highly opposed to that in any way at all.
LikeLike
Yes, though I wouldn’t risk boots on the ground. Politically, a post attack nuke response will be easier to justify than a nuke “pre-sponse.”
LikeLike
McWing:
Politically, a post attack nuke response will be easier to justify than a nuke “pre-sponse.”
I thought we were discussing your preferred approach unconstrained by existing politics. If we are taking into account political reality, then the nuke ’em approach is a non-starter entirely. Outside of a dirty bomb taking out half of a US city (and even then I am doubtful), a nuclear response will never be politically viable.
LikeLike
i think that makes the most sense. but if you are putting troops in, massive deployment i think is the wrong tactic.
LikeLike
Fair enough. I’m a little hesitant personally for a pre-sponse nuking.
LikeLike
McWing:
I’m a little hesitant personally for a pre-sponse nuking.
So am I, but I am also hesitant to be entirely passive until the worst has already happened. That is why I reject a nuke-or-nothing policy.
LikeLike
i like that we’re just a little hesitant, but not ruling out, a pre-nuke.
LikeLike