We're losing. If this is happening, we're losing.According to the Jerusalem Post, ISIS posted pictures to its website purporting to show the Jordanian pilot who was captured by the group in December being burned alive.Apparently the pilot was led into a cage, with his clothing soaked in gasoline.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Our fate if we don't defeat them
Just when you thought they couldn't top their own evil:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Since you are likely too old now, send your grandkids over there. Tell them you'll let them know when we're winning.
ReplyDeleteLet's speak plainly. It's going to take thousands and thousands of ground troops - mostly from the US, but also from other coalition members - to truly defeat the Sunni jihad threat - from ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda (which retired generals Matthias and Keane told the Senate foreign relations committee has grown fourfold in the last five years) and the Taliban. And it's not a matter of whether it's our grandchildren or somebody else's grandchildren. It requires that, and if it's not done, the West is doomed. This is a fact.
ReplyDeleteAnd that doesn't mean we have any business having any other relations with the other Islamic enemy - the Shiite one, Iran and its axis of proxies such as the Assad regime in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. We must stop all P5+1 negotiations over Iran's nuclear program immediately, impose even harsher sanctions, and actively plot to overthrow the Khameini regime. And be prepared to militarily address any measures it takes as it sees what we're doing. Again, otherwise the West is doomed. Iran will put a nuclear payload on that new ICBM it has developed it, detonate it above North America's atmosphere, and unloose an electromagnetic pulse. The hell that will follow will dwarf anything humankind has ever experienced.
Hmm, Iran is immune to nuclear counter-attack from the largest stock piler in the world?
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side; and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate without fail with equal or greater force.
Mutual assured destruction - Read more at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destructionWikipedia
Don't hand me that dog vomit. You know radical Muslims aren't deterred by MAD.
ReplyDeleteRadical Muslims aren't sovereign nations either. You demonstrate such an impressive knowledge of all the "factions" that hate eachother as much as they hate your beloved Israel and our beloved US of A. Now how are these folks going to unite against their common enemy? So MAD is now dog vomit? I' m gonna trust history on this, OK? There are a lot of folks fighting radical Islam. Not just you, so guess you gotta go with the flow, no?
ReplyDeleteName me a national-security expert who says we're doing enough.
ReplyDeleteGoogled it and found one right off. This purported national security expert thinks even Obama is not doing enough. Diplomatically, of all strategies.
ReplyDeleteI think what President Obama outlined last night was a four-part military strategy. Only the last one, which had to do with humanitarian support, about which he said virtually nothing, was not military. All the others were various aspects of military responses. And as he has said himself so many times, there is no military solution to this crisis. So, acting as if we can have a military victory is guaranteeing failure.
"What we should have heard from President Obama last night would have been a four-part diplomatic proposal. You know, there's at least four diplomatic things that should be done, but we didn't, unfortunately, hear any real emphasis on that." --Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow and the Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer.
Read more at http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12369
I guess you know where the Institute for Policy Studies is coming from and has been since its 1963 founding. It's a hard-left outfit. Was outspokenly against US involvement in Vietnam right off the bat. Early involvement in the modern feminist movement. I used to run it not IPS papers and statements a lot in the 1980s when I was researching Communist encroachment on Central America. A den of Freedom-Haters.
ReplyDeleteAlso, see latest post about ISIS expanding into Libya. Has senior administration officials deeply concerned. One says "They own the place."
ReplyDelete