I nominate the King Of Jordan to replace Obama fo rthe next 2 years

[Jim in CT]

Just kidding, but you have to admire the expediemt dolling out of retribution.

Back in the Civil War, the state of Mass enacted the fabled 54th, the first black regiment to be used in combat. The confederates said that any black soldier captured, would be executed, rather than going to a POW camp.

Fortunately for those brave black soldiers, Lincoln was President, not Obama. Lincoln immediately told the Confederates that for every Union black soldier illegally executed, he would order th eexecution of one captured Confederate soldier in a Union POW camp. That decisive stance prevented large-scale executions.

Not perfectly applicable to today, as the South was more reasonable than Islamic extremists. But the point is, if we really want to win this thing, it's not going to be a clean, tasteful exercise.

Obama was urged not to pull out of Iraq when he did. H ewas warned of exactly this scenario that was a possible result of the vaccuum created by our premature withdrawal. He chose to ignore those on my side. Atta boy, Calumbo.

Then he referred to ISIS as the JV. Atta boy, Calumbo.

Then at the National Prayer breakfast, instead of outlining a plan to bring these barbarians to their knees, he chose to wag his finger at Christians for atrocities that he says were committed centuries ago, when in fact the Crusades wa slaunched to halt Muslims from killing everyone they encountered (sound familiar)? Atta boy, Calumbo.

No, he's ready to ask Congress for authority to engage ISIS. ISIS (it was called "Al Queda in Irak back in 2009) was already crushed by The Surge. Because of our hasty withdrawal, we have to start all over, with no remaining infastructure in place, because we abandoned it at Obama's orders.

Atta boy, Calumbo.

[Nebe]

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Jim...from what I have heard all morning is OBAMA does not have to seek permission from Congress....not sure he wants scape goats.

Jordan can act the way they do because they have no rules of engagement....they can kill indiscriminately who ever with their bombs of which include military..... women and children....we need precision bombing spending millions for a bomb to kill one person....from the pictures they R doing saturation bombing....heard recently that the woman hostage has been killed in a bombing raid.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's the alternative against this enemy? We let them blind us and do nothing about it, and let them rule the Earth? Because nothing short of that will satisfy them.

This ends one of 2 ways, Nebe. Either we bring them to their knees, or we let them continue to commit atrocities, knowing for an absolute certainty that eventually, the atrocities will occur here.

I don't uderstand how you don't see that...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Jim...from what I have heard all morning is OBAMA does not have to seek permission from Congress....not sure he wants scape goats.

Jordan can act the way they do because they have no rules of engagement....they can kill indiscriminately who ever with their bombs of which include military..... women and children....we need precision bombing spending millions for a bomb to kill one person....from the pictures they R doing saturation bombing....heard recently that the woman hostage has been killed in a bombing raid.

"we need precision bombing spending millions for a bomb to kill one person"

Not sure that's realistic, particularly when this enemy is well known to hide in civilian areas, intentionally using them as shields. That's why I say that if we decide to win this thing, it will be a lot messier than anything we have ever done. Islamic facists don't play by the rules thatthe Germans played by, not even by th esame rules as the Japanese. We negotiated a peace with the Japanese that we felt comfortable with. That's not going to happen with this enemy. We all need to be very clear about that...no large battles between 2 armies with no civilians around...that's a thing of the past...

[Nebe]

I think our strategy is to let them get comfortable and take the land that they want to take. Once they've settled in and their locations are known, we bomb the crap out of them. When they are on the move and expanding there is too much chance for collateral damage. Being reactionary can be dangerous. It's better to not loose sight of the main objective and not let emotions take over. It's not like we are not bombing them every day ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

In the beginning we probably could have masacared them in their staging area in the middle of the dessert before they could disperse to create carnage through out the land....we missed the opportunity...now they R like a cancer

What will americans want if one military person is captured and beheaded....americans will more then likely be demonstrating to get the troops out ....it only took the shooting of a viet cong being shot in the head in Saigon to start the out cry in Vietnam

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I think our strategy is to let them get comfortable and take the land that they want to take. Once they've settled in and their locations are known, we bomb the crap out of them. When they are on the move and expanding there is too much chance for collateral damage. Being reactionary can be dangerous. It's better to not loose sight of the main objective and not let emotions take over. It's not like we are not bombing them every day ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You may well be right. My issue with that strategy is that once ISIS has movbed into a large area...well, that means that the previous inhabitants of that area are all dead. A case could be made for killing them before that point, but then how the heck do you identify where they are, and who goes in on the ground? Easy for me to say, cuz it won't be me...

"When they are on the move and expanding there is too much chance for collateral damage"

Agreed, but those civilians will mostly be murdered by ISIS anyway. Maybe it's better to kill some of them with a bomb, then wait for all of them to be dead to avoid collateral damage. Easy to avoid collateral damage when all of the collateral is dead...not sure that's the best strategy.

You would never know this by listening to any liberal historian, but this is how the Crusades started. Contrary to popular current belief, the Crusades wasn't started by a bunch of bloodthirsty Christians hell-bent on killing everyone who didn't share their faith.

The Crusades was a response (a justifiable response) to the fact that it wa sthe other side (Muslims, once again) who wanted to expand their territory, and did so by killing everyone in their way. They got just about from the Holy Land, through Africa, up to southern France, before Charlemagne stopped them. The Christians invaded the Muslim-held lands, much the same way that the Allies invaded France on June 6, 1944.

You would never, ever know that by listening to Obama's remarks yesterday at the prayer breakfast. Not only was his blaming Christians 700 years too late, it's alsi historically inaccurate. Other than that, it was a swell speech.

[buckman]

Obama is asking Congress for approval on what he has been doing. It's a little ass backwards if you asked me.
Guess he's decided to follow a few rules.
The man is an idiot when it comes to history. The Crusades ??? Are you kidding me ? It reminds me of the way people whitewash Obama's lies by saying that somebody else in the past lied too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Did Obama attend Harvard as a student and got his degree or was he a janitor and got an honorary degree?....after all his records were sealed...

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by Nebe

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's why we need to take 2 eyes for every one they take...

That way in the end we will only be 1/2 blind

[Cool Beans]

^^^^^^^^
Of course if we ever battle the Chinese we will need to take 469,312 eyes for each 1 they take......

[justplugit]

I nominate Hillary and Brian Williams.
After all they are battle hardened and could swap war stories in their spare time.
They would know what to do.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's a compelling aphorism, except that it is riddled with logical fallacy. Especially in your application of it here.

In its general sense it can only be reasonable, logical, if there were some retribution for or prevention of the first eye being taken. Any retribution by those whose eyes have been taken would be a form of an eye for an eye, if not specifically so, generically so, as in taking something other than an eye. Passing the responsibility for retribution or prevention to a collective authority rather than on the specific victim, again, in the case of punishment would be meting out some generic eye for an eye retribution--jail sentence, fine, etc. Perhaps, the most logical concept, one you would not accept, to punish and prevent the first taking of an eye without having the reciprocal taking of the second eye, would be a supernatural being who would punish the eye taker rather than the human victims, or their collective enforcement taking vengeance. This would leave the victim or his collective police force free from eye taking, or some generic form of it. This would absolve humanity from vengeance--a sort of God's saying vengeance is mine.

So, if God is not your cup of tea, it either leaves it up to man to prevent or punish (take a metaphorical eye). Or for men to just let it go, unpunished, and hope that turning the other cheek will prevent further eye takings--which would be a logical fallacy, for if not taking an eye prevents taking an eye then the first eye could not possibly be taken since there would be no precedent for it.

The logical fallacy of your response to Jim in this instance also ignores the possible preventive aspect of retributive eye taking. If the fear of retribution for your taking an eye is the taking of yours, you might logically refrain from taking. That was the game theory logic of MAD. Nuclear attack by one party would guarantee mutually assured destruction. And if, as Jim says, Lincoln's vow to revenge assassinations of black prisoners by killing confederate prisoners actually deterred the former, then the threat of an eye for an eye actually was a deterrent. And, therefor, would not lead to the whole world going blind.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I think our strategy is to let them get comfortable and take the land that they want to take. Once they've settled in and their locations are known, we bomb the crap out of them. When they are on the move and expanding there is too much chance for collateral damage. Being reactionary can be dangerous. It's better to not loose sight of the main objective and not let emotions take over. It's not like we are not bombing them every day ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would we bomb the crap out of them? Did they do something to us, or somebody else, which deserves taking their eyes. Is this taking an eye for an eye. Are we just being vengeful? Or are we trying to prevent them from taking more eyes? Or are we just mean S.O.B's who like bombing crap out of folks. Oh, oh--maybe we would be inviting retaliation--an eye for an eye.

You seem to contradict yourself here. Or, maybe you don't, down deep, believe that taking an eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You may well be right. My issue with that strategy is that once ISIS has movbed into a large area...well, that means that the previous inhabitants of that area are all dead. A case could be made for killing them before that point, but then how the heck do you identify where they are, and who goes in on the ground? Easy for me to say, cuz it won't be me...

ISIS doesn't kill everyone. Certainly where they can they'll kill those who they consider infidels but they've left majority Sunni areas as is but subjected to their rule.

You would never know this by listening to any liberal historian, but this is how the Crusades started. Contrary to popular current belief, the Crusades wasn't started by a bunch of bloodthirsty Christians hell-bent on killing everyone who didn't share their faith.

The Crusades were started by Christians in an attempt to take back holy sites held at the time by Muslims. It wasn't defensive at all and in sieges like for Jerusalem they certainly did massacre most Muslims and Jews. The Crusaders were also known for a lot of debauchery and land grabbing along the way.

Granted, the history of that area is very complex but I don't think you can claim any moral high ground with the behavior of European Christians over Muslims during those times.

I think a much more important discussion here is the coming attempt to retake Mosul and ISIS's recent demand of a son from families there. It's quite likely their supply lines are stretched, their fighters weakened, the civilian population ready to revolt, and Iraqi military regrouped and an enraged Jordan perfectly positioned to divide the Syrian and Iraqi ISIS militants.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think a much more important discussion here is the coming attempt to retake Mosul and ISIS's recent demand of a son from families there. It's quite likely their supply lines are stretched, their fighters weakened, the civilian population ready to revolt, and Iraqi military regrouped and an enraged Jordan perfectly positioned to divide the Syrian and Iraqi ISIS militants.

I hope what you imply, will happen. If the Muslims themselves can take care of the ISIS problem, that would be ideal. And if, after having done so, the Muslims begin to seriously reform militant jihadism out of their religion, and truly become a religion of peace, a tolerant religion which does not desire to forcibly impose itself on the rest of the world and which allows those in their midst to practice other religions, or other philosophical ways of life, and purge Sharia law of its oppressive dictatorial stuff, wow, what a wonderful world.

If, on the other hand, they don't reform, some other ISIS, or Al Qaida, or Muslim Brotherhood may just pop up again.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

ISIS doesn't kill everyone. Certainly where they can they'll kill those who they consider infidels but they've left majority Sunni areas as is but subjected to their rule.

The Crusades were started by Christians in an It wasn't defensive at all and in sieges like for Jerusalem they certainly did massacre most Muslims and Jews. The Crusaders were also known for a lot of debauchery and land grabbing along the way.

Granted, the history of that area is very complex but I don't think you can claim any moral high ground with the behavior of European Christians over Muslims during those times.
families there. It's quite likely tr supply lines are stretched, their fighters weakened, the civilian population ready to revolt, and Iraqi military regrouped and an enraged Jordan perfectly positioned to divide the Syrian and Iraqi ISIS militants.

And how did the Muslims take over the lands that the Christians were trying to reclaim? Did they win those lands in a poker claim, or were hey awarded those lands in a lawsuit? Or did the conquer to get the lands?

Maybe "defensive" is the wrong word, but it wasn't done out of aggression, either. It was a reaction to someone else's aggression, very very similar to what we were doing at Normandy Beach in 1944, right?

In any event, for Obama to mention that as a pretext to talking about ISIS, at a National Prayer breakfast of all places, is beyond insane.

You make a lot of baseless military assumptions, and I'm shocked, yes shocked, that all of you speculation paints Obama as wildly successful in the war on terror, despite the fact that he denies that it exists.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I hope what you imply, will happen. If the Muslims themselves can take care of the ISIS problem, that would be ideal. And if, after having done so, the Muslims begin to seriously reform militant jihadism out of their religion, and truly become a religion of peace, a tolerant religion which does not desire to forcibly impose itself on the rest of the world and which allows those in their midst to practice other religions, or other philosophical ways of life, and purge Sharia law of its oppressive dictatorial stuff, wow, what a wonderful world.

If, on the other hand, they don't reform, some other ISIS, or Al Qaida, or Muslim Brotherhood may just pop up again.

I think they need a vision. To date politics -- largely post Cold War politics -- have defined actions.

The Sunni/Shiia issue won't be settled, but at least I think there can be common ground, similar to how the West and Soviet Union worked to eliminate the Nazis.

Perhaps it's time for the Jordanians to rise and defend a more moderate form of Sunni Islam that can buffer what we see in the Arabian Peninsula and counter the ISIS radicals. With our backing others who are timid like the UAE may better support the mission.

ISIS days in Iraq are numbered, perhaps 6 months. If Jordan can help to cut them in half in the name of Islam you may see a real movement...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Granted, the history of that area is very complex but I don't think you can claim any moral high ground with the behavior of European Christians over Muslims during those times.

I think Christians could claim some "moral high ground" even with the behavior of European Christians at the time of the Crusades. There is no complete moral equivalence between ISIS and the Crusades. And there is certainly no equivalence for the actions of each IN THEIR TIME. The Christian behavior was not extreme, unusual, or unacceptable for the world at that time. What ISIS is doing is brutally extreme and unacceptable at this time for the world's moral consensus.

Anyway, medieval European Christianity is pretty much under control, don't ya think? Christian crusaders are no longer running around creating medieval atrocities. You'd think Obama would have noticed that. Instead of rehashing old news, focusing on current events might have been a better speech. No?

[Raven]

it was like the first thanksgiving way back when
the only difference was
the locals were eating sacred to them magic mushrooms
this made them look rather possessed and like raving lunatics
which scared the living sheet out of the Conquistador's
that thought it was quite EVIL and Satanic so they
promptly out of immense Fear pulled their swords
and a massacre followed .......

[JohnR]

US foreign policy is a weak-kneed mess - this is going to get a lot of our kids killed in the next couple decades. Actions have consequences, inaction, more so.

Je suis JV

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And how did the Muslims take over the lands that the Christians were trying to reclaim? Did they win those lands in a poker claim, or were hey awarded those lands in a lawsuit? Or did the conquer to get the lands?

Maybe "defensive" is the wrong word, but it wasn't done out of aggression, either. It was a reaction to someone else's aggression, very very similar to what we were doing at Normandy Beach in 1944, right?

No, not at all.

In any event, for Obama to mention that as a pretext to talking about ISIS, at a National Prayer breakfast of all places, is beyond insane.

Have you read his full remarks?

You make a lot of baseless military assumptions, and I'm shocked, yes shocked, that all of you speculation paints Obama as wildly successful in the war on terror, despite the fact that he denies that it exists.

Please name one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I think Christians could claim some "moral high ground" even with the behavior of European Christians at the time of the Crusades. There is no complete moral equivalence between ISIS and the Crusades. And there is certainly no equivalence for the actions of each IN THEIR TIME. The Christian behavior was not extreme, unusual, or unacceptable for the world at that time. What ISIS is doing is brutally extreme and unacceptable at this time for the world's moral consensus.

Obama never stated there was moral equivalence. His mention of the Crusades was in a string of historic events making the point that the misuse of faith is a continuing challenge to humanity and no single religion can claim to be exempt.

I think it's fair to question his use of the Crusades in this context as it's a grey area. Some of the violence from the Crusades initially was religious fueled conquest but a lot was offensive/defensive tension at a shifting border between cultures.

My guess is a speechwriter was trying to paint with a broader brush.

Anyway, medieval European Christianity is pretty much under control, don't ya think? Christian crusaders are no longer running around creating medieval atrocities. You'd think Obama would have noticed that. Instead of rehashing old news, focusing on current events might have been a better speech. No?

That's the pretty obvious subtext to his mention of the Crusades, the Inquisition or Jim Crow is that we've moved on.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama never stated there was moral equivalence.

Of course he never stated there was moral equivalence. One doesn't usually give examples of moral equivalence by actually using the words "moral equivalence." And even if in his own mind it didn't occur that he was pointing out moral equivalence, what he said actually amounted to doing that.

His mention of the Crusades was in a string of historic events making the point that the misuse of faith is a continuing challenge to humanity and no single religion can claim to be exempt.

A "continuing challenge" to humanity is the misuse of anything. And there is this massive, indescribable, string of historic events that point that out. And no single being can claim to be exempt. But the problem is nearly unsolvable when compounded by the differing opinions of what is "misuse." The participants in the actions of the Crusades or of ISIS did not believe they were misusing their faith. And what they did, if we can take their word, were, in the main, moral actions. Unless you think that the goals and actions of the crusades and ISIS are totally amoral, as in the "continuing challenge" to nature of lions having to kill wildebeests to satisfy their hunger. Or in the continuing challenge to existence in that all which exists must occupy some space and use resources that deny those spaces and resources to other beings. It seems that humans, whether they are religious or not, burden existence with the problems of morality. Except for those we label as psychopaths, we require some "higher ground" for our interaction with other humans, and even, for some, with other non-human beings. Maybe morality is not the most accurate word to describe that higher ground. But even in a strictly utilitarian view which sees all action as strictly accruing to the benefit oneself, and considering others is only reasonable if that enhances benefit to oneself, that is a morality of sorts, a basic rather than "higher ground" morality--and that, if not religion, may well be the origin of moral thinking.

That is all a long-winded way of saying that, unless he is a psychopath, Obama was, wittingly or unwittingly, comparing what he considered the immoral actions of crusaders with those of ISIS. Otherwise, what would he consider the "misuse" of religion to be. Especially since religion basically teaches and requires its version of the moral way. The required path to some salvation. And he was speaking to a religious group. Did he think they were all as strictly utilitarian in the view of their faith as you seem to imply Obama is? That there is no higher moral ground in their action with others than a utilitarian use of them for selfish reasons?

And if he wasn't speaking of a moral equivalence, what equivalence was he making? That they both committed atrocities? So what's wrong with atrocities if we remove our moral judgment of them? If atrocities are not immoral, wouldn't they be perfectly fine if they advanced our agenda? And aren't they usually required when defending against massive assaults, or even in preventing assaults? Isn't the argument against torture a "higher ground" moral one, not a strictly utilitarian one?

I think it's fair to question his use of the Crusades in this context as it's a grey area. Some of the violence from the Crusades initially was religious fueled conquest but a lot was offensive/defensive tension at a shifting border between cultures.

My guess is a speechwriter was trying to paint with a broader brush.

Yeah, very broad, sort of splashed off of the canvas and muddied the paint.

That's the pretty obvious subtext to his mention of the Crusades, the Inquisition or Jim Crow is that we've moved on.

Yes, it is obvious that we moved on. But ISIS has not. It is still stuck in its version of the middle ages. As such, it cannot be compared to Christianity since what the unchristian Christians did back then was suitable to what was done by most others and not out of step with their time. On the other hand, in our time, ISIS is way out of step. We are, supposedly, living in a more "civilized" time. A morally advanced time in which even the professed great majority of Muslims don't approve of how ISIS is acting. And one would think Obama had noticed that, and not made the comparison, morally equivalent or not.

On the other hand, if you think that ISIS is not out of step with Islam . . . that is another matter.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, it is obvious that we moved on. But ISIS has not. It is still stuck in its version of the middle ages.

Hence the subtext. What we've seen with the coalition comprised of many Arab states and just recently a Sunni Arab state pretty much declaring war on ISIS gives a glimmer of hope that modern Islam may be prepared to move on as well.

With everyone clamoring about Obama's lack of strategy here, we seem to have an Iraqi army regrouping to take back Mosul, a Jordanian military out for blood in Syria and a UAE back in the game. With our support the locals appear to be taking matters into their own hands...which I think actually was the strategy Obama laid out some time ago.

I think ISIS is going to be purged from Iraqi pretty quickly. It's going to be messy but they've never really had to deal with air and ground campaigns simultaneously. Retreat to Syria will be an attractive option.

The big complication will be what to do with Assad and the Sunni/Shiite implications.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, not at all.


Have you read his full remarks?


Please name one.

Here's one. I'm paraphrasing, our idiot in chief said something to the effect of...lest anyone think they can claim the religious moral high ground, lets not forget about those bloodthirsty Christians, blah, blah, blah. His reference was hundreds of years old, and historically inaccurate. The crusaders, like the allies at Normandy, set out to liberate lands from the savages that conquered them. Go ahead and make that wrong, I dare you. Obama would be a laughingstock, if he wasn't doing so much damage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Hence the subtext. What we've seen with the coalition comprised of many Arab states and just recently a Sunni Arab state pretty much declaring war on ISIS gives a glimmer of hope that modern Islam may be prepared to move on as well.

With everyone clamoring about Obama's lack of strategy here, we seem to have an Iraqi army regrouping to take back Mosul, a Jordanian military out for blood in Syria and a UAE back in the game. With our support the locals appear to be taking matters into their own hands...which I think actually was the strategy Obama laid out some time ago.

I think ISIS is going to be purged from Iraqi pretty quickly. It's going to be messy but they've never really had to deal with air and ground campaigns simultaneously. Retreat to Syria will be an attractive option.

The big complication will be what to do with Assad and the Sunni/Shiite implications.

Spence, the guy can't get one right by accident. He dismissed Rodney's reference to the Putin threat with his witty and clever reference to the eighties wanting their foreign policy back. He dismissed critics who said that it would be dangerous to pull out of Iraq when we did. He called Isis the jv. It's unbelievable, you'd almost have to think that degree of incompetence had to be made up. I'm waiting for him to crash Air Force one into someone's swimming pool like inspector Clouseau. The stimulus will keep unemployment below eight percent, if you like your doctor you can keep it, obamacare will save the average family $2500 a year...how many blunders does one get to make before you conclude he's not up to this task, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Hence the subtext. What we've seen with the coalition comprised of many Arab states and just recently a Sunni Arab state pretty much declaring war on ISIS gives a glimmer of hope that modern Islam may be prepared to move on as well.

Good. Now that we have established that Obama WAS imputing a moral equivalence between ISIS and the Crusades we can move on to the subtext. That being that Christianity has moved on. That it has cleansed itself from extremists, at least the nasty violent ones who commit atrocities. Perhaps, he could also attend an Islamic prayer breakfast and let the Muslims know about their over 1200 year problem with nasty extremists and that they are taking a wee bit too much time to get it together.

That might, however, be difficult for the Muslims to do. I mean, the bad Christians were not actually being extremists. They weren't taking New Testament, biblical Christian text or teaching or principals to extremes. They were simply using culturally or discriminatorily concocted so-called "Christian" values to justify their dirty work. Rather than their culture being shaped by the basic tenets of biblical Christianity, they transformed the religion into one either based on their culture, or the need of its ruling and/or corrupt clerical classes to control its people. To some extent, that is still going on today. But now the cultural shaping of Christianity is toward social mainstreaming with, of course, the removal of violence. But there are still pesky remnants, and probably a growing number, who feel the need to be "extreme," that is, they want to be true to the word as expressed in their holy text. It is these "fundamentalists" who are depicted as extremists, and therefor to be feared. After all, look at the horrors perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Except, as I mentioned those weren't extreme expressions of Christianity, they were, as you put it, a misuse of it. Extreme expression of Christianity, would be more like that of Mother Theresa, or self mortification, or vows of poverty. But, of course, in our relativistic age, any philosophical, religious, or ideological attempt at doctrinal purity, or faithfulness to principals, is considered extreme--as in the progressive attitude to those who want constitutional government rather than rule by an inconsistent, ad hoc administrative state that is in a constant mode of change (and growing oppression). Constitutionalists are therefor "extremists."


Islam, on the other hand, actually has textual basis for what ISIS is doing. ISIS may, or may not, be extreme in its practice of Islam, but its practice of Islam is fundamental. Those who wish to reform Islam, or wish that it was reformed, may want to depict ISIS and Al Qaida, etc., as being outside of Islam, a perversion of it, but it is the reformers who would be the perverts. To reform is to change. Obviously, the reformers want to change Islam. They must, therefor, believe that there is something wrong with it.

Of course, most of the clerics (including a whole bunch of them who call for the jihad against the west and forceful conversion of those who resist) say that Islam does not need to be reformed. That the so-called "extremists" are perverting or misusing Islam.

Now, in the home bases of Shiites and Sunnis, Iran and Saudi Arabia, the moderate Islam that we say exists, is not practiced. The grand clerics and secular leaders of those countries practice an extremely discriminatory and often harsh and oppressive Islam. This is also true of many if not most of the other Muslim countries.

So it seems that the brewing war between the Muslim Arab states you mention and ISIS is more of a turf war rather than an ideological one. It doesn't seem like the Muslim states are as much offended by what ISIS is doing so much as that it threatens their power and control. The current Muslim states ARE modern Islam. So that "glimmer of hope" you have that modern Islam will move on might be a deceptive flicker.



With everyone clamoring about Obama's lack of strategy here, we seem to have an Iraqi army regrouping to take back Mosul, a Jordanian military out for blood in Syria and a UAE back in the game. With our support the locals appear to be taking matters into their own hands...which I think actually was the strategy Obama laid out some time ago.

His strategy all along? You mean he really wanted Syria, and Libya, and Egypt, and Iraq to be in the condition they are now? And for Iran to keep extending the "negotiations" over their nuclear program (until they finally get the capability they want to wipe out Israel and who knows who else)? And he wanted ISIS to become as pervasive and brutal as it is. Brilliant planning. I can picture him now, bending over the big map with a pointer stick laying out for the generals exactly what he intended to do and ordering them how it was to be done. Hell of a strategist. And, no doubt, this time around, the locals will not be co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood or some Taliban outfit. Yes, let the conflagration begin, may the best man win, and, of course, the best man will be the one Obama planned to be the winner.

Hey, I'm all for the Muslims doing it themselves. But I don't think it takes a whole lot of strategy to let them. But, if the fundamentals of their religion don't change, who remains standing afterward may not be any less anti-Israel or more pro-Western than they are now. Certainly not if the victors are the Arab Islamic states that exist now.

I think ISIS is going to be purged from Iraqi pretty quickly. It's going to be messy but they've never really had to deal with air and ground campaigns simultaneously. Retreat to Syria will be an attractive option.

The big complication will be what to do with Assad and the Sunni/Shiite implications.

What's so complicated about that. Just keep applying the Obama strategy.