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

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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 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.

[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

[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?

[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.