The Beheading

[Jenksismyhero]

Based on the Atlantic article about ISIS, however, it appears part of the reason ISIS is a different animal is their aims are regional - ie, building a caliphate in the Middle East. So based on that, one could argue that they are less of a threat to the US than Al Qaida ever was.

 

Unlike Al Qaida, ISIS is a threat that the regional powers in the Middle East (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, even Iran) have to take seriously.

 

I don't think it's just regional. They've already made it global by killing Americans, Japanese, Britians, Frenchman and I think Australians (?). It's the true jihad movement, not the "soft" jihad OBL started.

 

(i'm not saying they will get global, but clearly their aim is to kill every non-Muslim, including Muslims that don't practice their version of Islam.)

Edited February 19, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Its actually a great comparison. The reason why ISIS is a different threat is that they could destabilize the region. The reason I pointed to WWI is because the region where the assassination occurred, the Balkans, was considered the "powder keg of Europe." If you look at the Middle East with a variety of different countries backed by different proxy powers, you could have a similar result where ISIS destabilization leads to a much larger war where countries such as Israel, Iran, US and Russia are eventually dragged in to support their regional allies.

 

Going to war with ISIS isnt about beheading people, its about protecting borders of allies, most specifically Iraq/Saudi Arabia, but partially Israel as well. There is a reason why the US is extremely involved in the Middle East and not so much in areas dealing with Boko Haram. It isnt about body counts, its about the potential long term impact of ISIS on the Middle East, and what the fall out could be if they were successful.

 

Again, they dont just want to stop where they are at, they want to take Saudi Arabia and other areas too.

 

Strange Sox,

 

Thats just opinion. In my opinion there is no way that letting ISIS succeed in the Middle East will ever result in "good" for the US.

 

Yeah but ISIS has no allies or treaties to protect their allies.

[Texsox]

Again, read. It's not a complex thought.

 

Obama refuses to state that ISIS is killing people because of their religious beliefs. His admn has a whole policy on that because of a fear of offending other Muslims and perpetuating an anti-Muslim sentiment.

 

At home, that "policy" is ignored when it involves domestic race/religious issues. He's more than happy to call black victims of white crime victims of racism/hate. He'll conclude that a white person that kills 3 brown people did it because of racism/religious intolerance with no evidence supporting it. Clearly he's not afraid of offending anyone or perpetuating the "white people hate blacks/muslims" myth here at home.

 

It's broad v. specific. It's taking a stand versus not taking a stand. It's a double standard. If there was some legitimate reason for doing so, maybe i'd be ok with it. But I don't see an issue with calling a spade a spade. ISIS killed people based on their religious beliefs. The victims may have been random, but the targeted group was not. Why is it harmful to point that out?

 

If I understand your statement, you believe that these two issues should be treated the exact same and should use the same wording. I believe they are different matters with two different solutions. As a lawyer I am certain you understand that every case is different and calls for different solutions.

 

The parallels seem to be for your analogy to work that ISIS are the cops and the victims are the victims. You are trying to apply a one size fits both argument. If you are going to argue that the approach to both should be the same you should also build a case where they are the same. I don't see that. The perpetrators are different and the victims are different. The motives may have a similar origin, but that's about it.

[Texsox]

Come on man, you're better than this. Read.

 

I think I answered this in the above. You are claiming the same wording should be used in both cases? Why then if it isn't that you believe both cases are the same. Why have two different cases and require the exact same response?

[Jenksismyhero]

I think a President shouldn't have a problem stating motive when the motive is clear and has been admitted. The fact that he does so in one situation, without facts to support, and actively chooses not to in another, despite having proof of it, for fear of some kind of illogical response, to me, is ludicrous.

[illinilaw08]

I don't think it's just regional. They've already made it global by killing Americans, Japanese, Britians, Frenchman and I think Australians (?). It's the true jihad movement, not the "soft" jihad OBL started.

 

(i'm not saying they will get global, but clearly their aim is to kill every non-Muslim, including Muslims that don't practice their version of Islam.)

 

Sure, ISIS is indiscriminate in who they kill within the Middle East.

 

Again, however, based on the Atlantic article, ISIS' goal is not to attack the West specifically (as Al Qaida would). According to that article, their primary, immediate, aim is their territory in the Middle East.

[illinilaw08]

I think a President shouldn't have a problem stating motive when the motive is clear and has been admitted. The fact that he does so in one situation, without facts to support, and actively chooses not to in another, despite having proof of it, for fear of some kind of illogical response, to me, is ludicrous.

 

I think it's fair to point out that the motive of ISIS - if stated the wrong way - risks painting Muslims and Islam with a pretty broad brush. That Atlantic article which went into ISIS in detail was very, very long.

 

I think it's also fair for the President to try to make comments that, taken out of context, imply that the US is at war with Islam.

 

Equating the war against Islamist terrorists with comments about race relations in the US is, in my opinion, comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Obama refuses to state that ISIS is killing people because of their religious beliefs.

 

For two whole days, then he issued a clear statement in an editorial on Wednesday.

[Soxbadger]

I believe that ISIS goal is to actually take over the world.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/08/isis-thr...he-white-house/

 

“We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House,” he added.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

For two whole days, then he issued a clear statement in an editorial on Wednesday.

 

Yes, he did come out and clarify. But that's still not much of an explanation for why he didn't do it in the first place or why he thinks it's good policy to react in that way.

[Balta1701]

Again, read. It's not a complex thought.

 

Obama refuses to state that ISIS is killing people because of their religious beliefs. His admn has a whole policy on that because of a fear of offending other Muslims and perpetuating an anti-Muslim sentiment.

 

At home, that "policy" is ignored when it involves domestic race/religious issues. He's more than happy to call black victims of white crime victims of racism/hate. He'll conclude that a white person that kills 3 brown people did it because of racism/religious intolerance with no evidence supporting it. Clearly he's not afraid of offending anyone or perpetuating the "white people hate blacks/muslims" myth here at home.

 

It's broad v. specific. It's taking a stand versus not taking a stand. It's a double standard. If there was some legitimate reason for doing so, maybe i'd be ok with it. But I don't see an issue with calling a spade a spade. ISIS killed people based on their religious beliefs. The victims may have been random, but the targeted group was not. Why is it harmful to point that out?

You not liking the response of "Isis wants themselves to be viewed as #1 the Muslim resistance to the west and so adding the religious element to any of these discussions furthers their recruiting goals" doesn't mean that no one has told you what the legitimate reason is.

 

Isis wants everyone in the middle east to view this as them standing up to the (Christian) bullies in the west. Al Qaeda wanted the exact same thing. There's a reason why - it's the best way to recruit disaffected fighters, give them an enemy that is attacking their religion and keeping them oppressed.

 

Hell, even our "allies" in the region play the same game.

[caulfield12]

Think of it like the NCAA Tournament.

 

ISIS/ISIL wants to establish credibility, they're a bubble or mid-major team. The only way they can do that is by being perceived as "beating" or at least confronting the US directly. The difference is we don't want to give them an opportunity to play. It's the same reason that the University of Illinois has no advantage in scheduling SIU, Illinois State, etc. If you beat them, it's expected by everyone. If they upset you somehow, it's a disaster. And everyone likes to root for the underdog to take out the big bully team, the Dukes in bb or Alabamas in fb.

 

If we "take the ball away" like Lucy with Charlie Brown, refuse to offer them what they want in terms of anti-Islamic sentiment...in other words, we simply will not acknowledge they're a real power or on anything approaching equal footing to the established superpowers that lead the UN/G8, then what is the effect?

 

They obviously need "victories" and they need allies/financial assistance.

 

 

Here's an article about how China is pivoting towards Afghanistan/Kabul/Pakistan with the U.S. pullout.

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-0...nt_19621445.htm

Edited February 20, 2015 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/ter...rity/index.html

 

Threat from domestic right-wing anti-government groups might be a greater...

[Texsox]

I think a President shouldn't have a problem stating motive when the motive is clear and has been admitted. The fact that he does so in one situation, without facts to support, and actively chooses not to in another, despite having proof of it, for fear of some kind of illogical response, to me, is ludicrous.

 

Having two different strategies in dealing with international terrorism and domestic issues is ludicrous? I would think that treating each and every issue in the same manner no matter the circumstances would be ludicrous. Different people involved, different solutions available, citizens versus terrorist groups, etc all seem to lead to a different handling.

[Jenksismyhero]

You not liking the response of "Isis wants themselves to be viewed as #1 the Muslim resistance to the west and so adding the religious element to any of these discussions furthers their recruiting goals" doesn't mean that no one has told you what the legitimate reason is.

 

Isis wants everyone in the middle east to view this as them standing up to the (Christian) bullies in the west. Al Qaeda wanted the exact same thing. There's a reason why - it's the best way to recruit disaffected fighters, give them an enemy that is attacking their religion and keeping them oppressed.

 

Hell, even our "allies" in the region play the same game.

 

Adding the religious element???? THEY SPOUT IT THEMSELVES. It's not some secret. How on earth is the United States stating facts - that ISIS targeted and killed non-Muslims - going to change the message to the people they want to recruit? "Oh, well you see Mohammed, the US says it was random acts of violence SO CLEARLY ISIS ISN'T DOING WELL IN THEIR HOLY WAR. Guess I won't sign up after all!"

 

For f***'s sake guys, that is so moronic.

 

And no, the rest of the world doesn't. France came out specifically and said they would protect Jews against these sorts of targeted attacks. They weren't playing stupid word games that make zero sense.

[Jenksismyhero]

Think of it like the NCAA Tournament.

 

ISIS/ISIL wants to establish credibility, they're a bubble or mid-major team. The only way they can do that is by being perceived as "beating" or at least confronting the US directly. The difference is we don't want to give them an opportunity to play. It's the same reason that the University of Illinois has no advantage in scheduling SIU, Illinois State, etc. If you beat them, it's expected by everyone. If they upset you somehow, it's a disaster. And everyone likes to root for the underdog to take out the big bully team, the Dukes in bb or Alabamas in fb.

 

If we "take the ball away" like Lucy with Charlie Brown, refuse to offer them what they want in terms of anti-Islamic sentiment...in other words, we simply will not acknowledge they're a real power or on anything approaching equal footing to the established superpowers that lead the UN/G8, then what is the effect?

 

They obviously need "victories" and they need allies/financial assistance.

 

 

Here's an article about how China is pivoting towards Afghanistan/Kabul/Pakistan with the U.S. pullout.

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-0...nt_19621445.htm

 

Too late man. They play. They kill people, in various places. The real analogy here would be the U of I pretending like SIU doesn't have a basketball program at all, despite the fact that they play on ESPN and the world can watch them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Having two different strategies in dealing with international terrorism and domestic issues is ludicrous? I would think that treating each and every issue in the same manner no matter the circumstances would be ludicrous. Different people involved, different solutions available, citizens versus terrorist groups, etc all seem to lead to a different handling.

 

They both involve hate crimes and race or religion, something that we don't condone in either situation. Our response should be the same - world, these targeted attacks are not acceptable and we condone them. No one should be targeted for who they are, what they look like or who they pray to.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

They both involve hate crimes and race or religion, something that we don't condone in either situation. Our response should be the same - world, these targeted attacks are not acceptable and we condone them. No one should be targeted for who they are, what they look like or who they pray to.

 

Obviously we disagree that the response should be the same. I believe every situation is unique, even two different shootings here, or two different terrorist events. I think a "we always do this when this happens" is a poor policy.

 

Would you apply the same strategy to every criminal case you take on? Always have the same opening? I believe each situation should be evaluated for the best possible solution. That doesn't seem to fit with a process that starts with -- well we have to do this because we always do that -- no matter if we think it will help or not.

 

Now if you want to debate if the approach being used is the best possible approach we are probably closer in agreement than disagreement. If your point is our approach on domestic hate crimes is working and we should also apply it to international terrorism, that's a different debate. If neither approach is working, why should we duplicate it?

[Balta1701]

Foreign Affairs looks back at the disastrous, unnecessary Libya campaign. Considering we're stuck in another one and that one set the table for the last surge of beheadings, an important read.

Despite what defenders of the mission claim, there was a better policy available—not intervening at all, because peaceful Libyan civilians were not actually being targeted. Had the United States and its allies followed that course, they could have spared Libya from the resulting chaos and given it a chance of progress under Qaddafi’s chosen successor: his relatively liberal, Western-educated son Saif al-Islam. Instead, Libya today is riddled with vicious militias and anti-American terrorists—and thus serves as a cautionary tale of how humanitarian intervention can backfire for both the intervener and those it is intended to help.


 

 

....

As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him. Immediately after taking power, the rebels perpetrated scores of reprisal killings, in addition to torturing, beating, and arbitrarily detaining thousands of suspected Qaddafi supporters. The rebels also expelled 30,000 mostly black residents from the town of Tawergha and burned or looted their homes and shops, on the grounds that some of them supposedly had been mercenaries. Six months after the war, Human Rights Watch declared that the abuses “appear to be so widespread and systematic that they may amount to crimes against humanity.”


 

....

Although the White House justified its mission in Libya on humanitarian grounds, the intervention in fact greatly magnified the death toll there. To begin with, Qaddafi’s crackdown turns out to have been much less lethal than media reports indicated at the time. In eastern Libya, where the uprising began as a mix of peaceful and violent protests, Human Rights Watch documented only 233 deaths in the first days of the fighting, not 10,000, as had been reported by the Saudi news channel Al Arabiya. In fact, as I documented in a 2013 International Security article, from mid-February 2011, when the rebellion started, to mid-March 2011, when NATO intervened, only about 1,000 Libyans died, including soldiers and rebels. Although an Al Jazeera article touted by Western media in early 2011 alleged that Qaddafi’s air force had strafed and bombed civilians in Benghazi and Tripoli, “the story was untrue,” revealed an exhaustive examination in the London Review of Books by Hugh Roberts of Tufts University. Indeed, striving to minimize civilian casualties, Qaddafi’s forces had refrained from indiscriminate violence.


 

The best statistical evidence of that comes from Misurata, Libya’s third-largest city, where the initial fighting raged most intensely. Human Rights Watch found that of the 949 people wounded there in the rebellion’s first seven weeks, only 30 (just over three percent) were women or children, which indicates that Qaddafi’s forces had narrowly targeted combatants, who were virtually all male. During that same period in Misurata, only 257 people were killed, a tiny fraction of the city’s 400,000 residents.


 

....

This grim math leads to a depressing but unavoidable conclusion. Before NATO’s intervention, Libya’s civil war was on the verge of ending, at the cost of barely 1,000 lives. Since then, however, Libya has suffered at least 10,000 additional deaths from conflict. In other words, NATO’s intervention appears to have increased the violent death toll more than tenfold.


[Jenksismyhero]

Obviously we disagree that the response should be the same. I believe every situation is unique, even two different shootings here, or two different terrorist events. I think a "we always do this when this happens" is a poor policy.

 

Would you apply the same strategy to every criminal case you take on? Always have the same opening? I believe each situation should be evaluated for the best possible solution. That doesn't seem to fit with a process that starts with -- well we have to do this because we always do that -- no matter if we think it will help or not.

 

Now if you want to debate if the approach being used is the best possible approach we are probably closer in agreement than disagreement. If your point is our approach on domestic hate crimes is working and we should also apply it to international terrorism, that's a different debate. If neither approach is working, why should we duplicate it?

 

The responses don't have to be exactly the same, but when it comes to expressing to the American people and world your disgust/condemnation, I don't see why leaving out motive when it comes to terrorists is a bad thing. Everyone knows they're a religious based group even if it's a distorted and twisted version of one. Hell, express that in the same statement as you explain how the targets were not random but intended based on religious beliefs. It'd be one thing if we didn't know who committed the crimes or why and were just guessing that it must have been wacko Muslims. But that's not the case here.

 

And it's not a legal case. There are no sides. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that these acts were terrible and should not have happened. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that targeting people based on their skin color, beliefs, backgrounds, etc. is terrible. Couching the response is unnecessary when everyone is on the same side.

[caulfield12]

The responses don't have to be exactly the same, but when it comes to expressing to the American people and world your disgust/condemnation, I don't see why leaving out motive when it comes to terrorists is a bad thing. Everyone knows they're a religious based group even if it's a distorted and twisted version of one. Hell, express that in the same statement as you explain how the targets were not random but intended based on religious beliefs. It'd be one thing if we didn't know who committed the crimes or why and were just guessing that it must have been wacko Muslims. But that's not the case here.

 

And it's not a legal case. There are no sides. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that these acts were terrible and should not have happened. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that targeting people based on their skin color, beliefs, backgrounds, etc. is terrible. Couching the response is unnecessary when everyone is on the same side.

 

 

There wouldn't be any wars/conflict/strife/terrorism if that last sentence were in fact true.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/politics/pol...bama/index.html

Rudy Guiliani...does he really believe what he's saying?

 

"I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe the president loves America," Giuliani was quoted as saying by Politico. Asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly Thursday whether he wanted to apologize, Giuliani replied: "Not at all. I want to repeat it."

"I don't feel this love of America," Giuliani said. "I believe his initial approach is to criticize the United States."

 

Giuliani dug in further in an interview with the New York Times, rejecting the idea that his remarks were born of racism.

"I thought that was a joke, since (Obama) was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, " said Giuliani. "This isn't racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism," said Giuliani.

 

How many times have we seen these same sentiments posted...the whole "anti-colonialism" thing started strategically with Thomas Sowell, a fellow African-American who gave fellow conservatives SOME political cover.

 

It's the main reason that 25% of America, and roughly half of GOP voters.....believe/d that Obama is a practicing Muslim and not a United States citizen (the Birthers). OMG, he doesn't wear an American flag pin everyday...so he must be trying to elevate a caliphate nation in Africa instead of helping the American people, etc. He can't act outside of the political lens his father adopted in the 60's and 70's, etc.

Edited February 21, 2015 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/politics/giu...rica/index.html

 

Giuliani stands by Obama comments

 

 

Obama Haters: It's Becoming Crazytown

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/02/21/sm...ry-02212015.cnn

 

 

Maher: Obama Sounds Like the NRA

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/02...-sounds-nra.cnn

[Texsox]

The responses don't have to be exactly the same, but when it comes to expressing to the American people and world your disgust/condemnation, I don't see why leaving out motive when it comes to terrorists is a bad thing. Everyone knows they're a religious based group even if it's a distorted and twisted version of one. Hell, express that in the same statement as you explain how the targets were not random but intended based on religious beliefs. It'd be one thing if we didn't know who committed the crimes or why and were just guessing that it must have been wacko Muslims. But that's not the case here.

 

And it's not a legal case. There are no sides. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that these acts were terrible and should not have happened. EVERYONE (with sanity) agrees that targeting people based on their skin color, beliefs, backgrounds, etc. is terrible. Couching the response is unnecessary when everyone is on the same side.

 

This I mostly agree with.

 

Have you considered that once something is so distorted and twisted it ceases to remain something? Even if the President's statements contain the words distorted and twisted the American people hear "these people are distorting and twisting the Muslim religion to meet their own agenda". Perhaps that is a reason why not to label them Muslim or paint this as a Muslim against all others battle. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world and a very tiny percentage distort and twist their religion to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Adding that label to the terrorist description fuels anti-Muslim sentiment around the globe and fuels the anti-American fire. It's along the same lines as why I dislike hate crime laws. Who cares why, it happened and needs to be dealt with. If you want continuity between these two crimes I'd rather drop the motive from the domestic matters. Cops are killing people, perhaps unnecessarily in cases. That should be enough.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Another example would be the KKK or John Birch Society perverting Christianity...or the polygamous branch of the Mormon Church deviating from the norm.

 

There was a recent episode of The Blacklist (The Ken'yon Family) dealing with this topic.

 

It's not so much a particular religion, it's the extremism of that religion, used to justify horrific acts.

 

Would the US government state that extremist misinterpretations of Christianity are the root of many domestic anti-government and militia groups throughout the country? What comes first, using the Bible or religion to justify their cause...or their cause justifying their beliefs?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

This I mostly agree with.

 

Have you considered that once something is so distorted and twisted it ceases to remain something? Even if the President's statements contain the words distorted and twisted the American people hear "these people are distorting and twisting the Muslim religion to meet their own agenda". Perhaps that is a reason why not to label them Muslim or paint this as a Muslim against all others battle. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world and a very tiny percentage distort and twist their religion to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Adding that label to the terrorist description fuels anti-Muslim sentiment around the globe and fuels the anti-American fire. It's along the same lines as why I dislike hate crime laws. Who cares why, it happened and needs to be dealt with. If you want continuity between these two crimes I'd rather drop the motive from the domestic matters. Cops are killing people, perhaps unnecessarily in cases. That should be enough.

 

So if that's true - that the American people are dumb enough to be duped by difficult words and will only hear the Muslim part of his statement - why isn't that same concern present when a crazy person kills three other people and the President says crimes against people of color/different religions isn't acceptable? It's the same problem - you're feeding the trolls, in one case anti-muslim trolls, in the other the every-white-person-is-racist-and-hates-all-none-whites trolls.

 

Also, I think this viewpoint ignores reality. They ARE Muslim. And they purport to follow Islam, to the T. I actually agree with Mahr when he says that while it might not be THE factor, it's certainly A factor here. I think the American people, and people of the world, are smart enough to know that not all Muslims want to kill you for not being Muslim, just like not all Christians hate gays, not all Christians want to bomb abortion clinics, not all Christians believe praying to God will cause rain, etc.

 

I don't agree with your second statement. I think when someone targets another specifically because of their race, that amps up the crime. It's akin to pre-meditated vs. in the moment. You should account for that extra level. I do think it's ofter overused with whites and underused with minorities though.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Jenksismybitch