The ISIS Threat to the United States, in Six Sentences

[rangerrebew]

The ISIS Threat to the United States, in Six Sentences

Posted on August 31, 2014 | Leave a comment
 




National Review

Let’s make this simple, shall we?

1. Al-Qaeda carried out the deadliest attack on American soil in American history and the most devastating foreign attack against an American city since the British occupied and burned Washington during the War of 1812.

2. ISIS is more brutal than al-Qaeda.

3. ISIS has more financial resources than al-Qaeda.

4. ISIS controls more territory — and possesses more firepower – than al-Qaeda.

5. ISIS has seized uranium in sufficient quantities to make a radiological weapon, a dirty bomb.

6. The leader of ISIS declared to his former American captors, “See you in New York,” and ISIS militants have pledged to raise the black flag of jihad over the White House.

In other words, ISIS is more capable in every way than the terrorists that hit America so hard on 9/11. Pinprick strikes weren’t enough to stop a much weaker Osama bin Laden. They will not be enough to stop a much stronger Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/the-isis-threat-to-the-united-states-in-six-sentences/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SocialismIsNotTheAnswer+%28Socialism+is+not+the+Answer%29

[massadvj]

As to whether we should send our soldiers into the ME to fight yet another lost cause, as a citizen I have two questions:

1. How, exactly, did ISIS get to be this big and powerful? 
2. Is ISIS a bigger threat to US security than Iranian nuclear weapons?

I ask the first question because it seems clear that ISIS was the creation of our own CIA, other western intelligence services, and Sunni ME countries.  In other words, we learned absolutely nothing from the experience of arming and supporting the Mujahadeen in the 1980's, which ultimately turned into Al Qaeda.  Or maybe we did learn something: how to manufacture our own enemies in order to keep the wars going on and on, thus making the military industrial complex a sustainable enterprise.

I ask the second question because killing off ISIS helps Iran.  We have already spent over a trillion dollars to create an Iranian client state.  Now, suddenly we are to turn our military into the Iranian air force and solidify the Iranian capability to screw the Kurds and Sunnis as well as keep its hold on Syria. 

I also have a third question.  Why are American conservatives so dadblamed eager to go to war?  Why aren't our representatives asking fundamental questions about the narrative we are being sold by the administration?  Could the reason be that our leadership has been complicit in developing and selling that narrative?

I guess that makes five questions, all told.

[katzenjammer]

As to whether we should send our soldiers into the ME to fight yet another lost cause, as a citizen I have two questions:

1. How, exactly, did ISIS get to be this big and powerful? 
2. Is ISIS a bigger threat to US security than Iranian nuclear weapons?

I ask the first question because it seems clear that ISIS was the creation of our own CIA, other western intelligence services, and Sunni ME countries.  In other words, we learned absolutely nothing from the experience of arming and supporting the Mujahadeen in the 1980's, which ultimately turned into Al Qaeda.  Or maybe we did learn something: how to manufacture our own enemies in order to keep the wars going on and on, thus making the military industrial complex a sustainable enterprise.

I ask the second question because killing off ISIS helps Iran.  We have already spent over a trillion dollars to create an Iranian client state.  Now, suddenly we are to turn our military into the Iranian air force and solidify the Iranian capability to screw the Kurds and Sunnis as well as keep its hold on Syria. 

I also have a third question.  Why are American conservatives so dadblamed eager to go to war?  Why aren't our representatives asking fundamental questions about the narrative we are being sold by the administration?  Could the reason be that our leadership has been complicit in developing and selling that narrative?

I guess that makes five questions, all told.

All very good questions, Vic.

I think that we know the answers to most of them as well.  Most people would rather not ask them, because just sitting back and being played is a lot more comfortable than confronting the truth about these matters.

[alicewonders]

I think you're on the right track Victor.  ISIS is  a creation of the CIA, and I don't know if the outcome of it is what was intended or not - but one thing for sure is that they have created a monster.  Personally, I don't want to go into another war there.  I would like to leave them alone to kill each other - but it makes me ill to think about what the innocents would go through.  Still, that's war.

I would rather we do one or two scorched earth attacks - devastating attacks that we will NOT be coming back to rebuild.  Yes, innocents will die too, but they are doomed anyway.

[NavyCanDo]

We can debate all day long about what really gave birth to and embolden ISIS, but I would rather we recognize how dangerous they have become, and how big and powerful. You said we shouldn't risk another American life for a "lost cause" - but do you really understand what the "cause" is?  The cause of ISIS?  It is to destroy us. When their leader said "see you in New York" he meant it. We have an opportunity to stop the next 9/11 before it happens, or we can follow the Obama plan and sit around until it happens. We are NOT the Iranian Air Force by doing so, we are defending our own home land in all respects. And showing our resolve and how willing we are to bring power back into play sends a stronger message to Iran, than "staying out of it" does.  Now does it mean we send 300,000 troops back to Iraq? No. It means understanding the enemy, gain intel, slice off its head by going after its leaders, and building a coalition inside Iraq wiling to defend their country.


WHAT MAKES ISIS SO STRONG?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLZUVuRvVh8 

[massadvj]

We can debate all day long about what really gave birth to and embolden ISIS, but I would rather we recognize how dangerous they have become, and how big and powerful. You said we shouldn't risk another American life for a "lost cause" - but do you really understand what the "cause" is?  The cause of ISIS?  It is to destroy us. When their leader said "see you in New York" he meant it. We have an opportunity to stop the next 9/11 before it happens, or we can follow the Obama plan and sit around until it happens. We are NOT the Iranian Air Force by doing so, we are defending our own home land in all respects. And showing our resolve and how willing we are to bring power back into play sends a stronger message to Iran, than "staying out of it" does.  Now does it mean we send 300,000 troops back to Iraq? No. It means understanding the enemy, gain intel, slice off its head by going after its leaders, and building a coalition inside Iraq wiling to defend their country.


WHAT MAKES ISIS SO STRONG?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLZUVuRvVh8

Then let me ask you this:

Is ISIS a greater threat to US security than the Iranians developing nuclear weapons and the ballistic capability to deliver them?

[alicewonders]

We can debate all day long about what really gave birth to and embolden ISIS, but I would rather we recognize how dangerous they have become, and how big and powerful. You said we shouldn't risk another American life for a "lost cause" - but do you really understand what the "cause" is?  The cause of ISIS?  It is to destroy us. When their leader said "see you in New York" he meant it. We have an opportunity to stop the next 9/11 before it happens, or we can follow the Obama plan and sit around until it happens. We are NOT the Iranian Air Force by doing so, we are defending our own home land in all respects. And showing our resolve and how willing we are to bring power back into play sends a stronger message to Iran, than "staying out of it" does.  Now does it mean we send 300,000 troops back to Iraq? No. It means understanding the enemy, gain intel, slice off its head by going after its leaders, and building a coalition inside Iraq wiling to defend their country.


WHAT MAKES ISIS SO STRONG?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLZUVuRvVh8

What makes them so strong is their fanaticism to their religion, combined with the wealth they have amassed, in part, thanks to us.   I think they are so strong because they have gotten a little help from their friends.  Benefactors in addition to us.

Also, I'm not sure we can build coalitions over there.  Their religion defines their culture.   I don't think we can accelerate the "bridging of the gap" between their culture of centuries past and our culture of the present and the future.  This is something that we can't help to resolve - except to go in and remove those enemies who have attacked us, or who have sworn to attack us.   

[NavyCanDo]

Then let me ask you this:

Is ISIS a greater threat to US security than the Iranians developing nuclear weapons and the ballistic capability to deliver them?

easy answer. YES


Iran is Israel's immediate threat if the radicals in Iran got that far in their development of  nuclear weapons. Israel is more than capable of taking then out - again.  ISIS is our immediate threat.       

[NavyCanDo]

ISIS are the most dangerous people on earth. They openly, proudly crucify enemies, enslave women, and murder men en masse. These are not the usual bad guys out for land, plunder, or power. These are primitive cultists who celebrate slaughter, glory in bloodlust, and slit the throats of innocents as a kind of sacrament.

We did not create their ideology. We may have aloud them to use us to gain strength, that's what they do, and we may have proven our shortsightedness once again, that's what we do. But regardless of how they grew into such a formidable force, we simply cannot abide a growing jihadist state in the heart of the Middle East, fueled by oil, advanced weaponry, and a deranged fanaticism. If we are not willing to bring American power to bear, then we truly have given up and become as George Patton put it, "cowards".

"All men are timid on entering any fight. Whether it is the first or the last fight, all of us are timid. Cowards are those who let their timidity get the better of their manhood."    George S. Patton.

[alicewonders]

If we are not willing to bring American power to bear, then we truly have given up and become as George Patton put it, "cowards.

"All men are timid on entering any fight. Whether it is the first or the last fight, all of us are timid. Cowards are those who let their timidity get the better of their manhood."    George S. Patton."
  Navy!

 

[massadvj]

easy answer. YES


Iran is Israel's immediate threat if the radicals in Iran got that far in their development of  nuclear weapons. Israel is more than capable of taking then out - again.  ISIS is our immediate threat.     

Thank you for answering that.  I'm glad at least someone is that certain of it.  Because I am not.

Once we defeat ISIS, what is to prevent another similar group -- one possibly created by us -- from springing up elsewhere?  Are we to continue throwing trillions of dollars down this rat hole until we have no more resources left? 

Also, since the real estate after the war is going to be controlled by the infantry that captured it, if we are not acting as Iran's air force in this war, whose air force will we be?  Air support is just that.  SUPPORT.  The booty (real estate) will be divided up by the victorious army on the ground.  Whoever it turns out to be, will they be less of a threat to long-term US interests than ISIS?

[alicewonders]

One thing for sure, we've got ourselves a real shit stew over there.  There's no good solution.

[massadvj]

"All men are timid on entering any fight. Whether it is the first or the last fight, all of us are timid. Cowards are those who let their timidity get the better of their manhood."    George S. Patton.

I agree with Patton.  Do you think Patton would want us to just go ahead and bomb without bringing our Army into it?  Isn't relying solely on the air force a kind of cowardice?  Like relying solely on drones?

[SlapLeather]

Turkey will command.  Iran will target Saudi Arabia, Israel, America and Europe, respectively. ALL of the other AXIS are currently chaos enablers, until the call to coalesce. They will coalesce for the greater IS (caliphate).

With Little Boy Choom King as the mightiest enabler on earth, the plan is progressing rapidly.  They can't believe that they haven't been able to get us to take the American Spring bait, but that will not stop them.

Short of a World Wide Epiphany on an individual scale, of Biblical Proportion, we are mere "watchers".  That would be a Revelation.

God will not be mocked.

[Fishrrman]

NavyCanDo wrote above:
[[ We did not create their ideology. We may have aloud them to use us to gain strength, that's what they do, and we may have proven our shortsightedness once again, that's what we do. But regardless of how they grew into such a formidable force, we simply cannot abide a growing jihadist state in the heart of the Middle East, fueled by oil, advanced weaponry, and a deranged fanaticism. If we are not willing to bring American power to bear, then we truly have given up and become as George Patton put it, "cowards". ]]

Let me preface my remarks by offering my conservative credo:
"Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be."

Reality:
Nothing of consequence is going to be done to ISIS by this administration.
Nothing.

Better get used to it.

Whether anything gets done about ISIS after January 2017 depends on who gets elected in November 2016.

If it's Lizzie Warren, or any other democrat other than Hillary, forgeddaboutit.
If it's Hillary, I doubt it.

Only a Republican president might attempt to deal with them, and even then, it's going to take two-three years to rebuild the military as a fighting force, if not longer.

Regarding the question about who poses the greater danger, ISIS or Iran, I wouldn't be surprised to see them pool their resources. True that they may hate each other, but there is something they hate even more -- The West in general and Israel and the U.S.A. in particular. Iran could provide the bomb components, with ISIS and their minions providing the logistics of "delivery".

Tough times ahead for The West.

But there is no one to blame for this, except OURSELVES...

[Fishrrman]

massadvj wrote above:
[[ Once we defeat ISIS, what is to prevent another similar group -- one possibly created by us -- from springing up elsewhere? ]]

Mass, you're a good guy, but sometimes things go right over your head. You are thinking tactically, not strategically.

Do I really have to post my "apple tree analogy" again?

How long will it take you to comprehend that al qaeda, ISIS, and the group that is going to arise after ISIS are but "the apples" of islam?

If you really want to get rid of the apples once and forever, what must be done?

[massadvj]

massadvj wrote above:
[[ Once we defeat ISIS, what is to prevent another similar group -- one possibly created by us -- from springing up elsewhere? ]]

Mass, you're a good guy, but sometimes things go right over your head. You are thinking tactically, not strategically.

Do I really have to post my "apple tree analogy" again?

How long will it take you to comprehend that al qaeda, ISIS, and the group that is going to arise after ISIS are but "the apples" of islam?

If you really want to get rid of the apples once and forever, what must be done?

I agree with you.  If we were fighting fascists we would condemn the ideology of fascism.  If we were fighting communists, we would condemn the ideology of communism.  But in fighting radical Islam we call the ideology a "religion of peace."  And not just OPapaDoc.  GWB did as well. 

This leads me to believe that neither party is actually interested in getting rid of the apples.  What they are interested in is endless war.

[katzenjammer]

I agree with you.  If we were fighting fascists we would condemn the ideology of fascism.  If we were fighting communists, we would condemn the ideology of communism.  But in fighting radical Islam we call the ideology a "religion of peace."  And not just OPapaDoc.  GWB did as well. 

This leads me to believe that neither party is actually interested in getting rid of the apples.  What they are interested in is endless war.

Bingo!!

[Fishrrman]

mass wrote above:
[[ This leads me to believe that neither party is actually interested in getting rid of the apples.  What they are interested in is endless war. ]]

No, I don't think that's what they want...

But... it is what they have, because they (by "they", I mean those who lead, or purport to "lead", The West) can't face the reality of the enemy and the enormity of the struggle that is before them. So they thrash about helplessly and hopelessly -- as hopeless as have been our few erstwhile attempts to promulgate a "war on terror".

The reality is there -- it is as clear and as simple as my "Apple Tree Analogy" I've posted here several times.

But even most folks on this forum (and yes, I'm talking about YOU) -- even if you believe that you comprehend that reality -- are too timid to undertake the actions that might have a chance on putting down this enemy once and for all.

Ultimately, it will entail a struggle that is existential and without much room for morality or the gentle traditional beliefs that we (Western Civilization in general, and America in particular) have cherished (or at least claimed to cherish) for two-and-a-quarter centuries.

No, I'm not talking about eradicating a quarter (or more) of the world's population.
I am talking about destroying the evil totalitarian ideology (cloaked as a religion) that holds them within its thrall.

This is "the reality we face".
As yet, The West cannot bear to face it.
Those who should know better, turn away.

I'll close by once again quoting Ayn Rand:
"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality"

Will The West wait until those consequences are bearing down upon them, as a speeding locomotive upon a person caught on the tracks, until the point of no return, when nothing more can be done?

[truth_seeker]

The allies didn't have to kill all Japanese, German and Italian civilians in order to achieve permanent peace.

But they had to kill enough, to get across the point of "this is how it is, now."

In the present case, enough civilian muslims need to die, to "open minds" to the absolute necessity of changing islam itself.

That is essentially the process which took place in Japan and Germany. Over time so many civilians perished, that people started to question their own side. Their own leaders were getting them killed.

From the very start, I have stated that the allies need to kill enough muslims (of all stripes) to convince them of the destruction and futility of the ordeal their extremists have put them into.

We have been and I believe still remain too squeamish over the numbers that need to be killed. Visions of Hiroshima and Dresden make otherwise smart people, loose their judgement to emotionalism.