How is ISIS "Junior Varsity" if they're on the verge of becoming a state ?

Nope. You have to know what 9/11 was about. It was about the thing that no one ever talks about ('cause they don't know..... much..... about anything, it seems).

On the other hand, I have reason to at least suspect, since I used to make my living crawling around the wiring under Building 7.

But that's all I'm going to say about it. Too dangerous.

 

The junior high team they're up against, Iraqi army, is giving up.

 

Sorry but to establish any conspiracy you need to establish a motive.

There is no way 9/11 would have been set up when a lone guy with a dirty bomb would have accomplished the same thing.

 

And, if I do the work of finding a link for you, what will your response be? You KNOW the Pentagon is arming Sunnis. So, I just want to understand what the heck you are looking for and how that will change your life.

Sunnis are not necessarily homogeneous. But, they have been disenfranchised by the Iraqi government and have been lethally attacked both by government troops and militias since before Maliki came to power. That is a unifying force and created an opening for ISIS, as ISIS does offer a participatory government.

The "them" you were asking about is Sunnis. An important question right now is what are Sunnis willing to fight FOR?

The US strategy right now is to encourage the al-Abadi government to include Sunnis - to end their disenfranchisement, thus giving Sunnis THAT to fight for. The US still favors a single Iraq that includes the Kurds and the Sunnis in what is a Shiite dominated government in close relations with Iran and the renegade and lethal Shiite militias who are happy killing Sunni civilians.

 

Really?

In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State terrorist group, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region.

 

Funny isn't it, US occupation forces in Iraq trained the Army from the ground up. Seems that Sunni tribesmen took to the training like ducks to water, while Shiites preferred to join Sadr's Mahdi army. While Obama praised and abandoned Iraq, the Shiite led government of Iraq under Nouri al Maliki ostracized and marginalized the Sunni factions of Iraq. But hey, Obama told Americans that HE was leaving a stable and strong Iraqi government. I enclosed Obama and his words about abandoning Iraq. Not once did Obama claim that Bush had anything to do with the success in Iraq or the decision to leave Iraq in such disarray.

[video=youtube;KFqrBJ_1rro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFqrBJ_1rro[/video]​

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

[video=youtube;Hlq9eItoAlg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlq9eItoAlg[/video]​

 

Iraq signed their fate with bushkie. Then the puppet gov't leader did exactly as he wanted. What is now going on is Iraq's own making with bushkie as the primer.

 

Contrary to your statement, had Bush been president 2009 thru 2011, he would have negotiated the SOFA further to have at least 20,000 of our military remain in Iraq to overseer the Nouri al-Maliki government and keep the Sunni from being shut out. Bush would never have allowed the Iraqi government to degrade into the weak force it turned out to be. When Bush left office many of the core officers in the Iraqi military were Sunni. The Shiite factions got rid of them. Just as Obama has destroyed our military and officer corps for the last six and a half years. Bush warned us several times. Obama thought he knew better and caused the resurgence of al Qaeda/ISIS and the chaos we have today.

[video=youtube;aDpcbRadvNI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDpcbRadvNI[/video]​

Obama did exactly the opposite that Bush advised. Obama abandoned Iraq and the Iraqi people. Eventually we will have to go back. More than likely after the next attack on America. al Qaeda will attack and kill many Americans while Obama is still president. That's my prediction.

 

LOL. I would've done this back then, if I'd known then what I know now. And he states it in his fake voice.
Good we abandoned Iraq. At some point we needed to give them their country back. To bad we tore it apart 1st with a meaningless war. But you liked it. So that's all that really counts.

Why did we go there in the 1st place? Afghanistan was where the terrorists were being trained. We wasted countless american and iraqi lives for nothing. Absolutely nothing. Now let them clean up the mess bushkie wanted and created.

 

You're trolling again.....

 

I find it amusing how Americans are in such big fear about the Islamic State. How different is it from just being a modern incarnation of the Ottoman Empire or the Umayyad/Abbasid Caliphates? Many times throughout history the Middle East has been underneath the grip of an authoritarian power. Nothing suggests that it can't happen again, but unfortunately Western liberals have the egotistical view that our "tolerance" and "diversity" is so superior that the rest of the world should be so eager to emulate our "enlightened" ways- when they really don't care about much other than our money.

The Islamic State now has prototypes of their own currency (coin-based for now), identification cards are being produced for its members, and passports have already been made for perhaps over half a year. Videos/pictures on the ground show that they have now progressed to the level that they can print out their own emblem (the text which translates to something like "Allah is the only God, Muhammed is his only messenger") and place this onto their equipment, onto their uniforms, and onto the sides of their vehicles (the latter, even the much weaker Boko Haram has been capable of for a long time), create their own flags, ammunition, and now even various attachments for firearms.

Meanwhile, Western media has been reporting that the IS has lost 1/3 of its territory, Jordan claimed it had killed 5000 Jihadists (obvious nonsense as there is no way you can realistically calculate kills from planes flying at high altitude) within days of their pilot being killed. Yet if you see any of their videos they are very casually operating on the ground in large/concentrated numbers with no fear of the sky. Yet now Palmyra and Ramadi are suddenly seized both on the same day. If the Islamic State is so weak, how can it lose 5000 members and still be on the offensive? And what's Jordan doing now, suddenly they've disappeared from the media? Did they just score such astronomical gains and then went back to doing nothing in the war?

Around 2-3 days ago a Boko Haram (now Islamic State- West Africa) video claimed that the media is also lying about the progress of the coalition (Nigeria, Chad, Niger and Cameroon). The latter half of the video clearly shows at least 9 dead Nigerian troops, and Boko Haram operating casually just like the Islamic State are. No fear of the air once again. They then show the pieces of what they claim is a Nigerian military jet they have shot down and confidently taunt the Presidents of the coalition (Goodluck Johnathan, must have been right before the end of his term, Idriss Deby, Mohammadou Issoufou and Paul Biya), as well as Obama, Netanyahu and Hollande.

When Ramadi collapsed they claimed 30,000 Sh'ia militia were en route immediately to retake it- they claimed "a few hundred Jihadists" took it. It's now been 1-2 weeks- what's delaying 30,000 men from beating this "few hundred"?

So one side or the other is clearly lying. The difference is the IS is actually showing us footage on the ground- hundreds of Iraqi, Kurd and Assadist corpses can't lie. While the Western media has continuously blabbered and shown nothing. If they can lie so well about the real situation there, who knows what else they have been convincing the average fool? This is the same media that has convinced people that Saudi Arabia is backing them (when King Abdullah was the very first to warn Bashar al-Assad about a plot to destabilize his country, and they are spending billions to build a huge wall to keep out Iraq), about the conditions of women there (there are women clearly walking around with assault rifles on the streets), that Turkey is backing them, or about their numbers (the Kurds themselves claim the IS may number as many as 200,000 already, while the West refuses to believe anything more than 20-30K).

 

You need to watch "The Smoking Gun" JFK documentary - it pretty much has resolved what happened that day. Oswald did the first shots. But the fatal head shot seen in the film was by the secret service agent in the car behind JFK who accidentally pulled the trigger in the panic. It was an AR 15 which is why Kennedy's head exploded and the first three bullets shot by Oswald pierced him. It's also why the Secret Service acted so bizzarely that day after the assassination - they knew they messed up and needed to cover their tracks.

Honestly, just watch the documentary - it solves the JFK mystery.

 

Never been on a boat, I don't know how to troll.
I have heard, when one gets beaten in a discussion, names or diversion tactics come out. I guess that's true.

 

Patching up Obama’s ISIS War Plans

 

This guy clearly has NO clue about Obama's strategy.

There really isn't even one single point he tries to make that isn't just plain ridiculous.

 

You have some points here, but let's not get too carried away.

Sunnis are putting up with ISIS because of their disenfranchisement and the violence from the government of Iraq and its sectarian militias.

Right now, the west doesn't believe a new nation should be allowed to emerge, dividing Iraq and Syria. Note that the west is more amenable to the approach of the Kurds toward autonomy, which is far more measured and rational.

If such a division DID occur, my bet is that the 20M Sunni moderates would, over time, demand their full representation and the radicals of ISIS would be a small minority that would likely erode due to the success of a more moderate nation. Despotic rule by terrorism won't be allowed to be successful.

And, just to emphasize, the ISIS idea of no borders and constantly expanding territory is, of course, totally unacceptable, making ANY accommodation of ISIS impossible.

 

Heh! No one has a clue about Obama's strategy!


As for the points, you are free to address them.

 

To know Obama's strategy one has to have at least some amount of interest. For the most part, the entire right wing has no interest.

My bet is that they see more partisan benefit in simply suggesting it is unknown and therefore Obama is bad. That way, they don't have to actually address the issues.

So, the first point to address is that the executive branch (including the Pentagon) sees the Sunnis as the key element in this struggle against ISIS and for a unified state of Iraq. Therefore, the administration is including at least these two actions in addressing this first point:
- diplomacy w/ coercion with the Iraqi government, pushing for that government to end its disenfranchisement of Sunnis and its attacks on them. There has been progress on that, with al-Abadi moving toward inclusion (including of Kurds, as well), removing Shiite militias from battlefields where they have recently been focusing on killing Sunnis when no ISIS are available, etc.

- arming Sunnis.

So, that's point one.

Question:
Why have you and/or your blogger ignored this?

 

The US government, since the beginning of the surge, has been heavily involved in a combination of carrot and stick in trying to keep the ruling Shia engaged with the Sunni. Or at least until Obama started to withdraw and basically abandoned any engagement with Iraq. He simply wasn't interested. Obama only restarted taking advantage of the massive leverage that the US has last year after ISIS began grabbing huge chunks of Iraqi territory. So I'm not sure why you are acting as if engaging the Sunni is some brilliant new idea that the Pentagon and Obama just cooked up when that had been US policy with the Iraqi government. And that doesn't address the military aspect.

So are you saying the current US military engagement is at the appropriate level and is all that's needed to defeat ISIS?