ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Pannonian]

When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

You might be interested in this.

[Vincent Butler]

War is not a pleasant thing. You win wars by killing people. That is never pleasant. But I think of the saying "We make war that we may live in peace" and again "The object of war is peace". The problem we had in Iraq, the West tries to be nice in war now. That would never have defeated Hitler and Tojo. Can you imagine if you had had today's furor over civilian casualties back then? England would be speaking German. Human nature being what it is, we will never eliminate war. If anyone has heard of the Kellogg-Bryant pact, it supposedly outlawed war. Eleven years later, Germany invaded Poland. What did Sun Tzu say, "In peace, prepare for war. In war, prepare for peace." The way I look at this situation is, if we don't fight them in their home, we will eventually fight them in our homes. How many more lives will be lost before we go into Iraq again, or worse, how many American (European, African) lives will be lost at home because we don't act? ISIS needs to be wiped off the earth. There is no place on earth for groups like that. We should use them to colonize Jupiter.

[Noncommunist]

War is not a pleasant thing. You win wars by killing people. That is never pleasant. But I think of the saying "We make war that we may live in peace" and again "The object of war is peace". The problem we had in Iraq, the West tries to be nice in war now. That would never have defeated Hitler and Tojo. Can you imagine if you had had today's furor over civilian casualties back then? England would be speaking German. Human nature being what it is, we will never eliminate war. If anyone has heard of the Kellogg-Bryant pact, it supposedly outlawed war. Eleven years later, Germany invaded Poland. What did Sun Tzu say, "In peace, prepare for war. In war, prepare for peace." The way I look at this situation is, if we don't fight them in their home, we will eventually fight them in our homes. How many more lives will be lost before we go into Iraq again, or worse, how many American (European, African) lives will be lost at home because we don't act? ISIS needs to be wiped off the earth. There is no place on earth for groups like that. We should use them to colonize Jupiter.

While IS should be wiped out, it seems they have enough enemies to do so. Aside from possibly Qatar, they don't have a single state ally in the world. Just about all their neighbors are at war with them. Already, Iraq is reclaiming some cities. I don't see why the US even needs to have any involvement beyond a few air strikes here and there.

And you keep missing my point. Whether we knew what they were up to, and they us, we both were in agreement on how we talked with each other. We maintained diplomatic relations with each other at all times, and there was no fear that our diplomats would end up dead just because they were our people. That's the bare minimum of understanding the other side. If you have that, there is scope for expanding from there. If you don't have that, nothing at all is possible. We don't have that with the middle eastern loons.

On the other hand, the middle eastern loons have no capacity to bomb us back to the stone age. At absolute worst, they might nuke a city which would be bad. However, the chances of that happening are slim to none and it still wouldn't be as bad as what Putin could do if he really wanted to do so.

[Vincent Butler]

While IS should be wiped out, it seems they have enough enemies to do so. Aside from possibly Qatar, they don't have a single state ally in the world. Just about all their neighbors are at war with them. Already, Iraq is reclaiming some cities. I don't see why the US even needs to have any involvement beyond a few air strikes here and there.

It would be nice if we did not have to get involved again, though I never supported the troop withdrawal to begin with, not in the circumstances it was done in. As to the chances of them nuking us, maybe not a nuke, but as porous as our southern border is, they could get across and cause problems easily enough. I agree, bomb them back to the stone age, and then some more. But we also need to cut their supply lines, stop whoever is supplying them and punish them too.

[Pannonian]

On the other hand, the middle eastern loons have no capacity to bomb us back to the stone age. At absolute worst, they might nuke a city which would be bad. However, the chances of that happening are slim to none and it still wouldn't be as bad as what Putin could do if he really wanted to do so.

The channel of communication was sufficient for us to bilaterally reduce nuclear threats and stockpiles. This bilateralism was possible because we had enough in common to make such agreement possible. Conflict was within mutually understood bounds. With the middle eastern lot, they operate by a drastically different set of values, and there is no scope for a similar bilateralism. The closest we had was when strongmen ruled these countries, putting down opposition inside their own borders whilst jockeying for international position. That we could deal with state to state. But we got too full of our own penchant for freedom and democracy, and overthrew these strongmen so that their populations could join us in the new democratic world. Well, this is the new democratic world, and the regimes being chosen aren't what we hoped for.

Parallel to this is the case of Turkey. We opposed the old Kemalist regime because we considered it anti-democratic. The Turkish people are now freer to choose the government they like, and it's one which is more alien to us than the old westernised Kemalist Turkey which we could broadly identify with. Sure, it's better than basket cases like Iraq, but perhaps secularism might have spread further in Turkey had we left them to their own devices for longer, rather than press them to conform to our democratic ideals. Sometimes, the general population of a country may be so foreign to us that their idea of what is good may work on a completely set of rules to what we consider to be the case.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We can keep fighting evil men on behalf of ungrateful bastards until we are all broke and have nothing to eat with except good intentions. Or we can realize that all of our attempts at turning a desert into glass will just spawn more evil men.

Let the middle east live under hell until the culture changes against religious fundamentalism. Geo-political white knights are just as dumb as real life white knights.

[Vincent Butler]

We can keep fighting evil men on behalf of ungrateful bastards until we are all broke and have nothing to eat with except good intentions. Or we can realize that all of our attempts at turning a desert into glass will just spawn more evil men.

Let the middle east live under hell until the culture changes against religious fundamentalism. Geo-political white knights are just as dumb as real life white knights.

The problem is, we are fighting an ideology that has as its goals the destruction of Israel and the West and the complete domination of the world through Islam. The war will not stay there. It will come here. Whereas I believe we should stay out of the Syria mess, and should have stayed out of the Libya affair, this will concern us. We are the enemies as much as Israel is.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The problem is, we are fighting an ideology that has as its goals the destruction of Israel and the West and the complete domination of the world through Islam. The war will not stay there. It will come here. Whereas I believe we should stay out of the Syria mess, and should have stayed out of the Libya affair, this will concern us. We are the enemies as much as Israel is.

I can make it my life mission to take over Somalia and become a warlord. But that doesn't mean anyone in Somalia will ever hear or see me. Also, that is not their goal anyway. They want to first destroy the kingdoms around them, which is a joke. If you think Saudi Arabia or Iran is going to follow anything resembling rules of engagement...

[HoreTore]

And you keep missing my point. Whether we knew what they were up to, and they us, we both were in agreement on how we talked with each other. We maintained diplomatic relations with each other at all times, and there was no fear that our diplomats would end up dead just because they were our people. That's the bare minimum of understanding the other side. If you have that, there is scope for expanding from there. If you don't have that, nothing at all is possible. We don't have that with the middle eastern loons.

What you're describing here is the difference between a state and a non-state organization. We were not able to hold the relations you're talking about with FARC either.

[HoreTore]

but as porous as our southern border is, they could get across and cause problems easily enough.

How many terrorists have entered the US through the southern border?

[Pannonian]

What you're describing here is the difference between a state and a non-state organization. We were not able to hold the relations you're talking about with FARC either.

Then we'll have to accept that countries in the middle east will have a tendency to fragment once the coalescing power is gone, followed by re-emerging in patterns that aren't likely to be friendly to us. Someone asked if this means we should be propping up dictators. I'd turn that question round, and ask why, if these dictators already exist without us having to lift a finger, why should we put an awful lot of effort into removing them so that these situations will come up? For liberalist ideals of freedom and democracy?

[HoreTore]

Then we'll have to accept that countries in the middle east will have a tendency to fragment once the coalescing power is gone, followed by re-emerging in patterns that aren't likely to be friendly to us. Someone asked if this means we should be propping up dictators. I'd turn that question round, and ask why, if these dictators already exist without us having to lift a finger, why should we put an awful lot of effort into removing them so that these situations will come up? For liberalist ideals of freedom and democracy?

And these dictators you're talking about, are they friendly...?

We actually do not have the power to do what we want in the world. We can affect certain things, sure, but we are far from being powerful enough to stop popular unrest in a foreign country.

The (current batch of) dictators are doomed anyway, whether or not we help them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh for goodness' sake. Why do we keep talking about the Islamic world as if it is in some sort of permanent state of apocalyptic war, as if every guy on the street is strapped with C4 and runs around shouting "derka derka jihad a jihad!"?

Across most of the Islamic world right now, most people are living peaceful lives and are concerned only with getting their breakfast and getting to work on time.

Are we forgetting what Europe looked like within our grandparents' lifetimes? The massive wars that were waged continually for hundreds of years? The bloody revolutions? The ethnic cleansing? The suppressed revolts?

The Islamic world is just working through some things the same way we did in Europe. I've said before I think what is going on there is a sort of mixture of a Reformation/Counter-Reformation on the one hand, and 20th-Century style ideological wars on the other. It has went from being a land of goat herders to having a fairly substantial and well-educated middle-class - they are flirting with nationalism, ideology and populist religion in the exact same way the people of Europe did when they first became exposed to them. They will also move on from these things eventually, just like we did in Europe.

When did the latest technology become handheld cameras and bad photoshop?

We care because, for whatever reason, these stories are being latched onto. 2 vets under 30 a day commit suicide (BY THE GOVERNMENTS admission). They come home, get their hand shook by some gelatinous vietnam era draft dodger "thanking them for their service", and get a 10% discount at Luby's. Then they blow their brains out and everyone shakes their head and says "how sad". Then they turn on CNN and demand we send toops back. Pathetic.

Im over it. I wash my hands of it.

All we have to show for two wars is more debt and a bunch of dead young men. I wish I could tell you. Well, I wish I could say it was all part of some grander plan. At least that would satisfy my need for a bad guy. We are in there because people thought it looked good on a chess broad.

I didn't say anything about whether or not we should be sending troops back again.

But on the technology point, I would say that the way that ISIS uses social media and the like to deliberately manipulate Western media and create a certain image for itself is unprecedented amongst similar groups. I suspect that the decision to have a man with a strong British accent carry out the recent beheadings was another of their propaganda ploys - they will have known that having a Briton do it would make it stand out above a regular Iraqi/Syrian Arab. Everything they do is about grabbing the headlines. That's why people are talking about them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How many terrorists have entered the US through the southern border?

An unknown number, obviously. US authorities apparently are more concerned about the Canadian Border and old-fashioned fake passport fly right in regarding terrorism. The Southern border is a festering sore for other reasons.

[HoreTore]

The 'unknown number' is equal to zero.

No terrorist crosses the border illegally. You will not find terrorists among paperless immigrants.

The reason is simple: terrorists have valid documentation. They enter countries legally, and have no need to do so illegally.

Also, excellent analysis, Rhy!

[Fragony]

The 'unknown number' is equal to zero.

No terrorist crosses the border illegally. You will not find terrorists among paperless immigrants.

The reason is simple: terrorists have valid documentation. They enter countries legally, and have no need to do so illegally.

Also, excellent analysis, Rhy!

I am a bit curious why there are concentration of Hezbollah in Mexico, despite what what you are saying is true I would be cautious. They could easily use the cartels to get abroad. Hasn't happened, but I am probably not the only one thinking it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The 'unknown number' is equal to zero.

No terrorist crosses the border illegally. You will not find terrorists among paperless immigrants.

The reason is simple: terrorists have valid documentation. They enter countries legally, and have no need to do so illegally.

Also, excellent analysis, Rhy!

Zero is certainly possible, and I would agree strongly probable as well. Faked or valid credentials are a far safer way to make entry and are almost certainly both the prime choice and the preferred choice.

The "terrorists sneaking across our Southern Border" is a bête noir for some of our "close the border" crowd. While certainly a "possible" threat, ISIS operatives do not need to hire a coyote to get in.

Then can book a flight to Orlando with their Egyptian passport, answer "I'm going to Disney World" as move right on through.

[Fragony]

Horrible but also good. Brave people who helped this guy, respect http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/wo...video.html?_r=

[HoreTore]

Zero is certainly possible, and I would agree strongly probable as well. Faked or valid credentials are a far safer way to make entry and are almost certainly both the prime choice and the preferred choice.

The "terrorists sneaking across our Southern Border" is a bête noir for some of our "close the border" crowd. While certainly a "possible" threat, ISIS operatives do not need to hire a coyote to get in.

Then can book a flight to Orlando with their Egyptian passport, answer "I'm going to Disney World" as move right on through.

The current number of terrorists who have entered the US is zero. You have had several attempts and some successful terrorists coming to the US.

None have tried to do so illegally. The same is true for every European country. Terrorists have always entered legally. With ten years of successfully entering our countries hassle free and legally, why on earth would they switch to the more risky option of going in illegally? That makes no sense.

The 'terrorists among the illegals' is plain nonsense. It is only stated by the clueless.

The reason why Hezbollah is in Mexico, Frags, is the same reason everyone else is there: to profit from the drug trade. A tried and tested method of funding a terrorist organization.

[Vincent Butler]

How many terrorists have entered the US through the southern border?

Well, can we really know? It might be zero, it might be ten, it might be more. The problem is that they have the opportunity, that is the point I am making.

[HoreTore]

Well, can we really know? It might be zero, it might be ten, it might be more. The problem is that they have the opportunity, that is the point I am making.

How we can know? By checking how terrorists have entered the US, perhaps? And throw in every other country in the world as well. They always enter legally. And when they can enter legally, why on earth is it a problem that they have the opportunity to enter illegally...? WHy would they go for anything but the best solution?

[Shaka_Khan]

They could already be in the States. Look at the ISIS members who came from America. And it's not just the ISIS. Look at who did the Boston bombings.

[Vincent Butler]

How we can know? By checking how terrorists have entered the US, perhaps? And throw in every other country in the world as well. They always enter legally. And when they can enter legally, why on earth is it a problem that they have the opportunity to enter illegally...? WHy would they go for anything but the best solution?

Just because they enter legally, doesn't mean that others will do so illegally. I have heard reports, not rumors, that terrorists (not necessarily ISIS), have come across. True, word of mouth, I have not seen it, they supposedly have seen the reports. It doesn't matter, terrorists who enter legally or illegally need to be apprehended immediately. Anyway, our borders need to be secure regardless of the terror threat.

[HoreTore]

Just because they enter legally, doesn't mean that others will do so illegally.

You need to come up with a reason why they would choose to do so.

I ask again: when they have no problems entering the country legally, why would they waste their time in the Mexican deserts...?

[Vincent Butler]

You need to come up with a reason why they would choose to do so.

I ask again: when they have no problems entering the country legally, why would they waste their time in the Mexican deserts...?

I imagine it would be quicker, I don't know how long it would take to get a legal reason to stay. But that brings up another point. Overstayed visas. Many terrorists overstayed their visas. I just looked at a report given before a House of Representatives committee, and it mentions that, and also terrorists who have tried to sneak across both the northern and southern borders. One who tried to sneak across the Mexican border bribed a Mexican official in Beirut for a visa. I will attempt now to post the link here.

[HoreTore]

I imagine it would be quicker, I don't know how long it would take to get a legal reason to stay. But that brings up another point. Overstayed visas. Many terrorists overstayed their visas. I just looked at a report given before the House of Representatives, and it mentions that, and also terrorists who have tried to sneak across both the northern and southern borders. One who tried to sneak across the Mexican border bribed a Mexican official in Beirut for a visa. I will attempt now to post the link here.

He didn't "sneak across", he obtained a fake visa and thus entered legally. 'Closing the border' would not have affected him. Overstaying a visa is another example of entering the US legally. Again, closing the border won't help.

Crossing the border illegally will most certainly not be quicker, and time is not an issue to terrorists anyway. Try again.

You are proposing to blow money on measures against non-existent threats. This will take money away from measures against actual threats. This may lead to underfunded measures allowing a terrorist to slip through. If another terrorist attack strikes the US, enjoy being morally responsible for the event.

[Vincent Butler]

He didn't "sneak across", he obtained a fake visa and thus entered legally. 'Closing the border' would not have affected him. Overstaying a visa is another example of entering the US legally. Again, closing the border won't help.

Crossing the border illegally will most certainly not be quicker, and time is not an issue to terrorists anyway. Try again.

You are proposing to blow money on measures against non-existent threats. This will take money away from measures against actual threats. This may lead to underfunded measures allowing a terrorist to slip through. If another terrorist attack strikes the US, enjoy being morally responsible for the event.

The border needs to be closed anyway to prevent illegal immigration. And the report expressed concern over the possibility of terrorists infiltrating through the southern border. Morally responsible for another terror attack? How? Because this administration does not like to pursue them overseas, if they attack here, how are those who want closed borders morally responsible for it? Now we are fortunate not to have been attacked again. But part of that is because of failed attempts, look at the Underwear Bomber. TSA does not stop many threats, or at least they don't mention doing so, I suppose they might be doing so and not reporting it; they just implement new measures after an attempt. I think attacking the terrorists' base of operations and eliminating their ideology is a better prevention then anything else anyway. Here is a link where Janet Napolitano admits that terrorists enter through the southern border, as well as other mentions of it.

[HoreTore]

It didn't express concern over terrorists infiltrating over the border. It expresses concern that terrorists are crossing the normal borders, in the normal fashion(though sometimes with fake papers). "Securing the border" won't do squat.

You are morally responsible because you advocate measures that will not work, and which will take focus away from the stuff that works. Your stance will thus make it easier for terrorists to enter the US.

[HopAlongBunny]

"Closing the borders!" amounts to a phantom solution.
The fact is undesirables find it so easy to enter legally, closing the border to illegals, solves virtually nothing.
Instead, if you devoted resources to finding and closing loopholes/mistakes that exist in the regular run of people entering, you would be further ahead.
That "illegals" are such a tiny fraction of the problem simply points to what a waste it would be to throw huge resources at it.

[Vincent Butler]

"Closing the borders!" amounts to a phantom solution.
The fact is undesirables find it so easy to enter legally, closing the border to illegals, solves virtually nothing.
Instead, if you devoted resources to finding and closing loopholes/mistakes that exist in the regular run of people entering, you would be further ahead.
That "illegals" are such a tiny fraction of the problem simply points to what a waste it would be to throw huge resources at it.

Well, look at the crime committed by illegal immigrants. Here are some statistics, and the report does acknowledge that it may not be indicative of the country as a whole. And look at the jobs they take from Americans, and not just "the jobs that Americans won't do". Anyway, I agree that we need to close the loopholes that people use, but the illegals are a larger problem than you make them out to be. But for Pete's sake, entering illegally is against the law. They should be forced to leave, and then if they want to reenter, make them do it the legal way, at the back of the line. I have no problems with legal immigration, my own mother is a resident alien. Our country was built on immigration.