Iraq is Burning

[FireChan]

Well,since they didn't change from ISI to ISIL (which we call ISIS since most English speakers wouldn't know what the !@#$ Levant is) until 2013 when their ranks were swelled with foreign fighters and they controlled territory in both Iraq and Syria - I'd have to say Joe is right and Tommy boy is a simpleton, a dunce and a miserable prick- now Tom the miserable facile prick that he is might say But ISIL is just an evolution of ISI which is an evolution ot AQI which is an Evolution of JTJ and you can trace most of this all the way to the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict but these organizations change in both form, function and mission statement as they go along therefore it is nonsense to say ISIL is just JTJ, or AQI, or ISI - our actions in Afghanistan helped create JTJ, our actions in Iraq helped JTJ evolve into AQI and ISI and our actions in Libya and Syria turned ISI into ISIL- The only problem I have with Joe is that "Western involvement" leaves players like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan off the hook but there is little doubt that America and their frienemies are great at creating monsters that they have to fight later.

 

What is their difference in function and mission statement? Be specific.

[Azalin]

Please provide a believable link for the assertion I put in bold print above.

 

I'd like to see that as well.

[....lybob]

What is their difference in function and mission statement? Be specific.

actions vs goals

[Azalin]

actions vs goals

 

that's got to be the most vague example of being specific I've ever seen.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Azalin

[FireChan]

actions vs goals

 

that's got to be the most vague example of being specific I've ever seen.

 

I think he misunderstood me. I know what the definitions are for "functions" and "mission statements." I'd like for you to explain to me the differences of functions and mission statements between the 5 or so factions you listed, because, as you asserted, they are all completely different.

[....lybob]

I think he misunderstood me. I know what the definitions are for "functions" and "mission statements." I'd like for you to explain to me the differences of functions and mission statements between the 5 or so factions you listed, because, as you asserted, they are all completely different.

I never asserted that, but groups do change, they can merge with or absorb other groups, they can split apart and form other groups, they can wax and wain, their goals evolve

 

The JTJ originally started out with tens of members, they did bombings and assassinations and their goal was the overthrow of kingdom of Jordan

 

ISIL has tens of thousands of members with some estimates of 100,000+ ,use military actions and mass killings, with the goal of taking, holding and governing territory in accordance to their interpretation of Islamic law.

 

 

Without the Iraq war JTJ doesn't morph into AQI , without the utter failure of the al-Maliki government it is unlikely that their ranks are swelled by Sunni militias and without the destabilization of both Libya and Syria it is unlikely we have ISIL in it's current form.

[FireChan]

I never asserted that, but groups do change, they can merge with or absorb other groups, they can split apart and form other groups, they can wax and wain, their goals evolve

 

The JTJ originally started out with tens of members, they did bombings and assassinations and their goal was the overthrow of kingdom of Jordan

 

ISIL has tens of thousands of members with some estimates of 100,000+ ,use military actions and mass killings, with the goal of taking, holding and governing territory in accordance to their interpretation of Islamic law.

 

 

Without the Iraq war JTJ doesn't morph into AQI , without the utter failure of the al-Maliki government it is unlikely that their ranks are swelled by Sunni militias and without the destabilization of both Libya and Syria it is unlikely we have ISIL in it's current form.

 

Now we're cooking. I notice you left out AQI's mission statement, as well as ISI. Can you give me those as well?

 

Also, JTJ wanted to overthrow the kingdom of Jordan? Why? Did they have some ultimate goal of "governing their territory in accordance to their interpretation of Islamic law?"

 

If a group's goals evolve, does that mean the old group is gone and now it's a new group? Or is it the same group with different ideas? What brought about the change in the ideas? Let's say the location changes, or they set their eyes on bigger sights, with the same fundamental goal, is that a newly evolved group, or a group that just thought "bigger?"

Edited October 6, 2014 by FireChan

[....lybob]

Now we're cooking. I notice you left out AQI's mission statement, as well as ISI. Can you give me those as well? At this point it would be better for you to google or go to a library or my favorite a Barnes and Noble and find out for yourself

 

Also, JTJ wanted to overthrow the kingdom of Jordan? Why? Did they have some ultimate goal of "governing their territory in accordance to their interpretation of Islamic law?" The original founder was Jordanian and thought the kingdom of Jordan was un-Islamic.

 

If a group's goals evolve, does that mean the old group is gone and now it's a new group? Or is it the same group with different ideas? What brought about the change in the ideas? Let's say the location changes, or they set their eyes on bigger sights, with the same fundamental goal, is that a newly evolved group, or a group that just thought "bigger?"That's a lot of !@#$ing questions! it reminds me of Job, My Turn, If I said that "30 years of western businesses moving industry and technology to China has formed China into the economic and military threat that they are today" would you be like that miserable prick Tom and tell me I'm wrong because China is 4000 years old, if I said the hiring of Belicheat and the drafting of Brady made the N.E. dynasty would tell me I'm wrong because the Patriots have been around for 55 years.

But lets look at the quotes that started this in the first place

 

Joe the six pack "because you have no real arguments thats why you cut and paste long winded articles from neocon &@^@!!'s and post images.

 

The reason ISIS was formed is because we and our "allies" destablized Syria ... what do you think the second "S" stands for? wake up clown, it was MORE intervention that caused the problem. And your solution? You guess it: more intervention"

 

Tom the miserable Prick "ISIS predates any Western involvement in Syria by at least six years. I don't know about your world, but in the reality the rest of us live in, cause generally precedes effect.

 

You really are an idiot."

 

Tom is technically wrong because ISIS didn't exist until 2013 to say they existed before that because ISI and Jabhat Al-Nusra existed before that is like saying Great Britain existed before 1707 because England, Scotland, and Wales existed before 1707. Tom is also wrong because he knew Joe was talking about ISIS the context of the threat they posed but decided to use his default position of miserable Prick instead of adding anything worthwhile.

 

While I'm here lets get to the original debate - Is Obama a loser for not pushing harder to stay in Iraq? I'll concede that we probably wouldn't have the ISIL mess we have now but the other side of that is 60 dead 600 wounded and 60 billion dollars each year and that is with a fairly small footprint, staying in heavily fortified enclaves and with limited patrolling, heavier engagement more blood and treasure.

[FireChan]

But lets look at the quotes that started this in the first place

 

Joe the six pack "because you have no real arguments thats why you cut and paste long winded articles from neocon &@^@!!'s and post images.

 

The reason ISIS was formed is because we and our "allies" destablized Syria ... what do you think the second "S" stands for? wake up clown, it was MORE intervention that caused the problem. And your solution? You guess it: more intervention"

 

Tom the miserable Prick "ISIS predates any Western involvement in Syria by at least six years. I don't know about your world, but in the reality the rest of us live in, cause generally precedes effect.

 

You really are an idiot."

 

Tom is technically wrong because ISIS didn't exist until 2013 to say they existed before that because ISI and Jabhat Al-Nusra existed before that is like saying Great Britain existed before 1707 because England, Scotland, and Wales existed before 1707. Tom is also wrong because he knew Joe was talking about ISIS the context of the threat they posed but decided to use his default position of miserable Prick instead of adding anything worthwhile.

 

While I'm here lets get to the original debate - Is Obama a loser for not pushing harder to stay in Iraq? I'll concede that we probably wouldn't have the ISIL mess we have now but the other side of that is 60 dead 600 wounded and 60 billion dollars each year and that is with a fairly small footprint, staying in heavily fortified enclaves and with limited patrolling, heavier engagement more blood and treasure.

 

So Tom was right. According to you, ISIS has been defeated because now they are just IS. And the one thing about JtSP is that you can never really know what "context" he's using.

 

Do you know why I asked you those questions? Because JTJ and IS and AQI have the exact same fundamental idea. Your assertion that their goals changed a little bit, and now they are completely different factions, is ridiculous. All three call for a stricter government based on their interpretation of Islamic law.

 

The funny thing is, I'm not a proponent of interventionism. In fact, I've posted against it. The difference is, I don't post stupid **** with the wrong words.

Edited October 6, 2014 by FireChan

[....lybob]

So Tom was right. According to you, ISIS has been defeated because now they are just IS. And the one thing about JtSP is that you can never really know what "context" he's using.

 

Do you know why I asked you those questions? Because JTJ and IS and AQI have the exact same fundamental idea. Your assertion that their goals changed a little bit, and now they are completely different factions, is ridiculous. All three call for a stricter government based on their interpretation of Islamic law.

 

The funny thing is, I'm not a proponent of interventionism. In fact, I've posted against it. The difference is, I don't post stupid **** with the wrong words.

No, now we can never defeat ISIS because there is no ISIS to defeat,- ISI to ISIS is a meaningful change because it reflects fact that they controlled territory in Syria which they hadn't previously - just as an example picture the U.S. fed up with Pakistan double dealing, we decide to destabilize their government which we succeed at but instead of a government more friendly to the U.S. the nation is taken over by Islamic extremists who transfer nuclear weapons to IS who now change their name to Atomic Jihad - would I be wrong to say that U.S. meddling in Pakistan created Atomic Jihad.

[FireChan]

No, now we can never defeat ISIS because there is no ISIS to defeat,- ISI to ISIS is a meaningful change because it reflects fact that they controlled territory in Syria which they hadn't previously - just as an example picture the U.S. fed up with Pakistan double dealing, we decide to destabilize their government which we succeed at but instead of a government more friendly to the U.S. the nation is taken over by Islamic extremists who transfer nuclear weapons to IS who now change their name to Atomic Jihad - would I be wrong to say that U.S. meddling in Pakistan created Atomic Jihad.

 

Yes. You'd be wrong. Because their group and ideal clearly existed prior to US meddling, even though they changed their names, they can't change their stripes. Now, if you said we contributed to their rise of power into the area, I'd agree.

Edited October 6, 2014 by FireChan

[/dev/null]

So if ISIS/ISIL changes their name to the Syrian Peoples Occupation of Ninevah would that constitute victory against ISIS? And then what happens if they change their name yet again? Is that another victory since there is no SPOON?

[/dev/null]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11156264/Iraq-asks-for-US-ground-troops-as-Isil-threaten-Baghdad.html

[B-Man]

Well, one ISIS is changing its name........................lol

 

 

FX Series 'Archer' Removes ISIS Spy Agency Name From Upcoming Season

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

This just in: in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the WH says its ISIS strategy is working.

 

Funny read. The White House says one thing, but meanwhile what's actually going on is completely different.

 

The White House said Tuesday that its strategy to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is "succeeding," despite gains the terror group has made in recent days that have raised criticisms about the administration’s approach.

 

"We’re in the early days of the execution of that strategy," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said of the administration’s use of airstrikes against ISIS. "But certainly the early evidence indicates that this strategy is succeeding."

 

ISIS has gained ground in both Iraq and Syria.

 

The group reportedly captured a military training camp in western Iraq and continued to bomb the outskirts of Baghdad, leading to renewed fears of sectarian violence there.

 

In Syria, ISIS forces are inching closer to capturing Kobani, an ethnically Kurdish town near the border with Turkey despite an escalated air campaign outside the city.

 

All is well!!! All is well!!!

Edited October 14, 2014 by LABillzFan

[TakeYouToTasker]

This just in: in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the WH says its ISIS strategy is working.

 

Funny read. The White House says one thing, but meanwhile what's actually going on is completely different.

 

 

 

All is well!!! All is well!!!

Oh, no, see the Obama White House's strategy on ISIL wasn't about defeating ISIL, it was about getting ISIL out of the news in the US, and it's been very successful.

[IDBillzFan]

NYT reporting that ISIS has recovered chemical weapons in Iraq.

 

Wait. What?

 

Exactly.

[Nanker]

Scandalous story from a right-leaning rag like the NY Times. What do you expect?

Osama Bam Boozle's Dead! Forward!

[Oxrock]

NYT reporting that ISIS has recovered chemical weapons in Iraq.

 

Wait. What?

 

Exactly.

Now, since Hillary is running and had stated that Iraq had WMD's, it can now be told that YES! WMD's were found in Iraq and some of our soldiers were injured by them.

 

Only coming out now to justify Hillary's vote to take military action in Iraq and to back up HER claims that WMD's were in Iraq when she voted for military action. A good analysis here: AOSHQ

 

The NYTimes has published a particularly despicable piece on the Iraq War. Here's the link, if you must. Now, let me start by saying there are parts of this piece that are noteworthy, and those parts recount acts of valor and duty by U.S. service members. That's not the despicable part. The despicable part is how the NYTimes writers have twisted what happened to these service members to their own end of rewriting the Iraq War.

According to the NYTimes, chemical weapons of mass destruction were indeed found in Iraq during the war, as has been a simmering, off-again-on-again open secret. But the NYTimes says these were not the chemical WMD that President Bush said would be found:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program.

Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government�s official count was classified.

The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States� encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military.

These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.

The first sentence is an absolute lie, uttered at Bush 43's expense, and made to justify the terrifying conclusion, laid at Obama's feet, in the last sentence.

This NYTimes piece has an overarching political goal: to cement forever the lie that the Iraq War was directed solely at stopping an active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq. As we know, the military never found an active weapons program, which makes this a particularly compelling slander.

Well, okay. Let us say that it is compelling for anyone stupid enough to believe it, which, shockingly, includes far too many people who actually lived through the event and have conveniently forgotten now. I am flabbergasted at the number of people who immediately repeated this lie on Twitter who I know were alive and well and watching the run-up to the Iraq War, just like me.

 

So let me remind you about the actual casus belli for the Iraq War.

 

Click through for the "casus beli"

[Azalin]

so we've been finding WMDs in Iraq for a decade, but they're not those WMDs.