Here's Everything You Need To Know About I.s.i.s

[Derideo_Te]

Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States and its allies two times before the attacks on September 11, 2001. Those two declarations came in the form of fatwas, a type of Islamic religious decree.

The First Fatwa
In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued his first fatwa, a 30-page polemic entitled "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," against the United States and Israel, and it was published in a London newspaper called Al Quds al Arabi. . . .

. . . The second fatwa was published on February 23, 1998, in Al Quds al Arabi. Unlike the first fatwa, which was issued by Osama bin Laden alone, this fatwa was signed by Osama bin Laden; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Jihad group in Egypt and al Qaeda second-in-command; Abu-Yasir Rafa'l Ahmad Taha, leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jumiat-ut-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh. . . .
Al-Qaeda Declarations Acts of War​

In an informative discussion here: What the Constitution Means by Declare War Tenth Amendment Center , The Tenth Amendment Center recounts their opinion of what a declaration of war is and who has the authority to declare it. (Hint: only Congress can declare war.) And of interest in that same essay is a mention of how President Washington wished to declare war on a hostile Indian tribe--he considered the tribes to be foreign nations--but he was unable to get the consent of Congress and therefore did not order an attack. Washington, though he fully expected the Indian people to continue to decline and eventually disappear, would go on to act honorably and honor treaties with the Indian nations.

The mention is made here only to illustrate historical precedence for considering a group inside the USA to be a 'foreign nation' even if it does not have designated borders and has not declared itself to be a country.

Thanks for the links, Foxy.

Simply because an international gang of criminals "declares war" does not mean that the US is obligated to respond in kind. That mistake was made in 2001 and today those in power realize that it was a mistake.

FBI Bombing ISIS Will Only STRENGTHEN Them Washington s Blog

Yeah right.. Ask them how "strengthened" they feel this morning..
Declaring war BACK on AL QUEDA was the PROPER move after 9.11.
And if the FBI was in Afghanistan -- they were not the LEAD agency in taking combatants off the battlefield or killing them..

You are somewhat deluded about the threat. The fact that FOUNDER of ISIS was IN US custody and let go by the legal system is a prime example of this foolish view.. IRONIC if the Iraqis played a vital role in releasing a "criminal" that now threatens their very existence --- isn't it?

You were supplied with factual evidence that the FBI treats terrorists as international criminals and still does so to this day. You were supplied with evidence that promoting Al Queda was a mistake in 2001. You were supplied with evidence that it will be yet another mistake to do the same thing with ISIS today.

That you choose to ignore factual evidence is not my problem.

Blog opinions are not facts.. And finding the FBI in Afghanistan is a testimony to their mission there. You go right ahead and ignore the fact that CNN was picking up Amb. Stevens diary off the floor of the destroyed consulate DAYS before the FBI even got there.

The first WTC bombing investigation "as a crime" delayed our reaction to securing the homeland. And that is one dangerous bad ass mistake to be repeating over and over again..

The FACT is that we have declared war on ISIS.. That's what happens when 4 heavy cruisers and a couple combat wings start bombing them mercilessly.. We can argue about that reaction and the absence of a long term plan --- but NO ONE is gonna make that mistake again..

That blog was a compilation of quotes from the FBI director and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. I suspect that they know a tad more about what the FBI is doing than either of us.

As far as Libya goes it was probably the lack of having the FBI establishing a presence that resulted in what happened in Benghazi. It is doubtful that they will repeat that mistake in the future.

ISIS is not an existential threat to the USA. No amount of emotional venting is going to alter that reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States and its allies two times before the attacks on September 11, 2001. Those two declarations came in the form of fatwas, a type of Islamic religious decree.

The First Fatwa
In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued his first fatwa, a 30-page polemic entitled "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," against the United States and Israel, and it was published in a London newspaper called Al Quds al Arabi. . . .

. . . The second fatwa was published on February 23, 1998, in Al Quds al Arabi. Unlike the first fatwa, which was issued by Osama bin Laden alone, this fatwa was signed by Osama bin Laden; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Jihad group in Egypt and al Qaeda second-in-command; Abu-Yasir Rafa'l Ahmad Taha, leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jumiat-ut-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh. . . .
Al-Qaeda Declarations Acts of War​

In an informative discussion here: What the Constitution Means by Declare War Tenth Amendment Center , The Tenth Amendment Center recounts their opinion of what a declaration of war is and who has the authority to declare it. (Hint: only Congress can declare war.) And of interest in that same essay is a mention of how President Washington wished to declare war on a hostile Indian tribe--he considered the tribes to be foreign nations--but he was unable to get the consent of Congress and therefore did not order an attack. Washington, though he fully expected the Indian people to continue to decline and eventually disappear, would go on to act honorably and honor treaties with the Indian nations.

The mention is made here only to illustrate historical precedence for considering a group inside the USA to be a 'foreign nation' even if it does not have designated borders and has not declared itself to be a country.

Thanks for the links, Foxy.

Simply because an international gang of criminals "declares war" does not mean that the US is obligated to respond in kind. That mistake was made in 2001 and today those in power realize that it was a mistake.

FBI Bombing ISIS Will Only STRENGTHEN Them Washington s Blog

Yeah right.. Ask them how "strengthened" they feel this morning..
Declaring war BACK on AL QUEDA was the PROPER move after 9.11.
And if the FBI was in Afghanistan -- they were not the LEAD agency in taking combatants off the battlefield or killing them..

You are somewhat deluded about the threat. The fact that FOUNDER of ISIS was IN US custody and let go by the legal system is a prime example of this foolish view.. IRONIC if the Iraqis played a vital role in releasing a "criminal" that now threatens their very existence --- isn't it?

You were supplied with factual evidence that the FBI treats terrorists as international criminals and still does so to this day. You were supplied with evidence that promoting Al Queda was a mistake in 2001. You were supplied with evidence that it will be yet another mistake to do the same thing with ISIS today.

That you choose to ignore factual evidence is not my problem.

Blog opinions are not facts.. And finding the FBI in Afghanistan is a testimony to their mission there. You go right ahead and ignore the fact that CNN was picking up Amb. Stevens diary off the floor of the destroyed consulate DAYS before the FBI even got there.

The first WTC bombing investigation "as a crime" delayed our reaction to securing the homeland. And that is one dangerous bad ass mistake to be repeating over and over again..

The FACT is that we have declared war on ISIS.. That's what happens when 4 heavy cruisers and a couple combat wings start bombing them mercilessly.. We can argue about that reaction and the absence of a long term plan --- but NO ONE is gonna make that mistake again..

That blog was a compilation of quotes from the FBI director and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. I suspect that they know a tad more about what the FBI is doing than either of us.

As far as Libya goes it was probably the lack of having the FBI establishing a presence that resulted in what happened in Benghazi. It is doubtful that they will repeat that mistake in the future.

ISIS is not an existential threat to the USA. No amount of emotional venting is going to alter that reality.

In your 'compilation of quotes' linked is this expressed as an anonymous opinion:

"​

Liberals and conservatives agree: Bin Laden won, because the West overreacted and indiscriminately bombed and regime changed all over the Middle East … turning the Arab population against the U.S., and spending trillions in the process."​

Well, there are at least four Arab nations cooperating with and assisting the USA in the bombing of ISIS strongholds in Lybia as we speak. And our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated the first WTC bombing was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated 9/11 was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated dancing and cheering in the streets in a number of Islamic nations when 9/11 was such a success for Islamic terrorists was it?

Japan was one of the most feared and oppressive toward its neighbors nations in the world in the 1940's. Was regime change there a bad idea? Japan is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

Germany was broadly expanding and intended to have all of Europe under its thumb in the 1940's. They had already murdered more than six million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political dissenters, et al and almost certainly would have murdered millions more had they not been stopped. Was regime change there a bad idea? German is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

These things are far more complex and complicated than any simple one-size-fits-all philosophy can cover. I don't know whether bombing Syria is a good idea. My gut tells me it is foolishness and a political gimmick because nobody has explained to me what it is that it is supposed to accomplish. What will victory look like? What can we expect from it that makes all that death and destruction profitable?

And there is the cynical part of me that sees this as a wag the dog kind of thing six weeks before the election.

But one thing is for sure. We do not make any friends with anybody by fighting partial wars and then stopping when the American people get war weary and don't want to do it any more. And we do not make any friends by just accepting whatever sh*t any group wants to dump on us and thereby giving a strong image of impotence and weakness.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thanks for the links, Foxy.

Simply because an international gang of criminals "declares war" does not mean that the US is obligated to respond in kind. That mistake was made in 2001 and today those in power realize that it was a mistake.

FBI Bombing ISIS Will Only STRENGTHEN Them Washington s Blog

Yeah right.. Ask them how "strengthened" they feel this morning..
Declaring war BACK on AL QUEDA was the PROPER move after 9.11.
And if the FBI was in Afghanistan -- they were not the LEAD agency in taking combatants off the battlefield or killing them..

You are somewhat deluded about the threat. The fact that FOUNDER of ISIS was IN US custody and let go by the legal system is a prime example of this foolish view.. IRONIC if the Iraqis played a vital role in releasing a "criminal" that now threatens their very existence --- isn't it?

You were supplied with factual evidence that the FBI treats terrorists as international criminals and still does so to this day. You were supplied with evidence that promoting Al Queda was a mistake in 2001. You were supplied with evidence that it will be yet another mistake to do the same thing with ISIS today.

That you choose to ignore factual evidence is not my problem.

Blog opinions are not facts.. And finding the FBI in Afghanistan is a testimony to their mission there. You go right ahead and ignore the fact that CNN was picking up Amb. Stevens diary off the floor of the destroyed consulate DAYS before the FBI even got there.

The first WTC bombing investigation "as a crime" delayed our reaction to securing the homeland. And that is one dangerous bad ass mistake to be repeating over and over again..

The FACT is that we have declared war on ISIS.. That's what happens when 4 heavy cruisers and a couple combat wings start bombing them mercilessly.. We can argue about that reaction and the absence of a long term plan --- but NO ONE is gonna make that mistake again..

That blog was a compilation of quotes from the FBI director and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. I suspect that they know a tad more about what the FBI is doing than either of us.

As far as Libya goes it was probably the lack of having the FBI establishing a presence that resulted in what happened in Benghazi. It is doubtful that they will repeat that mistake in the future.

ISIS is not an existential threat to the USA. No amount of emotional venting is going to alter that reality.

In your 'compilation of quotes' linked is this expressed as an anonymous opinion:

"
Liberals and conservatives agree: Bin Laden won, because the West overreacted and indiscriminately bombed and regime changed all over the Middle East … turning the Arab population against the U.S., and spending trillions in the process."​

Well, there are at least four Arab nations cooperating with and assisting the USA in the bombing of ISIS strongholds in Lybia as we speak. And our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated the first WTC bombing was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated 9/11 was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated dancing and cheering in the streets in a number of Islamic nations when 9/11 was such a success for Islamic terrorists was it?

Japan was one of the most feared and oppressive toward its neighbors nations in the world in the 1940's. Was regime change there a bad idea? Japan is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

Germany was broadly expanding and intended to have all of Europe under its thumb in the 1940's. They had already murdered more than six million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political dissenters, et al and almost certainly would have murdered millions more had they not been stopped. Was regime change there a bad idea? German is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

These things are far more complex and complicated than any simple one-size-fits-all philosophy can cover. I don't know whether bombing Syria is a good idea. My gut tells me it is foolishness and a political gimmick because nobody has explained to me what it is that it is supposed to accomplish. What will victory look like? What can we expect from it that makes all that death and destruction profitable?

And there is the cynical part of me that sees this as a wag the dog kind of thing six weeks before the election.

But one thing is for sure. We do not make any friends with anybody by fighting partial wars and then stopping when the American people get war weary and don't want to do it any more. And we do not make any friends by just accepting whatever sh*t any group wants to dump on us and thereby giving a strong image of impotence and weakness.

The historical precedents of WW2 don't apply. The WTC1 bombing was the act of international criminal terrorists and it was dealt with speedily and effectively by the FBI.

The FBI followed the troops into Afghanistan because that was where the international criminal terrorists were holed up. They caught a couple of them and many are still behind bars although the major players managed to avoid capture. They did not mean that they weren't fugitives and we know that OBL had to live as a hermit to avoid being captured.

The current bombing is frustrating because of the lack of immediate results but we won't see those until after the proxy troops are trained and deployed. The bombing is more of a holding action than an offensive. At some point the Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians are going to have take out their own garbage. In some respects ISIS has done America a favor by essentially given those nations a reason to fight for their own homes and families.

You are right that there is not a one size fits all solution (such as illegally invading Iraq) and that means this could take longer than expected. (How long did we end up in Iraq?)

But it is foolish to take the taunting bait of ISIS and they need to be treated for what they really are, a gang of international terrorist criminals and if that means a shoot out then sobeit, but it will be their fellow middle easterners who are taking them down.

So I suppose we are in a transition phase since conventional warfare is a proven failure and we are trying to bring about what amounts to "regional policing" instead. Hopefully it will work out better than Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah right.. Ask them how "strengthened" they feel this morning..
Declaring war BACK on AL QUEDA was the PROPER move after 9.11.
And if the FBI was in Afghanistan -- they were not the LEAD agency in taking combatants off the battlefield or killing them..

You are somewhat deluded about the threat. The fact that FOUNDER of ISIS was IN US custody and let go by the legal system is a prime example of this foolish view.. IRONIC if the Iraqis played a vital role in releasing a "criminal" that now threatens their very existence --- isn't it?

You were supplied with factual evidence that the FBI treats terrorists as international criminals and still does so to this day. You were supplied with evidence that promoting Al Queda was a mistake in 2001. You were supplied with evidence that it will be yet another mistake to do the same thing with ISIS today.

That you choose to ignore factual evidence is not my problem.

Blog opinions are not facts.. And finding the FBI in Afghanistan is a testimony to their mission there. You go right ahead and ignore the fact that CNN was picking up Amb. Stevens diary off the floor of the destroyed consulate DAYS before the FBI even got there.

The first WTC bombing investigation "as a crime" delayed our reaction to securing the homeland. And that is one dangerous bad ass mistake to be repeating over and over again..

The FACT is that we have declared war on ISIS.. That's what happens when 4 heavy cruisers and a couple combat wings start bombing them mercilessly.. We can argue about that reaction and the absence of a long term plan --- but NO ONE is gonna make that mistake again..

That blog was a compilation of quotes from the FBI director and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. I suspect that they know a tad more about what the FBI is doing than either of us.

As far as Libya goes it was probably the lack of having the FBI establishing a presence that resulted in what happened in Benghazi. It is doubtful that they will repeat that mistake in the future.

ISIS is not an existential threat to the USA. No amount of emotional venting is going to alter that reality.

In your 'compilation of quotes' linked is this expressed as an anonymous opinion:

"
Liberals and conservatives agree: Bin Laden won, because the West overreacted and indiscriminately bombed and regime changed all over the Middle East … turning the Arab population against the U.S., and spending trillions in the process."​

Well, there are at least four Arab nations cooperating with and assisting the USA in the bombing of ISIS strongholds in Lybia as we speak. And our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated the first WTC bombing was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated 9/11 was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated dancing and cheering in the streets in a number of Islamic nations when 9/11 was such a success for Islamic terrorists was it?

Japan was one of the most feared and oppressive toward its neighbors nations in the world in the 1940's. Was regime change there a bad idea? Japan is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

Germany was broadly expanding and intended to have all of Europe under its thumb in the 1940's. They had already murdered more than six million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political dissenters, et al and almost certainly would have murdered millions more had they not been stopped. Was regime change there a bad idea? German is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

These things are far more complex and complicated than any simple one-size-fits-all philosophy can cover. I don't know whether bombing Syria is a good idea. My gut tells me it is foolishness and a political gimmick because nobody has explained to me what it is that it is supposed to accomplish. What will victory look like? What can we expect from it that makes all that death and destruction profitable?

And there is the cynical part of me that sees this as a wag the dog kind of thing six weeks before the election.

But one thing is for sure. We do not make any friends with anybody by fighting partial wars and then stopping when the American people get war weary and don't want to do it any more. And we do not make any friends by just accepting whatever sh*t any group wants to dump on us and thereby giving a strong image of impotence and weakness.

The historical precedents of WW2 don't apply. The WTC1 bombing was the act of international criminal terrorists and it was dealt with speedily and effectively by the FBI.

The FBI followed the troops into Afghanistan because that was where the international criminal terrorists were holed up. They caught a couple of them and many are still behind bars although the major players managed to avoid capture. They did not mean that they weren't fugitives and we know that OBL had to live as a hermit to avoid being captured.

The current bombing is frustrating because of the lack of immediate results but we won't see those until after the proxy troops are trained and deployed. The bombing is more of a holding action than an offensive. At some point the Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians are going to have take out their own garbage. In some respects ISIS has done America a favor by essentially given those nations a reason to fight for their own homes and families.

You are right that there is not a one size fits all solution (such as illegally invading Iraq) and that means this could take longer than expected. (How long did we end up in Iraq?)

But it is foolish to take the taunting bait of ISIS and they need to be treated for what they really are, a gang of international terrorist criminals and if that means a shoot out then sobeit, but it will be their fellow middle easterners who are taking them down.

So I suppose we are in a transition phase since conventional warfare is a proven failure and we are trying to bring about what amounts to "regional policing" instead. Hopefully it will work out better than Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Syrians are considered garbage by the current administration. They won't be taking out anyone. Assad will be deposed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You were supplied with factual evidence that the FBI treats terrorists as international criminals and still does so to this day. You were supplied with evidence that promoting Al Queda was a mistake in 2001. You were supplied with evidence that it will be yet another mistake to do the same thing with ISIS today.

That you choose to ignore factual evidence is not my problem.

Blog opinions are not facts.. And finding the FBI in Afghanistan is a testimony to their mission there. You go right ahead and ignore the fact that CNN was picking up Amb. Stevens diary off the floor of the destroyed consulate DAYS before the FBI even got there.

The first WTC bombing investigation "as a crime" delayed our reaction to securing the homeland. And that is one dangerous bad ass mistake to be repeating over and over again..

The FACT is that we have declared war on ISIS.. That's what happens when 4 heavy cruisers and a couple combat wings start bombing them mercilessly.. We can argue about that reaction and the absence of a long term plan --- but NO ONE is gonna make that mistake again..

That blog was a compilation of quotes from the FBI director and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. I suspect that they know a tad more about what the FBI is doing than either of us.

As far as Libya goes it was probably the lack of having the FBI establishing a presence that resulted in what happened in Benghazi. It is doubtful that they will repeat that mistake in the future.

ISIS is not an existential threat to the USA. No amount of emotional venting is going to alter that reality.

In your 'compilation of quotes' linked is this expressed as an anonymous opinion:

"
Liberals and conservatives agree: Bin Laden won, because the West overreacted and indiscriminately bombed and regime changed all over the Middle East … turning the Arab population against the U.S., and spending trillions in the process."​

Well, there are at least four Arab nations cooperating with and assisting the USA in the bombing of ISIS strongholds in Lybia as we speak. And our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated the first WTC bombing was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated 9/11 was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated dancing and cheering in the streets in a number of Islamic nations when 9/11 was such a success for Islamic terrorists was it?

Japan was one of the most feared and oppressive toward its neighbors nations in the world in the 1940's. Was regime change there a bad idea? Japan is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

Germany was broadly expanding and intended to have all of Europe under its thumb in the 1940's. They had already murdered more than six million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political dissenters, et al and almost certainly would have murdered millions more had they not been stopped. Was regime change there a bad idea? German is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

These things are far more complex and complicated than any simple one-size-fits-all philosophy can cover. I don't know whether bombing Syria is a good idea. My gut tells me it is foolishness and a political gimmick because nobody has explained to me what it is that it is supposed to accomplish. What will victory look like? What can we expect from it that makes all that death and destruction profitable?

And there is the cynical part of me that sees this as a wag the dog kind of thing six weeks before the election.

But one thing is for sure. We do not make any friends with anybody by fighting partial wars and then stopping when the American people get war weary and don't want to do it any more. And we do not make any friends by just accepting whatever sh*t any group wants to dump on us and thereby giving a strong image of impotence and weakness.

The historical precedents of WW2 don't apply. The WTC1 bombing was the act of international criminal terrorists and it was dealt with speedily and effectively by the FBI.

The FBI followed the troops into Afghanistan because that was where the international criminal terrorists were holed up. They caught a couple of them and many are still behind bars although the major players managed to avoid capture. They did not mean that they weren't fugitives and we know that OBL had to live as a hermit to avoid being captured.

The current bombing is frustrating because of the lack of immediate results but we won't see those until after the proxy troops are trained and deployed. The bombing is more of a holding action than an offensive. At some point the Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians are going to have take out their own garbage. In some respects ISIS has done America a favor by essentially given those nations a reason to fight for their own homes and families.

You are right that there is not a one size fits all solution (such as illegally invading Iraq) and that means this could take longer than expected. (How long did we end up in Iraq?)

But it is foolish to take the taunting bait of ISIS and they need to be treated for what they really are, a gang of international terrorist criminals and if that means a shoot out then sobeit, but it will be their fellow middle easterners who are taking them down.

So I suppose we are in a transition phase since conventional warfare is a proven failure and we are trying to bring about what amounts to "regional policing" instead. Hopefully it will work out better than Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Syrians are considered garbage by the current administration. They won't be taking out anyone. Assad will be deposed.

The Syrians are considered garbage by the current administration. They won't be taking out anyone. Assad will be deposed

Who exactly is going to "depose" Assad if not the Syrians themselves?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah right.. Ask them how "strengthened" they feel this morning..
Declaring war BACK on AL QUEDA was the PROPER move after 9.11.
And if the FBI was in Afghanistan -- they were not the LEAD agency in taking combatants off the battlefield or killing them..

You are somewhat deluded about the threat. The fact that FOUNDER of ISIS was IN US custody and let go by the legal system is a prime example of this foolish view.. IRONIC if the Iraqis played a vital role in releasing a "criminal" that now threatens their very existence --- isn't it?

You were supplied with factual evidence that the FBI treats terrorists as international criminals and still does so to this day. You were supplied with evidence that promoting Al Queda was a mistake in 2001. You were supplied with evidence that it will be yet another mistake to do the same thing with ISIS today.

That you choose to ignore factual evidence is not my problem.

Blog opinions are not facts.. And finding the FBI in Afghanistan is a testimony to their mission there. You go right ahead and ignore the fact that CNN was picking up Amb. Stevens diary off the floor of the destroyed consulate DAYS before the FBI even got there.

The first WTC bombing investigation "as a crime" delayed our reaction to securing the homeland. And that is one dangerous bad ass mistake to be repeating over and over again..

The FACT is that we have declared war on ISIS.. That's what happens when 4 heavy cruisers and a couple combat wings start bombing them mercilessly.. We can argue about that reaction and the absence of a long term plan --- but NO ONE is gonna make that mistake again..

That blog was a compilation of quotes from the FBI director and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. I suspect that they know a tad more about what the FBI is doing than either of us.

As far as Libya goes it was probably the lack of having the FBI establishing a presence that resulted in what happened in Benghazi. It is doubtful that they will repeat that mistake in the future.

ISIS is not an existential threat to the USA. No amount of emotional venting is going to alter that reality.

In your 'compilation of quotes' linked is this expressed as an anonymous opinion:

"
Liberals and conservatives agree: Bin Laden won, because the West overreacted and indiscriminately bombed and regime changed all over the Middle East … turning the Arab population against the U.S., and spending trillions in the process."​

Well, there are at least four Arab nations cooperating with and assisting the USA in the bombing of ISIS strongholds in Lybia as we speak. And our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated the first WTC bombing was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated 9/11 was it? Our over-reaction wasn't what precipitated dancing and cheering in the streets in a number of Islamic nations when 9/11 was such a success for Islamic terrorists was it?

Japan was one of the most feared and oppressive toward its neighbors nations in the world in the 1940's. Was regime change there a bad idea? Japan is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

Germany was broadly expanding and intended to have all of Europe under its thumb in the 1940's. They had already murdered more than six million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political dissenters, et al and almost certainly would have murdered millions more had they not been stopped. Was regime change there a bad idea? German is now a peaceful nation and coveted trading partner with the entire free world.

These things are far more complex and complicated than any simple one-size-fits-all philosophy can cover. I don't know whether bombing Syria is a good idea. My gut tells me it is foolishness and a political gimmick because nobody has explained to me what it is that it is supposed to accomplish. What will victory look like? What can we expect from it that makes all that death and destruction profitable?

And there is the cynical part of me that sees this as a wag the dog kind of thing six weeks before the election.

But one thing is for sure. We do not make any friends with anybody by fighting partial wars and then stopping when the American people get war weary and don't want to do it any more. And we do not make any friends by just accepting whatever sh*t any group wants to dump on us and thereby giving a strong image of impotence and weakness.

The historical precedents of WW2 don't apply. The WTC1 bombing was the act of international criminal terrorists and it was dealt with speedily and effectively by the FBI.

The FBI followed the troops into Afghanistan because that was where the international criminal terrorists were holed up. They caught a couple of them and many are still behind bars although the major players managed to avoid capture. They did not mean that they weren't fugitives and we know that OBL had to live as a hermit to avoid being captured.

The current bombing is frustrating because of the lack of immediate results but we won't see those until after the proxy troops are trained and deployed. The bombing is more of a holding action than an offensive. At some point the Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians are going to have take out their own garbage. In some respects ISIS has done America a favor by essentially given those nations a reason to fight for their own homes and families.

You are right that there is not a one size fits all solution (such as illegally invading Iraq) and that means this could take longer than expected. (How long did we end up in Iraq?)

But it is foolish to take the taunting bait of ISIS and they need to be treated for what they really are, a gang of international terrorist criminals and if that means a shoot out then sobeit, but it will be their fellow middle easterners who are taking them down.

So I suppose we are in a transition phase since conventional warfare is a proven failure and we are trying to bring about what amounts to "regional policing" instead. Hopefully it will work out better than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq was not illegal. It had the full consent and authority of both the U.S. Congress and the U.N. Was it a moral choice? That one is debatable in the cold hard light of history, but I will leave that for the historians to work out. Should we have declared war? Yes, I think it was a serious tactical error not to do so and to not be willing to use overwhelming force to put down all enemies. Was it flawed in its execution? Yes, because once we had won the war we chose not to act as victors as we did in Italy, Germany, and Japan. We did not disarm Saddam's Republican Guard but sent them home with their weapons where they became the core of the insurgency--an error in judgment the administration and military brass readily admitted after the fact.

We did not take control and dictate the conditions by which the Iraqis would regain their autonomy. Thus we allowed them to use us and manipulate us, while only going through the motions of preparing themselves to control and defend their own turf. As a result they were ill equipped to do so once we left. At the time we left Iraq, however, it was a far safer place to be than many areas of Chicago or Detroit.

But at least the Bush Administration did have a vision of what victory in Iraq would look like--they just failed miserably in the execution of winning the peace.

Again, my problem with bombing Syria is what will victory look like? Do we intend to achieve a victory? How will we know that we have achieved it? How will we know we are done? And if we have no goal in mind, what justifies all that death and destruction?

 

[dilloduck]

ISIS is a WMD. We have to destroy it no matter whose country it's in. If we accidently weaken Assad that's just the price he'll have to pay. I don't think the powers that be care what the area looks like after we're finished. Maybe Saudi Arabia or Qatar have some plans for it.