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

[Sunni Man]

You cannot point to a single nation in which Islam has achieved majority in which human rights and liberties are not infringed and oppressed if not flat out disallowed.

Malaysia, Albania, Indonesia, just to name a few. ..

 

[flacaltenn]

By far the largest group of Muslims are moderates. They are not conspiring against the west. They are not sewing suicide vests. They are not even reading the verses in the Quaran that keep Pastor Rikurzhen awake all night long afraid that they will jump out from under his bed and cut off his head.

Instead they are just ordinary people with jobs, families and bills to pay. They probably care way more about how their kids are doing in school than they do about ISIS.

Only a fool makes an utterly absurd and baseless allegation that "there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim."

Our best friends are Muslims (Husband and Wife) and they are the nicest people we have ever been around. We go out to dinner with them to expensive restaurants and they insists on always paying. I have to grab the check immediately because I know what they'll do They invite us to dinner and make homemade Moroccan food for us, they ALWAYS offer to help us out (drive to airport, pick up this or that if we need it), are genuinely interested in our lives etc. They are just really solid friends. During Ramadan we broke the fast with them at their home (after me and my girlfriend decided to try the fast for a day) and it was an amazing experience. It was like having Thanksgiving Dinner with family. No prayers, ceremonies or anything. Just a great dinner with friends.

I can count on one hand the friends that would literally give the shirt off their backs if we needed it and they are 2 of them. We could count on them for anything and vice versa.

There are plenty of spectacular Muslims out there. I'm sure my experience isn't rare.

I'm sure they are nice people but here's the problem. When push comes to shove, and it will, what will they do? Picture Nazi Germany because ISIS in pretty much like the Nazi's. Many Germans knew nice Jews too and liked them and yet turned a blind eye to either save themselves or because they believed in the ultimate goal. The Ultimate goal with ISIS is to have the entire world be Muslim. Your friends might not agree with the method to make the entire world Muslim but would they help you if it meant their own lives? In their mind would they choose you, who ISIS are going to be portrayed as an enemy of Allah for not converting or are they going to pick Allah even if you have to die?

ISIS is not an existential threat to the whole world. It is not even a existential threat to the middle east.

ISIS is a bunch of crazy religious zealots with guns who will die for their cause.

The problem is ensuring that they are the only ones who end up dying.

Yep.. That's roughly why 2 years after Al Queda declared war on the United States -- most of us had no idea of the threat they posed. And THEY didn't have tanks and land. Just a few caves and sat phones.

Stupid to repeat that mistake --- dontcha think? That's not endorsement for the hare-brained reflexes our idiots in charge are making. But I would CERTAINLY declare war right back at them. And make CERTAIN that we protect this country from attacks. We should help folks with a recognized will and ability to govern that ASK US to help.. Like the Kurds. Shuffling chairs in Baghdad ain't gonna make them a democracy. Arabs don't have elections and democracies. They fight and die for power until a tyrant takes control..

ISIS doesn't deserve the promotion that a declaration of war would give them. That mistake was made by the prior administration when they promoted Al Queda to the undeserved status of "enemy combatants". They are nothing of the sort. They are a criminal gang, a militia of thugs who exploit religion as an excuse to murder innocents. They should be treated like criminals because that is what they really are.

By far the largest group of Muslims are moderates. They are not conspiring against the west. They are not sewing suicide vests. They are not even reading the verses in the Quaran that keep Pastor Rikurzhen awake all night long afraid that they will jump out from under his bed and cut off his head.

Instead they are just ordinary people with jobs, families and bills to pay. They probably care way more about how their kids are doing in school than they do about ISIS.

Only a fool makes an utterly absurd and baseless allegation that "there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim."

Our best friends are Muslims (Husband and Wife) and they are the nicest people we have ever been around. We go out to dinner with them to expensive restaurants and they insists on always paying. I have to grab the check immediately because I know what they'll do They invite us to dinner and make homemade Moroccan food for us, they ALWAYS offer to help us out (drive to airport, pick up this or that if we need it), are genuinely interested in our lives etc. They are just really solid friends. During Ramadan we broke the fast with them at their home (after me and my girlfriend decided to try the fast for a day) and it was an amazing experience. It was like having Thanksgiving Dinner with family. No prayers, ceremonies or anything. Just a great dinner with friends.

I can count on one hand the friends that would literally give the shirt off their backs if we needed it and they are 2 of them. We could count on them for anything and vice versa.

There are plenty of spectacular Muslims out there. I'm sure my experience isn't rare.

I'm sure they are nice people but here's the problem. When push comes to shove, and it will, what will they do? Picture Nazi Germany because ISIS in pretty much like the Nazi's. Many Germans knew nice Jews too and liked them and yet turned a blind eye to either save themselves or because they believed in the ultimate goal. The Ultimate goal with ISIS is to have the entire world be Muslim. Your friends might not agree with the method to make the entire world Muslim but would they help you if it meant their own lives? In their mind would they choose you, who ISIS are going to be portrayed as an enemy of Allah for not converting or are they going to pick Allah even if you have to die?

ISIS is not an existential threat to the whole world. It is not even a existential threat to the middle east.

ISIS is a bunch of crazy religious zealots with guns who will die for their cause.

The problem is ensuring that they are the only ones who end up dying.

Yep.. That's roughly why 2 years after Al Queda declared war on the United States -- most of us had no idea of the threat they posed. And THEY didn't have tanks and land. Just a few caves and sat phones.

Stupid to repeat that mistake --- dontcha think? That's not endorsement for the hare-brained reflexes our idiots in charge are making. But I would CERTAINLY declare war right back at them. And make CERTAIN that we protect this country from attacks. We should help folks with a recognized will and ability to govern that ASK US to help.. Like the Kurds. Shuffling chairs in Baghdad ain't gonna make them a democracy. Arabs don't have elections and democracies. They fight and die for power until a tyrant takes control..

ISIS doesn't deserve the promotion that a declaration of war would give them. That mistake was made by the prior administration when they promoted Al Queda to the undeserved status of "enemy combatants". They are nothing of the sort. They are a criminal gang, a militia of thugs who exploit religion as an excuse to murder innocents. They should be treated like criminals because that is what they really are.

Thats a stupid rookie mistake that led DIRECTLY to 9--11. The whole concept of treating the FIRST WTC bombing and the USS Cole as a legal matter weakened our i telligience on the organization and abilities of those who declared war on us. You dont send the FBI and a bus of lawyers to the scene of a terrorist attack. You send the CIA and the Seals. Ideas like that one of yours are get more people killed. Because thats no longer "preemptive war" once we are attacked, its war. NOT a crime. Most of these radical Muslim gangs are proxis for Iran and other legit countries.

BTW... Thomas Jefferson knew this when he sent the MARINES to Tripoli to take down the Barbary Pirates. Note, he didnt sent the police and lawyers. And things have not changed a WHIT since the 1700s.,

 

[Iceweasel]

You were alleging that Islam was responsible for the infringement and oppression of human rights.

If anyone created a strawman that would be you. I corrected your mistake by pointing out the the infringement and oppression of human rights is common in 3rd world nations irrespective of their religion.

You didn't correct shit you blowhard. You couldn't answer the question! The answer obviously then is NO, you can't show us where an Islamic nations infringes on human rights. You're assertion is that it's due to third world status and ignore the draconian barbaric treatment so common in Muslim countries.

Furthermore I pointed out that infringement of human rights occurs right here in the USA and that it would be fallacious to blame Christianity.

Which was an incredibly stupid point. Cutting noses off of women for adultery isn't too common here. Or did you even know? You're playing a silly moral equivalence game and anyone with half a brain is going to recognize your disproportionate reasoning.

Finally religions are not about supporting individual rights. The bible endorses slavery, it stomps on freedom of expression and denies equal rights for all.

ISIS is not Islam any more than Westboro Baptist is Christian. Both are abominations that exploit religion for their hateful agenda.

So if you disgree with interpretations then they are clearly wrong and have no right to their chosen religion? What a pompous asshole.

 

[Foxfyre]

You cannot point to a single nation in which Islam has achieved majority in which human rights and liberties are not infringed and oppressed if not flat out disallowed.

Malaysia, Albania, Indonesia, just to name a few. ..

Okay let's take a look at the human rights record of those few:

Malaysia

The legal conflation of Malaysian citizens’ ethnic and religious identities has far-reaching and often negative consequences for religious freedom in Malaysia. Constitutional provisions define ethnic Malays as Sunni Muslims, a designation that leaves all ethnic Malays subject to sharia law concerning religious and family matters. A parallel system of secular courts is used by non-Muslims and Muslims who engage the court for issues beyond sharia jurisdiction. Ethnic Malays seeking to convert from Islam must appeal to the sharia system, which in many states bans apostasy, and non-Muslims must convert to Islam in order to marry a Muslim citizen.
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/religious-freedom-in-Malaysia​

Albania
Albania does have a majority of Muslims somewhere between 50 to 60% of the population. It is an anomaly in the world rated as one of the least religious countries in the world where, according to a Pew poll, fewer than 10% of even the Muslims say that religion is important to them. And there is apparently some crossover or ambivalence involved:

. . . For generations, religious pragmatism was a distinctive trait of the Albanians. Even after accepting Islam, many people privately remained practicing Christians. As late as 1912, in a large number of villages in the Elbasan area, most men had two names, a Muslim one for public use and a Christian one for private use. Adherence to ancient pagan beliefs also continued well into the twentieth century, particularly in the northern mountain villages, many of which were devoid of churches and mosques. A Roman Catholic intellectual, Vaso Pashko (1825-92), made the trenchant remark, later co-opted by Enver Hoxha, that "the religion of the Albanians is Albanianism.". . .
http://countrystudies.us/albania/55.htm​

Albania is currently seeking admission into the EU and it is likely the leadership is pretty pragmatic in knowing that enforced Shariah Law would not be a good selling point for admission. We'll see how it goes after that.

INDONESIA (probably the worst violator of Human Rights among so-called Democracies)

INDONESIANS are reeling from one of their country's most awful incidents of religious violence in years. It happened on February 6th, in a village in Banten, the western end of Java, not far from Jakarta, a district where strictly Islamist parties poll well. Out of keeping with the more usual pattern of Muslim-versus-Christian attacks, this was a mob attack by Muslims against men who claimed to be their own fellows: members of a Islamic sect called the Ahmadiyah.

Three Ahmadis were killed and five seriously injured in a frenzy of violence: footage of the assault was deemed too graphic to be shown on Indonesian TV news, which tends to have a fairly high tolerance for the stuff. Instead the footage is circulating on the internet, if you have the stomach. Indonesians are asking what could have motivated religious people to commit such a barbaric act (“sadistic” is a word being bandied around)—and why the police were so feeble in their attempts to stop it.

Nerves have been frayed further by another spate of religious violence, first reported this morning. Elsewhere in Java a Muslim mob burned down three Christian churches, all the while calling for the death penalty to be brought against a Christian man whom they accused of blaspheming against Islam. They were apparently unsatisfied by the judgment of a court, which had already given him the harshest sentence available (five years in jail) for distributing leaflets that insulted Islam. This sort of mob violence is not rare enough. . .
http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2011/02/religious_persecution_Indonesia

. . . .In theory the rights of the Ahmadis to freedom of worship and expression should be protected by the country's constitution, like everyone else's. But the government has partly gone along with the more extremist Muslims who wanted the sect banned completely; as a result, the sect has been stranded in a legal twilight zone. Many have argued that this invites attacks on the sect; these latest verdicts also point in that direction. The present government wants to be known as progressive and democratic at home and abroad—putting the Suharto years behind it, as it were—but that aspiration will remain well out of reach unless it does a great deal more to protect vulnerable minorities within its own borders.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/07/religious-persecution-Indonesia

Indonesia is a multi-party democracy. In 2009 voters re-elected Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as president. Domestic and international observers judged the 2009 legislative and presidential elections free and fair. Authorities generally maintained effective control over security forces; however, there were instances in which elements of the security forces committed human rights abuses.

The government failed to conduct transparent and credible investigations into some allegations of extrajudicial killings by security forces. The government did not always protect the rights of religious and social minorities and economically marginalized citizens. The government applied treason and blasphemy laws to limit freedom of expression by peaceful independence advocates in the provinces of Papua and West Papua and by religious minority groups.
Corruption, abuse of prisoners and detainees, harsh prison conditions, trafficking in persons, child labor, and failure to enforce labor standards and worker rights continued as problems.
On some occasions the government punished officials who committed abuses, but judicial sentencing often was not commensurate with the severity of offenses, as was true in other types of crimes.. . . .
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2013/eap/220196.htm​

At the same site one can access the religious freedom section at the State Dept site, and it isn't pretty.

 

[Sunni Man]

So what's your point?

Anyone can find locations where there is trouble in any country.

Heck, we just had riots and looting in Ferguson, Mo. over human rights issues and a shooting. ...

 

[Foxfyre]

So what's your point?

Anyone can find locations where there is trouble in any country.

Heck, we just had riots and looting in Ferguson, Mo. over human rights issues and a shooting. ...

My point is that my argument holds up pretty much everywhere re what happens when Islam achieves majority status. If you can show that any recognized religion was instrumental in creating the chaos in Ferguson or that such chaos is systemic in nature, go for it.

 

[Sunni Man]

My point is that my argument holds up pretty much everywhere re what happens when Islam achieves majority status. If you can show that any recognized religion was instrumental in creating the chaos in Ferguson or that such chaos is systemic in nature, go for it.

Polls have show that 76% of American citizens claim to be adherents to the Christian faith.

So in essence, 76% of any people involved in murders, rapes, pedophilia, robberies, shootings, child abuse, riots, looting, etc., are Christians.

But let's point our finger at the religion of other countries and admonish them for their behavior. .......

 

[Iceweasel]

Polls have show that 76% of American citizens claim to be adherents to the Christian faith.

So in essence, 76% of any people involved in murders, rapes, pedophilia, robberies, shootings, child abuse, riots, looting, etc., are Christians.

But let's point our finger at the religion of other countries and admonish them for their behavior. .......

Christians are cutting clits and noses off of women, stoning adulterers, waring with differing factions, bombing, killing and maiming those that fail to live up to their particular beliefs? On what planet? Are you really this dense?

 

[Foxfyre]

My point is that my argument holds up pretty much everywhere re what happens when Islam achieves majority status. If you can show that any recognized religion was instrumental in creating the chaos in Ferguson or that such chaos is systemic in nature, go for it.

Polls have show that 76% of American citizens claim to be adherents to the Christian faith.

So in essence, 76% of any people involved in murders, rapes, pedophilia, robberies, shootings, child abuse, riots, looting, etc., are Christians.

But let's point our finger at the religion of other countries and admonish them for their behavior. .......

Possibly, though it does not necessarily follow that there is any such correlation, and I'm pretty sure you can't demonstrate any correlation. Probably 99.9% of those involved in all those crimes have also eaten a carrot, known a dog, watched television, lived in a house, had a bad experience as a child, or know what a computer is.

But you can point to no Christian teachings, placed in their proper context, that advocate murder, rape, pedophilia, robbery, shootings, child abuse, riots, looting etc.

And I doubt that you will find many, if any, Muslims who will say that the Qu'ran and Hadith do not teach that it is Allah's command that all the Earth be brought under his authority and law and those who resist must be put to death.

The closest thing to that promoted by Christianity these days is that we are to preach the Gospel to the ends of the Earth so that all may accept the blessings of God and eternal life. It is left to the person to accept or reject that however.

In previous centuries, Christianity has had its bad patch too and committed atrocities in the name of Christ. But Christianity evolved and learned a higher truth and ceased and desisted in those practices. Hopefully Islam will also evolve to that point also. But for now, Islam, the religion, is not the friend of the non-Muslim.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You cannot point to a single nation in which Islam has achieved majority in which human rights and liberties are not infringed and oppressed if not flat out disallowed.

Malaysia, Albania, Indonesia, just to name a few. ..

Young and in love in Indonesia? Beware, in Banda Aceh the sharia police are watching

On the pier by the port, several couples brave the law by sitting closely together, sometimes holding hands. Luckily for them, the sharia police don't seem to be coming this evening. Islamic sharia law was adopted in 2001, a “gift” from Jakarta to quell separatist ambitions in this very religious part of Indonesia. A series of bylaws passed since impose Islamic dress code and forbid gambling, alcohol consumption and “seclusion” between unmarried couples. . . .

In the Eastern Aceh town of Langsa, the case of a 25-year-old widow caught last week with a married man by eight men, who raped her as a punishment, has outraged human right activists, especially after local authorities said she will still be caned for adultery. . . .

In 2009, the local parliament added stoning to death as a punishment for adultery in a draft Islamic criminal code, but the then governor of the province rejected it. . . .

The Islamic criminal code adopted last February allows the sharia police to set up detention centres for suspected sharia offenders, and hold them for up to 20 days while their case is being investigated. Activists also say that sharia police raids on hotels and cafes, led by Banda Aceh's acting mayor - a woman - have intensified. Mazuki Ali says patrols do routine checks. “Patrols come at night, they check the hotel registry and if they suspect unmarried couples might be staying there, they check their rooms and IDs,” he says. If couples prove to be unmarried, they're taken to the police station.

Malaysia:

The Malaysian Constitution lists Islam as the religion of Malaysia.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Our best friends are Muslims (Husband and Wife) and they are the nicest people we have ever been around. We go out to dinner with them to expensive restaurants and they insists on always paying. I have to grab the check immediately because I know what they'll do They invite us to dinner and make homemade Moroccan food for us, they ALWAYS offer to help us out (drive to airport, pick up this or that if we need it), are genuinely interested in our lives etc. They are just really solid friends. During Ramadan we broke the fast with them at their home (after me and my girlfriend decided to try the fast for a day) and it was an amazing experience. It was like having Thanksgiving Dinner with family. No prayers, ceremonies or anything. Just a great dinner with friends.

I can count on one hand the friends that would literally give the shirt off their backs if we needed it and they are 2 of them. We could count on them for anything and vice versa.

There are plenty of spectacular Muslims out there. I'm sure my experience isn't rare.

I'm sure they are nice people but here's the problem. When push comes to shove, and it will, what will they do? Picture Nazi Germany because ISIS in pretty much like the Nazi's. Many Germans knew nice Jews too and liked them and yet turned a blind eye to either save themselves or because they believed in the ultimate goal. The Ultimate goal with ISIS is to have the entire world be Muslim. Your friends might not agree with the method to make the entire world Muslim but would they help you if it meant their own lives? In their mind would they choose you, who ISIS are going to be portrayed as an enemy of Allah for not converting or are they going to pick Allah even if you have to die?

ISIS is not an existential threat to the whole world. It is not even a existential threat to the middle east.

ISIS is a bunch of crazy religious zealots with guns who will die for their cause.

The problem is ensuring that they are the only ones who end up dying.

Yep.. That's roughly why 2 years after Al Queda declared war on the United States -- most of us had no idea of the threat they posed. And THEY didn't have tanks and land. Just a few caves and sat phones.

Stupid to repeat that mistake --- dontcha think? That's not endorsement for the hare-brained reflexes our idiots in charge are making. But I would CERTAINLY declare war right back at them. And make CERTAIN that we protect this country from attacks. We should help folks with a recognized will and ability to govern that ASK US to help.. Like the Kurds. Shuffling chairs in Baghdad ain't gonna make them a democracy. Arabs don't have elections and democracies. They fight and die for power until a tyrant takes control..

ISIS doesn't deserve the promotion that a declaration of war would give them. That mistake was made by the prior administration when they promoted Al Queda to the undeserved status of "enemy combatants". They are nothing of the sort. They are a criminal gang, a militia of thugs who exploit religion as an excuse to murder innocents. They should be treated like criminals because that is what they really are.

Our best friends are Muslims (Husband and Wife) and they are the nicest people we have ever been around. We go out to dinner with them to expensive restaurants and they insists on always paying. I have to grab the check immediately because I know what they'll do They invite us to dinner and make homemade Moroccan food for us, they ALWAYS offer to help us out (drive to airport, pick up this or that if we need it), are genuinely interested in our lives etc. They are just really solid friends. During Ramadan we broke the fast with them at their home (after me and my girlfriend decided to try the fast for a day) and it was an amazing experience. It was like having Thanksgiving Dinner with family. No prayers, ceremonies or anything. Just a great dinner with friends.

I can count on one hand the friends that would literally give the shirt off their backs if we needed it and they are 2 of them. We could count on them for anything and vice versa.

There are plenty of spectacular Muslims out there. I'm sure my experience isn't rare.

I'm sure they are nice people but here's the problem. When push comes to shove, and it will, what will they do? Picture Nazi Germany because ISIS in pretty much like the Nazi's. Many Germans knew nice Jews too and liked them and yet turned a blind eye to either save themselves or because they believed in the ultimate goal. The Ultimate goal with ISIS is to have the entire world be Muslim. Your friends might not agree with the method to make the entire world Muslim but would they help you if it meant their own lives? In their mind would they choose you, who ISIS are going to be portrayed as an enemy of Allah for not converting or are they going to pick Allah even if you have to die?

ISIS is not an existential threat to the whole world. It is not even a existential threat to the middle east.

ISIS is a bunch of crazy religious zealots with guns who will die for their cause.

The problem is ensuring that they are the only ones who end up dying.

Yep.. That's roughly why 2 years after Al Queda declared war on the United States -- most of us had no idea of the threat they posed. And THEY didn't have tanks and land. Just a few caves and sat phones.

Stupid to repeat that mistake --- dontcha think? That's not endorsement for the hare-brained reflexes our idiots in charge are making. But I would CERTAINLY declare war right back at them. And make CERTAIN that we protect this country from attacks. We should help folks with a recognized will and ability to govern that ASK US to help.. Like the Kurds. Shuffling chairs in Baghdad ain't gonna make them a democracy. Arabs don't have elections and democracies. They fight and die for power until a tyrant takes control..

ISIS doesn't deserve the promotion that a declaration of war would give them. That mistake was made by the prior administration when they promoted Al Queda to the undeserved status of "enemy combatants". They are nothing of the sort. They are a criminal gang, a militia of thugs who exploit religion as an excuse to murder innocents. They should be treated like criminals because that is what they really are.

Thats a stupid rookie mistake that led DIRECTLY to 9--11. The whole concept of treating the FIRST WTC bombing and the USS Cole as a legal matter weakened our i telligience on the organization and abilities of those who declared war on us. You dont send the FBI and a bus of lawyers to the scene of a terrorist attack. You send the CIA and the Seals. Ideas like that one of yours are get more people killed. Because thats no longer "preemptive war" once we are attacked, its war. NOT a crime. Most of these radical Muslim gangs are proxis for Iran and other legit countries.

BTW... Thomas Jefferson knew this when he sent the MARINES to Tripoli to take down the Barbary Pirates. Note, he didnt sent the police and lawyers. And things have not changed a WHIT since the 1700s.,

So according to you militias declared war on the USA when they planted the bomb in Oklahoma City and we should have declared war on them and sent in the military to track down McVeigh? Same thing for the Boston bombing? We should have declared martial law and be holding a military tribunal?

No one but YOU is talking about sending in the FBI and lawyers when it comes to dealing with the ISIS criminals. I am talking about not giving them a status they don't deserve. Nations declare war on other nations. If you declare war on ISIS you promote it to nation status. They are nothing but international criminals who need to be treated as such. Yes, you can still use drones and air strikes to take them out since they are not on US soil but you don't give them the credibility of nationhood. That was the stupid mistake of the prior administration. It promoted the criminals in Al Queda to being a foreign nation. They don't have a nation. They are just a gang of international criminals. What they do is not waging war, it is crimes against humanity. War means soldiers fighting soldiers. Criminals murdering innocent civilians is not waging war. What happened in Oklohama City, Boston and NYC were not acts of war, there were horrendous crimes of mass murder.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You were alleging that Islam was responsible for the infringement and oppression of human rights.

If anyone created a strawman that would be you. I corrected your mistake by pointing out the the infringement and oppression of human rights is common in 3rd world nations irrespective of their religion.

You didn't correct shit you blowhard. You couldn't answer the question! The answer obviously then is NO, you can't show us where an Islamic nations infringes on human rights. You're assertion is that it's due to third world status and ignore the draconian barbaric treatment so common in Muslim countries.

Furthermore I pointed out that infringement of human rights occurs right here in the USA and that it would be fallacious to blame Christianity.

Which was an incredibly stupid point. Cutting noses off of women for adultery isn't too common here. Or did you even know? You're playing a silly moral equivalence game and anyone with half a brain is going to recognize your disproportionate reasoning.

Finally religions are not about supporting individual rights. The bible endorses slavery, it stomps on freedom of expression and denies equal rights for all.

ISIS is not Islam any more than Westboro Baptist is Christian. Both are abominations that exploit religion for their hateful agenda.

So if you disgree with interpretations then they are clearly wrong and have no right to their chosen religion? What a pompous asshole.

Your failure to comprehend on top of your spurious use of vulgar language means that you have disqualified yourself have any further meaningful participation in this debate. Have a nice day.

 

[Iceweasel]

What a pompous asshole.

Your failure to comprehend on top of your spurious use of vulgar language means that you have disqualified yourself have any further meaningful participation in this debate. Have a nice day.

What a pompous asshole.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thats a stupid rookie mistake that led DIRECTLY to 9--11. The whole concept of treating the FIRST WTC bombing and the USS Cole as a legal matter weakened our i telligience on the organization and abilities of those who declared war on us. You dont send the FBI and a bus of lawyers to the scene of a terrorist attack. You send the CIA and the Seals. Ideas like that one of yours are get more people killed. Because thats no longer "preemptive war" once we are attacked, its war. NOT a crime. Most of these radical Muslim gangs are proxis for Iran and other legit countries.

BTW... Thomas Jefferson knew this when he sent the MARINES to Tripoli to take down the Barbary Pirates. Note, he didnt sent the police and lawyers. And things have not changed a WHIT since the 1700s.,

So according to you militias declared war on the USA when they planted the bomb in Oklahoma City and we should have declared war on them and sent in the military to track down McVeigh? Same thing for the Boston bombing? We should have declared martial law and be holding a military tribunal?

No one but YOU is talking about sending in the FBI and lawyers when it comes to dealing with the ISIS criminals. I am talking about not giving them a status they don't deserve. Nations declare war on other nations. If you declare war on ISIS you promote it to nation status. They are nothing but international criminals who need to be treated as such. Yes, you can still use drones and air strikes to take them out since they are not on US soil but you don't give them the credibility of nationhood. That was the stupid mistake of the prior administration. It promoted the criminals in Al Queda to being a foreign nation. They don't have a nation. They are just a gang of international criminals. What they do is not waging war, it is crimes against humanity. War means soldiers fighting soldiers. Criminals murdering innocent civilians is not waging war. What happened in Oklohama City, Boston and NYC were not acts of war, there were horrendous crimes of mass murder.

Nice rhetoric attempting an absurd reduction of a serious issue. No organization declared on war on the US in Oklahoma City or Boston. No organization that is continually making the news in the dimensions of their demented cruelty. And ISIS has a direct heritage to the LAST organization that we ignored when they declared war on us. They are COMBATANTS -- not criminals. And we SHOULD declare war on them right back just to clarify that this IS NOT a criminal justice exercise. In a sense, we already have. So even your current mistake of a President is NOW adopting that strategy.. Even after CNN got to his last "crime scene" in Benghazi faster than the FBI did..

 

[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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thats a stupid rookie mistake that led DIRECTLY to 9--11. The whole concept of treating the FIRST WTC bombing and the USS Cole as a legal matter weakened our i telligience on the organization and abilities of those who declared war on us. You dont send the FBI and a bus of lawyers to the scene of a terrorist attack. You send the CIA and the Seals. Ideas like that one of yours are get more people killed. Because thats no longer "preemptive war" once we are attacked, its war. NOT a crime. Most of these radical Muslim gangs are proxis for Iran and other legit countries.

BTW... Thomas Jefferson knew this when he sent the MARINES to Tripoli to take down the Barbary Pirates. Note, he didnt sent the police and lawyers. And things have not changed a WHIT since the 1700s.,

So according to you militias declared war on the USA when they planted the bomb in Oklahoma City and we should have declared war on them and sent in the military to track down McVeigh? Same thing for the Boston bombing? We should have declared martial law and be holding a military tribunal?

No one but YOU is talking about sending in the FBI and lawyers when it comes to dealing with the ISIS criminals. I am talking about not giving them a status they don't deserve. Nations declare war on other nations. If you declare war on ISIS you promote it to nation status. They are nothing but international criminals who need to be treated as such. Yes, you can still use drones and air strikes to take them out since they are not on US soil but you don't give them the credibility of nationhood. That was the stupid mistake of the prior administration. It promoted the criminals in Al Queda to being a foreign nation. They don't have a nation. They are just a gang of international criminals. What they do is not waging war, it is crimes against humanity. War means soldiers fighting soldiers. Criminals murdering innocent civilians is not waging war. What happened in Oklohama City, Boston and NYC were not acts of war, there were horrendous crimes of mass murder.

Nice rhetoric attempting an absurd reduction of a serious issue. No organization declared on war on the US in Oklahoma City or Boston. No organization that is continually making the news in the dimensions of their demented cruelty. And ISIS has a direct heritage to the LAST organization that we ignored when they declared war on us. They are COMBATANTS -- not criminals. And we SHOULD declare war on them right back just to clarify that this IS NOT a criminal justice exercise. In a sense, we already have. So even your current mistake of a President is NOW adopting that strategy.. Even after CNN got to his last "crime scene" in Benghazi faster than the FBI did..

The FBI was in Afghanistan interrogating Al Queda suspects. Perhaps if you chose to educate yourself about how the FBI actually operates you might understand how they are dealing with international criminals.

FBI mdash Mission Afghanistan Our Role in the War Zone

Because the FBI is known primarily for its domestic law enforcement work, many Americans are surprised to learn just how international the organization has become, particularly since the 9/11 attacks. Today, our investigative and intelligence-gathering expertise play a key role in the war zone, a fact readily acknowledged in the highest U.S. diplomatic and military circles (see sidebar).

Our work in Afghanistan—which began in late 2001—marks the first time the FBI has conducted such operations in a combat zone overseas, beyond some limited efforts during World War II and other brief missions.

“FBI people who want to make a difference thrive here,” explained former Legal Attaché Bob Jones.Those who volunteer for 120-day assignments—some serve for a year—are among the Bureau’s most talented and motivated employees. They willingly sign on for long hours seven days a week, living conditions in sandbag-reinforced trailers that make college dorm rooms look spacious, and the knowledge that they are a great distance from their loved ones and the normal comforts of home.

But the work—to help safeguard our national security—is extremely rewarding, and hundreds of Bureau personnel volunteer for the war zone. For many, the desire to make a contribution here can be traced back to the events of September 11, 2001.

“The 9/11 attack against the U.S. was planned in Afghanistan by al Qaeda with the witting support of the Taliban leadership at that time,” noted U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry from his embassy residence in Kabul. “That’s why we’re here, and we can never forget that. The FBI mission is very central to our efforts,” he added. “They’re playing a vital role to defeat al Qaeda.”

Special Agent Tom Krall, a New Yorker who now works in our Washington Field Office and has deployed to Afghanistan on several occasions, echoed the ambassador’s sentiments. “My first taste of terrorism was on 9/11, standing near the World Trade Center as it came down. I was about a block away. I lost a lot of friends that day,” he said, “and I know the attack planning started right here. That’s why I volunteer to come to Afghanistan. It’s very important we make sure an attack like that doesn’t happen again.”

From 2001;

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB1008717563247900120

Team of FBI Agents Arrives in Afghanistan To Interrogate Taliban, al Qaeda Prisoners

Updated Dec. 19, 2001 10:06 a.m. ET

A team of eight Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrived in Afghanistan to begin interrogating Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners about past or planned terrorist acts.

The agents will start with about 15 al Qaeda commanders who were being shipped Tuesday from a prison in Northern Afghanistan to a temporary detention facility at Kandahar International Airport in the south that is now controlled by U.S. Marines. The 15 prisoners were sent there because they are "people who might have important information or might be themselves senior people," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

The U.S. is also holding five prisoners on the USS Peleliu in the Arabian Sea. In addition to American John Walker and Australian David Hicks -- both found among Taliban fighters -- the Navy is holding three men described by Mr. Wolfowitz as senior al Qaeda or Taliban commanders.

"We think we know who they are," he said, without identifying them. "If they are who we think they are, they're fairly important people."

Many of the 20 prisoners now in U.S. custody are likely candidates for the military tribunals that the Bush administration announced last month, said an FBI agent familiar with the agency's activities in Afghanistan.

"We don't want to haul all those folks back here for a trial," the agent said. He said it was still not clear whether U.S. military officials, Central Intelligence Agency operatives or FBI agents would lead the interrogation of the prisoners in U.S. custody.

The FBI agents started work just as U.S. Marines put the finishing touches on a heavily guarded detention facility at the bombed-out Kandahar airport. The team hopes to glean insights into how al Qaeda operates, as well as specific information about the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, USS Cole and American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"This is a target-rich environment for gathering evidence," said Thomas C. Knowles, leader of the FBI team. "This is the home base. This is their backyard."

The military is referring to any potential prisoners as battlefield detainees, not prisoners of war. "Once you get that POW status you have immunity for your warlike acts," said Major Ian Brasure, a military lawyer in Kandahar. The Bush administration doesn't want to grant that status to anyone who might have been involved in terror attacks, thus keeping the option to refer such cases to military tribunals or other courts.

The FBI team came prepared to offer inducements to convince detainees to turn on their al Qaeda or Taliban comrades, including cash, reduced charges or even shelter in the U.S. "The mobsters, the cartels -- there are always individuals in those organizations who talk," said Mr. Knowles.

So far, officials say that the prisoners taken by the U.S. and coalition forces haven't been able to provide definitive information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden or Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. "I'd say most of what I have seen seems to be secondhand reports, that we're not talking to people" who say "that they met with bin Laden or they talked with bin Laden," Mr. Wolfowitz said.

Then there is the head of the FBI and serving members of the House Intelligence Committee who actually understand what is going on and how it should be handled today instead of playing into the hands of ISIS and giving them what they want.

FBI Bombing ISIS Will Only STRENGTHEN Them Washington s Blog

By Bombing ISIS, We Are Only Feeding the “Parasite of War”
Antiwar notes:

US airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, far from “degrading” the organization, are actually giving ISIS a huge shot in the arm, according to FBI Director James Comey, who testified today before Congress.

***

The US operation seems to be playing directly into ISIS’ hands in many ways, with President Obama’s high-profile speech last Wednesday, promising to escalate the war on ISIS into neighboring Syria, paying off for ISIS in recruitment as well.



Matthew Hoh, a former State Department official who resigned in protest in 2009 over U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, responded to ISIS provocation with a provocative headline in his Huffington Post essay: “The Beheadings Are Bait.”

He sees a repeat of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which achieved the goals of radical extremists vastly more than it achieved those of the U.S.:

… The Islamic State is a parasite of war. Its members and its narrative need war for their personal, organizational and ideological validation and success. That is why the only way to defeat the Islamic State is to take the war away from them.

A few members of Congress have raised concerns about playing into the Islamic State’s hands. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) recently spoke from the House floor, saying:

We have got to be sure that we are not falling into doing something that could be counterproductive because, clearly, ISIL did that to provoke a reaction, and I think that needs to be a part of the debate we have.

And Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN last month:

[W]e shouldn’t allow this horrible act to provoke us into doing things that are counterproductive.

There’s nothing that ISIS would like more than having us reintroduce ground troops in Iraq, for example. So we have to be careful not to let this, the horror of this act provoke us to doing things that don’t make sense for us to do and that’s very difficult, but I think it’s extraordinarily important we keep our focus on what we can achieve.

Whether a military response would be exactly what the Islamic State wants was the first question that former CIA Middle East expert Paul Pillar raised when I asked him earlier this month what sorts of questions the press should be pursuing instead of banging the drums for war.

And Juan Cole, the University of Michigan professor and authoritative Middle East blogger, writes that journalists are also getting played, by giving the beheadings too much free media:

These acts of public brutality against a helpless individual are intended in part to announce that despite their military superiority, Westerners are not 10 feet tall and can be cut down to size. They announce leadership and encourage angry young men to join ISIL rather than one of its many rivals. They also push Western publics to demand reprisals. Reprisals in turn can be used by the radical group as proof to its followers that it really is being unjustly targeted by the big bad superpower. It is a passive aggressive form of terrorism.

It seems to me that editors should refuse to play along with this sick game.

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.

We’re about to do the same thing in overreacting to ISIS …​

 

[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

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

 

[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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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..