ISIS Beheaded an American Journalist


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

The territory now in the hands of ISIS used to be two rather peaceful countries controlled by the same secular nationalist party. Not ideal, but this situation began when, for some unexplained reason, Iraq was invaded by the USA.

I've always supported America to a fault, but now I am a bit "pissed" that journalists of any nation are being beheaded so close to Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought USA finished with Iraq when the Iraq court hung Sodamn Insane (or whatever his name was). Why do these wars go on and on? Is USA addicted to war?

The human species should be ashamed of itself that there is such a thing as war. Is that how a rational animal behaves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISIS will be destroyed, but not what they do. If you set yourself up as a state then other states can deal with you as such. You better have critical mass. Iran, for instance, is determined to get as much critical mass as it can.

Because of ISIS's incessant fighting war methodology, its members will be hunted down and killed, not likely taken prisoner, and mostly hunted down by Muslims. Their weakness--one weakness--is they cannot make any peace with anybody who doesn't "convert." This violates State Creation 101.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

1. The ISIS member (?) who apparently beheaded Foley is apparently (according to the British Foreign Minister) a British citizen who went Jihadi. So, whom should we attack: Iraq? Iran? Britain?? (Remembering that the 9-11 suicide terrorists were from Saudi Arabia...)

2. Charles Manson is still alive (and his victims still dead) -- and we are being urged to go to war again in Iraq over people getting killed in countries with no respect for the rights of *their own* citizens??

I have more conservative and Objectivist and libertarian (?) friends than I can count who actually want to go to war over this. ("Why wait until they have nuclear weapons to wipe them out" is the typical mantra.)

Contrary to a distressingly large number of people whose intellect and judgment I used to respect, I believe that Ron Paul is the *only* plausible presidential candidate that could possibly deal with the horrendous mess we have in economic and foreign policy. Who cares about his views on marriage and abortion -- he can't do anything harmful about them, anyway -- plus he'd be too busy with *real* problems.

3. One more thing: if we weren't feeding tens of billions into foreign aid each year to countries that hate us (and Israel), a lot of this crap wouldn't happen in the first place -- that and stationing troops on their "sacred" territory (like Saudi Arabia). If you wave a red flag at a bull, then get gored, is it really fair to put the bull to death?

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

1. The ISIS member (?) who apparently beheaded Foley is apparently (according to the British Foreign Minister) a British citizen who went Jihadi. So, whom should we attack: Iraq? Iran? Britain?? (Remembering that the 9-11 suicide terrorists were from Saudi Arabia...)

2. Charles Manson is still alive (and his victims still dead) -- and we are being urged to go to war again in Iraq over people getting killed in countries with no respect for the rights of *their own* citizens??

I have more conservative and Objectivist and libertarian (?) friends than I can count who actually want to go to war over this. ("Why wait until they have nuclear weapons to wipe them out" is the typical mantra.)

Contrary to a distressingly large number of people whose intellect and judgment I used to respect, I believe that Ron Paul is the *only* plausible presidential candidate that could possibly deal with the horrendous mess we have in economic and foreign policy. Who cares about his views on marriage and abortion -- he can't do anything harmful about them, anyway -- plus he'd be too busy with *real* problems.

3. One more thing: if we weren't feeding tens of billions into foreign aid each year to countries that hate us (and Israel), a lot of this crap wouldn't happen in the first place -- that and stationing troops on their "sacred" territory (like Saudi Arabia). If you wave a red flag at a bull, then get gored, is it really fair to put the bull to death?

REB

If the above were printed on a full page of the New York Times, it would be worth every one of the 70,000 dollars that the newspaper would charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that anyone got beheaded. There is no evidence that there is a war in Iraq. You got all that from the internet. The internet is worthless as a source of information.

The internet is worthless as a source of information?

C'mon, it's a marvelous tool to be used wisely...and yes it can be used to deceive.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any forum member can make a principled and Objectivish case for Do Nothing. We haven't seen a full case yet applied to current US kinetic operations in northern Iraq, but its contours are fairly apparent from Do Nothing arguments on other foreign policy issues in the past. They tend to list a panoply of ugly conflicts America provoked, enabled or was complicit in, and the awful results, and caution against adventurism, urge the USA to retract its snout from foreign shores.

Who can make a principled and Objectivish case for Do Something?

This is one of those situations that one can only react to, probably, with zero influence on the likely actions to come. The US Air Force is already bombing the shit out of ISIS in Iraq -- ostensibly to prevent further tragedies, ethnic cleansing, threats against American allies in Kurdistan (KRG). I figure that Obama can only increase US strikes against the world's newest and biggest boogeyman, ISIS. Some Muslims who hate America grudgingly accept a US application of force to repel the beast right now, to weaken if not destroy it, to crush its supply lines and destroy its armour. I just don't see a lot of material out there that is counselling USA stop hurting ISIS, except from the LaRouche-ites and Loony Left antiwar coalitions. No one is cursing the USA for hurting ISIS but its loony self and its international keyboard corps.

Some speculation I have read from Mideast wonks suggests that the President will authorize air attacks on ISIS emplacements in Syria, so we still can build a case against intervening directly in Syria, even though Syria was and is the brutal Mideast equivalent of North Korea.

The territory now in the hands of ISIS used to be two rather peaceful countries controlled by the same secular nationalist party. Not ideal, but this situation began when, for some unexplained reason, Iraq was invaded by the USA.

I've always supported America to a fault, but now I am a bit "pissed" that journalists of any nation are being beheaded so close to Europe.

It's a pretty uninformative bit about Baath parties holds on 'two relatively peaceful countries,' Syria and Iraq. "Not ideal" does not do justice to the authoritarian regime in Damascus, and also suggests that Saddam Hussein did nothing but 'not ideal' things to the Kurdish population (and the Yezidis), like, oh use Sarin to kill thousands. In any case, the USA and UK oversaw a no-fly zone for some years while Saddam ruled, just to keep his wrath from striking the north. You might say that Hussein's cruelties in the north incubated the crisis many years ago.

I don't get your last line. Can you support America to a fault while being pissed off at somebody? Who are you pissed off at? You are not, I hope, laying responsibility for the murder of James Foley on some American position, policy or military history?

Some thoughts:

1. The ISIS member (?) who apparently beheaded Foley is apparently (according to the British Foreign Minister) a British citizen who went Jihadi. So, whom should we attack: Iraq? Iran? Britain?? (Remembering that the 9-11 suicide terrorists were from Saudi Arabia...)

[...]

3. One more thing: if we weren't feeding tens of billions into foreign aid each year to countries that hate us (and Israel), a lot of this crap wouldn't happen in the first place -- that and stationing troops on their "sacred" territory (like Saudi Arabia). If you wave a red flag at a bull, then get gored, is it really fair to put the bull to death?

Here's a couple of instances of UK front pages, below. Their media is going apeshit today.

(there are no US troops in Saudi Arabia, but there are in Bahrain, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq [if only as Special Forces]. One of the illogical ISIS talking points is that it is okay/necessary to behead Americans [innocent reporters] because, because, long list of complaints starting with the Crusades, ending with the bombs at Mosul Dam. I figure that this does not matter a fuck with a majority of Americans today, who relish, like the British, the punishments to come for the murder of Foley and for crimes against humanity committed by ISIS.

To unpack your metaphor, Roger, USA waved red flag at beast, beast gored USA, so leave the beast alive (or at least do not kill it). ISIS is the beast, the red flag is long long list of complaints, topped by US strike forces driving ISIS from Mosul dam.

-- where does that leave you, Roger, but in the Do Nothing (Militarily Imprudent) camp? Given that the USA is going to be spanking ISIS in Iraq for a length of time, is it your counsel that this is a mistake, and the best policy is to retract?

I am not saying you are wrong, but wondering if you think about the US sense of life, sense of justice -- the emotion that is driving revulsion to ISIS from almost every quarter. How do you argue then with someone who is gung ho to grind some ISIS butt?)

Bvg3Eq0IEAI_Jvv.jpg

BvgzWj3IYAAjm1f.jpg

Jerry, not that you didn't know, but you are sometimes a fucking idiot, and one of those times is now.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISIS will be destroyed, but not what they do. If you set yourself up as a state then other states can deal with you as such. You better have critical mass. Iran, for instance, is determined to get as much critical mass as it can.

Because of ISIS's incessant fighting war methodology, its members will be hunted down and killed, not likely taken prisoner, and mostly hunted down by Muslims. Their weakness--one weakness--is they cannot make any peace with anybody who doesn't "convert." This violates State Creation 101.

--Brant

Iran is Shia and only about 5% of the Muslim world. The Islamic State, on the other hand, is Sunni, and wishes to represent about 90% of the Islamic world. They are not establishing themselves as a simple state, but as the Caliphate, the head of the Ummah. They might or might not succeed, but regardless of whether or not they succeed, it is all part of Islamic orthodoxy and will not go away if you destroy this particular group. There are very high up political forces that wish to reestablish the Caliphate - the OIC is a powerful organisation that seeks the return of the Caliphate. Erdogan seeks the return of the Caliphate. The longer that IS manages to hold ground the more support it is going to gain from orthodox Muslims, on a global scale. When it comes to reestablishing the Caliphate, it will be a case of backing the strong horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran is Shia and only about 5% of the Muslim world. The Islamic State, on the other hand, is Sunni, and wishes to represent about 90% of the Islamic world. They are not establishing themselves as a simple state, but as the Caliphate, the head of the Ummah. They might or might not succeed, but regardless of whether or not they succeed, it is all part of Islamic orthodoxy and will not go away if you destroy this particular group. There are very high up political forces that wish to reestablish the Caliphate - the OIC is a powerful organisation that seeks the return of the Caliphate. Erdogan seeks the return of the Caliphate. The longer that IS manages to hold ground the more support it is going to gain from orthodox Muslims, on a global scale. When it comes to reestablishing the Caliphate, it will be a case of backing the strong horse.

I had to laugh at the might or might not succeed' part. You give the devil the most awesome powers. Who wants an ISIS terror dictatorship on their territory? Not one of the Sunni nations. The sense of revulsion at ISIS spans the Shia/Sunni divide, moreover, and makes your prognostics pretty dismally off-base.

It is wrong to declaim that ISIS's attempt to seize power is part of an Islamic orthodoxy, by way of an assumed yearning to live under a caliphate in the world's Sunni nations. It's unwarranted to think that ISIS will only grow. That might be your open fear, but it is far from supported in the Muslim reaction to ISIS. So, your argument's central legs have no muscle.

Another howler: Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is also powerful, is it? What are its powers, then?

And Erdogan supports a/the caliphate in his heart of hearts? Perhaps, but it is not in his power to anoint one, and not in Turkey's interests to support one. Your argument makes it seem like any mainstream Muslim country is happily on the road to a caliphate at some rate of advance, while ISIS brutality a mere short-term impediment to this inevitability. The real situation is entirely different.

Of course Muslims will hope and sometimes howl for the abstract or real forms of unity. Right now it is unity against ISIS. But the Muslim world is anything but a unified thing politically or socially or economically, and the road to such unity is barred by reality right now -- whether the unity be under outlaw maniacs of Islam like ISIS, or under a Muslim Union. I think a period of advancement both materially and in basic freedoms will be necessary before supranational things like OIC and the other useless Arab councils get anywhere near power.

So, you lay out your fearful prognostics, but they don't ring true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to laugh at the might or might not succeed' part.

Simply a case of no one can see the future.

Who wants an ISIS terror dictatorship on their territory?

That might be how you view them, but that isn't how the truly faithful view them.

Not one of the Sunni nations.

All the Sunni nations are under the control of the Zionists and American dogs. The House of Saud ensures that Saudi Arabia is not a truly Sunni nation. That holds true wherever the American/Zionist dogs have established their regimes.

The sense of revulsion at ISIS spans the Shia/Sunni divide, moreover, and makes your prognostics pretty dismally off-base.

The reason they proliferate their beheading videos is to normalise terror against the Kufar. They are proud of what they do, and make recruits among sunnis. I don't know the numbers between those who support them, in goal and tactics, or just in goal, and those who don't, and neither do you. You can assume that it is low and insignificant, but that would be a pretty dangerous assumption to make.

It is wrong to declaim that ISIS's attempt to seize power is part of an Islamic orthodoxy,

They refer to orthodox Islamic law to justify their actions.

by way of an assumed yearning to live under a caliphate in the world's Sunni nations.

There is a lot of support globally for the Islamic State. In Indonesia mosques were handing out Islamic State magazines along with vouchers for free chicken. In India Islamic State t-shirts are apparently flying off the shelves. All I have said is, who knows the numbers? Not you, not me. But what I do see is the global jihadists going from success to success. That is easy to see, regardless of what the numbers might be.

It's unwarranted to think that ISIS will only grow.

I have never said that they will only grow. I think they can be easily defeated, but only if people start looking at the reality of what they are. This is not on the table though, and appears unlikely to ever be on the table. Also, as unwarranted as it is to think that they will only grow, it is equally unwarranted to make an assumption that they will not grow.

That might be your open fear, but it is far from supported in the Muslim reaction to ISIS. So, your argument's central legs have no muscle.

I have not seen this muslim reaction you refer to. Where are the protests? In Syria hundreds of thousands protested against Assad atrocities. Now that there are IS atrocities against Christians there is not a single protester out there. The next real protests I expect to see from Muslims worldwide is when some non-muslim has offended them again.

Another howler: Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is also powerful, is it? What are its powers, then?

The UN is greatly influenced by the OIC and the Islamic bloc, and it's not so much a case of power they have now, but of what they aim for. It's also about the power of ideas. The OIC normalises the idea of a Caliphate, of Islam as being a civilised force in the world. The OIC were greatly behind the cartoon furore a few years back. That was a global attempt at imposing Sharia on the West. They have constantly kept up that pressure. If you could boil the OIC down to a single character you'd probably end up with something like Ellsworth Toohey.

And Erdogan supports a/the caliphate in his heart of hearts? Perhaps, but it is not in his power to anoint one, and not in Turkey's interests to support one.

From your point of view, but we are not talking about your point of view.

Your argument makes it seem like any mainstream Muslim country is happily on the road to a caliphate at some rate of advance, while ISIS brutality a mere short-term impediment to this inevitability. The real situation is entirely different.

I don't see ISIS brutality as an impediment. How is it an impediment? Islam is spread by the sword, and you see it everywhere that jihadists fill a void. Violence isn't an impediment to their agenda, lack of a void is. The greatest creator of a void are things like multiculturalism, moral relativism, etc.

Of course Muslims will hope and sometimes howl for the abstract or real forms of unity. Right now it is unity against ISIS.

The establishment of a Caliphate is not a controversial goal. I doubt that you'd find many Muslims who would oppose reestablishing a Caliphate. In regards to unity against ISIS, I don't see it. I've seen some statements from spokesmen who speak from both sides of their mouths, but little else.

But the Muslim world is anything but a unified thing politically or socially or economically, and the road to such unity is barred by reality right now -- whether the unity be under outlaw maniacs of Islam like ISIS, or under a Muslim Union.

They are fighting for Islamic law, not for themselves. Whether they manage to unify the Ummah or not is 100% irrelevant. What matters is the terror and tragedy and damaged lives that are wreaked towards that end, by any Jihadist, not just by ISIS.

I think a period of advancement both materially and in basic freedoms will be necessary before supranational things like OIC and the other useless Arab councils get anywhere near power.

So, you lay out your fearful prognostics, but they don't ring true.

You sit comfortably somewhere in a comfortable world. It's not so comfortable on Mount Sinjar. The existential consequences are what matters. It seems that for many here it's more important not to offend Muslims than it is to actually fight this evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Roger Bissel

3. One more thing: if we weren't feeding tens of billions into foreign aid each year to countries that hate us (and Israel), a lot of this crap wouldn't happen in the first place -- that and stationing troops on their "sacred" territory (like Saudi Arabia). If you wave a red flag at a bull, then get gored, is it really fair to put the bull to death?

You're probably right. A lot of this crap wouldn't happen. But a lot of ten times worse crap would. If we ceased to support US friendly governments in the region, then those governments would be toppled by radical islamic groups. What do you think would happen to our interests abroad if that were allowed to happen? We could kiss our oil refineries and all the rest of our stuff goodbye. We would become dependent for our energy on people who hate our guts and everything this country stands for. Imagine a world where some random Islamic fundamentalist could shut down the entire world economy by cutting off oil sales to the West. Is that a world you want to live in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I said that America somehow initiated this issue, it is also true that if you cut down a tree in a forest, eventually that clear will become colonised by grass, bushes, a sapling and eventually another tree perhaps not different from the earlier one, and perhaps a lot worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could kiss our oil refineries and all the rest of our stuff goodbye. We would become dependent for our energy on people who hate our guts and everything this country stands for. Imagine a world where some random Islamic fundamentalist could shut down the entire world economy by cutting off oil sales to the West.

You wouldn't have stumbled over a fact or two (2) to substantiate your statement?

Where The U.S. Gets Its Oil
gr-oilprod-300.gif

Source: Energy Information Administration

Credit: Nelson Hsu / NPR

Is it possible that you actually do not have a clue what you are talking about?

Your knowledge of Ayn's works and ideas is essentially illiterate.

You don't seem to be doing too well with other facts either.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Selene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

The top oil producers in the Middle East produce more than 30% of the world's oil.

Now I see you do not know math well either.

We import 12.9 % of our oil from the Persion gulf, see pie chart in post # 16 suppra.

So the US would have to cut back approximately 13%.

Ask a friend to help you with the math.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger wrote:

I believe that Ron Paul is the *only* plausible presidential candidate that could possibly deal with the horrendous mess we have in economic and foreign policy.

end quote

And William later responded:

This is one of those situations that one can only react to, probably, with zero influence on the likely actions to come. The US Air Force is already bombing the shit out of ISIS in Iraq.

end quote

I would vote for Rand Paul if he can be vetted and win the primary but we must use our primary vote to pick a candidate who can win the Presidency. Unfortunately, I think Rand Paul could not be elected President. Convince me otherwise.

I am not for a new ground war as is Senator McCain, or many Objectivists. I am tired of Never Ending War, but those ISIS guys are monsters and a danger to America. I saw them on video stopping a car and then they shot through the windows murdering the Arabs inside.

So let's bomb the crap out of them. Newer B-1's and fighters are fine for more precision bombing, but isn't it time we use B-52's to neutralize ISIS in the large open areas of Iraq and Syria as was done in WWII and with carpet bombing in Vietnam? As of 2013 I know the B-52s were still operational and numerous. We have stockpiles of ordinance. Drones and manned planes for reconnaissance, and limited ground forces would be needed for rescue and recovery.

The terrain lacks cover. Supplies can easily be destroyed because the few roads leading into and around the area are easily monitored. The terrorists need copious amounts of water to survive, so they wont be hard to find. Cell phones can be used by the indigenous population to call a hot line if they spot a cockroach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From todays The Times of Israel:

An Israeli officer in the Golan Heights was moderately injured by apparent stray fire from fighting in Syria Wednesday morning, as an al-Qaeda linked rebel group took control of the only crossing between Israel and Syria . . . . In response to the spillover, Israeli forces hit two Syrian army positions, the IDF said. Syrian rebels, including the al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front, seized control of the Syrian crossing with the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights on Wednesday, a monitoring group said.

Al-Nusra Front and other rebel groups took the Quneitra crossing, and heavy fighting with the Syrian army is continuing in the surrounding area, said Rami Abdel Rahman, director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based NGO.

end quote

OK. It is time for some serious USA action. And lets try to remember who the enemy is, and who the enemy of our enemy is. Just a few months ago the Obama regime wanted to support SOME rebels in Syria. Now we may help the Assad Regime. Crikey! Was Putin right the whole time! Is that gunfire I hear? Its getting closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syrian rebels, including the al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front, seized control of the Syrian crossing with the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights on Wednesday, a monitoring group said.

Al-Nusra Front and other rebel groups took the Quneitra crossing, and heavy fighting with the Syrian army is continuing in the surrounding area, said Rami Abdel Rahman, director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based NGO.

end quote

OK. It is time for some serious USA action. And lets try to remember who the enemy is, and who the enemy of our enemy is. Just a few months ago the Obama regime wanted to support SOME rebels in Syria. Now we may help the Assad Regime. Crikey! Was Putin right the whole time! Is that gunfire I hear? Its getting closer.

What are you suggesting, Peter, by 'serious USA action'? The rebels who took the Quneitra crossing from Assad forces are no threat to Israel, their guns are not aimed at Israel. Israel treats rebel wounded in the Golan. In other words there is an understanding between Israel and the Syrian rebels in the area. If a shell lands in Israel, Israel will return fire to the launch site which has turned out multiple times to be under Assad's control. If Assad moves arms to Hezbollah, Israel bombs the convoys. This has happened in Syria several times. Israel obeys its own rules, strikes when it wishes in Syria, but otherwise plays no role in supporting one side or the other.

What I am pointing out is that Israel is not acutely worried about the Quneitra crossing, despite the operational inclusion of Al-Qaeda afflilate Al-Nusra in its taking. In addition, the USA has always supported the weak, secular Free Syrian Army, who were part of the rebel force that took the border crossing. From DW:

The seizure was confirmed by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which said fighters of al-Qaeda's Nusra Front and the Western-backed opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) had taken the Quneitra crossing. The London-based monitoring group said there had also been fighting in a number of surrounding villages and that at least 20 Syrian government forces had been killed. It wasn't clear how many rebels had died in the fighting.

General Ibrahim Jbawi, spokesman for the FSA's southern front, informed the AP news agency of the takeover, which was yet to be confirmed by the Syrian government or the Israeli military.

[...]

The FSA said its forces weren't looking to push Assad's troops from all of Quneitra, where one border post remains under government control. It also said opposition forces posed no threat to Israel.

"Our aim isn't Israel right now, and we in the FSA haven't targeted Israeli lands," said spokesman Kenan Mohammed, adding that the rebels' focus is on Assad and the extremist Islamic State [iS] group. "The matter of Israel - it's not for now."

The capture of the post along Syria's Golan frontier holds more symbolic value than strategic, but the FSA said it would provide relief to nearby villages that were under siege by government troops.

(note that the FSA and Nusra are each fighting not only Assad but the Islamic Terror State)

As for the other end of Syria, the USA is flying surveillance, with no reaction by Syria's air defences. The intelligence is necessary for any air operations in Syria directed at the ITS . You can't rush these things, Peter, not without compromising reason.

If you have an air campaign against ITS in Syria ready, pass it on to Washington. The gunfire you hear might be in your head.

A bit more detail from the Times of Israel:

Earlier in the morning, Israeli farmers in the northern territory were told to stay away from their lands near the border as heavy fighting raged for the crossing point near the city of Quneitra.
Tourist sites in the area were also closed as Israeli officials sought to keep civilians far from the fighting, Israel Radio reported.
As a result of the fighting on the Syrian side of the plateau, the level of alert was raised on the Israeli side, an army spokesperson said, without confirming that it had been increased to the highest level.
Spillovers of violence from Syria and even intentional attacks by militants and Syrian forces are not unheard of in the region.
On Sunday, five rockets were fired from Syria into Israel.
Last month a rocket from Syria prompted Israeli artillery to shell Syrian army positions.
In June Israeli warplanes attacked Syrian military headquarters and positions after an Israeli teenager was killed in a cross-border attack by forces loyal to the Assad regime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now