Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » IS sweeping lybia (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: IS sweeping lybia
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
. nevertheless I apologize for misunderstanding you, Hannibal
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just like America supplied the British then, it is supplying many countries now. It is still the case that the general tendency was not to put boots on the ground.

By the way, comparing anything today, regarding ISIS to the scale of WWII is a joke. ISIS is nothing more than a bunch of barbarians with "modern" (as in not medieval) weapons. The only way they succeed is because their opponents are weak and disorganized.

No matter what they cannot expand north to Turkey, South to Saudi Arabia or west to Israel, even if they will manage to pass through Jordan which is doubtful.

Their zeal and fanaticism is dangerous and should be noted, but their military capability is laughable and you know it.

How much soldiers do they have? 30,000? 50,000? a 100,000? how much tanks? do you see them invading the Golan Heights with a fleet of Toyota Tundra's?

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi Pete, I did not see your second post. No biggie [Smile]
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan and Egypt could fall with a few key assassinations. if Egypt falls, then you are in a world of hurt.

Isis weaponry is not medieval. it's still better than what we're giving the Kurds.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree with two of your claims.

Isis can't make Egypt fall, and even if they do they are no match for us.

The Egyptian military is secular, Isis has no foothold there.

I do think that if Egypt (very unlikely) or Jordan (more likely) will ask for our help, not yours, we should help them.

I can see in theory a joint operation in Sinai, maybe. or shared intelligence to blow up a supply convoy here and there. If Jordan will be in trouble maybe there will be a stronger intervention. That said, we are very far from this scenario.

I am much more worried about Hezballa's rockets than I am of a few Toyota pick up tracks

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know that much about Egypt.
are you sure about the rank and file?

if they took Egypt stuff then you'd be facing some fairly heavy Weaponry. if they engaged Israel, then a whole lot of people might feel compelled to join what would increasingly look like the Muslim Armageddon party. Pakistani nukes might get involved

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, you sound like our PM.

I bet in one of the mirror universes this might actually happen [Smile]

Honestly, I would not worry about this scenario. There are much worse concrete things that may happen - like Iran getting a nuke. That is far more likely than Isis taking over the Egyptian military

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
philnotfil, did you paste this as evidence that Obama acknowledges the ISIS threat and understands the strategies involved to combat it?

I posted this to show what Obama believes our enemy in the middle east to be, radical islamists. ISIS would be included in his description of our enemy, but is not the only group included in his description.

I do see his statements as a rebuttal to the claim that he refuses to acknowledge radical islam as an enemy.

I think you see it like you might see a rorscach test. I don't see him mention radical Islam in the quotes you provide. Obama mentions, "Lethal, yet less capable, al-Qaida affiliates" so it sounds like he's still holding onto the Junior Varsity comparison because ISIS seems pretty capable.
I agree that he did not say the phrase "radical islam". However, the words he used describe radical islam. You don't see the last two paragraphs I quoted as referring to radical islam?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, he is not referring to radical Islam. He says extremists but then goes to some length to separate them from the base driver of their extremism. See Harf's responses? They think this stems from a lack of jobs, not Islamic fundamentalism.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How would you define radical islam?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi? Define something? that would require effort. original thought. thinking outside the Fox Box.

[ February 18, 2015, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still don't understand why people think Iran would commit de facto suicide by nuking Israel.

Israel has nukes. The US has nukes. Iran would be left a glassed parking lot. I just don't buy that their government is willing to do that.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
I still don't understand why people think Iran would commit de facto suicide by nuking Israel.

Israel has nukes. The US has nukes. Iran would be left a glassed parking lot. I just don't buy that their government is willing to do that.

Because they wouldn't be dumb enough to shoot a missile you could see on radar as coming from them.

They would hand it off to terrorists who would sneak it in and set it off then Iran would deny responsibility and then hope the Islamo-apologists in the US and UN would pressure Israel not to respond in kind. Iran has always operated this kind of war against Israel via proxy, what makes you think it would stop with nukes? They are insane though, because this wouldn't work, but they aren't dumb enough to directly attack them.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DJQuag,

Do you honestly think that the USA will systematically obliterate the whole population of Iran if Israel would be destroyed by a nuke?

+1 to what Seneca said, and furthermore - imagine how Hezballah would operate if they knew they have a nuclear umbrella from Iran.

They don't need to do much, only to shoot 200-300 rockets a day on Israel, they can keep that up pretty much forever.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal -

I don't think the US would. I think Israel would. And I don't think that one missile would destroy all of Israel. From the rumors surrounding Israel having one or more submarines carrying nuclear missiles, I am pretty certain that one missile would not destroy their nuclear capability.

Iran isn't going to nuke anyone if Hezbollah is raining missiles down and someone responds militarily.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Israel can't wipe out Iran even in a massive second strike retaliation.

Iran will probably survive as a state, while Israel is not. That is my point.

I disagree with your statement regarding Hezballah. There is a huge difference between nuclear and non nuclear umbrella.

See how people treat Pakistan, Russia, North Korea. The same thing will happen with Hezballah and Iran should they get a nuke. Israel can't afford that.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure the protection of nukes would extend to Hezballah. Iran would be able lend support without fear of open retaliation and it would complicate Israel's response, but I don't think they be able to sustain a threat of "don't go after our proxy or we'll nuke you." There's a fair chance they'd end even more isolated than North Korea if they tried. Neither China nor Russia would look favourably on using a nuclear deterrent to protect an that sort of proxy.

I also don't think they'd slip a nuke to a terrorist group, at least not until they had solid second-strike capabilities against the US. So, like, never. If the Iranians got nukes it would take a range of last-ditch options away from Israel or the US but I don't think they'd be stupid enough to actually use them. If only because no one has a solid idea of the geo-political effects of their use.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't remember Pakistan or Russia ever threatening to empty the silos over people fighting their proxies.

North Korea is different, but then again it is so isolated that it doesn't even have proxies. Not to mention, whatever else it might be, Iran is not North Korea.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
North Korea is a Chinese proxy.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What would stop Iran from giving nukes to terrorist proxies in the belief it wouldn't be traced to them? Indeed, Obama's pride and effectiveness as a leader would likely lead to him arguing that such an attack didn't come from Iran because that would show that he let Iran get nukes. Iran is playing Obama and he is letting them.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because the consequences if they were wrong are disastrous. Would you bet the existence of your government, possibly your nation, on the chance your enemies won't find out? Ever? Or that the US won't smash you because you might be responsible? The appearance of innocence didn't do Saddam any good.

This is a long game and Obama has an expiration date. Even if the Iranians could get nukes and use them before he leaves, the next President would have no compunctions about blaming everything on him. Aside from the fact that I think Obama's reaction would be exactly the opposite. Blowing stuff up is great way to get the press focused on "solutions" rather than causes.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't wait years to retaliate...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
What would stop Iran from giving nukes to terrorist proxies in the belief it wouldn't be traced to them? Indeed, Obama's pride and effectiveness as a leader would likely lead to him arguing that such an attack didn't come from Iran because that would show that he let Iran get nukes. Iran is playing Obama and he is letting them.

Yes, NH, you seem to have missed the point on this. Iran would never announce the intention to retaliate against their proxy, because - that's the point! For them to be able to pretend they had nothing to do with it. "Oh will you look at that. Terrorists finally got a nuke. Bad news Israel, but don't look at us."

EDIT - I see you just responded. But the idea it could be traced back to Iran already admits that the 'nuclear countermeasures' part of the attack has passed. By then you'd just sanction or invade them, but not nuke them. Iran wouldn't be nuked in that scenario.

[ February 18, 2015, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not only would this be terrible for the US and Israel, but it would set a terrible precedent of how to use nukes and you'd see them start going off everywhere with rogue states using terrorists as proxies knowing that they won't be struck in retaliation.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which is why Iran would get hammered if Hezbollah used a nuke. The precedent is just too risky. I wouldn't be surprised if they got hammered even without any evidence linking them to the attack. None of the major powers wants terrorists using nukes, so Iran gets hammered pour encourager les autres. Especially because the narrative of Iran giving terrorist nukes is already established. It's an easier sell than Pakistan doing it or stolen Soviet ones.

In the case where Iran is blamed for using terrorist as a delivery mechanism, I don't think it's unlikely that Iran's nuclear weapons would be taken out in a first strike.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

source of the nuclear material for every nuke can be traced back to its source from sampling the fallout, so their wouldn't be any deniability for Iran.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about the fact that the Iranian government is saturated with zealots who have ties to terrorists and might work to actively steal nukes and funnel them to terrorists even against the orders from the president and ayatollah?

The commander of their navy already issued statements about threatening to destroy a US carrier group which may have been made without approval of their government.

Either intentional or unintentional, there is too much risk that Iran would use nukes or allow them to be used or have them stolen.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
How would you define radical islam?

I suppose I'd start here.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
How would you define radical islam?

I suppose I'd start here.
How does Obama's description of our enemy fail to match this definition of radical islam?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is one possible reason Obama doesn't mention ISIS as being Islamic extremists:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/index.html

He doesn't want 'extremism' to become synonymous with the current threat abroad. In this article we see that domestic 'terrorists' are being considered as a greater threat than ISIS; for instance, lone individuals who defy the police. I imagine Homeland Security isn't too keen on the Oath Keepers either, so Seneca (with no joking intended) watch out for that.

The recent document circulated in American law enforcement circles (can't find a link right now) did notably include in its description of what makes you an extremist those who question the current U.S. government. This article seems to be on the same lines as that document. I hope that use of the word "extremist" or "terrorist" isn't going to be used as an excuse to harass American citizens who are of the more rebellious variety.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, nothing quite as scary as a secret group of Extremist law enforcement that conspire to agree that they won't murder anyone that federal and state authorities order them to kill. Brr.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Yeah, nothing quite as scary as a secret group of Extremist law enforcement that conspire to agree that they won't murder anyone that federal and state authorities order them to kill. Brr.

http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/16/spokane-deputys-remarks-in-defense-of-mrap-goes/
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
." Knezovich said the backlash against the video is politically motivated, citing Maclay’s involvement – including a $170 donation – with a political opponent’s campaign this fall.

The deputy who made the videotaped comment is being counseled against making broad statements characterizing large groups of people, Knezovich said"

Priceless.

Thank you, Seneca. Respect. Ephesians 6:12

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of ISIS spreading globally...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/21/isis-gaining-ground-globally-as-smaller-terror-linked-groups-pledge-allegiance/

quote:
Officials are looking at the spread of the terror network following the recent beheadings of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by ISIS in Libya. While the heart of ISIS beats strongest in Syria and Iraq, terrorist cells tied to the group have popped up in 11 countries including Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria, Egypt and Yemen, according to U.S. intelligence reports.

The smaller terror groups act like a franchise, running under the ISIS name with a certain degree of independence. They get some seed money from ISIS -- but most of their funding comes from a well-developed, trade-based money laundering system, in part through the import of sugar and the export of charcoal. The groups also pad their pockets by imposing sky-high taxes on areas where they fought their way into control as well as through petty crimes, bank robberies and oil smuggling.


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ha.

And Just 2 days ago I predicted the Philippines Isis Franchise was coming.

Indonesia Soon

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ISIS and Boko Haram...

http://time.com/3743604/isis-boko-haram/

Now, who is next to join up with this growing terrorist alliance?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Amusing. The US is stubbornly refusing to bring enough force to bear against them to serve their interests, so groups that want more persecution and collateral damage to capitalize on are buying in just so that they can technically be included under the force authorization that's currently before Congress.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Amusing. The US is stubbornly refusing to bring enough force to bear against them to serve their interests, so groups that want more persecution and collateral damage to capitalize on are buying in just so that they can technically be included under the force authorization that's currently before Congress.

While the groups are interested in the US and what we do I think it is a mistake to assume all of their actions are in response to US policy.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Amusing. The US is stubbornly refusing to bring enough force to bear against them to serve their interests, so groups that want more persecution and collateral damage to capitalize on are buying in just so that they can technically be included under the force authorization that's currently before Congress.

While the groups are interested in the US and what we do I think it is a mistake to assume all of their actions are in response to US policy.
Fair enough- there are other countries that are close to or already willing to bring force to bear against ISIS. The coat-tail riding tactic still stands. Adopt the name, attract more outside use of force, harvest the power and recruitment bounty that comes from it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Amusing. The US is stubbornly refusing to bring enough force to bear against them to serve their interests, so groups that want more persecution and collateral damage to capitalize on are buying in just so that they can technically be included under the force authorization that's currently before Congress.

So _boko haram_ is now a "Persecuted" group?

if you did not mean to refer to Boko Haram, then please indicate who you meant

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1