Home > War/Military, World Events > ISIL can run but it can’t hide

ISIL can run but it can’t hide

August 20th, 2014

An angry president addresses a sad nation over the death of James Foley at the hands of ISIL.  It sounds like it’s game on. President Obama needs to unleash the fury of the US arsenal on these brutal bastards.

Categories: War/Military, World Events Tags:
  1. Starryflights
    August 20th, 2014 at 21:43 | #1

    Kick ‘em in da butt!

  2. Elena
    August 20th, 2014 at 22:37 | #2

    ISIL are simple extortionists, just your nasty ole typical criminal, nothing so high and mighty as they pretend to be. They are brutal immoral thugs.

  3. August 21st, 2014 at 09:08 | #3

    One word, NAPALM, lots and lots of NAPALM.

  4. Cargosquid
    August 21st, 2014 at 10:00 | #5

    So….is this support for troops on the ground?
    Do we go back with the 82 Airborne?

  5. Cargosquid
    August 21st, 2014 at 10:45 | #7

    If ISIS really wants to see Obama get mad, they should blow up some golf courses.

  6. August 21st, 2014 at 10:56 | #8

    Or install Coke Machines and Candy Machines in public schools.

  7. Steve Thomas
    August 21st, 2014 at 11:38 | #9

    “It sounds like it’s game on.”

    Yeah…game…on a golf-course. Tiger Woods didn’t really hurt his back and have to drop out of a tournament. He’s training with Seal Team 6.

  8. Kelly_3406
    August 21st, 2014 at 11:56 | #10

    Obama never actually stated that the US will engage ISIS to defeat it and destroy its leadership. This act was a direct challenge, but he stated only that we will confront terrorism, support Iraq in taking the fight to ISIL, and that “people like this ultimately fail”. Pretty weak speech in my opinion.

    • August 21st, 2014 at 12:21 | #11

      Action speaks louder than words. I believe that is what has been going on….air strikes.

      Pretty weak? bwaahahahahahahahahahaha. Partisan til the bitter end

  9. August 21st, 2014 at 12:11 | #12

    Strange that some folks think this is a laughing matter.

    Must be because I have a son about the age of James Foley. I don’t see anything amusing about any of it. A young man has been killed in a horrible, evil cowardly way because a group of extremists have tried to pervert a religion to their very own.

    When this kind of behavior is allowed to thrive, no American is safe anywhere in the world, at home or abroad.

    Maybe the laughing and jokes need to live elsewhere.

  10. blue
    August 21st, 2014 at 12:12 | #13

    What do we do with all these new pro-war Demogods? I say go out and show how serious you are and play another eighteen holes. Good thing this is all Bush’s fault, cause we can still prevent this from happening again … in Afganistan.

    BTW, how’s that Marine who made a bad left turn doing in the Mexican prison?

    • August 21st, 2014 at 12:19 | #14

      Still coming across like an AH, I see.

      I see nothing to joke about. Republicans apparently think this beheading is a laughing matter.

      I suppose you missed the fund raising and biking Bush did during and after Katrina. I didn’t hear you laughing then. Actually no one should have laughed. The President of the United states, regardless of party, is probably the most hooked up in the world. It doesn’t matter if he is fund raising, in the shower, on the john or reading to school children. Someone can always keep him apprised of the situation. If a woman is elected, perhaps we can expect the same level of “hookedupedness.”

      Any issues with Mexico can be settled diplomatically. ISIS, not so much.

      Meanwhile. make jokes about this act of aggression elsewhere.

  11. blue
    August 21st, 2014 at 12:15 | #15

    @Moon-howler

    Well said. It does get more personal and the willingness to engage sharpens the closer it gets to home.

  12. Starry flights
    August 21st, 2014 at 12:44 | #16

    You’re either with us or against us. Blue is with the terrorists!

  13. Cargosquid
    August 21st, 2014 at 14:33 | #17

    Why is the beheading of one journalist the reason for heightened involvement but the death of thousands of innocents is not?

  14. August 21st, 2014 at 14:42 | #18

    @Cargosquid
    Because the press is more important to the POTUS than real human beings.

    Now if you really want to do it right and ruin ISIS’s day, send a few thousand Marines over with their ammo rubbed with pork fat so we can deny them entrance to Paradise after having dispatched them from this realm.

  15. Pat.Herve
    August 21st, 2014 at 15:03 | #19

    @Cargosquid
    was it a thousand innocent American Citizens?

  16. Scout
    August 21st, 2014 at 15:48 | #20

    I’m not a Muslim theologian, MOM, but my guess is that rubbing bullets in pork fat won’t frustrate an otherwise valid martyrdom pass to Paradise. You might want to do some more thinking on a useful response to this particular foreign policy challenge.

  17. August 21st, 2014 at 16:09 | #21

    @Scout
    How about force-feeding them liverwurst and dressing them in bacon suits before sending them on their way to meet Allah.

  18. Pat.Herve
    August 21st, 2014 at 17:43 | #22

    @Mom
    I would not waste the bacon on them…..

  19. Cargosquid
    August 21st, 2014 at 20:38 | #23

    “Obama Outraged Over Beheading, Vows to Stay on Course”

    NY Times headline.

  20. Elena
    August 21st, 2014 at 20:54 | #24

    First of all, the correct initiative IS happening. Kurds and Iraqi army are joining forces and working together. It is MUSLIMS that will have to defeat ISIL or whatever the stupid effing name is, NOT Americans. We provide kick ass cover and then let their own people finish them off.

    • August 21st, 2014 at 21:35 | #25

      I found out tonight, thanks to Bill Golden, the difference in ISIS and ISIL. ISIS is the group in Syria. ISIL is regional…once they are out of Syria.

      They are nasty MOFOs. They make Al Quada look nice.

  21. Pat.Herve
    August 22nd, 2014 at 07:39 | #26

    Kudos to the Obama administration for attempting a rescue mission – not successful because the hostages were not here – in Syria. Obama was chastised for saying that he would go into other countries to carry out missions – and he has – Bin Laden was in Pakistan and this latest attempt was in Syria. How many other missions in other countries have their been that we do not know about? The US has continued the air strikes even under the threat of another beheading of another journalist. How many of us would want to make the decision that continuing the air strikes will likely lead to another innocent death. Yet good decisions made by Obama are continually attacked from the pundits and some politicians.

  22. Kelly_3406
    August 22nd, 2014 at 08:04 | #27

    Boos to the Obama Administration for revealing this attempted rescue mission. The special ops community is up in arms because of its disclosure, which was completely unnecessary. The Administration claims it HAD to discuss the operation after several news organizations got wind of it. First off, the Administration could have simply stated that it does not discuss special operations. Second, how do you suppose that the news organizations found out? Somebody in the Administration must have told them.

    It was also reported in a radio interview that part of the reason for the failure was Obama’s dithering. He reportedly took so long to make the “go” decision that the hostages had already been moved. Of course we do not really know for sure if this is accurate, but we know that Obama did in fact take a long time to give the go-ahead for the Bin Laden raid.

    • August 22nd, 2014 at 13:31 | #28

      Isn’t just awful that we can’t elect a president with perfect vision of all world affairs?

      I think everyone should be standing up tall as Americans and stop the divided front. That only weakens us.

  23. Pat.Herve
    August 22nd, 2014 at 09:09 | #29

    @Kelly_3406
    Thank You, you just proved my point.

  24. ed myers
    August 22nd, 2014 at 10:01 | #30

    There is the benefit of deterring hostage taking if the groups know that no ransom is likely and they might be a special ops target.

    The political benefit is to counter the “Obama is a dithering fool” although it didn’t work on Kelley.

  25. Kelly_3406
    August 22nd, 2014 at 16:09 | #31

    @Pat.Herve

    You are way too accepting of information being released that increases the risk for those in harm’s way. Perhaps if it was your ass on the line, you would have a different reaction.

  26. Pat.Herve
    August 22nd, 2014 at 17:30 | #32

    @Kelly_3406
    No, I am not accepting – but there is way too much information given out to reporters who then report on too much. If the WH wanted to release the information they would have released it after the attempt, back in July. Many times, the reported version differs from the facts or discusses too many facts that causes more damage. And too many pundits spouting out of their mouths that nothing is/was being done. Tragic situation and much more going on behind the scenes than any one of us knows.

  27. Lyssa
    August 22nd, 2014 at 19:04 | #33

    Pouf. I’m with Mom.

  28. Wolve
    August 23rd, 2014 at 03:29 | #34

    Now, I seem to recall that pre-greased paper cartridges for the 1853 Enfield rifle (beef or pork, take your pick) once played a role in starting a rather famous rebellion in 1857. And that was just for biting the cartridge before loading, not getting shot with it.

  29. Kelly_3406
    August 23rd, 2014 at 08:21 | #35

    @Pat.Herve

    Not likely. There was no political benefit to admitting a military failure in July, so there was no leak. After the horrific beheading of James Foley, suddenly it made sense politically for the Administration to reassure the American people that it had done everything possible to rescue him. Coincidently, a “leak” about the op provided cover for the Administration to reveal details about the rescue attempt, which was obligingly reported as “flawless”, except of course that the hostages were no longer there.

    This is so transparent that it would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic.

  30. Cargosquid
    August 23rd, 2014 at 13:57 | #36

    IF we are getting involved, we should do it in either of two ways.
    Arm the heck out of the Kurds…the only ones that seem to not be running away. And provide air support….real air support involving massive bombing strikes.

    Or.

    Tell the Joint Chiefs that ISIS should not be allowed to waste oxygen and leave them to plan the missions. Come back to them when ISIS is dead.

    • August 23rd, 2014 at 17:21 | #37

      I don’t think you will find that a lot of people disagree with either way.

    • August 23rd, 2014 at 17:23 | #38

      I don’t think its fair to say that the Kurds are the only ones not running away. IsIs kills those who oppose and also the families. That’s how radical Islam works. That’s why people keep their yaps shut. They don’t want their families targeted.

      If you are killed you die once. If your children are killed, you die every day of your life.

  31. Cargosquid
    August 23rd, 2014 at 21:03 | #39

    @Moon-howler
    The Iraqi military ran.
    Their families and themselves still died.
    If they had stayed and fought, they could have won. They have the equipment and the training.

    However, one of the most common complaints from our troops about the Iraqi police and military was their refusal to fight. It was a rare unit that emulated the Americans. And when the Americans left, those that were willing to be professional soldiers had to conform to the typical do nothing policy.

    • August 24th, 2014 at 05:11 | #40

      From what I have been told, much of that is cultural. There is also a great deal of fear for family in the region …and it has been intentional. I wont stand in judgement. My family hasn’t been threatened.

  32. DB
    August 23rd, 2014 at 21:13 | #41

    From what I’ve read in a variety of print (and I am still confused about ISIL, ISIS, IS denominations), but there are countries both western and not trying to do something about this group of thugs. Syrian military fired on some, Morocco arrested recruiters, France is trying to contain those who will leave France to join them, something in Spain (sorry it eludes me), and what the non-militant people in Iraq are trying to do. It seems ISIL/ISIS/IS is a thug club of sorts who are happy to recruit whomever from where ever so long as he or she supports their warped interpretation of Islam.

    • August 24th, 2014 at 05:04 | #42

      The thugs also execute/kill/destroy everything and everybody who doesn’t buy into their perverted version of Islam.

  33. Cargosquid
    August 24th, 2014 at 11:32 | #43

    @Moon-howler
    They also kill supporters.

    The reporter, Foley, supported the rebels in Syria and other arab causes. They kidnapped him originally for money.

    • August 24th, 2014 at 13:18 | #44

      oh PUH-leez

      ISIS is a terrorist group who accepts one thing–everyone converting to their brand of Islam.

      Now you are trying to hint that Foley supported ISIS?

  34. middleman
    August 24th, 2014 at 11:38 | #45

    Cargo, I think one reason that many in the Iraqi military refused to fight is that they didn’t believe in their government, which you can’t really blame them for when you consider the way Maliki governed.

    I have heard reports from various American soldiers who worked with the Iraqi’s over time that there were many who fought very well and showed great bravery. But in any war, the soldiers have to believe in the cause to really fight effectively. It probably became obvious as time went by that the Maliki government just wasn’t worth fighting for.

  35. middleman
    August 24th, 2014 at 11:55 | #46

    All the morning shows today are promoting ISIL/ISIS as America’s new greatest threat and playing off that fear. Maybe they are that big a threat, but history shows that you usually don’t see your risk clearly until it hits you in the eyes. On the other hand, fear sells a lot of military equipment and sends more than a few young people to their death and dismemberment. I’m not saying we shouldn’t deal with ISIS/ISIL, just that fear is an emotion that compromises logic and planning.

    Apparently, the ISIL/ISIS supply lines in Iraq are mostly out in the open, so we should be able to take them out with air power. There are things we can do to knock these terrorists back and we should do them, but we will never eliminate the threat of terrorist attack as long as there are evil people in the world.

    • August 24th, 2014 at 13:21 | #47

      I am all for dropping lots of bad stuff on them. My default is always daisy cutters.

  36. Cargosquid
    August 24th, 2014 at 12:21 | #48

    @middleman
    That’s the point of many military guys right now.

    We have terrorists in the open. Target rich environment.
    Destroy as much as we can while we can.
    However, I don’t trust OUR gov’t to do this competently.

    Also, when the bad guys are killing families whether you fight or not…do you REALLY need to believe in the gov’t to kill the bad guys?

  37. Cargosquid
    August 24th, 2014 at 16:20 | #49

    @Moon-howler
    I think that we hamstring ourselves.
    For instance, we demolished Fallujah with artillery and house to house fighting. We had already evacuated all the “non-combatants.” Why did we allow the bad guys to have intact buildings to hide in?

    A nice flight of B-52’s doing an arclight mission would have ended the “battle” for Fallujah quickly. AND reminded the world what happens if we decide not to play nice.

  38. Kelly_3406
    August 24th, 2014 at 17:32 | #50

    I have to give Obama chops for his excellent use of US air power to support the Kurds. History shows, however, that air power is usually not enough expel invaders. That task usually requires boots on the ground. Even if the Iraqi and Kurdish militaries were less dysfunctional, they probably would still lack the capability to completely drive out ISIL. And even if they did succeed in driving it out, ISIL could always regroup in Syria.

    So the US needs to clearly define its strategic goals. Do we want to eradicate ISIL, or are we satisfied with containing it? Middleman is probably correct that ISIL does not yet rise to the level of a vital threat, but there is no way to know when and how the threat will evolve. It would be easier to take ISIL out now before it gets any stronger, but to fully eradicate the threat would require US troops on the ground.

    That’s why I was disappointed in the President’s speech. He did not articulate his strategic vision for handling the threat from ISIS.

    • August 24th, 2014 at 20:06 | #51

      That seems fair. Now, would he be tipping his hand?

      It seems that ISIL is somewhat of an enigma at this point.

  39. Cargosquid
    August 25th, 2014 at 17:10 | #52

    @Moon-howler
    “Now, would he be tipping his hand? ”

    He’s never had a problem with that before.

  40. Wolve
    August 25th, 2014 at 21:58 | #53

    It starts. POTUS has ordered surveillance drones flown over Syria, apparently ignoring demands (maybe) by Assad that the Syrian government approve any US actions.

  41. Cargosquid
    August 26th, 2014 at 09:04 | #55

    @Wolve
    You know what makes a GREAT surveillance drone?

    A B-2 Stealth bomber.
    :)

  42. Wolve
    August 27th, 2014 at 00:10 | #56

    Personally, Cargo, I would like to see a Hellfire missile go right up the a**hole of “Jihad John.”

Comments are closed.