Jordanian Pilot Burned Alive

[wyntrout]

Jordan's king is not a wuss..."Before becoming king, Abdullah II was a general in charge of Jordanian special forces and a certified Cobra Helicopter pilot. In 1980 he joined the UK's Royal military academy Sandhurst."

Wynn

[knkali]

This is a fine line to walk. Our problem with dealing with ISIS is money. US does not own its own debt. And US leaders are worried about pissing off the liberal world and causing ourselves economic hardship. Face it, we may get hit here and there, and some may be pretty big hits (World Trade Center), but as long as we are not economically challenged (poor) there's no way in hell ISIS really threatens the US. We can't go over there and bomb the chit out of ISIS without causing terrible damage to a country or countries that have already been at war for more than a decade. The liberal world will ostracize the US and then where will be borrow money from??
The locals(non combatants) hate Americans we are the infidel, we are the ones destroying their country as they see it. For them, living in fear is better than dying to be free.

My idea, though it will not be popular, is to let ISIS kill or convert all that are not willing to go along with their cause. Let the nations WILLING to defend themselves do so to keep ISIS from spreading out over the entire middle east. Then when it can be determined that a region is sufficiently saturated with ISIS supporters, THEN the US can go in and make a glass parking lot. In the mean time, the US can diligently work to restrict the technology and finances that support ISIS.

It's not a perfect plan. But letting a region deal with its own problems is not necessarily a bad thing.

I think you are describing/predicting the future very acurately. G-d bless us if you are correct.

[SlowBurn]

I don't get it, first we smuggle weapons to the "Syrian Rebels", now we are bombing them. I guess it was fine as long as the rebels were Al-Queda, but now they have changed to ISIS or ISIL, we change sides and bomb them. Obama plays one hand against the other, then wonders why both hands end up getting burnt. To top it off he repeatedly insults the only real friend we have in the region, even sending in political advisors to try and influence how the Israeli elections turn out. He wants Netanyahu out of office and is doing what he can to help the opposition.
I think he is doing what he can to get WWIII started.

Yeah I agree with you. Bebe (Netanyahu) is a very important guy to have in our quiver. He wants and covets the U.S support for Israel but our prez seems to do everything possible to keep that from happening. The prophecy of WWIII is a scary one but certainly not unimaginable IMHO.

Speaking of prophecies, a fortune teller told Obama he would die on a Jewish holiday.
"Which one?" he asked. "Doesn't matter. Whenever you die, that will be a Jewish holiday."

[muggsy]

Bawanna for President.

And we make jocko press secretary.

If our coward in chief would just call it what it is id be happy to start. Then if Jordon is ready to toast some guys id offer them all the bombs they wanted, offer them Intel, and then make sure all bombs were dropped and none held for later sgainst us. No need to send our own foot soldiers to fight id say, set off some tomahawk missled from the coast if needed.

Really everything else aside what i want most is for our current leader to just leave, period.

The last two press secretaries spoke about as well as Jocko types.

[muggsy]

Some people seem to think that if we went to war with the Muslim world that we would lose, because we are so badly outnumbered. If 99% of the Muslims are peace loving people we'd only have to kill one percent of them.

[diablo53]

Some people seem to think that if we went to war with the Muslim world that we would lose, because we are so badly outnumbered. If 99% of the Muslims are peace loving people we'd only have to kill one percent of them.

Sound reasoning right there!!!

We just need to convert to ISLAM before we do- because the peace loving muslims won't fight other muslims to save their soul! BUT infidels-they will band together against them!

[JohnR]

Sound reasoning right there!!!

We just need to convert to ISLAM before we do- because the peace loving muslims won't fight other muslims to save their soul! BUT infidels-they will band together against them!

On the contrary - they executed several imams who spoke out against the pilot being burned alive. They are as vicious against each other as they are against us.

[diablo53]

On the contrary - they executed several imams who spoke out against the pilot being burned alive. They are as vicious against each other as they are against us.

I mean converting to keep the non ISIS people off our arse. Like I said, they'd rather live in fear than die trying to be free, but the infidel is not the answer they seek!

[Longitude Zero]

Here is a HERO.King Abdullah II.jpg

[diablo53]

What ISIS is doing is nothing new. It's been happening since b4 the crusades. The difference now, is money and technology. We care cause it affects out money. ISIS can recruit because they have money. And technology and money allow them to spread the message and fear.

[diablo53]

Here is a HERO.[ATTACH=CONFIG]12227[/ATTACH]

Finally Someone the US can put out in front so we can get the job done. Our Chief refuses to stand up an grow a pair.

[TheTman]

We should never have taken Saddam out of power, and created the vacuum, that other groups are rushing in to fill. Saddam was a a-hole, but at least he kept the people in line. Every time we mess with a Muslim country, like Libya, or Egypt and Iraq and Afghanistan, we end up toppling a government, and leaving the rabble to form some group to grab that power. So far this has worked against us 100% of the time. Does anyone think that people that are used to living under tolitarian regimes. are going to suddenly embrace Democracy? When it is forced on them? When Sharia law is all they know?
No, they are no way prepared for that. They need a strong leader to keep order, and keep rebel groups in check. America had it's founding fathers, it had an idea of Liberty, and people that were willing to die for that idea. Things are different in the Muslim world, where they want a Caliphate, they want Sharia law for the most part Liberty to them is being able to feed the sheep when they want too, and have as many wives as you can afford. And they have people that will die to preserve that way of life. They don't want change, they want to be left alone. Yet we meddle and meddle, and what has it got us. Billions going to the Military Industrial Complex, and the companies that are rebuilding some of the mess we left behind. Can anyone tell me of one instance where our meddling has brought about changes to the way of life, and government, that has lasted any longer than our occupation of the country? Now that we've left Iraq on it's own, it's fertile soil to hatch groups like ISIS, and whatever other groups emerge from the wreckage. In Afghanistan, we've not only toppled the government, but have helped destabilize Pakistan by running many of the terrorist groups there for refuge. They are causing problems for Pakistan now, bombing schools and such. But hey, the European banks are full to the brim of freshly laundered Drug money, so I guess everything is find and dandy. I imagine we'll stay in Afghanistan until the banks are satisfied, then pull out, and the Taliban will come out of there holes and stream in from Pakistan, and kill everyone that they think helped the "infidels" and one would never know we were there after a few years. Then they will probably shut down the poppy fields again, and the European banks be broke again. Let someone else go save their opium harvest next time.

[diablo53]

We should never have taken Saddam out of power, and created the vacuum, that other groups are rushing in to fill. Saddam was a a-hole, but at least he kept the people in line. Every time we mess with a Muslim country, like Libya, or Egypt and Iraq and Afghanistan, we end up toppling a government, and leaving the rabble to form some group to grab that power. So far this has worked against us 100% of the time. Does anyone think that people that are used to living under tolitarian regimes. are going to suddenly embrace Democracy? When it is forced on them? When Sharia law is all they know?
No, they are no way prepared for that. They need a strong leader to keep order, and keep rebel groups in check. America had it's founding fathers, it had an idea of Liberty, and people that were willing to die for that idea. Things are different in the Muslim world, where they want a Caliphate, they want Sharia law for the most part Liberty to them is being able to feed the sheep when they want too, and have as many wives as you can afford. And they have people that will die to preserve that way of life. They don't want change, they want to be left alone. Yet we meddle and meddle, and what has it got us. Billions going to the Military Industrial Complex, and the companies that are rebuilding some of the mess we left behind. Can anyone tell me of one instance where our meddling has brought about changes to the way of life, and government, that has lasted any longer than our occupation of the country? Now that we've left Iraq on it's own, it's fertile soil to hatch groups like ISIS, and whatever other groups emerge from the wreckage. In Afghanistan, we've not only toppled the government, but have helped destabilize Pakistan by running many of the terrorist groups there for refuge. They are causing problems for Pakistan now, bombing schools and such. But hey, the European banks are full to the brim of freshly laundered Drug money, so I guess everything is find and dandy. I imagine we'll stay in Afghanistan until the banks are satisfied, then pull out, and the Taliban will come out of there holes and stream in from Pakistan, and kill everyone that they think helped the "infidels" and one would never know we were there after a few years. Then they will probably shut down the poppy fields again, and the European banks be broke again. Let someone else go save their opium harvest next time.

Saddam was harboring Al Qaeda, Bush vowed to get the guys who were behind the world trade center attacks. And we loved him for that. Now we complain about what is now happening since the regime change.

Afghanistan was being ran by the Taliban...also supporting Al Qaeda.

So whats worse, having a Commander in Chief that has no balls? Or one that has balls and causes a ripple effect of imbalance in the region? Which is worse????

[Longitude Zero]

Disagree totally TheTman. Saddam had to be taken out. The problem was the USA and the coalition left a power vacuum that they should not have.

[berettabone]

Saddam was harboring Al Qaeda, Bush vowed to get the guys who were behind the world trade center attacks. And we loved him for that. Now we complain about what is now happening since the regime change.

Afghanistan was being ran by the Taliban...also supporting Al Qaeda.

So whats worse, having a Commander in Chief that has no balls? Or one that has balls and causes a ripple effect of imbalance in the region? Which is worse????

Your witnessing possibly the worst in history..................