Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Cruising the Web

Jim Geraghty read the news that France began bombing to take out an ISIS "command center, a recruitment center, an ammunition storage base and a training camp."
. . leaving us to wonder why the command center, a recruitment center, an ammunition storage base and a training camp were still standing in Raqqa after a year of anti-ISIS coalition airstrikes.
Good question. It certainly does sound as if we've just been lightly attacking such forces. Geraghty points out that we're making seven airstrikes per day compared to over 1000 a day in Desert Storm or 800 when we took out Saddam. We know how to attack an enemy from the air. Seven strikes a day isn't going to get it done.

Geraghty also derides the pretense the Democrats are making that we can screen refugees coming in. That is not possible.
Hey, thanks for suggesting “proper screening,” Hillary and Martin. Of course, until Friday night, the French thought they were doing “proper screening” themselves.

Perhaps if Democratic candidates had bothered to pay attention to our cavalcade of government incompetence -- the VA, the giant hack at OPM, Healthcare.gov, the EPA polluting rivers it’s supposed to clean up, Benghazi -- they would realize that very few Americans trust our government to effectively screen 65,000 refugees. Europe is awash in fake passports right now. ISIS doesn’t keep updated membership lists.
Our intelligence forces are so overburdened right now. How are they going to investigate hordes of refugees trying to come into this country when there is no verifiable database of Middle Eastern people who may have been radicalized, but have never been involved in any terrorist activity. CNN reports on how difficult the vetting process is.
Given the abysmal security situation in Syria and the fact that the United States does not maintain a permanent diplomatic presence in the country, it's sometimes difficult for U.S. authorities to gather the information they need to thoroughly vet a Syrian applicant.

FBI Director James Comey hit on the issue at a congressional hearing last month, when he told lawmakers, "If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them."

Statistics like this don't provide us with any confidence about those seeking to be accepted in Europe or the U.S.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, many Democrats are scolding anyone who has tried to link the massacre to the Syrian refugee crisis. A survey, however, reported that possibly hundreds of thousands of refugees support the Islamic State.

According to a poll by the Arab Opinion Project, under the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, found that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold a positive view ISIS — including 4 percent that had a very favorable opinion.
More than 1-in-8 refugees have positive views about ISIS; 1-in-25 have very favorable views.

That may not seem like a lot, but considering there are 4.28 million Syrian refugees registered by the United Nations Refugee Agency, the numbers add up quickly.

Using the percentage from that survey to the overall population of Syrian refugees would mean that more than 557,000 have a positive view of ISIS — including more than 170,000 with a very positive opinion.
Those are startling and frightening numbers, considering how few terrorists it took to pull off the attacks in New York City, London, Madrid, and Paris.
Scott Atran writes in The Guardian what the ISIS playbook says. It sounds very familiar.
There is a playbook, a manifesto: The Management of Savagery/Chaos, a tract written more than a decade ago under the name Abu Bakr Naji, for the Mesopotamian wing of al-Qaida that would become Isis. Think of the horror of Paris and then consider these, its principal axioms.

Hit soft targets. “Diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside of it if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy and thus drain it to the greatest extent possible.”

Strike when potential victims have their guard down. Sow fear in general populations, damage economies. “If a tourist resort that the crusaders patronise … is hit, all of the tourist resorts in all of the states of the world will have to be secured by the work of additional forces, which are double the ordinary amount, and a huge increase in spending.”

Consider reports suggesting a 15-year-old was involved in Friday’s atrocity. “Capture the rebelliousness of youth, their energy and idealism, and their readiness for self-sacrifice, while fools preach ‘moderation’ (wasatiyyah), security and avoidance of risk.”

Think of the group’s appreciation of focus on cause and effect: “Work to expose the weakness of America’s centralised power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and the war by proxy until it fights directly.” Ditto for France, the UK and other allies.
John Fund contemplates the unwillingness of Democrats to say that we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism. They say they want to destroy the terrorists, but are afraid to say what is motivating those terrorists. If the terrorists were racists or bigots who hated Muslims, the Democrats would be willing to name those motives. Somehow, radical Muslims are exempt.
That said, the three Democratic candidates soon did find an enemy they could not only identify clearly but also promise to wreak havoc upon: Wall Street. Bernie Sanders claimed that Wall Street’s business model was “fraud.” Hillary Clinton performed verbal somersaults to deny she had any connection with Wall Street. Recall that during the first Democratic debate, Hillary, when asked which enemies she had that she was proudest of, responded “probably the Republicans.”

The debate on Saturday exposed the real weakness the Democratic field has on national security. None of the three candidates were willing to state the obvious: that President Obama’s foreign-policy fecklessness has made America less safe. Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell told CBS News’s Face the Nation on Sunday that “it’s now crystal clear to us that our strategy, our policy, vis-à-vis ISIS is not working, and it’s time to look at something else.” The day before, Morell had told CBS’s 48 Hours that it was now the duty of the intelligence community to confront President Obama with that news.

The sad truth is that the victims of Friday’s terrorist attacks — the French — are far more clear-eyed about the threat facing them and more willing to acknowledge that they need a new strategy....

By comparison with the French, the three Democratic presidential candidates looked timid, obsessed with political appearances, and unserious. Perhaps Wall Street executives should be worried about one of them becoming president, but I’m not sure ISIS leaders should.

As the WSJ writes, her answers to questions about her plans to fight ISIS was basically incoherent.
Moderator John Dickerson of CBS began by suggesting that the Obama Administration had long underestimated the threat of Islamic State and so why should she be trusted. The former Secretary of State replied that ISIS “cannot be contained, it must be defeated,” a rhetorical bid to distance herself from her former boss and the carnage in Paris.

Mrs. Clinton continued: “There is no question in my mind that if we summon our resources—both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal, not just military force, which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more open and cooperative way—that we can bring people together.” She added that the U.S. should “be supportive” of allies but “this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential.”

Mrs. Clinton missed the chance to invoke stakeholders, or to point out that there are no silver bullets, but otherwise her free association could not have been more substance-free. Mr. Dickerson tried again, this time noting explicitly that the U.S. failures in the region exposed in Paris bear on her judgment and “prescriptions for the future.” Mr. Clinton absolved herself by blaming George W. Bush for President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011.

No more convincing was her self-acquittal on Libya. Mrs. Clinton persuaded Mr. Obama to topple Moammar Ghadafi, only for the U.S. to retreat after Tripoli fell and ISIS and other militants filled the stateless vacuum. “How did you get it wrong,” Mr. Dickerson wondered, “if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after [a military intervention]?”

“Well, we did have a plan,” Mrs. Clinton said, without mentioning what that plan was. “Now, there has been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland, but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact on what happens in a country like Libya.”

Mrs. Clinton’s case for the White House is that she is the most seasoned candidate in the field, but even an entry-level foreign service officer could do better than claiming the way to deal with trouble is to deal with trouble. Presumably Mrs. Clinton recognizes that the growing world disorder is a political problem. She’d like to maintain her top-diplomat image, glide past accountability for Obama-Clinton results, and hope nobody notices the contradiction. No wonder Democrats tried to bury this spectacle—and, by the way, the next debate is the Saturday before Christmas.

Today's Deals at Amazon

Deals in TV, Video, and Audio

Deals in Appliances

Jonathan Martin points out in the NYT that terrorism has now risen in prominence in the presidential election. I can see that helping Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, but I'm not so sure that Martin is right that it would hurt Trump. He might benefit from the fears the Paris attacks raise about immigration. I don't know that those who like Ben Carson are all that concerned about his actual stances on issues. I've always found his explanations of his policy proposals, such as he has, to be hard to follow or accept. People who like him because of his biography and character may not worry about his lack of understanding on foreign issues.

I thought it was racist to talk about no-go areas of European cities. It turns out that there are such areas in Brussels that the government can't control. And that is where some of the terrorists might have come from.
Belgium’s home affairs minister said that the government does not “have control of the situation in Molenbeek,” a working-class neighborhood of Brussels that has been linked to several terrorism plots in recent years.

Speaking on the VRT television channel on Sunday, the minister, Jan Jambon, said that the government would “step up efforts” to bring order to the area of the Belgian capital....

Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium said he was also concerned about jihadist networks in Molenbeek.

“I notice that each time there is a link with Molenbeek,” he said. “This is a gigantic problem. Apart from prevention, we should also focus more on repression.”

Belgian officials had said that the brother of one of the men suspected to be Paris attackers was arrested on Saturday in Molenbeek.

Meanwhile, Obama continues his policies to close down Gitmo. The timing is ironic.
With Congress repeatedly blocking Obama’s attempts at moving the detainees to US soil, the president instead has decided to keep releasing detainees and emptying as much of the facility as he can. The latest release of five prisoners includes a suspected bodyguard of Osama bin Laden, and comes less than 48 hours after the massive attack on Paris by ISIS:

Will Dartmouth officials bring order to their own library? This description of a protest in the library by a Black Lives Matters group shouting racial epithets and obscenities at students studying in the library should clarify for college administrators where their pusillanimous responses to disturbances is bringing their schools. The Dartmouth Review, a conservative newspaper, reports,
Not content to merely demonstrate there for the night, the band descended from their high-water mark to march into Baker-Berry Library.

“F*** you, you filthy white f***s!” “F*** you and your comfort!” “F*** you, you racist s***!”

These shouted epithets were the first indication that many students had of the coming storm. The sign-wielding, obscenity-shouting protesters proceeded through the usually quiet backwaters of the library. They surged first through first-floor Berry, then up the stairs to the normally undisturbed floors of the building, before coming back down to the ground floor of Novack.

Throngs of protesters converged around fellow students who had not joined in their long march. They confronted students who bore “symbols of oppression”: “gangster hats” and Beats-brand headphones. The flood of demonstrators self-consciously overstepped every boundary, opening the doors of study spaces with students reviewing for exams. Those who tried to close their doors were harassed further. One student abandoned the study room and ran out of the library. The protesters followed her out of the library, shouting obscenities the whole way.

Students who refused to listen to or join their outbursts were shouted down. “Stand the f*** up!” “You filthy racist white piece of s***!” Men and women alike were pushed and shoved by the group. “If we can’t have it, shut it down!” they cried. Another woman was pinned to a wall by protesters who unleashed their insults, shouting “filthy white b****!” in her face.
As the student newspaper reports, for all this ugliness in their protest, the demonstrators didn't point to actual examples of the terrible racism they feel justify their actions.
In the absence of concrete examples of systematic racism – specific incidents that show that Dartmouth’s customs and culture actively oppress our minority students – the protesters have asked onlookers to trust in their “experience.” The idea here is that what seems like a minor issue to a privileged observer may actually be a life-altering burden for a disadvantaged student. The broad range of perspectives on our campus guarantees that this is true to a certain point, and navigating our four years of thrown-together pluralism requires us to strive for this type of empathy.

But when empathy cuts against reason – that is, when we are asked to believe that ignorant costumes are oppressive, or that hurling obscenities at sympathetic students is a display of brave resistance – we should realize that empathy has it’s limits. The desire to side with self-described victims is rooted in a spirit of charity. But the habit of doing so even when every ounce of evidence suggests that we ought not to amounts to a total forfeiture of our own ability to discern. In the case of Dartmouth’s most recent Black Lives Matter protest, let’s not convince ourselves that the wrongs that we witnessed were anything other than wrong.
If nothing happens to students making these protests, expect to see such behavior to spread to more and more colleges.
The more dispiriting comparison with the 1960s, alas, has less to do with the self-indulgence of the young than the learned fecklessness of the older and presumably wiser. Across the country the coddled activists—sans culottes with iPhones—have rendered college presidents, chancellors and deans unable or unwilling to challenge the moral superiority of the mob. A pity, because even the 1960s gave us examples worth emulating.

Start with 1968 at San Francisco State College. In the teeth of raging protests that had already claimed the scalps of his two immediate predecessors, a linguistics professor named S.I. Hayakawa became acting president—and a national hero when he climbed atop a sound truck and ripped out wires to the speakers protesters were using to shout him down.

Or John Silber. When activists in 1972 tried to block students from meeting with Marine recruiters, the Boston University president showed up with a bullhorn to direct those interfering with their fellow students’ right to interview where they should line up to be arrested.

Perhaps most successful was the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame. Though by this time a dove on Vietnam, he believed the universities played an important role in training the nation’s military officers. At one point he prevented protesters from burning down the school’s ROTC building. In November 1968, protesters staged a lie-in aimed at blocking other students from job interviews with Dow Chemical and the CIA.

Father Hesburgh was appalled by the idea of forcing a fellow student to walk across your body because you disagree with him. Scarcely three months later, he would issue a letter to the entire campus community—a letter reprinted in this paper and the New York Times.

The Hesburgh letter recognized “the validity of protest” but made clear that any group that “substituted force for rational persuasion, be it violent or nonviolent,” would be given 15 minutes to meditate. Students who persisted would have their IDs confiscated and be “suspended from this community.”
So far we haven't seen any university president with the courage to stand up to these protesters who feel it is their right to disrupt the entire campus. Instead they are all caving and kowtowing in remorse for some imagined offenses.
So where are we today? At Yale, students provoked by a faculty member insufficiently sensitive to potentially offensive Halloween costumes have called for the head of said teacher along with a list of other demands for more diversity, apologies and self-criticism from the top.

On cue, Yale President Peter Salovey calls for civility and has repeated Yale’s commitment to free expression. But at a moment when people thirst for a university president who will back up his words, Mr. Salovey, like so many others, apologizes. “We have failed you,” he told protestors.

Indeed they have failed. Just not in the way they imagine.

William McGurn explains that we shouldn't be crying out for civility on campus, but for the courage to enforce civility. He evokes lessons from the 1960s.

Kindle Daily Deals

Deals in Kitchen and Dining

Shop Amazon's Holiday Toy List - Kid Picks

One of the more absurd kerfuffles in recent days is the efforts of politicians, particularly those in NYC to go after fantasy sports gambling. Christopher Koopman and Jim Pagels explain the faulty legal reasoning used to try to close the gambling down by using the skills versus chance differential. Somehow, they're trying to say that gambling on sports for a season uses skill which is legal, while doing it on a daily basis involves just chance which can be considered gambling and thus regulated.
In Schneiderman’s view, traditional, season-long fantasy sports are games of skill while daily games are ones of chance. Yet every game involves some combination of skill and luck. One recent survey found that success in season-long fantasy sports game is 55 to 65 percent skill, with the remainder being luck.

The problem with using this skill-versus-luck test is that it has never been fully defined. The line between skill and luck is an ambiguous standard that leaves much room for subjective, arbitrary decisions. This has resulted in varying interpretations across states. A handful of states already ban season-long fantasy sports under the skill-versus-luck test, and others have already done the same for daily fantasy games....

When it comes to consumer protection, these latest developments in states like New York and Nevada call into question who is in the best position to protect those who seek to play fantasy sports. Schneiderman’s cease-and-desist letter is based on a rather low opinion of those who play fantasy sports, claiming that DraftKings and FanDuel are merely attempting to “fleece sports fans across the country” by promoting their games as “a path to easy riches.” But if the goal is truly “consumer protection,” is outright prohibition the best route?

As we’ve argued before, if regulators are seriously interested in protecting consumers, the best thing they can do at this point is allow competition to play out. Players who feel that DraftKings and FanDuel no longer provide what they are seeking will likely move to other platforms, and this is an opportunity for entrepreneurs to create products that are more responsive to consumer demands, which might include more equitable prize distributions or more transparent protocols for lineup submissions (to avoid various types of cheating).
An outright prohibition is the sort of paternalistic government that liberals endorse. If people find that they're not making money on FanDuel or DraftKings, they'll stop doing it. They're not doing it as part of their retirement plan. They're doing it to have fun and perhaps win some money. I'm sure that most state officials who want to prohibit sports gambling would prefer that people instead spend their money on buying the state lotteries. In my state, the lottery is supposed to help fund education and continually falls short of projections. How dare people choose to spend their money on fantasy sports when they could be gambling to benefit the state education budget?

In their essay, Koopman and Pagels link to this fascinating story about the efforts to ban pinball machines. I hadn't known that, when I played pinball as a kid, I was involved in a dirty game supposedly used by the mob to rob children of our money. Pinball was only legalized in NYC in 1976 when a star of the pinball world was able to prove that he used skill to get the ball where he wanted.

Hillary Clinton tried to make the lame and offensive argument that he accepted donations from Wall Street companies because she had helped them after 9/11. At the time, I heard that, I wondered how long it would take someone to research how much money she had received from Wall Street before 9/11 when she ran for senator. She and her husband have always been closely tied to Wall Street. It didn't take long. Lachlan Markay reports,
According to OpenSecrets.org, securities and financial industry companies and their employees donated nearly $1.15 million to Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign. The Wall Street giant Citigroup topped the list of her corporate donors that cycle.

The numbers provide a contrast to Clinton’s explanation for Wall Street’s extensive financial support for her campaign, which she said was due to her work after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in lower Manhattan....

Clinton’s Wall Street supporters, who include some of her most deep-pocketed backers, say their support has nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11.

As campaign finance data shows, that support predates the attacks. In addition to Citigroup employees, bankers from Goldman Sachs, UBS, Bear Stearns, and Credit Suisse provided significant financial backing for Clinton’s 2000 Senate run.

Many of those banks were also large supporters of her Republican opponent in that race. But Clinton was among the top recipients of any candidate that cycle of donations from hedge funds, private equity firms, and commercial banks, according to OpenSecrets.

“Most people in New York on the finance side view her as being very pragmatic,” one Wall Street financier told Politico last year. “I think they have confidence that she understands how things work and that she’s not a populist.”

Though a reliable source of financial support, Clinton’s Wall Street backing has become a liability as she faces off against the stridently populist Sanders, who frequently singles out large banks as pernicious political and financial actors.

Coupons for Vitamins and Dietary Supplements

Health and Personal Care Coupons

Deals in Tools and Improvement

James Antle presents the argument about how the Democrats' policies are hurting young people. It's all there from entitlements to the impact of Obamacare. Their job prospects are discouraging and the situation is worse in light of their college debts. It's all true, but I don't think that these arguments resonate with most young people. They're much more worked up about issues like the environment and gay rights and they don't understand how economic policies will hurt them in the long run.
On each of these fronts, Democrats are working to protect or expand the policies that arguably hurt young people most. They are campaigning on increasing the promises made by entitlement programs rather than reforming them to help them keep current promises. They want to preserve Obamacare, boost the minimum wage and protect unfettered access to abortion. Democrats also have their own strategies for how to turn out the youth vote: marijuana legalization ballot initiatives, more subsidies for college education, advocacy for gay marriage and environmental policies.

Even if there is a logical connection between how many liberal policies hurt young people most, the political question remains: Would it help Republicans to frame Democratic policies as amounting to a war on youth?
I'd like to see this succeed, but I'm quite skeptical. Kids might get outraged when they are presented with the argument on how entitlement spending will eat up the federal budget, but that is too far off and complicated for most young people to care about and I would be it wouldn't make a top-five list of issues they care about. It's ironic that they will get so worked up about the damage to the environment a century in the future, but are indifferent to what the national debt will do to their generation when they're in the prime of their lives.

Oh, the irony.
University of Missouri graduate students, including hunger strike protester Jonathan Butler, have been protesting on campus in part because of cuts to the students’ health-care coverage as a result of Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the cutbacks were explained in detail on an August posting on the school’s website, which said Obamacare’s regulations banned employers, like universities, from paying for their grad students’ health insurance.

Graduate students would have to buy insurance in individual markets as a result of not being eligible for the insurance plan offered to MU staff and faculty.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that the Internal Revenue Service posted a bulletin offering guidance on this issue and threatened “severe” penalties for noncompliance.
So that is another example of where there is a lot of anger, but they don't understand what is causing their distress.

I'm sure this will shock all my readers, but it turns out Barack Obama didn't follow Abraham Lincoln's model of leadership after all. Remember all the hoopla about how he was going to have a Cabinet that was a Team of Rivals like Lincoln's Cabinet. He would demonstrate leadership by having wise advisers of different backgrounds, even those who ran against him and would benefit by the diversity of opinion. Well, not so fast. Seth Mandel has been talking to the lone Republican in the Cabinet, Ray LaHood. Now LaHood is joining other disgruntled former Cabinet members who were disappointed in Obama's leadership. LaHood was discouraged by Obama's decision to ignore Republicans on the stimulus and Obamacare.
But it also shows that, in hiring his so-called “team of rivals,” Obama wanted them not for their dissenting opinions (the president listened mostly to Valerie Jarrett, sometimes to David Axelrod, never to people outside his paranoid inner circle) but to co-opt them. He wanted their names on his policies.

And just their names. Hillary Clinton, for one, was more useful to Obama serving at the pleasure of the president than in the Senate, where she might derail (or at least influence) his agenda.

Same with Vice President Joe Biden.

And so it went with Gates (a Bush administration holdover), LaHood and the other “rivals.”

It was all a sham.

Obama brought scant knowledge and experience to the presidency. Stocking his Cabinet with experienced hands could’ve filled in the gaps. Instead, he remained intellectually incurious, suspicious of any information that contradicted his parochial worldview.

The president wanted those who weren’t yes-men to be seen but not heard. You can understand why they’re not waiting until he’s out of office to have their say.

Peter Kirsanow explains what many liberals don't seem to understand about the Little Sisters of the Poor Supreme Court case. For example, did you know this?
Many people think that the Sisters are asking for a special deal. Not even close. All small business and numerous large ones, including Exxon and Pepsi Bottling Company, are completely exempt from the mandate. All churches and some other ministries are likewise wholly exempt. But ministries like the Little Sisters are not exempt.

Bizarrely, the government’s excuse for discriminating between churches and the Little Sisters was that it assumes the Sisters — nuns who vow lifelong service to God — aren’t religious enough. Let that sink in for a second.

Instead of offering an exemption, the government concocted an “accommodation” scheme for second-class ministries like the Little Sisters. But the scheme’s a fake. A simple comparison makes that clear: the “second-class” ministries must allow contraceptives on their health plans; churches and many mega-corporations do not. That’s an accommodation that doesn’t accommodate.
And another point that aggravates me when I hear some people discuss the case. The argument of the Sisters' is not that women shouldn't have contraception; they just don't want to be the ones providing it since it contradicts their religious beliefs. Instead, the government can provide the contraceptives just as it does for many women.
In fact, over and over again, the ministries have suggested many ways the government can deliver contraceptives without using the ministries. All the Sisters are asking is that the government leave them alone. That seems reasonable: the most powerful government on earth has never needed nuns to help it hand out contraceptives before.

Which is one of the reasons why this case is so important. With such obvious and easy workarounds, this case is not about contraception or health plans. It’s about whether federal bureaucrats can force nuns to disobey their God for no reason at all. If the answer to that question is “yes,” everyone — even the bureaucrats — loses.


tfhr said...

John Kerry was for the "legitimacy" of the murders at Charlie Hebdo before he was against it.

Blame the cartoon. Blame the YouTube video. But never blame (or even say) radical Islam!



Kerry is such a moron that a comment like that one doesn't surprise me - I am surprised that he couldn't get James Taylor to come back and do an encore, given his diplomatic and negotiating skills - just ask the Iranians.

ck said...

Can we give up this "radical muslim/moderate muslim" charade a rest? The radical wants to behead you, the moderate wants the radical to behead you

tfhr said...


Not sure if your comment was prompted by what I posted but I've served with Americans that have put their lives on the line for our country - and some were Muslim. Just as you cannot hope to defeat a threat if we refuse to identify it or worse, dishonestly pass it off as something else like "workplace violence", you still have to be able to differentiate friend from foe.

I track it this way:

Jihadist / Salafist - combatant - foe

Islamist - supports combatants in jihad - foe

Islamic Fundamentalists - not necessarily inclined to support Islamists and less likely to directly support Jihadists but would likely approve of killing apostates. This is where things get gray but I boil it down to whether they want to live according to Sharia and if they think all others must too.

Obviously the measures that might be taken with the last group are going to vary widely. An American that makes excuses for radical Islam is a foe but free speech is there for groups like CAIR to abuse just as it is there for those of us that wish to criticize them. After that, it's simply a live and let live situation. Knowingly support, equip, or finance Jihadists and you don't get to live in the US and maybe nowhere else. Threaten the US, its interests, or Americans abroad with violence and you simply don't get to live.

mark said...

This quote nicely sums up the cowardice, shamelessness and immorality of the republican party:
"I don't think that orphans under 5 should be admitted to the United States at this point."

-Chris Christie

tfhr said...


Dems part out babies for campaign cash - laundered through Planned Parenthood - and you're good with that.

tfhr said...


Have you ever stopped to consider that by throwing open the door for unchecked trafficking of children to the United States that many will be lost or abused along the way?

I'm not a Christie fan but the least you could have done would have been to provide some context with your hypocrisy. Bringing people into this country that we cannot identify is wrong. The orphan angle was just a ploy to evade the question of why Obama would want to bring more "refugees" into our country when we've just seen what some of them intend to do: wage jihad.

Maybe the Nobel Peace Prize winner and his foreign policy expert, John Kerry, can work something out with nations in the region to accommodate the needy while they try to figure out how to deal with the Islamic State. Maybe you have some ideas of your own - it would be a first - but attacking Christie instead of terrorists isn't getting the job done.

mark said...

Nobody is advocating for "throwing open the door for unchecked trafficking".

Your concern about the welfare of children coming here leads you to conclude it's better for them if we deny them entry?

You're hiding behind a lie and fake concern. Pathetic, but typical.

tfhr said...

No, mark, I say they should not enter because it is best for America, but enticing another immigration onslaught is also bad for the weakest and most vulnerable being sent abroad. Common sense or even a basic grasp of reality would tell you that so drop your characteristically slimy accusation of "lie and fake concern".

You should be a conductor on La Bestia - you're perfect for the job - "Right this way kiddies...Uncle marco has some dulces for you."

In a doorless desert safe house in northwestern Mexico, the drug traffickers sized up the boy—17 years old, 1,700 miles from home, gay, alone—and asked if he was too scared to strap on a load of marijuana and walk across the border into Arizona.

Tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors were shipped to the US over the past two years. Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have exported close to 100,000 in 2014 alone, bringing with them an untenable financial burden, among other problems. Besides the fact that the standard for discerning who is a "child" is only a little better than actually knowing who they may be and what they've been doing, there is still the undeniable fact that this population is a favorite target for the lowest of the low and they will be exploited particularly because they are being lured or driven to the US. I get that you're interest in exploiting minors is limited to a domestic political agenda and nothing to do with helping resolve the root cause of an ongoing humanitarian disaster but the damage it can do can be summed up with this word: Tsarnaev.

Make no mistake about it - these people will become dependent on others as soon as they enter the United States. Their presence will foster the favored sham argument for bringing in distant family members - because "you can't keep families apart" - even though the family is all too often behind the forced movement of the minor abroad.

But watch the stalwart leftist leaders line up to volunteer their domestic charges with greater obligations to absorb imported poverty, violence, and cultural backwardness. The mayor of Baltimore seems to be ready to play and since she and her predecessors have already fostered an environment that might require a little less acclimation for downtrodden Third Worlders, who is surprised?

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who has identified increased immigration as one of the keys to growing Baltimore's population, said, "I hope that refugees from Syria will look to our city as a potential place to call home."

Seriously mark, would you send your kid or grand-kid to Baltimore?!

I think the safest and most sensible thing to do would be to provide real refuge in surrounding countries - Turkey and Jordan - while giving a true effort to destroy the Islamic State. That would be for starters but it would take leadership from the United States and that's just not going to happen with this President.

mark said...


I realize you might be embarrassed, but you did offer the pathetic excuse that we shouldn't allow child refugees into the U.S. because they might encounter problems on the journey.

Twisting your perverse logic into a claim that I have sinister motives towards children? Typical of how your mind works.

No worries. It's no worse (or better) than your ramblings about baby parts, accusations about child rapists or jokes about ISIS beheading U.S. citizens. It's just who you are.

tfhr said...


Do you know how many children have drowned enroute from Libya and Turkey just this year?

Do you even care? Those children along with the thousands of adults lost could have been saved if there was a coordinated effort to keep them from embarking from places like Obama's ruined Libya, but at this point, what difference does it make anyway?

Furthermore, given the savagery we just saw in Paris, why in the hell wouldn't you want to be exactly sure who we would let into the US? You know full well that the thousands of "Syrians" being considered for relocation here is not solely comprised of widows and orphans. Not by a long shot. You're either an idiot or intellectually dishonest to even suggest it.

The staggering number of children forced into the sex trade by human traffickers should be enough for you to demand that we seal off our southern border. The Nobel Peach Prize winner and part time President should be doing something to stanch the flow of minors to the US - not encouraging it - but his JV leadership skills and apparent lack of interest in destroying groups like ISIS and Boko Haram just keep the flood of refugees and the blood flowing.

You sure can pick'em, mark.

mark said...

I have been critical of Obama on a number of issues, including his actions and words regarding the Middle East. But yes, I am with him when it comes to opposing the Iraq war, torturing, Guantanamo and allowing refugees in after vetting them. Not only are the opposing positions wrong and immoral, but they serve as recruitment tools for terrorists. You and other conservative play right into there hands.
Perhaps you are listening too much to Trump. The borders cannot and should not be sealed, and it is idiocy to think otherwise. Perhaps you like his idea of making all Muslims carry a special I.D. Or the idea of allowing only Christians. Or the idea by the highly'respected Daily Caller of allowing only hot Syrian chicks, and let the ugly ones die.

tfhr said...


Are you trying to be humorous? Pace yourself, you're not very good at it. I remember when liberals were funny but then a lot of them wandered into the Progressivism swamp, like you, and seemed to have lost their humanity along with their sense of humor.

I think this commentary from Walter Russell Mead (via Betsy) sums it up succinctly:

To think that conspicuous moral posturing and holy posing over a symbolic refugee quota could turn President Obama from the goat to the hero of the Syrian crisis is absurd. Wringing your hands while Syria turns into a hell on earth, and then taking a token number of refugees, can be called many things, but decent and wise are not among them. You don’t have to be a xenophobe or a racist or even a Republican to reject this President’s leadership on Syria policy. All you need for that is common sense and a moral compass.

Guess that pretty much counts you out, mark!

mark said...

Generally I have a pretty good sense of humor. But no, I don't think jokes about ISIS beheading U.S. citizens or jokes about which refugees to let in are funny.

Now, conservatives whining about the media while citing from organizations like the Daily Caller? Now that's funny.

tfhr said...


Don't lose your head!

When you want to do your deflection thing to render a thread void of useful discussion it's important not to sound whiny or hurt. You used to be so good at that but now acting butt-hurt about something you obviously don't care about just underscores your real indifference to the murder, mayhem and suffering that is going on at the hands of the Islamic State.

Use your head - don't lose it - reach for a topic of substance, not the Kleenex or an approved talking point. Instead of reflexively rushing to the aid of the JV trio of Obama-MrsBill-Kerry, why not address the real problem behind the mad rush of migrants overwhelming Europe? Waving your arms to fan a smoke screen - an ill-considered feint involving a notional orphans and widows only exodus - telegraphs your true intent to hide Obama's shameful conduct in the face of an onslaught of Jihadist operations that are spreading across Europe, Africa and Asia.

Dry your eyes, wipe your nose and consider this list:

Pulled US troops out of Iraq too soon; faltered and collapsed at his own "red line" in Syria; left the Kurds out to swing in the wind; created a failed state and terrorist armory out of Libya; held the door open for Russia and Iran in Iraq, Syria and Egypt; abandoned Egypt; releases terrorist leaders from Guantanamo and the list goes on....

But you're worried about some bad press for the JV Prez? I guess that shows you're feeling guilty for supporting this miserable fool in the White House and you're really worried about Hillary but no wonder: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3324857/Not-laughing-matter-Hillary-Clinton-campaign-demands-comedy-club-takes-video-mocking-owner-claims.html

Again, the humorless theme of Progressives is evident! Maybe if you sort didn't take your own clownish efforts to avoid a substantive discussion of the issues at hand so seriously you'd be more human and might even show interest in putting a stop to a humanitarian crisis so ably abetted by peevish Progressive-in-Chief, Barack Obama.

Oh, and as for that "recruiting" meme Obama keeps trotting out - that needs a reality check. Letting terrorist leaders out of GITMO is a big, fat, freaking green light, don't you think? Failing to take effective action to defeat the Islamic State on the ground in Iraq and Syria is a billboard sized recruiting poster! Mewling some hash-tag "Save Our Girls" tweet in response to a mass kidnapping is an invitation to Jihadists everywhere to partake in violence against innocent people because they have it in writing that the Americans, under Obama, will do NOTHING!

But mark, don't waste another second giving this issue any thought at all! Go! Go now! Go after the Republicans and the Daily Caller before they get together and make a YouTube video, you deluded chump!

mark said...

Consider this list-
We now know of even more warnings Bush received before Sept. 11

-His lie of not having an "inkling" of impending attacks eclipses any lie told by Obama or Clinton. If he had been nearly as concerned with our security as he had with clearing brush, the attacks may have been prevented.

-The decision to invade Iraq was a mistake, as was the decision to disband the Iraqi army, which led to the creation of ISIS. Far from "spitting on the troops" as you disgracefully charged, opposing the war was the right decision.

Obama certainly hasn't cleaned up Bush's mess, and in some cases has made it worse. The conservatives who want to stop Syrian refugees and force Muslims to carry "special ids" and be registered are cowards and make a mockery of our principles.

Of course, none of that explains your continued accusations and conspriracy theories. You've had some dark thoughts about molesting children, using body parts and beheadings. Those twisted ideas come from your head, and then you ascribe them to other people.

On this very thread, you bizarrely accused me of having sinister motives towards children coming from Latin America:

You should be a conductor on La Bestia - you're perfect for the job - "Right this way kiddies...Uncle marco has some dulces for you."

No tears, no tissue, no request for an apology. Just a simple challenge to you to present whatever evidence you have to make that claim.

tfhr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tfhr said...

Still sniveling about being mocked - I guess that's your new thing. God help you if the media ever does to precious Hillary or the JV Prez, what they typically do to anyone that opposes their idiotic, leftist policies!

Try living in the shoes of the millions of Americans that are routinely dismissed as racist or misogynist simply for disagreeing with a man more left wing than any other American President in the history of this nation or for daring to question the coronation of a thoroughly corrupt and dishonest woman that has essentially ridden a sham marriage to the nomination.

When you want to talk about issues, I'll welcome the opportunity, but all I ever see is you dealing one slimy invective after another, so you get it back in kind. Go blow your nose.

tfhr said...

Writhing in convulsions of BDS, mark tries desperately to deflect for the failures of Obama but that's better than the usual screaming of "LIAR!LIAR!"

Now he will, for the first time in 14 years, be the first to provide the actionable intelligence that would have prevented 9-11: _________


(I'd love to hear what the intelligence was and what measures* would have been needed to prevent 9-11 since you've had the vapors over stories you've heard about what evil Republicans (and some Dems) would do to prevent terrorists from infiltrating groups of refugees headed to the US as they've done in Europe.)

* - No fair simply saying "Undoing 8 years of Clinton dithering and Gorelick damage in 8 months.

mark said...

The White House had (at least ) 28 Advanced Intelligence Warnings Prior to 9/11

Compiled by Eric Smith

www.globalresearch.ca 11 February 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html

1. NY Times: Bush Warned bin Laden Would Hijack Planes
"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft..."
2. CNN: Bush briefed on hijacking threat before 9-11
"President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday."
3. UK Guardian: Bush knew terrorists would hijack planes
"George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday?. The memo received by Bush on 6 August contained unconfirmed information passed on by British intelligence in 1998 revealing that al-Qaeda operatives had discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993."

mark said...

4. Sunday Herald: Britain warned Bush to expect 9-11 al-Qaeda hijackings
"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
5. Village Voice: Officials Warned of Plans to Attack DC, NY with Planes
"The U.S. government had received repeated warnings of impending attacks?and attacks using planes directed at New York and Washington?for several years. The government never told us about what it knew was coming."
6. AP: 9/11 report, Rice conflict; Bush got specific data on threats
"...the briefing given to the president a month before the suicide hijackings included recent intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives to the United States to carry out an attack using high explosives."
7. MSNBC: White House Briefed on Imminent bin Laden Attack
"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"

mark said...

B: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
- Title of the CIA's Aug. 6 briefing memo to President Bush . . .
9. Newsweek: Day before 9-11, Pentagon Generals Cancelled Flights
"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/629606.asp (link dead)

mark said...

10. SF Gate: Mayor got 8-hour warning Before 9-11 Attacks ? September 12, 2001
For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.
11. Florida State: Jeb Bush Declares Martial Law 9-7-01
"Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism..."
12. CBS News: Ashcroft Avoided Commercial Travel Prior to 9-11
"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term."
13. UK Independent: Taliban Mole Warning Ignored
"Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil."

mark said...

14. NY Times: "President Mubarek Warned US of Al Qaeda Plot”
"Egyptian intelligence warned American officials about a week before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's network was in the advance stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview on Sunday."
15. Village Voice: US Ignored France Warnings
"A key point in unraveling why the FBI failed to follow up leads on Al Qaeda terrorism now centers on the Bureau's contemptuously brushing aside warnings from French intelligence a few days before 9-11."
16. Intl. Herald Tribune: White House Ignored Arab Warnings
"When the hubbub about what the White House did or didn't know before Sept. 11 dies down, Congressional or other investigators should consider the specific warnings that friendly Arab intelligence services sent to Washington in the summer of 2001."
17. UK News-Telegraph: Israel issued urgent warning of large-scale terror attacks
Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."

mark said...

18. NY Post: FBI Warned D.C. It Was A Target
"A Minnesota FBI agent investigating Zacarias Moussaoui testified yesterday that he notified the Secret Service weeks before Sept. 11 that a terror team might hijack a plane and 'hit the nation's capital.'"
19. Yahoo News: FBI Warnings Ignored
"An FBI supervisor, sounding a prophetic pre-Sept. 11 alarm, warned FBI headquarters that student pilot Zacarias Moussaoui was so dangerous he might 'take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center,' a congressional investigator said in a report Tuesday."
20. Independent: America had 12 warnings of aircraft attack
"American intelligence received many more clues before the 11 September attacks than previously disclosed, that terrorists might hijack planes and turn them into weapons, a joint congressional committee was told yesterday."
21. Washington Post: 9/11 Probe Says Agencies Failed to Heed Attack Signs
"U.S. intelligence agencies received many more indications than previously disclosed that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network was planning imminent "spectacular" attacks in the summer of 2001 aimed at inflicting mass casualties."

mark said...

22. Yahoo News: Spy Agencies Had Pre-9/11 Threats on U.S. Soil
"U.S. intelligence agencies picked up threats of attacks inside the United States and of using airplanes as weapons during the spring and summer before last year's Sept. 11 attacks, but were more focused on the possibility of an assault overseas, a congressional source said on Tuesday."
23. Vanity Fair: Bin Laden Relatives Secretly Evacuated From NY
"Patrick Tyler of the New York Times is reporting from Washington: 'In the first days after the attacks on Sept. 11, the Saudi Arabian ambasador to Washington, Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, supervised the urgent evacuation of 24 members of Osama bin Laden's extended family from the United States fearing they might be subjected to violence.'"
24. Sydney Morning Herald: Administration Told US agents “Back off bin Ladens”
"US special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, it was reported today."
25. Ha'aretz Daily: CEO Says Workers Warned Hours Before

mark said...

25. Ha'aretz Daily: CEO Says Workers Warned Hours Before World Trade Center Hit -- FBI Investigating
"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack."
26. NY Times: White House Approved Secret Evacuation of Bin Ladens After 9-11
"Richard Clarke, who ran White House crisis team after Sept 11 terror attacks, says top White House officials personally approved evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from United States in days after Sept 11, when most flights were grounded." http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/090503A.shtml
27. Tampa Tribune: Bodyguards tell of Secret Bin Laden Flight
"The hastily arranged flight out of Raytheon Airport Services, a private hangar on the outskirts of Tampa International Airport, was anything but ordinary. It lifted off the tarmac at a time when every private plane in the nation was grounded due to safety concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks. "

28. UK Minister: "Bush had Foreknowledge of 9-11 attacks"
"...it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance."

tfhr said...

mark, you're such a fool! Did you read any of that mess? This is why I tell you to use your own thoughts and to back it up with actual research. You obviously didn't do that. And you still don't get the whole part about what actionable means and you've never presented any evidence of a single measure that could have been taken to prevent the attack.

You should read the first link for the NYT article if you want a little insight on the impact of Jamie Gorelick's efforts to prevent collaboration between law enforcement and the Intelligence Community while she served Bill Clinton.

After that article 5 of the first 9 links fail - the Herald Scotland article, the Village Voice article, the Slate article, and the first MSNBC article are unavailable. That's some rigor there, mark. I see that this weak effort on your part is all based on the work of someone named Eric Smith. What? Couldn't you find Dan Rather or Mary Mapes to check your story? (<<-- Look! I'm mocking you again - I'm not really calling you a failed CBS hack but I bet you would make a great train conductor south of the border)

I stopped reading your crap when I saw that you knowingly posted a "dead link" as you put it, that supposedly would've taken me to a story about how "Pentagon Generals Cancelled Flights 'On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.' Ask yourself, you worthless f---wit, did those "Pentagon Generals" also stay away from the Pentagon the next day? I guess they must have also really had it in for US Army LTG Timothy J. Maude, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, because he died there that day with a lot of other good people, including the victims on Flight 77, and none of your "Pentagon Generals" did a thing to stop it, according to you. What a f-ing idiot you must be to base your sick, twisted opinions on garbage like that MSNBC link! I'll be thinking of this the next time you are sputtering about conservatives and conspiracies.

tfhr said...

A friend of mine spent the entire day trying to figure out if his wife died in the Pentagon that morning. She had just come back from maternity leave and was at a meeting just a few rings away from where LTG Maude was having a meeting of his own. She was watching a news report about the WTC events when Flight 77 hit the building. She literally had to run from flames coming down the hall. I had left the building just one week before 9-11 and spent my morning trying to get word back to my parents and my sister that I was not at the Pentagon anymore. You cannot imagine how useless cell phone and land line communications were that morning unless you were trying to reach loved ones and co-workers that were unaccounted for in the aftermath.

Actionable intelligence, mark. You don't have squat and you don't seem to even know what it means.

You're wailing and gnashing your teeth over the fact that many Americans think the risk is too great to bring thousands of people into the country that we have no way to reliably vet. Obama bootlicks like you call those people racist, cowards, etc., but not because you even believe that but because you cannot survive the debate with your argument intact and the exercise helps to draw attention away from the unmitigated foreign policy disaster of Obama, Kerry and Clinton's wife. We have no way to verify who most of these people are and can you imagine the kind of effort it would take to keep tabs on them all given the current paranoia about privacy, profiling, etc?

You copied a lot for nothing since you didn't manage to come up with a single measure that would have made a difference. If you had bothered to read that crap you would know that by now but then if you had even thought about what you were suggesting with a link that you even admitted did not work, you wouldn't have engaged in this pathetic display. I couldn't believe you did such a bad job so I scrolled further into your borrowed list of links and tried to look at #20 but that one doesn't work either and from the looks of the topic, I'm not surprised. Which of those links did you even try and if they worked at all, what did you even read?

So mark, you've proven that you still have the capacity to sink lower when it didn't seem possible. And above all, you are beyond a doubt, intellectually lazy and dishonest. No wonder the Dems can count on your vote and slavish obedience!

mark said...

Coming from the person who excused W's apathy about catching OBL ("I truly am not that concerned about him") by declaring OBL dead based on a "decrease in communiques", your criticisms are silly.

You don't think any of that info makes the statement below a cruel lie?

"Had we had any inkling, whatsoever, that terrorists were about to attack our country, we would have moved heaven and Earth to protect America,"

tfhr said...

Wow, you're back after that embarrassing display of intellectual ineptitude, laziness, and dishonesty. I guess we can add that you have no shame as well. (More evidence that you are and always will be a stalwart for the party, right mark?)

But I'll play along and ask (again) what they should have done with all of this inactionable intelligence?

Should they have barred all Muslims from boarding aircraft? Strip searched all Arab military aged men? I can hear the left shrieking "RACISM!" and "PROFILING!". I guess they could've thrown in a few Japanese grandmothers to make it seem like they weren't looking for 19 Jihadists minus the one that was already sitting in jail. What? And have the FBI, ICE, and the Intelligence Community "connect the dots"?! Not on Jamie Gorelick's watch you won't! Not over many, many dead bodies you won't.

Your pathetic reprise of the campaign season complaint about how you think Bush wasn't interested in bin Laden is very telling. Has it ever occurred to you that the war being waged against modernity, the United States and the rest of the world, by the animals that think you should either convert to their religion or die is just a bit wider scale than one man?

You'd think the events after bin Laden's death would have made that abundantly clear even to the dullest among Obama's sycophants. Oh wait, the Islamic State, reborn and invigorated by Obama's precipitous retreat from a stabilized Iraq is just a JV team,...with tens of thousands of troops, oil fields, international funding, the ability to attack Russian airliners, the ability to kill scads of innocents in Paris twice in one year, to inspire the likes of Boko Haram, to draw recruits from China to Minnesota, and to move two residents of Arizona to attempt to commit mass murder in Texas over a cartoon, you'd think even you would see the lie in the bumper sticker slogan of "GM is Alive and bin Laden is Dead"! The value of that notion is so thin that even you should have been able to read it - perhaps in the flickering light of burning American buildings in Benghazi. (Wasn't that the set of a YouTube video? Talk about "cruel lies", you utterly pathetic little toadie!)

Your obsession with calling everyone that you disagree with a liar is just fascinating to me. From that quote - I didn't bother to look it up after your ridiculous attempt to pass off a bunch of worthless, broken links as evidence, or research, or whatever you thought it might be - I gather you have seized on the word "inkling" to call it a "cruel lie". Here is the truth: You have not provided any actionable intelligence and have not dared to suggest what measures might have had a chance to prevent the attack.

Today you are apoplectic because many, if not most, Americans do not want "Syrian" "refugees" brought into the country. Such a smoke screen when there is clear evidence (see Paris, see Boston) that people are coming from afar to live in and then destroy places and people we know and love. We don't know these people, it seems, until it is too late. That is unacceptable for most people and I don't understand why you don't feel the same way.

If you are truly concerned about the suffering in Syria and Iraq, why not push the President to do something about it instead of engaging in all of this BS you're doing right now? Besides, the bumper sticker has fallen off that little pony you've ridden into the ground. You need to find a new ride and I'm not talking about that pant-suited nag that can't seem to see the threat well enough to identify it but never seems to be at a loss to lie about it.

mark said...

Not quite sure how I or anyone can claim "Bush wasn't interested in bin Laden"?

"I truly am not that concerned about him"

tfhr said...

Then what's your point? Seems to me he realized that the threat to the United States was much more than that posed by one terrorist, why haven't you or your JV Prez and Bill's doormat figured that out yet?

What have you got? Can't find anymore broken links to 9-11 Truther conspiracies?

Give your own opinion on what was actionable and what could have been done or STFU.

Explain why this country should accept the same kind of risk that France has taken by allowing in unknowable people or STFU.

Be a man.

The Vikings and Green Bay are playing later this afternoon and I'm wrapping up some yard work so I'm off net for at least another hour and a half. Do you think you can find your own ideas and words by then because if this is all you have, I'm not going to bother with you later on in the evening. You're becoming a complete waste of time.

mark said...

"Not worried" about the mastermind of an attack in our country that killed 3000 people? That changed our lives in so many ways? Not only did you defend him, you justified it by saying OBL was already dead.

Ironic that you want me to use my own words when I've been asking you to "be a man" and take responsibility for your accusations. So here's another chance: Any evidence of your recent claims, including that I want to exploit children coming to the states:

Maybe you could make a lamp shade or a "Baby On Board" sign - made of real baby - to hang inside your Prius, you repulsive ghoul!!!!

Oh no! mark is aghast because the NRA, according to mark, wants children to die horrible deaths so that politicians can reap the benefits of campaign contributions!

So with your feeble attempt to deflect, you're saying you're good with harvesting baby parts for campaign
funding, got it.

You should be a conductor on La Bestia - you're perfect for the job - "Right this way kiddies...Uncle marco has some dulces for you."

Hope your team wins and/or your raking goes well. Sounds like you need a success now and then.

tfhr said...

pobrecito marco,

You're so aggrieved! "Stop making fun of me because I can't defend myself or my ideas!", mark sniveled.

You're so fond of pasting comments that have hurt your delicate sensibilities, you must keep a list: "Bad Things That Hurt My Feelings"

So you fumbled around and didn't get to these (and we know why):

Give your own opinion on what was actionable and what could have been done or STFU.

Explain why this country should accept the same kind of risk that France has taken by allowing in unknowable people or STFU.

Didn't realize you had trademarked "Be a man", which is surprising to me since you're kind of pants suit kind of guy, aren't you?

mark said...

Tenet vividly recalls the White House meeting with Rice and her team. (George W. Bush was on a trip to Boston.) “Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States.’" [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”
“What happened?” I ask Cofer Black. “Yeah. What did happen?” he replies. “To me it remains incomprehensible still. I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened? It’s kind of like The Twilight Zone.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353#ixzz3sGT0YCEZ

mark said...

If I were offended by any insults by your, I wouldn't be here. For all my many faults, I'm secure in the knowledge that I don't support terrorists, collect body parts or molest children, as you have claimed. Your "insults" tell far more about you and your fellow conservatives than they do about me.

Just as conservatives like to share the insane statements and acts by liberals, I enjoy sharing the disgraceful comments by conservatives. I especially enjoy contrasting the tough talk with the more cowardly statements. So thank you. Although I do wish I had saved your jokes about Isis killing U.S. citizens.

tfhr said...

Yeah mark,go find where I tell jokes about ISIS, you know, like calling thm "JV".

So where's the actionable intelligence? Still haven't seen it from you and you tell me what "wartime footing now" means. Did that guy want to start shooting down aircraft or deploying troops? What was the measure that was to be put in place with "wartime footing"?

Let's hear your own words on that inane quote.

While you're at it, tell us why the United States should accept the risk of bringing thousands of people that ISIS has said it will infiltrate - just like they did in France.

Or run away again.