"BEIRUT — Islamic State extremists released a video posted Tuesday
showing the beheading of a second American journalist, Steven Sotloff, and
warning President Barack Obama that as long as U.S. airstrikes against the
militant group continue, 'our knife will continue to strike the necks of
your people.'"Barack Hussein Obama's response?"We don't have a strategy yet."
No need to worry folks, "ISIS are JV league terrorists" according to our
commander in chief.
Sven,What do you propose? Specifics please.....
Obama should contact President Bush for advice. GWB knows how to take care of
terrorists- you take them out, period! Obama "has no strategy".
Joe Blow,Are you seriously suggesting the average commenter on the
des news should have as an articulate plan to combat terrorist as the president
of our country. Wow - you really don't have much faith in our
I'm curious as to why the DN groups this AP report in the Faith section.
BO says he can reduce ISIS to a manageable problem. How many beheadings are
“manageable”? going from one a month to one every other month? One
a quarter? How about stonings, how many of those constitute a
“manageable” number?BO is in over his head, always has
been, always will be.Joe Blow,Even DEMS on the house and
senate intelligence committees say BO needs to act more forcefully. Ask them
what should be done, since they have access to intelligence material.
"....In its rise to prominence over the past year, the extremist group has
frequently published graphic photos and gruesome videos of everything from
bombings and beheadings to mass killings."______________________________They apparently know how to
manipulate the Western press into giving the headlines they so crave.
That’s what you might call economy of effort.
A few narrow minded extremists are faulting President of the United States,
Barack Obama for "not having a strategy yet."But these same
folks seemed fine with Bush starting wars without waiting for any strategy at
all!Further proof that their prejudice against Obama has nothing to
do with reason.
@ southmtnman:President Bush had a strategy. That's why Saddam
Hussein was toppled so quickly. A good strategy could also topple ISIS... if
Obama takes action soon. The longer he waits, the more difficult it will become.
He knew they were a threat more than a year ago and could've taken
most of them out with airstrikes when they were in the open while crossing the
deserts in north-central Iraq 6 months ago. In both cases, he chose to do
nothing. Now the cost to accomplish the same thing will be much higher.
That's one of the costs of his habit of indecision.
So many foreign policy experts here on the blogs. I'm amazed that more
state department positions aren't filled by DN readers or Faux news
viewers. Yes the world is a dangerous place, always has been, always will
be. But I have more fear of sabre rattling know it alls with little knowledge
of the facts or the vision to understand the possible outcome of their actions.
The last thing the world needs now is another rich cowboy with little
understanding of life outside the country club.
southmtnman"A few narrow minded extremists are faulting President of
the United States, Barack Obama for "not having a strategy yet."You slay me with your humor!Diane Feinstein and the other
dems on the house and senate intelligence committees are "narrow-minded
extremists"? Yeah, probably, but not in the same contect you are
It is time to institute a "no-exception" draft.
@ FT:Your nonsensical comment added absolutely nothing objective or
positive to the ongoing dialog. It simply demonstrated you have nothing in
defense to preceding anti-current administration comments. Please come back and
try against after doing a bit of research and pondering. Rhetorical comments are
a dime a dozen and should be dispensed with.
@Thid Barker – “GWB knows how to take care of terrorists- you take
them out, period! Obama "has no strategy"You do realize that
Obama has killed more Islamic terrorists, including the one that killed 3000 of
our citizens, than Bush ever did, don’t you?But I realize that
for many, facts don’t matter – what matters is how you look, talk
@ FT:What exactly are your credentials for determining who are
foreign policy experts and who are not? You write as if you consider yourself to
be one. But it actually seems as if you are less of one than those you are
criticize. At least they objectify and reason out their comments. You
didn't even try to. You are right about claiming the world is a
dangerous place. It appears to becoming more-so lately, based on many current
events. That's perhaps the premise of the article and reason for readers
sharing their opinions. What I find hard to understand is why you fear those
readers and their opinions more than ISIS and other ultra-violent militant
groups who claim to want world domination. That makes no sense at all. But
that's what you claim.If you really feel other people
commenting on this post have no knowledge of any of the facts, as you stated,
then please take a few minutes and enlighten us with the many facts that you
ostensibly have and the "vision" the rest of us supposedly lack. Are you really that much of an expert?
@ Tyler D:Actually, facts do matter to many of us. As such, please
share with us the facts of your assertion that Obama has killed more terrorists
than Bush. What is the count for each and the verifiable sources of
information that you use? I'm sincerely interested to know the actual facts
involved regarding your statement... if there actually are any.
Simple enough. Anyone posting on the DN News blog (including myself) is
probably not an expert. Americans and journalist have been getting killed
overseas since the country was created. That will never change. We're
targets because of who we are. ISIL has strengthened over the past year because
of the instability in Syria and Iraq. Both countries will probably remain
unstable unless we are willing to park 100's of thousands of troops over
there and spend billions of dollars. We can't afford to do that and most
realize it will likely not do any long term good.BO has a politcal problem
here at home when it comes to his foreign policy. I don't think he really
cares about that because he is lame duck President and he'll do what he
thinks is in the country and the worlds best interest. He has shown no problem
striking out and killing thousands of terrorist if the situation suggest it. My
guess is he'll handle this crisis like all the others, with patience, and a
careful examination of the facts and likely out come.
@ FT:Your followup comment made much more sense than the original
and I commend you for it. However, I don't think it would take
hundreds of thousands of American troops to control ISIL since we would be
fighting along with other local militaries. A fraction of that number (just tens
of thousands) would be enough to bolster and give leadership to those
non-American allied militaries. They mostly lack leadership and
modern fighting equipment more than anything else. That's what it would
take to make a meaningful long-term difference. America could supply those
things without going to the extent of waging an all-out war entailing hundreds
of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground...
especially if decisive action is taken sooner rather than later. I
don't believe Obama's drone strikes have killed multiple thousands of
terrorists, but I could be wrong. Do you have a verifiable source for your
statement?If Obama's primary concern is for our country's
good, he shouldn't be spending so much time golfing and attending
fundraising events during very crucial times. Even his own party is becoming
critical of his current indecisiveness.
@Tators – “please share with us the facts of your assertion that
Obama has killed more terrorists than Bush.”Well OK, I can do
the homework for you if you like… just a pretty quick google search
though. Since it is difficult to distinguish terrorists from those
simply fighting a foreign invader, let’s leave the ground wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan out of it and look just at drone strikes against known terrorists
(since their intent is surgical & targeted). Obama has killed
~2500 terrorists compared to ~500 under BushOr you could take the
word of Michael Hayden, Bush’s former director of the Central Intelligence
Agency who has described Obama’s anti-terrorism efforts as pretty much the
same as Bush’s only with a lot more killings.
@ Tyler:Since the original assertion was yours, the onus is on you
to provide verification, not me. As such, you aren't doing my homework. I
simply asked you to verify your own. And since you still haven't provided
any specific sources for your very rounded off (and thus questionable) numbers,
it appears you can't. Until you do, your numbers will still appear
made-up.Since terrorists and foreign invaders are usually synonyms
for the same animal, you can't legitimately distinguish between the two.
It's laughable that you said you want to leave the ground wars
out of it, since we both know that's where most of Bush's kill numbers
come from, while most of Obama's comes from drone strikes... the only
numbers you'd like to use. It doesn't work that way, Tyler. You have
to use the entire picture... not bits and pieces. Bush's number
is probably in the tens of thousands. But since the claims and assertions were
yours to begin with, you should provide more exact (and verifiable) numbers
using all the ways used to kill terrorists. Cherry-picking specific pieces of
limited data doesn't count.
@ Tyler D:When did Michael Hayden say that? I read a lot and
don't recall him ever saying such a thing. Please give a more specific time
and place for your claim. A specific online address reference is all that's
needed to suffice. Anyone can ascribe anything to anyone else
without verification. That doesn't prove a thing. As such, those kinds of
assertions don't hold water... at least not without some sort of proof or
way to verify. If you will do that, I will acquiesce. If you don't,
it can only be assumed that you can't.
Please refer to the following articles:Drone Warfare, by Jack Serle
published in January 2014 – for the stats on Drone kills.More
Killings in Obama’s War on Terror Than Bush’s War, by Kevin Gosztola
published in September 2012 – for comments by Michael Hayden.To your overall point about “homework” people make assertions and
arguments on this forum all the time and with a 200 word limit it would be
difficult to make any arguments of substance if we adhere to your standard of
always providing a fully referenced bibliography.Further, just
because you haven’t heard something before may say more about the news
sources you are choosing than anything else.In any case, my
“homework” comment was valid (yours was a red herring) and consider
yours complete… you’re welcome.PS – again, I
picked drone strikes because they were targeted (under both presidents)
specifically against terrorists. The fact that you would include every enemy
combatant killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same category as Osama Bin Laden
says far more about your presuppositions than any supposed “cherry
picking” on my part.
Obama may very well be a great human being.But he's not guided by the
right principles.We don't really know everything Obama is doing. He
may be trying his best to resolve this. I pray he is guided in making good
decisions on this.I'm sorry for this man's family. I
believe all peaceable people in the world ought to make it their first priority
to stop this barbarism. There isn't a military in the world that should sit
by and watch this happen and do nothing. I believe in using force as a last
resort. But we're past the "last resort" line. People are being
murdered brutally. It needs to stop.Other countries that think we
"step into other people's business" need to re-evaluate the
anti-American lies they've been spoon fed. We aren't beheading people.
We aren't murdering 3,000 people in sky scrapers. We didn't start
pearl harbor. We didn't invade a part of the world before know that they
murdered thousands and planning on murdering millions.It's not
us who needs to be stopped. We're not perfect, but we're not barbaric.