ISIS’s Plans

I have no problem believing that they plan to kill hundreds of millions of people in the name of Islam. It’s what totalitarians do. As Glenn says, “There are quite a few people in the world who are happy to join a movement that lets them do unspeakable things while being praised for it. The traditional response to such people was to kill them as soon as possible.”

But the Obama administration prefers non-traditional responses.

13 thoughts on “ISIS’s Plans”

  1. When someone says he wants to kill me and my family, I take him at his word. Perhaps it’s time to bring back napalm and cluster bombs.

    1. “When someone says he wants to kill me and my family, I take him at his word. ”

      Same here. I don’t look for nuance…I don’t imagine the person is quibbling..I don’t wonder if it’s just diplo-speak…..that he didn’t really *mean* it…..that it’s just pap for their masses.

      When someone says that, they are to be obliterated immediately.

      And if it was diplo-speak…others might think twice about using that particular brand of diplomacy. And I’m not interested in taking the risk that it was only diplo-speak, because If I choose poorly, my family is dead.

  2. The bombing campaign keeps wrecking the equipment they stole from the Iraqi army at a steady clip. However the US has already said it is going to send more tanks and MRAPS to Iraq. Geez I wonder if they will go into ISIS hands as well?

    It is good for the defense contractors though. They sell equipment to Iraq and then they sell weapons for the US Government to bombard that same equipment. Time to buy some Raytheon stock.

  3. “The traditional response to such people was to kill them as soon as possible.”

    What examples come to mind for you? Because I think about the Nazis and the WWII-era Japanese, and the Russian communists, and the Chinese Communists, and the American slavers, and various other beastly people, and while many of them ended up getting killed, I can’t think of any who were killed as soon as possible.

      1. I’m not sure what point you are making by quibbling over which adjective to use. I suppose I’m missing something. My point was that when the USA was confronted with the Nazis, we didn’t try to kill them as soon as possible (and the US would have waited longer if the so-called America First Republicans had gotten their way). Why would we quicker to kill ISIS members than we were to kill Nazis?

        Similarly, throughout history, when movements popped up which ” lets people do unspeakable things while being praised for it”, the people weren’t killed as soon as possible, so I disagree that this is the traditional approach.

        1. The issue isn’t adjectives. The issue is the kind of people we’re talking about. Those who want to kill hundreds of millions of people. You don’t you think we should eradicate them before they do that?

          1. I think Bob wants the “beastly” people to prove the ability to follow up on the threats before we correct the problem.
            Something along the lines of allowing an obviously rabid dog to roam free until it bites someone.
            His position tells me he thinks nobody he cares about will be hurt in the isis 1st strike

          2. No, I’m a liberal interventionist. I probably want war more than you do, and I probably want more war than you do. My problem is that I’d have US troops deployed (and actively fighting) in more than half the countries in the world. I see the problems with my position, believe me.

            But my comments were pointing out what was the *norm* in US history. I was staying on topic: the topic was what was the “traditional” response to a “movement that lets [people] do unspeakable things while being praised for it”, or alternatively, the topic was what was the “traditional” response to people who wanted to kill millions of others. I’m merely pointing out that confronted with the dangerous and murderous regimes of the Nazis and Imperial Japan, the US waited before joining the war. Confronted with the dangerous and murderous regimes of the various communists, the US hung back, and aside from a few exceptions like Vietnam and Korea, we didn’t really engage (that is, we never never attacked the regimes in the Soviet Union and China directly, and today we refrain from attacking the North Korean regime, etc). And it isn’t just the USA — confronted with dangerous and murderous regimes, the “traditional” response is not to kill them as soon as possible. That’s my claim, anyway — I asked for examples to the contrary in my initial comment, and still haven’t heard any.

          3. Every once in a while however, the US does actually get involved early. For example, in Libya. Well, no, actually, not Libya — after all Col. Qaddafi was demonstrably murderous and dangerous throughout the 1980s, and President Reagan was quite restrained with him. But 25 years later, after threatening to kill perhaps up to half a million people in Benghazi, Qaddafi was finally stopped via a NATO-led intervention. I think the job wasn’t finished in Libya, but Obama’s willingness to at least get started was better than the traditional mostly hands-off approach taken by Presidents like Reagan, right? Strangely, the Libya intervention was opposed by the same people who now want intervention against ISIS, even though both are dangerous and murderous regimes. Anyway, I do want intervention against ISIS, and I want finish the job in Libya. And in Iraq. But at least ISIS doesn’t have nukes. Yet. We need regime change in Pakistan and North Korea and Iran before it is too late. Are you with me?

          4. ” I think the job wasn’t finished in Libya, but Obama’s willingness to at least get started was better than the traditional mostly hands-off approach taken by Presidents like Reagan, right? ”

            No. Bush undertook a significant diplomatic effort to deal with Libya. They had given up their wmd programs and were cooperating with us in other areas as well. Hardly a hands off approach. And smart power Obama comes in and shows the world that complying with American demands can still get bombs dropped on you, making it less likely countries like Libya will comply with the diplomatic efforts of future presidents.

            “Strangely, the Libya intervention was opposed by the same people who now want intervention against ISIS”

            People were opposed because we have two other countries that should be higher up the priority chain, Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember the criticism that Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan? Why then add another? People were also opposed because Obama is an idiot who had no intention to go to congress or put together a military campaign that rose above theatrics.

            Then there was the whole arming, training, and acting as close air support for Muslim militants that we were already fighting in two other countries and who then spread to other Arab Spring countries after the Libya debacle. Obama had zero qualms about siding with our enemies because he has a fairy tale view of Islamic militants.

            Then Obama doubled down on stupid and started arming Syrian rebel groups which were allies with ISIS. That turned out great.

        2. “Why would we quicker to kill ISIS members than we were to kill Nazis?”

          Cats out of the bag. We have been fighting ISIS for a decade or so and its predecessors for even longer. Back during the war, Democrats called them Iraqi insurgents but now that Bush is gone they can safely call them ISIS. ISIS is, and was, a group of international fighters (including Iraqis) who were fighting to establish a caliphate and were not then, or now, motivated by Iraqi nationalism.

          Besides, if the Nazi attacked us we would have responded. ISIS has been attacking us for a long time and Democrats don’t seem to give a rip as long as they are killing our soldiers and waging genocide on groups Democrats don’t particularly like anyway.

Comments are closed.