ISIS beheads journalist, James Foley

mccardey said:

Why on earth would we shower treasure on people who cut off people's heads with kitchen knives? Who's suggesting that?

Click to expand...

No one's suggesting that -- at least I hope not.

I was making a point that nothing we do will ever stop them from hating us -- taking it to the extreme of even giving them more than they're demanding. One cannot reason with the unreasonable. In my view (and as amply demonstrated by their actions), these people (those cutting the heads off others with kitchen knives) certainly qualify as unreasonable.

JimABassPlayer said:

. these people (those cutting the heads off others with kitchen knives) certainly qualify as unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I'd like them to be executed (there was a time I was opposed to the death penalty, but I'm an old lady now and the world's gone to hell in a handcart.) My problem is only with the method of dispatch. I think generally bombs create more trouble than they cure.

Great. We enter Iraq for a terrible reason...and leave it as a good one arrives.

I have no idea what to do.

mccardey said:

Them?

That's where it all goes wrong.

Click to expand...

No offense, I understand what you are meaning.

I just wish I had more answers or even ideas to make this and similar situations around the world better.

blacbird said:

I don't see this horror ending without serious U.S. military engagement. We went into Iraq eleven years ago on the blatantly false pretext of Saddam Hussein having "weapons of mass destruction." This is part of the fallout, and we will have to deal with it.

caw

Click to expand...

I agree, but then when does it stop? Its easy to forget that as soon as 2006 people were calling for us to leave Iraq, draw down the force, etc. Yeah, maybe it was a shitty war to get into and done so for horrible reasons. But that was 11 years ago, we did it, and we should have focused on cleaning up the mess instead of being so eager to wash our hands of it.

Unfortunately, I think if the military goes back in, crushes ISIS (which would pretty definitely happen), when does the mission end? Its not like this is an organized nation or military force. They would just scatter, wage a guerrilla campaign, and reform once our forces left. It would take a huge amount of political will and public support to secure Iraq again. I don't see anything other than a full occupation working and I don't think the US public nor world opinion would favor that.

Prozyan said:

Unfortunately, I think if the military goes back in, crushes ISIS (which would pretty definitely happen), when does the mission end? Its not like this is an organized nation or military force. They would just scatter, wage a guerrilla campaign, and reform once our forces left. It would take a huge amount of political will and public support to secure Iraq again. I don't see anything other than a full occupation working and I don't think the US public nor world opinion would favor that.

Click to expand...

This is it exactly - and I have no idea where or how it ends. But one thing is pretty sure - it doesn't end by simply bombing the current "they". So I'd hold off on bombs, if I was in charge.

ETA: I'm so glad I'm not in charge.

Prozyan said:

I agree, but then when does it stop? Its easy to forget that as soon as 2006 people were calling for us to leave Iraq, draw down the force, etc. Yeah, maybe it was a shitty war to get into and done so for horrible reasons. But that was 11 years ago, we did it, and we should have focused on cleaning up the mess instead of being so eager to wash our hands of it.

Click to expand...

Could not agree more.

Prozyan said:

I don't see anything other than a full occupation working and I don't think the US public nor world opinion would favor that.

Click to expand...

A full-scale occupation would probably not work in Iraq for multiple reasons. Yes, we (the U.S.) are still in Germany, Japan and Korea (not so much as previously in the former two, but still a presence) -- having been there for more than six decades. The Middle East, however, is not Europe or the Far East. The terrain and nature of the people living there make it extremely difficult to protect oneself from those who would do us harm -- unless we wanted to hem ourselves into deep, impenetrable bunkers or forts, but what good would that do towards maintaining order (which requires a presence on the streets and within the villages)?

I don't have an answer, either. All I know is we have to deal decisively with this threat before it grows any larger. Given the nature of global communication in this age, these people who hate us can contact and activate sleepers (or even just sympathetic nationals) within our countries to wreak havoc right here in our front yards. And I'm sure no one is naive enough to actually believe that our borders here in the U.S. are (in any reasonably non-deluded person's mind) secure.

I rarely post outside of forums strictly related to writing but this one caught me.

The terrorists creeps don't be-head as what we're usually accustomed to in film and literature, ie, a sword or guillotine that would end things quickly. Granted, I'm not advocating for any type of be-heading, but these sick pups are actually taking a handheld blade and slicing off the man's head like we would do to the end of an onion or eggplant. Even chickens, pigs, and cows have a quicker death. These A-holes seem to celebrate in their brutality, much like they did years ago to the American journalist captured in Afghanistan. They simply slice thru skin, bone, tendons while the poor subject gurgles as he suffers and dies.

These are the beasts we are faced with.

I only wish American media (CNN, Fox, etc) would show these executions in full, un-edited (after ten o'clock to prevent most youth from experiencing them), in order to demonstrate for real what we're up against. I'm not advocating for a sort of execution-porn hour. Just a real-life representation that maybe shocks the system and forces the American public to think hard about this. Right now, they "hear" about such things but are mostly ambivalent to them. But as we know, seeing is more affective than simply hearing.

God have mercy on those executed. But not those doing the executing.

gp101 said:

I only wish American media (CNN, Fox, etc) would show these executions in full, un-edited (after ten o'clock to prevent most youth from experiencing them), in order to demonstrate for real what we're up against.

Click to expand...

Well the family are actually asking people not to view, post or share so there's that. Also - why would people need to see it? It's evil. We know that. The killers love you to see it and feel their "power" - that's why they post the footage. But I won't be helping that agenda on any time soon.

(I do see your point. It just feels wrong to me.)

I don't want to see that video or any others. I saw one a few years ago on Faux News, an American contractor being beheaded. The screen faded to black before the actual 'act' but the sound remained on and I never, ever want to hear those screams again.

This makes me sick and sad and feeling hopeless. Too many people have dropped the ball here. ISIS rose out of nowhere and I can't for the life of me see how they can be stopped. Al Quaeda was neutered and these bastards have risen in their place. Neuter them and another group will take over. It's never-ending and as long as there are deluded fuckwits from other countries, like Britain, ready to join the 'cause' and provide finance, they won't go away.

As much as it would be great to send in the heavies to bomb them out of existence, that kind of offensive, will just create more martyrs and more hatred.

If anyone has a sensible answer, I'd love to hear it.

Adding this link from the BBC
The BBC has just posted on Twitter that David Cameron is returning early to Downing Street from his vacation for a meeting about this. There have been articles in the papers for weeks about Brits heading off to join these bastards and Cameron has expressed his concern that ISIS won't just confine their activities to the Middle East.
I hope they hunt this wankstain down and lob his head off with a rusty hacksaw.

We have zero good options at this point. We don't even have any acceptable options, frankly. That's been the case for a good long while now. Bombing Assad or arming the FSA last year (as I've seen some suggest) would have only facilitated the rise of ISIS - as Fire's link notes, we're not merely talking a faction of the Syrian and Iraqi opposition anymore, we're talking legions of disaffected assholes from all over the world. Cameron is right to be concerned.

Essentially, we broke the entire region irreparably. (Not that it was exactly paradise before). As far as what the solution is, god knows at this point. Boots on the ground looks increasingly likely to be part of it.

Stephen Walt has a slightly different take on the subject (I expect the headline will infuriate some - I'm sharing it for the insight on ISIS, not the author's opinion on Obama.)

Which brings us to the Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS). Unlike the reflexive threat-inflators who dominate the U.S. foreign-policy establishment, Obama didn't panic over the emergence of this lightly armed group of bloody-minded radicals whose new "caliphate" extends over a lot of mostly empty territory. He recognized that this group is brutal and that its recent advances need to be halted, but he also knew it wasn't the reincarnation of the Soviet empire, Nazi Germany, or even Baathist Iraq. In particular, Obama understood that the threat to the United States itself was neither large nor imminent and that a permanent solution to the problem would require local actors to step up. Instead of doing "the full McCain" and plunging back into the quicksand, Obama has done just enough to give the Kurds and the Iraqi government the opportunity to contain the problem themselves.
Not only has he kept the United States off the slippery slope -- at least so far -- but this policy convinced Iraqis to rid themselves of divisive Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and pick someone who might govern more effectively. As he has done before, Obama, in short, was essentially buck-passing, a time-honored realist tactic. His measured response took advantage of the Islamic State's brutality and overweening ambition, which convinced local actors with far more skin in the game to get serious about dealing with the problem.

Click to expand...

Though I imagine the article was written prior to yesterday's atrocity, the last sentence there is key for me - only way any of this gets solved in the long term is for regional actors to step up.

blacbird said:

I don't see this horror ending without serious U.S. military engagement. We went into Iraq eleven years ago on the blatantly false pretext of Saddam Hussein having "weapons of mass destruction." This is part of the fallout, and we will have to deal with it.

caw

Click to expand...

I don't see this ending WITH serious US Military engagement.

Not the way we've been doing it.

This is a direct result of the invasion in 2003. Another invasion isn't going to solve it.

Now, I have no idea how to deal with it. I just don't think a repeat performance is going to help.

Myrealana said:

This is a direct result of the invasion in 2003.

Click to expand...

Our policies might not have been helpful, but I see the causes of the current crisis mainly stemming from within the Middle East, not outside of it. That especially makes sense to me if the crisis is seen as connected with the conflict in Syria.

Myrealana said:

I don't see this ending WITH serious US Military engagement.

Not the way we've been doing it.

This is a direct result of the invasion in 2003. Another invasion isn't going to solve it.

Now, I have no idea how to deal with it. I just don't think a repeat performance is going to help.

Click to expand...

I agree with the red part highlighted above.

But military involvement need not be invasion. We could openly support the Kurds with logistics and maybe air support. We could lock down the border between Syria and Iraq. And, yes, we could go back in.

There's not just an A or B for choices.

I viewed this murder online. It was clear to me that Foley was reading or had been forced to memorize his statement. Why, he did this, I don't know. No one will, I suppose. Perhaps a few more moments of life are so precious that we cling to them. The murdering thugs, steeped in blood lust, were going to kill him in any event.

I honestly don't know if I would have had the guts to say out loud the 23rd Psalm, and defy these masked cowards, who btw are not executioners, but murderers. I hope that I would, but I'm not sure. It's easy to sit in the comfort of my home, sweet home and be confident and brave.

'Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for Thou art with me.'

blacbird said:

I don't see this horror ending without serious U.S. military engagement. We went into Iraq eleven years ago on the blatantly false pretext of Saddam Hussein having "weapons of mass destruction." This is part of the fallout, and we will have to deal with it.

caw

Click to expand...

+1

robjvargas said:

We could lock down the border between Syria and Iraq.

Click to expand...

I have to admit I hadn't thought of that, but it's an excellent idea.

With the technology we have today (satellite, drone, night vision), we could easily establish and maintain an electronic surveillance of the border (which sadly, we don't even do here at home -- mostly because those in power don't care about the border here at home -- which, in my view, is going to get us into even deeper trouble when the people cutting off heads in Iraq show up here with things far deadlier than kitchen knives).

By closing the border, we essentially cut off their ability to be resupplied and reinforced. In the meantime, we use the same technology to weed them out and turn them into dried up patches of goo on the desert floor.

The longer the world does nothing, however, the more their numbers will grow, as they are actively recruiting worldwide thanks to this technological world in which we live. They're using technology to strengthen their position; shouldn't the rest of us be using it to strengthen ours?

raburrell said:

Though I imagine the article was written prior to yesterday's atrocity, the last sentence there is key for me - only way any of this gets solved in the long term is for regional actors to step up.

Click to expand...

And as callous as it sounds, this is the best reason not to get involved militarily. I agree that the US bears responsibility for the power vacuum that has allowed ISIS to make a play for control. But even if we went back in, killed every last one of the motherfuckers and left, someone else would just come in and take their place. I agree that something should be done to stop ISIS, but I don't think American intervention is the way anymore.

One of the things that is scary (among many) about ISIS is their momentum which includes recruiting members from Western countries. They need to be stopped and stopped now. They are blatantly more murderous, cruel, and genocidal than other recent Islamist terrorist organizations, and they are highly funded. A terrorism expert on CNN this morning said they have made over 100 MILLION dollars from ransoms of kidnappings, paid for by European countries. And that doesn't even mention the millions they get from smuggling oil. They are slick and savvy and well funded. This is bad, and the threat to Western society is real. We could be shooting ourselves in the foot (or cutting off our own heads) by waiting for Iraq and its neighbors to get their s**t together. I'm not saying we should go in right now. But we should do more than we are doing, and we should increase our support for the Kurds which has been too little and too slow.

I think the following opinion piece from CNN is a good summary of things:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/opinion/ghitis-isis-foley-beheading/

ISIS views the videos of mass executions, of severed heads on poles and of crucified men, as a way to keep its enemies frightened and weakened, and a way to tell prospective recruits that it is fearless in its war to create an Islamic caliphate ruling over all the world's Muslims. Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, incidentally, claims to rule over all Muslims and believes the ultimate goal of ISIS is to take over huge sections of Asia, Europe and Africa.

The killing of Foley, an idealistic journalist, sharpens our understanding of the organization seeking to dominate the Middle East. That the man who murdered him might have been British should erase any remaining fantasy in the West that this gruesome war, now raging in Syria and Iraq, will stay within any country's or any region's borders.

Those who seek to downplay the risk to the United States should think again.

Click to expand...

I made the mistake of going to look up the video and I watched it. I knew it was going to be awful and almost made me vomit at the sight of it, from all the disgust and hatred I have for that group, but something inside me needed to see it. I'm not sure why, but I had to.

This is disgusting and I have no words to even express my hatred for this murderous group. And was it confirmed that the man actually had a British accent? I was unsure by the video.

C.E Lawson, you're very right. It's frightening that they're recruiting from Western countries and that they're gaining momentum.

If they think that threatening to kill this next reporter if Obama doesn't do something (I was unclear as to EXACTLY what they want) is going to change anything, except lead to their own demise and a full out attack on destroying them, then they are living in an illusion.

I'm not sure what the US should do, I really don't. No experience in this type of thing and only hatred fueling this, so I'm not really in a position to voice my opinion either. But I think we should do something. ISIS shouldn't get to send out messages like this.

Sending in the Heavy Mob will just furnish the pretense, lead to martyrs, lead to more volunteers, more violence. It'll just turn into a deadly game of whack-a-mole.

I think RAB's on the right track. Local players who stand to lose the most need to step up. If we need to get involved, it would be best to limit such involvement to covert ops, perhaps trying to cut the head off the monster before it grows any further.

This is worth a read

The purpose of the horrific video of the beheading of US photojournalist James Foley seems straightforward – to terrify the US into halting its aerial bombardment of the militant group.
But what appears to be a barbaric and blood-soaked ransom note to force a US withdrawal has an entirely different objective, say former national security operatives and terrorism experts.
That is, to generate enough public outrage so the US and its allies expand their military campaign in Iraq and Syria to include ground forces.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/brutal-...-and-syria-20140820-1068ig.html#ixzz3AyMnXe21

Click to expand...

Yep - cui bono, as always.

As much as I think ISIS/ISIL (one of these days I'll figure out how we're supposed to refer to them.) needs to be dealt with, we have to figure out a way to do it without giving them a propaganda victory. (Israel, I'm looking at you. And not in a good way.) The coverage I saw on Fox today was not encouraging in that respect.

Also, apparently there was a failed rescue attempt early this summer.

More heartbreak for the families of the journalists held

What we need is for European countries to quit paying ransoms.

You want to know why Journalists get kidnapped? It's because they sell for a few million per head. This is one of the more profitable ways that ISIS and other terrorists fund their operations. If we want to stop the kidnapping, we need to keep people from paying ransoms. Take the profit out, and there's not much incentive to kidnap anyone.

Foley knew the risks and his luck ran out. I sympathize with his family and hope he's remembered for more than his death.