Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: A message to america: WAKE UP

  1. #1

    Thumbs down A message to america: WAKE UP

    This youtube video released by ISIS is titled "A Message to America".

    ISIS beheading of American Journalist - Any opinions?

    I for one am speechless regarding this horrific act by ISIS, and the relative inactivity and lack of response by our administration.

    warning: graphic content in the above posted youtube video......
    Last edited by infoshare; August 20th, 2014 at 10:31 PM.

  2. #2


    I just read their is another american journalist in captivity who is also likely to be publicly executed in the same way. This calls IMHO some sort of tactical military operation to fee the captive, and avenge the death of the beheaded journalist.

  3. #3


    Video taken down.

  4. #4


    It can still be seen here (although I don't know why anyone would want to see it).
    This link first takes you to a page to verify your age and inform you of the horrible content.

  5. #5


    I wouldn't want to watch it, just reading/hearing about it is enough. I just feel that by not watching it won't allow these barbarous fanatics to implant their evilness in my mind.
    We've got a long war to fight against these blood-thirsty barbarians and an urgent need to rethink who we should call upon in the Middle East to help us in this fight, i.e., Syria and Iran - and question what part Saudi Arabia and Qatar are playing in all this.

  6. #6


    The video is OK Wobert W, it is totally edited of all gory content, but gets the message accross regarding the sheer bloodthirsty savegery we are up against with ISIS. America must Wake Up regarding just who we call friends in the Middle East as you so eloquently stated.


  7. #7


    This is a good article about the history of ISIS and how it has come to be. Spoiler Alert: its able to do what it does because of American interference in things we don't fully understand or have full control of the outcomes.

  8. #8


    It's not just Syria and Iraq, the Islamist groups are spreading across Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, and of course Libya in the north. How does the West combat these forces? Fine words are ok but the situation needs leadership and a viable sustainable strategy both of which are missing at the moment not endless waffle!

  9. #9


    Bill Clinton was asked to offer his insights into the current affairs, and uprising of the Islamic State -
    Video here,

    Basically, what he said: " it depends on what the meaning of the word ISIS, IS "

  10. #10


    My own opinion on the most recent events is that, no matter how heinous, you should never go to war over the murder of two individuals. The very barbarity of the acts is a clear signal that war is exactly what ISIS wants America to do. And do it alone.

    The book referenced, Special Providence, although 13 years old, is a good read to understand the forces that have driven American foreign policy.

    Pursuing ISIS to the Gates of Hell

    The beheading of two journalists has transformed public debate over U.S. foreign policy.

    Peter Beinart Sep 4 2014

    Over the past two weeks, the American foreign-policy debate has dramatically changed. The key to understanding why lies in a book.

    The book is called Special Providence. Published 13 years ago by Walter Russell Mead, it remains, for my money, the best analysis of American foreign policy written in our time. Mead argues that America has four foreign-policy traditions. He calls the first “Wilsonianism.” It represents America’s missionary desire to spread civilization across the globe. Once upon a time, spreading “civilization” meant spreading Christianity. Now it means spreading democracy and human rights. Samantha Power is a Wilsonian.

    The second tradition is “Hamiltonianism.” It refers to the belief that America, as a trading nation separated from our largest markets by vast oceans, must make the world safe for American commerce. For our domestic prosperity, we must maintain an economically open, politically stable world order. George H.W. Bush is a Hamiltonian.

    The third is “Jeffersonianism.” It reflects a deep-seated fear that if America entangles itself in imperial ventures abroad, we will destroy liberty at home. Glenn Greenwald and Ron Paul are Jeffersonians.

    The fourth—and for our purposes most relevant—is “Jacksonianism.” It refers to the peculiar combination of jingoism and isolationism forged on the American frontier. Bill O’Reilly is a Jacksonian. Jacksonians don’t want to fashion other countries in America’s image. They don’t care about fattening corporate bottom lines. But if you mess with them—violate their honor—they’ll pursue you to the gates of hell.

    If that phrase sounds familiar, it’s because Joe Biden uttered it on Wednesday about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He said it, I suspect, in part because he recognizes that over the last two weeks, America’s foreign-policy debate has turned Jacksonian in a way that could cause the Obama administration a great deal of trouble.

    I’m not talking about the elite debate. Foreign-policy elites began growing more hawkish almost a year ago, after Barack Obama abandoned his plans to bomb Syria for using chemical weapons and Russia swallowed Crimea. But until recently, those elite criticisms enjoyed little public traction. That’s because, in Mead’s terminology, they were largely Wilsonian and Hamiltonian. Wilsonians were upset about Bashar al-Assad’s human-rights violations and Russia’s offenses against international law. Hamiltonians feared that unless America acted forcefully, our declining credibility would undermine world order.

    But Wilsonianism and Hamiltonianism are largely elite traditions, and the public was unmoved. When Obama asked Congress to support military strikes against Assad last fall, the public overwhelmingly said no. For all the denunciations of Obama’s Ukraine policy this summer by Beltway hawks, Republican congressional candidates barely mentioned it. Up until very recently, public opinion was strongly “Jeffersonian.” Americans generally told pollsters that their government was too militarily entangled overseas already.

    The beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff have changed that. Republican Senate candidates in Alaska, Georgia, and New Hampshire are now tying their Democratic opponents to Obama’s supposed lack of a strategy against ISIS. Democratic Senators Bill Nelson and Tim Kaine are urging Congress to authorize the president to bomb the Sunni extremist group in Syria and Iraq. Last September, when asked Americans whether they supported air strikes “against Syria,” only 20 percent said yes. Last week, by contrast, when it asked whether Americans supported strikes “against ISIS militants in Syria,” 63 percent said yes.

    In narrow policy terms, the arguments for military intervention have not improved over the last two weeks. It’s still not clear if Iraq’s government is inclusive enough to take advantage of American attacks and wean Sunnis from ISIS. It’s even less clear if the U.S. can bomb ISIS in Syria without either empowering Assad or other Sunni jihadist rebel groups.

    But politically, that doesn’t matter. What’s causing this Jacksonian eruption is the sight of two terrified Americans, on their knees, about to be beheaded by masked fanatics. Few images could more powerfully stoke Jacksonian rage. The politicians denouncing Obama for lacking a “strategy” against ISIS may not have one either, but they have a gut-level revulsion that they can leverage for political gain. “Bomb the hell out of them!” exclaimed Illinois Senator Mark Kirk on Tuesday. “We ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age,” added Texas Senator Ted Cruz. These aren’t policy prescriptions. They are cries for revenge.

    And for the Obama administration, they are politically perilous. All of a sudden, the domestic politics of foreign policy bear a vague resemblance to the late Carter years. The Iran hostage crisis did not lend itself to a simple policy response either. But to many Americans, it represented a primal humiliation, broadcast on screens across the world. And the hostage crisis primed Americans to see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that same year as yet another example of Jimmy Carter failing to prevent America from being disrespected around the world. The danger for Obama is that the ISIS beheadings color the public’s view of his Russia policy in the same way.

    Obama has always had trouble with Jacksonians, who tend to live outside cities and be older, white, and less educated than Obama’s political base. By killing Osama bin Laden, he temporarily neutralized the political threat they posed, and left Mitt Romney unable to rouse them in 2012. But the memory of that Jacksonian triumph has now faded. And Obama’s cool, measured rhetoric—his talk of “shrink[ing]” ISIS and making it “manageable”—can grate on Jacksonian ears. Jacksonians, Mead argues, do not like half-measures. They never forgave Harry Truman for firing Douglas MacArthur and settling for a stalemate in Korea. They complained bitterly that civilians in Washington weren’t letting American troops win in Vietnam. For Jacksonians, you don’t “degrade” a group that beheads Americans. You annihilate it.

    For Obama, there’s an irony to all this. After 9/11, he wisely resisted the Jacksonian fervor of the moment and opposed the war in Iraq. He surely knows that it is precisely at moments like this, when politicians and pundits are demanding vengeance, that presidents are most prone to do “stupid stuff.” He’s staked his foreign-policy legacy on being the president who doesn’t do that. But it is precisely because of this caution and calm that he’s losing political control, even in his own party. And God knows how many beheadings are still to come.

    Copyright © 2014 by The Atlantic Monthly Group

  11. #11


    If we, the West & US don't take the fight to the Islamist fanatics in the Middle East they surely will bring it to us - make your choice. This doesn't mean doing it on our own but building and gaining support from countries in the region so they can bring their military resources to bear down on the fanatics, 'good' moslems' fighting 'bad' moslems. That may sound cynical but it removes the old Christian anti-Moslem Crusade mentality from the equation. Let's drop the unrealistic ideal of 'bringing democracy to the Middle East', it hasn't, and never will work within the arab moslem culture. Rather let's focus on stability and helping the good 'local' guys win.

  12. #12


    Such simplistic thinking only exacerbates the problem. We ignore the history of where Islamic fanaticism comes from, the west's role in instigating and agitating the conflict. Recent efforts to take the fight to Islamic fanatics has not worked. We disperse one group only to have another take its place.

    Zippy is correct ISIS wants us to send a heavy military force to fight a pointless war with no particular goals or end.

  13. #13


    It's not simplistic thinking, it's realistic thinking rather than continually harking back to the past. The US has sold enough arms and weapons to the Middle East, it's about time they were put to good use by those that bought them, I'm thinking of Saudi Arabia for example, supposedly an ally of the US.
    Taking the fight to IS has in fact worked, the small number of air strikes has halted their progress and assisted the Kurds.
    I'm not advocating US or UK 'boots on the ground' but we need to win support for arab 'boots on the ground'. Blaming the West for Islamic fanaticism is simplistic, the West certainly have not helped by what Bush & Blair did but the Sunni-Shia divide has in itself created immense problems - just look at Iraq!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software