My money is on the tax payers.
Why should we play into ISIS's hands? Why give them exactly what they want, other than because we are so use to most conflict situations being portrayed as the good guys are in white hats, and bad guys are in black hats, and the good guys always trounce the bad guys in short order; usually within 60 minutes for TV, and 320 in movies. So, instead doing the hard thinking, we fall back to that same concept we have, so readily, in the forefront of our minds, and get provoked into doing exactly what our adversaries want us to do.
-- Modified on 2/27/2015 1:22:31 PM
If one side has already declared war, but the other side refuses to play along, it is simple. They die.
ISIS has declared an expansionist agenda which is in line with fundamentalist Islam.
Bin Laden's original complaints included the loss of Andalusia, i.e. Spain. They want land they used to own, and when they had part of Spain they were just continuing north until they met Charles Martel.
But nothing in history has ever negated the desire, only the ability.
We didn't play along with their declaration of war after the first Trade Center attack, thinking it was just a "crime." They continued right along.
Isis claims it wants to fly their flag over the White House.
If we refuse to fight, what will stop them.
Yes, movies wrap things up. THis may take centuries.
When Jefferson wanted to fight the Barbary Pirates in the Halls of Tripoli, Adams was againsst it.
He said that we would be fighting for 200 years.
But the other option is.....
I really don't want to hear from some religious puke on what the problem is and how to fix it. I don't want to hear about "good vs evil", or maybe how we should better understand the root causes of terror. I wouldn't be surprised if he suggested that a Hilary Swank type person (can't remember the name of the movie), goes into the projects wearing a doo rag trying for that interracial footloose moment.
I honestly have to give ISIS an A on developing a global brand and marketing strategy. They are clearly not your average terrorist group. They are differentiating themselves from their terrorist competitors, and doing a helluva job marketing, publicizing and funding their organization by using Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and even LinkedIn. Yes, they want to put their leaders profiles on LinkedIn. Sounds mainstream to me. I actually googled ISIS Twitter, and this was at the top of the list
https://twitter.com/isistaylor
If this is ISIS, where the fuck do I sign up (lmao)? My point is, where is Obama and his so-called technical prowess? Didn't he win his 2 elections using technology better than his competitor? Part of his strategy is to call his donors in Hollywood and Madison Ave and develop a strategy to negate/defeat ISIS in the virtual world? This is in addition to bombing, shooting, killing, maiming...you know, things we are traditionally good at.
Maybe I should just wait for the full effects of Obama and the FCC's new Net Neutrality legislation. That should slow down innovation, creativity, response time, and add new taxes and fees. That should piss of ISIS. Sorry, had to add a flippant comment on the most recent piece of stupid legislation.
-- Modified on 2/27/2015 1:22:31 PM
It was done by fiat. Just like pretty much all else in this admin.
...3-2 for Net Neutrality. The vote could have just as easily been 3-2 the other way.
A fiat is the order of ONE person. Maybe you need to go back to school before posting on this board. You're way out of your league.
"Net Neutrality is the idea that an internet provider will treat everyone’s data neutrally, equally – whether it’s an email from your grandmother, or a transfer from Bank of America.
It’s the notion that an internet provider will not get to choose whose data gets sent more quickly, which site gets blocked, and who has to pay extra."
Sounds pretty good to me - I don't want fucking Time Warner to decide my shit gets sent slower just because I don't have the big bucks to bribe them like Widgets.com.
3 Democrats to 2 Republicans. To say that it could just as easily have "gone the other way" is to presume that one Democrat would vote with the GOP. The point made by USGrant is that Mr. Obama told the Democrat majority how to vote and they followed his lead. This in fact is what the Republican commissioners have alleged.
The FCC is always under the de facto control of the White House bc they get to appoint 3 of the 5 commissioners from their party.
So his use of the word “fiat” was correct given the context, and his point to St. Croix – that the rule was not the result of legislation- is also correct.
-- Modified on 2/27/2015 3:32:42 PM
Fiat is the correct term. It was pretty evident that Obama publicly pushed to influence the FCC's decision, specifically influencing Wheeler, the FCC Chairman. That brings into question the independence of the agency. Not sure if you watched Ajit Pai's interview today on the decision, and yes he is one of the 2 Republicans.
Obama wants to treat the Internet as another utility, and regulate it. And once that happens, innovation and creativity ceases. How many electric companies are creative and innovative. I don't know about you, but I don't see any degradation of service when half the country is downloading House of Cards. Obama believes that the Internet should be part of basic public infrastructure, and that Internet is a right.
-- Modified on 2/27/2015 9:19:05 PM
Who do they think will be paying the bill?
My money is on the tax payers.
My money is on the tax payers.
Fat girl will be the first to complain at the project that his is too slow.
-- Modified on 2/28/2015 7:07:14 AM
The funny part, most people who happen to be economically challenged(PC term) use mobile wifi.
What was Verizon thinking?
...are fiats of the Republican Presidents who appointed them. ROFL!
The only thing marikod knows about fiats is that he'll be driving them for the rest of his miserable life because that's all he'll be able to afford as a two-bit paralegal.
You can tell when Fatgirl runs out of 'game.' Usually at the start of a debate. The insults start to fly. Typical lib.
-- Modified on 2/28/2015 7:10:05 AM
Dumbass. Obama picked 3 of the commissioners then after Wheeler spent months putting together a compromise, Obama jammed this down his throat and up our asses. The FCC is supposed to be independent of the Whitehouse. YOU need to do a bit more homework.
Too bad you think govt is the cure to your grievances and that you're too lazy to better your own life to afford better products and services. Enjoy your shitty govt managed Internet. The govt knows best. Right
Are tools that have been acquired by the CIA.
Remove ISIS's social media capabilities and the beast will be decapitated.
I honestly have to give ISIS an A on developing a global brand and marketing strategy. They are clearly not your average terrorist group. They are differentiating themselves from their terrorist competitors, and doing a helluva job marketing, publicizing and funding their organization by using Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and even LinkedIn. Yes, they want to put their leaders profiles on LinkedIn. Sounds mainstream to me. I actually googled ISIS Twitter, and this was at the top of the list
https://twitter.com/isistaylor
If this is ISIS, where the fuck do I sign up (lmao)? My point is, where is Obama and his so-called technical prowess? Didn't he win his 2 elections using technology better than his competitor? Part of his strategy is to call his donors in Hollywood and Madison Ave and develop a strategy to negate/defeat ISIS in the virtual world? This is in addition to bombing, shooting, killing, maiming...you know, things we are traditionally good at.
Maybe I should just wait for the full effects of Obama and the FCC's new Net Neutrality legislation. That should slow down innovation, creativity, response time, and add new taxes and fees. That should piss of ISIS. Sorry, had to add a flippant comment on the most recent piece of stupid legislation.
-- Modified on 2/27/2015 1:22:31 PM
It seems neither you nor Phil got my point. My point is not that we shouldn't fight them, but fight them on our own terms. By being drawn into identifying ourselves as fighting a holy war against them, we are fighting on their terms. How did we defeat the British in the Revolutionary War? Not by fighting it on their terms. How did the Viet Cong defeat us? Not by fighting it on our terms. 
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Not necessarily by you, but by the link you provided.
"IF" what you are trying to say that we need to enlist moderate Muslims into this fight, and by declaring a war by "All Christians against All Muslims" we are increasing the number of our enemies and decreasing the number of our allies. On that I definitely agree.
To further your point, I think the war needs to be framed in a "The entire world against fundamentalist Islamic nutjobs" not just Christians. I am hardly a Christian, and I definitely don't want to join THEIR fight, but I don't want the entire world turned into a war zone either, and by making Islamic terrorists the enemy of the entire world, and not just Christians would be a HUGE step in having any chance of actually winning this war.
For the record, was this your point?
Well, that and not fighting on ISIS's terms. Actually, it's ISIS who is fighting all the world, not just Christians, but what they call apostate Muslims and non-Muslims. I see no benefit in us making those Muslims, who ISIS deems as apostate, an enemy and having them run into their arms, thus swelling their numbers. ISIS is slaughtering their own people so as to have them, in fear, turn from their apostate ways, and join them. If they fear us also, where do they have to turn. They are no longer viewed as apostate as long as they have joined and support ISIS.
My favorite part is Sun Tzu and the Army of Concubines. He beheads two hookers, and the rest fall in line. The relevant part is when Sun Tzu says, "the King (aka Obama) is only fond of words, and cannot translate them into deeds". Think about it!
My point Matt, and you are saying the same thing, is that we are in a asymmetrical war. The definition is perfect - warfare in which opposing groups or nations have unequal military resources, and the weaker opponent uses unconventional weapons and tactics, like terrorism, to exploit the vulnerabilities of its enemy.
Wars in the past had enemies who were somewhat rational and reasonable. You go head to head, beat them, and then incorporate them into the world community, i.e. Japan Germany. Even the shit we did in Vietnam, or proxy wars in Nicaragua didn't create a bunch of assholes.
If anybody is exploiting the teachings of Sun Tzu its ISIS. They are employing an indirect strategy, and their marketing efforts is a very effective tactic.
You are right Matt that we need some out of the box thinking, but the author of the article you posted is recommending the same tired shit. But when you have a King, oops President, who is only fond of words, politically correct words, well you get my point, right Matt.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War
-- Modified on 2/28/2015 4:23:03 PM
The parallel you draw is greatly flawed. For one reason, you can't equate ISIS with the concubines, because they were subjects of the king, and under the command of his general. They were not the enemy. Secondly, this story is told to demonstrate how behaving ruthlessly, to instill fear, is used to make subordinates behave in the manner you wish. What would be said of Obama did so. Thirdly, do you compare the temperaments and motivations, particularly fear of death and avoiding such, with the members of ISIS. They have very little fear of death due to what they believe awaits them in death.
You missed the point. Focus on the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph. "The King is only fond of words, and cannot translate them into deeds". The comparison is similar to Obama. Obama used strong language with Assad, the Red Line, but nothing happened even after threatening Assad. With respect to ISIS, Obama uses words that appeases the Muslim masses, and like Syria, is hesitant to use strong words and actions. I WAS NOT trying to compare ISIS with concubines, or with Sun Tzu's training of the concubines. It was that 2nd sentence, plus the rest of my argument on how ISIS is using asymmetrical warfare to achieve its objective. I was making 2 different points.
I don't know if you are into Asian girls, specifically Chinese, but please don't read that Art of War chapter prior to a session (lol).
Capiche
Yoho said: "We’re taking God out of this country. They’re fighting for their God. And all I can say is the person that has God on their side is gonna win."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/02/19/gop-congressman-the-problem-with-americas-fight-against-isis-is-that-they-believe-in-god-more-strongly-than-we-do/
Yoho doesn't want to defeat ISIS in the name of freedom and democracy; he wants to prove Jesus has a bigger dick than Allah.
Onward Christian Soldiers - at least one vet is fighting the Holy War. He has gone back to Iraq to fight ISIS on the front lines because he describes himself as a "Soldier of Christ."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/american-soldier-christ-fighting-isis-iraq/story?id=29171878