Fighting the Islamic State: What about the day after?

[F430murci]

Interesting article. However the article fails to point out the real issue: money.

This thing about combating terrorists is a total farce. 1. The US does not care about human rights around the world (as the article points out on the support of the Military Dictatorship in Egypt). 2. The US applies double standards who are terrorists and who not (Israel would be for long a terrorist state).

What the US is really afraid is that these islamic extremists are taking over a significant amount of territory and especially oil producing territory. That has always been there primary and only motive. Everything else are lies.

The US does what it deems necessary to protect US interests and safety, as does every other country in the world to the extent they can. I for one am grateful at the wonderful life and opportunities US has bestowed on me and my family.

It ain't about a popularity contest or trying to appease everyone. You can bellyache and whine all you want, but no one really cares and it won't change anything.

US is the first to step in when people need help, natural disasters occur, people are starving or a public health crisis happens somewhere around the world. If, however, you target us, our people or threaten our way of life . . . F with bull, you get the horns.

Obama has been weak, but our next President will act more decisively and hopefully be more proactive than reactive when it comes to American safety and welfare.

Typical cowboy mentality. That's what the US is famous for. That the US are the first to step in when people need help is however hilarious. They only step in if it is in their economic interest. Not that they are the only ones to do it like that though, but they should stop to play the savior role or imply their God when they a war.

Fortunately the US has lost a lot of its power so I am not so sure if the next President will fulfill the cowboy's dream. It might be more than he has to think first what Peking thinks about what he says and does. I personally prefer it like that as since the end of the cold war the US could do whatever they wanted which is a bad thing. Human beings tend to abuse their power, so a balance of power is needed in this world.

Cowboy? I hate guns, generally vote democrat, have never owned a pair of boots, listen to and play Pearl Jam and Matallica, wear Italian clothes and drive Italian cars. Never owned a truck in my life at 47.

You stereo type much? . . . because you ain't very good at it.

RE: Humanatarian aide

In our economic interest to help Haiti when devastated by an Earthequake? In our economic interest to assist Thailand after tsunami or Phillipines after hurricane? How about aide to El Savadore after devastating floods? Please explain how US benefitted economically and made money from here?

The list is a long list and a whole lot of money given by both our government and citizens. Synical, ungrateful and bitter people like you make one wonder why bother? Keep the money at home and forget helping the ungrateful types around the world, but the reality is we have the resources, actually care about others and want to help.

[Ulysses G.]

Hello, Elephant calling room. An OP based on a completely deluded premise I see, where blaming Bush is the misdirection of a magician trying desperately to distract from the core problem, which is Jihad. There is a clue in the article though, the nonsense about 'failure to build healthy pluralistic societies'. The region has never had these because it's a concept totally alien to the Arab world. The second a tyrant is removed, blood letting along tribal and above all religious lines invariably commences.

Perhaps, to drive the point home Charlemagne and the Franks would have been best advised in talking to the Moors about healthy pluralistic societies, with no Jizya, no forced conversions and no slave raiding instead of deciding on Crusades to the holy land. Or perhaps the Viennese should have thrown open their city gates to the Ottomans besieging it in the hope that a healthy pluralistic society would ensue as oppose to heads on spikes.

Yes Bush really has a lot to answer for, but it was his deluded religion of peace phrase, which has guaranteed failure to address the defining problem of our times.

What we now call Spain was a beautiful example of pluralistic society, with all 3 major religions living in harmony....under the Moorish (Islamic) rule.

It didn't last long though. It was brought down by fanatical Muslim invaders from North Africa who persecuted and expelled Jews and Christians, burned the books of more tolerant Muslims, and helped to ignite a new anti-Islamic militancy in the Christian north.

[hard124get]

US bombing a sovereign nation thousands of miles away, and at the same time condemning Russia for helping its neighbours.

Russia helping it's neighbors ??

As in sending soldiers, weapons and other support to help them rebel against their country?

Or in teaching them how to shoot an airliner down and murder innocent people?

Russia is helping ethnic Russians as it suits it's own expansionist agenda.

Did you notice that the results of the MH17 investigation will not be released until the middle of next year ! Ukraine, Holland, Belgium and Australia have signed a pact that if one of them does not agree with the findings, they will not be released to the public. Ukraine have still not released air traffic control reports. US have not shown satellite imagery. The only evidence that they have shown is social media, which proved to be fake.

[hard124get]

Interesting article. However the article fails to point out the real issue: money.

This thing about combating terrorists is a total farce. 1. The US does not care about human rights around the world (as the article points out on the support of the Military Dictatorship in Egypt). 2. The US applies double standards who are terrorists and who not (Israel would be for long a terrorist state).

What the US is really afraid is that these islamic extremists are taking over a significant amount of territory and especially oil producing territory. That has always been there primary and only motive. Everything else are lies.

The US does what it deems necessary to protect US interests and safety, as does every other country in the world to the extent they can. I for one am grateful at the wonderful life and opportunities US has bestowed on me and my family.

It ain't about a popularity contest or trying to appease everyone. You can bellyache and whine all you want, but no one really cares and it won't change anything.

US is the first to step in when people need help, natural disasters occur, people are starving or a public health crisis happens somewhere around the world. If, however, you target us, our people or threaten our way of life . . . F with bull, you get the horns.

Obama has been weak, but our next President will act more decisively and hopefully be more proactive than reactive when it comes to American safety and welfare.

Typical cowboy mentality. That's what the US is famous for. That the US are the first to step in when people need help is however hilarious. They only step in if it is in their economic interest. Not that they are the only ones to do it like that though, but they should stop to play the savior role or imply their God when they a war.

Fortunately the US has lost a lot of its power so I am not so sure if the next President will fulfill the cowboy's dream. It might be more than he has to think first what Peking thinks about what he says and does. I personally prefer it like that as since the end of the cold war the US could do whatever they wanted which is a bad thing. Human beings tend to abuse their power, so a balance of power is needed in this world.

Cowboy? I hate guns, generally vote democrat, have never owned a pair of boots, listen to and play Pearl Jam and Matallica, wear Italian clothes and drive Italian cars. Never owned a truck in my life at 47.

You stereo type much? . . . because you ain't very good at it.

RE: Humanatarian aide

In our economic interest to help Haiti when devastated by an Earthequake? In our economic interest to assist Thailand after tsunami or Phillipines after hurricane? How about aide to El Savadore after devastating floods? Please explain how US benefitted economically and made money from here?

The list is a long list and a whole lot of money given by both our government and citizens. Synical, ungrateful and bitter people like you make one wonder why bother? Keep the money at home and forget helping the ungrateful types around the world, but the reality is we have the resources, actually care about others and want to help.

It obviously wasn't in your economic interest to help the poor victims of Katrina !

[F430murci]

The US does what it deems necessary to protect US interests and safety, as does every other country in the world to the extent they can. I for one am grateful at the wonderful life and opportunities US has bestowed on me and my family.

It ain't about a popularity contest or trying to appease everyone. You can bellyache and whine all you want, but no one really cares and it won't change anything.

US is the first to step in when people need help, natural disasters occur, people are starving or a public health crisis happens somewhere around the world. If, however, you target us, our people or threaten our way of life . . . F with bull, you get the horns.

Obama has been weak, but our next President will act more decisively and hopefully be more proactive than reactive when it comes to American safety and welfare.

Typical cowboy mentality. That's what the US is famous for. That the US are the first to step in when people need help is however hilarious. They only step in if it is in their economic interest. Not that they are the only ones to do it like that though, but they should stop to play the savior role or imply their God when they a war.

Fortunately the US has lost a lot of its power so I am not so sure if the next President will fulfill the cowboy's dream. It might be more than he has to think first what Peking thinks about what he says and does. I personally prefer it like that as since the end of the cold war the US could do whatever they wanted which is a bad thing. Human beings tend to abuse their power, so a balance of power is needed in this world.

Cowboy? I hate guns, generally vote democrat, have never owned a pair of boots, listen to and play Pearl Jam and Matallica, wear Italian clothes and drive Italian cars. Never owned a truck in my life at 47.

You stereo type much? . . . because you ain't very good at it.

RE: Humanatarian aide

In our economic interest to help Haiti when devastated by an Earthequake? In our economic interest to assist Thailand after tsunami or Phillipines after hurricane? How about aide to El Savadore after devastating floods? Please explain how US benefitted economically and made money from here?

The list is a long list and a whole lot of money given by both our government and citizens. Synical, ungrateful and bitter people like you make one wonder why bother? Keep the money at home and forget helping the ungrateful types around the world, but the reality is we have the resources, actually care about others and want to help.

It obviously wasn't in your economic interest to help the poor victims of Katrina !

The Federal Givernment spent about $ 120 billion, 40 to 60 billion in insurance coverage and private donations were pretty substantial.

[Matej]

the day after ...

Advancing stability and law-enforcement efforts in the region and of course combating IS terrorists.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

Stop being overly pedantic. The Arab/Islamic block controls many votes in the United Nations and too many European nations tend to abstain or vote with the Arabs out of self interest - ie Arab oil. Only America's veto keeps them somewhat in line.

5555555555555....where did you got this one from? From extremist, zionist media as usual? Total bs.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

Interesting article. However the article fails to point out the real issue: money.

This thing about combating terrorists is a total farce. 1. The US does not care about human rights around the world (as the article points out on the support of the Military Dictatorship in Egypt). 2. The US applies double standards who are terrorists and who not (Israel would be for long a terrorist state).

What the US is really afraid is that these islamic extremists are taking over a significant amount of territory and especially oil producing territory. That has always been there primary and only motive. Everything else are lies.

The US does what it deems necessary to protect US interests and safety, as does every other country in the world to the extent they can. I for one am grateful at the wonderful life and opportunities US has bestowed on me and my family.

It ain't about a popularity contest or trying to appease everyone. You can bellyache and whine all you want, but no one really cares and it won't change anything.

US is the first to step in when people need help, natural disasters occur, people are starving or a public health crisis happens somewhere around the world. If, however, you target us, our people or threaten our way of life . . . F with bull, you get the horns.

Obama has been weak, but our next President will act more decisively and hopefully be more proactive than reactive when it comes to American safety and welfare.

Typical cowboy mentality. That's what the US is famous for. That the US are the first to step in when people need help is however hilarious. They only step in if it is in their economic interest. Not that they are the only ones to do it like that though, but they should stop to play the savior role or imply their God when they a war.

Fortunately the US has lost a lot of its power so I am not so sure if the next President will fulfill the cowboy's dream. It might be more than he has to think first what Peking thinks about what he says and does. I personally prefer it like that as since the end of the cold war the US could do whatever they wanted which is a bad thing. Human beings tend to abuse their power, so a balance of power is needed in this world.

Cowboy? I hate guns, generally vote democrat, have never owned a pair of boots, listen to and play Pearl Jam and Matallica, wear Italian clothes and drive Italian cars. Never owned a truck in my life at 47.

You stereo type much? . . . because you ain't very good at it.

RE: Humanatarian aide

In our economic interest to help Haiti when devastated by an Earthequake? In our economic interest to assist Thailand after tsunami or Phillipines after hurricane? How about aide to El Savadore after devastating floods? Please explain how US benefitted economically and made money from here?

The list is a long list and a whole lot of money given by both our government and citizens. Synical, ungrateful and bitter people like you make one wonder why bother? Keep the money at home and forget helping the ungrateful types around the world, but the reality is we have the resources, actually care about others and want to help.

So you want to say that the US were the first and only ones to help Haiti, thailand and Phillipines? The whole world helped, nothing special enables to mention the US in it. But if you want to mention the US please tell me how it comes that the US did not help after Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar?

You have to differentiate between private donations and government aid. US government aid had always and will always have attachments and only reach countries in which the US have strategic interests. There is nothing to argue about it, we (at least we non-US) know well about it. The same goes with US military intervention. Or do you want to postulate that the US intervention in Kuwait was to protect Kuwaitis?

The US has been the superpower per excellence during the last 20-30 years and I don't see them having given a real contribution to improve the world. They even didn't ratify various essential international treaties like Kyoto, the Convention on the Rights of Children etc. They have been clearly showing the world that they prefer to exploit the world instead of improving the world.

[hard124get]

US bombing a sovereign nation thousands of miles away, and at the same time condemning Russia for helping its neighbours.

"Islamic State" is a sovereign nation, recognized by the U.N. or any single state? Go home, you're drunk!

Ukraine on the other hand, is still a sovereign nation, a little bit less so now after Adolf Putin stole the Crimea.

You are wrong on both counts. US is bombing Syria. Islamic State is not recognised by anyone except you.

The Kiev regime illegally overthrew an elected government.

[orosee]

US bombing a sovereign nation thousands of miles away, and at the same time condemning Russia for helping its neighbours.

"Islamic State" is a sovereign nation, recognized by the U.N. or any single state? Go home, you're drunk!

Ukraine on the other hand, is still a sovereign nation, a little bit less so now after Adolf Putin stole the Crimea.

You are wrong on both counts. US is bombing Syria. Islamic State is not recognised by anyone except you.

The Kiev regime illegally overthrew an elected government.

Say what now???

[arjunadawn]

This article can only reach invalid conclusions because it is built upon false assumptions.

The war on terror did not fail; it never began. As long as the “war on terror” was declared as such it never had a chance of being successful because terror was the symptom, not the disease.

Looking at developments since “the war on terror” began and seeing the unimpeded growth of the underlying ideology does not reflect a failure of the policy, rather the policy was aiming at the wrong causation. The author notes “the rise of islamic state and boko harem” suggests some escalation in response to the failed war on terror but these are a few of numerous groups that have been around a long time, and slowly, deliberately increased in virulence.

“At the core” of this article, and continued islamist success, the author suggests there has been no “embed” [sic] CT or counter insurgency strategies. This is false. Under Dept of State, Diplomatic Security Services, Anti Terrorism Awareness office, years of embedding and training host nations to combat insurgency and terror have taken place. Again, the failure is in defining the causative agent.

The Bush acknowledgement continues the false narrative that the west is responsible for its own sad problem these days. Nonsense. These problems began long before there was oil or American hegemony. There is no islamo-friendly policy the US could have had that could have prevented this. Is there one single example where those who seek to do us harm don’t also kill their friends? No!

In jihadi theory the US and Isreal were always later targets. Yes, the US supported strongmen (the primary targets of Al Qaeda and IS), and now we know why. From Mubarak to Qaddafi to Assad we hear the same refrain: “radicals will seize power if…” All these bad guys were 100% correct.

And so this utter nonsense continues to be dribbled by the unimaginative or perhaps cowards- that our self loathing is justified as we brought this upon ourselves with our policy. Rubbish! The causative agent for the symptom of jihadi terror is the underlying ideology- a political ideology disguised otherwise. Listen to what the jihadis say are their sources for authority to do what they do. When they talk to each other they never mention strongmen and occupied lands- they only drivel that crap to the west, and we buy it. To each other they cite scripture!

We will never make progress in this epic conflict until we accept that this is the same drama that has played out over 1400 years in pursuit of domination, subjugation, and theocracy.

[arjunadawn]

Interesting article. However the article fails to point out the real issue: money.

This thing about combating terrorists is a total farce. 1. The US does not care about human rights around the world (as the article points out on the support of the Military Dictatorship in Egypt). 2. The US applies double standards who are terrorists and who not (Israel would be for long a terrorist state).

What the US is really afraid is that these islamic extremists are taking over a significant amount of territory and especially oil producing territory. That has always been there primary and only motive. Everything else are lies.

The US does what it deems necessary to protect US interests and safety, as does every other country in the world to the extent they can. I for one am grateful at the wonderful life and opportunities US has bestowed on me and my family.

It ain't about a popularity contest or trying to appease everyone. You can bellyache and whine all you want, but no one really cares and it won't change anything.

US is the first to step in when people need help, natural disasters occur, people are starving or a public health crisis happens somewhere around the world. If, however, you target us, our people or threaten our way of life . . . F with bull, you get the horns.

Obama has been weak, but our next President will act more decisively and hopefully be more proactive than reactive when it comes to American safety and welfare.

Typical cowboy mentality. That's what the US is famous for. That the US are the first to step in when people need help is however hilarious. They only step in if it is in their economic interest. Not that they are the only ones to do it like that though, but they should stop to play the savior role or imply their God when they a war.

Fortunately the US has lost a lot of its power so I am not so sure if the next President will fulfill the cowboy's dream. It might be more than he has to think first what Peking thinks about what he says and does. I personally prefer it like that as since the end of the cold war the US could do whatever they wanted which is a bad thing. Human beings tend to abuse their power, so a balance of power is needed in this world.

With a french name as yours I find it odd France was bombing IS last week- cowboys, huh?

[chuckd]

But if you want to mention the US please tell me how it comes that the US did not help after Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar?

"But if you want to mention the US please tell me how it comes that the US did not help after Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar?"

Just to set your rewriting of history straight, read this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Myanmar government refuses U.S. aid

BY CORKY SIEMASZKO DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Thursday, May 8, 2008, 10:37 PM

The secretive generals who run Myanmar flatly refused U.S. aid Thursday - even though 100,000 people are feared dead and millions more starving in the wake of a monster cyclone.

The junta not only wouldn't allow U.S. aid planes to fly in badly needed supplies, they also continued to refuse visas to United Nations relief teams trying to get in to make sure the aid gets to the victims.

<<snip>>

Shari Villarosa, the top U.S. diplomat in Myanmar who warned the world on Wednesday that the official death toll of 22,500 could be five times higher, pleaded with the junta to let America help.

<<snip>>

While some relief shipments from traditional allies like Indonesia and China were allowed in, the junta rebuffed President Bush's offer of more than $3 million in aid.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/myanmar-government-refuses-u-s-aid-article-1.328655

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I normally pay little attention to your posts since I know you will either be bashing the US or Israel. However, this post was so far from the truth I felt the need to address it.

I recall a US Carrier battle group standing off shore from Myanmar for several days in anticipation of assisting. They finally left after their offer to help was refused by the Myanmar government.

Remember the words of A. Lincoln..."It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[ABCer]

This article can only reach invalid conclusions because it is built upon false assumptions.

The war on terror did not fail; it never began. As long as the “war on terror” was declared as such it never had a chance of being successful because terror was the symptom, not the disease.

Looking at developments since “the war on terror” began and seeing the unimpeded growth of the underlying ideology does not reflect a failure of the policy, rather the policy was aiming at the wrong causation. The author notes “the rise of islamic state and boko harem” suggests some escalation in response to the failed war on terror but these are a few of numerous groups that have been around a long time, and slowly, deliberately increased in virulence.

“At the core” of this article, and continued islamist success, the author suggests there has been no “embed” [sic] CT or counter insurgency strategies. This is false. Under Dept of State, Diplomatic Security Services, Anti Terrorism Awareness office, years of embedding and training host nations to combat insurgency and terror have taken place. Again, the failure is in defining the causative agent.

The Bush acknowledgement continues the false narrative that the west is responsible for its own sad problem these days. Nonsense. These problems began long before there was oil or American hegemony. There is no islamo-friendly policy the US could have had that could have prevented this. Is there one single example where those who seek to do us harm don’t also kill their friends? No!

In jihadi theory the US and Isreal were always later targets. Yes, the US supported strongmen (the primary targets of Al Qaeda and IS), and now we know why. From Mubarak to Qaddafi to Assad we hear the same refrain: “radicals will seize power if…” All these bad guys were 100% correct.

And so this utter nonsense continues to be dribbled by the unimaginative or perhaps cowards- that our self loathing is justified as we brought this upon ourselves with our policy. Rubbish! The causative agent for the symptom of jihadi terror is the underlying ideology- a political ideology disguised otherwise. Listen to what the jihadis say are their sources for authority to do what they do. When they talk to each other they never mention strongmen and occupied lands- they only drivel that crap to the west, and we buy it. To each other they cite scripture!

We will never make progress in this epic conflict until we accept that this is the same drama that has played out over 1400 years in pursuit of domination, subjugation, and theocracy.

I wish I could give you more 'likes' just for the last sentence.

Just want to add that Islam was dormant for the last couple of hundred years.

And the raised ugly head we observe in post WWII era is solely due to 'multiculturalizm' and 'political correctness' concepts.

No bombings, no 'hot wars' on Jihad will be ever successful until we get rid of this cancer of Western Civilization.

[F430murci]

The US does what it deems necessary to protect US interests and safety, as does every other country in the world to the extent they can. I for one am grateful at the wonderful life and opportunities US has bestowed on me and my family.

It ain't about a popularity contest or trying to appease everyone. You can bellyache and whine all you want, but no one really cares and it won't change anything.

US is the first to step in when people need help, natural disasters occur, people are starving or a public health crisis happens somewhere around the world. If, however, you target us, our people or threaten our way of life . . . F with bull, you get the horns.

Obama has been weak, but our next President will act more decisively and hopefully be more proactive than reactive when it comes to American safety and welfare.

Typical cowboy mentality. That's what the US is famous for. That the US are the first to step in when people need help is however hilarious. They only step in if it is in their economic interest. Not that they are the only ones to do it like that though, but they should stop to play the savior role or imply their God when they a war.

Fortunately the US has lost a lot of its power so I am not so sure if the next President will fulfill the cowboy's dream. It might be more than he has to think first what Peking thinks about what he says and does. I personally prefer it like that as since the end of the cold war the US could do whatever they wanted which is a bad thing. Human beings tend to abuse their power, so a balance of power is needed in this world.

Cowboy? I hate guns, generally vote democrat, have never owned a pair of boots, listen to and play Pearl Jam and Matallica, wear Italian clothes and drive Italian cars. Never owned a truck in my life at 47.

You stereo type much? . . . because you ain't very good at it.

RE: Humanatarian aide

In our economic interest to help Haiti when devastated by an Earthequake? In our economic interest to assist Thailand after tsunami or Phillipines after hurricane? How about aide to El Savadore after devastating floods? Please explain how US benefitted economically and made money from here?

The list is a long list and a whole lot of money given by both our government and citizens. Synical, ungrateful and bitter people like you make one wonder why bother? Keep the money at home and forget helping the ungrateful types around the world, but the reality is we have the resources, actually care about others and want to help.

So you want to say that the US were the first and only ones to help Haiti, thailand and Phillipines? The whole world helped, nothing special enables to mention the US in it. But if you want to mention the US please tell me how it comes that the US did not help after Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar?

You have to differentiate between private donations and government aid. US government aid had always and will always have attachments and only reach countries in which the US have strategic interests. There is nothing to argue about it, we (at least we non-US) know well about it. The same goes with US military intervention. Or do you want to postulate that the US intervention in Kuwait was to protect Kuwaitis?

The US has been the superpower per excellence during the last 20-30 years and I don't see them having given a real contribution to improve the world. They even didn't ratify various essential international treaties like Kyoto, the Convention on the Rights of Children etc. They have been clearly showing the world that they prefer to exploit the world instead of improving the world.

??? Must feel awesome walking around with the huge, heavy chip on your shoulder and that resentment burning in your gut that clouds you judgment and prevents you from seeing good in the world.

I never said only the US helps. I simply responded to your statementment that US only renders aide when it is in its economic interests to do so.

I provided examples. You made no effort to explain how the US benefitted economically in those examples.

Sadly, you either make statements you know to be false or you just say things without having any idea as to the veracity of what you are saying.

Myanmar?

So you criticize US for doing nothing to help after Nargis? You do realize that the <deleted> junta refused US and international aide and refused to issue Visa to people that wanted to come help.

----------

International aid for cyclone victims in Burma was deliberately blocked by the military regime, the first independent report into the disaster has found.

The junta's wilful disregard for the welfare of the 3.4 million survivors of cyclone Nargis which struck the Irrawaddy delta last May, killing 140,000 people and a host of other abuses detailed by the research may amount to crimes against humanity under international law.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/27/regime-blocked-aid-to-burma-cyclone-victims

[arjunadawn]

This article can only reach invalid conclusions because it is built upon false assumptions.

The war on terror did not fail; it never began. As long as the war on terror was declared as such it never had a chance of being successful because terror was the symptom, not the disease.

Looking at developments since the war on terror began and seeing the unimpeded growth of the underlying ideology does not reflect a failure of the policy, rather the policy was aiming at the wrong causation. The author notes the rise of islamic state and boko harem suggests some escalation in response to the failed war on terror but these are a few of numerous groups that have been around a long time, and slowly, deliberately increased in virulence.

At the core of this article, and continued islamist success, the author suggests there has been no embed [sic] CT or counter insurgency strategies. This is false. Under Dept of State, Diplomatic Security Services, Anti Terrorism Awareness office, years of embedding and training host nations to combat insurgency and terror have taken place. Again, the failure is in defining the causative agent.

The Bush acknowledgement continues the false narrative that the west is responsible for its own sad problem these days. Nonsense. These problems began long before there was oil or American hegemony. There is no islamo-friendly policy the US could have had that could have prevented this. Is there one single example where those who seek to do us harm dont also kill their friends? No!

In jihadi theory the US and Isreal were always later targets. Yes, the US supported strongmen (the primary targets of Al Qaeda and IS), and now we know why. From Mubarak to Qaddafi to Assad we hear the same refrain: radicals will seize power if All these bad guys were 100% correct.

And so this utter nonsense continues to be dribbled by the unimaginative or perhaps cowards- that our self loathing is justified as we brought this upon ourselves with our policy. Rubbish! The causative agent for the symptom of jihadi terror is the underlying ideology- a political ideology disguised otherwise. Listen to what the jihadis say are their sources for authority to do what they do. When they talk to each other they never mention strongmen and occupied lands- they only drivel that crap to the west, and we buy it. To each other they cite scripture!

We will never make progress in this epic conflict until we accept that this is the same drama that has played out over 1400 years in pursuit of domination, subjugation, and theocracy.

I wish I could give you more 'likes' just for the last sentence.

Just want to add that Islam was dormant for the last couple of hundred years.

And the raised ugly head we observe in post WWII era is solely due to 'multiculturalizm' and 'political correctness' concepts.

No bombings, no 'hot wars' on Jihad will be ever successful until we get rid of this cancer of Western Civilization.

Yes, I agree. This fact that Islamic expansion was relatively subdued over the past few hundred years gives the perception that the first two Islamic jihadis are a relic of the past. However, when one considers why there was relative quiet regarding Islamic expansion it's quite obvious that the prime mandate continues- dar al Salam, the House of Peace- the final product of global Islam. Until that time islam exists in a state of dar al harb- House of War.

The various supranational thumbs controlling Islamic expansion were the Ottoman Empire and the bipolar US/USSR blanket. Arguably in between and overlapping is the British Empire/Mandate. With the past remaining restraints removed and the introduction of the media/social age, this ideology has been raised from the dead. Realizing this, one sees a nonstop effort to expand Islam throughout the world from Muhammed's departure from Medina to the present day.

There will be no "next day" in regard to what happens after battling IS. Pandora's Box has been opened and whether one wants to admit it or not nothing less than "Civilization Jihad" is being waged against the world; the entire world!

[F430murci]

This article can only reach invalid conclusions because it is built upon false assumptions.

The war on terror did not fail; it never began. As long as the war on terror was declared as such it never had a chance of being successful because terror was the symptom, not the disease.

Looking at developments since the war on terror began and seeing the unimpeded growth of the underlying ideology does not reflect a failure of the policy, rather the policy was aiming at the wrong causation. The author notes the rise of islamic state and boko harem suggests some escalation in response to the failed war on terror but these are a few of numerous groups that have been around a long time, and slowly, deliberately increased in virulence.

At the core of this article, and continued islamist success, the author suggests there has been no embed [sic] CT or counter insurgency strategies. This is false. Under Dept of State, Diplomatic Security Services, Anti Terrorism Awareness office, years of embedding and training host nations to combat insurgency and terror have taken place. Again, the failure is in defining the causative agent.

The Bush acknowledgement continues the false narrative that the west is responsible for its own sad problem these days. Nonsense. These problems began long before there was oil or American hegemony. There is no islamo-friendly policy the US could have had that could have prevented this. Is there one single example where those who seek to do us harm dont also kill their friends? No!

In jihadi theory the US and Isreal were always later targets. Yes, the US supported strongmen (the primary targets of Al Qaeda and IS), and now we know why. From Mubarak to Qaddafi to Assad we hear the same refrain: radicals will seize power if All these bad guys were 100% correct.

And so this utter nonsense continues to be dribbled by the unimaginative or perhaps cowards- that our self loathing is justified as we brought this upon ourselves with our policy. Rubbish! The causative agent for the symptom of jihadi terror is the underlying ideology- a political ideology disguised otherwise. Listen to what the jihadis say are their sources for authority to do what they do. When they talk to each other they never mention strongmen and occupied lands- they only drivel that crap to the west, and we buy it. To each other they cite scripture!

We will never make progress in this epic conflict until we accept that this is the same drama that has played out over 1400 years in pursuit of domination, subjugation, and theocracy.

I wish I could give you more 'likes' just for the last sentence.

Just want to add that Islam was dormant for the last couple of hundred years.

And the raised ugly head we observe in post WWII era is solely due to 'multiculturalizm' and 'political correctness' concepts.

No bombings, no 'hot wars' on Jihad will be ever successful until we get rid of this cancer of Western Civilization.

Yes, I agree. This fact that Islamic expansion was relatively subdued over the past few hundred years gives the perception that the first two Islamic jihadis are a relic of the past. However, when one considers why there was relative quiet regarding Islamic expansion it's quite obvious that the prime mandate continues- dar al Salam, the House of Peace- the final product of global Islam. Until that time islam exists in a state of dar al harb- House of War.

The various supranational thumbs controlling Islamic expansion were the Ottoman Empire and the bipolar US/USSR blanket. Arguably in between and overlapping is the British Empire/Mandate. With the past remaining restraints removed and the introduction of the media/social age, this ideology has been raised from the dead. Realizing this, one sees a nonstop effort to expand Islam throughout the world from Muhammed's departure from Medina to the present day.

There will be no "next day" in regard to what happens after battling IS. Pandora's Box has been opened and whether one wants to admit it or not nothing less than "Civilization Jihad" is being waged against the world; the entire world!

Pandora's box was opened long ago.

[Scott]

Some posts and replies deleted for being off-topic or inflammatory.