Lawmakers: Islamic State groups wants to hit US

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Brio Alpine, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    @ Schnee:

    One thing is indisputable. Obama has more people disapproving of the job he's currently doing than those who approve. His numbers are not for from his record lows. And with how is currently not dealing with the recent horrendous American journalist beheadings at the hands of ISIS, they could start dropping even lower quite quickly.

  • Abdulameer Chicago, IL
    Sept. 2, 2014 2:46 p.m.

    ISIS is only the latest of the Islamic threats we face. Others are Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Taliban, Al Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda in North Africa, Al Qaeda in Mali, Hamas in Gaza, Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in 170 countries, Iran, Qatar, and, of course, Saudi Arabia which has been funding education and training of jihadists for many decades in mosques around the world. Their common goal is the Islamic domination of the world, only the methods may vary. According to a popular manual of Sharia law, "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims." The Constitution of the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran says: "the army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps ... will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them.” [8.60])

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    @Objectified
    "now suffering from record low approval ratings"

    Bush had a sub-30% approval rating in 2008. Obama's sitting at 42% (Real Clear Politics average of 8 recent polls that themselves ranged from 38-46% approval). It's not Obama's personal record low either if that's what you meant (that would be the RCP average of 39.8% from late Nov 2013).

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    @Thid Barker
    Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq until we got rid of Saddam. They were doing what ISIS is trying to do now, fill a vaccumn that we created.

    "the country was stable"

    Aside from several uprisings and sectarian conflict...

    @Objectified
    "Do you think it's possible the intel was bad and consequently not the decision of any particular politician? "

    I would think that except there's reams of evidence that Powell was deliberately given false information as a means of selling the war. Of course the hubris of those neocons keeps them from admitting they were wrong.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    @Mountanman
    "I am very certain Itsjustmeagain and other pacifists will change their tune when ISIS hits us again, and they will!"

    Again? When did they ever attack US territory a first time? If some sort of terrorist attack does happen that doesn't mean the answer is suddenly "let's put boots on the ground". Our soldiers deserve careful consideration of their service, not reactionary desires for vengeance.

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    @ GaryO:

    Another thought. If Republicans and conservatives are so bad and liberalism is so great, and only conservatives believe other conservatives, then how come Obama, the most liberal politician in Washington, is now suffering from record low approval ratings around the entire country and has many members of his own party (who are up for re-election) are trying sodesperately to distance themselves from him?

    Doesn't make much sense... does it. But then again, most liberals and liberal rhetoric seldom does. Better come back with something much more substantial and meaningful next time, Gary.

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    GaryO:

    Your nonsensical comment replies make it easy to understand why so many people who comment on these boards keep indicating you have very little political credibility. You avoid the real issues while trying to push an ultra-liberal and rhetorical agenda.

    You've never once explained why Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton both voted in favor of America attacking Iraq while under President Bush and using the exact same intel that he was given. Do you think it's possible the intel was bad and consequently not the decision of any particular politician?

    Why is it so hard to actually take objective looks at issues instead of always being on a soap box denouncing Conservatives and Republicans? Seriously... you've been doing that for so long that apparently no one is taking you serious anymore. You never have any meaningful backing to any of your allegations. In a high school debate agenda, such an approach would get completely embarrassed by the opposition.

    You are probably a nice person, but need to take a less minatory approach when discussing anything politically related. You might then eventually regain some of that long-lost credibility.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    Gary O. That was quite a rant! None of it accurate but what does that matter to a liberal? You really need to call Diane Feinstein. She thinks we should fight terrorists in Iraq! Obviously she is mislead but no doubt you can straighten her out!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Sept. 2, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    Hey Thid Barker-

    “the military had Al Qaida . . . defeated in Iraq and the country was stable until Obama snatched defeat right out of the jaws of victory!

    You “Conservatives” love rewriting history, but the facts stubbornly remain facts.

    The kind of stability we had in Iraq depended on the presence of MASSIVE American military force there.

    That’s not real stability. That is FAILURE.

    And Failure is all that “Conservative” leadership can give this nation.

    Yes, I know, the Republican propaganda machine ROUTINELY repackages "Conservative" failures and tries to sell them as Successes.

    But the only people who buy that nonsense are other "Conservatives."

    Right Wing Fantasy Land is a busy place, isn't it?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Sept. 2, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Hey Objectified –

    “Some people seem to have a hard time even remembering, let alone learning from history.” That’s right. They call themselves Conservatives.

    If intelligent moderate Presidents in the past had let warmongering “Conservatives” have their way, the most of the United States would be nonexistent . . . just a collection of blackened radioactive ruins.

    General Curtis LeMay used your same rationale in furiously criticizing JFK for failing to nuke Cuba during the Missile crisis of 1962. “This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.” – Curtis LaMay

    General LeMay considered JFK a coward for not pursuing an all-out nuclear war against Cuba. But JFK had done the right thing.

    The first Nuke to hit Cuba would have sparked a fuselage of Nuclear weapons from Cuba into the US, and wiped out more than half the nation immediately. Our IBM response would then have killed over half a billion people in the USSR . . . and then who knows what might have happened?
    We need a President with some sense, and thankfully we have one.

    Would Romney be able to hold his own against the advice of Generals slavering for war?

    I doubt it.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Sept. 2, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Gary O. The difference every rational American sees is that under President Bush's leadership the military had Al Qaida (you know, those guys who flew those airplanes into our buildings and murdered 3000 innocent people) defeated in Iraq and the country was stable until Obama snatched defeat right out of the jaws of victory! And now our enemies are double in strength and believe it or not a serious threat to other countries including the one you are living in! Obama's ineptness has created far more terrorists than existed before! That's the difference between a real Commander in Chief and a community organizer with no clue!

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    No worries folks, Obama will be working out the strategy to combat ISIS on the back nine at Andrews Air Force Base. Our Dear Leader works even when he's playing.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Sept. 2, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    What would happen to the military industrial complex without a boogey man to fight?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Sept. 2, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    Hey Thid – “President Bush knew who our enemies are and took them seriously but Obama hasn't a clue!”

    Lol . . . You MUST be joking.

    Obama attacked Iraq as a direct response to 911, but Sadaam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911.
    That’s like us conquering Australia because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

    Attacking Iraq was pure NONSENSE . . . And leave it up to that nonsensical Republican administration to take such confused and mindless action. ““President Bush knew who our enemies are?!” I don’t think so.

    BTW, you misquoted Obama again. Obama said “We don’t have a strategy yet.” Do you know why he said that? He said that because we don’t have a strategy yet.

    Oh I know, GW Bush had a strategy almost right away . . . Attack Iraq, and kill Sadaam and 100,000 Iraqis. But that was a pretty dumb strategy.

    Obama prefers to give our strategy some thought . . . And not just lash out at any target that might be convenient.
    See the difference?

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    @ One-Vote and GaryO:

    After extensively studying WWII and the situation leading up to it, your comments remind me much of the same attitude most American liberals had toward Hitler and his terrorist Nazi group while they were attacking and overtaking surrounding territory of Germany's neighboring European countries.

    Those countries were begging for our help. But our American liberal politicians, among others, said at that time that Hitler wasn't that much of a threat, that it was their problem and not ours, that fighting Hitler would cost too much money and so we should basically just sit on the sidelines... very much like your attitude based on your comments.

    Sadly, it took Pearl Harbor to wake America up to reality. I hope it doesn't take the equivalent again... something that makes 9/11 mild in comparison. Unfortunately, it might.
    Some people seem to have a hard time even remembering, let alone learning from history.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    Does anyone else find the about face many liberals have completed on this issue amazingly hypocritical? Imagine liberal Democrats demanding that Obama go to war against terrorists when only recently they excoriated GWB for doing the same thing in exactly the same places! "Obama is too cautious" Diane Feinstein. The only difference is that President Bush knew who our enemies are and took them seriously but Obama hasn't a clue! He even called ISIS "JV league terrorists" and has, "No strategy for dealing with them". Obama is making reasonable Democrats (the few that there are) very nervous!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    “. . . They will, quote, 'spill our blood.'"
    So . . . is this anything new.

    Is there ANY group of Muslims in the Middle East who might have a moral problem with spilling a little American blood?

    Yes, ISIS want’s to wipe us off the map? So what?

    They can’t do it with an intercontinental ballistic missile, can they? And that means they can’t do it from any of their bases in the Mideast.

    So what’s the hurry about destroying their bases?

    It’s because they’re training terrorists there? Terrorists can be trained ANYWHERE.

    Destroying their bases in the Mideast will not destroy their ability to train terrorists.

    They could just do an online tutorial and train everybody in the world who might be interested.
    Of course, the Lab part of the course would prevent somewhat more of a challenge, but not that much more.

    I tell you what, before we even think of invading in force, let's implement a special tax on Republicans to pay for some of the cost, shall we?

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    @ one vote:

    Treating ISIS like we've been doing is not working. Not at all. They are getting stronger and more daring, and becoming a bigger threat to the free world (including America) almost daily. Greater and more ore decisive action needs to be taken soon. Very soon.

    Will it be easy? Certainly not. They are now well established and well funded. Obama should've taken substantial action over a year ago when our intelligence groups warned him about them and his top military people were almost begging him to take action.

    But for some reason, he wouldn't take them seriously and even compared them to a JV team. Since then, the world has paid a huge price. Tens of thousands of additional civilians and out-manned localized military personnel have been tortured and killed by ISIS.

    ISIS has continued growing in size, strength and territory. Their threats toward non-Islamic countries have grown more bold. Now both Democrat and Republican Congressional leadership are again encouraging Obama to take more decisive action. But will Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama, who usually make most of Obama's decisions, allow him to do so? That's the $64 question.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    We are better off treating terrorists like we have been doing. That allows involvement anywhere such as Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Anyone that wants to put boots on the ground with enemies all around that requires policing of religious factions needs to rethink that tenuous position.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 2, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    I am very certain Itsjustmeagain and other pacifists will change their tune when ISIS hits us again, and they will!

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    Sept. 2, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    How is this news? Of course they do, always have and always will. Islamists hate liberty, freedom, and even just fun -and anything else that isn't "Islamic." To quote the thankfully now dead Ayatollah Khomeini: "Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." And he meant entertainment and went on to say it opposes swimming, TV etc. Of course he pointed out that it approves of martial training, shooting, etc. Of course it does. Islamists are all about force, religion at gun point.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Sept. 2, 2014 6:21 a.m.

    The extremist will always want to attack the Great Satan. You can only stop it if you want to colonize every country forever, and they will still wait us out. Putting boots on the ground will not end ISIS, they will simply become invisible and come to any Western country to blow something up.
    The key is to seal our borders, not go and bail out Iraq again. Mr. McCain, go if you feel a need, and take your youth with you. While you're at it, how do you resolve US citizens who do not enlist in US Services and join the Israel Army?

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 1:52 a.m.

    I just don't understand how this could be happening? I thought the world was supposed to love us after Obama won the presidency. I thought the only reason the world (and the terrorists) hated us was because of the Cowboy, George W. Bush?

    How could these selfish terrorists do this to Obama right before an election! Obama just can't catch a break!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 1, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    I don't think that we should allow US citizen to serve in the militaries of other countries. We had several US citizens who were serving in the Israeli army who were killed in Gaza.