Archive for the ‘terrorism’ Category

From a little while back, something I’m reminded of due to Paris, via HotAir:

The gun used during the attempted terror attack on the “Draw Muhammad” event in Texas may have been bought from the Arizona store linked to Fast and Furious. Los Angeles Timesbroke the news yesterday which also included the nugget that Nadir Soofi’s purchase was known by the federal government (emphasis mine).

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

The terrorist bought his gun from Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Arizona.  Lone Wolf was one of the gun dealers the ATF instructed to sell guns to the cartels.

The tapes Issa and Grassley refer to were recorded by Andre Howard, owner of the Lone Wolf Trading Co., after he suspected the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was lying to him about the guns they recruited him to sell to buyers of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Papers reporting this story still refuse to get Fast and Furious right.  The ATF told gun store owners to sell guns to people they knew were illegal buyers – illegal buyers they knew would send guns to Mexico.  The ATF did not have anyone in Mexico to intercept the guns (they did during Operation Wide Receiver in 2007), they simply sent guns south.

But at least the papers are getting the same answers that greeted actual reporters before:

The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Among other things, Johnson is demanding to know whether federal authorities have recovered the gun Soofi bought in 2010, where it was recovered and whether it had been discharged, according to the letter. He also demanded an explanation about why the initial seven-day hold was placed on the 2010 pistol purchase and why it was lifted after 24 hours.

Asked recently for an update on the Garland shooting, FBI Director James B. Comey earlier this month declined to comment. “We’re still sorting that out,” he said.

“We’re still sorting that out” is the same answer as “it’s still under investigation so we can’t talk about it and the investigation will remain open forever so we will never talk about it”, which was the standard claim the DOJ used to avoid answering any questions about Fast and Furious, except for the ones covered up by the use of Obama’s executive privilege.

Wonder why he got to purchase guns that he shouldn’t have?  Look no further than the FBI’s involvement assisting the ATF in Fast and Furious, where people who would’ve been denied under NICS (National Instant Check System) and now allowed to buy a firearm were allowed:

In the latest chapter of the gunrunning scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials won’t say how two suspects obtained more than 360 weapons despite criminal records that should have prevented them from buying even one gun. …

When asked about the breakdown, Stephen Fischer, a spokesman for the NICS System, said the FBI had no comment. However, an ATF agent who worked on the Fast and Furious investigation, told Fox News that NICS officials called the ATF in Phoenix whenever their suspects tried to buy a gun. That conversation typically led to a green light for the buyers, when it should have stopped them.

The ATF was greenlighting criminals to buy guns.  Not something new, but with the terrorist Soofi, it’s a new twist.

Of course it’s a new twist that will result with “no comment” and “ongoing investigation” stonewalling.

It seems I have to do this every time a gunwalker story comes up, but Fast and Furious wasn’t botched.  It did exactly what it set out to do.  It sent guns to the cartels, it “proved” the “Iron River” lie, and it implicated US gun culture as something that needed to be targeted (mind you there are additional reporting requirements now for gun purchases in CA, AZ, NM and TX).

Again:

Operation Wide Receiver used the common law enforcement tactic of “controlled delivery” in which the illegal sales of weapons were allowed to take place, the movements of the weapons were closely monitored and the end purchasers were then apprehended. It involved gun-tracing, not gun-walking.

Under the “controlled delivery” of Wide Receiver, agents didn’t just write down the serial numbers and let the guns disappear as in Fast and Furious. They closely and physically followed the guns from American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers.

Most importantly, Wide Receiver was run in close cooperation with Mexican authorities, who were kept in the dark on Fast and Furious.

In contrast ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have testified that they were ordered not to track the weapons and in cases where interdiction was possible they were ordered to stand down and actually watch the weapons walk.

ATF Special Agent John Dodson has testified how in one instance guns were sold to known illegal buyers who took them to a stash house. Against orders from his superiors, Dodson kept the stash house under surveillance and when a vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons to their ultimate destination, he called for an interdiction team to move in, seize the weapons and arrest the traffickers. His superiors refused, and the guns disappeared without surveillance.

Fast and Furious, the gift from Obama and Holder’s ATF that keeps on giving.

As a heads up for more sensitive readers, there are photos of terrorist attacks in this post further down.

Obama was just on TV and radio this morning saying how “we cannot” stop taking in refugees into neighborhoods in the US that Obama and his political donors and cronies will never live in, and the usual bleeding heart political BS that’s supposed to make people feel guilty for not taking in diseased strays.  Much of it is probably in response to governors across the country saying “no more refugees”. (Edit: In the time it took me to write this, another governor – a Democrat – was added to that list refusing “refugees”.)

If Obama hadn’t abandoned actual success in Iraq, the Middle East wouldn’t be producing the swarms of refugees that have invaded Europe and that he wants to bring here.  We already fought the bad guys over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here, and so their people could live free there (including the actual refugees in the bunch).  There wouldn’t be an ISIS for them to run from but for him.  He’s the one who lost the war.

Like most politicians, he has the objective of building his party, and as a hard leftist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” the US, he’s doing his best to turn us into a third world hole.  In the last couple years there have been the swarms of teenage “children” from central America who knew how to game the US immigration system and who were allowed to stay as “refugees”, even though they were just opportunists taking advantage of a president who actively wants “social justice” through redistribution of American capital to the rest of the world.  If we’re brought down from inside and made miserable in front of the world, in his mind that would begin to make up for the fictional oppression that he believes the US must be punished for.  It’s first world guilt that manifests as self-flagellation and self-destruction, and doubles as political power-building when he imports people who will vote Democrat forever.

When more moderate people begin to look at the problem of Islamic terrorism and say “why do you want to bring in the kinds of people who bring in terrorists with them?”, the left with Obama as its mouthpiece declares that’s racist and islamophobic and everyone needs to shut up.  Meanwhile France, the nation that Obama said “represents the timeless values of human progress”, has discovered common sense and decided to seal its borders and take in no more so-called “refugees” because at least some of the terrorists that attacked Paris were those “refugees”.

This inevitably leads to the “not all Muslims are terrorists” argument, which is true.  One bad apple does not spoil the bunch.  Except that saying can still be horribly wrong in practice.  One person sick from e coli or listeria will have a responsible business shut themselves down or have the FDA on them a heartbeat later to shut them down.  If only 1% of your food is liable to be dangerous, you don’t get to keep putting it on the market – it’d be wildly irresponsible.  If only 1% of 100,000 people you import support terrorism, then you’ve imported 1,000 potential terrorists.

If you care about your nation, you don’t bring in people who wish to do it harm.

Hollande is a French leftist, but is still French.  He understands that protecting France is a priority.  I haven’t heard him say he wants to “fundamentally change” France (at least not on this topic).  He also seems to understand that if you have an outbreak of terrorism, it might be worthwhile to look at the vector that terrorists are using to attack you, and the populations they come from, especially when so many of them are military-aged males.

Most are coming for free stuff given away by brain-dead-liberal western democracies.   They aren’t coming to assimilate to their new countries, they are far from peaceful, and they bring their animosities and wars with them.

These are not the poor tired huddled masses seeking escape from despotism and yearning to breathe free.  If they really wanted freedom they’d be fighting for it in their homelands.  They’re bypassing nations that don’t give handouts to make it to the ones that do.  They’re not looking for a place to be free of oppression of Islamic states and cast off the miserable lot they had and work to become citizens of their new nation, they’re looking to exploit the naivety of brain-dead-liberal societies – and then there are some who are looking to expand those Islamic states.

islam will dominate

So you start with a group that demands that other nations give them things simply because they’re there.  They demand asylum and they demand the necessities of life because someone else has them and they want them.  Those are the regular “refugees”.  The brain-dead-liberal west thinks that we’re somehow obligated to take care of people out of some “common bond of humanity” or some such nonsense.

Thing is, within that population of “refugees” is still the “radical muslim minority” like the would-be dominators pictured above.  And it’s not exactly a small number.

Ben Shapiro did a good breakdown on the myth of the radical muslim minority last year.  It’s good to assess what the numbers say:

At 4:40 he looks very briefly at numbers in France.

“France: 4.7 million muslims live there.  A 2007 poll showed 35% of French muslims said suicide bombings could sometimes be justified.  That’s 1.6 million radical muslims living in France.”

From Pew Research, and a favorable poll (and you can find plenty of such polls):

pew research muslim terrorism poll 2011 suicide bombing

If you take those numbers and read what they actually say, you have 20% of American-born muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified – and believe it to the point that they’d admit it.

The question is “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies.”  Would you say it’s “often”, “sometimes” or “rarely” or never justified?

If you answer with “rarely”, you’re still saying that once in a while it’s okay to murder a bunch of Parisians at a concert who have nothing to do with world conflicts aside from being Westerners.

So in order to “defend” Islam from it’s “enemies”, 20% of American born Muslims – and much higher numbers in other countries – think this is okay at least every once in a while:

2015 paris attack

And that this is acceptable:

kenya attack 150406 2

kenya attack 150406

There is no reason for any nation to invite that inside their borders, because it’s a predictable result of importing populations that harbor terrorist tendencies.

For the US and the coalition countries who fought overseas to shut down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and dozens of other terrorist groups, many of which converged as the Islamic State, there is no reason ever to import the same mayhem that we fought against overseas with the intention to prevent having to fight it stateside.

It’s especially offensive as the interpreters (mostly muslim themselves) who helped us in mid-east conflicts aren’t being allowed into the US.

Last week, President Obama decided to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States. But there’s another group of foreigners who deserve our help much more – the 50,000 men and women who served as interpreters for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They’ve already put their lives on the line – and often their families’ lives and friends’ lives as well – to show who they stand with.  They’re struggling to do everything the legal way and they’re being left hung out to dry, or killed trying to dodge vindictive terrorists overseas while US bureaucrats ignore their paperwork.

They really are the people who fought the hard fight to protect their homelands as best they could, they’re the people who saw western virtues as something that could help them, they’re the people who’d integrate into western society, and they really are the ones yearning to breathe free.  They’re the ones who aren’t looking for handouts, just looking for a safe place to live and become productive citizens.  They’re the ones who paid their dues in advance, actively fighting against islamic terrorists – and they’re the ones being ignored.

Over 10 years ago we were told what Al Qaeda had planned.  “The Base” knew what their objectives were, and they’ve been working towards them steadily.  ISIS and their attacks are right on schedule.

In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist (Fouad Hussein) writes, “I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies (including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Seif al-Adl) to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.” What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists’ blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

I’m going to use quotes from the Long War Journal’s assessment in 2005, because I’m also going to include their assessments:

The First Phase Known as “the awakening” — this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby “awakening” Muslims. “The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful,” writes Hussein. “The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.” The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard “everywhere.”

The Second Phase “Opening Eyes” is, according to Hussein’s definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the “Islamic community.” Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an “army” set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.

The Third Phase This is described as “Arising and Standing Up” and should last from 2007 to 2010. “There will be a focus on Syria,” prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and — even more explosive — in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida’s masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.

The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that “the creeping loss of the regimes’ power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida.” At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Long War Journal’s assessment of 3 and 4:

The Third and Fourth Phases can essentially be condensed. The potential spread of jihad and instability to Iraq’s neighbors of Turkey, Syria, (and while not mentioned, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait) as well as Israel highlights the importance of an American victory in Iraq. Iraq, as a failed state, would provide al Qaeda a base to create instability in bordering countries, setting the stage for overthrow by the Islamists.

It should be noted that Syria is playing a dangerous game by allowing al Qaeda to use its soil to conduct operations in Iraq. The jihadis are developing contacts, networks and obtaining recruits, which can eventually by turned against the Asad regime.

That part’s pretty clear.  Long War Journal was dead on about it, as was Fouad Hussein.  Al Qaeda set their goals and managed to acheive them.  2010 to 2013 saw the “Arab Spring”.

arab spring map

After Mubarak was overthrown, the Muslim Brotherhood was ultimately ousted in Egypt, but not before demonstrating that the West wouldn’t get involved, and would instead sit around handwringing and neither coming to aid of allies nor trying to stymie enemies.

The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half million Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.

Long War Journal said this (again, with the original article in 2005):

Phases Five, Six and Seven are merely the dreams of al Qaeda, as the prospects for al Qaeda’s success in phases One thru Fourth are looking grim at the moment. Despite media portrayal of defeat in Iraq, the Iraqi people are fighting the insurgency and the Anbar region is set to be reduced as an al Qaeda rear area. The jewel of al Qaeda, Afghanistan, fell almost four years ago, and al Qaeda and its Taliban allies have not come even close to retaining control.

And yet, Phases One through Four were successful, and the Fifth is successful because there is an Islamic State.  There has been a growing strength for Al Qaeda and those groups that it spawned.  Iraq is losing to the Islamic State, and Afghanistan is another forgotten war where the national strategy has become “cut and run”.

Long War Journal finished up with this, which seems like a strange coda from a different time before microaggressions against transgendered headmates triggered national outrage:

However, in the event of the United State loses its political will and pursues a policy of isolation from the Muslim world, an inevitable showdown with al Qaeda would ensue. Open confrontation with the West, as well as the possibility of a nuclear armed Caliphate, would bring the full military might of the Western World (those who value their freedom). The current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Southeast and Central Asia and within the borders of Western nations would be tame in comparison to what would come. The Japanese, Germans and Italians discovered in World War II the price of wakening the American military psyche.

The US lost its political will when it elected a hard leftist whose objective was to fundamentally change the US through domestic force and culture war.  There won’t be a showdown with Al Qaeda or ISIS when we’re led by people who think ISIS only exists because of global warming, or because terrorists don’t have good jobs with a $15/hr minimum wage.

The West would basically have two options: (1) blitzkrieg 21st Century style – the full mobilization of its military and an accompanying sweep of the Islamic crescent, without regards for Politically Correct warfare; (2) nuclear war. Both campaigns would be designed to fully eliminate the Islamist threat, and the Muslim infrastructure, which allowed for the rise of al Qaeda’s ideology.

This would require first acknowledging there is an Islamist threat, not spouting counterfactual gibberish that the Islamic State is not Islamic.

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates.  ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

isis not islamic cartoon

I find the “ISIS is not Islamic” to be the same kind of nonsense spouted by leftists in the US who say the USSR wasn’t really socialist or communist.  The left likes socialism and communism, so they don’t want their chosen ideology to be tarnished with the mass murder of 94 million human lives.  They embrace multiculturalism where Islam is an exotic ascetic discipline of exotic desert men they wish they could be as suave as, rather than acknowledging it for what it is – the exact antithesis of everything they claim to hold dear in their home countries.

Saying they aren’t a state because you don’t recognize them is as simple as recognizing them to change that.  The Taliban aren’t “a state”, either, but they’re being recognized and negotiated with.

The Russians living on the Volga probably didn’t recognize the Mongol Horde as a state, but it didn’t matter when the mongols took over.  Whether some posturing man in a suit half a world away recognizes ISIS as the authority on the ground really doesn’t change that ISIS is the authority on the ground.

Lara Logan hit this nail on the head three years ago:

This is terrorism.  It’s a completely and utterly different fight from anything we have faced in our history…  Our way of life is under attack – and if you think that’s government propaganda – if you think that’s nonsense – if you think that’s warmongering – you’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fightIn your arrogance, you think you write the script, but you don’t.

There is an ongoing effort to rewrite the script from the White House – it’s government propaganda of the “everything is fine” variety.  ISIS is the junior varsity team.  Nine hours before the Paris attacks Obama claimed ISIS is “not getting stronger” and “we’ve contained them”.

By reading that, and by listening to John Kerry talk about how the US stands with France and we’ll have some peace talks in January, or maybe 6 months, and that’ll solve that whole Paris terrorist attack thing and that ISIS thing, there is clearly one more option that Long War Journal didn’t consider 10 years ago – that option is to lose.

For those who live under a rock, dozens were killed in Paris tonight by Islamic terrorists yelling “Allahu akbar”.

France and Paris for years has had huge amounts of immigration from Islamic nations, some of it due to their national interactions with Algeria and North African nations, some of it due to brain-dead-liberal multiculturalist sensibilities – the same kind of brain-dead-liberal multiculturalism that’s leading the US to import “refugees” from terrorist nations today.

It’s how that nation came to be attacked, a nation that Obama said of today:

Paris itself represents the timeless values of human progress. Those who think they can terrorise the people of France or the values they stand for are wrong.

The statement is laughable.  Progressive values are what allowed terrorists to flourish and what allowed them in the country to begin with.  Jihadis terrorized France when they murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.  Jihadis are terrorizing the people of France again.

Clearly, those who think they can terrorize the people of France are correct.  They have done so recently and they have done so again today.

Obama’s hopey-changey boilerplate about “terrorizing the values the stand for” is kind of absurd.  You can’t terrorize ideas, but you can terrorize people and through the experience of terrorism show them that their ideas are wrong.

What it sounds like is a progressive’s way to say “don’t change your mind just because you’ve been attacked”.  “Don’t believe what you see and hear, you must stay true to your progressive ideas.”  There’s a saying that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.  This is Obama saying “don’t change your mind just because you’ve been mugged… it doesn’t mean anything.”

If people were to look at the predictable results of importing terrorists and their sympathizers, and they were to let their “values of human progress” be questioned, they might ask… why are we going to import more people from terrorist nations into the US?

The Obama administration is moving to increase and accelerate the number of Syrian refugees who might be admitted into the United States by opening new screening outposts in Iraq and Lebanon, administration officials told Reuters on Friday.

The move comes after President Barack Obama pledged in September to admit an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016, torn by four years of civil war and disorder.

A lot of them aren’t refugees.  Enough of them are going to be terrorists that we’re going to be importing huge numbers of terrorists and terrorist supporters and the populations in which they hide.

This is what France did.  They’re suffering the consequences of open borders… borders they’ve now closed.

Terrorism is a predictable result of importing terrorists and populations that terrorists come from and hide in and allowing people from terrorist nations into your country.

As a side note, earlier this evening, The Economist had a piece about Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s right wing* National Front with the title and subtitle “Phantom Menace – Marine Le Pen may win elections on fear of a non-existent migrant wave”.  40-100 dead Parisians** doesn’t sound like a non-existent menace.

Except if you’re hand-waving away the consequences and commanding “don’t change your mind just because you’ve been attacked” or “you must not let your progressive values be deterred by reality”.

*keep in mind this is right wing for France and Europe, which is quite different from the US
** numbers as of writing this, with varying reports

Via Legal Insurrection, Obama says Republicans are the same as Iranians chanting “Death To America” because Obama logic.

“Just because Iranian hard-liners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe,” Obama said to strong applause from the audience.

“In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo,” Obama said Wednesday afternoon. “It’s those hard-liners chanting “death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal.”

“They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus,” Obama said to laughter and wild applause.

Just like how a toothless deal that lets Iran have nuclear weapons means Iran won’t have nuclear weapons.  Because you’re racist or something.

Speaking of the Iran deal, why are we doing that anyway?

A reminder about presidential candidate Jeb Bush and what he thinks of illegal aliens breaking into the country with their first steps as violation of laws:

Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.

Some people love money.  We call them bank robbers.

Some people love hurting people.

2015 was predicted to be another high-level year of illegal aliens showing upwhich has proven to be true, but it’s more easily hidden due to infrastructure built up last year, and it is slightly less than last year.

Via HotAir, a footnote to #gamergate from August, that a debate was broken up by bomb threats deemed credible enough to evacuate.

Apparently several calls had been made to the Miami PD and Miami Herald indicating that a bomb would go off at 2:45 PM, and though apprised that this has happened before to #GamerGate, the authorities weren’t taking any chances.  They sent everyone back a couple blocks and cleared the entire neighborhood surrounding the venue.

Stuck standing outside in the 96 degree Miami heat, suddenly the journalists present were extremely interested in what #GamerGate had to say, and many of them were seen giving interviews there on the street.

Playboy magazine has decided to drop full nudity.

Can’t help but wonder if it’s at least peripherally related to the Army & Air Force dropping “adult sophisticate” magazines including Playboy in 2013.

ana cheri blow kissAdieu, Cheri.

ISIS and a Peculiar Media Bias

Posted: February 4, 2015 by ShortTimer in Iraq, Media, terrorism
Tags:

Yesterday I watched the video of the Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh be burned alive.  It could be found a handful of places on the internet, though it really should be shown on TV.  One of the reasons 9/11 had such a big impact on the American psyche is because it was seen live, unedited.

Similarly, actually seeing it prevents linguistic tricks like what I read today in Reuters.

AMMAN (Reuters) – Jordan vowed a “strong, earth-shaking and decisive” response to Islamic State killing’s of a Jordanian pilot whose death was announced on Tuesday, the government spokesman said a statement.

Islamic State earlier released a video purporting to show the pilot being burnt to death.

Purporting is a very interesting word.

Look up the definition of purport and you find something like this, first from Google, second from Dictionary.com (emphasis mine):

pur·port
verb
gerund or present participle: purporting
pərˈpôrt/

appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess.
“she is not the person she purports to be”

verb (used with object)
1. to present, especially deliberately, the appearance of being; profess or claim,often falsely:

a document purporting to be official.
2. to convey to the mind as the meaning or thing intended; express or imply.

In fact, by typing in the word “purporting” into Google, you get this response today (2/4/15):

jordanian pilot purport

What a specifically strange choice of words.

Blackwater founder Erik Prince made a statement recently that was roundly critical of Obama administration policies, calling Obama out for having destroyed his company that could otherwise have solved the ISIS “boots on the ground” issue.

“It’s a shame the [Obama] administration crushed my old business, because as a private organization, we could’ve solved the boots-on-the-ground issue, we could have had contracts from people that want to go there as contractors; you don’t have the argument of U.S. active duty going back in there,” Prince said in an on-stage discussion featuring retired four-star Gen. James Conway. “[They could have] gone in there and done it, and be done, and not have a long, protracted political mess that I predict will ensue.”

Pretty much.

The left already thinks of US troops as mercenaries (Washington Post writer Bill “American troops are baby-killing mercenary scum who need to shut up and do what I tell them” Arkin is infamous for it) and uses it as an epithet.  And they generally tend to hold Tim Robbin’s opinion on business (that aren’t their own) as well:

The solution to dealing with ISIS might actually be to just agree with the left and actually let corporations go in with mercenary forces to clean up the mess.

If corporations actually had fought a blood war for oil in Iraq (as per the leftist fantasy), then there would be corporate entities with an interest in the final outcome of the conflict.  If Exxon/Shell/BP/Texaco were all invested in the nation as part of their bottom line, they’d be interested in building the place up.

Historically, US companies have built infrastructure in other nations.  The first example that comes to mind is Creole Petroleum Corporation, which built up Venezuela’s oil business (which Venezuela took over by nationalization in 1976).  MST3K riffed one of their short films back in the mid-late 90s.

I started writing this whole post a few days ago, then life got in the way, and now returning to it, I see it still holds quite true.  The world has started asking questions about this shaky coalition of the unwilling, Iraqi civilians who haven’t fled are left between the Scylla of American airstrikes with no ground support and the Charybdis of ISIS which still controls their lives.

President Obama has declared “war upon war so we can have peace upon peace” which sounds like Woodrow Wilson’s lying promises of noninterventionism coupled with his propaganda that dragged us into WWI now married to Neville Chamberlain’s naivete when it comes to dealing with aggressors.

Ultimately, a mercenary force on the ground would solve the political quandary of putting American forces into active combat (even though we have troops on the ground… and they are wearing boots, no matter how many times the lie of “no boots on the ground” is repeated).  If Iraq as a nation were run by anyone who cared about the nation – whether decent Iraqis or foreign business interests, they’d have hired mercenaries on their own by now.  If Iraq’s war were privatized and subject to market forces, it would be won and stabilized already.

The problems of the Iraq war, both under Bush and Obama, are representative of their respective ideologies.  Bush believed in spreading freedom and democracy to people whose capacity to immediately accept freedom and democracy even the Founders would’ve been skeptical of.  Bush’s domestic policy in the US ignored the US borders and ignored sovereignty for domestic business interests, so thinking of the border as something that should be sealed didn’t really occur to him or those around him – hence the foreign fighters who were swarming across in the 2004-2006 timeframe.  The HET team I got to work with briefly near Fallujah in 2005 explained that the entire problem in Iraq stemmed from foreign terrorists that the locals could clearly identify, but who kept coming in because borders were porous.  But Bush’s failures were contrasted with successes, though – the surges worked.  It was a fix to a problem that could’ve been prevented, but it still was a fix.

Obama’s ideology when it comes to problems is to talk about them just enough to say they aren’t important (or to blame Republican partisanship for them while claiming to be nonpartisan), and then handwaving them away.  His problem-solving methods are limited to rhetoric and using the bully pulpit to be dismissive of all criticism, and enjoying a press that willingly obliges his every whim.  His answer to Iraq is that it’s Bush’s fault because of the status-of-forces agreement of 2008, one which Obama did not seek to change with Iraq because he accepted the will of the Iraqi government as being every bit as important as America’s.  The US isn’t exceptional to him, and all countries are equal.

This led the US-Iraq relationship to become one that may as well have been a Maury Povich show with “out of control” children telling their parents off, and the parents sighing that they just can’t do anything about it.  Iraq needed to be leaned on until they accepted.  Obama was unwilling to lean on Iraq and tell them they had to accept in order to prevent a predictable result like ISIS, because Obama didn’t want to be involved.  He’s the absentee parent who doesn’t want the kid, so he lets the kid run wild – and/or blames the kid’s other parent for the problems while absolving himself of responsiblity and saying he never wanted kids in the first place.  None of that solves the problem and all of it contributes to it.

Nonetheless, he uses the 2008 status of forces agreement as an excuse.  When ISIS threatens everyone in the world, he responds with “I will not be intimidated” and some more words.  Now, pushed hard by his staff, he’s barely on board with half-measures that will accomplish little besides aiding Assad against ISIS and give ISIS a rallying cry for more terrorists to join them.  A declaration of “I will put no American boots on the ground” (technically already a lie, but the intent to avoid conflict is clear) is a declaration that thoroughly emboldens the enemy as much as a retreat date in Afghanistan did there, and that declaration of timidity reminds our other geopolitical foes like Russia that we aren’t going to do anything to save the Ukraine.