Wow…that really surprises me that you feel that way, Zeb…
1 Like
Same. I was wrong obviously.
Chances of getting a 50/50 wrong twice in a row are only what, 25%?
SO there is a 75% chance I’m right now, and he’ll lose in an epic landslide.
lol.
Aren’t you a bean counter, that’s some really poor number crunching.
The only reason I believe he has a chance is the fact he’s running against another entirely un-electable candidate. Though if you look at fundraising (he’s losing like 40 to 1) or any other indicators, he doesn’t appear to stand the slightest chance. If Hilary actually got indicted (like she should) or something like that, who knows? I’m not giving much weight to polling either, because who the heck knows who’s actually going to turn out in an election with the 2 least liked candidates in history. I think the Hilary and Trump fanatics on both sides turn out, but other than them? I’m to the point of not even wanting to vote in the presidential race. For example (and a good laugh) Ruters has Trump polling below “other/wouldn’t vote/refused”.
50/50 … assuming independence of course
lmao… Jokes guys, jokes.
ouch lol.
fivethirtyeight has him getting ass raped
You’ve never pointed out any reasons why I shouldn’t feel that way.
Nate Silver also said Trump had a 5% chance of winning the nomination
Either that or we brought these terrorist attacks on ourselves because of how America is perceived across the globe. It’s obviously all our fault and maybe if we’re nice the terrorists will just go away.
Or it’s all because of a video tape…that’s it, an obscure anti-muslim video tape!
Absolutely. In addition to ISIL’s ideological motivations, Turkey is also a NATO member and a member of the coalition contributing to Operation Inherent Resolve, primarily through Incirlik Air Base, the origin of a significant amount of US combat sorties.
Academia isn’t an obstacle to counterterrorism and counterinsurgency campaigns. In fact, it has been extremely valuable to those undertakings and will continue to be well into the future.
The above was a quote from Bush 43. He understood the strategic and moral importance of denying religious terrorists validation of their ideological claims, not to mention playing right into their underpinning metaphysical narratives.
As the Middle East expert Marc Lynch points out, "Politicians across the spectrum understood the strategic as well as moral importance of denying al-Qaeda its audacious claim to represent Islam . . .Bush was staunchly opposed to the demonization of Islam, and frequently argued — as Hillary Clinton does today — that America was not at war with Islam. He understood the importance of denying the al-Qaeda narrative of a clash of civilizations . . .Promoting a clash of civilizations and destroying the reality of productive coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims was always at the heart of al-Qaeda’s strategy. The Islamic State has avowed the same goal of eliminating the “gray zones” of toleration.
The terrorism studies literature supports Kerry’s observation. This is one specific example, but this is a well accepted phenomenon by scholars and practitioners.
ISIL has lost 50% of its territory in Iraq and 20% of its territory in Syria. The road between Raqqa and Mosul - ISIL’s brain and heart, respectively, has been cut off. I want these fuckers as dead as the next guy, but I don’t take issue with the current methodical and strategic approach. A campaign against an organization as powerful and pernicious as ISIL was always going to be a multi year endeavor.
Most of the time, academia in this area is nearly worthless navel-gazing.
I’m aware of the source of the quote, my issue is with the idiotic word games Obama insists on playing. Obama isn’t heading off a rising prejudice that would move us closer to a “clash of civilizations” - such a fear is over blown by hand wringing fops.
But most importantly, the unwillingness to simply call something by its correct name raises more serious questions about what else Obama fails to honestly address or appeciate - what radical Islam is, why we need to stop it, and how we do so.
Imagine an FDR bending over backwards to make sure everyone understood that the Nazis - National Socialists, by name and admission - really didn’t represent socialism properly understood, all in hopes of making sure we didn’t start a “clash” against all of socialist countries. Absurd.
Calling radical Islam by name isn’t besmirching Islam - it’s stating the obvious that within Islam…and that is key, it is within Islam, not without…there is a monstrous, barbarian ideology that, because it is within Islam…again, not outside of it…can only be fixed within the Islamic world itself. Yes, we can do much with physical destruction, and should, but the accountability to extinguish this ideology and its many forms resides in Islam.
Obama’s tactic merely reinforces many Islamic nations’ erroneous view that this ideology is caused by some factor other than its actual cause - they nod their collective head and say, oh yes, these ideologies are the result of Western meddling, misunderstandings, materialist reasons - anything that absolved them of the acts done in the name of Islam.
Thus, just when we need Islamic countries to join our fight and be accountable and in fact angry, we give them a reason to stay on the sidelines, as they always have.
Obama is a classic faculty lounge naif. He doesn’t have to be a belligerent warmonger, that isn’t the answer, but he should at least project strength and be strategically competent. Beyond disappointment, he’s been a failure.
3 Likes
The rest of your post is a reflection of the ignorance demonstrated above. I’d love to hear how you came to this conclusion, given that you’ve never given any indication that you’re so as much as a dilettante. Why not be honest and admit that you aren’t all that familiar with the literature in the field? Or are you content at throwing stones at decades of hard won research that you can’t be bothered to read yourself?
P.S., practitioners in the defense and intelligence communities seem to have missed the memo, as academics have been invited to lend their expertise in Afgahnistan and Iraq and have served with great distinction.
I don’t understand the punchline…there’s nothing funny about being bad at probability
1 Like
White House Watch: Trump 43%, Clinton 39%
Polls are all over the damn place.
If your trying to sell the narrative that ISIS would not carry out these attacks had they not had battlefield losses, I am not buying. Terror is more part and parcel to their brand then territory. Terror is what ISIS does.
So yes they’ve lost some territory and I am sure they are pissed about that, but the terrorism branch of ISIS is still at full capacity and more attacks are imminent and this would be the case whether or not they lost territory.
They are a terrorist organization and terror is their business. They are not carrying out terror attacks because they are ‘desperate’, they carry them out because they are terrorists.
1 Like
I don’t have a problem doubling the number of guns in the U.S. I would happily double my arsenal if I had the money.
For the record, though, I would never buy an AR-15. I wouldn’t buy anything less than an AR-10. I really like the AR-10.
Me too. Not that I like him, but he couldn’t be stupider. A canned ham couldn’t be worse.