Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

ISIS Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on September 08, 2014 6 Comments
The Islamic State, otherwise known as "ISIS" or "ISIL," made a name for itself earlier this summer via graphic videos showing the beheadings of American hostages Steven Sotloff and James Foley. The atmosphere of terror created by ISIS in northern Iraq and Syria has helped the group draw in millions of dollars in ransom money, and motivated world leaders to work together to develop the growing terror threat in the Middle East. Part of the United States' strategy to fight ISIS is happening online in the form of propaganda videos targeted at Americans who are considering defecting to the Middle East to fight with the Islamic State. The first hit, “Welcome to ISIL-Land," features a series of graphic smash cuts highlighting the torture, beheadings, and mass violence that has defined the group's presence in the American media. WARNING: It's graphic.

Posted by New Neo on September 08, 2014 25 Comments
Now that Ted Cruz has proposed that Americans who fight with ISIS be stripped of citizenship, there's been a rash of articles questioning whether this would be legal, such as this one at Hot Air. At American Thinker, Rick Moran has written:
Currently, natural born citizens of the US cannot have their citizenship revoked against their will. It is unclear whether Cruiz's bill would supercede the denaturalization law. It is also against international law to strip an individual's citizenship if they are not also a citizen of another country. In other words, the US cannot create a "stateless" person that no other country would accept.
The relevant law is this statute originally from the 1940s, as well as several subsequent SCOTUS cases. This is how that portion of the statute reads:
a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality— ...

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 07, 2014 43 Comments
When you consider the disturbing number of Americans allegedly working with ISIS already, this sounds like a solid idea. Senator Cruz is going to introduce legislation next week. Mario Trujillo of The Hill reported:
Cruz: Strip citizenship from Americans in ISIS Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is slated to introduce legislation next week that would revoke the U.S. citizenship of anyone fighting or providing support to terrorist groups working to attack the United States. Cruz said he is filing the Expatriate Terrorist Act in reaction to the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It would provide another level of protection to prevent foreign fighters from re-entering the United States, he said. “Americans who choose to go to Syria or Iraq to fight with vicious ISIS terrorists are party to a terrorist organization committing horrific acts of violence, including beheading innocent American journalists who they have captured,” Cruz said in a statement. “There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt on their part to re-enter our country and carry out further attacks on American civilians.”
This is a very interesting development considering what's happening in the UK.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 05, 2014 8 Comments
Our "boots on the ground" troops in Iraq are receiving mixed messages, and it's causing more than just a morale problem. Officials overseas are calling out the Obama Administration on their jumbled approach to current actions being taken against the Islamic State in Iraq. The current mission against ISIS calls for diplomatic protection in addition to airborne and humanitarian missions, and military leadership can't get a clear read on just how far President Obama is willing to go to destroy (or shrink, he can't decide) Islamic extremism. Via Fox News:
Biden on Wednesday delivered what was probably the toughest statement to date from the administration, declaring, after another U.S. journalist was beheaded by the Islamic State, "we will follow them to the gates of Hell until they are brought to justice." But his tough talk was at odds with a message delivered earlier in the day by President Obama, who said that while his administration's goal is to "destroy" ISIS -- it also is to "shrink" it to a "manageable problem." Amid the mixed messages, a source in contact with special operators in Iraq told Fox News that "frustration and confusion reign" among Americans on the ground there. The source relayed the complaint of an unnamed special operator: "Chase them to the Gates of Hell? How the [f---] are we going to do that when we can't even leave the front gate of our base!?"
President Obama recently agreed to send 350 additional troops to Baghdad to protect our diplomatic mission, bringing our troop total on the ground to just over 1200. According to the White House, those troops were meant to relieve previously deployed units while "providing a more robust, sustainable security force for our personnel and facilities in Baghdad.” Now, it seems even the President and the Vice President can't get their messaging straight.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 05, 2014 12 Comments
Yesterday, we wrote about Senator Paul's apparent departure from isolationism.  Last night, the Kentucky Senator chatted with Sean Hannity about his foreign policy stance:
"I've been trying to say that for the last four years of public life that I'm I'm neither an isolationist nor an interventionist. I'm someone who believes in the Constitution and believes America should have a strong national defense and believes that we should defend ourselves. But when we do it, we should do it the way the Constitution intended. That's the President should come before Congress and make the case for war." "There's a big difference between that and between doing it unilaterally. And I think the example of Libya, with both Hillary's support and President Obama's support shows all the unintended consequences when they around the Constitution."
I don't disagree we should respect Constitutional channels, but objectively speaking, this is just political posturing and an attempt to define his position as diametrically opposed to that of both Mrs. Clinton and the administration. Which is smart. But his argument seems to hinge on the fact that we would not be in this nightmare of a foreign policy situation had President Obama gone to Congress. Perhaps he's right. He continued:

Posted by David Gerstman on September 04, 2014 7 Comments
Steven Sotloff, the journalist whose beheading by the Islamic State was announced earlier this week, was not only Jewish, but an Israeli citizen. Apparently Sotloff became an Israeli citizen when he attended the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. Given the ease with which one can gather information he understood the risks involved in reporting from a part of world where Jews aren't welcome. He told his "almost-friend" Oren Kessler, "Yeah, Google definitely isn’t my friend.” Kessler was quoted further in The Times of Israel:
London-based analyst Oren Kessler, who corresponded with Sotloff, said he never shared his Jewish identity with anyone in the field, opting instead to tell locals that he had been raised Muslim but secular, without mosque affiliation. He sometimes even chose to tell people that he was of Chechen origin, and that Sotloff – a name that rings decidedly Jewish to those familiar with Jewish names – was actually a Chechen name.
The same report quoted a former hostage who said that despite the risks Sotloff feigned illness on Yom Kippur so he could fast and made efforts to pray towards Jerusalem:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 03, 2014 12 Comments
Advocating for foreign intervention is not something you usually hear from libertarian poster children like Senator Paul. And yet, that seems to be what he's preaching. From WaPo:
"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."
Good. Someone should have a plan to deal with those monsters. But as WaPo points out, Paul is supposed to be the only non-interventionist in the bunch of potential 2016 contenders. Compare Paul's statement to the rest of the pack of GOP potential candidates, as compiled by WaPo:
Chris Christie: ""The ISIS situation is one that deserves a really detailed answer, which I'm not going to give you while walking down the boardwalk and taking selfies." Marco Rubio: "If we do not act now to assist our Iraqi partners and moderate Syrians who oppose ISIL, as well as utilize our own forces to directly target ISIL’s leadership, the result will be more suffering and tragedy for our people.”

Posted by Amy Miller on September 03, 2014 23 Comments
The White House has agreed to send 350 additional troops to Baghdad following a State Department request for more protection at the U.S. embassy and other installations. Via Time:
“This action was taken at the recommendation of the Department of Defense after an extensive interagency review, and is part of the President’s commitment to protect our personnel and facilities in Iraq as we continue to support the Government of Iraq in its fight against [ISIS],” [White House press secretary Josh] Earnest said. “These additional forces will not serve in a combat role.” ... “The President has made clear his commitment to doing whatever is required to provide the necessary security for U.S. personnel and facilities around the world,” Earnest said. “The request he approved today will allow some previously deployed military personnel to depart Iraq, while at the same time providing a more robust, sustainable security force for our personnel and facilities in Baghdad.”
According to CBS News, this will bring the U.S. troop count sent to Iraq to deal with the current crisis to 800, and the total U.S. troop presence in Baghdad to 1,213.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 01, 2014 57 Comments
During an appearance on FOX News Sunday, Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan was asked how many Americans have joined ISIS. His answer was nothing short of stunning. Ian Tuttle of National Review has the details:
House Intel Chair: ‘Hundreds’ of Americans Have Fought with ISIS; Some Have Returned to U.S How many Americans are fighting with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria? “It’s in the hundreds,” says Representative Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. There are “hundreds” of Americans “that have at least one time traveled, participated, and trained with them. Some of them have drifted back [to the U.S.], some of them have gone to Europe,” Rogers says.
Here's the video:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on August 29, 2014 22 Comments
Watching the press conference that President Obama gave yesterday in which he revealed that his foreign policy has devolved from "don't do stupid stuff" to "no strategy," I was perplexed that the media was complaining more about the color of the suit instead of its emptiness. Mulling over the subsequent coverage, I couldn't help but wonder what the upcoming September 11th would bring for our country, because our enemies are clearly inspired by weakness. Now Judicial Watch has revealed that Islamic terrorist groups are operating Mexico and plan to attack the United States along our southern border.
Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 29, 2014 19 Comments
Britain, home to many of the Jihadists fighting for ISIS, including the likely beheader of James Foley, has just raised its terror threat level. The Telegraph reports, Terror attack on UK 'highly likely' as threat level raised:
The UK terror threat level has been raised to its second highest meaning an attack on the country is “highly likely”. It is the first time the threat level has been at “severe” since 2011 when it was reduced to “substantial”. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, said the decision was taken in light of the increasing dangers posed by British fanatics and other foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria.... Police and security services have long been concerned over the large numbers of British jihadists travelling to Syria and Iraq. It is feared more than 500 have gone and around half of those are now back in the UK, with some possibly planning attacks here. At least one plot is known to have already been foiled.
Is Britain finally will to address the Jihadis among it? Prime Minister David Cameron says Britain is, but that's far from clear, particularly in light of the disgusting disclosure recently that fear of being called "racist" led British authorities to ignore for over a decade Pakistani-community rape gangs targeting over 1400 white teenagers based on race and religion. Here is Cameron's address today:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 29, 2014 32 Comments
I was in class yesterday during Obama's press conference, in which he announced the obvious: We have no strategy as to ISIS. So I didn't get to watch it live and see the instant reaction. There was Bad, Good and Worse news. The bad news: We have no strategy as to ISIS, or anything else in the Middle East other than reducing American influence. The good news: Obama is telling the truth. The worse news: The truth Obama is telling is a monumental and deliberate failure that will take a decade or more to reverse, if it even can be reversed. Mark Levin summed it up nicely on Hannity the other night, not just as to ISIS but the entire thrust of the administration:

Posted by Amy Miller on August 27, 2014 11 Comments
ISIS is ready to take another victim. Multiple news outlets are reporting that ISIS has threatened the life of a third (living) hostage, this time a 26 year-old female American aid worker who was kidnapped last year during a humanitarian mission to Syria. (A representative of the family asked that she not be identified.) Militants have demanded $6.6 million and a reciprocal release of prisoners in exchange for her return. Via ABC News:
She is the third of at least four Americans who were known to be held by ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. American journalist James Foley was executed by the group in a video that appeared online last week. Another writer, Steven Sotloff, was seen alive but under duress in the same footage. In addition to the multi-million dollar ransom, the terror group has also demanded that the U.S. release Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT-trained neuroscientist who was convicted by the U.S. in 2010 of trying to kill U.S. officials two years before, according to a supporter of Siddiqui who has been in contact with the hostage’s family.

Posted by Amy Miller on August 26, 2014 1 Comment
We already know that ISIS is “beyond anything we’ve seen;" that they're prodigiously well-funded; that they marry radical Islamic ideology with brutal paramilitary tactics; and that they could pose a threat beyond the confines of the Middle East. What we don't know is the scope of the immediate threat to U.S. assets in the Middle East outside of Iraq. That's why President Obama has approved the use of drone technology in Syria to aid in the military's air surveillance efforts. Via the Wall Street Journal:
The U.S. military's Central Command, which oversees American operations in the region, requested more surveillance aircraft, including drones, to gather more intelligence on potential Islamic State targets, and officials said they could start flying missions over eastern Syria shortly.
Of course, the question on everyone's mind is whether or not drone surveillance will translate into the use of drones to take out hostile targets. The U.S. Military's Central Command, however, has not indicated that they intend to use the drones for that purpose at least for now:
"The Pentagon is preparing to conduct reconnaissance flights over Syria," a senior U.S. official said. "There is no decision yet to do strikes, but in order to help make that decision, you want to get as much situational awareness as possible."
It doesn't help matters that Syria has been locked in its current conflict since early 2011. The Syrian Civil War started three years ago with mostly peaceful protests against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad. Since then, almost 200,000 people have died amidst clashes that have spread beyond Syria and into northern Iraq and Lebanon.
Accessibility by WAH