As well - Trump had the genius idea of sticking the Russians with the expensive role of trying to keep things in order over there. Then he took out Baghdadi, a cruel and murderous zealot (though some dems called him an ‘ascetic scholar’ - more left wing spin - the man man’s moral crimes were unpardonable.All in all this has been another Trump triumph and I give him Kudos for it. Brilliant.
Yes, amid a quagmire Trump rightly abhors, only time will tell if abandoning loyal allies and expanding Russia’s sphere of power in the volatile Middle East proves to be genius.
P.S. What Democrats have argued Baghdadi is an ascetic? He is only brutally bloodthirsty!!!
An obituary in the Washington Post which, to all intents and purposes, is a Democrat hack.
Well, for the love of Mike, give the man some time! (Btw, I am not referring to Mcarans - please take note, Michael).
If the Post argued that he is at all less than the moral monster Dave described, can you send a link? That’d be crazy, and I’m skeptical of characterizing that as the “dems” view.
What man are we giving time to?
1 Like
I take it you mean give Vladimir more time? It looks like he’ll have all he wants.
An ‘ascetic scholar’ taken at a young age?
Um hm.
"Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a rapist. Like most jihadists, his main motivation was murder and genocide, combined with far-Right religious hatred. In Islamic State, the organization and “state” that he led, he was able to exploit various strands of followers to create the closest thing the Middle East has seen to a short-lived, Nazi-style country.
He spent his days as leader raping women the group had kidnapped while his men died on the front lines. Like Hitler, he enjoyed the good life while his Sunni soldiers suffered under the bombs of the US-led coalition and struggled to stop the rising tide of Shi’ite militias and Kurdish fighters arrayed against them."
A quiet Muslim scholar:
"In his hatred of Shi’ites, Baghdadi was channeling a new kind of jihadist zeal. While al-Qaeda and others had launched a war against the West and against local totalitarian and corrupted governments under the banner of “Islam,” the concepts floating around Iraq in 2004 viewed non-Sunnis as sub-humans. They all had to be killed: Christians, Shi’ites, Yazidis and other groups such as Kurds.
This was a truly Nazi-style ideology that saw the world in terms of believers and sub-humans. It was helped along by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq who pushed for more targeting of Shi’ites and minorities. Mass attacks in 2004 on Shi’ite shrines were carried out in Karbala, killing hundreds. Baghdadi was paying attention.
As Baghdadi rose to the leadership of what was then called “Islamic State of Iraq,” the Sunni insurgents that had initially been fighting the US had shifted tactics to murdering fellow Iraqis. Massive bombings targeted Yazidi communities in 2007, killing 700 people; more bombings targeted the Kekei religious community, Shebeks, Kurds and Christians. From 2007 to 2009, cities were awash in blood. "
He did have a way with women, this scholar!
“ALL THE WHILE, Baghdadi was busy raping women. This was not incidental to his caliphate: It was the main driving force behind it. ISIS was an empire of rape. It sold itself abroad as a brand promising young men from Central Asia to the Caribbean a chance to come to Syria and Iraq, and rape and harm local people. It promised slaves and booty. Baghdadi raped Yazidi girls and his forces acquired the kidnapped American Kayla Mueller. (the Christian missionary woman that he took and raped for years before turning her over for further raping by his men.)”
So the dem’s paper of record, the WaPo, was certainly spot-on saying:
"The headline read: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”
No need to mention anything else in that headline.? Such as: what was austere about this monster?
After the defeat of ISIS, there was no longer a clear mission for American troops stationed in Syria, so President Trump fulfilled his campaign promise by making sure that they did not remain there indefinitely. There was a time, not so long ago, when many Democrats would have applauded that decision. Today’s Democrats, however, have chosen to place their hatred of Donald Trump ahead not only of policy principles but also ahead of the best interests of America and the men and women in uniform who defend our freedoms.
Thanks for sharing your perceptions. But this all appears untrue. Trump has not made sure troops did not remain. They remain in an especially vulnerable position in Syria, and he recently sent thousands more to the Middle East to support the brutal Saudis who provided most of 9-11’s attackers and are murdering many in Yemen. As Steve suggests, the clear mission that remained is to first keep faith with some provision preventing the slaughter of loyal allies who had put their lives on the line.
You also typically speak hatefully of hypocritic Dems as responsible for all disagreements. The reality is that the strongest voices that eloquently decried the betrayal you defend here were Republican Senators who have been strong and loyal advocates of this president.
The truth is, that rather than remove troops from the field, what Trump did, was just give the green light for those who have faithfully shed the most blood in working with us and sharing vital risky intelligence on the likes of the monster Baghdadi, to then just be brutally slaughtered and bombed with no notice, and leaving thousands of children without parents and driven from their homes.
And the truth is that it is not only Republican “policy principles” that have been committed that those we ask to commit to alliances with us can trust that we have their back, or else others whose support we need in the future will think our word is worthless. Up until this president, this concern that America doesn’t betray her allies has been a policy principle of both Republicans and Democrats.
I respect Steve’s balanced critique of this dilemma. But I see those who just champion this precipitous abandonment of faithful partners with no arrangement for any provision that prevents them being bombed into the ground to be such a stark betrayal of minimal principles as to represent the loss of any moral compass, and only explainable as partisan allegiance to be P.C. toward the politician in power.
Speaking of presidential candidates and the church. Look at today’s Patheos’, Catholic newsletter article:
And to share a Protestant perspective, on our current season…This is from today’s, Patheos’ Evangelical newsletter:
And to whet your appetite, here’s a taste of the “spooky”. 
Before we have a bromance Bob, I also said the middle east is a sinkhole and there is never a good time to pull out US troops and there is a good case to stop spilling our blood indefinitely. As I said the Kurds are a group worth helping IMO but would I want my kid over there , risking his life to defend the Kurds? Would you?
What should Trump have done? He had made promises during the campaign, and the American people have been calling for an end to endless wars in the ME; noone else has done it, and it never would get done - costing many more lives innocent and not - as history has shown. Noone got thrown under the bus, and I think this is the best of POSSIBLE outcomes.
Steve, don’t play hard to get! Why do you think I clicked that I love that statement, and said it shows balance? Of course the middle east is a sinkhole, and I’ve repeatedly said that my personal judgment is that one of Trump’s greatest virtues is his instincts about that and his reluctance to enter into any more endless wars. And if Trump had actually pulled those kids out of the middle east, I’d sympathize. But he just moved them from where they were taking no casualties to another place on the Titanic.
I’d never suggest I’d recommend joining the army or have my kid sent to most endeavors we’ve entered. My point is that we’re putting future kids at greater risk by sending the message that we will simply give the green light to slaughter faithful allies who join us in the fight against radical Islam.
Dave, you can exclaim how smart Trump is. But he is leaving troops in many far more dangerous, futile and unworthy places than keeping faith with Kurd brothers with us on the battlefield. It’s no wonder many of our soldiers wept at that betrayal. And I repeat, the truth is he didn’t end our involvement in Syria, he only moved these kids on the deck of that Titanic.
But it appears you really see the “best” a great and powerful “Negotiator” could do with a vicious but weaker NATO ally is as I detailed, give no warning to those who have faithfully shed most of the blood alongside you in fighting vicious Islam, and just give this thug a greenlight to bomb your loyal allies’ homes and villages and drive thousands of children into the desert as the "best" thing possible?
And that that this sends the message, “No One gets thrown under the bus”???
Our friends are more observant than that. All I can repeat is that your dogmatic certainty about what is right appears to represent the kind of partisan “Me Firstism” that has lost all moral compass.
1 Like
Very nice, Randy. And non-partisan as well!!
Well we disagree on Syria - I guess we have no option but to impeach him!!!
Holy Fool, that’s aptly funny. I was thinking, Who gets the benefit when Trump:
1. Cuts military aid to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
2. Leaves Syria and the Middle East to Russia’s domination
3. Absolves Russia of seeking to control 2016’s election
As one gal said, it seems that all roads lead to the admired Putin!
No offense, but that is just silly. The only people working colluding with the Russians have been Democrats.
Walking the Party line has got to be difficult for dems at this time - but they are all in lockstep, and I give Pelosi props for that - they’re wrong, but they echo one another perfectly.
When many indicted and in prison for that are Republicans,
and the one seeking Russian real estate deals is exempt from indictment in office,
I suspect it’s still very easy for an ideologue to make such contrary bare assertions.