“You started this failed war … We told you from the beginning it’s not your war, but you didn’t get it and kept closing our accounts on Twitter, but we always come back. But when our lions come and take your breath, you will never come back to life.”
March 2, 2015
"Isis supporters have threatened Twitter employees... with death over the social network’s practice of blocking accounts associated with the group."
"In an Arabic post uploaded to the image-sharing site JustPaste.it, the group told Twitter that 'your virtual war on us will cause a real war on you.' It warned that [Twitter co-founder] Jack Dorsey and Twitter employees have 'become a target for the soldiers of the Caliphate and supporters scattered among your midst!'"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
78 comments:
Have no fear Twitter folks. Obama will have them indicted for the misdemeanor of pretending to speak for Islam from the Islamic State where Islamic doctrines are in full force and effect.
Then we will see who submits.
Maybe Twitter can provide some jobs for the Islamists so their rage will die down.
#MuzzieFuckWad
If only those poor ISIS people had jobs. . .
So if some twitterer gets decapitated will his friends on twitter say he was killed by an islamic fundamentalist?
Lions must tweet, apparently.
Jihadi John played Duke Nukem as a youngster. Now ISIS is threatening Twitter employees over the banhammer? I sense an ISIS / #GamerGate connection in the making.
What I don't understand is how ISIS and similar groups can have a prominent presence on the Internet and social media. It's a potent recruitment tool for them, so why doesn't the NSA or the CIA hack and shut down or at least disturb their Internet presence.
Crush some unions in the U.S. and problems like ISIS will go away.
Loud threats are advertisements of one's own impotence.
If only those poor ISIS people had jobs
Obama Administration FLoats Idea to Provide Funding for Business Opportunities for Attention-seeking ISIS Maniacs Who Use Knives and Flames
Tip of the hat to Stilton Jarlsberg/Hope n' Change Cartoons Take This Hijab and Shove It
Sounds like Twitter should arm its employees
Apparently all those beheadings are getting in the way of garages cry-in-his-soup time.
Maybe a source of some new famous last tweets?
I'm thinking, Allahu Akbar!!
- Krumhorn
The State Department needs to start a new hashtag campaign ASAP so that stuff like this is stopped.
" Virgil Hilts said...
The State Department needs to start a new hashtag campaign ASAP so that stuff like this is stopped."
This is why we need a Like button.
Actually, it was the Caliphate that started this war, in Asia, India, Africa, and Europe. We are merely in the process of reconciling the fallout from a couple millennia of narcissistic indulgence, punctuated by the progress of other left-wing campaigns.
Easiest way to avoid trouble with ISIS: stay out of Iraq and Syria.
They figure Jen Psaki needs all the lead time she can get.
But when our lions come and take your breath,
I can haz sum breth?
Simply submit a complaint to Interpol. You know, the way we should have handled bin Laden.
That's way more than 120 characters. Twitter probably didn't even see it.
"All your tweets are belong to us."
#justTheJVTeam
J Farmer wrote:
Easiest way to avoid trouble with ISIS: stay out of Iraq and Syria.
it's kind of funny hearing such talk from ISIS. Aren't they occupiers in both Syria and Iraq? Last I heard they had no claim to either.
WE can't be the occupiers, but they can be.
@jr565:
I have no idea what that means, but my point is very simple. ISIS sounds a lot like a problem that the Iraqis and the Syrians need to deal with.
I cannot for the life of me understand why people believe that we can easily achieve a goal against ISIS that we utterly failed at in Afghanistan, despite spending 14 years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of US troops.
Well we did deal with both Iraq & Afghanistan. But we need to stick around as the various groups (or new groups) are able to regroup and restage attacks.
If you say WE couldnt' deal with an insurgency, what makes you think Syria or Iraq could deal with them?
@garage-stupid-again
@jr565:
So your solution is permanent US military occupation where America assumes primary responsibility for securing and stabilizing Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria? Why not throw Libya into the mix while we're at it? I don't believe it is the job of the US military to provide police duties for failing or failed states, and I am not willing to ask young American men and women to sacrifice their lives for such a goal. In what sense did we "deal" with Afghanistan? The Taliban has remained a potent insurgent force from the very beginning. In some places, like Helmand province, it is said that they have more control than they did pre-9/11. They also operate across the border in Pakistan's hilly northwestern tribal area. Sound like another good pushpin for an American FOB?
Brando 12:21PM
"Loud threats are advertisements of one's own impotence."
And that sounds like loud whistling past the graveyard.
For example, It took a year or two after the initial firebomb to really get Charlie Hebdo. But get them they did. How many years has it been since the Mohammed cartoon brou ha ha, and yet someone still tried to take out Swedish cartoonist guy. These people and their familiars have long memories and play the long game.
J. Farmer said...
And your solution is to do what? Leave them be and wait until they fly more planes into buildings? Secure the boarder? Turn the country into even more of a police state with even fewer civil liberties? If we don't do all we can to stop them over there, we will eventually be doing all we can to stop them over here.
You can argue that we would no even be here if that McChimpHitlerBush had not gotten us into this mess but this is where we are today. What is to be done now, today to stop that very real threat? I really do want to know your proposed solution.
J Farmer wrote:
So your solution is permanent US military occupation where America assumes primary responsibility for securing and stabilizing Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria? Why not throw Libya into the mix while we're at it?
I wont say permanent, but certainly long enough where Al Qaeda can't simply regroup and reattack. or ISIS can't take territory we already won.
Clearly, the war is not over.
and should the assume primary responsibility for securing the region? Only if they haven't trained those countries well enough to do it themselves. The fact that ISIS was able to cut out huge swaths of territory in Iraq suggests they weren't ready to assume responsibility. So we should have been there at least as long enough to ensure they were.
@Todd:
"If we don't do all we can to stop them over there, we will eventually be doing all we can to stop them over here."
That is a pernicious falsehood. The biggest mistake the US made after 9/11 was making Al Qaeda out to be some large global network of terrorist, some sort of jihad illuminati. The people involved in 9/11 have long been killed or captured. Al Qaeda is little more than a brand, a franchise for name recognition. Just as ISIS seems to be slowly becoming. Most of what calls itself Al Qaeda are local insurgent movements who wish to gain power in their locales so that they can force a strict interpretation of Islam onto their fellow countrymen. Islamic radicals with sympathies for Al Qaeda or ISIS are present in Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, and Libya. To name a few. The risk of mass atrocity is present in any open society. I am willing to take that risk. Beef up border security, throw a little extra money to the FBI and CIA, okay. Engage in a worldwide military battle against a vague, ill-defined, and poorly understood enemy is a squander of our time, energy, and money, and there is an at least 50/50 chance that we are probably just making things worse for ourselves down the road anyway.
I know I ought not make fun since there are ISIS fanatics in every country, including the US, but honestly --
We told you from the beginning it's not your war, but you didn't get it and kept closing our accounts on Twitter but we always come back
kind of makes me laugh. It is what I assume every person banned for trolling sputters, trembling with rage. It is such petty villainy.
Also, isn't it kind of stupid for terrorists to use a US-based service for their propaganda communications? Isn't it possible for the US to seize the connection logs from Twitter and make something of that? Maybe it won't give their precise location, but I can't imagine it's totally valueless as intel.
J Farmer wrote:
So your solution is permanent US military occupation where America assumes primary responsibility for securing and stabilizing Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria? Why not throw Libya into the mix while we're at it? I don't believe it is the job of the US military to provide police duties for failing or failed states, and I am not willing to ask young American men and women to sacrifice their lives for such a goal. In what sense did we "deal" with Afghanistan? The Taliban has remained a potent insurgent force from the very beginning. In some places, like Helmand province, it is said that they have more control than they did pre-9/11. They also operate across the border in Pakistan's hilly northwestern tribal area. Sound like another good pushpin for an American FOB?
Afghanistan and Iraq are the battles we chose to fight. Lets win those battles. What does winning mean? Setting up stable regimes that aren't terrorist threats, or states, or forcing us to contain them because of threats of WMD. WE are already there, so should be commited to not leaving it as a failed state.
And yes, the Taliban is still around. They don't control Afghanistan. Having Karzhai running Afghanistan may not be perfect but its a lot better than letting the Taliban run it.
@jr565:
How do you measure when a foreign military is "ready" and you can stop being their police force? Should we invade Syria as well and help out Assad, because we're also supposed to be arming the "moderate" rebels in Syria so they can more quickly and efficiently collapse the Syrian state, creating more power vacuums for Islamists to fill up. Do you believe that we should invade and start providing policing in Libya? Islamists are running rampant in that country, too, and who knows, maybe some day some of them will decide to get on a plane and try to come attack us?
J Farmer wrote:
and there is an at least 50/50 chance that we are probably just making things worse for ourselves down the road anyway.
IF we just let ISIS roam through the ME expanding its influence we are similarly probably making things worse for ourselves too. Having terrorists control billions from oil reserves is not in anyones interest except ISIS.
J Farmer wrote:
How do you measure when a foreign military is "ready" and you can stop being their police force? Should we invade Syria as well and help out Assad, because we're also supposed to be arming the "moderate" rebels in Syria so they can more quickly and efficiently collapse the Syrian state, creating more power vacuums for Islamists to fill up. Do you believe that we should invade and start providing policing in Libya? Islamists are running rampant in that country, too, and who knows, maybe some day some of them will decide to get on a plane and try to come attack us?
WE should arm Syrian rebels who are loyal to neither ISIS or Assad. We should assist all countries fighting ISIS with boots on the ground intel and persistent air strikes. Then as needed we can send in the cavalry as it were to clean up the mess. If it's in SYria, Iraq, Libya or wherevere, then yes, we should be fighting them. Doesn't mean we have to invade them on all fronts. But I wouldn't preclude boots on the groups either. Attack them at their money source. Attack them every where they are gaining a foothold. Use boots on the grounds, training, militias, drone strikes, containment, bombing, and whatever else we have in our arsenal.
Treat it like it's a war. And we can win it.
They are treating it like its a war, and are winining. Because no one is opposing them.
@jr565:
Karzai has not been the president since September 2014. Do you know the name of the current president? Does it matter? Tell the people in Helmand province that it's better now, because they seem to be of the opinion that the Taliban are even stronger there than when the US arrived. Do you accept that there are political goals that the US military simply cannot achieve? Do you understand why a giant, technology focused military built to fight a great power war against thermonuclear armed nation-states may not be the most advantageous tool for fighting a decentralized, nimble, guerilla force interspersed with a civilian population providing various degrees of sympathy?
J. Farmer said...
I agree with you that there is not one massive, over riding club of evil that meets every other Thursday at the IHOP to plan the activities for next month, BUT there are lots of folks that share this rather insane strain of Islam and feel that they are duty bound to attack "others". Who knows how many domestic plots have been stopped. We DO know of a number of US based incidents that though they were not called terrorism, where to all thinking folks. This IS happening now, everywhere. The more of these "nutters" that we stop over there is that many less to skip over our overly porous borders.
Secure the boarder? HA! The current WH clown would rather dance on the lawn naked in broad daylight than secure the boarder. You will have to wait until the next Pres is sworn in, best case, for anything to be done about that.
We should NOT have pulled out until the societies we disrupted were better able to manage themselves. We gave away this "win". Were we done? No, likely not for years but we had the high ground and it was getting better day by day. Choom gave all that away. Its good to be the King...
JfARMER - head in the sand and ignoring a world wide threat is not wise nor prudent.
If it takes a long term presence in Iraq and Afghanistan then so be it.
@jr565:
It is absurd to believe that unless we "stop" ISIS, they will go rampaging all over the middle east. For one thing, countries like Turkey and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are not likely to stand idly by while foreign insurgents invade and take control of their territory. These countries are quite capable of defending themselves. ISIS has thrived in states where we have helped contribute to the chaos by pursuing regime change and not thinking through the pandora's box we may be unleashing by pursuing such goals.
ashraf Ghani (and yes I had to look that up). But look, We have a govt that has a transition between presidents. That's a step up from the Taliban.
They already HAVE gone rampaging all over the ME.
@Todd:
So then you're on the jr565 bandwagon. Occupy the countries and become their police forces until we have achieved some immeasurable, vague goal (e.g. "until the societies we disrupted were better able to manage themselves"). ISIS poses no significant threat to us that cannot be managed by our normal domestic security services. When did it stop "getting better day by day" in Afghanistan, and what caused this reversal of fortune?
@Lynndh:
"head in the sand and ignoring a world wide threat is not wise nor prudent.
If it takes a long term presence in Iraq and Afghanistan then so be it."
So you're also for a long-term presence in Libya and Syria and Yemen and Somalia? Islamic radicals are operating there, as well. Those countries have a combined population of probably something like 130 million people. How many soldiers would it take to secure those people, not to mention that geography.
J Farmer wrote:
So then you're on the jr565 bandwagon. Occupy the countries and become their police forces until we have achieved some immeasurable, vague goal (e.g. "until the societies we disrupted were better able to manage themselves"). ISIS poses no significant threat to us that cannot be managed by our normal domestic security services. When did it stop "getting better day by day" in Afghanistan, and what caused this reversal of fortune?
Having no response to a terrorist group like ISIS controlling billions in oil reserves because they just raped a country isn't exactly a positive action is it?
@jr565:
"They already HAVE gone rampaging all over the ME."
Name some countries besides Iraq and Syria where they are "rampaging." Have you ever seen a map of the territory that is actually controlled by ISIS? It is abysmal in the grand scheme of things and simply illustrates once again what a pathetically insecure superpower the US can be.
J Farmer wrote:
So you're also for a long-term presence in Libya and Syria and Yemen and Somalia? Islamic radicals are operating there, as well. Those countries have a combined population of probably something like 130 million people. How many soldiers would it take to secure those people, not to mention that geography.
WE don't have to literally invade every single country. There are countless ways to skin a goat. Insofar as they have armies that are seizing territory, those can be broken by our military, which is quite up to the job.
They've cut a swath through Syria and Iraq and are on the border of Jordan (and have killed a pilot there incensing the Jordanians) and Turkey not to mention threatening the Kurds.
That's a lot of territory for one terrorist organization to control. NOt to mention that they are now billionaires because they control oil reserves.
Meanwhile we have open borders here, and air travel to and from all countries. ANd many of the people fighting for ISIS are westerners, who can always come back. Or can help radicalize other weseterners still in the west to carry out operations HERE. or in Europe.
@jr565:
"They've cut a swath through Syria and Iraq and are on the border of Jordan (and have killed a pilot there incensing the Jordanians) and Turkey not to mention threatening the Kurds."
In other words, they are in Syria and Iraq and are not rampaging all over the middle east. Who cares about territorial control if your fear is that they might fly here one day and attack us? Might Islamic fighters in Libya make that decision? How do you prevent it if not with US soldiers policing the tribal hinterlands of failed states?
"" It is abysmal in the grand scheme of things and simply illustrates once again what a pathetically insecure superpower the US can be. "
considering we're such a superpower it's funny how much of a eunuch you want us to be in the world. Fear of taking on ISIS should be enough to have us shake in our boots.
J Farmer wrote:
In other words, they are in Syria and Iraq and are not rampaging all over the middle east. Who cares about territorial control if your fear is that they might fly here one day and attack us? Might Islamic fighters in Libya make that decision? How do you prevent it if not with US soldiers policing the tribal hinterlands of failed states?
ISIS has a military. We know where ISIS"s ARMY is since its using its military to invade cities. Destroy their ability to wage war by destroying their army and armor, and then seize their money, so they can't buy more troops and armor to wage further WAR.
We have a much more powerful army and can TROUNCE them on this front where they are in fact weak. If they then scurry into caves or back into underground clubs where they plan their next moves, they are not at the same time killing chrstians en masse.
In the case of terrorists they are very good at asymmetrical warfare, but not as good at conventional warfare. They have to seize territory through conventional warfare. So beat them there. It won't destroy them utterly, but it might make it a lot harder to recruit if people think they are going to die if they join ISIS.Or if they have no money to recruit anyone because we wiped out their ability to profit from Iraqs oil. And they might not get recruitment up if their battle against the US military turned into the mother of all defeats. The only reason ISIS is predomninat is because we haven't given them the smack down they deserve.
@jr565:
"Fear of taking on ISIS should be enough to have us shake in our boots."
Oh, grow up. I am not saying we should avoid this encounter because it's too scary or too difficult or too risky. I am saying the exact opposite. The threat ISIS poses to the US is an exceptionally small one, even smaller than the threat Saddam Hussein posed when we pursued a stupid military campaign against his brutal regime. The US is already over reliant on its military and has developed massively unrealistic expectations of what it can accomplish. Let the countries in the area work together themselves to contain the problem, and keep our good American boys and girls home where they belong.
"ISIS has a military. We know where ISIS"s ARMY is since its using its military to invade cities. Destroy their ability to wage war by destroying their army and armor, and then seize their money, so they can't buy more troops and armor to wage further WAR."
ISIS is surrounded by countries with powerful air forces. Sounds like they could make quick work of this, and we wouldn't even have to life a finger. Win-win, eh?
J Farmer wrote:
ISIS is surrounded by countries with powerful air forces. Sounds like they could make quick work of this, and we wouldn't even have to life a finger. Win-win, eh?
If that were so it would have been done already, no?
Trouncing ISIS will require exactly what Obama wants himself prohibited from doing in a new AUMF that he wants from Congress to replace a perfectly good existing AUMF that has no restraints on what we can do to trounce ISIS.
We need a is fully manned and supplied offensive that does NOT feed in small forces piecemeal so ISIS can chew them up.
Of course Muslim Obama knows that.
J Farmer, its not in our interst to have the ME be wracked by war and destabilized with whole states controlled by ISIS. ISIS has said we will drown all of you in blood. Lets not give them the time and money and leeway to eventually carry out their threats. Attack them while they're weak. Don't wait for it to become a WOrld War before we get involved. We knew what Hitler was, but some had the same attitude as you do now. Cleaning up that mess ultimately became an endeavor that caused the deaths of millions.
It's simply not in our long term national interst to have a terrorist state, in control of billions of dollars who control oil reserves. You want to talk about unforeseen consequences and blow back?
@traditionalguy:
"Of course Muslim Obama knows that."
Blah blah blah.
I know you may find this difficult, but try to think about this situation without Obama involved in any way. Think, for example, about all of the other forces fighting ISIS. Are they also just pretending to try to beat them? If not, what is stopping them from "trouncing" ISIS?
@jr565:
"We knew what Hitler was, but some had the same attitude as you do now."
Well, except for Germany being one of the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation-states in the world and all that. But never mind. Reductio ad Hiterlum. I win.
I am still waiting to hear why you believe it would be an easy task for ISIS to take over Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States. They tried to take over a single town in Lebanon and got booted from the country after 5 days of fighting.
How did William Munny put it at the end of "Unforgiven"? If anything happens to anyone working for Twitter, we'll kill you, we'll kill your wife and all your friends, and we'll burn your damn house down.
That's a start.
J Farmer wrote:
am still waiting to hear why you believe it would be an easy task for ISIS to take over Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States. They tried to take over a single town in Lebanon and got booted from the country after 5 days of fighting.
How many towns WEREN'T they booted from? Yes, the only way to defeat them is to fight them back. We have the capability to do so and smack them down so hard as to think thrice before making further attempts to destablisize the region
J Farmer wrote:
ell, except for Germany being one of the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation-states in the world and all that. But never mind. Reductio ad Hiterlum. I win.
whatever, Neville Chamberlain.
THe west had ample opportunity to deal with Hitler before he became Hitler and the Nazis became The Nazis. But we didn't. Because we had our heads up our butts, like you do now.
The issue was not the wealth of Germany but the looming threat of not dealing with Germany when it should have been. As opposed to waiting till the world was engulfed by War.
@ J Farmer... Isis has a supply of the best American weapons and ammunition with captured money and oil money flowing in to buy what they need. They are set to mow down a counter attacks after they send in the suicide bomb wearing infiltrators to arouse a counterattacking force that will then retreat.
The fighters that are willing to fight ISIS are being denied supplies by Obama to ensure Iran ruled Iraq gets the Kurd's share of Iraqs oil fields back from the Kurds.
Meanwhile ISIS is getting ready to attack Turkey so the one true Caliph can rule from Instanbul where he can boast that the poor Americans and their allies have him surrounded.
@jr565:
"How many towns WEREN'T they booted from?"
Yes, as I have said over and over again, they were able to make territorial gains in anarchic situations with little to no central authority standing in their way. This is precisely why their gains have been almost exclusively within Iraq and Syria. And even in those countries they're rule has been patchwork and ad hoc. Apparently you find this some kind of amazing achievement. I don't. Seizing power in a vacuum is rather easy if you are psychopathically, or even antisocially, aggressive. My point in mentioning Lebanon was that even a modest attempt by ISIS to gain control of territory was quickly repelled by security services. And Lebanon is a rather fractured state, as these things go. ISIS is a matter for the Iraqis and Syrians to sort out. It's not our fight, and there's no need for us to do the heavy lifting.
@traditionalguy:
"The fighters that are willing to fight ISIS are being denied supplies by Obama to ensure Iran ruled Iraq gets the Kurd's share of Iraqs oil fields back from the Kurds."
So Obama is on the side of ISIS and the Iranians? I think it may be time to change out the tinfoil your hat is made of. Some of the radio waves are starting to get through.
"J Farmer wrote:
ISIS is surrounded by countries with powerful air forces. Sounds like they could make quick work of this, and we wouldn't even have to life a finger. Win-win, eh?
If that were so it would have been done already, no?"
Sorry to butt in to your conversation but no. Because it is not yet a compelling national interest for neighboring states. When it is, and eventually it will be, the Sauds and Turks will crush the ISIS boogeyman with astonishing ease and slaughter the fleeing survivors with grim Muzzie aplomb. Farmer is right about this one. There is no reason for us to chase these psychotic clowns around the Middle East when soon enough it will be done for us.
And there won't be a freakin' peep about ISIS's human rights if the forces slaughtering them are Muzzie as well.
Farmer is trying to advocate making decisions with a fund of information that's over a year out of date.
Tighten your OODA-loop, son.
Wonderin' Where the Lions Are
@Jason:
Tell me what I have said is "over a year out of date."
This scene from the Sopranos came to mind.
Quite late to this thread....
But King Abdullah of Jordan has just characterized the war v. ISIS as the third world war. Which side are you on?
Post a Comment