Before Killing James Foley, ISIS Demanded Ransom From U.S.

[flamingdem]

Source: New York Times

Kneeling in the dirt in a desert somewhere in the Middle East, James Foley lost his life this week at the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Before pulling out the knife used to decapitate him, his masked executioner explained that he was killing the 40-year-old American journalist in retaliation for the recent United States’ airstrikes against the terrorist group in Iraq.

In fact, until recently, ISIS had a very different list of demands for Mr. Foley: The group pressed the United States to provide a multimillion-dollar ransom for his release, according to a representative of his family and a former hostage held alongside him. The United States — unlike several European countries that have funneled millions to the terror group to spare the lives of their citizens — refused to pay.

The issue of how to deal with ISIS, which like many terror groups now routinely trades captives for large cash payments, is acute for the Obama administration because Mr. Foley was not the lone American in its custody. ISIS is threatening to kill at least three others it holds if its demands remain unmet, The New York Times has confirmed through interviews with recently released prisoners, family members of the victims and mediators attempting to win their freedom.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/world/middleeast/isis-pressed-for-ransom-before-killing-james-foley.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

---

Update:

Official: Militants asked $132.5 million ransom
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/official_militants_asked_132_5_million_ransom/

I believe that the US funded the Syrian Free Army with 100 million as a comparison. That's a lot of armaments..

[TheNutcracker]

1. Obama said "we don't pay ransom monies" but europe does, and did, and got their prisoners.

[frazzled]

13. And that is why more Europeans are kidnapped

It's a double-edged sword.

The US has had a long-standing policy of not paying ransom. Obama isn't doing anything that any other president would not have done. Don't make this about Obama. He ordered a rescue mission for these guys earlier--but when they got there, the hostages had been moved.

[McCamy Taylor]

16. Is this going to become the next House GOP investigation? Why didn't Obama pay a ransom?

[Psephos]

68. Whatever you pay for you get more of.

Human nature 101.

The real calculation here is how many future kidnap victims do you create when you rescue one in the present?

[kelliekat44]

95. Either action or inaction on ransoms is a loser. Paying gets more hostages taken but saves lives.

Not paying doesn't stop anything and usually get the hostages killed. Not paying is something the war hawks like to do and they think it is the right thing because Israel said so. Yet Israel negotiates when they can and trades hostages too and we do not know the extent of their payments in cases that are not publicized. If they decide not to negotiate they usually end up killing a lot of people...the kidnappers, the hostages, and innocent others.

What we should do is get the hell out of other peoples' land...let them choose their leaders and treat whomever is elected as we would any other leader. In the past we have dealt with some of the most tyrannical leaders as equals over the negotiating table. We now trade with Viet Nam, Germany, Pakistan, India, etc. Had we dealt with Saddam as a leader of the Iraqi people even though we did not like his tactics the world would be in a different place right now and ISIS would probably not even exist.

[FarPoint]

2. Other countries pay...

The random money supports the terrorist financing more terrorist supplies and recruitment... There is no good answer here.

[flamingdem]

3. Seems like people who work in the ME need special insurance policies

Journalists can't afford that however..

[former9thward]

23. Seems like they should stay out of there.

[Psephos]

69. Common sense.

1. If you're not there no harm will come to you.

2. It deprives the head-hackers of victims as well as Western media exposure, which is their chief goal.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

4. I'm furious about this.

Because the US has to act macho, this man was brutally killed. We always negotiate with terrorists, anyway. We (as in the US) should have negotiated for his safe return.

I'm sick to the stomach about this.

[IronGate]

5. Bullshit.

You NEVER negotiate with terrorists, if you do, it then encourages the terrorists to kidnap more citizens for more ransom.

[candelista]

8. The US traded Gitmo prisoners for Bergdahl.

That's a kind of ransom. Maybe the US just doesn't want to part with cash.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Different thing. Prisoner swap near the end of hostilities.

Bergdahl was a US soldier.

[candelista]

11. So what?

What difference does that make?

[TwilightGardener]

14. 1) The US Army had a clear responsibility to bring Bergdahl home, since they put

him there to begin with (and shouldn't have, BTW, he was mentally unfit). The government doesn't have a clear responsibility to these journalists/tourists/whatever, they are private citizens who put themselves in harm's way for private reasons 2) We had Taliban prisoners to swap, we've been engaged in war for 13 years with the Taliban 3) The Taliban had enough command structure and discipline that we could make deals with them on prisoners

[leftynyc]

17. Excellent post

If Americans want to put themselves into harm's way, I don't fault the government for not paying a ridiculous amount of money (not that I would pay a dime to those vermin) to save them from themselves. That's a choice they made. Paying that ransom would have created an "open season" on Americans anywhere in the world.

[candelista]

33. Actually not.

And your post doesn't help. "That's a choice they made" also applies to soldiers in our volunteer army. So it looks like you don't support rescuing anyone if it costs money. A bit stingy on your part. And your slippery slope argument proves too much. It proves, if anything, that we should never trade prisoners, either, because the enemy will just capture more Americans to more of their own fighters back.

It's a bit disturbing that you have so little sympathy and place so little value on Americans who are covering, rather than fighting the war.

[IronGate]

36. And it's a bit disturbing that you would also put American lives

in more danger by paying a ransom for every American kidnapped by these ISIS animals.
The govt. paying a ransom for kidnapped Americans only encourages more kidnappings for ransom.

[leftynyc]

38. The deal we make with our military

is that we bring them home. That's what they get for putting their lives on the line and for you to compare them to reporters is a disservice to all the men and women in uniform. I'm not saying Mr. Foley wasn't brave - he faced death with dignity I very much doubt I would have had but you don't pay terrorists - EVER. You don't reward disgusting behavior. And $100 million is hardly chump change. How nice you think we should give it to people who are beheading and using crucifixion for punishment. That's absolutely adorable.

[candelista]

40. "The deal we make with our military"?

No such deal is ever made. Not when I was in uniform.

[leftynyc]

42. You were never told

we bring you home. That we have your back. Is that seriously what you're saying? Or do we just do that with Marines or Navy (I've never dated someone in the Army or Air Force)? I would expect us to bend over backwards to get our military out of a hostage situation. We even traded gitmo prisoners for Bergdahl and he walked off post.

[candelista]

48. Tell that to all the MIAS.

You were never promised that they would "bring you back," either, not even in a box.

[leftynyc]

50. BULLSHIT

We've been trying to get those Vietnam vets back for 5 decades.

[candelista]

52. Sure we have! :)

[IronGate]

54. BULLSHIT.

We're still trying to get our missing military members back from Korea, Vietnam, etc.

[IronGate]

49. It's what I was told.

In the Marines, we leave no one behind, whether alive or dead.

[candelista]

56. Read this from Stars and Stripes

Isolated by the rough waters in the Gulf of Thailand about 60 nautical miles from mainland Cambodia, Koh Tang has kept its secrets well, including what happened to at least three Marines who were likely executed after being left behind in the chaos of fierce battles that killed 38 servicemembers from the Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force in less than 24 hours.

The U.S. government has never come completely clean about the missing, either refusing to provide details of investigations or releasing inaccurate information on military websites about what the White House initially called a victory.

http://www.stripes.com/fate-of-marines-left-behind-in-cambodia-in-1975-haunts-comrades-1.214568

There are many other examples.

[IronGate]

61. I don't give a fuck what you post,

I'm telling you what was told to me, Marines aren't left behind if at all possible.
I'm beginning to wonder about your claim..........................

[candelista]

64. Brilliant repartee!

At least I gave some evidence.

And if that's what you were told, they lied to you. That would not surprise you, would it?

Ever read this? It's by Marine General Smedley Butler, two time winner of the Medal of honor.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/excerpt-from-marines-speech-proves-little-has-changed-in-80-years-2013-7#ixzz3B3UD07zu

[Starboard Tack]

71. I wonder if he would intervene to stop genocide.

Would he have been an isolationist in WW2? How about you?

[LanternWaste]

96. One might think that anyone resorting to the petulance of "brilliant repartee" would have sourced th

One might think that anyone resorting to the petulance of "brilliant repartee" would have sourced their initial premise through peer-reviewed works.

Re: negotiations (specifically, policy not to) with terrorism-- for a starting place, try The Terrorism Lectures by James Forest, and Terrorism in Perspective by Susan Mahan... because "I think" is a faulty qualifier to any premise.

[Iliyah]

75. Amen

[candelista]

30. The government doesn't have a responsibility to US citizens?

Then we don't need to rescue them from pirates, either? You have a strange concept of the social contract if you think that the duty to rescue only applies to soldiers.

[leftynyc]

46. We sent the MILITARY to

get hostages back from the pirates. We DID NOT pay ransom.

[candelista]

51. The US HAS paid ransom in the recent past.

The Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/10/the-right-didn-t-mind-when-bush-paid-a-ransom-to-terrorists.html#

So you are just wrong about this.

[leftynyc]

58. And look at the bloody dividends for that

I would support nothing but going in there and exterminating the isis vermin. They aren't fit to live among humans.

[IronGate]

63. I would gladly be activated from Reserve status to help exterminate this vermin.

They've given up all right to live among civilized people.

[leftynyc]

66. Thank you for your service

And I agree with you completely. Besides, wouldn't doing something for purely humanitarian reasons get us some of the goodwill that's been sorely lacking for the US in that region?

[IronGate]

67. I think it would.

It seems to be the case with these airstrikes against these vermin, ISIS.

[Rhinodawg]

53. Very reasoned post.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

20. So what?

[former9thward]

24. We are not at the end (or near) of hostilities.

Not even close.

[harun]

100. They wanted the money from the company

He worked for.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

19. Not bullshit.

We negotiate with terrorists all of the time ... if they have something to offer, like destabilizing a regime we don't like.

Your post is the one that's bullshit. They kidnap people regardless.

[IronGate]

26. That doesn't even make sense.

If they're going to kidnap anyways, then why continue to negotiate with them?
Even if a ransom is paid, they'll kidnap again.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

41. To save lives.

That's what I'm interested in.

I'm not interested in Bravado.

[IronGate]

44. So we continue to feed these terrorists with money because they continue to

kidnap Americans knowing that we'll pay every time if we follow your advice?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

65. They fucking do it anyway.

Besides, we should have never invaded in the first place.

But my main point is, and I'm not sure why you can't get it, is that they are going to kidnap Americans anyway. We don't pay ransom, to you, might be some nice talking point, but two things:

If you're so sure that they will continue to kidnap if we pay, then why have they done it so many times in the past, again, assuming we don't pay.

Point two, we've paid in the past - it's just a nice soundbyte to say, "Hey, we don't negotiate with terrorists." Well, that's all fine and dandy for you, but the truth is, we pay both enemy and allied terrorist organizations. If it serves our interests, then it will be done. It's never stopped us in the past.

[IronGate]

70. So why continue to pay them if they're going to continue kidnap Americans?

President Obama, to his great credit, doesn't pay terrorist for kidnapped Americans, which I support.
If we did it your way, there would be a hell of a lot more kidnapped or dead Americans.
No thanks and I'm glad the Obama admin. rejects your plan.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

72. I've already answered your question once.

I'll do it once more because I'm feeling generous.

Too save lives. I'm not interested in bravado.

I bolded it for your reading pleasure.

[IronGate]

73. So it's a vicious circle,

we pay ransom, the terrorists kidnap more knowing that we'll pay to free them.
How is that even sensible?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

76. We keep invading ...

... they keep killing.

How is that sensible?

[IronGate]

78. Care to answer the question? nt.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

79. I did. Several times.

[LanternWaste]

97. And in the process, fund the opposition to more effectively carry our further ransom activities.

"To save lives."

And in the process, fund the opposition to more effectively carry our further ransom activities.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

98. They are already funded.

And they already do these activities.

Again, I'm not interested in bravado. I'm interested in saving lives.

[zonkers]

83. A sad truth. Poor Foley. Sure seemed like a great dude. He knew what he was getting into. Man,

this story just pulls at your heart. What a wasted life. What a twisted mess Iraq is in. We broke that country. We never had a post war plan. We never protected their treasures, their museums. We left radioactive dust all over everything. The list goes on. And now its coming back to haunt us.

[flamingdem]

6. Richard Engel on msnbc said all hostages are forced to convert to Islam

and before that conversion they are treated like animals.

If the US does pay ransom then there is more incentive to attack and capture US citizens. That's also a problem and will fund the monstrosity that is Isis.

[Cha]

81. Your post covers it why it's not wise to pay terrorists for ransom, flamingdem.. So sad for

James Foley But, true.. It would be a vicious cycle. We pay and they make it their mission to kidnap as many Americans as possible and fund their marauding death machine in the process.

I am grateful that the US had tried to rescue him..as that was my thought and then I found out they had tried.

Steven Sotloff

[McCamy Taylor]

15. One hundred million dollars for more weapons to kidnap more people so they can do it again?

If they did this within the US, no one would say "Pay them." It would be crazy. Like rewarding organized crime for extortion. Hell, everyone would start kidnapping people and getting rich and using the proceeds to kidnap more people.

Europe needs to rethink its policy. It is encouraging them. And ISIS is starting to sound more like a gang than a political group.

[lunatica]

21. The US has never negotiated for Americans captured by terrorists

If it had there would have been a deluge of kidnappings just in my lifetime. I'm 66 years old and can remember when business men were kidnapped in South America. There were no negotiations by the US government. Eventually the victims were dropped off somewhere where they could get help. The families of the victims were the ones who had to do whatever they could to get their father, brothers, sons home. Kidnapping Americans isn't lucrative so they rarely happen.

ISIS has some saavy Americans working with them. Just like their executioner in this case.

[still_one]

29. This has NOTHING to do with the "macho" characteristic you are inferring. These animals have been

killing innocent Muslims and minorities. You can't negotiate with them.

Journalists know the risk they take by going into these areas.

How many more deaths would have resulted if we paid them the 135 million? Think of all the weapons and other avenues of killing they would be able to purchase with that?

Get real

[Paper Roses]

57. I agree with you on this. n/t

[cosmicone]

7. I'd rather support a full scale invasion

and wiping out of ISIS - in collaboration with Bashar Assad, Tayyip Erdogan, Iran and the Kurds. ISIS will have no where to run. Especially kill the European citizens working in ISIS - they provide the banking and trade expertise.

Much, much better than paying ransom and becoming an enabler.

[candelista]

10. We've been there, done that & got the T-shirt.

But I guess some people never lose their blood lust.

[cosmicone]

18. The original Iraq war was stupid and I opposed it

This time, the situation is different and there IS actually a moral reason for us to use force. Last time around, there was no reason to go in but we went in and caused this mess. It is our duty and obligation to clean up the messes we create don't you?

It is like if we took our dog on someone else's property against that person's consent and the dog pooped all over their lawn and garden. Isn't it our duty now to go and scoop up all the poop with their consent and help?

[lunatica]

22. It's depressing to have to explain this isn't it?

And you find you're forced to use the most simplistic examples so some people can understand. And without any guarantee that they'll understand any better than before. It's very saddening.

[candelista]

27. Sorry you haz a sad.

I can't even understand "simplistic" explanations for US imperialism.

[still_one]

31. no you can't. This is going after a criminal element who are killing innocent civilians, mostly

Muslims and minorities.

Maybe you don't understand that even AQ doesn't want to be associated with them.

[candelista]

35. I understand this much:

That every American military attack always makes things worse, because of our use of overwhelming firepower. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are proof of this.

And if you believe the propaganda that we are going after "the criminal element who are killling innocent civilians," you are, in my opinion, naive.

The point of the recent airstrikes is to save Erbil and the rest of Kurdistan, where Exxon Mobil and Chevron have huge contracts.

Clicquez ici: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/oil-erbil

[lunatica]

80. It isn't war. It's a response to terrorists who can't wait to attack us in the US

they have said they will attack the West in their own countries. Do you think we'll have to wait too long before that happens? There may be people in place right now ready for the word from the Caliphate, or haven't you read that many ISIS members are citizens of other countries and speak the other countries' language like natives?

ISIS is not a country. It's a Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization who prove on a daily basis that they're deeply into murdering anyone they want to.

This is something new the world is being forced to deal with. ISIS does not have borders. That means they can hide within the borders of any other country and still call itself ISIS. They're a whole new ballgame.

[chrisa]

25. There were "moral reasons" then too,

until there weren't. Remember the "babies being thrown out of incubators" crap? The first casualty of war is truth.

And no, it's not our duty to fix the new Iraq kleptocracy, unless if you want 20 more years of war and a collapsed economy.

[candelista]

28. Congratulations on opposing the "stupid" original Iraq War.

But your doggie analogy just doesn't do it. We are not "scooping up poop." We are killing a lot of people. Unless you believe in the myth of "surgical air strikes," lots of them are just bystanders. Now you need something less simplistic, like the Doctrine of the Double Effect in the Laws of Land Warfare to explain why you want to continue US aggression in the region.

[IronGate]

34. Ok, can you point out the innocent bystanders that have been killed

since President Obama authorized airstrikes against these ISIS animals?

[candelista]

37. Point them out?

How anyone could possibly do that? There have been at least 84 airstrikes in the recent runs. Do you seriously believe that IS fighters were the only victims?

[IronGate]

39. Have there been any reports of innocent bystanders being killed? nt.

It's a very simple question.

[candelista]

43. These things don't get reported until much later, if at all.

Only recently have we learned of the enormous number of civilians we have killed in Iraq.

[IronGate]

47. So, no reports? nt.

[candelista]

59. :)

[TwilightGardener]

12. Pay ransom, get more hostages taken, it becomes an industry all unto itself.

And there's no guarantee we would have gotten our guys back, especially once the airstrikes started. The only answer is to find the captors and kill them, or at least kill as many of their guys as possible.

[still_one]

32. Pay ransom, allows Isil to buy more weapons, and kill more people. Hmmmm. Not rocket science

[candelista]

45. Who gave weapons to IS in the first place?

The US, through the alliance against Assad in Syria.

[Rhinodawg]

55. ok...Why again is that important to what ISIS is doing now?

[candelista]

62. The lesson is that the US should get out and stay out of the Middle East

Everything was undeniably better before the US intervened.

[leftynyc]

74. What a perfect way to prove

what they already think. That we only want oil,that we only need to use up our very expensive weapons. I happen to think going in for humanitarian reasons will get us the goodwill we need there. But you just want to sit back and watch a massacre because of mistakes we've made before. Tell me, did you feel the same way about Rwanda? Were you glad Pres Clinton sat on his hands while that massacre went on?

[Nihil]

85. There's a reason why they think that ...

> That we only want oil,that we only need to use up our very expensive weapons.

... and it goes by the name of "historical behaviour".

After, say, nine wars for profit, what are the chances of the tenth being for "humanitarian reasons"?


> I happen to think going in for humanitarian reasons will get us the goodwill we need there.

The only time that the US (or any other capitalist country) is genuinely in a place for "humanitarian reasons"
it is obvious: they are carrying food, water or shelter for the victims of the earthquake, tsunami, whatever.

The humanitarian aspect of the current squabble has involved dropping food & water to those poor
besieged unfortunates in the mountains.

If the US forces are carrying weapons and preceded by air-strikes, they are *not* there for any
"humanitarian reasons" no matter how the various propaganda mouthpieces try to paint that turd.

[FrodosPet]

82. At least for us it was better

If you were a Kurd or Shia, things under Saddam Hussein were pretty miserable. In fact, a lot of ISIL is getting Saddam's old gang together.

By chance do you consider yourself part of the "Grab a beer and a bowl of popcorn and watch the big bloody show with clean hands club" as well? We are looking for someone with a really big screen and a kegerator full of IPA or a nice wheat ale.

[candelista]

86. Most Iraqis rightly agree that things were better under Saddam.

Of course things were better.

Documented civilian deaths from Iraq war violence: 127,685 – 142,924

Total violent deaths including combatants:195,000

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

(I'm not responding to the personal attack part of your post.)

[Kaleva]

87. Most of the weapons used by IS, at least in the early stages, were of Russian orgin.

The rpg's, assault rifles, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and so on.

[candelista]

88. "In the early stages"?

So what?

[Kaleva]

89. You are the one who made the claim it was the US that provided the arms to IS

IS didn't capture large amounts of American made equipment until earlier this summer when they launched their offensive across north eastern Iraq.

[candelista]

91. You're wrong on this.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/how-us-helped-isis-grow-monster-iraq-syria-assad

[Kaleva]

94. Kind of vague article

An example:

" Iraqi officials confirm that they have captured sophisticated arms from ISIS fighters in Iraq that were originally supplied by outside powers to forces considered to be anti-al-Qa'ida in Syria."

I don't see in the article an explanation as to what these supposedly sophisticated arms were. IS, then ISIS, overran Mosul and Tikrit using rather basic weapons such as assault rifles and rockets launchers along with heavy machine guns and light cannon mounted on the back of pickup trucks. Nothing sophisticated about that. And if one looks at armed IS men, their weapons are almost all of Russian origin.

Not trying to say Russia equipped IS but such weapons are very common in that region and that is what IS captured, bought, or traded for.

[IronGate]

90. And the weapons they're using now

are the weapons looted from the Iraqi Army depots with the Iraqi Army fled from ISIS, those heavy weapons weren't supplied to ISIS by the US, they were stolen from the Iraqi's, now, President Obama is rectifying that problem by taking them out with airstrikes.

[candelista]

92. Here.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/how-us-helped-isis-grow-monster-iraq-syria-assad

[IronGate]

93. I already read it.

The US did not supply ISIS with APC's, up armored Humvee's, AA guns, M1-A1 Main Battle Tanks, etc, those were looted from Iraqi Army depot's and military bases as the Army fled in front of ISIS.

[ucrdem]

60. Déjà vu all over again,

again. Sigh. On the other hand, the endings are usually better than last time around. Watch as President Obama narrowly escapes another quagmire . . .

[flamingdem]

77. truly. Estimates are 50k jihadis between Syria and Iraq

with some 6k new this month alone in Syria. They didn't make that video for nothing, it's good for recruitment. There was a bit of luck with Maliki leaving and now ideally the US will stay in the air only.

[Sunlei]

84. about 80? journalists have been killed. What media corp sent this journalist?

[flamingdem]

99. An outfit called Global Post

Their CEO spent millions trying to get Foley out.