Cal wrote:The BBC has duty to report the Obama Administration's pitiful record in dealing with a murderous - and now UN-defined genocidal - organisation. The BBC minces its words and decides not to dwell on Obama's atrocious record in this respect.
Other than the Republican quote on Fox News, what evidence is there that Obama has a pitiful record in dealing with ISIS?
The BBC has a duty to report facts and events. It does not have a duty to report what you think it should.
Which of the two do you think worries people around the world more?
Terrorism obviously worries people more. That doesn’t make it a bigger threat though. Fear of zombie attacks might be at an all time high, it doesn’t mean we are going all “Walking Dead” anytime soon.
If you think the fear of rising global temperatures (not the case, for at least the past 15-20 years
according to the experts) is more pressing than the systematic murder and terrorism of Islamic State, an organisation which is in great part responsible for the current migrant crisis,
I thought you said they were economic migrants? Do you now accept that they are refugees?
specifically responsible for targeted terror attacks across the world, factually responsible for the countless public murders of both muslims and non-muslims, then I would humbly suggest that perhaps taking care of the butchers in Syria and Iraq (and beyond, if necessary) is perhaps a tad more urgent that worrying about the Polar Bears (which are
doing just fine, btw).
Again, saving polar bears and defeating ISIS are not mutually excusive.
That kind of reasoning only works only if one accepts your assertion that the 'threat of climate change' is much greater than the clear and present danger of Islamic State. One is a hypothetical, the other is a demonstrable fact.
I agree that the danger of ISIS to us living in the West is a hypothetical. The two things are not mutually exclusive though, we can deal with the real threat of climate change and the possible threat of ISIS in the future.
But if America is a co-signatory to the UN agreement on dealing with acts of genocide it has a duty to act when such a declaration of genocide is made (by its own Administration) whether there's an 'appetite' amongst the US electorate or not. I think that goes a little further there simply being a 'moral obligation' to act.
Why are you singling out America? Why are you not asking what the UK is doing? What is France doing? What about China? Australia? Brazil? Is the government of Japan weak because ISIS exist?
So how has that whole 'working with other countries' thing been going for Obama? That approach has been like herding cats, up to now, for the most part. Just seems odd to me that a nation so militarily super-powerful just can't find a way to eliminate what is - in the great scheme of things - a relatively small number of lawless murderers in the desert. Absolutely baffling.
That’s a very simplistic view of the issues. Just barging into Syria guns blazing is not a way to solve the issues and it is all more complex than just “eliminating a small number of people in a desert”. Again though you only blame Obama, why don’t you blame any of the other Western nations?