Obama declares “we have contained ISIS” even as they execute an attack in Paris

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Irony alert! Yesterday, in an interview with WABC’s Chief Anchor and Democratic Party operative George Stephanopoulos President Obama declared that ISIS has been “contained” by his policies.

“I don’t think they’re gaining strength,” the president told Stephanopoulos in an interview at the White House Thursday. “From the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria it — they’ll come in, they’ll leave.”

Today, a terrorist attack planned and executed by ISIS took place in Paris across seven different locations, killing dozens, including many of approximately 100 hostages in a concert hall, where the terrorists had been killing them one-by-one. Police moved in ahead of schedule because they had been getting texts from the hostages begging them to attack because they were going to be executed anyway and a police attack was the only way they had a chance of surviving.

Thank god Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama has contained ISIS. Otherwise, we wouldn’t see them do this sort of stuff. And it’s a good thing that France has strict gun control laws so the country is gun-free. Otherwise, how would these terrorists get access to weapons?


  • Cotour

    Obama and the people who immediately surround him amounts to an Islamic sympathizing operation inside the oval office.


    And he and Kerry intend to bring up to 200 thousand Syrians into the country? I think not.

  • Edward

    It is a good thing that the Junior Varsity team is still only JV. Think how bad Paris would have been had they gone pro.

    On the other hand, Obama is correct. His policies have (so far) contained them — strictly to planet Earth.

    Obama might be more believable if we had any idea of what he has done to “contain them,” and what he means by this phrase.

    A Twitter post from the second link: “Intelligence sources say French border closed out of concern #ISIL may have infiltrated migrants flooding Europe. Recent intel warned of it.”

    What a crock. People have warned from the beginning of this crisis that it would be an excellent way to infiltrate *any* country that took in these refugees unvetted (and have noted that a majority of them are military-age men, not families). Vetting and documenting immigrants was the purpose of both Ellis Island and Angel Island.

    That we now let people stream across our borders undocumented and unvetted is scary, because people have warned for at least a decade and a half that this would be an excellent way for bad-guys to enter our country, and OH!, that is why Mexican drug cartels and “coyotes” have taken control of the southernmost few miles of Arizona.

    Isis contained? We can’t even contain unarmed and benign illegal aliens, much less armed smugglers or –heaven forbid — Isis or Al Qaeda terrorists. What a cluster.

    I’m going to stop, now, and listen to Beethoven’s 5th. Thank heaven for Evening Pauses.

  • Cotour

    I believe that this attack in Paris makes David Brooks latest Op-Ed non relevant, in fact Donald Trump and Ben Carson will IMO now continue to advance in a major way. Jeb Bush is now history along with Kasich.


  • Maurice

    What is disturbing:
    1. paris has seen a sustained terrorist campaign already in the 1990s and won. The GIA – Groupe Islamique Armee came through and detonated gas canisters all around town. I came through one of Paris’ airports at the height of that campaign and counted 20 passport checks between arrival from Amsterdam to my seat on the way to Chicago, one after another after another. The french govt flooded the capital with Army troops and the problem was squashed.
    2. The Charlie Hebdo massacre was right next door. Noone seem to have drawn the conclusion that an arms and ammunition pipeline was feeding the terrorists.

    From the TV footage it appears that the entire police and rescue force was put to work:
    1. Anti-terrorist first response units: The hooded guys with and without bullet-proof vests, carrying high-end CQB gear
    2. The regular cops with automatic pistols
    3. The riot police with shotguns and tear gas throwers
    4. The fire department (pompiers)

    If the french political class hasn’t figured it out yet that they have relinquished control of the moslim slums all around paris, then it’ll be another and even bigger attack that comes next. Maybe this time they decide to act. shaa – as if

  • D.K. Williams

    Meanwhile, Nero…er…sorry, Algore prattles on about global warming at le Tour Eiffel.

  • Phill O

    Watch out for an infiltration from Canada. Trudeau is an Obama look-a-like and will let many muslims in. Canadians have voted to relinquish their freedoms!

  • Cotour

    Q: How will CBS shape their questions tonight in the Democrat “debate” in order to show the canidates in the best light?

    I understand that the CBS moderator had met with each candidates people for an hour or so in order to ……….?
    (why would a moderator meet with the candidates that he is about to interrogate so the people can make an informed decision?)

    Another and continuing outrage that needs to be commented on by the people in the next election.

  • Cotour

    This Paris massacre news tid bit should now ensure the Trump, Carson, Cruz ascension and getting some sanity back in the United States immigration policy.


  • pzatchok

    Obama started this by opposing the Syrian leadership.
    He assisted this by fighting against the Syrian government. In fact arming those against them.
    He approved of these acts by not fighting harder to save non Muslims in the middle east that ISIS was killing.

    And now his administration is talking about holding back financial assistance from the other governments that are helping ISIS. Basically holding back bribes that are more than likely already being used to finance ISIS. I.E. All our cash (bribes) going to Iran for them to stop their nuclear program, which they are not doing.

    This administration and Liberals in general believe in bribing enemies and threatening allies.
    Exactly bass ackward to all common sense and real world evidence. But they want, they believe, this idea to work because its exactly opposite from what those warmonger Republicans and conservatives would do.

    Like addicted gamblers they will lose a thousand times just for that one success to prove their system works.

  • hondo

    A by-product of uncontrolled borders and entry points (including ports and checkpoints) is more than just people like illegals, refugees, foreign nationals, terrorists etc. It is also “material” such as military grade weapons and explosives – chemical and bio are not far behind (I worry less about the BIG bad boy).
    Little is said about the “tools” being used. This is the shape of things to come – and its not coming from gun shops, shows, or Walmart – though there are some already eager to go there for the sake of their own agenda.
    God help us all.

  • Scottg

    Gun control is about stopping idiots in the community gunning down innocent people/kids in cinemas and schools, not stopping terrorists getting guns. They will get their hands on whatever they want, no matter the laws. I know this is a mainly right wing readership that will disagree, but having more guns in the community doesn’t make the community safer. Love your views on space Bob.

  • D.K. Williams

    “We are not at war with radical Islam.” –Hillary Clinton

    I suggest she travel to Syria and sing kumbaya with the ISIS leaders and invite them to the climate change summit in Paris.

  • Cotour


    Part of the intent of gun control is about what you suggest, controlling the presence of guns in the higher populated urban areas of our country. Intent is the key word in that sentence because we all know that it only applies to the segment of the population that adheres to the law. That intent by default leaves out the criminal minded and the terrorist. In other words an individual should have the legal right to posses a firearm within the confines of their own home in order to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, but in order to posses those same firearms outside of their home / property “on the street” within an urban area it may be reasonable for a licensing procedure of some sort.

    Where reasonable gun control runs off the rails is when the political class uses the subject as a political wedge and that wedge used in its full expression will be used to relieve everyone of their second amendment rights. And if and when America strikes the second amendment from the Constitution that will be the day that America ceases to exist because the second amendment is THEE key to our Constitution and the individuals freedoms in counter balancing the abuses of power that certainly will be visited upon the citizens of our country and any country for that matter.

    I hope this helps to refine the conversation for you.

  • Scottg

    Thanks Cotour
    The point of my comment was pulling Bob up on his irresponsible comment in his blog suggesting that france’s gun control laws were linked in some way to the tragedy there. There clearly is no link. Terrorists operate to their own warped agenda and gun control laws or the lack thereof is irrelevant to them.

    I enjoy, and look forward to his comments on space, but unfortunately I have to wade (endure?) his politics while scanning for space news. I appreciate your response though Cotour,


  • Cotour


    To be clear, and this may go against your personal sensibilities, fear and uncertainty about who may or may not be armed in a public venue does serve the interests of the public. Responsible and qualified / licensed people who find themselves in the public square have a right to protect themselves, their families and their fellow citizens. And that unknown “who might be armed” potential can and does screw in many ways those who would do you, me and anyone else harm.

    The French are an unarmed society, therefore, and this I will assume is Mr. Zimmermans point, then only the lawless and the terrorists have firearms and are free to do as they please because they know they can count on essentially zero resistance at the moment of any attack. Its just something which if it makes you feel uncomfortable and uncivilized you are just going to have to drag yourself to understand.

    Can it be dangerous? Absolutely, but only in a perfect world do unreasonable laws protect everyone, and we must agree that however we view it, life is not and can not be made perfect and safe in every way.

  • Edward


    The following video may help.

    Having fewer guns in the hands of the law-abiding *does* make the community more dangerous.

    Please be advised that most shooting sprees around the world have continued until someone with a gun arrived on the scene to save the day. This includes two attacks at Fort Hood and this year’s terrorism attacks in Paris. Police presence did not prevent the Charlie Hebdo attack; the unarmed officer (there to protect the office from the threatened attack) was the first victim. In these cases, was a lack of protective guns in the hands of well-trained professionals a responsible or irresponsible policy? If someone on the scene already had a gun, would these shooting sprees have even started?

    It turns out that many gun-control laws are irresponsible in keeping people safe. They often disarm only the law-abiding people — those who are responsible and safe with their guns — not the law-breaking people. It is not as though the law-breakers are suddenly going to turn into law-abiders. Thus, the law-breakers gain the upper hand against their law-abiding victims, and mass murder and terrorism become easy to perform and difficult to stop. When seconds count, it is comforting to know that the police are only minutes away — and that they (or at least the French police) may hang out outside of the concert hall while victims continue to be shot.

    In the case of the Pamela Geller cartoon contest, guns were already on the scene, and the intended terrorist shooting spree was not able to start. Here, the police had guns, which is the responsible policy when protecting against the law-breakers. Other safe, responsible gun-holders were also present (please notice that their guns did not go on a shooting spree).

    The news rarely tells us of the cases where the shooting spree didn’t start *because* a gun was already present at the scene. A non-incident is hardly newsworthy, and it does not advance the story (which you, Scottg, believe) that guns are the problem. In the case of Geller, the news media used the incident as an excuse more to criticize her Constitutional rights than to hail the life-saving hero.

    The US news media doesn’t spend much time telling us that the problem is only a very few of the people with guns (e.g. criminals who ignore the law, anyway, so why would they obey a law that reduces their ability to successfully commit crimes?). If the problem were the guns, we would have all perished by gunfire centuries ago.

    Guns are not the only method of mass murder. Knives are also used, to the point that there is actual talk of banning them in Britain. Once again, it is the (law-breaking) people, not the (inanimate) knives, that is the problem.

    From the linked essay: “If keeping people safe were the goal, the gun grabbers wouldn’t be focusing on so-called ‘assault weapons’ as their weapon of choice to ban, but on banning items like clubs, hammers, hands, fists, feet, etc., and knives (not to mention mainstream medicine, which kills hundreds of thousands each year). That’s because, according to FBI crime statistics, those implements are used to commit murders far more often than so-called ‘assault weapons.'”

    Something to think about while you turn in your own gun — presumably for your own safety — and you may want to consider turning in your knives, too. On the other hand, if you are not safe with a gun (or a knife), then turning it in is another option to taking a gun-safety class.

    Now that you have disarmed yourself, would you rather wait a mere few minutes for the police or have a responsible, law-abiding gun-holder protect you in the moment, in the event of an attack?

  • Scottg

    Hey Cotour & Edward,

    Thanks for the respectful and thoughtful way you guys responded to my post. I appreciate your points and actually agree with you that only responsible, law abiding citizens and law enforcement officers should have weapons. Unfortunately this is impossible to police in a country with very little gun control.
    I hope we can agree to disagree on your other points.

    Thanks guys

  • Cotour


    There seems to be plenty of gun control in America, there are I am sure well, well over 300 MILLION firearms at this moment privately and safely for the most part owned in America. If there were none to very little gun control then I fear we would all be long gone. Your un comfortability or fear with the thought that some every day American might at any time be armed (although they would be trained and licensed) in public seems unfounded for the most part, we are still here and having this conversation.

    Can guns be dangerous? Like I said earlier, yes they can. But there is a trade off made in the equation between personal safety and personal freedom. You make safety trade offs every single day you venture out of your house and drive your car, take prescription meds, climb a ladder etc. and most of those are probably much more dangerous than firearms.

    Also understand that we have grown up immersed in the everyday safety of living in America, we really live in a kind of fantasy reality where guns are “bad”. Why? Guns have been romanticized and sexualized by Hollywood and the media / TV and demonized by politicians who are protected by them everyday and who use the “fear” to manipulate to populous. The Liberal policies of the last 60 years have accomplished two things, they have essentially destroyed the minority family structure through dependency and fostered the gang / thug mentality that young people are replacing the family structure that the Liberal philosophies have destroyed. Liberals love, love love dependency and fear, they call it “compassion”.

    The tendency to catastrophize a situation or the potential of a firearm is a normal default position to adhere to when unfamiliar with a concept or a reasonable defense practice but there are certain realities in life that people must drag themselves to even if it makes them uncomfortable.

    I hate going to the dentist, but I make myself go because I know that I make it worse in my head intuitively thinking about it then the actual reality when I get there. You have to get there, if you can’t get there it really puts us all in danger of believing that giving up the right of the citizen to posses firearms, if they so choose, is acceptable. It is not.

    What was one of the first things the Nazi’s did in Germany? Gun registration. What was the next thing the Nazi’s did? Confiscated them using the newly generated list. Why? Because when they (government) came to round everyone up for the final solution they did not want any resistance. Aggressors / tyrants do not like to be shot at. And its not really that many years ago.

  • pzatchok

    God, mother nature, evolution or what ever you want to call it gave every single creature on this planet a way to defend itself.

    Tooth, claw, camouflage or in our case our mind. Our ability to make tools.

    And now someone wants to take away or regulate my God given right to self defend myself and my children?
    All because a few Aholes make some bad decisions?

    God made man and Smith and Wesson made man kind far more equal.
    Don’t take my 70 year old mothers only chance of fighting off a drug crazed thief or rapist.

    When the constitution was written it was expected that the civilians would be armed as well, if not better than any standing army.
    It was legal for civilians to own and arm ships of the line. To own canon.
    They were even expected to arm, train and equip any men needed to defend the state.

    Just look at the first ten amendments to the constitution. Each subsequent one protects the proceeding one. Take any away and they all get weaker. Weak enough to be totally removed.

  • Edward

    Scottg wrote: “Thanks for the respectful and thoughtful way you guys responded to my post.”

    You are welcome, and it is my pleasure.

    I hope that in the near future, you come to realize that gun control in America is doing more to disarm the law-abiding and that no amount of gun control disarms the law-breaking. As the video pointed out, places with the most stringent gun control tend to have terrible murder rates, and places with a greater number of armed citizens are more well behaved.

    Why punish the well behaved because of the behavior of the bad guys? That is like punishing the kid who was bullied, not the school bully. As we saw in Paris, the bully just ends up emboldened.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *