Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on September 03, 2014, 10:20:41 PM
-
That's my personal belief. Which is the reason why he turns his back and does nothing. I think he apart of it.
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-america-could-destroy-the-heart-of-islamic-state-in-three-weeks-but-we-refuse-to-do-it/
-
Obama supports the end goals of isis creating a caliphate
-
Impeach.
-
It would surprise me if a psychiatrist heard this from you and didn't conclude that you were clinically insane.
-
You libs can't win on this one. Either this is what he wants (not my take) or he is a naïve disinterested idiot. I vote number two....he just doesn't care. He'd rather worry about sending Holder to ferguson then securing the borders against foreign threats. He's rather...fuck, golf then be president.
-
That's my personal belief. Which is the reason why he turns his back and does nothing. I think he apart of it.
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-america-could-destroy-the-heart-of-islamic-state-in-three-weeks-but-we-refuse-to-do-it/
Yes his massive drone campaigns scream Muslim.
-
Mailing it in.......
-
Yes his massive drone campaigns scream Muslim.
Only massive thing is michelles badankadunk
-
Well, obviously plenty of vested interests in power want us to keep spending trillions in "stimulus" in the ME, but Obamas has to play the "I don't really want to do this but you're forcing me" schtick he used when signing the NDAA so his media drones can make excuses for his inevitable actions.
-
Only massive thing is michelles badankadunk
Actually, you might be interested in this with your obsession regarding him, but the only anthropomorphic measurement with any positive correlation size is natural leaness (slenderness), thus Obama is probably packing some BBC.
-
That's my personal belief. Which is the reason why he turns his back and does nothing. I think he apart of it.
And we give a shit about your personal beliefs why? Get back to us when you have evidence - preferably concrete, but we'll settle for less. If everything you allege and believe is true, you should have no problem getting it. Get on with this Joe. We're waiting!
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-america-could-destroy-the-heart-of-islamic-state-in-three-weeks-but-we-refuse-to-do-it/
I agree with some of what Mark Levin says. In fact, I used to think he was pretty brilliant; sadly after he became a radio-show talk host, he took a turn for the worst and he won't take his foot off the accelerator. It's not just his penchant for saying sensational and silly things to get his listeners and readers riled up (after all, angry and riled up listeners buy books and t-shirts!). No, it's his fucking voice that's the problem... I get a headache just thinking about that annoying shriek. FUCK.
-
Obama ‘Tipping His Hat’ to ISIS by Calling Them ‘ISIL’
Media Ite ^ | 09.05.14 | chickensouop
Posted on 9/5/2014 7:52:55 AM by Chickensoup
So Hussein (Obama) Decides to Call ISIS ISIL and the Media is Unquestioningly Complicit?
Ainsley Earhardt: “They changed the name in the middle of all this to ISIL. They don’t have the right to do that. We’re going to continue to call them ISIS.”
Harris Faulkner: “So our president is tipping his hat to them.”
Earhardt: “They changed the name…”
Faulkner: “So, it’s the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Levant is a bigger territory. That’s why they want to embrace that name and it includes many, many more countries than just Syria.”
Jesse Watters: “And I think the president doesn’t want to have it be just Iraq and Syria because that brings to mind the president’s failed polices in Iraq. Which, he said the Iraq war was over. And Syria, which he drew the line and basically vacated it. When they say Levant, that’s broadening it out and it kind of doesn’t remind people that this is his policy…”
-
And we give a shit about your personal beliefs why? Get back to us when you have evidence - preferably concrete, but we'll settle for less. If everything you allege and believe is true, you should have no problem getting it. Get on with this Joe. We're waiting!
I agree with some of what Mark Levin says. In fact, I used to think he was pretty brilliant; sadly after he became a radio-show talk host, he took a turn for the worst and he won't take his foot off the accelerator. It's not just his penchant for saying sensational and silly things to get his listeners and readers riled up (after all, angry and riled up listeners buy books and t-shirts!). No, it's his fucking voice that's the problem... I get a headache just thinking about that annoying shriek. FUCK.
Yeah well, while I can't get into the sympathizers head, seems most if not all indications point to just that. He's admitted he's a Muslim, gave money and supplied arms to terrorists even though he knew what the stood for and what they were labeled as and that's really just the beginning. And just because you don't like Levins voice it still doesn't make him wrong. But of you think otherwise, feel free to debate him.
-
He's admitted he's a Muslim
Woah, this would be HUGE. Link to where he admitted it?
-
Woah, this would be HUGE. Link to where he admitted it?
He told the Egyptian FM he was
-
He told the Egyptian FM he was
link? It's major news if so. If you post "anonymous sources suggest...", I will totally shake my head at this.
-
Personally, I'm ok with the Islamic State.
It is easier to keep track of the Dragon than it is the snake... We can watch those fuckers a lot better if they have their damn Islamic state.
Plus, we have Israel in their back yard to assist us in the endeavor... I am not against it at all.
Problem with that is that they will have an even stronger launching pad than al quieada did in Afghanistan to launch terrorist attacks against us, Europe, etc. Additionally - these muslim slimeballs are committing genocide and promise to wage war on the USA
-
If they have a country, can we not officially "wage war" against that country?
My issue with the war on Terror has always been that there is no actual country of terrorism.
If they have a country, we can pretty much wipe it off the map right? Nuke town?
bush said you're either with the terrorists, or with us.
By this logic, there is MORE than adequate cause to INVADE SYRIA. Right?
-
bush said you're either with the terrorists, or with us.
By this logic, there is MORE than adequate cause to INVADE SYRIA. Right?
You're both obsessed with Bush and Palin who have proven you and the rest of the left wrong in almost every way
-
Yeah well, while I can't get into the sympathizers head, seems most if not all indications point to just that.
Nobody asked you to do that. We asked you to provide evidence for your assertion. Either do that, or admit you're spouting nonsensical bullshit.
He's admitted he's a Muslim
Provide the proof for your assertion.
gave money and supplied arms to terrorists even though he knew what the stood for and what they were labeled as and that's really just the beginning.
Provide the proof for your assertions.
And just because you don't like Levins voice it still doesn't make him wrong. But of you think otherwise, feel free to debate him.
You really can't fucking read, can you? I started out saying "I agree with some of what Mark Levin says. In fact, I used to think he was pretty brilliant."
He told the Egyptian FM he was
No. The Egyptian FM (supposedly) alleges that Obama told him this. And Lucille Ball (supposedly) alleged that she could pick up CIA transmissions from her metal amalgam fillings. Neither allegation is the least bit credible.
-
You're both obcessed with Bush and Palin who have proven you and the rest of the left wrong in almost every way
??? I think Bush and Palin are holding the party back from growth to a true conservative model. They're terrible reminders of everyhing wrong with the GOP over the last decade. yet so many cling to them instead of looking fwd with Rand, Cruz and others without their stains and weaknesses.
Bush was a RINO, we all saw that. Palin, well, sorry but she's suffering some sort of venemous mental condition :(
-
And we give a shit about your personal beliefs why?
Because this is an opinion board where everyone gives their opinion?
-
Nobody asked you to do that. We asked you to provide evidence for your assertion. Either do that, or admit you're spouting nonsensical bullshit.
Provide the proof for your assertion.
Provide the proof for your assertions.
You really can't fucking read, can you? I started out saying "I agree with some of what Mark Levin says. In fact, I used to think he was pretty brilliant."
No. The Egyptian FM (supposedly) alleges that Obama told him this. And Lucille Ball (supposedly) alleged that she could pick up CIA transmissions from her metal amalgam fillings. Neither allegation is the least bit credible.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295501/obama-funds-egyptian-government-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/01/Flashback-Obama-Administration-Gives-1-5-Billion-To-Egypt-s-Muslim-Brotherhood
-
Because this is an opinion board where everyone gives their opinion?
I could ask whether you know what they say about opinions. But I won't. Instead I will point out that just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it valid. Joe holds "opinions" that contradict observable evidence. You will forgive me if I give exactly zero weight to such "opinions" and treat them as the garbage that they are.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295501/obama-funds-egyptian-government-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/01/Flashback-Obama-Administration-Gives-1-5-Billion-To-Egypt-s-Muslim-Brotherhood
Neither of these is proof of your assertion that Obama is a Muslim. They both, however, seem to support your other claim that he "gave money and supplied arms to terrorists even though he knew what the stood for and what they were labeled as and that's really just the beginning." So I gave both of them a long and critical read.
Unlike you, did a bit of research and tried to uncover facts instead of op-eds. And what I found paints a slightly different picture. While it's true that the United States did give approximately $1.5 billion, it wasn't an attempt by "Obama" to fund either the Egyptian Government or the Muslim Brotherhood. The money nominally went to the Egyptian military (which we have been financially supporting since the Camp David Accords) but actually ended up in the pockets of U.S. Defence contractors - that is, it was used to pay contracts that the Egyptian Army had ordered. See http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/10158648 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/10158648).
Quite a different thing from your actual claim, don't you think? Of course, like any rabid partisan dog, you aren't going to let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good sensationalist story, are you? You'll just keep having your "opinions" and to hell with facts and objective reality.
-
I could ask whether you know what they say about opinions. But I won't. Instead I will point out that just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it valid. Joe holds "opinions" that contradict observable evidence. You will forgive me if I give exactly zero weight to such "opinions" and treat them as the garbage that they are.
It's not about what weight you have to give his opinion or those of anyone else. The whole point of this board is to express opinions. Some are better than others, but it sounds like you're challenging his "right" to even express an opinion. Everybody (who isn't a troll) primarily posts opinions on the board. Nothing wrong with that.
-
It's not about what weight you have to give his opinion or those of anyone else. The whole point of this board is to express opinions. Some are better than others, but it sounds like you're challenging his "right" to even express an opinion. Everybody (who isn't a troll) primarily posts opinions on the board. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm not challenging his "right" to post - although I don't think anyone has a right to post on here. At best we have the privilege, afforded us by the owner of this board.
But while I'm not challenging his "right" to post I am challenging him and his positions. Asking him why anyone here should care about his opinions is certainly legitimate. Why should we? This is a man whose "opinions" include the idea that a massive conspiracy, spanning at least a decade and involving thousands of people has been perpetrated so that a Kenyan could run for and win the Presidency of the United States against all odds and the Constitution. He persists to hold this opinion after evidence he claims supported it is proven to be false and when overwhelming and extensive evidence against his position was posted by me and others. Some of that evidence is evidence that he, himself, admits are compelling and which he cannot refute, but which he then, promptly, ignores.
He can hold whatever damn opinion he pleases. But when he posts them here, he opens himself up for criticism and, frankly, he should expect to be challenged; he should expect having to support assertions he makes; he should expect to be laughed at and mocked when he espouses obviously stupid and unsupportable positions; he should expect to be called out when his replies to critical questions address nothing and merely consist of copy-pastes of what someone else said or some variation of the, by now infamous, "you don't get it, do you?"
If you don't like that he gets that criticism, I have one thing to say to you: tough. It is after all my opinion, and I have just as much "right" to post it here as he does. Or do you, now, no longer think that this a place where we can post opinions all of a sudden?
-
Yeah well, while I can't get into the sympathizers head, seems most if not all indications point to just that. He's admitted he's a Muslim, gave money and supplied arms to terrorists even though he knew what the stood for and what they were labeled as and that's really just the beginning. And just because you don't like Levins voice it still doesn't make him wrong. But of you think otherwise, feel free to debate him.
So what if he is a Muslim? It's not as if your bullshit sky ghosts are any better than their bullshit sky ghosts. Both camps believe in the same load of shit. None is better than the other. And if he is, I'd say your average towelhead could learn from him.
-
So what if he is a Muslim? It's not as if your bullshit sky ghosts are any better than their bullshit sky ghosts. Both camps believe in the same load of shit. None is better than the other. And if he is, I'd say your average towelhead could learn from him.
Oh brother. What the fuck can anyone learn from this asshole. Sounds like I hit a nerve. Too fucken bad. It's one thing to be Muslim, it's quite another to be a radical Muslim....that he covering for. You seem to be overlooking that part.
-
Oh brother. What the fuck can anyone learn from this asshole. Sounds like I hit a nerve. Too fucken bad. It's one thing to be Muslim, it's quite another to be a radical Muslim....that he covering for. You seem to be overlooking that part.
Well, in order for Obama to be a "radical Muslim" he needs to be a Muslim first. And you've offered no proof that he is. Would you care to try again?
With that out of the way, I'm actually going to be more extreme than you for a second. I have heard the argument that there's a difference between Muslims and "radical Muslims" but I'm really hard pressed to identify differences. I don't doubt that there are people who identify as Muslims that are peaceful and rational - I've worked with some, and have some that I consider friends. But generally, I've found them to be Muslim in name only, and not really religious. It's been my experience that practicing Muslims are, almost invariably, too close to "radical" for my taste. Of course, this is mostly anecdotal evidence derived from a small sample size, but I digress.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
ISIS is Obama (Saturbray)
www.braylog.com ^ | 9/6/14 | bray
Posted on September 6, 2014 12:29:46 PM EDT by bray
1 Samuel 5:11 So they called together all the rulers of the Philistines and said, “Send the ark of the god of Israel away; let it go back to its own place, or it will kill us and our people.” For death had filled the city with panic; God’s hand was very heavy on it.
Who is Barak Hussain kidding? He has no interest in stopping ISIS since ISIS is his army and he is rooting for them to defeat the Middle East and America. He and the Democrat party have been rooting for them for the past fifty years as has those journalists who had their heads cut off. Can anybody take serious a morally relative Party which worships the cutting off of babies heads in the birth canal is upset with these barbarians? These animals are cut from the exact same cloth as Hussain, Pelosi and Reid and have supported worse butchers than ISIL.
These two death cults have supported the killing of innocent victims for as long as they both have existed. From the early thirties the Dems have promoted eugenics with their Planned Parenthood saint, Margaret Sanger who openly admired Adolf Hitler and his theories of cleaning the race of its weeds. Most liberals have grown up promoting the killing of blacks and minorities under the guise of babies being an unbearable burden on poor girls justifying the killing of babies until and often after the first breath. What is the moral distance between killing a baby at birth and a journalist with his hands tied? What is the moral difference between killing a baby at birth and anytime after conception? This is the problem with man deciding morality and God. Perhaps that is why Biden said he would meet them at the gates of Hell?
The other kneejerk problem the Party has is their lifelong vilification of Zionists and their sanctification of Palestinians. Their victim status of the Mooselimbs as well as their excusing any savage act by these death cultists makes his first reaction to ally himself with the butcher cutting off an American head. Just as he allowed his Ambassador to be killed by these animals, he feels a brotherhood with the ISIS. This is why he stalls and sputters as well as reading the words of his speeches like a man on death row mouthing his false sympathy for a victim. This community agitator has the coldest heart on the planet like all good Marxists.
After decades of excusing Hamas and the PLO as well as rooting for Al Queda when Bush was President, they have to explain the difference between those poor put upon victims and ISIS. They all have the same goal of killing Jews and Christians so after that what is the difference? When the number one goal of each of these groups as well as much of the Islamic culture, why make a distinction. Not one Islamic leader has found those murders offensive which means they universally agree.
So President Hussain has to explain why Israel is supposed to stand down to their butchers while we bomb ISIS into a manageable dust. Bibi should simply look at him and say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander then go level Gaza.
The only reason Barak is being dragged back into Iraq is because the world is outraged at his brotherhood. He has made an agitator’s dream with chaos reining throughout the oil rich ME. This overeducated idjit believes that Marxism is a superior form of gummit. The problem he does not understand is that Marxism requires a hard dictatorship. Man is not built to submit his sweat and toil to give to another person who may or may not be working as hard.
This requires a gummit built in the style of Stalin that takes goods and services from the producers and turn your efforts to the non-producers. These dictators work in places like Europe and the Middle East which have had kings and some that require dictators, but not in America which is used to freedom.
The reason it works in Middle Eastern communist dictators is that Islam is not a freedom loving religion. As opposed to Christianity which is a choice, Islam is forced on people. The Koran says you will accept Morehamhead by your tongue or a knife at your throat. We are seeing that happen throughout Iraq as we left them to the savages thanks to this President’s need to be the anti-Bush and anti-America so he left them to the mercy of the barbarians. Next we will see the same thing happen in Trashcanistan as we see a Caliphate of terror form. The correct answer was to leave a sizable strike force in Iraq to quell any of these outbreaks to maintain a relative peace and continue to train the Iraqi troops, but that train left the station even though everyone warned him.
Now we have no plan, no clue and no chance of turning things around. This is what happens when you select a leader by how much he hates America, Israel and everything that is decent. This is what a world looks like that is ruled by moral relativism and a bunch of Godless cults. This is the new world order being run by local thugs and bandits terrorizing their people, but enough about the White House. This is exactly where liberalism and new age thinking will take you and those heads being chopped off is just the beginning.
There is one path out of it and it is the one that is being mocked and jeered at by the same people who brought us to this place. That is to turn our hearts and minds to the Lord Jesus Christ and to choose Light over Darkness. We have to choose to follow God’s plan and his morality and turn away from man's and the world's. We have to fight the evil in the world and put those savages in a cage. We as a country have to free ourselves from their oil and treasure and make ourselves self sufficient. We are seeing the tip of their results which is going to be massive killing fields throughout the world. Thank you obama, your army is marching and leaving a trail of blood.
-
::)
-
Dude that article is a sign of mental illness.
-
And we give a shit about your personal beliefs why? Get back to us when you have evidence - preferably concrete, but we'll settle for less. If everything you allege and believe is true, you should have no problem getting it. Get on with this Joe. We're waiting!
I agree with some of what Mark Levin says. In fact, I used to think he was pretty brilliant; sadly after he became a radio-show talk host, he took a turn for the worst and he won't take his foot off the accelerator. It's not just his penchant for saying sensational and silly things to get his listeners and readers riled up (after all, angry and riled up listeners buy books and t-shirts!). No, it's his fucking voice that's the problem... I get a headache just thinking about that annoying shriek. FUCK.
its a great drinking game with ML. take a drink every time he raises his voice to a scream. you'll be drunk in 5 minutes.
-
It's not about what weight you have to give his opinion or those of anyone else. The whole point of this board is to express opinions. Some are better than others, but it sounds like you're challenging his "right" to even express an opinion. Everybody (who isn't a troll) primarily posts opinions on the board. Nothing wrong with that.
If you dont want your opinions challenged by others or in this case facts dont fucking post them.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
ISIS is Obama (Saturbray)
www.braylog.com ^ | 9/6/14 | bray
Posted on September 6, 2014 12:29:46 PM EDT by bray
1 Samuel 5:11 So they called together all the rulers of the Philistines and said, “Send the ark of the god of Israel away; let it go back to its own place, or it will kill us and our people.” For death had filled the city with panic; God’s hand was very heavy on it.
Who is Barak Hussain kidding? He has no interest in stopping ISIS since ISIS is his army and he is rooting for them to defeat the Middle East and America. He and the Democrat party have been rooting for them for the past fifty years as has those journalists who had their heads cut off. Can anybody take serious a morally relative Party which worships the cutting off of babies heads in the birth canal is upset with these barbarians? These animals are cut from the exact same cloth as Hussain, Pelosi and Reid and have supported worse butchers than ISIL.
These two death cults have supported the killing of innocent victims for as long as they both have existed. From the early thirties the Dems have promoted eugenics with their Planned Parenthood saint, Margaret Sanger who openly admired Adolf Hitler and his theories of cleaning the race of its weeds. Most liberals have grown up promoting the killing of blacks and minorities under the guise of babies being an unbearable burden on poor girls justifying the killing of babies until and often after the first breath. What is the moral distance between killing a baby at birth and a journalist with his hands tied? What is the moral difference between killing a baby at birth and anytime after conception? This is the problem with man deciding morality and God. Perhaps that is why Biden said he would meet them at the gates of Hell?
The other kneejerk problem the Party has is their lifelong vilification of Zionists and their sanctification of Palestinians. Their victim status of the Mooselimbs as well as their excusing any savage act by these death cultists makes his first reaction to ally himself with the butcher cutting off an American head. Just as he allowed his Ambassador to be killed by these animals, he feels a brotherhood with the ISIS. This is why he stalls and sputters as well as reading the words of his speeches like a man on death row mouthing his false sympathy for a victim. This community agitator has the coldest heart on the planet like all good Marxists.
After decades of excusing Hamas and the PLO as well as rooting for Al Queda when Bush was President, they have to explain the difference between those poor put upon victims and ISIS. They all have the same goal of killing Jews and Christians so after that what is the difference? When the number one goal of each of these groups as well as much of the Islamic culture, why make a distinction. Not one Islamic leader has found those murders offensive which means they universally agree.
So President Hussain has to explain why Israel is supposed to stand down to their butchers while we bomb ISIS into a manageable dust. Bibi should simply look at him and say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander then go level Gaza.
The only reason Barak is being dragged back into Iraq is because the world is outraged at his brotherhood. He has made an agitator’s dream with chaos reining throughout the oil rich ME. This overeducated idjit believes that Marxism is a superior form of gummit. The problem he does not understand is that Marxism requires a hard dictatorship. Man is not built to submit his sweat and toil to give to another person who may or may not be working as hard.
This requires a gummit built in the style of Stalin that takes goods and services from the producers and turn your efforts to the non-producers. These dictators work in places like Europe and the Middle East which have had kings and some that require dictators, but not in America which is used to freedom.
The reason it works in Middle Eastern communist dictators is that Islam is not a freedom loving religion. As opposed to Christianity which is a choice, Islam is forced on people. The Koran says you will accept Morehamhead by your tongue or a knife at your throat. We are seeing that happen throughout Iraq as we left them to the savages thanks to this President’s need to be the anti-Bush and anti-America so he left them to the mercy of the barbarians. Next we will see the same thing happen in Trashcanistan as we see a Caliphate of terror form. The correct answer was to leave a sizable strike force in Iraq to quell any of these outbreaks to maintain a relative peace and continue to train the Iraqi troops, but that train left the station even though everyone warned him.
Now we have no plan, no clue and no chance of turning things around. This is what happens when you select a leader by how much he hates America, Israel and everything that is decent. This is what a world looks like that is ruled by moral relativism and a bunch of Godless cults. This is the new world order being run by local thugs and bandits terrorizing their people, but enough about the White House. This is exactly where liberalism and new age thinking will take you and those heads being chopped off is just the beginning.
There is one path out of it and it is the one that is being mocked and jeered at by the same people who brought us to this place. That is to turn our hearts and minds to the Lord Jesus Christ and to choose Light over Darkness. We have to choose to follow God’s plan and his morality and turn away from man's and the world's. We have to fight the evil in the world and put those savages in a cage. We as a country have to free ourselves from their oil and treasure and make ourselves self sufficient. We are seeing the tip of their results which is going to be massive killing fields throughout the world. Thank you obama, your army is marching and leaving a trail of blood.
:o
-
Oh brother. What the fuck can anyone learn from this asshole. Sounds like I hit a nerve. Too fucken bad. It's one thing to be Muslim, it's quite another to be a radical Muslim....that he covering for. You seem to be overlooking that part.
You hit a nerve :D
My friend, I couldn't be paid $5 to pretend to care if America sinks under the seas tomorrow. Obama with it. I'd feel bad for the decent people but I'd wake up tomorrow pining for my coffee, make my oats with cinnamon and syrup and continue with me life as nothing interesting happened, because nothing did.
So calm your concerns, no nerve was struck. And you still have no concrete evidence, merely speculation from sources that's so laughable it SHOULD be posted, for a good laugh.
-
I'm not challenging his "right" to post - although I don't think anyone has a right to post on here. At best we have the privilege, afforded us by the owner of this board.
But while I'm not challenging his "right" to post I am challenging him and his positions. Asking him why anyone here should care about his opinions is certainly legitimate. Why should we? This is a man whose "opinions" include the idea that a massive conspiracy, spanning at least a decade and involving thousands of people has been perpetrated so that a Kenyan could run for and win the Presidency of the United States against all odds and the Constitution. He persists to hold this opinion after evidence he claims supported it is proven to be false and when overwhelming and extensive evidence against his position was posted by me and others. Some of that evidence is evidence that he, himself, admits are compelling and which he cannot refute, but which he then, promptly, ignores.
He can hold whatever damn opinion he pleases. But when he posts them here, he opens himself up for criticism and, frankly, he should expect to be challenged; he should expect having to support assertions he makes; he should expect to be laughed at and mocked when he espouses obviously stupid and unsupportable positions; he should expect to be called out when his replies to critical questions address nothing and merely consist of copy-pastes of what someone else said or some variation of the, by now infamous, "you don't get it, do you?"
If you don't like that he gets that criticism, I have one thing to say to you: tough. It is after all my opinion, and I have just as much "right" to post it here as he does. Or do you, now, no longer think that this a place where we can post opinions all of a sudden?
No one has a right to post here, which is why I put the word in quotation marks.
We're pretty much saying the same thing. I was only pointing out how you were challenging him for even expressing an opinion, rather than the substance of his opinion.
-
If you dont want your opinions challenged by others or in this case facts dont fucking post them.
What the heck are you talking about?
-
No one has a right to post here, which is why I put the word in quotation marks.
We're pretty much saying the same thing. I was only pointing out how you were challenging him for even expressing an opinion, rather than the substance of his opinion.
He's holding - if you can use that word - a meritless, unsubstantiated opinion that he cannot articulate nor defend. Am I challenging him for posting it? You bet. I think that people who post bullshit should be challenged.
-
He's holding - if you can use that word - a meritless, unsubstantiated opinion that he cannot articulate nor defend. Am I challenging him for posting it? You bet. I think that people who post bullshit should be challenged.
Nothing wrong with that.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/steven-sotloff-sold-to-isis_n_5788312.html
>:(
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/steven-sotloff-family-criticize-white-house-110744.html
Family - Obama Admn lied to us
-
The White House liar getting owned.
Of course the jokeinthewhitehouse referred to ISIS when he called them "JV".
-
Kirsten Powers: Admitting JV Comment Was Wrong "Is Something Obama Can't Recover From"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/09/08/kirsten_powers_obama_admitting_jv_comment_was_wrong_is_something_he_cant_recover_from.html
-
Kirsten Powers: Admitting JV Comment Was Wrong "Is Something Obama Can't Recover From"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/09/08/kirsten_powers_obama_admitting_jv_comment_was_wrong_is_something_he_cant_recover_from.html
His cult of idiots will defend it
-
The White House liar getting owned.
Of course the jokeinthewhitehouse referred to ISIS when he called them "JV".
Jesus, you guys will go with anything. the guy questioning sounds like a retard. Listen to the fucking quote.
-
Jesus, you guys will go with anything. the guy questioning sounds like a retard. Listen to the fucking quote.
Hey, moron. The idiotinthewhitehouse's ORIGINAL interview was reviewed again and again. And the reporter asking the question, asked your idol about an incident that involved ISIS. Major newspapers have called this a lie by the White House.
Your messiah was talking about ISIS when he called them JV. PERIOD.
Move on, troll.
-
What does the NY TIMES say about that JV comment?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/politics/a-president-whose-assurances-have-come-back-to-haunt-him.html?_r=0#
But the transcript of the New Yorker interview showed that Mr. Obama made his JV team comment directly after being asked about terrorists in Iraq, Syria and Africa, which would include ISIS. After Mr. Obama’s initial answer, Mr. Remnick pointed out that “that JV team just took over Fallujah,” a city in western Iraq seized by ISIS. Mr. Obama replied that terrorism in many places around the world was not necessarily “a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”
Journalistic organizations like PolitiFact, Factcheck.org and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker all rejected the contention that Mr. Obama was not referring to ISIS when he made his comment about JV teams.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/08/obama-unlikely-to-seek-formal-authorization-for-military-strike-against-islamic-state-congressio
>:(
-
What does the NY TIMES say about that JV comment?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/politics/a-president-whose-assurances-have-come-back-to-haunt-him.html?_r=0#
But the transcript of the New Yorker interview showed that Mr. Obama made his JV team comment directly after being asked about terrorists in Iraq, Syria and Africa, which would include ISIS. After Mr. Obama’s initial answer, Mr. Remnick pointed out that “that JV team just took over Fallujah,” a city in western Iraq seized by ISIS. Mr. Obama replied that terrorism in many places around the world was not necessarily “a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”
Journalistic organizations like PolitiFact, Factcheck.org and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker all rejected the contention that Mr. Obama was not referring to ISIS when he made his comment about JV teams.
Again, you are wrong, learn how to read.
-
Again, you are wrong, learn how to read.
Spinning Obama’s reference to Islamic State as a ‘JV’ team
By Glenn Kessler September 3, 2014
Question: “Did the president underestimate ISIS [the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] when he referred to them in an interview only a couple months ago as a JV squad and making a reference to National Basketball Association basketball teams like the Lakers?”
White House spokesman Josh Earnest: “I thought somebody might ask this question today so I wanted to pull the transcript of the interview because it’s important to understand the context in which this was delivered. So let me just read the full quote and then we can talk about it:
“‘I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.’
“So the president was not singling out ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, another name for the group], he was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe. Many of them do not have designs on attacking the West or attacking the United States, and that is what puts them in stark contrast to the goals and capability of the previously existing al-Qaeda core network that was led by Osama bin Laden.”
– exchange at White House news briefing, Aug. 25, 2014
Several readers asked us to examine this claim from White House spokesman Josh Earnest that President Obama was not singling out the group that now calls itself as Islamic State when, during in an interview with the New Yorker that appeared last January, he appeared to dismiss it as a “JV squad.” Since then, the group has taken over vast segments of Iraqi territory, declared itself a state and has posted videos that appear to show the beheadings of two American journalists.
The Facts
The New Yorker article, written by David Remnick, appeared in the Jan. 27, 2014, issue. It was clearly based on a series of interviews with the president, over a period of months, but the interview in question took place in the Oval Office on Jan. 7, according to the previously unreleased transcript obtained by The Fact Checker.
The date is important because just four days before, newspapers reported that the Islamic State had captured and raised its flag over Fallujah, where Marines in 2004 had fought one of the bloodiest battles of the U.S. invasion. As Liz Sly of The Washington Post reported:
A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago….
The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq.
It was in that context that Remnick asked about a possible resurgence of al-Qaeda. Here is what the transcript shows:
Q: You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.
Q: But that JV team jus[t] took over Fallujah.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. But when you say took over Fallujah –
Q: And I don’t know for how long.
THE PRESIDENT: But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.
Games - Click Here for More!
The president’s “JV” comment was so striking that Remnick, in his article, referred to it as “an uncharacteristically flip analogy.” The New Yorker article does not specifically refer to ISIS, but it is fairly clear in the article — and certainly clear in the transcript — that Remnick was asking about its takeover of Fallujah.
In the White House briefing, Earnest asserted that Obama was referring to groups that “do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the United States … they certainly don’t have the capability of attacking the West.” He told reporters that “it’s important that we don’t sort of shorthand the analogy that the president was trying to draw here,” in that the president was referring to “jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes.”
But the context of Remnick’s question makes it clear that he was asking about ISIS, as the president acknowledged. Perhaps at the time the president viewed it as a local matter between jihadists, but now, eight months later, the United States is striking Islamic State targets in an effort to turn back its advance across Iraqi territory.
We asked Earnest and White House representatives for a response but over a four-day period did not get a reply.
The Pinocchio Test
With the passage of eight months, the president’s “JV” comment looks increasingly untenable, so we can understand why the White House spokesman would try to suggest that what is now known as the Islamic State was not the subject of the conversation.
But in quoting from the transcript, Earnest provided a selective reading of the discussion. In particular, he failed to provide the context in which Obama made his remarks — the takeover of Fallujah by ISIS. That’s fairly misleading. The interviewer was certainly asking about ISIS when Obama answered with his “JV” remarks.
Four Pinocchios
(http://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/09/03/spinning-obamas-reference-to-isis-as-a-jv-team/
-
I understand what he is saying perfectly. the kobe bryant comment brought it home, you are fucking retarded.
-
I understand what he is saying perfectly. the kobe bryant comment brought it home, you are fucking retarded.
Me, the Washington Post, pretty much every member of the liberal media, etc.
This is a perfect example of how the man got elected. Even Canadians drink the Kool-Aide. :-\
Did you even read the article?
-
I understand what he is saying perfectly. the kobe bryant comment brought it home, you are fucking retarded.
Doper in Chief is an idiot and dead wrong - hope that helps
-
Again, you are wrong, learn how to read.
HHEHEHEEH!! You are just being a stupid troll.
You must be acting. You can't actually be that stupid.
-
Cheney to GOP: Obama Supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Therefore ISIS
Mediaite ^ | September 9, 2014 | Tina Nguyen
Posted on September 9, 2014 at 11:38:49 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In a closed-door meeting with the House Republicans, former Vice President Dick Cheney placed the blame for ISIS, Hamas, and the multiple Islamist groups proliferating in the Middle East, on the shoulders of Barack Obama.
During the meeting, which was confirmed to the Daily Beast‘s Ben Jacobs by multiple congressmen, Cheney accused Obama of “facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood” with his policies. According to Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), Cheney said Obama “has actually done things that have supported the Muslim Brotherhood,” which spurred “the beginning of all the Islamist groups that we’re dealing with now like Hamas and ISIS.”
Anticipating Obama’s upcoming speech on Wednesday on potential military action in Iraq, Cheney called on the GOP to push for more “aggressive” action in the Middle East. By “facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood,” Cheney argued, “our policies have been exactly opposite to where they should be.”
-
Obama's ordered 153 airstrikes on ISIS targets in the last month?
-
Obama's ordered 153 airstrikes on ISIS targets in the last month?
Yippee
-
Yippee
ISIS is now armed with lots of rifles stamped with "USA" on them.
these "rebels" sold one of the reporters at the border to ISIS for 25,000 - nbc news.
these "rebels" are losing/selling guns to the ISIS terrorists to use against us.
Was it dems that screamed we should arm the rebels, that obama wasn't arming the rebels fast enough? lol
ah, it's sickening across the board. still blaming libs when you should be blaming washington altogether.
-
Obama's ordered 153 airstrikes on ISIS targets in the last month?
Link?
-
Link?
US Military Launches More Airstrikes Against ISIS Targets in Iraq
Comments Off Share ArticleShare Article
iStock/Thinkstock
(WASHINGTON) -- The U.S. military conducted five more airstrikes against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) targets near the Haditha Dam in Iraq, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said Tuesday.
The strikes, which were in support of Iraqi Security Forces and Sunni tribes protecting the dam, "destroyed or damaged eight ISIL armed vehicles, two of which were transporting anti-aircraft artillery; five ISIL vehicles, and one ISIL transport vehicle," CENTCOM said in a statement.
Fighter and remotely piloted aircraft used in the strikes all managed to exit the area safely.
Since Aug. 8, CENTCOM says it has conducted 153 airstrikes across Iraq.
Read On ABC News Radio: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/world-news/us-military-launches-more-airstrikes-against-isis-targets-in.html#ixzz3CsrUVfZP
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/world-news/us-military-launches-more-airstrikes-against-isis-targets-in.html
-
That's my personal belief. Which is the reason why he turns his back and does nothing. I think he apart of it.
"Does nothing"?
He ordered lots of airstrikes on ISIS on Aug 7, 2014.
Between Aug 8 and Sept 9th, we have used 153 airstrikes on them.
So you're saying MORE airtrikes should have been used, coach? Is that what you're saying?
How many should we have used? 1000 airstrikes? 2000?
-
Thanks.
So how is Obama covering for ISIS again?
-
Thanks.
So how is Obama covering for ISIS again?
You're taking a thread started by Joe or Chris serious? :D
-
Thanks.
So how is Obama covering for ISIS again?
Maybe he just ordered those 153 airstrikes to "make it look good".
You know, like he's secretly supporting this terror group, but killing thousands of them, just so people don't catch on?
-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/09/09/abc-nbc-beheaded-americans-family-obama-treats-us-pawns?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_campaign=pawns
;)
-
You're taking a thread started by Joe or Chris serious? :D
Of course they both seem like intelligent and resonable people :P
-
Maybe he just ordered those 153 airstrikes to "make it look good".
You know, like he's secretly supporting this terror group, but killing thousands of them, just so people don't catch on?
Ahh that must be it.
-
Of course they both seem like intelligent and resonable people :P
As opposed to airsoft being a real gun? ;D :D
-
http://conservativetribune.com/family-beheaded-journalist-rebuked-obama/
-
September 12, 2014
Obama Rejected "Best Military Advice"
CENTCOM Chief Urged Modest Combat Contingent
By Dustin Walker
As he laid out his strategy to combat the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria, President Obama rejected the “best military advice” of his top military commander in the Middle East.
Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.”
Austin’s recommendation was taken to the White House by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. The White House rejected CENTCOM’s “advise and assist” contingent due to concerns about placing U.S. ground forces in a frontline role.
In a press briefing Thursday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the president had rejected Austin’s recommendation because he believes “it is not in the best interest of American national security to send American combat troops in a combat operation to act on the ground in Iraq.”
In a nationally-televised speech on Wednesday evening, President Obama repeatedly emphasized that U.S. forces will not have a combat role in Iraq. “We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” the president said. He specifically underscored that “this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and will resemble U.S. counterterrorism campaigns in Yemen and Somalia.
Instead, President Obama opted for a more modest course, sending an additional 475 troops to assist Iraqi and ethnic Kurdish forces; 150 of those forces will form more than a dozen teams and embed with Iraqi Security Forces at the brigade level and above, according to the Pentagon. In other words, U.S. advisers are likely to remain inside bases assisting with issues like training, intelligence, and equipment. The remainder will be assigned to conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions and oversee U.S. military activities at headquarters in Baghdad and Erbil.
Austin’s predecessor, Marine Gen. James Mattis, told the Washington Post that the president’s decision may place the mission at risk. “The American people will once again see us in a war that doesn’t seem to be making progress,” Mattis told the paper. “You’re giving the enemy the initiative for a longer period.”
Supporters of the president’s approach, such as Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), see U.S. combat troops as unnecessary, and could distract the Iraqi government and security forces from taking necessary steps to drive out ISIS militants. “Ranking Member Smith believes combat forces are not necessary in Iraq and would not help. The key is to reform the Iraqi forces and get the Sunnis to turn against ISIL,” said Michael Amato, spokesman for the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Opponents of combat troops in Iraq say recent successes show the president’s strategy can succeed. U.S. airstrikes have helped repel ISIS advances on the city of Erbil, and aided Iraqi forces in recapturing the Mosul Dam and the city of Amerli.
But the newest phase of the U.S. campaign against ISIS faces substantial risks, including a dependence on Iraqi political and military leaders.
President Obama conditioned additional U.S. action against ISIS on the formation of an inclusive Iraqi government. Now, his strategy relies on the realization of equally inclusive governance under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. The president is counting on the prime minister to make substantial progress in healing sectarian wounds that festered under his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki. But even if the new Shia-led government is determined to reconcile with Iraq’s Sunni minority, lingering resentment and mistrust could impair efforts to convince Sunni tribesmen to reject ISIS and assist in pushing the militants out of the country.
Militarily, the United States is counting on an Iraqi military with a reputation for retreat to join forces with Kurdish and Shiite militias to wage a ground offensive to recapture territory held by ISIS. Many military experts are skeptical that the Iraqis – with ineffective military leadership and sectarian divisions throughout their ranks – will be able to defeat determined and ruthless ISIS militants without the kind of American military assistance the president has ruled out to date.
The president’s strict reliance on air power also carries risks. When the United States took on al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during “the Surge,” the strategy included special operations forces, conventional units, and intelligence operatives on the ground. Those elements are absent from President Obama’s strategy, despite the fact that ISIS is arguably a more powerful enemy than AQI in terms of manpower, weaponry, financial resources, and territory.
The difficulties of relying on airpower are likely to present themselves as U.S. and Iraqi forces attempt to dislodge ISIS militants from major urban centers. In cities like Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi, ISIS can adopt a more covert, insurgency-style approach blending in with local populations. In such an environment, skilled ground troops will be required to sort out enemy forces and remove them block by block.
If Iraqi and Kurdish forces prove unable to carry out such operations and progress against ISIS stalls, would the White House reconsider embedding U.S. special operations forces with frontline Iraqi units to advise and assist?
White House press secretary Josh Earnest delivered a mixed message on that question Thursday. President Obama “is not contemplating deploying additional combat troops on the ground in either Iraq or Syria,” Earnest told reporters. But when asked if the president remains open to mission-specific applications of special operations forces if the need arises, Earnest said he was “not willing to broadly take anything off the table.”
Dustin Walker is the Editor of RealClearDefense.
-
Foreign Policy
President Obama’s ISIS Strategy Isn’t Reality Based
President Obama's response to ISIS is another example of how our ruling class couples their illusions with whatever they find it convenient to do.
Angelo Codevilla
By Angelo Codevilla
September 11, 2014
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
Follow Us on Twitter
Like Us on Facebook
Hangout with us
President Obama’s promise “to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL” may or may not end up causing problems for the Islamic State. Surely however, it further degraded our security by further engaging us in the combination of fantasy and half measures that has earned America a reputation for un-seriousness and opened hunting season on Americans everywhere.
Obama degrades America by dwelling in a politically convenient fantasy world. In his September 10 2014 prime-time speech, Obama claimed to have made America safer by combining the withdrawal of troops from abroad with the killing of Osama bin Laden and “taking out terrorists who threaten us” in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Obama pledged to deal with ISIL in the same successful way.
In Obama’s fantasy, ISIL is neither Islamic nor a state. But distinguishing ISIL’s doctrine from the orthodox Wahabism preached daily in Mecca and Minneapolis, and that from the Koran, is hardly possible for scholars never mind for religiously illiterate politicians. In fact, some of the world’s wealthiest and most influential Muslims think enough of ISIL’s Islamic credentials to give it countless millions of dollars as a faith-offering, thousands upon thousands of young Muslims from around the world, including the USA rush to fight and die for it, the Muslim governments of Qatar and Turkey, respectively, continue to buy and transit supplies for it, while the Islamic world’s leading intellectual authorities have not critiqued its Islamic credentials.
De facto, ISIL is a state because it controls territory larger than that of a plurality of the UN’s members, and because the people it rules prefer it to their former rulers. They do so because ISIL shares the people’s religious sect (Sunni Islam) while the leaders of the former Syria and Iraq are Alewis or Shia. ISIL conquered its territory with the help of the locals. In Iraq, the local Sunnis helped ISIL chase away the Iraqi army, and the Kurds too, using arms given them by the US government as part of “the surge.”
But in Obama’s fantasy, as expressed by Sandy Berger, Clinton’s former national security adviser whose advice Obama solicited, our confrontation with ISIL “can’t turn into a U.S versus Sunni battle.” “It has to be us helping the Sunnis battle the Sunni extremists.” It has to be that, regardless of whether the Sunnis who live under ISIL regard their rulers as extremists or not. The locals have to look at things the way we do. They just damn well have to.
More than that, the folks in the region have to believe in and fight for entities called “Iraq” and “Syria,” to which heretofore they have shown scarce allegiance but in which Obama, like the Bushes and Clinton before him, professes to believe deeply. In his speech, he told the world that he had helped fix Iraq by brokering the new, “inclusive” Iraqi government sworn in on September 8. By supporting its efforts “to address the legitimate grievances and needs of all Iraqis”- read, the Sunnis – that government will “drive a wedge between ISIL and Sunnis.” Thus, “The Iraqi Government is taking the fight to ISIL, and will ultimately be the one to defeat it in Iraq.” Inclusiveness will do the trick, for Obama just as it did for Bush. This time, for sure.
If the hard men who now run the ISIL military, who had been Saddam Hussein’s security cadre, who marched against an Iraqi army flush with top-of-the line US arms confident that Iraqi soldiers would hand them over; if the Sunni Islamist agitators whom the American occupation of Iraq had imprisoned for shooting Americans and who now lead an ISIL Caliphate that draws countless recruits aching to behead Americans; if such people believed Obama’s speech, if they shared the Obama-Sandy Berger thesis, they would be quaking in their boots. Odds are they listened to Obama’s speech with glee.
They heard Obama promise to reduce ISIL’s revenue “from oil and assets it has plundered” and to disrupt “the flow of external donations to the group.” They know, just as any well-informed person anywhere knows, that the US government has the capacity to do just that. But they also know what Obama would have to do to accomplish it – namely institute some kind of secondary sanctions on countries (and there are a lot of them) that traffic in oil sold by ISIL – and that Obama does not have the slightest intention of upsetting these countries or the domestic US interests that deal with them. As for cutting off the external donations, the hard men of ISIL can use their financial account books as comfort-pillows, confident that Obama – and John McCain, Qatar’s favorite senator – will bring zero significant pressure on any Gulf rulers to jail their cousins who fund ISIL.
The secular and religious men of ISIL did not hear a peep from Obama about how the pipeline of food and fuel and medicine through Turkey by which ISIL survives is going to be shut down. That is because it isn’t going to be shut down and ISIL, along with its host population, will continue to eat, drink, and be well.
They heard Obama promise to strike from the air to “degrade ISIL’s leadership, logistical and operational capability, and deny it sanctuary and resources to plan, prepare and execute attack.” They know that America has an air force that could do that. Heck, they know that Saudi Arabia and Jordan together have over 400 modern fighter-bombers that, even without American attack aircraft but only with American air controllers, these could starve and kill them in an intensive campaign over a couple of months. But Obama told them that all they need worry about is the sort of thing that America has mustered against its enemies in recent years. Massive campaigns aimed at swift victory are now politically incorrect in Washington.
Obama promised to limit “ISIL’s ability to extort local populations; stemming ISIL’s gains from kidnapping for ransom.” That would be serious. But the men of ISIL can discount the threat because executing it would take physically pushing ISIL rulers out with a substantial ground force. Obama made it clear that the U.S. will not supply such a force. (Good thing too, because a US ground invasion would likely repeat the disastrous Iraq occupation policy). The Kurds fight magnificently. But they have learned to do so exclusively for Kurdistan. The Iraqi army does not, and will not, exist. Iraq has plenty of ferocious Shia militias – death squads – eager to take the equivalent of Sunni scalps. But all know that Obama will do his best to shield ISIL from the Shia. The Saudis demand it.
Again and again, Obama degraded the English language by describing his fantasy as “strategy,” as in: “our strategy will be underpinned by a strong coalition of regional and international partners who are willing to commit resources and will to this long-term endeavor.” This usage is akin to: “our strategy is to make a ham sandwich, contingent on somebody providing the bread and someone else the ham,” or “the mouse’s strategy for dealing with the cat is to place a bell around its neck.”
But Obama gave no hint as to how “regional and international partners” would be persuaded to do whatever it takes to “degrade and destroy” ISIL – nor even of what activity and what level thereof would be required to do that – any more than how any mouse might go about belling a cat.
The American people watched videos of men like ourselves being beheaded by Muslim thugs with a knife who now dispose of a state, and who are drawing unto themselves God-knows-how many would-be beheaders of Americans. The American people reasonably demanded a real campaign to destroy ISIL. What Obama delivered was yet more fantasy.
Alas, our ruling class couples their illusions with whatever they find it convenient to do, and call it “strategy.” Thereby do they advertise their impotence.
Photo by the White House
Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014.
-
this guy is saying ISIL is a state, it is not.
-
this guy is saying ISIL is a state, it is not.
LMFAO!!!!!
-
LMFAO!!!!!
It's not recognized as a state by any country. No more then AQ is a state.
-
It's not recognized as a state by any country. No more then AQ is a state.
You need to stop sucking Obama cock and defending this idiocy - they call themselves Islamic and a State regalrdess of what fagbama says.
-
It's not recognized as a state by any country. No more then AQ is a state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
Read you fucking moron.
-
They can call themselves whatever they want...they have a standing force that has modern light weapons and more importantly they are supremely well funded. They have plenty of ex Iraqi military officers to advise them in conventional light infantry tactics and the benefit of watching how we operated over the last 13 or so years. They don't have air power and freedom of movement will be harder but as in A-Stan, not impossible. The sheiks in the Western desert would prefer not to have to deal with them and while some are openly fighting them, others aid them. Some would go back with the US...not the Iraqi Gov...the US if we were staying around. We're not. We're going to end up having to use Al Sadr's dudes to fight these guys and they're in bed with Iran. This is all semantics unless we're hit here or in Europe.
-
They can call themselves whatever they want...they have a standing force that has modern light weapons and more importantly they are supremely well funded. They have plenty of ex Iraqi military officers to advise them in conventional light infantry tactics and the benefit of watching how we operated over the last 13 or so years. They don't have air power and freedom of movement will be harder but as in A-Stan, not impossible. The sheiks in the Western desert would prefer not to have to deal with them and while some are openly fighting them, others aid them. Some would go back with the US...not the Iraqi Gov...the US if we were staying around. We're not. We're going to end up having to use Al Sadr's dudes to fight these guys and they're in bed with Iran. This is all semantics unless we're hit here or in Europe.
+1
-
What a disaster.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/paths-to-war-then-and-now-haunt-obama.html?_r=0&referrer=
-
You need to stop sucking Obama cock and defending this idiocy - they call themselves Islamic and a State regalrdess of what fagbama says.
Correcting falsehoods is sucking his cock. I don't give a fuck about Obama, however, I will correct mis information that is clearly doing nothing but inflamming a volatile situation.
It's not a state, in no manner is it a state, it meets none of the criteria nor is considered a state by any other legitamate state.
-
Correcting falsehoods is sucking his cock. I don't give a fuck about Obama, however, I will correct mis information that is clearly doing nothing but inflamming a volatile situation.
It's not a state, in no manner is it a state, it meets none of the criteria nor is considered a state by any other legitamate state.
Lol. Keep kneepadding
-
Well, nothing's happening. Like I said. He's covering for them he's protecting them. He's all but one of them.
-
Well, nothing's happening. Like I said. He's covering for them he's protecting them. He's all but one of them.
::)
-
Well, nothing's happening. Like I said. He's covering for them he's protecting them. He's all but one of them.
LOL! What are you talking about? In the last 3 days, we've expanded airstrikes to new parts of baghdad and taken out an ISIS fighting operations base as well as six vehicles of them.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/09/16/U-S-in-first-air-strike-near-Baghdad-on-ISIS.html
"Nothing's happening?" = FOX didn't cover it? LOL come on man. at the same time you missed this action, you missed the INTEL we gave to the Aussies, used to knock doors on 18 ISIS properties and take 15 of them into custody, an intelligence WIN, as bad guys in handcuffs are very good for finding more bad guys.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/18/australia-terror-raid-prompted-by-isis-plans-for-public-killing-pm-says/
So, in conclusion, "nothing's happening" = we're giving intel to allies to catch ISIS, while dropping bombs on their people, their bases, and their vehicles, all over the past 2-3 days.
-
LOL! What are you talking about? In the last 3 days, we've expanded airstrikes to new parts of baghdad and taken out an ISIS fighting operations base as well as six vehicles of them.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/09/16/U-S-in-first-air-strike-near-Baghdad-on-ISIS.html
"Nothing's happening?" = FOX didn't cover it? LOL come on man. at the same time you missed this action, you missed the INTEL we gave to the Aussies, used to knock doors on 18 ISIS properties and take 15 of them into custody, an intelligence WIN, as bad guys in handcuffs are very good for finding more bad guys.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/18/australia-terror-raid-prompted-by-isis-plans-for-public-killing-pm-says/
So, in conclusion, "nothing's happening" = we're giving intel to allies to catch ISIS, while dropping bombs on their people, their bases, and their vehicles, all over the past 2-3 days.
Yippee ::)
-
Yippee ::)
??? You said we're doing nothing. I showed in the past 3 days, we've seen raids & airstrikes.
Is the "yippee" that you feel it's not enough? Is the yippee that it's not 300,000 troops on thr ground in Baghdad knocking on doors, catching shrapnel?
IF IF IF obama needed to start another urban street war to get 30,000 dudes spread across thousands of miles, we'd be spending billions and losing a dozen troops a day.
1) ISIS hasn't attacked the US. They've killed 3 reporters - we're talking undercover, unarmed reporters that go into a dangerous nation and infiltrate a rebel terror group, get kidnapped (as is common all over the world) and were killed when we didn't pay ransom. K&R is very common for people that enter VERY dangerous regions of the world.
2) They're on the run, obviously, as bombs have been falling on their cars as they try to escape.
3) We're enlisting the help of allies, as illustrated by the Aussies picking up 15 of them, soon to be beaten and waterboarded for info.
Now, wait two months... we'll have hundreds or thousands of their leadership. Snitches all over the world speaking on them for a reward. Anyone who goes near them with assets seizes. Global understanding of their network will be huge and shared, so none of their operatives can go anywhere without 30 countries learning of it instantly.
Seriously, the idea of "Just send in 300,000 troops and kick some ass!" doesn't work in situations like this. YIPPEE!
-
??? You said we're doing nothing. I showed in the past 3 days, we've seen raids & airstrikes.
Is the "yippee" that you feel it's not enough? Is the yippee that it's not 300,000 troops on thr ground in Baghdad knocking on doors, catching shrapnel?
IF IF IF obama needed to start another urban street war to get 30,000 dudes spread across thousands of miles, we'd be spending billions and losing a dozen troops a day.
1) ISIS hasn't attacked the US. They've killed 3 reporters - we're talking undercover, unarmed reporters that go into a dangerous nation and infiltrate a rebel terror group, get kidnapped (as is common all over the world) and were killed when we didn't pay ransom. K&R is very common for people that enter VERY dangerous regions of the world.
2) They're on the run, obviously, as bombs have been falling on their cars as they try to escape.
3) We're enlisting the help of allies, as illustrated by the Aussies picking up 15 of them, soon to be beaten and waterboarded for info.
Now, wait two months... we'll have hundreds or thousands of their leadership. Snitches all over the world speaking on them for a reward. Anyone who goes near them with assets seizes. Global understanding of their network will be huge and shared, so none of their operatives can go anywhere without 30 countries learning of it instantly.
Seriously, the idea of "Just send in 300,000 troops and kick some ass!" doesn't work in situations like this. YIPPEE!
No, what he's doing is not enough. ISIS needs to be destroyed. You say they haven't attacked the U.S., but they have executed at least one U.S. citizen - excuses like "he was a reporter in a dangerous place!" don't carry much weight. I don't care if he was an undercover reporter or a bodybuilder doing G4P. What's important is that ISIS, a terrorist group, has executed a U.S. citizen. Do we need to thrown troops by the hundreds of thousands into Iraq? No, probably not. Is what we're doing enough? Again, probably not. The facts are simple: appeasement will not work with these people; they need to be squashed like roaches with no hesitation and we need to get squashing before we're overrun with bugs.
-
No, what he's doing is not enough. ISIS needs to be destroyed. You say they haven't attacked the U.S., but they have executed at least one U.S. citizen - excuses like "he was a reporter in a dangerous place!" don't carry much weight. I don't care if he was an undercover reporter or a bodybuilder doing G4P. What's important is that ISIS, a terrorist group, has executed a U.S. citizen. Do we need to thrown troops by the hundreds of thousands into Iraq? No, probably not. Is what we're doing enough? Again, probably not. The facts are simple: appeasement will not work with these people; they need to be squashed like roaches with no hesitation and we need to get squashing before we're overrun with bugs.
Americans die in Mexico all the time. THese 3 weren't killed by the Syrian govt, which I could see being grounds for war.
They were killed by outlaws. Criminals. A gang of criminals bragging about how they want to kill americans. Imagine an unarmed american going to mexico to "spy on" and "infiltrate drug gangs". Should we invade Mexico?
And you say "Appeasement"? Dropping bombs upon their cars and home doesn't seem like appeasement. Raiding their safe houses all over the world and sending their people to GITMO or whatever... that doesn't seem like appeasement.
I guess you are saying you want to see more of a PUBLIC show of force? Aircraft carriers and way more troops on CNN, etc?
I *know* four things -
1) Obama said we're coming at them,
2) They haven't attacked anyone outside of undercover infiltrators that decided they wanted to spy on a criminal gang that kidnaps people,
3) They haven't done shit to the USA but talk shit
4) Some number of them are dying/imprisoned every day as a result of military action, of which none of us sees the true extent.
Obama and the military are executing military action. We don't know shit. A bunch of armchair QB saying "I cant tell you what we're doing exactly, but we need more!!" Honestly, I love having only 500 special forces boots on the ground - nothing is worse for troops than "your job, 18 year olf private, is to sit on this 105 degree corner exposed for the next 6 weeks like a really soft target". I love that our troops can swoop in, kill who needs killed, and the world may never hear about it - but our troops aren't dying like they are during an "invasion" either.
-
You need to stop sucking Obama cock and defending this idiocy - they call themselves Islamic and a State regalrdess of what fagbama says.
I am a state then.
-
LOL! What are you talking about? In the last 3 days, we've expanded airstrikes to new parts of baghdad and taken out an ISIS fighting operations base as well as six vehicles of them.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/09/16/U-S-in-first-air-strike-near-Baghdad-on-ISIS.html
"Nothing's happening?" = FOX didn't cover it? LOL come on man. at the same time you missed this action, you missed the INTEL we gave to the Aussies, used to knock doors on 18 ISIS properties and take 15 of them into custody, an intelligence WIN, as bad guys in handcuffs are very good for finding more bad guys.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/18/australia-terror-raid-prompted-by-isis-plans-for-public-killing-pm-says/
So, in conclusion, "nothing's happening" = we're giving intel to allies to catch ISIS, while dropping bombs on their people, their bases, and their vehicles, all over the past 2-3 days.
Nothing more irritating that you splitting hairs. I guess by your definition if they went in with two pea shooters, a slingshot and Bomba the jungle boy that would be considered "doing something". There were more strikes in the first day or two at the beginning of the Iraq war than there has been since Obama made his empty threats. This clown has no intention what so even of eradicating ISIS or terrorists in general. He couldn't give a shit one way or the other. Why the fuck do you think he has such a high approval rate with Muslims.
-
I am a state then.
yes, Denial
-
Nothing more irritating that you splitting hairs. I guess by your definition if they went in with two pea shooters, a slingshot and Bomba the jungle boy that would be considered "doing something". There were more strikes in the first day or two at the beginning of the Iraq war than there has been since Obama made his empty threats. This clown has no intention what so even of eradicating ISIS or terrorists in general. He couldn't give a shit one way or the other. Why the fuck do you think he has such a high approval rate with Muslims.
At the start of Iraq War, we were up against a state military force with tanks, jets, airports, and possibly chemical weapons. We were attacking the Iraqi military in baghdad, so yes, shock and awe was warranted and useful.
Today, it's 30k people in houses and sheds, spread over several nations and hiding very well.
Tell us, what would you bomb? LOL. We KNEW where the palaces were. We KNEW where the airports were.
Do you KNOW where ISIS keeps their tanks and jets? lol come on, it's a different kind of battle here.
Also, we didn't use troops *first* in 2003 either... we let the bombs soften their targets and kill groups of bad guys before moving our troops into harms way.
You're not calling for impeachment (like I am) over F&F or benghazi.
You're not demanding impeachment for him being born in kenya.
You ARE upset because this week, Obama didn't unleash 1700 air sorties (504 using cruise missiles) upon the middle east like we did in 2003. I gotcha.
-
Americans die in Mexico all the time. THese 3 weren't killed by the Syrian govt, which I could see being grounds for war.
They were killed by outlaws. Criminals. A gang of criminals bragging about how they want to kill americans. Imagine an unarmed american going to mexico to "spy on" and "infiltrate drug gangs". Should we invade Mexico?
And you say "Appeasement"? Dropping bombs upon their cars and home doesn't seem like appeasement. Raiding their safe houses all over the world and sending their people to GITMO or whatever... that doesn't seem like appeasement.
I guess you are saying you want to see more of a PUBLIC show of force? Aircraft carriers and way more troops on CNN, etc?
I *know* four things -
1) Obama said we're coming at them,
2) They haven't attacked anyone outside of undercover infiltrators that decided they wanted to spy on a criminal gang that kidnaps people,
3) They haven't done shit to the USA but talk shit
4) Some number of them are dying/imprisoned every day as a result of military action, of which none of us sees the true extent.
Obama and the military are executing military action. We don't know shit. A bunch of armchair QB saying "I cant tell you what we're doing exactly, but we need more!!" Honestly, I love having only 500 special forces boots on the ground - nothing is worse for troops than "your job, 18 year olf private, is to sit on this 105 degree corner exposed for the next 6 weeks like a really soft target". I love that our troops can swoop in, kill who needs killed, and the world may never hear about it - but our troops aren't dying like they are during an "invasion" either.
The people bitching about the tactics used would be the first ones on the ground I bet. We don't have any intelligence on the level they are using yet morons sit and bitch. The whole war in iraq was a failure, it should have never happened.
-
The people bitching about the tactics used would be the first ones on the ground I bet. We don't have any intelligence on the level they are using yet morons sit and bitch. The whole war in iraq was a failure, it should have never happened.
we have 500 special forces on the ground, doing what they do - gather information on bad guys and taking bad guys out.
They're working with airstrikes and the local forces to kill these bad guys. Or better, grab them and interrogate them to find other bad guys.
I don't understand how people who don't know what's happening on the ground, who have zero clue of how many ISIS have fallen this week, will call this a failure just because they don't see the fireworks show on FOX NEWS they enjoyed in 2003 when we had to defeat a military of 375,000 plus state military weaponry. Hearing "Bush used WAY more bombs in 2003!", lol, it has to be the funniest thing I've ever heard on getbig.
-
Americans die in Mexico all the time. THese 3 weren't killed by the Syrian govt, which I could see being grounds for war.
What's next? You'll ask why I don't support attacking cars and hearts because those are two leading causes of American deaths? You're obscuring the critical distinction: that ISIS is a terrorist group, hell-bent on destruction. I do not like having to use force, but if some mindless thugs tries to attack me and initiates force against me, I will defend myself and I will neutralize him. That's what we should do with ISIS - neutralize them. If that means "kill them all" then so be it - they only have themselves to blame.
They were killed by outlaws. Criminals. A gang of criminals bragging about how they want to kill americans. Imagine an unarmed american going to mexico to "spy on" and "infiltrate drug gangs". Should we invade Mexico?
If the Mexican cartels start overrunning the government of Mexico, then yes, and they are making demands of us and killing our citizens then yes, absolutely. Also, please do note, there are crimes and there are crimes. Frankly, it's laughable to call ISIS "outlaws" and "criminals". You should call a spade a spade instead of sugar-coating it "a tool, sometimes made of plastic, that's useful for digging."
And you say "Appeasement"? Dropping bombs upon their cars and home doesn't seem like appeasement. Raiding their safe houses all over the world and sending their people to GITMO or whatever... that doesn't seem like appeasement.
Dropping bombs or their cars and homes is meaningless. They don't care about cars or homes.
I guess you are saying you want to see more of a PUBLIC show of force? Aircraft carriers and way more troops on CNN, etc?
I don't care about shows of force of CNN - I'm neither fickle nor into reality shows. I want to see ISIS stopped and I want to see those who killed others in the name of ISIS brought to justice.
I *know* four things -
1) Obama said we're coming at them,
Talk is cheap.
2) They haven't attacked anyone outside of undercover infiltrators that decided they wanted to spy on a criminal gang that kidnaps people,
No, of course they haven't. All those people they executed, why... they brought it on themselves. Those poor ISIS fools, they had no choice - their hands were tied.
3) They haven't done shit to the USA but talk shit
They have brutally executed American citizens as punishment for the "crimes of America."
4) Some number of them are dying/imprisoned every day as a result of military action, of which none of us sees the true extent.
Even if some number of them is dying or getting imprisoned, that number is not enough. ISIS must be destroyed.
Obama and the military are executing military action. We don't know shit. A bunch of armchair QB saying "I cant tell you what we're doing exactly, but we need more!!" Honestly, I love having only 500 special forces boots on the ground - nothing is worse for troops than "your job, 18 year olf private, is to sit on this 105 degree corner exposed for the next 6 weeks like a really soft target". I love that our troops can swoop in, kill who needs killed, and the world may never hear about it - but our troops aren't dying like they are during an "invasion" either.
Sure, we don't know all the details. We only have the details that our government chooses to make available to us. If those details cause me to criticize the government for not doing enough when it is, in fact, doing enough the government only has itself to blame.
-
oh, in NO way am I saying it's okay to kill americans in other countries. I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying many repubs want to send 300k troops because 3 americans were killed in Syria by outlaws... Do they want to do that in every country it's ever happened in? Cause americans get killed in Paris and London and China too.
and with the airstrikes, we hit their base/vehicles and killed 15 of them, I believe.
I do believe our military will be putting a major bite on ISIS and within a year, we'll have most of them behind bars or in the ground. And unless we have military leaders on tv screaming in anger (like they were when Bush's military allowed bin laden to escape tora bora), I have no reason to doubt the current policy. Maybe it's not enough, but I haven't heard credible military voices saying what they'd do differently.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama hearts ISIS (Saturbray)
www.braylog.com ^ | 9/20/14 | bray
Posted on September 20, 2014 at 7:49:31 AM MST by bray
Be glad, people of Zion, rejoice in the LORD your God, for he has given you the autumn rains because he is faithful. He sends you abundant showers, both autumn and spring rains, as before. Joel 2:23 NIV
Why are all the liberals crying about ISIS? This is exactly who they wanted running the Middle East for the past 50 years. They are still milking their tolerance stance like they are somehow disconnected from their barbaric death cult with ISIS isn’t Islam. The Marxist still continue to promote the militant arm of liberalism while a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans are buying what they are selling.
This really boils down to their insistence that America continue to be enslaved to Arab oil and consequently Muslim violence. If they were as interested in becoming energy independent as they are to forcing the latest environmental fraud down our throats this country would not only be independent, but would be exporting our excess. This is the heart of the problem and why we are in the dangers that we are in. The Democrat Party is more concerned with destroying America than they are protecting and building it since in their Marxist Utopia they own everything and see themselves creating a shortcut to wealth by stealing it.
When GW was President he weakened Al Queda and this group of terrorists with a two pronged attack. First was his direct war on them even though our army is not built for a gorilla war it was effective enough to quell the fighting in and around Iraq. This was at the heart of terrorism and they feared the US army and its allies. These terrorists who have become ISIS were pushed into Syria and surrounding countries who were later fighting the Syrian regime. From the US point of view they were basically defeated and controlled with the Iraqi people supporting the US troops who were their protectors.
The second attack was an attack on their source of income. He made America more self sufficient by opening up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and expanding fracking exploration. We have still only explored a fraction of the areas where oil is likely to be located. The Federal gummit has only allowed 3% of their lands to be explored and are more interested in keeping oil in the ground than your car. They are more interested in stopping the free flow of oil and gas to stop the freedom the automobile represents. This has increased the price of oil pumping more money into terrorist countries and now directly into the ISIS economy. This multi-billion dollar terrorist group makes Osama bin Laden look like a piker thanks to the DNC and Marxist leaning Republicans.
George Bush was actually weakening these Mooslimb terrorists to the point of making the Middle East as calm as it had ever been in our lifetimes. With Iraq and Afghanistan in relative peace and Egypt and Libya working with Israel the only terrorist state was Iran who was getting pressured to back down from all of its neighbors, then in comes the Obama agitators. The first thing they do is send a Code Pink flotilla to Gaza filled with weapons to fight Israel, Egypt, Libya and Syria. They announce the date they are leaving Iraq signaling the ISIS armies when they can invade and then stop all drilling in the Gulf and stop the Keystone pipeline sending oil prices through the roof.
Thanks to Obama and the Democrat Party we are slaves to the Middle East and Islamic terrorism. This is a direct result of their hatred for America and especially the freedom it represents. These are both evil people who believe people should not exist, but if they do they should live a very shackled existence in their little apartment without a car and barely surviving. They would choose the winners and losers. They of course as the Inner Circle and truly elite would live the lifestyle of the rich and famous while the Proletariat would work for them as they chanted soviet phrases like 1% vs 99% and No Fossil Fuels to Save the Earth. So here we are.
So how do we escape this Islamic enslavement? The first step is to realize where we are and how we got here. We got here by a very naïve public being manipulated by a Party which only has one concern which is the accumulation of power and control. They have a massive marketing system with the media and academics which has done an effective job of brainwashing those masses into self shackling themselves through a seductive cult. This cult is extremely destructive and has one goal of destroying America so they can run it similarly to Mao’s China. This is where we are and how we got here.
The next step is to reverse this course. What they have done through community organizing is they have taken over the vote. They have corrupted it and have made sure their people are in charge of this basic freedom. These people will do whatever it takes to keep and maintain their power, but they have a weakness. They can only manipulate the vote so much and to push it further than a couple percent can potentially be exposed. We need to find five to ten people each who would not normally vote in an off election and have them vote for Republicans. Those five to ten people need to find one person who would normally not vote and we would flood the ballot box.
We did a more organized version of this with targeted door knocking and have won 10 elections and passed petitions in a row. We are in a Democrat enclave and they have given up fighting us in this area. Our latest election last Tuesday to stop Light Rail which is a 3 Billion dollar boondoggle we won by a margin of 75-25%. You can make a difference, you simply have to get a group of dedicated people who want to save the country and go about doing it. The Dems have a soft underbelly and we have found a way to exploit it and you can too. Don’t sit around waiting for someone else to do this.
ISIS is a direct result of the Obama doctrine. Everything the Dems have done has led up to this and they are happy ISIS exists. They are going to make some token symbolic attacks to wag the dog, but they are cheering for ISIS to succeed. This is the ME they have always dreamed of. They will continue doing what they are doing telegraphing our exit from Afghanistan and strangling our energy supply to promote the terrorist states in the guise of saving the earth.
You can change all of that by organizing your neighborhood and making sure more Republicans on your block vote than Dems. Contact your Repub headquarters and you can find out which neighbors you want to target to make sure they vote and give them a list of candidates to vote for. We have to put his regime in a box and that is the ballot box.
Pray for America
TOPICS: FReeper Editorial; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: energy; islam; terrorists; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
-
::)
-
Coach is Right ^ | September 20, 2014 | Jim Emerson, staff writer
Posted on September 20, 2014 at 8:32:16 AM MST by darkwing104
Mullah Obama, Secretary of State Hanoi Kerry and defense stooge Hegel have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to ISIL. Insisting that they will not allow boots on the ground is not only pure political posturing on the part of America’s fearless triumvirate, it’s just plain stupid. They are hoping that cowardly Iraqi security forces and the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels will be America’s proxy army in the fight against fellow Muslims. Obama ordered the CIA train and arm these so-called moderate Muslims and thus was born ISIS. What in the world are these over-educated political windbags thinking when they use rebels that are actively killing Christians in Syria to fight a terrorist group killing Christians in Iraq? According to The Hill “moderate Syrian rebels and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) had reportedly struck a cease-fire deal.” Yet the only people taking the fight to ISIL are the Kurds! Funny how the team of White House ensconced ex-senators never seems to mention them.
Ignoring the Warfighters
The Obama administration believes it possible to defeat the nation’s enemies through the use of airpower, intelligence, drones, and counter terrorism measures. And after receiving congressional approval for this joke of a strategy, Obama & Co believe they can totally ignore military advisors. The Great One’s lounge lizard assistants don’t have time to listen to America’s expert military strategists, preferring instead to depend upon their own, unreliable proxy forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
-
but mccain said...
-
Obama hearts ISIS (Saturbray)
www.braylog.com ^ | 9/20/14 | bray
Posted on September 20, 2014 at 7:49:31 AM MST by bray
Oooh, hard-hitting political analysis mixed in with Jesus-worship by Bray, the semi-illiterate owner of a logging company!
-
Oooh, hard-hitting political analysis mixed in with Jesus-worship by Bray, the semi-illiterate owner of a logging company!
So is ofagget rooting for Isis or Assad to win?
-
So is ofagget rooting for Isis or Assad to win?
Not knowing who "ofagget" is, I couldn't answer your question. And I'm unclear on what it has to do with my post.
-
Not knowing who "ofagget" is, I couldn't answer your question. And I'm unclear on what it has to do with my post.
Obama allegedly wants isis to lose? But assad is fighting Isis too and obama is rooting for who here?
-
Obama allegedly wants isis to lose? But assad is fighting Isis too and obama is rooting for who here?
Still unclear what your question has to do with my post. I guess I just haven't read enough blog posts by the owner of a logging company...
-
Still unclear what your question has to do with my post. I guess I just haven't read enough blog posts by the owner of a logging company...
I always thought you were a moron (albeit a harmless one), but now I think you're a brain dead troll. You are nothing more than 240 with a fancy vocabulary.
Thanks.
Truly yours... GW
-
I always thought you were a moron (albeit a harmless one), but now I think you're a brain dead troll.
Another avid reader of the braylog I take it?
You are nothing more than 240 with a fancy vocabulary.
My command of the English language and the size of my lexicon aren't the only differences between 240 and myself. But I digress...
Thanks.
Truly yours... GW
You're welcome.
-
Leon Panetta says Obama helped ISIS grow by ignoring national security team's advice
Daily Mail ^ | 22 September 2014 | David Martosko, Us Political Editor for MailOnline
Posted on 9/22/2014 12:19:23 PM by CorporateStepsister
Former Obama administration Pentagon chief Leon Panetta said Sunday that the president overruled nearly his entire national security team and decided not to arm moderate Syrian rebel groups early on, a decision that helped the ISIS terror army gain power.
Panetta also said he favored leaving a residual force of U.S. troops behind in Iraq instead of withdrawing them, another opinion Obama ignored.
Panetta, who was Obama's CIA director for two years before leading the Pentagon for two more, told CBS News that entering the Syria conflict earlier, and ensuring that moderate groups gained power instead of the most extreme jihadi elements, could have prevented ISIS from growing and prospering.
'I think that would've helped,' Panetta said. 'And I think, in part, we pay the price for not doing that in what we see happening with ISIS.'
And a less complete troop pullout in Iraq 'would've given us greater leverage over Iraq's government,' he emphasized.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist It’s a fictitious name the Obama administration invented
NRO ^ | 9/28/14 | Andrew McCarthy
Posted on September 28, 2014 8:07:54 PM EDT by Nachum
We’re being had. Again.
For six years, President Obama has endeavored to will the country into accepting two pillars of his alternative national-security reality. First, he claims to have dealt decisively with the terrorist threat, rendering it a disparate series of ragtag jayvees. Second, he asserts that the threat is unrelated to Islam, which is innately peaceful, moderate, and opposed to the wanton “violent extremists” who purport to act in its name.
Now, the president has been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been “decimated.” The jihad, in fact, has inevitably intensified under his counterfactual worldview, which holds that empowering Islamic supremacists is the path to security and stability. Yet even as war intensifies in Iraq and Syria — even as jihadists continue advancing, continue killing and capturing hapless opposition forces on the ground despite Obama’s futile air raids — the president won’t let go of the charade.
Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group.
The who?
There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.
You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the –Iranian–Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...