ISIS and beheadings...

[achilles28]

So no, I don't buy into our government intentionally funding a threat to give us a reason to go to war. But I do believe it is traitorous act to arm any group which is in any way affiliated with our sworn enemies (like al qaeda), and I've said it on here. I think we're basically on the same page but stating the US fed govt intentionally helped isis, is not a fact, it's a theory. And if it's true then whoever voted for it/ordered it deserves execution.

It's not even debatable. The US funded Al Queda in Libya, at least for one year before the revolution, and during the revolution itself. Let me repeat that again: the United States Government DIRECTLY AND WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE funded Al Queda in Libya. Please read this article, then let me know who should be executed for treason in the US Government (I'm in agreement with you, on that). After reading the following article, please tell me it was all a 'big accident' and our Government is a bumbling, well-meaning, near do well....*rolls eyes*




Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html

- Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
- Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
- The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
- The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
- US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for 'blind sheikh' Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn't been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

'The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to KNOWN AL QUEDA MILITIAS AND FIGURES,' Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for tacitly approving the diversion of half of a $1 billion Qatari arms shipment to al-Qaeda-linked militants.

'Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,' Lopez claimed. 'They were permitted to come in. ... [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

'The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.'

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

'The White House and senior Congressional members,' the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, 'deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.'

'Some look at it as treasonous moves,' said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission's research. 'And our men and women had to follow what many purport as, qualify as treasonous moves.'

Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, one of the commission's sources, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now 'all in Syria.'

' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html#ixzz3CJgDEIb

 

[fhl]

Taking the wrong side in foreign wars and arming them, escorting the worst sort of dregs across our borders, using the gov't apparatus to go after political enemies, it just goes on and on. It's like Clinton's scandal overload on steroids.

And now we also learn that the futures exchanges have special rebate schedules for the federal reserve to trade S&P futures.

In my humble opinion, there is no turning this thing around. It is just heading straight for a complete collapse. Sooner or later.

 

[dbphoenix]

More and more pundits and politicians by the day seem to think that a single, declarative, manly and comprehensive verb suffices as a response to ISIS. The words of choice are typically “destroy” or “crush” or “finish off” or something similarly unambiguous and swift.

Sen. Rand Paul, fresh off a well-publicized messaging tour about how Hillary Clinton is a “war hawk” whose favored interventions have caused more damage than otherwise would have occurred, now wants to ”destroy ISIS militarily.” Rep. Paul Ryan hopes to “finish off” ISIS. John McCain, of course, believes the Islamic State has “got to be destroyed” posthaste; Rep. Adam Kinzinger wants to know if President Obama has the machismo to “crush” ISIS. Even the sharpest, most nuanced pundit in the biz, “Phil Robertson from ‘Duck Dynasty,’” is declaringthat members of ISIS should either be converted or killed.

Once you understand that this is how people see ISIS, and the world, it explains the frustration with President Obama’s neatly cut-and-clipped statement that “we don’t have a strategy yet.” ISIS is little more than a fly, just sitting there, waiting to be swatted. Why doesn’t Obama pick up the fly swatter? Fly’s sitting right there, guy. In the present, outside the context of history. Go get it!

It’s as if all the baddies and their bad thoughts are huddled together, just waiting for a button to be pressed, and then the problem will be over. A single swing of the fly swatter, a single press of the button: The idea is that ISIS and all the awful things it represents are one motion away from destruction. Ergo President Obama must be mentally ill or something for not acting out that motion.

Rep. Kinzinger’s confused query — “Are we going to contain ISIS or are we going to crush ISIS?” — was a response to Obama’s latest comments on the situation this morning, from Europe. At a press conference, Obama said, “Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.” Shortly thereafter, he added: “We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.” And so the likes of Kinzinger et al. are now confused about how Obama could want to “degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States” and“shrink” it “to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

The only reason that one may find these two statements in conflict with each other is if that person believes genocide of all Sunnis in Iraq, Syria and nearby is an appropriate response to ISIS. Because you can launch some strikes to take out much of ISIS’ military capabilities, but you’ll still have to “manage” the issue of Sunni resentment toward Shia rulers in Iraq and Syria (as well as toward the United States!) as long as you intend to spare any Sunni lives.

This is one of the reasons why the Obama administration is trying to “think” about the situationbefore simply launching a comprehensive bombing campaign in two countries: It recognizes that ISIS doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The administration is getting lashed left and right for this by people who think it does exist in a vacuum and is one press of a button away from extinction.

We don’t say this very often, but everyone who’s losing their minds should read Thomas Friedman’s column today. Yep: The debate has become so oversimplified and bloodthirsty that now Thomas Friedman is a welcome voice of caution.

To defeat ISIS you have to address the context out of which it emerged. And that is the three civil wars raging in the Arab world today: the civil war within Sunni Islam between radical jihadists and moderate mainstream Sunni Muslims and regimes; the civil war across the region between Sunnis funded by Saudi Arabia and Shiites funded by Iran; and the civil war between Sunni jihadists and all other minorities in the region — Yazidis, Turkmen, Kurds, Christians, Jews and Alawites.

When you have a region beset by that many civil wars at once, it means there is no center, only sides. And when you intervene in the middle of a region with no center, you very quickly become a side.

ISIS emerged as an extreme expression of resentment by one side: Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis who felt cut out of power and resources by the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Baghdad and the pro-Iranian Alawite/Shiite regime in Damascus. That is why Obama keeps insisting that America’s military intervention must be accompanied, for starters, by Iraqis producing a national unity government — of mainstream Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — so our use of force supports pluralism and power-sharing, not just Shiite power.

But power-sharing doesn’t come easy in a region where kinship and sectarian loyalties overwhelm any sense of shared citizenship. Without it, though, the dominant philosophy is either: “I am strong, why should I compromise?” or “I am weak, how can I compromise?” So any onslaught we make on ISIS, absent national unity governments, will have Shiites saying the former and Sunnis saying the latter. That’s why this is complicated.​

Hawks have so far been successfull at stripping away the existence of context and complexity from the ISIS situation. They’ve made it acceptable to say things like ISIS simply needs to be “destroyed” or “crushed” or “finished off” and not be asked any follow-up questions. For God’s sake, resist them.

Jim Newell

 

[achilles28]

Taking the wrong side in foreign wars and arming them, escorting the worst sort of dregs across our borders, using the gov't apparatus to go after political enemies, it just goes on and on. It's like Clinton's scandal overload on steroids.

And now we also learn that the futures exchanges have special rebate schedules for the federal reserve to trade S&P futures.

In my humble opinion, there is no turning this thing around. It is just heading straight for a complete collapse. Sooner or later.

I saw the futs rebate schedules for CB's. Google Jim Rickards lately? Yes, we're headed for collapse...

 

[achilles28]

NATO rebels in Syria merged with Al Queda.

Shortly after, Al Queda in Syria merged with ISIS.

Now NATO 'friendly' rebels, Al Queda and ISIS are the same group. In chronological order:

Syrian Rebels Aligned with NATO will not fight against al-Qa’ida, and openly admits to battling alongside them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html


8 days later....

NATO Rebels in Syria pledge allegiance to Al Qaeda
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306861/Syrias-rebel-army-pledges-allegiance-Al-Qaeda-new-Islamist-insurgence-threatens-dictator-Assad.html


Late June....

Al Qeuda merges with Isis at Syria-Iraq border town
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/10925602/Al-Qaeda-merges-with-Isis-at-Syria-Iraq-border-town.html


ISIS operating in US border town and poised to strike in domestic US, imminently
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/imminent-terrorist-attack-warning-feds-us-border/


McCain poses for a photo-op with Al Queda in Syria. A 'swell bunch of guys', we're told...

Why not support Al Queda in Syria? We gave them half a billion in weapons in Libya, afterall...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html


Citizen calls out McCain for treason, gets laughed off by the idiot crowd and McCain who wouldn't "dignify" the accusation. How many stingers, MANPADS and TOW missiles did we send to Al Queda in Syria, Senator? Was it 10,000? Or 20,000?

Remember these, you motherfucker:

 

[Ricter]

"Sen. Rand Paul, fresh off a well-publicized messaging tour about how Hillary Clinton is a “war hawk” whose favored interventions have caused more damage than otherwise would have occurred, now wants to ”destroy ISIS militarily.”

Lol!

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

More and more pundits and politicians by the day seem to think that a single, declarative, manly and comprehensive verb suffices as a response to ISIS. The words of choice are typically “destroy” or “crush” or “finish off” or something similarly unambiguous and swift.

Sen. Rand Paul, fresh off a well-publicized messaging tour about how Hillary Clinton is a “war hawk” whose favored interventions have caused more damage than otherwise would have occurred, now wants to ”destroy ISIS militarily.” Rep. Paul Ryan hopes to “finish off” ISIS. John McCain, of course, believes the Islamic State has “got to be destroyed” posthaste; Rep. Adam Kinzinger wants to know if President Obama has the machismo to “crush” ISIS. Even the sharpest, most nuanced pundit in the biz, “Phil Robertson from ‘Duck Dynasty,’” is declaringthat members of ISIS should either be converted or killed.

Once you understand that this is how people see ISIS, and the world, it explains the frustration with President Obama’s neatly cut-and-clipped statement that “we don’t have a strategy yet.” ISIS is little more than a fly, just sitting there, waiting to be swatted. Why doesn’t Obama pick up the fly swatter? Fly’s sitting right there, guy. In the present, outside the context of history. Go get it!

It’s as if all the baddies and their bad thoughts are huddled together, just waiting for a button to be pressed, and then the problem will be over. A single swing of the fly swatter, a single press of the button: The idea is that ISIS and all the awful things it represents are one motion away from destruction. Ergo President Obama must be mentally ill or something for not acting out that motion.

Rep. Kinzinger’s confused query — “Are we going to contain ISIS or are we going to crush ISIS?” — was a response to Obama’s latest comments on the situation this morning, from Europe. At a press conference, Obama said, “Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.” Shortly thereafter, he added: “We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.” And so the likes of Kinzinger et al. are now confused about how Obama could want to “degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States” and“shrink” it “to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

The only reason that one may find these two statements in conflict with each other is if that person believes genocide of all Sunnis in Iraq, Syria and nearby is an appropriate response to ISIS. Because you can launch some strikes to take out much of ISIS’ military capabilities, but you’ll still have to “manage” the issue of Sunni resentment toward Shia rulers in Iraq and Syria (as well as toward the United States!) as long as you intend to spare any Sunni lives.

This is one of the reasons why the Obama administration is trying to “think” about the situationbefore simply launching a comprehensive bombing campaign in two countries: It recognizes that ISIS doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The administration is getting lashed left and right for this by people who think it does exist in a vacuum and is one press of a button away from extinction.

We don’t say this very often, but everyone who’s losing their minds should read Thomas Friedman’s column today. Yep: The debate has become so oversimplified and bloodthirsty that now Thomas Friedman is a welcome voice of caution.

To defeat ISIS you have to address the context out of which it emerged. And that is the three civil wars raging in the Arab world today: the civil war within Sunni Islam between radical jihadists and moderate mainstream Sunni Muslims and regimes; the civil war across the region between Sunnis funded by Saudi Arabia and Shiites funded by Iran; and the civil war between Sunni jihadists and all other minorities in the region — Yazidis, Turkmen, Kurds, Christians, Jews and Alawites.

When you have a region beset by that many civil wars at once, it means there is no center, only sides. And when you intervene in the middle of a region with no center, you very quickly become a side.

ISIS emerged as an extreme expression of resentment by one side: Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis who felt cut out of power and resources by the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Baghdad and the pro-Iranian Alawite/Shiite regime in Damascus. That is why Obama keeps insisting that America’s military intervention must be accompanied, for starters, by Iraqis producing a national unity government — of mainstream Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — so our use of force supports pluralism and power-sharing, not just Shiite power.

But power-sharing doesn’t come easy in a region where kinship and sectarian loyalties overwhelm any sense of shared citizenship. Without it, though, the dominant philosophy is either: “I am strong, why should I compromise?” or “I am weak, how can I compromise?” So any onslaught we make on ISIS, absent national unity governments, will have Shiites saying the former and Sunnis saying the latter. That’s why this is complicated.​

Hawks have so far been successfull at stripping away the existence of context and complexity from the ISIS situation. They’ve made it acceptable to say things like ISIS simply needs to be “destroyed” or “crushed” or “finished off” and not be asked any follow-up questions. For God’s sake, resist them.

Jim Newell

This is exactly why many of us, most prominently Rand Paul, were against getting involved in Libya and Syria. Obama and Hillary were determined to support islamist groups however, just as they did in Egypt, and the result shave been disastrous.

Now, rather than accept responsibility for what was clearly a disastrous policy, they want to whine about how nuanced and complex it all is. Hillary seems to be in total denial, even trying to blame obama for not being more reckless.

Let's not forget Ukraine, where elements of the administration and war monger republicans like that idiot McCain agitated to overthrow the pro russian government. Having poked the hornets' nest, they were shocked, shocked I tell you, that Putin responded. Now the Hitler analogies are thrown about with great relish as argument enders. OK, everybody in favor of WW III hands up.

 

[Ricter]

This is exactly why many of us, most prominently Rand Paul, were against getting involved in Libya and Syria. Obama and Hillary were determined to support islamist groups however, just as they did in Egypt, and the result shave been disastrous.

Now, rather than accept responsibility for what was clearly a disastrous policy, they want to whine about how nuanced and complex it all is. Hillary seems to be in total denial, even trying to blame obama for not being more reckless.

Let's not forget Ukraine, where elements of the administration and war monger republicans like that idiot McCain agitated to overthrow the pro russian government. Having poked the hornets' nest, they were shocked, shocked I tell you, that Putin responded. Now the Hitler analogies are thrown about with great relish as argument enders. OK, everybody in favor of WW III hands up.

Perhaps you didn't get Rand Paul's latest memo.

 

[PiggyBank]

It's not even debatable. The US funded Al Queda in Libya, at least for one year before the revolution, and during the revolution itself. Let me repeat that again: the United States Government DIRECTLY AND WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE funded Al Queda in Libya. Please read this article, then let me know who should be executed for treason in the US Government (I'm in agreement with you, on that). After reading the following article, please tell me it was all a 'big accident' and our Government is a bumbling, well-meaning, near do well....*rolls eyes*

IF this is true, then yes that is absolutely treason, and would make it indisputable that obama is a traitor (which is how I view him anyway). but there's no evidence, yet. The article is from April, you don't think this story has been investigated? Again until there is proof, it is just a theory and not a fact. But if we're still arming groups in syria, then that's pretty much treason as well.

As for your last post, you are continuing to make leaps to support your initial statement that we funded isis in libya, i guess just for the sake of argument. So don't tell me it's not debatable. ISIS is NOT from libya, period. al nusra was originally part of al qaeda in iraq, ordered to move into syria and wage jihad, by ayman al zawahiri, the leader of AQ, in late 2011. In April, 2013, Al-Bagdhadi (AQI leader at the time, now the 'caliph') then moved into syria and announced the groups merged (ISIL/ISIS), in defiance of al zawahiri. al nusra split since their loyalty was to AQ and not al bagdhadi. And another fact you are outright ignoring is that from April of this year, until very recently, ISIS and al nusra have been at war with each other.. AQ and ISIS are not one and the same, they hate each other. It is documented fact. If you watched just the first clip from the documentary I linked, you would know.

Here's more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

 

[Ricter]

Actually, the US funded the Syrian opposition, a loose coalition of rebels to Assad, some of whom are considered "West friendly". Unfortunately, the elements that would morph into ISIS were part of that coalition.