Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
801

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

We haven’t killed Assad because we are the United States of America and we do not, on principle, assassinate heads of state.[/quote]

No, but we can bring down a country’s armed forces and have the al-qaeda supporters capture and kill him, because in all probability, had we not intervened in Libya, Qadaffi, with his armed forces intact, could have defeated the revolution and stayed in power.

After all, Assad’s still hanging on and it’s been how many years?
[/quote]

Uh huh.

We saw how well arming the Syrian rebels against Assad worked out, didn’t we.

Worst possible scenario. Assad is still in power, and those rebels took those weapons and marched on Baghdad.

Fail.[/quote]

I know, what a crap situation!

The idiots in our government kept trying to arm the so-called “moderate” rebels failing to realize all the rebels were tied to Al-Qaeda in some fashion. After all, didn’t Assad let the Iraqi rebels pass through his territory during the entire Iraq war? Then when the war ended, they did what Muslim terrorists do best and turned on him. It stood to reason with anyone with a brain the basis of the rebels would be al-Qaeda or Islamists as was the case in all of the Arab Spring countries. (see Tunisia also.)

But exactly, Varq. Libya was also one of the worst possible scenarios: Qaddafi’s out, the country’s a failed state and ISIS is moving in. Very comparable to the Syrian situation, which is why I said we should have stayed out of it!!

802

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Question for Smh, Biz, magic or Musashi or whoever the hell.
[/quote]

This is all I need to prove that you don’t really read what anyone posts.

I haven’t even said anything on this thread for the last 2-3 pages besides respond to Musashi and respond to an article Utahlama posted.

I certainly haven’t commented on Libya. Ever. In. This. Thread.
[/quote]

Then you shouldn’t have replied at all. No? It’s up to you. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to type. I just threw the question out there, it says “who ever the hell”? right?

803

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Then you shouldn’t have replied at all. No? It’s up to you. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to type. I just threw the question out there, it says “who ever the hell”? right?
[/quote]

I dislike false attributions. And I think it would be a more productive forum if people actually paid attention to what was written, and who wrote it.

804

This seems like an even-keeled, well-reasoned debate about foreign policy! Glad I stumbled onto this thread! Hooray!

By the way, did I mention that Obama is the BEST President ever! I just love him so much!

805

[quote]OGrady wrote:
This seems like an even-keeled, well-reasoned debate about foreign policy! Glad I stumbled onto this thread! Hooray!

By the way, did I mention that Obama is the BEST President ever! I just love him so much![/quote]

Get rid of the 2 term limit!

Obama for 2016!

806

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Then you shouldn’t have replied at all. No? It’s up to you. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to type. I just threw the question out there, it says “who ever the hell”? right?
[/quote]

I dislike false attributions. And I think it would be a more productive forum if people actually paid attention to what was written, and who wrote it.[/quote]

my sincerest apologies. I guess I’ll have to keep better notes. Either that or a database…

807

Also, I’m glad we cleared up that comparing Obama to a monkey isn’t racist.

I mean, if you can do it to a white guy too, it isn’t racist, right?

808

[quote]OGrady wrote:
This seems like an even-keeled, well-reasoned debate about foreign policy! Glad I stumbled onto this thread! Hooray!

By the way, did I mention that Obama is the BEST President ever! I just love him so much![/quote]

Welcome to the foray. Feel free to join in the madness.

809

Actually though: how have I lurked on TNation this long and not been on here. Woah.

810

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How is “Obummer” even considered racist…[/quote]

In and of itself it is not racist, however as I stated when people who never used name pun before start, when they call the first black man to be president a marxist, a muslim, secret supported of islamic terrorism, when they go mad about his administrations infringement on civil liberties yet supported GW twice, there is a pattern.

As for no one caring about the fact they have a black president, this is obviously false. Just look at the hatred spewed about Obama by average white Americans online, Nigger has never rolled so effortlessly.
Just because I acknowledge that reality does not make me PC. I don’t care if you call him a Nigger and my neighbour a bog eyes irish twat. Just don’t pretend a huge chunk of America and Europe are not racist.

Patrice O’neal said it best, racism in the 2000’s is behind closed doors or anonymous online racism, most people are not overtly racist anymore it is covert. If you wanna pretend racism is gone fine, but it is just silly.

[/quote]

There may be some but there’s nowhere near enough. We could do better. We should start with an immigration policy that favours Western Europeans foremost, then skilled South and South-East Asians and drastically limits people from other parts of the world. What do you think? I think it’s obvious homogenous societies are more cohesive and stable and people prefer to be with their own kind and will self segregate by choice most the time. You can see this in any church, schoolyard or prison in the country.

811

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

We haven’t killed Assad because we are the United States of America and we do not, on principle, assassinate heads of state.[/quote]

No, but we can bring down a country’s armed forces and have the al-qaeda supporters capture and kill him, because in all probability, had we not intervened in Libya, Qadaffi, with his armed forces intact, could have defeated the revolution and stayed in power.

After all, Assad’s still hanging on and it’s been how many years?
[/quote]

Uh huh.

We saw how well arming the Syrian rebels against Assad worked out, didn’t we.

Worst possible scenario. Assad is still in power, and those rebels took those weapons and marched on Baghdad.

Fail.[/quote]

I know, what a crap situation!

The idiots in our government kept trying to arm the so-called “moderate” rebels failing to realize all the rebels were tied to Al-Qaeda in some fashion. After all, didn’t Assad let the Iraqi rebels pass through his territory during the entire Iraq war? Then when the war ended, they did what Muslim terrorists do best and turned on him. It stood to reason with anyone with a brain the basis of the rebels would be al-Qaeda or Islamists as was the case in all of the Arab Spring countries. (see Tunisia also.)

But exactly, Varq. Libya was also one of the worst possible scenarios: Qaddafi’s out, the country’s a failed state and ISIS is moving in. Very comparable to the Syrian situation, which is why I said we should have stayed out of it!!
[/quote]

The “trying to deal with moderates” thing was really a farce. They’ve actually been dealing directly with al-Nusra - the al Qaeda branch in Syria - along the Golan heights and elsewhere in Syria for years. Al Nusra is now considered and treated as an ally in Syria. The CIA is working with the Turks out of an airbase in Incerlik coordinating the arming of rebel groups. Qatar acts as go between and arms were being delivered to the Supreme Military Command - distributed by Selim Idriss to al Nusra and other Islamist groups.

812

John McCain in Syria meeting with Mouaz Moustafa - Executive Director of ‘non-profit’ 501c organisation the ‘Syrian Emergency Task Force.’ (SETF), previously worked as a staffer at the US House of Congress and Senate. An ‘activist’ during the US/NATO led war in Libya and overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. Moustafa is listed as an ‘expert’ at the Wasington Institute for Near East Policy, (WINEP)

The Syrian Emergency Task Force is a State Department front group that is busy “meddling” in Syria and has been busy “meddling” in Libya. The Arab Spring is the Obama / State Department adventure. They’ve messed things up and shaken everything up in the ME and even backed al Qaeda’s parent organisation in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak. Is anyone denying any of this? Why is Obama doing this? Why has he made the Arab Spring his foreign policy? Why has he backed the revolutionary movements and given hundreds of millions to the revolutionary governments that have just toppled our allies with his(Obama’s) help? Can someone explain any of this to me? I’m trying to be open minded. Why is he doing all this?

813

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why is he doing all this?
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone here is a part of Obama’s inside group or have a mind-reading device.

So we probably can’t give you the right answer.

814


Forgot to add the pic to my last post. Just a word of caution; the Hezbollah owned media are weaving all sorts of fabulous tales about McCain meeting with al-Baghdadi and using these photos as “evidence” and so on. I’ve not taken any notice of that nonsense. I’ve identified who he was meeting and explained above. The State Department and private arms companies use McCain as an unofficial diplomat and in this case he’s meeting with Free Syrian Army leaders and the activist Mouaz Moustafa - a CIA asset if ever I saw one.

815

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why is he doing all this?
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone here is a part of Obama’s inside group or have a mind-reading device.

So we probably can’t give you the right answer.
[/quote]

I can think of a reason. He would prefer to see Islamist regimes and unstable regimes in the ME than stable, secular regimes? That’s really what he’s telling us when he helps Islamist militias overthrow old, secular allies and gives money to the new revolutionary regimes. So why does he want Islamist regimes? Maybe he really is a Muslim. That could be a reason. It’s not so far fetched is it? I mean there are billions of Muslims in the world; his father was a Muslim; his stepfather; he was exposed to Islam from an early age; lived in a Muslim country as a child; apparently speaks fluent Arabic; has expressed his fondness and admiration of Islam. Is it such an inconceivable stretch that he might;

  1. Actually believe in Islam to some extent

Or

  1. Identify with the Islamist cause to a great extent

Surely his closest advisers like Valerie Jarrett; John Brennan over at the CIA; Hillary’s closest confidante Huma Muslim Sisterhood Abedin and all these other shadey characters; maybe they have hostile designs on this nation that you can’t even begin to imagine. I hope I’m wrong I really do but watch Obama go for everyone’s guns now. I’m afraid it’s starting to become clear what’s going on here. The next stage will be disarmament.

816

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I hope I’m wrong I really do but watch Obama go for everyone’s guns now. I’m afraid it’s starting to become clear what’s going on here. The next stage will be disarmament.[/quote]

With two years left in his presidency?

Even if we suppose that Obama is a Muslim, what exactly is he supposed to do once he’s out of the presidency? It’s not like any of his successors can possibly be Muslim as well and carry on whatever agenda he has.

Or do you think Obama plans on doing whatever he plans to do within the next two years? Do you believe he can topple the government and insert an Islamic government within 2 years?

I’m willing to bet you a lot of internet dollars that Angry_Chicken will attempt to take Obama’s life if even a genuine hint of an attempt to change the foundation of the U.S. government occurs.

…

To be serious for a second- The very design of the U.S. government prevents Obama from doing anything atm. Both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans and will definitely remain in their hands until Obama leaves office. The best Obama can do is shut-down everything the Republicans attempt by vetoing every single piece of legislation they pass.

You couldn’t possibly be serious when you wrote “The next stage will be disarmament.” Obama holds no legal power to actually command such an order atm. Obama is in the same situation GWB was in after that particular midterm election. The only question now is whether the Republicans can manage to get their act together and actually work cohesively.

And suppose he somehow pulled some magical piece of legislation out of his ass that did order such a thing. No one will enforce it. We’d have the next civil war.

817

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
Selective reading here huh. I said when someone who has never used childish wordplay on presidents names now continually and boringly uses them for Obama you can bet they are racist. I mean it is no coincidence that stormfront (I post sometimes in opposing views linking scientific stuff they hate and claim is jewish propoganda) has so many people doing it like it is the most edgy thing ever.
Or maybe I am completely wrong and it is just a huge coincidence.
Yeah I am sure thats it. So are words like Tsar, king being thrown at the first black president, as are the sudden outrages by many white right wingers about civil liberty infringement, these are the same people who would call you a liberal pussy for doing the same under Bush.

[/quote]

Why is it that Europeans are so self-righteous about race relations in the US, when their own minorities are woefully oppressed?[/quote]

This is a bit far fetched as you are implying I think the Europeans are any different, they are not, however, most Europeans admit to hating Pakis, or the Irish, or poles or jews or chinks. Americans would rather their daughters be raped than admit they might have some racist sentiments.
It is embarrassing, just admit you have prejudice and it adds bias to the things you say Americans, we all do.
Also the people comparing people calling GW a monkey based on stupidity, was the same as calling Obama a monkey for obviously different reasons, are being dishonest slimes.

818

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why is he doing all this?
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone here is a part of Obama’s inside group or have a mind-reading device.

So we probably can’t give you the right answer.
[/quote]

I can think of a reason. He would prefer to see Islamist regimes and unstable regimes in the ME than stable, secular regimes? That’s really what he’s telling us when he helps Islamist militias overthrow old, secular allies and gives money to the new revolutionary regimes. So why does he want Islamist regimes? Maybe he really is a Muslim. That could be a reason. It’s not so far fetched is it? I mean there are billions of Muslims in the world; his father was a Muslim; his stepfather; he was exposed to Islam from an early age; lived in a Muslim country as a child; apparently speaks fluent Arabic; has expressed his fondness and admiration of Islam. Is it such an inconceivable stretch that he might;

  1. Actually believe in Islam to some extent

Or

  1. Identify with the Islamist cause to a great extent

Surely his closest advisers like Valerie Jarrett; John Brennan over at the CIA; Hillary’s closest confidante Huma Muslim Sisterhood Abedin and all these other shadey characters; maybe they have hostile designs on this nation that you can’t even begin to imagine. I hope I’m wrong I really do but watch Obama go for everyone’s guns now. I’m afraid it’s starting to become clear what’s going on here. The next stage will be disarmament.[/quote]

Dude this is so far down the rabbit hole. Obama is a centre political president who attends a christian church, these imagined Islamic paranoia’s over the first black president are crazy.

819

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I hope I’m wrong I really do but watch Obama go for everyone’s guns now. I’m afraid it’s starting to become clear what’s going on here. The next stage will be disarmament.[/quote]

With two years left in his presidency?

Even if we suppose that Obama is a Muslim, what exactly is he supposed to do once he’s out of the presidency? It’s not like any of his successors can possibly be Muslim as well and carry on whatever agenda he has.

Or do you think Obama plans on doing whatever he plans to do within the next two years? Do you believe he can topple the government and insert an Islamic government within 2 years?

I’m willing to bet you a lot of internet dollars that Angry_Chicken will attempt to take Obama’s life if even a genuine hint of an attempt to change the foundation of the U.S. government occurs.

…

To be serious for a second- The very design of the U.S. government prevents Obama from doing anything atm. Both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans and will definitely remain in their hands until Obama leaves office. The best Obama can do is shut-down everything the Republicans attempt by vetoing every single piece of legislation they pass.

You couldn’t possibly be serious when you wrote “The next stage will be disarmament.” Obama holds no legal power to actually command such an order atm. Obama is in the same situation GWB was in after that particular midterm election. The only question now is whether the Republicans can manage to get their act together and actually work cohesively.

And suppose he somehow pulled some magical piece of legislation out of his ass that did order such a thing. No one will enforce it. We’d have the next civil war.[/quote]

I’m not making any of the claims above about Islamic government in the US and so on. What I am saying is I think Obama will probably try to go around Congress on “gun control”. I don’t know how he will do it or how far he will go but he’s made it clear that his biggest disappointment so far is not getting through a gun grab. This is something he wants and I think he’ll at least make a play for it.

820

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I hope I’m wrong I really do but watch Obama go for everyone’s guns now. I’m afraid it’s starting to become clear what’s going on here. The next stage will be disarmament.[/quote]

With two years left in his presidency?

Even if we suppose that Obama is a Muslim, what exactly is he supposed to do once he’s out of the presidency? It’s not like any of his successors can possibly be Muslim as well and carry on whatever agenda he has.

Or do you think Obama plans on doing whatever he plans to do within the next two years? Do you believe he can topple the government and insert an Islamic government within 2 years?

I’m willing to bet you a lot of internet dollars that Angry_Chicken will attempt to take Obama’s life if even a genuine hint of an attempt to change the foundation of the U.S. government occurs.

…

To be serious for a second- The very design of the U.S. government prevents Obama from doing anything atm. Both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans and will definitely remain in their hands until Obama leaves office. The best Obama can do is shut-down everything the Republicans attempt by vetoing every single piece of legislation they pass.

You couldn’t possibly be serious when you wrote “The next stage will be disarmament.” Obama holds no legal power to actually command such an order atm. Obama is in the same situation GWB was in after that particular midterm election. The only question now is whether the Republicans can manage to get their act together and actually work cohesively.

And suppose he somehow pulled some magical piece of legislation out of his ass that did order such a thing. No one will enforce it. We’d have the next civil war.[/quote]

So naive, you don’t think Obama is a Marxist Muslim tyrant trying to overthrow the U.S and its constitution. Hah!