ISIS makes deal with Obama's "freedom fighters."

[Fiannan]

Not like anyone did not see this coming: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... _hp_ref=tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, anyone who actually examines the events taking place in Syria. Of course that leaves out the vast majority of Americans who are consumed with sports, porn, beer and reality TV. Those people will swallow any lies that Obama and that bozo who leads the Republicans in the House tell them.

Interesting that Obama actually admitted yesterday that Assad had been protecting the Christians in Syria. Wonder if that was praise from Obama or a clue as to why Obama will probably destroy Assad when he goes in there on the false pretext to going after ISIS.

[KMCopeland]

Not like anyone did not see this coming: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... _hp_ref=tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, anyone who actually examines the events taking place in Syria. Of course that leaves out the vast majority of Americans who are consumed with sports, porn, beer and reality TV. Those people will swallow any lies that Obama and that bozo who leads the Republicans in the House tell them.

Interesting that Obama actually admitted yesterday that Assad had been protecting the Christians in Syria. Wonder if that was praise from Obama or a clue as to why Obama will probably destroy Assad when he goes in there on the false pretext to going after ISIS.

I read the article. Aside from the fact that you don't believe anything the president says, I can't tell exactly what you object to. What you thought we should have seen coming.

[waking]

because you are blinded by your obama love/liberal media talking points.

[KMCopeland]

because you are blinded by your obama love/liberal media talking points.

Ah. That must be it. So take pity on me. What is it I should have seen coming?

[Fiannan]

Not like anyone did not see this coming: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... _hp_ref=tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, anyone who actually examines the events taking place in Syria. Of course that leaves out the vast majority of Americans who are consumed with sports, porn, beer and reality TV. Those people will swallow any lies that Obama and that bozo who leads the Republicans in the House tell them.

Interesting that Obama actually admitted yesterday that Assad had been protecting the Christians in Syria. Wonder if that was praise from Obama or a clue as to why Obama will probably destroy Assad when he goes in there on the false pretext to going after ISIS.

I read the article. Aside from the fact that you don't believe anything the president says, I can't tell exactly what you object to. What you thought we should have seen coming.

Let me make it simple for you KMCopeland:

[KMCopeland]

Any attempt to clarify using partisan, mean-spirited, Photoshopped foolishness, tends to have the opposite effect. It also has the (unintended?) consequence of demonstrating, far more clearly than I ever could, that you made up your mind before anyone even tried to reach you.

[samizdat]

Any attempt to clarify using partisan, mean-spirited, Photoshopped foolishness, tends to have the opposite effect. It also has the (unintended?) consequence of demonstrating, far more clearly than I ever could, that you made up your mind before anyone even tried to reach you.

Nope as this can be well documented.

A year ago, Obama (D) almost went to war against Syria. Something that McCain (R) and Romney (R) wanted. They didn't go to war but they funded and sent arms to the rebel forces fighting Bashar Al Assad.

Then when objective observers saw what the rebels were doing, they were tied to al-Qaeda via the Nusra Front, they saw Christians and minorites being slaughtered. Russia stepped in to save Assad, even sending warships there to deter what could have been a catastrophic attack.

We sent weapons to them. That is the only reason why six months later when Assad was making more advances, they chose to advance into Iraq. That is when we see the pictures of these rebels on top of American vehicles and carrying American weapons advancing towards Baghdad.

Now they are being struck in Iraq by combined US, Kurdish, and IA elements. So now they are going back into Syria even signing a non-agression pact with---you guessed it---the MODERATE Free Syrian Army elements that Obama continues to arm.

So the picture is quite clear. And mirrors past engagements in the Middle East where we give weaponry to a so called friend of ours simply because they are fighting a bigger enemy, and when that is over and they don't do what we command them to do, we go in and take them out.

That is what Reagan and Bush did to Saddam Hussein.

That is what Bush Jr. did to Gaddafi, and then when Gaddafi didn't want to play ball, Obama took him out.

That is what presidents dating from Carter did to the Taliban.

This transcends politics. This is an example of Gadiantons in higher places taking out people that don't follow their aims.

[KMCopeland]

We sent weapons to them. That is the only reason why six months later when Assad was making more advances, they chose to advance into Iraq. That is when we see the pictures of these rebels on top of American vehicles and carrying American weapons advancing towards Baghdad.

Those idiots doing doughnuts with American tanks are not evidence that we sent them those tanks. It's evidence that they lucked up on them.


This is a hard thing to pry apart. I think the president was right not to give in the the hue and cry that he fully arm the Syrian freedom fighters. Yet nobody, certainly not me, has a hard time believing that the CIA hasn't been busily doing what they always do, which is whatever they think best no matter what this or that president says. So here's the point: if the people who now comprise ISIS are in possession of American military stuff, that's not a good reason to impeach Obama. It's also not a good reason to take our eye off the ball, which is eliminating ISIS.

You're right. We've done many stupid things in the middle east, not the least among them is arming forces that turn out to use those arms against us in the next fight. This president is doing his darndest not to repeat that mistake. It's been repeated anyway. The fact that ISIS is in possession of American military arms doesn't prove he's the bad guy. It proves that maybe he doesn't have all the power in the universe. It could also prove that maybe he said he wasn't going to arm them but tacitly approved the CIA doing it. Neither you, nor I, can be sure of that. But like I said: it's real important to keep our eyes on the ball.

Can we agree that ISIS needs to be dealt with? Can we at least agree on that?

And you still haven't told me the thing I didn't see coming that I should have. What is it? The arming of the wrong people?

[Fiannan]

This is a hard thing to pry apart. I think the president was right not to give in the the hue and cry that he fully arm the Syrian freedom fighters. Yet nobody, certainly not me, has a hard time believing that the CIA hasn't been busily doing what they always do, which is whatever they think best no matter what this or that president says. So here's the point: if the people who now comprise ISIS are in possession of American military stuff, that's not a good reason to impeach Obama. It's also not a good reason to take our eye off the ball, which is eliminating ISIS.

So you believe that Obama is in the dark; that he knows nothing...a Sargent Schulze sort of leader? Look, that may be true, he may be totally incompetent. Yet just as George Bush's Texan accent was fake (he had training like an actor) Obama is far more shrewd that you give him credit. He wants Assad gone, either to undermine the Russians or please the corporate interests that he bows to. So what if a few Shia and Christians get beheaded, their women raped and little girls sold to radical jihadists? If it advances US interests that is what Obama probably sees as an acceptable cost.

You're right. We've done many stupid things in the middle east, not the least among them is arming forces that turn out to use those arms against us in the next fight. This president is doing his darndest not to repeat that mistake. It's been repeated anyway. The fact that ISIS is in possession of American military arms doesn't prove he's the bad guy. It proves that maybe he doesn't have all the power in the universe. It could also prove that maybe he said he wasn't going to arm them but tacitly approved the CIA doing it. Neither you, nor I, can be sure of that. But like I said: it's real important to keep our eyes on the ball.

The tank example you take is conveniently able to be shown to be captured, but other armament has been supplied by the USA...which made it possible for ISIS to capture those larger weapons.

Can we agree that ISIS needs to be dealt with? Can we at least agree on that?

And you still haven't told me the thing I didn't see coming that I should have. What is it? The arming of the wrong people?

Yes, ISIS needs to be dealt with. My answer? Work with Assad, the Kurds, what exists of the Iraqi military and the Iranians and mop up ISIS.

If the USA had been able to bomb Assad last year ISIS would now control all of Syria. You can thank Putin for that not being the case.

http://gdb.rferl.org/D91AC5F0-2384-42FA ... 24_s_n.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KMCopeland]

So you believe that Obama is in the dark; that he knows nothing...a Sargent Schulze sort of leader?

Not at all. I just don't think you or I can ever be totally sure what he has and hasn't sanctioned vis a vis Syria and/or ISIS.

Look, that may be true, he may be totally incompetent.

I feel that he is more competent than most presidents in my lifetime.

Obama is far more shrewd that you give him credit. He wants Assad gone

I credit his shrewdness. Believe me. And he's been pretty clear about wanting Assad gone.

So what if a few Shia and Christians get beheaded, their women raped and little girls sold to radical jihadists? If it advances US interests that is what Obama probably sees as an acceptable cost.

So if Obama wasn't trying to address ISIS they would never do those things? What are you thinking?


I'm assuming by 'US interests' you mean money & oil. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't believe this president is nearly as motivated by whatever you think are mere US interests as you do. My personal belief is that he cares very, very much about things referred to as "collateral damage." But I can't prove that I'm right about that and you can't prove that you are. He isn't the first CIC to accept collateral damage no matter how he feels about it, and he won't be the last. I don't know what you're advocating. I'd like to see the Savior in charge too. But we're not quite there yet.

The tank example you take is conveniently able to be shown to be captured, but other armament has been supplied by the USA...which made it possible for ISIS to capture those larger weapons.

Are you saying that we have deliberately, purposely armed ISIS? You can't be serious.

Yes, ISIS needs to be dealt with. My answer? Work with Assad, the Kurds, what exists of the Iraqi military and the Iranians and mop up ISIS.

I couldn't agree more. I believe the president agrees with you too.

If the USA had been able to bomb Assad last year ISIS would now control all of Syria. You can thank Putin for that not being the case.

You can thank Putin if you want to. I'll go ahead and thank the president for having a cool head in a world of hotheads.

[Fiannan]

What happened to the anti-war movement that was so active during the Bush administration?

[KMCopeland]

So let me see. You've posted a large picture of a young woman with dreadlocks, glasses, an odd hat and an idealistic expression. Then, either you or someone else, undertook to superimpose on the picture your commentary on what you've decided the young woman thinks, with a few demeaning semantic flourishes. This in response to one of my posts, made in response to one of yours.

You aren't going to countenance a scolding from me of course. But forums like this being what they are, I get to deliver it anyway. It's dishonest, and disrespectful -- not to me of course, but to whoever the young woman is that you've undertaken to ridicule based on her appearance. Your assumption that anyone who joins you in ridiculing her will also join you in ridiculing me says a great deal about you, and your fellow scorners only. Not her, and not me.

I'm put in mind of something the great Hugh Nibley said: "The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances." (italics mine)

[KMCopeland]

What happened to the anti-war movement that was so active during the Bush administration?

It's alive and well. You may be asking why they aren't objecting to the possibility of another war in the middle east as loudly as they did Bush's war. I don't know. If you think they are the same, I guess I have no idea where to begin to explain how different they are.

[Cowboy]

Those idiots doing doughnuts with American tanks are not evidence that we sent them those tanks. It's evidence that they lucked up on them.

=)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =))

"Your Honor... My client didn't hit his wife, he extended his fist and SHE walked into it! "

More liberal logic.

[Fiannan]

You aren't going to countenance a scolding from me of course. But forums like this being what they are, I get to deliver it anyway.

Sheldon, is that you? ;) Have I really been that bad? :))

[KMCopeland]

Those idiots doing doughnuts with American tanks are not evidence that we sent them those tanks. It's evidence that they lucked up on them.

=)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =))

"Your Honor... My client didn't hit his wife, he extended his fist and SHE walked into it! "

More liberal logic.

No, I think that inexplicable comment -- along with the equally inexplicable looooong row of paralyzed with laughter emoticons -- is an example of the logic of the person who thinks it's logical. That would be you, not me. Unlike you however, I'm not going to hang your pretzelesque reasoning on the entire right. Tempting though it is.

[samizdat]

You don't "luck up" on an American tank. Much less dozens of them.

Yes, the USA armed ISIS. There, I said it.

Directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.

Obama is just doing what previous presidents have done...

If only the USA could be like Mexico...butting out of areas that are of no concern to them.

[Fiannan]

You don't "luck up" on an American tank. Much less dozens of them.

Yes, the USA armed ISIS. There, I said it.

Directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.

Obama is just doing what previous presidents have done...

If only the USA could be like Mexico...butting out of areas that are of no concern to them.

Yes, and you know what? Liberals will believe anything bad about Bush, but if you dare point out the flaws and evil of their savior Obama then watch out...they will act like you just insulted their mommy. Everyone has cognitive dissonance to a degree but liberals take it to pathological levels.

[KMCopeland]

You don't "luck up" on an American tank. Much less dozens of them.

You couldn't be more wrong.


Iraqi Sunni insurgents seize huge cache of US-made arms and equipment
THE fall of the city of Mosul to Iraqi militants has landed them a deadly windfall — a massive cache of US-supplied weapons including vehicles, tanks and helicopters … billions of dollars of US equipment left behind after the Iraq wars ...

http://www.news.com.au/world/iraqi-sunn ... 6952811362" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fiannan]

KMCopeland, you really don't want to admit that Obama funds and supplies terrorists, do you? You know, the first step to recovery from misplaced devotion is becoming honest with yourself.

[KMCopeland]

KMCopeland, you really don't want to admit that Obama funds and supplies terrorists, do you? You know, the first step to recovery from misplaced devotion is becoming honest with yourself.

You really don't want to admit I was right about this, do you?

[Fiannan]

KMCopeland, you really don't want to admit that Obama funds and supplies terrorists, do you? You know, the first step to recovery from misplaced devotion is becoming honest with yourself.

You really don't want to admit I was right about this, do you?

Right about what, that Obama is a liar, is deceptive and funds terrorism around the world?

[Fiannan]

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to Al-Qaeda: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... n/2075323/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ezra]

It's going to be really hard to get people who don't believe that the secret combanations sit in seats if power in and around our government to believe that Obama. "Who they support" is part of that evil or a pawn to it. Because that would mean they are deceived and they really like to think of themselves as educated and in the know.

When people are in the mindset to justify there actions they don't think clearly. They don't pay attention to scripture of words of warnings from modern prophets.
They justify saying well if it were important the prophet in conference would tell us so.

They are the type of people who need to be commanded in all things.

[KMCopeland]

KMCopeland, you really don't want to admit that Obama funds and supplies terrorists, do you? You know, the first step to recovery from misplaced devotion is becoming honest with yourself.

You really don't want to admit I was right about this, do you?

Right about what, that Obama is a liar, is deceptive and funds terrorism around the world?

No, about how those American made tanks got into ISIS's hands. If you aren't gracious enough to concede someone else's point, you shouldn't argue it in the first place.


"A liar & deceptive?" Please. That can be said about 100% of presidents except maybe George Washington. "Funds & supplies terrorists?" Seriously? Such a nonsense thing to say, much less believe. Why would he do that? What in the world are you thinking?

Your need to believe that this president is the sum of all evil is clearly bigger than my poor attempts to change your mind.