• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Us supported isis

Jhhnn said:
We explain that it's Breitbart & Judicial Watch tickling your erroneous zones interpreting a memo from some guy that's convenient to their purposes of helping you keep your panties in a knot.

Any questions?
Click to expand...

Is the report wrong is some manner? Does the intel report not say they are being supported?
 
Interesting. Shows how crazy the war has been. Our enemy that lashes out with terrorist attacks in the west happened to align with our intentions elsewhere. This kind of stuff happens when there are complex dynamics with multiple regimes all fighting each other.

Curious to see more.
 
Not exactly new. Countries with fairly exorbitant weapons facilities have been orchestrating shit like this for ages.

Hell, a prime example, Al Qaeda. Guess who was buddy buddy with them until hey-ho-9/11? The US. Sadam Hussein? He was Britain's and America's boy, until we suddenly decided to off him. Gaddafi? Same gig. Saudi Arabia? Hooooooo boy.
 
Jhhnn said:
We explain that it's Breitbart & Judicial Watch tickling your erroneous zones interpreting a memo from some guy that's convenient to their purposes of helping you keep your panties in a knot.

Any questions?
Click to expand...

Erroneous zones lol. That's some serious fail.
 
Current cycle rebels are next cycle terrorists. How else to justify the expansion of the military complex if we don't have a steady stream of super villains to fight?
 
Jaskalas said:
In August 2012 we were not bombing ISIS.
We were arming them.
Click to expand...
More precisely, we were arming SOME of the people who later became ISIS. Hope springs eternal, and every President since at least Eisenhower (who presumably got his fill of war) has armed rebels for no better reason than they supposedly hate some of the people we hate. Stupid? Sure, especially with Muslims, and doubly so with Middle Eastern Muslims. But every President thinks it will be different for him.
 
werepossum said:
More precisely, we were arming SOME of the people who later became ISIS. Hope springs eternal, and every President since at least Eisenhower (who presumably got his fill of war) has armed rebels for no better reason than they supposedly hate some of the people we hate. Stupid? Sure, especially with Muslims, and doubly so with Middle Eastern Muslims. But every President thinks it will be different for him.
Click to expand...

We arm foreigners so they can do some of the dying. It's less expensive politically than committing troops, and even less so I'm sure you'd agree when it's dead darkies.

Hope only springs eternal in the mind of the OP that one day a Brietbart article might offer some insight into anything other than how to manipulate rubes.
 
agent00f said:
We arm foreigners so they can do some of the dying. It's less expensive politically than committing troops, and even less so I'm sure you'd agree when it's dead darkies.

Hope only springs eternal in the mind of the OP that one day a Brietbart article might offer some insight into anything other than how to manipulate rubes.
Click to expand...
Dead darkies? Has anyone on the left ever even met a Syrian?

The idea that President Obama, a half-black man who identifies as black, armed the Syrians because he considered them expendable "darkies" is so ludicrous that I marvel how anyone professing it could even write it with a kindergarten pencil, much less a computer. It's the kind of "reasoning" one expects to be expressed in barks and drool and artistically flung poo.
 
I thought it was common knowledge that we knew that there was caliphate sentiment brewing and that our actions were encouraging it.

My theory was that the plan was to let ISIS to take Syria so we'd have an excuse to roll in, that's why we were actively supporting the "moderate rebels" who were all AQ/Taliban from other countries. Then Russia came in and ate our ice cream while the media spun it as "Tee hee, Obama is such a master of foreign relations that he got teh Russia to fight ISIS for us." Except that's exactly what they did so our attempt to let ISIS take Syria so we'd be spared the responsibility of yet another failed middle eastern state utterly failed. Then the Secretariat of State finally succumbed to sense and let the bear have it's way which of course was an unmitigated foreign policy failure.

Now apparently we have hoverboots on ground, in photos by legitimate news outlets.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/turkey-us-ypg/484631/
 
The Weapons industry loves war. America has lots of soldiers and a populace easily swayed by war. Wage war, get "benefits" from the weapons industry. Ergo, ensure there's more war to wage, so there's more money flowin'.

Gotta get dat GDP.
 
This isn't exactly news, it's well known that conservatives and the Bush admin helped foster ISIS by destabilizing Iraq and the ME generally.
 
MajinCry said:
Not exactly new. Countries with fairly exorbitant weapons facilities have been orchestrating shit like this for ages.

Hell, a prime example, Al Qaeda. Guess who was buddy buddy with them until hey-ho-9/11? The US. Sadam Hussein? He was Britain's and America's boy, until we suddenly decided to off him. Gaddafi? Same gig. Saudi Arabia? Hooooooo boy.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the US and Saddam Hussein were "buddy-buddy" before 9-11?

Fern
 
Fern said:
Are you saying the US and Saddam Hussein were "buddy-buddy" before 9-11?

Fern
Click to expand...

Yes until the invasion of Kuwait
rumsfeld-hussein-19_791932c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top