Obama Announces Plan to Fight Al Qaeda, by Arming Al Qaeda


I can’t see how this plan could possibly go wrong.

The Obama administration asked Congress on Thursday to authorize $500 million in direct U.S. military training and equipment for Syrian opposition fighters

Obama didn’t ask Congress for authorization to invade Libya. He told Congress that he wouldn’t ask for permission to bomb Iraq.

The only reason Obama asks for something is to score political points or to cover his ass. In this case it’s the latter because even Obama knows this is a terrible idea.

That’s why he has been delaying for so long.

Within the OCO request, the Syria money is part of a $5 billion fund announced by Obama last month to help build a new counterterrorism infrastructure with partner countries “from South Asia to the Sahel.”

So Obama is going engage in counterterrorism… by arming and training terrorists. That’s like running guns to Mexican drug cartels to stop Mexican drug cartels from having guns…

… another brilliant Obama plan.

The request does not specify the type of military equipment that would be included. Under the existing covert program, the administration has sent limited quantities of small arms and ammunition and has allowed others to send U.S.-made antitank weapons.

So we’re going to be giving them unspecified weapons that could be used against American targets.

A US chopper in Afghanistan was already shot down by the Taliban using a Qatari shipment of Stinger missiles meant for Libya. That was another of Obama’s great plans.

Obama turned a blind eye to Qatar smuggling weapons to Jihadists in Syria.

The $500 million training and equipping mission would be aimed at helping “vetted elements” of the Syrian armed opposition to “defend the Syrian people, stabilize areas under opposition control, facilitate the provision of essential services, counter terrorist threats, and promote conditions for a negotiated settlement.”

What exactly are these “vetted elements”?

1. Last spring the New York Times wrote, “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”


2. The only opposition we supposedly backed was the Free Syrian Army.


A. The Free Syrian Army consisted of a coalition of mostly Islamist militias under Islamist commanders, some of whom carried out joint operations with Al Qaeda/Al Nusra Front, which has pledged alliance to ISIS/Al Qaeda in Iraq.

B. An Islamist coalition easily took on the FSA and stole all the stuff we gave them while their fighters ran away.

C. 4 out of 5 FSA front commanders demanded to work with Al Qaeda.

D. Its leader initially defended Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and claimed they weren’t terrorists.


3. There is no such thing as a “vetted opposition” because the weapons we give will go down to individual groups that can align with whoever they chose and trade weapons with anyone they choose.

The FSA fighter we train today may be an Al Qaeda fighter tomorrow or he may have been Al Qaeda last week.


4. ISIS got so big and dangerous because of the weapons and recruits pouring into the Syrian opposition. Trying to arm and train “moderate elements” just keeps the conflict going which makes Al Qaeda grow faster and bigger than ever.

You can’t beat Al Qaeda by helping Al Qaeda.

  • Pete

    Obama has been talking about partner countries but never allies.

    ‘Wassap’ with that?

    If you leave an ally in the lurch it is betrayal. If an ally betrays you, you have to say so and demand satisfaction or get yourself or look like a chump.

    I guess partner country is Euro-Speak for Kumbaya. They talk a lot about the southern Mediterranean. They are partnering with those countries. So what are they getting? A lot of talk.

    A lot of diplomats sound an awful lot like the Lord Dorwin character (p. 83) of Isaac Asmiov’s book, Foundation.

    I surmise a partner country is one that you can leave in a lurch and it does jot hurt you politically … at home at least.

    Mediterranean Partner Countries




    partner nation: Those nations that the United States works with to disrupt the production, transportation, distribution, and sale of illicit drugs, as well as the money involved with this illicit activity. Also called PN.



  • ObamaYoMoma

    I want to know who is doing the vetting?

    a) John McCain?
    b) The State Department?
    c) Senator Thad Cochran?
    d) The dumbest people in the world?

    • J.B.

      Jarrett, Obama and their muslim brotherhood advisors. Except they weren’t vetted for “moderation” or love of freedom. They were chosen precisely because they’re jihadi terrorist scum who will overthrow secular regimes and governments – and oppose the West. Jarrett and Obama are doing what they’ve done since 2009: strengthen islam.

      And yes they are terrorists. All islamopithecines are jihadis yes, but al qaeda and pals are also terrorists.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        The word terrorism is also a euphemism for radicals and extremists. So to you, even though all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, and therefore can’t be radicals and extremists, they are still radical Muslim extremists perpetrating terrorists in your mind. Meanwhile, at the same time, you are still oblivious to the non-violent forms of jihad that represents an astronomically far greater threat for the infidel west.

        Well, at least you are honest and admit that you have a closed mind and so can’t overcome your PC multicultural indoctrination which comes from years of reading the so-called MSM, i.e., your bible.

        • Gwynn Ap Nudd

          Well said. Just as we can’t tell who is who over there, we can’t tell who will become who over here. End all Islamic Immigration to the West. The Elite are using the West to fight Islam even as they use Islam to destroy the West at home. Pure evil.

          • bob smith

            Did you even understand what that moron actually wrote?

        • bob smith

          You truly are a fucking moron.

          like any libtard, you casually redefine the definition of anything to suit your needs.

    • insaney

      Now come on. I’m sure they were vetted as thoroughly as the DEMS vetted Ovomit.

  • Dutch Renitent

    “You can’t beat Al Qaeda by helping Al Qaeda” Absolutely true! But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to do anything. Lee Smith makes the case why Iran/Syria are a much bigger threat than ISIS/Al Qaeda and what can be done:

    “MJT: So what would you do if you were in charge of our Syria policy?

    Lee Smith: The first thing I’d do is knock the Syrian air force out of commission. Make sure it can never get off the ground. Even the people worried about Al Qaeda taking over Syria shouldn’t have an objection to that. If Al Qaeda takes
    over Syria, do we want them to inherit an air force?

    MJT: Of course not.

    Lee Smith: It’s unlikely that Al Qaeda will take over Syria anyway. The jihadist groups are only part of the rebellion. But even in the worst-case scenario, if they do take the whole country and run a caliphate state from Damascus, we’ll
    all be glad Syria is a generation away from having a functioning air
    force. What’s the argument against taking the Syrian air force out of
    the equation? We want Assad dropping barrel bombs loaded with chlorine
    gas canisters on the opposition because we fear that 7-year-old girls
    are likely Al Qaeda recruits who will attack the West?

    Read the rest of the interview:


    • Bryan Schmick

      The terrorists are running the FSA because they have access to better training and weapons. Naturally, they are in charge of the opposition. This does give them a decent shot of running the country if Syria folds. I do agree that the terrorists shouldn’t be allowed to take over a functioning Air Force but don’t see how increasing their chances of terrorist take over is much of a plus. Look what happened to the remains of the Iraqi AF after Iraq lost the war in 2003. Turned over to other countries. Can you see Syria donating its’ planes to a friendly nation if it looks like they will lose?

      On a side note, much of the gas has been distributed through artillery. Eliminating the AF does not eliminate WMD usage. It just encourages alternative distribution methods.

      • MrEthiopian

        At this point why do we need to get involved is America in danger? What would be gained by getting involved? Is this our fight Sunii and Shia have been killing each other for thousands of years and we will never be able to fix the underlying problem between the two, so why get involved with a problem that could feasibly go on for another thousand years?

        • J.B.

          Because “we” aren’t terrorist enablers. Trolltard.

          • MrEthiopian

            We are if we involve ourselves in any way, because the other side will take issue and want revenge, simply putting boots in country enables terrorism against us and others.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            We are if we involve ourselves in any way, because the other side will take issue and want revenge, simply putting boots in country enables terrorism against us and others

            The theory of blowback, i.e., the America’s chickens coming home to roost theory, espoused by Ron Paul and his ilk and other idiots like Reverend Wright, is just as mentally deficient as not being able to discern the differences between terrorism and war.

            9/11 wasn’t blowback because America helped to oust Mossadegh from Iraq way back in the 1950s, as that’s just so much unhinged garbage. In order to believe that nonsense, you’d have to believe that AQ, which is a Sunni Muslim jihadist group dedicated to waging jihad violently and that also considers all non-Muslims to be infidels, i.e., less than humans, and that considers all Shi’a to also be infidels as well, attacked America on 9/11 because America assisted the UK in ousting Mossadegh, who was secular, i.e., an infidel, from the infidel Shi’a country of Iran way back in the 1950s. Yeah right, I don’t know what you self-hating loons are smoking to believe that pure utter nonsense, but whatever it is, please send me some.

            Muslims aren’t terrorists perpetrating terrorism because of poverty and despair, because of greedy American imperialism, because of America’s interventionist foreign policies, or because of harsh Israeli policies. Instead, Muslims are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), waging jihad (holy war) always and only in the cause of Allah against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, because that is the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam (the only kind).

            You and ole J.B. here need to go fly a kite. With any luck you guys might be able to put your two brains together and maybe get it to fly, but excuse me if I won’t hold my breath.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Your problem dufus, is you are too confused and your world view too myopic thanks to years of indoctrination to realize or understand that jihadis are not radicals and extremists perpetrating terrorism for various political causes like all other terrorists in the world, but instead are Mujahideen (holy warriors) fighting both violently and non-violently and by any and all means at their disposal in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Indeed, you are so far gone that you can’t even tell the difference between terrorism and war anymore, and that my delusional friend, is pretty far gone.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Why do we want to knock the Syrian air force out of commission?

      • Ivan Ewan

        Lee Smith must be out to lunch, intellectually. Leading questions and assumptions, built up into a typical Socratic tower of reason which has only one support column and ten storeys.

        If we have to do “something” then we have to give equipment and training to the Kurds. They’re the only faction in Iraq not motivated by religious hatred, but by survival.

  • Jobethian

    Obama fights Terrorists by arming terrorists. Hahahahahahahaha. Er. wait a minute. that’s not really funny.

    • J.B.

      Things are going to get even “funnier” in the next two years.

  • Ivan Ewan

    Well, neither David Cameron, nor Ed Miliband (in an alternate reality), would have lasted five minutes if either one of them had made such an insane decision on behalf of the UK; what exactly are the people of the USA going to do to prevent thousands of millions of dollars going straight into Al-Qaeda’s coffers?

    • Bryan Schmick

      The problem is that the president is our first African American (I know it’s a stupid phrase) president. Not many politicians are willing to risk their position to stop him. Especially since it would be a meaningless gesture because the Senate will give him a thumbs up (after determining how many Democrats can vote thumbs down without risking the verdict – we went through this before). The majority of Americans disapprove of his performance, but plenty of Americans don’t want to appear racist or are racist in supporting someone based on the color of skin instead of content of character. The sad thing is that the first African American will make it harder for the second.

      • Capt. Parker

        He is NOT “president” …. was not, is not, never will be, eligible to the office … no matter how many different forms the Traitor Pelosi files.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The UK pushed even harder for the Libyan War… so…

      • Ivan Ewan

        That is true, but the media was in total denial about the jihadist nature of the resistance; therefore the public was fooled.

        However, once everything went absolutely wrong in Libya, and the media insisted that the rebels in Syria were in the right, the people didn’t fall for it twice; and Cameron was forced, kicking and screaming, to back down from his pro-rebel overtures. Obama also backed down, but only publicly. The rebels got their stuff, but on a low-key basis. As usual, he just didn’t want it to be obvious that he was going to be responsible for what is now the rise of ISIS.

        In short, when the British public is confused about an issue, our government’s bogus decisions can be very destructive. However, when the truth becomes clearly evident, in this country the government’s hands are tied. That’s why I’m more confident about the UK and the Commonwealth than I am about the USA at the moment.

  • fpm

    Hillary will be glad to chip in her 100 million and then she can really become what she claimed to be. And IRS promises it won’t go after that “for non-profit” contribution.

  • truebearing

    In other words,Obama is continuing to squander our treasure to support Islamists.

    • bob smith

      No, odumbo is continuing to transfer the wealth of every American taxpayer to every undeserving pos scum Muslim abroad and at home at the expense of American might, pride and perseverance. Congress has to reassert control of the purse and say NO to this lunacy, period!

      • J.B.

        With the Dems in the Senate and Boehner and the other Dem Lites in the House? Wont happen.

        Vote Tea Party this year.

  • MrEthiopian

    We need to stay out of all Shia vs Suni conflict’s, these insane people have been killing each other for thousands of years because they disagree on a specific passage in the koran. Getting involved is a no win situation, let them kill each other till the end of time, as long as the violence stays in the middle east. If they bring the insanity to our people than we need to turn their shatty sandy slums into glass.

    Obama is staying out of it and monitoring with a limited force, If Bush did this we would be in a better place today, financially, politically and securely,,intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has hurt us in many ways and has NOT helped us in the long run, its like we are starting from day one again today.

    Lets hope Obama is not stupid and picks a side with Syria. Again we need to stay out of that fight and let the insane sand people kill each other till the end of time, we can watch them from a far and if their war spills over on our allies or American interests then we hit back unmercifully and learn them that the war needs to have boundaries, stay out of our yard and we wont analyte you.

    • J.B.

      Moby troll alert.

      • MrEthiopian

        Pitiful, I make several valid points that are clearly over your head and instead of owning up to the fact that your incapable of responding to simplistic questions, you resort to childish name calling.

        Thanks for nothing BJ

        • Capt. Parker

          ….. speaking of “childish name calling” ….. you fool.

        • J.B.


    • bob smith

      “Lets hope Obama is not stupid”. Too late for hope of any kind.

      Odumbo has chosen sides which is clearly evident, what are you not seeing or understanding?

      What exactly did Bush not accomplish in almost wiping al quaida off the map only to restored to greater power by none other than odumbo?

      Care to discuss Egypt? The Muslim brotherhood? Benghazi?

      Yes, you made points but you blew it in your Bush equating stupidity. The Middle East needs a big stick to the side of its head beginning with Iran and ending on every Muslims forehead.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Odumbo has chosen sides which is clearly evident, what are you not seeing or understanding?

        Obama’s plan is stupid because how is he going to vet Muslims, especially when the existence of so-called moderate Muslims is a political correct myth. The truth is all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent as in ISIS, or non-violent as in the millions of Muslims that have migrated to America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest.

        Indeed, the millions of Muslims that have migrated to America are no more and no less radical and extremist than the jihadists that comprise the forces of ISIS. The only difference between the two disparate elements is one group elects to wage jihad by stealth and deception non-violently and the other group elects to wage jihad violently. Other than that, both groups are the same and fighting for the same exact goal, which is to make Islam supreme throughout the world via jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia.

        What exactly did Bush not accomplish in almost wiping al quaida off the map only to be restored to greater power by none other than odumbo and his disastrous foreign policy fiascos, one after another?

        I don’t know whose pipe you are smoking dude, but the only thing GWB accomplished in both Iraq and Afghanistan other than getting thousands of our best and brightest killed or maimed with nothing to show for it, while throwing away trillions of taxpayer dollars down a rat hole, is the creation of the two greatest strategic blunders ever in American history.

        Dude you are a neocon on steroids, and like them you haven’t learned a damn thing from their irrational paranoia. You don’t have the first clue about Islam and you sure don’t understand the nature of the conflict they are waging against us. Indeed, like GWB and the neocons before, you readily want to make every idiotic strategic blunder in the books.

        • bob smith

          “Obama’s plan is stupid because how is he going to vet Muslims”…What plan? When did he ever even suggest he was vetting anything? Given your level of drivel clearly on display, you would be best not to lecture about anything before educating yourself on something, anything.

          “don’t know whose pipe you are smoking dude, but the only thing GWB accomplished in both Iraq and Afghanistan other than getting thousands of our best and brightest killed or maimed with nothing to show for it, while throwing away trillions of taxpayer dollars down a rat hole in the process, is the creation of the two greatest strategic blunders ever in American history”

          Listen up simpleton…you obviously are entitled to assume whatever pant-load of your twisted, fantasy logic that you care to but I on the other hand deal in facts.

          Understand this while you apply your libtard revisionist theory to history; whether or not Bush was correct or incorrect in doing what he did, you are an inept fool to suggest for a second that al quaida wasn’t decimated…THAT WAS MY POINT…which was intended to dovetail to odumbo’s 2012 assertions that al quaida was on the run…can you connect the dots now? it was a comparison on the efficacy of one administration’s success vs. another wrt al quaida.

          As for getting nothing for it, you are truly shortsighted. Had odumbo taken the lead of his generals and left a sizable force on the ground the current situation would never have materialized. Democracy doesn’t grow on trees particularly where there is little to no water. You need to transport water in to do so. (get the picture moron?)

          Now, before you spout off on your BS, ask yourself why American troops were part and parcel of negotiated treaties in prior wars whereby significant troops were left on the ground, Japan, Germany, Italy AND they are still there today? Are fools like you comfortable in believing that if you just leave the enemy alone to take over the planet we will be just fine?…at what point do you stop Islam and its cancerous spread?

          As for blunders in American history, open a book. You haven’t the faintest idea of what you are talking about. From your hypocritical viewpoint, nothing should have been done in Iraq equates to the greatest blunder of FDR in not giving Patton the green light to do away with Stalin and his minions. All of eastern Europe and more was lost for over 50 years as a result…this is exactly what you are suggesting here…do nothing? History is supposedly obvious even for idiots such as you, so read about it rather than make up your own.

          Lastly you pos, when you attempt to suggest that i am a neocon, you are engaging in wanton and malicious ignorance aforethought.

          So, with the context of your lies in mind, you should troll back over to msnbc where you and your lame stream media and libtard friends can continue in your fantasy world….”Irrational paranoia?” once again you simplistic fool, irrational about what? Paranoid about what?

          You dance within your libtard BS viewpoints all about Bush and garbage that has no thesis nor basis in thought relevant to anything…you spout repeatedly on an endless theme of conjecture, stupidity, and childishness. Grow up and FO!

          Politically correct enough for you “dude.”

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Understand this while you apply your libtard

            Libtard? The only libtards are you and your idol, GWB, as GWB, like his father before, didn’t have a conservative bone in his incredibly libtard body, which is why besides creating the two biggest fantasy based strategic blunders ever in American history, he also grew the size, scope, and power of the federal government like a Dhimmicrat on steroids. Apparently, you as a libtard in good standing, appreciated his unhinged efforts.

            As for as AQ goes, they aren’t any more radical or less radical than the millions of Muslims that have migrated to America for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest thanks to that libtard you admire, who instead of exercising common sense and banning and reversing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP following 9/11 because it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, decided instead to grow the size, scope, and power of government like a Dhimmicrat on steroids through the creation of the massive Department of Homeland Security and the gargantuan National Intelligence Directorate to accommodate even more mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, because that clueless libtard like you believes that Islam is a so-called “religion of peace” and that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world are so-called moderates, as opposed to the so-called radicals that comprise AQ, who is considered the total extent of the threat by mentally incompetent neocons like you and yourself. Look dufus, it’s not my fault that you and your idol, GWB, are too mentally incompetent to realize how stupid you are.

            And if GWB decimated AQ moonbat, then why are they more powerful than ever today? The truth is like most neocons you don’t have the first clue about Islam and the nature of the jihad they are waging perpetually against all infidels throughout the world. Your view of Islam and the Islamic totalitarian world, like GWB’s, is incredibly fantasy based!

            can you connect the dots now?

            No…not your dots. I’m not that dumb!

            it was a comparison on the efficacy of one administration’s success vs. another wrt al quaida.

            While it’s obvious that like you and GWB, Obama is incredibly mentally deficient when it comes to understanding the nature of the threat Islam poses for the infidel world, the fact of the matter remains that GWB’s two fantasy based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan inevitably turned into the two greatest strategic blunders ever in American history, as other than trillions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted and thousands of dead and maimed Americans, we have exactly nothing but two Sharia states to show for it. Meanwhile, AQ, who is by far not the biggest threat emanating from Islam as you imagine, is on the rampage again. I don’t know what you are smoking dude, but whatever it is, please send me some.

            As for getting nothing for it, you are truly shortsighted. Had odumbo taken the lead of his generals and left a sizable force on the ground the current situation would never have materialized

            Are you really that ill-informed and that dumb? Apparently so! Iraq was never a democracy, as Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed by GWB to be the ambassador to both Afghanistan and Iraq, was like all Muslims a jihadist who installed Sharia as the foundation for law in both countries’ respective constitutions, and ensured at the same time that both countries would remain Sharia states, i.e., Islamic totalitarian hellholes. Excuse me, but the last time I checked, the only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muslims to become more devout slaves of Allah.

            Thus, while it may be worth sending young Americans to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect what are in effect Sharia states in your unhinged mind, please excuse me for not being so insane. Not to mention that the Sharia state in Iraq that GWB was the architect of, was far more loyal to Iran than it ever was to the infidel USA.

            The entire fantasy-based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were both preordained to miserably fail even before they were ever implemented, because GWB was as dumb as you with respect to Islam and Muslims.

            Democracy doesn’t grow on trees particularly where there is little to no water. You need to transport water in to do so. (get the picture moron?)

            Democracy also doesn’t grow in the Islamic totalitarian world, because Islam is far more an extremely rabid form of totalitarianism that aims to become supreme throughout the world than it is a so-called religion dufus. Not to mention that GWB didn’t create democracies in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead, thanks to his idiotic appointment of a Muslim to be the ambassador of both Afghanistan and Iraq, he ended up creating two Sharia states, as opposed to two democracies you dufus. Just because Republicans are so ill-informed with respect to the true nature of Islam doesn’t me that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were ever democracies. If they are, then why do both governments sentence apostates of Islam to death?

            What GWB managed to do was to rebuild two Islamic totalitarian states and to lift up Muslims who are both our eternal mortal enemies, and the last time I checked that was exceedingly counterproductive, and he did it, because like you, he believes that Islam is a so-called “religion of peace.” You morons need to both seek mental help if you ask me.

            Now, before you spout off on your BS, ask yourself why American troops were part and parcel of negotiated treaties in prior wars whereby significant troops were left on the ground, Japan, Germany, Italy AND they are still there today?

            So like a loon you actually morally equate Muslims with infidels? Apparently so. Excuse me, but you are a lost cause!

            With respect to the rest of your garbage, if I respond to your stupidity like I want to, I will be kicked off these boards. Just suffice it to say that you and your idol, GWB, don’t have the first fricking clue. Indeed, you are a neo-con on steroids.

          • bob smith

            Dude, in parlance that befits your childish and unintelligible rant, you are a f…ing dolt and a grand waste of time. Troll on you POS.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You know what, that’s what all you clueless closet Marxist totalitarians say when presented with the unvarnished truth.

          • bob smith

            Exactly; that you are a fucking moron.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            So only because you are a mental incompetent idiot, you take it out on me. Hey dude, go look in the mirror. I’m not responsible for your enormous stupidity.

          • bob smith

            Not in the least. It is because you are a finger wagging, narcissistic, self-appointed loud mouth who preaches from on high. As such, you are a fucking moron and anyone who even attempts to read any of the mindless drivel you spew will see as much quite readily.

            Move along simpleton.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Hey dufus…since Islam isn’t a so-called “religion of peace” being hijacked by so-called “radical Islam” as GWB ludicrously claimed, then why in the heck were we doing nation-building over there in the first place? Figure it out moonbat, the entire GWB so-called “War on Terror” was incredibly fantasy based and preordained to fail.

            By the way, GWB, like you, was so mentally incompetent that he called his war to remake the Islamic totalitarian world into a bastion of democracy the so-called “War on Terror”. However, dufus, Muslims aren’t radicals and extremists perpetrating terrorism. Instead, they are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), waging jihad, which is a holy war waged by all Muslims against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Indeed, that is the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam, which is the only kind.

          • bob smith

            Fuck you moron

          • hiernonymous

            Speaking of revisionist history, the withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq was negotiated and signed by the Bush Administration. The absence of a stay-behind force was largely the result of two things: first, the administration’s attempt to wage war on the cheap left both Army and DSS with insufficient resources for the job, and the Awakening gave the military and the administration a brief window of apparent success in which to get out of dodge before the collapse; and that same under-resourcing led to the use if mercenary stop-gaps like Blackwater, and the attendant misbehavior soured Maliki on any stay-behind force at all.

            It’s amusing to now see partisans try to blame Obama for not completely reversing Bush’s decision while pretending that he could have forced Maliki to accept an abrogation of the treaty without going to war against the Iraqi government. Obama owns the surge and withdrawal in Afghanistan, but ISIS is a Bush legacy.

          • bob smith

            look, cutting to the quick and saying the fk to all the semantics and the pointing of fingers, the facts are irrefutable that the current administration is the administration in charge and no blame is to be to afforded anyone other than those who took the reins of control.

            your analysis leaves out generals upon generals and status of force agreements that odumbo would not collectively agree with maliki on. when odumbo watered down to the bare minimum what he would leave behind in support of iraq, maliki refused that bare minimum offer and odumbo came out saying the war on al quida was won and iraq is off to a better future AND TOOK CREDIT for ending the war…he did and said that not bush or anyone else.

            rightly, wrongly, indifferent, who gives a fk. Fact: no one put a gun to odumbo’s head to run for the top job then turn at every inopportune time that he just learned about it from wherever, whatever, feigning ignorance all the way.

            “It’s amusing to now see partisans try to blame” anyone BUT Obama” for anything, EVER!

            your take on what you presume to know as the facts that resulted in what ISIS is doing today are no better than anyone else’s herein or anywhere but it is your right to presume as you wish. (love how isis was odumbo’s cause celeb back in January to arm for battle with syria and voila, now they are in iraq planting a caliphate…the same guy odumbo released in 2009)

            unlike the that fool obamayomama or whatever that child calls himself, and likewise for you, i will say this one last time…i responded to mr. ethiopa’s comment in so far as al quida is concerned, PERIOD!

            last but not least, your simplistic overview leaves out the myriad of issues maliki (shiite) has created against all advice to include sunnis in an effort to unite iraqis…he is the odumbo/US chosen pawn who is nothing more than an extension of iran.

            once again,

            “It’s amusing to now see partisans try to blame” anyone BUT Obama” for anything, EVER!

            by the way, you may wish to learn the definition of the word “partisan” and how to apply it appropriately.

            enough of this BS thread, i am done.

          • hiernonymous

            “…the same guy odumbo released in 2009…”

            Is this an example of your familiarity with the topic? Let’s bring you up to date. According to Pentagon records, al Baghdadi was released in 2004 and never recaptured. The 2009 report is based on an interview with the commander at Camp Bucca, COL King, who thinks he remembers al Baghdadi as one of the prisoners turned over to Iraqi custody in 2009 when Camp Bucca shut down.

            Let’s say that COL King’s memory serves him well, and al Baghdadi was turned over to Iraqi custody. If so, he was turned over under the terms of the 2008 SOFA, which called for U.S. detention centers to close down and the Iraqi justice system to assume responsibility for the detainees. In the same interview, COL King noted that the U.S. requested that the Iraqis continue to detain al Baghdadi, but that he was subsequently released.

            In neither version did Obama “release” al Baghdadi.

            As for your more general point, obviously the president is responsible for what happens on his watch. What you don’t seem to grasp is that the withdrawal from Iraq was not negotiated or signed on his watch. When he took over as president, it was with a withdrawal date already agreed and the SOFA signed by both countries. At that point, keeping U.S. troops in Iraq wasn’t simply a case of the president deciding that the previous administration’s policy was misguided and keeping the troops there – he’d have had to essentially declare war on the Iraqi government. It’s not clear how you see that as superior to what he did.

            As for ISIS, there was no armed AQ or AQ-affiliated insurgency in Iraq prior to the war. That was a pure creation of the war and the subsequent U.S. failure to establish control over the country.

            “…enough of this BS thread, i am done.”


    • ObamaYoMoma

      We need to stay out of all Shia vs Suni conflict’s, these insane people have been killing each other for thousands of years because they disagree on a specific passage in the koran.

      Not really. The words contained in the Koran are immutable, as they originate directly from Allah himself as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Thus, any mere mortal human being perceived as trying to alter just one single word of the divine texts contained in the Koran would instantly be executed for blasphemy. Indeed, this is one of the many reasons why Islam can’t ever be reformed.

      The Shia/Sunni divide, on the other hand, stems over the rightful successor of the Caliphate after the death of the prophet Muhammad.

      However, you are right. We should stay out of it and actually encourage it. All the irrational paranoia being exhibited by neocons on Fox News today about terrorist’s havens and terrorists training grounds leading to inevitable so-called terrorists attacks against America comes from an abject failure to understand the correct nature of the conflict Islam is waging perpetually against the infidel world, and it is exactly the same kind of insanity that led GWB into creating the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Of course, ISIS is seeking to carve out a Caliphate, but what is a Caliphate? It’s just another Sharia State, i.e., backwards assed Islamic totalitarian hellhole, and if it subsequently makes the mistake of attacking us, then we should simply pound it into sand.

      If you listen to the neocons though, creating a Caliphate is the goal of jihad. However, that’s not quite correct. Making Islam supreme throughout the world is the ultimate goal of jihad.

      I disagree with you on Obama, however, he is as oblivious and incompetent as GWB was when it comes to understanding the true nature of the threat emanating from Islam.

    • Capt. Parker

      ” If Bush did this ”

      Try telling THAT to the DEMOCRAT LED CONGRESS that actually got us into those messes.

  • liz

    Obama should not be allowed to get money for anything. In fact he should be kept in a padded room with crayons. Inside a prison.

    • bob smith

      If congress did their damned job he would get no money at all. Let odumbo use his pen to write cheques he can’t cash. I won’t hold my breath.

  • bob smith

    “…and promote conditions for a negotiated settlement”.

    Great points Daniel but the best one you left out was that quoted gem. ‘A negotiated settlement’?

    Negotiated with whom and for what on whose terms? Terrorist, caliphate terms?

    Unbelievable! Now, will the rino congress who have forgotten or never learned that they control the purse stand up and say NO?

    BS. Pure BS.

  • SoCalMike

    At some point soldiers, corpsmen, officers and contractors are going to wake up and realize Obama is using them as fertilizer and geopolitical toilet paper.

    • JCDavis

      That’s been true for every American military adventure since WWII.

  • Capt. Parker

    The Usurper Obama is KNOWINGLY aiding a known, recognized, enemy of this nation – if Congress will not execute the Usurper for Treason, perhaps WE THE PEOPLE should DO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.

    • liz

      Hear, hear!!!

  • http://conservativechristianvoice.blogspot.com/ Oscar Y. Harward

    Is President Obama’s and his administration’s strategy a parallel portrait to Sec. Of State Hillary Clinton’s plan in Benghazi, Libya; a plan that left 4 Americans dead? You must remember Secretary Clinton employed Al-Qaeda groups in protecting our US Embassy.

    It appears President Obama and his administration design is more like a ‘Military Plan’ in support of providing more Military munitions to an ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’ (ISIS) terrorist group in an effort to kill more Americans.

    How more foolish is it than for President Obama and his administration to send some 300 US Military advisors into Iraq; to be spread into different locations in a nation that is rapidly becoming overcome by more ISIS terrorists whose goal is to kill all Americans?

    On one side, President Obama and his administration are fighting an ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’ (ISIS) terrorist group in Iraq, while sending some 300 US Military advisors into Iraq; again, for these advisors to be spread out into different locations.

    On a different side, President Obama and his administration are sending a total of $500 Million of taxpayers’ money to purchase more military munitions to the same ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’ (ISIS) terrorist group in Syria as part of a $5 Billion grant to the State of Syria.

    This strategy appears to be a plan to kill more Americans as the ‘SAME’ Islamic Muslim ISIS terrorist group in both nations moves these munitions from Syria and into Iraq; across the governments’ adjoining lines; munitions for bombs, other ammunitions, anti-aircraft rockets, etc.

  • tpmania

    Finally…a few journalists putting the pieces together about what REALLY happened preceding the attack on the consulate and annex. It’s about time! I knew what had happened the night after Susan Rice was paraded in front of 5 MSM outlets…which was before Glenn Beck and the rest. Further, I believe that the 5 Taliban generals were released to keep them quiet about those events…which was Obama and Hillary arming al Qaeda affiliates with Stinger missiles. Bowe Bergdahl is just a pawn. Michael Hastings wrote a blistering expose on Bergdahl for Rolling Stone and was hot on another lead right before he was killed when his Mercedes mysteriously “blew up”. I certainly hope Trey Gowdy gets the right people subpoenaed to testify. The recent arrest of Kahtalla and bringing him to DC will impede the process…as those in the administration will block testimony because there’s a “criminal hearing” underway. Not only do we have THE most corrupt POTUS in our history, but one that is severely compromised and willing to go to any lengths to cover himself.

  • celticwaryor

    Why doesn’t the government freeze the assets of all the players involved? Sooner or later, they will all run out of money to buy weapons with and will be resorted to using sticks and swords. Pretty simple plan I think!

  • rockyvnvmc

    Al Qaeda (‘the List’, or ‘the Database’, in Arabic) was originally an American funded and American trained operation, that went horribly awry …

  • paglee

    Obama wants to arm Syrian “opposition fighters”? There are virtually no
    native Syrian opposition fighters except a few Sunni jihadists — the main
    “opposition” fighters in Syria come from Salafist Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other
    nations in Arabia, where the corrupt royal princes etc. export the
    local jihadists to Syria with outlandish bribery in money and arms.

    Those corrupt billionaire Arabs imagine they can bribe the jihadists they
    have created in their Salafist Madrassas all over the mideast and escape from
    jihadist terror by paying them and sending them elsewhere. Their idea is to
    export the radicals to a somewhat faraway place –like Syria and Iraq– to form
    a new Caliphate, where they can wreak their barbarism far from their
    vulnerable homes in Arabia.

    It is useless to attack a jihadist octopus based in Syria by trying to cut
    off a few of its tentacles, like the one now wrapped around Mosul, a major city
    in Iraq. Better to defeat the jihadist octopus totally by destroying its head
    in northern Syria. The most legally qualified military force to do this is

    Instead Obama wants to fund Syrian “rebels” (if he can find any real
    non-Islamist native ones) that he imagines will fight both the Syrian
    dictatorship and the Sunni ISIS jihadists. He has also shown interest in
    forming a partnership with Iran, an even worse dictatorship than Syria’s, which
    at least is secular and respectful of other religions.

    To destroy the growing Caliphate octopus based in Syria, Obama also seems
    to favor a possible alliance with the Shiite Ayatollah-run dictatorship in Iran
    that seems bent on building nuclear weapons. It is folly to favor Islamic
    Iran over the secular dictatorship that runs Syria that is already fighting ISIS
    and is far closer to the action.

    This may be a hard choice, but better to support the military arm of an
    existing secular dictatorship than seeking the impossible: creation of a new
    non-Islamist “rebel” force, or to form an alliance with an even worse
    dictatorship headed by an Iranian Islamic Ayatollah.

    • JCDavis

      The point is not to fund the fighters (ie, terrorists), which Obama has been doing all along with disastrous results, but to get Congress to go along so that they can’t criticize him for doing it.

  • Larry Counts

    Time and again, Barry O tells us no one should own a gun-apparently, unless they intend to use it to kill Americans. Why isn’t he hanged as a traitor?

  • hiernonymous

    “So, whether he was or was not directly responsible for the isis leader’s release is MOOT!”

    Odd that it wasn’t moot when you were trying to pass it off as the truth. Why is it that when the facts used to establish the legitimacy of a point you’re trying to make turn out to be laughably untrue, they suddenly become unimportant.

    “Take your fucking pick.”

    Why? It’s your list of grievances, and it’s not clear that you understand the truth or significance behind many of them. I don’t feel any need to borrow any of your irrationality.

    “He and he alone is ultimately responsible for both the successes of isis’ leader as well as his current freedom at large.”

    Do you say that because you think Obama was president in 2004, because you think that Obama signed the SOFA, because you forgot your earlier comment about the matter being moot during the process of composing your highly energetic post, or because your blogs have told you who to blame for al Baghdadi but you don’t understand why you’re supposed to feel that way? I’m not getting the impression that you have a real keen grasp of the topic, Mr. Smith.

    “i bid you adieu.”

    *singing* ‘this is just adios, and not goodbyyyyyye…’