Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > Middle East
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Middle East News from the Middle East

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-20-2014, 03:18 PM
noman noman is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 394
noman is on a distinguished road
Default

Need anything more be said...?
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/...s/201406190140
http://warrenswil.com/2014/06/19/cheney-outrage/
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014...aq-now/373059/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-20-2014, 06:14 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation How The Obama Administration Bungled the Iraq Withdrawal Negotiations

How The Obama Administration Bungled the Iraq Withdrawal Negotiations
BY JOSH ROGIN


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...l_negotiations
OCTOBER 21, 2011


The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the president's announcement today, but in fact several parts of the administration appeared to try hard to negotiate a deal for thousands of troops to remain -- and failed.

"I can report that as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," President Barack Obama said today, after speaking with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their held -- heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end."

Deputy National Security Advisors Denis McDonough and Tony Blinken said in a White House briefing that this was always the plan.

"What we were looking for was an Iraq that was secure, stable, and self reliant, and that's what we got here, so there's no question that was a success," said McDonough, who traveled to Iraq last week.

But what about the extensive negotiations the administration has been engaged in for months, regarding U.S. offers to leave thousands of uniformed soldiers in Iraq past the deadline? It has been well reported that those negotiations, led by U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and White House official Brett McGurk, had been stalled over the U.S. demand that the remaining troops receive immunity from Iraqi courts.

"What the president preferred was for the best relationship for the United States and Iraq going forward. That's exactly what we have now," McDonough said, barely acknowledging the administration's intensive negotiations.

"We talked about immunities, there's no question about that.... But the bottom line is that the decision you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his view and the prime minister's view of the kind of relationship we want to have going forward. That relationship is a normal relationship," he said.

Of course, the U.S.-Iraqi relationship is anything but normal. Following nine years of war, the death of over 4,000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the disbursement of at least hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer' money, the United States now stands to have significantly less influence in Iraq than if the administration had been able to come to terms with Iraq over a troop extension, according to experts and officials.

"Iraq is not a normal country, the security environment is not normal, the embassy is not a normal embassy," said Marisa Cochrane Sullivan, managing director at the Institute for the Study of War, who traveled to Iraq this summer and has been sounding the alarm about what she saw as the mishandling of the negotiations ever since.

For more evidence that the administration actually wanted to extend the troop presence in Iraq, despite today's words by Obama and McDonough, one only has to look at the statements of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, "Dammit, make a decision" about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, "My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'" On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, "At the present time I'm not discouraged because we're still in negotiations with the Iraqis."

Sullivan was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would "leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States."

She said that the administration's negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.

"From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.

As recently as August, Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.
"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."

The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn't about to do either.

"It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn't going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him," Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. "There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late."

"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan. "It's in the administration's interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement."

So what's the consequence of the failed negotiations? One consequence could be a security vacuum in Iraq that will be filled by Iran.

"It's particularly troubling because having some sort of presence there would have really facilitated our policy vis-a-vis the Iranians and what's going on in Syria. The Iranian influence is going up in Iraq," said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It makes it harder for us to play our cards, and that's a real setback. We've spent a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq. And these days, stability in that region is not what it used to be."

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) echoed those sentiments in a statement today and expressed skepticism that Iraq is as "safe, stable, and self reliant" as the White House claims.

"Multiple experts have testified before my committee that the Iraqis still lack important capacities in their ability to maintain their internal stability and territorial integrity," McKeon said. "These shortcomings could reverse the decade of hard work and sacrifice both countries have endured to build a free Iraq."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), in his own Friday statement, backed up the administration's argument that the lack of a troop extension was in the best interest of the United States and Iraq.

"The United States is fulfilling our agreement with an Iraqi government that wants to shape its own future," he said. "The President is also following through on his commitment to end both the conflict in Iraq and our military presence... These moves appropriately reflect the changes on the ground. American troops in Iraq will be coming home, having served with honor and enormous skill."

UPDATE: This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the "White House" that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops.

"The White House has always seen the president's pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period," the White House official said.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...l_negotiations

And yet during the 2012 Presidential Debates see- http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...raq-and-russia Obama said the exact opposite! I know Obama has trouble telling the truth when it does not fit his agenda as we have all seen during the Obamacare debates. Paparock

People Need to Understand the Following
Obama Did Not Listen to His Military on the Size of Forces Needed as a Residual Force After the 2011 Pullout

Source:http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/...n-senate-floor

During this long internal deliberation, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey later testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the size of a potential U.S. force presence kept ‘cascading’ down from upwards of 16,000 to an eventual low of less than 3,000. By that point, the force would be able to do little more than protect itself, and Prime Minister Maliki and other Iraqi leaders realized that the political cost of accepting this proposal was not worth the benefit.

“To blame this failure entirely on the Iraqis is convenient, but it misses the real point. The reason to keep around 10,000-15,000 U.S. forces in Iraq was not for the sake of Iraq alone; it was first and foremost in our national security interest to continue training and advising Iraqi forces and to maintain greater U.S. influence in Iraq. That core principle should have driven a very different U.S. approach to the SOFA diplomacy. The Obama administration should have recognized that, after years of brutal conflict, Iraqi leaders still lacked trust in one another, and a strong U.S. role was required to help Iraqis broker their most politically sensitive decisions. For this reason, the administration should have determined what tasks and troop numbers were in the national interest to maintain in Iraq and done so with ample time to engage with Iraqis at the highest levels of the U.S. government to shape political conditions in Baghdad to achieve our goal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Educate yourself to all the facts so you can make intelligent and informed decisions.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-20-2014, 06:15 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The prophetic warnings against the Left’s abandonment of Iraq.

The prophetic warnings against the Left’s abandonment of Iraq.

by David Paulin



http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dav...iraq-meltdown/


Former President George W. Bush is remaining mum on the tragedy unfolding in Iraq. But as an army of bloodthirsty Islamists rampages across Iraq with the goal of establishing a 7th century religious tyranny — a caliphate — it’s worth recalling who years ago had predicted this would happen if the Democrats got their way.

It was President George W. Bush and his top officials.

They warned early on that Iraq was ripe for the rise of an Islamic caliphate — either in a failed state created by Saddam Hussein or, they later contended, if the U.S.-led coalition bugged out without leaving behind a stable Iraq. Two years into the U.S.-led occupation, in 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld warned that a premature withdrawal would be disastrous — and he foresaw what has in fact happened. He explained, “Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia.”

Vice President Dick Cheney also warned of the rise of a caliphate if the U.S. withdrew before Iraq was capable of governing and defending itself. “They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the seventh-century caliphate” to be “governed by Sharia law, the most rigid interpretation of the Koran,” he said.

Gen. John P. Abizaid, then America’s top commander in the Middle East, also offered prescient testimony in 2005 to the House Armed Services Committee, forseeing what the terror masters would do in a weak Iraqi state. “They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world. Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do, from Hitler’s world in ‘Mein Kampf,’ we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words.”

Liberals jeered such dire predictions — and especially at the repeated use of the word “caliphate.”

The New York Times, for instance, ran a piece on December 12, 2005, that mocked the forgoing Bush-administration officials for their warnings of a “caliphate”portraying them as foreign-policy amateurs peddling an alarmist view of the Middle East. Wrote reporter Elisabeth Bumiller:

A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration’s warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda’s statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq.

Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, obviously don’t believe what’s printed in The New York Times. ISIS, incidentally, has reportedly been preparing to make its move for several years — right under the radar of the Obama administration. Were they emboldened by President Obama’s endless apologies to the Muslim world? Or the deadlines he’d set for leaving Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably all of the above. But what no doubt really energized them was President Obama’s failure to negotiate a deal with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that would have left sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq.

President Bush, for his part, issued a prophetic warning in 2007 when vetoing a Democratic bill that would have withdrawn U.S. troops. “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” he said.

It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

A little history is worth recalling. Saddam’s failure to account for his weapons of mass destruction, including remnants of his toxic arsenal (some of which was in fact found), gave the Bush administration legal cover for going into Iraq. But only a fool would believe weapons of mass destruction were the only reason for the war. The U.S.-led invasion, or liberation, was in fact part of a vision to remake the Middle East: a long-term project to liberate millions in Iraq; nudge the region toward modernity; and above all make America safer in a post-9/11 world — all by correctly defining who the enemy was and taking the war on terror to them.

The Bush administration certainly encountered setbacks in Iraq and made mistakes; the fog of war invariably upsets the best-laid plans of politicians and generals. But Iraq only plunged into utter chaos after President Obama brought home U.S. troops, despite warnings that Iraq was not ready to govern or defend itself. The blood and treasure that America spent in Iraq has been squandered.

The terror masters were energized in Syria, thanks to the Obama administration’s tepid support of moderate rebels there. Now they are on the march, just as President Bush and his top officials had predicted. After they establish their regional caliphate in Iraq and Syria, expect them to next turn their attention toward their real enemies: America, Israel, and the West. Oil prices are bound to go through the roof, sending the global economy into a tailspin.

President Obama and his foreign-policy advisors have blood on their hands. But if Obama remains in character, he’ll do what he usually does — blame it all on George Bush.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dav...iraq-meltdown/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-20-2014, 06:17 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The U.S. starts down the road to the next 9/11.

The Threat Is Blowback
The U.S. starts down the road to the next 9/11.
by Caroline Glick



http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/car...t-is-blowback/


Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Watching the undoing, in a week, of victories that US forces won in Iraq at great cost over many years, Americans are asking themselves what, if anything, should be done.

What can prevent the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – the al-Qaida offshoot that President Barack Obama derided just months ago as a bunch of amateurs – from taking over Iraq? And what is at stake for America – other than national pride – if it does? Muddying the waters is the fact that the main actor that seems interested in fighting ISIS on the ground in Iraq is Iran. Following ISIS’s takeover of Mosul and Tikrit last week, the Iranian regime deployed elite troops in Iraq from the Quds Force, its foreign operations division.

The Obama administration, along with Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, views Iran’s deployment of forces in Iraq as an opportunity for the US. The US, they argue should work with Iran to defeat ISIS.

The idea is that since the US and Iran both oppose al-Qaida, Iranian gains against it will redound to the US’s benefit.

There are two basic, fundamental problems with this idea.

First, there is a mountain of evidence that Iran has no beef with al-Qaida and is happy to work with it.

According to the 9/11 Commission’s report, between eight and 10 of the September 11 hijackers traveled through Iran before going to the US. And this was apparently no coincidence.

According to the report, Iran had been providing military training and logistical support for al-Qaida since at least the early 1990s.

After the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, al-Qaida’s leadership scattered. Many senior commanders – including bin Laden’s son Said, al-Qaida’s chief strategist Saif al-Adel and Suleiman Abu Ghaith – decamped to Iran, where they set up a command center.

From Iran, these men directed the operations of al-Qaida forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. Zarqawi entered Iraq from Iran and returned to Iran several times during the years he led al-Qaida operations in Iraq.

Iran’s cooperation with al-Qaida continues today in Syria.

According to The Wall Street Journal, in directing the defense of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, Iran has opted to leave ISIS and its al-Qaida brethren in the Nusra Front alone. That is why they have been able to expand their power in northern Syria.

Iran and its allies have concentrated their attacks against the more moderate Free Syrian Army, which they view as a threat.

Given Iran’s 20-year record of cooperation with al-Qaida, it is reasonable to assume that it is deploying forces into Iraq to tighten its control over Shi’ite areas, not to fight al-Qaida. The record shows that Iran doesn’t believe that its victories and al-Qaida’s victories are mutually exclusive.

The second problem with the idea of subcontracting America’s fight against al-Qaida to Iran is that it assumes that Iranian success in such a war would benefit America. But again, experience tells a different tale.

The US killed Zarqawi in an air strike in 2006.

Reports in the Arab media at the time alleged that Iran had disclosed Zarqawi’s location to the US. While the reports were speculative, shortly after Zarqawi was killed, then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice floated the idea of opening nuclear talks with Iran for the first time.

The Iranians contemptuously rejected her offer. But Rice’s willingness to discuss Iran’s nuclear weapons program with the regime, even as it was actively engaged in killing US forces in Iraq, ended any serious prospect that the Bush administration would develop a coherent plan for dealing with Iran in a strategic and comprehensive way.

Moreover, Zarqawi was immediately replaced by one of his deputies. And the fight went on.

So if Iran did help the US find Zarqawi, the price the US paid for Iran’s assistance was far higher than the benefit it derived from killing Zarqawi.

This brings us to the real threat that the rise of ISIS – and Iran – in Iraq poses to the US. That threat is blowback.

Both Iran and al-Qaida are sworn enemies of the United States, and both have been empowered by events of the past week.

Because they view the US as their mortal foe, their empowerment poses a danger to the US.

But it is hard for people to recognize how events in distant lands can directly impact their lives.

In March 2001, when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas statues in Afghanistan, the world condemned the act. But no one realized that the same destruction would be brought to the US six months later when al-Qaida destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.

The September 11 attacks were the blowback from the US doing nothing to contain the Taliban and al-Qaida.

North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic-missile tests, as well as North Korean proliferation of both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to rogue regimes, like Iran, that threaten the US, are the beginnings of the blowback from the US decision to reach a nuclear deal with Pyongyang in the 1990s that allowed the regime to keep its nuclear installations.

The blowback from Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power is certain to dwarf what the world has seen from North Korea so far.

Yet rather than act in a manner that would reduce the threat of blowback from Iraq’s disintegration and takeover by America’s worst enemies, the Obama administration gives every indication that it is doubling down on the disastrous policies that led the US to this precarious juncture.

The only strategy that the US can safely adopt today is one of double containment. The aim of double containment is to minimize the capacity of Iran and al-Qaida to harm the US and its interests.

But to contain your enemies, you need to understand them. You need to understand their nature, their aims, their support networks and their capabilities.

Unfortunately, in keeping with what has been the general practice of the US government since the September 11 attacks, the US today continues to ignore or misunderstand all of these critical considerations.

Regarding al-Qaida specifically, the US has failed to understand that al-Qaida is a natural progression from the political/religious milieu of Salafist/Wahabist or Islamist Islam, from whence it sprang. As a consequence, anyone who identifies with Islamist religious and political organizations is a potential supporter and recruit for al-Qaida and its sister organizations.

There were two reasons that George W. Bush refused to base US strategy for combating al-Qaida on any cultural context broader than the Taliban.

Bush didn’t want to sacrifice the US’s close ties with Saudi Arabia, which finances the propagation and spread of Islamism. And he feared being attacked as a bigot by Islamist organizations in the US like the Council on American Islamic Relations and its supporters on the Left.

As for Obama, his speech in Cairo to the Muslim world in June 2009 and his subsequent apology tour through Islamic capitals indicated that, unlike Bush, Obama understands that al-Qaida is not a deviation from otherwise peaceful Islamist culture.

But unlike Bush, Obama blames America for its hostility. Obama’s radical sensibilities tell him that America pushed the Islamists to oppose it. As he sees it, he can appease the Islamists into ending their war against America.

To this end, Obama has prohibited federal employees from conducting any discussion or investigation of Islamist doctrine, terrorism, strategy and methods and the threat all pose to the US.

These prohibitions were directly responsible for the FBI’s failure to question or arrest the Tsarnaev brothers in 2012 despite the fact that Russian intelligence tipped it off to the fact that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were jihadists.

They were also responsible for the army’s refusal to notice any of the black flags that Maj. Nidal Hassan raised in the months before his massacre of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, or to take any remedial action after the massacre to prevent such atrocities from recurring.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the progenitor of Islamism. It is the organizational, social, political and religious swamp from whence the likes of al-Qaida, Hamas and other terror groups emerged. Whereas Bush pretended the Brotherhood away, Obama embraced it as a strategic partner.

Then there is Iran.

Bush opted to ignore the 9/11 Commission’s revelations regarding Iranian collaboration with al-Qaida. Instead, particularly in the later years of his administration, Bush sought to appease Iran both in Iraq and in relation to its illicit nuclear weapons program.

In large part, Bush did not acknowledge, or act on the sure knowledge, that Iran was the man behind the curtain in Iraq, because he believed that the American people would oppose the expansion of the US operations in the war against terror.

Obama’s actions toward Iran indicate that he knows that Iran stands behind al-Qaida and that the greatest threat the US faces is Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But here as well, Obama opted to follow a policy of appeasement. Rather than prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or stem its advance in Syria and Iraq, Obama treats Iran as though it poses no threat and is indeed a natural ally. He blames Iran’s belligerence on the supposedly unjust policies of his predecessors and the US’s regional allies.

For a dual-containment strategy to have any chance of working, the US needs to reverse course. No, it needn’t deploy troops to Iraq. But it does need to seal its border to minimize the chance that jihadists will cross over from Mexico.

It doesn’t need to clamp down on Muslims in America. But it needs to investigate and take action where necessary against al-Qaida’s ideological fellow travelers in Islamist mosques, organizations and the US government. To this end, it needs to end the prohibition on discussion of the Islamist threat by federal government employees.

As for Iran, according to The New York Times, Iran is signaling that the price of cooperation with the Americans in Iraq is American acquiescence to Iran’s conditions for signing a nuclear deal. In other words, the Iranians will fight al-Qaida in Iraq in exchange for American facilitation of its nuclear weapons program.

The first step the US must take to minimize the Iranian threat is to walk away from the table and renounce the talks. The next step is to take active measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears prepared to do none of these things. To the contrary, its pursuit of an alliance with Iran in Iraq indicates that it is doubling down on the most dangerous aspects of its policy of empowering America’s worst enemies.

It only took the Taliban six months to move from the Bamiyan Buddhas to the World Trade Center. Al-Qaida is stronger now than ever before. And Iran is on the threshold of a nuclear arsenal.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/car...t-is-blowback/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-21-2014, 04:19 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The ISIS Victories In Iraq Should Be Used To Unite The Jihadis


June 16, 2014
Special Dispatch No.5773
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8032.htm

Ansar Al-Shari'a In Tunisia: The ISIS Victories In Iraq Should Be Used To Unite The Jihadis

In a June 14, 2014 statement, Abu Iyadh Al-Tunsi, the leader of Ansar Al-Shari'a in Tunisia, congratulates the Muslim nation on the recent victories of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq, and calls to use these victories to unite the global jihad movement. More specifically, he urges Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Jabhat Al-Nusra leader Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani to publicly congratulate ISIS on its achievements in order to end the internal fighting among the jihad fighters in Syria.
The following are excerpts from the statement:

Abu Iyadh Al-Tunsi
"While I congratulate our nation – and the mujahideen in the land of Iraq, [who are] the crown upon our heads – for the victories in the Land of Two Rivers [Iraq], I wish to use this blessed opportunity to to turn to our commanders and sheikhs, may Allah preserve them, wherever they are, in the prisons or anywhere else, [and address them] with these words:…

"We must take advantage of these victories that Allah granted the Islamic nation, and use them to unite all the jihadi factions that are struggling to raise the banner of monotheism and striving to enact the Islamic shari’a in the land. We must convene all the brothers, and review the policy of jihad in Syria in light of the regional developments, in accordance with [Allah’s] words: 'Allah loves those who fight for his cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice [Koran 61:4].' All the mujahideen must renew their intentions and sit together in order to revive the custom of consultation [shura] and dialogue, which disappeared from the arena several months ago, and reconcile, which will enrage the enemies…

"Our brothers the mujahideen, as well as the sheikhs and the preachers, must cloak themselves in supreme courage… and rush to bring about reconciliation among all parties, which will lead to rebuilding [the jihadi enterprise]. I recommend that the two sheikhs, Ayman Al-Zawahiri… and Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani, rush to congratulate [ISIS on] these victories... This may lead the leaders of the organizations that are fighting each other to put an end to the battle and the struggle between them…

"Likewise, I call upon Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi… to hurry and respond to the calls [for reconciliation issued] by the honorable commanders and clerics who asked him, publicly and in secret, to revive the custom of his forefather [Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, from whom Al-Baghdadi is claimed to be a descended]. Let this year’s Ramadan be a festival of unity and a celebration of the collapse of the global projects of unbelief in the region.

"I wish to remind my brothers, the ISIS fighters and the Sunni tribesmen, to whom Allah has granted victory, that they must not forget Allah’s grace, and that they must be mindful of the laws of victory, [which involve] humility towards Allah and mercy toward people. I beseech Allah to accept [their efforts], elevate their status and reward them with the best of rewards on behalf of our nation, and let them be an instrument for the return of the promised Caliphate that follows the path of the Prophet.”

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8032.htm
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-21-2014, 04:34 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb About The ISIS/Iraq Situation

June 13, 2014
Special Announcements No.311
About The ISIS/Iraq Situation

The following is a list of MEMRI reports on the ISIS/Iraq situation published in the last few days:
  1. Following Capture Of Mosul, ISIS Launches 'March On Baghdad' CampaignSpecial Dispatch - No. 5765 - June 12, 2014
  2. ISIS Spokesman: The Real Battle Will Be In BaghdadSpecial Dispatch - No. 5764 - June 12, 2014
  3. ISIS Announces Conquest Of Mosul, Acknowledges Death Of Senior Leader
    June 11, 2014
  4. ISIS Celebrates Takeover Of Nineveh Province, Says The 'Sykes-Picot Borders' Have Been RemovedSpecial Dispatch - No. 5766 - June 12, 2014
  5. Code Of Conduct Issued By ISIS In Nineveh Province Attempts To Reassure Locals While Enacting Shari'a Law, Including Ban On Gatherings, Selling Of Alcohol And Cigarettes, Immodest Dress; Promises Amnesty To Enemies Who Repent And Death To Those Who Don't
    Special Dispatch - No. 5768 - June 13, 2014
  6. #4303 - Crowd Gathers to Show Support of ISIS Takeover of MosulThe Internet, Sama TV (Syria) | June 12, 2014 | 01:33
  7. Iranian Daily Hints At U.S. Plan To Divide Iran By Collapsing Iraq; Reports Of Qods Force Commander Suleimani In Baghdad; Iranian Dailies Warn Of Regional Sunni-Shi'ite WarSpecial Dispatch - No. 5767 - June 12, 2014
  8. #4301 - Iraqi Politician Ayad Jamal Al-Din: Al-Maliki Should Be Tried for High Treason Following ISIS Capture of MosulAl-Arabiya TV (Dubai/Saudi Arabia) | June 10, 2014 | 04:59
  9. #4304 - Anti-ISIS Propaganda Clip on Iraqi TV
    Al-Iraqiya TV (Iraq) | June 12, 2014 | 00:52

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8027.htm
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-21-2014, 07:42 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation ISIS Members Trained by USA!

Turkish & USA Training Of ISIS


More broadly, as the Turkish analyst Mustafa Akyol notes, Ankara thought "anybody who fought al-Assad was a good guy and also harbored an "ideological uneasiness with accepting that Islamists can do terrible things." This has led, he acknowledges, to "some blindness" toward violent jihadists. Indeed, ISIS is so popular in Turkey that others publicly copy its logo.

In the face of this support, the online newspaper Al-Monitor calls on Turkey to close its border to ISIS while Rojava threatened Ankara with "dire consequences" unless Turkish aid ceases.

In conclusion, Turkish leaders are finding Syria a double quagmire, what with Assad still in power and the Kurdish entity growing stronger. In reaction, they have cooperated with even the most extreme, retrograde and vicious elements, such as ISIS. But this support opened a second front in Iraq which, in turn, brings the clash of the Middle East's two titans, Turkey and Iran, closer to realization.

ISIL Terrorist Military Training Camp on Turkish border, run by CIA



http://www.meforum.org/4732/turkey-s...sis-iraq-syria

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 06-21-2014 at 08:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-21-2014, 08:36 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation U.S. Trained ISIS at Secret Jordan Base

U.S. Trained ISIS at Secret Jordan Base
By Aaron Klein



http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-tra...n-base/5387532


JERUSALEM – Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.

The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.

The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.

WOW and what a great and completely thorough job of VETTING was done that allowed ISIS a splinter group of al Queda that they even distance themselves from passed and the Obama Administration's scrutiny and were trained by American tax dollars. Another proud moment in the foreign policy achievements of the Obama Administration that will go down the the annals of HISTORY!!! Paparock

In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.

That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.

Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.

Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.

The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.

Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine’s report. The French foreign ministry and Britain’s foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.

The Jordanian officials spoke to WND amid concern the sectarian violence in Iraq will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.

ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and “slaughter” King Abdullah, whom they view as an enemy of Islam.

WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIS and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaida-linked group.

WND further reported that, according to a Shiite source in contact with a high official in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Obama administration has been aware for two months that the al-Qaida-inspired group that has taken over two Iraqi cities and now is threatening Baghdad also was training fighters in Turkey.

The source told WND that at least one of the training camps of the group Iraq of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria, the ISIS, is in the vicinity of Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, where American personnel and equipment are located.

He called Obama “an accomplice” in the attacks that are threatening the Maliki government the U.S. helped establish through the Iraq war.

The source said that after training in Turkey, thousands of ISIS fighters went to Iraq by way of Syria to join the effort to establish an Islamic caliphate subject to strict Islamic law, or Shariah.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-tra...n-base/5387532



__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 06-21-2014 at 09:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-21-2014, 10:10 PM
noman noman is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 394
noman is on a distinguished road
Default

See the Charles Krauthammer opinion..I Agree with everthing except the last sentence...http://www2.ljworld.com/news/analysi...ns/syndicated/
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-21-2014, 10:23 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Americans still refuse to see and understand who Obama is

You need to ask yourselves why the Obama Administration chose to train ISIS in Jordan and how they could pass a vetting process! It is key to who Obama is.

Also note the last sentence in the above post. The source said that after training in Turkey, thousands of ISIS fighters went to Iraq by way of Syria to join the effort to establish an Islamic caliphate subject to strict Islamic law, or Shariah. So the thousands of ISIS fighters that are more radical and violent than al Qaeda were training "IN TURKEY" our supposed NATO ally and then left Turkey through Syria to Iraq. Hello American Public and World WAKE UP!!! Read the above again!!! ISIS Terrorists were TRAINED by AMERICA in Jordan and in TURKEY!!! HELLO!!! IS ANYONE AT HOME OUT THERE?

YES, I AM SHOUTING LITERALLY FROM THE DESERT WAKE UP!!!


I would like someone in the Obama Administration to explain how ISIS passed their vetting process to receive military training!
__________________
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 06-21-2014 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-22-2014, 12:07 PM
noman noman is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 394
noman is on a distinguished road
Default

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/the-ira...orse-1.2681575

reminds me when the US tried to set up a Free Govt in Lebanon..The lebanonese army also threw their guns away and ran for their homes.....
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-23-2014, 11:30 AM
noman noman is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 394
noman is on a distinguished road
Default

See the david Brooks article on Rawanda and Iraq--still holding on to the illusion that Iraqis will overcome their ethnic; religious and political hatreds and trasform themselves into a nation....Cheny mad hope for the middle East still clinging in some peoples minds....about as beleivabed as the British hoping that by making artifial countries such as Jordan and Iraq {both ruled by brothers}...maybe the rulers of Jordan will reagain Saudi Arabia
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-23-2014, 03:43 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Kerry presses Maliki as Iraq loses control of Syrian, Jordanian borders

Kerry presses Maliki as Iraq loses control of Syrian, Jordanian borders

By By Lesley Wroughton and Ahmed Rasheed


http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-lands-ba...081007211.html


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met Iraq's prime minister in Baghdad on Monday to push for more inclusive leadership, as Nuri al-Maliki's forces abandoned the border with Jordan, leaving the entire Western frontier beyond government control.

Sunni tribes took the Turaibil desert border crossing, the only legal crossing point between Iraq and Jordan, after Iraqi security forces fled, Iraqi and Jordanian security sources said.

[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Tribal leaders were negotiating to hand the post to Sunni Islamists from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) who took two main crossings with Syria in recent days and have pushed the Shi'ite-led government's forces back toward Baghdad.[/color]

Ethnic Kurdish forces control a third border post with Syria in the north, leaving government troops with no presence along the entire 800-km (500-mile) western frontier which includes some of the most important trade routes in the Middle East.

For the insurgents, capturing the frontier is a dramatic step towards the goal of erasing the modern border altogether and building a caliphate across swathes of Syria and Iraq.

Washington, which withdrew its troops from Iraq in 2011 after an occupation that followed the 2003 invasion which toppled dictator Saddam Hussein, has been struggling to help Maliki's administration contain a Sunni insurgency led by ISIL, an al Qaeda offshoot which seized northern cities this month.

U.S. President Barack Obama agreed last week to send up to 300 special forces troops as advisers, but has held off from providing air strikes and ruled out redeploying ground troops.

Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), meets with U.S. Secretary of Sta …
But Washington has also been sympathetic to complaints from many Sunnis, who dominated Iraq under Saddam, that Maliki has pursued a sectarian Shi'ite agenda, excluding them from power.

One of the most important Sunni leaders active in Baghdad politics, speaker of parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, agreed with Kerry that a twin-track approach was needed to defeat the threat from ISIL: "We have to confront it through direct military operations and through political reform," he told Kerry.

PRESSURE ON MALIKI

Washington is worried that Maliki and fellow Shi'ites who have won U.S.-backed elections have worsened the insurgency by alienating moderate Sunnis who once fought al Qaeda but have now joined the ISIL revolt. While Washington has been careful not to say publicly it wants Maliki to step aside, Iraqi officials say such a message was delivered behind the scenes. [ID:nL6N0P419I]

There was little small talk when Kerry met Maliki, the two men seated in chairs in a room with other officials. At one point Kerry looked at an Iraqi official and said, "How are you?"

The meeting lasted one hour and 40 minutes, after which Kerry was escorted to his car by Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari. As Kerry got in, he said: "That was good."

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday accused Washington of trying to regain control of the country it once occupied - a charge Kerry denied.

Kerry said on Sunday the United States would not choose who rules in Baghdad, but added that Washington had noted the dissatisfaction among Kurds, Sunnis and some Shi'ites with Maliki's leadership. He emphasised that the United States wanted Iraqis to "find a leadership that was prepared to be inclusive and share power".

Senior Iraqi politicians, including at least one member of Maliki's own ruling list, have told Reuters that the message that Washington would be open to Maliki leaving power has been delivered in diplomatic language to Iraqi leaders.

Recent meetings between Maliki and American officials have been described as tense. According to a Western diplomat briefed on the conversations by someone attending the meetings, U.S. diplomats have informed Maliki he should accept leaving if he cannot gather a majority in parliament for a third term. U.S. officials have contested that such a message was delivered.

A close ally of Maliki has described him as having grown bitter toward the Americans in recent days over their failure to provide strong military support.

IRAN ACCUSATION

Jordanian army sources said Jordan's troops had been put in a state of alert in recent days along the 181-km (112-mile) border with Iraq, redeploying in some areas as part of steps to ward off "any potential or perceived security threats".

The Jordan border post was in the hands of Sunni tribesmen. An Iraqi tribal figure said there was a chance it would soon be passed to control of the militants, who seized the nearby crossing to Syria on the Damascus-Baghdad highway on Sunday.

He said he was mediating with ISIL in a "bid to spare blood and make things safer for the employees of the crossing. We are receiving positive messages from the militants."

The need to battle the Sunni insurgency has put the United States on the same side as its enemy of 35 years, Iran, which has close ties to the Shi'ite parties that came to power in Baghdad after U.S. forces toppled Saddam.

However, Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei made clear on Sunday that a rapprochement would not be easy.

"We are strongly opposed to U.S. and other intervention in Iraq," IRNA news agency quoted Khamenei as saying. "We don’t approve of it as we believe the Iraqi government, nation and religious authorities are capable of ending the sedition."

Some Iraqi observers in Baghdad interpreted Khamenei's comments as a warning to the United States to stay out of the process of selecting any successor to Maliki.

Baghdad is Kerry's third stop in a tour of Middle East capitals to emphasise the threat the insurgency poses to the region and call on Iraq’s allies to use their influence to press Baghdad to govern more inclusively. He has also been warning Iraq’s neighbours they need to step up efforts to cut off cross-border funding to the militants.

(Additional by Suleiman al-Khalidi in Amman; Writing by Oliver Holmes; Editing by Peter Graff and Alastair Macdonald)

http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-lands-ba...081007211.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 06-23-2014 at 03:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-23-2014, 03:54 PM
noman noman is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 394
noman is on a distinguished road
Default

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-en...b_4766581.html

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-23-2014, 04:12 PM
noman noman is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 394
noman is on a distinguished road
Default

online.wsj.com/articles/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-23-2014, 04:28 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Question Obama guilty of treason?

OBAMA GUILTY OF TREASON?
Exclusive: Erik Rush connects Benghazi cover-up to Syria situation
By ERIK RUSH


http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obama-guilty-of-treason/


Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime, whomever commits such an act, is a treasonable offense. When one gets past the nuances of what constitutes aid, wartime and who qualifies as the enemy, having established that such an act has been perpetrated, the individual or individuals so accused will find themselves in a whole lot of trouble. In most countries, including the United States of America, there remain provisions for the execution of those convicted of treason.

On Sept. 10, President Obama addressed the nation on the subject of executing a military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The pretext for this is the administration’s contention that Assad employed the chemical gas sarin in an attack near Damascus on Aug. 21. The attack allegedly killed over 1,400 people.

The most ironic, audacious and disgusting aspect of Obama’s proposal is that it would directly benefit the terrorist organizations that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001, and that he made this televised appeal on the eve of the 12th anniversary of those attacks. It is also the first anniversary of the attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans and which has Obama’s bloody fingerprints all over it.

Last week in this space, I analyzed Obama’s haste in this desire to go into Syria. Against the will and advice of our closest allies, the will of the American people and with the risk of unduly agitating Syria’s allies (most notably China and Russia), the president has displayed an almost obsessive eagerness in executing this attack.

As we know, due to an almost amusing turn of events, the Assad regime abruptly acceded to a Russian-brokered deal to place its chemical weapons under international control, presumably as a prelude to their destruction. We also know that despite the loss of face and credibility suffered by the U.S. and Obama himself attendant to this fiasco, the White House is already framing this development as a diplomatic coup for the president, a narrative that will no doubt be carried to some extent by the American press.

Many such as myself have argued that diminishing America’s influence and standing in the world was in fact part of his plan in “fundamentally transforming” America, so one would think that Obama simply has one more item to cross off his list. I do not believe, however, that he intended to manifest this by diminishing his own influence and standing. He may be able to manipulate the message told to the American people, but the world has come to see him as a rash, self-serving, diplomatically un-savvy opportunist. Even his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood appears to have soured.

Most observers have settled on the likelihood that it is his desire to redirect attention from his many scandals, Obamacare and immigration reform legislation that impels the president toward carrying out this attack. There is also a distinct possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he has supported worldwide and who have fighters among the rebels in Syria) is putting pressure on him to deliver after his failure to resist the ouster of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Q: How does Obama know what kind of weapons the rebels in Syria have?

A: He has the receipts …

I propose another scenario: It has been well-established that the Obama administration clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria. (I say “rebels in Syria” rather than “Syrian rebels” because many of them are jihadis from other nations.) It is a pretty safe bet that this operation was at least part of the reason for the 9/11/12 attack on the American facility in Benghazi. I have contended for some time that President Obama himself either orchestrated the attack or was party to it. His motivation, I have asserted, would have been in perceiving a need to erase the evidence of the Benghazi operation – and perhaps even some of the personnel involved.

A subsequent revelation that Morsi provided military assets for the attack on the Benghazi compound does tend to lend credence to the notion that Obama was involved. After all, Obama was Morsi’s benefactor; indeed, there would have been no Arab Spring and no Muslim Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt had it not been for Obama’s destabilization of the region.

Since it has been established that the Obama administration provided weapons to the rebels in Syria, and nearly a certainty these factions came to possess chemical weapons, is it then possible that Obama’s desire to strike Syria with all due speed stems from a need to erase the evidence of having provided them, and perhaps even other treasonous actions? It would certainly make the truth getting out with regard to Benghazi much more of a threat to Obama if evidence speaking to this being factual exists.

If this is factual, Barack Obama might ultimately be looking at occupying a noted place in history quite different from the one he currently occupies.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obama-guilty-of-treason/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 06-23-2014 at 04:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-23-2014, 05:03 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation I will not defend the major mistakes of the Bush Presidents

I will not defend the major mistakes of the Bush Presidents
I will hold Obama and His Administration Responsible for Their Actions and Policies


But neither will I allow Obama or his defenders after Obama has been in office for 6 years to simple blame Bush for their failures to achieve or act responsibly. If you want to point fingers then start with BILL CLINTON as he has a very heavy responsibility in failure to ACT during his administration for what ever reason. I am a native born Arkansan and I point out Bill Clinton's responsibility for his failure to act against Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden! George W, Bush bears his responsibility for his choices, actions, and failures while he was in office which are many. However what is it with Obama and his administration that they refuse to accept responsibility for their failures even after 6 years! They act like cry babies and spoiled children! It is long past time for them to act like big boys and girls accept responsibility for their actions and move to correct them when they are wrong. WOW what a concept for running the American government and it goes for Republicans as well as Democrats! This "its not our fault 'Bush did it' is childish!" Democrats have been running the country and the wars for 6 years now! Your decisions and polices are what has been affecting the economy and foreign policy for the last 6 years so take responsibility so blaming Bush when your policy today falls on its face quite frankly is stupid! So your policy did not work, grow up, own it, move on, correct it, and do better!

So you don't like Dick Dick Cheney and see "his polices" everywhere. I don't personally like Dick Cheney either. Living in Wyoming for ten years I had a long talk once with Alan Simpson, another former U.S. Senator from Wyoming. While I don't agree with him about many things at least he sat with me and we had quite the discussion on the Middle East, Israel and American foreign policy back in the 1980s. Some leaders refuse even to listen at least Simpson was willing to consider a different view and engage with an average citizen that he soon learned knew quite a bit about the subject. I can respect someone on the other side that at least is open and respects my views.

I also don't personally like Obama as he has proven himself to be a bold face liar to me and refuses to take ownership of both his lies and actions so he is not a trustworthy leader in my opinion. His actions have shown that to me. The difference is Cheney is not in office and Obama is. I don't like Saul Alinsky or Cloward & Piven as I know their political thought and strategies as well as I see both Obama and his administration using many of their stated Strategies against the American people and the American Governmental Institutions! But my focus is upon Obama and his administration's ACTIONS not Obama as a man personally. Obama is free to believe what ever he wants but when he starts to destroy the Constitution, the balance of the Three Branches of Government, seeks to take away the Rights Granted to We the People then I will fight him; period. Obama not only refuses to listen to others views honestly but retaliates against anyone who dares to disagree with his even assassinating their character and careers as has been reported in the news media and I have documented here on the form.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 06-23-2014 at 05:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-23-2014, 06:27 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default

Iraqis must show they are worthy of Freedom and Democracy or they will continue to live in fear and under tyranny! Freedom has throughout history shown it is not free but not only comes at a high price but must be maintained at a very high price of blood and treasure also. Many Americans especially those of the leftist persuasion have either forgotten this or refuse to recognize this historical fact! Those of the progressive persuasion have labored for close to a hundred years to remove those facts from the history taught to America's children in its schools and universities! Most of those Americans who volunteer for our Armed Forces remember the price of Freedom and Liberty while even many of our elected leaders scorn them as fools for fighting for and losing heir lives for the Freedom and Liberty of America upon the floors of Congress with impunity!

Iraqis have known political and religious oppression, tyranny, and being ruled by dictators and tyrants for so many generations. America has betrayed the Iraqi people's trust under both Bush's and Obama so does anyone wonder why any Iraqi would have a problem trusting any American promise or treaty as they are not worth the paper they are on.

Americans must show they are worthy of the Freedom and Democracy they have enjoyed since the founding of the U.S.A.! Americans So Far America has not shown under the last 4 Presidents that its word can even be trusted! And under each successive President (41st through 44th) it has GOTTEN WORSE!!!
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 06-23-2014 at 06:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-23-2014, 08:22 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Why was ISIS virtually ignored by Western media until two weeks ago?

Why was ISIS virtually ignored by Western media until two weeks ago?


http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/0...two-weeks-ago/

Since 2011, the Obama Regime has been telling us that al-Qaeda is on the run, while an even more barbaric terrorist group, with a $2 billion war chest, has set the Middle East on fire and now poses a bigger threat to the United States than al-Qaeda ever did.

View Video here> Warning Graphic Content!- http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/0...two-weeks-ago/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 06-23-2014 at 08:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-23-2014, 08:37 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation ISIS in Mosul orders unmarried women into ‘sex jihad’ with the fighters

IRAQ: ISIS in Mosul orders unmarried women into ‘sex jihad’ with the fighters


http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/0...-the-fighters/

On June 12, only two day after capturing Mosul and other territories in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria issued a decree ordering the people to send their unmarried women to “jihad by sex.” In the proclamation ISIS threatens to impose Sharia law on all who fail to comply.


AINA: Here’s a translation of the decree. AINA cannot confirm the authenticity of this document.

After liberation of the State of Nineveh, and the welcome shown by the people of the state to their brotherly mujahideen, and after the great conquest, and the defeat of the Safavid [Persian] troops in the State of Nineveh, and its liberation, and Allah willing, it will become the headquarters for the mujahideen. Therefore we request that the people of this state offer their unmarried women so that they can fulfill their duty of jihad by sex to their brotherly mujahideen. Failure to comply with this mandate will result in enforcing the laws of Sharia upon them.

June, 12, 2014
Translated for AINA by Dr. Samir Johna.


http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/0...-the-fighters/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum