Obama ISIS Inaction-Similar to Clinton & Rwanda

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist is not a strategist or a policy wonk.

He is a neo-con wanting America to take a path that We the People will not allow the fear mongers to take. Bush the Younger put an end to that shit for us.

Protectionist does not speak for the more objective members of this forum. He operates from confirmation bias that prevents him from objectively weighing all of the deceive.

He is a far right wing reactionary, and no one with a working brain will accept his desire to march American legions across the world. He is still living in 1945 and totally unaware the levers of power have changed.

This is a lie. I am NOT a far right wing reactionary.

This is good. I'm in favor of raising taxes on the top rich to pre-Reagan levels (70-92%),

This is a lie. I am not a NEO-Con.

This is a lie. We do not have the time of day for you. This 76% of the American people (and like that % of this forum) is who I speak for.

This is good. Yes, the "levers of power" have changed since 1945, all right.

You misunderstand. We now live in a much more dangerous nuclear age, combined with a global jihadist network hell-bent on getting their hands on the nuclear weapon levers, to use against us.

And this is what destroys any credibility of yours. And since Jake Starkey (or whatever his real Muslim name is) wants to talk about WHO posters are in this forum, let him show us who HE is, complete with what mosque he goes to.

When you can come back with an honest, sensible approach on terrorism, I am all ears.

 

[elektra]

RWANDA!

It was Canada's turn to take the lead in saving the world! The General in charge was Canadian, Canada should of done something. Of course never mind that the Canadian General carried a pistol, and under his command he had rifles and machine guns, and lets not forget the Canadian General could of stopped the Belgium planes full of Belgium troops from pulling out of the mess the Belgium were in charge of before the UN stepped in.

Machine Guns and troops against machetes? It does not take a genius to figure out who would of won.

Waiting for help he was?

Not everything is our fault, certainly not RWANDA! As much as the Clinton's are guilty of, this is not one.

Canadian General, its Canada's turn.

Belgium created the problem, cut and run, I would of blown up there planes and said you stay and fight.

Machetes, so scary.

I bet the General was a drunk.

Clinton disagrees with you. He openly blamed himself for his non-intervention, and made no secret that this was his # 1 regret of his presidency. You stand corrected - BY BILL CLINTON.

Clinton is a politician, does not matter what he said, Crocodile tears. Yes, its great to compare Obama to another failure, but Rwanda never was our failure. So what, Clinton cries a tear, says he wished he could of done something, acts as if he had no idea what was happening, but its all a show. A great leader taking the blame, ha, ha. Attention getting at best. The result is you have no understanding of what happened and who had the ability to stop the Genocide.

I would say you are now corrected, but its obvious you have no knowledge of Rwanda, you have much to learn before we can state your educated and corrected.

Romeo Dallaire Canadian General, correct

Belgium, was in control of Belgium, it was there baby, period, correct.

Belgian Colonization

Belgians did much to create the enmity between Hutu and Tutsi through their policies of indirect rule. As mentioned above, Hutus and Tutsis lived together as neighbors before the colonial period. However, Belgian rule solidified the racial divide [that was already firmly planted in the Rwandan mindset]. The Belgians [also] gave political power to the Tutsis. Due to the eugenics movement in Europe and the United States, the colonial government became concerned with the differences between Hutu and Tutsi. Scientists arrived to measure skull - and thus, they believed brain - size. Tutsi's skulls were bigger, they were taller, and their skin was lighter. As a result of this, Europeans came to believe that Tutsis had caucasian ancestry, and were thus 'superior' to Hutus. Each citizen was issued a racial identification card, which defined one as legally Hutu or Tutsi. The Belgians gave the majority of political control to the Tutsis. [As a result of all of this,] Tutsis began to believe the myth of their superior racial status, and exploited their power over the Hutu majority. Current academic thought is that the European emphasis on racial division led to many of the difficulties between Hutu and Tutsi in the latter part of the 20th century", such as the Rwandan genocide. (History of Rwanda)

Nice display of stupidity. NO. Bill Clinton is NOT a politician. He hasn't been one for 15 years. He's a private citizen, and his remarks about Rwanda were made well AFTER the time of his being a politician.

You were wrong to begin with. I corrected you. And instead of fessing up to your mistake, you have now compounded it, and made it worse. I would say more, but this is NOT MY PROBLEM.

Right, Bill Clinton is no longer a politician?

Rwanda, its a shame that the Canadian General Dallaire was not brave enough to put his life on the line to stop the Genocide in Rwanda, General Dallaire could of prevented the Belgium troops from leaving the mess Belgium created.

Bullets against machetes, who would of won?

General Dallaire is a Canadian General, why would he call The President of the USA? Canada is his chain of command, not the USA.

Bill Clintion is not a politician? Your argument falls apart on that statement alone.

Obama's inaction is nothing like Bill Clinton and Rwanda, Belgium, Canada, and the United Nations are fully responsible. Not because they did not stop the Genocide, but because they issued Race cards, divided the Nation, and created the animosity that lead to the hate that lead to the genocide against the people Belgium, Canada, and the United Nations put in power.

 

[elektra]

20 years is a drop in the bucket of the time frame is Islamic jihad. It has showed its insanity since 622 AD. To even mention 20 years in this discussion is absurd.

What role did the US invasion of Iraq play in the current level of jihad in the Middle East?

A fraction of the role our premature withdrawal played.

 

[HenryBHough]

For newcomers:

Please be aware that Jammie Jake deeply believes he is a Republican.

He also believes that his Dr. Denton outfits attract chicks at the video arcade.

 

[protectionist]

You must realize that not everyone has been immersed in the liberal indocrination that you have. So when you speak in this forum, you need to be more broad that just that confined mindset, which means nothing to objective readers

What do you imagine you have in common with objective readers? I haven't found anyone else on this board as subjective in their interpretations as you are. You really believe American Exceptionalism is objectively good?

I have not been subjective one iota. Everything I've said is fact, or based in fact. It is your liberal media distorted mind that isn't seeing what I say. CNN/ORC poll says 57% of Americans DISAPPROVE of how Obama is handling ISIS, and want stronger action taken.

Poll Most disapprove of Obama handling of ISIS - CNN.com

As for "American Exceptionalism", since the term has been used by many different people in many different ways since it was first coined by the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835/1840 work, Democracy in America, one would need to know what your definition of it is, in order to be able to answer the question YOU ask.

As for what I have in common with objective readers is, that I, unlike highly subjective liberals, who only perceive badly vetted liberal media, devoid of important information, I read books of various authors, watch MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, and absorb a wide range of media information. Liberals don't do this, and that is why they are the subjective ones, speaking only from their very limited knowledge, coming from their very limited communications reception. I have proven this time and time again, by challenging these liberals to take my Islamization Quiz, which I created from my 25 book readings (and thousands of their footnotes), and then seeing that they are pathetically helpless to identify the @ 500 items on the Quiz. Sure! Because their liberal media won't touch the subect, never reports it, while they bow to their Islamist masters, who threaten to label them as "bigot", "Islamaphobe",or some other idiotic slur.

For 4 years now, since I devised this Quiz, dozens of liberal Islamapologists have dodged the Quiz, knowing they know nothing about the subject. Why ? Because they only get censored liberal media, that's why, and they are totally subjective about Islam and Islamization as a result. Of the few (maybe 7) who have taken it, the highest grade was 5% (most got zero).

 

[elektra]

For newcomers:

Please be aware that Jammie Jake deeply believes he is a Republican.

He also believes that his Dr. Denton outfits attract chicks at the video arcade.

View attachment 36894​

Does, "whats up", JJ think he is a Republican or does he play a Republican simply to make Republicans seem stupid, ignorant, idiots. I can not tell?

 

[protectionist]

20 years is a drop in the bucket of the time frame is Islamic jihad. It has showed its insanity since 622 AD. To even mention 20 years in this discussion is absurd.

What role did the US invasion of Iraq play in the current level of jihad in the Middle East?

It stopped it. It killed Zarqawi. It stopped his al Qaeda in Iraq forces. It won Fallujah, Mosul, Ramadi, et als, only to have ISIS (evolved from Zarqawi's forces) come into the 2011 vacuum there, created by Obama's withdrawl of US forces, and then take back these places that US troops fought and died to secure.
And that withdrawl + Obama's continued inaction, continues to allow ISIS to kill large numbers of people there.

 

[georgephillip]

I read books of various authors, watch MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, and absorb a wide range of media information. Liber

What definition of "objective" are you applying to corporate media accounts of radical Islam?

 

[georgephillip]

t stopped it. It killed Zarqawi. It stopped his al Qaeda in Iraq forces

What objective proof can you offer for that claim?

 

[protectionist]

t stopped it. It killed Zarqawi. It stopped his al Qaeda in Iraq forces

What objective proof can you offer for that claim?

Why do you ask ? Do you contest it ?

 

[protectionist]

t stopped it. It killed Zarqawi. It stopped his al Qaeda in Iraq forces

What objective proof can you offer for that claim?

Why do you ask ? Do you deny it ?

 

[georgephillip]

Why do you ask ? Do you contest it ?

Yeah.
"Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, (TQJBR),[3] ("Organization of Jihad's Base inMesopotamia", Arabic: تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الرافدين‎), also referred to as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was an IraqiSunni IslamicJihadist organization[2]affiliated with al-Qaeda. It was a major combatant actor in the Iraqi insurgency and played a central role in the establishment of the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq and theIslamic State of Iraq.[4]"
Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

A fraction of the role our premature withdrawal played.

Had we not illegally invaded Iraq in 2003 our withdrawal would never have been required. There has been a concerted US movement toward regime change in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War, at least. Until the US stops killing/maiming/ displacing millions of innocent Muslim civilians in order to topple their governments, radical Islam will continue winning converts around the globe, and eventually those chickens will come home to roost.

 

[protectionist]

Why do you ask ? Do you contest it ?

Yeah.
"Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, (TQJBR),[3] ("Organization of Jihad's Base inMesopotamia", Arabic: تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الرافدين‎), also referred to as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was an IraqiSunni IslamicJihadist organization[2]affiliated with al-Qaeda. It was a major combatant actor in the Iraqi insurgency and played a central role in the establishment of the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq and theIslamic State of Iraq.[4]"
Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your contesting failed. Nothing you showed here shows that the surge of 2007 didn't stop jihad.

 

[georgephillip]

Your contesting failed. Nothing you showed here shows that the surge of 2007 didn't stop jihad.

And there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until 2003, remember?

 

[Kondor3]

A fraction of the role our premature withdrawal played.

Had we not illegally invaded Iraq in 2003 our withdrawal would never have been required. There has been a concerted US movement toward regime change in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War, at least. Until the US stops killing/maiming/ displacing millions of innocent Muslim civilians in order to topple their governments, radical Islam will continue winning converts around the globe, and eventually those chickens will come home to roost.

Why would we want to topple Muslim governments?

 

[georgephillip]

Why would we want to topple Muslim governments?

In order to steal their oil.
Saddam or Gaddafi could probably explain in more detail if "we" hadn't arranged their executions. 'Can't wait for Iran?
" "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

Your contesting failed. Nothing you showed here shows that the surge of 2007 didn't stop jihad.

And there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until 2003, remember?

NO. I don't remember. al Qaeda is simply a latter day version of Islamic jihad, which is a continuous violent and non-violent effort to Islamize the world (Iraq included). Part of the non-violent jihad is the Muslim Brotherhood, active in 80 countries around the world. Do you think Iraq is not one of them ? Of course al Qaeda was in iraq. They were all over the world just by virtrue of their proclamations. As Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri said in Feb. 1998, in their infamous"World Islamic Front", they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim, who can do it, in any country in which it is possible to do it." (9/11 Commission Report, pg. 47.) And earlier than this, as reported in the 9/11 commission Report (pg. 48) > "Plans to attack the US were developed with unwavering singlemindedness throughout the 1990s"

But all this is going way OFF TOPIC, as we talk about >
Obama ISIS Inaction-Similar to Clinton & Rwanda

 

[protectionist]

Why would we want to topple Muslim governments?

In order to steal their oil.
Saddam or Gaddafi could probably explain in more detail if "we" hadn't arranged their executions. 'Can't wait for Iran?
" "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So if you're saying that the US went into Iraq to steal their oil, then can you show where in Iraq oil was removed and transported to the US, and where in the US it was deposited, and who (people and/or companies) were the recipients of this alleged stolen oil ? As far as I have ever heard, we in the US, never got any oil from Iraq, and if we had, wouldn't our gas at the pump price have gone down, instead of dramatically rising as they have done, since 2003 ?

Secondly, it would not be a bad idea if we DID get a lot of Iraq's oil, to keep it out of the hands of ISIS, who could use it to obtain the wealth needed to purchase nuclear scientist and weapons. This is similar to the not bad idea of going into Pakistan, to secure the 100+ nuclear warheads there to keep them from being used against us.

 

[georgephillip]

o if you're saying that the US went into Iraq to steal their oil, then can you show where in Iraq oil was removed and transported to the US, and where in the US it was deposited, and who (people and/or companies) were the recipients of this alleged stolen oil ?

One thing for sure, Iraq no longer controls its own oil in the way it did before 2003:
"In 2000, Iraq had 'effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so.'

"There is a 'possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time' in order to damage prices:

"'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'"
Iraq invasion was about oil Nafeez Ahmed Environment The Guardian