Republican Team ISIS Fighters quitting their 'lost cause' fight.

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13985162

I think it was the Saudi's plan.

I agree Bush kicked the UN inspectors out and started the very 'dumb war' as Obama called it in advance. That is what caused the increase in Iran's influence in the region and what triggered this entire ISIS tragedy in the first place. Putin also warned Bush in advance that toppling SH would upset the Shiite/Sunni divide & Iraq/Iran balance of power and cause a vast increase if turmoil in the region.

But why did you write first it was Bush strategy to use Jihadists and now switch to it being the Saudi plan.

I agree it was the Saudis supporting what they perceived as moderate Islamists in Syria that in turn either turned into AQ and eventually ISIS. Prince Bandar was fired as Saudi intelligence Chief for his role in that very stupid plan.

I don't believe Obama, Bush or even the neocons embraced that Saudi plan.

Bush did a very stupid thing in Iraq and the Saudis followed up with a very stupid idea in Syria.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You have accused me of relying on old information. The reason I do so is because I rely on government information whenever possible. The problem with that is that it is a lengthy process before the information can get out, often requiring lawsuits. Eventually the truth will come out and reveal which of us is more correct. In the meantime enjoy this video clip.

What's in the clip you want me to see.

And why did you ignore the facts I posted prior to your post with a video clip?

We don't need lawsuits to know when the ISIS retreat began, how much and when Obama arrived and when Putin arrived. Do we.

You can admit which one of us is right about those known facts right now.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Easyt65 13984927

Obama demonstrated he was that stupid when he announced from France that his policy of containment worked, that he had contained ISIS...right before they humiliated him as a failure by perpetrating the largest attack on France since WWII.

Why are you too stupid to realize that Obama was referring to the war zone in Iraq and Syria where ISIS has been contained and in retreat.

Don't you know that France is not located in Iraq or Syria. Why do you display such ignorance for all to see?

By the way are you a Republican? You just gave support to ISIS by lying for them and crediting them with humiliating the President of the United States of America.

This thread is on target.

Obama's American led coaltion has ISIS in retreat in Iraq and Syria. That coalition is not bombing targets in France.

But ISIS surely appreciates Americans using their attack in Paris to give them credit for humiliating Obama. You give them a great after affect bonus for committing a ruthless murder.

If you were not overjoyed to learn of the attack you would not have so crudely misrepresented what Obama actually said,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Another huge loss for Republican Team ISIS:

.
Iraqi forces 'recapture IS-held town of Hit'

• 14 April 2016
  

Image caption A Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS) spokesman said its troops had cleared Hit of all gunmen
Iraqi troops have recaptured the strategically important western town of Hit from Islamic State militants after weeks of fighting, officials say.

The military declared that Hit had been "completely liberated" by units of the elite Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS).

Since it began in mid-March, the assault on the town has been the focus of the government's wider campaign to regain control of Anbar province.

Hit sits on a key supply route linking IS-held territory in Iraq and Syria.

Iraqi military officials and the US-led coalition against IS believe that by clearing the town 150km (93 miles) west of Baghdad, they can build on other recent gains in the vast desert of Anbar.

Iraqi forces 'recapture IS-held town of Hit' - BBC News

And Putin gets zero credit for this. It is all Obama's successful American led coalition.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tresha91203 13855105

I disagreed with both Pres Bush's and Pres Obama's handling of it all, nearly from the start.

I agreed with Bush sending in the troops to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan under every nation's inherent right to self defense in response to an attack. And it became a NATO operation as well.

I agreed with Bush and Hillary Clinton in 2002 because of post 9/11/01 terrorist threats that the potential of Saddam Hussein stockpiling Chem/Bio weapons warranted the threat of use of military force if UN inspections were not resumed. Those inspections were not only resumed they were verifying the disarming of Iraq peacefully. So Bush ONLY lost my support when he forced inspectors out and invaded instead.Tresha91203

I needed no intelligence reports to know that UN inspections were working. It was all public at the time.

So I heartily protested the pending invasion of Iraq on those grounds. It was wrong and it sowed the seeds of ISIS.

I have agreed with Obama's continued military and diplomatic support in Afghanistan. I agreed with his getting us out of Iraq on Bush'd agreed timetable.

I absolutely agree with Obama's handling of the ISIS terrorist rampage in Iraq. And now the merits of his policy have begun to yield good progress with the Iraqis bearing the brunt of the battle as it should be.

So, Iraq, Libya and Iran would be justified in attacking the USA?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14024171

So, Iraq, Libya and Iran would be justified in attacking the USA?

Of course not. Only a fool would read what I wrote and ask such a stupid question.

 

[Votto]

Yep, the Trump "We love blowin' stuff up" crowd can't wrap their heads around a long term strategy based on an intelligent, patient, battle plan. ISIS has lost 22% of their territory in the last 15 months and the steady course of the U.S. and it's allies of cutting off financing sources and destroying supply lines is working.

Trump? Trump opposed going into Iraq, Hillary voted to go in.

Then there is Obama and Libya. He handled that just great, didn't he.

Now ISIS has moved to Libya. Well played.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14024171

So, Iraq, Libya and Iran would be justified in attacking the USA?

Of course not. Only a fool would read what I wrote and ask such a stupid question.

Stupid question? If a country is ATTACKED by another country, are they justified in attacking back?

You said....."I agreed with Bush sending in the troops to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan under every nation's inherent right to self defense in response to an attack. And it became a NATO operation as well."

You said that the US attacking Afghanistan was "self defense in response to an attack"

So, if Iraq attacked the US in self defense in response to an attack, which happened, then this would be self defense. You also said it's "every nation's inherent right" to do so.

So, the US attacks Iraq, Iraq is JUSTIFIED IN ATTACKING THE USA.

Stupid question, or maybe you didn't think about what you said properly?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14031398

Stupid question? If a country is ATTACKED by another country, are they justified in attacking back?

You said....."I agreed with Bush sending in the troops to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan under every nation's inherent right to self defense in response to an attack. And it became a NATO operation as well."

You said that the US attacking Afghanistan was "self defense in response to an attack"

So, if Iraq attacked the US in self defense in response to an attack, which happened, then this would be self defense. You also said it's "every nation's inherent right" to do so.

So, the US attacks Iraq, Iraq is JUSTIFIED IN ATTACKING THE USA.

Yes you asked a very stupid question and here's why. The U.S. was not justified to attack Iraq. But as you must know the dictatorship and Baathist Party that were the targets of that attack were removed from power (wrongly) as a result.

A new Shiite government was put into place and subsequently sanctioned by the United Nations as the new sovereign government of Iraq. That government which benefitted from the unlawful US invasion and occupation has no justification for launching an attack on the United States or any other nation unless it is in self defense.

Like I said. Only a fool would ask the question that you asked.

Furthermore, Saddam Hussein deprived his country of an inherent right to self defense when he did not fulfill his obligation (as part of his surrender agreement in 1991) to be verified disarmed of WMD until finally starting to do so willingly during the first few months of 2003. Bush was wrong to end that 2003 UNSC verification process, but if you are equating the USA, even under an idiot like GWB, to Saddam's Iraq, you have lost your mind for sure.

That must be why you asked such an idiotic question.

Libya is even easier to explain why your question was so stupid. It's because the UNSC sanctioned use of force against Ghadafi if he did not pull back heavy artillery and tanks and war planes being used on his own people.

Had Ghadafi ordered his military to stand down he could have saved his ass. But he did not. He defied the UNSC resolution that was approved against him. Ghadafi had no inherent right to self defense even if he had a means to retaliate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Votto 14030958

Hillary voted to go in.

Read what she voted for in October 2002. There were no UN inspectors in Iraq at that time. The vote worked because within two months the inspectors were back in Iraq. That is what she voted for. She did not vote to go in. Bush did not have a vote on ending inspections and going in.

You don't know what HRC voted for but you post a false claim thinking that you do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14031398

Stupid question? If a country is ATTACKED by another country, are they justified in attacking back?

You said....."I agreed with Bush sending in the troops to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan under every nation's inherent right to self defense in response to an attack. And it became a NATO operation as well."

You said that the US attacking Afghanistan was "self defense in response to an attack"

So, if Iraq attacked the US in self defense in response to an attack, which happened, then this would be self defense. You also said it's "every nation's inherent right" to do so.

So, the US attacks Iraq, Iraq is JUSTIFIED IN ATTACKING THE USA.

Yes you asked a very stupid question and here's why. The U.S. was not justified to attack Iraq. But as you must know the dictatorship and Baathist Party that were the targets of that attack were removed from power (wrongly) as a result.

A new Shiite government was put into place and subsequently sanctioned by the United Nations as the new sovereign government of Iraq. That government which benefitted from the unlawful US invasion and occupation has no justification for launching an attack on the United States or any other nation unless it is in self defense.

Like I said. Only a fool would ask the question that you asked.

Furthermore, Saddam Hussein deprived his country of an inherent right to self defense when he did not fulfill his obligation (as part of his surrender agreement in 1991) to be verified disarmed of WMD until finally starting to do so willingly during the first few months of 2003. Bush was wrong to end that 2003 UNSC verification process, but if you are equating the USA, even under an idiot like GWB, to Saddam's Iraq, you have lost your mind for sure.

That must be why you asked such an idiotic question.

Libya is even easier to explain why your question was so stupid. It's because the UNSC sanctioned use of force against Ghadafi if he did not pull back heavy artillery and tanks and war planes being used on his own people.

Had Ghadafi ordered his military to stand down he could have saved his ass. But he did not. He defied the UNSC resolution that was approved against him. Ghadafi had no inherent right to self defense even if he had a means to retaliate.

We were talking about Afghanistan, weren't we? You said the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan because... well because Afghanistan didn't attack the US, but hey, you said it, not me.

So your argument is just to insult me and call me a "fool"?

The problem is, I asked a question based on what you say. Now you're seeing it's silly but you're trying to save face and not accept that what you said is silly, and blaming it all on me.

I don't think so.

You said a country has the right to self defense when attacked. I wouldn't say I disagree with this.

However then you went on to give the example that the US went to Afghanistan as DEFENSIVE action, self defense. That's bull. Afghanistan didn't attack the US. They potentially harbored the guy who was responsible for this action, ibn Laden, however the US didn't go through an extradition process to get him back, Bush just then attacked Afghanistan without giving them even the chance to find the guy and extradite him.

So don't blame me for your nonsense.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We were talking about Afghanistan, weren't we? You said the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan because... well because Afghanistan didn't attack the US, but hey, you said it, not me.


The problem is, I asked a question based on what you say.

So the reason you asked a dumb question was because you did not read what I actually wrote:

Nfbw 13855203

agreed with Bush sending in the troops to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan under every nation's inherent right to self defense in response to an attack. And it became a NATO operation as well.

Do you understand "...inherent right to self defense in response to an attack" means?

You said I said Afghanistan did not attack the U.S..

The Taliban ruled Afghanistan and the attackers plotted it on Afghan soil. The U.S. did have an inherent right to self-defense in response to the September 11, 2001 attack on U.S. Soil by Al Qaeda with the terrorist organization's leadership being harbored in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

A retaliatory attack in response to an attack is considered justifiable under international law. It's in the UN Charter.


United Nations Charter - Article 51

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”


And the UNSC agreed the US and allies were justified to remove the Taliban as follows;


"As a first step, the Afghan Interim Authority was established. On 20 December, the Security Council, by resolution 1386 (2001), authorized the establishment of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to help the Authority maintain security in Kabul and its surrounding areas."

United Nations and Afghanistan

That why the ISAF was established.


So you can misquote me and disagree with most of the civilized world, but your question remains very dumb.

 

[TeaBagger]

"Are Republicans getting worried that ISIS terrorists are in retreat in Iraq and Syria?"

No, they’ll just lie about it as they usually do.

Once again Obama's strategies worked. Instead of carpet bombing and killing millions of innocent people Obama used something shit bums like Cruz don't have and that's brains.

Obama outsmarted ISIS and he systematically killed off their command and control... Unlike Bush, Obama listens to his military experts.

FUCK YOU CONS!

 

[frigidweirdo]

We were talking about Afghanistan, weren't we? You said the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan because... well because Afghanistan didn't attack the US, but hey, you said it, not me.


The problem is, I asked a question based on what you say.

So the reason you asked a dumb question was because you did not read what I actually wrote:

Nfbw 13855203

agreed with Bush sending in the troops to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan under every nation's inherent right to self defense in response to an attack. And it became a NATO operation as well.

Do you understand "...inherent right to self defense in response to an attack" means?

You said I said Afghanistan did not attack the U.S..

The Taliban ruled Afghanistan and the attackers plotted it on Afghan soil. The U.S. did have an inherent right to self-defense in response to the September 11, 2001 attack on U.S. Soil by Al Qaeda with the terrorist organization's leadership being harbored in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

A retaliatory attack in response to an attack is considered justifiable under international law. It's in the UN Charter.


United Nations Charter - Article 51

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”


And the UNSC agreed the US and allies were justified to remove the Taliban as follows;


"As a first step, the Afghan Interim Authority was established. On 20 December, the Security Council, by resolution 1386 (2001), authorized the establishment of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to help the Authority maintain security in Kabul and its surrounding areas."

United Nations and Afghanistan

That why the ISAF was established.


So you can misquote me and disagree with most of the civilized world, but your question remains very dumb.

Afghanistan did NOT attack the USA.

The US didn't even bother asking Afghanistan to extradite ibn Laden.

So the UN might agree. Which says what? The UN is useless and is used by the big countries to get what they want.

I didn't misquote you at all. You're trying to get out of something.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14031978

Afghanistan did NOT attack the USA.

The Taliban governed Afghanistan and sheltered Al Qaeda and were held "justifiably" responsible. So Bush attacked the Taliban and they fled like chickens at the site of a fox. Ninety five percent of Americans agreed with Bush' Afghanistan response to 09/11/01, as did I.

So you are some kind of oddball out.

Extraditing one leader of Al Qaeda would not suffice after an attack like that. The entire organization had to be eliminated. The Taliban stood in the way of that military objective. They had to be taken down.

It's Bush's attack on Iraq that messed up our military defeating Al Qaeda top to bottom.

The tragic screw up did not make the Taliban innocent just because they survived.

You are wrong.


And explain how you think you did not misquote me. You said that I said Afganistan did not attack us. I said in the post you originally cited that I said we were not attacked.

I gave you the exact quote again. Now you can't explain why you said I said exactly the opposite of what you misquoted.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14031978

So the UN might agree. Which says what? The UN is useless and is used by the big countries to get what they want.

I get it. The U.S. is a big country and it uses the UN to do bad things.

However it was Bush who defied the UNSC RESOLUTION 1441 when he attacked Iraq.

What happened there to your theory about the big countries and the UN.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14031978

Afghanistan did NOT attack the USA.

The Taliban governed Afghanistan and sheltered Al Qaeda and were held "justifiably" responsible. So Bush attacked the Taliban and they fled like chickens at the site of a fox. Ninety five percent of Americans agreed with Bush' Afghanistan response to 09/11/01, as did I.

So you are some kind of oddball out.

Extraditing one leader of Al Qaeda would not suffice after an attack like that. The entire organization had to be eliminated. The Taliban stood in the way of that military objective. They had to be taken down.

It's Bush's attack on Iraq that messed up our military defeating Al Qaeda top to bottom.

The tragic screw up did not make the Taliban innocent just because they survived.

You are wrong.


And explain how you think you did not misquote me. You said that I said Afganistan did not attack us. I said in the post you originally cited that I said we were not attacked.

I gave you the exact quote again. Now you can't explain why you said I said exactly the opposite of what you misquoted.

BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Bin Laden extradition raised

12th September 2001

"A leading spokesman for Afghanistan's ruling Taleban militia has said it would consider extraditing terror suspect Osama Bin Laden based on US evidence."

How on Earth is it reasonable for the US to attack Afghanistan when Afghanistan said it would consider extraditing the person claimed to be responsible for the attacks the day before??

Taliban and Bin Laden Agreed to Extradition | Scoop News
October 9th

"In the aftermath of 11 September, we now have a 'smoking gun'. But it is not evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt in relation to the atrocities of 11 September. It is evidence of Government lies about the basis for the current war against Afghanistan. This is an unnecessary war."

"On the matter of extradition, the subject of this briefing, the Daily Telegraph has reported that not only is bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan possible in theory, an agreement to extradite has actually been reached in fact."

We won't hand over bin Laden, say defiant Taliban

"some civilians warned that America's uncompromising position was in danger of uniting the public behind the Taliban, even though they are loathed for their harsh Islamic laws."


The Taliban offer to go through extradition proceedings for ibn Laden.

So, all in all Bush wanted the Taliban to just hand over ibn Laden or face air strikes. The Taliban wanted to follow normal international proceedings on this. The US refused to open extradition proceedings.

It's that simple. These are FACTS.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14031978

So the UN might agree. Which says what? The UN is useless and is used by the big countries to get what they want.

I get it. The U.S. is a big country and it uses the UN to do bad things.

However it was Bush who defied the UNSC RESOLUTION 1441 when he attacked Iraq.

What happened there to your theory about the big countries and the UN.

The UN has permanent members of it's security council.

China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA.

Each of these can basically stop anything they like, they use the UN for their own gains, hence why they're permanent members. Other countries can try and get resolutions proposed. The US and other larger countries are able to get away with ignoring things simply because no one dare attack them. Smaller countries on the other hand are often tied to the UN's recommendations. It's a ridiculous system.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14038191

It's that simple. These are FACTS.

Yes they are. Why didn't you cite the lead paragraph in your link?

.
"We won't hand over bin Laden, say defiant Taliban By Alex Spillius in Peshawar 12:01AM BST 22 Sep 2001

AFGHANISTAN'S ruling Taliban yesterday ignored an edict by Islamic clerics that Osama bin Laden be asked to leave the country, defying America's demands that they hand him over or face military strikes."

And you think with maybe 5% of Americans that after the terrorist organization, that was harbored by the Taliban, mass murderered 3000 souls on US soil including over 100 in the U.S. Military at the Pentagon, the U.S. was going to investigate first for months on end and try to prove to the evil Taliban that Bin Laden was responsible? You are out there.

You also forgot to post this from your link:

. The Saudi millionaire has been a crucial military and financial supporter of his hosts, who are considered to be ideological brethren. He has several houses and at least a dozen hideouts in the arid mountains of southern Afghanistan.

The Taliban were complicit in the attack committed by their ideological brethren and from whom funded their dastardly government and provided them weapons to use on their own people.

The Taliban needed to be destroyed too and the whole world knows it except you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14038191

It's that simple. These are FACTS.

Yes they are. Why didn't you cite the lead paragraph in your link?

.
"We won't hand over bin Laden, say defiant Taliban By Alex Spillius in Peshawar 12:01AM BST 22 Sep 2001

AFGHANISTAN'S ruling Taliban yesterday ignored an edict by Islamic clerics that Osama bin Laden be asked to leave the country, defying America's demands that they hand him over or face military strikes."

And you think with maybe 5% of Americans that after the terrorist organization, that was harbored by the Taliban, mass murderered 3000 souls on US soil including over 100 in the U.S. Military at the Pentagon, the U.S. was going to investigate first for months on end and try to prove to the evil Taliban that Bin Laden was responsible? You are out there.

You also forgot to post this from your link:

. The Saudi millionaire has been a crucial military and financial supporter of his hosts, who are considered to be ideological brethren. He has several houses and at least a dozen hideouts in the arid mountains of southern Afghanistan.

The Taliban were complicit in the attack committed by their ideological brethren and from whom funded their dastardly government and provided them weapons to use on their own people.

The Taliban needed to be destroyed too and the whole world knows it except you.

Do I think the US should have to follow the law after being attacked? Yes I do.

If you start acting like terrorists, then you've lost already.

I didn't forget to post anything. I posted what I wanted to post.

If you want to post something from a source I used, by all means, go ahead.

So, Saudis are helping those who attack the US. So why didn't the US attack Saudi Arabia then?