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

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13959319

Neocons are still influencing our leaders, your messiah is still running their game.

What neocons? Let's have names and actions.

We all now know you cannot be trusted since you said Obama was content to let Jihadists take over all of Syria. The DOD report never went near that. You made it up. Your word means nothing. Now going off on make-believe neocons driving Obama. Keep going. I want to see how nutty you can get.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13959319

Judicial Watch was for your benefit, that DIA document is quite revealing and Obamabots such as yourself should be confronted with it often.

It sure benefitted me alright. It showed that you made it all up when you said Obama was content to have Jihadists take over ALL of Syria. You have not apologized for making that false statement.

This neocon thing - Was the nuke deal with Iran all about Obama conniving with your imaginary neocons to start a war with Iran somehow. What are you talking about?

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 13959319

Judicial Watch was for your benefit, that DIA document is quite revealing and Obamabots such as yourself should be confronted with it often.

It sure benefitted me alright. It showed that you made it all up when you said Obama was content to have Jihadists take over ALL of Syria. You have not apologized for making that false statement.

This neocon thing - Was the nuke deal with Iran all about Obama conniving with your imaginary neocons to start a war with Iran somehow. What are you talking about?

Was the nuke deal with Iran all about Obama conniving with your imaginary neocons to start a war with Iran somehow.

Yes, I believe so to some extent. At least it was an attempt to slow down the Iranians from attaining nukes until the conditions are right for a confrontation of some sort. Also to gain popular support for confronting Iran in the future, it is believed that offering Iran a fig leaf is a prerequisite to confrontation.

As far as neocons are concerned........the obvious ones are Hillary Clinton, Samantha Powers, Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan. They are not all prominent members of our government however, most are woven into the press and our think tanks, this is where they exert much of their influence. Robert Kagan would be an example of someone who influences from behind the scenes, even as he did during the Bush years. This article might give you a better sense how neocons have been able to maintain their voice. They didn't just rise up and disappear with Bush you know, or maybe you don't, maybe Bush did fool you.......... Obama certainly has.

Neocons Have Disturbing Amounts of Influence Over Obama

Brookings Institution senior fellow Justin Vaisse, author of Neoconservatism: A Biography of a Movement, argues that because neocons never had the degree of influence that opponents credited them with, and also because of a general unawareness of their history, observers don’t fully understand the trajectory of the neoconservative movement that began long before the Iraq invasion and one continues today.

“Neoconservatism remains, to this day, a distinct and very significant voice of the Washington establishment,” Vaisse insists. In May, he published the report, Why Neoconservativism Still Matters.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

tinydancer 13942834

Everyone and their mother at this point know there was never a civil war.

What few marbles TinyD had left are now apparently lost as well.

The BBC knows there is a civil war in Syria and what started it. It was not Obama.

.
conflict: from peaceful protest to civil war
By Lina SinjabBBC News, Damascus

• 15 March 2013
  

Image captionIn opposition held areas, the new Syrian flag has a green, not red, band
Two years ago, no-one thought that Syrian citizens would take to the street, shouting out loud calling for freedom and change.

The heavy sense of dictatorship and memories of the 1980s made Syrians think the wave of change in the region would never come to their country.

But it did happen. At first, people were surprised, but above all shocked that their government would fire on peaceful protesters in Deraa. Every day, the death toll increased and in reaction more people took to the street.

The movement started as protests calling for more freedom and dignity. The way the government handled the events since those first days drove more and more people to oppose President Bashar al-Assad.

At first, no-one was calling for the regime to fall. Many people had hopes that the young president would respond to their calls and punish those of the security forces who killed innocent civilians.

But the wave of killings and arrests, torture and humiliation targeting people who were not even involved in the demonstrations drove many who steered clear of politics to join the protest movement.

Voices silenced
Today, government shelling has silenced the voices of peaceful protest. Demonstrators are no longer giving roses to soldiers and security men chanting: "One, one, one, the Syrian people are one."

Ghaith Matar, the activist who initiated the practice of handing a rose and a bottle of water to troops, was found murdered in Daryya in mid-2011.

No more men and women are dancing in public squares to the sound of freedom songs made popular by Ibrahim al-Qashoush, who composed "Go, Go Bashar" in Hama.

He too was killed and dumped in a river, his throat cut and his vocal cords removed.

No protesters in Damascus throw rubber balls with the word "freedom" written on them to bounce about outside the president's home.

Syria conflict: from peaceful protest to civil war - BBC News


Tell us more about your conspiracy theory, Tiny. We can have a contest between you and Tehon who can come up with the best CT on ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But you got to have some tiny scrap of a basis that at least cones close to reality Tiny. This 'no civil war in Syria' concept is too easily debunked right from the start.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13961228

Was the nuke deal with Iran all about Obama conniving with your imaginary neocons to start a war with Iran somehow.

Yes, I believe so to some extent.

Neocons Have Disturbing Amounts of Influence Over Obama .

My god! You posted a 2010 Alternet opinion piece. Are you stuck in a time warp? What was being predicted about the Iran deal did not materialize. Neocons hate the deal.

But anyway you should have read your old outdated link:

"While the report points out that Obama’s foreign policy team is composed of liberals and realists “whose positions are far from the neocons,”"

Far from the neocons.

It's farther now - it's 2016. Not 2010 anymore.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13961228

Was the nuke deal with Iran all about Obama conniving with your imaginary neocons to start a war with Iran somehow.

Yes, I believe so to some extent.

Neocons Have Disturbing Amounts of Influence Over Obama .

Would you rather have McCain Palin / Romney / Ryan in the White House with respect to disturbing amounts of influence by the neocons. You should thank your lucky stars I voted for Obama and he won both times.

I don't agree with Obama on Ukraine. Ukrainians are the villains there not Russians, but had McCain or Romney won and the right wing riots occurred in Kiev how godawful it would be for the world right now.

I give Obama credit for the historic Iran Deal and keeping a lid on the crisis in Ukraine since it's all but over now anyway.

I supported Bush getting the military involved in Afghanistan and Obama for keeping the operations there going and turning it over mostly to Afghan forces now.

If that makes me a neocon than that label means nothing anymore.

 

[Tehon]

tinydancer 13942834

Everyone and their mother at this point know there was never a civil war.

What few marbles TinyD had left are now apparently lost as well.

The BBC knows there is a civil war in Syria and what started it. It was not Obama.

.
conflict: from peaceful protest to civil war
By Lina SinjabBBC News, Damascus

• 15 March 2013

Image captionIn opposition held areas, the new Syrian flag has a green, not red, band
Two years ago, no-one thought that Syrian citizens would take to the street, shouting out loud calling for freedom and change.

The heavy sense of dictatorship and memories of the 1980s made Syrians think the wave of change in the region would never come to their country.

But it did happen. At first, people were surprised, but above all shocked that their government would fire on peaceful protesters in Deraa. Every day, the death toll increased and in reaction more people took to the street.

The movement started as protests calling for more freedom and dignity. The way the government handled the events since those first days drove more and more people to oppose President Bashar al-Assad.

At first, no-one was calling for the regime to fall. Many people had hopes that the young president would respond to their calls and punish those of the security forces who killed innocent civilians.

But the wave of killings and arrests, torture and humiliation targeting people who were not even involved in the demonstrations drove many who steered clear of politics to join the protest movement.

Voices silenced
Today, government shelling has silenced the voices of peaceful protest. Demonstrators are no longer giving roses to soldiers and security men chanting: "One, one, one, the Syrian people are one."

Ghaith Matar, the activist who initiated the practice of handing a rose and a bottle of water to troops, was found murdered in Daryya in mid-2011.

No more men and women are dancing in public squares to the sound of freedom songs made popular by Ibrahim al-Qashoush, who composed "Go, Go Bashar" in Hama.

He too was killed and dumped in a river, his throat cut and his vocal cords removed.

No protesters in Damascus throw rubber balls with the word "freedom" written on them to bounce about outside the president's home.

Syria conflict: from peaceful protest to civil war - BBC News


Tell us more about your conspiracy theory, Tiny. We can have a contest between you and Tehon who can come up with the best CT on ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But you got to have some tiny scrap of a basis that at least cones close to reality Tiny. This 'no civil war in Syria' concept is too easily debunked right from the start.

27,000 foreign fighters....... does that fit your description of civil war?
Syria conflict: Number of foreign fighters 'doubled in 16 months' - BBC News

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 13961228

Was the nuke deal with Iran all about Obama conniving with your imaginary neocons to start a war with Iran somehow.

Yes, I believe so to some extent.

Neocons Have Disturbing Amounts of Influence Over Obama .

Would you rather have McCain Palin / Romney / Ryan in the White House with respect to disturbing amounts of influence by the neocons. You should thank your lucky stars I voted for Obama and he won both times.

I don't agree with Obama on Ukraine. Ukrainians are the villains there not Russians, but had McCain or Romney won and the right wing riots occurred in Kiev how godawful it would be for the world right now.

I give Obama credit for the historic Iran Deal and keeping a lid on the crisis in Ukraine since it's all but over now anyway.

I supported Bush getting the military involved in Afghanistan and Obama for keeping the operations there going and turning it over mostly to Afghan forces now.

If that makes me a neocon than that label means nothing anymore.

Speaking of influential neocons, how could I have forgotten this one. I will let Obama introduce him.



In 1997, Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser, and president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard arguing arguing that the U.S. had to take control of Ukraine (as well as Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran) because they were “critically important geopolitical pivots”.
Obama’s Former Foreign Policy Adviser Said – In 1997 – that the U.S. Had to Gain Control of Ukraine | Zero Hedge

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13967990

27,000 foreign fighters....... does that fit your description of civil war?
Syria conflict: Number of foreign fighters 'doubled in 16 months' - BBC News

TinyD's contention is there never was a civil war in Syria. That is nutzo. BBC reported it began as a civil war. It is still a civil war. Plus an international war against ISIS. Foreign fighters streaming in and out makes Syria's civil war also a proxy war for outside nations taking sides in the Sunni/Shiite animosity in the entire region.

TinyD tried to blame Obama through a hilarious CT for starting the war in Syria. He had nothing to do with Assad firing on peaceful demonstrators. He did not instigate either side. That is the bigger point. I realize you are fond of conspiracy theories yourself.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 13967990

27,000 foreign fighters....... does that fit your description of civil war?
Syria conflict: Number of foreign fighters 'doubled in 16 months' - BBC News

TinyD's contention is there never was a civil war in Syria. That is nutzo. BBC reported it began as a civil war. It is still a civil war. Plus an international war against ISIS. Foreign fighters streaming in and out makes Syria's civil war also a proxy war for outside nations taking sides in the Sunni/Shiite animosity in the entire region.

TinyD tried to blame Obama through a hilarious CT for starting the war in Syria. He had nothing to do with Assad firing on peaceful demonstrators. He did not instigate either side. That is the bigger point. I realize you are fond of conspiracy theories yourself.

Conspiracy theory? I like to think I'm questioning the official narrative that most people take at face value. This country has too much questionable history not to be jaded by the official line. And indeed there is reason to question what the US government's role was in instigating the Syrian "civil war". The US government has made no secret about their desires to undermine the Assad regime as this 2006 cable spells out.
Cable: 06DAMASCUS5399_a
and for even greater detail
WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath

Now if you go back a few posts and recall the DIA report that I called your attention to, you will find this contained in it.

Do you understand that what that means is that foreign fighters were present and instigating from the beginning. In other words the peaceful protests that you like to trumpet about, existed primarily only in the Western press that you take at face value. But there are other accounts that do not get the attention that they deserve.
Syria: The hidden massacre

How many times did Obama say that Assad stepping aside would have to be part of any settlement to the situation in Syria. In other words Obama was only willing to start cleaning up the mess he helped create after he got what he wanted.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13973610

Conspiracy theory? I like to think I'm questioning the official narrative that most people take at face value. This country has too much questionable history not to be jaded by the official line. And indeed there is reason to question what the US government's role was in instigating the Syrian "civil war". The US government has made no secret about their desires to undermine the Assad regime as this 2006 cable spells out.
Cable: 06DAMASCUS5399_a
and for even greater detail
WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath

Now if you go back a few posts and recall the DIA report that I called your attention to, you will find this contained in it.

View attachment 70682

Do you understand that what that means is that foreign fighters were present and instigating from the beginning. In other words the peaceful protests that you like to trumpet about, existed primarily only in the Western press that you take at face value. But there are other accounts that do not get the attention that they deserve.
Syria: The hidden massacre

How many times did Obama say that Assad stepping aside would have to be part of any settlement to the situation in Syria. In other words Obama was only willing to start cleaning up the mess he helped create after he got what he wanted.

Yes it is entirely conspiracy theory because your interpretation of USG motives under Obama show that you do not know the difference between regime change by military force and regime change by diplomacy and by supporting human rights by education and non-military type funding.

You don't accept attempts at engagement as being real or genuine.

.
The Obama administration has sought to engage the al-Assad regime and appointed an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years. Although the administration has condemned the brutality of Syrian security forces on protestors, Washington has not called for al-Assad to step down from power.

According to the WikiLeaks cables published by the Washington Post, the U.S. embassy in 2009 voiced concern that President Barack Obama's efforts to engage al-Assad would be in jeopardy as a result of the U.S. activities with opposition groups.

Syrian officials "would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change," read a diplomatic cable from April 2009.

U.S. denies support for Syrian opposition tantamount to regime change - CNN.com

If you believe it was USG policy intent under Bush or Obama to ignite the bloodbath in Syria and creating the split between al qaeada and AQI thus creating the most extreme Islamist terrorist group the modern world has ever seen then you are a nut. You are a conspiracy theory nut case.

The Assad family and ISIS are still the worthless people here. And you forget that when Assad crossed the redline Obama still did not propose to take military action to remove Assad from power.

Obama has been ripped to shreds politically and personally by the American right and neocons from every crack that those cockroaches were hiding under. He was supposed to hit Assad directly and massively in the neocons view. Obama's approach was much more reasoned and enlightened.

You only preach outrage at bad outcomes that the far left media steadfastly opines to remain funded by blaming the U.S. first and the dastardly creatures and violent dictators last.

The "red-line crossing" in Syria by Assad produced one of several of Obama's diplomatic achievements when the CW/BW arsenal and production facilities that Assad and Putin denied existed for decades was in its own arena peacefully destroyed in record time in the midst of a civil war.

That is how Iraq's alleged WMD should have been handled.

Even Netanyahu was concerned that CW/BW being seized by ISIS or AQ was extremely dangerous for Israel and the entire region as well as other parts of the world. So he praised disarming WMD from the Assad regime as important and good.

If you looked beyond blaming America first you would have known that the Obama Administration never intended to remove Assad militarily, specifically because the Assad regime keeping command and control over that WMD stockpike could not be removed unless there was a 'diplomatic' solution and proper government in place to maintain control and eventual destruction of those weapons.

That's Geneva Convention adherence not some U.S. driven regime change mania. There were and are other good nations involved.

And Assad ain't gone yet. The neocons would have convinced a sympathetic right winger like Romney or McCain to skip the diplomatic (as Deltex here says "weak dick" way) and remove Assad by direct military action and punch Putin in the snout which would give them their much needed 'strong dick' chicken hawk pleasure.

You are a conspiracy theorist Tehon. You express all the symptoms. By the way / biased one sided questioning is the meat and potatoes of every great conspiracy theorist. It's the conclusions that biased questioning achieves that deserve a deep round of all facts and all historical information questioning, but you refuse to go there. It's plain as day. And you keep going back in time and steer clear of recent history. Such as ISIS in retreat in both Syria and Iraq.

There are those on the far left that behave like those on the far right - one side blames America too much while the other blames America for nothing it does.

Both sides are equally wrong in my opinion.

 

[Tehon]

Yes it is entirely conspiracy theory because your interpretation of USG motives under Obama show that you do not know the difference between regime change by military force and regime change by diplomacy and by supporting human rights by education and non-military type funding.

To be clear I don’t find any attempt by the US government to affect regime change in a sovereign country as being acceptable behavior and I would be speaking out against either.

You don't accept attempts at engagement as being real or genuine.

Why would I when our own government's communications admit they aren’t real or genuine attempts.

2. (C) As the Syria policy review moves apace, and with the
apparent collapse of the primary Syrian external opposition
organization, one thing appears increasingly clear: U.S.
policy may aim less at fostering "regime change" and more
toward encouraging "behavior reform." If this assumption
holds, then a reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored
programming that supports anti-SARG factions, both inside and
outside Syria, may prove productive as well.

9. (S) XXXXXXXXXXXX The SARG would undoubtedly
view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as
tantamount to supporting regime change. This would
inevitably include the various expatriate reform
organizations operating in Europe and the U.S., most of which
have little to no effect on civil society or human rights in
Syria.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 13973610

If you believe it was USG policy intent under Bush or Obama to ignite the bloodbath in Syria and creating the split between al qaeada and AQI thus creating the most extreme Islamist terrorist group the modern world has ever seen then you are a nut. You are a conspiracy theory nut case.

I believe it was Bush’s strategy to use jihadists to undermine what was perceived as a Shia expansion in the form of Iranian influence across the region that was an outcome of the Iraq war. That ISIS is what sprang from that strategy might not have been entirely intentional. That ISIS is the most extreme terror group is a product of their being the most well trained, organized and funded terror group. And yes, being the conspiracy nutcase that you believe me to be, I think Washington had much to do with it and I make no excuses for it. And apparently I'm in good company.
America - and Western Civilization As a Whole - Was Founded On a Conspiracy Theory Washington's Blog

 

[Tehon]

The Assad family and ISIS are still the worthless people here. And you forget that when Assad crossed the redline Obama still did not propose to take military action to remove Assad from power.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13984279

I believe it was Bush’s strategy to use jihadists to undermine what was perceived as a Shia expansion in the form of Iranian influence across the region that was an outcome of the Iraq war. That ISIS is what sprang from that strategy

So did Bush obtain that strategy from the neocons? Or did he break from the neocons on that one?

 

[easyt65]

Again, only a democrat could come up with a thread this stupid, arguing over a concept of 'owned territory' when discussing terrorists.

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.

Yes ISIS said a goal was to create a caliphate, to take over many countries in the middle east. In the end, however, they are terrorists. Terrorists are not so worried about geo-political boundaries, as we have seen.

If you think ISIS is being 'defeated' because they have lost captured territory then you know little about terrorists / terrorism.

 

[Tehon]

Obama has been ripped to shreds politically and personally by the American right and neocons from every crack that those cockroaches were hiding under. He was supposed to hit Assad directly and massively in the neocons view. Obama's approach was much more reasoned and enlightened.

Obama was going to be attacked no matter what he did. I would agree that his approach was more reasoned but I don't see any evidence that it was more enlightened.

You only preach outrage at bad outcomes that the far left media steadfastly opines to remain funded by blaming the U.S. first and the dastardly creatures and violent dictators last.

Advancing your own conspiracy theories now I see.

The "red-line crossing" in Syria by Assad produced one of several of Obama's diplomatic achievements when the CW/BW arsenal and production facilities that Assad and Putin denied existed for decades was in its own arena peacefully destroyed in record time in the midst of a civil war.

That is how Iraq's alleged WMD should have been handled.

That was Putin's diplomatic achievement. If you recall Obama wanted to bomb the Assad regime. Putin intervened on behalf of Assad and congress denied Obama his bombing campaign. That is why Obama was "ripped to shreds" by the right, he looked completely ineffectual.

Even Netanyahu was concerned that CW/BW being seized by ISIS or AQ was extremely dangerous for Israel and the entire region as well as other parts of the world. So he praised disarming WMD from the Assad regime as important and good.

I couldn't give a shit what concerns Netanyahu.

If you looked beyond blaming America first you would have known that the Obama Administration never intended to remove Assad militarily, specifically because the Assad regime keeping command and control over that WMD stockpike could not be removed unless there was a 'diplomatic' solution and proper government in place to maintain control and eventual destruction of those weapons.

That's Geneva Convention adherence not some U.S. driven regime change mania. There were and are other good nations involved.

And if you put down the crack pipe for two minutes you would see that we are not living in the land of unicorns and rainbows. Our intentions in the ME have never been admirable and have always centered around controlling natural resources. Your boy is no different, despite what he told you in his campaign promises.

And Assad ain't gone yet. The neocons would have convinced a sympathetic right winger like Romney or McCain to skip the diplomatic (as Deltex here says "weak dick" way) and remove Assad by direct military action and punch Putin in the snout which would give them their much needed 'strong dick' chicken hawk pleasure.

You are a conspiracy theorist Tehon. You express all the symptoms. By the way / biased one sided questioning is the meat and potatoes of every great conspiracy theorist. It's the conclusions that biased questioning achieves that deserve a deep round of all facts and all historical information questioning, but you refuse to go there. It's plain as day. And you keep going back in time and steer clear of recent history. Such as ISIS in retreat in both Syria and Iraq.

Why is it that you can't fathom your own bias? I think I have demonstrated here that I have studied what has been going on quite thoroughly, you just don't like my conclusions. And since you have no real rebuttal to my position you take to your last refuge, derision.
And now we have come full circle. ISIS is in retreat because Putin closed down ISIS supply routes and destroyed their oil infrastructure that allowed them to self fund. Obama's plan was simply containment.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon 13984279

I believe it was Bush’s strategy to use jihadists to undermine what was perceived as a Shia expansion in the form of Iranian influence across the region that was an outcome of the Iraq war. That ISIS is what sprang from that strategy

So did Bush obtain that strategy from the neocons? Or did he break from the neocons on that one?

I think it was the Saudi's plan. The Saudis were pretty pissed at how Bush mangled things in Iraq. I always get a chuckle when I hear conservatives try to blame Obama for weakening our position in the world. For sure it was Bush that destroyed our credibility with our allies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 13985148

. And now we have come full circle. ISIS is in retreat because Putin closed down ISIS supply routes and destroyed their oil infrastructure that allowed them to self fund. Obama's plan was simply containment.

You are showing that you studied nothing when you write ISIS is in retreat because Putin closed down ISIS supply routes and destroyed their oil infrastructure.

I have pointed out the fact that Putin has not contributed one iota to ISIS losing 40 percent of its territorial gains in Iraq. You can't credit Putin for that because of his late to the battle participation in Syria.

I have also pointed out that in Syria ISIS has lost 20 percent of its territorial gains thus far. And I pointed out that 14 percent of that retreat occurred prior to Putin's arrival. So Putin assisted in maybe 1/3 of the 8 percent retreat.

You absolutely and conveniently ignore those facts in your study and conclusion that Putin caused the retreat and that Obama's plan was simply containment.

That conclusion is flawed on several other levels. Obama's plan was always the destruction of ISIS. His only self limitation was that a large number of U.S. ground troops were not going to engage in ground combat with the enemy directly. I commend that decision and agree. The ground combat must be done by local fighters. But you have to realize that in both countries it would take time to build up local fighters that could be effective and more importantly that could permanently hold the territory abandoned by ISIS.

Putin had no hand in that plan.

He came in only after the harder work if Stopping the advance and preparing the local ground forces to to hold recaptured territory.

And since 40 percent of the ISIS retreat in Iraq and 14 % in Syria occurred under Obama's strategy with absolutely no assistance from Putin it is rediculousky absurd to declare a policy that caused the cast majority of the retreat to be 'simple containment'.

How can you not see this fatal flaw in your conclusion?

 

[Tehon]

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.