Stop pretending

[The Rabbi]

The Commander on the battlefield at the time of the decision to leave is responsible................PERIOD.................
Not the one who no longer is in charge...........

All the deflection in the world will not change that....................

And still nothing from you about the Commander's decision to willfully manipulate the citizens of this country. The subject of the OP.

As you dodge the decision of the current CNC to leave Cold Turkey and then blame someone else for that decision..................

I'm pretty sure I already stated in this thread that Obama's decision to continue neocon strategy was a failure. In fact I am on these boards almost daily talking about the failures of our current foreign policies.

"Neocon strategy" was to exit from the region and create a power vacuum?
Fascinating!

 

[eagle1462010]

The Commander on the battlefield at the time of the decision to leave is responsible................PERIOD.................
Not the one who no longer is in charge...........

All the deflection in the world will not change that....................

And still nothing from you about the Commander's decision to willfully manipulate the citizens of this country. The subject of the OP.

As you dodge the decision of the current CNC to leave Cold Turkey and then blame someone else for that decision..................

I'm pretty sure I already stated in this thread that Obama's decision to continue neocon strategy was a failure. In fact I am on these boards almost daily talking about the failures of our current foreign policies.

"Neocon strategy" was to exit from the region and create a power vacuum?
Fascinating!

Seems Obama has been running around the region with a Vacuum Cleaner........................

Missed his calling.

 

[turzovka]

What is happening in the ME today is a direct result of what happened in Iraq in '03.

Yes, great. There is truth to your statement.

But does that mean Obama gets an 'A+' for how he has handled the Middle East in his 7 years? How about an 'F'?

Does that mean that if Bush had not invaded Iraq there would be peace in the Middle East now? There would be no Arab hatred of the Jews? Does it mean Saddam would have died of natural causes and Iraq would have evolved into a peaceful new government? Does it mean the USA would not be somehow greatly effected by all of the battles and hatred still brewing amongst all those "peaceful" Muslims?

Liberals and democrats have never proposed any strategy or solution that would make matters any better and they know it. So instead, they play the eternal coward and keep bringing up the Iraq invasion to excuse their total incompetency since.

The republicans are rather cowardly as well and probably cannot provide a real answer. But being a total coward like Obama and an abettor of Islamic designs and a pox on our military --- none of that is making things better.

 

[Tehon]

The Commander on the battlefield at the time of the decision to leave is responsible................PERIOD.................
Not the one who no longer is in charge...........

All the deflection in the world will not change that....................

And still nothing from you about the Commander's decision to willfully manipulate the citizens of this country. The subject of the OP.

As you dodge the decision of the current CNC to leave Cold Turkey and then blame someone else for that decision..................

I'm pretty sure I already stated in this thread that Obama's decision to continue neocon strategy was a failure. In fact I am on these boards almost daily talking about the failures of our current foreign policies.

"Neocon strategy" was to exit from the region and create a power vacuum?
Fascinating!

After our allies in the region along with the US determined that al-Maliki was not going to play ball a new strategy was devised. The idea of saving Iraq was abandoned and creating chaos as a way to nullify Iranian influence was implemented. You believe it is due to incompetence, I believe it was deliberate.

 

[Tehon]

What is happening in the ME today is a direct result of what happened in Iraq in '03.

Yes, great. There is truth to your statement.

But does that mean Obama gets an 'A+' for how he has handled the Middle East in his 7 years? How about an 'F'?

Does that mean that if Bush had not invaded Iraq there would be peace in the Middle East now? There would be no Arab hatred of the Jews? Does it mean Saddam would have died of natural causes and Iraq would have evolved into a peaceful new government? Does it mean the USA would not be somehow greatly effected by all of the battles and hatred still brewing amongst all those "peaceful" Muslims?

Liberals and democrats have never proposed any strategy or solution that would make matters any better and they know it. So instead, they play the eternal coward and keep bringing up the Iraq invasion to excuse their total incompetency since.

The republicans are rather cowardly as well and probably cannot provide a real answer. But being a total coward like Obama and an abettor of Islamic designs and a pox on our military --- none of that is making things better.

The President of the United States willfully manipulated the people of this nation in an effort to take this country to war expending both blood and treasure. You might think his reasoning was understandable and it is no big deal. I think the people deserve to make that determination based on facts not propaganda and it is criminal.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Commander on the battlefield at the time of the decision to leave is responsible................PERIOD.................
Not the one who no longer is in charge...........

All the deflection in the world will not change that....................

And still nothing from you about the Commander's decision to willfully manipulate the citizens of this country. The subject of the OP.

As you dodge the decision of the current CNC to leave Cold Turkey and then blame someone else for that decision..................

I'm pretty sure I already stated in this thread that Obama's decision to continue neocon strategy was a failure. In fact I am on these boards almost daily talking about the failures of our current foreign policies.

"Neocon strategy" was to exit from the region and create a power vacuum?
Fascinating!

After our allies in the region along with the US determined that al-Maliki was not going to play ball a new strategy was devised. The idea of saving Iraq was abandoned and creating chaos as a way to nullify Iranian influence was implemented. You believe it is due to incompetence, I believe it was deliberate.

If Obama deliberately destablized Iraq to allow Iran to exert hegemony in the region then he is a traitor and foreign agent.

 

[turzovka]

What is happening in the ME today is a direct result of what happened in Iraq in '03.

Yes, great. There is truth to your statement.

But does that mean Obama gets an 'A+' for how he has handled the Middle East in his 7 years? How about an 'F'?

Does that mean that if Bush had not invaded Iraq there would be peace in the Middle East now? There would be no Arab hatred of the Jews? Does it mean Saddam would have died of natural causes and Iraq would have evolved into a peaceful new government? Does it mean the USA would not be somehow greatly effected by all of the battles and hatred still brewing amongst all those "peaceful" Muslims?

Liberals and democrats have never proposed any strategy or solution that would make matters any better and they know it. So instead, they play the eternal coward and keep bringing up the Iraq invasion to excuse their total incompetency since.

The republicans are rather cowardly as well and probably cannot provide a real answer. But being a total coward like Obama and an abettor of Islamic designs and a pox on our military --- none of that is making things better.

The President of the United States willfully manipulated the people of this nation in an effort to take this country to war expending both blood and treasure. You might think his reasoning was understandable and it is no big deal. I think the people deserve to make that determination based on facts not propaganda and it is criminal.

I do not think Bush reasoning was understandable at all. I was dead against the March 2003 invasion, as was the Vatican.

I merely was pointing out that the Middle East is not a constant gigantic tragedy of tears since 1920's and to the present because of the Iraq invasion. It should never have happened, but had it not could any sound mind imagine we would be much better off today anyway, given that region's long history? The Arab spring started in Tunisia, not Iraq. Down went Tunisia, Libya and Egypt and chaos ensued --- all having nothing to do with who was in power in Iraq.

 

[Tehon]

And still nothing from you about the Commander's decision to willfully manipulate the citizens of this country. The subject of the OP.

As you dodge the decision of the current CNC to leave Cold Turkey and then blame someone else for that decision..................

I'm pretty sure I already stated in this thread that Obama's decision to continue neocon strategy was a failure. In fact I am on these boards almost daily talking about the failures of our current foreign policies.

"Neocon strategy" was to exit from the region and create a power vacuum?
Fascinating!

After our allies in the region along with the US determined that al-Maliki was not going to play ball a new strategy was devised. The idea of saving Iraq was abandoned and creating chaos as a way to nullify Iranian influence was implemented. You believe it is due to incompetence, I believe it was deliberate.

If Obama deliberately destablized Iraq to allow Iran to exert hegemony in the region then he is a traitor and foreign agent.

Do you understand what the word nullify means?

 

[Tehon]

What is happening in the ME today is a direct result of what happened in Iraq in '03.

Yes, great. There is truth to your statement.

But does that mean Obama gets an 'A+' for how he has handled the Middle East in his 7 years? How about an 'F'?

Does that mean that if Bush had not invaded Iraq there would be peace in the Middle East now? There would be no Arab hatred of the Jews? Does it mean Saddam would have died of natural causes and Iraq would have evolved into a peaceful new government? Does it mean the USA would not be somehow greatly effected by all of the battles and hatred still brewing amongst all those "peaceful" Muslims?

Liberals and democrats have never proposed any strategy or solution that would make matters any better and they know it. So instead, they play the eternal coward and keep bringing up the Iraq invasion to excuse their total incompetency since.

The republicans are rather cowardly as well and probably cannot provide a real answer. But being a total coward like Obama and an abettor of Islamic designs and a pox on our military --- none of that is making things better.

The President of the United States willfully manipulated the people of this nation in an effort to take this country to war expending both blood and treasure. You might think his reasoning was understandable and it is no big deal. I think the people deserve to make that determination based on facts not propaganda and it is criminal.

I do not think Bush reasoning was understandable at all. I was dead against the March 2003 invasion, as was the Vatican.

I merely was pointing out that the Middle East is not a constant gigantic tragedy of tears since 1920's and to the present because of the Iraq invasion. It should never have happened, but had it not could any sound mind imagine we would be much better off today anyway, given that region's long history? The Arab spring started in Tunisia, not Iraq. Down went Tunisia, Libya and Egypt and chaos ensued --- all having nothing to do with who was in power in Iraq.

The point of this thread was to call attention to new evidence that the POTUS willfully manipulated public opinion. Neither of us has a crystal ball that can see how events would have turned out had we not invaded nor do I intend to entertain those thoughts. What I do know is that the region's history is very much affected by constant foreign involvement. Since the war on terror started the West has ceaselessly exacerbated sectarian divides. "We" would do well to remember that.

 

[turzovka]

The point of this thread was to call attention to new evidence that the POTUS willfully manipulated public opinion. Neither of us has a crystal ball that can see how events would have turned out had we not invaded nor do I intend to entertain those thoughts. What I do know is that the region's history is very much affected by constant foreign involvement. Since the war on terror started the West has ceaselessly exacerbated sectarian divides. "We" would do well to remember that.

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

With everything going on in the world today you want to talk about 14 year old emails? What's next radial tires?

14 year old radial tires that were still not dry rotted, cracked and worn down to the point of not passing an inspection would certainly be an excitement filled thread that the average reader would not be able to put down.

 

[Tehon]

The point of this thread was to call attention to new evidence that the POTUS willfully manipulated public opinion. Neither of us has a crystal ball that can see how events would have turned out had we not invaded nor do I intend to entertain those thoughts. What I do know is that the region's history is very much affected by constant foreign involvement. Since the war on terror started the West has ceaselessly exacerbated sectarian divides. "We" would do well to remember that.

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

You are free to pretend anything you want, you did allude to the Vatican earlier. What do you pretend you are going to do about Islam? Hopefully you understand how the Wahhabi ideology fits into the equation?

My first inclination would be to beseech my government to abandon support for Saudi Arabia until such time as the kingdom aligns itself with Western values relating to human rights. As well we should abandon support for Israel until such time as they address the issue with Palestinians in an honest and humane way. Until then how can we as the "defenders of liberty" be taken seriously?

 

[Two Thumbs]

The memo, if it's real, is classified secret.

which means this is complete bullshit since secret documents take decades to be seen by the public

It says it's been declassified at the top and bottom of every page.

That only makes it more clear that it's fake.


nothing like that would ever be declassified w/o decades passing

 

[Tehon]

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion. Though I'm not entirely sure why the title would single out Bush.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

I personally blame Winston Churchill.

 

[Tehon]

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

I personally blame Winston Churchill.

I know, you have already stated as such. But don't be deterred, your opinion matters.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

I personally blame Winston Churchill.

I know, you have already stated as such. But don't be deterred, your opinion matters.

Of course I dont blame Winston Churchill, who was a genius. But it is funny watching libs try to shift blame for Obama's gross failures in foreign policy to anyone else: Bush, America, the UN, the British, etc.
Every president inherits the situation his predecessor left. His job is to make that situation better, whatever it was. Whining that "Bush screwed things up too much" is an admission of incompetence that Obama lacks the power, competence, and ability to make those things better. That is the point.

 

[Tehon]

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

I personally blame Winston Churchill.

I know, you have already stated as such. But don't be deterred, your opinion matters.

Of course I dont blame Winston Churchill, who was a genius. But it is funny watching libs try to shift blame for Obama's gross failures in foreign policy to anyone else: Bush, America, the UN, the British, etc.
Every president inherits the situation his predecessor left. His job is to make that situation better, whatever it was. Whining that "Bush screwed things up too much" is an admission of incompetence that Obama lacks the power, competence, and ability to make those things better. That is the point.

Your point fails because I am not shifting blame from Obama. Obama is fully responsible for his foreign policy decisions since taking office. Pointing out that they are a continuation of already existing policies does not exonerate him from his decision making and I have been critical of his decisions in the Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq......

I have already submitted this article from 2007. I wish you would take the time to read it. It is an interesting read, especially when you compare what was written in 2007 to the events of today.
The Redirection - The New Yorker
PRINCE BANDAR’S GAME

The Administration’s effort to diminish Iranian authority in the Middle East has relied heavily on Saudi Arabia and on Prince Bandar, the Saudi national-security adviser. Bandar served as the Ambassador to the United States for twenty-two years, until 2005, and has maintained a friendship with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. In his new post, he continues to meet privately with them. Senior White House officials have made several visits to Saudi Arabia recently, some of them not disclosed.

Last November, Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia for a surprise meeting with King Abdullah and Bandar. The Times reported that the King warned Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back its fellow-Sunnis in Iraq if the United States were to withdraw. A European intelligence official told me that the meeting also focussed on more general Saudi fears about “the rise of the Shiites.” In response, “The Saudis are starting to use their leverage—money.”

 

[The Rabbi]

Why don’t you first admit that the greatest problem with all the killings and turmoil in the Middle East year after year is because of Islam and its millions of followers willing to commit violence upon others?

Then we can pretend it’s anything but that.

There are terrorist attacks, far too many to count, that occur across the globe because sects and perverse ideologies are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them. That would include Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, India, most of Europe!, and so on and so on. Let us not try to mitigate the real cause and point to foreign nation influences in the region as the reason Muslims go on a rampage.

I found this article to be timely, interesting and pertinent to this discussion.


America enabled radical Islam: How the CIA, George W. Bush and many others helped create ISIS - Salon.com

It was only with the onset of the First World War in 1914 that this 400-year-old regional paradigm unraveled. When Mehmed V sided with the Germans, Britain was reluctantly excluded from dealing with the caliphate’s catchment of over 15 million Muslims, reasoning that “whoever controlled the person of the Caliph, controlled Sunni Islam.” London decided that an Arab uprising to unseat Mehmed would enable them to reassign the role of caliph to a trusted and more malleable ally: Hussein bin Ali Hussein, the sherif of Mecca and a direct descendant, it is claimed, of the Prophet Muhammad. The British employed racism to garner support for the uprising, appealing to the Arabs’ sense of ownership over Islam, which had originated in Mecca and Medina, not among the Turks of Constantinople. A 1914 British proclamation declared, “There is no nation among the Muslims which is now capable of upholding the Islamic Caliphate except the Arab nation.” A letter was dispatched to Sherif Hussein, fomenting his ambition and suggesting, “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Caliphate at Mecca or Medina” (Medina being the seat of the first caliphate after the death of the Prophet). Again, the British were prepared to defend the caliphate with the sword, promising to “guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression.” It is a strange thought that, just 100 years ago, the prosecutors of today’s War on Terror were promising to restore the Islamic caliphate to the Arab world and defend it militarily.

I personally blame Winston Churchill.

I know, you have already stated as such. But don't be deterred, your opinion matters.

Of course I dont blame Winston Churchill, who was a genius. But it is funny watching libs try to shift blame for Obama's gross failures in foreign policy to anyone else: Bush, America, the UN, the British, etc.
Every president inherits the situation his predecessor left. His job is to make that situation better, whatever it was. Whining that "Bush screwed things up too much" is an admission of incompetence that Obama lacks the power, competence, and ability to make those things better. That is the point.

Your point fails because I am not shifting blame from Obama. Obama is fully responsible for his foreign policy decisions since taking office. Pointing out that they are a continuation of already existing policies does not exonerate him from his decision making and I have been critical of his decisions in the Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq......

I have already submitted this article from 2007. I wish you would take the time to read it. It is an interesting read, especially when you compare what was written in 2007 to the events of today.
The Redirection - The New Yorker
PRINCE BANDAR’S GAME

The Administration’s effort to diminish Iranian authority in the Middle East has relied heavily on Saudi Arabia and on Prince Bandar, the Saudi national-security adviser. Bandar served as the Ambassador to the United States for twenty-two years, until 2005, and has maintained a friendship with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. In his new post, he continues to meet privately with them. Senior White House officials have made several visits to Saudi Arabia recently, some of them not disclosed.

Last November, Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia for a surprise meeting with King Abdullah and Bandar. The Times reported that the King warned Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back its fellow-Sunnis in Iraq if the United States were to withdraw. A European intelligence official told me that the meeting also focussed on more general Saudi fears about “the rise of the Shiites.” In response, “The Saudis are starting to use their leverage—money.”

Good. We agree Obama's is the most failed foreign policy of any president ever. Thanks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The memo, if it's real, is classified secret.

which means this is complete bullshit since secret documents take decades to be seen by the public

It says it's been declassified at the top and bottom of every page.

That only makes it more clear that it's fake.


nothing like that would ever be declassified w/o decades passing

And why's that? Do you have a timeline on the declassification of documents from different US govt agencies to compare this against? Otherwise you're just clutching at straws. Why would a national newspaper in the UK report something like this without being sure of the source? Simply said they wouldn't. The Mail is a right wing paper, they'd not want to promote the left. They were trying to attack the left in the UK.