War Mongering President, War Criminal, Blood On His Hands!

[MisterBeale]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

That's "actually" incorrect. ISIS is a product of the Western Intelligence Agencies, this time around, the Obama Administration takes credit.

The problem is that the Syrian rebels aren’t motivated to fight ISIS; they are rebelling against the Syrian government. They want regime change. This glaring paradox is hardly mentioned in the U.S. media, though The New York Times commented on it briefly:
“…there are bigger questions. The main target of the United States right now is ISIS, but for the mainstream [Syrian] rebel groups, getting rid of Mr. Assad is the main goal. How do you reconcile those competing goals?”

The Times didn’t pretend to answer the impossible question, and Democrats and Republicans never bother asking. Obama understands perfectly well — as does Congress — that regime change in Syria is the expected outcome of funding the rebels; the ISIS beheadings were a convenient excuse.

There is a remarkable bait and switch happening in U.S. politics: Assad is the big fish that Obama wants hooked and he’s using ISIS to bait the American public. The U.S. president has superbly exploited American’s disgust of ISIS to deepen a war against the Syrian government, the scope and implications of which are completely unspoken.

Bush used a similar logic in Iraq when he “fought terrorism” by instead toppling the secular Iraqi government. And the deceit goes unchallenged in Syria because all of Congress is on board, dragging behind them the boot-licking media. . .

. . . .
But these simple truths are considered taboo in the war-hungry Congress. Most Americans still don’t know that Obama has coordinated the proxy war against the Syrian government since at least 2012. By doing this Obama and his regional allies have artificially lengthened the Syrian war, directly contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of people while giving rise to the Islamic extremist Syrian opposition fighters.

The U.S. media lets out the occasional burp of truth about this, such as The New York Times quick mention that “In April 2013, Mr. Obama authorized the C.I.A. to begin a secret mission to train Syrian rebels in Jordan. The total number trained so far is between 2,000 and 3,000.”

These truths and other events in the region have been systematically hidden from the public in a scheme that makes President Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal look tame. Obama’s “Contras” are the Syrian rebels, whom he has been covertly funding, arming, and training while telling the public little if anything about it.

If the elites in the US hadn't been so hell bent on the plan for the "Project for a New Middle East", this would have never happened. Google it. This has been in the cards for over a decade. This is bigger than any one administration.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

That's "actually" incorrect. ISIS is a product of the Western Intelligence Agencies, this time around, the Obama Administration takes credit.

The problem is that the Syrian rebels aren’t motivated to fight ISIS; they are rebelling against the Syrian government. They want regime change. This glaring paradox is hardly mentioned in the U.S. media, though The New York Times commented on it briefly:
“…there are bigger questions. The main target of the United States right now is ISIS, but for the mainstream [Syrian] rebel groups, getting rid of Mr. Assad is the main goal. How do you reconcile those competing goals?”

The Times didn’t pretend to answer the impossible question, and Democrats and Republicans never bother asking. Obama understands perfectly well — as does Congress — that regime change in Syria is the expected outcome of funding the rebels; the ISIS beheadings were a convenient excuse.

There is a remarkable bait and switch happening in U.S. politics: Assad is the big fish that Obama wants hooked and he’s using ISIS to bait the American public. The U.S. president has superbly exploited American’s disgust of ISIS to deepen a war against the Syrian government, the scope and implications of which are completely unspoken.

Bush used a similar logic in Iraq when he “fought terrorism” by instead toppling the secular Iraqi government. And the deceit goes unchallenged in Syria because all of Congress is on board, dragging behind them the boot-licking media. . .

. . . .
But these simple truths are considered taboo in the war-hungry Congress. Most Americans still don’t know that Obama has coordinated the proxy war against the Syrian government since at least 2012. By doing this Obama and his regional allies have artificially lengthened the Syrian war, directly contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of people while giving rise to the Islamic extremist Syrian opposition fighters.

The U.S. media lets out the occasional burp of truth about this, such as The New York Times quick mention that “In April 2013, Mr. Obama authorized the C.I.A. to begin a secret mission to train Syrian rebels in Jordan. The total number trained so far is between 2,000 and 3,000.”

These truths and other events in the region have been systematically hidden from the public in a scheme that makes President Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal look tame. Obama’s “Contras” are the Syrian rebels, whom he has been covertly funding, arming, and training while telling the public little if anything about it.

If the elites in the US hadn't been so hell bent on the plan for the "Project for a New Middle East", this would have never happened. Google it. This has been in the cards for over a decade. This is bigger than any one administration.

usaid has been there for a long time and spent a fortune

in the area on "the project"

 

[MisterBeale]

That's why this partisan bickering drives me nuts. No independent thinking. Just parroting of CFR, Annenberg elite, and news wire paradigm.

 

[BillyP]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

Now he's sending 3,000 troops to fight Ebola.... Is he going to call it ebosil

As he should send troops. Ebola is Obama's fault, everyone knows that!

 

[paulitician]

Get out of the Middle East. Americans have enough problems here at home. They're enduring a rapidly expanding Police State and an Illegal Invasion on their border. Let the Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, or whatever, have the Middle East. It always belonged to them anyway. We don't belong there. Time to come home.

 

[paulitician]

Putting all Political arguments aside for a moment, the President should consider returning his Nobel Peace Prize. It wasn't justly awarded. I'm sure even he knows that.

 

[MisterBeale]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

That's "actually" incorrect. ISIS is a product of the Western Intelligence Agencies, this time around, the Obama Administration takes credit.
8220 Progressive Democrats 8221 Follow Obama to War in Syria Global Research

The problem is that the Syrian rebels aren’t motivated to fight ISIS; they are rebelling against the Syrian government. They want regime change. This glaring paradox is hardly mentioned in the U.S. media, though The New York Times commented on it briefly:
“…there are bigger questions. The main target of the United States right now is ISIS, but for the mainstream [Syrian] rebel groups, getting rid of Mr. Assad is the main goal. How do you reconcile those competing goals?”

The Times didn’t pretend to answer the impossible question, and Democrats and Republicans never bother asking. Obama understands perfectly well — as does Congress — that regime change in Syria is the expected outcome of funding the rebels; the ISIS beheadings were a convenient excuse.

There is a remarkable bait and switch happening in U.S. politics: Assad is the big fish that Obama wants hooked and he’s using ISIS to bait the American public. The U.S. president has superbly exploited American’s disgust of ISIS to deepen a war against the Syrian government, the scope and implications of which are completely unspoken.

Bush used a similar logic in Iraq when he “fought terrorism” by instead toppling the secular Iraqi government. And the deceit goes unchallenged in Syria because all of Congress is on board, dragging behind them the boot-licking media. . .

. . . .
But these simple truths are considered taboo in the war-hungry Congress. Most Americans still don’t know that Obama has coordinated the proxy war against the Syrian government since at least 2012. By doing this Obama and his regional allies have artificially lengthened the Syrian war, directly contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of people while giving rise to the Islamic extremist Syrian opposition fighters.

The U.S. media lets out the occasional burp of truth about this, such as The New York Times quick mention that “In April 2013, Mr. Obama authorized the C.I.A. to begin a secret mission to train Syrian rebels in Jordan. The total number trained so far is between 2,000 and 3,000.”

These truths and other events in the region have been systematically hidden from the public in a scheme that makes President Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal look tame. Obama’s “Contras” are the Syrian rebels, whom he has been covertly funding, arming, and training while telling the public little if anything about it.

If the elites in the US hadn't been so hell bent on the plan for the "Project for a New Middle East", this would have never happened. Google it. This has been in the cards for over a decade. This is bigger than any one administration.

usaid has been there for a long time and spent a fortune

in the area on "the project"

This Bud's for you Jon.

Photo of ISIS leader is USAID tent
Photo of ISIS leader is USAID tent

ISIS Commander Muhajireen Kavkaz wa Sham standing in a tent marked USAID. ISIS has directly benefit from US aid to Sunni Jihadists in Syria.

Obama has requested another $500 million in aid for Sunni Jihadists in Syria. These US funded Jihadists are engaged in violence in neighboring Lebanon and Iraq. They are also threatening violence in Jordan and Israel. Obama claims the US must fund new Jihadists to counter the power and influence of existing Jihadists.

Left-wing Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham endorsed the proposal by Obama and predicted it will pass the US Senate Armed Forces Committee with bipartisan support.

Such fresh looking fatigues and a shiny new weapon he has there. Wondering where he got that. . . .

 

[jon_berzerk]

Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama has blood on his hands.

You mean the Nobel Peace Prize winner? That Obama?

Actually, ISIS is a product of that douchesack Assad not being able to control his country. That and the fact that Iraqis are a total waste of skin for not defending their own country and just running away.

That's "actually" incorrect. ISIS is a product of the Western Intelligence Agencies, this time around, the Obama Administration takes credit.
8220 Progressive Democrats 8221 Follow Obama to War in Syria Global Research

The problem is that the Syrian rebels aren’t motivated to fight ISIS; they are rebelling against the Syrian government. They want regime change. This glaring paradox is hardly mentioned in the U.S. media, though The New York Times commented on it briefly:
“…there are bigger questions. The main target of the United States right now is ISIS, but for the mainstream [Syrian] rebel groups, getting rid of Mr. Assad is the main goal. How do you reconcile those competing goals?”

The Times didn’t pretend to answer the impossible question, and Democrats and Republicans never bother asking. Obama understands perfectly well — as does Congress — that regime change in Syria is the expected outcome of funding the rebels; the ISIS beheadings were a convenient excuse.

There is a remarkable bait and switch happening in U.S. politics: Assad is the big fish that Obama wants hooked and he’s using ISIS to bait the American public. The U.S. president has superbly exploited American’s disgust of ISIS to deepen a war against the Syrian government, the scope and implications of which are completely unspoken.

Bush used a similar logic in Iraq when he “fought terrorism” by instead toppling the secular Iraqi government. And the deceit goes unchallenged in Syria because all of Congress is on board, dragging behind them the boot-licking media. . .

. . . .
But these simple truths are considered taboo in the war-hungry Congress. Most Americans still don’t know that Obama has coordinated the proxy war against the Syrian government since at least 2012. By doing this Obama and his regional allies have artificially lengthened the Syrian war, directly contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of people while giving rise to the Islamic extremist Syrian opposition fighters.

The U.S. media lets out the occasional burp of truth about this, such as The New York Times quick mention that “In April 2013, Mr. Obama authorized the C.I.A. to begin a secret mission to train Syrian rebels in Jordan. The total number trained so far is between 2,000 and 3,000.”

These truths and other events in the region have been systematically hidden from the public in a scheme that makes President Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal look tame. Obama’s “Contras” are the Syrian rebels, whom he has been covertly funding, arming, and training while telling the public little if anything about it.

If the elites in the US hadn't been so hell bent on the plan for the "Project for a New Middle East", this would have never happened. Google it. This has been in the cards for over a decade. This is bigger than any one administration.

usaid has been there for a long time and spent a fortune

in the area on "the project"

This Bud's for you Jon.

Photo of ISIS leader is USAID tent
Photo of ISIS leader is USAID tent

ISIS Commander Muhajireen Kavkaz wa Sham standing in a tent marked USAID. ISIS has directly benefit from US aid to Sunni Jihadists in Syria.

Obama has requested another $500 million in aid for Sunni Jihadists in Syria. These US funded Jihadists are engaged in violence in neighboring Lebanon and Iraq. They are also threatening violence in Jordan and Israel. Obama claims the US must fund new Jihadists to counter the power and influence of existing Jihadists.

Left-wing Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham endorsed the proposal by Obama and predicted it will pass the US Senate Armed Forces Committee with bipartisan support.

Such fresh looking fatigues and a shiny new weapon he has there. Wondering where he got that. . . .

i wonder how many people would be surprised to learn that

 

[MisterBeale]

Most won't even notice it. If an alien were sitting in your back yard, would you notice it? Could I notice it? It would be difficult.

I find people tend to ignore information that conflicts with the dominant paradigm and the misinformation of the MSM. If it conflicts with the world view that has been constructed and been repeated over and over? Freeing your mind takes practice and work. Most don't want to work. Being passive is easier. It is far easier to throw out the information than re-examine the entire premises upon which we base our assumptions. If our expectations are one thing and a person is absolutely certain that the world works in a certain way, but incontrovertible evidence reveals that it is something different, some folks CANNOT, and will not accept it.

This is why folks committed suicide when the economy was wiped out in the great depression. Hope that things would get better, or that there was any thing else to life did not exist in their minds. It is why a lot of folks will also do the same when they realize, no, when PROOF comes to light, that there is no difference between an Obama type Regime or a Romney type Regime. It makes no difference if someone like Pelosi is in charge or if some like Boehner is sitting in charge of congress. If they were to actually stand up for the people, they would be out on their ass in a NY minute. Or else they would never get there in the first place.

Voting between to representatives of the corporations still isn't much of a choice. It is after all a one party system. I remember when I was twelve my father telling me that they could vote in the Soviet Union. Big deal. Would you bother to vote in the Soviet Union? I sure as hell wouldn't. Yet after electoral season they beat over our head, it is a civic duty to vote for your favorite corporate representative. What's the point? So you can have blood on your hands? So YOU TOO can legitimize the bloodshed?

"War Mongering President, War Criminal, Blood On His Hands!"

No, I say, if you play with rattle snakes, you should expect to get bit and poisoned. I didn't vote for Romney. Why? Because I knew he wanted to invade Iran. I said so during the campaign. I'm not going through all my posts to find it. But I also said, there is no way that I am voting for Obama, because I KNEW his plan was to invade Syria. I KNEW that was his agenda. They both wanted to work on the plan for a Greater Middle East. . . . Just, in different ways.

So I say, anyone who voted for Obama and DIDN'T know that was what he was going to do? THOSE DEATHS ARE ON YOUR HANDS. THAT BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS. YOU ARE THE WAR CRIMINAL