Obama's Foreign Policy

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Oh please, this is the wrong forum to spout off ignorance and you will always be called out for it.

 

 

 

I know, I've been calling out your ignorance for months on this subject and you still come back for more. You should get the hint by now.

 

 

There is precious irony that you expect a concrete solution in a thread titled "Obama's Foreign Policy" when everyone is telling you that Obama's "foreign policy" is probably the main reason for the humanitarian disaster that's going on in Mid East. There's no easy solution to what's transpired there in the last 13 years, but it's also clear that Obama & Team have made the situation much worse and have boxed themselves in.

 

Is the US involved with some unsavory characters? Yes. But is the US support going to ISIS/AQ? Tangentially, probably. Directly, absolutely not.

 

 

Absolutely not? You know that for a fact? Prove it.

 

Have you talked with troops on the ground or intelligence operatives who've served there? I have. They'd laugh in your face at this assertion.

 

In your quest for the conspiracy that US is doing all of these things to install martial law here is asinine on surface, and doubly worse in the way they are going about it if that were the case.

 

 

Again, if you want to have a real discussion with me, you have to stop inventing my positions and then arguing them as if I really said it.

That's not my position. It has never been my position.

 

But again, since you've got nothing on this topic all you can do is lash out with misconceptions about my position that actually reveal more about your jingoism. I get it, America good, everyone else bad. We are never in the wrong as a country.

 

Did I get that right this time?

 

 

The harsh reality is that Obama finally got a cold slap in the face that a hands-off approach to Mid East is a much more dangerous approach than active involvement. Too bad he got that lesson a bit too late.

 

All I've done is question poor strategy decisions -- and every time I do you don't say this, you say something about me being in support of Assad and Putin. Which is it? Can you make up your mind please? Is it fair to critique our decisions or is that only something commies do?

 

Because both are kind of pointless to bring up since they're avoiding the actual meat of the discussion which is what are we actually doing in Syria and the War on Terror in general... Presidents don't set policy. And you know it. So we can talk about what Obama or W wanted to do vs what they really did, or we can talk about reality.

 

But I get it, you only got two bullets in your armory: inventing positions you think I hold and whataboutisms.

 

 

 

 

Here's a question for you. Do you think that US and Western societies would be safer if they simply withdrew military engagement from Mid East, as you propose?

 

 

I have never proposed we withdraw entirely from the ME.

 

Again, try understanding what someone is saying before you question it. You'll have a better success rate.

 

 

 

Utter baloney. In nearly every post you equate US involvement as direct aid to ISIS/AQ.

 

In every post about US support of ISIS and AQ in Syria, yes. I do. Because we're funding, training, and sharing intelligence with ISIS and Al Qaeda because they're our proxy army to kill Russians and Syrians. This isn't a conspiracy nor a secret. It's been covered in plenty of reputable sources and discussed in many public forums. We, the American people, are kept in the dark about it because our media isn't going to muddle the war on terror conversation by bringing up this point because they're working in lockstep with the administration. That's horrific and part of the outrage.

 

But I don't bring this up in nearly every post. Again, you would be so much better at this if you stuck to what people actually said rather than invent your own conversation.

While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man.

 

But I'm the jingoistic one.

 

What industry is that?

[GG]

 

I know, I've been calling out your ignorance for months on this subject and you still come back for more. You should get the hint by now.

 

 

 

Absolutely not? You know that for a fact? Prove it.

 

Have you talked with troops on the ground or intelligence operatives who've served there? I have. They'd laugh in your face at this assertion.

 

 

Again, if you want to have a real discussion with me, you have to stop inventing my positions and then arguing them as if I really said it.

That's not my position. It has never been my position.

 

But again, since you've got nothing on this topic all you can do is lash out with misconceptions about my position that actually reveal more about your jingoism. I get it, America good, everyone else bad. We are never in the wrong as a country.

 

Did I get that right this time?

 

 

All I've done is question poor strategy decisions -- and every time I do you don't say this, you say something about me being in support of Assad and Putin. Which is it? Can you make up your mind please? Is it fair to critique our decisions or is that only something commies do?

 

Because both are kind of pointless to bring up since they're avoiding the actual meat of the discussion which is what are we actually doing in Syria and the War on Terror in general... Presidents don't set policy. And you know it. So we can talk about what Obama or W wanted to do vs what they really did, or we can talk about reality.

 

But I get it, you only got two bullets in your armory: inventing positions you think I hold and whataboutisms.

 

 

 

I have never proposed we withdraw entirely from the ME.

 

Again, try understanding what someone is saying before you question it. You'll have a better success rate.

 

 

In every post about US support of ISIS and AQ in Syria, yes. I do. Because we're funding, training, and sharing intelligence with ISIS and Al Qaeda because they're our proxy army to kill Russians and Syrians. This isn't a conspiracy nor a secret. It's been covered in plenty of reputable sources and discussed in many public forums. We, the American people, are kept in the dark about it because our media isn't going to muddle the war on terror conversation by bringing up this point because they're working in lockstep with the administration. That's horrific and part of the outrage.

 

But I don't bring this up in nearly every post. Again, you would be so much better at this if you stuck to what people actually said rather than invent your own conversation.

 

What industry is that?

 

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at the response.

 

You've been given plenty of opportunities to voice your true opinion, but you don't and instead complain that your views are misrepresented, despite your overwhelming posting history that favors - conspiracy theories, incomplete facts, biased news sources and scaremongering of the "new normal." That is you, right Greggy?

 

If you don't want people putting words in your mouth, maybe it would help if you actually laid out your position, instead of being a mouthpiece for TR News or the Intercept. Funny how you rush in immediately with a post about allied forces hitting Syrian government forces in a war zone, but are always silent when Assad & Russians bomb aid convoys & hospitals.

 

Here's another question. Would the flow of Syrian refugees increase or decrease if the US and West just pulled out of Syria?

 

Exactly how does the US involvement in Syria help Chevron & Exxon? You've mentioned it many times, so please provide detailed analysis of the return on investment for the Pentagon and to these oil companies. Why is Syria more important and profitable for them than increasing oil exploration and production on US soil and its territorial waters? This should be a very easy answer.

 

Does this count for a legit news source in your view:

 

Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, is destroying his country to cling to power. And Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, is exporting the scorched-earth methods that he once used to terrify the Chechen capital, Grozny, into submission. Such savagery will not halt jihadism, but stoke it. And American inaction makes it all worse. The agony of Syria is the biggest moral stain on Barack Obama’s presidency. And the chaos rippling from Syria—where many now turn to al-Qaeda, not the West, for salvation—is his greatest geopolitical failure.

 

 

Yet, i'm the jingoistic one, despite being consistent in my views that Obama's foreign policy is largely responsible for the mess that the world is in.

 

I'm also not running away from the main tenet of neoconservatism - that an active US engagement in world affairs is a net positive for the world. I'n not delusional to think that the policy is all roses and sunshine and that US won't be in bed with unsavory characters. But the alternative is much worse, and you're witnessing it.

 

Speaking of jingoism, look at what neocons said over the last three decades - radical Islam and Soviet Empire pose the greatest threats to western civilization. Wow, what a radical thought. So little thinkers like you cling on the Iraq invasion as the repudiation of that theory, when it actually proves it. The mistake of the invasion was to abandon it too soon once we went in. What's happening in the Arab crescent was bound to happen eventually, even if the US didn't set foot in Iraq in '91 or '03.

[Magox]

I've tried saying this, you cannot have a discussion with a quasi conspiracy theorist vs someone who uses sourced news. The discussion takes place on two separate planes.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at the response.

 

You've been given plenty of opportunities to voice your true opinion, but you don't and instead complain that your views are misrepresented, despite your overwhelming posting history that favors - conspiracy theories, incomplete facts, biased news sources and scaremongering of the "new normal." That is you, right Greggy?

 

If you don't want people putting words in your mouth, maybe it would help if you actually laid out your position, instead of being a mouthpiece for TR News or the Intercept. Funny how you rush in immediately with a post about allied forces hitting Syrian government forces in a war zone, but are always silent when Assad & Russians bomb aid convoys & hospitals.

 

We've covered this. The difference is I funded one attack and not the other. One attack was done by my government, which committed a war crime by bombing troops of a sovereign nation so ISIS fighters could retake a foothold they had lost while shredding the cease fire keeping Assad in power, and the other was done by Putin.

 

One is not like the other. See the difference?

 

Of course you do because you're smart. You're just desperate to change the narrative here because you're getting your ass handed to you.

 

The top of your statement is absurd. I'm aware of my positions, and think they're quite clear, but I don't care if they're clear or not. I do care when one poster constantly goes out of his way to twist and misinterpret my remarks to make his own arguments seem valid and on point -- but I only care because you're too smart of a poster to have to constantly resort to such nonsense.

 

I find that hilariously deceitful and call you out on it. There's a difference between that and caring what people think of my take. Say what you will about my opinions, just make sure you're actually saying things about my opinions and not inventions that you create to better fit your rebuttal.

 

So, let's get it all out on the table. Since you presume to know my positions so well, please give me a paragraph summing up my take on the current geopolitical state of the world. This will be fun. I'll wait:

 

 

Here's another question. Would the flow of Syrian refugees increase or decrease if the US and West just pulled out of Syria?

 

I love when you ask questions without ever responding to questions asked your way. It's so wonderful and something you do almost as often as make stuff up.

 

Exactly how does the US involvement in Syria help Chevron & Exxon? You've mentioned it many times, so please provide detailed analysis of the return on investment for the Pentagon and to these oil companies. Why is Syria more important and profitable for them than increasing oil exploration and production on US soil and its territorial waters? This should be a very easy answer.

 

I've answered this already.

 

You have yet to answer what you think our mission should be in Syria, including an endgame for when we remove Assad from power. So, I'll wait for that answer, and just saying you disagree with Obama isn't an answer. I want to know what you think we should be doing in Syria.

 

Does this count for a legit news source in your view:

 

Certainly, the Economist is a legit news source. It's also incredibly slanted and not objective -- like nearly every mainstream media outlet these days.

 

Yet, i'm the jingoistic one, despite being consistent in my views that Obama's foreign policy is largely responsible for the mess that the world is in.

 

I'm also not running away from the main tenet of neoconservatism - that an active US engagement in world affairs is a net positive for the world. I'n not delusional to think that the policy is all roses and sunshine and that US won't be in bed with unsavory characters. But the alternative is much worse, and you're witnessing it.

 

No, we're witnessing the aftermath of the neocon agenda in the ME. Try again.

 

And yes, you are incredibly jingoistic. It's amazing because you're far too smart to be duped this much. You cannot get a positive from a negative. And working with monsters to replace bad guys has been a proven failure not just in recent history, but in all of history.

 

But let's go back to the real issue you raised:

 

"While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man.

But I'm the jingoistic one."

Which industry is that again?

 

I've tried saying this, you cannot have a discussion with a quasi conspiracy theorist vs someone who uses sourced news. The discussion takes place on two separate planes.

 

I've used plenty of sourced stories to make the case that we are doing more harm than good in Syria. The only way you can deny what I'm saying is to either take GG's track which is to make up what I'm saying and try to spin it to something else, or to live with your head buried in the sand.

 

We're in Syria without a mission. That's a fact.

 

We're supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria to be our proxies against Russian and Assad forces. That's a fact.

 

The US media doesn't cover the second point because it would confuse the US gov't's narrative on ISIS and the war on terror -- and rather than hold the government accountable as the 4th estate is supposed to do, they've co-opted the false narrative to support the administration. That's a fact.

 

The US committed a war crime in Syria designed to aide ISIS, shred the cease fire and could have easily sparked a shooting war with Russia -- yet this topic was barely covered by the western media and wasn't brought up in the debate at all. That's also a fact.

 

The real saying is, never try to wake a jingoistic neocon. They're much more comfortable when they're asleep.

[GG]

 

 

I've answered this already.

 

 

 

I'll address the other points another time.

 

Where have you answered it, other than saying "pipelines" ???

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I'll address the other points another time.

 

Where have you answered it, other than saying "pipelines" ???

 

[Magox]

 

 

 

I've used plenty of sourced stories to make the case that we are doing more harm than good in Syria. This I don't believe is what the argument is about. Sure, it's not too far of a stretch to make a case that the involvement that has taken place in Syria has not been productive.

 

The only way you can deny what I'm saying is to either take GG's track which is to make up what I'm saying and try to spin it to something else, or to live with your head buried in the sand.

 

We're in Syria without a mission. That's a fact.

 

We're supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria to be our proxies against Russian and Assad forces. That's a fact. No, that is not a fact. Again, you have issues using this term, a fact is something that is indisputable. What you are saying is your opinion based off of some flimsy wild-eyed data points that somehow you are connecting to your theory. A fact would be a provable data point that indisputably makes your case from an accepted source. Show me the indisputable data that shows that we are purposely supporting ISIS to be our proxies vs. Russia and Assad.

 

The US media doesn't cover the second point because it would confuse the US gov't's narrative on ISIS and the war on terror -- and rather than hold the government accountable as the 4th estate is supposed to do, they've co-opted the false narrative to support the administration. That's a fact.

 

Again, misuse of the word fact. Just so you know, whenever you say fact, no offense greg, but it doesn't have much meaning because you throw the term out there so loosely that it holds little meaning. Show me your indisputable proof that the entire US media is in on the US purposely using ISIS and AL Qaeda as allies on the war against Russia and Assad.

 

The US committed a war crime in Syria designed to aide ISIS, shred the cease fire and could have easily sparked a shooting war with Russia -- yet this topic was barely covered by the western media and wasn't brought up in the debate at all. That's also a fact.

 

So the US purposely committed a war crime to aide ISIS so that we could be at war with Russia? That is news to me, can you please show me your indisputable proof that this occurred?

 

 

Just play along with me, please provide your indisputable bits of proof for each of the things that I addressed. Please do that for me, I will give it a fair review, I give you my word.

 

 

[ALF]

Here is one take about about oil price and Syria

 

According to Rashid Abanmy, President of the Riyadh-based Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center, the dramatic price collapse is being deliberately caused by the Saudis, OPEC’s largest producer.

The public reason claimed is to gain new markets in a global market of weakening oil demand. The real reason, according to Abanmy, is to put pressure on Iran on her nuclear program, and on Russia to end her support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

When combined with the financial losses of Russian state natural gas sales to Ukraine and prospects of a US-instigated cutoff of the transit of Russian gas to the huge EU market this winter as EU stockpiles become low, the pressure on oil prices hits Moscow doubly.

More than 50% of Russian state revenue comes from its export sales of oil and gas.

The US-Saudi oil price manipulation is aimed at destabilizing several strong opponents of US globalist policies. Targets include Iran and Syria, both allies of Russia in opposing a US sole Superpower. The principal target, however, is Putin’s Russia, the single greatest threat today to that Superpower hegemony.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130

[Doc]

 

Here is one take about about oil price and Syria

 

According to Rashid Abanmy, President of the Riyadh-based Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center, the dramatic price collapse is being deliberately caused by the Saudis, OPEC’s largest producer.

The public reason claimed is to gain new markets in a global market of weakening oil demand. The real reason, according to Abanmy, is to put pressure on Iran on her nuclear program, and on Russia to end her support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

When combined with the financial losses of Russian state natural gas sales to Ukraine and prospects of a US-instigated cutoff of the transit of Russian gas to the huge EU market this winter as EU stockpiles become low, the pressure on oil prices hits Moscow doubly.

More than 50% of Russian state revenue comes from its export sales of oil and gas.

The US-Saudi oil price manipulation is aimed at destabilizing several strong opponents of US globalist policies. Targets include Iran and Syria, both allies of Russia in opposing a US sole Superpower. The principal target, however, is Putin’s Russia, the single greatest threat today to that Superpower hegemony.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130

 

I was going to say that this is old news. And the article mentions a previous article from 2 years ago.

[GG]

 

 

Yes, I saw this as your answer before. Now, Mr. Trump show me the analysis behind the smiley.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

1) No, that is not a fact. Again, you have issues using this term, a fact is something that is indisputable. What you are saying is your opinion based off of some flimsy wild-eyed data points that somehow you are connecting to your theory. A fact would be a provable data point that indisputably makes your case from an accepted source. Show me the indisputable data that shows that we are purposely supporting ISIS to be our proxies vs. Russia and Assad.

 

2) Again, misuse of the word fact. Just so you know, whenever you say fact, no offense greg, but it doesn't have much meaning because you throw the term out there so loosely that it holds little meaning. Show me your indisputable proof that the entire US media is in on the US purposely using ISIS and AL Qaeda as allies on the war against Russia and Assad.

 

3) So the US purposely committed a war crime to aide ISIS so that we could be at war with Russia? That is news to me, can you please show me your indisputable proof that this occurred?

 

1) It is a fact:

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092#.ihfba8df0

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training-syrian-rebels-jordan

 

Many, many, MANY more sources can be found making this link.

 

2) You shouldn't take any anonymous person's word on the internet as fact, so I'm not sure how I could interpret that as a slight against me. I don't know you. You don't know me. You should always check the sources. Fortunately in this case there are plenty to find. But...

 

Your last sentence isn't the point I'm making, it's a new point you're trying to argue. Stop taking pages from GG's book and stick to the conversation at hand. I said the reason the western media doesn't bring this topic up is because it muddles the administration's narrative on ISIS. That's not the same as what your second point is asking me to argue.

 

After all, wouldn't it look pretty bad if it were more common knowledge that we're funding, arming, and supporting ISIS in one place while using them as the boogeyman to scare people into giving up constitutional protections everywhere else? It would make it harder for the average American to sit quietly as they continue to have their rights stripped away in the name of totalitarianism and fascism the War on Terror.

 

And if you doubt the media's compliance, you're not watching this election cycle close enough.

 

3) The US absolutely deliberately bombed Syrian troops, which under any definition is an act of war and a war crime:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/world/middleeast/us-airstrike-syrian-troops-isis-russia.html?_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/18/did-the-u-s-just-slaughter-syrian-troops.html

 

But again, like GG, you're making a conclusion I did not. I didn't say they did this to start a war with Russia, I said war with Russia was one possible outcome of such an action. This was said while questioning the cost-benefit analysis of such a move.

 

There was a cease fire in place, the only thing keeping Assad in power. The US has said the bombing was an accident -- which is a lie as can be deduced just from basic logic. It was a 4 hour sustained bombing campaign, in a location JSOC knows like the back of their surveillance drones and had been housing Syrian troops and Russian intelligence operators for months.

 

It wasn't an accident, it was deliberate. So, since it was deliberate, what was the best case scenario for such an act?

 

I'd say the best case scenario is what happened: they killed a bunch of Assad's forces, shredded the cease fire, helped ISIS fighters (again, no mistaking who they are) retake a foothold they had lost in the city and got away with it.

 

What's the worst case scenario for that action? A shooting war with Russia.

 

Now, who on Earth could argue that risk was worth it? Especially when not even GG can articulate what the US is doing in Syria and why it needs ISIS and Al Qaeda's help to force a regime change in yet another country in the ME...

 

But again, if you want to have your own conversation where you invent what I'm saying you're welcome to it.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[B-Man]

John Kerry made the threat last week, and is reportedly following through:

 

 

AP Politics

✔ @AP_Politics

BREAKING: State Department: US suspends bilateral contacts with Russia over Syria.

1:29 PM - 3 Oct 2016

 

At this point, I'm unsure of what snarky remark even fits.

 

What do you guys think ?

 

A) "the 80's called"

 

B) The "Reset Button"

 

C) Putin riding a bear

 

D) The "silent treatment"...really ?

 

E) 'leading' from behind

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Yes, I saw this as your answer before. Now, Mr. Trump show me the analysis behind the smiley.

 

Funny, you're continuing not to answer my questions which I've politely asked many, many, many times and yet you're demanding I answer something I've answered several times in several threads. Wonder why that is...

 

I'm telling you, when you finally do wake up, it's really going to hurt. But I'll be there with drinks to help you recover.

[GG]

 

Funny, you're continuing not to answer my questions which I've politely asked many, many, many times and yet you're demanding I answer something I've answered several times in several threads. Wonder why that is...

 

I'm telling you, when you finally do wake up, it's really going to hurt. But I'll be there with drinks to help you recover.

 

If you answered the question, it would be very easy for you to provide a link to that answer, right? Saying, Chevron, Exxon, pipelines is not an answer.

 

And what questions are you asking? That Obama's administration completely screwed up its Middle East policy that now it has very few palatable exits and whoever sits in the White House will inherit a far bigger mess than what he came in with?

 

Here's a quick summary for you:

 

All he had to do was maintain the same troop levels in Iraq and that would have stopped ISIS and AQ rebuild.

He destroyed US credibility by throwing out an ultimatum that he had no intention of inforcing

He tossed Mubarak aside and had no contingency for the Muslim Brotherhood aftermath

He stood on the sidelines of a Qaddafi coup and in the ensuing vacuum allowed Islamists to dominate

The reality is that the humanitarian crisis which was totally avoidable is creating a refugee crisis that's also endangering the West.

 

So now, with few realistic options to regain any semblance of credibility for the US after Putin moved his forces into the area, Obama is sending covert ops into the region, and you taking me to task for not questioning Obama's foreign policy? And all of that is somehow the fault of neocons, who haven't had the Presidential ear since 2005?

 

Either you are delusional or are trolling for your next screen play.

[Doc]

John Kerry made the threat last week, and is reportedly following through:

 

 

At this point, I'm unsure of what snarky remark even fits.

 

What do you guys think ?

 

A) "the 80's called"

 

B) The "Reset Button"

 

C) Putin riding a bear

 

D) The "silent treatment"...really ?

 

E) 'leading' from behind

 

F) Taking it up the behind

[Magox]

 

1) It is a fact:

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092#.ihfba8df0

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training-syrian-rebels-jordan

 

Many, many, MANY more sources can be found making this link.

 

 

 

 

There is a lot to deconstruct here. So let's just address one at a time.

 

The first link you provided, http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html Doesn't in any shape or form back up your assertion. The closest parallel you can make is that there are US funded groups that are fighting each other. No where does it even come close to showing that the US is purposely or for that matter inadvertently backing ISIS as a proxy against Russia or Assad.

 

All that link showed was that there are separate groups that have a common enemy vs Assad but at the same time have their own self-interests and will battle against anyone they believe will get in the way of their own objectives. So the first link, is a big whiff.

 

The second link https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

 

Essentially the same thing. All this article says is that the British government helped fund the Free Syrian Army and that they tried to prosecute this guy for some form of terrorism and that the prosecution decided to not go with their case because this guy was part of the Free Syrian Army. If you think this equates proof that the US or British government are actively engaging in a proxy war along with ISIS then I don't know what to tell you.

 

So far, you are 0 for 2.

 

For your third link http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

 

All this shows is that there are forces at odds with one another that have common enemies. That's all, nothing else. No wild-eyed conspiracy of the US using ISIS or Al qaeda as a proxy to fight Assad or Russia.

 

The only mention of Proxy in this link, is proxy via Russia, Iran and China, not the US supporting Al Qaeda or ISIS. The closes thing that you have is that the US is supporting the "opposition forces". Duh!!!

 

So far, 0 for 3

 

The fourth link https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092#.qty64xcha

 

Basically, the whole case from whoever this guy is, is that he uses the previous link and editorialized into his opinion.

 

So this article is largely based on the previous link.

 

So there is nothing there other than some dude rehashing link number three and providing his opinions of what he read. Nothing there.

 

Link 5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training-syrian-rebels-jordan

 

Holy crap! There is absolutely nothing, zilch, nada that supports what you said. Nothing, I mean absolutely nothing! All it says is that the US and Britain are now helping train some Syrian officers who defected from Syria to Jordan. That is all it says.

 

So that is a big whiff.

 

Let's try it this way, you see when anyone ever asks for you to provide proof, all you do is the following:

 

Provide a very long explanation of the theory that you have of what you believe is happening and when pressed for specifics, you provide links.

 

Fine, so I read the links, and there is nothing that supports

 

We're supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria to be our proxies against Russian and Assad forces. That's a fact.

 

 

 

Supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda to be our proxies implies an intentional effort to arm these terrorist to help us fight the Russians and Assad.

 

No one denies that the vetting process of how arms get into the hands of our short-term allies or even the decision to help certain groups haven't been fraught with peril. But that does not factually support your claim that there is an intentional undertaking to arm ISIS and Al Qaeda to advance our goals.

 

Then when we dispute your links, and ask you to specifically underline the part that definitively makes your case that the US is unequivocally without any doubt purposely supporting Al Qaeda or ISIS, you usually say something like "well I'm not going to do your homework, it's there, read it"

 

I did. When someone makes the claim of something the onus is on them to prove their point. Just providing a link doesn't cut it.

 

So again, underline the parts that you believe make this case:

 

We're supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria to be our proxies against Russian and Assad forces. That's a fact.

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Magox

[Deranged Rhino]

Fine, so I read the links, and there is nothing that supports

 

Your reading comprehension and contextual analysis need an upgrade.

 

More for you to mull and consider: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-al-qaeda-l_b_10089410.html

 

If you answered the question, it would be very easy for you to provide a link to that answer, right? Saying, Chevron, Exxon, pipelines is not an answer.

 

 

It was easy when I answered it multiple times and still is.

 

But let's get back to the questions you're dodging... I'm still waiting on my answers.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Magox]

 

Your reading comprehension and contextual analysis need an upgrade.

 

 

 

 

In other words, you are unable to do it.

 

I knew I shouldn't have engaged in this sort of conversation with you, like I said two different planes. One plane is in the real world, the other is in tin foil hat territory.

[GG]

 

Your reading comprehension and contextual analysis need an upgrade.

 

It was easy when I answered it multiple times and still is.

 

But let's get back to the questions you're dodging... I'm still waiting on my answers.

 

 

Now I know you're trolling,

 

1 - Provide a link to your answers

 

2 - What exactly are you asking that hasn't been answered?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

In other words, you are unable to do it.

 

I knew I shouldn't have engaged in this sort of conversation with you, like I said two different planes. One plane is in the real world, the other is in tin foil hat territory.

 

No, I'm able to do it but it's pointless to have a conversation with a guy who's determined to not only twist what you're saying into something else, but determined not to be open minded to anything outside of state propaganda.

 

You're the same guy who loves Rubio and thinks the world is a better place without Saddam. I know where your interests lie, and it's not in the truth. It's clear with how you completely ignored the third point in your series of questions.

 

 

Now I know you're trolling,

 

1 - Provide a link to your answers

 

2 - What exactly are you asking that hasn't been answered?

 

 

I'll address the other points another time.

 

 

 

You know, the same questions you've been dodging for months now on this topic. But it's okay, we can play this game all day if you want. I have no problem continuing to make you look like the jingoistic zombie that you're clearly revealing in being.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Deranged Rhino