Demonstration of Obama's incompetence: morning of Paris attacks, Obama claimed "we have contained IS

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...is_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SG3j8OYKgn4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Last i check Obama was the president of the USA not the world get a grap and stop trolling the Potus if anybody should shelter the blame it's the UN there the ones that should be policing the world not the Potus.

 

no that was from a few months ago when Oliver was mocking the idea that terrorists could be coming in with refugees

 

mc mark really needs to calm down. The guy is getting a bit out of hand, even for him self. It's actually kind of embarrassing.

 

The recent meltdown of Mark and SweetLou has been absolutely ridiculous. It's like they both suffered a mental break at the same time.

 

New Yorker's happened many years ago, and has been ongoing ever since he started posting (under the two user names we know of, he probably has more - many signs of obsessive compulsive behavior - I have put him on ignore because since those terror attacks, he has been posting even more and the degree of stupidity is unbearable).

mc mark, on the other hand, seems to have just gone really mad at some point, he used to be a good poster.

But the most disgusting and vile post of all was that of SamFisher wishing cancer upon thumbs.

 

It's totally willful to the point regular newspapers report its disasters in our training of those anti-Assad groups and their defections to more extremist groups like daresh.

Frankly, there's not much public attention being paid to our involvement even when it's reported.


#winning

 

Thanks for the insight! It would've been nice to include in your OP.

 

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has a problem with the phrase "Radical Islam" prefering to call them Jihadi's or extremists.

I find it ironic democrats won't use the term when at the SAME TIME, they constantly use the term ISIS or ISIL.

Just for those who don't pay attention, the first "I" in both of those acronyms stands for "Islamic".

Seems pretty confusing to me. Is it wrong to use the term "Islamic" to describe the terrorists or not?

 

ISIS sympathizers did attack a theater, as did James Holmes.

Unfortunately this did not with the war for either of them.

Good plan though.

 

Careful. As President Obama and Hillary Clinton state, we don't want to label the attackers as Islamic. After all, ISIS literally stands for the "ISLAMIC State of Iraq and Syria"

Wait....

 

The 354th Special Label Operations Group commends your brave work here.

These are the people who brought you Freedom Fries.

 

There are 1.6 billion Muslims of which the there is a violent subset. Using the term for the whole to identify a subset actually strengthens the image of their numbers. It's not good PR strategy when you are going to need other Muslims as allies. It's SOP.

move on to something not stupid.

 

It's a brilliant strategy by ISIS. They are succeeding in starting a war of civilizations - they understand how to play on the ignorant and stupid here - just look at all our nutty posters like ATW, Honeybear, Bobby, and etc.

 

The use of the word Islamic in ISIL certainly means that all followers of Islam are terrorists.

Just in the same way that all Christians are terrorists since the Concerned Christians have the word Christian in their name and that cult planned terrorist attacks against Muslims. And the Christian Identity has Christian in their name and they influenced the Soweto bombing.

Then you can extend that with the Army of God uses the word God in their name and they promoted the killing of abortion providers. And the Lord's Resistance Army has killed thousands in the Congo...

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

 

Let's say there is a group of extremist Christians, White Supremacists who committed some horrible acts.
As the president of the US, do you exclaim: We will hunt down and destroy all the "Radical Christians"?
Don't you think it can be interpreted badly by some peaceful Christians who feel like they have been persecuted wrongly?

You can call those extremist Jihadists anything you want, it won't hurt them one bit but if you use the word "Radical Islams", you may hurt your relationship with some peaceful groups of Islams. Does that make sense to you?

 

"Radical Islam" isn't the term for the whole....you do know that, right? It's actually a term to identify a subset of those who practice Islam, which is where the terrorists are coming from.

You must REALLY think Muslims around the world are just terribly stupid people if you think they wouldn't understand that. Muslims are people just like you or I, it's okay to treat them like adults.

 

I don't know about Muslims but I know some Christians are stupid. Like the ones Huckabee represents, who think they are being persecuted in this country.

 

In order for your analogy to hold, it would be like saying the surgeon's decision to perform heart surgery on a person who has exhibited few to no symptoms of heart trouble and, when investigated, experts found that heart surgery wasn't necessary.

The mistake was going in in the first place.

 

But when you include the religion in the double-word name it blurs the line between guerilla warriors and peaceful followers. If you are clamoring for a diplomat to use the word Islamic, then you really just want the religion demonized. That has far wider implications for international relations, remember we are allies with some Islamic nations, including Turkey which is the real lynch pin for the region.

chess/checkers