In the War against Terror, Obama Has Switched Sides...!

"It’s an explosive charge, one that practically accuses the president of treason. A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record. She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates..."
—WND

Most people suffer from “normalcy bias”. They can't bring themselves to believe the President of the United States is a radical Marxist Moslem. Once you accept that fact, everything becomes very clear. "Dithering" while thousands die at the hands of ISIS now makes sense to me...




.

Obama wrecked Libya and Iraq, so who's doing the secret bombing Tripoli in Libya? Not Obama.

Video gives more evidence that Obama is favoring Terrorists:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3750302329001




.

I am just shocked. What kind of president says he doesn't have a plan????

WHL wrote:I am just shocked.  What kind of president says he doesn't have a plan????

One of the Republican House leaders likes Obama's approach!

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/29/house-republican-leader-defends-obamas-comments-military-strategy-syria.html

Just because somebody agrees with him, doesn't mean they are both idiots. Republican or not. I agree, we can't get involved in a civil war but we can't let them think they can keep beheading Americans either. Obama makes us look weak.

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:I am just shocked.  What kind of president says he doesn't have a plan????

One of the Republican House leaders likes Obama's approach!

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/29/house-republican-leader-defends-obamas-comments-military-strategy-syria.html

As would a shortsighted Libertarian, such as Ron Paul; however, the violent misdeeds that directly followed Obama's cancerous "Arab Spring" now needs our full attention. (Especially with 9/11 approaching.)

OTOH, present-day Egypt, which wisely overthrew Obama's radical selection of "democratic Egyptian government" could be persuaded to intervene using the advanced aircraft we mistakenly provided their (temporary) Muslim Brotherhood government. (An ISIS ally).

What a mess!




.

News Hawk wrote:As would a shortsighted Libertarian, such as Ron Paul; however, the violent misdeeds that directly followed Obama's cancerous "Arab Spring" now needs our full attention. (Especially with 9/11 approaching.)

What a mess!

Shortsighted?

We've (meaning the non-interventionists) only been warning everybody for over 50 F*CKING YEARS now that Middle East interventionism would lead to a dead end of bloodshed and death and endless war that will bankrupt us.

FDR wrote this tale as well, when he sat down with Ibn Saud at the tail end of WWII so he can take credit for this along with all the other nonsense that he has authored. Him and his asshole relation who ran the operation to overthrow Iran in 1953. It was this meeting with Ibn Saud that carved Israel out of Palestine and Operation Ajax, that more than anything else started what is now modern day Islamic terrorism.

But you know what, I don't even care anymore...ya'll do what you want...go and commit genocide, what's another couple million more dead?

I've insulated myself and my family as much as I possibly can from it.

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:I am just shocked.  What kind of president says he doesn't have a plan????

One of the Republican House leaders likes Obama's approach!

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/29/house-republican-leader-defends-obamas-comments-military-strategy-syria.html

However, like many other Republicans in Washington, he knows that warfare is not something to be treated lightly. While you have John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers and the other neo-cons in Washington beating the war drums, followed up by other Republicans and pundits who are just using international crises to hammer the President, there is a contingent of lawmakers on the right who know that we not only need to be cautious, but whatever action is taken must be from a politically united front.

Good for Tom Cole.

Anti, what do you think we should do?

Anti Federalist wrote:Good for Tom Cole.

That's right! In the meantime, FOX News is fanning the flames of war, and it's no coincidence that one of the majority owners of FOX News is a Saudi Prince!

WHL wrote:Anti, what do you think we should do?

Remembering that we are a compassionate nation—and thousands of innocents are being slain for over one year.




.

WHL wrote:Anti, what do you think we should do?

First and foremost, cede the "world's policeman" role.

Let China have it, let it bleed them out for 100 years while we try to do something to put our shattered economy and manufacturing base back together.

Second, withdraw, as much and and as quickly as possible from these conflicts. A year ago we were supporting the rebel fighters that became ISIL to overthrow Assad. Now, we are aligning with him...insane.

Third, continue to do whatever we can to keep domestic energy exploration booming. If we don't shoot ourselves in the foot on this, the US is on its way to becoming a net exporter of energy.

Fourth, effectively manage the borders and stop importing people from nations around the globe that do have populations of people hostile to our country.

We keep mucking about, and it will only be a matter of time before a terror attack (real or false flag) kills 30,000 people.

Or 3 million.

And when that happens, you can forget any notion of a free society, rights of the accused, civil liberties and all the rest of it.

America will turn into a "lockdown nation" prison state, the likes of which the world has never seen before, overnight.

News Hawk wrote:

WHL wrote:Anti, what do you think we should do?

Remembering that we are a compassionate nation—and thousands of innocents are being slain for over one year.

They are being slain as a direct and indirect result of our actions.

I agree with all you said, but how can we appear strong, letting them know they can't bully if we just back down. That is my thought dilema.

WHL wrote:I agree with all you said, but how can we appear strong, letting them know they can't bully if we just back down.   That is my thought dilema.

That train has already left the station.

The world knows we're broke, and, in many ways, a paper tiger.

Back out now, and least save a little face, and not look so foolish.

And do you think if we do that, they won't attack us?

Anti Federalist wrote:

WHL wrote:I agree with all you said, but how can we appear strong, letting them know they can't bully if we just back down.   That is my thought dilema.

That train has already left the station.

The world knows we're broke, and, in many ways, a paper tiger.

Back out now, and least save a little face, and not look so foolish.

We're a paper tiger, and we should look the other way?




.

Anti Federalist wrote: A year ago we were supporting the rebel fighters that became ISIL to overthrow Assad. Now, we are aligning with him...insane.

It is insane to sit back and announce "We don't have a strategy".

Anti Federalist wrote:We keep mucking about, and it will only be a matter of time before a terror attack (real or false flag) kills 30,000 people.

Or 3 million.

Obama has already sent troops to Iraq, and is sending more troops to Ukraine.

How did it help the US to appear that we had a weak Presidency?



Rand Paul's latest speech encouraged interventions!




.