New York Times Reports, Obama is now Allied with al Qaida...! "Obama Is Now Allied with Al Qaida"

Nusra (al Qaida) succeeded after seizing much of the province from Harakat Hazm and the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, two of several groups that until recently, American officials were calling the opposition’s new hope"
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/28/ny-times-admits-us-backed-free-syrian-army-under-effective-al-qaeda-control-while-mccain-calls-for-more-support/

This was about the easiest occurrence to predict in Syria’s civil war.

The "Arab Spring" isn't what it is purported to be, and the US gave them the weapons!




.

Originally posted in thread "I am a Liberal"

Obervantone
Just curious, I read the article you posted under the following title, attributing the title to the NY Times, and I must have missed it somewhere.  Nowhere did I see the Times print this:

News Hawk
New York Times reports, Obama is now allied with al qaida

The headline published in the NY Times was;

As Syria’s Revolution Sputters, a Chaotic Stalemate

and nowhere in the article was what you claim was "reported" by the NY Times.
More "teasing out"?

https://wolfgil.forumotion.com/t3319-new-york-times-reports-obama-is-now-allied-with-al-qaida#23902

See the difference?




.

obervantone wrote:Originally posted in thread "I am a Liberal"

Obervantone
Just curious, I read the article you posted under the following title, attributing the title to the NY Times, and I must have missed it somewhere.  Nowhere did I see the Times print this:

News Hawk
New York Times reports, Obama is now allied with al qaida

The headline published in the NY Times was;

As Syria’s Revolution Sputters, a Chaotic Stalemate

and nowhere in the article was what you claim was "reported" by the NY Times.
More "teasing out"?

https://wolfgil.forumotion.com/t3319-new-york-times-reports-obama-is-now-allied-with-al-qaida#23902

I told you he's a damn drama queen..why argue with that mind set?

Right, that makes it perfectly clear.  In the first statement you claimed the New York Times reports Obama is now allied with al qaida.

Then 4 days later when called out on it you  added quotes to your same statement without changing the attribution.

Thus admitting that you knew your statement is not true...the consquences?

courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

knowing that it is false; or

acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.

Libel is the publication of a false statement, (and is not a privileged communication) which injures one's business or personal reputation

keep posting crap as fact, sooner or later someone will notice.

obervantone wrote:Right, that makes it perfectly clear.  In the first statement you claimed the New York Times reports Obama is now allied with al Qaida.

Then 4 days later when called out on it you  added quotes to your same statement without changing the attribution.

Thus admitting that you knew your statement is not true...the consequences?

It's not true that Obama has allied himself with al Qaida—perhaps unwittingly?

obervantone wrote:courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

knowing that it is false; or

acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.

I am neither the only person—nor the first—to report that Obama's weapons have been "donated" to al Qaida's causes in the Levant.

Libel is the publication of a false statement, (and is not a privileged communication) which injures one's business or personal reputationkeep posting crap as fact, sooner or later someone will notice.

Reporters have already noticed that Obama has supplied heavy armaments to barbaric enemies of Western Culture in Syria and the Levant.

Thank you for allowing me to keep repeating something that never appeared on your deliberately-blinded TV set.




.

"news" hawk
It's not true that Obama has allied himself with al Qaida—perhaps unwittingly?

I am neither the only person—nor the first—to report that Obama's weapons have been "donated" to al Qaida's causes in the Levant

.
It does not matter. The FACT is that you stated, in no uncertain terms, that the "New York Times reports..."
When they did no such thing.

obervantone wrote:It does not matter. The FACT is that you stated, in no uncertain terms, that the "New York Times reports..." When they did no such thing.

Unwitting—or possibly not—does matter.

1) The New York Times has not reported Obama's failure in supplying US' heavy weaponry to US' enemies in the Middle East?

2) Interesting that another thread (here) discusses the Drive-By Media's ready defense of Obama, and here obervantone is defending The New York Times.

 




.

The arming of Libya "Freedom Fighters" included mortars. It was a mortar that killed Americans defending the embassy at Benghazi.

"The Obama administration quietly blessed the shipments to Libya of machine guns, automatic rifles, mortars and ammunition, but American officials later grew concerned as evidence grew that Qatar was giving the weapons to Islamic militants there."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/world/middleeast/sending-missiles-to-syrian-rebels-qatar-muscles-in.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

.

"news" hawk

obervantone wrote:
It does not matter. The FACT is that you stated, in no uncertain terms, that the "New York Times reports..." When they did no such thing.

Unwitting—or possibly not—does matter.

1) The New York Times has not reported Obama's failure in supplying US' heavy weaponry to US' enemies in the Middle East?

2) Interesting that another thread (here) discusses the Drive-By Media's ready defense of Obama, and here obervantone is defending The New York Times
.

Attempting to spin this does not matter. You willingly lied when you made the claim that the "New York Times reports" and presented it as fact knowing that it was untrue.

Bottom line, you lied.

obervantone wrote:In the first statement you claimed the New York Times reports Obama is now allied with al qaida.

Yes, and in the accreditation, it shows the originator was the following:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/28/ny-times-admits-us-backed-free-syrian-army-under-effective-al-qaeda-control-while-mccain-calls-for-more-support/

What part of "ny-times-admits-us-backed-free-syrian-army-under-effective-al-qaeda-control" did you not understand?

I'll try to explain:

Al Nusra is allied with al Qaida; therefore, Obama is arming al Qaida!



Whether the New York Times uses the headline—as they did—"Obama Blesses Arms Shipments to 'Militants'" OR The New York Times reports, Obama is Now Allied with al Qaida", is a distinction without a difference.

The originator of these threads can choose his/her title without a direct correlation to the content—and through popular use of excerpts, the title can express one tiny part (a phrase, a sentence, an idea, a paragraph, of the article.

Tell us how my title expresses any difference.

Any other title doesn't show the magnitude of Obama's failure to keep advanced weapons out of the hands of those who are pledged to destroy us.

Does Obama support us or is he taking sides with militant Islam?



Or do you support The New York Times, right or wrong?




.

"news" hawk

obervantone wrote:
In the first statement you claimed the New York Times reports Obama is now allied with al qaida.

Yes, and in the accreditation, it shows the originator was the following:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/28/ny-times-admits-us-backed-free-syrian-army-under-effective-al-qaeda-control-while-mccain-calls-for-more-support

No, not even that wacko website wrote "the New York Times reports Obama is now allied with al Qaida", that is your false statement and no one else's. Ducking responsibility does not change what you wrote.

You'd criticize major news sources?





They're going to be sued for libel...!




.

Still does not change the fact that You wrote:

New York Times reports, Obama is now allied with al qaida when they did not.

I thought you conservatives were always preaching about "taking responsibility" for your actions. I guess what you really mean is that other people should take responsibility, not you.

obervantone wrote:Still does not change the fact that You wrote:

New York Times reports, Obama is now allied with al qaida when they did not.

I thought you conservatives were always preaching about "taking responsibility" for your actions.  I guess what you really mean is that other people should take responsibility, not you.

Obama is allied with al Qaida, as above.

I can't help it that The New York Times headline should've been changed before going to print. Perhaps they are being deceitful or "protecting" Obama. Corrections by NYT can usually be found on page 26.

Sunday's always a big corrections day in the NYT -- it's the day when the paper posts corrections in all its special Sunday sections. It's not unusual to find a dozen or more mistakes fixed on any given Sunday.

But 36?"
http://www.nytpick.com/2010/01/new-record-nyt-publishes-36-corrections.html

.

Of course...I just got off the phone with the Times, they want you as their new Editor-in-chief since you seem to know all, are never wrong and can not take responsibility for anything. The job is yours to bring the "grey lady" into your 21st century.

obervantone wrote:I thought you conservatives were always preaching about "taking responsibility" for your actions.  I guess what you really mean is that other people should take responsibility, not you.

I take responsibility for the titles given my posts.

The New York Times has the same information as Breitbart, but chose to deflect to protect Obama's Socialist Administration. Through his ineptitude in foreign matters—or bad advice from his born-in-Iran Senior advisor*—Obama has allied with al Qaida, and that's the treasonous fact.

*

Farsi-speaking Valerie Jarrett, the Senior Advisor to Obama, his right-hand man/woman was born in Iran. She has ties with terrorist William Ayers, and her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett is a card-carrying communist party member and associate of Frank Marshall Davis, the controversial Communist Party activist who was Obama’s childhood mentor. (Davis is mentioned many times in Obama’s autobiography.) Obama’s senior advisor/campaign manager David Axelrod also has family roots in the Communist party. His parents were Communists. Story here and here.
Read more at http://victoriajackson.com/10438/obamas-senior-advisor-muslim

.

"news" hawk
I take responsibility for the titles given my posts.

No, you are not.

A story that should have been headline news of Obama’s arming of Al Qaeda across all US media, largely went unnoticed. The only evidence of the story in the mainstream media can be found in the International Business times and the Washington Post.

The New York Times did not headline the story and instead buried the information in an article headlined “2 Military bases in Syria Fall to Rebels”. However, The New York Times claimed the TOW missiles may have played a central role in Jabhat AL Nusra’s takeover of the bases.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2014/12/us-armed-rebels-gave-tow-missiles-to-al.html

Bloggers who know weaponry, say that the al-Nusrah rebels have a high proficiency in using those TOW missiles. (Indicating US training—likely performed in Saudi Arabia).

So, the New York Times can't seem to bring themselves to connect the al Qaida dots.




.

Hmmm. The gentleman on the right has a US-made bulletproof vest, and what appears to be a Colt "assault" rifle. Obama is still arming al Nusrah?




.

Obama—direct quotes):

1. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

2. “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

3. “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

4. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

5. “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

6. “Islam has always been part of America”

7. “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”

8. “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

9. “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

10. “I made it clear that America is not – and will never be – at war with Islam.”

11. “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

12. “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

13. “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”

14. “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

15. “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”

16. “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

17. “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

18. “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

19. “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

20. “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”



.

A long-languishing video surfaces too late to "vet" his background. At 8:45 into this video, he mentions his close relationship with Frank Marshall David.

He speaks much better in 1995 than now.

"President Barack Obama has long fought to minimize his association with his mentor during his teens, known communist Frank Marshall Davis.

In his book “Dreams From My Father,” the future president refused to refer to his mentor as anything other than “Frank.” In the audiobook version of “Dreams,” Obama went further and excised all references to “Frank.”

However, thanks to the Internet, things are seldom buried forever. In this clip from 1995, the future president is on his book tour at the Cambridge Public Library. He’s not only open about just who “Frank” is, he talks about how the man “schooled” him on how racist white people were.

Obama begins talking about his mentor at about the 8:40 mark of the video below.

As he goes into his reading, he explains that the portion is about “me having a conversation with a close friend of my maternal grandfather, a close friend of gramps, a black man from Kansas, named Frank, actually at the time a fairly well-known poet named Frank Marshall Davis, who had moved to Hawaii and lived there. “And so I have a discussion with him about the kinds of frustrations I’m having, and he sorts of schools me that I should get used to these frustrations,” Obama said.

The passage itself isn’t exactly free from controversial material. In it, Obama described how his world view as a teenager held that “any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning,” inasmuch as they were all racist.

He also equates calling someone who held this worldview “paranoid” equivalent to calling him the n-word.

Frank Marshall Davis, of course, was a former member of the Communist Party USA who managed to earn a 600-page dossier of his activities from the FBI as well as a place on the bureau’s “security index,” essentially meaning he could have been arrested at any time.

While Obama’s managed to keep his association with Frank Marshall Davis out of the spotlight for long enough to earn himself both election and re-election, one wonders how many Americans would have voted for Obama if this had been public knowledge in 2008.

Of course, this all was public knowledge, if you knew where to look. The media certainly did, but didn’t bother to inform us. It’s plain to see that the Main Stream Media has been covering-up for Obama from day one.

We’re all paying the price now.
Read more at http://universalfreepress.com/breaking-shocking-1995-video-surfaces-of-barack-obama-revealing-who-he-really-is/

Won't it be interesting what REALLY comes out (or should I say admitted) when O is out of office?? But then maybe he will be yesterday's news so nobody will care.