Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
What a shocker. America not winning a war.
_________________________________________________________________________
With the Muslim sympathizer and coward in The White House now the Islamic Extremist Terrorists will continue to grow their jihad and kill.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
For someone who continuously posts so authoritatively on the Middle East you time and again demonstrate that outside of what you get from extreme right wing sources you know very little on the subject.
critics of this president have tried to read between the lines of his speeches to say he really doesn’t get the threat posed by the Islamic State militant group. They point out the pains Mr. Obama goes through not to mention the phrase “Radical Islam.” The president took that head-on Wednesday, arguing that he does not want to grant IS, which he calls ISIL, “legitimacy” by ascribing “Islam” to them.
The above is a strategy based on a set of ideas that have been articulated numerous times. Your assertion that Obama has no ideas is nothing more than bombastic fluff.
Obama said. “So I want to be very clear about how I see it. Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the ‘Islamic State.’”
Netanyahu has said much the same about Palestinian terrorists in that they are continuously using various strategies to gain international legitimacy. This is the primary reason he says now is not the time to talk about a two state solution.
Bloomberg notes that George W. Bush also avoided the term “Radical Islam,” saying it’s a “longstanding U.S. policy.” Why? As Elliot Abrams, who served as deputy National Security Adviser to George W. Bush told Eli Lake, “We were invading two Muslim countries, and we were being accused of being at war with Islam. So the administration wanted to make it very clear that we are not at war with Islam and every Muslim in the world.”
1) “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.”
2) “They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
3) “Our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil.”
4) “Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.”
5) “Given the…nature of the enemy — which is not a traditional army — this work takes time, and will require vigilance and resilience.”
6) “The terrorists do not speak for over a billion Muslims who reject their hateful ideology.”
7) “The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.”
8) “How do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities — the profound good…the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?”
9) “There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.”
10) “This great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence.”(Answers to Bush-Obama language quiz: 1-Bush, 2-Obama, 3-Bush, 4-Bush, 5-Obama, 6-Obama, 7-Bush, 8-Obama, 9-Bush, 10-Obama)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/
Not understanding how delicate the politics are in this situation is critical as a leader. Interpretations are often constructed from nuances that are very subtle. All this bravado you like to display may prevent you from picking up on these subtleties.
You are mainly a political poster on this site yet you have Warren's image in your signature. Why? Warren is left leaning and politically your polar opposite and you are branding him with your ideology. People not that familiar with Warren or new to this site can easily get confused with this false identification. You doing this is a form of identity theft.
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
For someone who continuously posts so authoritatively on the Middle East you time and again demonstrate that outside of what you get from extreme right wing sources you know very little on the subject.
critics of this president have tried to read between the lines of his speeches to say he really doesn’t get the threat posed by the Islamic State militant group. They point out the pains Mr. Obama goes through not to mention the phrase “Radical Islam.” The president took that head-on Wednesday, arguing that he does not want to grant IS, which he calls ISIL, “legitimacy” by ascribing “Islam” to them.
The above is a strategy based on a set of ideas that have been articulated numerous times. Your assertion that Obama has no ideas is nothing more than bombastic fluff.
Obama said. “So I want to be very clear about how I see it. Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the ‘Islamic State.’”
Netanyahu has said much the same about Palestinian terrorists in that they are continuously using various strategies to gain international legitimacy. This is the primary reason he says now is not the time to talk about a two state solution.
Bloomberg notes that George W. Bush also avoided the term “Radical Islam,” saying it’s a “longstanding U.S. policy.” Why? As Elliot Abrams, who served as deputy National Security Adviser to George W. Bush told Eli Lake, “We were invading two Muslim countries, and we were being accused of being at war with Islam. So the administration wanted to make it very clear that we are not at war with Islam and every Muslim in the world.”
1) “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.”
2) “They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
3) “Our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil.”
4) “Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.”
5) “Given the…nature of the enemy — which is not a traditional army — this work takes time, and will require vigilance and resilience.”
6) “The terrorists do not speak for over a billion Muslims who reject their hateful ideology.”
7) “The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.”
8) “How do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities — the profound good…the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?”
9) “There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.”
10) “This great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence.”(Answers to Bush-Obama language quiz: 1-Bush, 2-Obama, 3-Bush, 4-Bush, 5-Obama, 6-Obama, 7-Bush, 8-Obama, 9-Bush, 10-Obama)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/
Not understanding how delicate the politics are in this situation is critical as a leader. Interpretations are often constructed from nuances that are very subtle. All this bravado you like to display may prevent you from picking up on these subtleties.
You are mainly a political poster on this site yet you have Warren's image in your signature. Why? Warren is left leaning and politically your polar opposite and you are branding him with your ideology. People not that familiar with Warren or new to this site can easily get confused with this false identification. You doing this is a form of identity theft.
I am branding him with my ideology? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. What a maroon you are.
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
You just responded to a post in which he did just that (quote and link from prior post included below). And it also enlightens you on what Obama believes their relationship is to Islam...not that they "have nothing to do with Islam" (please, why don't YOU find just one quote where he said exactly that, should be easy since he says it "constantly") but that they have a perverted take on Islam which isn't really Islam at all, which by the way is the same position as his predecessor.
“They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/ < [Edited on 6/18/2015 by gondicar]
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
You just responded to a post in which he did just that (quote and link from prior post included below). And it also enlightens you on what Obama believes their relationship is to Islam...not that that "have nothing to do with Islam" (please, why don't YOU find just one quote where he said exactly that, should be easy since he says it "constantly") but that they have a perverted take on Islam which isn't really Islam at all, which by the way is the same position as his predecessor.
“They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/ < [Edited on 6/18/2015 by gondicar]
________________________________________________________________________
"We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama"
So, when does Obama intend to engage the enemy?
This is why I don't waste my time responding to Mule. He constantly throws misinformation against the wall and when someone proves him wrong he ignores the fact and deflects from the issue.
He claimed Obama never linked terrorism with being Muslim and Gondicar proved him wrong and he just ignores the fact and repeats the same BS about how Obama is not attacking ISIS which is also not true.
Evidently he wants the failed strategy of putting U.S. Boots on the ground which is nothing more than a temporary band aid as this has been proven to be useless in Afghanistan. Even if we win the battle we will never win the war because as soon as we leave ISIS and similar groups will spring up again like a weed.
We will never defeat ISIS as you can't defeat an ideology where the combatants are a guerilla force with no country. Unless the local population is willing to fight for and defend their freedom we have given them our military efforts are futile.
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
You just responded to a post in which he did just that (quote and link from prior post included below). And it also enlightens you on what Obama believes their relationship is to Islam...not that that "have nothing to do with Islam" (please, why don't YOU find just one quote where he said exactly that, should be easy since he says it "constantly") but that they have a perverted take on Islam which isn't really Islam at all, which by the way is the same position as his predecessor.
“They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/ < [Edited on 6/18/2015 by gondicar]
________________________________________________________________________
"We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama"
So, when does Obama intend to engage the enemy?
Seems like they are engaged already. You just don't understand the meaning of the words "complete strategy.":
Army's elite Delta Force kills top ISIS official, Abu Sayyaf, in daring Syria raid
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/16/us-conducts-raid-on-isis-in-syria-kills-top-official/
Or this one:
US Commander Says Coalition Has Killed 8,500 ISIS Fighters
U.S. Central Command's Gen. Lloyd Austin told Congress Tuesday that more than 8,500 ISIS fighters had been killed in the U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria.
As a result of U.S. and coalition airstrikes, and recent gains by Iraqi and Kurdish forces, ISIS "has assumed a defensive crouch" in Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was also on the defensive in Syria, Austin said in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.
"We're about where we said we would be" after seven months of airstrikes that began last August, Austin said. The campaign "has killed more than 8,500 ISIL fighters," Austin said, using another acronym for the terror group, and also disrupted ISIS' ability to maneuver and exercise command and control.
ISIS militants still maintain a limited offensive capability and poses a terror threat to the region, "but make no mistake, ISIL is losing this fight. He (the enemy) will be defeated. He will be defeated," said Austin, the top commander in the region as head of the U.S. Central Command.
[Edited on 6/18/2015 by 2112]
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
You just responded to a post in which he did just that (quote and link from prior post included below). And it also enlightens you on what Obama believes their relationship is to Islam...not that that "have nothing to do with Islam" (please, why don't YOU find just one quote where he said exactly that, should be easy since he says it "constantly") but that they have a perverted take on Islam which isn't really Islam at all, which by the way is the same position as his predecessor.
“They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/ < [Edited on 6/18/2015 by gondicar]
________________________________________________________________________
"We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama"
So, when does Obama intend to engage the enemy?
Seems like they are engaged already. You just don't understand the meaning of the words "complete strategy.":
Army's elite Delta Force kills top ISIS official, Abu Sayyaf, in daring Syria raid
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/16/us-conducts-raid-on-isis-in-syria-kills-top-official/
Or this one:
US Commander Says Coalition Has Killed 8,500 ISIS Fighters
U.S. Central Command's Gen. Lloyd Austin told Congress Tuesday that more than 8,500 ISIS fighters had been killed in the U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria.
As a result of U.S. and coalition airstrikes, and recent gains by Iraqi and Kurdish forces, ISIS "has assumed a defensive crouch" in Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was also on the defensive in Syria, Austin said in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.
"We're about where we said we would be" after seven months of airstrikes that began last August, Austin said. The campaign "has killed more than 8,500 ISIL fighters," Austin said, using another acronym for the terror group, and also disrupted ISIS' ability to maneuver and exercise command and control.ISIS militants still maintain a limited offensive capability and poses a terror threat to the region, "but make no mistake, ISIL is losing this fight. He (the enemy) will be defeated. He will be defeated," said Austin, the top commander in the region as head of the U.S. Central Command.
[Edited on 6/18/2015 by 2112]
________________________________________________________________________
I'm sure Gen. Austin said exactly what The White House told him to say.
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
You just responded to a post in which he did just that (quote and link from prior post included below). And it also enlightens you on what Obama believes their relationship is to Islam...not that that "have nothing to do with Islam" (please, why don't YOU find just one quote where he said exactly that, should be easy since he says it "constantly") but that they have a perverted take on Islam which isn't really Islam at all, which by the way is the same position as his predecessor.
“They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/ < [Edited on 6/18/2015 by gondicar]
________________________________________________________________________
"We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama"
So, when does Obama intend to engage the enemy?
Seems like they are engaged already. You just don't understand the meaning of the words "complete strategy.":
Army's elite Delta Force kills top ISIS official, Abu Sayyaf, in daring Syria raid
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/16/us-conducts-raid-on-isis-in-syria-kills-top-official/
Or this one:
US Commander Says Coalition Has Killed 8,500 ISIS Fighters
U.S. Central Command's Gen. Lloyd Austin told Congress Tuesday that more than 8,500 ISIS fighters had been killed in the U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria.
As a result of U.S. and coalition airstrikes, and recent gains by Iraqi and Kurdish forces, ISIS "has assumed a defensive crouch" in Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was also on the defensive in Syria, Austin said in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.
"We're about where we said we would be" after seven months of airstrikes that began last August, Austin said. The campaign "has killed more than 8,500 ISIL fighters," Austin said, using another acronym for the terror group, and also disrupted ISIS' ability to maneuver and exercise command and control.ISIS militants still maintain a limited offensive capability and poses a terror threat to the region, "but make no mistake, ISIL is losing this fight. He (the enemy) will be defeated. He will be defeated," said Austin, the top commander in the region as head of the U.S. Central Command.
[Edited on 6/18/2015 by 2112]
________________________________________________________________________
I'm sure Gen. Austin said exactly what The White House told him to say.
I'm sure you doubt that Fox News story too, being their liberal bias and all.
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
You just responded to a post in which he did just that (quote and link from prior post included below). And it also enlightens you on what Obama believes their relationship is to Islam...not that that "have nothing to do with Islam" (please, why don't YOU find just one quote where he said exactly that, should be easy since he says it "constantly") but that they have a perverted take on Islam which isn't really Islam at all, which by the way is the same position as his predecessor.
“They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/ < [Edited on 6/18/2015 by gondicar]
________________________________________________________________________
"We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama"
So, when does Obama intend to engage the enemy?
Seems like they are engaged already. You just don't understand the meaning of the words "complete strategy.":
Army's elite Delta Force kills top ISIS official, Abu Sayyaf, in daring Syria raid
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/16/us-conducts-raid-on-isis-in-syria-kills-top-official/
Or this one:
US Commander Says Coalition Has Killed 8,500 ISIS Fighters
U.S. Central Command's Gen. Lloyd Austin told Congress Tuesday that more than 8,500 ISIS fighters had been killed in the U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria.
As a result of U.S. and coalition airstrikes, and recent gains by Iraqi and Kurdish forces, ISIS "has assumed a defensive crouch" in Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was also on the defensive in Syria, Austin said in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.
"We're about where we said we would be" after seven months of airstrikes that began last August, Austin said. The campaign "has killed more than 8,500 ISIL fighters," Austin said, using another acronym for the terror group, and also disrupted ISIS' ability to maneuver and exercise command and control.ISIS militants still maintain a limited offensive capability and poses a terror threat to the region, "but make no mistake, ISIL is losing this fight. He (the enemy) will be defeated. He will be defeated," said Austin, the top commander in the region as head of the U.S. Central Command.
[Edited on 6/18/2015 by 2112]
________________________________________________________________________
I'm sure Gen. Austin said exactly what The White House told him to say.
________________________________________________________________________
I don’t believe anything Obama says as he is a proven liar and only puts effort into furthering his political agenda.
No one qualified thinks Obama’s plan to degrade and destroy ISIS will work as he is doing the very least he can do,
Given numerous plans to degrade and destroy ISIS and rejecting everyone for almost two years shows Obama has no intention of doing what it will take to stop the Islamic Extremist Terrorists.
He won’t even day the words.I'm sure you doubt that Fox News story too, being their liberal bias and all.
I don’t believe anything Obama says as he is a proven liar and only puts effort into furthering his political agenda.
If you don't believe anything Obama says because he is a proven liar, then it's funny than you believe him this time when he says he doesn't have a complete strategy. If he always lies, then obviously he has a complete strategy and he is lying when he says he doesn't. Right?
Your everything the right does is great and everything the left does is wrong is truly the dumbest thing I've ever seen. If you give me your address I'll send you a dollar so you can buy a clue.
Ah, the circular logic of the liberal mind.
Quite a few words used to say nothing.
Obama's actions in the war against Islamic Extremist Terrorists is both limited and a failure.
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
You just responded to a post in which he did just that (quote and link from prior post included below). And it also enlightens you on what Obama believes their relationship is to Islam...not that they "have nothing to do with Islam" (please, why don't YOU find just one quote where he said exactly that, should be easy since he says it "constantly") but that they have a perverted take on Islam which isn't really Islam at all, which by the way is the same position as his predecessor.
“They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/ < [Edited on 6/18/2015 by gondicar]
And some ACTUAL experts on Islam, which he is most certainly not (nor is his predecessor) think it has a great deal to do with Islam and is not a perversion of it but simply a branch of it and not a small bramch at that. Why should we believe him? Because he knows all?
I am branding him with my ideology? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. What a maroon you are.
Point One: People in the Music Industry try very hard not to be affiliated with Right Wing Politics. Check out what happens whenever a Republican uses a rock song and the artist states that he/she does not want to be branded as right wing. If you were posting here on the music side having Warren in your signature would not be an issue. But you are the most prolific poster on the WP and you insist on dominating most issues. So by including Warren in your signature you are in effect branding him in a way that does not reflect his political persona. You can call me all the names you want but that is what you are doing.
Point Two: You never responded to the main argument. There is plenty of evidence in that post that refutes the right wing theory that President Obama refuses to identify the enemy and that there are really solid strategic reasons for this. You could take issue with this but then that would be a recognition on your part that Obama has some value as a human being.
Point Three: I pointed out a while back that in your comments on the Trayvon Martin case you continuously elevated the reference to black people in general and how threatening and violent they were. You seem to like to dehumanize and delegitimize black people and so your comments on Obama have to be understood in that overall context. You treat Muslims in a similar inferior way.
Who is the President (not) running the War on Islamic Extremist Terrorism now?
Obama said he would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
Obama two years after that admitted that he had no plan to do so.ISIS is winning.
Islamic terrorist have been winning all along. 9-11 was the bait. The US took it, and in the process of responding we ran up the debt, damaged the lives of our servicemen, and destroyed US citizen's civil liberties. I hate to agree with Donald Rumsfeld, but when he says the war with ISIS will be won with ideas and not bombs, he's right.
It's certainly not going to be one with ideas when the president of the United States refuses to acknowledge the presence and danger of radical Islam as a motivating factor.
Which President are you referring to? Obama?
Plenty of quotes by Obama out there acknowledging exactly that. If you're not too stubborn to challenge your own biases, try a Google search for "Obama radical islam quotes" and you will be rewarded with the truth.
You mean like when they constantly say these terrorists have nothing to do with Islam? Why don't you show me some of these quotes of which you speak?
You just responded to a post in which he did just that (quote and link from prior post included below). And it also enlightens you on what Obama believes their relationship is to Islam...not that they "have nothing to do with Islam" (please, why don't YOU find just one quote where he said exactly that, should be easy since he says it "constantly") but that they have a perverted take on Islam which isn't really Islam at all, which by the way is the same position as his predecessor.
“They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” - Barak Obama
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/ <
And some ACTUAL experts on Islam, which he is most certainly not (nor is his predecessor) think it has a great deal to do with Islam and is not a perversion of it but simply a branch of it and not a small bramch at that. Why should we believe him? Because he knows all?You might have cited your source here. I think you would agree that you are so biased that you are hardly the one to determine expertise on this topic. The last two sentences are used frequently by Rush when he wants to whip his listeners into a frenzy.
Obama again touted his “coalition of 60 nations” in a fund raising speech yesterday in California.
Yet the Obama administration refuses to name the countries much less what those countries are doing in the War of ISIS.
Meanwhile back in the real world ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Obama seems far more interested in watching the calendar than defeating terrorism.
Obama again touted his “coalition of 60 nations” in a fund raising speech yesterday in California.
Yet the Obama administration refuses to name the countries much less what those countries are doing in the War of ISIS.Meanwhile back in the real world ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Obama seems far more interested in watching the calendar than defeating terrorism.
Research is hard.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/
Actually, no, research is easy.
Obama again touted his “coalition of 60 nations” in a fund raising speech yesterday in California.
Yet the Obama administration refuses to name the countries much less what those countries are doing in the War of ISIS.Meanwhile back in the real world ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Obama seems far more interested in watching the calendar than defeating terrorism.
Research is hard.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/
Actually, no, research is easy.
_____________________________________________________________
Look at the dates of you "research".
Stale information most of which came from Obama and his minions.
The results on the ground say it is all crap. Or as the White House Press Briefings have become:
[Edited on 6/22/2015 by Muleman1994]
Obama again touted his “coalition of 60 nations” in a fund raising speech yesterday in California.
Yet the Obama administration refuses to name the countries much less what those countries are doing in the War of ISIS.Meanwhile back in the real world ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Obama seems far more interested in watching the calendar than defeating terrorism.
Research is hard.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/
Actually, no, research is easy.
_____________________________________________________________
Look at the dates of you "research".
Stale information most of which came from Obama and his minions.The results on the ground say it is all crap. Or as the White House Press Briefings have become:
[Edited on 6/22/2015 by Muleman1994]
You said he refused to name the countries involved. I give you links to where he has named those countries last year. You discount it because it came from Obama when you asked why Obama would not name the countries. This is a perfect example of why people don' t want to engage with you. You are nothing but a troll.
+1000
Obama again touted his “coalition of 60 nations” in a fund raising speech yesterday in California.
Yet the Obama administration refuses to name the countries much less what those countries are doing in the War of ISIS.Meanwhile back in the real world ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Obama seems far more interested in watching the calendar than defeating terrorism.
Research is hard.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/
Actually, no, research is easy.
_____________________________________________________________
Look at the dates of you "research".
Stale information most of which came from Obama and his minions.The results on the ground say it is all crap. Or as the White House Press Briefings have become:
[Edited on 6/22/2015 by Muleman1994]
You said he refused to name the countries involved. I give you links to where he has named those countries last year. You discount it because it came from Obama when you asked why Obama would not name the countries. This is a perfect example of why people don' t want to engage with you. You are nothing but a troll.
Everytime he does it, whatever remaining credibility he might have deminishes even more.
Obama again touted his “coalition of 60 nations” in a fund raising speech yesterday in California.
Yet the Obama administration refuses to name the countries much less what those countries are doing in the War of ISIS.Meanwhile back in the real world ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Obama seems far more interested in watching the calendar than defeating terrorism.
ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Research is hard.http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/
Actually, no, research is easy.
_____________________________________________________________
Look at the dates of you "research".
Stale information most of which came from Obama and his minions.The results on the ground say it is all crap. Or as the White House Press Briefings have become:
[Edited on 6/22/2015 by Muleman1994]
You said he refused to name the countries involved. I give you links to where he has named those countries last year. You discount it because it came from Obama when you asked why Obama would not name the countries. This is a perfect example of why people don' t want to engage with you. You are nothing but a troll.
________________________________________________________________________
Coming from Obama it is usually bluster and often a lie.
The results on the ground, which have failed, are proof that this phantom coalition and the Obama administration have been and are ineffective.
ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
You said he refused to name the countries involved. I give you links to where he has named those countries last year.
Obama says a lot of things, but truth is usually absent from the equation. Even if he named
them, what on Earth would lead you to believe a chronic liar?
You said he refused to name the countries involved. I give you links to where he has named those countries last year.
Obama says a lot of things, but truth is usually absent from the equation. Even if he named
them, what on Earth would lead you to believe a chronic liar?
I don't believe chronic liars. That is why I posted links to show the chronic liar that he was lying. Obviously you didn't bother to read the links as there were sources other than Obama for the info. You are chronically lazy.
Obama named but a handful of countries; nothing close to the 60 claimed.
The specific contributions were nebulous at best.
ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Yea, Obama and his phantom coalition are doing something close to nothing.
The results on the ground are proof of failure.
Obama named but a handful of countries; nothing close to the 60 claimed.
The specific contributions were nebulous at best.ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Yea, Obama and his phantom coalition are doing something close to nothing.
The results on the ground are proof of failure.
The links provided show the countries and the contributions of that country. If Obama was lying, those countries could have come out and called out Obama for lying about their involvement. I remember no such country doing so. You sir, are the lier, and you prove that time and time again.
Obama named but a handful of countries; nothing close to the 60 claimed.
The specific contributions were nebulous at best.ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Yea, Obama and his phantom coalition are doing something close to nothing.
The results on the ground are proof of failure.
The links provided show the countries and the contributions of that country. If Obama was lying, those countries could have come out and called out Obama for lying about their involvement. I remember no such country doing so. You sir, are the lier, and you prove that time and time again.
_________________________________________________________________________
The links do not even come close to naming 60 countries and those countries contributions are minimal at best.
A few, very few, Middle Eastern countries flew a limited number of sorties in the first few days but since have stopped.
The source of the information in those links is highly questionable and a well known liar.
ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
The results on the ground are proof of failure.
[Edited on 6/22/2015 by Muleman1994]
Keller likes trolling headlines and learned to copy links. Here are a few he’ll like too:
Obama’s incomplete ISIS strategy is 'policy failure': expert
The crippling contradiction in Obama's ISIS strategy is growing
The farcical failure of Obama’s anti-ISIS strategy
http://nypost.com/2015/05/23/the-farcical-failure-of-obamas-anti-isis-strategy/
Obama’s Contemptibly Casual War on ISIS
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/08/isis-strategy-obama/
TV News Protects Obama from His ISIS Failures, Barely Notices Critics
Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
CrossTalk: ISIS and Obama’s Failure
http://bbsnews.net/2015-06-14/crosstalk-isis-and-obamas-failure/14358
Obama named but a handful of countries; nothing close to the 60 claimed.
The specific contributions were nebulous at best.ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
Yea, Obama and his phantom coalition are doing something close to nothing.
The results on the ground are proof of failure.
The links provided show the countries and the contributions of that country. If Obama was lying, those countries could have come out and called out Obama for lying about their involvement. I remember no such country doing so. You sir, are the lier, and you prove that time and time again.
_________________________________________________________________________
The links do not even come close to naming 60 countries and those countries contributions are minimal at best.
A few, very few, Middle Eastern countries flew a limited number of sorties in the first few days but since have stopped.
ISIS continues to grow, seize more land and kill more people.
The results on the ground are proof of failure.
Sorry about your inability to count. Should I send over my 8 year old to show you how to do it?
