It's the lies and obfuscations of my pre$$ for starters:
ISIS: Made in Washington, Riyadh – and Tel Aviv
ISIS
Is A Fake US/Israeli Created "Terrorist" Group
ISIS is a US-Israel creation to demonize Islam
The Islamic State (ISIS) and Israel are Allies
Why Does ISIS Fit In So Perfectly With The PNAC Plan?
ISIS in Iraq stinks of CIA/NATO ‘dirty war’ op
US-NATO Proxy War in Iraq and Syria: US Financing and Training of “Moderate” ISIS Rebels in Syria
What?
What do you mean "covert CIA/FSA training facilities that have ties to ISIS [are] in both Jordan and Turkey?"
"The enablers of ISIS; Other states in the region have helped incubate the sadistic group" by Alan Berger | September 20, 2014
President Obama now has a strategic plan for coping with the death cult known as ISIS.
Related: Obama Announces Wider Invasion of Middle East
It is meant to be a restrained exercise of American power, avoiding the commitment of large numbers of US forces to a land war, and relying on air power, intelligence, and a broad coalition to help degrade and eventually destroy ISIS, also known as Islamic State. Welcome as his caution may be, however, he will find it hard to implement his plan without untying several knots that regional powers have drawn tight.
Key states in the region, each in its own way, helped to incubate and enable the sadistic megalomaniacs of ISIS. What’s more, the interests that originally motivated those states to permit the rise of ISIS remain largely unchanged. These are not the most reliable allies to have at America’s side for a long, messy counter-insurgency.
Let's take them in order, shall we?
The most egregious enabler of ISIS has been the Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad.
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!
Oh, what a LOAD of PROPAGANDA considering all the links I dug up and put at the top of this post.
After the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Assad, fearing that US forces would take a left turn toward Damascus to overthrow his regime, had Syrian intelligence services perform a pirouette. Instead of torturing jihadists in Syria’s notorious prisons, Assad’s security forces began providing sites where Syrian and foreign extremists, many of whom would end up in ISIS, could train for jihad against the Americans in Iraq.
Uh-huh.
Until recently, Syrian planes passed over well-known ISIS headquarters without dropping their bombs. But this summer, as ISIS became a serious threat to his regime, Assad’s cynical scheme of using one enemy to keep another at bay blew up in his face.
If that isn't the pot-hollering agenda-pusher yelling kettle.
Now, though he pretends he would resent US warplanes striking ISIS in Syria if there is no coordination with his regime, Assad is sure to welcome American attacks against the ISIS fanatics.
No, he's not because he knows we will "mistakenly" hit his forces. That's the point of these shovelfuls of bulls***.
No less responsible for the rise of ISIS was Iraq’s Shiite former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
(Blog editor just shaking his head at this absurdity)
His persecution of Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority led many Sunnis to view ISIS as the lesser of two evils — and to regard the Shiite soldiers sent to fight ISIS as an army of occupation.
The regional power propping up both Assad and Maliki all along has been the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This really isn't worth reading anymore.
Instead of pushing Assad to reach a political compromise in 2011 with peaceful protesters, Iran sent its Lebanese Hezbollah proxies into Syria to fight for Assad and dispatched its own Revolutionary Guard commanders to oversee the Syrian counter-revolution. Iran’s pursuit of strategic dominance from Iraq, through Syria, to Lebanon helped create favorable conditions for ISIS barbarians who say they want to slaughter Shiites and Persians first of all.
That isn't fooling Iranians for one minute, and this war agenda flogging by Berger(?!!?!!) is offensive.
Before the Syrian uprising, Turkey vaunted Assad’s Syria as the prime illustration of a Turkish slogan claiming “zero problems with neighbors.’’ But Assad’s atrocities against Syrian citizens moved Turkey to allow weapons and fighters to flow across its border with Syria.
What's that? Ally Turkey an enabler?
Because the main party of Kurds in Syria has been closely tied to the Kurdish movement in Turkey known as the PKK, Turkey permitted jihadists and arms to flow to ISIS, whose fighters repeatedly attacked Syria’s Kurds.
Then Turkey -- and not for the first time -- has blood all over its hands.
Last but not least of the enablers are the Saudis, Qataris, and other Gulf Arab states that allowed their rich citizens to send money to ISIS.
As if that is all they were contributing were private donations of money by rich citizens!!
It's Saudi and Qatari manpower among other things that sustains CIA-created ISIS!
This column is real crap, folks.
All these regional actors had a hand in facilitating the rapid expansion of ISIS.
Except that is not true at all. The first three targets he mentioned had nothing to do with creating this self-serving monster of the Jewish war agenda.
Each believed it was serving its own interests. And today the Saudis still regard Iran as a mortal threat; Iran still wants a pliant ally in Damascus; Iraq’s new government is still torn between fealty to Tehran and a need to accommodate Sunni Arab and Kurdish ambitions for a fair share of power and wealth.
Hence the hardest task for Obama in his effort to defeat ISIS is likely to be diplomatic more than military.
Then what is with all the bombing?
He is taking on the role of a lion tamer in the center ring of the Mideast circus.
Forget about taking on the 800-lb gorilla and all that encompasses.
Success will depend on his ability to cajole the disparate regional members of the anti-ISIS alliance into overcoming their intramural enmities — and to act on the old axiom that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
OMG, this thing is destined to fail from the start and we should be working with Syria and Iran then!
--more--"
Here is another myth-maker:
"Americans are incoherent on foreign policy" by Michael A. Cohen | September 20, 2014
Speak for yourself!!
When Barack Obama ran for reelection in 2012 he enjoyed a political gift that no Democrat had experienced in decades — he held a clear advantage on foreign policy and national security. Part of the reason was that America was at peace, its major wars in the Middle East had ended or were winding down, and, oh yeah, he killed Osama bin Laden. In fact, Obama’s handling of international terrorism earned higher marks from the public than his handling of any other policy issue.
We were at peace in 2012? Really?
A lot has changed in two years. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans believe that Republicans are better able to protect the United States from terrorism and other international threats by a 55-to-32 margin. That’s their biggest lead on this issue since 2002. It’s an extraordinary reversal of fortune, and it’s one that is hard to fathom when you consider how much better President Obama has handled national security than Republicans. That’s not just my opinion; it’s a view shared by most Americans, who turned against President Bush for the disastrous Iraq War and have largely supported Obama’s counterterrorism efforts.
The cost of success, huh?
As for the rewriting of history and distortion regarding today, Obama just advanced the neo-con plan as Bush and Clinton before him. Libya, Syria, and Ukraine are all blood on his hands.
Since taking office, Obama has devastated Al Qaeda’s leadership; he’s taken the fight to Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan (in a manner that has been both constitutionally dubious and morally fraught); he ended the war in Iraq; and he drew down in Afghanistan (after disastrously expanding the war initially).
He ended the war in Iraq, huh? (Blog editor shaking his head)
Related:
Yemenis Unhappy With New U.S. Lackey
Goddamn Godane is Dead
You can see what has been happening in Pakistan for yourself, and as for Afghanistan.... sigh.
That’s a pretty good track record; still, the operating principle for a majority of Americans seems to be: What have you done for me lately?
It's been his whole term for me, so don't include me in your stereotyped groupings, 'kay?
With Americans believing the direct threat from ISIS is real (it isn’t, according to the US intelligence community) and pundits repeatedly claiming that Obama’s sluggishness has led to its rise, combined with the beheadings of journalists and aid workers as well as flare-ups in other international hot spots, it’s not surprising that his poll numbers would suffer. The president is being held responsible for the world’s problems and for the public’s zero tolerance when it comes to terrorism.
What did you say about no threat?
But these numbers also speak to the frustrating incoherence of voters when it comes to foreign policy.
I really don't want to hear any complaining when the war agenda just got a huge shove.
For example, a Pew Research Center poll last year showed that 52 percent of Americans agree that the United States should “mind its own business internationally” — the highest level in 50 years.
Meaning we are NOT ONLY WAR WEARY, we DESPISE THEM!!!
It also shows that it is the CRIMINAL AmeriKan government and not the American people that are the bad guys here.
One might conclude from this that Americans want the United States to pull up the drawbridge and come home. Making us sound like pacifist isolationists.
Hey, I am ALL FOR TRADING WITH EVERYONE! I'm just not into starting and waging wars for bankers and Israel.
But not so fast, because at the same time, Americans strongly support the United States playing an active role in global affairs and, as Obama can attest, blame the president for international bad news and expect him to respond.
He's brought it all on himself by screwing around with other nations and overthrowing their governments.
Quite simply, Americans want the United States to stop being the world’s policeman, but they also don’t want to surrender the role of global leader. This incoherence masks another deeper and more important political reality about global affairs — Americans are increasingly checked out.
I don't see anything incoherent. We can stop killing and torturing people to be the leader, although why anyone would want to follow AmeriKa is beyond me.
Do I look checked out or disengaged to you about all this the last eight years, readers?
As pollster Jeremy Rosner said to me, “don’t pay attention to the polls,” which might seem like an odd thing for a pollster to say. In his view, the public’s desire to back away from the world is more a reflection of apathy about foreign affairs than an actual yearning for real policy shifts.
Yeah, right, we don't know what we want, us poor confused souls.
Fuck you, you condescending elitist shit.
If the alarmist headlines — and beheading videos — disappear and no American boots end up on Iraqi ground, Obama’s numbers could very likely shoot back up.
It's more than just that with him. It's the whole thing, from economy to environment to immigration to tyranny.
All of this has political implications for November and beyond. There is no congressional campaign where national security is playing a prominent role. You could probably count on one hand the number of foreign policy-related ads running this cycle. Americans simply aren’t interested — and barring a major war or terrorist attack, that is unlikely to change between now and 2016.
Well, we got through another 9/11 anniversary in one piece.
That is bad news for potential presidential candidates, including Republican Rand Paul and, oddly, Democrat Hillary Clinton, who might be in for a surprise if she wants to run on her foreign policy experience. While it has seemed for the past 13 years that terrorism and war has dominated American politics, this is not only a bit of an exaggeration but it’s likely an outlier. The new normal on foreign policy is indifference.
Yeah, right, we don't care that we have a lying, mass-murdering government staffed by war criminals. That's why I'm spewing profanity after blogging all these years trying to stop this madness.
Some opinions are even more offensive than bad language.
--more--"
Maybe I should $top enabling the propaganda of the Bo$ton Globe.
