By Alex Newman May 26, 2015 A newly released intelligence report from the Pentagon shows that the U.S. government knew that supporting jihadists in the fight against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad would produce a fundamentalist Islamic State in Eastern Syria and that Obamas supposed anti-ISIS coalition knowingly backed ISIS and other Islamic terrorists for precisely that purpose. The heavily redacted Defense Department report, obtained by watchdog Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, shows once again that, contrary to the false narrative peddled by the establishment press, the rise of the savage terror group known as ISIS was actually deliberate policy. Now, the fruits of that plot are becoming clearer as the body count continues to skyrocket. The 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report is very blunt about the objectives. The West, Gulf countries [the Islamic regimes ruling Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, etc.], and Turkey support the Syrian opposition, it explains, adding that, as The New American reported at the time, al-Qaeda supported the Syrian uprising from the beginning as well. There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist [fundamentalist Islam] principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime. (Emphasis added.) Of course, that is also exactly what happened when ISIS declared the establishment of its caliphate in Eastern Syria and parts of Iraq. (Excerpt) Read more: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...islamic-state-in-syria?tmpl=component&print=1 The report exposes the lies spawned by the Obama administration, senior U.S. lawmakers, and foreign leaders to dupe Americans into believing the U.S. government supported non-existent moderate rebels in Syria. Just how much did this cost we the American tax-payers? Wait for it --- This was part of Obama's Stimulus plan. Amongst all the other illegal, criminal and unconstitutional acts that Obama has perpetrated this rates high in the area of impeachment. We know that Republicans in both Houses of Congress will not act. Barack Hussein Obama has become the most traitorous president America has ever had.
Well then, what's up with the Republicans? Last I checked they didn't like treason. Has no one the fortitude to stand up on this issue? Really man, the Republicans are in sorry shape. They've completely lost their political compass. (I blame the Neo-Cons). They should be all over this issue, but instead they're playing complicit footsie. It's shameful. The whole thing is entirely shameful.
Using the anti semitic code word for conservative Jews may be PC for the Left, but should not be used as common place. I personally don't have faith in either of the party's, or the politicians that lead them. It appears that the Republican Party shot their wad when they attempted to impeach Bill Clinton. Now the Progressives believe they can get away with whatever they impose upon the American people.
Neo-Cons are not conservatives. They're war hawk liberals, masquerading as Republicans. We've been over this, yes? Neo-Cons are the reason why the Republican Party is in such disarray today. The conservatives in the party are mad as hell because there's no one left to represent them, all there is are open borders people and fools who claim money is speech and buildings are people. The Republican Party is no longer conservative. It's now "centrist-liberal".
As true as this is, it's sad, because those calling themselves conservative could be the only republicans left, but they are so confused with the labeling of partisan politics they can no longer think for themselves and identify the principles of the republic; so if there was someone representing the principles of the republic, they would not know it; therefore calling themselves leaderless.
Oh, I think it's simpler than that. The conservatives got snookered, and many of them have their heads too far up their own butts to admit it. PC has that effect, it makes people ashamed to open their mouths.
It really does. If PC in America didn't exist, I imagine I would be much more vocal than I am. Because like you said, the events of the past seven years have made me so angry as to use language that one would normally never use. You never use said language, because you'd like to believe government is trying its best, inept as it is. But for the first time in US History, I don't believe the US Government is trying its best. Most benevolent way I can put it.
I have personally decided that truth and communications are more important than making people feel good about themselves, and therefore I have tossed PC out the window and I insist on pointing out unpleasant truths in the most direct possible way. At some point one must take a (verbal) machete and cut through the (PC) jungle, yes? You're much too kind. How about we call it what it is: corruption. Moral, intellectual, political, financial..... every kind that matters. The system is rotten. It hasn't been maintained in a while. The technicians have been off doing something else, we got distracted. It's our machine, ain't no one else gonna oil it for us.
It's because we hold low standards for ourselves. Processed foods in America, while every European country has banned Monsanto while the Supreme Court was paid off by Monsanto, same as our politicians. Entertainment has become a central part of American "society", while for Europeans entertainment is nice, but the intellectual, political and moral values of Europe is what holds that continent together. The history of Europe is literally one of intellectual enlightenment. The Rennaisance started there, and the Third Position which I admit I studied extensively had its origins in Europe. That is to say, Europeans were the first ones to ask themselves "Why should we identify solely on a strict political line of two parties?" It's the comfort of human beings to assume that thoughts are linear, but the reality is not so. Indeed, the Neo-Cons, the Christian Right and the Moderate Conservatives might as well run their OWN parties. There can be no coalition of these forces. The Moderate Conservative especially. He's not a religious zealot, nor is he excessive in warfare(while acknowledging the need for National Defense). And while he would do well in the General, the American misconception of what the Right means effectively means he has to be something he's not in the primaries. The primaries themselves make a mockery of an election, that's supposedly "free" and yet one must have to go through this elimination round before actually running for President. Therefore, it's not accurate to say "I'm running for President", I would say "I'm running in the Republican(or Democratic) primaries." Understandably, one only wants one clear victor politically. But, why not trust the citizenry to determine that one victor? And what if the citizenry wants more than one victor? Shouldn't a coalition governmernt be effective and best for all? Hence the one who wants Social policies promoted, can have said policies promoted. The one who wants Liberal ideas, can have Liberalism represented in government. And for me, as a Fascist. I would not have to lie and call myself as a "State Republican", I could honestly promote the value of Fascism in America. I'd love to remove the primaries, and even the age requirements for positions. May he/she with the best ideas and the most practical means for achieving them prevail.
This works in an educated society, but not one where people are easily deceived and manipulated by 30 second media spots where the political opponent is accused of being a unpatriotic homosexual and looses all credibility in the eyes of the public. As long as citizens actually believe that what is being said on Fox news is "trustworthy", democracy is impossible. The Greek philosophers already identified the dangers of sophism and demagogy a looooong time ago, and the Romans the famous "panem et circenses" factor, and both I'm afraid apply to the US. I am personally a Rousseauist as I firmly believe that democracy can only work when individuals are taught to conceptualize public interest and common interest as opposed to their selfish desires. As for the fact that the US supported ISIS, why would you be surprised? Keeping the Middle East ripped appart, divided and constantly in war is the perfect way to ensure that no "serious" opponent arrises. Iran was a much bigger threat than ISIS: it's a well established, relatively stable and functioning Nation State, with an economy, a GDP, financial resources etc with a trained military. ISIS is a headless chicken with uneducated desperados and religious fanatics that don't have any sense of strategic planning. ISIS is a blessing for our countries. It attracts all the so called "rotten" elements of our capitalist societies and assembles them in the middle of the desert to die... I'm sure the politicians that supported ISIS have made these calculations themselves... That's "real politik".
Yeah. And we do it for.... what? Money! Money is a goal unto itself. Money trumps everything, even human rights. The two party system in this country has financial inertia. It would take another Ross Perot for us to have a viable third choice. Someone of independent means, and there's not many of those that can compete with the R or D financial machines. Yes. The "Big Tent" is an alluring concept from a partisan standpoint but it's also fraught with danger. There are some people you don't want in your tent, and there are others whom you'll tolerate as long as they're "inside peeing out" so to speak. The idea of "anyone who will vote for me is a good guy" is unique to politicians and businessmen - the rest of us are a bit more.... um.... intolerant. Well, I basically agree with everything you're saying, and my main question is "how do we get from A to B". In order to do what you're saying in the last sentence, we'd have to remove money from the equation. And apparently the Supreme Morons won't let us do that. Hm.... they had a similar situation in 1949 China and look what happened. They removed money from the equation all right.... for thirty years or so LOL.... Here is a sobering thought: if We the People stopped donating to politicians entirely, they'd still be able to make a living. From corporate donations. And from foreign donations. The 200k a year we pay our senior politicians appears to be insignificant compared to the money they can wheedle out of people on the job, so why don't we just stop paying them entirely, take away all their benefits, and then see who still wants the job and why they want it. I don't remember ever voting these clowns lifetime pensions, do you?
Yes, no money, but still, power! Some people would do much to get to power and with power, you can provide yourself with material benefits anyways, that could lead to cash in one way or another. The Greek philosophers in their days were already faced with this problem! I can't remember which philosopher but one of them clearly said that anyone wielding power can have no private ownership of anything, only "use temporarily" the goods of the state while in power. Anyways, I still think the better option is a parliament with "randomly" chosen citizens, like for a murder trial. It's the only way to get a true representativeness of the population, and avoid having only power/money hungry people in power.
Especially, when you realize the chemical weapons attack on the syrian people was part of obama and pals plan, to create a false pretext for a cruise missile attack in support of ISIS' advance.
When you get your "news" from a mouthpiece for the John Birch Society, complaining about what other people say about Jews appears seriously misplaced.
Amazing, isn't it? in my opinion, our blind and seemingly prophetic based allegiance to Israel and constant need to meddle within middle eastern affairs causes us to change objectives and allies like most folks change their chones. The enemy of my friend is my enemy, expect when the enemy of my friend is also my friend, but then again if my friend's enemy is not as bad as my friend's enemy's enemy, maybe my enemy is my friend after I was his enemy's friend. Or something like that it seems.
Pretty much the Progressives are correct in that assessment because one could label this rogue president 'No Consequences Obama'. Any other president WOULD have been investigated up one side and down the other and then almost certainly impeached over the host of egregious violations of various laws; but not Obama because he's the nation's first minority president and the GOP would be courting complete destruction by a rabidly insane and increasingly nation-hating Left were they to even create an independent special prosecutor position to BEGIN looking into everything that Obama has done to this nation and -- not incidentally -- to this nation's foreign policy. So the increasingly nation-hating Left has won in that Obama is off limits; and since Obama knows that he is off limits there effectively are no longer any meaningful limits on his presidency. I predicted this about four years ago should an increasing insane or stupid half of the voting population see fit to return the man to office for a second term . . . and I have been correct right down the line. Sigh!
That's how what I explained happened, but it was not just conservatives. PC itself is, and is comprised largely of cognitive distortions. Critical thinking cannot be effectively done with distortions. The media machine got everyone using them then introduced PC. Now even creating a proper understanding is verboten.
In the current era, there seems to be a strong tendency to use "neocon" as a label for someone who strongly supported the war in Iraq or to describe someone who is, well, Jewish. People who mean Jew or Jewish carefully avoid use of either word, often allowing the word "neocon" to roll off the tongue, injected with a tinge of disgust. Just as those who assail the "neocons" in the administration fault the supposedly all-powerful "Zionist cabal" as militarily trigger-happy idealists. Therefore the use of the word "Neocon" is used by the Left as a code word for "Jew".
Are you claiming that I'm a 'Bircher', or that it's okay to use code words to disguise anti-semitism and discrimination?
Oh good, then you can help with the dynamic, unpleasant truths of this. Please download the 1 hour .avi file, a documentary I produced titled "CIRCA, Stolen Spirit, Frauds of Colonization", a documentary about the missing history of Santa Barbara California, rather than streaming it on the server. Its aired about 80 times on public access TV here. http://www.algoxy.com/miskno/ Then you can stream "CIRCA Sequela, Stolen Safety, Frauds of Society" on youtube in 3 parts. Start a thread about the "unpleasant truth" here and I will answer any questions you have. BTW, this "unpleasant truth" is pretty much in control of our world, so it appears hijacked and its hard to say exactly who or why, but the "unpleasant truth" helps to understand.
