Who Created ISIS?

[1robin]

Not renewing the agreement was pretty much Iraq's way of saying we don't want you here any more, so you would have been staying against the will of the government. This is not a great long term strategy.

That war can only be waged if the nation where it is being fought unanimously votes to allow it to take place is silly and contradictory to history.

But let's say Obama decided to 'tough it out'. What next?

I am not a prophet, but I can make an educated guess. Isis would not have been able to kill civilians by the tens of thousands virtually unchecked for a long time. Also he would not have risked or lost what the soldiers paid for with their blood and their lives. Being a soldier I can tell you that we accept the fact that we will lose friends and will have to endure hardships for a long time. What US soldiers do have a problem with is for the politicians to squander all the gains the soldiers sacrifice bought or to even risk that happening for political reasons.

When Obama did normal stuff, many on the right saw him as a subversive traitor trying to sabotage the US. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out how they would respond to Obama allowing a Muslim country to arrest and kill US soldiers with impunity.

I am not sure what your point is. Obama simply should have not let what you stated to occur. He should have simply said that the Iraqi's hold no sovereignty over US personnel and any attacks on our citizens would be met with force.

It would most likely make any person who supported it unelectable, so would face widespread opposition in both houses. I'm not sure what actions they could take to force Obama's hand, but they would certainly try.

I am not sure what your saying. we were talking about the merit of Obama's decisions concerning a war. I am not discussing hypothetical partisan politics in general.

First of all, it wasn't a 'liberal policy', Bush decided to "cut and run" when he signed off on a withdrawal by 2011. Also neo-conservative/liberal interventionist nation building spans both left and right, as does opposition to it.

Of course you draw down after a war. The issue here is that liberals always try to cut and run too fast, and for political reasons. They threw away everything that was gained by 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam who died to preserve the south and freedom, they also attempted to sit by and let the free world burn in WW2 until Japan attacked us and we demanded action, and they are doing the same thing in the middle east.

If you want to look at history then it's just as easy to find examples of people who 'stuck it out' with disasterous consequences. The Persian desire to conquer Greece end up with the Greeks conquering Persia. Napoleon toughing it out in Russia didn't end to well for him either.

Of course there have been examples where sticking it out did not work. However it is meaningless to point out that military mistakes occur. What are you saying? That only actions that have never failed can be carried out? Should we not attempt to cure cancer because some cures have not worked in some cases?

Also, this was no WW2, it was an unpopular war with an unrealistic objective of nation building.

Roosevelt (a liberal of course, or at least a progressive) tried his best to not get involved because WW2 at that point was not popular, which allowed millions to die before we acted. You cannot possibly find a war more universally agreed with than the gulf wars, it was only much later when things got a little difficult that the liberals started whining. besides a thing is not right or wrong depending on it's popularity. Hitler was hugely popular in 37 - 42, was he right? Jesus was unpopular with the Jewish establishment, does that make his messages on love and peace wrong? Arguments from popularity are a type of logical fallacy.

Unless the objective was an unending game of whack a mole against insurgents with no end game in the face of increasing hostility and resentment, what do you think could have been achieved?

That was not the goal but it should have been. you could not come up with better situation. The terrorists were coming to us instead of hiding in the civilian population. Of course we took a few casualties here and there, but our enemy was finally out in the open and for every soldier we lost a dozen to a hundred or more terrorists died. For the first time the enemy were looking for us instead of hiding behind children and Hospitals. It was the best situation anyone could rationally hope for.

The Iraqi Army was not going to be ready any time. As you saw when they fled from a handful of jihadis, they were simply a cash cow for politicians and officers who were kept deliberately weak. A powerful military would be a threat to the politicians.

That proves my point, if Obama had the moral courage to stand up to evil and protect Iraq then he should have left a significant US force in Iraq until the Iraqi's were properly trained.

The political reality of the 21st century is very different. No politician could survive such a humiliation. It wouldn't be seen as 'toughing it out', but the most abject surrender and weakness of any president in history.

I respect politicians for doing what is right even if people whine about it. Obama gave into the whining instead of doing what was right. Political expediency has no relevance here. I am discussing what is right and wrong, not what is best for a Politicians career. Again your proving everything I have said about Obama and liberals in general. BTW this same dichotomy has existed in the exact same way for thousands of years.

You would literally be paying billions of $$$ to a government that was humiliating you in public in conjunction with Iran.

That would not have been the case if a true leader and statesman had been in power instead of a liberal ideologue.

Obama would be the most hated President in history and a one term lame duck rejected by even his own party.

I do not care, Lincoln was hated by most much of the time, all by some all the time. yet because he stayed the correct moral course in spite of criticism he is known as possibly the greatest president in history. BTW the other president that the same can be said about is Washington. Obama will be known as a petty, immoral, and self interested narcissist, unlike the presidents I mentioned.

I have some questions that I'd be interested in your perspective on. As someone who served in the military, how would you feel if service men and women, doing a tough and dangerous job, also had to do this under the knowledge that at any time they wanted the Iraqi police could arrest them on a whim?

If we had a true leader as president then that situation would simply not exist. Obama was not forced to do what you claim he was, in fact that situation never existed in general outside of a hypothetical.

How do you think morale would be? [How would you feel if the police marched into your base and took your friends away to probably be tortured and possibly executed? How would you feel the 2nd, 3rd and 4th times after seeing people like yourself paraded on TV and publicly humiliated? Do you think heavily armed people would just stand by and do nothing? Would you honestly still be praising Obama for showing toughness and moral fortitude?

These are false arguments because no one could have forced any of these situations to become reality. Obama did not have to allow a single thing you mentioned to become reality.

The Iraqi government is significantly influenced by Iran. Don't you think that Iran would have taken the first opportunity to pick itself up a load of bargaining chips in the form of US military personnel?

You seem to be claiming that only wars in which we lose no one and no one has to suffer can be fought. That is irrational and unhistorical. All wars come with risks, the Iraqi war had less risk than most.

Not just the front line soldiers either, the entire command structure would be subject to arbitrary detention, easily justified by any civilian casualties. I'm not sure how the military could function under such conditions.

The other alternative would be to reject Iraqi sovereignty and stay there by force, but I don't really see how this would be helpful if the goal was creating long term stability.

You only have about two bizarre lines of reasoning which you state in dozens of ways.

1. Only wars where no risks exist and nothing bad occurs can be fought. That is silly, irrational, and unhistorical.
2. Or that things which Obama was not forced to allow to occur are reasons that Obama should have run before the job was done. This is self contradictory, incoherent, and even if true would only show that Obama failed in another way in addition to running before the job was done. No one could have forced us to allow any of the things you suggest would have forced us to leave when we did.

 

[1robin]

You are obviously looking at the M.E. through a military lens whereas I largely look at it from an anthropological (cultural) lens. Yes, I have no doubt we could blow up and/or occupy probably the entire M.E., but at what price?

Yes, you can look at the middle east in hundreds of ways. However we were discussing Obama's cutting and running from the middle east which allowed ISIS to flourish enough to become entrenched. That is a military context, which is why I made militaristic points.

I do not see how an anthropological context is relevant. However you are welcome to show why you think it is relevant but since I think most of the culture's in the middle east are horrific, oppressive, and backwards I have no reason to bother with cultural lenses.

The reality is that we attacked, invaded, did regime change that brought the more pro-Iranian Shi'i to power, while at the same time killing or displacing roughly 1/3 of the country's population, and this was against a country that didn't attack us. We were lied to by the previous administration, as Powell and many others came to realize, and yet your solution is to continue of with this while more and more Americans come home in body bags and more Iraqis are killed?

I disagree with your appraisal of the war on terror but that is irrelevant here. We were talking about Obama's throwing away what the military bought with their own blood. It does not matter what started the war, the worst thing another leader could have done in the case we are discussing is cut and run and letting the progress that had been made implode, along with the security we were providing being stripped away allowing ISIS and others to rise up before Iraq could defend it's self. I do not agree with you about why the war was begun but even if you are right Obama handled the war after he came to power in a terrible war which allowed ISIS to rise which is the subject of the thread.

So, my point was not to question whether we could bomb the area into dust, or that we could take over the area by killing anyone who gets in our way and by sending hundreds of thousands more Americans into harm's way for maybe decades, but whether it would be ethical and also that strategically necessary in the long run?

For this conversation the war is a given. What made what ISIS has done possible is the horrific way Obama called it quits prematurely.

And the lesson so many in the military forget was made abundantly clear several decades ago with the Vietnam conflict whereas 50,000 Americans lost their lives, and for what? I originally was for our involvement there, but very early on I realized that the only way we could save Vietnam was to destroy it, which would have been an odd and very inhumane way to "save" it.

We were not discussing whether we were justified in attacking Iraq. The lesson you mentioned was learned and taken to heart on the right which is why the actual war against Iraq was a cake walk. The soldiers won the war in Vietnam even though the liberals did their best to lose the war, and then the liberals let our success in Vietnam go to waste. So the conservatives learned that lesson and gave the US two of the easiest and clearest victories in Iraq anyone could hope for. However the liberals lost most of the fruits of victory yet again. How does the right keep winning wars only to have the liberals lose the peace?

There is a very serious ethical problem with what you have proposed, and I frankly cannot even begin to understand how a believer in Jesus could take such a bomb-the-hell-and-take-them-over attitude. I have a very difficult time picturing Jesus with a fully-automatic assault-weapon gunning down Iraqis and displacing and ruining the lives of millions of innocent people. And since I can't picture him doing that, so then I also question why his disciples would take a different position. Defense is one thing, but playing offense against a country that didn't attack us is another.

So because I am a Christian living in a Christian nation I cannot fight those who would destroy my nation? Where do you get that from? If you want a full dissertation on Christian corporate duties versus personal ethics then I can provide many but that is not what we were talking about.

BTW, if my memory is correct, you said you voted for Trump, which I have to admit brings up some other questions that relate to this. But I'll save that for maybe another day.

No, I didn't. I made some jokes about the election, I never said who I voted for.

You are all over the place here.

1. You talk about why we got into Iraq, in a debate about how ISIS came to power.
2. You talk about the beginnings of wars in general in a debate about what happened when Obama ran from a specific war.
3. You make generalizations about wars in general in a debate about a specific region and specific actions.
4. You take an off ramp into Christian meta-ethics in a debate about the foundations of an Islamic movement.
5. And you mistakenly claim I said I voted for Trump (unless you can quote where I revealed it), instead of talking about the actual president in office.

ETC........

I have no idea what point your trying to make.

 

[metis]

I do not see how an anthropological context is relevant.

In anthropology, we cover all aspects of culture, which logically includes war. To isolate war stands the chance of missing many other factors that may be involved in any kind of decision making process.

For this conversation the war is a given. What made what ISIS has done possible is the horrific way Obama called it quits prematurely.

Obama had no choice for several reasons already mentioned that you seemingly just choose to ignore. Look back at my previous post addressed to you along with another that was added by Augustus.

Secondly, Obama's strategy worked since it forced the hands of other countries in the region to get off their arse and do more of the heavy lifting. If we did it your way, they would just sit back while more and more American men and women come home in body bags or with severe physical or mental problems. And how many tours of duty is enough, 1robin?

Thirdly, the American public had enough and wanted out, so don't you think they should have a say in this?

So because I am a Christian living in a Christian nation I cannot fight those who would destroy my nation? Where do you get that from?

You just moved the goalposts and have responded in an entirely disingenuous way as there was several factors involved. You're implying that I said or suggested that we could not defend ourselves is nothing short of dishonesty.

If you want a full dissertation on Christian corporate duties versus personal ethics then I can provide many but that is not what we were talking about.

Anytime you want to get into this, start a new thread and just let me know. However, I will have no interest in discussing anything with you if you intend to repeat the same tactic you used above.

5. And you mistakenly claim I said I voted for Trump (unless you can quote where I revealed it), instead of talking about the actual president in office.

It appears that I conflated you and esmith, so sorry about that.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Peace to all
So who created ISIS in Afghanistan?

https://thepoliticalanalyzer.com/2016/07/19/wikileaks-cia-supports-isis-through-afghanistan/

God will judge those that have blood of innocent women and children in their hands.
Peace

 

[metis]

Peace to all
So who created ISIS in Afghanistan?

https://thepoliticalanalyzer.com/2016/07/19/wikileaks-cia-supports-isis-through-afghanistan/

God will judge those that have blood of innocent women and children in their hands.
Peace

I'm obviously not in any position to verify the letter's authenticity, but it simply wouldn't at all surprise me if it's true.

All too many of our political leaders here in the west historically looked at that region and only saw oil. We often supported despotic regimes through various means because of oil. Even though there are conflicts in many areas of the world whereas we didn't get involved, we chose to get involved in Near East because of oil.

What all too many in the west cannot get through their head is that groups like al-Queda, ISIS, the "Arab Spring", etc., were largely created by the reaction against western political and economic domination and/or meddling. When al-Queda attacked on 9-11, it wasn't to take over the U.S. or cause us to give up-- it was to draw us into a long-term conflict that they knew the west could not win in the long run. We know this as a fact, and yet so many in the west just walk with blinders on.

And the prototype for this kind of strategy was the Mujahideen's victory over the Russians, whereas they sucked them in and then spit them out as Russian after Russian came home in body bags.

And we need to remember that we lost many more American lives after 9-11 than were killed on 9-11, and that doesn't even include those that came home maimed physically and mentally. And yet what we still hear from so many on the political-right is we should have stayed. For what? More to come home dead or maimed? Sooner of later we'll have to leave the region, and what happened in Vietnam long-term was a prototype for that which so many seem to all too easily forget.

Obviously, there are times and place to fight to defend ourselves and possibly some others, so I'm not going at this from a pacifist perspective. But we here in the west really need to do our homework and deal with the bigger picture, plus look at various options with a better eye for long-term effects.
What do you think from your perspective?

salaam

 

[1robin]

In anthropology, we cover all aspects of culture, which logically includes war. To isolate war stands the chance of missing many other factors that may be involved in any kind of decision making process.

This point seems too trivial to spend time debating it so I will just let it stand so I can spend time on more relevant issues. However I want to make one point, the greatest roll anthropology can play in a conflict is in wining the peace afterwards. After the second Iraq war more anthropologists than ever had a roll in the aftermath after major combat ended. They utterly failed. The war was won in a matter of months, it was the peace that failed. Anyway, moving on.

Obama had no choice for several reasons already mentioned that you seemingly just choose to ignore. Look back at my previous post addressed to you along with another that was added by Augustus.

I replied to each point you made.

Hold it a minute, I just realized who I was talking to and to keep from wasting my time I scrolled down to see if you did exactly what you did last time and what do you know, you again spent a bunch of time making points that are irrational and defy even a cursory study of history. I do not think you could have made points that are as wrong as you have, nor claims that are easier to show are wrong. Then after making a lot of redundant points that I had already shown are utterly incorrect you bail out and blame it on something I did. Do me a favor and quit responding to my posts, you do not debate in good faith

 

[metis]

This point seems too trivial to spend time debating it so I will just let it stand so I can spend time on more relevant issues. However I want to make one point, the greatest roll anthropology can play in a conflict is in wining the peace afterwards. After the second Iraq war more anthropologists than ever had a roll in the aftermath after major combat ended. They utterly failed. The war was won in a matter of months, it was the peace that failed. Anyway, moving on.


I replied to each point you made.

Hold it a minute, I just realized who I was talking to and to keep from wasting my time I scrolled down to see if you did exactly what you did last time and what do you know, you again spent a bunch of time making points that are irrational and defy even a cursory study of history. I do not think you could have made points that are as wrong as you have, nor claims that are easier to show are wrong. Then after making a lot of redundant points that I had already shown are utterly incorrect you bail out and blame it on something I did. Do me a favor and quit responding to my posts, you do not debate in good faith

You can believe in any delusion you prefer to as your "points" are merely your opinions, which hardly can be found cast in stone. You simply do not understand the historical and cultural complexities of that area of the world, nor do you show any inclination to actually learn about them. You can be viewed as being a model as to why we simply cannot afford to allow shoot-'em-up types like you to make decisions on whether we should go to war or not.

And let me just say that it's quite clear that you have fashioned "Jesus" in your own image, which is certainly not the Jesus found in the gospels. There simply is not a logical nor scriptural way one can take your positions that you have taken and actually believe in what Jesus taught, and this can be rather easily confirmed if you actually took some time and studied some of the documents and positions found in the 2nd century church on the issue of war, some of which can be found here: https://rogueminister.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/quotes-the-early-church-on-war-and-violence/

BTW, no one forced you to respond to my posts, so maybe it's time you took on some responsibilities of your own, and that would include not fabricating words that I or some others didn't actually say.

Goodbye.

 

[1robin]

You can believe in any delusion you prefer to as your "points" are merely your opinions, which hardly can be found cast in stone. You simply do not understand the historical and cultural complexities of that area of the world, nor do you show any inclination to actually learn about them. You can be viewed as being a model as to why we simply cannot afford to allow shoot-'em-up types like you to make decisions on whether we should go to war or not.

And let me just say that it's quite clear that you have fashioned "Jesus" in your own image, which is certainly not the Jesus found in the gospels. There simply is not a logical nor scriptural way one can take your positions that you have taken and actually believe in what Jesus taught, and this can be rather easily confirmed if you actually took some time and studied some of the documents and positions found in the 2nd century church on the issue of war, some of which can be found here: https://rogueminister.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/quotes-the-early-church-on-war-and-violence/

BTW, no one forced you to respond to my posts, so maybe it's time you took on some responsibilities of your own, and that would include not fabricating words that I or some others didn't actually say.

Goodbye.

I am not following you down the rabbit hole again, only to have you waste my time by your giving up and blaming it on me. If you keep this up I will be forced to put you on my ignore list.

 

[metis]

I am not following you down the rabbit hole again, only to have you waste my time by your giving up and blaming it on me. If you keep this up I will be forced to put you on my ignore list.

Oh, and that would just crush me.

BTW, to show you how good your memory is, it was not you who put me on ignore, which is why you still were able to see what I was posting, Instead, it was I who put you on ignore at least twice that I can remember for reasons that should be obvious.

And a "fine" example as to why I did this can be found in your last post whereas you actually blame anthropologists for the "utterly failed" peace in Iraq?! Gee, I never knew we had so much power!

It is this kind of utter nonsense that you constantly throw out. For you to blame anthropologists, of all people, for how the supposed peace in Iraq supposedly failed is nothing short of being a fabricated lie, and you know it. What a sorry and sad joke that even defies common sense and common decency.

Matter of fact, to end this conversation, I'll put you on ignore for at least the third time. However, I never leave anyone on ignore for long as I have no ability to hold grudges, so I may well be responding again in a couple of weeks or so. And a recommendation: maybe when and if you go to church this weekend, maybe it's time to take stock in what you are doing.

Anyhow, ^^ignore list^^, but have a Happy Thanksgiving anyway.

 

[Augustus]

That war can only be waged if the nation where it is being fought unanimously votes to allow it to take place is silly and contradictory to history.

Nation building tends to require this though.

Isis would not have been able to kill civilians by the tens of thousands virtually unchecked for a long time. Also he would not have risked or lost what the soldiers paid for with their blood and their lives. Being a soldier I can tell you that we accept the fact that we will lose friends and will have to endure hardships for a long time. What US soldiers do have a problem with is for the politicians to squander all the gains the soldiers sacrifice bought or to even risk that happening for political reasons.

There were no gains, it was a **** up from the start and was always going to be a **** up.

It was a war pursued for ridiculous ideological reasons and didn't fail because of poor execution but because it had completely unrealistic goals.

I am not sure what your point is. Obama simply should have not let what you stated to occur. He should have simply said that the Iraqi's hold no sovereignty over US personnel and any attacks on our citizens would be met with force.

You were relying on Iraqi cooperation which would have been withdrawn. Unless you wanted an unending forceful occupation with no end game.

Of course there have been examples where sticking it out did not work. However it is meaningless to point out that military mistakes occur. What are you saying? That only actions that have never failed can be carried out? Should we not attempt to cure cancer because some cures have not worked in some cases?

Was just reflecting your logic: "We should stay because that's what strong leaders do".

Why do you see the situation as one with a happy ending rather than gambler's ruin where you keep chasing after a losing cause.

That was not the goal but it should have been. you could not come up with better situation. The terrorists were coming to us instead of hiding in the civilian population. Of course we took a few casualties here and there, but our enemy was finally out in the open and for every soldier we lost a dozen to a hundred or more terrorists died. For the first time the enemy were looking for us instead of hiding behind children and Hospitals. It was the best situation anyone could rationally hope for.

And those you killed were being replaced by a production line of new recruits. You were providing a great training ground for terrorists.

After the initial invasion, the successes you had were due to cooperation from the local population. When you told the local population to **** off they might have not been so willing to cooperate any more.

What was the end game? Stay in Iraq endlessly killing terrorists who were being created by you staying in Iraq?

Same as in Vietnam, the locals have all the time in the world. They know you don't and can outwait and outlast you.

That proves my point, if Obama had the moral courage to stand up to evil and protect Iraq then he should have left a significant US force in Iraq until the Iraqi's were properly trained.

They were being set up to fail by the power brokers for political and corrupt reasons. It wasn't simply a matter of time.

Also remember you have just said a big, humiliating, face-losing, public **** you to these leaders who are now your enemies and are probably funneling your arms and money to those who will attack you with them (even more than they were doing before hand anyway).

You only have about two bizarre lines of reasoning which you state in dozens of ways.

1. Only wars where no risks exist and nothing bad occurs can be fought. That is silly, irrational, and unhistorical.
2. Or that things which Obama was not forced to allow to occur are reasons that Obama should have run before the job was done. This is self contradictory, incoherent, and even if true would only show that Obama failed in another way in addition to running before the job was done. No one could have forced us to allow any of the things you suggest would have forced us to leave when we did.

And you only have one argument which is silly, irrational and unhistorical. Stay for the sake of staying.

The only reason to stay is that it would improve the situation, create stability and the opportunity for a peaceful Iraq to emerge.

None of the institutions necessary to provide this existed though. More than that, they had never existed, just like the cultural values and will necessary to make such things happen.

You berate Obama as an ideologue, yet your views are pure ideology without any grounding in reality. The neo-conservative/liberal interventionist ideology has so clearly failed yet you believe doubling down and 'moral fortitude' is all that is necessary: the policy was good but the will was weak.

It failed when you had the support of much of the population, yet you think it would succeed when you effectively go to war against them?

 

[Tabu]

ISIS with a Islamic title has been killing many innocent civilians including Christians in the name of Islam.
They ISIS definitely do not represent the Islamic religion.They do have the hall marks of a beast with blood dripping from their hands.
The question is who created this monster?

Simple, Egos and greed invested in ignorance to create ISIS

 

[Muffled]

ISIS is an extremist result of hard line Saudi Wahhabi Sunni teaching, that prophesizes the battle at the end of the world, global conflict, where the "evil" west is defeated by "good" Islam.
I host Saudi students, I asked one about this and he said it was always the Shia causing these problems, he also insisted Saddam Hussein was an evil Shia dictator.
It seemed everyone beyond his particular desert village was evil and Shia. It makes me wonder how good their education is, and whether it is similar to the Japanese school history regarding the second world war.

Cheers

They have on e thing right. I believe at the end of the world there will be a world conflict of all nations against Israel but Jesus will intervene to save the Jews.

Evil dictator is correct but my understanding is that he was Sunni.

 

[Augustus]

Peace to all
So who created ISIS in Afghanistan?

https://thepoliticalanalyzer.com/2016/07/19/wikileaks-cia-supports-isis-through-afghanistan/

God will judge those that have blood of innocent women and children in their hands.
Peace

Same argument made every war. Oil, oil pipeline, uranium, gold and minerals, etc.

Afghanistan, Kosovo, Syria, Mali, etc. etc.

Strangely they never seem to actually occur, but next time around people forget they were wrong last time and repeat the same old tired thinking.

Now if the US wants to get some minerals, why do they want to destabilise the country where they are buying them?

Resource extraction works best in a stable environment.

It's also cheaper to just buy them on the open market than spend trillions on faking a terror attack on your own country, engaging in a 15 year war and creating a fictitious terror group and still not actually getting any of the minerals you wanted in the first place.

But hey, it's only the gullible who believe everything they read eh?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Peace to all.
Gullible are those who only read into their bias media.
How gullible were those who never gave Donald Duck a chance in the election?
Gullible are those who will never accept the truth due to their mindset.
Documentary proof ISIS is the creation of the US of A.....
US of A admits they funded ISIS......
Why the CIA created ISIS....
Look at all the weapons the US of A gave to ISIS....
ISIS,CIA,Saudi and Israel all connected with blood.....

Its all open evidence yet gullible are those who will not accept responsibility for the blood of innocent
Women and children in their hands.
God will judge those that side with these murders.
They all belong to the devil Satan.
They are called the house of blood.
Peace

 

[Shad]

Peace to all.
Gullible are those who only read into their bias media.

Yet you believe this video, which is a form of media, because?

Documentary proof ISIS is the creation of the US of A.....

Actually it isn't. The article on the guy's own site was removed. His documents are spreadsheets made by others, some of which look like it was made by a child with a coloured marker. His cites opinions of others.

Also your source itself has been espoused as a liar and fraud *as in crime. You can look up this man for yourself.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Peace to all
Obama admits the US of A trains ISIS....

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hillary Clinton admits the CIA started and funded Al Qaeda....

 

[faroukfarouk]

U.S. Senators : We've been funding ISIS all the time.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Maybe this is all fake news...
Peace

 

[Augustus]

Peace to all
Obama admits the US of A trains ISIS....

Option 1: In the middle of a speech about what America is doing to fight ISIL, Obama decides to publicly admit training ISIL in the context of what America is doing to fight ISIL. Despite secretly creating ISIL and wanting to keep it secret, he decides to prepare a speech about training ISIL

Option 2: Obama reads out a poorly edited script missing the word anti-

You decide...

Full transcript here.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/06/remarks-president-progress-fight-against-isil

Hillary Clinton admits the CIA started and funded Al Qaeda....

No she doesn't.

You need to actually watch the film and listen to the words rather than looking at the headline.

Maybe this is all fake news...
Peace

Funny you should say that...

When a headline claims something that the video doesn't then that's fake news. You've done this a few times already.

this is all fake news.

See now you are admitting it is all fake.

Faroukfarouk Admits He Posts Fake News!

When you completely remove a short piece of writing or video from its actual context then you can make it mean something completely different.