Debatable. What’s not debatable is that Trump said that Obama is the *literal *founder of ISIS, so what does that have to do with shit?
Which country has the best intelligence? Which country controls the internet (Google, Facebook etc)? How did isis recruit so many people from world over? Who provided them arms? Whose allies buy all the oil from isis? Who provided safe heaven in Syria?
Think about these questions.
Is Obama, as Trump has repeatedly claimed, the founder of ISIS?
He just answered that question above, in a not really answering it but not going full Trump yet sort of way.
Wait a minute! I thought Hillary was the founder of ISIS. Which is it then? Oh, okay. It’s both of them. :rolleyes:
End result is 300k+ people died due to his policy. 300k is a very very big number. Just imagine their pain and their families’ pain. Then your question will disappear.
Hold on there, truth Seeker. General allegations do not in way prove a connection, any more than Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, therefore it is only right to bomb Iraq for the damage done on 9/11.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obama was following the policy of Bush II, and with most of Americans and Iraqis demanding the troop withdrawal
It is so much a mistaken position you have that it does not lead others to appreciate your use of gross appeals to emotion on top of it.
The old fashioned way, by lying. A lie that they fervently believe but nonetheless… That is firstly, that the secular West is at war with Islam, with the sole purpose of eradication. Like so many fools before them, they do it for God.
This question has no meaning.
Salesmen. Maybe you want to ask who provided them with money?
Most all of them, if they know it or not.
It was not provided, they seized the territory they infest. Neither “safe” nor “heaven”.
Did you?
Actually, no, it raises more questions. For example, what do you personally believe would have been the magic action by the US that would stopped ISIL from forming? How is it that only the US could do this magic thing, whatever it is?
Whatever Trump’s problems with language, his use of the word ‘literally’ was not colloquial or accidental. It was precise and deliberate. The right wing conspiracy theory that dates back to the beginning of Obama’s public life - that he is a radical Muslim double agent who became President in order to steal America’s secrets and hand them off to Iran and other enemies of the US - is still fervently believed by a lot on the fringes of the right (now known as the mainstream Republican Party).
It’s hardly a stretch for Trump to put the idea in these people’s minds that Obama was at a meeting somewhere in the Middle East where he was part of setting up ISIS.
Watching CNN and they have the banner on the screen TRUMP AGAIN CALLS OBAMA ISIS FOUNDER (HE’S NOT).
Then they showed that stupid Scottie woman who is trying to explain what trump means when he says what he means.
He’s done more to strengthen Assad by actually attacking IS/Daesh.
Oh please. Assad started the war, Assad has done most of the killing. If you want to blame Obama for a share of that, blame him for not striking Assad in 2013. The “Isis” line is ignorant bullshit.
No, it won’t. In fact, your fear of answering it only highlights it.
Replace the word “authorities” with dictators and that would be more accurate. If everyone will recall, Libya was already in chaos before the U.S. and NATO intervened through air strikes. Most of the country had already rebelled from Qaddafi’s rule. If the U.S. had not conducted air strikes that ultimately helped topple the rest of Qaddafi’s military and government, it is very likely Libya would be mired in civil war just as it more or less is today. Only it would likely be even more bloody with Qaddafi’s forces still somewhat intact and able to organize more effectively than any particular militia or tribe. Since Daesh, like most terrorist groups, thrives on chaos for an opening, they could just as easily established a presence in Libya in this scenario too.
As for Syria, even without the 2003 Iraq War, it was only a matter of time before some uprising challenged Assad through force, as was illustrated in the 1982 Hama massacre. The Arab Spring just provided the spark here. The only thing Obama really did was hold off on providing weapons to the Syrian opposition until very recently and to refrain from conducting air strikes after Assad crossed the rhetorical red line by using relatively small quantities of chemical weapons. Both of these were not actions, but inactions that did not weaken Assad or otherwise strengthen Daesh.
Obama did, however, direct the formation of the U.S.-led military coalition against Daesh, Operation Inherent Resolve, which for the past two years has been conducting roughly 10 airstrikes or more daily, training Iraqi and Kurdish forces, and providing weapons, equipment, and supplies for Iraqi and Kurdish forces.
we can expect politicians to have a big ego, so they wont ever accept their mistake, such as obama’s mistake of working against assad. but atleast you, not being in politics, you can be a little more honest. islamofascism, wahabism only would have ruled in syria in the name of democracy. it was a very very big mistake from obama to work against a secular and progressive leader such as assad.
Progressive? Assad’s imprisonment, torture, and murder of peaceful protestors is what turned a mostly peaceful movement against his dictatorship into a civil war. He helped fan the flames of jihadism throughout the 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath by providing an open route for jihadis to enter the country and go into Iraq. He is one of the chief architects (no, still not a founder) of Daesh by promoting his Alawite clan to most of the key positions of power and aligning his Sunni-majority country with Hezbollah and Iran, which only further provoked Wahhabist Sunnis.
Actively supporting Assad is no different and no less shortsighted than the U.S.'s active support of the Shah in Iran. It might potentially solve today’s problem but creates a festering, cancerous one down the road when an inevitable revolution topples him or his successor and installs a hostile government in its place. And as we have seen, in the Middle East, revolutions against mostly or somewhat secular governments tend to be heavily motivated by religion.
Hey folks, never mind. Trump now let’s us know it was all a misunderstanding. Here is his tweet from this morning.
Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) “the founder” of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON’T GET SARCASM?
So see, he wasn’t serious all along.
No, Donald, your dumb, dumb, voters do not understand sarcasm.