Look Bush has alot to blame for iraq, instead of using the policy Lt. Col Matthew Dooley advocates which is full blown war on Islam and the total annihilation of islam
Bush went with the idea that you can give muslims democracy and freedom and then they will be alright.
Also Bush supported the theft of kosovo from Serbia which is now the first muslim state in Europe
Contrasts ... Contrasts ... One blood red, two purple, three blood red. One out of three good or maybe the first one then two were good and everyone knew three would happen then the world would be onto four would follow with NOT being for. Was only a matter of time. Am surprised though that our media is beginning to call the truth about islam in pictures.
There may be wheels within wheels in all of this.
No doubt there are hordes of depraved fanatics in the Islamic world who are determined to confront the Jews and the Christians and to subjugate us.
Normally this would be little more than a lot of chanting, seething and various mostly un-coordinated minor acts of terror. Occasionally it ramps up to larger acts of terror that inevitably bring a shift back to our side in terms of balance of power.
However at this point, with a very questionable administration in power, one has to wonder if these more organized groups are not being enabled and passively encouraged. And then one has to wonder whose agenda this actually serves.
If we are forced by these zealots into a kill or be killed large-scale war, but we find America (and therefore NATO unless other states take charge) too passive, then we face a situation in which anarchy takes over and almost inevitably populations are vastly reduced. So what are these elite groups, who have no real interest in Islam prevailing, doing during all of that?
They have places to wait it out and then impose whatever ideology they choose on the scattered and largely impoverished remnants. They can probably mop up the Islamists in some final stage, their useful idiocy having come to an end.
The only agenda that seems to fit this scenario is the socialist-globalist agenda. A secondary possibility is something along the lines of the more conspiracy-theory-oriented NWO type of hidden power structure. The two things may easily be the same thing, although you could argue for a sort of neo-conservative NWO.
The apparent ineptness of the Obama government could just be what it appears superficially, the inevitable stupidity of the far left. But it may also be too clever by half, a strategic playing out of a hand that contains cards that are suspected by conservatives but very few other members of society. If they ever figure out what’s happening, which seems doubtful, it will be far too late.
Unless adult supervision quickly returns to foreign policy, it may be too late already.
Ping
Nukes are not the only thing that ICBMs could deliver. Be careful how gleefully you dance around, ISIL. You want a direct war you could get it.
And there is an enemy in the WH hell-bent on facilitating them.
Isn't this the same AQ that attacked us on, before, and after 9-11? If so, them why aren't we trying to destroy them?
Notice how the current administration isn’t worried about the bearded savages attacking the USA.
First, they’ll gnaw away at the ME taking over land in digestible lumps... knowing that the US and other powers will tolerate it.
Their real target is Israel-by whatever means possible. Their assault on the politics which have traditionally allied Israel and the rest of the western powers is more or less complete.
The only thing remaining for them to accomplish is the material possession of Israel.
I think they are waiting and maneuvering both militarily and logistically to position themselves to the point where they are comfortable with THAT move. (Supposing they do not acquire a nuclear capability FIRST)
None of this bodes well for an America with an irresolute, inexperienced and pro-Muslim leader.
Now more than ever, US leadership is needed and its absence has never been more remarkable. Almost daily, “O” gets opportunities for leadership handed to him … and just as often mishandles them.
Bush, on one his last State-of-the-Union addresses said about Iraq:
“Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.”
We were confused about what victory looked like and so we failed to make any lasting impression on Iraq. However, ISIS does not appear confused about what victory looks like.
So before we go off trying to justify fighting another war in Iraq, we better decide if we are going to pursue something that actually looks like “victory” to our fathers and grandfathers - and their fathers and grandfathers back 1000 generations - because if we don’t figure that out, there is no end to what we can’t do in Iraq.
A Somali Canadian fighting with Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
http://youtu.be/UxdsnbwT0DQ