Obama defends the Isis jobs comment with "kill them with kindness".

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sigh, one more time. the "kill them with kindness" quote gave me pause AND reminded me of the similarities of past democrat administrations.

Dissecting his full quote sheds no light on the current world situation. No matter the content of his comments. It is his legacy.

Diverting the discussion to what he said doesn't affect the current situation whatsoever. If you have input to that situation then please share them. Defending what he 'said', didn't say or implied helps the thread not one whit.

Nice try though...

a reply to: spy66

I'd agree with that. It is out there if one hangs onto these little shards of information and they suddenly fall into a logical pattern.

Having been exposed just a little to European machination even back in the thirties, Americans have redefined naivety to a new level.

a reply to: spy66

What your saying, I think, is that the leaders are a part of the black op and the followers will all be decimated while some of the Isis leaders will get plastic surgery and end up on the French Riviera with Sadam and Bin Laden..
Very possible

a reply to: nwtrucker

Indeed, one more time.

Here is a link to the THE ENTIRE TEXT from President Obama's speech: whitehouse.gov

Please, take a moment to find the words "kill them with kindness" anywhere in that text.

Hint: Those words are not in the speech, but I'm glad for you to look.

Again, you keep addressing comments to me. Again, how is quoting the man possibly "diverting the discussion" when your topic and your OP regard a supposed quote (again, it isn't a quote) from President Obama?

What other current situation is there? Your OP is based on your impressions from what Ms. Harf and Mr. Obama said.

Are you saying that what they actually said has no relation at all to what you're now saying? Should you retitle your OP?

I mean, apparently, according to you, the thread is "How Republicans Always Clean Up Democratic Messes."

And again, I strongly encourage you to stop addressing me and go back to your points, as you've said that I'm off-topic.

If I'm off-topic, and this discussion is not about what anybody actually said, but rather about what your impressions of what someone else said they said are ... please let this end here.

Obama's doing a mass psychological operation to distract people


This is easy to see

Obama NEVER stays on a subject more than one day

Now its amazing he talks about the sociological reasons and the etiology of terrorism for a whole week with this silly conference

While he should be using such energy to unite a real coalition to destroy ISIS


He is scamming us to deflect the argument that ISIS should be taken out (IMMEDIATELY AND NOW) with a distraction and its working perfectly!

You have all the media debating Obama’s irrelevant sociological nonsensical out --of time and place—arguments about the Arab world’s problems with terrorism and it’s based on sociological reasons.


The problem is this:

When the house is burning down you don’t stop on the stairway running from the fire to debate whether you should have gotten insurance or not

YOU GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE FAST!

Obama is clearly trying to change the subject from his impeachment producing lack of strategy against ISIS.

He’s buying time

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Huff Post coined the phrase...

State Department's ISIS Solution: ‘Kill Them With Kindness'

a reply to: Willtell

Wait, didn't Jeff Sessions state late last year that they weren't going to impeach Obama?

Even though, he's like the Emperor and doing all kinds of illegal stuff?

What did happen to all the sound and fury to impeach Obama?

Did they actually take a look back at history and see how high impeachment boosted Clinton's approval numbers?

Hunh.

Obama just asked for authorization from Congress to move ahead with further military intervention. (That's a strange thing for an Emperor to do, eh?) Tons and tons of bombs have been dropped on ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria.

I understand your philosophical distress, but in terms of actual facts ... what are you talking about?

ATTENTION!

Please stay on topic.

Discuss the topic. NOT each other.

Refrain from snide comments, rude comments and insults.

Failure to do so will result in post bans from this point forward.

Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Huff Post coined the phrase...

State Department's ISIS Solution: ‘Kill Them With Kindness'

So, the Huffington Post made the comparison, not President Obama?

I must have misread the title then. Or I don't understand what quotation marks mean.

Thanks for the link, Xuenchen!

a reply to: Gryphon66


I am not in any psychological distress over Obama’s sinister cunning

Im just explaining it to the unwary

The point is not that ISIS will be defeated

I know they will

But when Obama half steps innocent people die

That’s what it’s about

That simple

As for impeachment, I said impeachment inducing as a rhetorical device not a literal suggestion.

a reply to: Willtell

What in your opinion were the whole steps that should have been taken instead of the half-steps taken by Obama?

Thanks for your answer on impeachment!

a reply to: nwtrucker
After all is said and done.

I sure wouldn't the job of being the next president. Whom ever that might be, they have my sympathies....

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: nwtrucker

When we capture their combatants, they receive almost hotel level accommodations.

Yes, I've heard that Guantanamo Bay is a real Savoy-style luxury break from the drama...

& breakfast in bed comes with a few free gallons of water that the porters & bell boys will even help you to drink.




Real 5 Star accommodation!

Compared to a newly welded four foot square bar cage facility with a freshly petrol soaked jumpsuit?

a reply to: infinityorder

I stand by my comment about the viral appeasement meme being a right-wing affliction.

True or false, appeasement only encourages a tyrant?

Before discussing the consequences of appeasement, shouldn't you first establish what appeasement you're referring to? All I've seen in your comments are claims that the administration is appeasing ISIS and appeasing Putin/Russia but nothing about what actually constitutes the appeasing you're claiming except this:

We should have at the least provided anti armor weapons to Ukraine.

So the answer is to pump weapons into the Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia like we did in Afghanistan in the 80's? That worked miracles didn't it? Multiple EU countries including the UK have expressed a lack of support for it so if we do provide anti-tank/anti-air weapons, we're more or less stuck acting unilaterally (what's new?).

As for ISIS: From August - January we performed the majority of the 16,000 airstrikes against ISIS. As I stated earlier, recent estimates from CENTCOM are that the airstrikes have killed 6,000 ISIS fighters and about half of their senior leadership. We've been conducting close air support for peshmerga and Yazidi militia. We signed a deal TODAY to train and equip Syrian rebels. Also today it was announced that we'll be supporting Iraqi military and Kurdish forces to retake Mosul in the next couple months, up to and possibly including limited US ground forces.

Setting aside the fact that our obligation to play world police is largely a delusion nobody else shares with us, what about the US response do you construe as appeasement? Anything short of sending in ground forces? ISIS is an immediate threat to the entire region but not to the US, why shouldn't Turkey, Jordan, Egypt etc take the lead?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Willtell

What in your opinion were the whole steps that should have been taken instead of the half-steps taken by Obama?

Thanks for your answer on impeachment!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obama could express all his ideas about causation…no problem, they have merit but there is a humanitarian disaster going on by these criminal barbarians that requires immediate military response he was capable of doing…
Either there is some s__t in the game…conspiracy black operations or Obama is brain dead


If there was a gang somewhere kidnapping and doing mass rapes and torturing the citizens in a US state and they took over a city should we discuss why the criminals turned to crime or first go in there IMMEDIATELY with all force and stop the torture of the people?

The answer to that is obvious

a reply to: Willtell

If there was a gang somewhere kidnapping and doing mass rapes and torturing the citizens in a US state and they took over a city should we discuss why the criminals turned to crime or first go in there IMMEDIATELY with all force and stop the torture of the people?

But we're not talking about US citizens on US soil are we? That's an extremely important distinction. We have no mandate to police the globe. I'm not an isolationist and I'm all for stopping ISIS but I'm not convinced that we've been somehow remiss in our military response.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Willtell

If there was a gang somewhere kidnapping and doing mass rapes and torturing the citizens in a US state and they took over a city should we discuss why the criminals turned to crime or first go in there IMMEDIATELY with all force and stop the torture of the people?

But we're not talking about US citizens on US soil are we? That's an extremely important distinction. We have no mandate to police the globe. I'm not an isolationist and I'm all for stopping ISIS but I'm not convinced that we've been somehow remiss in our military response.

One second after they beheaded US citizen James Foley we had the right to go in and make it our business, guns blazing.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: infinityorder

I stand by my comment about the viral appeasement meme being a right-wing affliction.

True or false, appeasement only encourages a tyrant?

Before discussing the consequences of appeasement, shouldn't you first establish what appeasement you're referring to? All I've seen in your comments are claims that the administration is appeasing ISIS and appeasing Putin/Russia but nothing about what actually constitutes the appeasing you're claiming except this:

We should have at the least provided anti armor weapons to Ukraine.

So the answer is to pump weapons into the Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia like we did in Afghanistan in the 80's? That worked miracles didn't it? Multiple EU countries including the UK have expressed a lack of support for it so if we do provide anti-tank/anti-air weapons, we're more or less stuck acting unilaterally (what's new?).

As for ISIS: From August - January we performed the majority of the 16,000 airstrikes against ISIS. As I stated earlier, recent estimates from CENTCOM are that the airstrikes have killed 6,000 ISIS fighters and about half of their senior leadership. We've been conducting close air support for peshmerga and Yazidi militia. We signed a deal TODAY to train and equip Syrian rebels. Also today it was announced that we'll be supporting Iraqi military and Kurdish forces to retake Mosul in the next couple months, up to and possibly including limited US ground forces.

Setting aside the fact that our obligation to play world police is largely a delusion nobody else shares with us, what about the US response do you construe as appeasement? Anything short of sending in ground forces? ISIS is an immediate threat to the entire region but not to the US, why shouldn't Turkey, Jordan, Egypt etc take the lead?

Now you are changing the subject.

Here goes though.

If we supplied anti armor weapons months ago the Ukraine situation would be over, Crimea would be a part of Ukraine, and Putin would be on the hot seat at hone for the thousands of Russian dead he is denying.

As far as afghan goes....lol they were basically Isis or alqueda vs Russia back then.

I don't like it but was too young to engage in politics at the time.( let alone understand politics...I was a newborn.)

Back to modern times.

The Kurds are honestly the only sane and or rational people involved In fighting Isis, they should have gotten a lot of support early on.

They are the only people in the mideast with a rational culture, and the will to sand this madness.

I say arm them up.

Carve out a chunck of northern Iraq and eastern Syria for them, and let one single rational state bring sanity to the mideast.

(Isreal is kinda sane IMHO, but cant pull it off, they are Jews, hated byvall in the mideast.)

I think the Kurds are the answer.

Give them the weapons and the land, this all stops posthaste.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Willtell

If there was a gang somewhere kidnapping and doing mass rapes and torturing the citizens in a US state and they took over a city should we discuss why the criminals turned to crime or first go in there IMMEDIATELY with all force and stop the torture of the people?

But we're not talking about US citizens on US soil are we? That's an extremely important distinction. We have no mandate to police the globe. I'm not an isolationist and I'm all for stopping ISIS but I'm not convinced that we've been somehow remiss in our military response.

One second after they beheaded US citizen James Foley we had the right to go in and make it our business, guns blazing.

I agree...same as Australia should get to try that douche that shot their runner(cause he was bored and wanted to go kill a white boy).

a reply to: infinityorder

Totally agree on the Kurds. An admirable bunch that we have left hanging, probably due to Turkish concerns.

To a lessor degree the Egyptians have shown mettle as well.....