US Protecting Terrorists!

US to bomb Syria to protect Al-Qaeda?

Fox News Tucker Carlson marvels at Washington’s Idlib logic
Published time: 14 Sep, 2018 11:50 Edited time: 14 Sep, 2018 11:53

Washington’s threats to take military action to deter a Syrian assault on Al-Qaeda-held Idlib province has prompted Fox News host Tucker Carlson to ask the obvious question: Why would the US bomb a country to protect terrorists?

Carlson marveled at how 17 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the US was now using its military might to shield – rather than eradicate – Al-Qaeda.

“More than 10,000 rebels in that province are believed to be aligned with Al-Qaeda. So that would mean that 17 years after 9/11, America could soon find itself bombing a country to protect Al-Qaeda sympathizers. Why would we do that?” Carlson asked.

His sentiments echo a similar observation made by Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who marked the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by pointing out the troubling double standard on display by the Trump administration.

“While President Trump & VP Pence give 9/11 speeches about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on our country, they are simultaneously acting as protectors of AQ in Syria/Idlib, threatening Russia and Syria that if they attack al-Qaeda, we will punish them,” Gabbard tweeted.

Others noted how neocons who cheered for the Global War Against Terrorism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks were now painting Al-Qaeda militants in Idlib as besieged rebels.

“I’ll never reconcile how the biggest post-9/11 hawks turned into the biggest boosters of the jihad in Syria,” professor Max Abrahms noted in his own tweet marking the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
«1

Comments

  • US Hawaii Congresswoman Accuses Trump, Pence of Shielding Al-Qaeda in Idlib
    © AFP 2018 / NICHOLAS KAMM
    US

    Speaking on the House floor on September 13, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard accused the Trump administration of protecting al-Qaeda terrorists in Idlib. According to the congresswoman, this amounts to the betrayal of the American people and victims of al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks in the US.

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) called out President Donald Trump and Vice President Pence for allegedly protecting al-Qaeda* in Idlib, Syria, while speaking in the House on September 13.

    "Two days ago, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, talking about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda's attack on our country. But, they are now standing up to protect the 20,000 to 40,000 al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria, and threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists," the congresswoman stressed.

    Gabbard qualified the Trump administration's handling of the Idlib problem as nothing short of "betrayal of the American people" and most notably, "the victims of al-Qaeda's attack on 9/11 and their families."

    "For the president, who is commander in chief, to act as the protective big brother of al-Qaeda and other jihadists must be condemned by every member of Congress," she emphasized.
  • Yup, we are going to see more staged chemical attacks in Idlib pretty soon in order to bring in the US military there.
  • So why did he eradicate Isis under 6 months in office?
  • It was the Syrian Arab Army, Iranian Republican Guard, Hezbollah and the Russian military who were and had been eradicating ISIS in Syria. Maybe Trump was talking about the demise of ISIS in Iraq.
  • edited September 16
    The Syrians and Russians were focused on the FSA or Free Syrian Army while The US focused on ISIS AND AL QAEDA. The ousting of ISIS from northern and southern iraq came about under Trump. Haha

  • Oh really? Was that when the US Airforce were accidentally dropping arm supplies to ISIS held areas in Syria or when the US Airforce bombed that strategic hill held by Syrian Army in Deir Azur before ISIS started their offensive campaign there like minutes after the airstrike? If you are talking about the Kurds. OK then, Kurds were only after the Syrian government oil wells and their statehood, which will never come to fruition anytime soon.
  • Dude, Trump has made it clear that US forces will remain in Syria indefinitely. And if memory serves me right it was the US and its ragtag Army of Kurds and Arabs that stormed the ISIS capital of Raqqa and took it over while Russians and Syrians were bombing their own people with chemical weapons.
  • Yeah, according to western medias, which some you despised were the ones who claimed Assad used chemical weapons against his people. Your Trump was just taking credit of something he did not do, just like how he blamed Obama for the struggling US economy.
  • Sorry but I'm still in the military and get my news from the source, the early bird which government employees get, defense 1, pentagon briefings, military times, Army times, Marine times, Navy times and VOA. Anything military related in the mainstream media i double check. And Trump gets the credit for defeating ISIS in Northern iraq and Syria. He loosen the ROEs (Rules of engagement) and under him the US military dealth a striking blow to ISIS. Obama was cautious, one foot it one foot out. 8 years and isis grew. TRUMP y months and ISIS destroyed.

    And multiple sources beside the US lay the blame on Assad and Russia using chemicals on their own people. The Stock of those chemicals were traced to Syrian facilities.

    And Trump is the reason for the booming economy. All said it would go down even Obama but low and behold its the opposite.
  • From the IBD: Trump Defeats ISIS In Months — After Years Of Excuses From Obama

    Terrorism: Nine months after President Trump promised to defeat ISIS "quickly and effectively," U.S.-backed forces captured Raqqa, which until Tuesday had served as the ISIS capital. The battle now is over who deserves credit: Trump or President Obama.

    Trump, not surprisingly, claims it for himself: "It had to do with the people I put in and it had to do with rules of engagement," Trump said in a radio interview.

    Before dismissing this as typical Trump self-aggrandizement, consider that for several years Obama insisted that a quick and decisive victory against ISIS was all but impossible.

    After belittling ISIS as a "JV" team and then being surprised by its advances, Obama finally got around to announcing a strategy to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the militant Islamic group.

    As his strategy dragged on and seemed to go nowhere, Obama kept telling the country that this was just the nature of the beast.

    "It will take time to eradicate a cancer like (ISIS). It will take time to root them out."

    Obama quotes on fighting ISIS

    Obama: "This is a long-term and extremely complex challenge."

    Obama: "This will not be quick."

    Obama: "There will be setbacks and there will be successes."

    And he kept insisting that winning the war against ISIS has as much to do with public relations as it did weapons. "This broader challenge of countering extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas."

    What Obama didn't say is that reason defeating ISIS was taking so long was of how he was fighting it.

    A former senior military commander in the region told the Washington Examiner that the Obama White House was micromanaging the war "to the degree that it was just as bad, if not worse, than during the Johnson administration." Johnson, you will recall, once bragged that "they can't bomb an outhouse in Vietnam without my permission."

    Contrast this with Trump. Rather than talk endlessly about how long and hard the fight would be, Trump said during his campaign that, if elected, he would convene his "top generals and give them a simple instruction. They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS."

    Once in office, Trump made several changes in the way the war was fought, the most important of which were to loosen the rules of engagement and give more decision-making authority to battlefield commanders.

    Joshua Keating, writing in the liberal commentary site Slate, noted that Trump had "instructed the Pentagon to loosen the rules of engagement for airstrikes to the minimum required by international law, eliminated White House oversight procedures meant to protect civilians, and ordered the CIA to resume covert targeted killing missions." (He meant it as a criticism.)

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who can hardly be called a Trump lap dog, praised what he said was "a dramatic shift in a very positive way — away from the political micromanaging of the Obama years to freeing up generals and troops to destroy ISIS."

    The result of this shift seems pretty obvious. In July, ISIS was booted from Mosul, and this week Raqqa was liberated. For all intents and purposes, ISIS has been defeated. Trump did in nine months what Obama couldn't in the previous three years.

    Trump's critics will insist that victory was inevitable, given that Obama had severely degraded ISIS over the previous years, and that all Trump did was continue Obama's strategy.

    But the bottom line is that while Obama preached patience, Trump promised a swift end to ISIS, and then delivered on it.

    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/raqqa-victory-means-trump-defeated-isis-in-months-after-years-of-excuses-from-obama/#
  • It because of obama policy to withdraw US troops in 2011, that let to ISIS rise and able to grap territory in both Iraq and Syria.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/06/clinton-kaine-airbrush-out-inconvenient-details-about-u-s-troop-departure-from-iraq/?utm_term=.091a62abf914

    Trump destroyed ISIS by not publicizing every move ahead of time, like Obama did. Plus, Obama was indecisive and took too long to make a military decision. And, Obama micromanaged every move against ISIS. Trump gave the orders, and the generals are taking charge. They are no longer micromanaged by an indecisive commander-in-chief. So, ISIS never knew when and where they would be hit. WOW, secrecy. What a new and unique military principle!!!

    Also, he used air power, and local ground troops, like the Kurds, along with American advisers and special forces to kill off ISIS. ISIS has been reduced by 30,000 fighters. It was only a matter of time for ISIS once Obama was no longer commander-in-chief. They couldn’t stand up to American led military might because they are only good at killing women, girls, old people and unarmed men. The world is learning that America is not led by a pussy anymore, like the previous 8 years.
  • From the Hill newspaper wich is a liberal leaning company had this to say: Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy

    https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy
  • @Rastaman @Pawnstar, I do really appreciate how you guys support your commander in Chief (loyalty-wise), but we all have our duties we need to accomplish as soldiers and skeptics. Make no mistake, fellas, I do have siblings and relatives in the US military. It is just for me I do question everything that I come upon in life. I do not want to be led wrongfully. So?
  • I question everything too dude. But i have more confidence in my source of information than you. It seems like you get your informations from RT. RT is a propaganda machine its 1% news and 99% Russian propaganda. And i may not like Russia but i don't want a war with her. They have shitty military hardware but their military doctrine is 1st rate. You support obama and the democrats right? You know they are pushing the US towards a confrontation with Russia. Think about that.
  • it looks like that pot head just educated you.
  • Who are the terrorists? It depends on who they buy their guns from.

    The world has a "business problem." It is called "The International Arms Business" and everybody is in "The Business." It is the direct cause or exacerbating factor in EVERY challenge humankind faces. Until we view the arms trade in the same light as slavery; the terror and chaos will only increase.
  • edited September 23
    just like I said before, these so micro-minded wanna be american patriot who like to be loyal to their so called commander in chief instead of defending the US Constitution are nothing but bunch of ignorant morons. Trump being a elite of the National Rifle Association, no doubt has a lot to do with this messy development. and all these Micro minded wanna be loyal to Trump are nothing but bunch of laughing stocks.LOL
  • @Dezi, did you questioned the obama administration when isis appeared out of nowhere under its watch and questioned it when it was training them? No. You were silent.

    @visafree, again STFU you batty boy ignoramus. I'm a US citizen from CNMI and guess who is our President? You on the otjer hand is a FSM citizen who is pro democrat but is not a US citizen. The NRA is a pro 2nd ammendment group. its sole purpose is to protect every US citizens constitutional right to bear arms. And the constitution recognized Trump as the Cheif executive of the US.
  • @Rasta, an so are all your comrades in here, bunch of idiots whom for some reason did good on the military test but in reality don't have the common sense to know the different the good from the bad, dude, you swore to defend the constitution not the president himself, don't you know what's going on in this presidency? if you don't know this by now meaning you have no common sense al all.. you a complete moron!
  • @visafree, I'm not in the military, never was. I'm a student at UOG. After i get me degree then yea I'll join the Guam National Guard. If i remember correctly its Trump who is protecting the constitution while liberals are trying to infringe it.
  • @visafree the idiot brother of resnapper, in the military we are swore to uphold and defend the constitution and follow the orders of the commander in chief. Trump has doing a good job of defending and upholding the constitution. Unlike the last President who over stepped his constitutional powers and made laws through Executive orders and made DACA a law.

    Trump is the rightful and legal elected president of the US according to the constitution of the US. Its you liberals who are trying to destroy the constitution all becauae y'all can't accept the defeat of 2016. Get the fuck over it.
  • You are as stupid as the rest of you micro minded solider boy, if you commander in chief is upholding the constitution why is he at war with the DOJ?. you are one stupid ass micronesian wanna be soilder of the US constution?..moron you!
  • DACA is what america is all about, the beacon of hope, land of the free and the brave, guardian of peace and prosperity through out the world, not a land of greed and selfish like you are and your idol president of selfishness and complete Moron like you stupid Micronesian.

  • @visafree, i earned my citizenship through my service in the Army. I'm in fact a dual citizen of FSM and the US. You? Lol

    He is not at war with the DOJ you moron. He is at war with the last remnants of the Obama oppointed officials within the DOJ. And he is vested by the constitution to rid the government of corrupt officials namely Obama left overs.

    DACA is not what America is about. America is about coming here legally the right way not the illegal way like the DACA recipients did. DACA is illegal since Obama forced the law on the US but the constitution of the US specifically says the Congress write laws whole the POTUS enforces them. DACA came exist because of a Presidential Executive order not because Congress of the US passed it.
  • yo @visafree, tell us in your own opinion what has Trump done that violates the US constitution? Beside hate, which is what you have for him what facts do you have that support your claim or claims that he has done anything unconstitutional?
  • edited September 23
    @ stupid Rastaman, do I need to educate you right now?.. you are so stupid you don' know?. why dopyou think the DOJ had ordered him ( YOUR COMMANDER IN CHEF) to go back and reunited the babies to their parents?.BTW @ stupid PawnStar, you dont understand it but it was the right thing to do, DACA became a law to make them illegal become legal, its is a constitutional right for then POTUS Obama to make a decision base on merit and not on greed..MORONS!
  • @visafree, Like said before and I'll say it AGAIN you need to STFU because you are a walking talking dictionary meaning of tje word ignoramus. The DOJ can't force Trump to do anything since the DOJ falls under Trumps Executive branch which Trump is the head. The DOJ does not issue orders, its job is to enforce the law. That's what job of the DOJ-EXECUTIVE BRANCHE-POTUS.

    And i knew you weren't going to answer my 2 questions because Trump hasn't done anything unconstitutional or enact any laws or executive orders that are in that nature too.

    Please again STFU.
  • @ Pawn Star, you are one very stupid Micronesia wanna be American yet don't know how the US government works?. let me educate you right her!!. first off, there are three branches with equal power, long story short, do you know what branch you think the POTUS is? name it or else, get lost!
  • you see how stupid you are Rasta?>.go back to school you fool!! wth??, Trump was ordered by the court to reunited the families. what that tells you stupid moron?
Sign In or Register to comment.