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.
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.
Comments
© 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.
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.
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/#
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.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.