Will France's President go to WAR and Attack Obama?

French President Francois Hollande has declared war against Daesh (ISIS)and those responcible for the slaughter in the Paris terror attacks.

Here it is reported that ISIS take responcibility for the terror attack.

As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria openly attack Paris France, bomb a Russian Jetliner and continue to terrorize, Mr Obama continues to openly fund ISIS. Obama’s own words.


Since Obama has been providing money, succor, and training to ISIS, what will France do?
Last but not least.

Not being American I wonder how you could accuse your president of such a horrendous act as "openly funding ISIS".

I understand not agreeing politically about something, but this seems deranged to me.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Not being American I wonder how you could accuse your president of such a horrendous act as "openly funding ISIS".

I understand not agreeing politically about something, but this seems deranged to me.

You obviously did NOT listen to the above video in which Obama openly states that he is funding ISIS. [SNIP]

a reply to: Jonjonj

If Crusty the Clown were president of the United States, then the world's woes would all be the fault of Crusty.

That's the way it works around here.

a reply to: CranialSponge

So many looking for someone to blame, yet not blaming those who seem to be guilty. It is a shame.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Jonjonj

If Crusty the Clown were president of the United States, then the world's woes would all be the fault of Crusty.

That's the way it works around here.

If there is a video of crusty openly supporting ISIS, then yes, he too would be at fault.
I just wonder if Charlie would be alive today, how he would draw crusty.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Not being American I wonder how you could accuse your president of such a horrendous act as "openly funding ISIS".

I understand not agreeing politically about something, but this seems deranged to me.

It's not an accusation it's Obama himself saying they're training ISIL forces, you can watch it for yourself to see

If they're training, they're arming, therefore funding

Sure it was a while back when he said this but Obama contributed to the rise of the wild dog that is ISIS

He is saying they are speeding training of ISIL forces ,including Sunni tribes, anyone with half a brain would realise he was talking about forces to take on and fight ISIL/ISIS

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: CranialSponge

So many looking for someone to blame, yet not blaming those who seem to be guilty. It is a shame.

Who funded and was at fault for the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (Народный комиссариат внутренних дел, Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del), abbreviated NKVD? Joseph Stalin!
Who funded and was at fault for the Nazi SS? Adolf Hitler
Who funded and was at fault for the Khmer Rouge? Pol Pot.
Who funded and was at fault for Iraqi Republican Guard? Saddam Hussein!
Who funded and IS at fault for ISIS?
obamabots attacking in 3...2...1

France and America are allies so they will work together in the war on terror.

originally posted by: woogleuk
He is saying they are speeding training of ISIL forces ,including Sunni tribes, anyone with half a brain would realise he was talking about forces to take on and fight ISIL/ISIS

Anyone with half a brain sure

But those of us with full brains can clear hear him say "we are speeding up training of ISIL forces, including Sunni tribes"

How you can translate what he says to mean he's training forces to take on ISIS is beyond me, really

US doesn't support bad terrorists, just good ones.

When you are able to get behind that you are truly mind melded.

a reply to: Violater1

The point is:

Western allies have been funding terrorists for friggin decades.

It's not just any one particular world leader that's at fault for this goddamn mess... it's every friggin one of them for several decades, including all of their goddamn cronies, bulldogs, shills, and paymasters.

The corruption is so convoluted and spread out, you can't make hide nor tail of where it begins and where it ends.

So flapping on about 'Obama this' and 'Obama that' is muddying the entire story and the actual truth of what the hell has been going on behind the curtain this whole time.


I'm not attacking you personally, so please don't take it that way... I get that you are attempting to draw some attention to some of the truths, but it's not the whole story and shouldn't be presented as such.

I'm sorry, but these myopic rants on ATS get so bloody tiring.

a reply to: Discotech

Explained here..... www.rt.com...

And that is RT, I'm sure they would normally love to slag off the POTUS

France has always been our biggest ally. When we are doing stupid moves they call us out first, that is how old the relationship is. Our older big brother and tells us the hard truths. They may step aside when they disagree but would never turn on us....and if they ask us to help them it would even would not even be a thought as to say no.

a reply to: Discotech

Language is important in politics. If you say "including our volunteers from sunni forces" you are stating that it is important that they be included. ISIS is sunni, so including sunni muslims in anything other than a rebel force against ISIS would be ridiculous.

a reply to: Violater1

No. In fact hell no. The US is not funding ISIS. What is it with this constant need to blame Obama for everything. What next - Obama organised 9/11???

originally posted by: Discotech

originally posted by: woogleuk
He is saying they are speeding training of ISIL forces ,including Sunni tribes, anyone with half a brain would realise he was talking about forces to take on and fight ISIL/ISIS

Anyone with half a brain sure

But those of us with full brains can clear hear him say "we are speeding up training of ISIL forces, including Sunni tribes"

How you can translate what he says to mean he's training forces to take on ISIS is beyond me, really

OOOK, I'll roll the bally to you. ISIS and ISIL are the SAME! "British Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain must “drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for”. Similarly, President Obama has said the US is preparing to “deal with a threat from Isil”. Others still refer to the group as “Isis” - posing an issue for the various companies and brands around the world that already used the acronym or took it from the ancient Egyptian goddess of the same name. The group itself declared in June that it wants to be known as the "Islamic State". So what is the difference between the three different acronyms, and why does each of them carry such political resonance? In Arabic, the group is known as Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham, or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. The term “al-Sham” refers to a region stretching from southern Turkey through Syria to Egypt (also including Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan). The group’s stated goal is to restore an Islamic state, or caliphate, in this entire area. The standard English term for this territory is “the Levant”, which is broadly why Mr Obama and Mr Cameron use the acronym “Isil”. Nonetheless, some in the US media claim that the President is using “Isil” to avoid using the word “Syria” which is what the “S” stands for in Isis. They say that talking about “attacking Syria” is tricky for the US government, after Mr Obama refused to send troops into the country to intervene in the civil war against President Bashar al-Assad."

www.independent.co.uk...

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: Discotech

Explained here..... www.rt.com...

And that is RT, I'm sure they would normally love to slag off the POTUS

But that article just leaves more questions than answers.

So he is correct in saying he is training ISIL forces

But they are legitimate ISIL forces in Iraq, fighting against ISIS

I'm confused, I always thought ISIS was the same as ISIL and that any ISIL/S in iraq are the same brand of ISIL/S in Syria, therefore all terrorist jihads hell bent on Islamic doctrine and the slaughtering of anyone not conforming to their stance. But now there's another ISIL who's a good guy ISIL ?

None of that makes sense to me

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Discotech

originally posted by: woogleuk
He is saying they are speeding training of ISIL forces ,including Sunni tribes, anyone with half a brain would realise he was talking about forces to take on and fight ISIL/ISIS

Anyone with half a brain sure

But those of us with full brains can clear hear him say "we are speeding up training of ISIL forces, including Sunni tribes"

How you can translate what he says to mean he's training forces to take on ISIS is beyond me, really

OOOK, I'll roll the bally to you. ISIS and ISIL are the SAME! "British Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain must “drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for”. Similarly, President Obama has said the US is preparing to “deal with a threat from Isil”. Others still refer to the group as “Isis” - posing an issue for the various companies and brands around the world that already used the acronym or took it from the ancient Egyptian goddess of the same name. The group itself declared in June that it wants to be known as the "Islamic State". So what is the difference between the three different acronyms, and why does each of them carry such political resonance? In Arabic, the group is known as Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham, or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. The term “al-Sham” refers to a region stretching from southern Turkey through Syria to Egypt (also including Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan). The group’s stated goal is to restore an Islamic state, or caliphate, in this entire area. The standard English term for this territory is “the Levant”, which is broadly why Mr Obama and Mr Cameron use the acronym “Isil”. Nonetheless, some in the US media claim that the President is using “Isil” to avoid using the word “Syria” which is what the “S” stands for in Isis. They say that talking about “attacking Syria” is tricky for the US government, after Mr Obama refused to send troops into the country to intervene in the civil war against President Bashar al-Assad."

www.independent.co.uk...

This is called going full retard.
I am sorry to be THAT guy but wow...