Madness must end’: US lawmakers introduce bill to cut aid & funding for terrorists

a reply to: mOjOm

All I've seen you post 'all year' in this site is pro-Obama pro-Hillary pro-DNC / anti-Trump talking points & rationalizations, but since you didn't mention Trump or Obama by name in here you're off the hook for running the Protest The Partisan Sock Puppet Show in this thread?

FACT: Dubya was anti-AL QAEDA (or at least he pretend to be very very well). FACT: I was amongst Duyba's harshest critics (you're probably in some of my threads supporting such work, while hardly any of such work is actually up in here). FACT: Barack Clinton re-ignited CIA-AL QAEDA relations to the extent of them becoming a dual faced budding regional superpower, leaving a trail of destruction behind from Iraq to Sweden (and you're in here playing partisan apologist for them).

C'mon man. You've been around the block. Remember how utterly foolish & insane the last of the last Dubya supporters looked to the world?? Hillary lost, Obama's on the way out. It's okay now for you give up on those two... reflect, introspect and repent. Let it all out. Do a rant thread. Or not. It's time to heal.

The world has suffered at the hands of the Bush's, the Clinton's and Obama. It's time we ALL stop defending and thus enabling these titans of human suffering, and ensure that future president's / congress' don't ever try to follow in their footsteps. Anything short of backlash against this kind of stuff only ensures it shall persist.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'll say this the left and the right appear to use terrorists defrently. For example Obama funded them there is no doubt. Bush didn't fund terrorism but used the fear of terrorism to push his goals. I expect very similar for trump. Now Obama didn't mean to fund terrorism he just saw it as a means to an end. See you can't have globalization with the middle east in its current condition. It has to be converted to a more liberal agenda. There hopes with the immagration thing simple if they get ebough people into western culture they will see how much better it is and it will spread into the middle east.

Reality is this is a simple approach it doesn't take Islam into account. The religion is what binds the middle east. Problem is the left doesn't understand religion at all. This leads them to believe they can change the middle east. The only way to change the middle east is either cause Islam to reform or destroy it completely. Both these options seem highly unlikely . The rights approach simple send in troops to kill them as we can see that wasn't effective either.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: mOjOm

If it'll make your partisan heart go pitty-pat with glee, it's actually the republicans in congress who approve the funding.

Obama just signs the check.

Republicans put who it's for and how much.

Well yeah, but isn't it typically the POTUS with all the intel and top level influence, who generally set the agenda, then the Congress hash out the details of the funding, and then it goes back for the POTUS to sign it into motion, on stuff like this?

The one benefit we should get for having a top POTUS seat is an easy go to for placing the bulk of the blame on stuff like this. Sadly, both Rep & Dem supporters alike typically defend their guy till the end, no matter how blatantly obvious their no matter how heinous shi'ite they do.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I just didn't want Obama to get all the credit.

Ryan is to blame as well.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You know, I don't know how many times I have to say it but I'll say it again since you seem unable to grasp it.

I'm not defending Obama or Hillary.

I never supported Hillary. So whatever you've been reading here it isn't me supporting Hillary. If you recall, I supported Sanders who was sold out and shafted by Hillary. So why the hell would I support her.

I've also been clear about my opinion on Obama and his failure to bring peace in the Middle east and how his admin has just been increasing the amount of Terrorism.

So again, I agree with you that Bush and Obama have been a failure on the issue of Terrorism. You can include Hillary in there too if you want although she wasn't Pres.

I'm not defending any of them. I can't make it any clearer than that. Now, I am anti-Trump that is for sure. I've been clear there too. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-Hillary. You seem to be unable to process how that is possible. But that isn't my problem it's yours.

It also seems clear at this point that even when I agree with you, you still want to attack me and twist what I'm saying. So let's just go back to being enemies then at all times. At least then I know what to expect from you. Finding some common ground with you is obviously impossible and that's fine with me.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah. This 2 Party system crap is the real root of these kinds of things persisting. The constant binary blame / scapegoat game keeps the pendulum swinging back and forth (where what on each side is usually pretty much the same old BS).

There needs to be I think 5 parties. Or none.

a reply to: Willtell


I hope this turns out passing, but it has to pass a series of hurdles who's height is determined by people who earn a great deal of money from enterprises which do very well out of arming terrorists, like arms manufacturers, to name just one example.

a reply to: dragonridr

Bush was the terrorist when he was in office. That's what you call it when you invade and kill innocent people in another nation. The wrong nation to boot.

The policies of the US have either been creating or funding terrorism all over the world for decades. When we aren't funding or creating it somewhere then we are actually invading them which means we are the terrorists.

But we just don't call it terrorism when either us or our allies do it. That's why you'll never see it change either. It will continue because we only call it terrorism when someone we don't like does it. But if it's us or our friends it's not terrorism.

They play the same game as partisan politics plays. Which is "It's ok when we do it or our friends do it but not when others do it." As long as they get away playing that game and nobody calls them on it honestly it will never stop.

That is my point. That is the reason Obama won't be charged with a crime for it. Because he's doing what the last guy did and the guy before him did and so on. The guy that comes after Obama will do the same too and he won't be charged either. Why???? Because they're all doing it and they all profit from it and since you can't put the blame on one side and not the other, Neither side will ever do anything about it.

a reply to: mOjOm

Maybe you're not a total partisan hack. I'm not sure. I am sure you're nowhere near the worst of the usual suspects.

All I know is with these kinds of Lets Fund Al Qaeda policies I will take no excuses on any of that jazz. I dont care who 'did it', or who it is 'apologizing' for it: Apologies Will Not Be Accepted. Not anymore. Not that I ever really did. I used to light the net on fire all the time as I learned about all the regime change / meddling in the Middle East / global empire building stuff that has been going on since 1950 (back during the Bush years). Usually, if any of such knowledge was from partisan sources it was Democrat's talking about it (who themselves were usually lighting the net on fire about it).

This year I tuned back in and WHAT THE F!?! ObamaHillaryCo. are openly funding Al Qaeda in pursuit of toppling regimes (with evidence of them also supporting Al Qaeda's ISIS offshoot who are allegedly "enemies" now), and the Middle East is in ruins while the EU is burning for it, and not only are Democrat's now protecting them for this kind of stuff but they have the balls to be going INSANE over ramming this cultural appropriation stuff down everyones throats?!?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Iran-Contra ring any bells? Or how about the CIA handing out AA missiles like candy to the Mujaheddin? Operation Gladio? Don't act like Obama is the only one who ever funded terrorism.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

I've been power ranting about all that stuff for over a decade. Easily hundreds of pieces I've written or at least reposted on this kind of stuff.

What good would ranting about say Reagan right now really do; how many replies would that thread get?? Dealing with the current high chair, trying to get people to stop worshiping, that's the ball it's most important to keep the eyes on, no matter what year it is. Breaking this cycle of blind cultish loyalty to the POTUS seat is forever the task of anti-establishment forces.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Time has come and passed many times over for us to make a decision: CHOOSE - Either America and her Citizens...or THEM. Because you're right, it HAS to be one or the other, not both anymore.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Breaking this cycle of blind cultish loyalty to the POTUS seat is forever the task of anti-establishment forces.

The irony of that statement coming from a Trump Loyalist is quite amusing.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Willtell

This would be great but you're probably right, it won't pass.

Face it, we arm terrorists and fund them all over the world. Because we ourselves our terrorists and supporters of terrorism as long as it's against other nations we disagree with or want to remove.

It's not exactly that.

The problem is that you need an adversary to maintain your strength and keep your forces in a state of readiness.

The reason that the US funds terrorism, is that all of the nations of the world have caught on, and no nation wants to be the punching bag for the mighty US military.

Given that the nations have opted out, by refusing to play, the US had no choice but to seek out and fund adversaries that recognize no national borders, but are still too naive to understand the game.

If the US doesn't support its own adversaries, then the US military will become fat and lazy, and incompetent, just like the Russian military, sitting on their butts all day, doing nothing significant, sailing about ships that should really be in the junk yard, and flying ancient aircraft that belong in the museum.

Everybody sees how the US played Saddam Husein, treating like a good friend one day, giving him all his weapons, encouraging him to oppose Iran, inviting him to invade Kuwait, and then turning against him, claiming he had WMD (which the US had given him, so they knew he had this at one time), and unloading all their old military hardware on him in "the mother of all battles war games", just to give the US military a reality stage to practice their war-craft and test out their readiness for battle.

The real problem with an adversary that has no national borders, however, is that they don't make a good counterpart for a nations military, since nations battle well-defined nations, with well-drawn borders and easily recognizable uniforms.

Hence the creation of ISIS, or ISIL, or whatever you want to call them. Give them uniforms, and carve out some territory to call their own, give them a "nation forming goal" like a "Caliphate", so that they can play the role of opposer in a traditional military context.

This nonsense will only stop when Aliens invade the earth, and as Ronald Regan says, "Gives us all a reason to come together to oppose the extraterrestrial outsider".

a reply to: AMPTAH

That's an interesting theory. In either case it hardly changes anything.

The US is still the largest sponsor and creator of Terrorism in the world.

Your theory is much more interesting and diabolical though.

a reply to: mOjOm

Just because I came out guns blazing against the DNC, Queen SJW Hillary and the Cult of PC this year, and hopped on the Trump train to bring them and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation to heel, and am willing to give Trump his first 100 days before going wild on him like you guys did before during and after the election like good little partisan minions, doesn't mean I'm some lost cause left/right Binary MENTAList.

But way to strive to keep the thread in partisan pursuits. And for a moment there I was hoping maybe you were one of the rare ones who aren't a lost cause.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Sorry. You pissed that away already remember.

I tried the common ground thing and you sh*t all over it.

I thought we cleared that up already.

Go on and get back on the Trump Train and toot your little horn some more......

Lets be fair on old Trumpy, he is not even in power yet so its not fair to judge him on this yet.



Now as for the Repulicans in General? They are as guilty as the Democrats on this.

A lot of people R and D need stringing up for treason.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Let's see what Obama thinks about this !!

You mean his last gasp, desperate attempt to create even more havoc, death and misery in Syria by openly sending even more arms, even more sophisticated arms i should say, to arm the terrorists in Syria and those flocking there from all over the ME...that what you mean?

The guy should be brought up on charges imo. Aiding and arming the enemy in war is treason and severe penalties exists for such treachery.

Have we all forgot the rammed-down-our-throats-at-every-opportunity 'The war on Terror'?

Often is has been stated by various government officials that we are AT WAR with terrorists, to arm terrorists, our stated enemies is unambiguous treason and ought to be punished accordingly.

a reply to: Willtell

Star and Flag.

Agreed on Tulsi Gabbard.
She quit the DNC when she saw what they were doing to Bernie Sanders. She seems to have strong convictions and will stand up for them.