My economics professor told my class that Hillary Clinton admitted the US created ISIS

a reply to: WhereAmEYE

I actually have another professor who told me that he will lose his job if he says anything about Academia being controlled by the Liberal Coastal Elite.

A third professor told me that he will lose his job if he criticized Radical Islam.

a reply to: InTheLight

It's a book called Hard Choices by Hillary Clinton.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: WhereAmEYE

I actually have another professor who told me that he will lose his job if he says anything about Academia being controlled by the Liberal Coastal Elite.

A third professor told me that he will lose his job if he criticized Radical Islam.

Have any of them told you that both parties benefit from division?

That both parties have been caught funding terrorists?

Or are you in some crazy illuminati program where it's all given through passing notes?

That the US backed and funded the Afgan freedom fighters against the USSR is old old news. At that time, the Reagan administration hailed them as heroes and martyrs for freedom loving people. The hats that they wore even became a minor fashion trend here in the US otherwise I would not have been able to find them sold in my local ''hat shop''.

Also, the notion that over the next period of time the US economy will weaken and collapse is nothing new. Any study of history will show this clearly, that the US economy has a long long history of weakening and near collapse.

These things are not a special secret known only to conservative minded people,they have been an issue for decades by the more liberal minded among us as well. Mind you, it was a conservative and Republican administration under Reagan and Bush that spear headed our defense against the Russians, not liberals. It was liberals at that time that questioned the validity and possible blow back from supplying the arms to them.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: InTheLight

It's a book called Hard Choices by Hillary Clinton.

Subjective reading I see. Let's look at the historical timeline.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: WhereAmEYE

I actually have another professor who told me that he will lose his job if he says anything about Academia being controlled by the Liberal Coastal Elite.

A third professor told me that he will lose his job if he criticized Radical Islam.

I believe that this person was also misinformed unfortunately. They have fallen victim to the divisiveness of partisan politics. At the end of the day both teams answer to the same coach.

The profess talking about "the liberal coastal elite" has no business speaking on these matters as they are just a partisan hack. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but professors should not be forcing their partisan agenda on their students.

He would have been more fair to say that there is a hidden hand controlling modern academia among everything else, and they do not pledge allegiance to any political parties or flags.

Radical Islam should be criticized, I was unaware that criticizing it objectively could be harmful to a career but these days everyone is sensitive about something.

Thanks for the response.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Actually if you looked closely, I am not surprised by what he said. I am only surprised a professor from the mainstream will say something like this.

If you want to know who he is look up Akbar Torbat.

Here's his website:

www.calstatela.edu...

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's a well known fact that the US helped Radical Islam (Wahhabi) come to prominence via the Saudis.

It's nothing you need to be "red pilled" to understand. The House of Saud formed a mutually beneficial relationship with Wahhabism in the 18th century because like a lot of ultraconservative movements it's authoritarian and therefore promoted obedience to the monarchy.

As far as the US goes, it starts with the discovery of huge oil reserves in the 30s and the investments by American business. And of course, there was a common enemy in the communists. It's the same story of unintended consequences resulting from feeding greed and serving myopic geopolitical strategy that's been an unfortunate recurring pattern in US foreign policy for a century.

But that's not a secret. Your OP implies that Clinton revealed some here heretofore unknown conspiracy to create ISIS.

a reply to: theantediluvian

If you read closely, I am not surprised by what he said, I was surprised a mainstream professor would actually say it.

He is not the conspiracy type and doesn't support Trump either.

He also talks about Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

He is in some ways well aware of the TPTB.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
Yesterday during lecture my economics professor was talking about the Middle East when he outright stated Hillary Clinton admitted that the US created ISIS.

Some people were pretty surprised.

A few weeks ago this same professor admitted that its possible the economy will collapse and that the US will decline and that in 10 years the US military will be weakened.

I was surprised because this is one of the few times a professor tells the truth about world events. Many people in colleges tend to focus more on gender studies classes and other SJW garbage.

I do applaud the professor for dropping red pills that day.

Where is his/your source for this admission? Ms. Clinton in the vid above admits that the U.S. helped, not created it. They rose up to fight the Soviets first, they will always rise up when they feel their religion, their beliefs are threatened - this is a given.

What? No, we didn't help, we funded them full stock. We're the ones who gave them the weapons and the money to purchase the weapons that they now have, that's "creating." No we didn't birth them out of test tubes, but yes -- we turned them into the group they are. We gave them a goal, and when that goal was completed, we just left.

What happens when you militarize an extremist population and then turn your back on them? Irresponsible consequences. Those consequences never would have happened without the money and weapons we flushed them with, we created their organization, not their ideals.

In other words, we took people who felt a certain way, taught them how to fight, gave them money and weapons and missiles and weapon platforms, taught them how to work together, gave them a goal, and then when that goal was achieved we just cut out and left them with no guidance. We did this with Mujaheddin, we did this with the contra rebels, we did this with Al-Qeada, we did this with the Taliban, we did this with ISIS.... We did this in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Nicaragua, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Panama, Mexico [cartels], Qatar, Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Kuwait, Yemen, and Lebanon.

We were at war with Al-Qeada in Iran and Afghanistan, while at the same time, happening concurrently, we were supplying and training Al-Qeada in Libya to over throw Muammar Gaddafi.

Al-Qeada was led by Osama Bin Laden, right? Well -- what did we do in 2000? We invited him to the white house and bush gave him crazy money.

Ever wonder why we stopped having traditional wars? Because it's cheaper and safer to just supply a rebellion than it is to send soldiers. It's us, make no mistake about it, it's just us through a proxy. Why is it easier and safer? Because we can achieve things that would make us war criminals by allowing someone else to do it for us. How long have we been in the middle east, for about as long as there have been rebellions. We created those rebellions as non-official official factions [plausible deniability] to perform operations that would have been against international law.

Period. There is a plethora of history and factual evidence that supports this as true.

If you question it, just look at operation fast and furious -- the official narrative is we supplied arms to the cartels without tracking, knowing that the only way to track them was through forensics at crime scenes. We armed the cartels and anticipated they'd use those arms to create crimes, and justified this by saying, the crimes would allow us to track them down.

Like no, we're arming rebels that are against the Mexican government. The only reason this even came out as something we did was because one of those guns killed a border patrol officer.

Like.... are you really arguing that we don't create the terror?

We were importing coc aine into California from the cartels and supplying big time drug dealers to push it into the american market. Don't believe this, check out the Rick Ross story. He was caught and sentenced to life in prison and then he proved he was working for the CIA and got a presidential pardon.

We even do it here. That's what the government of the United States does, they sow terror so they can look like the big bad ass good guys by going to war with the terror they created. Where do you think the War on Drugs came from? It came from Reagan shipping drugs to the US dealers and then letting them peddle it out, in order to create a crisis for him to solve for political gain. The war on Drugs didn't exist until the CIA became drug dealers.

Seriously, this is all real, not conspiracy theory but confirmed facts. Still got a problem swallowing the false flag pill? Sorry for ya, this is why people believe shooters like Paddock are created as Manchurian candidates. Here is a guy who has ties to the United States Government -- here is a guy who worked for Lockheed and the IRS, here is a guy with no criminal history, here is a guy who goes bananas and shoots 500+ people with an entire hotel suite of arms, and you have to question if the government was involved? Of course they were.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's a well known fact that the US helped Radical Islam (Wahhabi) come to prominence via the Saudis.

It's nothing you need to be "red pilled" to understand. The House of Saud formed a mutually beneficial relationship with Wahhabism in the 18th century because like a lot of ultraconservative movements it's authoritarian and therefore promoted obedience to the monarchy.

As far as the US goes, it starts with the discovery of huge oil reserves in the 30s and the investments by American business. And of course, there was a common enemy in the communists. It's the same story of unintended consequences resulting from feeding greed and serving myopic geopolitical strategy that's been an unfortunate recurring pattern in US foreign policy for a century.

But that's not a secret. Your OP implies that Clinton revealed some here heretofore unknown conspiracy to create ISIS.

Right, that is what this thread strikes me as suggesting too, which is not the case.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
Yesterday during lecture my economics professor was talking about the Middle East when he outright stated Hillary Clinton admitted that the US created ISIS.

Some people were pretty surprised.

A few weeks ago this same professor admitted that its possible the economy will collapse and that the US will decline and that in 10 years the US military will be weakened.

I was surprised because this is one of the few times a professor tells the truth about world events. Many people in colleges tend to focus more on gender studies classes and other SJW garbage.

This professor is not the conspiracy type either.

I do applaud the professor for dropping red pills that day.

Well he's a conspiracy theorist now...

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Liberals in academia have been critical of US foreign policy forever. What's changed and I think why you have this perception about "red pilling" is that the far-right has taken up this mantle of being "anti-globalist" as part of an agenda of far-right "nationalism."

Though if you're actually paying attention, it's not true nationalism it's more like European ethnonationalism. That's how you end up with Milo singing the Star Spangled Banner to an audience including Richard Spencer and a Canadian douche like Gavin McInnes heading up a group of ostensible American "patriots."

There's a lot of irony here. When you look at IMF, WTO, World Bank, G8/G20 etc summits — the vehicles of globalism — it's left-wing protesters in the streets. You know, the ones that created Black Bloc protesting. The far-right, as part of what they see as a the greatest conflict of our time — a culture war between "the West" and the rest of the world — have assumed the label of "anti-globalism" but only as it applies to immigration, refugees, etc.

That's why somebody like Bannon can be tight with Erik Prince and share aspirations of CIA-led mercenary forces protecting mining interests in Afghanistan and still blather about "muh globalists" and employ a bunch of foreigners to produce nationalist propaganda for Americans. It's not nationalism, it's not anti-globalism, it's irrational fear that the West is being destroyed and that's also why they find fellow travelers in the white nationalist alt-right. It's the common thread that connects them.

So no, I reject your premise entirely. What you think is some new development in academia is just what right-wingers were deriding leftist as "radical" and "un-American" for saying a decade ago.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Actually if you looked closely, I am not surprised by what he said. I am only surprised a professor from the mainstream will say something like this.

If you want to know who he is look up Akbar Torbat.

Here's his website:

www.calstatela.edu...

I see. You are not surprised by the information but only the immediate source, the mainstream professor. However I have had two children in college and have known a number of their friends from mainstream college that had that knowledge as part of their curriculum twenty years ago. My guess is that that information is not as rare in the mainstream colleges as the anti mainstream college detractors would have us believe.

Pretty sure ISIS was an Obama-CIA creation....Obama was a big supporter of Moslem Brotherhood's takeover of Egypt and created ISIS to further destabilize Iraq, since China now holds the oil rights. ISIS took control of Iraqi oil fields, which provided $$$ from black market oil sales to Europe, N Korea, etc.

Of course the Nazi-inspired Moslem Brotherhood was pushed out in Egypt, probably with some help from Israel, but Hillary was in on all the nasty and nefarious dealings, including the televised rape of Khaddafi in Lybia, even before her Benghazi debacle.

originally posted by: Zoyd23
Pretty sure ISIS was an Obama-CIA creation....Obama was a big supporter of Moslem Brotherhood's takeover of Egypt and created ISIS to further destabilize Iraq, since China now holds the oil rights. ISIS took control of Iraqi oil fields, which provided $$$ from black market oil sales to Europe, N Korea, etc.

Of course the Nazi-inspired Moslem Brotherhood was pushed out in Egypt, probably with some help from Israel, but Hillary was in on all the nasty and nefarious dealings, including the televised rape of Khaddafi in Lybia, even before her Benghazi debacle.

ISIS sprang from al qaeda, here is the ISIS historical timeline - during Prez. Bush's time.

time.com...

The roots of ISIS can be traced back to the disbanding of the Iraqi military and the banning of the Baathist by the Bush Admin. The subsequent civil war and the propping up of the minority group in government by the US led to many problems as well. So while the US helped create the climate necessary for ISIS to form it did not start the group.