President Obama in Alliance with Al Qaeda

Harley Schlanger says President Obama should be impeached because he is in alliance with Al Qaeda

Summary:

The U.S., under Obama, is in a de facto alliance with Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Lybia, Syria and probably Afghanistan, Pakistan as well as Chechnya. The impeachable violation is the continuing cover-up on Benghazi.  Ambassador Stevens knew we were arming Al Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. The US alliance with NATO against Gaddafi was an alliance with Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, known jihadists with Al Qaeda connections. Secretary of State Kerry, then a Democratic Senator, and Senator John McCain blocked attempts to have Senate hearings into the constitutionality of Obama committing U.S. troops to overthrow Gaddafi. The War Powers Act allows the President to commit troops against invasion only and continuation must be approved by Congress. McCain and Kerry prevented that from coming to a vote and Obama proceeded to arm terrorists who were responsible for the raid on Benghazi.

Additional impeachable offenses are the continuing cover-up of Benghazi, they ignored requests for security, they didn't mobilize nearby supportive militia, and Susan Rice lied on television.

The US has supported in one way or another, nearly every enemy it's had since it's inception.

Originally posted by boncho
The US has supported in one way or another, nearly every enemy it's had since it's inception.

And......This is okay with you?

reply to post by boncho


Yes, you're correct. Because the united states is like every other country. It seeks influence from around the whole wide world. You have to survive.

reply to post by DiscreteParticle


1. WTF is Harley Schlanger and why should we care what he thinks?

Originally posted by DiscreteParticle
The impeachable violation is the continuing cover-up on Benghazi. 

There has been no proof that there was a "cover up". In fact, the White House Released Benghazi Emails on Talking Points and they show that the White House had VERY little to do with any of it. The CIA may need to be investigated, however.

Additional impeachable offenses are the continuing cover-up of Benghazi, they ignored requests for security, they didn't mobilize nearby supportive militia, and Susan Rice lied on television.

Mistakes were made, I would agree with that. But the rest is just suspicion at this point.

Robert Gates and GHW Bush invented Al CIADuh. And the CIA has nurtured Obama since he was a cub.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

1. WTF is Harley Schlanger and why should we care what he thinks?


Glad you asked - I was not familiar with him either. Harley Schlanger is with the Larouche, or United States Labor Party. One reason to care what he thinks is that he is not allied with either the Republicans or Democrats so has a relatively unbiased view. Another is that he seems to be an international monetary expert.

Let me just get this straight Obama should be impeached for being in an alliance with Al Qaeda and at the same others say Obama should be impeached for his drone war against Al Qaeda. Never mind that fact the US and Wests actions in Syria and Libya were taken to defeat Al Qaeda attempts to subvert the revolts in those places. And that since Obama has been in charge the life span of Al Qaeda leaderships has gotten very short. Anyone who thinks Obama is in an alliance with Al Qaeda is already so far away from reality that none of the above will matter for them anyway.

You are right, we should not care what Harvey said but the White House has everything to do with it. If the POTUS did not now anything then he is not reading his PDB or it is edited to the point that he is not running the country like the bullet points. There was nothing else bigger than the death of diplomats on the radar except, thats right, he had to get to Vegas probably and reelected.

The CIA does not need to be investigated as they were the ones attacked. They had assets that were killed in Benghazi. Petraus was outed in early November and he had criticized this. Coincidence that during election season and during a scandal one broke on him??

Why will the current administration not take responsibility for anything? There was as 7 hour gap between when the fighting started and when these brave men died. 7 hours. You cannot tell me that the POTUS was not aware that a diplomatic outpost is under attack . That is the problem. Not talking points. Not emails.

Seven Hours...there were assets in place and nothing was done.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

Originally posted by boncho
The US has supported in one way or another, nearly every enemy it's had since it's inception.

And......This is okay with you?

Yes, primarily because if they tell the truth, people won't have it, they will protest complain. So instead, they fund their "frenemy", it kills a few of its citizens, blows up a base, condemns on TV, etc... Then the people rise up, "OMG Save us!"

And so the theatre continues.

I'm fine with my country pillaging and plundering to keep the status quo, are you? If not, you are the cause.

Originally posted by nobeattles
Robert Gates and GHW Bush invented Al CIADuh. And the CIA has nurtured Obama since he was a cub.

Stop this garbage. AQ has been around for quite a while and it hates the US, but it took money and weapons along with the Taliban to fight Russia in Afghanistan. Pick up a book.

This has nothing to do with Bush, or even Clinton(who bombed AQ sites after embassy bombings and other attacks)

The current administration covered this up to make sure it did not break wide open during the election. They are monitored media outlets. They select those who can ask the questions and sit in press conferences.

There will come a day when US citizens may embrace the idea of what AQ fights against which is mainly tyranny in countries.

As far as the OP, yes, he is giving money to those who killed our own citizens which is the issue. I cannot remember a time when we funded overseas groups to kill our own people.

reply to post by boncho


Boncho, you don't need to throw YOU ARE THE PROBLEM in this question. Just stop trying to attack to deflect my question. It was nothing personal....Just a question!

No I am not okay with funding and giving weapons to terrorist groups to benefit something we need! If we want something done, you do it yourself...Hence Blackops!

There is absolutely no reason to give weapons and money to terrorist groups! These are the same groups that "they say" attack US citizens on our own soil....911....Now I know 911 is a topic of debate and I am on the other side of the fence thinking inside job, but when they say it was them....Why give them funds and weapons to work for us over there?

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer doesn't even begin to explain why we would do something like this!

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


You can't fight a war without an enemy. You can't invade countries without reason. If you could, they might just say, "Hey, were gonna go organize a coup in ________ country so we have access to their resources." instead of the long drawn out process of creating an enemy to destroy it...

Or, in the case of Saddam, and Iran, and countless others, create friends by arming them and then killing them off once they stop paying dues...

reply to post by DiscreteParticle


Sorry...my rule of thumb is to not take seriously any vid that opens with a shot of a three-eyed baby.

Laruache BTW is a genuine nutbag...so you source being amongst his followers doesn't help with credibility.

Originally posted by MrSpad
Let me just get this straight Obama should be impeached for being in an alliance with Al Qaeda and at the same others say Obama should be impeached for his drone war against Al Qaeda. Never mind that fact the US and Wests actions in Syria and Libya were taken to defeat Al Qaeda attempts to subvert the revolts in those places. And that since Obama has been in charge the life span of Al Qaeda leaderships has gotten very short. Anyone who thinks Obama is in an alliance with Al Qaeda is already so far away from reality that none of the above will matter for them anyway.

I agree that Obummer should be impeached for his continuing support of Al Qaeda. WE should not be empire builders and trying to democracize the world.

We have become the colonialists of the 21st century. When you use preemptive policies you become the aggressor and lose all moral high ground. freedom is not risk-free and to make it risk-free we must abolish all freedom.

reply to post by boncho


I agree, but to eliminate this problem do we really need to arm our enemies to do so?

Oh look another “American supports Al-Qa’ida” thread, how original…..

I recall once reading a psychologist writing about how his research had demonstrated that conspiracy theories were in fact all founded on ignorance and a misunderstanding of how the world works.

I think he might have been on to something.

Because peoples understanding of Al-Qa’ida on ATS is abysmal and ignorance roams free on these threads.

I mean this guy is hardly independent he is very anti-obama

“America supports Al-Qa’ida in Syria” Mr. Conspiracy theorist says, really, so that’s why they have announced that Al-Nusra (Al-Qa’ida in Syria) is a official terrorist group and have even sent CIA agents into turkey to conduct vetting on groups recovering American assistance to ensure that they don’t go to the islamist groups.

The Terrorists and Freedom Fighters of Syria

Originally posted by DiscreteParticle
Harley Schlanger says President Obama should be impeached because he is in alliance with Al Qaeda

Summary:

The U.S., under Obama, is in a de facto alliance with Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Lybia, Syria and probably Afghanistan, Pakistan as well as Chechnya. The impeachable violation is the continuing cover-up on Benghazi.  Ambassador Stevens knew we were arming Al Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. The US alliance with NATO against Gaddafi was an alliance with Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, known jihadists with Al Qaeda connections. Secretary of State Kerry, then a Democratic Senator, and Senator John McCain blocked attempts to have Senate hearings into the constitutionality of Obama committing U.S. troops to overthrow Gaddafi. The War Powers Act allows the President to commit troops against invasion only and continuation must be approved by Congress. McCain and Kerry prevented that from coming to a vote and Obama proceeded to arm terrorists who were responsible for the raid on Benghazi.

Additional impeachable offenses are the continuing cover-up of Benghazi, they ignored requests for security, they didn't mobilize nearby supportive militia, and Susan Rice lied on television.

So what if we use al-Qaeda to get rid of a bigger threat. Many people are under the impression that once we pick a side we must maintain that relationship for eternity and that's a mistake.

A successful nation must continually evaluate priorities and use the tools available to protect its national interests. Today al-Qaeda may be our enemy but tomorrow they may be our friend. This is how successful international relations works


Also, the War Powers Act is not for invasion only...no idea where you got that from. Presidents love the War Powers Act because its Congress giving them permission to do whatever they want with the armed forces for 60 days before they have to justify it.

Its not just for invasion. And as we know, once a President commits troops all they have to do is play the patriot card to keep the funding going, Congress has yet to show any balls and cut off any President in relation to the War Powers Act.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

1. WTF is Harley Schlanger and why should we care what he thinks?

Doesn't matter hell all anyone has to do is look back to Afghanistan in the 80s with the Us(Charlie Wislons) support of the mujahideen who would later form Al Qaeda that led to the last decade of war.

Aiding Al Qaeda in LIbya, and Syria is well known to most of those are paying attention to what is going on in the ME.

Previous poster is right the US has a long history of making alliance's only to fight them later which is really nothing more than that asinine ideology of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' crap.

The cold hard truth is historically the enemy of my enemy has been, and will always be an enemy.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Oh look another “American supports Al-Qa’ida” thread, how original…..

I recall once reading a psychologist writing about how his research had demonstrated that conspiracy theories were in fact all founded on ignorance and a misunderstanding of how the world works.

I think he might have been on to something.

Because peoples understanding of Al-Qa’ida on ATS is abysmal and ignorance roams free on these threads.

I mean this guy is hardly independent he is very anti-obama

“America supports Al-Qa’ida in Syria” Mr. Conspiracy theorist says, really, so that’s why they have announced that Al-Nusra (Al-Qa’ida in Syria) is a official terrorist group and have even sent CIA agents into turkey to conduct vetting on groups recovering American assistance to ensure that they don’t go to the islamist groups.

The Terrorists and Freedom Fighters of Syria

edit on 16-5-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

I agree this guy is biased and that the title of the piece is a generalization. I was presenting it for interesting discussion purposes not because I endorse it and should have made that clear. This may have been my first post.

Regarding your claim that ATS is ignorant and abysmal in our knowledge of Al-Qaeda, I am going to suggest that is by design. The U.S. public has been deliberately kept in the dark so that we can be shown a cardboard cutout of a terrorist and surrender our liberties and invade countries spreading our "liberty". Your own citation is from a British paper.

The interesting point you make is about Jabhat al-Nusra. You are using the fact that the U.S. is trying to recover arms we gave them as proof the administration does not support Al-Qaedah. Maybe that is so, maybe it is not. I am a little more cynical in this regard. The U.S. starting with Bush supported Al-Qaedah. Jabhat al-Nusra is not going to play with the State Dept. They have their own set of ethics and are regarded by the Syrian freedom-fighters as disciplined, successful and organized. Al-Nusra is not considered a user like the U.S. or Al-Qaedah Central. Benghazi was where the U.S. was recruiting jihadists to fight in Syria, and where caches of weapons and supplies were stored. It is part of a plan that appears to have gotten out of hand at the very least.