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

a reply to: neo96

"The CIA did not 'train' AQ."

Actually they did ... according to Hilary.

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

Why would France attack anyone but ISIS? I see a coalition on the way and this attack may have precipitated action. The US, France and NATO allies [especially Turkey], plus Russia, and Arabic states. All will provide forces, even if token. This last is important so that this cannot be construed as a war against Islam but rather a war against a terror state that is using radical Islam as an excuse to conquer, destroy, and pillage.

At some point, the leaders of Islam should come together [if possible] and modernize their religion[s] so that they can stop killing one another and everyone else who disagrees with them. They need a New Testament version of the Koran that is not directed toward desert nomad life.

a reply to: deliberator

I have yet to see her know anything about what she is talking about.

originally posted by: Violater1
I just wonder if Charlie would be alive today, how he would draw crusty.

Charlie... who? Hebdo?

Cause... that was not a person. It's the name of a magazine...?

originally posted by: Discotech

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

They are the same. The Obama administration initially referred to them as ISIL and still use the term ISIL because they'e sticking with it. The name ISIS seems to have caught on much better and it what most of the world and citizens use.

originally posted by: pteridine
At some point, the leaders of Islam should come together [if possible] and modernize their religion[s] so that they can stop killing one another and everyone else who disagrees with them. They need a New Testament version of the Koran that is not directed toward desert nomad life.

How is that possible though without it being the word of God or a prophet ?

IF that happened it would only highlight just how made up religion really is, if men can change the word of God when they see fit just because times have changed. Surely a God who is outside of time would write these books in words that stand the test of time and are not open to interpretation depending at what stage of evolution man is at ?

The only thing they could possibly do is come together to agree on an official interpretation that stays that way forever but even then I'm sure people would disagree on interpretations so it's an impossible task unfortunately.

originally posted by: blujack21

originally posted by: Discotech

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

They are the same. The Obama administration initially referred to them as ISIL and still use the term ISIL because they'e sticking with it. The name ISIS seems to have caught on much better and it what most of the world and citizens use.

Read the article I'm referring though, it's suggesting that Obama didn't mean ISIL terrorists but a friendly ISIL in Iraq

The official transcript released by the White House contains the word “Iraqi” in brackets following the acronym ISIL, instead of something much more intuitive, such as prefacing the acronym with “anti-”

Reading the transcript and how it's worded just leads to confusion and what's more worrying is that Obama just blindly reads whatever he is given surely his brain should have kicked in when read and reworded it on the spot if it wasn't a true statement ? Most people try to correct their blunders on the spot usually

a reply to: deliberator

Actually they did ... according to Hilary.

Ah yes, because Hillary always tells the truth...and on youtube so it has to be true.

a reply to: deliberator

She should have stayed home and baked chocolate chip cookies,
at least she would have contributed something good to society.

Now she is part and parcel of the CIA herself.

Which makes her a hypocrite, not to mention a liar.

a reply to: woogleuk

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

Any and every chance they get.

Funny watching RT defend what was said, especially when they could have ran with the out of context comment....what a wacky world.

originally posted by: blujack21

originally posted by: Discotech

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

They are the same. The Obama administration initially referred to them as ISIL and still use the term ISIL because they'e sticking with it. The name ISIS seems to have caught on much better and it what most of the world and citizens use.

Actually a lot of the world uses "Daesh."

Daesh, ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State---all the same thing.

For those that don't know...

The US technically "supports" and funds the ISIL/ISIS forces in Syria...you know, the rebels who want to oust Assad...(these are the ISIL forces Obama referred to when he said he was speeding up training...)
But the US also opposes the ISIL/ISIS forces in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East...even though they're technically still the same group of extremists...The Obama administration supports one and opposes the other...

Watch the Rand Paul video again, he covers that pretty well...

As far as "what will France do"...well...nothing probably. I cannot see France taking any hostile action towards the Obama administration(because France & Obama both want Assad out of the picture...not to mention it would essentially be suicide) I think the real question is...what will Russia do?

Putin has shown an interest in shoring up Russian influence in Syria, while the US, France & Co. don't really want to work with Assad in fighting against ISIS. Putin says working with Assad is the only way....France said absolutely not. It'll be interesting(to say the very least) to watch Russia's reaction if France plans anything within the borders of Syria...(not even going to mention Iran in all this...)

A2D

originally posted by: Violater1
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.

What will France do? Let's look at the choices you seem to be implying. First is to martial their armed forces and wage war against those who took claim to the heinous attack. The second, and choice you seek to personally favor, is to attack the President of the country with the largest inset and weapons stockpile in the world and a presence on literally every continent, ocean and sea across the entirety of the globe? One choice is entirely logical and holds responsible those most immediately responsible for the atrocity commited in Paris. The other Isfahan beyond the realm of logic and rationale and is equitable to nationwide suicide. So ask yourself, seriously, which course of action bears the mark of logic? Holding those actually responsible for the attack accountable or taking the lazy American route and blame all the ills of the world on the POTUS because it's easier than pulling oneself up from the depths of ignorance.

a reply to: Violater1

No, France will not attack the US.

a reply to: reldra

They sure wont

Right now I'm convinces France isn't going to do a thing about this.

What happened about Jordan after the burned that Jordanian pilot alive?

Jordon was going to do so much. What have they done against ISIS
NOTHING!

Well considering France gets its information from its intelligence agencies and not conspiracy sites on the internet the answer would be no. In the reality France lives in the US has been fighting with ISIS under several names since the late 1990s. In the conspiracy world ISIS just appeared out of nowhere.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Violater1

No, France will not attack the US.

Why is it when I use the stop sign it gets censored out?

a reply to: Violater1

I dont think so because he knows that the flood of refugees into his country is the result of his own unfailing service and loyalty to the US.

He and the rest of Europel dont have the guts to tell the US to xyz off and fight their own wars. If they persued foeign policies independant of washington they will get bombed back to the stone age themselves.

The Wolfowitz doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, declares that the rise of Russia or any other country cannot be permitted, because the US is the Uni-power and cannot tolerate any constraint on its unilateral actions.

This clealry indicates that the US will not tolerate any foreign policy independant of the US by any country, France, or anyone else.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
France and America are allies so they will work together in the war on terror.

Agree!

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: deliberator

Actually they did ... according to Hilary.

Ah yes, because Hillary always tells the truth...and on youtube so it has to be true.

????!! Not sure what you are getting at. The video is actually Hilary Clinton speaking. The fact it is on Youtube is irrelevant. You might not believe what she is saying which is fair enough. Please do not accuse me of believing everything that is on Youtube. I don't.

originally posted by: CharlesSS15

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
France and America are allies so they will work together in the war on terror.

Agree!

Agreed
But Obama sends money and supplies to the Islamic State, and shows all signs that he is a muslim.



Yes France and America are united (and soon most of the EU), but the obama administration is not.