U.S. Lawmakers Make STUNNING Move To Investigate Obama For Helping ISIS

originally posted by: PresidentCamacho

originally posted by: muse7
Wish these Republicans lawmakers had been as outraged when 3000 Americans died on September 11th, 2001.

I take it you mean outraged at Bill Clinton for letting the events that directly led to 9/11 transpire.

That's a new spin, never heard it before, you should elaborate.

a reply to: xuenchen

Lets call it for what it is. "ISIS" is simply a code name for black ops/special forces/cia. The people dying within ISIS are most likely american soldiers with top secret missions under a "disguise" to topple syria.

Possible reason for tricking the public in general would be to catch the enemy off guard,which is actually a brilliant tactic if you are a poker player. If you want to conquer the world, the element of surprise must be present.

we were simply the guinea pigs in this propaganda experiment.

a reply to: xuenchen

What really gets me about this, is that there is so much evidence for it, it's pretty much slapping everyone in the face repeatedly and obnoxiously. Yet, there are still scores of people so entrenched in the lies that they come here and mock people who do nothing other than accept the truth.

This is quite the funny mental retardation some of you have.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Feel free to support this claim.

a reply to: Bundy
I don’t get as upset with the ”mental retardation”, factor as you put it, so rampant around ATS anymore - especially in the politically skewed areas of the forum. From time to time, though, I read something so far removed from reality, and so blatantly biased and fact-free, that I can’t help but reply. Not that it does any good. Haters will hate, deniers will deny, blah, blah, blah...

Everyone loves a good mystery, many love a good conspiracy theory, and then there are those who are so consumed with hate and a desire to blame everyone else for this “mixed up, muddlled up, shook up world” (quoted from Kinks song Lola) that they invent outlandish conspiracy theories, completely removed from any practical reality and thoroughly lacking in fact. These folks are totally fixated on a single theme and will reject anything/everything to the contrary. PERIOD. In certain ways it’s similar to that of being a compulsive liar. The compulsion is so overwhelming that even when the truth is completely acceptable, the compulsive liar will lie anyway. Even when it’s obviously a lie and makes no sense.

I don’t know where you stand on anything, Bundy. But from where I stand, the individuals I descibed in the previous paragraph tend to lean toward the Trump camp.

Ahhh... The Age of Enlightenment...

So it is the presidents fault when rebels/Iraqis lose those weapons we supplied them to the enemy through battle/desertion?

Or American made weapons being resold/given to ISIS through turkey and other parties?

Sounds like congress should get off its ass and redo the war authorization bills to state what we can and cant do as is the job of congress.

originally posted by: xuenchen

I think nothing is beyond Obama.

You do realize that George W. Bush helped create ISIS, right?

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: xuenchen

Lets call it for what it is. "ISIS" is simply a code name for black ops/special forces/cia. The people dying within ISIS are most likely american soldiers with top secret missions under a "disguise" to topple syria.

Possible reason for tricking the public in general would be to catch the enemy off guard,which is actually a brilliant tactic if you are a poker player. If you want to conquer the world, the element of surprise must be present.

we were simply the guinea pigs in this propaganda experiment.

Do you have even a single cite to support your ludicrous claim?

I think obamas weak too but this seems like a wast of money and messing up intel should be treason and brought directly to public as a smoking gun and an arrest. If they don't already have a smoking gun that Obama literally changed this info, then this allegation is a stretch imho

I always find it funny when people throw everything at the guy at the top, especially when it's been known and proven time and time again, over decades, that organizations such as the FBI, CIA, NSA etc, are pretty much rogue anyway. Carrying out their own agendas with deep involvement in highly illegal practices.
The guy at the top, president or prime minister, is simply just another political talking head for people to focus their attention on, to keep the shady goings on hidden, and to act as the fall guy if things go belly up.

I am sure Obama, like most of his predecessors, has absolutely no idea of half of what those agencies, or factions within them, are up to and involved in. In other words, there is little or no oversight, and those agencies allow the talking head at the top to remain only as long as they need to. Any attempt to rein them in would be met with an unfortunate accident or some skeleton from the closet being exposed, leading to removal.

I don't have any sympathy for the "leaders" in this regard, as they know the score when they sign up for this, but keep quiet about it for personal gain and glory. For that alone, they are certainly not worthy of "public service" as they are compromised before they ever get to the big house. In fact, that's a prerequisite for holding office!

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Conspiracy is reality. Once again validated.

Although I agree that in this case you are probably right, the opening of investigations into this issue is hardly validating much of anything. Might want to wait and see what they find, could be a "see, they looked into it and concluded there was nothing for anyone to worry about!". See Warren Commision, 911 commission, etc.

originally posted by: Britguy
I always find it funny when people throw everything at the guy at the top, especially when it's been known and proven time and time again, over decades, that organizations such as the FBI, CIA, NSA etc, are pretty much rogue anyway. Carrying out their own agendas with deep involvement in highly illegal practices.
The guy at the top, president or prime minister, is simply just another political talking head for people to focus their attention on, to keep the shady goings on hidden, and to act as the fall guy if things go belly up.

I am sure Obama, like most of his predecessors, has absolutely no idea of half of what those agencies, or factions within them, are up to and involved in. In other words, there is little or no oversight, and those agencies allow the talking head at the top to remain only as long as they need to. Any attempt to rein them in would be met with an unfortunate accident or some skeleton from the closet being exposed, leading to removal.

I don't have any sympathy for the "leaders" in this regard, as they know the score when they sign up for this, but keep quiet about it for personal gain and glory. For that alone, they are certainly not worthy of "public service" as they are compromised before they ever get to the big house. In fact, that's a prerequisite for holding office!

I totally agree. Case in point is the arming and supporting of the Mujahedeen and the catalyst for this support by Sen. Charlie Wilson and the CIA's Clandestine Services. No reason this practice does not continue to this day.

I'm pretty sure Carter and Reagan had little to no info on what was really going on in the "fight against communism" in regards to Afghanistan and the CIA's support of the Mujahedeen. What info they did have was likely too little and too late.

However, does that really free them of the responsibility, Obama included, of reining in rouge elements of the alphabet agencies and or prominent members of the elected government? Personally, I don't think so. Plausible deniability is a poor but effective excuse for corruption and backroom dealings.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

Sorry but I disagree. Just because they did something once, doesn't automatically mean they do it again.

I know it's the conspiracy theorists main go to, this leap in logic, but you need to fill that 20-30 year gap with something more substantial.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, he is backing the Trans Pacific Partnership, which will make NAFTA look like a labor rally, so nothing would suprise me at this point.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

I absolutely agree when it comes where the buck should stop. Problem is, the leaders we get to vote for are groomed for office in order to maintain the status quo and keep the big monied interests in power. The idea that the head of state is the ultimate power and, as Bush liked to call himself, the "decider", is just an illusion.

Thus, simply changing the groomed head of state each election cycle, changes nothing but consolidates and prolongs the real power base.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg




Do you have even a single cite to support your ludicrous claim?

First:
I will NOT be posting them because YOU, need to get rid of lazyness and do your research.
Tips
How I do research:

1. When someone claims something, I research it for myself through many sources. It must not be only one source, there has to be many people stating the same thing. I then continue research until I locate a pattern. This pattern confirms if something is true, or if something is false. This pattern is what "holds water" in an analogical point of view.

2. Studies of character traits, and body language helps. Did you know more than 90% of communication is done through body language? You can see a lot with this alone. This will make it difficult for people to lie to you.

3. Apply of the scientific method. This is the most crucial step into learning anything for yourself. Scientists use it to self validate.


Is the idea really ludicrous? How many times have you heard of undercover FBI agents or undercover cops?
What lengths do they go to in order to get the Job Done?
Are they connected with the government? if so , what makes you think they will NOT apply the same tactic in other governmental branches?

Now, I just opened up the window of opportunity to ask questions. So I research if this possibility holds water.
Woman Finds Out Boyfriend of Six Years Is Undercover Cop Spying on Her and Her Friends

As it turns Out, it does. See the Story Above. ^

And Then I go from there and connect dots with other stories.


Now, i could have given you the answers you wanted, but instead I gave you tips and examples along with a possible frame you can work with.

This, is how you develop that which you call "ludicrous" which is none other than critical thinking.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Translation: You cannot find a reliable source that backs up your claim. Presstv and RT.com issue unsubstantiated claims that are reprinted verbatim by globalresearch, EU Times, beforeitsnews and all the other sites that disseminate propaganda tailored for the conspiracy theory crowd. This then looks like multiple sources confirming your bias.

You have been challenged to back up your claim using multiple, reliable sources, to examine the credibility of those sources, and to apply critical thinking to the claims they make. Do not lecture about the process, do it. If you make a claim, it is your responsibility to support it with evidence, and no-one else's. If you are unwilling or unable to back up your claim, please withdraw it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Feel free to support this claim.

He can't because short of BIN or other similar reputable sources there is nothing to support it.

Possibility???? It's blatantly obvious.
Just a reminder for those in doubt.

a reply to: CallYourBluff

Where does Wesley Clark say that the United States will deliberately covertly fund terrorist groups in Syria?