Killer Klown Trump: Obama, Clinton Founders of ISIS

The side we supported was al-Nusra and other terrorist groups. They used the Hillary supplied weapons to crush more moderate groups. We did eventually train several dozen "moderates" in Jordan, but as soon as we sent them into Syria they surrendered all their weapons to al-Nusra and laughed at us. We spent about $100 million per US-trained "moderate" rebel soldier. And yet Hillary thinks we can actually vet Syrians. Hell, we couldn't even vet the ones we were training at $100 million a pop. And of course Al-Nusra provides arms to ISIS and frequently joins them in tactical alliances.

The arms shipments to the terrorists were also being coordinated out of Benghazi, which is why we had a compound there - and a nearby CIA annex, and why all the CIA officers were forbidden from speaking about what they were doing there, even to other government agencies. That program likely existed because the Gulf States were adamant that the "moderates" we wanted to support were completely useless and ineffective, and they paid Hillary tens of millions of dollars to her Foundation slush fund to make sure effective armaments were going to radical Sunnis, because like Erdogan, they wanted Assad gone and Syria firmly in the Sunni camp. And sure enough, as Jane's traces it, we were shipping massive amounts of arms to groups like al-Nusra and ISIS - which is the spawn of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which supported al-Nusra.

And that mess is all because for some mind bogglingly stupid reason, we decided to support the jihadist overthrow of Basher al-Assad, who John Kerry praised as a reformer shortly before Hillary saw the opportunity to make a fuck-ton of money by getting hundreds of thousands of people brutally killed.

Do you understand the difference between the following statements, and how some of them can be true and others not?

1. Obama personally founded ISIS.
2. Obama's policies are such that they created the conditions for the rise of ISIS.
3. Obama had a policy of supplying arms to ISIS.
4. Obama supplied arms to other groups which ended up in the hands of ISIS.

For the record, Trump has doubled down on the stupid and insisted that (1) is literally true.

tl;dr

Why do you put so much time and effort in to writing what nobody is going to read? Your brand here is permanently damaged to the point that even your fellow travellers don't want a thing to do with you and likewise ignore your posts. You are like the falling tree in the forest that nobody is there to hear. Time for you to find a new place, one where not everybody will already know that every. single. post. is a lie.

At this point I think the best response to gturner is no response. I would have put him on ignore long ago as white noise if not for being a mod.

He's probably been banned from a ton of other sites like Dayton has, and like Dinner would be if he went elsewhere with his racism. This could be gtardo last chance saloon (and his posting frequency would seem to suggest as much).

I can't help it if you're an ignorant, uniformed moron who can't manage to read sites like Jane's Defense Weekly, Wikileaks, National Review, The Washington Times, and other sources.

Let's see what they say:

WikiLeaks CONFIRMS Hillary Sold Weapons to ISIS… Then Drops Another BOMBSHELL! Breaking News​

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary Clinton

Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department was actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.

Clinton as repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate.

WikiLeaks is about to prove Hillary Clinton deserves to be arrested:​

She fueled the Syrian civil war and sent thousands of tons of lethal munitions to terrorists - which they are using to kill innocent men, women, and children by the tens of thousands.

National Review says

Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Debacle: Arming Jihadists in Libya . . . and Syria

Looking ahead to the next installment of e-mails from WikiLeaks

As U.S. armed forces attack ISIS in Libya, WikiLeaks is poised to remind us that ISIS is in Libya — indeed, that ISIS is ISIS — thanks to disastrous policies championed by Hillary Clinton as President Obama’s secretary of state. Also raised, yet again, is the specter of Mrs. Clinton’s lying to Congress and the American people — this time regarding a matter some of us have been trying for years to get answers about: What mission was so important the United States kept personnel in the jihadist hellhole of Benghazi in 2012?

Specifically, did that mission involve arming the Syrian “rebels” — including al-Qaeda and forces that became ISIS — just as, at Mrs. Clinton’s urging, our government had armed Libyan “rebels” (again, jihadists) to catastrophic effect?​

Some of this was coming to light last fall, when The Washington Times ran this headline:

Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban
Memos recovered from Benghazi compound divulge covert effort​

As it turns out, she wasn't just shipping weapons to Libya. She was also shipping them to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Syria.

In return, the Gulf States and other actors in the Middle East were funneling tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. That's also on record. Of course she also raked in enormous amounts of money from the Nigerian oil barons who used Boko Haram to wipe out whole villages to make oil exploration easier, in return for her providing cover for the jihadist's activities, keeping them off the US terrorist list. 11,000 dead on that one so far. But hey, they're poor black Christians and Hillary needed a new pair of shoes.

When Hollywood tries to come up with the ultimate evil villain, a person so greedy and vile that only a superhero can stop them, they're describing what Hillary actually is.

Stop responding to him.

Congratulations on becoming even less interesting to read than @Tererun.

Sorry if Hillary Clinton selling weapons to ISIS is boring you. ISIS, by the way, are the terrorists who keep slaughtering people in places like Paris and Orlando. Hillary gave them the weapons they desperately needed to expand and take over half of Iraq.

And more e-mails will be forthcoming, while other headlines today talk about how three different FBI offices wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation but were rebuffed by the DoJ - which is part of the corruption. We should find out today whether the New York office has launched its own investigation. We're also finding out that Clinton's State Department aide, Cheryl Mills, was flown to New York to interview applicants for The Clinton Foundation. One frustrated reporter covering the State Department asked their spokesman about it and finally asked "Do you speak English?"

This guy has got to be the most dense ballbag in history. I've literally asked him several times in threads who he's going to convince just repeating himself and just carries on anyway.

There's definitely something not right about this one.

The problem is that you are lying and the links that you are supplying do not support your statements. You've been told this repeatedly, yet ignore it.

Please read and answer post #32.

You mean you won't be convinced that Hillary armed ISIS no matter how many news stories say Hillary armed ISIS? That's willful stupidity.

She was providing arms to the Syrian jihadis. That's now established due to all the e-mails that Wikileaks has.

She was being paid tens of millions of dollars by the Gulf states who wanted the jihadis armed. That's also established by the Clinton Foundation's own paperwork.

Aside from the sheer horror and hypocrisy of it, it confirms what all the nuts in the Middle East were claiming, that the US was supplying ISIS. Well, it seems they were in large part correct on that point. They will still be talking about it fifty years from now. If confirms what Putin has been saying, too.

Read the fucking headlines in the links. I even posted the headlines in the thread so you couldn't miss them.

Can you read?

As for the money she got, it's real.

“These regimes are buying access. You’ve got the Saudis. You’ve got the Kuwaitis, Oman, Qatar and the UAE. There are massive conflicts of interest. It’s beyond comprehension,” Poole told TheDCNF in an interview.

Overall, the Clinton Foundation has received upwards of $85 million in donations from five Persian Gulf states and their monarchs, according to the foundation’s website.​

Note that Dick Cheney didn't get a dime. Neither did George W Bush.

But the Clinton's were paid upwards of $85 million. The Gulf states weren't buying "access" either, because they already have "access". When Saudi Arabia or the UAE talks, they have our ear. What they were doing was paying a greedy, unethical, self-serving, murderous witch tens of millions of dollars to approve and arrange the shipment of at least 3,000 tonnes of armaments to the must violent, brutal, and repressive terrorist group on the planet.

Most of the links you've provided say that weapons were sold to jihadis. We know that. Nobody disputes it.
Your claim is that weapons were sold to ISIS. Only one of your links also make that claim, but the evidence that it provides does not support it. At best, it illustrates that weapons sold to other groups were passed to ISIS. That might well be scandalous, but it isn't the same thing, and when you claim that it is you illustrate yourself to be a dishonest twat, and you actually detract from the possibility of any legitimate criticism of the policy.

So stop spamming with your links and start taking notice of those who are telling you this.

She was providing weapons to Al-Nusra and ISIS. If she was supplying weapons to other groups, she wouldn't have had to hide what she was doing. In intelligence and foreign affairs, there's something called "knowing who the end user is." It's really important because everybody channels things through nebulous intermediaries and front companies. Hillary was using one arms dealer based in Southern California, but there were many more.

This. It's only entertaining as long as he isn't a stone's throw away from the Presidency. Since he is, that makes it more disconcerting than anything.

Listen, the media desperately needs a horse race to gain ratings and therefore, money. He's a joke, even within his own party, and the only reason he's gotten the declining traction he's had is due to direct media intervention to keep him viable.

Where I live, he's tremendously popular. Don't underestimate the ability of people to burn down the country out of spite, e.g., Brexit.

Oh, I'm not. But the fact is like last time, the Republicans are only looking at their own numbers and loud mouths. The Democrats are not bothering to be polled or surveyed right now; they can't be bothered til the general election.

For the most part he doesn't have the educated white vote, the black, mexican, other vote, he doesn't have women, naturalized citizens, almost anyone under 45.....it's endless.

He has ageing white boomers who want to deprive everyone of benefit so they can continue sucking the planet dry until they're dead and no longer give a shit, the idiots who think Duck Dynasty is the height of cultural achievement, and the out and out racist.

It's going to be a bigger blow out then the last time and I look forward to all the crying and meltdowns.

This guy simply has all available screws loose. That's OK.

But it's telling about the state of the GOP that Trump is their presidential candidate. I mean, really. We know the Bush years did split the GOP into the insane and the completely gaga with a few in the middle who keep the whole thing running. But how bad must things really be if they couldn't even muster a viable alternative to Trump during all those months where he gained momentum?

Of course the electorate will stop him. It's a sad sign for the party that it's come to this. The US system cannot work without checks and balances at every level. Continuing like that the GOP will cement the Dems into power for decades. Or explode into factions of varying insanity. Who's there to step in?

What you are saying is she sold weapons with the knowledge some of them are would end up in the hands of criminals and terrorists because that is how legally sold weapons eventually find their way into criminal hands. So we should hold Hillary and Obama accountable for all sales of weapons because we all know some of them are going to be to criminals. So then why can't we say that gun manufacturers operate on the same knowledge and call them all the suppliers of terrorist weaponry because the terrorists do not really do much weapon manufacturing of their own? Oh yeah, that is because you really do not care about terrorists buying weapons until Hillary or Obama do it. Bush and Reagan did it a the time and Reagan even got in trouble for it, but you do not care.

No, she shipped weapons knowing that they would be delivered to Al Nusra and ISIS, much like selling a buttload of weapons to small gangs on the understanding that they will pass them on to the big gangs.

And who has all the weapons she sent to Syria? Al Nusra and ISIS. That was her policy, and the desire of the Gulf states that paid her about $100 million dollars, got in bed with Bill on several questionable ventures, and who can easily blackmail Hillary and force her to do most anything. That is why the Russians are so adamant that she not be elected President. Her Middle East policy would be Saudi Middle East policy.

From Global Research

Terrorists and weapons left over from NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 were promptly sent to Turkey and then onto Syria – coordinated by US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a terrorist hotbed for decades.


The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’,” that:

[CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.​

Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” that:

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
​

And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield.


Recent revelations have revealed that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.
​

Now you might think that creating a Salafist Principality under the control of Al Nusra, ISIS, or other groups is an extremely counterproductive thing to do, one that will cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands more people, on top of the hundreds of thousands it's already killed. Well, who was in charge of US policy during that period? Who was making those decisions? Who was arming ISIS? There are only two people who it could be, Obama and Hillary.

I think that one of the reasons we keep getting the circus is because crazy near a position of being able to destroy the world gets ratings. Trump seems to realize this better than anyone. One of the big reasons Hillary is on top is because the right has determined she is going to destroy America despite it already being over due to Obama. Hillary has no real personality and she is really just a worker who has a nice resume with little imagination or innovation. If it wasn't for the right calling her the devil she would fall behind the more salient people. If the right had just ignored Hillary she would not have gotten as much traction.

Even Bernie Sanders would not have gotten as far if it was not for the fact the media could not ignore the crazy old socialist who was dabbling with blm. You add that to the fact he was the only real opponent of Hillary and you had a battle. We did not see much of the third guy because he wasn't stealing Hillary's thunder with minorities. You had the evil, the socialist, and that other guy. There was no reason to hate the other guy so no one really learned who he was.

This is our system where hate gets the votes and attention. This is why the professional victim's on the right get laughed at. Most of them do not fall on the full Klan side. They know that is bad, but the Klan types get the attention over the moderates because of their hate. That is good and bad for them, but the professional victim's only want the good without going full racist. They want to be hidden racists and the purpose of stealth is to not attract attention or a crowd while you do your dirty work. That is not Good for the media. This is what mtv chooses volatile lunatics with people.problems for their real world type shows. Even judge Judy cherry picks her cases and you can tell when the boring people are on because they don't last beyond a commercial.

Oh, and you cannot fix this. No one wants to watch cspan through the boring shit. That is why childish tantrums have become the norm for salient congress people.

Pretty much true - the kid throwing the tantrum in the store gets noticed, not the store full of kids behaving themselves. Our collective five micro-second attention spans are kicking us in the ass right about now. That said it's not a left/right thing IMO. Both parties cater to the outrageous shit the other party does while ignoring their own. This is quite possibly the most disappointing election cycle in recent memory, and that's really saying something. A pathological liar/criminal and a bombastic carnival barker lacking any filter, like the character Estelle Getty played on Golden Girls who said whatever popped into her brain. Does anyone really think they are the best their political partied can offer? Both pander to different voters, but they are both criminally insane in their own ways.

Katrina Pierson apparently convinced Obama is a Time Lord or has access to a DeLorean (possibly powered by Hillary's witchcraft and the millions of infant souls sacrificed to Planned Parenthood), since she has now claimed that Obama invaded Afghanistan...

Hillary Clinton was not Secretary of State in Obama's second term.

Math, facts, surveys, reports, video, are irrelevant to these people. They are the Borg.

Vox ran an article saying ISIS was founded in 1999, and then blamed Bush for it. Readers pointed out that Clinton was President in 1999.