Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumUS Airstrikes On Syria Are Not About ISIS - Syrians Reject Violation of Sovereignty
by Mimi Al Laham, she is amazing. Also recommended:
karynnj
(59,501 posts)She is gorgeous, but do people know who she is or who she is aligned with? What I can hear listening to the beginning of this is a segment where she absolutely took HRC out of context to have her saying the US created ISIS. Do you believe that Clinton said that?
I guess I shouldn't be shocked by people willing to believe the worst of Obama/US while accepting things for sources that are unknown or sketchy.
reorg
(3,317 posts)she is an ex-pat Syrian living in Australia.
But she doesn't take Clinton out of context at all, listen again, what she is saying is that these IS lunatics are a similar phenomenon as certain other groups Clinton is talking about. That's what she is saying verbatim:
"It was the US foreign policy that created groups like ISIS, al Nusra and al-Qaeda, it was Obama's support for extremists in Libya and Syria that LED to the rise of al-Qaeda in these countries. ...
You see, the US government creates the terrorists that it then exploits US soldiers to fight. Let Hillary Clinton tell you herself: ..."
Mimi may be far-out in left field from where you stand, but she is very well informed and provides her sources.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)many of us here. Do these strange people think a bunch of rag-tag infidels appeared from nowhere with billions of dollars to buy arms and suddeny build this huge caliphate taking 1/4th to 1/3rd of two or three countries by themselves? It is insane.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)strategy to impede and handicap Muslims in general. The thinking must be that this is a "win win," situation as all the players killing each other are Muslims.
If you were to take all the lies perpetrated by this gov and make a soup out of it Moloch himself would barf.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)100 per cent absolutely said that--
karynnj
(59,501 posts)ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)here. She was very explicit and she wasn't gargling marble when she spoke. She was right on that day. It's my only reason for still considering her even though she is more of a neocon puppet than we've had since Reagan--every single one.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)It doesn't mean that it is exculpatory. If you don't know the context, it is fine to say just that. I asked because I don't know - and not knowing, I suspect that it was said with other comments that change the meaning because otherwise it would have been a big story. As it wasn't, it's a case of the dog not barking - that makes me suspicious.
What I can find via ISIS is this - http://www.buzzfeed.com/miriamberger/hillary-clinton-admitted-to-creating-isis-in-her-memoirs-or#3od5ff Where the claim is completely denied.
There are many RW sites that link to Iranian claims
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)and others all over the globe for months. I already know what's going to happen so these types of conversations don't mean much anymore.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Perhaps you misunderstood what Clinton says, she speaks of US support for the ISI (Pakistani intelligence), she doesn't mention "ISIS".
Of course, this Clinton speech is about the well-known fact that the US, in cooperation with the ISI, recruited Wahhabi extremists to fight in Afghanistan (and thus created al-Qaeda, in case you didn't know that either). In this CONTEXT, she mentions that "you reap what you sow" and "I mean, let's remember here: the people we are fighting today, we funded". And that's exactly what Mimi Al-Laham is referring to.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)is happening, just like a few of us here know. It's all a preconceived Neocon-CIA-MI6 plot to take down Syria. And this latest attempt by the US to reconcile with Russia by offering nice-nice is hilarious. If Obama thinks Russia, that has a treaty with Syria, is going to stand idly by and let the US defeat Syria, then they are nuts. I would bet my bottom dollar that Putin is positioning forces right now. And Putin ain't Khrushchev. Jesus, how did we let these Neocons from both parties start determining our very fates.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Tartus on the Med and Assad in power of whatever is left of Syria.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)have an enraged distrusting Syrian leader with 1/4th a country next to him? Yeah, right.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)the Ukraine, the Arctic, etc. What happens next remains to be seen.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)By Fredrik Logevall. It's about the lead up to Vietnam and I highly recommend it. If the author lives another twenty years or so he can change same dates and names and release a whole new book.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'll take your word on the author's updated version of that book. This is why we simply HAVE to STOP playing this game.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)which I completely agree with. I have known all along that this is the end goal of our so called war on terror. This is not about ISIS or the new group in town, its about regime change. This will lead to the completely destruction of Syria if Russia doesn't step in.
A lot of people in here are quick to blame Bush for ISIS getting into Iraq but how many people here think ISIS would exist in Syria without the US and their middle east ally supporting and fueling the wars in Libya and Syria? Ofc ISIS wouldn't exists without our post Bush intervention.
This is no fair what we are doing to these poor countries, I love my adopted country but I cannot help but imagine a boy like me suffering under the destroyed country that the US govt helped create. We should stop all these ambitions of regime change and go home.
Thanks for posting
Big Kick and recommend