Islamic State: the Greatest Threat to the U.S. Is a JV Basketball Team

The Islamic State (IS) is proving to be a real problem for a number of parties including the U.S. Just this week it has been referred to by some senior policymakers in Washington as our gravest current threat while others have said it must be eliminated. Yet only eight months ago President Obama regarded ISIS, the predecessor of IS as a “JV basketball team” implying that they were a second rate group. A bit off the mark I would say. Now with the savage execution of U.S. journalist James Foley, it seems the administration has ramped up its language on IS and is arguing that its rise is not a result of policy failure but due to an underestimation by the intelligence community of its capabilities. As always I take comfort in true leadership that plays the blame game and stays on holiday while the world burns.

Since U.S. troops left Iraq in 2011 and Obama declaring "we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq" the security situation has deteriorated. Never mind that the government of Iraqi PM al-Maliki exacerbated the situation by failing to better relations between the Shiite and Sunnis and the exclusionary policies of his government and attempts to marginalize opposition led to a downfall of Sunni support. In 2013 the Iraqi government began losing control of its territory to al-Qaeda affiliated groups and violence increased to the point where Maliki traveled to Washington late in the year requesting intelligence and military support. In December, Fallujah which is less than 50 miles to Baghdad fell to ISIS and in early June 2014, so too did Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul.

In January of this year, despite Fallujah falling a month earlier, Obama in an interview with the New Yorker alluded to ISIS as being a marginal threat. This despite it being public knowledge the year before that Iraq was inching closer to sectarian violence and war, and that its environment was perfect for a group such as ISIS to thrive in. It was in February that the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that ISIS "will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria." We knew the intentions of ISIS, it was right in front of us but we treated it as some second-rate threat. Despite al-Maliki pleading for U.S. military assistance after the fall of Mosul, we sat by and did little and instead of slowing ISIS then and there, we watched as they continued their rampage across Iraq. It was only on August 8th that Obama authorized airstrikes in Iraq to help protect Christians and Yazidis who were trapped and facing genocide after fleeing IS militants.

Now Obama believes that groups such as IS have "no place in the 21st century." Secretary of Defense Hagel believes that IS "are beyond just a terrorist group," "This is beyond anything that we have seen" and that they "must be defeated," a sentiment echoed by General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This language is quite different than that spoken in January. Of course the president argues that we were caught off guard and what has transpired is the result of our intelligence agencies underestimating ISIS and not a result of a failure in policy and certainly not indifference. I don't buy that. Granted our intelligence agencies have proven time and time again to be off the mark either due to their own failings or the failure of policy makers to heed warnings that conflict with established policies and agendas. In this case I feel it is the latter. Last year if a person predicted what is happening in Iraq today, in no way could they be brandished as illogical and the situation presented as unthinkable. It was all there in front of us and this administration willfully dismissed it.

Now with the brutal execution of Foley, Obama is forced to take a more hardline look at IS. Is it too late, absolutely not. Would it have been better to do so earlier, absolutely yes. This is why I'm so troubled by this administration; negative situations are allowed to spiral out of control while being initially dismissed. Ultimately the White House is always blameless; it's never its own shortsighted, disinterested policy that has failed but the result of another's failing. IS has killed an American citizen, Russia and Ukraine are inching towards direct conflict, the Middle East is ablaze, and racial tensions in the U.S. are the highest they've been in decades and Obama rather than being in Washington holding constant meetings with advisers is out playing golf in Martha's Vineyard. Where is the concern, where is the leadership?

Posted by SPBrooker at August 26, 2014 1:09 PM
Comment #382477

ISIS is only a problem because ISIS captured all those American weapons we gave to the Iraqi Army. Seven thousand ISIS soldiers invaded Iraq, and then 30,000 Iraqi soldiers either deserted or joined ISIS. What a disgrace.

Too bad Saddam Hussein is dead. We need a secular Iraqi Baathist to take control of the Sunnis. Unfortunately, we let the one person who could have controlled them be hanged by the Shias.

The solution- and whether we want it or not, this will happen- the solution will be the division of Iraq into three state: a Shia state allied with Iran, a Kurdish state, and a Sunni one.

The Kurds are our allies, but they are problematic. Our good allies, the Turks, warned us not to invade, and the Kurds were a big reason why. That ethnic group has populations in Turkey, Syria, and Iran, and they fought a civil war with the Turks that cost tens of thousands of lives. Perhaps they will behave themselves once they establish their own state.

But as bad as the situation is with the Shias and Kurds, it is now even worse with the Sunnis. We need the Baathists and the various secular groups that fought against us during the occupation to reconstitute, step up again, and fight the fundamentalists. Unfortunately, they would prefer to join the fundamentalist Sunnis rather than participate in a government with the Shias.

Obama is doing a good job with this inherited mess. He is doing a great job.

Anyone notice how conservatives never have any actual suggestions about foreign policy? They just clutch their pearls, put their hands to their foreheads, and declare they have a case of the vapors because of Obama.

As usual, conservatives oppose everything, but stand for nothing. What an utterly bankrupt political philosophy!

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2014 3:59 PM
Comment #382478

“We knew the intentions of ISIS, it was right in front of us but we treated it as some second-rate threat.”

So we were to assume that a soverign country, with it’s own military, one that we armed and trained, would just bail on it’s own defence?

So much for nation building.



Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 26, 2014 5:45 PM
Comment #382479

Are you talking about the conservatives in D.C., or are you grouping all conservatives and calling them all utterly bankrupt?

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 26, 2014 5:56 PM
Comment #382480

Rocky Marks, weren’t we told the Iraqi military needed more training before we left? Weren’t we also told we should keep a force in Iraq after we left? The smartest man in the room thought otherwise.
It was the U.S. that “bailed” on the Iraqi people. It seems to be a continuing trait portrayed by our government.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 26, 2014 6:17 PM
Comment #382501


“It was the U.S. that “bailed” on the Iraqi people. It seems to be a continuing trait portrayed by our government.”

Oh bullshit.

The pooch was screwed in Iraq long before Obama took office.

We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and once there we fiddle-farted around for years before we actually took the insurgency in Iraq seriously.

GW promised we would be out, the Iraqi government wanted us out, the American people wanted us out, and Obama fufilled the promise Bush made to Iraq, and fufilled his own promise made to the American people.

The Iraqi army dropped the weapons we supplied and trained them to use, and ran in the face of a threat to the sovereignty of their own country.

Just how long are we supposed to babysit these bozos?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 26, 2014 6:53 PM
Comment #382524

Weary Willie,

The Status of Forces agreement that required all US troops out by the end of 2011 was negotiated by the Bush administration and signed in 2008 before Obama was even President.

The Shiite dominated Maliki administration and the Iraqi Congress refused to enter into a new agreement with the Obama administration allowing a force of up to 10,000 US troops to remain in Iraq beyond the exit date.

The fact of the matter is simple: they didn’t want us there. That is understandable since “they” were Shiites and didn’t want us mucking up their control of Iraq.

Obama’s demand to Iraq is simple: any US assistance for Iraq in its fight with ISIL is contingent upon a more inclusive Iraqi administration which is willing to address Sunni grievances. Is that wrong?

I might add that the Obama administration was quick to provide assistance to the Kurdish provinces which have demonstrated political integrity and willingness to fight for their land.

The bottom line is that the US hardly “bailed” on Iraq. The Iraqi army that dissolved in the face of ISIL was well equipped and had substantially more troops than ISIL. But, it didn’t have the support of the Iraqi Sunni population.

Posted by: Rich at August 26, 2014 7:36 PM
Comment #382526

I know all you guys think nothing is Obama’s fault. But he is pretty much worthless when it comes to foreign affairs, as even you implicitly admit, since he evidently is still working on autopilot based on what he inherited six years ago.

Posted by: CJ at August 26, 2014 7:54 PM
Comment #382528


I certainly don’t admit anything of the sort. Obama wasn’t stupid enough to “knee jerk” send assistance to Maliki who was a primary cause of the rise of ISIL in Iraq.

ISIL wouldn’t have had a chance in Iraq if the Shiite dominated government had not marginalized the Sunnis. They were left with little alternative to a slow strangulation by the Shiites in Iraq. By the way, when did Maliki come to power in Iraq?

In my opinion, Obama must be very careful to avoid another US debacle in that region. The US cannot control this situation short of another occupation unless there is a willing ally to take the fight to ISIL. The new Iraqi government may fill that bill but don’t hold your breath. In Syria, the Free Syrian Army is an unorganized collection of disparate fighting units some of which are moderates but many are Islamic fundamentalists. In any case, the FSA is really more of an idea than a reality.

The missing piece is some leadership from the principals in the region, Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have allowed these proxy wars to progress. Time for the US to hold them accountable before this really gets out of control.

Posted by: Rich at August 26, 2014 8:26 PM
Comment #382529

Always good to hear from a conservative who voted for Bush twice, never apologized for those votes and, to this day, will not call for the taxes increases necessary to pay for this mess. Because when you are a conservative, it is all for free, except when the money involves the bunch of takers known as the 47%.

Bin Laden is dead. Bush failed to get him.

Khaddafi is dead. Reagan failed to get him.

The leader of the militia that attacked the Benghazi consulate is awaiting trial.

All of our allies- every single one- have more favorable views of Obama than Bush (except Pakistan and Israel).

Oh. Sorry to interrupt with facts. Go ahead, conservatives. Carry on with vague, fact-free, dismissive waves of the hand.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2014 8:32 PM
Comment #382530


Obama just doesn’t seem to care.

I think that if the situation happens to work out best by doing nothing, the Obama strategy will work out just fine. There is a chance of that. But the Obama strategy will be about the same no matter what.

Obama is a good talker. He is a good campaigner. He is a poor leader. I think he would make an excellent diplomat. He is the kind of guy who should be trusted to carry out the vision of someone with vision.

Posted by: CJ at August 26, 2014 8:32 PM
Comment #382531


I am not now nor have I ever been a rabid Obama supporter.

That said I will not sit idly by as comments such as the above are made. America made commitments and as such should abide by them.
We cannot attempt to spread Democracy around the globe and then be seen to renege on our commitments.

We can’t have it both ways.

HW Bush led a coalition of the willing, W led a coalition of the not quite so willing. Both made commitments. We lived up to GHW’s, Should we not live up to GW’s?

Much has been made of America’s exceptionalism. Are we exceptional only when it suits us?
Conservatives need to remember that when we talk the talk, usually walking the walk follows.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 26, 2014 8:48 PM
Comment #382532


Obama is reluctant to assert American rights and power. This may sometimes be good. I believe often in doing less. But it seems to me that Obama is not really engaged much at all.

I am embarrassed by those ignorant girls he has working as spokespeople at the State Department. These appointments show his lack of seriousness in this area.

You know that I am not a rapid Obama opponent. I have said good things about Clinton, so it is not partisan either. Maybe Obama is just so smart that I cannot figure out his strategy, but I cannot figure out his strategy.

Things were not good when Obama “inherited” his situation. It is worse now. I didn’t think this was possible.

Posted by: CJ at August 26, 2014 9:20 PM
Comment #382534

Do conservatives outside DC even have a voice in foreign policy? I doubt it. For the most part, they followed Bush and supported the War in Iraq without a word of protest. They never demanded taxes to pay for the war. They voted for Romney, whose foreign policy team consisted of the same Neocons that led us into Iraq in the first place.

Among conservatives today, there are some who support Republican Rand Paul, and others who shun the GOP and call themselves libertarians. Some advocate avoiding entanglements in Iraq and Syria. Some favor limiting drone wars. We will see if their voice is heard in 2016.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2014 9:22 PM
Comment #382535


Your idea of leadership appears to require that the US intervene aggressively in any and every crisis in this world. The world’s self appointed policeman.

Did it ever occur to you that we cannot solve every problem in the world? That we cannot always dictate the outcome? The Iraqi experience should come to mind. Vietnam should be lurking in the background of any decision maker.

In many ways, the foreign policy of Obama reminds me of Eisenhower’s. He declined the opportunity to assist the French at Dien Bien Phu, the Brits, French and Israelis during the Suez crisis, the Hungarians during their short revolution against the Soviets. Sometimes, there is wisdom in realizing that we are not omnipotent.

The current problem with ISIS has it roots in deep religious and ethnic divisions in the Middle East. Sunnis vs. Shiites. Saudi Arabia vs. Iran.

What side would you like us to get on? Should we support the Sunnis in their fight against Assad in Syria? But, that might mean indirectly supporting ISIS. Should we have been supporting more directly the Maliki government in Iraq? But, that would mean supporting the Shiites against the Sunnis.

I think that conservatives should be careful for what they wish. There is no clear path in the Middle East. Better to be cautious.

Posted by: Rich at August 26, 2014 9:29 PM
Comment #382538


Smart power allows us to head off problems before they become manifest.

You mention Eisenhower. He was very good at applying power and influence behind the scenes. It seemed that Eisenhower was just lucky, but we now know that much of that “luck” was based on his foresight. Obama’s “luck” has been almost all bad. In the case of Eisenhower, he made good luck. It is possible that Obama truly has been the most unlucky man ever, but not likely.

I think we should have left a small force in Iraq. We could have left them at Al Asad. It is the middle of the desert, so it would not have not had daily contact with populations. Yet it could project power all across Iraq. IMO, a small force would have avoided the problems in Syria. The whole situation would have been better. We would not have to fight anybody. It is like owning a big dog.

I study leadership, but I don’t understand it. What I do know is that when you have leaders who are consistently lucky, there is probably more to it. The same goes for bad luck. The world is crashing around us. It is not just luck.

Obama and his supporters are war weary and want not to have to deal with the world’s problems. I feel the same way. I am sick of conflict. But we cannot just decide not to participate.

Posted by: CJ at August 26, 2014 9:49 PM
Comment #382540


No, Eisenhower was good at keeping the US out of conflicts that were unwinnable or which could have escalated beyond a regional event. He was thought of as a weak president at the time and one who had allowed the power of the US to decline. However, he doesn’t look so bad in retrospect.

“I am sick of conflict. But we cannot just decide not to participate.”

Yes we can if it is not in the direct interest of the US.

So, let me ask again, who should we be supporting in the Middle East other than Israel? I know, nobody. But, you want a US force to be positioned in the desert to neutrally enforce international law. Unfortunately, Iraq didn’t think that a great idea.

Posted by: Rich at August 26, 2014 10:20 PM
Comment #382541


“I think we should have left a small force in Iraq. We could have left them at Al Asad. It is the middle of the desert, so it would not have not had daily contact with populations. Yet it could project power all across Iraq.”

So remind me again…

Was this within the spirit of our agreement with the Iraqi’s to pull out of Iraq?

We don’t own Iraq, the Iraqis do. Did they ask for our troops, before it was obvious they were going to throw down their arms?

Applying our “power” around the world, is this a part of our exceptionalism?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 26, 2014 10:22 PM
Comment #382542


The place really is FUBAR now. There no longer are good options. There existed good options a few years ago, but Obama let them lapse.

I didn’t want to force in the desert to enforce international law. I wanted it there to scare off the bad guys and let us make sure that any who wanted to sneak around would meet with untimely ends. This works. I saw it work. It is like weeding a garden. None of it is rocket science, but if you keep it up you avoid lots of problems.


We could have got the Iraqis to agree. It is the nature of people in the region to object to … anything. You have to start the negotiation by giving them a good kick in the nuts. After that, they are much nicer.

We have seen the region descent into FUBAR. I don’t think this was necessary. I really hope that it will be okay there, that the bad guys will not threaten our basic interests or safety. But I doubt it.

BTW - on the plus side, fracking has really improved our position, since our enemies have lost the energy card.

I have little confidence in Obama. I say that with sorrow, not hate. I hope he comes around after Democrats lose the Senate in November, but I expect he will instead play the outsider and victim.

Posted by: CJ at August 26, 2014 11:40 PM
Comment #382545

After the 2012 election of Barack Obama Rush Limbaugh said, “Either we don’t have the numbers, or we have just witnessed the biggest fraud perpetrated against the American people in it’s history.”

CJ, what would you do if the Democratic Party took control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, again?

I was convinced Romney would win, the gloating faces of people who didn’t speak English I was working with said otherwise.

CJ, what if the vote is not what you expect? Are you willing to let set in stone what Obama has set in motion?

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 27, 2014 5:26 AM
Comment #382546

“There existed good options a few years ago, but Obama let them lapse.”

Who let them lapse, CJ? It seems to me that it was the Maliki government of Iraq. It is the one who squandered the gains made during the “Surge.” It is the one that rejected any continued US force on its territory. It is the one that turned the Sunni population back to the extremists. It was its army that cut and ran in the face of a few thousand extremist fighters.

A desert outpost for the US forces conjures up romantic visions from the past of the French Foreign Legion sitting in its forts in the middle of warring desert tribes. Isolated from the political reality, their presence would be fodder for all sides. The bad guys come in many flavors in that region. It would have been a fools mission without a clear and reasonable political relationship.

Posted by: Rich at August 27, 2014 8:03 AM
Comment #382549

Fashion and popular items,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== ==
New Balance $65
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $45
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $48
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: RTJUTR at August 27, 2014 11:36 AM
Comment #382566

As usual, conservatives oppose everything, but stand for nothing. What an utterly bankrupt political philosophy!
Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2014 3:59 PM

Good Grief phx8, give your bias a vacation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 27, 2014 1:19 PM
Comment #382595


Yeah, that’s all very lovely, however you didn’t answer the question I posed.

Here’s the deal.
The right bitches and moans that Obama makes up his own rules, and yet when he follows through on an agreement set up by his predecessor, the right bitches and moans that he should change the rules of the agreement to suit what those on the right perceive as in the country’s “best intrests”.

It truly doesn’t matter what you or I think, the President can’t win either way.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 27, 2014 10:57 PM
Comment #382596

I don’t think GWBush would have left Iraq without troops in place. You can’t blame this on Bush.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 28, 2014 12:20 AM
Comment #382599


I haven’t placed “the blame” on anyone.

If you feel that stating an actual fact is placing blame then it isn’t my problem, it’s yours.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2014 8:57 AM
Comment #382600


The outpost in the Western Desert was probably the best place in the whole region. It had long runways so it could be supplied entirely by air. It had great facilities, originally built at great expense by Saddam and improved by us. It was surrounded by empty and flat desert, from which nobody could approach w/o warning. It was not near any population centers that could cause grief. Most importantly, it commanded all the communications lines through Western Iraq and much of Syria, if you wanted. Air power could make short work of any movement through the region.

It was exactly the kind of place the plays to our strength, organizational and technical and minimizes our weaknesses.

I am convinced that had we maintained a small force there, the whole situation in Syria, Iraq and maybe the whole region would have been different and better.

History is conditional. It does not need to unfold in any particular way. By giving up this base, we lost control of what we had taken with so much difficulty. It was a serious mistake which has cost the lives of many of those who sided with us and perhaps soured future allies from trusting us again.


See above. I think we could have gotten the Iraqis to agree.

Re American power - the world is a scary place with American power and worse w/o it. This would have been a relatively low risk option, significantly better then the others available and better than what we got.

There are some people who complain no matter what the president does. We have them on the right and left. This is not one of those times. The President would have had support of the “right” for the option I mentioned. Many people advocated it. Now we suffer the consequences.

We are doing now in Iraq what we would have done earlier at much lower cost and with many fewer people dead. I think this is the test of my theory. The fact that Obama now has embraced the actions indicates that.

Posted by: CJ at August 28, 2014 9:40 AM
Comment #382601

If I can make an analogy to the physical world - having a base in Iraq as I discussed would be like keeping something tightly bolted. Taking it out was like cutting it loose and letting it fall apart. A small, properly tighten bolt can hold together lots of heavy stuff.

Posted by: CJ at August 28, 2014 9:45 AM
Comment #382622


The truth of the matter is that the Iraqis didn’t want us to stay. I should say the Iraqi Shiites didn’t want us there. That would throw a monkey wrench in their opportunity to strangle the Sunni Iraqis. Hell, the Iraqi Sunnis probably didn’t want us there also. They played nice nice with the “Awakening” to stop the genocide. But, did they really get rid of al-Qaeda? ISIS was born from al-Qaeda in Iraq and is now embraced by the Sunni tribes.

What Obama is doing now in Iraq could not have been done until the Sunni fundamentalists decisively defeated the Iraqi Shiite government in Mosul. Only then did the Maliki government recognize the extent to which it had lost control.

This is an incredibly complicated problem. Hard to tell who is a responsible partner for our assistance other than the Kurds. Even the Kurds present problems. The FSA in Syria is thought of as a moderate force that we could support. Yet, a substantial portion of them are fundamentalists (which rebel group just took part of the Golan Heights)?

Its time that we all took a hard look at what happened as a result of the invasion in 2003. It opened a can of worms that we are completely unprepared to understand let alone manage. For instance, why has ISIS been given a pass until recently by the Assad regime? Where has ISIS been getting its funding and weapons? What has been the role of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the rise of ISIS?

There are too many questions and too few answers.

Posted by: Rich at August 28, 2014 7:41 PM
Comment #382646

There are Many Independent Experts who say that the group known as ISIS is in Fact, a Secret Invention of America, and a Secret Ally of America, even though America has other Terrorist Sponsoring Allies among Arab Countries.

That Information is in an Article that speaks of ISIS and Ukraine in the same Article, and it is on the Global Research Website, and it is Titled: “Russian Invasion” – Screaming ‘Wolf!’ Strategy of Deception. Lies Repeated Umpteen Times. What is the Endgame? at .

Other timely and Factual News Articles are Titled: Washington Piles Lie Upon Lie at , and the News Article Titled: The Leninist in the White House at .

What happened in Ukraine was that the American Government Deliberately Engineered a Coup, and they placed Neo Nazis in Power, and these Neo Nazis were portrayed as the the Most Sincere Democratic People.

Ukraine is a Divided Country between Nazis and Non Nazis, and the Western Media covered up, and continues to cover up the Statements and Actions of the Nazis of Ukraine.

The first thing that the Western Backed Nazi Coup Ukrainian Government did was to inform the Non Ukrainians People in the East of Ukraine that they do not belong in East Ukraine, and that they would have to move or be killed.

The People of Crimea heard this and immediately held a Referendum, and left Ukraine, because Crimea was a Highly Autonomous Republic in Ukraine, and had the Legal Right to hold any Referendum, and so Russia did not annex Crimea, but the People exercised their Legal and Constitutional Right to leave Nazi Ukraine, which is bent on Only having one race in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Race.

The People of East Ukraine did not want to be expelled or murdered, just because of the Race, and so they held Referendums to leave Ukraine, but unlike Crimea, they do not have the Constitutionalist Right to leave Ukraine.

However, they claim that Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity is Defined by the Constitution.

They further claim that Ukraine does not have any Territorial Integrity Constitution, because the Nazi Coup Politicians ignore the Constitution, because they Refuse to place themselves on Trial for Treason of which they are Guilty, even as it was the Ukrainian Nazi Coup Government, which downed the Passenger Plane MH 17, and probably under American Orders, or with America’s Approval.

The People of East Ukraine are being murdered, and their Cities are being bombed, and they are being denied Humanitarian Aid, and like any Other People they have the Right to Self Defence which is a Right under International Law.

Posted by: Journalist at August 30, 2014 6:15 AM
Comment #382647

There are Many People who are Convinced that the Leading Politicians and Mainstream Journalists in Nazi Euro-America which includes Nazi Israel are Nazi Psychopaths, and they have been Selected by the Nazi Plutocrats, after they have undergone training and satisfied the Nazi Plutocrats.

The Plutocrats do not care about Ordinary People, and they look down on them and see them as Vermin, and they know that they have nuclear fallout shelters.

These Nazi Puppets of the Nazi Plutocrats both Male and Female have been become Hopelessly Addicted because of their Constant Training to masturbate and gain Good Orgasms when they Lie, and especially when they are Cruel to People, and when they Murder People, and Nazi Euro-America and Nazi Israel claim that this is the Sincere Democracy and Sincere Human Rights.

Posted by: Journalist at August 30, 2014 6:26 AM
Comment #382679

This comment is necessary to become Viral Globally if the World is to avoid WW 3.

The People who are to blame are the Nazi Western Plutocrats, be Hopelessly Addicted to their Drug of doing Evil and Masturbating over that in order to Enjoy the Best Orgasms Ever.

This Addiction is unlike other drugs, because their is no Overdose to these Evil Psychopaths, but like other drugs, the past use does not give Pleasure, and this is why the Psychopaths Constantly Need Fresh Victims, as they become Bored with their Past Murders and Injustices.

This is because they have a Very Sick Mind due to the Corruption that comes with Such Unrestrained Power, which is a Result of being Nazi Plutocrats, and they are the Best of Liars, as Most Criminals are, and they have found Lying Western Puppet Politicians and Lying Western Puppet Journalists in order to Satisfy their Evil Psychopathic Cravings.

This is why the English made King John sign the Magna Carta, and they Established a Parliament of Elected Representatives, who would be Public Servants of the People and Ensure at least the Minimum of Democratic Standards, and they would not be Puppets of the Nazi Plutocrats.

This Democracy worked for a While, but the Western Nazi Plutocrats were Intent on Secretly Ruling the Country, and even the World as America with over 700 Military Bases in the World proves.

The Nazi Western Psychopathic Plutocrats were Cunning, and they were able Corrupt the Leading Western Nazi Politicians, and the Leading Western Nazi Journalists to become Hopelessly Addicted to doing Evil and Masturbating over that in order to Enjoy the Best Orgasm Ever, and these Psychopaths Constantly Need Fresh Victims, as they become Bored with their Past Murders and Injustices.

This is why the Founding Father of America wrote the Constitution the way they did, but we All Know that the American Plutocrats have Order their Psychopathic Puppets, who are said to be Elected Representatives to Ignore Much of the Constitution, because they want to Establish America as a Military Dictatorship.

There are Many People who want to know how to Restore Democracy to America.

It needs to be Understood that the Evil Nazi Western Plutocrats, and their Puppets Politicians and Puppet Journalists cannot be Addicted to a Chemical Substance, because they would not be able to do their jobs, and so those they have found the Immense Enjoyment in Murdering People and in doing Injustices.

These Evil Western Psychopaths of Plutocrats, Puppet Politicians, and Puppet Journalists would include People of any Gender and Color in those Countries.

These Evil Psychopaths include Appointed High Public Officials, and even some Police Officers and Judges have been Corrupted and are Evil Psychopaths who Love to Masturbate over their Evil Deeds and the Injustices.

As I have been working on how to avoid WW 3, then I have an informed opinion on that, and it includes Rehabilitation for some Psychopathic Western Plutocrats, and some Psychopathic Western Politicians, and some Western Psychopathic Journalists.

They will have to Gradually learn not to watch Films of Atrocities and Injustices to Masturbate Over in Order to Satisfy their Corrupted Lusts for Evil.

They will have to Gradually learn not to Masturbate, and if they do Masturbate, then they will have to Learn how to have Normal Thoughts while they are Masturbating and having Orgasms.

Those thoughts will have to be of the Husband for a Wife, or a Wife for a Husband and they would be thoughts of Love, Kindness, and of Normality, and this may Involve both Partners if the other Partner have also become an Evil Psychopath who also Masturbates over Murders and Injustices.

The Public will have to be Informed as to the Progress that Leaders of Nazi Anglo-America and their Nazi Puppets such as Nazi Ukraine, Nazi Israel, and a few Nazi Countries of the European Union are making, because if these Evil Psychopaths cannot be Rehabilitated, then All Humans will Die.

The Wise will see the Seriousness of this comment, and they will not be slack in sharing this Vital Information with Others as soon as possible.

People should see the Sharing of this comment with to the Entire Western World, and Especially with America as their Duty to Protect their lives from being lost in WW 3.

It would better to give People a copy of this by copying and pasting it and sending it to People by email, or to make paper copies and put them in People’s Letterboxes and leaving copies of this comment when People can read it.

Posted by: Journalist at September 1, 2014 5:26 AM
Comment #382938


So… we sign the “Agreement”;

“All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” Oh, and “The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.”

GW’s words at the time;
“Today’s vote affirms the growth of Iraq’s democracy and increasing ability to secure itself. Two years ago this day seemed unlikely — but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament.”

“We’re also signing a Security Agreement, sometimes called a Status of Forces Agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq’s democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq’s democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq — a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge.”

“With these agreements, Mr. Prime Minister, we’re honoring the sacrifices that I just described in the best possible way — by building a freer, safer, and more hopeful world. By signing these agreements we’re showing the people of Iraq the United States of America keeps its word. And we are showing the people of the Middle East that America stands firmly for liberty and justice and peace.”

Oh and BTW, GW also said;

“And we are leaving the next President with a stable foundation for the future, and an approach that can enjoy broad bipartisan support at home.”

You betcha.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 9, 2014 1:50 PM
Post a comment