Quote:In 1986, a military operation was undertaken against Libya in retribution for the bombing of a disco in Berlin.  Before the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps jets set off to do their business, an advanced warning was issued and communicated throughout the target area.  Civilians were given ample time to vacate the area to avoid being killed.  Someone I know was in a Navy jet during that mission, and he said that there were still people evacuating the area as they were releasing their ordinance.  His mission targeted oil platforms.  He said you could see people jumping from the platforms once they realized the warning wasn't a hoax. 

 

It's not being a sympathizer to offer some advanced warning.  It's what humane nations do in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.  Unfortunately, the enemy we fight doesn't share the same value for human life, and equally unfortunate is the fact that at some point this country is going to need to recognize this reality, and act accordingly.  The kind of war we need to fight here cannot be done surgically. 

 

What do you think about the military dropping the pamphlets, as outlined in the link Jaguar Warrior provided? Sounds to me like a similar scenario to the oil wells, as I couldn't find anything saying the truck drivers were ISIS members.


 

As far as Trump calling Obama a traitor, could someone post a link?  I just did a quick Google, and the first three sources that were posted were The Atlantic, Slate, and Washington Post.  When I looked through there, there wasn't a direct quite, just their interpretation running what he said through their very selective filters.  There's a pretty broad interpretation range for what Trump meant by his ACTUAL comment.  We're not talking about the most articulate, or nuanced speaker.  He speaks his mind.  That blunt talk has a way of rubbing some the wrong way, or as in this case, misrepresenting his comments. 

 

Thanks for this. That is why I asked for Trump supporters to ad what they thought he meant about the whole "gets it better than anybody understands" comment, so as not to get replies interpreted by 'left-leaning folks' and then have to sort it out. But like Pirkster did, anyone should feel free to chime in with their interpretation.


 

The funny thing is, if you laid out the case for how Obama has actually handled the war against radical Islamic terrorism, you could very easily come to the conclusion that, while not necessarily sympathetic, his experiences growing up in that environment may very well have created a bias for him.  Not to mention that his closest advisor, Valerie Jarret, is an Iranian born individual who probably has more influence over his policies in the Middle East than anyone else.  There's clearly something going on there, and I think that's really what Trump was getting at.  There's a reason this president jammed an agreement with Iran down our throats that has repeatedly proven to be a bad decision.  It wasn't legacy building.  There's a reason that this administration sat on their hands during the Arab spring and allowed it to spread like a cancer, temporarily giving the Muslim Brotherhood control over Egypt.  There's a reason why this administration encouraged factions of al Qaeda and other terror groups to overthrow Khadaffi in Libya without having a plan for what would happen once they actually did.  There's a reason why the death of an Ambassador and 3 heroes in Benghazi has never been fully investigated because it would uncover just how involved this administration was in running weapons into Syria, using caches confiscated from Libya during the overthrow. 

 

This administration has systematically allowed the caliphate to grow in the middle east while simultaneously ignoring allies in the region. 

 

OK, so what I get from this is that you think that the administration has committed a number of errors in their actions in the Middle East. By bias, do you mean that he might feel they are less hostile towards US interests than is the case? I don't want to do a drill-down on each of these unless you think it is somehow relevant, just trying to see how this links to the  "gets it better than anybody understands" comment Trump made.

 

There's plenty of evidence that supports the questioning of the administration's motives.  I'm not saying Obama is a member of ISIS or even a traitor, but I do think his background, and those he surrounds himself with have a tendency to be more sympathetic to the plight of those who hate the United States and everything we stand for, and have a stated goal of eradicating us and any of our allies from the face of the earth.  .

 

I see from your discussion above that you see plenty of decisions Obama have made that would make you question his tactics or strategy. I am a bit more interested in what you mean by his motives. And who you referring to as "those who hate the United States and everything we stand for". I presume you mean the terrorist groups?