Trump Trolls Media. Media Takes Bait

So yesterday I was told that Trump said Obama founded ISIS. It was later that I saw the report about that statement. It was funny because the fact that I was told about it with the expectation that I would be upset, showed just how effective Trump's trolling was. Now we know full well that Obama didn't found ISIS in the manner we think of founding. But this excellent example of trolling forced those who were offended to show how stupid Trump is. In doing that they run across pieces like this one where the truth is even worse than the original statement.

Let us be clear. If we are going to be strict we have to credit the rise of ISIS with the entire cold war against Russia in Afghanistan. No Mujahideen, no Taliban. No Taliban no Al-Qaeda. No Al-Qaeda no ISIS. Straight line. Now presidents and other "higher ups" knew that the way to keep these Jihadis in line was to have strong, often brutal leadership. GW Bush apparently didn't get the memo and created a power vacuum in Iraq which would be the current founding event of ISIS. No Iraq war, no ISIS.

So in brilliant fashion not only did Trump troll Obama and Democrats, he also trolled establishment Republicans, all of whom are against Trump. Those establishment Republicans started the Iraq war and they don't want the public to realize that THEY are the ones responsible for ISIS. Now lets get to Obama and Hillary.

Having established that it was mainstream Republican establishment types that are actually responsible for the Iraq war and therefore the rise of ISIS can we put any responsibility for the spread and growth of ISIS on Obama? Certainly.

It was president Obama who involved the United States to be involved in the deposition and assassination of a sitting head of state who was a partner against ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This cannot be understated. Ghadaffi with all his faults, had emerged as a force against Al-Qaeda AND as a check against massive cross meditterean immigration to Europe. The US, under Obama provided air cover for "rebel groups" some of whom later pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda. As if THAT wasn't enough, Hillary and other Obama staffers knowingly LIED about the cause of the deaths of American servicemen and an ambassador. Deaths that were the direct result of the US involvement in Libya. So we have one count of Obama enabling the rise of ISIS in an area of the world where ISIS did not exist.

Secondly, Obama, still not understanding the crucial role of certain types of leadership in the Muslim world, sided with "rebel groups" in Syria to depose Assad. As a result of funding and providing arms (and logistical support) to "approved rebel groups" ISIS established itself in Syria (which is partially how we get the name ISIS). As a matter of fact, some of those "moderate rebel groups" not only aligned themselves with ISIS but gave them the arms the US "covertly" supplied to them. You can't make this shit up.

Currently the only country in Syria that has actually not supported or supplied terrorists is Russia! Think about it!

So we have a second count where Obama has in fact enabled the establishment of ISIS in a place that had no ISIS.

So while it may be total sarcasm to say that Obama "founded" ISIS, it is entirely correct to say that in at least two cases, Obama enabled the creation of ISIS camps/strongholds where they did not exist. The more the media reports on Trump's comments the more those of the public who seek to "verify" information will learn the truth. It may not be exactly what Trump says, but that is not the point.

War With Russia?

The US has overplayed it's cold war victory and is possibly about to receive a big check in Syria. There are too many people in the US govt who are still in the old mode of thinking and are spoiling for a "final conflict" with Russia just like many Black Lives Matter supporters think it's still 1965. Neither parties realize the times and situations have changed.

Russia has decided it will defend it's allies just as the US has claimed the "right" to do. Russia has said that it too can play the international intervention game. It has bombed so called "Syrian rebels" allied with the US. In doing so it has made a direct poke at the US. If they are in fact "allies" of the US then the US is obligated to defend them. Failure to do so would be a clear abandonment. I know it. Putin knows it and Obama knows it.

The fault here lies entirely at Obama's feet, with is red lines and interference in [and possible instigation] a civil war in the sovereign state of Syria, which, I will remind the reader, had no Taliban, ISIS, ISIL, or Al-Qaeda presence.

Understand that Russia is acting fully within international law while the US is not and the UN is playing the usual low price ho to the US and western Europe. The other low price hoes hanging around, the media, are playing their part in trying their best to misinform the public in regards to the situation in Syria. Carly Fiorina was dumb enough to say that the US should make a "no fly zone" over the Syrian traitors (rebels) in order to protect them from government forces. We all know what this would mean. This would elevate the conflict in such a way that should Russia, with it's documented permission from Syria to defend that country from border to border were to go into the "no-fly zone" there would be a direct conflict between the US and Russia. Do you want that?

If the US backed rebels are given no support then the US loses entire face and Obama will be known as the president that lost to Russia (again). Even though this move would be ego defeating it is the BEST short and long term solution. The US should have never gotten involved in Syria. Had it gotten involved it should have been on the side of Assad because a strong and stable Assad regime means NO ISIS. No training camps, etc. Which is a high national security priority.

These are interesting times.

Democratic Party Makes American History

Last night the Democratic Party made US history in nominating Barack Obama as it's candidate for the US presidency. I specify American history to note that there has been black presidents and prime ministers elsewhere in the world. Not to take away from the event, but to put it in a certain perspective. While I disagree with Obama on a number of subjects and political strategy I will give him his due as a history maker.

I wasn't all that impressed by the speech he gave last night. I don't think it was his best and I felt that kucinich was far more lively and by my own biased, much more real about what kind of change needs to happen in the US.

It was interesting watching the movie that introduced Obama. It struck me as particularly odd how the black candidate for president, had a life that, as presented on screen was completely devoid of black folk and black experiences as it relates to African-Americans. In fact, had there not been a picture of Obama or Obama's face was not a part of the movie, One could have easily "mistook" the film to be about a white man from the mid-west. It is clear to me, that the acceptance of Obama by many non-blacks has much to do with who he is not and where he does not come from or out of.

Alice Walker on an interview I was listening to yesterday was making comments about how good it was that Obama was mixed because "we'll all be mixed someday." I've heard these remarks a few too many times. I find such commentary insulting because it carries with it the implication that not being black and just black is bad, passe. It also implies the same thing about Europeans and Asians.

Anyway. US history in the making. A luta continua.