(Satire) - President Obama on Thursday cited the latest revelation from ISIS that the downing of a Russian plane over Egypt last month was the result of an explosive device planted inside a can of Schweppes Gold soft drink as proof positive that his counter-terrorism strategy, consisting of an all out war against soft drink consumption, is working and keeping Americans safe from ISIS attacks.
Mr. Obama added that the downing of the Russian airliner could have been averted had the Russian government adopted his soft drink strategy.
"My administration has taken a leading role in reducing soft drink consumption both here in the US and all across the globe," the President proclaimed during a speech to the advocacy group, The Coalition to Defeat and Degrade Sugary Soft Drinks. "Sweet beverages," the President asserted, "pose a dire threat not only to Global security but to the human physique as well."
Mr. Obama added in an unequivocal and rather bellicose tone: "Contrary to the disingenuous claims of my detractors, Syrian refugees with possible ties to terrorist groups are not the problem! Soft drink consumption is the real problem, and the ultimate threat!"
The President went on to say: "We now know that an explosive device planted inside an insidious soft drink was the culprit that ultimately brought down the Russian airliner in Egypt last month. This tragedy could have been averted if only the Russians had adopted my soft drink strategy and removed these Weapons of Mass Sugarization from their airline menus."
Mr. Obama conceded that he has yet to formulate a coherent strategy to defeat ISIS, but he made it clear that ultimately his soft drink initiative would be the basis of his overall strategy to keep Americans safe and slim.
The President also reassured his audience that while he will allow thousands upon thousands of Syrian refuges to enter the U.S. unhindered, he will move to permanently ban the entry of soft drinks into the U.S.
"While it is true that the names of countless ISIS terrorists are not listed in intelligence databases," Mr Obama said, "we can still communicate verbally with a refugee and use our intuitive powers to determine whether this individual is, or is not, an ISIS terrorist. "However," the President added, "until we can develop the technology that will enable us to verbally communicate with a soft drink beverage, there's no way of determining whether a particular soft drink entering our country is in fact a bomb-free, non-sugary, beverage or, heaven forbid, a Weapon of Mass Sugarization!"
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Truck bomb in Kabul kills 7 people, wounds 400, as civilian casualties continue to climb
From the AP:
A bomb hidden in a truck exploded in the center of the Afghan capital, killing seven people and wounding about 400, police and health officials said Friday.The AFP reported on Thursday:
Police chief Abdul Rahman Rahimi said the pre-dawn blast was near a Defense Ministry compound, but that all of the victims were civilians, including women and children...
The blast comes after the United Nations said Wednesday that a growing number of women and children are getting hurt or killed in [Afghanistan]...
The total number of casualties in the almost 14-year conflict was up 1 percent in the first half of this year, compared to the same period last year, a new U.N. report said. However, the number of women casualties rose by 23 percent and children 13 percent.
Civilian casualties in Afghanistan hit a record high in the first half of 2015, a UN report said Wednesday, as Afghan forces struggle to contain the expanding conflict six months after the NATO combat mission ended [as per Obama's exit strategy]...But despite the rising violence in Afghanistan, President Obama, no doubt, has the Afghan people's backs ["I got your back!"] because he's the smartest and kindest individual on the planet.
Overall, casualties [dead and injured]] reached their highest level since the UN began issuing its authoritative reports in 2009.
The statistics are a grim indicator of the rising violence as the Taliban insurgency spreads north from its traditional southern and eastern strongholds, with Afghan forces increasingly battling the militants on their own.
US-led NATO forces ended their combat mission in Afghanistan in December...
Kerry worried about screwing Khamenei, the man who's responsible for countless US casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq
Despite the fact that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has the blood of countless US soldiers on his hands - as a result of the training and the arms that the Afghan and Iraqi insurgents received from Iran - Secretary of State, John Kerry, is concerned about "screwing" the Supreme Leader!
That's right! Kerry is worried; he doesn't want to screw the man who has screwed America for years on end.
In a recent interview, Kerry was quoted as saying:
Incredible!
That's right! Kerry is worried; he doesn't want to screw the man who has screwed America for years on end.
In a recent interview, Kerry was quoted as saying:
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them. “This”-a congressional rejection-“will be the ultimate screwing.” [Kerry] went on to argue that “the United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.”That's right, according to John Kerry, a rejection of Obama's capitulation and appeasement deal with Iran - a deal that Sen. Ted Cruz has labeled Obama's "Jihadist stimulus bill" - would make the US appear to be "untrustworthy" in the eyes of the dignified and righteous Supreme Murderer of Iran.
Incredible!
Rouhani chants 'Death to America' and supports nuclear deal; Obama misleads, Iran speech
Speaking at the American University in Washington D.C. on Wednesday, President Obama insisted that those people in Iran who chant "Death to America" are Iranian hardliners, who oppose a nuclear agreement between the US and Iran.
"Just because Iranian hardliners chant 'Death to America' does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe", the President said. "In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal."
But of course, Obama knows full well that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, is supportive of the nuclear deal, and yet Khamenei is a staunch "Death to America" advocate.
Moreover, Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani - a purported moderate and primary architect of the current nuclear agreement between the US and Iran - reportedly told a group of Iranian students in May of 1995 that, "The beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation."
In May of 2013, during a Presidential campaign speech, Rouhani said: "Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action! Saying it is easy."
It is quite clear that Mr. Rouhani is a "Death to America" aficionado and yet, he is a chief architect of the US/Iran nuclear deal.
Hence, contrary to Obama's disingenuous claim, the chanting of "Death to America" and the nuclear deal compliment each other quite well.
"Just because Iranian hardliners chant 'Death to America' does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe", the President said. "In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal."
But of course, Obama knows full well that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, is supportive of the nuclear deal, and yet Khamenei is a staunch "Death to America" advocate.
Moreover, Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani - a purported moderate and primary architect of the current nuclear agreement between the US and Iran - reportedly told a group of Iranian students in May of 1995 that, "The beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation."
In May of 2013, during a Presidential campaign speech, Rouhani said: "Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action! Saying it is easy."
It is quite clear that Mr. Rouhani is a "Death to America" aficionado and yet, he is a chief architect of the US/Iran nuclear deal.
Hence, contrary to Obama's disingenuous claim, the chanting of "Death to America" and the nuclear deal compliment each other quite well.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Iran, Al Qaeda affiliated group, the Al Nusra Front, attacks US trained rebels in Syria, Obama administration shocked?!
On July 31, the New York Times reported that an American-trained, Syrian Rebel group, known as Division 30, came under intense attack from a hard-line, Al Qaeda affiliated group, known as the Al Nusra Front. The attack came just one day after the Al Nusra Front abducted two leaders and at least six fighters of Division 30. Additionally, the Hill reported on Tuesday that, to date, at least 19 members from Division 30 have been killed or captured by Al Nusra militants.
The aforementioned New York Times article noted that "senior administration officials acknowledged that the [recent] attack and the abductions by the Nusra Front took American officials by surprise and amounted to a significant intelligence failure."
"American military trainers... did not anticipate an assault from the Nusra Front," the Times reported. "In fact, officials said on Friday, they expected the Nusra Front to welcome Division 30 as an ally in its fight against the Islamic State."
“This wasn’t supposed to happen like this,” said one former senior American official.
Nevertheless, despite the surprise reaction from the Obama administration, the Times went on to report that:
“This wasn’t supposed to happen like this.”
It is also significant to note that, according to a US Department of Treasury report issued last year, Al Nusra has received significant funding from "Al-Qaida’s network in Iran."
That's right: Iran. "Al-Qaida’s network in Iran."
As I noted last year: The Treasury Department noted in its report that the Department had designated as a terrorist Mr. Jafar al-Uzbeki, "a key Iran-based al-Qaida facilitator who supports al-Qaida’s vital facilitation network in Iran, that operates there with the knowledge of Iranian authorities." Al-Uzbeki, the report went on to say, "provided "logistical support and funding to al-Qa’ida's Iran-based network" and he "has assisted extremists and operatives transiting Iran on their way into and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan." Al-Uzbeki "has provided visas and passports to numerous foreign fighters, including al-Qaida recruits, to facilitate their travel."
The US Department of Treasury report also notes that al Qaida's Iran-based network is assisting the Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria.
According to the report, "Al-Uzbeki also provided funding to Yasin al-Suri, who has resumed leadership of al-Qaida's Iran-based network. As head al-Qaida facilitator in Iran, Yasin al-Suri is responsible for overseeing al-Qaida efforts to transfer experienced operatives and leaders from Pakistan to Syria, organizing and maintaining routes by which new recruits can travel to Syria..., and assisting in the movement of al-Qaida external operatives to the West."
"Al-Qaida’s network in Iran has facilitated the transfer of funds... to al-Qaida core and other affiliated elements, including the al-Nusrah Front in Syria..."
I pointed out last year that Iran's ties to Al Qaeda and to the Iraqi and Afghan insurgency - the training and arming of the Afghan/Iraqi insurgents who killed countless US troops - has been well-documented. I cited several examples to illustrate this point.
Nevertheless, Iran's support of Al Nusra has left some wondering why the former would support a group that is purportedly at odds with Syrian Presient Bashar Assad, an ally of Iran.
I offered up a couple of possible explanations for that last year:
1) Since there is no guarantee that Bashar Assad will remain in power, Iran is seeking to ensure that Iran does not lose its influence in Syria if and when Assad is deposed, and that the west never gains influence inside Syria. Hence Iran is attempting to strengthen the extremists within the rebel forces and to make certain that the western-backed fighters do not become the dominant forces in Syria.
2) The Iranian regime is seeking to ensure that the extremist fighters, and not the western-backed fighters, are the dominant powers within the rebel forces because this might dissuade the West from completely removing and replacing the current Syrian regime since such a move might facilitate the ascension of the extremist rebels to power.
A couple of possible explanations. Feel free to proffer your own theory.
Nevertheless, what is clear from all of the above is that Iran has been a staunch supporter of Al Qaeda [in spite of some of the differences the former and latter may have with one another]; and that Iran has supplied the Afghan/Iraqi insurgents with arms supplies [including IED's and other explosive devices etc.] and training, which has led to countless casualties among US troops; and that - according to the US Treasury Department - Al Nusra, the group that is currently attacking Division 30 forces in Syria, receives funding from "Al-Qaida’s network in Iran"; and that, despite all of this horrific terror, including the attacks against US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama has decided to offer the Iranians nuclear concessions, and monetary concessions worth over $100 billion dollars.
Mind-boggling?
Not really; just par for the course.
It is also worthwhile to note that the Hill reported on Wednesday that the Obama administration just announced new sanctions targeting two individuals from Qatar. One of the individuals was targeted with sanctions because he provided funding to the Al Nusra Front
Why is the Obama administration placing sanctions on an individual for financing Al Nusra - al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate - and yet the administration is removing sanctions from Iran, despite its ties to Al Nusra, and despite the existence of an al Qaida network inside Iran that operates freely there "with the knowledge of Iranian authorities"?
Mind-boggling.
And yet, par for the course............
The aforementioned New York Times article noted that "senior administration officials acknowledged that the [recent] attack and the abductions by the Nusra Front took American officials by surprise and amounted to a significant intelligence failure."
"American military trainers... did not anticipate an assault from the Nusra Front," the Times reported. "In fact, officials said on Friday, they expected the Nusra Front to welcome Division 30 as an ally in its fight against the Islamic State."
“This wasn’t supposed to happen like this,” said one former senior American official.
Nevertheless, despite the surprise reaction from the Obama administration, the Times went on to report that:
The Nusra Front said in a statement on Friday that its aim was to eliminate Division 30 before it could gain a deeper foothold in Syria. The Nusra Front did much the same last year when it smashed the main groups that had been trained and equipped in a different American effort, one run covertly by the C.I.A.But strangely, despite last year's attack, the Obama administration did not anticipate the recent "assault from the Nusra Front."
“This wasn’t supposed to happen like this.”
It is also significant to note that, according to a US Department of Treasury report issued last year, Al Nusra has received significant funding from "Al-Qaida’s network in Iran."
That's right: Iran. "Al-Qaida’s network in Iran."
As I noted last year: The Treasury Department noted in its report that the Department had designated as a terrorist Mr. Jafar al-Uzbeki, "a key Iran-based al-Qaida facilitator who supports al-Qaida’s vital facilitation network in Iran, that operates there with the knowledge of Iranian authorities." Al-Uzbeki, the report went on to say, "provided "logistical support and funding to al-Qa’ida's Iran-based network" and he "has assisted extremists and operatives transiting Iran on their way into and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan." Al-Uzbeki "has provided visas and passports to numerous foreign fighters, including al-Qaida recruits, to facilitate their travel."
The US Department of Treasury report also notes that al Qaida's Iran-based network is assisting the Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria.
According to the report, "Al-Uzbeki also provided funding to Yasin al-Suri, who has resumed leadership of al-Qaida's Iran-based network. As head al-Qaida facilitator in Iran, Yasin al-Suri is responsible for overseeing al-Qaida efforts to transfer experienced operatives and leaders from Pakistan to Syria, organizing and maintaining routes by which new recruits can travel to Syria..., and assisting in the movement of al-Qaida external operatives to the West."
"Al-Qaida’s network in Iran has facilitated the transfer of funds... to al-Qaida core and other affiliated elements, including the al-Nusrah Front in Syria..."
I pointed out last year that Iran's ties to Al Qaeda and to the Iraqi and Afghan insurgency - the training and arming of the Afghan/Iraqi insurgents who killed countless US troops - has been well-documented. I cited several examples to illustrate this point.
Nevertheless, Iran's support of Al Nusra has left some wondering why the former would support a group that is purportedly at odds with Syrian Presient Bashar Assad, an ally of Iran.
I offered up a couple of possible explanations for that last year:
1) Since there is no guarantee that Bashar Assad will remain in power, Iran is seeking to ensure that Iran does not lose its influence in Syria if and when Assad is deposed, and that the west never gains influence inside Syria. Hence Iran is attempting to strengthen the extremists within the rebel forces and to make certain that the western-backed fighters do not become the dominant forces in Syria.
2) The Iranian regime is seeking to ensure that the extremist fighters, and not the western-backed fighters, are the dominant powers within the rebel forces because this might dissuade the West from completely removing and replacing the current Syrian regime since such a move might facilitate the ascension of the extremist rebels to power.
A couple of possible explanations. Feel free to proffer your own theory.
Nevertheless, what is clear from all of the above is that Iran has been a staunch supporter of Al Qaeda [in spite of some of the differences the former and latter may have with one another]; and that Iran has supplied the Afghan/Iraqi insurgents with arms supplies [including IED's and other explosive devices etc.] and training, which has led to countless casualties among US troops; and that - according to the US Treasury Department - Al Nusra, the group that is currently attacking Division 30 forces in Syria, receives funding from "Al-Qaida’s network in Iran"; and that, despite all of this horrific terror, including the attacks against US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama has decided to offer the Iranians nuclear concessions, and monetary concessions worth over $100 billion dollars.
Mind-boggling?
Not really; just par for the course.
It is also worthwhile to note that the Hill reported on Wednesday that the Obama administration just announced new sanctions targeting two individuals from Qatar. One of the individuals was targeted with sanctions because he provided funding to the Al Nusra Front
One of the men, Sa'd bin Sa'd Muhammad Shariyan al-Ka’bi, is from Qatar and has helped finance al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate, known as the Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front.Which leaves us with another mind-boggling question:
The other financier is Abd al-Latif Bin 'Abdallah Salih Muhammad al-Kawari, who is also from Qatar and has aided al Qaeda.
“The people designated today played roles in supporting violent extremists in Syria, Pakistan and Sudan,” Treasury said.
Why is the Obama administration placing sanctions on an individual for financing Al Nusra - al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate - and yet the administration is removing sanctions from Iran, despite its ties to Al Nusra, and despite the existence of an al Qaida network inside Iran that operates freely there "with the knowledge of Iranian authorities"?
Mind-boggling.
And yet, par for the course............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)