Rand Paul: “ISIS exists because of the Republican hawks”

[toxicmedia]

The quickest way to create a terrorist, is to invade his country for no reason and blow up his neighbors and family.

Yeah that summarizes the liberal point of view perfectly....and it's fucking retarded. We didn't create these Islamist fanatic terrorists, they were there long before invaded Iraq. That's who these people are. You don't grab a Koran and decide to start killing in the name of Allah because the US invaded your country. These people were always Islamic terrorists before Syria and part of Iraq fell, the only difference is the terrorists are in power now. Again America never created a single Muslim Terrorist, the shitty culture in the Middle East is what produces the Islamic terrorists.

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

Last I checked. Assad didn't bomb Iraq. So why did ISIS move to attack him. Blowback does play a role, but you can't use it to explain everything.

ISIS did not start in Iraq. And gee I wonder why people would rise up against a violent dictator propped up by foreigners...

Yes they did their leader's name is Baghdadi for chrissakes. Assad was not propped up by the US, he was anti US. So the idea of ISIS moving from Iraq to overthrow the anti American Assad doesn't fit your narrative that these people are just poor little victims of America.

I think ISIS feels more victimized by the half US half Iranian proxy Shiite leaders, that went after the Sunnis.

Which is the core of that struggle.

Just let em put back the pre WWI borders, and I'd bet we'll find out who just wants trouble after that

 

[Zander]

Once again Rand is correct. Republican (and Democrat) Hawks did help to create ISIS/ISIL. Even "peace loving" Obama helped when he shipped arms to Syrian "rebels" that later turned out to be ISIS/ISIL It's a classic case of government incompetence at every level.....

Not incompetence. Geopolitical strategy. Smart at that.

If the Iranian backed Shia continue to fight the ISIL Sunni's it may work out.....but that remains to be seen.

 

[Steinlight]

Yeah that summarizes the liberal point of view perfectly....and it's fucking retarded. We didn't create these Islamist fanatic terrorists, they were there long before invaded Iraq. That's who these people are. You don't grab a Koran and decide to start killing in the name of Allah because the US invaded your country. These people were always Islamic terrorists before Syria and part of Iraq fell, the only difference is the terrorists are in power now. Again America never created a single Muslim Terrorist, the shitty culture in the Middle East is what produces the Islamic terrorists.

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

Last I checked. Assad didn't bomb Iraq. So why did ISIS move to attack him. Blowback does play a role, but you can't use it to explain everything.

ISIS did not start in Iraq. And gee I wonder why people would rise up against a violent dictator propped up by foreigners...

Yes they did their leader's name is Baghdadi for chrissakes. Assad was not propped up by the US, he was anti US. So the idea of ISIS moving from Iraq to overthrow the anti American Assad doesn't fit your narrative that these people are just poor little victims of America.

I think ISIS feels more victimized by the half US half Iranian proxy Shiite leaders, that went after the Sunnis.

Which is the core of that struggle.

Just let em put back the pre WWI borders, and I'd bet we'll find out who just wants trouble after that

Saddam didn't treat the shia with kid gloves either. And that still doesn't explain how ISIS was victimized by Assad as he had nothing to do with Iraq.

I don't think you can reduce the islamist motivation to purely blaming America for their ideology.

 

[toxicmedia]

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

Last I checked. Assad didn't bomb Iraq. So why did ISIS move to attack him. Blowback does play a role, but you can't use it to explain everything.

ISIS did not start in Iraq. And gee I wonder why people would rise up against a violent dictator propped up by foreigners...

Yes they did their leader's name is Baghdadi for chrissakes. Assad was not propped up by the US, he was anti US. So the idea of ISIS moving from Iraq to overthrow the anti American Assad doesn't fit your narrative that these people are just poor little victims of America.

I think ISIS feels more victimized by the half US half Iranian proxy Shiite leaders, that went after the Sunnis.

Which is the core of that struggle.

Just let em put back the pre WWI borders, and I'd bet we'll find out who just wants trouble after that

Saddam didn't treat the shia with kid gloves either. And that still doesn't explain how ISIS was victimized by Assad as he had nothing to do with Iraq.

I don't think you can reduce the islamist motivation to purely blaming America for their ideology.

Nor do I

And if we're not there, they can't blame all their problems on us, and would only have our support for Israel to use against us

 

[TheOldSchool]

The quickest way to create a terrorist, is to invade his country for no reason and blow up his neighbors and family.

Yeah that summarizes the liberal point of view perfectly....and it's fucking retarded. We didn't create these Islamist fanatic terrorists, they were there long before invaded Iraq. That's who these people are. You don't grab a Koran and decide to start killing in the name of Allah because the US invaded your country. These people were always Islamic terrorists before Syria and part of Iraq fell, the only difference is the terrorists are in power now. Again America never created a single Muslim Terrorist, the shitty culture in the Middle East is what produces the Islamic terrorists.

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

Last I checked. Assad didn't bomb Iraq. So why did ISIS move to attack him. Blowback does play a role, but you can't use it to explain everything.

ISIS did not start in Iraq. And gee I wonder why people would rise up against a violent dictator propped up by foreigners...

Yes they did their leader's name is Baghdadi for chrissakes. Assad was not propped up by the US, he was anti US. So the idea of ISIS moving from Iraq to overthrow the anti American Assad doesn't fit your narrative that these people are just poor little victims of America.

If I recall correctly the violence started in Syria. I never said Assad was propped up by the U.S. I said foreigners.

The people of the middle east are victims of LOTS of countries. If you destroy a childs home and kill their friends and family, don't be surprised if they become monsters when they grow up.

Regardless of who started what, and why they started it, there is nothing for America over there.

 

[Rocko]

The quickest way to create a terrorist, is to invade his country for no reason and blow up his neighbors and family.

Yeah that summarizes the liberal point of view perfectly....and it's fucking retarded. We didn't create these Islamist fanatic terrorists, they were there long before invaded Iraq. That's who these people are. You don't grab a Koran and decide to start killing in the name of Allah because the US invaded your country. These people were always Islamic terrorists before Syria and part of Iraq fell, the only difference is the terrorists are in power now. Again America never created a single Muslim Terrorist, the shitty culture in the Middle East is what produces the Islamic terrorists.

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

What about all the other mulim countries we didn't invade where the people are radical Muslims, huh? IT's a problem that we didn't cause. I know you would love to blame us for radical Islam, but it is not our fault.

Do you mean the ones with the murderous dictators that we prop up?

We don't prop up any murderous dictators...we may give them support , but that is because when these countries become unstable that is when the Islamic terrorists take power. that's the problem - the problem is the people are radical Muslim terrorists.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The quickest way to create a terrorist, is to invade his country for no reason and blow up his neighbors and family.

Yeah that summarizes the liberal point of view perfectly....and it's fucking retarded. We didn't create these Islamist fanatic terrorists, they were there long before invaded Iraq. That's who these people are. You don't grab a Koran and decide to start killing in the name of Allah because the US invaded your country. These people were always Islamic terrorists before Syria and part of Iraq fell, the only difference is the terrorists are in power now. Again America never created a single Muslim Terrorist, the shitty culture in the Middle East is what produces the Islamic terrorists.

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

What about all the other mulim countries we didn't invade where the people are radical Muslims, huh? IT's a problem that we didn't cause. I know you would love to blame us for radical Islam, but it is not our fault.

Do you mean the ones with the murderous dictators that we prop up?

We don't prop up any murderous dictators...we may support them, but that hese countries become unstable that when the Islamic terrorists take power. that's the problem - the problem is the people are radical Muslim terrorists.

That's hilarious. A few years ago you scum were telling us that we needed to spread democracy there. Anything to get our soldiers put into caskets huh?

 

[Rocko]

Yeah that summarizes the liberal point of view perfectly....and it's fucking retarded. We didn't create these Islamist fanatic terrorists, they were there long before invaded Iraq. That's who these people are. You don't grab a Koran and decide to start killing in the name of Allah because the US invaded your country. These people were always Islamic terrorists before Syria and part of Iraq fell, the only difference is the terrorists are in power now. Again America never created a single Muslim Terrorist, the shitty culture in the Middle East is what produces the Islamic terrorists.

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

What about all the other mulim countries we didn't invade where the people are radical Muslims, huh? IT's a problem that we didn't cause. I know you would love to blame us for radical Islam, but it is not our fault.

Do you mean the ones with the murderous dictators that we prop up?

We don't prop up any murderous dictators...we may support them, but that hese countries become unstable that when the Islamic terrorists take power. that's the problem - the problem is the people are radical Muslim terrorists.

That's hilarious. A few years ago you scum were telling us that we needed to spread democracy there. Anything to get our soldiers put into caskets huh?

Fuck you, asshole I never said they need democracy. That was that idiot Bush. Those people weren't ready for democracy. Most countries in the ME aren't.

 

[Steinlight]

Yeah that summarizes the liberal point of view perfectly....and it's fucking retarded. We didn't create these Islamist fanatic terrorists, they were there long before invaded Iraq. That's who these people are. You don't grab a Koran and decide to start killing in the name of Allah because the US invaded your country. These people were always Islamic terrorists before Syria and part of Iraq fell, the only difference is the terrorists are in power now. Again America never created a single Muslim Terrorist, the shitty culture in the Middle East is what produces the Islamic terrorists.

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

Last I checked. Assad didn't bomb Iraq. So why did ISIS move to attack him. Blowback does play a role, but you can't use it to explain everything.

ISIS did not start in Iraq. And gee I wonder why people would rise up against a violent dictator propped up by foreigners...

Yes they did their leader's name is Baghdadi for chrissakes. Assad was not propped up by the US, he was anti US. So the idea of ISIS moving from Iraq to overthrow the anti American Assad doesn't fit your narrative that these people are just poor little victims of America.

If I recall correctly the violence started in Syria. I never said Assad was propped up by the U.S. I said foreigners.

The people of the middle east are victims of LOTS of countries. If you destroy a childs home and kill their friends and family, don't be surprised if they become monsters when they grow up.

Regardless of who started what, and why they started it, there is nothing for America over there.

Which foreigners? That doesnt make a whole lot of sense. A foreign army overthrew Assad because he was propped up by foreigners? What proof do you have of this?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yeah when people are constantly bombing and invading a country, the people there never get mad and take up arms...

Last I checked. Assad didn't bomb Iraq. So why did ISIS move to attack him. Blowback does play a role, but you can't use it to explain everything.

ISIS did not start in Iraq. And gee I wonder why people would rise up against a violent dictator propped up by foreigners...

Yes they did their leader's name is Baghdadi for chrissakes. Assad was not propped up by the US, he was anti US. So the idea of ISIS moving from Iraq to overthrow the anti American Assad doesn't fit your narrative that these people are just poor little victims of America.

If I recall correctly the violence started in Syria. I never said Assad was propped up by the U.S. I said foreigners.

The people of the middle east are victims of LOTS of countries. If you destroy a childs home and kill their friends and family, don't be surprised if they become monsters when they grow up.

Regardless of who started what, and why they started it, there is nothing for America over there.

Which foreigners? That doesnt make a whole lot of sense. A foreign army overthrew Assad because he was propped up by foreigners? What proof do you have of this?

The uprisings in Syria started in Syria. And China, Russia, and Iran are all buddies of Assad. There are no good guys in Syria. My point still stands, there's nothing for America there.

 

[Steinlight]

Last I checked. Assad didn't bomb Iraq. So why did ISIS move to attack him. Blowback does play a role, but you can't use it to explain everything.

ISIS did not start in Iraq. And gee I wonder why people would rise up against a violent dictator propped up by foreigners...

Yes they did their leader's name is Baghdadi for chrissakes. Assad was not propped up by the US, he was anti US. So the idea of ISIS moving from Iraq to overthrow the anti American Assad doesn't fit your narrative that these people are just poor little victims of America.

If I recall correctly the violence started in Syria. I never said Assad was propped up by the U.S. I said foreigners.

The people of the middle east are victims of LOTS of countries. If you destroy a childs home and kill their friends and family, don't be surprised if they become monsters when they grow up.

Regardless of who started what, and why they started it, there is nothing for America over there.

Which foreigners? That doesnt make a whole lot of sense. A foreign army overthrew Assad because he was propped up by foreigners? What proof do you have of this?

The uprisings in Syria started in Syria. And China, Russia, and Iran are all buddies of Assad. There are no good guys in Syria. My point still stands, there's nothing for America there.

I understand that the Syrian uprising started in Syria but you still haven't explained how ISIS attacking Assad is the result of him being propped up by foreigners. ISIS attacking Americans makes sense under your theory where they just resent foreign occupation and only react to this . But I don't see how under your theory how ISIS attacking Assad fits in. ISIS is chauvinistic not a reactionary force. They aren't a resistance movement. They oppose anyone and will use violence against anyone who opposes their brand of Sunni islam.

 

[skookerasbil]

Indeed Paul did say that.........he also said the progressive limpwristers were equally to blame!!!

Correct on both counts.

 

[The Wolf]

When there is no enemy the US will create one. Only way to justify spying on its citizens and continuous war.

 

[JimH52]

"GOP hawks" would also get rid of ISIS....

No, they would just send more young men and women to die. But it would make their "handlers" wealthy.

 

[quorthon]

I think ISIS feels more victimized by the half US half Iranian proxy Shiite leaders, that went after the Sunnis.
Which is the core of that struggle.
Just let em put back the pre WWI borders, and I'd bet we'll find out who just wants trouble after that

If ISIS are real then they are victimized by capitalism and foreign policy of the US. But it's more believable that ISIS is the project to throw a scare on the US citizens and to explain why everything is being surveyed. (not only in the US!)

 

[Stephanie]

I've never seen a bunch of people for one party try and get out of the blame for what a Democrat President has had a hand in making just as well as ANY other one. I don't CARE who created them. OBAMA with his weak kneed approach to them has HELPED THEM multiply and GROW STRONGER.

we will pay for it, probably like we did with Clinton AFTER he left office. will it be another 9/11?

we need to pray it isn't

 

[quorthon]

When there is no enemy the US will create one. Only way to justify spying on its citizens and continuous war.

Pity that most more or less intelligent people doubt this truth very much.