Is that something we know? I'm trying to check that out. I see this from September 8th at the Washington Examiner:
Hillary Clinton said Thursday that the Islamic State wants Donald Trump to win the presidency because he would be a weaker leader, and she also reiterated her pledge to keep ground troops out of the Middle East during her first press conference in 2016.Would ISIS want a ground war? In any case, Trump hasn't promised a ground war. He's only said it's foolish to take anything off the table. What is the authority for Clinton's statement except Clinton herself? Who is this "national security expert" and did he somehow know what ISIS leaders want?
Clinton cited an article by a national security expert that argued the Islamic State "supports Donald Trump".... "I think putting a big contingent of American ground troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria would not be in the best interest of the fight against ISIS," Clinton said after reporters suggested her unequivocal pledge to keep troops out of the region could box in her strategy. "I think it would fulfill one of their dearest wishes, which is to drag the United States back into a ground war in that region," she added.
I found "Why ISIS Is Rooting for Trump," by Mara Revkin and Ahmad Mhidi in Foreign Affairs:
[I]nterviews with ISIS supporters and recent defectors suggest [that] jihadists are rooting for a Trump presidency because they believe that he will lead the United States on a path to self-destruction. Last week, an ISIS spokesman wrote on the ISIS-affiliated Telegram channel, Nashir, “I ask Allah to deliver America to Trump.” Meanwhile, an ISIS supporter posted on one of the numerous jihadist “channels” hosted by the Telegram messaging application, “The ‘facilitation’ of Trump’s arrival in the White House must be a priority for jihadists at any cost!!!”Okay, so a "spokesman" and a "supporter" supposedly said something. Should we trust them to tell the truth? Why would they give a useful argument to a candidate it didn't want to win? It would make more sense to interpret the evidence as a preference for Hillary.
Posts
62 comments:
That seems mainly to be evidence that these idiots believe what our MSM is telling them.
she also reiterated her pledge to keep ground troops out of the Middle East during her first press conference in 2016.
So she only pledged to keep ground troops out of the ME during her press conference? After the press conference they could go back in?
Obama and Clinton have been good for Islamic State's prospects. Trump is an unknown who may address the vacuum left in Iraq, cut off their arms supply from Libya, oil sales to Turkey, and sanctuary cities in Iraq and Syria. Then there is Russia. They seem capable of managing the violence provoked by Obama and Clinton's foreign policies on their borders. Even Obama is coming to terms with the loss of momentum in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Ukraine, etc. The creation and propagation of refugee crises exposed his activities to global skepticism.
"I think putting a big contingent of American ground troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria would not be in the best interest of the fight against ISIS,"
Exactly right Hillary. Fight a war without ground troops. Continue the failed Obama strategy. Hillary is an idiot.
It's always a good idea to google the authors of Foreign Policy articles. My experience is that the journal doesn't offer dispassionate analysis of foreign policy, but rather ideological talking points and propaganda. It reflects the intellectual decay of modern academia and needs to be taken in small doses.
[I]nterviews with ISIS supporters and recent defectors suggest [that] jihadists are rooting for a Trump presidency because they believe that he will lead the United States on a path to self-destruction.
So they believe he will lead the United States on a path to self-destruction. That is not a claim that he will be a weaker leader. So that article does not support Clinton's claim.
Well, maybe the leadership of ISIS would prefer a Trump presidency. What of it?
Are we to presume that their analysis of a possible Trump presidency is somehow cogent? Their other analyses of the flaws of American politics & culture don't seem to be given much credence by, well, anyone in the US, so why should this be any different?
Did she really say that today, or was it prerecorded and broadcast today?
So she just started her PhD in Poli Sci at a Yale Islamic Center. Mentioning Trump gets instant coverage. Hmm.
I found an article co-written by the guy from October 2015 on Aleppo and ISIS' control of oil. DIsn't Trump recently mention something about "taking their oil," and if so, this article from last year would seem to lend credibly to what Trump said:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/how-oil-fuels-isis/
So my guess is the two of them are good little progs doing what was 'asked' of them, so Clinton could magically bring it up.
Chuck at 8:58, your take seems spot on, there was an ad on the FP site "Attn Students--get published in FP and join the next generation of thought leaders."
We heard this before, that Osama bin Ladin wanted Bush re-elected.
It was horseshit then and horseshit now. And it reeked of desperation then and it does now. Don't vote for Trump, it's what ISIS WANTS YOU TO DO!
“At the five o’clock meeting, [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: ‘Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President.’”
McLaughlin’s comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table. Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, suggested that the al-Qaeda founder may have come to Bush’s aid because bin-Laden felt threatened by the rise in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; bin-Laden might have thought his leadership would be diminished if Bush lost the White House and their “eye-to-eye struggle” ended.
But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush’s policies – including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.
“Certainly,” the CIA’s Miscik said, “he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years,” according to Suskind’s account of the meeting.
As their internal assessment sank in, the CIA analysts drifted into silence, troubled by the implications of their own conclusions. “An ocean of hard truths before them – such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin-Laden would want Bush reelected – remained untouched,” Suskind wrote.
One immediate consequence of bin-Laden breaking nearly a year of silence to issue the videotape the weekend before the U.S. presidential election was to give the Bush campaign a much needed boost. From a virtual dead heat, Bush opened up a six-point lead, according to one poll.
Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini all wanted war with the US. Perhaps FDR should have taken Hillary's position and declined to respond.
Perhaps the Islamic State, or at least some factions, are looking for a way to escape the Obama and Clinton quagmire. The refugee crises do not address the victims left behind in the wake of social justice adventurism. Russia is the best partner to stabilize the region and end the global humanitarian disaster, but they may balk to cooperate with the Western leaders (e.g. Clinton) that fostered the violence in the Middle East and on their borders. Trump may be the people's best hope to realize positive progress.
Watch what they do, not what they say. Every time they blow shit up, Trump gets points. Notice how they have stopped blowing shit up. At least where we would notice it. A steady rain of Orlandos and Nices and all that would be the kind of thing that they could do if they really wanted to make the status quo look bad and Trump's approach look favorable. Not happening.
Why would anyone believe anything that the enemy says?
For the Clinton campaign, the tough decision must be: a) lie about Hillary's health issues to make her look more up to the job or b) lie to exaggerate her health issues to provide an excuse for ducking debates and press conferences. It's never a question of whether to lie, only of which lie is most convenient.
How long will it be before a democrat district attorney somewhere (upstate New York?) gets a grand jury to indict Trump for something -- a la Rick Perry?
There are ground troops in Iraq (and probably Syria) as I type. Did the Zombie say this after her revenance at ground
Zero?
"Is that something we know?" 1. Hill opens mouth. 2. We professionals call that a "tell." 3. We take reality to be opposite of tell. 4. We infer that we know something, but the something we know isn't that. Deplorable logic goes a long way.
This is laughably lame. This sort of ploy seldom works for anyone, even with the most servile media cheerleading. The Donks are coming perilously close to that fine, but definite, line where everything you say invites widespread mockery.
Obama has resettled thousands of Syrian "refugees" here. Hillary would continue that policy.
Why on earth would ISIS object to that?
Would Hillary Clinton lie to us?
This is projection.
" Notice how they have stopped blowing shit up. "
I have noticed this. I expect a terror attack before the election but it is just possible they might hold off in hopes of getting Hillary.
I really don't think they are that smart although Iran has played Obama like a violin. I just don't think it was that hard.
He and Kerry have had a "kick me" sign since day one.
Her firm rule: "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".
Abdul...sadi Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini all wanted war with the US.
I don't think so. Tojo, yes. Hitler & Mussolini, no.
ISIS wants Trump. Putin too. Iran and North Korea to issue endorsements next.
Mook is panicking. Really stupid. Most Americans aren't idiots. And anyway Obama has our foreign policy in great shape.
So Hillary says.. wink wink.. ISIS wants Trump to win.
Well hell, she also doesn't recall basically 1/2 of her life according to her FBI testimony.
Just another lie to add to the zillion other ones on the pile. Nobody cares now. Truth, lie, whatever. It's all the same as for what she says.
She's the lying sack of dung but no Democrat cares about the smell.
Yeah, if there's one thing jihadi's fear, it's an American president who promises to not send soldiers to kill them.
Welcome back Michael K.
Sounds a lot like when Democrats try to advise Republicans on who to run..
@mockturtle
Hitler & Mussolini, no.
Both Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.
But I don't know if Dems have an explicit platform justification for such like with “Al-taqiyya.”
I'm just plain "tahrred: {as Hillary would say in a faux Southern drawl] of Hillary and her surrogates blowing smoke up my heinie.
And yet 88 former military leaders sign a letter endorsing Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/donald-trump-military-leaders-endorsement-letter/
An English teacher was explaining positives and negatives to a class. How a positive and negative made a negative. How two negatives made a positive. How a positive alone made a positive, and a negative alone made a negative. A firmly told the class "And two positives can never make a negative!"
From the back of the room a student answered loudly, "Yeah, right!"
About covers that news. "Yeah, right!"
Both Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.
After our involvement became obvious and inevitable. Neither wanted the US to get involved. For that matter, Hitler didn't really want Britain to get involved, either. He was hoping to take territory unchecked. Mussolini was merely a pawn in Hitler's game.
Doesn't ISIS want to get wiped out? Doesn't that trigger the beginning of the Caliphate according to their prophesies? So they think that Trump will wipe them out. And he will.
The Japs didnt want a war with the US.
They saw themselves as up against a wall and were ready for desperate measures. They had painted themselves into a corner on China. The whole Pacific war was a tremendous gamble, and thats how they saw it.
The positive-negative thing works fine in arithmetic but what that has to do with English escapes me.
Hillary's Parkinson's dementia is progressing a lot faster than we thought.
Semi-off-topic, but this whole situation is getting closer and closer to a "Seven Days in May" sort of vibe.
Lot of desperate statements flying around, the US is seeming more and more politically unstable.
Buwaya puti,
Yeah, the rhetoric from the Democrats is increasingly disturbing- first the Russians want Trump, then ISIS? I really think, if Trump wins, the transition will be unopposed by anyone, but I am quite a bit less certain of that than I have ever been before. When you start tarring a candidate this way, it sort of backs your own supporters into a corner. What do you do if he wins? Do you, at that point, just say it wasn't true after all, and that you were just trying to get elected by lying?
Lets start over. Congenital liar, Hillary Rodham, says these mysterious leaders of this mysterious non-Islamic cult named ISIS (Obama said they were not Islamic), but short for the Islamic State, dropped a new-fangled electronic message to Allah on Nashir, an ISIS-affiliated channel, requesting Allah to deliver America to Trump - because Trump said he would "bomb the shit out of these suckers."
Now that might sound like a lie but Swarthmore grad and Yale candidate for her PHD and J.D., Mara Revkin, said it is so - and she published it in Foreign Affairs - but then again she has all this schoolwork, and all these side jobs and maybe she's doing a foreign affair with co-author Ahmad Mhidi.
So Hill's off the hook but not pathological liar, Donald Trump, who has these ISIS folks shaking in their shoes because he will send up to 30,000 troops and maybe even nukes to make sure all the shit is out of them. Everyone knows Donald lies, so why not these icicle Arabs?
Since many of those savages goal is to be martyred and Trump is much more likely to insure they will be killed, perhaps this is true. Of course, her lying ass didn't mean it that way.
it seems to me that Putin and ISIS would be rooting for Hillary instead of Trump.
Hey, Hitler declared war on the United States, not the other way around.
Just because they're our adverssry doesn't make 'em infallible.
Hillary is the one attacking ISIS enemies and toppling their governments, on grounds like WMD and that they are bad people.
Hillary is the one who has created this huge refugee wave that has overwhelmed Europe and led to their summer of terror.
So people who want to stop the warmonger support her opponents.
Wake up. Trump's big idea for taking on ISIS is let Putin handle it.
Is that preferable to his earlier promise to make US generals commit war crimes?
Hillary's idea is to destabilize Syria and get into a proxy war with Putin. Is that what you think is called for here? Did you learn anything from the second Iraq war?
Neocons for Hillary. MPH joins PB&J advocating for overthrowing governments in the Middle East and North Africa.
The question isn't whether ISIS prefers Trump (or Hillary). We certainly aren't about to let ISIS determine who we elect by seeing who they want and going with their opponent. That would give them some measure of control over our elections.
What is important is determining which candidate is more likely to stymie ISIS (I don't believe either of them is going to "destroy" ISIS, but at best they may hobble it). And far as I can tell they both seem to favor dropping lots of bombs and not sending in ground troops, which seems like a good way to look like you're teaching ISIS a lesson while not really accomplishing much. (That strategy is what Obama and Bush before him have been doing throughout the Mid East, and while we keep hearing about some "top number two" getting killed in a drone strike, it seems ISIS activity is still going strong).
Don't worry, though--it'll still cost us a lot of money.
HANGZHOU, China — President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to reach a deal Monday on a cease-fire for Syria, but the two sides have agreed to continue negotiating even as Syrian government forces close in on the beseiged city of Aleppo.
Meeting with Putin on the sidelines of the Group of 20 economic meeting here, Obama emphasized the humanitarian importance of and urgent need for a cease-fire, but he was adamant about not striking an agreement that wouldn’t meet his long-term objectives in Syria, said a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity under ground rules. - WaPo
What the fuck are Obama's "long term objectives" in Syria, a sovereign country and Russian client state? Why can't we just leave Syria alone? Why is it so important for the US to be involved in that civil war?
"What the fuck are Obama's "long term objectives" in Syria, a sovereign country and Russian client state? Why can't we just leave Syria alone? Why is it so important for the US to be involved in that civil war?"
Because if we drop enough bombs on Syria the Syrians will decide they love democracy and hate Islamic extremism. I'm sure while they dig bodies out of the rubble they'll take the time to think about the nuances of the situation.
As for Obama's "long term objectives" my best guess is he's playing for time until this can become the next president's problem.
The major lesson of WWII was that if Germany bombarded London from a distance for long enough, the Brits will would break and they would learn to love Hitler. That's what Hillary and Obama learned.
The real major lesson of Iraq is that if you aren't willing to stick out a war, don't start one. Hillary and Obama have not learned that lesson. It's the Democrats beating the drums of war against Putin and Assad.
So, media is pissy when Trump says he can read body language of intel agents and the intel agents push back --- but nobody pushes back here?
the beseiged city of Aleppo.
OMG Tim did WaPo really misspell 'besieged?'
"I think it would fulfill one of their dearest wishes, which is to drag the United States back into a ground war in that region," she added.
It's interesting these ISIS concerns exactly reflect left wing fears. What a coincidence.
And Clinton is now using ISIS as a campaign tool. It seems just weeks ago linking a candidate to ISIS was outrageous. Why do you suppose that changed?
@Yancey Ward:Do you, at that point, just say it wasn't true after all, and that you were just trying to get elected by lying?
That's what they are saying now about McCain and Romney, that all that stuff they accused them of was just lies but that it's really true, this time, about Trump.
Doesn't ISIS want to get wiped out? Doesn't that trigger the beginning of the Caliphate according to their prophesies? So they think that Trump will wipe them out. And he will.
ISIS (Sunni) is attempting to set the stage for the coming of the Mahdi.
A little context goes a long way.
It is not inconceivable that ISIS believes it is divinely ordained to prevail in some end-of-world Armageddon, and that someone so inspired might welcome a U.S. invasion, and figure that Trump was more likely to invade.
Nonetheless, the record for end-of-world prophecies is pretty dismal, and I'd guess few Americans believe the USA would not prevail in a ground war against ISIS.
Peter, my concern is that there are one or more 'Islamic bombs' at the end of this road, waiting to be deployed at some prophetic instant. I'm not expert enough in our modern military tactics to know whether we are practicing dispersal or other means that would counteract this threat, but any concentration of forces is a concentration of targets if you drop or fire a nuke on it. Or leave one behind as a booby trap, at some choke point or feature of interest. Or stuff one into a captured M1A1 and go VBIED.
Post a Comment