Obama’s ISIL Speech: Five Truths, Four Lies, and a Potential War Crime

5 Truths

Truth #1: "We have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland." This is an extremely important admission to understand. If there is no specific plot against America then America must by definition be acting preemptively to wage war on the organization known as the "Islamic State." Whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing, it is by definition, the truth.

Truth #2:"ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East." This is undoubtedly true. If American politicians wanted to combat such a threat, it would make sense to cooperate with the governments of both Iraq and Syria. The fact that the United States has thus far absolutely refused to cooperate with the government of Syria should make you search for underlying motivations for American intervention that are perhaps less obvious.

Truth #3:"Last month I ordered our [the American] military to take targeted action [to drop bombs] against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then we’ve conducted over 150 successful airstrikes on Iraq." This is undoubtedly true. The questions Americans should ask themselves are both procedural and moral. First, what procedures are used to authorize such action? Second, are there any transparent principles that unilaterally apply when deciding to exercise the use of violent force? Third, is the use of violent force morally justified in these circumstances?

  1. Domestic procedural considerations: The bombing campaign against the Islamic State was "justified" according to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This horrible piece of legislation states that the President has 90 days to unilaterally wage war on whomever he wants in the entire world at his own discretion so long as he notifies Congress within 60 days what he is up to, and absent further authorization, stops waging war on his own after 90 days. This means that there are essentially zero procedures in the American government to authorize war – it is always authorized. Congress would have to repeal the War Powers Resolution to necessitate any kind of debate.
  2. International procedural considerations: Many times since WWII legal authority for waging war has been feigned through "United Nations resolutions" and/or "international consensus." This was the case in Libya where a UN resolution was put forward in 2011 to state that force was permissible solely to prevent genocide of innocent Libyan civilians. This of course does not trump American law – which was simply ignored.
  3. Universally applicable principles: The most important principle to consider when attempting to ascertain the moral legitimacy of violence is the nonaggression principle – namely that the use of violent force is only morally justified in self-defense. What constitutes legitimate self-defense will vary from person to person which is exactly why the people should decide themselves when they want to go to war and when they don’t. That the President or even Congress should decide when to go to war violates the nonaggression principle because it forces those people who believe the violence to be immoral to participate in it either directly (those military members who disagree) or indirectly (through taxation and treasury monetization). The truth is that the people themselves – individuals – should decide when they want to individually and in voluntary cooperation with others (collectively) use violence in defense of themselves and/or others. Bureaucrats, whether elected or not, should have nothing to do with it.
  4. Is violent force justified: Is the situation in Iraq and Syria self-defense? Based on truth #1 above, and from the perspective of America, it is not. Does it, however, constitute the legitimate defense of others? This is very possible. The problem is that government action necessarily violates the beliefs of some in order to act in accordance with the wishes of others. In my view those individuals who are willing to fight in defense of innocents in Iraq and Syria should do so. Put your money where your mouth is, get on a plane, organize yourself with those who think like you, and go join in the fight against the international thugs known as the Islamic State. Stop leveraging the state to steal money from the rest of us to support violence that many believe is motivated by other factors and/or will not be solved and may likely be exacerbated via more state intervention. If the national military wants to fight abroad at all, then in my view, those who do not wish to contribute finances to the effort should be allowed to withdraw their support and those in the military who disagree with the "king’s" decision should be allowed to peacefully disengage.

Truth #4:"We cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves." In my view this is the most intelligent thing that President Obama said during his speech. Not only is the United States military not capable of solving this problem, its presence in the Middle East, the American government’s support for various tyrannical regimes, and the multi-decade long military occupation of the Middle East is very reasonably the root cause of the problem. Until this issue is addressed, bombing ISIL has zero hope of meaningful success. The real battle is one of ideas. The right idea is to withdraw American soldiers from the Arabian Peninsula for good – to retreat to our own homes and neighborhoods, to take care of our own circle of morally legitimate influence (American territory), and to withdraw consent from an American government that refuses to do so. As mentioned above, those that believe ISIL is worth fighting against are free to support those efforts with their own lives and property.

Truth #5:"The intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners, including Europeans and some Americans, have joined them [ISIL] in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries to carry out deadly attacks" [emphasis mine]. This is absolutely true. The FBI, DHS, NSA, CIA, and several dozen other redundant federal bureaucracies have more than enough resources to combat such possible threats that could possibly happen in the future without abandoning basic legal principles and without waging another extension of the perpetual terror war against anyone, anywhere, forever. The possibility or even likelihood that another terrorist attack will happen in the future is no reason to throw out the principles of "presumption of innocence," "due process," and the use of warrants based on meaningful evidence to investigate specific violent crime. Most importantly, the idea that the "fight" must be "brought to them [the "terrorists"] so "they don’t bring it to us" is a total inversion of reality. The reason for the growth of Muslim extremism is not rocket science: it is what happens when you have a foreign military power occupying and bombing your homeland for three decades. Until this extreme occupation stops, the extreme Muslim reaction to it will continue to gain traction. This is a death spiral whose only real solution is a humble, peaceful foreign policy that aims to export goods and services rather than force.

4 Lies

Lie #1:"We will not be dragged into another ground war in Iraq." This is an absurd distortion of the plain meaning of words. Less than 30 seconds earlier he says "we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground." In point of fact, and by his own admission he sent "several hundred" military personnel to Iraq in June, there were roughly 1000 there by August, and he is now sending "475 additional." The idea that Mr. Obama is trying to convey is that "military advisors" and "trainers" are somehow not active duty soldiers (which they are) and that the perpetual increase of these personnel to support one side of a violent conflict does not constitute combat troops in a war (which it does). This is mission creep and dishonesty at its worst. By phrasing things in such a way, Mr. Obama is trying to maintain the political distinction that his wars are different because there are no boots on the ground. I guess the "service members" are somehow not active duty military, or that they do not have boots on their feet, or that those boots are walking on something other than the ground in Iraq, or that the people they are supporting are not engaged in a ground war against ISIL, or that the airmen dropping bombs somehow don’t qualify because the earth their boots touch is 30,000’ in the air and made of alloy. This kind of stuff is why every honest American should be absolutely ashamed of their government. This is nothing more and nothing less than a bold-faced lie. It is embarrassing to listen to.

Lie #2:"This is American leadership at its best." That’s an opinion so it cannot technically be true or false – it is a value judgment. In my opinion such a statement is ridiculous. Several days ago the president admitted that he did not have a strategy. There is nothing wrong with such an admission – it actually makes sense to not have a strategy in this situation. What does not make sense is to start an ad hoc bombing campaign while saying you don’t have a strategy. Such a charade is anathema to the entire concept of leadership.

Lie #3: "I welcome Congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting it." Mr. Obama welcomes Congressional support for several reasons. First, legally he needs it within 90 days of the day he acted unilaterally (which was more than a month ago). Second, Mr. Obama welcomes Congressional support because acting unilaterally (especially violently) when a large majority of people think what you’re doing is wrong is very dangerous to him personally. Unfortunately, most people are on board with the perpetual state of war in America so he doesn’t have much to fear there. Most importantly, Congressional support does not even remotely mean that the American people are united behind what he is doing. I for one think his behavior is criminal and immoral – similar to that of most thieves and violent thugs that call themselves "government." It is absolutely impossible for the American people to agree on anything that anyone in government does. Democracy is a perpetual war of all against all and the idea that the American people are united in favor of more war or in favor of giving peace a chance is absurd.

Lie #4: "We live in a time of great change." Again this is an unknowable value judgment but in my view it is total nonsense. Change is constant, however, the same patterns from history keep repeating themselves over and over again. For example, the threat for my father’s generation was "communism." The threat for a communist living in my father’s generation was "capitalism." The threat for my generation is "terrorism." The threat from a terrorist’s perspective is unique to that person but likely united in general distaste for what they see as occupation by the state of Israel or the United States in the Arabian Peninsula. The constant throughout is that governments and/or ideological leaders on all sides order a bunch of people to go kill a bunch of other people they don’t know and the people on both sides generally do what they are told. What a scam.

One potential internationally recognized war crime

Obama unambiguously stated the following: "I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq." This is true in that American planes have already bombed ISIL in Syria in support of an unsuccessful hostage rescue attempt of journalist James Foley on 4 July 2014. It is unknown to me whether or not such action was coordinated with the Syrian government. That said, Mr. Obama’s statement is somewhat misleading with regard to an acknowledged bombing campaign of Syria at large. In my estimation he will absolutely hesitate to further bomb ISIL in Syria at least until 24 September 2014 when he chairs a meeting of the UN Security Council.

Why the UN Security Council is relevant: Nearly 80 years ago Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials, established the present-day international norm that the supreme crime against humanity is a "war of aggression." The Nuremburg tribunal established a novel standard that was adopted based on the understanding that another war to rival the Second World War was an unacceptable threat to humanity. Accordingly, international aggression is defined generally as a war that is neither in self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. It is clear that bombing Syrian territory does not meet the definition of self-defense because the Syrian government has not attacked the United States. While the international community may look the other way in regard to bombs dropped in support of an attempted hostage rescue of an American citizen, they may not be inclined to do so absent such a circumstance or after an open declaration by the Syrian government that such behavior will be considered "aggression."

Four points are relevant to consider with regard to an international resolution from the United Nations Security Council. First, Syria has never attacked anybody at all outside their own territory. Second, Syria is an internationally recognized government with internationally recognized territory and it doesn’t matter if the supposed American targets are ISIL or not if the bombs are falling in Syrian territory completely against the will of their recognized government. Third, the government of Syria has made it very clear that any bombing of their territory without the coordination of their government will be considered "aggression." Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem stated such on 25 August 2014, possibly as a response to what I presume was an uncoordinated American bombing several months earlier during the aborted hostage rescue attempt. Fourth, Syria cannot possibly be said to be harboring terrorists because they have been in a civil war against ISIL and those allied with them (covert American allies called "rebels") for the last few years.

The United States legally relies on a UN Security Council resolution and I expect that Mr. Obama will absolutely wait for one from this point forward. Therefore, look for the American president to lobby the UN Security Council for a resolution in support of an American bombing campaign in Syria when he chairs their meeting on 24 September. It is possible that Russia, with their veto power on the UN Security Council, could prevent such a resolution from taking place absent the consent of and/or coordination with their ally, the Syrian government. If such a requirement were to occur and the United States were to ignore it and bomb Syria unilaterally without coordination then it would be nothing more and nothing less than a war crime according to international law.

Justin Pavoni is a former Air Force officer and F-15E evaluator pilot. Pavoni has deployed twice to Afghanistan, served as a Special Operations liaison, and has flown 550 combat hours. Justin and his wife, Jessica, are in the process of leaving the military as conscientious objectors.

15 thoughts on “Obama’s ISIL Speech: Five Truths, Four Lies, and a Potential War Crime”

  1. Obama and his minions lie to america again ,Isis speech does not reflect his true intentions he is a domestic radical!!! Obama has done more to degrade america both home and abroad then any other elected politician in history! Our entire government has fallen to corruption and personal greed! Wake up america or we will fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!!??

  2. Well said.

    I have a problem only with the statement "We cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves."

    On a good day this would be a bit White Man's Burden for my liking. After, however:

    – having propped up Saddam & encouraged him to attack Iran in a lunatic war for 8 years beginning in 1980

    – encouraging (then pulling the rug out from under) the Kurds to rebel at least 3 times since the '70s

    – green-lighting the invasion of Kuwait followed by destroying Iraq putatively for invading Kuwait

    – sanctions that killed at the very minimum a half million Iraqi children while continuing a bombing run once every 4 days on average during the Clinton regime

    – re-invading & occupying Iraq on the ground under Bush, frequently feeding guns & money to religious fanatic death squads

    – attempting to overthrow the government of neighboring, stable Syria with a lunatic force that's moved into Iraq as well…

    … it seems more than a little sickening to begin talking about what Iraq needs to do for itself. Iraq was doing for itself fairly alright before we showed up.

    I'm not supporting the US moving back into Iraq, not at all. But I throw up in my mouth a little when someone like Obama, presiding over a failure of a country himself, lectures Iraqis of all people on self-reliance.

    1. Great point Chris. I totally agree. I did not intend for it to come across in the White Man's Burden sense of things but rather to make exactly the same point you just did. Cheers,


  3. @Chris

    Why stop there? Going back to even before US involvement in the region, there was European involvement in the region – and that was no less disastrous. Iraq exists today because of the Sykes-Picot agreement which was drawn up not by Iraqis or Syrians, but by the French and British. It seems that the time is coming for an end to this order that was imposed upon the Middle East and most of what we now call the third world – by Europe and by the victors of World War 2. The rise of ISIS and similar groups, whatever the eventual outcome, represents a failure of and potential end to the hegemony of western ideas and principles over the world (not that all of those principles aren't welcome…China for example has taken bits and pieces of western capitalism and ran with it)! The status of the US as a world power, and the legitimacy of the United Nations and its own brand of international law are very much at stake in this conflict (but don't expect anyone to admit this openly). The Supreme Leader of Iran recently made a statement about a new world order being upon us (not that there was any shortage of mention of such new orders prior to this newest chapter in the tragedy of Iraq). Now, we could be looking at one final attempt to regain control of the world by those who have held such power for so long. Only with our Creator rests knowledge of the unseen future.

    1. The problem I have with the notion popular lately in anti-war circles that the map of the Middle East should be redrawn (which seems to be playing right into the hands of Israel and PNAC/the neo-cons) is that very few people anywhere in the world live in neat nation-states that make any sense from ethnoreligious perpective.

      I live in the US, meaning a country comprised of Hawaii, Alaska, Maine, Puerto Rico and Montana, etc. What 'sense' does that make? What sense is there that people who speak Basque and Corsican and German all live in a place called France? What sense does China make, or India, Russian Federation, etc?

      The fact is that a country like Syria has incorporated people from a variety of religious traditions, cultures and languages who all have co-existed largely peaceably to this point, and who for the past century have had some stability through a form of centralized government & centralized institutions, even though the lines were not drawn consulting the locals originally.

      Balkanizing (as we literally did to Yugoslavia) these places will only mean constantly warring mini-states who will oppress or expel minorities, will be more easily manipulated by the West, and who will spend even more money arming themselves against each other.

      1. @Chris

        1 of 2…
        Thank you for your response. Firstly, the Vulcan-like neocons sought to quickly win the war in Iraq (they said that American troops would be welcome with rose petals) and then go onto Iran and Syria from there. That did not work, but if the neo-cons now say that the map of the middle-east needs to be redrawn, then this is only on account of their previous failures. Amazingly, they are still in positions of power and are given a platform to voice their opinions despite all the damage they have done. That to me indicates that there is something very wrong with the underlying system that goes beyond just viewpoints on where lines on a map should be.

        The matter is less about what makes sense, and more about what is just. The European powers that came into the Middle East (and Asia and Africa and South America and for that matter, North America) governed the local populace as they saw fit and economically exploited this whole region including its natural resources. You have to live there to really get to know how bad it was (and I don't mean live in some gated community of the ruling class). The people began to rise up (one such uprising is celebrated every July 4th) and so these borders and boundaries were created specifically to divide the local populations while proxy governments were put into power to act on behalf of the exiting imperial powers. But in the US, such influence was largely defeated as the 13 colonies were redrawn into the 50 states (plus a bunch of territories, not to mention military bases now in over 130 other countries). Read the contemporary history of any of third-world nation-state, and you will see the constant hand of outside powers influencing and intervening in the affairs of what we now call the third world!

        By contrast, the places you mentioned (such as the US, Canada, or France) gained independence from their colonial masters and then chose to setup nation-states based on constitutional democracy. In a lot of places (like Canada and the US) – the people were migrants (having relocated – to put it mildly – any original inhabitants). Thus, there is not a long shared history with regards to the people of North America as compared to other places. In Europe, including France, many wars and conflicts have been waged between nations and peoples. Peace came ironically, on account of economic prosperity that was at least in part, the result of conquering distant lands and reaping economic benefit from such empires. When we look at US support for Saudi Arabia or Russian support for Iran (and the conflicts between them)…this isn't different from how the old European colonial powers used to play the lands and peoples they ruled over though they were more direct. By exporting their own conflicts and gaining economic benefit from their colonies…they had more peaceful borders back home. Still, look today at the Texas-Mexico border, and you will see conflict relating to how the lines are drawn. The fact that Alaska is part of the US has a purpose as well, but since Canada has basically been transferred from France to the US (it at least identifies more with the US now), there is no conflict at the moment. Russia has lost a great deal of its former territory with the reshaping of its borders, and the current conflict in Ukraine is related to that. You mentioned how Syria has been for over half-a-century…but only two decades ago, Bashar al-Assad's father was bombing his own country without mercy!

      2. 2 of 2…
        But the issue (and more to your point) here is not just about nationalism and foreign-imposed borders and boundaries. It is about those boundaries being imposed for the express purpose of dividing people who had never been divided in this manner before, while leaving behind dictatorships, monarchies, and coup-loving military "deep" states to continue to protect, enforce, and take pride in those man-made euro-centric borders! The global powers benefit from their tyranny, global commerce flows regardless, and a new order comes into being.

        Naturally, one of the best forms of resistance against the tyranny of such states is to identify beyond those nation-states towards a greater, transnational identity and movement. Arab Baathism tried this and failed. National resistance movements still exist, but Islamic resistance movements have begun to compete with them. This is another point of distinction between the Muslim world and North America or Western Europe. The role of religion in the Islamic world is different, and Islam is a transnational movement at its heart. Christianity in the west has been secularized by comparison and thus, does not play that same role. Islam has a political, legislative, and economic component to it…which is not the case with Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism (and so, the adherents to those religions look to other systems to setup their societies…systems like capitalism, marxism, constitutional democracy, etc.).

        As such, the nation-states in the Arab and Muslim world today don't make sense to the people there because the people look back at their shared history and read their religious scriptures, and they find contradictions with that and what has been imposed on them from the outside (and is still being imposed on them whether by a local dictator or a foreign occupation). This is even true in non-Muslim regions as well – there is so much war and conflict to begin with…but when outside powers intervene (like South Sudan, Rwanda, and South Africa to name a few non-Muslim areas) – things become much worse. What you described with regards to the US or maybe other regions in the world – they may or may not make sense. But the tyranny of foreign occupation or foreign proxies no longer exists. There is no greater religious or other form of identity that transcends the existing constitutional democracy that is in place. Thus, it doesn't have to make sense (or, you end up making sense out of it :). Hope I was able to answer your question.

        1. Yusuf –

          Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

          I don't know that all of the past century the governments of the Middle East have been always loyal to the West at all, that the governments of the new states have concentrated on exploitation of natural resources & the local populations.

          Arab nationalists, Baathist Party leaders, Nasser, the erstwhile United Arab Republic, Gaddafi certainly… these people have made strides on the whole for their own populations, even if cronyism & corruption set in to various extents. Only in the secularist states – the ones without royalty, the ones who have given opposition to Israel and the plans of the neo-cons – are we seeing the call from the West (and Israel) to divide people along ethnic & religious lines and into smaller states.

          As best as I can make out people have had a strong attachment to being Iraqi, Syrian (look at the humiliating [for the West] overwhelming turnout to support Assad in an election, people chanting "Allah, Syria, Assad!") Libyan and so forth. Similarly people felt genuinely Yugoslav at one point, and so forth. The human life span is not 140 years, and no one alive now recalls a time before the post World War I lines were drawn. Certainly Lebanese people feel strongly about the country despite their internal differences, and dividing them is only good for Israel, while a united Lebanon has not been good for Israel.

          In the case of Iraq Sunni and Shia interfaith marriages had become common in the Baghdad area & the ethnic cleansing came only with occupation.

          I'm simply not sold on the idea that it's a wonderful modernization & act of justice to force Iraq to become 3 states divided along ethnoreligious lines, to partition Libya & so forth. Cui bono?

          1. Hey Chris, thanks again. Indeed, those growing up in these countries will have an attachment to where they grew up, what they called home, and what values were instilled upon them during their upbringing. The fact remains however that these values contradict their religion so should any of those you mention (perhaps during a mid-life crisis), decide to open up their Scriptures or go to a library and start delving into history…they will learn of the contradictions that exist from what they may have grown up with as opposed to what existed before that. Likewise, you can look at American history or European history and learn of life and beliefs and values that were very different from what now exists. Try to emulate the life of Jesus (as) or his Disciples for example, and you may appear more like a middle-eastern villager (or "raghead" according to some) as opposed to an average, secular westerner. On the point of you made, those growing up in a more Islamic environment like the tribal areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan or in an Islamic State that doesn't recognize the border between Iraq/Syria…will have the same affection and loyalty to that sort of state and ideology as what exists in the places you describe. On the point of independent Arab leaders…they are far and few between. Saddam Hussein came to power thanks to a CIA-lead coup that empowered the Baathists as a counterweight to Soviet influence. That is also how a democratically elected in Iran was overthrown for the secular Shah dictatorship. Libya was more in the European sphere of influence, but Gaddafi did finally agree to assist the US and the west after seeing what happened to Saddam (I will maintain that the west betrayed him after his about turn since they saw the people of Libya rise up against him). I'm not taking a conspiracy theory view that the Arab Spring uprisings were color revolutions setup by the west (some believe that). The main point though is that the overwhelming majority of autocrats in the Middle East and Islamic world are dependent on support and aid from the west or Russia, with Arab Nationalist leaders not being an exception to that. A few of these leaders got out of line and began to go against their colonial masters (and so they were put down, or betrayed altogether). Iraq is not being forced into three states…it is being forced to remain a single state. The plan to dominate Iraq was to establish a democracy whereby the Shia would control the country. This was the alternative to the loss of a secular Sunni dictator like Saddam (who again, was supported by the US when he fought Iran, but destroyed when he threatened Kuwaiti and Saudi oil). The Kurds were given autonomy and not counted as part of Iraqi democracy (for if they were, the Sunnis are a clear majority). So post-occupation Iraqi democracy give Iraq and Baghdad in particular, to the Shia groups (whose links to Iran are undeniable). The Sunnis finally said…lets break Sykes-Picot and see who the real majority is. The game of democracy was used to control and subdue Iraq, and thus, the disintegration of the Iraqi nation-state goes against western, imperial interests. Finally, tell me how states like Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Oman, etc. benefit anyone other than the western imperial powers? These tiny island-like states were created specifically to dominate the global oil industry and put that immense wealth into the hands a few.

  4. Barack Hussein Obama got what he didn't deserve, presidency, by being a "honest" manipulative politicians juggling with this or the other matter looking to see what is going to develop out of nothing.

    Being manipulative politicians doesn't mean that manipulating people is a "bad" thing, is just that Obama doesn't know what to do next, Which is the reason for Saudis/UAE/English and to some point EU been using his manipulation ideas to their advantage, Ukraine Neo fascism and state department $5billion dollars spending is the one, and the idea of Islamization of Middle East by what is called "moderate rebels" is the other. Such thing as moderate rebels never existed in Syria, is a fantasy, a delusional idea replacing the Islamization. Second is ISIL, which is the fifth barbaric military column trained by prince Bandar, paid by Saudis kingdom and all other caliphate system as Wahhabis, Salafis and other small to larger existing such regime in Saudi Arabia and UAE.

    The resigned Saudis secret service chief, prince bandar, used these barbarians in Yugoslavia beheading people there, so they were active in Afghanistan used by George W. Bush so in Iraq, now when Joe Biden wants to divide Iraq and USG desires to remove the legitimate Syrian government, these barbarians demand for their favor to be returned. Barack Hussein Obama should have seen that, as a democrat, preaching for democracy all over the world, he should have known who is friend and who is foe! Israel/Saudis/ UAE/English are defiantly not the USA friends, they are the military and political wing established by the other war party for USG/English foreign policy in Middle East, they never were and they never going to be the true friends to no one but themselves.

  5. Obama and his minions lie to america again ,Isis speech does not reflect his true intentions he is a domestic radical!!! Obama has done more to degrade america both home and abroad then any other elected politician in history! Our entire government has fallen to corruption and personal greed! Wake up america or we will fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!!??

  6. The resigned Saudis secret service chief, prince bandar, used these barbarians in Yugoslavia beheading people there, so they were active in Afghanistan used by George W. Bush so in Iraq, now when Joe Biden wants to divide Iraq and USG desires to remove the legitimate Syrian government, these barbarians demand for their favor to be returned. Barack Hussein Obama should have seen that, as a democrat, preaching for democracy all over the world, he should have known who is friend and who is foe! Israel/Saudis/ UAE/English are defiantly not the USA friends, they are the military and political wing established by the other war party for USG/English foreign policy in Middle East, they never were and they never going to be the true friends to no one but themselves.

Comments are closed.