Dec 28, 2017

 

Dec 28, 2017

Yeah but Obama killed more innocent kids and citizens than actual Isis members they were targeting. Obama’s drone obsession only made the Middle East hate us more. Way too many innocent lives taken because of Obama’s drone strikes

 

Dec 28, 2017

What is all this? Lol you claimed trump should be praised for making ISIS “much weaker” when in fact, ISIS was already getting weaker for years before Trump took office. ISIS was bound to lose all their territory regardless if Trump or Clinton won the election. It was just a matter of time.

 

Dec 28, 2017

VVeber is that brazilian looking s--- skin that always rambles about his "white supremacy" just btw

 

Dec 28, 2017

Shouldn't he? ISIS is a shadow of what it was a year ago and instead of crediting Trump's concerted efforts you put this down to Obama's half-assed phony war vs. ISIS, which killed more innocents than terrorists. Anyone can see that your partisanship is clouding your judgment.

Again:

What are you talking about? A few pages back I condemned Nazism (and by extension white supremacy), so this is an odd accusation.

 

Dec 28, 2017

omg u took the bait lmao

 

Dec 29, 2017

Like I said, Trump has had little to do with military advancements made against ISIS. This would have happened regardless of who was in the White House. Also, civilian casualties have risen substantially under this administration, as you can see. Probably due to the fact Trump loosened the rules of military engagement.

 

Dec 29, 2017

 

Dec 29, 2017

Remembered being very embarrassed when that happened.

 

Dec 29, 2017

I don't need the the NYT — whose bias is so strong and so nakedly obvious to anyone who has ever read literally anything else — and their cherry-picked “experts” to interpret data for me. Common sense assures me that if Obama were still president the fight against ISIS would still be progressing at the same snail's pace as during his entire tenure. The estimate cited in that article of 1,500 ISIS deaths a month under his administration is laughable. The guy was more concerned with defending Islam from criticism (or, as Trump put it, being politically correct) while arming terrorists in Syria than with taking out ISIS.

Another big hint that the NYT is talking out of their a--- is the part where they give all the credit to Iraqi efforts for the rise in deaths despite their claim that Trump’s “aggressive military campaign” ramped up civilian casualties (although again, not according to the ex chief of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, who maintains the opposite position on both counts). So in other words, by this account all Trump managed to do is k--- more innocents while contributing little or nothing to the imminent victory over ISIS, which coincided, by mere happenstance, with his first year in office. Yeah, I’m gonna call bs on that lol.

 

Dec 29, 2017

Obamas numbers are when he left office

 

Dec 29, 2017

Precisely lol. And as the NYT article cited, Americans military officials and experts agree that the fight would have gotten to this point regardless of who was in the White House. You’re in denial lol.

 

Dec 29, 2017

“Americans military officials and experts agree” - stellar journalism by the NYT as usual.

 

Dec 29, 2017

@Enigma youre ignoring the facts lol

 

Dec 29, 2017

They even provided a hyperlink. You can watch here:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?43440...al-dunford-testifies-reappointment&start=3152

Your arguments are just getting lazy.

I just cited an entire article that took quotes/statistics from the defense department and military officials. Like did you even attempt to read any of it? See here:

The reason why ISIS has rapidly lost land under Trump is all due to timing. He came into office with Iraqi/Syrian forces conducting/prepping for major offenses & thus taking large portions of territory away from ISIS. This would have happened regardless of who was in office.

 

Dec 30, 2017

My arguments are lazy? The claim that Trump's “aggressive” military strategy caused more civilians deaths but not more ISIS deaths and that ISIS' dwindling territory over the past year is due strictly to “timing” is sure to please Democratic partisans, but to anyone else it's ludicrously one-sided. That isn't critical journalism.

 

Dec 30, 2017

Thats libs nowadays. Anything positive is because of obama and anything negative is because of trump

 

Dec 30, 2017

Do you not see how much yoyr statements contradict eachother?

 

Dec 30, 2017

Whether or not his “aggressive military strategy” (whatever that means) led to more ISIS deaths is a moot point. The fact still remains that whether it was Trump, Clinton or Jeb f---ing Bush in the White House, we’d be in the same exact position we are in now. That’s not the NYT claiming that, that’s the military officials & experts who’ve been advising & observing this war.

Do you always post in generalities? Speak up. What is contradicting? I’ve been repeating myself here for the past 5 posts.

 

Dec 30, 2017

That isn't a “fact,” it's an opinion. Even the article didn't present it as a fact.

There you go again with your “military officials and experts agree” doublespeak, as though it's a given that everyone is in total agreement. There could be any number of dissenting opinions the NYT didn't factor into their assessment because it didn't fit their narrative that Trump is an ineffectual failure at whatever he does. The media does this all the time. Look at how even someone like William Binney was ignored/marginalized for casting doubt on the Russian hack claim.