Former DIA Director: 'Rise of Islamic State was a willful decision' by the Obama admi
- Thread starter 2bnot2b
- Start date
President Obama's former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn has told Foreign Policy Journal that the rise of Islamic State (ISIS) was a willful decision by President Obama.
All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State. And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that?
In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.
“Rise of Islamic State was ‘a willful decision’: Former DIA Chief Michal [sic] Flynn,” by Brad Hoff, Foreign Policy Journal, August 7, 2015 (thanks to Joshua):
In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.” [Lengthy discussion of the DIA memo begins at the 8:50 mark.]
Amazingly, Flynn actually took issue with the way interviewer Mehdi Hasan posed the question—Flynn seemed to want to make it clear that the policies that led to the rise of ISIL were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
Hasan himself expresses surprise at Flynn’s frankness during this portion of the interview. While holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan reads aloud key passages such as, “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did the State Department soon after its release, Flynn does the opposite: he confirms that while acting DIA chief he “paid very close attention” to this report in particular and later adds that “the intelligence was very clear.”
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on the Syrian regime:
Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you’re worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?
Flynn: I hate to say it’s not my job…but that…my job was to…was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be….
And you all thought we were exaggerating when we said that Obama supported Islamic terror groups....
All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State. And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that?
In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.
“Rise of Islamic State was ‘a willful decision’: Former DIA Chief Michal [sic] Flynn,” by Brad Hoff, Foreign Policy Journal, August 7, 2015 (thanks to Joshua):
In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.” [Lengthy discussion of the DIA memo begins at the 8:50 mark.]
Amazingly, Flynn actually took issue with the way interviewer Mehdi Hasan posed the question—Flynn seemed to want to make it clear that the policies that led to the rise of ISIL were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
Hasan himself expresses surprise at Flynn’s frankness during this portion of the interview. While holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan reads aloud key passages such as, “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did the State Department soon after its release, Flynn does the opposite: he confirms that while acting DIA chief he “paid very close attention” to this report in particular and later adds that “the intelligence was very clear.”
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on the Syrian regime:
Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you’re worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?
Flynn: I hate to say it’s not my job…but that…my job was to…was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be….
And you all thought we were exaggerating when we said that Obama supported Islamic terror groups....
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
obama and slaves ... and all of islam need to be in prisions
nuke iran and let allahabaha find the innocent ones
nuke iran and let allahabaha find the innocent ones
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
Hello, McFly.....
You probably liked them a lot better when they were known as the Mujahideen fighting the Russians.
Thems were the "good old days," fer shure.
You probably liked them a lot better when they were known as the Mujahideen fighting the Russians.
Thems were the "good old days," fer shure.
Point is what?
We were at war eith Germany and China.....
So your point is what?
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
No we weren't.
You didn't/never have seemed to have a problem with St.Reagan supporting the terrorist and giving them weapons....the very weapons they would use against the US later.
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
My point was this v v v v v
No we weren't.
You didn't/never have seemed to have a problem with St.Reagan supporting the terrorist and giving them weapons....the very weapons they would use against the US later.
so
Point is what?
We were at war with Germany and Japan.....
So your point is what?
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,325
No, we weren't. We hadn't been to war with them four a couple of decades at the time of that situation. I mean unless you're privy to something that I'm not where Germany and Japan were still fighting us in the 80's. I admit sometimes I glossed over things in history but I must have really screwed the pooch on that one!
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
so
Point is what?
We were at war with Germany and Japan.....
So your point is what?
We were at war with Japan and Germany in the 80's?
The point is from radical Islam to socialized HC when you criticize Obama and praise/defend St.Reagan for doing the same shit, you're just a partisan douche bag.
Last edited:
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,325
I wouldn't even mind if this was a case of people "evolving" on subjects. But we're talking about Syria? The place where Americans in general, Republicans in particular are 100% certain that Obama didn't do enough to help the rebels? What happened to that red line bullshit or should he have just let them be gassed. Hindsight being what it is we might be better off if we'd just said "You know what, get your country in check. I'm gonna be over here busy not seeing what you have to do."
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Since the second I realized OIF was about contractors keeping contracts and keeping the billing rolling for the war machine....NOT hunting terrorist....that has been my stance.
We either need to let them all kill each other and deal with whoever is left standing.....
Or we need to get the fuck in there and OWN that fucking region. Like 10 New American states status.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,325
While I'm definitely against war profiteering which is clearly what a lot of this is about I tend to be on the fence as to how to best deal with them. I think in many cases we don't understand how their culture works or why along with trying to pretend that Europe was any different for centuries upon centuries and the US is only different because we decided we were cool with Canada and for the most part Mexico and just didn't have anybody else to fuck with. So yeah let them sort their shit and deal with the winners is my default.
There are probably a few cases where I could justify stepping in but they are fairly few and far between.
Several of the countries have (since the fall of the Ottoman Empire) never been particularly stable for a number of reasons. Many of them directly the fault of the West if we're being honest with ourselves and the only people who seem to be able to keep them from slaughtering each other to the point of instable nations are the ones who have few qualms about killing enough of them that the rest realize who the head mother fucker is.
There are probably a few cases where I could justify stepping in but they are fairly few and far between.
Several of the countries have (since the fall of the Ottoman Empire) never been particularly stable for a number of reasons. Many of them directly the fault of the West if we're being honest with ourselves and the only people who seem to be able to keep them from slaughtering each other to the point of instable nations are the ones who have few qualms about killing enough of them that the rest realize who the head mother fucker is.
Similar threads
