• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Shootouts and explosions in Paris

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn was the senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command. Flynn said he had repeatedly warned the administration that it was arming extremist elements aiming for a caliphate in western Syria. The interviewer asked:

INTERVIEWER: 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.

INTERVIEWER: 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.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1oEoCRkLRI
 
Maximus said:
:chuckle:

WHITE HOUSE GAVE ISIS 45 MINUTE WARNING BEFORE BOMBING OIL TANKERS
Why did it take 15 months for the U.S. to target the Islamic State's oil infrastructure?
Paul Joseph Watson - NOVEMBER 23, 2015 1263 Comments




The Obama White House is giving ISIS a 45 minute warning before bombing their oil tankers by dropping leaflets advising potential jihadists to flee before air strikes in Syria.

“Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them. Warning: air strikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life,” the leaflet reads.

The leaflet drops are justified under the premise that the oil tanker drivers might be civilians and not ISIS recruits, although it’s an explanation that doesn’t wash with critics.

“It’s not like these drivers are innocent, uninvolved ‘civilians’ like children or sick people,”writes J.E. Dyer. “They’re waging ISIS’s war, just like the other non-uniformed participants who make up 100% of ISIS’s ranks. This is how far the Obama administration is going to avoid “collateral damage” — and who knows, it may be worse.”

FrontPageMag’s Daniel Greenfield makes a similar point, commenting, “So after all this time, they came up with a great plan; drop flyers on ISIS trucks so that the drivers, who may or may not be ISIS members, can run away in time. Meanwhile ISIS gets 45 minutes of warning.”

Compare the Obama White House’s approach to fighting ISIS to that of Russia.

While it took the U.S. fifteen months to even begin targeting ISIS’ oil refineries and tankers, air strikes by Moscow destroyed more than 1,000 tankers in a period of just five days.

In comparison, Col. Steve Warren said that the U.S. had taken out only 116 tanker trucks, the “first strike” to target ISIS’ lucrative black market oil business, which funds over 50 per cent of the terror group’s activities.

U.S. air strikes targeting ISIS oil assets are so rare that PBS was caught using footage of Russian fighter jets bombing an oil storage facility in Syria and passing it off as evidence of the U.S. targeting the Islamic State’s oil infrastructure.

U.S. military pilots have also confirmed that they were ordered not to drop 75 per cent of their ordnance on ISIS targets because they could not get clearance from their superiors.

“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif, while retired four-star U.S. general Jack Keane labeled the policy ” an absurdity from the beginning.”

Numerous analysts claim that the Obama White House’s fifteen month wait before it began targeting the primary funding mechanism behind ISIS was part of a tacit policy to help the Islamic State overthrow Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Earlier this year a document emerged confirming that the Pentagon foresaw the rise of ISIS and that western support for Al-Qaeda groups and other anti-Assad rebels in Syria would lead to the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” that would help to “isolate” Assad.

“The bottom line – the almost irrefutable truth – is that the US and its regional allies were all-in on the “use Sunni extremists to bring about regime change in Syria” strategy from the word “go”, and the direct result of that strategy is ISIS,”reports Zero Hedge, adding, “The US didn’t want to cut off Islamic State’s funding, because without money, the group couldn’t fight Assad.”

The New York Times is also reporting that US Central Command may have engaged in a year long effort to deliberately conceal the fact that the United States’ plan to demolish ISIS was not effective.

Evidence also continues to emerge that ISIS is receiving support from state sponsors of terror like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

$800,000,000 worth of ISIS oil has been sold in Turkey, a supposed U.S. ally. ISIS trucks are routinely allowed to cross back and forth between the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa and Turkey, while the NATO country facilitates black market oil sales on behalf of the terror group.

As Nafeez Ahmed documents, a large cache of intelligence recovered from a raid on an ISIS safehouse this summer confirms that “direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now ‘undeniable.’”
Click to expand...


$800MM ?!?

We need to put a stop to that nonsense with Turkey.
 
Leaderless

November 23, 2015
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/111254/leaderless
RON FOURNIER

In his memoir, Leon Panetta argued that for all of Barack Obama’s strengths, he is missing an essential ingredient of leadership. He lacks “fire,” wrote Obama’s former CIA director and Pentagon chief. “The president relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.”

Obama has proved Panetta right again and again during his presidency, but never more dangerously so than with his shoulder-shrug approach to ISIS. Obama called it a “J.V. team” before it started beheading Americans. He said it was“contained” before it attacked Paris. Now he’s calling it “a bunch of killers with good social media.”

That’s how you describe a street gang—a bunch of killers with good social media. The Islamic State is no street gang.

Objective observers from across the political spectrum took exception to Obama’s tone. This from Frank Bruni, a liberal-minded New York Times columnist:

He was at his worst just after the Paris attacks, when he communicated as much irritation with the second-guessing of his stewardship as he did outrage over Paris and determination to destroy the Islamic State, or ISIS.

He owed us something different, something more. He’d just said, the day before Paris, that ISIS was contained and that it was weakening, so there was an onus on him to make abundantly clear that he grasped the magnitude of the threat and was intensely focused on it.

From Obama we needed fire. Instead we got embers, along with the un-presidential portrayal of Republicans as sniveling wimps whose fears about refugees were akin to their complaints about tough debate questions.

There it is again—“from Obama we needed fire.”

The man who so aptly diagnosed Obama’s tonal weakness, Leon Panetta, appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday to demand more leadership against ISIS. This time, he stuck to substance—and was no less devastating.

“I think the U.S. has to lead in this effort because what we’ve learned a long time ago is that if the United States does not lead, nobody else will,” Panetta said. He blamed Obama for under-serving his promise to disrupt and defeat ISIS. “I think that the resources applied to that mission, frankly, have not been sufficient to confront that.”

Panetta is not alone among Democrats worried about Obama’s approach. Leading Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein told Face the Nation that the United States is not doing enough to fight the Islamic State.

“We need to be aggressive,” she said. “Now.”

Personally, I’m no hawk. I’m not convinced the United States needs more ground troops in the Middle East, certainly not without a radical rethinking of how the war against ISIS would require shared sacrifice. I am sympathetic to the fact that Obama faces no easy options after inheriting President Bush’s ill-conceived war in Iraq. And I’ve got absolutely no patience for the GOP presidential field’s hyperbolic, dishonest, and bigoted rhetoric.

But there is only one commander-in-chief, and ours is stubbornly clinging to a strategy against ISIS that lacks clarity, creativity, and urgency. There is only one president, and ours doesn’t seem to know how to rally us to a common cause.

Look at this Twitter feed from Ron Klain, a leading Democratic consultant who served as Obama’s Ebola czar. He recalls the irrational, politically charged calls to close U.S. borders to people from nations stricken by the disease—a panic not unlike the one over Syrian refugees today. “Ebola experience offers three lessons for managing fears,” Klain writes.

1. Acknowledge and address the public’s fear. Don’t dismiss it as illegitimate. “That only exacerbates fears and fuels doubts about leaders’ candor.”

2. Explain the dangers of “giving into fears.” Inaction is riskier than action.

3. “Show that government has a plan to manage the risk—not ignoring the risk, but taking active, serious steps to reduce it.”

Klain didn’t say this but I will: On ISIS, Obama breaks every rule. He minimizes the threat and dismisses our fears, which raises doubts about his candor and capability. An overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of ISIS, a new poll shows, and 81 percent think ISIS will strike the United States.

In July 2013, six months into his second term, I wrote a column that questioned whether Obama would fulfill his enormous potential, whether he even cared anymore about his promises to change Washington, whether he could write the modern rules of the presidency and build a new bully pulpit. I asked, “What if Obama can’t lead?”

I now have my answer.
 
Not that I disagree with the article, but, it's always important to consider the source:

In July 2008, while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the death of Pat Tillman, they uncovered a 2004 email from Fournier to Karl Rove encouraging him to "keep up the fight."[5]

On August 23, 2008, following U.S. Senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's announcement of his selection of Senator Joe Biden as a running mate, Fournier wrote a widely circulated piece titled "Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence".[6] A Washington Monthly columnist described the piece as "mirror[ing] the Republican line with minimal variation".[7] Editor & Publisher noted that Fournier's article "gained wide linkage at the Drudge Report, Hot Air and numerous other conservative sites...." and was targeted by MoveOn.org for alleged bias.[8]

In February 2013, Fournier wrote a column about breaking ties with a White House official after a pattern of "vulgarity, abusive language" and "veiled threat(s)", but did not identify the official due to his policy of granting blanket automatic anonymity to all his sources.[9] Fournier received some criticism from commentator Glenn Greenwald for behaving in a "petulant" manner and for his policy on anonymity for sources.[10]
 
A dozen hazmat suits have been stolen from a Paris hospital...
 
Maximus said:
A dozen hazmat suits have been stolen from a Paris hospital...
Click to expand...

Why would suicide bombers need hazmat suits?

I'd venture to guess it was instead someone who worked there.. Building their fallout shelter.
 
gourimoko said:
Why would suicide bombers need hazmat suits?

I'd venture to guess it was instead someone who worked there.. Building their fallout shelter.
Click to expand...

The Prime Minister warned of the possibility of chemical or biological attacks 3 days before they were stolen. Authorities are now worried that the terrorists took the 12 suits. But, yeah, it could easily be someone who works there taking them for their family or something.
 
Maximus said:
The Prime Minister warned of the possibility of chemical or biological attacks 3 days before they were stolen. Authorities are now worried that the terrorists took the 12 suits. But, yeah, it could easily be someone who works there taking them for their family or something.
Click to expand...
Really don't want to get into the specifics but there's a very limited number of agents in which you would need a hazmat suit simply to handle the munitions. It's possible such agents could have been procured in Syria.
 
Who knows, could be terrorists, could just be a petty thief. All I know is if it is the latter there is a scared-shitless guy out there who stole the wrong thing at the wrong time. Not really sure what Daesh guys would need hazmat for- they are trying to be 'martyrs', so I assume as a disguise? Maybe they think silly Westerners wear hazmat suits like burqas and they can sneak into areas without people looking underneath? Wait, don't 'professional' non addict meth makers use hazmat suits when producing? I think the answer here might be more obvious.
 
gourimoko said:
Why would suicide bombers need hazmat suits?
Click to expand...

To not commit suicide and apply chemical agents in the populations food or water supply while at the same time carrying out radical Islamic views?

Sounds like the smart move but accessing these avenues is obviously much tougher than sending in random's to blast the unsuspecting public with bullets.

With that said, we don't have any context for the time in which the suits were stolen. Were they stolen overnight or are these missing items over a long period of time? The article states that these items were accessed by just about anybody who has access to a five finger discount but gives no real information as to the timeframe. It also states that there were 3 times as many boots stolen than suits. What good are boots without the hermetically sealed suit?

The question isn't whether an agent was procured in Syria, but rather if these items were used as swag in some guys costume party as far as the information made available is concerned.
 
Last edited:
ICYMI today....


The students later painted the America flag over it I believe.
 
jesus christ i would assume it will get deleted soon but do not open that tweet and scroll down to the end of the convo

some guy who is apparently an isis supporter posted images of some dead bodies on a stretcher
 
JSS2306 said:
To not commit suicide and apply chemical agents in the populations food or water supply while at the same time carrying out radical Islamic views?

Sounds like the smart move but accessing these avenues is obviously much tougher than sending in random's to blast the unsuspecting public with bullets.

With that said, we don't have any context for the time in which the suits were stolen. Were they stolen overnight or are these missing items over a long period of time? The article states that these items were accessed by just about anybody who has access to a five finger discount but gives no real information as to the timeframe. It also states that there were 3 times as many boots stolen than suits. What good are boots without the hermetically sealed suit?

The question isn't whether an agent was procured in Syria, but rather if these items were used as swag in some guys costume party as far as the information made available is concerned.
Click to expand...

This is besides the point.

The point is that to handle those munitions you don't need a hazmat suit. There's only a very few agents that one would need such degree of protection simply to handle.

This is why it's highly unlikely that terrorists would have stolen hazmat suits to perpetrate any attack.

The more likely scenario is someone working at the facility took the suits or misplaced them. And given that there were so many pairs of boots taken (45+), it sounds like the inventory controls of this facility aren't very secure. It would seem people were helping themselves non-stop.

p.s.
The poisoning of food and water supplies is just F.U.D., that's not something an individual or set of individuals can do easily.

A terrorist attack with chemical/biological agents would take the form of an explosive/aerosol device.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top