Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
October 19, 2015
Training and arming terrorists is not cheap, and the US government has an obligation to stop Russia from blowing up all of its terrorists, says Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton took a big step away from President Obama’s foreign policy at Tuesday night’s debate, challenging him to resist Russia’s intervention in the Syrian war. She also recast her call for a Syrian no-fly zone, saying it is needed to fight President Vladimir Putin’s aggression.
“We have to stand up to his bullying, and specifically in Syria, it is important,” Clinton said. “I think it’s important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it’s not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of Assad, and we can’t do that if we don’t take more of a leadership position, which is what I’m advocating.”
Is a world war with Russia popular with the voter democratic base, I wonder? I mean, is this woman literally campaigning on starting a world war to protect terrorists?
Seriously, what dimension am I in?
This is nearly as unbelievable as Jeb soliciting $5 donations to protect his brother’s honor and run ads saying that exploding buildings are safe.
Bloomberg News then goes on to support Clinton’s proposal for world war.
One way of confronting Putin is to support the moderate opposition, including those rebels who have been supported by the CIA and are being targeted by Russian airstrikes. The Russian intervention and the war against the Islamic State are intertwined; to let Putin wage war unchecked is to risk undermining U.S. efforts against the Islamic State.
…
Clinton’s Syria strategy is not fully articulated. She has not laid out plans to pressure Putin or end the conflict. But she has gone further than Obama has, by saying Russia’s actions harm U.S. interests.
Along with supporting Clinton’s position on the issue in articles about her, the editorial board of Bloomberg has come out and demanded Obama start WWIII, publishing an op-ed similar to the one the Washington Post published a week and a half ago.
They are accusing Obama of being weak and cowardly for not supporting Jewish terrorist forces in Syria.
Say this much for Russian President Vladimir Putin: He knows the U.S. and the world will take him seriously only if they have no choice. This is the logic behind his military intervention in Syria, and it demands a U.S. response.
Yet U.S. President Barack Obama seems to be at a loss, warning Putin that he will make the war worse and that he’ll be stuck in a “quagmire.” The first is definitely true; the second may be eventually. In the meantime, too many lives and U.S. interests are at stake for Obama to stand aside and hope Putin will dig himself an Afghanistan-size hole in Syria.
Again, we hear of “US interests,” but we are not told what these interests are.
What, then, is the alternative? The administration’s main goal should be as simple as it is difficult: help the refugees, and by doing so help create the conditions for a political settlement.
…
At the same time, the U.S. should demand Putin use his influence with Assad to ground Syria’s helicopter fleet, which has dropped thousands of barrel bombs on civilians in rebel-held areas. And if Putin fails or refuses, which seems likely, the U.S. should be prepared to do the job itself. Russia also needs to be made to understand that if it targets U.S.-backed rebels or safe zones, the U.S. will expand its air war to include Assad’s forces.
All this will require a greater U.S. presence, of course, but it needn’t be in the form of combat troops — which, as Obama has made clear, aren’t forthcoming in any event. Instead, the focus should be on strengthening NATO’s presence in the region, especially along the Turkish-Syrian border, which would not only protect the safe havens but also interfere with Putin’s more dangerous mischief.
lol @ “dangerous mischief.”
One manifestation of that mischief is now unfolding in the northern city of Aleppo, where rebels who hold much of the city are coming under assault from Russian air power, as well as Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah troops from one side, and Islamic State from the other. Without support, Aleppo will probably fall.
More than a million refugees would then flee the region, by some estimates. Those remaining in the city, which is mostly Sunni, could not be expected to meekly accept the reimposition of Assad’s rule and would become further radicalized. Inevitably, some number of them would turn to Islamic State. None of this would bring the war’s end any closer, or serve U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Russia’s involvement in Syria makes an already brutal and convoluted situation even more so. That said, if the U.S. fails to respond, the conflict in Syria only stands to get worse. As a strategy, neglect is no longer tenable.
“Neglect is no longer tenable” means “do it, you coward.”
