International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Terrorist Exchanged For Bowe Bergdahl Now Top ISIS Commander
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://nationalreport.net/terrorist ... rgdahl-now-top-isis-commander/
Published: Sep 18, 2014
Author: National Report
Post Date: 2014-09-18 07:20:50 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 7052
Comments: 26
Mullah Mohammed Fazi, one of the five Guantanamo Bay detainees released by the Obama administration in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, has been confirmed to be currently in Iraq. Fazi, the Taliban’s former Defense Minister, is serving in a leadership capacity within the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. Reports indicate that Fazi, classified by a 2008 Pentagon dossier as being considered a high risk to the United States if released, appears to be heavily engaged in the systematic murder of Iraqs non-Sunni population. Internal Pentagon assessments say the strategy of wholesale slaughter carried out in ISIS occupied territories very well could have originated with Fazi. Many of the same techniques were utilized by the Taliban in Afghanistan to consolidate and strengthen their position under Mohammed Fazi’s direction. News of Fazi’s involvement in the ISIS caliphate comes shortly on the heels of a finding by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that President Obama broke the law when he exchanged five Taliban leaders for Sgt Bowe Bergdahl. The White House has “strongly disagreed” with the GAO’s conclusions. White House spokesman Eric Schultz has said that,”We reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully.” The Obama administration is worried that news of Fazi’s emergence as a top commander in ISIS will worsen public perception of both the terrorist swap for Bergdahl and the GAO’s findings of illegal activity. The two events, taken together, could generate sufficient fallout to derail some of the political agenda President Obama has for the remainder of his “lame duck” term. The White House has gone into full damage control mode regarding both developments. Unofficial word coming out of the White House is that Fazi has been elevated to the top of a prioritized drone strike list of terrorist targets. It is being speculated that the administration believes that it can mitigate a large portion of the potential political fallout if Fazi, and the embarrassment he represents, is quickly eliminated. To facilitate this elimination large portions of regional drone resources are being specifically tasked with finding and destroying the former prisoner. Senator John McCain has stated that he believes the GAO’S findings, coupled with Fazi re-engaging in terrorist and genocidal activities, could be grounds for impeachment. “The GAO has clearly declared that President Obama broke the law”, said Senator McCain. “The prisoner that President Obama illegally ordered released has joined another group hostile to our country and has led our enemies in the murder, rape and torture of innocent men, women and children. I personally can’t imagine anything worse a sitting President could do. In my mind it rises to the level of an impeachable offense.” It remains to be seen whether the House leadership believes Obama’s illegal acts in the Bergdahl exchange meets the legal requirements necessary to impeach. For now Fazi remains free in Iraq, conducting operations under the ISIS banner, instead of in the American cell where he was.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
You know this isn't true, don't you?
I don't know if it is true or not. Do you have some special knowledge on the subject?
Special knowledge? No.... but I can execute a simple google search in seconds..... http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/bergdahlisis.asp http://badsatiretoday.com/terrorist-exchanged-isis-commander/
Snopes lol. A liberal lying piece of shit. If you believe snopes you are stupid.
Sigh....... If you ignore the truth, you're stupid. "...Snopes lol. A liberal lying piece of shit..." Please cite examples of "lies" published by Snopes.
The "church" of Jameson. Meet his Pastors or maybe Gods. These two bosos that Jameson leans on are all knowing in his "mind".
Ok, so you have nothing.....right.? Of course not. Not a single example of "Snopes" publishing lies......
You are an amusing stooge. You come here and proclaim snopes is some kind of God site. That they are the arbiters of truth. When the people you worship are actually two homely liberal pieces of shit. You haven't proved this article inaccurate yet. You know the subject of the thread.
You're ridiculous, and this statement is a lie. The "national report" is satire. Look that word up, you clearly have no idea what it means. Your story is fake. As much as you want this story to be true, it simply isn't. http://realorsatire.com/nationalreport-net/ http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/05/fox-falls-for-fake-story-about- obama-personally/196304 http://www.onthemedia.org/story/news-website-nationalreportnet-fake/
That may be true. I said I don't know if it is true. I do know that snopes is run by snot dribbling liberal pieces of shit though.
So you feel that the people behind Snopes.com are "snot dribbling liberal pieces of shit".....right? Please tell me what has caused them to be a target of your hatred? Is it because they are different in their views than you? Are you so insecure in your commitment to whatever you claim to believe that you instantly label them (or anyone with whom you disagree) an enemy, and attempt to defame them? And FYI, I really don't care what their political leanings are, I do not feel that they are god-like, nor do I worship them. What is interesting, and what I hope you can learn from this discussion, is that it is not a binary world in which we live, and it is only when we choose to not limit our thinking that real progress can be made personally, intellectually, and spiritually. Wouldn't you agree?
I found this on the more credible site stormfront. The Indisputable Liberal Bias of Snopes Posted 07-28-2013 at 01:34 AM by Fading Light Tags email, liberal bias, snopes, voter fraud Snopes dot com is an extreme leftist propaganda misinformation source run by a husband/wife team with obvious liberal inclinations. It is one more in a long series of supposed "fact checking" agencies, like Politico, that establishes its reputation by correctly debunking trivial myths so that it has the credibility to get away with bending the truth to the left on major political issues. Snopes has been accused of liberal bias before. Unfortunately, the claims made in that article were utterly fallacious, probably due to being a false-flag operation by leftists to embarrass the political right. One does not need to go farther than Snopes' own articles, however, to see their leftist bias. The following excerpts are from the article titled "2012 Voter Fraud" on snopes dot com. It was retrieved on July 25, 2013 and any discrepancies between this version and that will be due to subsequent revisions if any by the authors of that site. 2012 Voter Fraud Claim: List cites instances proving voter fraud in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. FALSE Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2013] First point of contention: How does Snopes decide which version of an email to "debunk"? There were indeed many claims of voter fraud immediately following the election, some more reputable than others. Did Snopes choose an easy version, one with an incomplete or flawed list? Several major observations of suspicious events are not included here, never facing evaluation. Snopes should have to explain why they chose a shortened list when attempting to dismiss the accusation entirely. After all, if even one of these items DID occur as voter fraud, then there was indeed voter fraud. We will see that someone has curiously reworded the claims Snopes does list so that they can all be found "false" even when some of them are actually true. It's also worth noting that voter fraud truly DID occur. Voter fraud occurs in EVERY election. This is established fact. The question is HOW MUCH VOTER FRAUD was there. I will repeat that: The claim of voter fraud is true. What should be evaluated is how much effect it had on the outcome of the election. Origins: Claims of fraud have arisen after each of the last several U.S. presidential elections, especially since the 2000 election . . . That's a curious admission. Why didn't Snopes find it necessary to debunk the voter fraud claims from the 2000 election? Snopes has been around since 1995. Did they find it unnecessary to debunk claims of voter fraud when the winner was a Republican? Why? As shown below, all of the statements [the example email] comprises are demonstrably false. That is an important point of this analysis. The statement itself is false because, by their own admission, at least one of the facts listed in the example email is entirely true. Snopes excuses finding these items false anyway because of irrelevant embellishments added by an unknown individual or individuals to those statements. Snopes must have found these additions very helpful because if any of the items listed are true, Snopes is lying to us when asserting that claims of voter fraud are false. And the point remains in any case: Why does Snopes falsely claim that ALL the statements on the example email are false despite their own findings regarding the core content of many of them? This reveals their clear efforts to apply political spin for the left. Getting, now, to specific items from the list and Snopes' response to them, the email Snopes selected lists eight items out of roughly twenty-five that circulated after the election. (Again, one must ask why they thought most of them weren't worth discussing, but we will get to those.) "In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility)." It is true that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded no votes for Mitt Romney, but given the voter composition of the Philadelphia area (and some Philadelphia wards in particular) and the number of voters in each division, that outcome was hardly a "mathematical and statistical impossibility." So we have just seen the first self-contradiction in this article from Snopes. The very first item they listed is in fact perfectly true. Snopes seems to excuse their lie with the claim that there was nothing statistically impossible about 59 voting districts recording not even a single vote for one of the two candidates. And did the original source truly add the words, "A mathematical and statistical impossibility," conveniently so Snopes could ignore the fact of the matter? Do liberals actually consider it reasonable to assume that not even one person out of tens of thousands of voters might have a differing opinion? Do they assume Black people are all alike? This IS statistically impossible. The average voter precinct in the United States has 1100 voters. Snopes is telling us that it makes sense to claim that there is not one Republican to be found in a swath of sixty-five thousand people. Do Democrats kill them and eat them? Let the Snopes justifications for this absurdity begin: That result was hardly surprising given that, as the Philadelphia Inquirer noted, those wards are "clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia" and "nationally, 93 percent of African Americans voted for Obama." Snopes, I don't know how to tell you this, but 93% is not 100%. We understand that Blacks are very racist people in general; we have all seen the results of that over and over. Every incident that involves Whites gets ascribed to prejudice simply because a White person is involved. Still, in spite of all that, at least 7% of Blacks are not voting based on skin color. Are you telling us that somehow all of the racist Blacks live together in Philly? And since when is the Philadelphia Inquirer considered an unbiased source of information? Did Snopes fail to observe that the Philly Inquirer was purchased earlier in 2012 by a leftist activist, fundraiser, and long-time Democratic contributor? Might that not explain their weak and suspicious attempt to justify this anomaly: When the Inquirer went looking for Republican voters in some of those divisions, they couldn't find any. How hard did they look? Turns out not very hard: Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the [28th] ward's third division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes. How convenient! Did you try for many days? Did you call while they were at work? And this makes reference to twelve Republicans in just one division. If that is typical--and there's no reason to assume it isn't, then there should be seven hundred Republican voters in those fifty districts, NOT ZERO. Did all 700 recently move away? Did they die? And if so, did they vote Democrat even though they were dead? That last question is valid since one has to wonder why Snopes doesn't consider it possible that voter fraud is occurring when, by their own direct admission, the voter registration lists are out of date: How do the districts even know who can vote there if their information is out of date? No, Snopes, you lied to us; it IS impossible that there were no Republicans in all those districts. The conditions you admit to are perfect for voter fraud, and that is the most likely explanation for this incredibly improbable outcome. Hundreds of registered Republican voters in a large, contiguous region all turned up missing on voting day. What are the odds in that? ZERO. Next item on the list: In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations — and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility). I placed the phrases "Wood County Ohio," "inspectors," and "Obama" into Google and got 9000 hits. Almost none of them make the claim being "debunked" here. In fact, going through the first twenty hits (which I invite you to do), I could not find ANY from earlier than 2013 making this claim, though I admit that one of the sites was impossible to get a page-creation date from. So if this claim is so rare, why did Snopes choose to "debunk" it? Why didn't they choose some of the other dozen or so items floating around out there? We already know why: This one was easy to defeat. In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters. This is the first COMMON and FALSE claim from Snopes' list. They make no attempt to explain the source of the faulty numbers, just leaving the reader to assume that some evil right-winger made them up. In fact, someone did screw up pretty badly here, and should be embarrassed, but the mistake was a result of misunderstanding data, not outright fabrication. Snopes points out correctly that the county in question had a turnout of 64,342 voters of an eligible 108,014 registered people. So where do the other two numbers comes from? 106,258 was the count of eligible voters from September 17th of the same year by a Cleveland newspaper, the Plain Dealer. 98,213 was the 2010 Census count of the population over 18 living in the county. Someone found themselves asking how there can be over a hundred thousand registered voters in a county with only 98 thousand citizens of eligible age. It was an easy mistake for a novice, but a mistake nonetheless. You can register to vote in a county you don't live in if you find that more convenient, which apparently several thousand people there did, and the population has grown since 2010, too. The next three items on the list were undoubtedly chosen for "debunking" because they are again easy prey due to silly mistakes by inexperienced people confused by peculiar voting systems. Then Snopes decides to repeat one of the items: In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters. Without any doubt at all, this was simply the result of a typo and was meant to say, "In AN Ohio County . . ." The number "108%" was mentioned in every instance of the prior question that I could find except, magically, the Snopes version. They pretend they don't see this curiously recurrent number from before, and chalk themselves up another tally mark in defeating the entire voter-fraud claim. This is a pretty standard liberal tactic--strawman arguments. Again, they imply that there were many forms of the voter-fraud email circulating, so why did they pick one with an obvious repeated item? Are they trying to find the truth or trying to win an argument by the shortest path? Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote. This statement AS CIRCULATED is again completely true. Obama DID lose in every state that required a Photo ID. Notice the subtlety, however: SOMEONE has modified the statement so that it could be easily debunked by including the inverse statement as well. The original claim undoubtedly came from the American Freedom Party website article of November seventh, 2012. It makes no attempt to claim the inverse that has been added here. AFP goes on to note the strong correlation between states that do not require any ID at all and Obama wins. The official count--which Snopes does not find worthy of mention--is that there were 19 states that did not require any ID, and Obama won all but two of them. This is curious. It's curious because some apologists have attempted to explain the four photo-ID states that Obama lost as being the result of political leanings of the state driving their attitude about voter ID, but does not explain why on earth liberals would oppose having voters prove their identity unless they want people to be able to commit voter fraud. And what about all the other fraud claims that Snopes never addresses? Here is a partial list of those: According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day. Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama. Well, Snopes, what about it? You didn't think broken voting equipment was worth discussing? Not even with this finding: In Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.” He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes. Why didn't Snopes find this worth discussing? In fact, voting machines were screwing up all over the nation. There is video footage of it happening. This really occurred, and was reported from numerous places the day OF the election. The equipment that huge amounts of money was spent on to process the most important election of our system's cycle was switching votes! Snopes doesn't think it is important. Voting isn't picking out a dvd from a Redbox machine; why were the manufacturers unable to design a voting machine that didn't "accidentally" switch votes? Shouldn't this be a subject of a major investigation? Don't we deserve an answer to the obvious questions about how many votes were switched, what fraction of those votes were switched from Romney to Obama instead of Obama to Romney, and how on earth the manufacturers justify this problem in the first place? Shouldn't they be facing not only a massive lawsuit, but probably prison time for election fraud? What about it, Snopes? Republican poll watchers were illegally removed from several districts. Wasn't this worth discussing, Snopes? It really did happen. The Washington Examiner was able to list several of them by precinct. Doesn't that seem suspicious, Snopes? What other possible reason could there be for Democrats kicking out Republican pole monitors than to tamper with the voting? Why on earth would you leave this off your list, Snopes? I think I can guess why. In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots. What about it, Snopes? This really happened, too. Both Breitbart and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette discussed it. This IS voter fraud, by definition. There really was voter fraud in this election. There is voter fraud in EVERY election, so why did you lie and claim that there was no voter fraud? What gives you the right to pronounce the overall claim of voter fraud "false" when it is indisputably NOT false? Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted. In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted. This IS voter fraud, isn't it? Why didn't this one make your list, Snopes? This, too, really did happen. Oh wait, I just answered my own question. Prior to election day, an Obama-for-America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state. This IS voter fraud, is it not, Snopes? This really happened. Snopes has last revised the page in question as of January 2013. They could have expanded their list in that time, but they obviously desire to keep their conclusion listed as "false" instead of "partly true." After all, partly true would reflect badly on liberals. Snopes' leanings are perfectly clear and anyone who tries to tell you that they're politically neutral is full of crap! Snopes is a leftist propaganda site. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/blogs/u227045-e3434/
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNational Report
#2. To: Jameson (#1)
You know this isn't true, don't you?
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
I don't know if it is true or not. Do you have some special knowledge on the subject?
#4. To: Jameson (#3)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
If you believe snopes you are stupid.
#7. To: Jameson (#5)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#7)
#9. To: Jameson (#8)
Ok, so you have nothing.....right.?
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)
You come here and proclaim snopes is some kind of God site.
#11. To: Jameson (#10)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#11)
I do know that snopes is run by snot dribbling liberal pieces of shit though.
#17. To: Jameson (#15)
Replies to Comment # 17.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]