Selective targets – how do you read this?

It hardly requires further evidence but let’s put some anyway:

195610_5_

First there was the phenomenon of Russian and US jets almost bumping into one another as the latter hovered about and observed whilst the former went in for the kill. Putin then asked why the western two would not join him in wiping out ISIS.

And now this pic above. Of course it was the journo who drew the circles and labelled the photo and yet – how did he know where ISIS HQ was? and if he knew, would POTUS have any inkling? If not, why not? And the Pentagon, thence the strategic command – were they aware?

Seems increasingly clear to me they could have taken out ISIS at any time or at least severely dented them. They did not. Instead, they chose the newsworthy and rah rah rah taking out of one man.

Now, after Paris – do you see arrests from the suspect demographic in Britain or the US in the way France is now finally acting? Do you see the slightest effort by Obama or Cameron to root out the enemy within?

Or do you see a cynical holding back internally whilst more provocation of our internal nutters takes place with random bombing in Syria? Am I completely out of order concluding that Obama and Cameron actually want something to happen?

6 comments for “Selective targets – how do you read this?

  1. john in cheshire
    November 18, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    JI’m in agreement with you; Mr Cameron’s plan is not what normal citizens of our country would expect it to be. If he and his government were interested in protecting us they would put a halt to all muslim immigration, for whatever reasons and carry out a search of all mosques in our country. But that’s not their objective, so all we get is propaganda.

    And while I think about it, who gave him and the rest of the politicians and unaccountable Civil Servants the right to bring into our country; it’s not his or theirs; millions of unwanted and unneeded foreigners, particularly muslims? I was never asked, maybe because if I had been asked I’d have said no.

    • Graham Wood
      November 18, 2015 at 2:00 pm

      Quite so JinC and fully agree. A working criteria for policy on immigration needs to recognise the fact that:

      “Immigration without assimilation iis invasion”.

      Uncontrolled and indiscriminate immigration clearly changes almost every aspect of a nation’s character and life – culturally, socially, politically, and certainly economically.
      Such radical change must never be on the mere say-so of a few politicians. (Let alone the ideologically driven, unelected, and unanswerable EU). Such a dramatic and probably irreversible change in the very fabric of society must be sanctioned or rejected by the electorate alone.

  2. Henry Kaye
    November 18, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    Did somebody mention “conspiracy theory” recently?

  3. Hereward Unbowed.
    November 18, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    Blimey, I looked at the photo and immediately thought – it looks like Brum!! Mind you, come to mention it – it could be any one of a number, actually dozens of British towns and cities.

    On the other thing, of course it is all choreographed and they all watch ‘Homeland’ too much.

  4. Flubber
    November 18, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Nukes may be out of the question, but a couple of MOAB’s would do the job…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9H50tHiHjs

    • opsimath
      November 18, 2015 at 4:52 pm

      MOABs would be good; FOABs would be better — four times the yield.

Comments are closed.