Trump: Obama Founded ISIS

This is why Donald Trump has such loyal fans … he “tells it like it is” by calling out W. on the Iraq War, and he calls out Obama and Hillary and all the neocons on how they created ISIS by destroying Iraq, Libya and Syria and flooding them with weapons:

Note: Russia Insider has been giving us some positive coverage. We share the same goals including peaceful coexistence, removing the neocons from power, ending the Muslim terrorist threat and ending US imperialism.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Everytime he opens his mouth six gorillian war experts die and wake up in hades.

  2. How many heads have exploded due to Trump speeches and diatribes so far?

    Fighting PCness since June 2015…

  3. It’s grimly funny, now that I think about it, that almost immediately after the fiasco in Iraq, which the Bush administration had bombed on the assumption that every Arab is really a Republican, the Obama administration abetted the bombing of Libya, on the assumption that every Arab is really a Democrat.

    • Is that Heather Locklear? Her face isn’t so far gone that she couldn’t doll up nicely if she hadn’t stacked on the pounds.

      • Yes, it’s Locklear, Silvio. The recent picture, on the right, is from a Daily Mail article that points out a lesion on the side of her nose. I think there’s a DUI mugshot, years old now, in which she looks a wreck. Whatever’s going on with her, it’s obviously not good …

  4. Groveling, anti-Trump MSM will discredit this as another one of Trump’s crazy statements, which means he should step out and let slimy Hildebeast inhabit WH (instead of Big House where she belongs).

    • Of course.

      Everything he says is a “gaffe.” He’s telling the truth: in the name of expanding “democracy,” they destroyed Iraq, Libya and Syria, flooded those countries with weapons, fomented the Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria, and even trained the “rebels” who magically became “terrorists.”

      • The neocohen goal was to destabilize those countries which Israel felt threatened by. They succeeded but produced the unforeseen consequence(?) of ISIS in the process.

        • “[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

          Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

          The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

  5. I really don’t get America sometimes. We’re supposed to be the land of the free and a democracy where government is accountable to the people. Then when someone like Trump criticizes the government and calls them out on their fuckups everyone gets all indignant and calls them a conspiracy theorist. I can’t explain it.

    • You don’t get it? It’s simple – Whites have no power, and are slated for extermination. Adolf WARNED us about ZOG. Easy peasy. We are under Jew Tyranny and madness.

      • I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about foreign policy. Like Captain John said, there’s a kind of “gentleman’s” agreement that we simply don’t talk about foreign policy failures. Two things in particular are weird about this

        1: it extends to people outside of elite circles. I get why people who lost their sons/brothers/fathers in the wars are reluctant to criticize our foreign policy, they don’t want to think anyone died for nothing. I don’t get why upper middle class people who think military men are dumb brutes act like its uncouth to say the government made mistakes. Then again, I don’t have the kind of personality that makes me want to suck up to and imitate elites.

        2: in this country there’s no real threat to saying the government made mistakes. If you were an Iraqi in 1994 and you said Saddam shouldn’t have invaded Kuwait you’d be jailed and tortured. The worst that happens here is that Mr. and Mrs. Cohenbergsteinowotz won’t invite you to their next dinner party. I’m not so autistic I can’t understand why people fear social opprobrium but when you’re descended from Soviet immigrants like I am this attitude of “we simply don’t talk about these things” is just bizarre.

        • That’s simply Human Nature. Humans like to flatter ourselves that we are smart, educated, and savvy, and do NOT like to admit that we’ve been tricked, scammed, and conned. Or just flat out wrong. We’re a relatively young country. We’ve been pretty successful, until the last 50 years. “Liberalism (((Marxism))) plays to our vanity like NOTHING else. This is why Lefties are do deranged and vicious. Their false religion doctrines are flat out WRONG, s well as destructive and evil.
          Americans are in for a VERY hard “fall”. Which Cometh after Pride, ‘n sheeyit.

          • Another cultural difference: Russians seem to be the only people willing to admit their country sucks sometimes.

    • I suppose there is latent agreement with these fuck ups that only expresses itself in the breech of good manners by buffoons like Trump.

    • Problem is Trump himself a few months back talked about how “were going to switch to the middle and win over the undecideds for the General Election,” yet all he seems to be doing is “preaching to the choir.”

  6. Somehow I’m not convinced peaceful coexistence is Putin’s final goal; world domination is more like it. I’m just trying to figure out which territories Russia gets and which ones go China.

    OD and American white nationalist types should be thinking much more about helping our brethren in Europe achieve sovereignty, especially the northwestern countries.

    • World domination is the goal of every government. The difference is Russia’s quest for domination is tempered by the experience of WW2 and the weakness of the Russian state after decades of communism. Americans think Hollywood gives them an accurate representation of war as glorious, heroic, and having a definite end. They also have infinite money. All this makes them more reckless and trigger happy.

  7. I’m done donating and volunteering time for Trump. I’ll mark his name in the booth, but that’s it. Christ what a fuckup.

    The actual truth about American foreign policy is more than damning enough. Nothing is gained by making retarded statements like Obama founded ISIS. He’s making himself and his supporters look like fools at this point and discrediting every positive idea he stands for.

    • I cringed too. But I’m determined to judge it by the reaction in the polls. It’s certainly disappointing to think that gross overstatements like this are what the electorate requires, but if so, so be it.

      • I think there is something to be said for the idea that the best propaganda is often the truth. Trump could have just stuck to the truth about US policy and made a very damaging point about Clinton at the same time. He is killing himself with ill conceived attacks, exaggerations, inaccuracies and outright lies.

    • You know, Lew, that I’ve shared your view almost point for point with respect to Trump’s screw-ups, but I really disagree with you on this one. Trump was obviously speaking figuratively–and pungently. He took a troubling, bewildering array of Islamist news stories from all over the world, including the U.S., and clarified it: This is Obama’s fault–and Hillary will be more of the same.

      Take a look at the below headline, in which the presumably literate Washington Post suddenly goes obtusely literal about Trump’s “false claim.” The article itself includes the following:

      A day after lobbing the attack against the president during a rowdy rally, Trump pressed ahead during a round of interviews. He brushed off conservative radio commentator Hugh Hewitt’s attempt to reframe Trump’s observation as one that said Obama’s foreign policy created the conditions in Iraq and Syria that allowed IS to thrive.

      “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do,” Trump said, using another acronym for the extremist group that has wreaked havoc from the Middle East to European cities.

      Hewitt asked Trump if he would acknowledge that Obama hates the Islamic State, noting that the president is “trying to kill them.” Over the past two years Obama has organized a broad coalition of countries and launched more than 10,000 U.S. airstrikes to defeat IS.

      “I don’t care,” Trump replied. “He was the founder. The way he got out of Iraq — that was the founding of ISIS, OK?”

      Really, Lew, I’d say that’s perfect.

      Here’s the link:

      • Trump could have made the same point with as much distilling force but without the easily discredited falsehood if he has just said “Obama’s policies caused ISIS.”

        Although, technically, that’s not entirely true either because GOP foreign policy is just as responsible for the destabilized Middle East if not more so.

        • C’mon, Lew: “easily discredited falsehood.” I’ll say it again: Trump was obviously speaking figuratively. Obama “caused” ISIS just doesn’t have the punch. That’s the Trump touch.

          • For fourteen months, Mestigoit, I’ve consistently drawn a distinction between Trump’s pointed political behavior and his inanities. Unlike you yahoos, who think you can scorn to oblivion the criticism he receives when he offends, I’ve admired the former, warned against the latter. If he hadn’t spent the preceding two days trying to lie his way out of the trouble he caused himself with that assassination wisecrack, he’d be in a much better position to defend himself against the charge that this ISIS remark is false.

          • ‘ If he hadn’t spent the preceding two days trying to lie his way out of the trouble he caused himself with that assassination wisecrack’

            I just watched his entire speech.

            The context of his comments in question was that he had been talking about the second amendment and choosing Supreme Court judges.

            The 37:50 – 39: 50 you can hear what he had to say.

            At 30:19 in summation on the matter he says, ‘But if you don’t do what’s the right thing you’re not going to have a second amendment or you’re not going to have much of it left.’

            So, what did he mean when he said,’ If you don’t do what’s the right thing’

            Certainly he implies voting not assassination.

            Much of his speech was about the need for law and order and respecting police and so on.

            Then in the midst of it he talks of taking out Hillary?

            Gimme a break.

          • The relevant portion of Trump’s speech was in boldface, Sam, in the transcript Mr. W. presented you at a previous post. If you will examine that transcript, you will see the following:

            “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”

            So–Trump is speaking about what the “Second Amendment people” “can do” “if [Hillary] gets to pick her judges,” i.e., if she’s elected. He’s not speaking about voting, i.e., about what can be done to prevent her election; he’s talking about what can be done after the election, should she win it.

            If you want to say anything in reply, Sam, you will have the last word in this our exchange, because I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. I’ll add, in closing, that the Southern man who was in Trump’s audience and who was startled by Trump’s remark construed it as an assassination joke, as is made clear in the article I linked at the other post. While the said audience member speaks, in the video interview that’s included there, it is obvious he’s assuming everyone else in the audience construed it that way, too. There is no other way to construe it. By crediting Trump’s denial, you, not I, are the one being fooled, by the wording with which Trump sought to give himself a smidgen of deniability.

          • ‘I’ll add, in closing, that the Southern man who was in Trump’s audience and who was startled by Trump’s remark construed it as an assassination joke, as is made clear in the article I linked at the other post.’

            So, one man makes an assumption.

            So what?

            The rest of the people in the video didn’t react the way he did. He was the exception.

            John, the other day I said that you’ve become quite the analyst considering you claimed to know nothing about campaigns and politics.

            You replied that you are a ‘quick study.’

            I saw this clip of Bill Murray. His last lines in the clip reminded me of you and I laughed out loud, I must admit.

          • That’s a fun clip, Sam. If you’ll look at the subjects on which I comment here, they’re not really “politics.” I didn’t offer any comment the other day, when Mr. W. posted his remarks about the details of Trump’s economic speech. I don’t recall saying anything when Mr. W. expressed his anger about Cruz’s failure to endorse Trump at the Republican convention. Mr. W. said, if I’m remembering correctly, something like, “I never thought I’d hate anyone as much as I hate John McCain and Lindsey Graham” (and once again, Sam, just now, I had to go to Wikipedia to check the spelling of Graham’s first name). Though I’ve heard a few negative things about Graham at non-liberal websites over the years, I had no idea he was a particularly-hated political figure; and as I think I said the other day, I myself don’t hate him at all, because I don’t know anything about him. The only thing I know is that he has a gentlemanly way, a mild Southern accent of a kind I like, and a family background that–if I’m correctly remembering what I recently read at Wikipedia–did not involve wealth.

            It’s the same with these things about Trump. I’m not really discussing politics: I’m simply discussing social behavior of his, behavior I find objectionable and unwise and thus self-defeating.

            Because of the transfer to Disqus, I guess, the old, old Occidental Dissent comments are no longer accessible via the internet; but years ago, I made a comment that was so clueless that Mr. W.’s response was a simple, “Duh.” The comment was something like–I can’t really remember it–but it was something like, “Well–are there a lot of blacks in Alabama?” I wasn’t joking: the question, whatever it was, was real. Maybe you will wonder how an American man could get into his fifties and not know these basic things; but if you were to check, you’d probably find a great many persons who are clueless in that way. That doesn’t mean they can’t tell whether a politician is doing something obnoxious or dishonest.

            Well, I guess that’s enough on that subject. As for the Southern man’s assessment of Trump’s Second Amendment remark, well, I’ve told you what I myself make of what Trump said. That man, who is a Trump fan, seems to have heard it the same way, and so does the woman who was sitting next to him. Whatever their opinions might be worth, they themselves are not “trolls,” “cucks,” or “liberals.” Each of them is a person who is hoping Trump will win–and I’m such a person, too.

          • you were cool as custard when Tommy Mair actually assassinated Jo Cox. I reckon that cost Brexit 500,000 votes. This 2nd Amendment people thing will bring out gun owners in droves.

          • Not sure why I wasn’t concerned that the Cox assassination might hurt the “Leave” vote. Probably, I was so bothered that the pollsters weren’t predicting a 90-10 “Leave” victory that I figured it was time for politics to get serious over there. If the existence of the British races hangs on whether the vote in a certain county shifts from 50.5 “Leave” to 50.1 “Leave,” well, then, why pussyfoot?

            As for Trump: He already has the Second Amendment voters. His goal at this point is to win over the small but decisive group that is not firmly on either his side or Hillary’s. The majority of that group is unlikely, in my view, to be charmed by an assassination wisecrack.

          • Actually, most of the polls showed Remain beating Brexit. I guess polls aren’t always that reliable.

            Example: ‘The Remain camp swung back into the lead in the three final polls before the EU referendum.

            The final poll conducted before polls opened was by Populus for the Financial Times.

            The survey of 4,700 people was conducted right up to midnight last night, and put Remain on 55%.’

          • I never did clarify that. Captain John said at the time, I think, that Leave had been surging; and I got the impression he thought the Cox assassination had helped Remain get back into the lead (in the polls, that is). Part of me wondered at the time–and still wonders–whether the killing of Cox put Leave over the top, on voting day. Captain John seems quite certain that the opposite is true, i.e., that the killing hurt the Leave vote.

          • PS Besides, you’re conflating assassination itself and joking about it. I wasn’t sad to see Cox go, but I wouldn’t want a British politician joking about it. (“Maybe my opponent needs the Jo Cox treatment. Ha, ha, ha.”) If a mob were to drag Angela Merkel out of the Reich Chancellery, or whatever her office is called, and hang her from a lamppost, I’d probably use a photograph of the lamppost as my computer’s desktop background; but still, as I say, I wouldn’t want a German politician joking about the possibility.

          • I’m not sure Trump was encouraging assassination as much as revolt. But as Hannity said in supporting him, Trump needs to realize there is a reason politicians use a Teleprompter. In a way running for office is the same as being on trial and you want to carefully keep to your lawyer’s (advisors’) script to make sure you don’t deliver a bungle that can be used against you. Not as bad as Obama with the press in love with him and only talk radio noting his “57 States” comment. Probably a extemporaneous misstatement for 57 state and territory primaries and caucuses, I think Obama knows we have 50 states, I hope at least. But a Republican is going to be pecked over as viciously as the Italian and UK tabloids misconstrued every little thing Amanda Knox did against her.

        • Obama is a lot lock Carter, total weakness bringing about the predatory instincts in formerly contained monsters. One thing I’d love to see undone is Carter’s giving away our Canal. What lunacy.

      • You have a lot of nerve, friend, constantly suggesting, behind internet anonymity, that persons are lying. Rare are the non-criminals who, in my view, deserve to be horse-whipped–but you’re one of them.

        • If this is about the email exchange on Romney, I did believe you. You are a good read. Don’t get personal. No offense was meant.

          I also read Lews comments he is also
          Worth reading. I like his socialist take on things. His critique of Trump strikes me as integrity.

    • Thank you,00Lew11!!
      I truly believe that Trump believes in Nothing,Other than Trump. That he has conned so many people by courting their justified resentments,claiming a saving economic Plan[when he has No Workable plan!] and catered to and encourage the Worst Natures of so many_their Anger,Fears,and their Bigotry is a disgraceful sign of the Low Level to which American political discourse has sunk. Trump says ANYTHING to Anyone he thinks they want to hear to gain their alliegance,then say the Exact Opposite to another audience for the same reasons. Donald Trump is a Manipulative Charlatan.

  8. WATCH: Donald Trump to protester: ‘Your mother is voting for Trump’


    I’m waiting for the hand wringers to come out in droves over this. When the media fact checkers track down the heckler’s mom and discover she is NOT voting for Trump the sh**t will hit the fan.

    Gaffe of all gaffes. Caught in big lie. Why can’t he stay on message? Worst day of worst week ever!


  9. Washington Post article at includes the following:

    “All the talk about [Trump’s] tapping an army of disaffected white voters who have been on the sidelines in past elections has produced little in terms of tangible evidence. Meanwhile, he continues to bleed support from prominent Republicans, who say they cannot support him in November.

    “One thing remains steady for Trump. His core supporters are thoroughly loyal and seemingly enthusiastic. His crowds remain huge. They are also a misleading indicator. The closer Trump gets to Election Day, the more those big crowds will distract him from the reality of the overall campaign. He’s in danger of permanently locking himself into a losing percentage of the electorate.

    “Trump continues to practice the politics of subtraction, finding ways to prevent expansion of his potential coalition. Rather than looking at weaknesses in his support and trying to find ways to win a few percentage points among particular groups of voters, his words and behavior do the opposite.”

Comments are closed.