ISIS are pure evil.

LorMal

renegademaster wrote: »

we're drowning in proof of all this, there's literally 100's of cases proving on record the yanks and more have been stirring **** and guess who comes out on top all the time????????

What a lot of old bollocks

Tail Docker

LorMal wrote: »

That makes no sense. It has cost them trillions.

LOL. Who is "them"? The US taxpayer. What did they buy? Guns and bombs and literally container loads of cash to be fcuked "hither and tither". It didn't cost them, it cost someone though.

Tail Docker

donegal__road wrote: »

In the main, all commodities are traded internationally using the US dollar.

In 2000, Sadam planned to drop the Dollar in favour of the Euro to trade oil.

The US moved on him within 12 months.

In 2011, Gadafi planned to launch the African Dollar, and use it in place of the US petro-dollar to trade oil. The US moved on him within months.


Last year, Iran began swapping oil for commodities such as gold, with India, China and Turkey, instead of using the US dollar.

3 American aircraft carriers moved towards Iran via the Gulf of Oman within a week of this.

I know. I just couldn't be bothered spelling it out for the dummies down the back.

renegademaster

LorMal wrote: »

That makes no sense. It has cost them trillions.

cost who trillions? the tax paying serfs that's who!!

donegal__road

LorMal wrote: »

Perhaps they have learned that it's easy to go in, but another story to extract

I dont buy that... 4,000 'illegal combatants'... that is very small fry, come on for god's sake... think about it.

No on has to 'go in' except the guy who drives from his home in Connecticut to his office in NY, where he sits at a computer and drives a drone hovering over Iraq, with highly sensitive radar and missile striking capabilities... this guy could single-handedly wipe out ISIS in a morning's work.













.

DeadHand

Tail Docker wrote: »

Another view - Not even some hard-line Jihadis are convinced that ISIS are genuinely fighting for the Muslim world. So what is the reasoning behind them? I believe they are being funded and promoted as a bogey-man to justify military action, like I said, WMD2. Or is Krymsky biased too?

They are in no way fighting for the "Muslim world". They are fighting to force their own narrow and murderous interpretation of Islam on the Middle East. The bulk of their victims have been Muslim, the forces resisting them as we speak are predominantly Muslim (Peshmerga, Iraqi army, Assad's Syria, Lebanese army, Hezbollah) and the surrounding, regional powers that despise them and, I believe, will be instrumental in their eventual and well deserved demise are Muslim (Turkey, Iran).

Far from fighting for the Muslim world they are a grave threat to it and to all the civilized nations of the Middle East.

Your "theory" is infantile, anti-American excrement.

Right-thinking people everywhere should be thankful that the USA is helping the Kurdish Peshmerga, a truly moderate and moral force (insofar as any armed force can be moral) in the region that has provided shelter and protection for all sects and ethnicities and locked down their own regions against the medieval brutality happening in the rest of Iraq while the hapless Iraqi army either joined ISIS or hightailed it back to Baghdad, abandoning their own people to rape, torture and death. The Kurds are now the front line defenders of civilization itself. Hopefully, when the dust settles, they will have achieved a state of their own at long last. Christ knows they deserve it.

The lengths some will go to blame the USA for all the world's ills is staggering. If this chaos was the USA's intention all along, why did they pump billions into building this new (admittedly corrupt and inadequate) Iraqi government and army? Why are they using as little force as possible, keeping involvement limited to air strikes so far? Why are they preferring to arm and aid local forces already on the ground instead of steaming in with all her might with all the money this would entail for these shadowy arms manufacturers? And do you honestly believe this colossal deception which would require billions of dollars, thousands of operatives and clandestine operations on a scale never seen before could happen without someone noticing and/or spilling the beans?

The USA is not that sinister. It certainly isn't that cunning.

renegademaster

LorMal wrote: »

What a lot of old bollocks

bollocks is it? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/19/map_7_confirmed_cia_backed_coups

partyatmygaff

renegademaster wrote: »

so you think these corrupt fcuks are driven to do what they do for political gain only?? do yourself a favour and google image for the charts mapping who's profiting from the endless war on terror that's been going on since 2011.

If you can give me five current US Government officials with power who will financially gain by starting and maintaining conflict then maybe we can upgrade the "ISIS is an example of a US Fabrication designed to generate money for Uncle Sam" conspiracy theory from grade A bull**** to fantastical but plausible.

Tail Docker

DeadHand wrote: »

They are in no way fighting for the "Muslim world". They are fighting to force their own narrow and murderous interpretation of Islam on the Middle East. The bulk of their victims have been Muslim, the forces resisting them as we speak are predominantly Muslim (Peshmerga, Iraqi army, Assad's Syria, Lebanese army, Hezbollah) and the surrounding, regional powers that despise them and, I believe, will be instrumental in their eventual and well deserved demise are Muslim (Turkey, Iran).

Far from fighting for the Muslim world they are a grave threat to it and to all the civilized nations of the Middle East.

Your "theory" is infantile, anti-American excrement.

Right-thinking people everywhere should be thankful that the USA is helping the Kurdish Peshmerga, a truly moderate and moral force (insofar as any armed force can be moral) in the region that has provided shelter and protection for all sects and ethnicities and locked down their own regions against the medieval brutality happening in the rest of Iraq while the hapless Iraqi army either joined ISIS or hightailed it back to Baghdad, abandoning their own people to rape, torture and death. The Kurds are now the front line defenders of civilization itself. Hopefully, when the dust settles, they will have achieved a state of their own at long last. Christ knows they deserve it.

The lengths some will go to blame the USA for all the world's ills is staggering. If this chaos was the USA's intention all along, why did they pump billions into building this new (admittedly corrupt and inadequate) Iraqi government and army? Why are they using as little force as possible, keeping involvement limited to air strikes so far? Why are they preferring to arm and aid local forces already on the ground instead of steaming in with all her might with all the money this would entail for these shadowy arms manufacturers? And do you honestly believe this colossal deception which would require billions of dollars, thousands of operatives and clandestine operations on a scale never seen before could happen without someone noticing and/or spilling the beans?

The USA is not that sinister. It certainly isn't that cunning.

c+. Could do better.

Egginacup

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who ever said ISIS was a threat to us? Many (including myself) want to see these barbarians wiped out on humanitarian grounds and I'd be happy to contribute my tax in any way that would help.

And why is that?

There are gangs roaming countries of the world everyday chopping off women's clitorises, throwing acid in their faces and transforming them from a beautiful Indian or Pakistani girl into a blinded, whimpering wreck reminiscent of the Elephant Man. There are child soldiers in Africa chopping off limbs and their savage mobs are funded and supplied by Washington and Whitehall.
ISIS, whoever the hell they are are just another incarnation of a bunch of lunatics much like the heart eating Syrian nutcases who hack open bodies and have a snack on offal....again funded by Washington.

And where did this ISIS name come from anyway? Seems like a very English-language acronym for a bunch of Arabs most if not of whom all are supposed to not even be able to read or write, only to kill.
Nobody ever heard of them before.

In conclusion, this whole protection of "Christians" in Iraq farce?

55% of Iraq's 1.2 Million Christians were killed or fled Iraq during the US occupation. Wasn't a word about them then, was there?

ISIS, another farcical bogeyman.

Must go now and tape up my windows before I catch Ebola.

:rolleyes:

h2005

This thread has become a total mess.

InTheTrees

h2005 wrote: »

This thread has become a total mess.

Kind of weird that there's a number of people on this thread who seem to be just fine with the crucifixions and beheadings.

Egginacup

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you can give me five current US Government officials with power who will financially gain by starting and maintaining conflict then maybe we can upgrade the "ISIS is an example of a US Fabrication designed to generate money for Uncle Sam" conspiracy theory from grade A bull**** to fantastical but plausible.

How much did Richard Cheney profit from fabricating the beginning of this Iraq debacle?
Halliburton made $39.5 Billion from the war...and continues to do so.

I understand that G.W. Bush only made a paltry $800 million.

Rumsfeld took a tidy sum and continues to receive royalties. You may be asking (or splitting hairs) as to who currently in power stands to profit. Well it's very simple to work out for yourself.

KBR, Halliburton and FLuor made 100's of millions charging the Pentagon 20 bucks for a can of coke for a GI or 100 bucks to service a kilo of laundry. Of course the Pentagon paid up because it wasn't them but the tax payer who was footing the bill. So expensive melarkey this regime-change.

But if you think it's a fantastical conspiracy theory then that's up to you. When it comes to the war industry you have to maximise the money coming IN to the corporations and minimize it going OUT (like benefits, aid and pensions to war cripples/dead and their families).

Egginacup

InTheTrees wrote: »

Kind of weird that there's a number of people on this thread who seem to be just fine with the crucifixions and beheadings.

I'm no more horrified by them than a school full of children being incinerated from a distance. Killing is killing. You just seem to be disgusted by some of it.

Or is it that beheading is a bit "sicker" than putting a bullet in someone's head or burning a bunch of people to death?

If beheading is so barbaric then why don't you rage against the Saudis who do it in public to punish an adulteress?

Very easy to outrage, aren't you.

Egginacup

h2005 wrote: »

This thread has become a total mess.

Why so?

Why the outrage at beheadings? Why are they any different to any other kind of murder? All is shocking and disturbing, or is it not?

InTheTrees

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm no more horrified by them than a school full of children being incinerated from a distance. Killing is killing. You just seem to be disgusted by some of it.

Or is it that beheading is a bit "sicker" than putting a bullet in someone's head or burning a bunch of people to death?

If beheading is so barbaric then why don't you rage against the Saudis who do it in public to punish an adulteress?

Very easy to outrage, aren't you.

Wait...what?

Its a thread about ISIS...

Where the fcuk do you get off telling me what I'm disgusted by?

You have absolutely no idea what kind of activism I'm involved with do you?

InTheTrees

Egginacup wrote: »

Why the outrage at beheadings?

You're funny.

:pac:

InTheTrees

Egginacup wrote: »

If beheading is so barbaric then why don't you rage against the Saudis who do it in public to punish an adulteress?

partyatmygaff

Egginacup wrote: »

How much did Richard Cheney profit from fabricating the beginning of this Iraq debacle?
Halliburton made $39.5 Billion from the war...and continues to do so.

I understand that G.W. Bush only made a paltry $800 million.

Rumsfeld took a tidy sum and continues to receive royalties. You may be asking (or splitting hairs) as to who currently in power stands to profit. Well it's very simple to work out for yourself.

KBR, Halliburton and FLuor made 100's of millions charging the Pentagon 20 bucks for a can of coke for a GI or 100 bucks to service a kilo of laundry. Of course the Pentagon paid up because it wasn't them but the tax payer who was footing the bill. So expensive melarkey this regime-change.

But if you think it's a fantastical conspiracy theory then that's up to you. When it comes to the war industry you have to maximise the money coming IN to the corporations and minimize it going OUT (like benefits, aid and pensions to war cripples/dead and their families).

I believe I said "five current US government officials". This isn't about the Iraq war and all that ensued during the Bush era. None of Bush, Rumsfield or Cheney have held office nor power for over half a decade to maintain this conflict.

With evidence, who in the current US Government stands to gain financially from conflict? Why hasn't the US jumped in and re-escalated their military involvement in Iraq yet? This is their best excuse for involvement for years and public support for military intervention is high.

Karl Stein

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you can give me five current US Government officials with power who will financially gain by starting and maintaining conflict

That's a naive question. Government officials do not rise to positions of power if they are a 'problem' for the established structures. The very fact they've risen to positions of power demonstrates that they are 'company man'. As for financial gain, well, they get pay and pensions and they move into lobbying or 'consulting' for all manner of corporations including arms contractors.

Better questions might be: how many government officials with power consistently call for the reigning in of the US war machine? How many government officials with power call for a reduction in US bases abroad?

None?

Manic Moran

So I'm trying to think how the crucifixions, and the execution of prisoners, as advertised by ISIS, are somehow commensurate with being an acceptable muslim, and it just isn't parsing for me.

LorMal wrote: »

As for Michelle Obama, I think it's mean of you to mock. As as mother of teenage girls I am sure she was shocked and outraged by those kidnappings, as I was and as any parent would be.
But it's the US, so you are going to sneer.

In fairness, even Boko Haram mocked her and the campaign as a whole. And she's married to a man who actually -could- have gotten the girls back.

Call me cynical, but I think an airborne battalion was more likely to obtain the retrieval of the girls than a hashtag.

partyatmygaff

Karl Stein wrote: »

That's a naive question. Government officials do not rise to positions of power if they are a 'problem' for the established structures. The very fact they've risen to positions of power demonstrates that they are 'company man'. As for financial gain, well, they get pay and pensions and they move into lobbying or 'consulting' for all manner of corporations including arms contractors.

Better questions might be: how many government officials with power consistently call for the reigning in of the US war machine? How many government officials with power call for a reduction in US bases abroad?

None?

Two very straightforward questions. With some evidence, name me some current powerful US Government officials who will benefit financially from starting another war. How about just one person, even as a token effort?

And while you're at it, there was that other inconvenient question that doesn't fit in with your theory. I think it had something to do with why the USA isn't jumping at the chance to escalate their military involvement despite a rare show of public support.

Egginacup

LorMal wrote: »

I referred to them earlier in this thread. Another shower of ****s. As far as I know the LRA and Kony are almost defunct.
The US did send advisors into Nigeria to help hunt Boko Harem. That's one huge country and one huge mess and the Nigerian Gov is as corrupt as they come.

As for Michelle Obama, I think it's mean of you to mock. As as mother of teenage girls I am sure she was shocked and outraged by those kidnappings, as I was and as any parent would be.
But it's the US, so you are going to sneer.

Where was she when Indian woman were being gang raped to death, long before this kidnapping? Nowhere. And what has happened to these kidnapped girls anyway? Are they all back safe and sound? Other world leaders must have been rolling their eyes at Washington's lame attempts at tugging on heartstrings.

Egginacup

Manic Moran wrote: »

So I'm trying to think how the crucifixions, and the execution of prisoners, as advertised by ISIS, are somehow commensurate with being an acceptable muslim, and it just isn't parsing for me.



In fairness, even Boko Haram mocked her and the campaign as a whole. And she's married to a man who actually -could- have gotten the girls back.

Call me cynical, but I think an airborne battalion was more likely to obtain the retrieval of the girls than a hashtag.

Like in Mogadishu?

Why do people think that a pair of shades, some bubblegum, a load of adolescent platitudes like "let's kick some ass", and bandana will make you bulletproof and able to vanquish all foes?

Egginacup

DeadHand wrote: »

They are in no way fighting for the "Muslim world". They are fighting to force their own narrow and murderous interpretation of Islam on the Middle East. The bulk of their victims have been Muslim, the forces resisting them as we speak are predominantly Muslim (Peshmerga, Iraqi army, Assad's Syria, Lebanese army, Hezbollah) and the surrounding, regional powers that despise them and, I believe, will be instrumental in their eventual and well deserved demise are Muslim (Turkey, Iran).

Far from fighting for the Muslim world they are a grave threat to it and to all the civilized nations of the Middle East.

Your "theory" is infantile, anti-American excrement.

Right-thinking people everywhere should be thankful that the USA is helping the Kurdish Peshmerga, a truly moderate and moral force (insofar as any armed force can be moral) in the region that has provided shelter and protection for all sects and ethnicities and locked down their own regions against the medieval brutality happening in the rest of Iraq while the hapless Iraqi army either joined ISIS or hightailed it back to Baghdad, abandoning their own people to rape, torture and death. The Kurds are now the front line defenders of civilization itself. Hopefully, when the dust settles, they will have achieved a state of their own at long last. Christ knows they deserve it.

The lengths some will go to blame the USA for all the world's ills is staggering. If this chaos was the USA's intention all along, why did they pump billions into building this new (admittedly corrupt and inadequate) Iraqi government and army? Why are they using as little force as possible, keeping involvement limited to air strikes so far? Why are they preferring to arm and aid local forces already on the ground instead of steaming in with all her might with all the money this would entail for these shadowy arms manufacturers? And do you honestly believe this colossal deception which would require billions of dollars, thousands of operatives and clandestine operations on a scale never seen before could happen without someone noticing and/or spilling the beans?

The USA is not that sinister. It certainly isn't that cunning.

Right-thinking people all over the world are revolted by the US backed sickening carnage in Gaza.
You're beloved and benevolent US hasn't halted the sale of a single cartridge in this nauseating butchery.
Great fellows.

Egginacup

mad muffin wrote: »

You guys come in here and other similar threads with your proof of USA/UK/Israel axis of evil, destabilising the Middle East with faux Islamic terror groups. That claims they are doing so for profit and political gain. Yet cannot show how this is manifesting?

Oh, boy.

LorMal

This thread is a joke now. Completely overtaken by a small pack of conspiracy theory clowns.
It's all an American plot to make money on arms. There are no atrocities really - its all scaremongering by the 'western media'. The USA and Isreal are behind ISIS. What about the Palestinians? ('what about' are their 2 favourite words). What about Nigeria? What about Saudi beheadings? ......Ad Nauseum. We even have one clown trying to argue that it's part of the conspiracy that the US is NOT putting troops on the ground??? (I really don't know how that works, but anyway..).
CTs travel in packs, quote spurious articles from derided sources and furiously support each other in their delusions. They have ruined the debate on the threads on Gaza as well. (You see it a lot on Boards with the Shinnerbots especially).
Boards mods need to look at this IMHO - every interesting debate ends up being ruined by this juvenile behaviour.
That's me out. I pray for those people on the mountain and I hope that America rescues them.

sjb25

Egginacup wrote: »

Like in Mogadishu?

Why do people think that a pair of shades, some bubblegum, a load of adolescent platitudes like "let's kick some ass", and bandana will make you bulletproof and able to vanquish all foes?

Think he means the big guns they have rather than the sunglasses and bubblegum and as for Mogadishu that was the politicians rather than military's fault the military asked for more air cover etc and it was denied as it would of been to high profile

LorMal

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm no more horrified by them than a school full of children being incinerated from a distance. Killing is killing. You just seem to be disgusted by some of it.

Or is it that beheading is a bit "sicker" than putting a bullet in someone's head or burning a bunch of people to death?

If beheading is so barbaric then why don't you rage against the Saudis who do it in public to punish an adulteress?

Very easy to outrage, aren't you.

Sums it up really. A new low in this thread

mad muffin

peaceboi wrote: »

Becoming more evident about the diversity of the ISIS ISIL jihadists, as this fella came as far from Sydney to render his sacred services and chances are these fiends would be readmitted to their western home countries when they are finished with their ferocious slaughtering.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2705008/Australian-jihadist-poses-decapitated-heads-sickening-pictures-posted-online.html

Despicable.

People like that need to have their passports revoked and if their families are found implicated, deported from wence they came.