US funded Al queda Syrian fighters take over Mosul in Iraq

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
V

Victorian Gray

Lifer
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Stewox said:
RT has a strategic advantage to tell the truth that hurts the hijacked washington establishment. Doesn't mean Russia is perfect, but Putin goes to church and thinks about what moves to do in the verge of a thermonuclear war, while the idiot obozo goes on holidays for 3 weeks. In russia they pay people to have children, in USA they feed you GMOs like cattle so your kids's kids will be sterile.

What happened in Europe, Georgia in 2008 - NATO and EU/US/UN/UK/NWO through Georgia attacked the Russian base on Russian territory - Russia sent their army in to return favor. Georgia then sent it's army up. But that was enough for Putin so he told NATO that he has ICBMs targeting all major EU government institutions and will fire in 1 hour if NATO doesn't back down, so NATO fumbled and that was it. But NATO was built as a New World Order security force, it will never stop poking at Russia which is opposing GMOs and other anti-human totalitarian globalist crap.


Communism was brought to Russia, it didn't start there. Communism like Nazism has been constucted by the English Empire, for social control of the cattle population, and to play groups of the same against each other, to make it seem like 2 different sides are fighting, while they're killing their own, all because of ignorance and perception, the power of information presented at it's worst.
Click to expand...

The answer is in the pyramids you lummox. Everyone knows that. *That's* where the aliens left the secret code. All this other shit is a distraction. Why else all the unrest in Egypt? They're trying to protect the secret. And you're falling for it. Damn sheeple!
 
IGBT

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,958
138
106
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001
 
Orignal Earl

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
IGBT said:
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001
Click to expand...


"O con noi o contro di noi"

Benito Mussolini
 
sportage

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,160
136
WATCH the press and news media on this. CLOSLY.
Their doing it again!!!!
Trying hard using code words to make a case for American involvement.
Giving airtime to those hoping America falls for this train wreck a second time
The code word??? HOME LAND !!!

Every time from here on out you will hear this code word "homeland".
The link, their connection to what is happening over THERE to what happens HERE.
When they are done, most Americans will be under the illusion rebels from Iraq will soon march down their neighborhood. Right in front of your house.

Do not fall for it.
Total BS.

War hawks and the media are out to get ya.
To convince public opinion to once again support placing American troops in iraq.
Be mindful of their little tricks.
And especially their CODE WORDS.
 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
NFS4 said:
Forgive me if this is a stupid, uneducated, or misguided question, but was Sadam Hussein really the glue that held Iraq together?
Click to expand...

Of course.

It started after WWI. The West (GB mainly) decided that it would be expedient to cobble together artificial nations which were internally divisive so they couldn't form a cohesive threat but were held together by cruel despots who ruled by fear. It worked surprisingly well for quite some time but eventually circumstances change and they go, often to be replaced by another puppet.

In the case if Iraq, three groups who really didn't like each other were forced to live a relatively secular existence. The Kurds however really didn't pay all that much mind to the central government and so were persecuted off and on. Sunni and Shia aren't natural allies but if you have a real SOB that will kick ass if trouble starts they will play nicely.

Bush et al had no clue as to the societal structure of Iraq which is unbelievable. If you are going to invade a nation you must have an understanding of social dynamics in order to have mechanisms ready to deal with the inevitable power vacuum which ensues. You would identify and prepare alternatives and have them ready to go. In the case of Iraq, GHB understood correctly that uncontrollable sectarian violence would be the result of removing Saddam, which is one of the reasons we didn't get rid of him back in the '90's. Unfortunately his son was a half wit without backbone to stand up and question or go against Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz. The three I named really didn't care about Iraq or American security, at least in the short run but assumed that they could make "little Americans" out of Iraqis. It was a social engineering experiment that was doomed.

So yea, Saddam was the glue, not because of any personal or intellectual trait except for gaining control of an existing power structure and unbelievable cruelty cause fear of reprisal.
 
D

Dvogel8

Junior Member
Jun 13, 2014
1
0
0
This is pretty obvious I would say. 800 men (same amount as the workers of a larger factory) take over a city the size of Austin. The soldiers drop their weapons and leave all their equipment behind for the terrorist plus a huge amount of money that they now will take back to the fight in Syria which they were losing. Nice arrangement from the U.S. government I must say. A very Original way of giving arms and money to the ISIS to fight Assad even harder. It's just a bit too obvious. Looking at history, soldiers would take all or most of their equipment with them and destroy the rest when retreating.
 
bshole

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Hayabusa Rider said:
Of course.
In the case of Iraq, GHB understood correctly that uncontrollable sectarian violence would be the result of removing Saddam, which is one of the reasons we didn't get rid of him back in the '90's. Unfortunately his son was a half wit without backbone to stand up and question or go against Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz. The three I named really didn't care about Iraq or American security, at least in the short run but assumed that they could make "little Americans" out of Iraqis. It was a social engineering experiment that was doomed.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Couldn't agree more. This is my thinking exactly. GHB was a much better president than his son.
 
hal2kilo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,146
10,834
136
kage69 said:
Well, except for the 23 senators (21 Dems, 1 Repub, 1 Indie) and 133 House members (126 Dems, 6 Repubs, and 1 Indie) who didn't.

I'm sure those numbers would have been higher if Cheney and Co. hadn't gone to such lengths to advance their views while suppressing dissenting opinions and evidence that ran contrary to their agenda. It was definitely a complete waste of money and blood, but don't forget it played to AQ's goals like they were reading Osama's wishlist: destroying global goodwill towards the US and emptying our coffers while bolstering the ranks of the enemy.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush deserve to rot in a prison for what they've done to America and hundreds of thousands of American families, not to mention innocent civilians caught in the mix during their grand adventure. I think 2000-2008 has gone down as a text book example of why selecting puppet presidents who function mainly as announcers and signature providers is a horrible idea, and not just regarding foreign policy either.
Click to expand...
You couldn't possibly be referring to the Judy Woodruff stories planted in the New York times.
 
blankslate

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,702
507
126
row said:
berrie's got to be the stupidest fuck on the face of the planet, everything he touches turns to shit.
Click to expand...

If only he didn't invade Iraq without enough troops to provide security and prevent looting so there would be a stable occupa..... hmmm.... wait a minute.... :colbert:



....
 
kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,604
39,931
136
hal2kilo said:
You couldn't possibly be referring to the Judy Woodruff stories planted in the New York times.
Click to expand...

Must have missed them, sorry. Not sure I've read anything by Judy Woodruff come to think of it.

Are you arguing that Saddam didn't express interest in using non American currency?

You realize plans for Iraq were on the table before 9/11, right? Do you think the emphasis on securing the Ministry of Oil, refineries and wells before everything else was just some kind of coincidence?

Cheney and Rumsfeld, career politicians with reputations they earned at State, WH and Pentagon over decades were leading a trusting Bush around by the nose. Easy to do for shrewd guys like them, especially with a mental midget like Bush so allergic to knowledge. What did O'Neill say of Bush after watching him in cabinet meetings for months? 'He was like a blind man in a room of deaf people: there was no discernible connection.' (I'm paraphrasing there) Even the man's mother thought of him as a simpleton. You heard of ANY other president being handed a memo full of religious cartoons and scripture as a case for war instead of the info that we usually need before launching a war, like Rumsfeld was doing with Bush? C'mon now.

Bush was put in office for a reason. A guy with little to no understanding of foreign policy, geography or history who can sit through a multi hour briefing and not ask a single question before leaving is exactly the kind of "leader" men like Cheney and Rumsfeld need. And when things go to shit, guess who gets the blame?

Bush started to wise up to Cheney eventually, but the damage was done. We've paid a terrible price for his naivete and ineptitude.
 
kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,604
39,931
136
Dvogel8 said:
This is pretty obvious I would say. 800 men (same amount as the workers of a larger factory) take over a city the size of Austin. The soldiers drop their weapons and leave all their equipment behind for the terrorist plus a huge amount of money that they now will take back to the fight in Syria which they were losing. Nice arrangement from the U.S. government I must say. A very Original way of giving arms and money to the ISIS to fight Assad even harder. It's just a bit too obvious. Looking at history, soldiers would take all or most of their equipment with them and destroy the rest when retreating.
Click to expand...

I think it's more likely the bribes came from the Saudis myself.
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Divide and conquer is only explanation of US disjointed policy. Even yesterday McInsane was say we need to send more arms to rebels in Syria. Same CIA/Saudi arms ISIS either raided or was given in past.

Maybe hope is exploit sectarian divisions. make them all poor so they liquidate oil reserves, break back of OPEC. Think Big. Libya non state in whole middle east.

Or maybe they are fucking clueless.
 
Last edited:
hal2kilo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,146
10,834
136
kage69 said:
Must have missed them, sorry. Not sure I've read anything by Judy Woodruff come to think of it.

Are you arguing that Saddam didn't express interest in using non American currency?

You realize plans for Iraq were on the table before 9/11, right? Do you think the emphasis on securing the Ministry of Oil, refineries and wells before everything else was just some kind of coincidence?

Cheney and Rumsfeld, career politicians with reputations they earned at State, WH and Pentagon over decades were leading a trusting Bush around by the nose. Easy to do for shrewd guys like them, especially with a mental midget like Bush so allergic to knowledge. What did O'Neill say of Bush after watching him in cabinet meetings for months? 'He was like a blind man in a room of deaf people: there was no discernible connection.' (I'm paraphrasing there) Even the man's mother thought of him as a simpleton. You heard of ANY other president being handed a memo full of religious cartoons and scripture as a case for war instead of the info that we usually need before launching a war, like Rumsfeld was doing with Bush? C'mon now.

Bush was put in office for a reason. A guy with little to no understanding of foreign policy, geography or history who can sit through a multi hour briefing and not ask a single question before leaving is exactly the kind of "leader" men like Cheney and Rumsfeld need. And when things go to shit, guess who gets the blame?

Bush started to wise up to Cheney eventually, but the damage was done. We've paid a terrible price for his naivete and ineptitude.
Click to expand...
Batting 1000 this morning. Memory is failing me now. Judith Miller not Judy Woodruff.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,095
30,038
146
Stewox said:
RT has a strategic advantage to tell the truth that hurts the hijacked washington establishment. Doesn't mean Russia is perfect, but Putin goes to church and thinks about what moves to do in the verge of a thermonuclear war, while the idiot obozo goes on holidays for 3 weeks. In russia they pay people to have children, in USA they feed you GMOs like cattle so your kids's kids will be sterile.

What happened in Europe, Georgia in 2008 - NATO and EU/US/UN/UK/NWO through Georgia attacked the Russian base on Russian territory - Russia sent their army in to return favor. Georgia then sent it's army up. But that was enough for Putin so he told NATO that he has ICBMs targeting all major EU government institutions and will fire in 1 hour if NATO doesn't back down, so NATO fumbled and that was it. But NATO was built as a New World Order security force, it will never stop poking at Russia which is opposing GMOs and other anti-human totalitarian globalist crap.


Communism was brought to Russia, it didn't start there. Communism like Nazism has been constucted by the English Empire, for social control of the cattle population, and to play groups of the same against each other, to make it seem like 2 different sides are fighting, while they're killing their own, all because of ignorance and perception, the power of information presented at it's worst.
Click to expand...

you are one profoundly uninformed individual.
 
Thebobo

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
Kurdish to help, maybe.

Fall of Mosul: What's at stake for the Kurds?

On June 11, Baghdad announced that it would be aided in the battle against ISIL by Kurdish Peshmerga forces. Divided by squabbles over budget and oil revenues but united by the threat of further ISIL encroachment, the Kurdistan Regional Government did not immediately acquiesce to Maliki's request for reinforcements, but Peshmerga forces have reportedly been deployed south of Kirkuk - albeit Kurdish officials say they've been there all along.

There has been speculation over concessions that may or may not have been made by Baghdad to secure Kurdish assistance. The KRG has denied all such rumours as "fabrication".

Still, for some Iraqi Kurds, this may just be the gambit they were waiting for.
Click to expand...
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Oh course Kurds will help. They get more concessions on their regions oil riches. Kurds are petty bad ass too after centuries of mistreatment. Problem here is you got Kurd minorities in Turkey and Iran who may have something to say about this Kurdish front/militarization.

The quote "Opened the gates of hell" I believe is quote from Arab league on dawn of our 2003 invasion that keeps coming back to me with every bit of news out of there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom