Today in Trump

[QUOTE=Beanz;1521708]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

As for Corbyn so he's not racist BUT ...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY-m8hXW4AE32O0.jpg
There he is defending anti-Semitic art. He was late to the party dealing with Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone which doesn't help. I'm more worried about him being an outright Communist though.

---

Ha!

Come on man you are making yourself look like a fool. Please stop for your own sake before you humiliate yourself further. You are using a facebook post from 2012 in which Corbyn defends freedom of speech and expression to claim he is antisemitic? I thought you believed in free speech? Obviously not.

This is what I mean about identity politics. How can you with a straight face claim to be offended on behalf of Jewish people and suggest that I must be a supporter of a racist anti-Jewish bloke for not agreeing with you? What about all the thousands of Jews in the UK who do not believe for one second the orchestrated smear campaign you are part of? Do they all hate themselves, how utterly ridiculous ;D

Here is the mural

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/site...415872b959ad0d

This is quite obviously a very difficult thing for you to swallow but for me that shows, The New World Order, The illuminatti , The Deep State, The real hand of Power, whatever you want to call them they are the same thing. They are the ones in power and at that table with the bankers and the Rothschilds and the Clintons and the Netanyahus is also Donald Trump and the the Mays and half of the conservative party, (which is full of ex-bankers) profiting at the expense of the workers. Adding further pressure to their backs bent double by the corruption of those above them.

You are supporting the guys at the table. You are supporting a communist style crack down on the freedom of expression. That is not slandering the Jewish people. It would be slanderous to deny the part that some Jewish bankers and Israel and the military industrial complex play in being a part of that group. For most Jews that is not something they want hidden they want it exposed.


I understand this is a very new thing for you having previously called anyone who believed such things tin foil hat nutcases but many of us have known this for 30 years or more. It is not news.


The people vying to run Britain are all old ex Etonians, Bankers, and people intimately involved in paying no tax on their earnings whilst forcing the British working man and woman to bail the collapsed banks out. That is why Brexit is happening and that is why the smear campaign against Corbyn is going on. They fear justice and here you are excusing them from scrutiny with your PC identity politics rubbish.

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4774&stc=1

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4775&stc=1
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4776&stc=1

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4777&stc=1

---

Wow, that's heavy.

[QUOTE=SlimTrae;1522329]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

As for Corbyn so he's not racist BUT ...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY-m8hXW4AE32O0.jpg
There he is defending anti-Semitic art. He was late to the party dealing with Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone which doesn't help. I'm more worried about him being an outright Communist though.

---

Ha!

Come on man you are making yourself look like a fool. Please stop for your own sake before you humiliate yourself further. You are using a facebook post from 2012 in which Corbyn defends freedom of speech and expression to claim he is antisemitic? I thought you believed in free speech? Obviously not.

This is what I mean about identity politics. How can you with a straight face claim to be offended on behalf of Jewish people and suggest that I must be a supporter of a racist anti-Jewish bloke for not agreeing with you? What about all the thousands of Jews in the UK who do not believe for one second the orchestrated smear campaign you are part of? Do they all hate themselves, how utterly ridiculous ;D

Here is the mural

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/site...415872b959ad0d

This is quite obviously a very difficult thing for you to swallow but for me that shows, The New World Order, The illuminatti , The Deep State, The real hand of Power, whatever you want to call them they are the same thing. They are the ones in power and at that table with the bankers and the Rothschilds and the Clintons and the Netanyahus is also Donald Trump and the the Mays and half of the conservative party, (which is full of ex-bankers) profiting at the expense of the workers. Adding further pressure to their backs bent double by the corruption of those above them.

You are supporting the guys at the table. You are supporting a communist style crack down on the freedom of expression. That is not slandering the Jewish people. It would be slanderous to deny the part that some Jewish bankers and Israel and the military industrial complex play in being a part of that group. For most Jews that is not something they want hidden they want it exposed.


I understand this is a very new thing for you having previously called anyone who believed such things tin foil hat nutcases but many of us have known this for 30 years or more. It is not news.


The people vying to run Britain are all old ex Etonians, Bankers, and people intimately involved in paying no tax on their earnings whilst forcing the British working man and woman to bail the collapsed banks out. That is why Brexit is happening and that is why the smear campaign against Corbyn is going on. They fear justice and here you are excusing them from scrutiny with your PC identity politics rubbish.

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4774&stc=1

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4775&stc=1
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4776&stc=1

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4777&stc=1

---

Wow, that's heavy.

---

@Freedom He is copying your ideas now. Unbelievable. #BanBeanztheantiSemite

[QUOTE=Gandalf;1522331]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

As for Corbyn so he's not racist BUT ...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY-m8hXW4AE32O0.jpg
There he is defending anti-Semitic art. He was late to the party dealing with Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone which doesn't help. I'm more worried about him being an outright Communist though.

---

Ha!

Come on man you are making yourself look like a fool. Please stop for your own sake before you humiliate yourself further. You are using a facebook post from 2012 in which Corbyn defends freedom of speech and expression to claim he is antisemitic? I thought you believed in free speech? Obviously not.

This is what I mean about identity politics. How can you with a straight face claim to be offended on behalf of Jewish people and suggest that I must be a supporter of a racist anti-Jewish bloke for not agreeing with you? What about all the thousands of Jews in the UK who do not believe for one second the orchestrated smear campaign you are part of? Do they all hate themselves, how utterly ridiculous ;D

Here is the mural

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/site...415872b959ad0d

This is quite obviously a very difficult thing for you to swallow but for me that shows, The New World Order, The illuminatti , The Deep State, The real hand of Power, whatever you want to call them they are the same thing. They are the ones in power and at that table with the bankers and the Rothschilds and the Clintons and the Netanyahus is also Donald Trump and the the Mays and half of the conservative party, (which is full of ex-bankers) profiting at the expense of the workers. Adding further pressure to their backs bent double by the corruption of those above them.

You are supporting the guys at the table. You are supporting a communist style crack down on the freedom of expression. That is not slandering the Jewish people. It would be slanderous to deny the part that some Jewish bankers and Israel and the military industrial complex play in being a part of that group. For most Jews that is not something they want hidden they want it exposed.


I understand this is a very new thing for you having previously called anyone who believed such things tin foil hat nutcases but many of us have known this for 30 years or more. It is not news.


The people vying to run Britain are all old ex Etonians, Bankers, and people intimately involved in paying no tax on their earnings whilst forcing the British working man and woman to bail the collapsed banks out. That is why Brexit is happening and that is why the smear campaign against Corbyn is going on. They fear justice and here you are excusing them from scrutiny with your PC identity politics rubbish.

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4774&stc=1

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4775&stc=1
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4776&stc=1

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4777&stc=1

---

Wow, that's heavy.

---

@Freedom He is copying your ideas now. Unbelievable. #BanBeanztheantiSemite

---

Why is every single one of your heroes an absolute cunt?

[QUOTE=Beanz;1522336]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

As for Corbyn so he's not racist BUT ...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY-m8hXW4AE32O0.jpg
There he is defending anti-Semitic art. He was late to the party dealing with Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone which doesn't help. I'm more worried about him being an outright Communist though.

---

Ha!

Come on man you are making yourself look like a fool. Please stop for your own sake before you humiliate yourself further. You are using a facebook post from 2012 in which Corbyn defends freedom of speech and expression to claim he is antisemitic? I thought you believed in free speech? Obviously not.

This is what I mean about identity politics. How can you with a straight face claim to be offended on behalf of Jewish people and suggest that I must be a supporter of a racist anti-Jewish bloke for not agreeing with you? What about all the thousands of Jews in the UK who do not believe for one second the orchestrated smear campaign you are part of? Do they all hate themselves, how utterly ridiculous ;D

Here is the mural

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/site...415872b959ad0d

This is quite obviously a very difficult thing for you to swallow but for me that shows, The New World Order, The illuminatti , The Deep State, The real hand of Power, whatever you want to call them they are the same thing. They are the ones in power and at that table with the bankers and the Rothschilds and the Clintons and the Netanyahus is also Donald Trump and the the Mays and half of the conservative party, (which is full of ex-bankers) profiting at the expense of the workers. Adding further pressure to their backs bent double by the corruption of those above them.

You are supporting the guys at the table. You are supporting a communist style crack down on the freedom of expression. That is not slandering the Jewish people. It would be slanderous to deny the part that some Jewish bankers and Israel and the military industrial complex play in being a part of that group. For most Jews that is not something they want hidden they want it exposed.


I understand this is a very new thing for you having previously called anyone who believed such things tin foil hat nutcases but many of us have known this for 30 years or more. It is not news.


The people vying to run Britain are all old ex Etonians, Bankers, and people intimately involved in paying no tax on their earnings whilst forcing the British working man and woman to bail the collapsed banks out. That is why Brexit is happening and that is why the smear campaign against Corbyn is going on. They fear justice and here you are excusing them from scrutiny with your PC identity politics rubbish.

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4774&stc=1

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4775&stc=1
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4776&stc=1

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4777&stc=1

---

Wow, that's heavy.

---

@Freedom He is copying your ideas now. Unbelievable. #BanBeanztheantiSemite

---

Why is every single one of your heroes an absolute cunt?

---

My new God has spoken.

Britons were spoiled by the conviction of purpose of Tony Blair as well as his Labour Party's concern for all people. British politicians, both Tory and Labour, are walking in the shadow of Blair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

I made a mistake in attempting to understand how you view the world. It's a mistake I won't be making again....I tried, but apparently I'm the one "addicted to the same old patterns" and it's NOT the guy blowing up at jokes (not made at his expense) or questions asked directly to him in an honest and civil manner, no no it's ME the guy just trying to understand the other side so he can compare and contrast and maybe expand his mind.

---

I answered your question. Surely that clears things up. Move on. I can be insulted without blowing up, you are superimposing an anger that has never been there. I apologise that I thought you were insulting me.

---

Well thanks to your response I'm no longer interested in a dialogue about this specifically or anything else really. So yeah in that vein I shall be moving on. Well you seemingly want to believe that I'm willing to insult you at the drop of a hat and it's happened more than a few times now for no good reason at all. That's the case AFTER we've made amends??? I was kind of hope that we'd be able to continue down the path of being cordial to each other, but apparently that won't happen because every time I post you're looking for how it's an attack on you. I'm "superimposing an anger that has never been there" am I? Then I guess I AM the one at fault here, and you know that is such a good way to preface your completely sincere and heartfelt apology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

I made a mistake in attempting to understand how you view the world. It's a mistake I won't be making again....I tried, but apparently I'm the one "addicted to the same old patterns" and it's NOT the guy blowing up at jokes (not made at his expense) or questions asked directly to him in an honest and civil manner, no no it's ME the guy just trying to understand the other side so he can compare and contrast and maybe expand his mind.

---

I answered your question. Surely that clears things up. Move on. I can be insulted without blowing up, you are superimposing an anger that has never been there. I apologise that I thought you were insulting me.

---

Well thanks to your response I'm no longer interested in a dialogue about this specifically or anything else really. So yeah in that vein I shall be moving on. Well you seemingly want to believe that I'm willing to insult you at the drop of a hat and it's happened more than a few times now for no good reason at all. That's the case AFTER we've made amends??? I was kind of hope that we'd be able to continue down the path of being cordial to each other, but apparently that won't happen because every time I post you're looking for how it's an attack on you. I'm "superimposing an anger that has never been there" am I? Then I guess I AM the one at fault here, and you know that is such a good way to preface your completely sincere and heartfelt apology.

---

I guess I am just not your cup of tea

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4786&stc=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

I made a mistake in attempting to understand how you view the world. It's a mistake I won't be making again....I tried, but apparently I'm the one "addicted to the same old patterns" and it's NOT the guy blowing up at jokes (not made at his expense) or questions asked directly to him in an honest and civil manner, no no it's ME the guy just trying to understand the other side so he can compare and contrast and maybe expand his mind.

---

I answered your question. Surely that clears things up. Move on. I can be insulted without blowing up, you are superimposing an anger that has never been there. I apologise that I thought you were insulting me.

---

Well thanks to your response I'm no longer interested in a dialogue about this specifically or anything else really. So yeah in that vein I shall be moving on. Well you seemingly want to believe that I'm willing to insult you at the drop of a hat and it's happened more than a few times now for no good reason at all. That's the case AFTER we've made amends??? I was kind of hope that we'd be able to continue down the path of being cordial to each other, but apparently that won't happen because every time I post you're looking for how it's an attack on you. I'm "superimposing an anger that has never been there" am I? Then I guess I AM the one at fault here, and you know that is such a good way to preface your completely sincere and heartfelt apology.

---

I guess I am just not your cup of tea

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...tid=4786&stc=1

---

Beanz can’t stay the fuck out of this thread when he cries like a little bitch when I started my English news thread. The dude is very unstable

Trump calling for the attacks on Iran and calling them back has to be giving John Bolton the blue balls. Smart move not to strike. Iran is lashing out, but a Japanese tanker and unmanned American drone??? Big fucking deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Trump calling for the attacks on Iran and calling them back has to be giving John Bolton the blue balls. Smart move not to strike. Iran is lashing out, but a Japanese tanker and unmanned American drone??? Big fucking deal.

---

Do better to give Bolton a pink slip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

I made a mistake in attempting to understand how you view the world. It's a mistake I won't be making again....I tried, but apparently I'm the one "addicted to the same old patterns" and it's NOT the guy blowing up at jokes (not made at his expense) or questions asked directly to him in an honest and civil manner, no no it's ME the guy just trying to understand the other side so he can compare and contrast and maybe expand his mind.

---

I answered your question. Surely that clears things up. Move on. I can be insulted without blowing up, you are superimposing an anger that has never been there. I apologise that I thought you were insulting me.

---

Well thanks to your response I'm no longer interested in a dialogue about this specifically or anything else really. So yeah in that vein I shall be moving on. Well you seemingly want to believe that I'm willing to insult you at the drop of a hat and it's happened more than a few times now for no good reason at all. That's the case AFTER we've made amends??? I was kind of hope that we'd be able to continue down the path of being cordial to each other, but apparently that won't happen because every time I post you're looking for how it's an attack on you. I'm "superimposing an anger that has never been there" am I? Then I guess I AM the one at fault here, and you know that is such a good way to preface your completely sincere and heartfelt apology.

---

You handled the nasty one well Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Trump calling for the attacks on Iran and calling them back has to be giving John Bolton the blue balls. Smart move not to strike. Iran is lashing out, but a Japanese tanker and unmanned American drone??? Big fucking deal.

---

Do better to give Bolton a pink slip.

---

Better how and for who?

Bolton is the attack dog and President Trump is the one who holds the leash....that should keep Iran well within check. I would imagine that is the thought process by the President.

Hidden Clue On Website Belonging To Ilhan Omar’s Sister Adds To Evidence About Marriage History
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/23/i...bsite-husband/
Rep. Ilhan Omar swore under oath in a 2017 divorce filing that she hadn’t seen her husband Ahmed N. Elmi in six years and didn’t know anyone who might be able to locate him — yet he appears to have designed a website for Omar’s sister this year, according to data hidden in the source code of that website.

The Democratic Minnesota congresswoman swore that she had not been able to locate the man she married — who the Minneapolis Star Tribune says may or may not be her brother — since 2011. She swore she didn’t know the names of anyone in her husband’s family and that the two had no mutual acquaintances who might know how to contact him.
According to Elmi’s Facebook profile, after attending college in North Dakota he moved to England and then to Nairobi, Kenya — the same city where Omar’s sister, Sahra Noor, lives and works as CEO of Grit Partners. Grit Partners’ website code contains data that indicates Elmi was involved in the creation of either the company’s website or its Instagram account.

The ties between Omar’s supposedly long-lost ex-husband and Omar’s sister appear to contradict Omar’s sworn testimony and add to the body of evidence that the ex-husband may be her brother, making all three siblings.




https://em.wattpad.com/8641b78adbc5f...it&w=720&h=720

Ten days ago:

While I very much appreciate P.M. Abe going to Iran to meet with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I personally feel that it is too soon to even think about making a deal. They are not ready, and neither are we!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Yesterday:

President Trump, who says he made an eleventh-hour decision last week to call off a retaliatory military strike against Iran, declared in an interview aired Sunday that war would mean “obliteration” for the Islamic republic. But he also said he was open to talks without preconditions with Tehran.


https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...623-story.html



What happened in the time between this latest Trump flip flop? Iran attacked a couple of oil tankers and shot down a hundred million dollar drone. Now Trump is willing to give them talks without preconditions.

Oh, and today!

“We’re not going to have Iran have a nuclear weapon. And when they agree to that, they are going to have a wealthy country, they’re going to be so happy, and I’m going to be their best friend.”

So Trump ripped up an agreement that non proliferation experts all said prevented Iran getting a bomb because it gave Iran too much money (a billion dollars in cash!, even though it was their own cash and had to be in cash because a. the US doesn't have banking arrangements with Iran so can't send them a cheque and b. the US can print unlimited amounts of cash and let in slide into the global system without costing America anything, even inflation. All Obama did was basically send them a few pallets of printed paper.) but now he'll accept a similar deal to the one he ripped up and will make Iran extremely rich and be their best friend. Unless he manages to blunder into yet another forever war first. This is what happens when some addled Fox News viewer in his seventies is in charge of American foreign policy.

And from while I was away:

Prosecutors rebut Roger Stone: U.S. caught Russian election hackers on its own

Government investigators independently verified that Russian operatives hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016 and did not rely on a private cyber firm’s findings, federal prosecutors in the Roger Stone case in a court filing on Thursday.

The prosecutors were rebutting a claim made in a prior court filing by Stone — a longtime Trump adviser who is fighting charges of making false statements to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering — that the government relied only on “an inconclusive and unsubstantiated report” written by cyber research firm CrowdStrike and did not “collect any evidence of the DNC breach directly.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ackers-1374057

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Ten days ago:

While I very much appreciate P.M. Abe going to Iran to meet with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I personally feel that it is too soon to even think about making a deal. They are not ready, and neither are we!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Yesterday:

President Trump, who says he made an eleventh-hour decision last week to call off a retaliatory military strike against Iran, declared in an interview aired Sunday that war would mean “obliteration” for the Islamic republic. But he also said he was open to talks without preconditions with Tehran.


https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...623-story.html



What happened in the time between this latest Trump flip flop? Iran attacked a couple of oil tankers and shot down a hundred million dollar drone. Now Trump is willing to give them talks without preconditions.

Oh, and today!

“We’re not going to have Iran have a nuclear weapon. And when they agree to that, they are going to have a wealthy country, they’re going to be so happy, and I’m going to be their best friend.”

So Trump ripped up an agreement that non proliferation experts all said prevented Iran getting a bomb because it gave Iran too much money (a billion dollars in cash!, even though it was their own cash and had to be in cash because a. the US doesn't have banking arrangements with Iran so can't send them a cheque and b. the US can print unlimited amounts of cash and let in slide into the global system without costing America anything, even inflation. All Obama did was basically send them a few pallets of printed paper.) but now he'll accept a similar deal to the one he ripped up and will make Iran extremely rich and be their best friend. Unless he manages to blunder into yet another forever war first. This is what happens when some addled Fox News viewer in his seventies is in charge of American foreign policy.

---

Aww you're back, we've so missed you Kirkland. Just in time for new sanctions on Iran :appl: :appl:

Iranians say their ‘bones breaking’ under US sanctions
https://apnews.com/9390faa746294f628b93beea57ba1e07

:dontknow:


Forever war? What has Donald Trump done which leads you to believe that HE is going to be the guy that does that? Did he start war with North Korea as was feared? Did he get stuck in Syria as was feared? Did he get us into a shooting war with Russia over Syria as was feared? I mean EVEN YOU have to admit he's done a better job against ISIS and Al Qaeda than his predecessors....of course you would never admit to such.

Nancy Pelosi on immigration laws: “In terms of interior enforcement . . . what is the purpose? What is the point?”


:o



Oooook

You guys are gay.

Somebody's hitting that tequila bottle again..... ;D

just another gulf of tonkin incident

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Ten days ago:

While I very much appreciate P.M. Abe going to Iran to meet with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I personally feel that it is too soon to even think about making a deal. They are not ready, and neither are we!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Yesterday:

President Trump, who says he made an eleventh-hour decision last week to call off a retaliatory military strike against Iran, declared in an interview aired Sunday that war would mean “obliteration” for the Islamic republic. But he also said he was open to talks without preconditions with Tehran.


https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...623-story.html



What happened in the time between this latest Trump flip flop? Iran attacked a couple of oil tankers and shot down a hundred million dollar drone. Now Trump is willing to give them talks without preconditions.

Oh, and today!

“We’re not going to have Iran have a nuclear weapon. And when they agree to that, they are going to have a wealthy country, they’re going to be so happy, and I’m going to be their best friend.”

So Trump ripped up an agreement that non proliferation experts all said prevented Iran getting a bomb because it gave Iran too much money (a billion dollars in cash!, even though it was their own cash and had to be in cash because a. the US doesn't have banking arrangements with Iran so can't send them a cheque and b. the US can print unlimited amounts of cash and let in slide into the global system without costing America anything, even inflation. All Obama did was basically send them a few pallets of printed paper.) but now he'll accept a similar deal to the one he ripped up and will make Iran extremely rich and be their best friend. Unless he manages to blunder into yet another forever war first. This is what happens when some addled Fox News viewer in his seventies is in charge of American foreign policy.

---

Aww you're back, we've so missed you Kirkland. Just in time for new sanctions on Iran :appl: :appl:

Iranians say their ‘bones breaking’ under US sanctions
https://apnews.com/9390faa746294f628b93beea57ba1e07

:dontknow:


Forever war? What has Donald Trump done which leads you to believe that HE is going to be the guy that does that? Did he start war with North Korea as was feared? Did he get stuck in Syria as was feared? Did he get us into a shooting war with Russia over Syria as was feared? I mean EVEN YOU have to admit he's done a better job against ISIS and Al Qaeda than his predecessors....of course you would never admit to such.

---

Has just carried on doing what Obama was doing. Isis were already out of Iraq and on the way out of most places in Syria whenhe took office. His brilliant secret plan to defeat them turned out to be to ask the military to come up with a plan and they just kept on with the existing one. Trump made one change, he started targeting people in civilian areas. The military had stopped doing this because it backfires and creates more recruits for the other side but Trump needed to look tough so insisted on a counterproductive measure to make him look tough and resolute to his idiot supporters.


In a briefing on Dec. 21, 2017, Brett McGurk, special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIS, said that about 98 percent of the land comprising the ISIS caliphate had been recovered by coalition forces.
“And significantly, 50 percent of all the territory that ISIS has lost, they have lost in the last 11 months, since January,” McGurk said. “So 50 percent of all the territorial losses against ISIS have come in the last 11 months over the course of 2017.”

[...]


The overarching policy to combat ISIS was begun under President Barack Obama, when on Oct. 17, 2014, the Department of Defense established Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, a coalition of more than 60 partners. According to O’Hanlon, “Many of the successes of the air campaign, the tightening on movements of ISIS money and people, occurred under Obama.”
Recaptured land is only one measure for gauging the coalition effort. According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command data, as of the end of February, two-thirds of the sorties in which at least one weapon was released took place under Obama. And nearly 60 percent of the more than 100,000 missiles, bombs and other explosives released during the campaign came under Obama as well.

Indeed, the offensive to recapture ISIS’ de facto capital city of Raqqa began in November 2016, under Obama, and by late December of that year, Voice of America was reporting that U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces had made significant advances in the campaign. Ultimate victory there was not declared until October 2017, under Trump.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/tr...redit-on-isis/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Has just carried on doing what Obama was doing. Isis were already out of Iraq and on the way out of most places in Syria whenhe took office. His brilliant secret plan to defeat them turned out to be to ask the military to come up with a plan and they just kept on with the existing one. Trump made one change, he started targeting people in civilian areas. The military had stopped doing this because it backfires and creates more recruits for the other side but Trump needed to look tough so insisted on a counterproductive measure to make him look tough and resolute to his idiot supporters.


In a briefing on Dec. 21, 2017, Brett McGurk, special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIS, said that about 98 percent of the land comprising the ISIS caliphate had been recovered by coalition forces.
“And significantly, 50 percent of all the territory that ISIS has lost, they have lost in the last 11 months, since January,” McGurk said. “So 50 percent of all the territorial losses against ISIS have come in the last 11 months over the course of 2017.”

[...]


The overarching policy to combat ISIS was begun under President Barack Obama, when on Oct. 17, 2014, the Department of Defense established Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, a coalition of more than 60 partners. According to O’Hanlon, “Many of the successes of the air campaign, the tightening on movements of ISIS money and people, occurred under Obama.”
Recaptured land is only one measure for gauging the coalition effort. According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command data, as of the end of February, two-thirds of the sorties in which at least one weapon was released took place under Obama. And nearly 60 percent of the more than 100,000 missiles, bombs and other explosives released during the campaign came under Obama as well.

Indeed, the offensive to recapture ISIS’ de facto capital city of Raqqa began in November 2016, under Obama, and by late December of that year, Voice of America was reporting that U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces had made significant advances in the campaign. Ultimate victory there was not declared until October 2017, under Trump.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/tr...redit-on-isis/

---

OH so this is yet another coincidence of Obama doing 99.99999999% of the job and Trump bumbling his way to the 0.000001% finish?


Right :rolleyes:

Kirk are you feeling a great deal of confidence heading in to 2020? ;D


Who are you rooting for Kirk? Warren? Harris? Booker? ;D



I may have to watch those train wreck debates just to have a chuckle....tell me who you're pulling for so I can laugh extra hard at them and you.

Mueller to testify before Congress July 17th...Not good news for the Democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Mueller to testify before Congress July 17th...Not good news for the Democrats.

---

They just don't know when enough is enough. It is like watching a football team call one Audible after another.There playbook must be on an etch of sketch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Mueller to testify before Congress July 17th...Not good news for the Democrats.

---

They just don't know when enough is enough. It is like watching a football team call one Audible after another.There playbook must be on an etch of sketch.

---

I guess they don't understand that if Mueller deviates AT ALL from the report HE wrote that it would be considered perjury.

Also Republicans will absolutely ask him about Stzrok and Page and other issues like Bruce and Nellie Ohr.

The Democrats are grasping at straws look at E. Jean Carrol accusing Trump of rape almost 30 years ago....she is IN-FUCKING-SANE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Has just carried on doing what Obama was doing. Isis were already out of Iraq and on the way out of most places in Syria whenhe took office. His brilliant secret plan to defeat them turned out to be to ask the military to come up with a plan and they just kept on with the existing one. Trump made one change, he started targeting people in civilian areas. The military had stopped doing this because it backfires and creates more recruits for the other side but Trump needed to look tough so insisted on a counterproductive measure to make him look tough and resolute to his idiot supporters. In a briefing on Dec. 21, 2017, Brett McGurk, special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIS, said that about 98 percent of the land comprising the ISIS caliphate had been recovered by coalition forces. “And significantly, 50 percent of all the territory that ISIS has lost, they have lost in the last 11 months, since January,” McGurk said. “So 50 percent of all the territorial losses against ISIS have come in the last 11 months over the course of 2017.” [...] The overarching policy to combat ISIS was begun under President Barack Obama, when on Oct. 17, 2014, the Department of Defense established Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, a coalition of more than 60 partners. According to O’Hanlon, “Many of the successes of the air campaign, the tightening on movements of ISIS money and people, occurred under Obama.” Recaptured land is only one measure for gauging the coalition effort. According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command data, as of the end of February, two-thirds of the sorties in which at least one weapon was released took place under Obama. And nearly 60 percent of the more than 100,000 missiles, bombs and other explosives released during the campaign came under Obama as well. Indeed, the offensive to recapture ISIS’ de facto capital city of Raqqa began in November 2016, under Obama, and by late December of that year, Voice of America was reporting that U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces had made significant advances in the campaign. Ultimate victory there was not declared until October 2017, under Trump. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/tr...redit-on-isis/

---

OH so this is yet another coincidence of Obama doing 99.99999999% of the job and Trump bumbling his way to the 0.000001% finish? Right :rolleyes:

---

Read what it says thickhead. What actually happened in the words of the officials dealing with it. Trump turned ut not to have any plans secret or otherwise for dealing with Isis and just let the military carry on what they were doing and took the credit for it. And 2020 is a long way away. The election will come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and it'll be decided by the state of the economy in the first six months of 2020.

This shit is unreadable to anyone but you two. Why cant we all just get along?? Bwahaahahha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Read what it says thickhead. What actually happened in the words of the officials dealing with it. Trump turned ut not to have any plans secret or otherwise for dealing with Isis and just let the military carry on what they were doing and took the credit for it. And 2020 is a long way away. The election will come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and it'll be decided by the state of the economy in the first six months of 2020.

---

Yes "Trump let the military" EXACTLY. Trump didn't hamstring our troops like Obama did. Obama was a horrible President FACT.

I'll be watching the debates tonight and tomorrow laughing so hard I'll cry. Everything is going to be free eh? Yyyyyeah that's going to fly.

@Kirkland Laing And @El Kabong. ... both of you stop it ok, you arent making any fucking difference in the cosmos. Why is such a wretched mess the voice of reason around here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

@Kirkland Laing And @El Kabong. ... both of you stop it ok, you arent making any fucking difference in the cosmos. Why is such a wretched mess the voice of reason around here?

---

I'll post as I please. I'm sorry if it displeases you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Read what it says thickhead. What actually happened in the words of the officials dealing with it. Trump turned ut not to have any plans secret or otherwise for dealing with Isis and just let the military carry on what they were doing and took the credit for it. And 2020 is a long way away. The election will come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and it'll be decided by the state of the economy in the first six months of 2020.

---

Yes "Trump let the military" EXACTLY. Trump didn't hamstring our troops like Obama did. Obama was a horrible President FACT.

I'll be watching the debates tonight and tomorrow laughing so hard I'll cry. Everything is going to be free eh? Yyyyyeah that's going to fly.

---

Uh Kirk, trump lessened the rules of engagement taking the gloves off the military. Of course he let the generals run the show. You think he’d do an LBJ and pick bombing runs from maps in the Oval Office. The generals are the ones who know how to do shit. When rules of engagement say don’t shoot till you are shot at everyone is worried about ending up in Leavenworth. Thank god you don’t run shit as you have know idea what you are talking about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Read what it says thickhead. What actually happened in the words of the officials dealing with it. Trump turned ut not to have any plans secret or otherwise for dealing with Isis and just let the military carry on what they were doing and took the credit for it. And 2020 is a long way away. The election will come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and it'll be decided by the state of the economy in the first six months of 2020.

---

Yes "Trump let the military" EXACTLY. Trump didn't hamstring our troops like Obama did. Obama was a horrible President FACT. I'll be watching the debates tonight and tomorrow laughing so hard I'll cry. Everything is going to be free eh? Yyyyyeah that's going to fly.

---

Uh Kirk, trump lessened the rules of engagement taking the gloves off the military. Of course he let the generals run the show. You think he’d do an LBJ and pick bombing runs from maps in the Oval Office. The generals are the ones who know how to do shit. When rules of engagement say don’t shoot till you are shot at everyone is worried about ending up in Leavenworth. Thank god you don’t run shit as you have know idea what you are talking about

---

The military wanted those rules in the first place. They found that bombing civilian areas created loads of new recruits for the Iraqi insurgency back when they were bringing freedom to Iraqis so came up with the Obama era setup. Trump needed to come up with something to differentiate himself from Obama to his thick ignorant supporters so they did something counterproductive to do so. If you ever read a newspaper you'd know that there was no real change of pace between the Trump and Obama eras in the operation to take out Isis which was largely being fought by radical Syrian Sunni jihadi groups and the Kurds in Syria and Shiite militias and the Iraqi army in Iraq. But of course you and Lyle know nothing, you're a pair of fucking ignoramuses, people who can be fooled all of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Read what it says thickhead. What actually happened in the words of the officials dealing with it. Trump turned ut not to have any plans secret or otherwise for dealing with Isis and just let the military carry on what they were doing and took the credit for it. And 2020 is a long way away. The election will come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and it'll be decided by the state of the economy in the first six months of 2020.

---

Yes "Trump let the military" EXACTLY. Trump didn't hamstring our troops like Obama did. Obama was a horrible President FACT. I'll be watching the debates tonight and tomorrow laughing so hard I'll cry. Everything is going to be free eh? Yyyyyeah that's going to fly.

---

Uh Kirk, trump lessened the rules of engagement taking the gloves off the military. Of course he let the generals run the show. You think he’d do an LBJ and pick bombing runs from maps in the Oval Office. The generals are the ones who know how to do shit. When rules of engagement say don’t shoot till you are shot at everyone is worried about ending up in Leavenworth. Thank god you don’t run shit as you have know idea what you are talking about

---

The military wanted those rules in the first place. They found that bombing civilian areas created loads of new recruits for the Iraqi insurgency back when they were bringing freedom to Iraqis so came up with the Obama era setup. Trump needed to come up with something to differentiate himself from Obama to his thick ignorant supporters so they did something counterproductive to do so. If you ever read a newspaper you'd know that there was no real change of pace between the Trump and Obama eras in the operation to take out Isis which was largely being fought by radical Syrian Sunni jihadi groups and the Kurds in Syria and Shiite militias and the Iraqi army in Iraq. But of course you and Lyle know nothing, you're a pair of fucking ignoramuses, people who can be fooled all of the time.

---

Sure thing :rolleyes:

Who won the debate last night? Feeling confident?Hahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Read what it says thickhead. What actually happened in the words of the officials dealing with it. Trump turned ut not to have any plans secret or otherwise for dealing with Isis and just let the military carry on what they were doing and took the credit for it. And 2020 is a long way away. The election will come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and it'll be decided by the state of the economy in the first six months of 2020.

---

Yes "Trump let the military" EXACTLY. Trump didn't hamstring our troops like Obama did. Obama was a horrible President FACT. I'll be watching the debates tonight and tomorrow laughing so hard I'll cry. Everything is going to be free eh? Yyyyyeah that's going to fly.

---

Uh Kirk, trump lessened the rules of engagement taking the gloves off the military. Of course he let the generals run the show. You think he’d do an LBJ and pick bombing runs from maps in the Oval Office. The generals are the ones who know how to do shit. When rules of engagement say don’t shoot till you are shot at everyone is worried about ending up in Leavenworth. Thank god you don’t run shit as you have know idea what you are talking about

---

The military wanted those rules in the first place. They found that bombing civilian areas created loads of new recruits for the Iraqi insurgency back when they were bringing freedom to Iraqis so came up with the Obama era setup. Trump needed to come up with something to differentiate himself from Obama to his thick ignorant supporters so they did something counterproductive to do so. If you ever read a newspaper you'd know that there was no real change of pace between the Trump and Obama eras in the operation to take out Isis which was largely being fought by radical Syrian Sunni jihadi groups and the Kurds in Syria and Shiite militias and the Iraqi army in Iraq. But of course you and Lyle know nothing, you're a pair of fucking ignoramuses, people who can be fooled all of the time.

---

Sure thing :rolleyes:

Who won the debate last night? Feeling confident?Hahaha

---

Kirk did you really just say the military wanted those rules? Are you actually that stupid? Are you reading mother jones? I bet you never wore a uniform a day in your life. Maybe a Boy Scouts uniform. You could not pass day 1 at Parris island as you are a little bitch. Why don’t you stop by the island and tell the drill sergeants how they want the White House telling them how to train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Read what it says thickhead. What actually happened in the words of the officials dealing with it. Trump turned ut not to have any plans secret or otherwise for dealing with Isis and just let the military carry on what they were doing and took the credit for it. And 2020 is a long way away. The election will come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and it'll be decided by the state of the economy in the first six months of 2020.

---

Yes "Trump let the military" EXACTLY. Trump didn't hamstring our troops like Obama did. Obama was a horrible President FACT. I'll be watching the debates tonight and tomorrow laughing so hard I'll cry. Everything is going to be free eh? Yyyyyeah that's going to fly.

---

Uh Kirk, trump lessened the rules of engagement taking the gloves off the military. Of course he let the generals run the show. You think he’d do an LBJ and pick bombing runs from maps in the Oval Office. The generals are the ones who know how to do shit. When rules of engagement say don’t shoot till you are shot at everyone is worried about ending up in Leavenworth. Thank god you don’t run shit as you have know idea what you are talking about

---

The military wanted those rules in the first place. They found that bombing civilian areas created loads of new recruits for the Iraqi insurgency back when they were bringing freedom to Iraqis so came up with the Obama era setup. Trump needed to come up with something to differentiate himself from Obama to his thick ignorant supporters so they did something counterproductive to do so. If you ever read a newspaper you'd know that there was no real change of pace between the Trump and Obama eras in the operation to take out Isis which was largely being fought by radical Syrian Sunni jihadi groups and the Kurds in Syria and Shiite militias and the Iraqi army in Iraq. But of course you and Lyle know nothing, you're a pair of fucking ignoramuses, people who can be fooled all of the time.

---

Sure thing :rolleyes:

Who won the debate last night? Feeling confident?Hahaha

---

Kirk did you really just say the military wanted those rules? Are you actually that stupid? Are you reading mother jones? I bet you never wore a uniform a day in your life. Maybe a Boy Scouts uniform. You could not pass day 1 at Parris island as you are a little bitch. Why don’t you stop by the island and tell the drill sergeants how they want the White House telling them how to train.

---

Just once maybe learn something about one of the things you keep pontificating on instead of repeating the garbage you hear on talk radio:


We can’t yet know or predict the extent to which the Trump administration intends to depart from Obama’s directives and policies on civilian casualties. Based on the memorandum and his public comments, Trump seems to be betting that, given the choice, the military will return to some lower threshold of self-restraint if released from “political” concerns over civilian harm. The Pentagon should instead take the opportunity to keep existing protections in place, and call the president’s attention to the fact that policies intended to reduce civilian harm didn’t arise out of elite Washington think tanks or academia; they arose from the military’s long-held assessment of their strategic benefits—assessments based on hard-won battlefield experience, as many researchers, including Luke Hartig, former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council under Obama, have pointed out.
Retired Gens. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, as commanders of the Afghanistan War, set a higher standard for avoiding civilian harm than what the Geneva Conventions required. It wasn’t just because it was the right thing to do. Evidence showed that doing so could reduce local support for the Taliban, and over time they figured out ways to do it without compromising their effectiveness or exposing U.S. forces to greater risk of harm.

Consider just a few of the senior officials who have prioritized the prevention of civilian casualties. Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal (Flynn’s former boss) knows more about targeting terrorists than just about any officer of his generation and yet he made prevention of civilian casualties a central focus of his time in command in Afghanistan. He warned, “The Taliban cannot militarily defeat us — but we can defeat ourselves.” Secretary of Defense nominee Gen. Jim Mattis is known for his relentless pursuit of insurgents and terrorists (How else do you get the nickname “Mad Dog”?), yet the counterinsurgency field manual that he co-wrote with Gen. David Petraeus places a premium on protecting civilian lives. In discussing the use of air power, the manual pointedly notes, “An air strike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation (HN) government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory. Even when justified under the law of war, bombings that result in civilian casualties can bring media coverage that works to the insurgents’ benefit.” And former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama and reportedly advised Trump on his secretary of state selection, wrote in his most recent memoir about efforts to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan: “I was also concerned that we were not moving fast enough or decisively enough to deal with the problem of civilian casualties. I don’t believe any military force ever worked harder to avoid innocent victims, but it seemed like every incident was a strategic defeat, and we needed to take dramatic action.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/36013/t...mas-rules-war/


Did you even read all of the bit I just excerpted? That's probably more than you read in a week isn't it. That's why you're so fucking ignorant mate. You don't actually take in any information, you just take in stuff from bullshitters who tell you what you want to hear.

Nowhere else to put this so I'll put it in here. Headline of the year so far:

https://boingboing.net/2019/06/26/ro...-in-teens.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Read what it says thickhead. What actually happened in the words of the officials dealing with it. Trump turned ut not to have any plans secret or otherwise for dealing with Isis and just let the military carry on what they were doing and took the credit for it. And 2020 is a long way away. The election will come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and it'll be decided by the state of the economy in the first six months of 2020.

---

Yes "Trump let the military" EXACTLY. Trump didn't hamstring our troops like Obama did. Obama was a horrible President FACT. I'll be watching the debates tonight and tomorrow laughing so hard I'll cry. Everything is going to be free eh? Yyyyyeah that's going to fly.

---

Uh Kirk, trump lessened the rules of engagement taking the gloves off the military. Of course he let the generals run the show. You think he’d do an LBJ and pick bombing runs from maps in the Oval Office. The generals are the ones who know how to do shit. When rules of engagement say don’t shoot till you are shot at everyone is worried about ending up in Leavenworth. Thank god you don’t run shit as you have know idea what you are talking about

---

The military wanted those rules in the first place. They found that bombing civilian areas created loads of new recruits for the Iraqi insurgency back when they were bringing freedom to Iraqis so came up with the Obama era setup. Trump needed to come up with something to differentiate himself from Obama to his thick ignorant supporters so they did something counterproductive to do so. If you ever read a newspaper you'd know that there was no real change of pace between the Trump and Obama eras in the operation to take out Isis which was largely being fought by radical Syrian Sunni jihadi groups and the Kurds in Syria and Shiite militias and the Iraqi army in Iraq. But of course you and Lyle know nothing, you're a pair of fucking ignoramuses, people who can be fooled all of the time.

---

Sure thing :rolleyes:

Who won the debate last night? Feeling confident?Hahaha

---

Kirk did you really just say the military wanted those rules? Are you actually that stupid? Are you reading mother jones? I bet you never wore a uniform a day in your life. Maybe a Boy Scouts uniform. You could not pass day 1 at Parris island as you are a little bitch. Why don’t you stop by the island and tell the drill sergeants how they want the White House telling them how to train.

---

Just once maybe learn something about one of the things you keep pontificating on instead of repeating the garbage you hear on talk radio:


We can’t yet know or predict the extent to which the Trump administration intends to depart from Obama’s directives and policies on civilian casualties. Based on the memorandum and his public comments, Trump seems to be betting that, given the choice, the military will return to some lower threshold of self-restraint if released from “political” concerns over civilian harm. The Pentagon should instead take the opportunity to keep existing protections in place, and call the president’s attention to the fact that policies intended to reduce civilian harm didn’t arise out of elite Washington think tanks or academia; they arose from the military’s long-held assessment of their strategic benefits—assessments based on hard-won battlefield experience, as many researchers, including Luke Hartig, former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council under Obama, have pointed out.
Retired Gens. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, as commanders of the Afghanistan War, set a higher standard for avoiding civilian harm than what the Geneva Conventions required. It wasn’t just because it was the right thing to do. Evidence showed that doing so could reduce local support for the Taliban, and over time they figured out ways to do it without compromising their effectiveness or exposing U.S. forces to greater risk of harm.

Consider just a few of the senior officials who have prioritized the prevention of civilian casualties. Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal (Flynn’s former boss) knows more about targeting terrorists than just about any officer of his generation and yet he made prevention of civilian casualties a central focus of his time in command in Afghanistan. He warned, “The Taliban cannot militarily defeat us — but we can defeat ourselves.” Secretary of Defense nominee Gen. Jim Mattis is known for his relentless pursuit of insurgents and terrorists (How else do you get the nickname “Mad Dog”?), yet the counterinsurgency field manual that he co-wrote with Gen. David Petraeus places a premium on protecting civilian lives. In discussing the use of air power, the manual pointedly notes, “An air strike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation (HN) government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory. Even when justified under the law of war, bombings that result in civilian casualties can bring media coverage that works to the insurgents’ benefit.” And former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama and reportedly advised Trump on his secretary of state selection, wrote in his most recent memoir about efforts to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan: “I was also concerned that we were not moving fast enough or decisively enough to deal with the problem of civilian casualties. I don’t believe any military force ever worked harder to avoid innocent victims, but it seemed like every incident was a strategic defeat, and we needed to take dramatic action.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/36013/t...mas-rules-war/


Did you even read all of the bit I just excerpted? That's probably more than you read in a week isn't it. That's why you're so fucking ignorant mate. You don't actually take in any information, you just take in stuff from bullshitters who tell you what you want to hear.

---

What a diltz

http://youtu.be/ACdUqmgFLyU

BWAHAHAHAHA

So lots of posts missing here I'm noticing.....guess I'll have to readdress the situation, perhaps in a thread of it's very own :)