FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > trump on nato
trump on nato
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? " Less obviously | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously" I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance" That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......  | |||
 | |||
"Trump... Hey NATO your not paying enough... NATO to Trump... We give you rent free bases to launch your attacks on the rest of the world how about some tent? Trump... I'm the Donald, I don't pay rent or taxes, thought my people explained it to you... You pay me, that's how protection rackets work... And now that it is team Putin trumps all you need to pay up now! "wow ,Will ..... that type of humour.... is a bit unbecoming..... Specially considering Trump is correct ! Also .... your insistence on the Goebbels principle regarding Trump-Putin is starting to make the witch hunt become very real ! 
But unfortunately for you and others the facts are not adding up !
Watch this... jump to minute 24 till 29 ! five very interesting minutes !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGg8gpGqr-w
So.... its ok for the Obama admin to share intelligence with the Russians, but when trump does its the end of the World !   | |||
"Was President trump right to remind the EU leaders to pay their dues to nato. Only the USA,poland,greece,estonia and ourselves are paying up. 119 billion dollars are owed by the shirkers should they be billed ?" What are these "dues" and who are they payable to? To whom do the "shirkers" owe money and why? | |||
"Was President trump right to remind the EU leaders to pay their dues to nato. Only the USA,poland,greece,estonia and ourselves are paying up. 119 billion dollars are owed by the shirkers should they be billed ? What are these "dues" and who are they payable to? To whom do the "shirkers" owe money and why? " NATO members are expected to meet certain criteria as part of their membership. One of those criteria is a guideline contribution of 2% of GDP on defence spending. Many member countries are woefully short of this commitment. | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm...... "You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set? | |||
| |||
"if the USA pulled out of NATO it wud b a joke thers only the UK and France who could put up a fight against Russia and that wudnt last long without the US so he was totaly right to ask them to pay there share " All armed forces have their own strengths and weaknesses. It's by pooling them together in NATO that we have a cohesive fighting force. The 28 member nations also really keep those that aren't members safe as well. | |||
"if the USA pulled out of NATO it wud b a joke thers only the UK and France who could put up a fight against Russia and that wudnt last long without the US so he was totaly right to ask them to pay there share " That's not how NATO works though. It's not a quid pro quo | |||
"Was President trump right to remind the EU leaders to pay their dues to nato. Only the USA,poland,greece,estonia and ourselves are paying up. 119 billion dollars are owed by the shirkers should they be billed ?" Yes. They should cough up. Funny how countries like France and Germany insist on the correct payments to keep the EU gravy train rolling, but they shirk their NATO responsibilities. | |||
"if the USA pulled out of NATO it wud b a joke thers only the UK and France who could put up a fight against Russia and that wudnt last long without the US so he was totaly right to ask them to pay there share " Can you name the one country that has triggered article 5 and ask for assistance from the alliance? | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously" Why? What capabilities would they scrap if NATO members paid more? | |||
"if the USA pulled out of NATO it wud b a joke thers only the UK and France who could put up a fight against Russia and that wudnt last long without the US so he was totaly right to ask them to pay there share Can you name the one country that has triggered article 5 and ask for assistance from the alliance?" I seem to remember the USA got NATO involved after 911. | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously Why? What capabilities would they scrap if NATO members paid more? " Capabilities, none. Capabilities make up about a third of the budget though. Using the equipment costs more than buying it. | |||
| |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously Why? What capabilities would they scrap if NATO members paid more? Capabilities, none. Capabilities make up about a third of the budget though. Using the equipment costs more than buying it. " So what would they cut? | |||
"NATO is just a club were the USA provide the safety for all the other members basically so they can't afford not to pay there share incase trump pulls out the USA " That's an overly simplistic interpretation | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set? "No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal ! That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!  | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
"im sure murdoch owns national geogrAphic now, so that knocks any facts out the window | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
im sure murdoch owns national geogrAphic now, so that knocks any facts out the window"I am sorry to say that is a stupid comment ! It shows you are commenting on something you havnt seen ! If you had seen the program in question you would have stated the biased rubish you did ! Not telling you why ! See the program ! | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
"Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete. | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete. "Using your words ....Patent rubbish ! Gets your facts straight ! | |||
| |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight ! "Which part of what i said do you dispute? | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute? "Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex ! | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex ! "Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. "youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from? | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from?"Money: Oil and drugs are the largest source. Prostitution and donations as other sources. Weapons: mostly captured from the Iraq army to start, top up with purchases from the international arms black market which largely traces back to iran, north korea, eastern europe and russia. Now can i have an answer to my question, where does its workforce come from? | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from?
Money: Oil and drugs are the largest source. Prostitution and donations as other sources.
Weapons: mostly captured from the Iraq army to start, top up with purchases from the international arms black market which largely traces back to iran, north korea, eastern europe and russia.
Now can i have an answer to my question, where does its workforce come from? "money saudi arabia royal family, oil sales slipped through net, drugs supplued by saudi royal family, opium via us forces in afghanistan, heroin production was on the decrease till us forces took over now its tripled. weapons weapons left or air dropped by us forces. id say the head chopper off'ers are saudi arabian coz that is what theyre good at. as for other mercs id say iraq, lybia, afghanistan and syria. with help from us and israeli special forces | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from?
Money: Oil and drugs are the largest source. Prostitution and donations as other sources.
Weapons: mostly captured from the Iraq army to start, top up with purchases from the international arms black market which largely traces back to iran, north korea, eastern europe and russia.
Now can i have an answer to my question, where does its workforce come from? money saudi arabia royal family, oil sales slipped through net, drugs supplued by saudi royal family, opium via us forces in afghanistan, heroin production was on the decrease till us forces took over now its tripled.
weapons weapons left or air dropped by us forces.
id say the head chopper off'ers are saudi arabian coz that is what theyre good at.
as for other mercs id say iraq, lybia, afghanistan and syria. with help from us and israeli special forces"I'd just like the top 3 ranked in order of prevalence please? | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from?
Money: Oil and drugs are the largest source. Prostitution and donations as other sources.
Weapons: mostly captured from the Iraq army to start, top up with purchases from the international arms black market which largely traces back to iran, north korea, eastern europe and russia.
Now can i have an answer to my question, where does its workforce come from? money saudi arabia royal family, oil sales slipped through net, drugs supplued by saudi royal family, opium via us forces in afghanistan, heroin production was on the decrease till us forces took over now its tripled.
weapons weapons left or air dropped by us forces.
id say the head chopper off'ers are saudi arabian coz that is what theyre good at.
as for other mercs id say iraq, lybia, afghanistan and syria. with help from us and israeli special forces
I'd just like the top 3 ranked in order of prevalence please? "i asked you to follow the money which you didnt answer correctly. | |||
"if the USA pulled out of NATO it wud b a joke thers only the UK and France who could put up a fight against Russia and that wudnt last long without the US so he was totaly right to ask them to pay there share Can you name the one country that has triggered article 5 and ask for assistance from the alliance?" Rather like nuclear deterants . They haven't had to ask or trigger it because article 5 exists! | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from?
Money: Oil and drugs are the largest source. Prostitution and donations as other sources.
Weapons: mostly captured from the Iraq army to start, top up with purchases from the international arms black market which largely traces back to iran, north korea, eastern europe and russia.
Now can i have an answer to my question, where does its workforce come from? money saudi arabia royal family, oil sales slipped through net, drugs supplued by saudi royal family, opium via us forces in afghanistan, heroin production was on the decrease till us forces took over now its tripled.
weapons weapons left or air dropped by us forces.
id say the head chopper off'ers are saudi arabian coz that is what theyre good at.
as for other mercs id say iraq, lybia, afghanistan and syria. with help from us and israeli special forces
I'd just like the top 3 ranked in order of prevalence please? i asked you to follow the money which you didnt answer correctly."It's not a trick question or a hard one. I'm trying to seperate fact with fiction as your story contains a lot more of the latter. Like any conspiracy theory there's just enough fact in it for a layman to take notice. | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from?
Money: Oil and drugs are the largest source. Prostitution and donations as other sources.
Weapons: mostly captured from the Iraq army to start, top up with purchases from the international arms black market which largely traces back to iran, north korea, eastern europe and russia.
Now can i have an answer to my question, where does its workforce come from? money saudi arabia royal family, oil sales slipped through net, drugs supplued by saudi royal family, opium via us forces in afghanistan, heroin production was on the decrease till us forces took over now its tripled.
weapons weapons left or air dropped by us forces.
id say the head chopper off'ers are saudi arabian coz that is what theyre good at.
as for other mercs id say iraq, lybia, afghanistan and syria. with help from us and israeli special forces
I'd just like the top 3 ranked in order of prevalence please? i asked you to follow the money which you didnt answer correctly.
It's not a trick question or a hard one. I'm trying to seperate fact with fiction as your story contains a lot more of the latter. Like any conspiracy theory there's just enough fact in it for a layman to take notice. "i gave my answers, its out there as documented truth. as for my answers i gave them. 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from?
Money: Oil and drugs are the largest source. Prostitution and donations as other sources.
Weapons: mostly captured from the Iraq army to start, top up with purchases from the international arms black market which largely traces back to iran, north korea, eastern europe and russia.
Now can i have an answer to my question, where does its workforce come from? money saudi arabia royal family, oil sales slipped through net, drugs supplued by saudi royal family, opium via us forces in afghanistan, heroin production was on the decrease till us forces took over now its tripled.
weapons weapons left or air dropped by us forces.
id say the head chopper off'ers are saudi arabian coz that is what theyre good at.
as for other mercs id say iraq, lybia, afghanistan and syria. with help from us and israeli special forces
I'd just like the top 3 ranked in order of prevalence please? i asked you to follow the money which you didnt answer correctly.
It's not a trick question or a hard one. I'm trying to seperate fact with fiction as your story contains a lot more of the latter. Like any conspiracy theory there's just enough fact in it for a layman to take notice. i gave my answers, its out there as documented truth. as for my answers i gave them.
1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia "Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. | |||
"If all NATO members paid 2%, would the US pay more, less, or the same on their denfense budget? Less obviously I'm not sure any decision made by this White House could be predicted in advance That can be a good thing ! by comparison ...... The previous one was very predictive .... here are some examples ; - We will withdraw from Iraq on xx date ! the enemy love that.... and thus... Isis was born ! - Red lines not To cross... in Syria for example.... mmmm... what red lines ? -Hope and change.... predictably failed... turned into change we can believe in..... mmm......
You seriously think ISIS was born when withdrawl dates from iraq were being set?
No ! It was born from the void left by that retreat , or withdrawal !
That is already factual recent history with programmes being shown on the subject on National Geographic or History, not sure of which right now!
Patent rubbish I'm afriad. Let's put to one side the fact that ISIS was fouded before the Iraq war in 1999 because that organisation wasn't as strong as the one we now face. ISIS really gained traction when the reconstruction effort went tits up, specifically the policy of debaathification. So 2004 is when it took off rather than 2011 when the withdrawl was complete.
Using your words ....Patent rubbish !
Gets your facts straight !
Which part of what i said do you dispute?
Dating and time line ! And as you know names and factions are a bit more complex !
Ok, let's try the socratic method. Which are the three most prevalent nationalies in ISIS fighting force? I'm not sure there's a certain answer to this question, so just your own estimate is fine. But please rank them 1, 2, 3 so we can talk about where most of their fighters come from. youre not following the money, to familiarize you on your other posts, where are they getting the money and weapons from?
Money: Oil and drugs are the largest source. Prostitution and donations as other sources.
Weapons: mostly captured from the Iraq army to start, top up with purchases from the international arms black market which largely traces back to iran, north korea, eastern europe and russia.
Now can i have an answer to my question, where does its workforce come from? money saudi arabia royal family, oil sales slipped through net, drugs supplued by saudi royal family, opium via us forces in afghanistan, heroin production was on the decrease till us forces took over now its tripled.
weapons weapons left or air dropped by us forces.
id say the head chopper off'ers are saudi arabian coz that is what theyre good at.
as for other mercs id say iraq, lybia, afghanistan and syria. with help from us and israeli special forces
I'd just like the top 3 ranked in order of prevalence please? i asked you to follow the money which you didnt answer correctly.
It's not a trick question or a hard one. I'm trying to seperate fact with fiction as your story contains a lot more of the latter. Like any conspiracy theory there's just enough fact in it for a layman to take notice. i gave my answers, its out there as documented truth. as for my answers i gave them.
1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia
Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1.
- So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact.
- Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact.
- The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus.
Possible explanations:
A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards
B) random coincidence
C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS.
"to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. " Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. " they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. " No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. " which part is conspiracy, not quite following you at numbers etc, not sure what youre trying to point out. | |||
| |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. which part is conspiracy, not quite following you at numbers etc, not sure what youre trying to point out. " What is the end game as you see it? Why is it in the interest of the Saudi Royal family to fund a terrorist organisation that could rival their own military? | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. which part is conspiracy, not quite following you at numbers etc, not sure what youre trying to point out. What is the end game as you see it? Why is it in the interest of the Saudi Royal family to fund a terrorist organisation that could rival their own military? " end game i see it is to destabilize the whole of middle east, and probably regime change. divide large areas of syria iraq too,. invade afghaniastan, libya, iraq,syria,and finally iran give autonomy to dividing factions, spread wahhibism around the area, control oil and gas fields. perpetuate more war against the region. stricter authoritarian laws and suverillance over here. | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. which part is conspiracy, not quite following you at numbers etc, not sure what youre trying to point out. What is the end game as you see it? Why is it in the interest of the Saudi Royal family to fund a terrorist organisation that could rival their own military? end game i see it is to destabilize the whole of middle east, and probably regime change. divide large areas of syria iraq too,. invade afghaniastan, libya, iraq,syria,and finally iran give autonomy to dividing factions, spread wahhibism around the area, control oil and gas fields. perpetuate more war against the region. stricter authoritarian laws and suverillance over here." That's the end game for ISIS? Why would the Saudi Royal family be interested in funding that? | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. which part is conspiracy, not quite following you at numbers etc, not sure what youre trying to point out. What is the end game as you see it? Why is it in the interest of the Saudi Royal family to fund a terrorist organisation that could rival their own military? end game i see it is to destabilize the whole of middle east, and probably regime change. divide large areas of syria iraq too,. invade afghaniastan, libya, iraq,syria,and finally iran give autonomy to dividing factions, spread wahhibism around the area, control oil and gas fields. perpetuate more war against the region. stricter authoritarian laws and suverillance over here. That's the end game for ISIS? Why would the Saudi Royal family be interested in funding that? " proxy wars u seem knowledgeble enough to do some research. they funded 911 why do you think they did that? | |||
| |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. which part is conspiracy, not quite following you at numbers etc, not sure what youre trying to point out. What is the end game as you see it? Why is it in the interest of the Saudi Royal family to fund a terrorist organisation that could rival their own military? end game i see it is to destabilize the whole of middle east, and probably regime change. divide large areas of syria iraq too,. invade afghaniastan, libya, iraq,syria,and finally iran give autonomy to dividing factions, spread wahhibism around the area, control oil and gas fields. perpetuate more war against the region. stricter authoritarian laws and suverillance over here. That's the end game for ISIS? Why would the Saudi Royal family be interested in funding that? " maybe saudi oil is drying up, saudi and isis manifesto is pretty similar, they follow same religion follow same rules etc. | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. which part is conspiracy, not quite following you at numbers etc, not sure what youre trying to point out. What is the end game as you see it? Why is it in the interest of the Saudi Royal family to fund a terrorist organisation that could rival their own military? end game i see it is to destabilize the whole of middle east, and probably regime change. divide large areas of syria iraq too,. invade afghaniastan, libya, iraq,syria,and finally iran give autonomy to dividing factions, spread wahhibism around the area, control oil and gas fields. perpetuate more war against the region. stricter authoritarian laws and suverillance over here. That's the end game for ISIS? Why would the Saudi Royal family be interested in funding that? proxy wars u seem knowledgeble enough to do some research. they funded 911 why do you think they did that?" No they didn't. There are many factions in saudi arabia. Turkeys don't fund thanks giving. | |||
" 1. iraq, 2, syria 3 afghanistan 4 head chopper off ers saudi arabia Good. Iraq is undoubtedly the correct #1. - So before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. Fact. - Said Army was disbanded in 2003 under a policy called debaathification. Fact. - The largest nationality of ISIS fighters is Iraqi. Consensus. Possible explanations: A) large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel found employment with ISIS from 2003 onwards B) random coincidence C) The large numbers of unemployed, trained military personnel in Iraq had other employment until ~2011 then some event happened which caused them to join ISIS. to be honest doesnt matter where from. where they get their funding from, weapons from, and the end game is more important. Weapons don't fire themselves and the organisation is self funding so your analysis is flawed. Ergo, if you have the people you can run the oil, drug and prostitution rings. By running them you have the money and with the money you can buy weapons. That business model doesn't work if you have money and weapons but no people. It can work very quickly after you have money and people or people and weapons. The people come first and everything else follows. You can't understand the end game if you can't follow the business model. That's just buying into their marketing bullshit or a conspiracy theory. they dont need to buy weapons, they get them air dropped ffs. can get any fool join anything if you give them some dosh and a few drugs. No you simply cannot find that many fools in one place unless there is alreay some sort of mass unemployment. From the whole of europe, ISIS has recuited ~6,000 people of the 80,000 - 200,000 it needs to hold it's territory. You believe in conspiracy theory rubbish and you can't follow the numbers yourself. which part is conspiracy, not quite following you at numbers etc, not sure what youre trying to point out. What is the end game as you see it? Why is it in the interest of the Saudi Royal family to fund a terrorist organisation that could rival their own military? end game i see it is to destabilize the whole of middle east, and probably regime change. divide large areas of syria iraq too,. invade afghaniastan, libya, iraq,syria,and finally iran give autonomy to dividing factions, spread wahhibism around the area, control oil and gas fields. perpetuate more war against the region. stricter authoritarian laws and suverillance over here. That's the end game for ISIS? Why would the Saudi Royal family be interested in funding that? maybe saudi oil is drying up, saudi and isis manifesto is pretty similar, they follow same religion follow same rules etc." The Saudi Royal Family doesn't need ISIS to create an islamic state and a caliphate. If they wanted one there would be one already - in saudi arabia. | |||
"Numbers are deceiving - Many Iraqis working or coerced into swelling the ranks of ISIS are children, gofers and drivers of bowsers/supply vehicles etc The majority and backbone of the elite fighter corps are foreigners from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia Chechnya, Russia, Morocco and Europe " Elite fighters from europe? Where did they cut their teeth? Chechnya - yes. | |||
"Numbers are deceiving - Many Iraqis working or coerced into swelling the ranks of ISIS are children, gofers and drivers of bowsers/supply vehicles etc The majority and backbone of the elite fighter corps are foreigners from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia Chechnya, Russia, Morocco and Europe Elite fighters from europe? Where did they cut their teeth? Chechnya - yes. " You would have to ask Mohammad Emwazi that question | |||
"Numbers are deceiving - Many Iraqis working or coerced into swelling the ranks of ISIS are children, gofers and drivers of bowsers/supply vehicles etc The majority and backbone of the elite fighter corps are foreigners from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia Chechnya, Russia, Morocco and Europe Elite fighters from europe? Where did they cut their teeth? Chechnya - yes. You would have to ask Mohammad Emwazi that question " No I'm asking the person who made the statement? Do you think mohammad emwazi was an elite fighter? | |||
"Numbers are deceiving - Many Iraqis working or coerced into swelling the ranks of ISIS are children, gofers and drivers of bowsers/supply vehicles etc The majority and backbone of the elite fighter corps are foreigners from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia Chechnya, Russia, Morocco and Europe Elite fighters from europe? Where did they cut their teeth? Chechnya - yes. You would have to ask Mohammad Emwazi that question No I'm asking the person who made the statement? Do you think mohammad emwazi was an elite fighter? " my guess some pr guy | |||
"Numbers are deceiving - Many Iraqis working or coerced into swelling the ranks of ISIS are children, gofers and drivers of bowsers/supply vehicles etc The majority and backbone of the elite fighter corps are foreigners from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia Chechnya, Russia, Morocco and Europe Elite fighters from europe? Where did they cut their teeth? Chechnya - yes. You would have to ask Mohammad Emwazi that question No I'm asking the person who made the statement? Do you think mohammad emwazi was an elite fighter? " In my opinion no but as an elite asset, in the eyes of Al-Shebab and many years later with ISIS - yes | |||
"Numbers are deceiving - Many Iraqis working or coerced into swelling the ranks of ISIS are children, gofers and drivers of bowsers/supply vehicles etc The majority and backbone of the elite fighter corps are foreigners from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia Chechnya, Russia, Morocco and Europe Elite fighters from europe? Where did they cut their teeth? Chechnya - yes. You would have to ask Mohammad Emwazi that question No I'm asking the person who made the statement? Do you think mohammad emwazi was an elite fighter? In my opinion no but as an elite asset, in the eyes of Al-Shebab and many years later with ISIS - yes " I would agree european fighters provide some nice PR for ISIS but i think most of them would struggle to shoot a deer let alone someone that could shoot back. The ones from Chechnya though... | |||
"Was President trump right to remind the EU leaders to pay their dues to nato. Only the USA,poland,greece,estonia and ourselves are paying up. 119 billion dollars are owed by the shirkers should they be billed ?" actually that is not quite true... we only reach the 2% spending limit because they changed the rules a few years ago which mean they were allowed to count spending on military pensions within the figures...... | |||
"Was President trump right to remind the EU leaders to pay their dues to nato. Only the USA,poland,greece,estonia and ourselves are paying up. 119 billion dollars are owed by the shirkers should they be billed ? actually that is not quite true... we only reach the 2% spending limit because they changed the rules a few years ago which mean they were allowed to count spending on military pensions within the figures......" Given the cost of those pensions will increase after you go on operations, it seems like a sensible thing to include? | |||
