Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:11 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107945 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435 ... 2699  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 17181
I think the McCain story has been confirmed by WH officials but it wasn't Trump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39545
Bokkom wrote:
First point, I don't believe in the illuminati, that's for conspiracy theorists.
I do believe in vested interests, big business and the leverage they exercise on governments worldwide. "Deep state" is just my blanket term for all of those entities.
But carry on, you people like to dumb it down to binary analogies, because it fits your simpleton narratives.
:thumbup:


10 minutes watching Hannity and now I understand you a bit more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5497
Location: The void
Kiwias wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
First point, I don't believe in the illuminati, that's for conspiracy theorists.
I do believe in vested interests, big business and the leverage they exercise on governments worldwide. "Deep state" is just my blanket term for all of those entities.
But carry on, you people like to dumb it down to binary analogies, because it fits your simpleton narratives.
:thumbup:


10 minutes watching Hannity and now I understand you a bit more.

Red pilled? :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 17181
TOTAL EXONERATION!

But also like this guy can't be trsuted coz otherwise my shitposting on twitter about the investigation is BS, the Russia story is real and he didn't find anything wrong with how the investigation started.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1134239846627729408


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10794
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39545
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Kiwias wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover

life is so binary for simpletons like you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39545
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover

life is so binary for simpletons like you.


crawl back into your hole, weasel-fucker


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Kiwias wrote:
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover

life is so binary for simpletons like you.

crawl back into your hole, weasel-fucker

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39545
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
merry! wrote:
life is so binary for simpletons like you.

crawl back into your hole, weasel-fucker

:lol:


You know less than 2/5ths of f-a about me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4158
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover

life is so binary for simpletons like you.

That's the thing, Merry, I stopped explaining myself to these people a long time ago.
Kiwias is a good bloke, IMO, but unfortunately, like so many others on this thread, seemingly unable to look with a clear eye at certain cold, hard facts that are right there in front of them. Maybe it is a type of personality trait; like blindly supporting your rugby team no matter what.

I refuse to watch any of those American partisan channels, whether from the left or right. They are all shills paid, directly or indirectly, by big business. Most of it is propaganda as far as I am concerned.

By the way, was this reported somewhere in the MSM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRQSfSKoJo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Bokkom wrote:
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover

life is so binary for simpletons like you.

That's the thing, Merry, I stopped explaining myself to these people a long time ago.
Kiwias is a good bloke, IMO, but unfortunately, like so many others on this thread, seemingly unable to look with a clear eye at certain cold, hard facts that are right there in front of them. Maybe it is a type of personality trait; like blinding supporting your rugby team no matter what.

By the way, was this reported somewhere in the MSM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRQSfSKoJo

not sure. last I heard the 'white helmets' were being investigated but lost track after that.

that whole Syria thing was a mess. right at the start I said to my wife I thought we were backing the wrong side.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 1:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39545
Bokkom wrote:
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover

life is so binary for simpletons like you.

That's the thing, Merry, I stopped explaining myself to these people a long time ago.
Kiwias is a good bloke, IMO, but unfortunately, like so many others on this thread, seemingly unable to look with a clear eye at certain cold, hard facts that are right there in front of them. Maybe it is a type of personality trait; like blindly supporting your rugby team no matter what.


Yes, of course, it must be such a good feeling being one of the few with such awareness. x(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5497
Location: The void
.


Last edited by Uthikoloshe on Fri May 31, 2019 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5497
Location: The void
:lol: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48469408


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4981
Location: Straya cunt
Has Trump learned how tariffs actually work yet?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Bokkom wrote:
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover

life is so binary for simpletons like you.

That's the thing, Merry, I stopped explaining myself to these people a long time ago.
Kiwias is a good bloke, IMO, but unfortunately, like so many others on this thread, seemingly unable to look with a clear eye at certain cold, hard facts that are right there in front of them. Maybe it is a type of personality trait; like blindly supporting your rugby team no matter what.

I refuse to watch any of those American partisan channels, whether from the left or right. They are all shills paid, directly or indirectly, by big business. Most of it is propaganda as far as I am concerned.

By the way, was this reported somewhere in the MSM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRQSfSKoJo


We went over this in the old Syria thread. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5497
Location: The void
Slim 293 wrote:
Has Trump learned how tariffs actually work yet?


Hijueputa. Donald Trump came into my room to bring me a plate of tariffs and I literally screamed at the pendejo and hit the tariffs out of his hand. He started to yell "YOU'RE GONNA PAY FOR THAT WALL AMIGO"

Like that!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
merry! wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bokkom is left wing from what I have read, Kiwias. That 10 minutes of Hannity you watched is probably more than he has.


His pratting on about the deep state mus tbe his cover

life is so binary for simpletons like you.

That's the thing, Merry, I stopped explaining myself to these people a long time ago.
Kiwias is a good bloke, IMO, but unfortunately, like so many others on this thread, seemingly unable to look with a clear eye at certain cold, hard facts that are right there in front of them. Maybe it is a type of personality trait; like blinding supporting your rugby team no matter what.

By the way, was this reported somewhere in the MSM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRQSfSKoJo

not sure. last I heard the 'white helmets' were being investigated but lost track after that.

that whole Syria thing was a mess. right at the start I said to my wife I thought we were backing the wrong side.


The only side taking on ISIS was the wrong side? ooooookay then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Uthikoloshe wrote:


Those tariffs are paid by US consumers. Trump doesn't seem to know this, but he's definitely calling US consumers bitches with this move.
If smashed avocado toast gets any more expensive there won't be a single millennial prepared to vote for Trump after this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Turbogoat wrote:
The only side taking on ISIS was the wrong side? ooooookay then.

:roll:

you must think assad and isis were bff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
The only side taking on ISIS was the wrong side? ooooookay then.

:roll:

you must think assad and isis were bff.


Not at all, that's not the only possible scenario there. For someone accusing other of being 'binary' you sure do fall into that trap an awful lot yourself. Maybe that's why you project this particular insult onto others?

Lets see if you can engage a little critical thinking and see what actually happened?

EDIT:

Actually, don't bother. Bump the Syria thread if you want to go down this rabbit hole


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
The only side taking on ISIS was the wrong side? ooooookay then.

:roll:

you must think assad and isis were bff.


Not at all, that's not the only possible scenario there.

Lets see if you can engage a little critical thinking and see what actually happened?

<sigh>

you're the one saying "only side"...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:57 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16107
Mr Mike wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
zzzz wrote:
P.S

The million dollar question here is:

If Mueller thinks a Special Prosecutor is prohibted by Justice Dept guidance from making a prosecution recomendation against a sitting president, what the f*ck was he doing accepting this role in the first place given that is exactly what it required him to do.
That wasn’t what it necessarily required and the issue was addressed specifically.

Quote:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
The second point is the most neglected and overlooked point when talking about the 10 identified potential acts of obstruction, particularly the potential witness tampering.

Mueller main point was “read the report you lazy bastards” and stop the handwringing and act on strengthening protectionism’s against foreign interference.
1. If Mueller's point is he only ever intended to conduct an evidence gathering investigation because he felt only that was permitted under the guidance, he (a) should have been up front about that because its not what the offical terms of reference seem to require, (b) not presented a redundant charging analysis, and (c) shut the f*ck up. The Mueller report is untested evidence. One of the reasons prosecutors are barred from making statements of wrong doing about uncharged parties is that by declining to charge, a prosecutor is declining to have tested either his evidence or his legal theories. So he isn't allowed to bad mouth investigation subjects in reliance on them. And preservation of evidence is explicity ruled out as grounds for doing this in the very opinion Mueller claims to be bound by. "As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily ‘no legitimate governmental interest served’ by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true ‘regardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third-party] for the future,'” In addition, the idea evidence would go stale before the end of even a second Trump term is risible.

2. Your second point above notes the opinion expressly tells Prosecutors it's the legislatives job to investigate a sitting president. Far from supporting what Mueller is doing, it actually undermines him. This is the heart of the issue. When the legislature investigates a president it is essentially a political process. One the one hand the legislature are unbounded by the process rules and formal requirements criminal law imposes but on the other hand they don't have the power of the executive branch at their beck and call. Which is how it should be: the executive branch of the state has to be constrained by law. What Mueller appears to have done is take his Special Prosecutor appointment (with all the associated executive powers) and then unhook it from all the limitations that are meant to apply to those powwers so that he could produce a weapon for use in the legislative process. The special counsel regulations were expressly written to stop this by making Special Prosecutors subject to DoJ rules and processes.
The points aren’t mine, they are extracts from Mueller’s statement yesterday but I have created some confusion when I referenced the “second point”. I meant the second part of his first paragraph, dealing with “co-conspirators who could now be charged”.

I share Barr’s view that Mueller has taken an overly restrictive view of the OLS opinion and shouldn’t have left the narrative there without at least some better developed legal analysis. Hence the reference to the failure to indict possible co-conspirators on obstruction (especially for witness tampering) if the evidence was sufficient.

I also don’t think it is a question of what he “intended” to do. His appointment and terms of reference were clear(ish) and could (and did) result in indictments for a number of people in connection with matters arising from that process. Where the investigation led to consideration of acts of the President the OLS opinion then (in his view) started to impact his options.


Isn't it now up to Barr to run with the information and prosecute or not based on the laws at his disposal? That last is pretty bloody obvious, but.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 2:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
The only side taking on ISIS was the wrong side? ooooookay then.

:roll:

you must think assad and isis were bff.


Not at all, that's not the only possible scenario there. For someone accusing other of being 'binary' you sure do fall into that trap an awful lot yourself. Maybe that's why you project this particular insult onto others?

Lets see if you can engage a little critical thinking and see what actually happened?

EDIT:

Actually, don't bother. Bump the Syria thread if you want to go down this rabbit hole

:lol:

jesus wept. you've just demonstrated your own binary thinking with your comment "the only side taking on isis" as if assad wasn't fighting them too.

as for projection, look in the mirror, muppet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39545
They've found a new word, isn't that cute?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Kiwias wrote:
They've found a new word, isn't that cute?

calmed down, princess?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
The only side taking on ISIS was the wrong side? ooooookay then.

:roll:

you must think assad and isis were bff.


Not at all, that's not the only possible scenario there.

Lets see if you can engage a little critical thinking and see what actually happened?

<sigh>

you're the one saying "only side"...


And you extrapolated from that "you must think assad and isis were bff." as if this were the only possible alternative. The world isn't that (to use your word) binary. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Kiwias wrote:
They've found a new word, isn't that cute?


There seems to be a bit of a struggle with the definition from poor merry though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
The only side taking on ISIS was the wrong side? ooooookay then.

:roll:

you must think assad and isis were bff.


Not at all, that's not the only possible scenario there. For someone accusing other of being 'binary' you sure do fall into that trap an awful lot yourself. Maybe that's why you project this particular insult onto others?

Lets see if you can engage a little critical thinking and see what actually happened?

EDIT:

Actually, don't bother. Bump the Syria thread if you want to go down this rabbit hole

:lol:

jesus wept. you've just demonstrated your own binary thinking with your comment "the only side taking on isis" as if assad wasn't fighting them too.

as for projection, look in the mirror, muppet.


Assad's efforts against ISIS were somewhere between piss-poor and pathetic. He and his Russian pals expended 99% of their efforts against 'Rebels' and civilians within range of them. ISIS casualties were at best collateral damage to their campaign.

But seriously, this all belongs on the Syria thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39545
merry! wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
They've found a new word, isn't that cute?

calmed down, princess?


Not sure how the sun shines in your world but all's sweet here. Do you dream of princesses?


Last edited by Kiwias on Fri May 31, 2019 3:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
The only side taking on ISIS was the wrong side? ooooookay then.

:roll:

you must think assad and isis were bff.


Not at all, that's not the only possible scenario there.

Lets see if you can engage a little critical thinking and see what actually happened?

<sigh>

you're the one saying "only side"...


And you extrapolated from that "you must think assad and isis were bff." as if this were the only possible alternative. The world isn't that (to use your word) binary. :roll:

you're full of shit. saying we were on the "only side taking on isis" just isn't true. assad was fighting them too.

either you're guilty of binary thinking or flat out lying.

take your pick. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
merry! wrote:
you're full of shit. saying we were on the "only side taking on isis" just isn't true. assad was fighting them too.

either you're guilty of binary thinking or flat out lying.

take your pick. :P


See my above post, you're labouring under a bit of a delusion regarding the anti-ISIS efforts by Assad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
you're full of shit. saying we were on the "only side taking on isis" just isn't true. assad was fighting them too.

either you're guilty of binary thinking or flat out lying.

take your pick. :P

See my above post, you're labouring under a bit of a delusion regarding the anti-ISIS efforts by Assad.

nope, you were wrong to claim only one side was taking on isis, regardless of how much effort assad was putting into it. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Meanwhile, back in North Korea, several officials have been executed over Trump doing his walk-out from the last talks with Kim.

https://thehill.com/policy/internationa ... mit-report

Quote:
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un reportedly ordered the execution of several top officials in March after they were unable to reach an agreement with President Trump at a second summit between the two leaders earlier this year.


But hey, this is the guy Trump claims to be in love with, so what's a little bloodshed between lovers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
you're full of shit. saying we were on the "only side taking on isis" just isn't true. assad was fighting them too.

either you're guilty of binary thinking or flat out lying.

take your pick. :P

See my above post, you're labouring under a bit of a delusion regarding the anti-ISIS efforts by Assad.

nope, you were wrong to claim only one side was taking on isis, regardless of how much effort assad was putting into it. :P


Actually no. In 2014 when the US went in, Assad was only operating against the various rebel groups, and did absolutely nothing at all against ISIS who were viewed as less of a threat to his regime at the time. When the US decided "which side to pick" there was no effort from Assad at all to combat ISIS. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
you're full of shit. saying we were on the "only side taking on isis" just isn't true. assad was fighting them too.

either you're guilty of binary thinking or flat out lying.

take your pick. :P

See my above post, you're labouring under a bit of a delusion regarding the anti-ISIS efforts by Assad.

nope, you were wrong to claim only one side was taking on isis, regardless of how much effort assad was putting into it. :P


Actually no. In 2014 when the US went in, Assad was only operating against the various rebel groups, and did absolutely nothing at all against ISIS who were viewed as less of a threat to his regime at the time. When the US decided "which side to pick" there was no effort from Assad at all to combat ISIS. :D

pfft, like a puff of smoke, assad's regime just disappeared when isis crossed the border and took over half his country.

try using your brain rather than google occasionally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
merry! wrote:
you're full of shit. saying we were on the "only side taking on isis" just isn't true. assad was fighting them too.

either you're guilty of binary thinking or flat out lying.

take your pick. :P

See my above post, you're labouring under a bit of a delusion regarding the anti-ISIS efforts by Assad.

nope, you were wrong to claim only one side was taking on isis, regardless of how much effort assad was putting into it. :P


Actually no. In 2014 when the US went in, Assad was only operating against the various rebel groups, and did absolutely nothing at all against ISIS who were viewed as less of a threat to his regime at the time. When the US decided "which side to pick" there was no effort from Assad at all to combat ISIS. :D

pfft, like a puff of smoke, assad's regime just disappeared when isis crossed the border and took over half his country.

try using your brain rather than google occasionally.


That's quite a telling insight into how little you seem to know about what was happening on the ground there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6683
Location: emmerdale
the amount of time you spend on here is quite a telling insight into your Rambo medic fantasy... :D


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107945 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435 ... 2699  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Chilli, Couch, Fat Old Git, flaggETERNAL, Google Adsense [Bot], JB1981, jdogscoop, Jensrsa, kiweez, koroke hangareka, Macrosan, Ted., UncleFB and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group