The Trump presidency.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 18 Jan 2017, 16:16

Where did ISIS get their arms from? Originally financed from someone in Saudi Arabia to purchase Russian or Chinese Kalashnikovs, RPGs and anti aircraft guns I would think. Then they got them from the Iraqi army, mainly Sunnis, which just ran away in most of the time until the Shia militias got involved and started the fight back. The Iraqi arms stockpiles gave them access to heavier weapons.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 18 Jan 2017, 16:34

http://www.globalresearch.ca/where-does ... ks/5490040

There are many, many other corroborative reports on the above and it takes about five minutes to find them Ken

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 18 Jan 2017, 17:18

Little John wrote:http://www.globalresearch.ca/where-does ... ks/5490040

There are many, many other corroborative reports on the above and it takes about five minutes to find them Ken

As I said above "Then they got them from the Iraqi army, mainly Sunnis, which just ran away ". They have US weapons on the basis of cock up not deliberate policy.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 18 Jan 2017, 18:11

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Little John wrote:http://www.globalresearch.ca/where-does ... ks/5490040

There are many, many other corroborative reports on the above and it takes about five minutes to find them Ken
As I said above "Then they got them from the Iraqi army, mainly Sunnis, which just ran away ". They have US weapons on the basis of cock up not deliberate policy.

On what basis do you make the claim of it being merely a "cock up" as opposed to a direct policy? And, in any event, what is the difference, in the end? If you deliberately set out to play with the devil, you have no excuse if he acts like the devil.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... syria-iraq

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 18 Jan 2017, 21:00

Disorder gentleman disorder!

I thought this strand was about Trumpsville USA.

Personally I think this is a very soberly rendered and compelling take on the sad human reality pertaining for many currently in the land of the "free".

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_ ... s_20161120

Have a nice magical Brexit,

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 18 Jan 2017, 21:44

Too little too late PV

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 19 Jan 2017, 00:18

Ken you should read this. Read it, for God's sake.

http://www.dorseteye.com/north/articles ... -ourselves

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 19 Jan 2017, 01:30

Little John wrote:Ken you should read this. Read it, for God's sake.

http://www.dorseteye.com/north/articles ... -ourselves

He obviously gets paid by the word. I could not drive myself to finish the piece. If he has a valid point or conclusion I'll never know what it is because he could not come to that point.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 19 Jan 2017, 08:46

The article by Pilger is full of detailed dealings of the Obama administration leading up to the upcoming inauguration of Trump. But, instead of addressing a single one of those details you have, instead, chosen to reply with a fatuous, facile, meaningless rebuttal.

Okay VT. Would you like to try again?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 19 Jan 2017, 10:34

vtsnowedin wrote:
Little John wrote:Ken you should read this. Read it, for God's sake.

http://www.dorseteye.com/north/articles ... -ourselves
He obviously gets paid by the word.

It's not 'obvious' at all (his articles are of differing lengths for a start and they generally appear on his own website first).i Most publications won't print what he writes, because such truths make them squirm.

If you disagree with any of his facts, explain why. If you have nothing to say, don't say it.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 19 Jan 2017, 12:31

Little John wrote:The article by Pilger is full of detailed dealings of the Obama administration leading up to the upcoming inauguration of Trump. But, instead of addressing a single one of those details you have, instead, chosen to reply with a fatuous, facile, meaningless rebuttal.

Okay VT. Would you like to try again?

Another case of hurling implied insults because someone exercises their right to reply in a form they choose.

And E, VT explained why he wrote what he did. If you choose to disagree that's fine, but there's no need to get into the LJ style of repost. Unless you can find an existing, or you are imposing a new rule, VT can say as much or as little as he chooses.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 19 Jan 2017, 12:34

woodburner wrote:
Little John wrote:The article by Pilger is full of detailed dealings of the Obama administration leading up to the upcoming inauguration of Trump. But, instead of addressing a single one of those details you have, instead, chosen to reply with a fatuous, facile, meaningless rebuttal.

Okay VT. Would you like to try again?
Another case of hurling implied insults because someone exercises their right to reply in a form they choose.

Another case of avoiding having to engage with the argument. You are being very silly.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 19 Jan 2017, 12:48

Little John wrote:
woodburner wrote:
Little John wrote:The article by Pilger is full of detailed dealings of the Obama administration leading up to the upcoming inauguration of Trump. But, instead of addressing a single one of those details you have, instead, chosen to reply with a fatuous, facile, meaningless rebuttal.

Okay VT. Would you like to try again?
Another case of hurling implied insults because someone exercises their right to reply in a form they choose.
Another case of avoiding having to engage with the argument. You are being very silly.

And you continue to try and turn people away from PS with your attitude. Keep it up and the forum will contain posts only from people who perform to your demands.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 19 Jan 2017, 12:51

Little John wrote:
woodburner wrote:
Little John wrote:The article by Pilger is full of detailed dealings of the Obama administration leading up to the upcoming inauguration of Trump. But, instead of addressing a single one of those details you have, instead, chosen to reply with a fatuous, facile, meaningless rebuttal.

Okay VT. Would you like to try again?
Another case of hurling implied insults because someone exercises their right to reply in a form they choose.
Another case of avoiding having to engage with the argument. You are being very silly.

What part of "I did not finish reading it" did you not understand? As I did not finish reading it obviously I don't want to argue it one way or the other.
That I found his writing style so poor it was not worth finishing is purely my opinion which I'm entitled to with or without your concurrence.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 19 Jan 2017, 14:40

Little John wrote:Another case of avoiding having to engage with the argument. You are being very silly.

What is the argument? If you wish to propose something you should be able to say what it is without requiring others to do background reading.