White Helmets Preparing Another False-Flag Operation Similar to Idlib's Chemical Incident

Next he'll be calling you late for dinner.

 

You were responding to me (Post 35)

What part of:

did you not understand.

Who is the idiot/fool ? Say it ... come on .. Say it ... Tell us who the real fool is. Who is the one who calls others idiots for making claims that conflict with his spoon fed demonstrably false narrative.

 

My point exactly. Islamist journalists embedded with Islamist Jihadists giving us their unbiased objective false narrative

 

LOL .. The worst offense of them all !

 

I've already explained this to you before and I'm not going to do it anymore until you have proven that you have understood what I've said. If you have any questions then just ask.

I didn't say that you were lying. I said it was not true. Do you not understand the difference?

Your problem is that you didn't read my posts thoroughly and even then you were selective in your responses.

Yes because that was what you did from the very beginning and I initially disregarded it in the hope that you would behave yourself so don't be surprised if I returned the favour.

 

Go back and read. I was responding to Grumblenuts. Not you. Do you understand that?
I case you need a reminder it was about ISIS funding

 

Agreeing to disagree is progress in my book. I only hope that all parties walk away with a bit more perspective.

 

1) I did not call you an idiot or a fool in the beginning nor after ?
2) I stated that it was not my fault that you were unaware (ignorant) of the fact that the US (in conjunction with Saud, Qatar and others) were arming Islamist Jihadists in Syria after which you said anyone who believed this was an idiot. ... followed by calling me a fool.

3) you continue to focus on nonsense and misrepresent:

I said - 'The whole "Call to Jihad" was on the basis of turning Syria into a Strict Sharia/Theocracy .. and a whole lot of people in Syria do not want this. Unlike the land of Saud." followed by a list of freedoms that were available in Syria but not in Saud.

Further I have explained to you the rational for the comparison - Islamist Jihadists want to turn Syria into a Strict Sharia theocracy - like the land of Saud.

Further - I have explained to you six times now that this comparison was in relation to Saud.

Yet - you still want to claim "NO NO NO" you were comparing to all ME.

This is lame and disingenuous misrepresentation and obfuscation because you can not deal with fact that the US is supporting the wrong side in the fight in Syria.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

I do not care what you said to Grumblenuts. I am talking about what you said to me in post 35.

I already know that ISIS was being armed and supported by the US (in conjunction with Saud,Qatar and others).

Did you have something else to contribute ?

 

You can say that again! We've become a nation of adult children.

 

You insulted me from the very start. Anybody who reads this can see that.

Then you shouldn't have cast insults at me which you did and I initially ignored them

No I had responded to every single point that you made and I gave my reasons for them.

You stated quite clearly that Syria is the only secular country in the middle east irrespective whether you were making a comparison or not you were wrong and on top of that your statement assumed that the only other middle eastern country available for comparison was Saudi Arabia.
And you further reinforced that by saying that I could have only got alcohol if I was on a military base despite the fact that I told you I am in the middle east.

I'm sorry but you really weren't

Not once have you proven that the USA is supporting ISIS. If anything I provided clear and accurate evidence from the FATF report which you've ignored.

 

Your response was post no.101 which was in response to post no.91. No.91 was a reply to Grumblenuts post no.90 which had little to do with what you were rambling on about.
I don't think you've been able to keep track of the conversation.

Which has been found to be untrue as I have already proven.
ISIS does not make much money from foreign donations which not only goes against their ideology but would be extremely impractical which is why they've relied upon other means including the sale of oil which has proven to be extremely damaging when those facilities were attacked.

I fear it would be wasted on you because you simply have no tolerance for other peoples opinion or statements unless they agree with yours which is why you insulted me from the very beginning and then you behave like you're the injured party because I returned the favour.

 

It is not my fault that you had no clue that the US (in conjunction with Saud, Qatar and others) was arming Islamist Jihadists in Syria.
Do you not know what the word "ignorant" means ? .. saying "you don't know something" is not an insult unless one is a total snowflake.
You responding (only and idiot would believe this is on a different level).

Regardless:

Your FATF report does not help your case. Just because ISIS had other forms of income does not change the fact that they were being armed and supported by various aforementioned nation states.

I gave you a whole bunch of evidence that supports my claim.

VP-Biden "no moderate rebels" Saud/Qatar arming Al Nusra
Rand Paul "We are fighting alongside Al Qaeda and ISIS"
Ron Paul - http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...l-gains-result-from-us-support-of-extremists/
Senator Richard Black " US arming Al Qaeda"
Tulsi Gabbard " introduced bill banning the arming of terrorists - citing Syria" Obama repealed such a bill in 2013
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) " Insurgency is Islamist Jihadists (Salafi, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood) and we support them.
Archbishop of Syria "no moderates" CIA arming Islamist Jihadists
NY-Times CIA/US coordinated shipments of arms going to hard line Islamists
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey speaking before the armed services committee "US-Arab Allies funding ISIS"

 

That is the single greatest paragraph of hypocrisy I've read. Unbelievable. The logic is twisted and warped.

You clearly didn't read it.

ISIS is not being supported by the governments of Saudi Arabia, USA or Qatar. The report which gets its information captured ISIS documents is quite clear in showing that.
In fact Saudi Arabia has not only established a special office to stop money going to ISIS they've also been bombed by ISIS or did that somehow slip your mind.

And I asked you for links which you failed to provide.

 

Pretty sure I read about that "special office" somewhere in here

 

Where in the report do "captured ISIS" documents show that ISIS, Al Nusra, and Other Jihadists were not supported by Saud, US, Qatar ? That Saud - when the ISIS dog got loose from it's collar and went into Iraq - tried to stop what they had a hand in creating does not help your case.

The article was written in 2015 and focuses mainly on the sources of ISIS funding once it had been established. This has nothing to do with how ISIS managed to take over large swaths of Syria in the first place.

I have given you numerous links already - one of which is included in the post you are responding to.

VP-Biden "no moderate rebels" Saud/Qatar arming Al Nusra
Rand Paul "We are fighting alongside Al Qaeda and ISIS"
Ron Paul - http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...l-gains-result-from-us-support-of-extremists/
Senator Richard Black " US arming Al Qaeda"
Tulsi Gabbard " introduced bill banning the arming of terrorists - citing Syria" Obama repealed such a bill in 2013
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) " Insurgency is Islamist Jihadists (Salafi, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood) and we support them.
Archbishop of Syria "no moderates" CIA arming Islamist Jihadists
NY-Times CIA/US coordinated shipments of arms going to hard line Islamists
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey speaking before the armed services committee "US-Arab Allies funding ISIS"

After we have discussed the link in this post - we can move on to others.

 

Sorry is there a point that you're trying to make?

 

Funny, now that you mention it. I suppose there is. I like the Wikileaks one from Hillary especially. That tank maybe, hmm.. or maybe it's simply the title? Anyways, notice the search - then notice the result. Truly fascinating!

 

You might want to think about what is wrong with that sentence.

That's your opinion

You never asked so that means that you're changing the parameters of the discussion or maybe I should say goalposts and if you do that again I will stop responding to you.
In fact you were quite clear when you were talking about sources of funding

If in your mind numerous means one then fine you did but I asked for all of them

No we won't. If you continue to be unreasonable then I will stop replying to you immediately

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#attachments
Yes I've found the results truly fascinating as well.
Don't believe everything that you read

 

Well, I believe that's the wrong Wikileaks link, try this. But also, according to Google my link searching for your evidence provided "About 138,000,000 results (0.88 seconds) ", all or nearly so, apparently to the contrary. Who wudda thunk it?

 

I believe that , though many have tried, none has yet shown the contents of a Wikileaked document to be altered or fabricated by Wikileaks.

 

That link came from the article that you posted

 

Sigh. Goodbye

 

I posted an article?