Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
joc

Who Is Running ISIS?

260 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Space Commander Travis

You mean Rita Katz, the terrorism analyst and the co-founder of the Search for International Terrorist Entities Intelligence Group, a private intelligence firm based in Washington, DC. Wikipedia

Certainly sounds fishy.

Doesn't Search for International Terrorist Entities sound rather like SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SolarPlexus

NATO and America needs terrorists and warzones. That's what most people do not understand at all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikolaj

NATO and America needs terrorists and warzones. That's what most people do not understand at all.

And Russia dont? Right hand of Osama bin Laden was FSB agent.

What about this?

You know, Americans are not Chetniks. Who done Serbrenica massacre? Serbs.

Can we draw conclusion that Serbs needs to do massacres and they need warzones? Im mean they attacked Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia.

Thats what most people understand. Except you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

You mean Rita Katz, the terrorism analyst and the co-founder of the Search for International Terrorist Entities Intelligence Group, a private intelligence firm based in Washington, DC. Wikipedia

Indeed I do.

SITE seems to be an offshoot of the socalled 'Intel Center', and both seem to have somewhat of a monopoly on all high profile terror vdo's coming from the usual suspects.

There are some interesting facts to be found concerning the background of the individuals related to both groups, not in the least that of Rita Katz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

And Russia dont? Right hand of Osama bin Laden was FSB agent.

What about this?

You know, Americans are not Chetniks. Who done Serbrenica massacre? Serbs.

Can we draw conclusion that Serbs needs to do massacres and they need warzones? Im mean they attacked Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia.

Thats what most people understand. Except you.

Does intra-former Yuogslav politics (or Russia) really have much to do with the current subject under discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

How about if it happened because the President of the USA before the current one brought Chaos and Awe™, or whatever trademarked slogan is that you enjoy repeating every time you want to jump up and down and wave a little flag about America's sheer mind-blowingly macho military incredibleness, to Iraq? Your theory might hold some water if Iraq post-Freedom, and before Obama came along, had been an oasis of peace and prosperity, and the population had been universally full of joy at America's military presence. If you do believe that, then I'm sorry, but as i said before there's really nothing I can do to help you.

The fact of the matter is: Iraq would have been an Oasis of Freedom had Bush remained for another four years. You cannot have peace nor freedom when insurgents continue to swarm in...and remember Harry Reid said, " We have lost the war!" and he said that because the insurgents were swarming in...Bush send more and more troops in to Iraq to battle the insurgency...and we won that insurgent war...we kicked them out of Mosul, we kicked them out of Falluja...and then...Bush's time was up...no more Bush...

....but Bush gave a warning to the next President...If you pull out of Iraq before our mission there is finished you will create a vacuum...and ISIS will fill it (not a direct quote)

The direct quote can be read HERE

And of course, right here:

direct quote from Bush:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

So don't give me any of this crap about, well we shouldn't have been there to begin with...deal with reality! We went...we did what we did...and then...the next guy ****ed it all up...why? On purpose? Because he's an idiot? Which one is it? Many of us believe it was on purpose!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikolaj

If members involved NATO as argument, to made position to look on ISIS on macroscale, why not mentioned Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

because Russia has absolutely nothing to do with it whereas NATO is the one that is, as usual, desperately looking for some excuse to justify its existence once again by finding some Existential threat or other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

The fact of the matter is: Iraq would have been an Oasis of Freedom had Bush remained for another four years. You cannot have peace nor freedom when insurgents continue to swarm in...and remember Harry Reid said, " We have lost the war!" and he said that because the insurgents were swarming in...Bush send more and more troops in to Iraq to battle the insurgency...and we won that insurgent war...we kicked them out of Mosul, we kicked them out of Falluja...and then...Bush's time was up...no more Bush...

....but Bush gave a warning to the next President...If you pull out of Iraq before our mission there is finished you will create a vacuum...and ISIS will fill it (not a direct quote)

The direct quote can be read HERE

And of course, right here:

direct quote from Bush:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

So don't give me any of this crap about, well we shouldn't have been there to begin with...deal with reality! We went...we did what we did...and then...the next guy ****ed it all up...why? On purpose? Because he's an idiot? Which one is it? Many of us believe it was on purpose!

"Would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Q"? But it was because of your giving them Freedom that resulted in Al Q being there in the first place, you silly little fellow. If he had ever, or if he was to do it even now, admitted that he'd got it wrong, even just that, not even that he'd done something that if any other country had done it it would have been called without question a crime , he might be able to salvage a little bit of respect for himself, but as it is his fanatical supporters like you and one or two others just don't seem to see it, you don't seem to be able to understand either the gravity of what he did or the incompetence with which he did it, so even though his successor is of course a strange combination of incompetence, naivety and ludicrous belligerence (at least towards Russia), the one who should carry the can for the Iraq fiasco and everything that result from it is the one who was responsible for it in the first place. Sorry about this.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

NATO and America needs terrorists and warzones. That's what most people do not understand at all.

It's comforting to know that Islam is completely irrelevant then. All these guys who are puffed up about "glorifying Allah" are just losers - it's America running the show for the world and we're fully in control of everything. :w00t:
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

NATO and America needs terrorists and warzones. That's what most people do not understand at all.

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

"Would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Q"? But it was because of your giving them Freedom that resulted in Al Q being there in the first place, you silly little fellow. If he had ever, or if he was to do it even now, admitted that he'd got it wrong, even just that, not even that he'd done something that if any other country had done it it would have been called without question a crime , he might be able to salvage a little bit of respect for himself, but as it is his fanatical supporters like you and one or two others just don't seem to see it, you don't seem to be able to understand either the gravity of what he did or the incompetence with which he did it, so even though his successor is of course a strange combination of incompetence, naivety and ludicrous belligerence (at least towards Russia), the one who should carry the can for the Iraq fiasco and everything that result from it is the one who was responsible for it in the first place. Sorry about this.

The one who did carry the can for the Iraq war and everything that resulted from it is dead...he was hung for war crimes against his own people...by his own people.

You can result to insults if you want...it's what liberals do when they don't have an argument of reason to stand behind.

Timeline: (even you should be able to follow this...I'll break it down for you in the simplest of terms:

April 1991 the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers. Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs.

Sept 11, 2001 Terrorists attack the United States of Americas homeland

October 7, 2001 The United States with the United Kingdom launched Operation Enduring Freedom which began The War in Afghanistan

On September 12, 2002 amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, President Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions for disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States will—a message that US officials make more explicit the following week.

Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return “without conditions.”

September 17, 2002 Iraqi and UN officials meet to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling.

LINK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sadaam is to blame for the war in Iraq...not Bush. In light of 911, and given the prior years of Iraqs build up of WMD...war with Iraq was prudent and inevitable. Left unto his own, Sadaam would most likely have Nuclear Weapons today...a far more dire circumstance for the Middle East and the rest of the world than ISIS is. Had Obama heeded Bush's warnings...ISIS would not exist and today Iraq would be self governing and terrorist free and peace and freedom would be the state of the Iraqi people. Obama sold out the Iraqi people and also sold out the United States...making all of the dead and wounded soldiers efforts to free Iraq ....in vain.

Blame:

Sadaam

Al Queida

Obama

...silly little man my ass... :gun:

Edited by joc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead

Joc,

How can you feel so positive had the american military continued on with the occupation of Iraq that they would be self governing today terrorist free and freedom to the state of the Iraqi people?

Its common knowledge the majority of the iraqi army, the american military trained for years, was a complete failure. What difference would it have made if the american military was still there today training these same guys who obviously didnt take their training serious enough to follow the will of the government in Baghdad once the americans left? This 'trained' army would still be the same guys today. Not sure how you feel it would be any different.

It was inevitable what resulted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SolarPlexus

First you must realize that , If there would be no terrorists, no peace missions, no warzones, no civil wars, no selling arms to terrorists... then NATO would serve no function, and would have to fire tens of thousands of officers , generals and military personnel that receive paychecks

yes NATO is a war machine that depends on others' suffering

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

It's comforting to know that Islam is completely irrelevant then. All these guys who are puffed up about "glorifying Allah" are just losers - it's America running the show for the world and we're fully in control of everything. :w00t:

a "defensive alliance" is pointless without an enemy, isn't it. And surely U.S. foreign policy since 1990 has been to find one enemy after another.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

a "defensive alliance" is pointless without an enemy, isn't it. And surely U.S. foreign policy since 1990 has been to find one enemy after another.

The enemies of Freedom are always at hand...it is not the desire of the United States or its allies to make war. It is the desire of the United States and its allies to make peace...through war if necessary! In order to preserve Freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The enemies of Freedom are always at hand...it is not the desire of the United States or its allies to make war. It is the desire of the United States and its allies to make peace...through war if necessary! In order to preserve Freedom.

The supporters of those enemies never admit such things joc. They are far more interested in finding fault from some perch of supposed intellectual superiority. It's pointless to waste time trying to convince - I make a statement of my case and spit in their direction any more. When the spam hits the fan those kind of people are going to be the enemy imo. In a civilized world, people can disagree. What's coming ISN'T going to be civilized and they'd do well to remember when that time comes.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

It's comforting to know that Islam is completely irrelevant then. All these guys who are puffed up about "glorifying Allah" are just losers - it's America running the show for the world and we're fully in control of everything. :w00t:

I wouldn't think 'Islam' as a religion has anything to do with ISIS's expension. What was ISIS before the conflict in Syria? No more than Al-Qaida-Iraq with al-Baghdadi - who was nothing of a caliph - as it's leader. They became the Islamic State by fighting for the rebel side in Syria. Somethings happened in the civil war to allow a branch of Al-Qaida to eventually become an army a la Hezbollah. It's only logical to think that they were given the missing pieces, a boost to grow that was/is fitting somebody's agenda.

Edited by samus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

Joc,

How can you feel so positive had the american military continued on with the occupation of Iraq that they would be self governing today terrorist free and freedom to the state of the Iraqi people?

Its common knowledge the majority of the iraqi army, the american military trained for years, was a complete failure. What difference would it have made if the american military was still there today training these same guys who obviously didnt take their training serious enough to follow the will of the government in Baghdad once the americans left? This 'trained' army would still be the same guys today. Not sure how you feel it would be any different.

It was inevitable what resulted.

Have you ever thought the training might have been inadequate? The Americans who were in a hurry to go back , just gave a namesake training . It would have been like , run two rounds , climb a ladder , fire few rounds and that's it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Have you ever thought the training might have been inadequate? The Americans who were in a hurry to go back , just gave a namesake training . It would have been like , run two rounds , climb a ladder , fire few rounds and that's it?

More than being inadequate...because the military doesn't work that way...I think it the training was...incomplete...we had a long way to go with it...that was Bush's whole point...until the Commanders on the ground say...We've got this...these guys are ready to go it alone...then they weren't ready to go it alone...

How long were we in Germany after WWII? I think we still are...or have been most of my life anyway. What was the damn hurry to pull out? Obama is either a complete total idiot...or...he is intentionally doing things to harm America.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

I wouldn't think 'Islam' as a religion has anything to do with ISIS's expension. What was ISIS before the conflict in Syria? No more than Al-Qaida-Iraq with al-Baghdadi - who was nothing of a caliph - as it's leader. They became the Islamic State by fighting for the rebel side in Syria. Somethings happened in the civil war to allow a branch of Al-Qaida to eventually become an army a la Hezbollah. It's only logical to think that they were given the missing pieces, a boost to grow that was/is fitting somebody's agenda.

Hmmm...let me think that through for...oh, a second or two anyway...Abu Numero Uno got his doctorate in Islamic Studies at the Univ of Bagdad. That's kind of, sort of, maybe a little bit of a link to Islam. Don't ya think? Right, no you don't think that. Hmmm....were they fighting for the rebel side in Syria...or were they fighting for and as ISIL. Maybe...because...ya know...after all...ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant....and Syria is part of Levant...might that be another small, maybe tiny even link to Islam?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead

Have you ever thought the training might have been inadequate? The Americans who were in a hurry to go back , just gave a namesake training . It would have been like , run two rounds , climb a ladder , fire few rounds and that's it?

For over 10 years? ??? Really?

These soldiers would still hold the same thoughts no matter what training you give them. What are you willing to do to get them to think like you? What's resulted from the invasion of Iraq happened as predicted and would STILL have happened had the USA stayed the course of occupation. It was a loser from the start.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

And Russia dont? Right hand of Osama bin Laden was FSB agent.

What about this?

You know, Americans are not Chetniks. Who done Serbrenica massacre? Serbs.

Can we draw conclusion that Serbs needs to do massacres and they need warzones? Im mean they attacked Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia.

Thats what most people understand. Except you.

Pal aren't you forgetting something?

Bin Laden was created by CIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

The enemies of Freedom are always at hand...it is not the desire of the United States or its allies to make war. It is the desire of the United States and its allies to make peace...through war if necessary! In order to preserve Freedom.

1984_george_orwell_war_is_peace_zpsvnzvxtkg.png

That could pretty much be the motto of the United States and NATO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.