LDS Freedom Forum

KMCopeland wrote:

coachmarc wrote:Man, for a second, I thought the title read IRS rather than ISIS. I about pooped a brick! I wouldn't be surprised, though, that the stage is now being set for fed up Americans to welcome a world war in the name of ending terrorism. I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican was elected our next president and launched the world into the endgame.

I don't think Americans will ever again welcome anything but very limited military engagements. Which is a good thing, since we no longer have the size force to fight a world war.

It would only take one loan from profiteers of war to finance a suitable army. There are arguably plenty of patriots willing to fight in such wars in the name of liberty, etc.

coachmarc wrote:

KMCopeland wrote:

coachmarc wrote:Man, for a second, I thought the title read IRS rather than ISIS. I about pooped a brick! I wouldn't be surprised, though, that the stage is now being set for fed up Americans to welcome a world war in the name of ending terrorism. I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican was elected our next president and launched the world into the endgame.

I don't think Americans will ever again welcome anything but very limited military engagements. Which is a good thing, since we no longer have the size force to fight a world war.

It would only take one loan from profiteers of war to finance a suitable army. There are arguably plenty of patriots willing to fight in such wars in the name of liberty, etc.

Right on both counts. But money isn't the reason we don't have enough troops to fight a world war. Contrary to claims that the US is in dire financial straits -- it isn't. But in order to be ready to fight a worldwide, protracted war, you have to have that kind of troop strength in place when it happens. It takes years to have the military infrastructure in place to accommodate a huge fighting force. We've been tearing that military infrastructure down since the Vietnam war ended. Closing bases all over the country -- all over the world really. The kind of readiness we're talking about doesn't happen overnight. It has to be in place when it's needed. And honestly, I don't think it's needed at this moment in history. Putin is the only one who could mount a credible threat to us, and all he wants is contiguous territory. He doesn't want continental US territory and he's not a complete idiot. Ukraine may not be safe from him -- but we are.

samizdat wrote:So, how did ISIS get hold of American weaponry? Did they just randomly stumble upon Humvees and 50 cals?

The idea that we've deliberately supplied ISIS is insane. To put it nicely.


They've acquired their arms the way insurgencies always do: they steal, smuggle, and capture them, and they buy the rest from international arms dealers.

They captured tanks from the Syrian rebels, and they've captured field and anti-aircraft guns from the Iraqi and Syrian armies. They've also got rocket launchers, grenade launchers and American-made M60 machine guns that came from Croatia through Saudi Arabia. After they were sold to the Saudis, they were flown to Turkey and then smuggled into Syria overland before being sold or given to ISIS. Any sophisticated US weapons they've got they got from running the Iraqi army off their bases in Mosul, and taking the weapons they left behind.

It's hard to know exactly what weapons were taken from the Iraqi bases, but we have footage of ISIS fighters driving US Humvees, and using US howitzers and shoulder held rocket launchers. So they do have some US equipment they can use. But they don't know how to use most of it. They don't know how to maintain it either, especially tanks & Humvees, and they can't get spare parts. They know that. So they've blown up lots of them so nobody else can use them either.

Whoever is telling you that Obama is supplying ISIS is a liar.

First, KMC states:

ISIS is very real. It's not an invention of the CIA or anybody else.

Then who is responsible for it, the Jinn?

Also, if this goes through the UN Security Council I would suspect that Russia and China would veto it as they remember when Obama lied through his teeth to get Res. 1973 through and promised that all it did was authorize a no-fly zone over Libya...before he carpet bombed the nation back to the Stone Age.

The Russians and Chinese know that Obama has Assad in his crosshairs and they will not allow Obama to use an excuse to murder Assad and hand over Syria to Jihadists.

Fiannan wrote:First, KMC states:

ISIS is very real. It's not an invention of the CIA or anybody else.

Then who is responsible for it, the Jinn?

So it's either the CIA or the Jinn?

Fiannan wrote:Also, if this goes through the UN Security Council I would suspect that Russia and China would veto it as they remember when Obama lied through his teeth to get Res. 1973 through

Russia will veto anything we suggest on principle. China? Who knows. It doesn't matter though. One veto is enough.

Fiannan wrote:and promised that all it did was authorize a no-fly zone over Libya...before he carpet bombed the nation back to the Stone Age.

You're badly misinformed about that.

Fiannan wrote:The Russians and Chinese know that Obama has Assad in his crosshairs and they will not allow Obama to use an excuse to murder Assad and hand over Syria to Jihadists.

If you think Russia and/or China have the power to allow or not allow an American president to do or not do anything -- I don't know Fiannan. You really need to look elsewhere for your information. That's just not part of the equation. And you actually think Obama would, or could, hand Syria over to jihadists? What in the world are you smoking?

If you think Russia and/or China have the power to allow or not allow an American president to do or not do anything -- I don't know Fiannan. You really need to look elsewhere for your information. That's just not part of the equation. And you actually think Obama would, or could, hand Syria over to jihadists? What in the world are you smoking?

KMC...you think Obama is all powerful and makes the Russians and Chinese bow to him as if he was an American fan girl? I think they have a totally different view of things in Beijing and Moscow.

Then you diminish the Great One's power by suggesting that he would not be able to hand over Syria to the jihadists? What did he do in Libya?

Oh, and I would suggest you study the issue of how Obama deceived the Russians and Chinese in regards to Libya. You are the misinformed one, not I.

By the way KMC, do you have an altar to Obama? I would suggest you hang this picture over it:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GIwyg-RVZVc/0.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KMCopeland wrote:Are you aware of the truth? I don't know how you could be. Because although a lot of people are aware of some serious problems with the official version of 9/11, I don't think the truth is available yet.

Aware enough that I produced a 2-hour documentary film on it after 7 years of independent research.

Col. Flagg wrote:

KMCopeland wrote:Are you aware of the truth? I don't know how you could be. Because although a lot of people are aware of some serious problems with the official version of 9/11, I don't think the truth is available yet.

Aware enough that I produced a 2-hour documentary film on it after 7 years of independent research.

Is it online?

Fiannan wrote:

KMCopeland wrote:If you think Russia and/or China have the power to allow or not allow an American president to do or not do anything -- I don't know Fiannan. You really need to look elsewhere for your information. That's just not part of the equation. And you actually think Obama would, or could, hand Syria over to jihadists? What in the world are you smoking?

KMC...you think Obama is all powerful and makes the Russians and Chinese bow to him as if he was an American fan girl?

That's not a conclusion anybody -- but you -- could draw from anything I said.

Fiannan wrote:I think they have a totally different view of things in Beijing and Moscow.

They have the same view. They know very well in Beijing & Moscow that they don't have the power to "allow" an American president to do anything.

Fiannan wrote:Then you diminish the Great One's power by suggesting that he would not be able to hand over Syria to the jihadists?

It's actually the same concept. Few countries have the power to "allow" leaders of other countries to hand countries back and forth like toys.

Fiannan wrote:What did he do in Libya?

He ordered the US to participate in a brief bombing campaign to prevent a genocide at the hands of a maniac, and then came home.

Fiannan wrote:Oh, and I would suggest you study the issue of how Obama deceived the Russians and Chinese in regards to Libya.

Now why in the world would I care if he deceived the Russians and the Chinese in regards to Libya, much less study it?


And I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese are grateful for your concern.

I don't know if it is. The Col. asked me if he could ship it to my place once. Kind of tough to send it out of country though.

And KMCopeland, I don't listen to Alex Jones. Nor am I a Fox News man.

But there are a few people who I DO watch regularly...Tyler Durden and Martin Armstrong, among others. As well as the European press as the American press is laughably bad. The Russian press is also quite bad.

samizdat wrote:A symmetric reaction would be sending even heavier weapons into Ukraine. An asymmetrical reaction would be to send in the army and missiles, and also attack the Baltic nations, daring Nato to strike.

So you're saying that Putin has threatened to be extra aggressive militarily, maybe in the Baltics, if the US sends heavy weapons? I hadn't heard that.

KMCopeland wrote:

samizdat wrote:A symmetric reaction would be sending even heavier weapons into Ukraine. An asymmetrical reaction would be to send in the army and missiles, and also attack the Baltic nations, daring Nato to strike.

So you're saying that Putin has threatened to be extra aggressive militarily, maybe in the Baltics, if the US sends heavy weapons? I hadn't heard that.

I'll send the link if your Spanish is good.

http://inteligenciafinancieraglobal.blo ... iesgo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the English one:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/r ... 15654.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The latter NOT being an apparatchik newspaper like the Pravda is, but owned by European expats living in Moscow.

US started the civil war in Ukraine long before you heard about a civil war in Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fiannan wrote:US started the civil war in Ukraine long before you heard about a civil war in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life.

samizdat wrote:

KMCopeland wrote:

samizdat wrote:A symmetric reaction would be sending even heavier weapons into Ukraine. An asymmetrical reaction would be to send in the army and missiles, and also attack the Baltic nations, daring Nato to strike.

So you're saying that Putin has threatened to be extra aggressive militarily, maybe in the Baltics, if the US sends heavy weapons? I hadn't heard that.

I'll send the link if your Spanish is good.

http://inteligenciafinancieraglobal.blo ... iesgo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the English one:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/r ... 15654.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The latter NOT being an apparatchik newspaper like the Pravda is, but owned by European expats living in Moscow.

My Spanish is pretty bad. I read the English one. Good article. I'd be surprised if we opposed Merkel on this.

KMCopeland wrote:

Fiannan wrote:US started the civil war in Ukraine long before you heard about a civil war in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life.

You've never seen a group of people at an Obama rally?

Now why in the world would I care if he deceived the Russians and the Chinese in regards to Libya, much less study it?

I guess not, you don't seem concerned when he deceives the US population either.

He ordered the US to participate in a brief bombing campaign to prevent a genocide at the hands of a maniac, and then came home.

Oh really? How many people did Kadaffi kill and under what circumstances? All accounts I have read indicate his soldiers took on a group of jihadists who stormed an ammunition storage facility. What would the USA do if a group of people did likewise in the USA? That's right, helicopter gunships would mow them down.

So after killing tens of thousands of people in this "brief bombing campaign" and destroying the infrastructure of Libya the US and its NATO puppets went home. Now Libya is a Hobbesian nightmare of armed gangs (many of which are ISIS in nature) fighting for control and murdering people they don't like. So much for hope and change, right KMC?

The guy breaks down every argument that Obama apologists could possibly come up with in a humorous manner:

http://rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-su ... an-sniper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fiannan wrote:

KMCopeland wrote:He ordered the US to participate in a brief bombing campaign to prevent a genocide at the hands of a maniac, and then came home.

Oh really? How many people did Kadaffi kill and under what circumstances? All accounts I have read indicate his soldiers took on a group of jihadists who stormed an ammunition storage facility.

All I can say is your sources of information must be really, really bad. What actually happened is really quite easy for you to find out -- if you cared about something besides gossippy nonsense & right wing nutcase chatter "proving" Obama is (insert your descriptive of choice here).

Fiannan wrote:would the USA do if a group of people did likewise in the USA? That's right, helicopter gunships would mow them down.

Poor little Qaddafi. An innocent victim of the big bad USA. Boy are your priorities skewed.