Off Topic Trumpy pumpy.

[Milk not bear jizz]

ISIS was a result of complacency. West was too busy on stamping out the old terrorist groups we failed to see the new radical groups forming.

That said, I think it is wrong to consider ISIS an old fashioned terrorist group targeting the West.

1) There is no specific ideology they are targeting. They believe they have to convert the whole world. Actually they hate other Muslims more than they hate non Muslims.

2) They don't want to come to the West to carry out terrorist attacks.

Sure they want to see us suffer and will offer support to those willing to attack us, but the whole point of starting the caliphate was to activate a clause in the Koran that says all true Muslims must live in the Caliphate. Living outside a Caliphate when one exists is about as big a sin as you can have.

ISIS people don't want to live in England or America because that's a sin. They want the Caliphate to absorb those countries but until they do they want to live in ISIS land.

That's why I always take with a pinch of salt when ISIS is blamed or takes credit for a terrorist attack. They are more concerned with expanding their borders than causing terrorist attacks.

Groups may have links to ISIS perhaps they've been in touch with ISIS recruiters. Perhaps they went to join ISIS but decided it wasn't for them and got up to mischief on their return...

But ISIS themselves are not behind most of the attacks because they unlike Al Qaeda they have no desire to live in sleeper cells in the west and operate outside their borders because to do so would be a sin living outside the Caliphate.

ISIS is very much an indirect threat not a direct.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

ISIS was a result of complacency. West was too busy on stamping out the old terrorist groups we failed to see the new radical groups forming.

That said, I think it is wrong to consider ISIS an old fashioned terrorist group targeting the West.

1) There is no specific ideology they are targeting. They believe they have to convert the whole world. Actually they hate other Muslims more than they hate non Muslims.

2) They don't want to come to the West to carry out terrorist attacks.

Sure they want to see us suffer and will offer support to those willing to attack us, but the whole point of starting the caliphate was to activate a clause in the Koran that says all true Muslims must live in the Caliphate. Living outside a Caliphate when one exists is about as big a sin as you can have.

ISIS people don't want to live in England or America because that's a sin. They want the Caliphate to absorb those countries but until they do they want to live in ISIS land.

That's why I always take with a pinch of salt when ISIS is blamed or takes credit for a terrorist attack. They are more concerned with expanding their borders than causing terrorist attacks.

Groups may have links to ISIS perhaps they've been in touch with ISIS recruiters. Perhaps they went to join ISIS but decided it wasn't for them and got up to mischief on their return...

But ISIS themselves are not behind most of the attacks because they unlike Al Qaeda they have no desire to live in sleeper cells in the west and operate outside their borders because to do so would be a sin living outside the Caliphate.

ISIS is very much an indirect threat not a direct.

I think frnakly you've missed a lot of whats actually going on.

ISIS is not an ideal it is a power structure and calling people to come to the caliphate is more about getting men and expertise than any ideal in the real world.

Again it is mythical clause as there is no more muslim place on the planet that saudi arabia where mecca is and realisitically they just ceased upon the notion to build this power base cos there was a sunni vaccuum in iraq and syria.

 

[BobbyD]

Hmmm...personally think ISIS is a result of half assed jobs both in Syria and Iraq. Either follow through with real regime change policy and commit for 30+ years or as so called liberal democracies put our hands up and admit once and for all we don't give a stuff about weapons of mass destruction and left the 2 dictators in power.

But how any of our leaders after ****ing it up so spectacularly can look at the young boy gasping for breath with terror in his eyes or a truck full of semi clothed children's body's..and say don't let refugees in. Or have the gall to hold holocaust rememberence days...

Of Course May is too busy whinging about easter eggs while selling more arms to the Saudis

Yup... ISIS rising in power is because of half assed assessments of what needed to be done for Regime Change.

With respect to actual regime change... i'm not sure what the final answer to that is as it's normally the people after a number of years has passed in wars when both sides are sick and tired of wars. Especially nowadays when weaponry is so powerful. People are on both sides (who is the right side or wrong side?, i don't believe their is a wrong side in this particular war minus ISIS) and are either so easily manipulated or co-erced into one side or in that case of probably the thousands that have died will fight for revenge.

It's a real **** show and no one really knows how to resolve it.

Chemical Warfare is terrible and because of it's indiscriminate use (everyone in that area will get affected, although a bomb probably does worse although the way of dying is worse with chemicals). I certainly don't think it's right to be used ever but it wasn't long ago (before we had such advanced weaponry) that everyone else was using them. That doesn't mean they should be used but it's easy to see from a historical point of view that humans never learn and have and will use any means to win a war.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/chembioattacks.html


Lastly it's a disgrace that we are doing business with the Saudis and the middle east in general. Mays laughable attempts to defend it whilst cutting bereavement benefit is disgusting.

 

[Milk not bear jizz]

I think frnakly you've missed a lot of whats actually going on.

ISIS is not an ideal it is a power structure and calling people to come to the caliphate is more about getting men and expertise than any ideal in the real world.

Again it is mythical clause as there is no more muslim place on the planet that saudi arabia where mecca is and realisitically they just ceased upon the notion to build this power base cos there was a sunni vaccuum in iraq and syria.

But if you look at all the terrorist attacks the last several years. People claim they were doing them on behalf of ISIS but very few actually had any real ISIS connections. ISIS absolutely believes you should live in the Caliphate or you're a heretic. It's not an ignored clause for them. If you're in ISIS you're supposed to live in the Caliphate. It's heresy not to.

As funny as it sounds, SA is too secular for ISIS loonies. They have a king. Religion is supposed to rule not a king.


That doesn't mean ISIS isn't a threat. (It's just more of a threat to the middle East than it is to us) It absolutely is. It is inspiring a lot of terrorism, they absolutely love to claim any attack and I'm sure they're giving logistical support.

Plus the biggest threat is those who grow disillusioned with ISIS after being trained and brain washed by them who come home.

Also when we finally crush ISIS all those crazed madmen are going to spread out and cause mayhem.

Directly though, ISIS is more of a worry to the Islamic world than it is to is. Al Qaeda was more a.direct threat to us before they got neutered.

 

[DirtyFrank]

Problem is...when you let bullys dictate method..it erodes the commitment not to use them yourselves.

Putin has already broke the nuclear treaty..Iran will develop their nuclear arsenal once US draws back from ME under Trump. North Korea will minaturise their nuclear capability.

And then reactionary fearful Trump manipulated by bannon who believes humanity only grows from war and rebuilding will use nuclear options eventually on North Korea or Iran..dragging China or Russia into it.

Because they'll believe you can only fight fire with fire.

Comparisons between Trump and Willhelm aren't too far off the mark.

A hawk would call Putins bluff in the ME, right now. Eliminate Assad...Crush ISIS and hem in Iran once again.

Then tell the Chinese to sort out North Korea and make it a protectorate while maintaining support for South Korea and Japan and maintaining the status quo with Tawain.

Unfortunately Trump appears to being doing the opposite so far.

Never mind Eastern Europe ffs.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

But if you look at all the terrorist attacks the last several years. People claim they were doing them on behalf of ISIS but very few actually had any real ISIS connections. ISIS absolutely believes you should live in the Caliphate or you're a heretic. It's not an ignored clause for them. If you're in ISIS you're supposed to live in the Caliphate. It's heresy not to.

As funny as it sounds, SA is too secular for ISIS loonies. They have a king. Religion is supposed to rule not a king.


That doesn't mean ISIS isn't a threat. (It's just more of a threat to the middle East than it is to us) It absolutely is. It is inspiring a lot of terrorism, they absolutely love to claim any attack and I'm sure they're giving logistical support.

Plus the biggest threat is those who grow disillusioned with ISIS after being trained and brain washed by them who come home.

Also when we finally crush ISIS all those crazed madmen are going to spread out and cause mayhem.

Directly though, ISIS is more of a worry to the Islamic world than it is to is. Al Qaeda was more a.direct threat to us before they got neutered.

90% are certinly opportunistic losers

the comic book one and the french nightclub/tadium etc are clealry planned and guys coming to go do them but 90% are loons like the guy in westminister.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

A top adviser to former President Barack Obama has labelled reports that she ordered surveillance of Donald Trump's campaign as "absolutely false".

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice flatly denied she or Mr Obama used intelligence for political purposes.

She was responding to reports alleging she sought to "unmask" any Trump officials who cropped up in foreign surveillance reports.

Ms Rice also rejected claims that she leaked information to US media.

She was pressed on MSNBC about whether she had exposed Mr Trump's former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign in February after misleading the White House about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

"I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would," Ms Rice replied.



WOW grammar police can have a field day with this.

 

[BobbyD]

Problem is...when you let bullys dictate method..it erodes the commitment not to use them yourselves.

Putin has already broke the nuclear treaty..Iran will develop their nuclear arsenal once US draws back from ME under Trump. North Korea will minaturise their nuclear capability.

And then reactionary fearful Trump manipulated by bannon who believes humanity only grows from war and rebuilding will use nuclear options eventually on North Korea or Iran..dragging China or Russia into it.

Because they'll believe you can only fight fire with fire.

Comparisons between Trump and Willhelm aren't too far off the mark.

A hawk would call Putins bluff in the ME, right now. Eliminate Assad...Crush ISIS and hem in Iran once again.

Then tell the Chinese to sort out North Korea and make it a protectorate while maintaining support for South Korea and Japan and maintaining the status quo with Tawain.

Unfortunately Trump appears to being doing the opposite so far.

Never mind Eastern Europe ffs.

Not sure what to think about the n korea situation. Have heard many different things from different people.

1. China sorting n korea out. They cant as it would mean war on their doorstep especially now nkorea are nuclear. Also there would be a flood of refugees to china.

2. China are scared with the downfall of n korea that a korean unification means that the u.s. will station troops next door to them.

3. U.s. dont want n korea to de militarise as it means they can station troops and have a larger presence in korea and japan.

4. A threat and allies abroad also means the big wigs can make more money selling their arms abroad to their allies.

How much of each is true i don't know but we all know that with war and arms people get filthy rich

 

[Milk not bear jizz]

90% are certinly opportunistic losers

the comic book one and the french nightclub/tadium etc are clealry planned and guys coming to go do them but 90% are loons like the guy in westminister.

Well you can't be normal and want to physically harm someone. They either have had to live through something traumatic that has affected them or have some serious psychological trauma.

Normal humans are repulsed at the though of hurting other people.

 

[BobbyD]

Well you can't be normal and want to physically harm someone. They either have had to live through something traumatic that has affected them or have some serious psychological trauma.

Normal humans are repulsed at the though of hurting other people.

Have to disagree. Most criminals i can agree have had some sort of trauma or gone through something rough.

I can totally believe that there are nutters out there though who are just sadistic just as there are disabled people.

As for terrorists, they are just puppets and either very angry or just easily influenced/impressionable.

Good people do bad things all the time.

 

[DirtyFrank]

Not sure what to think about the n korea situation. Have heard many different things from different people.

1. China sorting n korea out. They cant as it would mean war on their doorstep especially now nkorea are nuclear. Also there would be a flood of refugees to china.

2. China are scared with the downfall of n korea that a korean unification means that the u.s. will station troops next door to them.

3. U.s. dont want n korea to de militarise as it means they can station troops and have a larger presence in korea and japan.

4. A threat and allies abroad also means the big wigs can make more money selling their arms abroad to their allies.

How much of each is true i don't know but we all know that with war and arms people get filthy rich

All very true. How likely I don't know but I think between them US and China are going to have to deal and just divvy up Korea. China accepting US presence in the South, US accepting China owning the North. A buffer is no good if it eventually incites a mushroom cloud.

The US has to be dominant in the ME.China SE Asia and they have a generational plan for a lot of Africa. Their long term plan is for Africa to be China's breadbasket..China has learned global corporate control from the west and has applied it on the African continent.

There needs to ba a balance of superpowers. Russia for all its nukes and bluster is a spent force; a gangster state/s.

We all might like the idyllic idea of no Borders and cooperation in peaceful harmony but it can't be achieved when Putins can manipulate global politics. They need fenced back in.

As much as I hate the idea..it truly needs a powerful China and US influencing the world..competing yes but cancelling each other out.

Russia knows it's only two real directions it can move is the ME and Europe.

An anti ME and Europe US encourages Putin to try their hand.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Not sure what to think about the n korea situation. Have heard many different things from different people.

1. China sorting n korea out. They cant as it would mean war on their doorstep especially now nkorea are nuclear. Also there would be a flood of refugees to china.

2. China are scared with the downfall of n korea that a korean unification means that the u.s. will station troops next door to them.

3. U.s. dont want n korea to de militarise as it means they can station troops and have a larger presence in korea and japan.

4. A threat and allies abroad also means the big wigs can make more money selling their arms abroad to their allies.

How much of each is true i don't know but we all know that with war and arms people get filthy rich

china own north korea. they can bascially shut off food, water, power etc. china doesn't want to sort them out which is a completely different arguement.

You might be right on the US trying that basing on it N koea collapsed.

and you are 100% right on arms sales.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

All very true. How likely I don't know but I think between them US and China are going to have to deal and just divvy up Korea. China accepting US presence in the South, US accepting China owning the North. A buffer is no good if it eventually incites a mushroom cloud.

The US has to be dominant in the ME.China SE Asia and they have a generational plan for a lot of Africa. Their long term plan is for Africa to be China's breadbasket..China has learned global corporate control from the west and has applied it on the African continent.

There needs to ba a balance of superpowers. Russia for all its nukes and bluster is a spent force; a gangster state/s.

We all might like the idyllic idea of no Borders and cooperation in peaceful harmony but it can't be achieved when Putins can manipulate global politics. They need fenced back in.

As much as I hate the idea..it truly needs a powerful China and US influencing the world..competing yes but cancelling each other out.

Russia knows it's only two real directions it can move is the ME and Europe.

An anti ME and Europe US encourages Putin to try their hand.

this occurred in the 1950s. they have carved it up

China is not that agressive. I think their concept of conquest is rather interesting at this point. The problem is you can;t have one superpower largely dependant on manufacturing in the other or within a 2 day tank run from them.

US is totally exposed.

 

[Milk not bear jizz]

china own north korea. they can bascially shut off food, water, power etc. china doesn't want to sort them out which is a completely different arguement.

North Korean regime ends and China suddenly has millions of Korean refugees.

 

[Red Hadron Collider]

Why are they always referred to as 'so-called Islamic State'?

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Well you can't be normal and want to physically harm someone. They either have had to live through something traumatic that has affected them or have some serious psychological trauma.

Normal humans are repulsed at the though of hurting other people.

no necessarally.

I mean ok whats trauma?

The loon in Westminster was just a petty thief and angry man. If someone is dissatisfied and prone to being a petty crim they are easy prey to the propaganda etc. Its exactly the same kind of low lifes the nazi party started off with.

they are not unique types. they just have the added benefit of suicide killings being a religious good in their eyes.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

North Korean regime ends and China suddenly has millions of Korean refugees.

like they'd give a stuff? china is already feeding them.. you just move where you are feeding

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Why are they always referred to as 'so-called Islamic State'?

so called is tagged on to knock the legitimacy of state off and state is used cos apparently insulting them by saying isis ir isil is calling them donkeys or something.

It is honestly the type of stupid double and triple speak politicians get up to.

 

[LuisDiazgamechanger]

Steve Bannon loses National Security Council seat

You must log in or register to see images

Image
Image caption Steve Bannon is a lightning rod for much anti-Trump criticism
President Donald Trump has removed his senior strategist Steve Bannon from the US National Security Council (NSC).

The appointment in January raised fears that the circle of US intelligence chiefs was being politicised.

A White House aide said the reshuffle was not a demotion for Mr Bannon, who used to head up Breitbart News.

The aide said Mr Bannon was only given a seat on the NSC to keep an eye on National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was fired in February.

Trump's 'brain' Steve Bannon emerges from the shadows

The NSC is the main group advising the president on national security and foreign affairs.

You must log in or register to see images

Media captionSteve Bannon's three goals for the Trump presidency
The White House did not announce Wednesday's presidential executive order detailing the shake-up - it only came to light in a regulatory filing.

The reshuffle also restores the director of national intelligence, CIA director and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to full participation on the NSC's inner circle, its principals committee.

Critics have branded Mr Bannon - who once managed populist, right-wing Breitbart News - as a white nationalist.

Palace intrigue - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Another day, another bit of palace intrigue in the White House. After a week in which presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner's power seemed to grow exponentially, another longtime Trump insider, Steve Bannon, has had his wings clipped.

The White House attempted to brush off news that the senior political adviser is no long a principal on the National Security Council, but the on-background administration explanations ring hollow.

Was Mr Bannon really just there to "de-operationalise" the council after the Obama years or, even more improbably, keep an eye on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? In January, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer vigorously asserted that Mr Bannon's presence on the council was nothing out of the ordinary.

Washington foreign policy insiders are probably relieved by this development, as they largely considered Mr Bannon a reckless and inexperienced provocateur. They may believe that international affairs "grown-ups" are finally in control.

Although his national security influence may have been curtailed, Mr Bannon will continue to cast a long shadow in this administration. He occupies prime White House real estate, reportedly maintains his top security clearance and, most importantly, almost certainly still has the president's ear on political matters.

In its 27 January memorandum elevating Mr Bannon, the White House had also downgraded the military chiefs of staff, provoking widespread criticism in Washington's foreign policy and security establishment.

The director of national intelligence and the joint chiefs were advised they only needed to attend NSC meetings when discussions pertained to their areas.

The White House bridled in January at criticism of the Bannon move, pointing out that President Barack Obama's former adviser, David Axelrod, regularly attended NSC meetings.

However, Mr Axelrod was never appointed to the principals committee, as Mr Bannon was.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39508351

 

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

Just watching a documentary on trump, his older brother lost his job as airline pilot and needed help, up steps Donald, he gave him a job as a maintenance man at trump tower, no wonder the poor **** ended up drinking himself to death.

What a **** trump is.