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

Hmmm... Mental note: unbiased institute - Touchy about Wikileaks.

 

no.143. Now Goodbye

 

There I had posted a search link and alluded to one possible result. I posted no article. How else may I assist you?

 

You clearly didn't because there is a link to an article right there in post no.143. I've enough of this lunacy and for the third time bye.

 

Fair enough. I posted a link to a Salon article there. A link. Not an article. Happy now?

 

The sentence was fine. It is your reading comprehension that is impaired. This was just another one of your lame attempts at avoidance. In this case you are trying to avoid the fact that your article does not say what you claimed it did.

You ask me for a link. I give you a link and now you run to the playground crying "NO NO NO " so you can stick your head deep in the sands of denial.

I laugh in your general direction.

 

Run little one .. Run. Cover eyes, ears, mouth nose and any other orifice that might let the bad news in.

 

What you said was illogical at the very best and you clearly haven't read the report.

I asked for all of the links not just one. I never asked for a solitary link as I asked for all of them.

I despair directly at you

 

It is impossible to reasonably believe that you are a fully grown adult when you come out with stuff like this and I suspect that you didn't even the articles that Grumblenuts linked to.
I seem to have you on the ropes as it were and then you retreat into absurdity and twisted logic.

 

So this link and this link trump everything in this link <- is that the sword you're determined to die on? Seriously?

"You'd have to be an absolute idiot in order to believe that." <- and is this how "a fully grown adult" does it?

 

I'm being far too charitable but I'll point where you've gone wrong here

Link no.1 is the FATF report which you dismiss because you believe it represents the interests of international banking which it simply doesn't has offered a comprehensive reporting of ISIS funding none of which comes from the governments of the USA, Saudi Arabia or Qatar.
Furthermore all three governments have contributed to the weakening of ISIS but this seems to be ignored and all three are members of the coalition against ISIS.
Link no.2 comes from your Salon source which you bizarrely posted twice and then said that I had the incorrect link despite telling you it came from your source. A source which is itself incredulous.
Link no.3 is the one which you provided so I don't what that's doing there
That last link. Well all I can say is I don't think that you know what you're doing.

 

Why is it illogical to ask which page of the report you claim can be found ?
You can not handle all the links at the same time. You can not even handle the one I gave you.
Show that you can deal with that one first (as I am dealing with your link) and we can move on from there.

 

I did not dismiss your FATF report. I asked you what page your claim can be found (since you did not quote from the link - which) and you can not seem to manage this simple task.

No clue what you are talking about here. You are confusing me with another poster.

The last link given to you was from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...l-gains-result-from-us-support-of-extremists/

1) No Moderates of any significance. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other Islamist groups dominate the opposition and it has been this way since the beginning.
2) US (in conjunction with allies Saud, Qatar and others) have been supporting the Islamist's.

Don't blame me that you were unaware of these inconvenient truths.

 

Because it clearly states where the money has come from.
Your question is bizarre because it hinges on your preconceived opinion.

No you're not. You're asking an illogical question and as I told you from when you first posted your list I wanted all of those links not just one.

I'm sorry but you've clearly lost this debate.

 

You're confused. You don't even know what you've written.

The article simply interprets other news sources it doesn't actually inform the reader.

 

It states where "some" of the money comes from. Where did all their sophisticated US weapons come from ?

You can not even manage to deal with your own link- and have yet to provide where in the link your claim comes from, or quote from your link.

You have yet to deal with the link in question http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...l-gains-result-from-us-support-of-extremists/

If you can not handle this much then, what is the point of giving you more links ?

 

And support for your claim is ?

You are complaining because the article references it's sources ? LOL - did you make it through grade 10 ? - referencing one's sources is part of academic rigor.

You claimed that people who believed that the US (in conjunction with Saud, Qatar and others) were supporting Islamist Jihadists in Syria (such as Al Qaeda and ISIS) were idiots

The article informed you that

1) No Moderates of any significance. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other Islamist groups dominate the opposition and it has been this way since the beginning.
2) US (in conjunction with allies Saud, Qatar and others) have been supporting the Islamist's.

Now that you have been informed, perhaps in the future you will not say such silly things.

 

Their sophisticated weapons? Hahahahaha Is this some sort of joke?

 

Its quite obvious to anyone who reads this page that you are confused as to who is talking to whom

No. Why can't you read? I said interpretation

Well you've done a very good job of proving that and far better than could ever have been expected.

I just told you why its incredulous. Have you not understood a single word that I've said? Actually I already know the answer and that is you simply haven't in the slightest.

 

It's important to remain vigilant about your surroundings.

 

That's all you can say? Why are you even here? I know what I'm doing. That last link was broken because this BB software has issues. But, who cares? No reason you shouldn't have been able to recognize the quoted words as yours.

"You'd have to be an absolute idiot in order to believe that."

An "absolute idiot" to believe what most of the rest of the world believes. Idiots! All of them! Obviously!

"Link no.1 is the FATF report which you dismiss because you believe it represents the interests of international banking which it simply doesn't has offered a comprehensive reporting of ISIS funding none of which comes from the governments of the USA, Saudi Arabia or Qatar."

Have you reflected upon that at all? Gee, three stand accused - so they create their own study - a study of themselves, and golly gee, come out smelling like roses! Amazing! Nothing like independent research! No manufacturing consent here!

"Furthermore all three governments have contributed to the weakening of ISIS but this seems to be ignored and all three are members of the coalition against ISIS."

Try all three created ISIS and wish to keep it alive as long as possible. Do you somehow imagine endless war isn't the goal here?

"Link no.2 comes from your Salon source {yada,yada} incredulous." - Nice. One word to knee-jerk deny the whole list of stuff. Oh my, now I see. Goodness, you've convinced me!

"Link no.3 is the one which you provided so I don't what that's doing there"

You didn't understand the question(s): "So this link and this link trump everything in this link <- is that the sword you're determined to die on? Seriously?"
For someone so inclined to call others idiots, you sure like to play dumb!

 

Again - do not blame me because you have no idea what kind of weapons the Islamist Jihadists were given.

Weapons such as TOW anti tank missiles and Stinger anti aircraft missiles.

 

You clearly don't. Its not difficult to quote someone else if that was what you were trying to do.

Sorry but the world doesn't, just armchair pundits like you.

Nonsense it wasn't even founded during this century and on top of that its an intergovernmental organisation and doesn't have any loyalties to any one government.
Its a shame that you can't deal with the facts but that's not my problem or my fault and nobody here in this country would agree with you either.

That's entirely your opinion

So you deny that the wikilink article that I showed you came from your own source?

Its your link. Please stop performing seppuku. Its just tragic.

 

Haha. You have really no idea do you?

 

Yap yap yap with no back-up for what you say. You are so scared of your own shadow that you refuse to provide the page in the link you gave that backs up your claim.

The article I gave you is "incredulous" because it references it's sources ? ROFL

The article informed you that:

1) No Moderates of any significance. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other Islamist groups dominate the opposition and it has been this way since the beginning.
2) US (in conjunction with allies Saud, Qatar and others) have been supporting the Islamist's.

Did you have some comment other than putting hands over ears crying "incredulous, incredulous" prior to running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial ?