Topic: Dylith, Iraq, Kurdistan, and so forth - page 4. (Read 3715 times)

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 10:02:17 AM

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

You rather missed the fact that his red line in Syria was taken seriously: hence the Russian political intervention. You also rather missed the fact that one of the longest sitting modern dictators ended up losing his life when he was on the wrong side of our red line in Libya. You also seem to have missed how seriously Al Qaeda takes our drone program. Let me know when you have something backing up your speculation.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on July 11, 2014, 09:51:24 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 09:46:49 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 11, 2014, 09:51:24 AM

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

None of that supports your argument that a red line in Iraq wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Try again.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 09:46:49 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 09:46:49 AM

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

Obama issued the "red line" challenge...he didn't have to, but he did.

Then he got called on it when Assad killed 1400 people and Obama's response was to "clarify what he meant when he said 'red line'."

What other evidence is there besides Obama saying "we" and "red line" and "will respond" and then not responding when the red line was crossed and shat upon?

Charlie Prime

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

See post immediately prior to yours. Your argument has no supporting evidence upon which to rest.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

I think the US is being smart with a tactic of limited engagement. Having some support staff on the ground can help the ISF where it is the weakest: intelligence and logistics. Since the Sunnis hate the Maliki government the ISF has been fighting blind in the northwest and has had to resort to mass bombing campaigns which has only pissed the Sunni civilians off even more. Anymore involvement from the US and it would strongly play into the rather sophisticated PR machine of the ISIS and likely delay the internal decay of their alliance network.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Obama flexed and his bluff was called and he turned tail. Why would anyone believe he has the resolve to follow through when he said (paraphrased) "use chemical weapons and we will respond" and Assad not only used them, he used them on children, and Obama's reply was (paraphrased) "uhh, Bush bad, when's my tee time again?

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

As for the whole "red line" commentary, it rather ignores the history of red line actions and their changing nature within conflicts, and is really only useful for domestic political consumption rather than for any useful analysis of the situation in the Middle East. France for example maintained a red line in Chad for years and the intensity of its nature shifted and when it shifted you can certainly believe that the rebel and Islamist forces on the ground took notice of it despite the laxness of said line in the past.

That being said, I don't see the ISIS as a group that would be as attentive to such a red line action by the United States, nor one that would, under any likely circumstance (barring the destruction of its hierarchy) sit at a peace table with Maliki or one that has anything to do with the United States. That being said, the ISIS is limited in reach due to its heavily sectarian nature. It has about 3,000 troops and relies heavily on local support through tribal militias and former Saddam men to make and keep progress in Iraq. Once they move to Shia areas that needed support dries up for them, even in Baghdad the 3,000 strong ISIS faces millions of Shia. Even among sunnis they have faced resistance which is actually why they had to take Mosul and approach Baghdad from the north instead of directly through Anbar from the west where they are still trying to push their way through (they have faced resistance from Sunni tribes there).

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

No idea regarding Turkey, but I have to imagine Israel isn't liking the Iranian involvement or our acceptance of it. They may just be waiting to see what happens.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 08:51:45 AM

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

Turkey’s take:

Turkey’s policy has shifted gradually over time. Originally they were aligned against the northern Kurdish militias in northern Iraq due to their connections to the PKK (the Kurdish Worker’s Party) based in eastern Turkey. They even sent troops across the border into northern Iraq to attack PKK bases during our invasion and occupation of the country. Since then, the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq (what is now ISIS or just IS) in both Iraq and Syria has increased security concerns in Turkey.

The ISIS is a concern yes, but Turkey’s major target of concern is northern Kurdish groups in Syria, principally the PYD (Democratic Union Party), which is a stronger supporter of the PKK. They became a vitally increased threat when Assad gave them control of border crossings with Turkey in retaliation for Turkey’s support for rebels.

In order to address the threat of the PYD Turkey funded al Nusra, which became an unsustainable tactic for them because 1.) Al Nusra was losing ground to the ISIS, and 2.) The United States put a lot of pressure on Turkey to pull their funding of the Al Qaeda affiliate which Turkey has now labeled, after much prodding, a terrorist organization. Their other plan of action though was to support northern Iraqi Kurds in the hopes of diminishing the influence and power of the PYD with the larger Kurdish National Council.

That didn’t turn out so well for Turkey though. The Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq didn’t have the means to influence the PYD in the way that Turkey had been hoping for; thus Turkey is currently engaged in under the table talks with the PYD due to the increasing threat that the ISIS poses. In the meantime the relationship fostered with the Northern Iraqi Kurds has blossomed into a mutually beneficial economic and political one.

1.) It gives Turkey some influence within a state dominated now by the ISIS and Shia, and 2.) It represents a safer region for Turkey (and Israel now) to import oil from Iraq through a newly build oil pipeline. The sustainability of it all though is dependent on Turkey’s continued negotiations with the PKK of course, though the economic reliance on Turkey likely makes the KRG less eager to support the PKK as heavily as they have in the past.

Israel is a little more opaque and I think they are mostly concerned about their borders, which would make the invasion of Jordan by the ISIS a red line for them and which makes them especially attentive to their border with Syria.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

Despite what Turkey says publicly, they love the idea of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq. That really takes the steam out of the Kurdish separatist movement that had been active for years in Turkey.

This could be objected that in the long term this would only make the situation even worse, since the Kurds probably won't stop with or stay in Northern Iraq.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

Despite what Turkey says publicly, they love the idea of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq. That really takes the steam out of the Kurdish separatist movement that had been active for years in Turkey.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: tee-rex on July 11, 2014, 08:09:53 AM

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Mostly I'm curious if he or anyone has an idea of what Turkey and Israel's angles are. But decisive action isn't really a trademark of the middle east. Their trademark is more along the game of thrones line.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Well hopefully novi comes along to shed light on why the various factions involved haven't taken decisive action

Charlie Prime

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

How could we actually trace the money flows? Do we have any means to perform such a trick?

It can be done, but is extremely boring, complex, and time consuming. When interested in a particular play, I scratch around a bit with...

http://finance.yahoo.com

http://www.guidestar.org

http://www.imf.org/external/publications/index.htm

http://www.bis.org/forum/research.htm

A far more efficient solution is to read the summaries written by researchers who specialize in one area of that research, and occasionally donate five dollars to them in support of their work.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on July 11, 2014, 07:40:03 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 07:15:31 AM

Quote from: tee-rex on July 11, 2014, 07:05:59 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 07:00:00 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 11, 2014, 07:40:03 AM

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...

Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.

My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.

I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them.

Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude.

So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously?

Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008.

The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else.

In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs.

The situation doesn't appear all that difficult to be honest. Well, to be fair, I'm not over there having to put up with the fighting, so it seems even easier.

What I was asking is what am I not seeing. I can see the connection between ISIS and Saudi Arabia, between Saudi Arabia and the US, al-Nusra and Qatar, Qatar and the US, Malicki and Iran and the US, and so can anyone else. Turkey supporting the breakaway of Kurdistan is confusing and I have no idea where that came from, and I'm not clearly seeing where Israel's hand is, although I can see where they could get an advantage.

More than anything else, I was wondering if Dylith or anyone else had a reasoned perspective on why the mess hasn't been ended with either US insistence, or Shia kicking the shit out of maybe 6-10 thousand Sunnis. Bear in mind that Russia let the Malicki regime and everyone else in the area as well as the US know that the invasion was going to happen 2 weeks in advance at least. To me, something isn't being seen in the light of day. A discussion on Obama's administration could only have a point if there was some insight on his long range goal, and I seriously doubt that will happen here.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 07:15:31 AM

Quote from: tee-rex on July 11, 2014, 07:05:59 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 11, 2014, 07:00:00 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 11, 2014, 07:44:43 AM

So what I'm hearing on the ground, and probably news reports I haven't seen because I've been busy...

Saudi Arabia is buying oil from ISIS, Qatar is buying oil from Al Nusra, Turkey is supporting a separate Kurdistan...in the former Iraq area...The US spy services had no idea whats his face was giving a speech in the new Islamic state...and I'm somewhat surprised.

My own belief is that the US could resolve most of this at a table with the principals...al-Malicki, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and whoever else may be required. Simply put, a good enough threat stops the killing mostly, and lays out a future. I dunno what exactly, because the people there need to have their own answer. But I seriously doubt many there would seriously tell the US to piss off if they felt there was a serious line. Now I know that's unlikely, but what's your opinion on what is going on. This entire fiasco makes little sense to me.

I can see it if I thought the Israeli's were trying to make the best of a situation they couldn't control, but I hesitate to believe that Israel has that much control given the current admin's general reaction to Israel.

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

Obama talked about a red line on Syria using chemical weapons and then ignored his own red line. Why the fuck would they care about us drawing a line when he has done it before and ignored it?

Did he actually ignore the red line he had drawn? As far as I remember, Syria agreed to get rid of their chemical weapons, and it was not proven that the Syrian pro-government troops has actually used them (yes, I remember that this didn't stop Bush in Iraq).

This is nothing to do with being anti-Obama and everything to do with him having drawn lines in the past and then ignored them.

Thread starter's point was that if the US Came in and drew a line, it could end the issues there. My reply was that Obama has drawn lines and ignored them, and even worse has blamed Congress for his ineptitude.

So since he's proven a line means nothing, why should they take anything he says seriously?

Yet again, I don't think the world shares your misanthropic need for Obama to be the absolute failure you've been repeating he is since 2008.

The reality is that any president would be working against the notion that working with the US in any real way would make them puppets in the eyes of their own faction, and right now this seems to be all about each faction grabbing as much as they can while the power vacuum expands. Think Russian state owned industry after the end of the Cold War: every fucking piece of infrastructure is now ripe for picking, and the more of it you own, the better your chances of continuing your cult of you into the future. And your supporters expect you to do this, because they have hitched themselves to your wagon--in this sense, imagine Ancient Rome of the fourth century and the never ending cycle of troops nominating their leader to be the new emperor. When this happened, you tried to be emperor or your supporters replaced you with someone else.

In my opinion, there is a curve to overcome, and that curve is opportunity versus self preservation over time. SP requires you take advantage of O right now, but for SP to occur in the long term, you have to limit O through agreements. Right now, I don't think any of the key players can actually get their patrons to support the idea of concessions and compromise NOW for stability and security in the future. Not when the middle eastern version of the end of the Cold War is taking place, and there is so much up for grabs.

keep repeating it, won't make it true

Obama: "hey Assad, here's a red line on chemical weapon use!!"
Assad: "fuck that, I just gassed 1400 people"
Everyone: "hey Obama, what about that line?"
Obama: "uhh, I didn't say that"
Everyone: "yes you did " http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-issues-syria-red-line-warning-on-chemical-weapons/2012/08/20/ba5d26ec-eaf7-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_story.html

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

You can believe that since Obama made, in my opinion also, a serious mistake by the Syrian red line, but the truth is that if he chooses, he can make everyone understand he is totally serious without having to raise a finger. The error was embarrassing, but unimportant if he chooses to flex. US will can be imposed pretty easily if the desire is there.

That issue is fairly unimportant to the discussion I hoped to have.

Yeah, I understand your pains and possible frustration!

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: Charlie Prime on July 11, 2014, 08:01:26 AM

Whatcha got that I'm missing, because I just don't see whose hand is controlling.

There is no One hand controlling everything. The whole world is basically a chessboard for different banking factions trying to gain control of human resources.

Humans are cattle. The Farmer who controls the most cattle wins. Right now Chinese bankers are making a run at the City of London.

Follow the Money. Israel is a tool/weapon. The US/NATO is a tool/weapon. "The Caliphate" meme is a Goldstein boogyman tool to fire up the western cattle.

Follow the Money. You won't, because doing so is extremely boring and complex, but that is how one cuts through the clown show of character actors like Obama/ISIS/Israel/U.S./Saudi/Pakistan et al. The clown show is purposely wild and colorful to hold your attention.

They WANT you to get lost in the character details and plot twists of the clown show. Ignore it. Turn off the "news" and read old books about history in the evening to learn what's really going on.

How could we actually trace the money flows? Do we have any means to perform such a trick?

Charlie Prime

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250