Trump : Iran is giving money to ISIS !

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
Sorry but it wouldn't surprise me if Iran joined the caliphate

This is a prime example of someone who lacks knowledge of ME affairs and most likely takes the news from MSM .

Let me enlighten you a bit . Iran is a Shia majority country , with a Shia run gov .

ISIS claim to be Sunnie . Their has been a religious conflict between Shia and Sunnie for thousands of years due to differing Ideology .

Many wars are being fought over this Ideology right now. Syria for one . Assad being Shia , and Al nursra and other factions being Sunnie.


If Iran "joined" The caliphate they would be signing their own death warrant .

ISIS don't need money from Iran. They seized a bank with almost a billion dollars in it in Iraq. What do they need with money from Iran?

ISIS have all the money they need - they're an extremely well funded operation without external money required.

a reply to: kellyjay

as opposed to the likes of hillary that is beholden to almost every bank in america as well as foriegn interests? LOL but ok

Please show where Hillary is in debt anywhere near Donnie and as far as foreign interests are concerned want to bring in the companies that Donnie runs overseas while crying let's make America strong?

bad? or someone who could potentially blow the lid off the corruption going on between the left and right?

The only corruption he has exposed is him admitting to buying politicians.

another democrat would be the death blow to america IMO

You mean like last one that kept the repression from going into a full blown depression?
Anyone that thinks Trump would make a good president is totally clueless about Trump. I would call him a snake oil salesman but I wouldn't want to insult snake oil salesman by comparing them to Trump.

I really hate to break it to some of you, but Trump isn't a conservative or on the right.

But it's pretty funny how he plays with those who are. Hilarious even.

originally posted by: babybunnies
ISIS don't need money from Iran. They seized a bank with almost a billion dollars in it in Iraq. What do they need with money from Iran?

ISIS have all the money they need - they're an extremely well funded operation without external money required.

Oh I thought they had run off with Ali Babas treasure..
Trump is a fluffy fart who talks big because he really believes his $ will protect him. He is souless piece of
crap that makes noise to reasure himself that he is not
already dead, unfortunatly americans seem to like him,
doesn't say much for them.

guys it's not my country and trust me , whatever the outcome of the presidential in the US is , Iran is uneffected
your country , your problem . i just couldn't resist myself from laughing my butt off . i think it shouldn't be funny for you .

a reply to: haman10

Still, better someone like Trump to run a country, than an Ayatollah who murders people for the 'crime' of homosexuality!

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: kellyjay

as opposed to the likes of hillary that is beholden to almost every bank in america as well as foriegn interests? LOL but ok

Please show where Hillary is in debt anywhere near Donnie and as far as foreign interests are concerned want to bring in the companies that Donnie runs overseas while crying let's make America strong?

bad? or someone who could potentially blow the lid off the corruption going on between the left and right?

The only corruption he has exposed is him admitting to buying politicians.

another democrat would be the death blow to america IMO

You mean like last one that kept the repression from going into a full blown depression?
Anyone that thinks Trump would make a good president is totally clueless about Trump. I would call him a snake oil salesman but I wouldn't want to insult snake oil salesman by comparing them to Trump.

I didnt say hillary was in debt, she is however a bought and paid for snake who is swathed in corruption, id rather trump over her any day.

he also exposed that politicians can and are bought

the last one that tripled the deficit? that one? the last one that has seen record highs of people on welfare? that one? the last that that rolled out a complete failure of a healthcare system that is still seeing people uninsured only now they are being fined for having no insurance

lol...

originally posted by: Kapusta
Ohhh! I guess the few thousand year old war between Shia an Sunni has ended ?

You Know since "Shia" Iran is funding "Sunnie" ISIS .....

lol Moron !

For the record, it's not Sunni vs Shia. It's Wahhabi vs everyone, but especially Wahhabi vs Shia.

As an example, the vast majority of Syria's population and army are Sunnis. Assad is an Alawite, which are regarded as a branch of Shia Islam. Yet Syria's Sunni population and army are defending Assad from the Wahhabi mercenaries & "rebel groups". The Kurdish people are mostly Sunni as well. But they've been at war with Wahhabi groups since the beginning of this conflict (particularly against al Nusra & ISIS). And Hezbollah (Shiites) are helping Syria's Sunnis fight off the Wahhabi ISIS troops.

Most Sunnis & Shiites have no problem with each other, just as most Catholics & Protestants don't have a problem with each other. It's the Wahhabi dominated Saudi Arabian & Qatari governments that are trying to make this out to be Sunni vs Shia, not the adherents themselves.

EDIT: Ah crap, just noticed you were using sarcasm. I'll leave the comment there just so anyone reading can see that it's not Sunni vs Shia, but Wahabi vs everyone.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Kapusta
Ohhh! I guess the few thousand year old war between Shia an Sunni has ended ?

You Know since "Shia" Iran is funding "Sunnie" ISIS .....

lol Moron !

For the record, it's not Sunni vs Shia. It's Wahhabi vs everyone, but especially Wahhabi vs Shia.

As an example, the vast majority of Syria's population and army are Sunnis. Assad is an Alawite, which are regarded as a branch of Shia Islam. Yet Syria's Sunni population and army are defending Assad from the Wahhabi mercenaries & "rebel groups". The Kurdish people are mostly Sunni as well. But they've been at war with Wahhabi groups since the beginning of this conflict (particularly against al Nusra & ISIS). And Hezbollah (Shiites) are helping Syria's Sunnis fight off the Wahhabi ISIS troops.

Most Sunnis & Shiites have no problem with each other, just as most Catholics & Protestants don't have a problem with each other. It's the Wahhabi dominated Saudi Arabian & Qatari governments that are trying to make this out to be Sunni vs Shia, not the adherents themselves.

EDIT: Ah crap, just noticed you were using sarcasm. I'll leave the comment there just so anyone reading can see that it's not Sunni vs Shia, but Wahabi vs everyone.

I have too correct you . It's actually Everyone vs Khuaraij . This term "Wahabi " Was coined buy the Sufi sects.

And people who are uneducated in these matters like to use it as a derogatory term towards "conservative Muslims "

Like my self . Because the Khuaraij ( extremist ) have adopted some of the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and twisted them for their own political agenda .

His idea was to restore Islam to its original form because it had become innovated with ideology throughout the century's . And this did not include killing innocent people ,killing your self , wrongful jihad . etc ... No ! the khuaraij adopted these ideas and combined them with the teachings of ibn abd al wahhab.

So , To say they are Whabi is worng . They are khuaraij .

You can do a simple google search to understand the meaning of Khuaraij.

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Kapusta
Ohhh! I guess the few thousand year old war between Shia an Sunni has ended ?

You Know since "Shia" Iran is funding "Sunnie" ISIS .....

lol Moron !

For the record, it's not Sunni vs Shia. It's Wahhabi vs everyone, but especially Wahhabi vs Shia.

As an example, the vast majority of Syria's population and army are Sunnis. Assad is an Alawite, which are regarded as a branch of Shia Islam. Yet Syria's Sunni population and army are defending Assad from the Wahhabi mercenaries & "rebel groups". The Kurdish people are mostly Sunni as well. But they've been at war with Wahhabi groups since the beginning of this conflict (particularly against al Nusra & ISIS). And Hezbollah (Shiites) are helping Syria's Sunnis fight off the Wahhabi ISIS troops.

Most Sunnis & Shiites have no problem with each other, just as most Catholics & Protestants don't have a problem with each other. It's the Wahhabi dominated Saudi Arabian & Qatari governments that are trying to make this out to be Sunni vs Shia, not the adherents themselves.

EDIT: Ah crap, just noticed you were using sarcasm. I'll leave the comment there just so anyone reading can see that it's not Sunni vs Shia, but Wahabi vs everyone.

I have too correct you . It's actually Everyone vs Khuaraij . This term "Wahabi " Was coined buy the Sufi sects.

And people who are uneducated in these matters like to use it as a derogatory term towards "conservative Muslims "

Like my self . Because the Khuaraij ( extremist ) have adopted some of the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and twisted them for their own political agenda .

Actually, you're not correcting me because we don't agree on this. They're Wahhabis because they're the "branch" that follow al-Wahhab's interpretations. They don't like the term Wahhabi because Wahhabi is now a negative term, particularly because of the things Wahhabis have done in the past.

They consider themselves Salafis because of their connection to the 3rd Caliph's clan & their connection to the Kharijites. They also like to claim these connections to the past as a way to bolster their credibility, just as every other "revival movement" does. Salafis consider them Kharijites, though some appear to accept them as Salafis too. I consider them Wahhabis just as most people consider them Wahhabis, regardless of whether they like it or not.

By the way, you do remember me, right? It was my thread that broke down the different denominations, their histories, and where the actual rivalries come from. I don't care to have that discussion again (yet), but we could take this to another thread if you're that bored. Maybe.

a reply to: kellyjay

he also exposed that politicians can and are bought

And that doesn't make you wonder what his price would be?

the last one that tripled the deficit? that one?

You must be confused I'm talking about Obama not Bush. Obama's fed spending has been the lowest for any President for decades. What tripled the deficit was the idiot who thought it was a good idea to start two unfunded wars and on top of that give his wealthy buddies a tax cut.

the last one that has seen record highs of people on welfare? that one?

That is not Obama's fault. That is the fault of employers not keeping their employees wages up with inflation.

the last that that rolled out a complete failure of a healthcare system that is still seeing people uninsured only now they are being fined for having no insurance

I couldn't agree more. The individual mandate is nothing more than corporate welfare for insurance companies had they went single payer there wouldn't be anybody without insurance.

a reply to: kellyjay

dont you think thats what trump, who isnt beholden to anyone, would do?

We don't know anything for certain about Trump. We don't know if he's serious about his candidacy, if he's playing distraction for the Republicans or if he is in the pockets of the Clintons. Add to that the fact that his politics stink and he does not make a very good candidate.

you want to keep voting in the same people, the legacy people, the old boys, those who are bought and paid for by corporations, the same people have been getting voted in and nothing has changed!

Listen to the way Trump talks. He's not offering anything new. He's saying the same things we hear on right wing propaganda tv and radio, and the only thing that makes him different that the other Republicans is that he doesn't cherry-coat his words. He's the same thing, just more rude.

oh and please...theres more liberal media bias splashed on tv than fox! for you to think no propaganda or brainwashing goes on on the left is indicitive of you being brainwashed lol

I never said that the Left does not have it's propaganda. They do. It's pitiful and very ineffective, but they still try.

I know it's PC to say that both sides are as equally bad as the other, but that is simply not the case. The Right wing propaganda machine is a spectacle to behold. Really, I don't understand why more people cannot see it. You have Fox News, talk radio which is exclusively right wing and a vast internet media machine that blasts republicans and right wingers with outright lies, half-truths, falsehoods and it's purpose is to further isolate and radicalize.

I don't see the Left doing that.

The Left is not making things up out of thin air or taking stories out of context in order to push an agenda. The Right does. How many threads do we read on just this site with a source like Breitbart or WND in which the headline claims one thing, and then once you read the story and do a bit of research, you find it's compete BS?

Every day, my friend.

So we can agree that both sides have their propaganda, but for someone such as myself that studies such propaganda and language, there is no way to convince me that the Left is even on the same planet as the Republican nutbag machine.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: kellyjay

he also exposed that politicians can and are bought

And that doesn't make you wonder what his price would be?

the last one that tripled the deficit? that one?

You must be confused I'm talking about Obama not Bush. Obama's fed spending has been the lowest for any President for decades. What tripled the deficit was the idiot who thought it was a good idea to start two unfunded wars and on top of that give his wealthy buddies a tax cut.

the last one that has seen record highs of people on welfare? that one?

That is not Obama's fault. That is the fault of employers not keeping their employees wages up with inflation.

the last that that rolled out a complete failure of a healthcare system that is still seeing people uninsured only now they are being fined for having no insurance

I couldn't agree more. The individual mandate is nothing more than corporate welfare for insurance companies had they went single payer there wouldn't be anybody without insurance.

i dont what his price would be, it would just be status quo anyway right? i just hope he isnt as cheap as hillary

oh are you one of the "when all else fails blame bush guys?

stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Even excluding the 2009 deficit, which Obama’s dwindling number of shock troops falsely attribute entirely to George W. Bush, that leaves Obama with a four-year average deficit of $1.153 trillion. Include the 2009 deficit, two-thirds of which occurred after he was inaugurated, and his average rises to $1.231 trillion. To provide additional context, the eight-year average Bush deficit that Obama labeled “unpatriotic” was just $297 billion. Even being charitable to Obama by removing the 2001 budget surplus from Bush’s tally and adding the entire 2009 deficit to it, he still averaged just $511 billion.

In other words, even in its most unfairly charitable light, Obama’s average deficit is more than double that of his all-purpose scapegoat predecessor.

Overall, according to the U.S. Treasury Department’s annual fiscal summary released this month, total federal debt held by the public has increased 90% during the Obama presidency. According to the report, total public debt as of January 20, 2009 amounted to $6.307 trillion, but as of September 30, 2013, the end of the 2013 fiscal year, it amounted to $11.976 trillion. That’s a lot worse than the accumulation of debt that Obama labeled “unpatriotic” under Bush

cfif.org...

but he did cut it in half lol

a reply to: introvert

The Left is not making things up out of thin air or taking stories out of context in order to push an agenda. The Right does. How many threads do we read on just this site with a source like Breitbart or WND in which the headline claims one thing, and then once you read the story and do a bit of research, you find it's compete BS

ahem... the fact that were even arguing over what news source pumps out the most propaganda is in itself a joke.....but not funny, because so many are warped from the BS from both sides.

personally i dont watch lame stream media and opt for an alternative source

a reply to: kellyjay

A typical and expected response. I'm not refuting that both sides push propaganda. It's more about quantity and quality. But to be able to spot and recognize what I am talking about takes some time.

Spend as much time studying this as I have and you would be saying the same thing I am.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: kellyjay

A typical and expected response. I'm not refuting that both sides push propaganda. It's more about quantity and quality. But to be able to spot and recognize what I am talking about takes some time.

Spend as much time studying this as I have and you would be saying the same thing I am.

Thank you oh wise one for your contributions, how we ever thought we could hold a candle to your intellect and infinite wisdom was surely a mistake.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: kellyjay

A typical and expected response. I'm not refuting that both sides push propaganda. It's more about quantity and quality. But to be able to spot and recognize what I am talking about takes some time.

Spend as much time studying this as I have and you would be saying the same thing I am.

what happened to msnbc?

a reply to: Simmderdown

Can you refute anything that I have said? It's not like I hold some secret information. Go do some research for yourself and see what I have said is true.

Many people simply like to say "Well the Left does it too", but that is the easy way out when they already know that the Right is light years beyond anything the Left could ever hope to accomplish.

Put the political agendas aside and research the topic.

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: kellyjay

A typical and expected response. I'm not refuting that both sides push propaganda. It's more about quantity and quality. But to be able to spot and recognize what I am talking about takes some time.

Spend as much time studying this as I have and you would be saying the same thing I am.

what happened to msnbc?

Completely biased, but not propaganda to push lies and to coral thought in to one specific area.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: kellyjay

A typical and expected response. I'm not refuting that both sides push propaganda. It's more about quantity and quality. But to be able to spot and recognize what I am talking about takes some time.

Spend as much time studying this as I have and you would be saying the same thing I am.

what happened to msnbc?

Completely biased, but not propaganda to push lies and to coral thought in to one specific area.

LOL yeah ok

prop·a·gan·da
ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
derogatory
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

woops missed your "research" on that one huh big guy