Abba
Elder Lister
Funny but true
Iran Just Launched Ballistic Missiles at Ain al-Assad military Base in Iraq That Houses U.S Troops.
- Thread starter Tommy Kwesule
- Start date
Funny but true
Masked Titan
Senior Lister
This is a tactic that is generally described as bring in everything else so as to distract from the thing that was in discussion in the first place. It is mostly employed by people who know they have nothing to offer, but still want to be seen as subject experts. Kind of like when an octopus or squid fills its surroundings with ink so as to get a way to escape. Try and stay on target.
None of your claims have been backed up even by a single reference. At least try and do that.
Oh, and as for the WMDs, Everyone knew there were no weapons of mass distraction in Iraq, it was just a ruse to finish what they had failed to do years earlier. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to know that.
And yes, here is Uhunye walking around, talking about and even sitting inside the propaganda and talking to its mongers.
If at all al saitan is designated as a freedom fighter outfit, then what is it doing in the Foreign Terrorist Organisations list? Or is there another al saitan in somalia fighting for freedom? And from whom do they want their freedom from?
Foreign Terrorist Organizations - United States Department of State
Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means...www.state.gov
I see why you believe what you say is the gospel truth , you are not alone ,in fact majority of the worlds population are just like you (the phenomenon is known as "The postage stamp consensus") , its only of late that the masses are starting to wake up and see the lies and deceit that has been told to them over the years.
You keep quoting and putting links of organisations (news or otherwise ) that are part of the bigger agenda, these organisations are not credible at all , all they do is get a script from the government ,stamp the organisation name and pass it on to the masses,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,” people will eventually come to believe it.” This phenomenon, pervasive in contemporary politics, advertising, and social media, is known in cognitive psychology as the “illusory truth effect.”
Take for instance the recent attacks in Lamu on the airstrip located near the US military base, who stands to benefit the most from such an attack?
many will say its the terrorists
but i beg to differ
The US that stands to benefit the most , More troops will be deployed in the excuse of preventing further attacks to the US military base
before long Kenya could host up to 10,000 US troops - and all this is for the greater good of the overall agenda , i mean what would happen if the US brought in 10,000 troops in one go to Kenya or any other country for that matter , it would raise eyebrows and even attract resistances from the locals
When i say the US supports Al shabaab financially i know exactly what am talking about
but such news will never make headline news in CNN
If you choose to believe the propaganda from Reuters , CNN BBC etc well and good (hope you know who owns these news organisations)
as for me these organisations are propaganda machinery
Last edited:
JazzMan
Elder Lister
Unfortunately, you're making claims then fail to back them up. Even the wildest conspiracy theorists have their references, just enough to bring doubt to otherwise what would be next to Bible truth. You have done none of that. And all your claims, you'd have to have read them from somewhere, didn't you? Or did you just conjure them in your mind?
Yes, the CIA and sister intelligence agencies have been known to conduct misinformation campaigns, or even things that would be considered treason to what the amreekans hold dear. In every case though, there have been references and evidence that back up the stories painting the CIA in bad light.
What of you? Where are your references?
FYI, that base in Manda Bay is Kenya Navy, the US are just tenants inside the Navy Base. The only thing they can do is send a platoon of some reaction force, say airbase protection, to protect their assests. If any troops were to be increased by the thousands, it would be Kenya Navy or KAF Rapid Deployment Unit who protect the other airbases in the country.
A good example would the Taliban attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. They lost so much in terms of personnel and assets in comparison to the Manda Bay Base attack. What happened? Only base security was beefed up.
Also, moving that many troops would require the consent of Congress and the host nation. Building the facilities to hold that many troops would take years to build and if they were to do so, the tenders would already have been floated even before the troops deploy. Unlike Kenya, projects of this scale have to undergo public scrutiny in the US.
Last edited:
Masked Titan
Senior Lister
Its quite unfortunate you've made such a comment, research is digesting materials from multiple angles (not just one) and deciding what materials are credible and which are not , and as I've said before majority of what you read from the so called main stream media is either half truths or outright lies .
i wonder what you would think of me if i asked you the same question you've just asked here
(If you expect me to share my alternative sources of information , am sorry i won't)
Masked Titan
Senior Lister
what would the Kenyan government do if the US insist on sending more troops ? , through them out ?
The US does not need permission from the Kenyan government to bring in troops ,its just basic courtesy for them to ask.
Kenya is in no position to negotiate for anything with the US , mild economic sanctions from the US would cripple the Kenyan economy
good example is in Iraq
the Iraqi people don't want american military bases in their country, but Trump has categorically said US troops are not leaving
What will the Government of Iraq do ?
Masked Titan
Senior Lister
Seems you are behind news , during Obama's reign a bill was passed to enable the president of America to act without consent from congress when it comes to terror related emergencies
JazzMan
Elder Lister
If you can't share, then it's settled. You have nothing to show for all your claims.
Bolo Yeung
Lister
I think @Masked Titan has a point here, the US has been known to play such tactics
JazzMan
Elder Lister
Yes, the Kenya government can throw them out.
The KENYA NAVY BASE at Manda Bay is NOT a US property similar to Manama Naval Base in Bahrain, Camp Lemmonier in Djibouti among others world wide. Camp Simba is simply a TENANCY agreement, inside the KENYA NAVY BASE to help train partner forces in the EA region.
If you hadn't noticed, and going by what you've been claiming its clear you haven't, aside from Djibouti which needed the money, NO OTHER AFRICAN COUNTRY is willing to host a US base. Everywhere the US is in Africa, they are hosted inside already established military bases of the home countries.
And yes, if they had wanted to bring in a larger force, that would require the approval of parliament as the defence of the nation lies in their hands. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!
The Iraqi parliament is currently debating a resolution to kick out US troops. If, or when passed, the US will have no choice but to withdraw lest they be seen as bigots by the whole world, which they claim to be protecting. Strategic thinking will prevail, not Trump's tweets.
JazzMan
Elder Lister
Again, with the unsubstantiated claims.
The US president may declare war, or even move troops, but these deployments are limited to small amounts of troops for emergencies, and a time period of 60 days. Anything other than that would require the approval of Congress.
All this is enshrined in the War Powers Act of 1973 after mission creep in Vietnam and the Korean War.
Power to Declare War | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
“The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”—U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 1“The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land...
history.house.gov
Bring evidence of yours.
JazzMan
Elder Lister
Yes they havd been known to play such underhand tactics, but at least there has been evidence documenting those acts. He has brought none.
Believing anything without evidence is the reason Africans were very easily duped by the mzungu and turned us into the bonobos we are today.
Clemens
Elder Lister
Your argument follows one of the tenets on IR, "Who benefits?" Tells alot about the intended consequences.
Clemens
Elder Lister
I and many others don't give a fvck about his address.
Tommy Kwesule
Senior Lister
Masked Titan
Senior Lister
That is the only thing i need to read , hata hio ingine sita soma
how can u cut of the hand that feeds you ?????????
Masked Titan
Senior Lister
soma hiiAgain, with the unsubstantiated claims.
The US president may declare war, or even move troops, but these deployments are limited to small amounts of troops for emergencies, and a time period of 60 days. Anything other than that would require the approval of Congress.
All this is enshrined in the War Powers Act of 1973 after mission creep in Vietnam and the Korean War.
Power to Declare War | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
“The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”—U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 1“The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land...
Bring evidence of yours.
Search Results
Web results
applying the war powers resolution to the war on terrorism
https://www.govinfo.gov › content › pkg › html
In signing the Use of Force Resolution, the President stated that Congress ``acted ... The effectiveness to date of our military campaign to respond to the attacks of ... the President with statutory authorization to prevent future acts of terrorism by ...... U.S. troops to Korea without seeking or obtaining congressional authority
link
- APPLYING THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION TO THE WAR ON TERRORISM
www.govinfo.gov
JazzMan
Elder Lister
Aside from Afghanistan, where the US went to wage war against "al-qaeda and associates" (as stated in the both AUMFs) and Djibouti, where they have a base, the other countries mentioned as having received US troop deployments, and how many were the troops who were deployed? For how long did they stay in those countries with and without the express invitation of those host countries?
Here is a PDF detailing those deployments under AUMF and how they were conducted.
U.S. troops in Georgia amid tensions with Russia
Amid the worst Georgia-Russia crisis in years, 1,500 American troops are visiting Georgia to carry out joint military exercises.
eurasianet.org
To show you just how insignificant Camp Simba is to the larger scheme of things, here is the USAF themselves saying the troops there are expeditionary. This was last year.
Camp Simba conducts inaugural flag ceremony
www.usafe.af.mil
And as I told you earlier, it's not just about having the troops, it's about logistics and how to pay for them. The AUMF has been used dubiously for small troop increases, in fights that are linked to al qaeda and associates, where the budget is not stretched. For a large deployment of troops, that would also need funding approval from Congress, in the same way they approved Obama's Afghanistan troop surge. And in fights where the AUMF, as it strictly mentions "al qaeda and associates", does not fly, the War Powers Act is in play, not the AUMF.
Page doesn't exist
English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.
You think Kenya is a basket case? Aaaaaw poor you. KDF was doing well on its own until Kibaki asked for assistance to modernise and enhance the capabilities of the force from 2004. Even the Brits who thought they had Ke by the balls had to eat humble pie. Why do you think the BAE Hawks (that's if you even knew they existed) are in storage instead of being flown as secondary/lead in fighter training jets? Someone had to be shown we can do without them.
BAE Hawk
www.airvectors.net
And yes, the Philippines has been fighting its own insurgency for a number of years and despite it being a former US colony, it did not have a formal US troop presence for over 20 years after MPs there voted in 1987 to kick them out. And guess what? amreeka left!! They only were accepted back after a supreme court vote to help with the fight against abu sayyaf, and to keep china at bay.
U.S. Troops in Philippines Combat Zone
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/world/asia/philippines-us-military.html
The U.S. military is moving into these 5 bases in the Philippines
These permanent logistics facilities will support U.S. rotational deployments near the contested South China Sea.
www.militarytimes.com