Advertisements

NY Times header:”U.S. Embracing a New Approach on Battling ISIS in Iraq.” World responds……

Hehehehahahahehe… 5555555555555555… LOLZ… 呵呵呵呵呵… хихихихихихи… mwahahamwahahamwahahamwahahamwahaha… 크크크크크크크크크크크크… HAHAHAHAHAHAHA… 笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑… bwahahahabhahaha… חָה־חָה־חָה… mort de rire — حقا، لا أستطيع …

Free with Audible trial

Uh, yeah. Welcome to 2003 again. Byline says Michael Gordon instead of Judith Martin.

Oh gee, big deal folks:

“…establish a new military base in Anbar Province, Iraq, and to send 400 more American military trainers to help Iraqi forces retake the city of Ramadi.”

Which, for those who follow events in Iraq, would make that the third “retaking” of Ramadi in the last calendar year.

Free with Audible trial

“Trainers.”

Got that ??? “Trainers.”

Anyone want to try “hostages” ??? 400 hostages so the surveillance operation doesn't go for dereliction when an ISIS attack group forms up to blast out an Iraqi city? The morning of May 14th outside Ramadi, for example.

Free with Audible trial

There's more nonsense in there:

“Now, pending approval by the White House, plans are being made to use Al Taqqadum, an Iraqi base near the town of Habbaniya, as another training hub for the American-led coalition.”

“American-led coalition.” Really? WTF ?????? What are they smoking? We're throwing in a couple dozen airstrikes a day, no troops in combat. We're a minor player. But here's the narcissism to claim this is “American-led” and it reaches print at NY Times.
What's real? Anything?

Advertisements