United States Ground Forces

[SandSquid]

No. I am trying to determine if you are attempting to lie to support your claim. It appears so.

Or did you truly think that article was a good representation of the situation, even though it was clear it was coming out as the situation unfolded and didn't have all the info yet (even though it linked to the Syria page which explained those forces were there).

So it is either you lying for your beliefs, or you completely ignorant on the topic of which you speak correct?

You are. If Phrump says eat shit you´ll do.

Fuck Trump.

Not a Trump supporter at all.

I am just making the point that if you feel the need to lie to make your claim, it is not a claim that can be made.

I believe the soldiers who were on the ground, not your anti-Trump press that suddenly turned into Trump agitators.

So the ones that said they were hearing the RUSSIAN radio chatter from RUSSIANS.

Then why do you continue to lie and try and say they weren't there when the Soldiers on the ground said they were?

Who heard that? Trump?

Not sure which lie you are trying to distract from now. What US forces were intercepting the Russian radio chatter in the field?

Or are you saying the leaked audio of Russians saying the US kicked their asses after the engagement.

Or the audio of the Kremlin saying they did indeed have citizens there?

I think that would be a good time for you to educate yourself on the topic and maybe then once no longer ignorant you could return to continue the conversation? Or are you maintaining you know perfectly well the truth and are just lying?

 

[Bleipriester]

You are. If Phrump says eat shit you´ll do.

Fuck Trump.

Not a Trump supporter at all.

I am just making the point that if you feel the need to lie to make your claim, it is not a claim that can be made.

I believe the soldiers who were on the ground, not your anti-Trump press that suddenly turned into Trump agitators.

So the ones that said they were hearing the RUSSIAN radio chatter from RUSSIANS.

Then why do you continue to lie and try and say they weren't there when the Soldiers on the ground said they were?

Who heard that? Trump?

Not sure which lie you are trying to distract from now. What US forces were intercepting the Russian radio chatter in the field?

Or are you saying the leaked audio of Russians saying the US kicked their asses after the engagement.

Or the audio of the Kremlin saying they did indeed have citizens there?

I think that would be a good time for you to educate yourself on the topic and maybe then once no longer ignorant you could return to continue the conversation? Or are you maintaining you know perfectly well the truth and are just lying?

All fake. Big show. Why didn´t they intercept ISIS communication, then?

"(Later an intercepted radio traffic confirmed that the group was partly ISIS, partly Kurds and they retreated towards CONOCO factory)"

 

[SandSquid]

Fuck Trump.

Not a Trump supporter at all.

I am just making the point that if you feel the need to lie to make your claim, it is not a claim that can be made.

I believe the soldiers who were on the ground, not your anti-Trump press that suddenly turned into Trump agitators.

So the ones that said they were hearing the RUSSIAN radio chatter from RUSSIANS.

Then why do you continue to lie and try and say they weren't there when the Soldiers on the ground said they were?

Who heard that? Trump?

Not sure which lie you are trying to distract from now. What US forces were intercepting the Russian radio chatter in the field?

Or are you saying the leaked audio of Russians saying the US kicked their asses after the engagement.

Or the audio of the Kremlin saying they did indeed have citizens there?

I think that would be a good time for you to educate yourself on the topic and maybe then once no longer ignorant you could return to continue the conversation? Or are you maintaining you know perfectly well the truth and are just lying?

All fake. Big show. Why didn´t they intercept ISIS communication, then?

"(Later an intercepted radio traffic confirmed that the group was partly ISIS, partly Kurds and they retreated towards CONOCO factory)"

So you've gone from "I believe the troops on the ground" when it suited your lie to say that, to "Those troops on the ground are lying sacks of shit" when they recorded the Russian contractor artillery locations and said they heard Russian radio chatter before they were attacked.

See what happens when you dig yourself in at defending a lie. You debunk yourself. Then you are forced to try and distract and lie more and more to weave that web.

 

[Bleipriester]

I believe the soldiers who were on the ground, not your anti-Trump press that suddenly turned into Trump agitators.

So the ones that said they were hearing the RUSSIAN radio chatter from RUSSIANS.

Then why do you continue to lie and try and say they weren't there when the Soldiers on the ground said they were?

Who heard that? Trump?

Not sure which lie you are trying to distract from now. What US forces were intercepting the Russian radio chatter in the field?

Or are you saying the leaked audio of Russians saying the US kicked their asses after the engagement.

Or the audio of the Kremlin saying they did indeed have citizens there?

I think that would be a good time for you to educate yourself on the topic and maybe then once no longer ignorant you could return to continue the conversation? Or are you maintaining you know perfectly well the truth and are just lying?

All fake. Big show. Why didn´t they intercept ISIS communication, then?

"(Later an intercepted radio traffic confirmed that the group was partly ISIS, partly Kurds and they retreated towards CONOCO factory)"

So you've gone from "I believe the troops on the ground" when it suited your lie to say that, to "Those troops on the ground are lying sacks of shit" when they recorded the Russian contractor artillery locations and said they heard Russian radio chatter before they were attacked.

See what happens when you dig yourself in at defending a lie. You debunk yourself. Then you are forced to try and distract and lie more and more to weave that web.

US bases:

Where the battles took place (Khusham, or Khasham)

You see, it is a big lie, there were no US bases.

 

[DrainBamage]

Big lie.

Here´s the whole story.
ISIS-Coalition aircraft attacked Syrian forces, 25 killed

Well that doesn't make much sense, earlier in this very thread you linked to a CBS News story that clearly indicates Syrian forces attacked a US base, and the US troops defended themselves. Now you're linking to your own thread using yourself as a source to refute what you introduced as evidence here.

You backtrack and attempt distraction so much you can't even keep it straight and end up arguing with yourself.

 

[Bleipriester]

Big lie.

Here´s the whole story.
ISIS-Coalition aircraft attacked Syrian forces, 25 killed

Well that doesn't make much sense, earlier in this very thread you linked to a CBS News story that clearly indicates Syrian forces attacked a US base, and the US troops defended themselves. Now you're linking to your own thread using yourself as a source to refute what you introduced as evidence here.

You backtrack and attempt distraction so much you can't even keep it straight and end up arguing with yourself.

I used the source to show you no Russians were mentioned. I don´t claim everything they claim is true. Your "arguments" get more ridiculous by the day.
You see, the outright fairy tale of a US base in the region is proof they would have added Russians too, if Washington was quick enough to invent them.

 

[DrainBamage]

You see, it is a big lie, there were no US bases.

You're correct there were no US bases, but you are wrong that is was a lie since nobody said it was a US base.

I used the source to show you no Russians were mentioned. I don´t claim everything they claim is true. Your "arguments" get more ridiculous by the day.

Ahhh, so when you provide sources to back up what you say you aren't actually standing by those sources as being correct, they are just used because it fits what you're shoveling in there. Hilariously you couldn't even do that right, because upon scrutiny your information worked against you. Then you call others ridiculous, hah!

You see, the outright fairy tale of a US base in the region is proof they would have added Russians too, if Washington was quick enough to invent them.

Nobody said it was a US base until you did just now, in order to have something to seize on and argue against. Russia itself has said Russians were killed, go take it up with them.

 

[Bleipriester]

"CBS News story that clearly indicates Syrian forces attacked a US base."

Are you serious?

 

[DrainBamage]

That should be US forces, not US base, and either way you were blathering about how there were no US bases before that post. Did your CBS source say there was a US base?

Why is Russia lying to say they had Russian citizens killed in this attack? What would their motivation be?

 

[Bleipriester]

All made up. We can guess what happens when Bashar sets up a base in the US.

This thread is about the US ground forces, not Trevor Phillips giving ISIS air cover.

 

[Bleipriester]

"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking, leaving the Army at its smallest size in over 75 years and forcing units to rely on unstable and unprepared servicemen. That puts both our military troops and the country at risk."
The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

All heroic Patriots must now enlist.

 

[SandSquid]

Big lie.

Here´s the whole story.
ISIS-Coalition aircraft attacked Syrian forces, 25 killed

Well that doesn't make much sense, earlier in this very thread you linked to a CBS News story that clearly indicates Syrian forces attacked a US base, and the US troops defended themselves. Now you're linking to your own thread using yourself as a source to refute what you introduced as evidence here.

You backtrack and attempt distraction so much you can't even keep it straight and end up arguing with yourself.

I used the source to show you no Russians were mentioned. I don´t claim everything they claim is true. Your "arguments" get more ridiculous by the day.
You see, the outright fairy tale of a US base in the region is proof they would have added Russians too, if Washington was quick enough to invent them.

You intentionally chose an article immediately in the aftermath which had yet to determine who was involved. And that same source when they found out who is involved said it was Russian mercenaries. At which point all of a sudden you choose to ignore your source.

Is this how you go through life? Just stick your head in the dirt anytime information comes out that you don't like?

Like every time someone is killed and the initial report says they haven't yet been identified, you just continue to assume forever that they are unknown, Even after they are positively identified?

If it's your goal to prove that you are intentionally attempting to be ignorant, bravo you have accomplished that.

 

[DrainBamage]

All made up.

So you say, but obviously your credibility has been shot in this thread since earlier you posted information about what you now say is made up.

This thread is about the US ground forces, not Trevor Phillips giving ISIS air cover.

It was US Air Force giving US Army and USMC air cover, and killing lots of Russians in the process.

 

[DrainBamage]

"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking, leaving the Army at its smallest size in over 75 years and forcing units to rely on unstable and unprepared servicemen. That puts both our military troops and the country at risk."
The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

Size of US military has been declining since the late 60s as automation/technology takes the place of people.

As an example, not the Syria incident when hundreds of attackers including Russian mercenaries were slaughtered by a few dozen Americans. Clearly it wasn't total boots that won the fight.

 

[Bleipriester]

"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking, leaving the Army at its smallest size in over 75 years and forcing units to rely on unstable and unprepared servicemen. That puts both our military troops and the country at risk."
The US military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining

Size of US military has been declining since the late 60s as automation/technology takes the place of people.

As an example, not the Syria incident when hundreds of attackers including Russian mercenaries were slaughtered by a few dozen Americans. Clearly it wasn't total boots that won the fight.

Read again:

...dramatically shrinking ...unstable and unprepared...

 

[DrainBamage]

Read again:

...dramatically shrinking ...unstable and unprepared...

I can find websites that say the earth is flat, that doesn't mean posting an opinion makes it an absolute truth, nor does reading it twice.

Curious though, explain this dramatic shrinking. How much has it shrunk and how much of that was planned reduction versus failure to meet recruitment goals. I understand this gets you out of your comfort zone where debate consists of screaming "lies" at every fact that sinks your argument, but try to stretch here and support your side. Explain dramatically shrinking.

 

[Bleipriester]

Read again:

...dramatically shrinking ...unstable and unprepared...

I can find websites that say the earth is flat, that doesn't mean posting an opinion makes it an absolute truth, nor does reading it twice.

Curious though, explain this dramatic shrinking. How much has it shrunk and how much of that was planned reduction versus failure to meet recruitment goals. I understand this gets you out of your comfort zone where debate consists of screaming "lies" at every fact that sinks your argument, but try to stretch here and support your side. Explain dramatically shrinking.

You always try to distract from the topic. You begin with source bashing. Isn´t The Politico a newspaper in the center of the political spectrum? What agenda should stand behind this article? Maybe they are patriots, who are worried about a lacking presence of military in their country. Your governments are not making friends.
And maybe there is no intent, just news.
What is certain is a zero per cent fault probability. The newspaper is certainly regarding to government figures and not conspiracy sites.

 

[SandSquid]

Read again:

...dramatically shrinking ...unstable and unprepared...

I can find websites that say the earth is flat, that doesn't mean posting an opinion makes it an absolute truth, nor does reading it twice.

Curious though, explain this dramatic shrinking. How much has it shrunk and how much of that was planned reduction versus failure to meet recruitment goals. I understand this gets you out of your comfort zone where debate consists of screaming "lies" at every fact that sinks your argument, but try to stretch here and support your side. Explain dramatically shrinking.

You always try to distract from the topic. The newspaper is certainly regarding to government figures and not conspiracy sites.

This thread is literally 2 pages of you trying to distract from the topic of Russian Mercenaries, and intentionally using incomplete sources as soon as the engagement ended (the same sources which later said there were Russian mercenaries), to float your conspiracy theory.

 

[Bleipriester]

Read again:

...dramatically shrinking ...unstable and unprepared...

I can find websites that say the earth is flat, that doesn't mean posting an opinion makes it an absolute truth, nor does reading it twice.

Curious though, explain this dramatic shrinking. How much has it shrunk and how much of that was planned reduction versus failure to meet recruitment goals. I understand this gets you out of your comfort zone where debate consists of screaming "lies" at every fact that sinks your argument, but try to stretch here and support your side. Explain dramatically shrinking.

You always try to distract from the topic. The newspaper is certainly regarding to government figures and not conspiracy sites.

This thread is literally 2 pages of you trying to distract from the topic of Russian Mercenaries, and intentionally using incomplete sources as soon as the engagement ended (the same sources which later said there were Russian mercenaries), to float your conspiracy theory.

Russian Mercs are not the topic here. Go make your free Russian Mercs thread.

 

[SandSquid]

Read again:

...dramatically shrinking ...unstable and unprepared...

I can find websites that say the earth is flat, that doesn't mean posting an opinion makes it an absolute truth, nor does reading it twice.

Curious though, explain this dramatic shrinking. How much has it shrunk and how much of that was planned reduction versus failure to meet recruitment goals. I understand this gets you out of your comfort zone where debate consists of screaming "lies" at every fact that sinks your argument, but try to stretch here and support your side. Explain dramatically shrinking.

You always try to distract from the topic. The newspaper is certainly regarding to government figures and not conspiracy sites.

This thread is literally 2 pages of you trying to distract from the topic of Russian Mercenaries, and intentionally using incomplete sources as soon as the engagement ended (the same sources which later said there were Russian mercenaries), to float your conspiracy theory.

Russian Mercs are not the topic here. Go make your free Russian Mercs thread.

So now that you've spent 90% of the thread trying to use your debunked claim there were none and got called out for lying, you are trying that tactic of distracting from the topic you can't defend vs. actual facts.

Lol. You are brilliant! Thanks for the laugh bud.