Obama, Hillary and the Founders of ISIS

According to an interview broadcast by the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel, prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal is the ruler of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).

Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, a graduate of Sandhurst military academy, is the brother of Foreign Affairs Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, and of Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Ambassador to the United-States and the United-Kingdom.

ISIS is the Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq and Syria. It figures on the UN list of terrorist organizations. It Is funded by the United-States, by virtue of a law adopted for fiscal year 2014 during a Congress session behind closed doors [1]. It benefited of a logistical support from Turkey inside Syria.

Ayman al-Zawahiri reacted to this revelation by saying that he would peel off the Al-Qaeda label from the ISIS (a decision made after the legal funding by the US).

http://www.voltairenet.org/article182036.html

You wont get this on CNN!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

You wont get this on CNN!

Probably because it is such obvious BS even the most inept CNN journalist recognizes it as such.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Probably because it is such obvious BS even the most inept CNN journalist recognizes it as such.

Ha-ha!
You used the word 'inept' in the same sentence with CNN as though they weren't the same thing!
Circlejerk, Not News is so blatantly slanted, it's akin to listening to NPR and expecting to hear support for anything American.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ha-ha!
You used the word 'inept' in the same sentence with CNN as though they weren't the same thing!
Circlejerk, Not News is so blatantly slanted, it's akin to listening to NPR and expecting to hear support for anything American.

Still better than Faux News. Talk about biased, they take the cake.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Probably because it is such obvious BS even the most inept CNN journalist recognizes it as such.

Please provide proof for your claims of BS.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Please provide proof for your claims of BS.

The fact that the leader of ISIS is supposedly known only via an interview broadcast by the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel.
Now please provide evidence that you didn't realise it was BS before you posted it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The fact that the leader of ISIS is supposedly known only via an interview broadcast by the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel.
Now please provide evidence that you didn't realise it was BS before you posted it.

Are you saying that the news channel does not exist, or reported it in error? or fabricated the details. Simply saying that its BS because it comes from a Saudi owned news channel is meaningless drivel. Its equally illogical to make any claims on the basis that it was excursively reported by a particular channel. Exclusiveness or non exclusiveness is not a valid criteria for determining whether a claim is true or false.

Sorry but I am uninterested in your feeble and vain attempts to make the debate personal and I would be pleased if you managed to argue objectively or not at all.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Still better than Faux News. Talk about biased, they take the cake.

Agreed, sir.

What's say you and I start an unbiased, completely neutral news service?
We can call it
"F&S: The Facts, The Scoop... Straight Flat-Out™"

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Probably because it is such obvious BS even the most inept CNN journalist recognizes it as such.

You do this a lot. You claim something is not valid but provide nothing and it is annoying. This is the debates forum so either debate or shut up.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you saying that the news channel does not exist, or reported it in error? or fabricated the details.

I am saying that the fact that they are cited as the source at all should tell you it is BS.

Its as stupid as saying "according to a small radio station in China, the president of Scotland is Robbie Carrobie".

Simply saying that its BS because it comes from a Saudi owned news channel is meaningless drivel.
It is BS not because of the ownership of the news channel but because the news channel had to be referenced at all. We are talking about the ruler of what amounts to a nation or claimed caliphate.

Its equally illogical to make any claims on the basis that it was excursively reported by a particular channel. Exclusiveness or non exclusiveness is not a valid criteria for determining whether a claim is true or false.
It is when the information, if true, should be public knowledge.

Sorry but I am uninterested in your feeble and vain attempts to make the debate personal and I would be pleased if you managed to argue objectively or not at all.
I ask you again: did you know it was BS before you posted it?
You have four choices:
1. Question dodge once again.
2. Admit your stupidity.
3. Admit your dishonesty.
4. 2. and 3.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You do this a lot. You claim something is not valid but provide nothing and it is annoying. This is the debates forum so either debate or shut up.

Do you disagree that it is BS? If so, you have provided nothing. I am not annoyed, just laughing at your hypocrisy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am saying that the fact that they are cited as the source at all should tell you it is BS.

Its as stupid as saying "according to a small radio station in China, the president of Scotland is Robbie Carrobie".

[b]Simply saying that its BS because it comes from a Saudi owned news channel is meaningless drivel.
It is BS not because of the owners ...[text shortened]... 1. Question dodge once again.
2. Admit your stupidity.
3. Admit your dishonesty.
4. 2. and 3.[/b]

Plainly, logic is not your strong suit.
Let me help you parse it out.

Its as stupid as saying "according to a small radio station in China, the president of Scotland is Robbie Carrobie"
Nothing said prior to this supports what follows.

...but because the news channel had to be referenced at all.
The inference suggests the citation was provided for reasons other than the expected first purpose, i.e., to allow the reader to see for themselves.

It is when the information, if true, should be public knowledge.
Off the reservation completely here.
This circular reasoning renders 'news' literally all 'news' an impossibility: any breaking story, any scoop, hell: any weather report must immediately be discarded as it does not adhere to the label "public knowledge."
You might want to pick that sentence up, give it a good shake and reset it with more precision and logic, less hyperbole.

You have four choices:
1. Question dodge once again.
2. Admit your stupidity.
3. Admit your dishonesty.
4. 2. and 3.
Logic demands a fifth option:
5. Stand by the article.

See how much fun it is working logically?
The clarity, the shedding of light on darkened topics...
The objectivity is so much more refreshing compared to being bogged down by agendas, petty politics.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Please provide proof for your claims of BS.

ISIS is the Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq and Syria.

Even the most casual observer of conflicts in the Middle East knows that Al-Qaeda and ISIS are not only different organizations, but actually enemies. Until about two weeks ago the Al-Qaeda branch in the Levant was the al-Nusra Front, and they renamed themselves Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and cut ties with Al-Qaeda. Here's a nice CNN story if you're interested:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/01/middleeast/al-nusra-rebranding-what-you-need-to-know/

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am saying that the fact that they are cited as the source at all should tell you it is BS.

Its as stupid as saying "according to a small radio station in China, the president of Scotland is Robbie Carrobie".

[b]Simply saying that its BS because it comes from a Saudi owned news channel is meaningless drivel.
It is BS not because of the owners ...[text shortened]... 1. Question dodge once again.
2. Admit your stupidity.
3. Admit your dishonesty.
4. 2. and 3.[/b]

Freaky has already taken the illogical arguments that you have made to pieces. Lets subject your premise to the scientific method,

I am saying that the fact that they are cited as the source at all should tell you it is BS. - twhitehead

Ok lets go to the source and examine its content

London schoolgirl who joined ISIS ‘killed in Raqqa’

Attorney Tasnime Akunjee said the family of Kadiza Sultana learned of her death in Raqqa, Syria, a few weeks ago.

She was believed to have been killed by a Russian air strike in Raqqa, ITV News reported earlier on Thursday.

Sultana was making plans to return to Britain and her family was communicating with her to discuss her possible escape from Raqqa, according to an interview published by ITV with Sultana’s sister, which includes recordings of purported phone calls between the sisters.

Sultana, 16, along with two other friends, flew from London’s Gatwick Airport to Turkey on Feb. 17, 2015.

The British Home Office and British Interior Ministry could not be reached immediately for a comment.

It would seem that the articles are well crafted, informative, concise, cite references, have excellent imagery and are factual, a rather refreshing contrast to much of at passes for quality journalism. We are them left wondering about your objection. Uponn what is it based and we can find no evidence which supports the premise that the source itself being cited should lead us to the collusion that its BS, despite the ill informed, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and demonstrably false claims you have made. Why citing references means that an article is BS is not readily apparent.

Your statement concerning China as Freaky has pointed out is a non sequitur that Ralph Wiggum would be proud of. The rest of the arguments themselves are so lacking that it begs belief, all exclusive information, all localised information would be negated and deemed untrustworthy if framed in your ludicrous parameters.

You have a single choice, please find the tone control and turn all the way up, its like shooting tin cans with a sawn off shotgun.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Freaky has already taken the illogical arguments that you have made to pieces.

You are looking for support on logic from a flat earther? Really?

Lets subject your premise to the scientific method,
Do you even know what that is?

Ok lets go to the source and examine its content
Why? Did you misunderstand what I said or something?

I see you decided to go for options 1 through 4!