Another rebels that USA will finance ?

[ajareselde]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJlUVCe4VA

VICE investigates why Yemen is at the top of the worry list for President Obama's national security team. The rise of Al Qaeda there is only half the reason—the real trouble is a little-known Houthi rebel movement in the north of the country.

--

basically theres this Houthi rebels in Jemen that are fighting with both Izrael, Jemen, and  Al Qaeda, and while they hate americans also, they are interesting because of their succes in fighting with
overwhelming power of  Al Qaeda there.
Do u think we will have another covert finance plan from U.S. like we had so far with similar cases?

[BitMos]

Do u think we will have another covert finance plan from U.S. like we had so far with similar cases?

Like username(number) said, I don't think they even know what's going on in the us gov. evident it's under occupation, so you have the traitors, the honnests, the losts, mix and you get the usa of today.

[byt411]

The US already made a mess by training IS, and they will probably take some time to seriously think about their approach.

[deisik]

The US already made a mess by training IS, and they will probably take some time to seriously think about their approach.

If they didn't do just this thirty years ago (when al-Qaeda was born), why do you think they are going to do it now? People who were Bin Laden's best friends in the U.S. are all retired by now (if not dead). So, when this new-Qaeda gets out of hand finally, it won't matter a shit for them.

[BitMos]

The US already made a mess by training IS, and they will probably take some time to seriously think about their approach.

If they didn't do just this thirty years ago (when al-Qaeda was born), why do you think they are going to do it now? People who were Bin Laden's best friends in the U.S. are all retired by now (if not dead). So, when this new-Qaeda gets out of hand finally, it won't matter a shit for them.

The "Joes" can only plan to their next ejaculation, do you think really that without their backers (ie the men behind the curtails), they have a chance alone? remember they are the tools designed to take the hit... fuse.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/D01-Neozed-16A.png

and like in engineering, there are many size of Joes, to fit all sins, as warning signals. You don't enslave the world thinking like a sheep...

[username18333]

. . .

Like username(number) said, I don't think they even know what's going on in the us gov. evident it's under occupation, so you have the traitors, the honnests, the losts, mix and you get the usa of today.

(Red colorization mine.)

Please support such claims with relevant quotation. Thank you!

[username18333]

It is the conflict that is useful to the interest whereto it oft caters, not the defeat associated therewith. In light of that, I would anticipate the funding of "losing" sides (were there any such funding).

[byt411]

The US already made a mess by training IS, and they will probably take some time to seriously think about their approach.

If they didn't do just this thirty years ago (when al-Qaeda was born), why do you think they are going to do it now? People who were Bin Laden's best friends in the U.S. are all retired by now (if not dead). So, when this new-Qaeda gets out of hand finally, it won't matter a shit for them.

I said that they would take some time, not that they would not do so. There's a fair bit of time between al-Qaeda and IS.

[deisik]

The US already made a mess by training IS, and they will probably take some time to seriously think about their approach.

If they didn't do just this thirty years ago (when al-Qaeda was born), why do you think they are going to do it now? People who were Bin Laden's best friends in the U.S. are all retired by now (if not dead). So, when this new-Qaeda gets out of hand finally, it won't matter a shit for them.

I said that they would take some time, not that they would not do so. There's a fair bit of time between al-Qaeda and IS.

You think that thirty years isn't enough to reconsider their policies?

[byt411]

The US already made a mess by training IS, and they will probably take some time to seriously think about their approach.

If they didn't do just this thirty years ago (when al-Qaeda was born), why do you think they are going to do it now? People who were Bin Laden's best friends in the U.S. are all retired by now (if not dead). So, when this new-Qaeda gets out of hand finally, it won't matter a shit for them.

I said that they would take some time, not that they would not do so. There's a fair bit of time between al-Qaeda and IS.

You think that thirty years isn't enough to reconsider their policies?

Good old America is quite used to repeating the same strategy over and over again. Look at how their economy is fueled. As long as nobody interrupts the cycle, it will continue to work.

[BitMos]

. . .

Like username(number) said, I don't think they even know what's going on in the us gov. evident it's under occupation, so you have the traitors, the honnests, the losts, mix and you get the usa of today.

(Red colorization mine.)

Please support such claims with relevant quotation. Thank you!

of course, I own you this one : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958135.msg10538621#msg10538621

...

...there is a species-specific upper limit to group size which is set by purely cognitive constraints: animals cannot maintain the cohesion and integrity of groups larger than a size set by the information- processing capacity of their neocortex.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would seem that the limit of a Homo sapiens sapiens’ capacity to uniquely categorize other ones begets, in the context of the current population thereof of Earth, its extrapolation of a singular identity over, even, many millions thereof.

but you know, I try my best  .

[username18333]

. . .

. . .

Primates are, above all, social animals. This has inevitably led to the suggestion that such intense sociality is functionally related to the exceptional cognitive abilities of these animals, as reflected in their unusually large brains (Jolly 1969, Humphrey 1976, Kummer 1982, Byrne & Whiten 1988). This claim is supported by the finding that mean group size is directly related to relative neocortical volume in nonhuman primates (Sawaguchi & Kudo 1990, Dunbar 1992a). These analyses suggest that although the size of the group in which animals live in a given habitat is a function of habitat-specific ecologically-determined costs and benefits (see for example Dunbar 1988, 1992b), there is a species-specific upper limit to group size which is set by purely cognitive constraints: animals cannot maintain the cohesion and integrity of groups larger than a size set by the information- processing capacity of their neocortex.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would seem that the limit of a Homo sapiens sapiens’ capacity to uniquely categorize other ones begets, in the context of the current population thereof of Earth, its extrapolation of a singular identity over, even, many millions thereof.

but you know, I try my best  .

Estimates for that limit for Homo sapiens sapiens have been placed at circa two hundred fifty, large enough to accommodate “the interest” (username18333).

[BitMos]

. . .

. . .

Primates are, above all, social animals. This has inevitably led to the suggestion that such intense sociality is functionally related to the exceptional cognitive abilities of these animals, as reflected in their unusually large brains (Jolly 1969, Humphrey 1976, Kummer 1982, Byrne & Whiten 1988). This claim is supported by the finding that mean group size is directly related to relative neocortical volume in nonhuman primates (Sawaguchi & Kudo 1990, Dunbar 1992a). These analyses suggest that although the size of the group in which animals live in a given habitat is a function of habitat-specific ecologically-determined costs and benefits (see for example Dunbar 1988, 1992b), there is a species-specific upper limit to group size which is set by purely cognitive constraints: animals cannot maintain the cohesion and integrity of groups larger than a size set by the information- processing capacity of their neocortex.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would seem that the limit of a Homo sapiens sapiens’ capacity to uniquely categorize other ones begets, in the context of the current population thereof of Earth, its extrapolation of a singular identity over, even, many millions thereof.

but you know, I try my best  .

Estimates for that limit for Homo sapiens sapiens have been placed at under three hundred, large enough to accommodate "the interest" (username18333).

= guilty !

(you see, I am weak...). but this time it will be different (like they used to say every quarters since 1913).

(for my discharge I wanted to post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=636319.280 but it was the best, and I had only a good one  )

     

[BitMos]

sorry, I had an edit ready... so I repost it here :

. . .

. . .

Primates are, above all, social animals. This has inevitably led to the suggestion that such intense sociality is functionally related to the exceptional cognitive abilities of these animals, as reflected in their unusually large brains (Jolly 1969, Humphrey 1976, Kummer 1982, Byrne & Whiten 1988). This claim is supported by the finding that mean group size is directly related to relative neocortical volume in nonhuman primates (Sawaguchi & Kudo 1990, Dunbar 1992a). These analyses suggest that although the size of the group in which animals live in a given habitat is a function of habitat-specific ecologically-determined costs and benefits (see for example Dunbar 1988, 1992b), there is a species-specific upper limit to group size which is set by purely cognitive constraints: animals cannot maintain the cohesion and integrity of groups larger than a size set by the information- processing capacity of their neocortex.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would seem that the limit of a Homo sapiens sapiens’ capacity to uniquely categorize other ones begets, in the context of the current population thereof of Earth, its extrapolation of a singular identity over, even, many millions thereof.

but you know, I try my best  .

Estimates for that limit for Homo sapiens sapiens have been placed at under three hundred, large enough to accommodate "the interest" (username18333).

= guilty !

(you see, I am weak...). but this time it will be different (like they used to say every quarters since 1913).

(for my discharge I wanted to post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=636319.280 but it was the best, and I had only a good one  )

     

edit: the advice is cool, but as I can't follow it, as it would make me silent, and so guilty by omission of opposing, I say that it's wrong. if one stone fall the all is weak, or false. science 101.
.....

if I said so, in what sense does the verb of a kuffar having worked all his life to protect the interest (nice word) of those enslaving mankind should have any value before me? I am speaking of those pretending to be "judge"... lol, if there wasn't the faithful they would have called themselves god, and would have make plant of the creation illegal, rape legal (or at least lightly punishable), and authorize systemic tool to enslave all but their masters from whom they would have gotten a little... In the Joes party I am sure they were there... I am even ready to bet.

---

once armies are in motion the only judge standing are those there to judge the infraction to the code of conduct of the battle groups. nothing else, nothing more. And as it's war and the fog can be deep, and those being judged are backed by their peers, caring too, I can tolerate them... tolerate.