BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army

Subject: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: skarpi
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 05:48 AM

I was trowling along the youtupe and found these pictures ,
now I have no idea if this is true or not , it´s only thought´s
know we the Blackwater and other company´s are doing things for the US Army , so aht ever is going on .
all the best Skarpi Iceland .

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

so believe or no believe .

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:08 AM

Well, if it's true it will make me feel a bit less guilty about the UK training, and supplying weapons to, the Saudii military.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:32 AM

The iis have it II see.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM

Blackwater doesn't exist any more. In 2009 it changed its name to XE and now it's called Academi. By any name I don't like it or any other such outfit.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 11:17 AM

I'm sure there are US military tents left behind all over Iraq. The fact that IS? captured some when they conquered one of the Iraqi towns is not surprising. If the basis of this debate is because of the presence of these tents, you have non-existent argument.

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 11:20 AM

There's no question that ISIS is a product of US foreign policy; and I would go on to say that US foreign policy never makes mistakes (though it sometimes represents certain outcomes as mistakes because that's the most convenient way to market a goal to the electorate); but that video is ridiculous. The mainstream news has been filled with reports of ISIS using US military supplies, even heavy weapons, that they captured from the Iraqi army and other known beneficiaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Thompson
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:47 PM

If everyone stopped selling weapons war would be much more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 06:55 PM

That's a VERY important point. I see very little comment in the media about who makes the most money providing munitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 07:14 PM

if blokes just stopped doing what some evil, aggressive bastard told them (or paid them) to , war would be impossible

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:13 PM

Did it ever occur to anyone that in the 'pull-out, of U.S. forces, that perhaps we left the stuff there intentionally?......for them?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 15 - 10:38 PM

No one watched the old western movies where the bad guys take off their black hats
and dress up disguised as injuns to cause atrocities, panic, and mayhem:
in order to justify sending in the cavalry to drive a difficult tribe off their valuable ancesteral lands ?

hmmmm...


aint conspiracy theories marvellous.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 12:14 AM

Who has the most to gain...and why???
The answer has already been posted over a year ago.....
Forget party 'politics' for just a moment....

Who has the most to gain...and why???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 03:09 AM

Here, let me give you a clue....see if you can connect the dots....

I can't believe you guys don't get it! This shit was decided quite a while ago..and I've been turning you onto what it's about. To facilitate this Rockefeller assured Clinton the Presidency, if Clinton agreed to push through NAFTA..before Clinton was even running!...and voila, Canada and the U.S. were setting the stage. With it came a 60/40 trade import and export agreement with the two countries. The environmental stuff NEVER was a consideration!!..even when Carter put the expanded drilling ban into place. It's all about the trade agreement with Saudi Arabia...we buy their oil..they buy our bonds...and that is also the reason the Mideast is in warring turmoil. ...the region MUST be too screwed up to 'honor' the agreement...or should I say, it must be UN-stabilized..so we can drill here...and they are stuck with all those worthless bonds...by their 'no longer in place government'. We done 'em dirty...it was planned before Obama was president. It would have gone down, no matter who was elected. Only the duped dopes think there was any other way.
I've called this shit accurate, BEFORE IT HAPPENED, on quite a few subjects, for quite a while..you'd think by now, that you'd listen up. ...but NO-O-O-O-O-OOO, You've gotta still think stupidly along party lines....ain't that so, Bobert?

GfS

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:29 PM

Absolutely he will!..He's been a phony.
Two years ago, on Mudcat, I said he would, and have maintained it all long. First, I believe we'll see an uprising in Jordan, then Saudi Arabia. The fraudulently inflated gas prices will cause the people to either demand it, or welcome it....and Obama will be seen as a 'hero'..but it's all been bullshit from day one!

GfS

P.S....and the liberals who have been stuck in 'ideologue-dom' will scratch their heads, and wonder if he is the Democratic version of Bush.
Why not?..He's working for the same puppet masters....and nobody can do a damn thing about it!



From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:32 PM

..Oh, and I forgot..one of the promises included that we would not drill much here..the cover story was given to 'environmental issues'..but that was NEVER the truth..but it was 'given' to the 'liberal left environmentalists..so they could 'claim a 'victory and ally' in Carter and his administration.
So now the 'so-called' left gets 'new concessions'...The environmental issue as raised by Bobert, and many others, will be a 'talking point argument' used, but that would only be used to maintain the illusion that it was ever a 'concern'. Just for public consumption.
Meanwhile, the 'right' blames the 'left' and so on and so forth..back and forth...and the banks laugh all their way through the capital!

GfS


From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:38 PM

Here's my 'prior post'..Bobert, you may(?) like this!


999: "If Canada and the Chinese are so interested in having a pipe line why not run it westward thru Canada which doesn't have major population centers dependent on clean water???"

Linking up to the existing lines, down the Great Plains would be easier, cheaper, and more safe that going west over the Rockies. there is a mutual benefit for all parties concerned to save the costs.and time.

Just like:

As I posted before, Henry Kissinger, in 1979, under the Carter Administration made a trade agreement with Saudi Arabia, that if they would buy or Treasury bonds, we would buy their oil. Saudi Arabia, happens to be one of our nation's largest debt holders (2nd or 3rd, I think). I am believing that much of the Mid-East war problems, are being allowed, and/or 'sponsored', to bring the region into an untenable, unreliable source of our oil..THEREFORE...next logical choice..drill here, and blow off the debt owed to the 'soon to be Defunct' Saudi Regime, to whom the promises were made. I think Jordan will see problems first, though. ...and who wins?..The oil corporations and the banks, to whom the money is owed. Where does the oil go?..To China, the other big holder of debt...along with, believe this or not, Mexico.

Now this is what I posted about two years ago..and every day that goes by, I see it taking shape....

...and Bobert, if this is true...it really IS both parties..owned by the folks, that you've been NOT blaming....for corrupting both parties.

GfS

P.S. Mudcat Forum, by the way, has been doing some of the hottest exchanges and stuff, on the web..in regards to this and a couple other subjects...wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get even more notoriety.

'Viva El Mudcat!'

....................................................................

Interesting.........Jordan is now fighting ISIS....Saudi Arabia..just had it's King replaced.......
Obama vetoed the Keystone pipeline......the timing wasn't quite right..just be patient, and watch......


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 03:15 AM

At the beginning of my last post, I missed putting up the date, for the first part....

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 01:04 PM

"

I can't believe you guys don't get it! This shit was decided quite a while ago..and I've been turning you onto what it's about. To facilitate this Rockefeller assured Clinton the Presidency, if Clinton agreed to push through NAFTA..before Clinton was even running!...and voila, Canada and the U.S. were setting the stage. With it came a 60/40 trade import and export agreement with the two countries. The environmental stuff NEVER was a consideration!!..even when Carter put the expanded drilling ban into place. It's all about the trade agreement with Saudi Arabia...we buy their oil..they buy our bonds...and that is also the reason the Mideast is in warring turmoil. ...the region MUST be too screwed up to 'honor' the agreement...or should I say, it must be UN-stabilized..so we can drill here...and they are stuck with all those worthless bonds...by their 'no longer in place government'.............."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 03:41 AM

Oh!...and one more thing.....remember the criticism of Obama, 'not having a strategy', (reportedly), on the dealings with Iran's nuclear program?...Well as long a ISIS is a growing menace in the region, Iran is Sunni, and not too fond of the Shia based ISIS....I could well imagine that DOES put pressure on Iran to 'negotiate'.....while we stall at doing anything to slow ISIS down.....in which case, that would be pretty slick and shrewd..I imagine that that is in the mix....and big oil and the banksters....they're the one doing the 'strategies'...
quite a gamble....
The politicians involved are just 'actors', on salary from the aforementioned.....

Gosh, and Hilary is being found out about accepting money, for the 'Clinton Foundation' from Mid-Eastern countries NOT friendly to the U.S., plus big money from Exxon, and GE...(You might remember that I've 'discussed' Jeff Immelt before....another bankrolling crony supporter of political theater!!

You might figure it all out......(unless some moron wannabe 'activist' steers your attention away, with his usual pontificating nonsense...)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 04:13 AM

Iran Shia, ISIS Sunni, you meant to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM

Guardian, last September,

Islamic State fighters parade through Raqqa in Syria. The militant on the left holds an American-made M16 assault rifle. Photograph: Reuters

The jihadi group surging through Iraq and Syria is using large captured US-made weapons and has access to anti-tank rockets supplied by Saudi Arabia to a moderate rebel group, according to a report published on Monday.

The study by the London-based Conflict Armament Research consultancy found that Islamic State (Isis) militants had access to large numbers of US weapons, which they were shifting to key battlefields.

The report drew no conclusions about how the weapons were sourced. However, the capitulation of the Iraqi army in northern Iraq on 10 June gave the jihadis access to military arsenals in the north of the country, which were full of US-supplied assault rifles and ammunition, as well as heavy weapons.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/08/isis-jihadis-using-arms-troop-carriers-supplied-by-us-saudi-arabia

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 12:38 PM

Keith, It depends whether you are speaking of the regimes or the populace.......

Both Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance.

The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."

On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself.

The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali bin Abu Talib. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).

Sunni Muslims make up the majority (85%) of Muslims all over the world. Significant populations of Shia Muslims can be found in Iran and Iraq, and large minority communities in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon.

.....sorta like 'Democrats' saying they are for Democracy...but use dictatorial methods to accomplish their goals, and end up FORCING a minority rule to strip away our freedoms, for the sake of the banksters and mega-corporations, oil, big pharma, and Wall Street....just like the 'Republicans' do...and to accomplish it they PRETEND to be catering to the 'ideologies' who are dumb enough to subscribe to their policies....which is just a ruse!!!

............Sorta like:

Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 15 - 06:33 PM

Gosh!..It looks like we're all in agreement....for once!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Mr Red
Date: 07 Mar 15 - 06:31 AM

I tell you who is funding them, phone scams and looting of archeology.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Mar 15 - 11:50 AM

Get serious...OK?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: skarpi
Date: 07 Mar 15 - 12:32 PM

yes they could have left the tent but that man is western or has a western look any way ...
in the old days CIA went to chile and trained them and bla bla ...we know the story ...
It´s just amazing how over the years US has always have to stick their nose where it should not be ...

what a heck , what do I know ...
I am just going to walk along with my trolls and elves and wait for next eruption witch will happen soon ..

all the best and live in peace and harmony Skarpi .

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 15 - 06:11 PM

Yes, the US government is funding ISIS.

http://shoebat.com/2015/02/20/isis-leader-admits-funded-obama-administration/

Our president is former CIA.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 15 - 06:40 PM

Check the veracity of GUEST's source, just above. Unencumbered by the necessity for truth or rational thought.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Mar 15 - 09:00 PM

And not just the source, Don - also true of the Guest in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 02:43 AM

................and WHY would they want to do THAT?????

....and...Do you think that Hilary was selling guns to the Syrians(though Benghazi, BTW)....with or without the knowledge and permission from the administration?????

Was she representing the Democratic Party's agenda....or a personal interest??

..but she's a woman...let's vote for her to show that as a 'Progressive, 'You've come a long way...Baby!'

...."There's no business like show business, dah dee dah....."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 03:27 AM

Good God.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Musket
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 03:45 AM

Good? Possibly indifferent and certainly irresponsible if old Goofus is the fruit of his loins.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 05:15 AM

President Obama was very unwilling to become involved in regime change in Libya......I think this was very wise and courageous of him, given the pressure he was under from the "hawks".

Mrs Clinton put pressure on him, to further her own interests, with the next election in mind.
President Obama was forced, very much against his will to sign off on military action against the Libyan regime, with the consequences which have ensued.
Libya, was as bad a crime as Iraq, but perpetrated by a Democrat president.....however unwillingly.

Please remember this and other self promotion by Mrs Clinton, when considering whom to vote for in the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Cynical
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 09:07 AM

Foreign policy is above the level of Democrat vs Republican. Whoever controls foreign policy also controls the highest levels of both parties, and no one can be nominated for president by either party who doesn't support the imperial agenda. If Gore had won the election in 2000, the invasion of Iraq would have happened just the same, except that Democrats would have defended it as a humanitarian intervention and Republicans would attacked it as a waste of tax dollars on a war that didn't serve our strategic interests or defend our freedom. Gore might have been squeamish about it, but they had super-hawk Lieberman in place to fill in for him if he lost his nerve, just as they now have super-hawk Biden in place to remind Obama that he's expendable, and they made McCain, the third member of the Senate's super-hawk triumvirate, the Republican nominee just in case Obama lost. Clinton is a poltical workhorse who will do whatever the imperial collective wants, but the Republicans will nominate someone equally dutiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Cynical
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 09:15 AM

As far as Libya, it's interesting to note that Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were both selling oil for a currency other than dollars, and in both cases that changed as soon as they were deposed. And now Russia's hopped on the non-dollar bandwagon.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 09:28 AM

"If Gore had won the election in 2000, the invasion of Iraq would have happened just the same, except that Democrats would have defended it as a humanitarian intervention and Republicans would attacked it as a waste of tax dollars on a war that didn't serve our strategic interests or defend our freedom."

Cynical, but true all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 09:32 AM

An exact parallel to UK involvement in IRAQ.....its sometimes more convenient for the string pullers to have the crimes perpetrated by the perceived "left".

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 09:37 AM

Guest, I find it impossible to believe that the West did not see the destabilisation which would ensue from their "liberal interventions".

Are we really that stupid?

I don't think so and have become convinced that the destabilisation has been contrived.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 09:50 AM

If Gore had won the election in 2000, the invasion of Iraq would have happened just the same

Utter Nonsense. Another Bushapologist, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 10:09 AM

"If Gore had won the election in 2000, the invasion of Iraq would have happened just the same, except that Democrats would have defended it as a humanitarian intervention and Republicans would attacked it as a waste of tax dollars on a war that didn't serve our strategic interests or defend our freedom."

Cynical, but true all the same.

It may be your opinion that this had been possible, but it is completely ludicrous to say that it is "true." It's hindsight, it didn't happen and there is no way of knowing now whether it would or wouldn't have.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 10:32 AM

Well, it happened in the UK, did it not?
Without the Labour Party the Conservatives would never have got a majority for regime change.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 10:34 AM

Sorry did not put that very well. If the Conservatives had been in power, they would never have got a majority for "regime change"

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 12:47 PM

?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

'Cynical' may be cynical....but is pretty dialed into what is going on. Akenaton is also NOT deceived, by his assessments...it's only the 'wannabe ideologues' who are having a hard time with it...

BTW, according to the latest reports(an update from a previous post of mine), it is now estimated that Hilary accepted 0ver $25 million in foreign 'gifts' from...wait...this is too far out to just say without proof ...and then check THIS out!

Typical STEREO politician, talking out of BOTH sides of her mouth!!!

I DO hope EVERYTHING comes out!!!!

....it might get some 'so-called liberals' dizzy from spinning out of this one!!!

(...but they'll still vote for her..because she's a woman, and we DO want to be politically correct, to the liberal mantras!!).


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 04:45 PM

Say good-night, GeistInsanity. Different day, same garbage.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 04:55 PM

Greg F. "Different day, same garbage."

...and I've been telling you that for years...and you still don't catch on!! Say "good night, Greggie".

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 05:06 PM

I'm afraid sanity is right, if the Republicans don't get a charismatic female candidate, they have no chance.....sad reflection on the state of politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Cynical
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 05:07 PM

"I find it impossible to believe that the West did not see the destabilisation which would ensue from their 'liberal interventions.'
Are we really that stupid?
I don't think so, and have become convinced that the destabilisation has been contrived."

As Chomsky points out (beginning at 22:00 in this video for example), the word "stability" has a different meaning in foreign policy dialect (FPD) than it has in standard English. It means "maintenance and expansion of US influence." So sometimes a nation or region has to be de-stabilized in order to promote stability.
At 25:50 in that video he mentions a Foreign Affairs article in which the editor got confused and used both the standard English and the FPD meanings of the word in the same sentence, saying "we had to de-stabilize Chili in order to bring about stability."
He then goes on to explain what "the international community" means in FPD.
At 16:00 he mentions a 1958 National Security Council memo that says US policy is and should be to block democracy in the Middle East. And then he mentions a 2001 Pentagon study which confirmed that and said that's why they hate us.

And I agree that "we" are not stupid, if you're using the FPD meaning of that term, which is "the people who control US foreign policy." If you mean "we" in the standard English sense, i.e. you and me and everyone we know and 99% of the population of western countries, then I disagree.
Whenever policy has a horrifying result, the convention is to accuse the policy-makers of stupidity and of having made a mistake. I think of that as the Keystone Kops theory of foreign policy. When a group has been steadily increasing their sphere of influence for many years in spite of constantly making gross mistakes, at some point you have to question whether they can be called mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 06:24 PM

Great sufferin' succotash!!...another sane person, not intoxicated with the trendy liberal gibberish!

Here, what to 'The Natives think'....
Russell Means........(if the liberals even know who he is....)

Enjoy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Janie
Date: 09 Mar 15 - 09:09 PM

Going back to your original post, Skarpi, and also after viewing another link you posted on Facebook, all I can say is you are going to believe what you choose to believe. You have made it pretty evident over the years that your belief system tends toward the paranoid regarding mal-intent on the part of the USA in it's actions in the world. I doubt anything anyone posts here regarding their own thoughts are likely to shake your perspective and you will listen to and value only those opinions and perspectives that tend to confirm your own paradigm.

I understand the USA is officially and covertly capable of financing much horror in the world, just as is every other country. But these two links (this one and the one on facebook to Mick's thread) are absurd and no rational person would understand them as anything other than either propaganda preaching to a paranoid choir or simple conspiracy theorist party time.

I didn't respond to your facebook link because it was off-topic on the facebook thread, but will say here that even as propaganda goes, it was pretty poor, and in fact never asserted the government of the USA has or is financing ISIS. It asserted funds were being funneled through the US.   It is abundantly and frighteningly clear that ISIS has it's supporters who live in the USA, some of whom are US citizens. No doubt some of those supporters are successful in raising funds and finding means to send those funds to ISIS. There is no evidence, and no reason at all to believe either our government or our banking institutions are supporting or financing ISIS, deliberately and either overtly or covertly.

I understand that me saying so will at best have no impact on your view, and at worst, within your paradigm, direct you to feel hostile toward me personally. I regret the latter if that occurs. I am commenting on my views of your positions regarding politics and not about you as an individual. While I doubt you recall me from your visit to the Getaway a number of years ago, I remember you well and your warmth and wonderful music.

I wish you all the best.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 04:30 AM

GUEST,Cynical - Date: 09 Mar 15 - 09:07 AM posted the following:

"If Gore had won the election in 2000, the invasion of Iraq would have happened just the same, except that Democrats would have defended it as a humanitarian intervention and Republicans would attacked it as a waste of tax dollars on a war that didn't serve our strategic interests or defend our freedom."

To which Akenaton, on 09 Mar 15 - 09:28 AM, posted the comment:

"Cynical, but true all the same.

Causing Steve Shaw to respond as follows on 09 Mar 15 - 10:09 AM:

"It may be your opinion that this had been possible, but it is completely ludicrous to say that it is "true." It's hindsight, it didn't happen and there is no way of knowing now whether it would or wouldn't have."

Actually what GUEST,Cynical stated was perfectly true. US commitment to military action in Afghanistan was prompted by a direct attack on mainland USA by an international terrorist organisation based in Afghanistan, protected and shielded by the de facto (but unrecognised) Government of Afghanistan at the time.

The success of the September 11th attack and the ease with which it had been carried out caused a complete reappraisal of "The Threat" to the USA. This evaluation was ordered by the President of the Day and would have been ordered by the President of the Day irrespective of who that was - Bush or Gore - and that evaluation would have been made by the same people (Most of whom had worked for and advised Bill Clinton).

All 19 of the USA's intelligence and security agencies in parallel with the Joint House Security Committee made their independent evaluations and both came up with the same threat scenario:

An asymmetric attack undertaken by an international terrorist organisation similar to the attacks of 9/11 on US mainland centres of population involving weapons of mass destruction supplied by a rogue state hostile to the USA.

It would not have mattered one jot whether Al Gore or George W. Bush had been President that evaluation in light of the events of 9/11 would have remained the same.

Having identified the threat both parties then proceeded to identify possible candidates for the role of "rogue state" - top of both lists was Iraq - that too is another fact that would have remained the same irrespective of who had been President. The other thing that would not have changed would have been the advice given to the President - i.e. address the issue with some urgency and do something about it - In the circumstances no President would ignore that advice.

Now here we may have a slight divergence in what might have happened next:

1: GWB went to the UN and asked them to enforce UNSCR 687 and get it verified that Iraq no longer possessed any WMD or WMD materials, had no WMD R&D programmes running and had no weapons delivery systems with ranges greater than 150km. The UN was told do this, or the USA will act unilaterally to get that verification even if that involved invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power. GWB then went to get authorisation for action against Iraq if that proved to be necessary from Congress.

2: Had Al Gore been President he might have followed his predecessor's lead and responded as President Clinton had in 1996 and again in 1998 - without going Congress or the UN he would have just started firing missiles into Iraq.

But rest assured Mr. Shaw irrespective of who had won the 2000 US Presidential election, after the attacks of 9/11 had highlighted how vulnerable the USA was to such an attack, Iraq, considering its failure to comply in full with the terms and conditions it agreed to at Safwan in March 1991 was going to be attacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 04:47 AM

And there has been no repeat of a 9/11 scale attack since.
Just loners with home made bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

That may or may not be true Teribus.....I think perhaps Iraq was the WRONG target, but surely the point, which you studiously avoid, is the de-stabilised state of all the countries where "liberal intervention" has taken place and the danger they NOW pose to our security.......The uninhibited rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, Jihadists, availability of funding and arms etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 06:20 AM

I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to discuss anything sensibly with people who wilfully misread and misrepresent.

One thing I will say is that it is impossible to say whether 9-11 would still have happened had Bush lost the election (which he did anyway of course). So the conversation is all a bit silly really. The only "true" aspect of the whole thing is that Guest Cynical expressed an opinion.