BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 11:59 AM

And you think that means the same thing as "9-11 was all George Bush's fault". God help you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

Operational planning for the 9/11 attacks were two years old before the Presidential Candidates were nominated

Apparently you still get it into what passes for your brain that Iraq had sweet fuck-all to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. But do keep on apologizing for Dumbya's clusterfuck - its really quite amusing to see someone hanging so firmly onto delusions that heve been repeatedly proved to BE delusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

"The 9/11 attacks had SFA to do with the 2000 Presidential election"

one of the truest statements you've ever made Teribus, these lunatics see no difference between Republicans and Democrats.....not that there is much in reality.

This was to them....and to us now a battle of cultures.
I don't think much of our society or economic system, but by god I would sooner live under our imperfect system than capitulate to a gang of cruel psychopaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 12:37 PM

Very true GfS

No doubt that US funded Mujahideen Groups, so did the Saudis, so did the UAE and others but they were not the paymasters and had no say as to which group got what in terms of funds, training, or weapons that was all done and decided by Pakistan's ISI and Army.

Sources that I have used to support what I believe to be the case include:

- The President of Pakistan at the time Zia ul-Haq
- Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, Head of ISI 1983 to 1987
- Soviet Intelligence sources
- US Intelligence sources
- The only Western Reporter ever to have interviewed bin Laden


"According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf:

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan."

The Insider link you list states two very different things:

- In the Banner Headline of "The Insider" it proclaims that;
"CIA created al-Qaeda and gave $3 BILLION to Osama bin Laden" FALSE the CIA had no idea who Osama bin Laden was until 1996.

- In the actual text of the BBC article this changes to the true statement that;
"The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan" TRUE

See any difference there?

Other links supplied do not relate in any way to the period under discussion, it should be remembered that Al-Qaeda did not come into existence until the Autumn of 1988 and it played little or no part in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, it was formed for a completely different purpose in full knowledge that the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets was coming to an end. It should also be remembered that the Taliban never fought the Soviets as the Taliban were formed in November 1994 five years after the Soviets had left Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 03:02 PM

Teribus, Thank you for your considerations...that being said, I have to question the reliability of some of the sources you posted, and here's why....you quoted one of your sources as saying, "The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

That contradicts the testimony of Oliver North, at the Iran/Contra hearings. North testified that he had installed a sophisticated surveillance system at his estate, to protect himself from a guy named Usama Bin Laden, which nobody in the public had even heard about. The hearings began on May 5, 1987.

Oliver North was(or maybe still is, don't know for sure as to his present status) a CIA operative who operated under the name 'Joe Nancy'(some say Joe Nance), during the Iran/Contra days. HE knew about Bin Laden. That being said, though not all of the CIA was involved in the Iran/Contra debacle, it seems there were(?) 'rogue factions' within the intelligence community. North, who went from Central America, to the Mid-East, obviously knew about him...enough to be alarmed. To say that another CIA 'spokesman' denied know who UBL was, is simply disingenuous, ON THEIR part, (not yours).
Now I'm not the one pushing the CIA involvement as to the direct funding...any more than their involvement with the Contras in Central America...but there has been PLENTY of evidence, given at the hearings that 'at least a faction' of them were. This group stemmed from 'Special Group 40', (later just referred to as 'Group 40')....a combination of Organized crime, the intelligence community and Cubans, from the 1959 meeting with Santo Trafficante, Richard Nixon, Cuban National leaders, at the 'Fontainebleau Miami Beach, Resort Hotel'. Without getting into a long diatribe about that group, it was the same group that during the Vietnam war, handled the opium trade, of the 'Golden Triangle'. When Vietnam finally 'fell', the same group, which also funneled arms from Vietnam to the Shah of Iran, unbeknownst to the American public, moved their operation to Central America, and setting up the same scenario, which was supplying the Contras, while importing cocaine, instead of heroin, from the 'Golden Triangle'.
That being said, the opium trade, and poppy fields from Afghanistan IS being protected by U.S. troops, (there is plenty of references to that online, plus 'Frontline' did quite a documentary on it.
I find it not surprising, that the Clintons were involved in the Iran/Contra deal, and Hilary seems to be complicit in arms trafficking to the Syrians.
So to get back to a question that was posted, 'Who and Why'...but that's ALMOST a thread drift, which I'm not going to go into, at this point.
But, I did want to impugn one of your sources...and THAT being said, I don't think some of the other sources, The President of Pakistan at the time Zia ul-HaqBrigadier Mohammad Yousaf, Head of ISI 1983 to 1987
- US Intelligence sources, to 'volunteer' any incriminating statements, to cast blame, about a VERY covert operation.

...and 'THAT being said'<(again), you might wish to research it further. I'd be very anxious to see what you come up with.
I find your posts, well thought out, and complete with references...and again I thank you for intelligent, polite posts.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 03:16 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 05:15 PM

Steve Shaw.
Saddam opposed the 9-11 attack.

He was the only leader in the world who openly supported it fool.

No knowledge Steve.
Just dogma, ridicule and false accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 05:29 PM

Oliver North named Abu Nidal NOT Osama bin Laden at those hearings.

All here:

Oliver North, Osama bin Laden Hoax, Iran Contra Hearings, 7/8/1987

At the time of the threat you mention the paths of Oliver North and Osama bin Laden could not have possibly crossed with North at the NSC (NOT the CIA) in Washington 1981 to 1986.

"On February 11, 1987, the FBI detected an attack on North's family from the Peoples Committee for Libyan Students, a sleeper cell for the Islamic Jihad {While with the NSC North had help plan the 1986 bombing of Libya}, with an order to kill North. His family was moved to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and lived with federal agents until North retired from the Marine Corps the following year.

Around this time Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan managing the split from Maktab al-Khidamat in order to set up Al-Qaeda - basically no opportunity to set up any attempt at the lives of Oliver North or his family in the USA - too busy doing other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 06:24 PM

Teribus, Once again I thank you for clarifying that..you are correct in posting that North's testimony alluded to Abu Nidal...HOWEVER, when I checked further, into the story, I got this from 'Snopes':

"Origins:   For most of us who watched the televised Joint Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (better known as the "Iran-Contra hearings," held by Congress to determine whether the Reagan administration had secretly and illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure the release of American hostages,
then used the profits from those sales to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua) in 1987, the enduring image we came away with was a memory of an unapologetic and resolute Lt. Col. Oliver North delivering testimony in a Marine uniform. North, who was a central figure in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo, and who as a National Security Council aide directed efforts to raise private and foreign funds for the contras despite a Congressional prohibition on U.S. government agencies' providing military aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, testified before Congress under a grant of limited immunity in July 1987.

Although North had been granted limited immunity for his testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had been influenced by his immunized testimony). One of the charges against North was that he had received a $16,000 home security system paid for out of the proceeds of the Iran-Contra affair and had forged documents to cover his receipt of an illegal gratuity. North admitted that he knew the security system was a "gift" but maintained he never inquired about who had paid for it or how it was financed, and he was insistent that he needed the security system because the government had failed to provide adequate protection against international terrorists for him and his family."

NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH:

"The terrorist North mentioned in his testimony was not Osama bin Laden, however. To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. and conversion to "terrorist" status is not believed to have come about until the Gulf War of 1990-91, when he was outspokenly critical of Saudi Arabian dependence upon the U.S. military and denounced U.S. support of a "corrupt, materialist, and irreligious" Saudi monarchy. (The Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in 1994 for his funding of militant fundamentalist Islamic groups.)"

Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. He claimed that threats against his life had been made by terrorist Abu Nidal, telling a congressional committee:
Abu Nidal is, as I am sure you on the Intelligence Committee know, the principal, foremost assassin in the world today. He is a brutal murderer. And I would like to just, if I may, just read to you a little bit about Mr. Abu Nidal ...

"Abu Nidal, the radical Palestinian guerrilla leader, linked to last Friday's attacks in Rome and Vienna" — that was the so-called Christmas massacre in which 19 people died and 200 were wounded — "is the world's most wanted terrorist." That is the Christian Science Monitor.

When you look at his whole career, Abu Nidal makes the infamous terrorist Carlos [the Jackal] look like a Boy Scout."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp#98mz5Cqzdkd41DW7.99

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

So, according to this, the intelligence community DID know about UBL, and DID support him...as posted in the above article, "To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan."

So, thank you for your diligence and post. I hope this clarifies that we DID know about UBL, and did fund and back him.

Fair enough?
(If not, please clarify further)

Warmest Regards!!

GfS

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

He did not "openly support it" at all, Keith (and thanks for the gratuitous insult: I see that your boss is influencing you).
Yertis:
Almost all Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks. The leaders vehemently denouncing the attacks included the leaders of Egypt (Hosni Mubarak), the Palestinian Authority (Yasser Arafat), Libya (Muammar Gaddafi), Syria (Bashar al-Assad), Iran (Mohamed Khatami) and Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf).[4][20] The sole exception was Iraq, when the then-president Saddam Hussein, said of the attacks that "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity".[21] Saddam would later offer sympathy to the Americans killed in the attacks.[22] [wiki]

Thing is, Keith, Saddam reacted just like half the blokes in the pub I went to that night, only Saddam said it in more colourful words, namely that the yanks had it coming because of their shameful foreign policy. That was not saying that he was glad it happened and that it was fine to fly planes into skyscrapers. Not a single one of those blokes thought that the attacks were justified, and you are not justified in putting that interpretation on Saddam's words. Let's face it, Keith. The most inappropriate possible extrapolation from those words is that he "openly supported" it. That's just a fib. And he had absolutely nothing to do with it. And note the final line of the above quote. You have no point to make here at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:30 PM

A little item from Haaretz on 16 April 2008 for your delectation, Keith.

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

Hmm. If I was feeling mischievous, Keith, I'd say that this hero of yours seemed to be "openly supporting" 9-11. But, in spite of his incredibly stupid words, he wasn't, and I won't, because I don't allow blind dogma to make me tell lies, Keith. Why don't you start thinking for yourself. Or just start thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 03:36 AM

I suppose the thing to look at closer to get to the crux of the matter would be when things happened and when things were written.

The Oliver North hearings were in 1987. Your source is detailed as Snopes.com so the debunking of the urban myth that Oliver North knew about and named Osama bin Laden as a potential threat in 1987 could only have been written some time between 1995 (When Snopes.com was created) and 20th June 2009 when this response was last updated.

It also should be noted that it is the author of the response, an employee of Snopes.com who more than likely writing long after Osama bin Laden became known comes out with the phrase in this website article that:

"To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a "terrorist" but as one of the U.S.-backed "freedom fighters" participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan."

My guess as to timing would be post- 9/11 in 2001 as a direct response to a question asked about the hoax e-mail. I would also state that with marked high credibility that Osama bin Laden was a complete and utter unknown to western intelligence in 1987 - that would describe the extent to which he was known. Tucked away somewhere in Pakistan arranging travel tickets and documentation for foreign Jihadi fighters, why on earth would he appear on anyone's radar? His other function was to act as go-between for ISI and the Saudi Intelligence Service GIP in relations between the Mujahideen Groups of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (ISI's favourite) and Abdul Rasul Sayyuf (GIP's favourite) - No dealings whatsoever with the CIA.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

"Steve Shaw - 12 Mar 15 - 07:15 PM

He {Saddam Hussein} did not "openly support it {9/11 Attacks}" at all".

Really Steve? Saddam's antipathy towards the USA is fairly well documented, which was why all 19 of the USA's intelligence and security agencies along with the Joint House Security Committee paid special heed to his words both at the time and going back over the previous decade:

The Gulf War, February 1991:
1: "We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."
Saddam Hussein, Baghdad Radio, February 8, 1991

2: ""What remains for Bush and his accomplices in crime is to understand that they are personally responsible for their crime. The Iraqi people will pursue them for this crime, even if they leave office and disappear into oblivion. There is no doubt they will understand what we mean if they know what revenge means to the Arabs."
Baghdad Radio, February 6, 1991 (State-controlled)

Iraq Masses Troops Against Kuwait, October 1994:
3: ""Our striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

4: ""One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands." Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)"

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996:
5: "[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996

The Khobar Towers Attack took place on the 25th June, 1996 - Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the Khobar Towers attack in the Fatwa he issued in August 1996 - You tell me Steve is Saddam openly supporting such attacks when he suggests that the US send more coffins?

U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000:
6: "[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)

The Attacks of September 11 2001:
7: "The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001

8: "The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

9: "[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

10: "If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

Now that one must have gone down well in the USA eh Steve?

11: "The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)

12: "It is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

As must this one - something to sit up and take notice of - particularly if you are arriving at the conclusion in the wake of the successful 9/11 attacks that the greatest threat to the USA is presented by:

"An asymmetric attack carried out anonymously by an international terrorist organisation using weapons of mass destruction supplied by a rogue state hostile to the USA"

No wonder that in the light of that quotation and item 10 above that Iraq found itself at the top of both lists identifying potential candidates to fulfill the role of "Rogue State".

13: "The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001

Last one is just icing on the cake really isn't it? Not applauding or rejoicing in the attacks at that one eh? - The United Sates MUST GET !!!!!

Liked this bit from your post though:

"Thing is, Keith, Saddam reacted just like half the blokes in the pub I went to that night, only Saddam said it in more colourful words, namely that the yanks had it coming because of their shameful foreign policy."


Absolutely shameful - "...you can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses. With that the pig got up and walked away!" I know I would have done in that company - did you Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:26 AM

Let's face it, Keith. The most inappropriate possible extrapolation from those words is that he "openly supported" it. That's just a fib.

He did support it openly, with his statement to the world.
I do not fib.
Support does not imply complicity.
Most football team supporters never kick a ball.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:29 AM

"Thing is, Keith, Saddam reacted just like half the blokes in the pub I went to that night, only Saddam said it in more colourful words, namely that the yanks had it coming

Such a pub was not in this country.
Look at the 9/11 threads on Mudcat.
Not one person expressed such a view or anything like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:39 AM

Blimey, the shambolic responses by you two (cor, Keith, nearly accidentally said "you people" there!). We get bombarded with a litany of scraps which are supposed to support the view lovingly held by you both that Saddam "openly supported" 9-11 when anyone without the thick fog in front of their eyes can see that he did no such thing. That is not to say that he didn't come out with some stupid remarks. He was, after all, a bad man (but a bad man whose people had been collectively punished by western sanctions for ten years, lest we forget). Had he openly supported 9-11 you wouldn't have had to go to all that work to glean the ungleanable, would you? I mean, where's Saddam's one-liner to the effect that yeah, bloody yanks, well done you terrorists, hooray, gimme some more of THAT! It doesn't exist because that is not what he thought. In fact, he even expressed sympathy for the victims of 9-11. When I posted the wiki quote which mentioned that I included that last sentence that TERIBUS SO DISHONESTLY REMOVED FROM HIS CUT AND PASTE AT 2.06am on 11 March. Why did he remove it? Why, because that little sentence fatally undermined his case that Saddam "openly supported" 9-11, that's why!

As for pubs and my drinking buddies, at least I don't hobnob with Islamophobes and apologists for mass slaughter in Gaza. The drinks are definitely not on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:47 AM

"....at least I don't hobnob with Islamophobes and apologists for mass slaughter in Gaza."

Implying that some here do, right weasel?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:55 AM

"Thing is, Keith, Saddam reacted just like half the blokes in the pub I went to that night, only Saddam said it in more colourful words, namely that the yanks had it coming

Such a pub was not in this country.
Look at the 9/11 threads on Mudcat.
Not one person expressed such a view or anything like it.

So you went to every pub in this country on September 11 2001 in order to ascertain that, did you, Keith? Cor, bet your feet were sore!

If anyone can apprise me of the logic of Keith's three statements there... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:58 AM

Implying that some here do, right weasel?

Ah, the modus operandi of the K'n'T camp, the gratuitous insult. How dare you, sirrah! Everybody here knows that I'm a a LEFT weasel!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 07:41 AM

"I don't hobnob with Islamophobes and apologists for mass slaughter in Gaza."

No you just hobnob with apologists for mass slaughter in New York - Clown.

Oh and talking of dishonesty Shaw I didn't mention that little bit about expressing sympathy for the victims because he did not mention it in response to the 9/11 attacks - here is the context:

Iraq: After first justifying the 9/11 attacks, Saddam Hussein, A FEW MONTHS LATER, offered his sympathy for the victims and Americans killed in the attacks.

Bit f**kin' late mate. Now why did you dishonestly omit that little bit of information Steven old boy??

"where's Saddam's one-liner to the effect that yeah, bloody yanks, well done you terrorists, hooray, gimme some more of THAT! "

I would have thought that his remark made at Babil on the 8th October, 2001 - i.e. "The United States must get a taste of its own poison..." in the light of what had happened less than a month earlier is not that short of the mark. Neither, for that matter, is "publicly imagining" the magnified effect in terms of fatalities of similar attacks with hundreds of aircraft or with biological weapons. But there again Steve if you are incapable of seeing those statements for what they are then you really must be rather bone thick (Something that I would not find surprising in the least).

I'd love to know what your drinking buddies made of 7/7 - must've been a riot down at the Dog 'n' Duck that night.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM

So you went to every pub in this country on September 11 2001 in order to ascertain that, did you, Keith?

Of course he did, Steve! Have you forgotten his "all historians" gambit?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 09:00 AM

Yup T-Bird & KofA - and Ward Churchill said that 11 Sept was a case of "the chickens coming home to roost". Guess the U.S. should have invaded the University of Colorado Boulder.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM

Come off it, Teribus. Saying that the US must get a taste of its own poison could refer to sanctions, embargoes, negative propaganda, invasions, supporting the enemies of its enemies, undermining the government, etc, the poison that the US has dealt out. One kind of poison the US doesn't deal in is flying planes into skyscrapers. You're getting desperate. And if you really want to use my first name in full, at least get that one right. It's Stephen with a ph.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 10:20 AM

"Saying that the US must get a taste of its own poison could refer to sanctions, embargoes, negative propaganda, invasions, supporting the enemies of its enemies, undermining the government, etc, the poison that the US has dealt out."

After reading that it would appear that it is you that's getting desperate. Typical apologist wriggling, take what Saddam said and then put it in context with what had happened and what was going on. By the bye, why did you dishonestly omit to explain that that bit about Saddam expressing sympathy for the 9/11 victims came months after the events of 9/11? Or don't you have to explain any of the complete and utter crap you come out?

I'll post to what is written teacher dear. If you call yourself Steve Shaw then Steve it is - Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 10:21 AM

The university was spared because they fired Churchill.

Many Americans agree with him that 911 was a direct result of our foreign policy, including former Republican presidential contender Ron Paul, who got as much as 20% of the primary vote in some states.

But of course we don't applaud the attack; we just condemn the policy. People in the UK might very well feel the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 10:33 AM

Just because I'm trying to get you to stop telling lies it doesn't mean I'm an apologist for Saddam. There are dozens of posts on numerous forums from me condemning the evil sod out of hand. As for leaving bits of quotes out, I simply quoted a chunk of wiki. I didn't omit anything. You quoted the same chunk but pared off, quite deliberately, the sentence at the end referring to his sympathy for the victims. I'll leave others here to judge who's being dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 10:51 AM

What somebody says on the day is a reaction to an incident or an event. What somebody says months after is not.

What lies have I told? I can give you sources for everything I have stated, which is a damned sight more than you can do, or have done - Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 11:04 AM

Almost all Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks. The leaders vehemently denouncing the attacks included the leaders of Egypt (Hosni Mubarak), the Palestinian Authority (Yasser Arafat), Libya (Muammar Gaddafi), Syria (Bashar al-Assad), Iran (Mohamed Khatami) and Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf).[4][20] The sole exception was Iraq, when the then-president Saddam Hussein, said of the attacks that "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity".[21] Saddam would later offer sympathy to the Americans killed in the attacks.[22]

There's the wiki chunk I quoted. The part in bold is what Teribus removed when he quoted he same chunk. That sentence clearly states that Saddam offers sympathy LATER. I did not try to bury or hide the fact that the sympathy came later. It's there in my quoted section, fair and square. But Teribus deleted that sentence when he used the quote. Nothing to do, one supposes, with the fact that the sentence referring to Saddam's sympathy for the victims undermines his case that Saddam "openly supported" the 9-11 attacks...?

So who's being dishonest around here!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 11:30 AM

The university was spared because they fired Churchill.

Yup- and there's an object lesson on "Freedom of Speech" in the "Greatest Country In The World"[sic].

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 11:37 AM

Also from Wiki:

Reactions to September 11th Attacks - See Iraq

Relevant extract:

" Iraq: After first justifying the 9/11 attacks, Saddam Hussein, a few months later, offered his sympathy for the victims and Americans killed in the attacks."

The passage quoted by Steve from the same Wiki article:

"The sole exception was Iraq, when the then-president Saddam Hussein, said of the attacks that "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity". Saddam would later offer sympathy to the Americans killed in the attacks."

Gives the impression that Saddam came out with his offer of sympathy a few hours after he had justified the attacks - he didn't. Big difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 12:21 PM

Big difference? Never in my life have I assumed that "later" means the same as "a few hours after"! And he did not justify the attacks. He did not say that it was hunkydory to fly planes into the WTC. He did not say that he rejoiced in the bloodshed. He did not congratulate the terrorists. He did not say openly that he supported the attacks. He was a twisted and bitter man who had been subdued by the yanks and subjected to years of attrition by them. There was a lot of bad blood. He was not the yanks' best friend and he opened his big mouth, as he was wont to do. That is all part of being a very unpleasant man. That much we all know. I don't want you even to be fair to the man. He was so disgusting that I don't care whether you want to be fair to him or not. But let's just stick to what we actually know, eh.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 12:32 PM

...but what does this have to do with, 'Who is training ISIS the US Army'??

I found Teribus to be perfectly willing to discuss facts, as our posts illustrate. The only variation, was his opinion that UBL, was not on the radar screen with American intelligence...(on his last post with me). I disagree, I think they knew a LOT more about him, and what he was about, than has been disclosed. Nonetheless, I dug the fact that the exchanged posts actually clarified the situation, and was educational. If either he or I disintegrated into unsupported 'snarky' bullshit, then it would have failed to allow the true history of it all to come out.
That being said, I've often wonder why, when 19 of the 21 911 terrorists were Saudis, and Bush, in his speech on the matter, declared he was going after ANY and All countries who supported the terrorists, etc etc..why he went after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia.
...and therein lies the rub, and the cause of much head-scratching.
From 'our side', we've been led to believe that this act was just an act from radical loonies with radical ideas about their religion....but if one were from the Middle East, they might see it quite a bit differently....(not that I agree with them, but to try to understand it)...after all, we supplied both sides in the Iraq/Iran war. Now whether one lived in those two countries or not, but in the region, you might find that rather 'unsettling', to say the least...and if you're a religious zealot, well just take a look.
One thing for certain, through the corruption of a rather small group of arms and drug dealers, within the bowels of our body politic, they have steered the course of our foreign policies...without any say from the purposely duped public!!!....and now we are reaping the consequences, whether or not you favor arms or drugs!!!!!....or conflicts that may be completely reactionary to their corrupt greed, secrecy, and bi-passing any rational debate on the consequences of their deeds. Instead, the partisan machine makes it perfectly acceptable to defend these guys....if you perceive that this issue is along party lines. The Democrats will steer people away from holding a Democrat responsible for their part, as well as Republicans don't want too much focus on their side of the perpetrators. This corruption is not indicative of the political parties involved, BUT the dialogue is usually fashioned to get everyone to 'look away', and blame each other....while the bullshit keeps going on....as it is, anyway, confidence in our government(s) has eroded very dismally. We love to boast that we are such a 'superpower', and the 'policeman of the world'.....but give the biggest crooks, who steer world opinion, though accommodating them, about our foreign policy, and America 'principles' a black eye.....and all we do, is make excuses for them!!! ...and it's BOTH parties...and that is a fact!
So in essence, the greed of the bankster/mega-corporations, and the arms and drug dealers ARE the two 'parties' being represented and protected as first priorities, sanctioned by BOTH political parties, and at best, only get labelled as 'special interests'!
Is it any wonder why people of the world view America, as a cesspool of corruption???!!!??...and react the way they have????...and why we, as a nation, run around the world, accommodating them, and PRETENDING to champion some 'righteous cause'???...turning well-intentioned people into their pawns, to frothing idiot-logues???..defending such criminals into 'heroes' of whichever 'political party' they happen to be hiding behind???
Something to consider, when you 'choose' a side.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 12:34 PM

Steve Shaw.
Saddam opposed the 9-11 attack.

He did not.
You were wrong Steve, as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 01:23 PM

Thanks for the comprehensive and in-depth thesis analysing my opinions, Keith. They should make you an instant professor. Of history, natch.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 01:31 PM

comprehensive and in-depth thesis analysing my opinions,
No Steve.
Just pointing out that you made a statement that had no basis in fact.
Made up.
Wrong.
As ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 01:46 PM

I don't agree, Keith. And that's a fact. And my dad's bigger than your dad so watch it, yeah?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 02:22 PM

Jeez!!....with posts like that, no wonder people don't take you seriously....you are doing it to yourself.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 04:09 PM

Yeah, well you're a yank, and a pretty degenerate one at that, so you don't get my super-subtle humour. You poor thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Less of a Yank and more of a jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 04:42 PM

Beautiful name, beautiful post! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM

"I've often wonder why, when 19 of the 21 911 terrorists were Saudis, and Bush, in his speech on the matter, declared he was going after ANY and All countries who supported the terrorists, etc etc..why he went after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia.
...and therein lies the rub, and the cause of much head-scratching."

Most likely the fault of really poor journalism and piss poor reporting of the facts by MSM.

The only connection between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is that the attacks of 9/11 2001 showed the USA how vulnerable it was to that type of attack - nothing more.

Yes Bush did say he was going after any and all countries who supported the terrorists and that is precisely what he did - he went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. He provided assistance to the Governments of other countries plagued by Al-Qaeda offshoots. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia most certainly did not support the terrorists, individuals within the country might have, but not the country per se.

After the attacks of 9/11 the US undertook a major re-evaluation of it's defences in the light of what had been shown to be amazing weak points. The threat was deduced to be an anonymous attack by an international terrorist group involving weapons of mass destruction supplied by a rogue state hostile to the USA. Under that scenario you cannot sit and wait for the attack, and the terrorist group might not even exist yet - they can spring up and disappear like mushrooms. The only point of the equation you can identify and dissuade is the rogue state. The rogue state candidates were evaluated and because of Saddam Hussein's words and deeds Iraq came out as the most likely candidate (Steve Shaw please take note - In 2001/2002 it was what the US Government thought that counted, not the interpretations of a secondary school teacher in London in 2015). The US went to the UN and requested that the terms and conditions of UNSCR 687 be enforced. Saddam was given a choice by the Americans - he ignored it, bolstered by his traditional trading partners (Russia; China & France) who assured Saddam that the USA would not act - terrible misjudgement on their part.

Did the US taking action deter possible rogue state candidates - Most certainly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 08:22 AM

Well I don't know who this secondary school teacher in London is in 2015. I moved to Cornwall in 1987 and retired from teaching in 1998. My Cornwall residency has been referred to dozens of times in all manner of threads on Mudcat. The fact that you've never noticed, er, sort of calls into question your capacity for accuracy, I'd suggest. It's also quite amusing to ruminate on why you think secondary school teachers somehow can't be more astute than, of all things, Bush and his band of cronies. Naturally, I make no such claim for myself.

'Umbly yours, long-time Bude denizen and former teacher Steve... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 09:10 AM

"The fact that you've never noticed, er, sort of calls into question your capacity for accuracy"

Nope Steve, my handsome - just my total lack of interest. It was you who kept banging on about being a school teacher in London. Lots of people can be astute as they would like to suppose they are - they will never, ever be confronted with the problems and decisions that have to be made by Heads of Government - back seat driving with 20 x 20 hindsight is dead easy

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 10:11 AM

Lack of interest? You pounce on my posts like a hawk! You burble on ad nauseam (for reasons best known to yourself - it's hardly a curse) about my being a schoolteacher but have never noticed that I live in Cornwall, something that's been mentioned many times more frequently? More lack of accuracy there...

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 11:47 AM

Teribus: "The threat was deduced to be an anonymous attack by an international terrorist group involving weapons of mass destruction supplied by a rogue state hostile to the USA."

Elaborate.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 12:13 PM

I can elaborate a little. It's all bullshit. Iraq was going to be attacked whatever. The case that Teribus suggests is elaborate but totally bogus. A "threat" from a terrorist group that might not even exist "yet" sums it up beautifully. Don't you just love "yet"? Valiant defence of the Bush regime is all very well, but the upshot of the "war on terror", which included invading two sovereign nations, propping up military dictators and unconditionally supporting vicious and bellicose Israeli regimes who were slaughtering Muslims, has us all feeling a damn sight less secure and ordinary Muslims feeling besieged. Cheers, Dubya.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

I believe that Teribus, to whom I addressed, can answer for himself.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 04:19 PM

Of course. But a STRAIGHT answer could be more tricky. And you do not get to dictate who posts what, Guffers.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: pdq
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 04:28 PM

There is an undercurrent to all recent Mudcat BS section discussions.

That subject is the failure of the British mental health treatment system.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 04:31 PM

What an idiotic and scurrilous thing to say. You have no reason and no grounds to question anyone's mental health here. Shame on you.