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.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 06:26 AM

Those prepared to carry out the terrorist outrages and the attacks have been around since 1970. They have flocked to any location where they think they can get away with their brand of murder and mayhem under the all encompassing banner of Jihad.

Their fight has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "Palestine" or with Israel, nothing whatsoever to do with "liberal intervention", the "Arab Spring" had no external influences in Tunisia, just as it the "revolutions" in Egypt, Libya and Syria had no external influences. None had anything to do with Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan or with Iraq.

In Egypt there was the only ever the semblance of an "Arab Spring" type revolution, the Army always was in control just as they have always been in control since Nasser seized power.

The people of Libya watching events in Tunisia to the west and Egypt to the east saw their chance to press for greater freedom, the people of Syria saw the same news broadcasts and sought the same. Alas in their country's their rulers had different ideas, and we all know the results. The UN did empower action in Libya where Russia had no stake, but in Syria, Russia had it's only naval base in the Mediterranean to protect so the Russia veto was threatened against any UN Security Council Resolution affecting Assad and Syria.

IS presence in Iraq was down to the incompetent, corrupt and divisive rule of Nouri al-Malaki that was the only way IS could have swept back into the Sunni areas and provinces of Iraq, nothing to do with "liberal interventionism". In Syria they are merely taking advantage of the situation in a country that has become a failed state.

IS, it's presence and its ambitions are NOT our fault - Not by a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 07:26 AM

So are you saying that IS would be in Iraq had we left Saddam in charge? Just wondering. After all, al Qaeda didn't manage it when he was there, did they? Should we be discussing unintended consequences?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 08:32 AM

..I've been telling you that for years..

Indeed you have GeistInsanity, and all in aid if erecting a high wall of bullshit that you can sit on your self-satisfied arse behind & make snarky comments instead of doing anything worthwhile and/or working for positive change.

I suspect you're long out of the seventh grade; time to grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 08:41 AM

their brand of murder and mayhem under the all encompassing banner of Jihad.

As opposed to the all-encompassing banners of Manifest Destiny, the "War on Terror", The British Empire, Zionism or a United Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 10:26 AM

Under his sectarian/secular guise Saddam WAS "IS" in Iraq, representing a minority Sunni Arab demographic holding down by repression the Kurds and the Shia Arab Majority in the country. Depending upon what figures you use and how you view the Iran/Iraq War for the 24 years of his "rule" Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime murdered on average somewhere between 154 and 282 Iraqi's every single day. For anyone interested in perspective of this reign of terror, the current civil war and unrest in Syria has killed some 220,000 people in Syria in almost 4 years. After Desert Storm the Shia Arabs in Southern Iraq rebelled and in less than two months Saddam had killed just over 200,000 of them - the DU munitions in and around Basra was fired then from the cannons of his Mil-24 "Hind" Helicopters that he had "conned" coalition forces into letting him fly in order to facilitate "humanitarian" missions.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq during Saddam's time? Well representatives from two Al-Qaeda supported groups Mullah Krekar's Ansar al-Islam, escaped from Afghanistan in 2001 and was set up in business by Saddam to foment trouble within Iraq's Kurdish areas and another "refugee" from Afghanistan, a wounded chap called Abu Musab al-Zarqawi whose sponsor in Iraq while he was receiving hospital treatment was none other that Saddam Hussein's son.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 10:46 AM

All irrelevant. Iraq under Saddam was to all intents and purposes a secular state. And it was a STATE. He was a nasty piece of work but a nasty piece of work in an entirely different way to IS. Your stuff about al Qaeda in Iraq is clutching at straws. One of the big lies that Bush relied on to justify his invasion. Dubya would have loved you to have been writing his scripts for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 11:02 AM

Dubya would have loved you to have been writing his scripts for him.

Perhaps he did have - at least when Lying Sack Cheney didn't have his hand up Dumbya's back.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 12:53 PM

Steve Shaw: "I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to discuss anything sensibly with people..."

We hold this truth to be inevitable!

Greg F. "Indeed you have GeistInsanity, and all in aid if erecting a high wall of bullshit that you can sit on your self-satisfied arse behind & make snarky comments instead of doing anything worthwhile and/or working for positive change.
I suspect you're long out of the seventh grade; time to grow up."

...another 'worthwhile' post, saying absolutely nothing, except another opportunity for Greggie to vent his frustrations for trying to be an ideologue..but with no fuel!

You two should address the issue, as others have, and contribute...it is in the sharing of IDEAS, or input from different sources, that paints a wider picture......

..if the mods weren't so 'politically biased' they might have told you, instead of embarrassing yourselves and their political 'inclinations', as well.

Whether or not it comes out WHO is training them...there is no doubt, who has supplied them!!!...the question is knowingly??....or by sheer ineptitude?

The Clintons have made a pile of money, in unauthorized, covert gun sales to Syria, through Libya.....it doesn't matter if they call themselves 'liberals' conservatives..or even patriots.., or you think they are 'liberals' or not....that is only for public consumption.....or comic relief!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 02:44 PM

I think I can say without fear or favour that I have never read a worthwhile contribution from you in any post you've ever put up here on any topic. I consider you to not be worth talking to, but I've just made this one exception in order to say that. Moving swiftly on...

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Cynical
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 03:11 PM

The Islamic State is much more of a problem for its neighbors than it is for the US. Chiefly for Syria and Iraq, which are under direct attack, but also for Russia and Iran -- Russia because its largest foreign naval base is in Syria (now that Crimea is not foreign), and Iran because it's closely allied with Iraq as the two big Shia countries. And that may not seem like such a bad thing to US leadership, since Russia and Iran are the two main leaders of the assault on the dollar as international reserve currency, now that Saddam and Gaddafi are dead.

There's a history of using the Sunni Arabs of the Fertile Crescent to keep rebels in line. They invaded Iran after the great setback and humiliation when the US-backed Shah was overthrown and the US embassy was occupied. Then they invaded Kuwait when the big US banks were all on the verge of collapse and the Kuwaiti royal family thought they didn't need US protection and moved their deposits to German and Japanese banks. Everyone knows the story of the US ambassador giving them the go-ahead to invade Kuwait, but most people assume that was just a mistake, a part of the Keystone Kops theory of US foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 04:40 PM

1: " He was a nasty piece of work but a nasty piece of work in an entirely different way to IS."

Sorry in what way different? Both Saddam in his day and IS today threaten the stability of the region, both threatened their neighbours, both murdered civilians and engaged in ethnic cleansing, both engaged in the promotion of "state" sponsored terrorist acts in foreign countries - Sorry Steve Shaw there are lots of similarities, Saddam being in charge of a "STATE" as you put it with vast oil wealth just made him that little bit more dangerous

2: "Your stuff about al Qaeda in Iraq is clutching at straws. One of the big lies that Bush relied on to justify his invasion."

Not clutching at straws at all Steve, simple matter of record, Zarqawi of course is dead, killed in Iraq, his surviving followers after having been chased out of Iraq as a result of the "Sunni Awakening" and "The Surge" slipped over the border to hide out in Syria where one of Zarqawi's co-insurgent groups allied to his Al-Qaeda in Iraq was the Mujahideen Shura Council one of whose loyal Lieutenants was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi current leader of IS.

Ansar al-Islam's leader is currently residing in Norway where he has just recently be forcibly relocated to to a remote part of the country for his own protection for praising those who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the attacks in Copenhagen. Mullah Krekar fled to Norway seeking political asylum his story and his presence in Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003 is all fairly well documented.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 15 - 08:22 PM

Take a look at wiki on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda links allegations. Despite the most strident efforts of the most hawkish members of the Bush regime, no operational link between Saddam and al-Qaeda was found and, what's more, the ideological differences between them precluded such a link. Saddam opposed the 9-11 attack. Why is it that you always seem to want to twist history into a sort of rickety Heath Robinson version, "I'll change the facts to get my story to work even if it kills me", sort of thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:15 AM

Steve Shaw: "I think I can say without fear or favour that I have never read a worthwhile contribution from you in any post you've ever put up here on any topic."

Well considering that your fragile mind is protected in its eggshell of political ideology, which you don't understand, either, I don't think you are capable of much outside of its grasp....but it's OK....I didn't expect much comprehension from you anyway.

Steve Pshaw: "I consider you to not be worth talking to, but I've just made this one exception in order to say that. Moving swiftly on..."

Promise???


...That being said, let's move on....

Most of everything going on in the Mid-East, is NOT politically, nor religious based....those are the manipulative justifications the bankster/global/capitalist controllers use to disrupt the area for their perceived advantages. The Islamic factions have been warring for centuries..it was a most convenient cover story!

Methinks many of our wannabe 'astute ideologues', cannot differentiate between their idealisms, and financially structured profiteering, using the idealisms, but never really embracing them, yet hiding behind the 'illusion' of 'nationalism'.
If you could grasp that concept, you'd have a better clue, as to what and why recent events have gone the way they have.

Do any of you think that the leaders of ANY of the imperialistic co-optive, ideologues, when it comes time to 'expand', refer to the books from Lenin, Marx, Jefferson, Mao..or any of them ???....
Nope, they whip out their ledgers and figure out where and how to get the financial backing....at that point, it's the 'terms of the lender'.
When banking institutions compete, people die..lots of them. When the dying slows down, enough for 'peace negotiations', those 'negotiations' include the 'interests' of the investors.
Now is THAT too hard to understand???
In this case, it's the Mid-East oil.....or making it more profitable to drill elsewhere....in the biggest reserves in the world...and the U.S. is sitting on them. Make NO mistake, those same investors couldn't give a rat's ass about your perceived notions of nationalism, human rights, borders or how many mush be slaughtered, to meet their goals....they want control of resources and money,(as a tool to the 'power'). The only dupes who buy their sales-pitch, is those who refuse to THINK past what they want you to think...and argue about...as long as the focus isn't THEM!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:06 AM

1: "Saddam opposed the 9-11 attack?????

He was the ONLY national leader and head of state in the world to publicly applaud it FFS - Not even Iran with its now long standing tradition of the Post-Friday call to prayer "Death to America" chants dating back to 1979 were stupid enough to do that.

As Wiki would appear to be your source de jour:

"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). 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".

2: "no operational link between Saddam and al-Qaeda was found"

I do not believe that I have ever said that such an "operational" link ever existed. But that is not what you originally said, which was there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion which was incorrect. In Afghanistan prior to the intervention of the US on the side of the Northern Alliance in October 2001, Al-Qaeda fostered and supported both Mullah Krekar's and Abu Mousa Zarqawi's groups and they both fled Afghanistan for Iraq in 2001/2002 where they were given shelter and support.

3: "and, what's more, the ideological differences between them precluded such a link."

Ever heard of the Charles Dudley Warner quote: "Politics makes strange bed-fellows"? Best example of all being Churchill & Stalin.

4: "Why is it that you always seem to want to twist history into a sort of rickety Heath Robinson version, "I'll change the facts to get my story to work even if it kills me", sort of thing?"

Well actually I don't Steve - that sort of thing I leave to you - I normally do not only offer my opinions and statements, I give my reasons for believing them and provide my sources and my references - you when confronted normally retreat behind the excuse of ignorance on the particular subject, best and most recent example of this being the First World War threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:17 AM

Thank you, Teribus, you were a lot more tactful than I would have been!!....but then Steve, along with his blind, zealot, 'intellectuals', does not seem to comprehend things that require logic...only propaganda, that preys on his lack of understanding, and manipulates their emotions....and they reason with their faulty ASS-umptions!
You can't teach a pig to sing....you end up wasting your time....and annoying the pig!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:29 AM

Tactful my fat botty. Saying something, anything, contrary for the sake of it, more like. You two make good bedfellows, much better than Winston and Joe. There's a guy in Baghdad reckons he's al Qaeda. There's a bloke down the chippy in Bude reckons he's Elvis.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:59 AM

The evidence is a bit more compelling than - "There's a guy in Baghdad reckons he's al Qaeda." - but there again when have you ever considered fact?

1: "Ansar al-Islam (Arabic: أنصار الإسلام‎ Anṣār al-Islām; Kurdish: ئەنسارولئیسلام Ensar ul-Îslam; "Helpers of Islam") was an insurgent group active in Iraq and Syria. It was established in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2001 as a Salafist Islamist movement that imposed a strict application of Sharia in villages it controlled around Biyara to the northeast of Halabja, near the Iranian border."

2: "Ansar al-Islam was formed in September 2001 from a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdullah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar became the leader of the merged Ansar al-Islam, which opposed an agreement made between IMK and the dominant Kurdish group in the area, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The group later made an allegiance to al-Qaeda and allegedly received direct funds from the terror network."

3: "Ansar al-Islam initially comprised approximately 300 men, many of them veterans of the Soviet-Afghan War, and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab."

4: "In February 2003, prior to the US 2003 invasion of Iraq, Paramilitary teams from the Special Activities Division (SAD) and the Army's 10th Special Forces Group entered Iraq and cooperated with Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Peshmerga to attack Ansar al-Islam. It resulted in the deaths of a substantial number of militants and the uncovering of a chemical weapons facility at Sargat. Sargat was the only facility of its type discovered in Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:38 AM

Anything like that in Bude Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:35 AM

Plenty of 31-year-old "girls" like Ruzwana Bashir, Keith, with Oxford degrees, presidents of the Oxford Union and Fulbright Scholars from Harvard. Why, with "girls" like that, Keith, who needs women?

Oh, and there's Elvis al-Baghdadi down the chippy...

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:10 AM

" and there's Elvis al-Baghdadi down the chippy..." - Steve Shaw

- you when confronted you normally retreat behind the excuse of ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:44 AM

You two should address the issue,

Oh, but I am, Geist - the issue at question is your constant stream of BS.

it is in the sharing of IDEAS, or input from different sources

True- its supposed to be! But its not the the posting of nonsense, lies, half-truths, unsubstantiated accusations, idiotic ramblings & etc...

f the mods weren't so 'politically biased'

That's right, Geist - they're all out to getcha, getcha, getcha!! Best check under the bed, too.

If I may quite Steve Shaw:

"I think I can say without fear or favour that I have never read a worthwhile contribution from you in any post you've ever put up here on any topic. I consider you to not be worth talking to, but I've just made this one exception in order to say that. Moving swiftly on... "

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:12 AM

"One thing I will say is that it is impossible to say whether 9-11 would still have happened had Bush lost the election."

Lots of things seem to be "impossible to say" for you. Perhaps that is because you don't research your subjects carefully enough before making comment.

The "9/11 Attacks" were first proposed in 1996 - in that scenario there were supposed to have been twelve attacking aircraft all intercontinental flights with destinations in both the eastern and western seaboards of the USA. Osama bin Laden rejected this plan as:

- it would take too long to set up and train for.
- it would be too susceptible to security leaks
- it would be too vulnerable to discovery at the last minute because of changing security regimes and procedures.
- using intercontinental flights arriving at US airports would mean the aircraft would arrive with minimum fuel loads.

Osama bin Laden suggested targeting internal East coast to West coast flights as then with the targets in the eastern states of the USA the aircraft would be carrying almost full fuel load and it would give the US authorities less time to react. So Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was sent away to revise the plan, which he duly did arriving back with his 1998 plan that played out on the 11th September 2001, which Steve old son was never meant to be the date of the attack because Al-Qaeda hit another snag. The attacks were planned to occur in the last years of Bill Clinton's Presidency 1999 or 2000 (Why Clinton? Because he was the President who had caught and imprisoned those responsible for the 1993 WTC attack and the man who had ordered cruise missiles launched at Al-Qaeda camps in Sudan and in Afghanistan and who had attempted to assassinate Osama bin Laden)

The problem Al-Qaeda hit that delayed things had to do with Osama bin Laden's terrorists of choice not being up to the training and tightening visa restrictions for those coming to the USA from the middle-east. Osama bin Laden preferred to use Yemenis for his attacks, unfortunately those selected for flight training for KSM's grand production either weren't good enough pilots, or their english was too poor for them to be credible candidates to sit on a flight deck, so alternatives had to be found - the search found the men required in Germany (US entry Visas were not so difficult to obtain there) Mohammad Atta & Co flew to Afghanistan and passed selection by Osama bin Laden in November 1999 and from that point the clock started to count down - the attack had nothing to do with George W. Bush, the attack had a hell of a lot to do with the failed 1993 WTC attack and the fatwas issued by bin Laden in 1996 and 1998 - so as far as Al-Qaeda was concerned they were most certainly going to happen irrespective of who was President of the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:00 AM

Steve, she was telling the story of a girl of 10.
Her young self.
That is why I said you should read the girl's story, instead of just ridiculing her for mentioning community leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:22 AM

Sure, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:17 AM

Sure.
She was describing her experience of abuse as a ten year old girl, and you did seize on her mention of community leaders to indulge in your usual ridicule.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 01:46 PM

Oh for goodness sake. The story went on for years after this young woman had been a ten-year-old girl. You referred to this 31-year-old woman, who's achieved more in her life already than most people you'll ever meet, as a "girl". Just own up for once, give us an "oops, my mistake" and stop wriggling! And, as a matter of fact, I'm in awe of her courage and her achievements. Doesn't stop me wondering who your community leader is, though.

Here's how Keith referred to this 31-year-old woman. Whole post:

Before you ridicule this girl, at least read her story.

Her story of bringing an abuser to justice went on well into her womanhood. Long after she'd stopped being a "girl", Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:01 PM

OK so why did you seize on the community leader thing.
She mentioned them.
I never have.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:21 PM

Teribus, I thank you, again, for your research into the subject matter being discussed!...BTW, you might want to mention just who it was that TRAINED Bin Laden!!...as well as other, (long list) of the head operatives of several of the groups!..also the leaving of all the equipment...was it deliberate??...or just an inept, 'failed policy'.

Another BTW, how come Hilary is accepting massive financial support from regimes that are repressive to women's rights????...and mega corporations who ship our jobs to China??....Is anyone dumb enough to believe there isn't a quid pro quo involved here??...Just WHO IS she 'representing'?????...and being as she is PRETENDING to be a 'liberal', is this the policies that the liberals support???...or just the 'so-called liberals'????

Gullible, gullible, gullible!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:25 PM

Say Goodnight, Geist.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:27 PM

Thank you for your 'intelligent' response....NEXT!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:48 PM

OK so why did you seize on the community leader thing.
She mentioned them.
I never have.

Oh, for chrissake. You chose to quote the section in which she mentioned it. You didn't have to do that but you did. There was tons of stuff you could have quoted but you chose to quote the bit in which she mentioned community leaders. So I want to know who your community leader is, Keith. Or do you think that we white Christian majority don't need such things? Why did you quote a section that you didn't go along with, then, Keith? Because you DID go along with it, that's why. Dunno about you, but I tend to avoid quoting things I don't go along with. So why do you think that these Muslims need community leaders to speak for them, while we don't, Keith? Unless you think we do, in which case tell me who your community leader is, Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:06 PM

Steve Pshaw: "So why do you think that these Muslims need community leaders to speak for them, while we don't, Keith? Unless you think we do, in which case tell me who your community leader is, Keith!"

Hey, Barrack Hussein Obama was/is a community leader....and they aren't listening to him, either....along with most of America......

Wink!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:40 PM

Unless you think

Therein lies the problem, Steve - he doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:04 PM

Correct, Greg, and, as for guffers with his "wink", he accidentally used the third vowel instead of the first.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:11 PM

I chose that bit because it was relevant to refuting Jim's accusations.
I have never, ever, referred to community leaders.
She did and you attacked it.

This is a continuation of the closed thread.
That closure gave you the last word over me, but still you had to start it again on a totally unrelated thread.

You attack me for calling a young woman, describing her childhood abuse, as a girl.
You attack her for referring to "community leaders."
You show no compassion for her, and other kid's, plight at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:20 PM

There is no shortage of groups/businesses able to train paramilitary or military troops. The questions that need asking and answering is "Where's the money coming from?" and "Cui bono?"

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:11 PM

EXACTLY!

I wonder if Hilary's 'missing E-mails' will provide answers.........that any of our local 'so-called liberals' would dismiss, and claim that the reason she did it was to expose another 'right wing conspiracy'...and to champion the 'war on women' because they're all her critics are all 'racist homophobics' and bigots!

Frankly that old tired, worn out bullshit is BORING!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:40 AM

"you might want to mention just who it was that TRAINED Bin Laden!!...as well as other, (long list) of the head operatives of several of the groups!..also the leaving of all the equipment...was it deliberate??...or just an inept, 'failed policy'."

If the inference here is that it was the US via the CIA or any other agency then that is way off the mark and a complete and utter myth according to the Pakistani Brigadier who was assigned to the outfit Osama bin Laden worked with during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by Pakistan's ISI.

All disbursement of funds, weapons and training for the various Mujahideen Groups operating in Afghanistan's various Provinces was handled by Pakistan's ISI and the Pakistani Army - that was the cast-iron condition for Pakistan's co-operation laid down from the very start by Pakistan's President Zia ul Haq:

1: "The program relied heavily on the Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who had a close relationship with Wilson. His Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups. Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.

To put that last bit into perspective, some 250,000 Afghan Mujahideen fought against the Soviet occupation, while the number of volunteers from the Arab states numbered ~2,500. Osama bin Laden's role was in logistics and providing a base for those volunteers and he spent his time in Pakistan, his only incursion into Afghanistan being right towards the end for a photo-op.

2: "According to Peter Bergen, writing in Holy War, Inc., no Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen ( Source: Bergen, Peter. Holy War, Inc. New York: Free Press, 2001. Pg. 66). The skittish CIA had fewer than 10 operatives in the region because it "feared it would be blamed, like in Guatemala" (Source: The New Republic, "TRB FROM WASHINGTON, Back to Front" by Peter Beinart, 8 October 2001.). Civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area during this time, and the US contributed generously to aiding Afghan refugees."

Funding for the Mujahideen's efforts, training and arms came from three main sources 40% from the USA; 40% from Saudi Arabia; 10% from the United Arab Emirates & 10% from Pakistan & others including the UK and the People's Republic of China - Strange that that being the case the only contributor you ever hear about splashed across the media and contained in all the conspiracy theories is the 40% contribution from the USA, the the major 60% contribution by others is studiously ignored.

3: "there is no evidence that the CIA had direct contact with Osama Bin Laden - US funding was directed to Afghan Mujahedin groups." This is backed up by bin Laden's Pakistani Liaison Officer who stated that bin Laden used his own money, or money that came from verifiable Islamic sources, aid from all other sources was refused.

4: "According to Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin, there is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen." (Source: The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World (Penguin, 2006), p579n48.)

5: "Peter Bergen writes that "the real problem is not that the CIA helped bin Laden during the 1980s, but that the Agency simply had no idea of his possible significance until the bin Laden unit was set up within the CIA in January 1996." - (Source: Peter Bergen (20 January 2006). The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-7432-9592-5. Retrieved 25 April 2013.) - Backed up of course by the fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden that declared war on the USA and the west in 1996 and again in the 1998 fatwa in which he declared open season on every American man, woman and child irrespective of where they were in the world:

"We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it."

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:41 AM

"Steve Shaw - 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."

Care to point out anything that I have willfully or otherwise misread or misrepresented in what I have written?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 05:59 AM

No. Life's too short. Just stop doing it and save us both a ton of energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:02 AM

Sure Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:24 AM

Steve Shaw - "when confronted you normally retreat".

Don't make comments and pronouncements about the contributions of others unless you are prepared to fully explain and defend your point of view - unfortunately for you but fortunately for the rest of us - you are not in your classroom now, you do not control what is permitted to be said and what is not permitted to be said.

So I will ask you again:

"Care to point out anything that I have willfully or otherwise misread or misrepresented in what I have written?"

An admission that you cannot and that your comment was well wide of the mark will do - but I do not think that you have either the honesty or integrity to do that, and I know that you are simply too damn lazy to do the research - so I shall not be holding my breath for a reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:41 AM

Frankly that old tired, worn out bullshit is BORING!

Absolutely, Geist - but then, you still keep posting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 09:05 AM

All I had to do, Teribus, was wait for your next post. Accusing me of trying to control what people here say is a classic misrepresentation of everything I stand for and everybody here, bar you and possibly Keith, knows it. The fact that I refuse to trawl through acres of threads at your behest means, at worst, that I don't feel like getting into one of your tedious and endless quote/unquote games and, at best, I know you're going to keep doing it so all I have to do is wait. As a matter of fact, if you do a little trawling yourself you'll find that I have frequently picked you up for misrepresentation. It's your modus operandi, in fact. It tends not to get me anywhere so if you'll excuse me I'll decline the present invitation.

In addition, your post is replete with unnecessary and gratuitous insults, not for the first time (I'm not bothered). Are you going to deny that as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 10:31 AM

"All I had to do, Teribus, was wait" - Complete and utter B*ll*cks School Teacher.

This is NOT telling somebody to shut up and keep quiet?:

"No. Life's too short. Just stop doing it and save us both a ton of energy."

Just can't be bothered to defend your rather poorly thought out comments

"In addition, your post is replete with unnecessary and gratuitous insults"

Really?? This one is because you rather invited by them by your accusation.

C'mon just tell us why if Al Gore had been in the White House 9/11 would never have happened. Tell us all why and how it was all George W Bush's fault even although it had been in the planning for over four years and at the time of the attacks of the 11th September, 2001 George W. Bush had only been President of the United States for roughly eight months.

Thing is you cannot do that but do not have the honesty to admit it - You really do have some neck calling Keith A, at least when he has been in error Keith A has had the decency, integrity and honour to put his hands up for it.

Give us solid cast-iron evidence that Ansar al-Islam did not set up shop in Iraq in 2001 and that US Special Forces did not find their chemical weapons facility at Sargat when they raided their base there in February 2003. Tell us where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi went for hospital treatment when he escaped from Afghanistan via Iran in 2002, provide us with proof that Zarqawi had no connections to Al-Qaeda whilst in Afghanistan.

So far I have not misread or misrepresented anything - as you have accused me of - simple matter of putting up your evidence of it - if you can't or don't - then it would appear that it does not exist - your "Can't be bothered, too much trouble", doesn't cut it, it is what it is a limp excuse to cover an even limper and groundless statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 10:37 AM

" your "Can't be bothered, too much trouble", doesn't cut it, it is what it is a limp excuse to cover an even limper and groundless statement."

Nothing new there.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 10:48 AM

"All I had to do, Teribus, was wait" - Complete and utter B*ll*cks School Teacher.

This is NOT telling somebody to shut up and keep quiet?:

No. Can't you read plain English?

"No. Life's too short. Just stop doing it and save us both a ton of energy."

Just can't be bothered to defend your rather poorly thought out comments

Your take, not mine. I did explain.

"In addition, your post is replete with unnecessary and gratuitous insults"

Really?? This one is because you rather invited by them by your accusation.

How lame. I smell guilt. Can't you post without insulting? Not impressive and not much of a tactic.

Now show me where I said 9-11 was "all Bush's fault". Or shall we just let that one stand as yet another example of why I don't need to trawl for "evidence" as to how you serially misrepresent?

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

Oops: got two lines the wrong way round there.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 11:24 AM

Teribus, with all due respect, (for real), there are conflicting reports of the funding and training...so I checked it out..and found these . You may wish to review them and compare notes. That being said, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that both sides of this issue have conflicting reports....both sides are 'interesting'.

Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 11:52 AM

>i>"One thing I will say is that it is impossible to say whether 9-11 would still have happened had Bush lost the election" - Steve Shaw

The 9/11 attacks had SFA to do with the 2000 Presidential election - You in the above statement seem to suggest that the two things were linked somehow and that the deciding factor that you find impossible to make a statement on depended upon who won or lost that election. Operational planning for the 9/11 attacks were two years old before the Presidential Candidates were nominated for election by their respective political parties. After the revised plan was approved it was a racing certainty that the attack would be made - no degree of doubt whatsoever - No misrepresentation there at all.

So OK I've asked once I will ask again why do you suggest different outcomes were a possibility had the result of the election been other than it was?

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 04:43 PM

Steve: "But a STRAIGHT answer could be more tricky."

How would you know?
Straight is just that, straight. Don't need to have ideological, theoretical, speculations, that don't shed light on the subject, but only are used to re-enforce some speculative, wishful thinking, based on the 'politically correct' nonsense of a political agenda....which was sold to you by the 'special interests' who own both the body politic AND the media.

Now THAT is a straight answer.....
..but you wouldn't know that, would you?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 04:49 PM

Didn't realize you were British, PeeDee.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 15 - 05:50 PM

Here's a troll warning. This "pdq" character is posting on several threads to the effect that we Brits have mental health problems. Avoid responding to this degenerate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:15 AM

Elaboration:

1: Bill Clinton 17th February, 1998

President Clinton's address to Pentagon Joint Chiefs

Extract:

"So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

George W. Bush did not identify Iraq under Saddam Hussein as a threat - that was done by Bill Clinton - Regime change in Iraq became official US Foreign Policy in the summer of 1998.

2: President George W. Bush 2002 State of the Union Address:

2002 State of the Union Address

Extract:

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:24 AM

You really DON'T have an effing clue, do you T-Bird? And your condition seems to be progressing rapidly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:27 AM

The question remains: who's funding ISIS?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:36 AM

Judging by your comments and contributions GregF it would appear that you are the one that's "clueless".

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 09:00 AM

'This "pdq" character is posting on several threads to the effect that we Brits have mental health problems.'

Judging by more than a few threads, Steve (Stephen), some Brits do have mental health problems. No point making an issue of it, however.

PDQ: stop pissing off the Brits. BTW, you still owe me a CD. Your favourite picks would be fine. Trust you're doing well :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 09:50 AM

Here's a piece of education for some of you. If I disagree with you, it does not mean I'm mentally ill. It may mean I'm irrational, uninformed, misinformed or that I have a bee in my bonnet. It may mean that I'm bigoted or just that I have the devil in me today. Or, alternatively, that you're one or more of those things. There is always the chance, of course that I really am mentally ill (same applies to you, of course), but I'd like to suggest, humbly, that someone from 3000 miles away reading what I type here might just not be the best judge of that. Now we have two people here who are accusing Brits of being mentally ill. I note that, yesterday, two threads were deleted that were getting a bit argumentative. I mentioned God in one of them, as I recall. It's interesting that threads like that disappear, yet threads in which our colonial cousins can groundlessly call us Brits mentally ill are permitted to proceed merrily along their way. Still, I'm not bothered. Just ruminating, really. Not my gig, is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 09:58 AM

http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/

Chances are . . .

However, you're correct in that it's a broad generalization that doesn't help the flow of observations.

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

So now we are expected to sheepishly agree with Teribus on account of great big tracts of presidential speechifying. Unimpressive. And what about this piece of arch-hypocrisy:

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Said at the same time that the US was propping up a military dictatorship in Egypt and one of the world's most repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia. And whilst forgetting the history of supplying Saddam with weapons knowing that he was using them on his own people. Cor, "unelected few" indeed. And let's not mention the elected few in Chile and Nicaragua that were unfortunate enough not to fit the US agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:08 AM

However, you're correct in that it's a broad generalization that doesn't help the flow of observations.

Is that a euphemistic way of saying that you now realise that you and pdq should have kept your big mouths shut about it in the first place? Just wondering...

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

I think it's more like he's saying "Shhh... don't provoke them. They have no ability to resist."

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:17 AM

Bingo!

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

Er, like he couldn't resist calling people whose opinions he doesn't like "mentally ill"? Or are you perhaps trying to tell us that calling people "mentally ill" is some subtle type of Yankee humour?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM

calling people "mentally ill" is some subtle type of Yankee humour?

Don't blame it on the Yanks, Steve - its what some assholes think is humourous.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 12:53 PM

Mental illness is not funny. There are multiple manifestations and degrees of mental illness. Obsessiveness can be a symptom of an underlying disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 01:08 PM

I don't think extreme defensiveness is a mental illness, but I could be wrong. Obsessiveness definitely is. I doubt the comment was meant any way but literally. Everybody knows we don't understand irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 02:42 PM

So are you a medical practitioner qualified to decide who's mentally ill from a great distance? Obsessiveness a mental illness? So a concert pianist or a world-class tennis player or a man who builds model ship with thousands of matchsticks is mentally ill??

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 04:16 PM

Steve Shaw - 15 Mar 15 - 10:05 AM

So now we are expected to sheepishly agree with Teribus on account of great big tracts of presidential speechifying. Unimpressive.

All depends Shaw on whether you read the speeches or not and sought elaboration on why it was the US Intelligence and Security Agencies AND their Joint House Security Committee in the winter of 2001 came to the conclusion that - The greatest threat to the United States of America in the wake of the 9/11 attacks "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." - I didn't make that up, the intelligence and security agencies of the USA must, at the time have been considering this for the best part of four years.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 04:35 PM

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."


Just for what it's worth:

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/17/News/
Mossad officials traveled to Washington last month to warn the CIA and the FBI that a cell of up to 200 terrorists was planning a major operation, according to a report in the Sunday Telegraph here yesterday.

The paper said the Israeli officials specifically warned their counterparts in Washington that "large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent." They offered no specific information about targets, but they did link the plot to Afghanistan-based terrorist Osama bin Laden, and they told the Americans there were "strong grounds" for suspecting Iraqi involvement.

A US administration official told the paper that it was "quite credible" that the CIA did not heed the Mossad warning: "It has a history of being over-cautious about Israeli information." But the official noted that "if this is true, then the refusal to take it seriously will mean heads will roll."

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

BTW, Have you been listening to the recent news, in regards to Saudi Arabia???...Now how did GfS call that so accurately....2 years ago??

Mental illness usually infers that someone is 'detached' a bit from reality.....
....what is it when they see reality, before it happens????...and chronicles it, BEFORE it does, only to be misunderstood, and railed against by myopic ideologues??

Gosh, not only did you hear it first on Mudcat...you heard it before anyone had a clue!!

Guest from SANITY!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 05:16 PM

I didn't make that up,

No T-Bird, you amd George Dumbya (with Cheneys able assistance) just made up the Iraq bit.

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

He's not worth it, Greg. But you've got to admit that he's valiant. He has to be, still blindly supporting as he does one the most discredited US regimes in history. The fact that he extensively quotes a Bush speech and tries to adorn it with bogus legitimacy, implying somehow that it's the last word in integrity, says an awful lot about his judgement. Shame really. He seems to know an awful lot of historical detail, but hasn't a clue as to how to interpret any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:29 AM

Well, you two, you criticize Teribus, and attempt to put him down....but you offer NO supporting data to 'legitimize' your criticism. Are you just blindly squawking, with 'left over talking points' or do you actually have a point of view...supported by facts, and if so, lay it out.
That seems fair enough, eh?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 02:50 AM

Interesting Mr Shaw your post of 15 Mar 15 - 06:58 PM mentions and pours scorn on the 2002 State of the Union Address delivered by GWB yet omits any comment on the speech made four years before by Bill Clinton which basically gave the same message about the same head of State and about the regime ruling that same country.

GfS I think as the article states, the Israeli intelligence services do suffer a bit from their reports being treated as "The boy crying Wolf".

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 03:32 AM

So now we are expected to sheepishly agree with Teribus on account of great big tracts of presidential speechifying.

"TractS", Teribus. That meant both of them. You are arguing from authority. When that authority is a combination of one known liar and one known near-imbecile, well, like I said, not impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 04:32 AM

Steve: "That meant both of them(Clinton and Bush). You are arguing from authority. When that authority is a combination of one known liar and one known near-imbecile..."

Gosh, do you think that both of them just might be a 'little' corrupt, along the way, and let BOTH of their party down, because they were accommodating 'another' agenda......even though BOTH of them had the support of either liberals or conservatives, respectively????

Gosh, when I point that out, I get ostracized.

...and do you mean, that the people who 'identify' with liberalism, for example, and are so convinced that one of the Bozos you voted for, that you start repeating their bullshit...and then 'object' to being called a 'so-called liberal'???.......when the guy your defending and making excuses for, and divisions isn't even anything near what was advertised????

So the glitch is defined.........

....but take the angst, and express your music, with that passion.

Works for me!

GfS

P.S., Oh, and BTW, the voice of deception has uneven rhythms....remember that when your stuff their shit in your ears!...............................................and then repeating it!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:17 AM

Very, er, informative ...

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM

"That meant both of them. You are arguing from authority. When that authority is a combination of one known liar and one known near-imbecile, well, like I said, not impressive."

Awwww Stevie, did you really think that it was all down to one known liar and one near-imbecile"? Are you really that clueless? Or are you trying to tell us that the administrations of one Democrat President of the United States of America and one Republican President of the United States of America plus all their advisers were all idiots and liars? Sometimes Steve with the crap you come out with I honestly think you haven't got a clue as to which way is up. Remembering of course my first contribution to this thread was supporting the statement made that it would not have mattered who had won the 2000 Presidential election in the USA, things would have happened pretty much the way that they did. As far as Iraq goes both Clinton and Bush were advised on the situation by exactly the same people, I do not believe for one nano-second that either were involved with evaluation or analysis process and after 9/11 the Head of State was told the situation, told exactly what the threat to the nation was and advised on what options were open along with the caveat - Sir we have to do something about this, this must be resolved, in the light of what has happened doing nothing is simply not an option.

In acting as he did in 2001 and in 2003 George W. Bush succeeded in the following:

- Iran's secret nuclear weapons programme was crash stopped and two secret uranium enrichment facilities that IAEA had no idea of were uncovered.
- Libya unilaterally renounced WMD and a secret nuclear weapons programme was exposed and shut down.
- The illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network of Pakistani Dr. A.Q.Khan was exposed and shut down
- A secret nuclear weapons programme involving Syria and North Korea was discovered and destroyed by the Israelis with the help and assistance of the Turkish Government
- By the time Saddam was toppled there was not one single viable candidate nation prepared or willing to play the role of "Rogue State" anywhere on the planet.

So was GWB right in acting as he did - Damn right he was, no other choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 10:20 AM

.but you offer NO supporting data to 'legitimize' your criticism

The "supporting data" is easily accessible with a "Google" or other search, for the 30 percent of the population that hasn't already accepted the multiple proofs that T-Birds positions are absolute nonsense.

I see no need to "legitimize" reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:19 PM

Greg F: "I see no need to "legitimize" reality."

Maybe you need to legitimize yourself. In 'reality', just what IS your position?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 02:43 PM

Say G'nighty, G'neist. At least until you can understand the English Langusge.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 03:02 PM

No rogue state? Did you forget Israel by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 04:47 PM

Israel is not a rogue state, it is surrounded by rogue states however.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 04:53 PM

You say yes, I say no, you say why, I say go go go. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:13 PM

Now absolutely dying to hear how Islamic terrorist apologist Steve squares Israel (the only functioning democracy in the region) as a "rogue state".

So far as I have witnessed over the past six decades the only time Israel has acted has been in defence of its population. It has signed two peace treaties with former enemies and both have held.

GregF you normally manage to say the square root of S.F.A. in your posts which is why it is only once a blue moon that I ever respond to them. You state no opinions related to the subject under discussion, you offer nothing to the discussion you are an irksome distraction - like an empty tin can - noise signifying nothing.

C'mon prove me wrong - go on GregF "Google" something for us that refutes anything that I have stated here, I mean if it is as easy as you say it is even you might be able to manage it - but I somehow have my doubts.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:26 PM

Now absolutely dying to hear how Islamic terrorist apologist Steve squares Israel (the only functioning democracy in the region) as a "rogue state".

OK, scumbag. You lose. I knew I'd get you in the end. Enjoy the rest of your miserable life! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:39 PM

GregF you normally manage to say the square root of S.F.A. in your posts

As opposed to your posts where you manage to say bullshit to the one hundredth power, T-Bird ?

Please.

Get.

A.

Life.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 12:53 AM

Steve the Mental Wizard: "You say yes, I say no, you say why, I say go go go. Discuss."

His NEXT post: "OK, scumbag. You lose. I knew I'd get you in the end. Enjoy the rest of your miserable life! :-)"

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I.

Methinks you and Greg are posting like this, because maybe you DON'T have a position, but are programmed to REACT this way...as opposed to RESPONDING. (There is a difference).

So, as to not appear as weird as this looks, why don't you just state a position, and work it out.

(You'll appear both brighter and, who knows, maybe you might say something that is more enlightening).....

.....and I'm being 'polite'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 03:13 AM

I take it therefore Mr. Shaw ( thankfully ex-educator of our nation's youth) from your post of "16 Mar 15 - 06:26 PM" that you cannot provide any substantive evidence to justify naming Israel as a "Rogue State", having been given an opportunity to do so (Don't bother now its just too late). By the bye Shaw, free, transparent, democratic elections are underway today in Israel, that will see the peaceful transition of one democratically elected government to another or a re-election of the existing government. Taking the surrounding countries care to tell us when they last had, or indeed if they have ever had similarly free, transparent, democratic elections.

What exactly was it that I lost Steve, I've had a good look round and it would appear to be nothing. You have on the other hand proved the point that GfS made about you handsomely.

Similarly for GregF if his post of "16 Mar 15 - 06:39 PM " is anything to go by. He keeps yelling that I spout bullshit yet he cannot for the sake of his own life actually refute a single thing that I have said (Obviously for him "googling" isn't as easy as he said it was - OR - I wonder if he did some "googling" only to find out what I was stating was the truth and is all a simple matter of well documented record).

"Get a life" GregF?? I would appear to have, and have had, a far, far better and more productive one than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 07:21 AM

How do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 09:36 AM

I would appear to have, and have had, a far, far better and more productive one than you.

And a far, far better rest you go to than you have ever known?

'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 10:15 AM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 11:50 AM

Pitiful really, the pair of you still banging on with absolutely S.F.A. to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM

S.F.A. to say.

Ah, but Fanny Adams beats mountains of 14-karat bullshit any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 12:49 PM

If it is bull shit, refute some of it.
That is how debate is supposed to work, but you can not debate if you know nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 01:05 PM

but you can not debate if you know nothing.

As you yourself have ably demonstrated time and time again, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 04:51 AM

C'mon GregF, do some "googling" and come up with some substantive evidence of this supposed "14-karat bullshit" - God knows you've been invited to often enough and not once have you come up with the goods - pretty piss-poor track record if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 07:45 AM

Come off it, Teribus. If you and Keith haven't worked out by now that sensible people around here refuse, with good reason, to play your "prove it" games, then you haven't been paying attention. And, before you say it, the good reason is, most decidedly, not the fear of being proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 07:54 AM

"Bullshit", and the like, is the counter argument of those who have none.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 09:25 AM

So if I say that someone is talking bullshit, it automatically means that they are not talking bullshit because I have no counter-argument, huh? Has it occurred to you that there is bullshit that you just can't fight? Like pork you can't educate?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 09:33 AM

is the counter argument of those who have none.

Absolutely!Yes, we have no bullshit.

Next, T-Bird, KOA & company will demand that I prove the earth isn't flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 09:46 AM

So, uh, who's funding ISIS?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 10:51 AM

Or, for that matter, MICES?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 10:59 AM

Who is funding IS?

This Newsweek article seems to cover it.

In brief:
They hold an oil rich territory roughly the size of Austria so I would imagine smuggling and selling the oil would be their main revenue stream.

Selling artifacts is another.

Taxation and extortion another.

Kidnapping for ransom.

Donations from sympathisers.

Fake Humanitarian Aidraudulent Charity donations.

Reportedly their revenue equates to ~$6 million a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 11:01 AM

More importantly, who's doing the recruiting for ISIS?

So far, U.S. BuShite foreign policy is leading the way with Britain not too far behind.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 11:45 AM

Thank you for the info.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 11:49 AM

In countries like the U.S., Canada and Britain, potential recruits must find a jihadi mentor, which can be done online or through ISIS supporters in their local communities, according to Imam Syed Soharwardy, founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.

"I cannot believe that there is no one from ISIS on the ground here in Canada or the U.S. or Europe. They are now recruiting, so they are absolutely here," he told IBTimes. "IS people, those who are very rigid fanatics, they do live in this country, they do recruit. They do facilitate in recruitment."

The mentor-recruit relationship often begins through religious seminars, community activities or classes that might look normal to the average Westerner, Soharwardy said. Of the five known foreign fighters in Syria from Calgary, Alberta, three attended the same mosque, Soharwardy said.

It's important for recruits to mention the "right mosques" and to choose the right mentor.

IBTimes

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 12:45 PM

Steve: "So if I say that someone is talking bullshit, it automatically means that they are not talking bullshit because I have no counter-argument, huh?"

OK... 'talking bullshit', as compared to what???..the truth??...and if you know what that is, spit it out....it would be a breath of fresh air, compared to 'talking bullshit'...wouldn't you agree???....as long as you're the one who brought up 'talking bullshit'.

The next post:

Greg F.: "is the counter argument of those who have none."

Unless that IS ALL they know!

GUEST: "Bullshit", and the like, is the counter argument of those who have none."

See above.

So I repeat. "OK... 'talking bullshit', as compared to what???..the truth??...and if you know what that is, spit it out....it would be a breath of fresh air, compared to 'talking bullshit'...wouldn't you agree???....as long as you're the one who brought up 'talking bullshit'.

Why don't some of you nincompoops just state a position, or at least state an opinion, and back up your claim??

...unless you can't reach one....though all your focus on 'bullshit'.

Note: Teribus and I straightened out the (smaller) details by a civil discussion....and it brought clarity.....all you guys have done is brought the venting of some mysteriously, groundless name calling, with nothing to back it up. What are you waiting for??...someone to feed you some 'Talking points', flavored with artificial sweeteners, and organic 'bullshit'??

GfS

P.S. I suspect that a true liberal position would have its merits...but this 'so-called liberal' crap has just about ran out ANY credibility!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 12:49 PM

And that was total bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 01:00 PM

Guest from Sanity, I suspect that the T doesn't like you and your positions as well as you hope. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 01:14 PM

Well, I came to this thread to learn. I already know how to cuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 01:18 PM

Apropos of nothing, I traded emails with Imam Syed Soharwardy about six or seven years back and found him to be an honest straight-forward individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 03:36 PM

Ebbie: "I suspect that the T doesn't like you and your positions as well as you hope. :)"

But at least he can carry on a civil exchange of ideas.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 06:01 PM

that a true liberal position...

And what, exactly, would that be whe its home?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 07:11 PM

Note: Teribus and I straightened out the (smaller) details by a civil discussion....and it brought clarity...

Poor Teribus. His tightly-argued extreme right-wing positions attract a certain type like flies to a turd. His self-declared allies are Goofus, Ake and Keith. He's occasionally defended the latter (in admittedly lukewarm terms) but, let's face it, his acolytes must be making life tough. As you and he together, via your civil discussions, have brought us so much clarity, I look forward to his warm endorsement of your lucid opinions. A bit lacking as yet...

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 10:10 PM

Greg: "And what, exactly, would that be whe its home?"

Are you trying to make sense???....get some more sleep!

Steve, once again you are making no sense....all I posted was that Teribus and I had a civil discussion ....civil discussion.....you know?..civil discussion.......hmmm, maybe that is a new concept, and you don't know what that is....try again...civil discussion

Just look it up, and try not to argue with the website's definition.

....civil discussion....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 10:21 PM

Now that we've established 'civil discussion'...what are your views on, 'Who is training ISIS the US Army'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 01:08 AM

Some years back, the U. S. Army trained some Syrians and other Mid-Easterners leading up to previous conflicts. Britain and a couple of other coalition countries were involved also. Since then, some of these Mid-Eastern trainees have joined Isis.

So the claim that the U. S. Army is training Isis rebels is a spurious allegation.

But screwing around with recent history gives the U. S. haters, both foreign and domestic, an opportunity to run around screaming and feeling self-righteous.

Ho-Hum…. Another boring day at the skunk works.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 02:24 AM

Don: "....some Syrians and other Mid-Easterners...."

Though I agree, would you care to elaborate?

Don: "So the claim that the U. S. Army is training Isis rebels is a spurious allegation."

Earlier, I had posted, "Whether or not it comes out WHO is training them...there is no doubt, who has supplied them!!!...the question is knowingly??....or by sheer ineptitude?" In that, I'm not saying, that we trained them(ISIS), but we sure supplied them.

Think it might be a consortium of financial investors?...as a means to an end?
Possible.

Think that one supplies the labor, and the other the materials? Possible.

Would you consider, whomever was behind some of these decisions was operating from 'The Right' or from 'The Left'???........or for the banking institutions involved??

Think we'd ever get to see THAT portfolio????

Don, though we've established 'quite a history', there is no agenda of confrontation....let's just 'contribute'...OK?

(....and all snide remarks must be meant in humor, both ways, giving and receiving.....or you may wish to waive that right).
Smiling...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 03:08 AM

"Steve Shaw - 18 Mar 15 - 07:11 PM" You are succeeding brilliantly in making yourself look sillier and sillier.

Acolytes?? - You might need those I most certainly do not.

GfS and myself agree on some things and no doubt disagree on others, however, unlike you, he states what he thinks and backs that up with why he thinks that way providing sources and references when and where necessary. It is therefore possible to have a discussion exchanging ideas and point of view. Same goes for Akenaton and Keith A of Hertford.

Others with whom I agree with on certain topics include Jim Carroll (Folk Music and the importance of maintaining the "Tradition"), Musktwat (Scottish Referendum), Big Al (Capital Punishment).

Still see that as far as the subject of this thread goes both yourself and GregF have yet to contribute anything towards the discussion, what's the matter? Have you not been told what to think yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 05:50 AM

Steve, You have reverted to personal abuse now.
If you had an argument you would deploy it.
You have nothing, so you say "bullshit" or "extreme right wing" because you do not need to know anything to say that.

Anyone can do what you do.
Putting up an argument requires knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 06:50 AM

sensible people around here refuse, with good reason, to play your "prove it" games,

It is not a "game" to ask someone to support their assertions in debate with some evidence.
If the assertions were not just made up preconceptions, you would be able to.
But you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is training ISIS the US Army
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 12:03 AM

Ebbie: "Guest from Sanity, I suspect that the T doesn't like you and your positions as well as you hope."

Well, Ebbie, that might be true to some extent, but there IS ONE important thing we agree on........(Note his last sentence)

Teribus: "Still see that as far as the subject of this thread goes both yourself and GregF have yet to contribute anything towards the discussion, what's the matter? Have you not been told what to think yet?

...and this is from only my TENTH post on Mudcat, from seven years ago!!:(Note the last paragraph...even though the whole post still holds!).

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?         04 Jun 08
Date: 04 Jun 08

Riginslinger,
    Being as Little Hawk was merely quoting(cut and pasting) me, I'll jump out there and reply, for him, as well as myself. As I posted earlier, BOTH parties have been corrupted!, and the ideals that they used to stand for have been co-opted by the agendas of those, who have no interest, whatsoever, in representing you, or the original intention of either party. Haven't you noticed, that within yourself, that we tend to 'agree' and go along with what someone proposes, or compromises for, rather, than having them (the party) actually representing the majority will of their constituents?? Too many times we end up having to just 'go along' with what they come up with....and usually, it has NOTHING to do with the principles or ideals of our constitution...but always a stretch! Slowly by slowly, our form of government is changing, without the will, nor consent of the people. ..and we just sit around, to argue the 'party line' Well, my dear friend, the party (both) are, and have been, out of line, for a long, long time. Now we debate issues, that are not realities, to principles, but rather 'trends' fashioned to fit the 'agendas' shaped though corruption. This has become so obvious, that most think it normal!
You are told what to think, not 'how' to think!!..Remember, right wing and left wing are on the same bird..(and its not our eagle, either). Clear enough????"


Well, well, well..some people catch on sooner than others....it just takes a bit of honestly, with ourselves!

Hey Ebbie, I'm routin' for ya'!

GfS