White House: Everything’s Fine in Iraq as Ramadi Falls
POSTED BY: Jongsstraw
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 22:05
VIEWED: 5597
PAGE 4 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But hey, go right ahead and distract from events of today with tired old stories from yesteryear. Just because ISIS took Ramadi, that's nothing to fret about, even a little !
The reason I mention Bush and Cheney is because you and others are not having a conversation about what to do in the Middle East. You guy's only play the blame game and tag, it's always Obama and Clinton. So what's a guy to do except point out the fact that all you care about is bashing Democrats and don't really give a shit about the worlds goings on.
And no I an not overly concerned about Ramadi. If you really understood what was going on you would realize the entire Middle East is waging a secular battle between the Shia and Sunni, and you morons want to drop American troops into the middle of that? Stupid Rappy plain stupid. It is going to take patience while this runs it's course. Let's also remember, Bush set the deadline for pulling out of Iraq not Obama.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you remember all that fuss about "yellow cake"?
Mohamed ElBaradei charged that the U.S. had used faked and erroneous evidence to support the claims that Iraq was importing enriched uranium and other material, notably the aluminum tubes and small magnets for the manufacture of nuclear weapons
As evidence, a signed Nigerian contract was presented which (supposedly) demonstrated Saddam's attempts to purchase the raw materials. However, it was demonstrated pretty quickly that the contract was a forgery: signatures of people who were no longer in power, misspelled signatures, etc. But, man, Bush/Cheney rode that hobbyhorse and the fact that the contracts were forged never made it into the MSM. The press (Judith Miller of the NYT especially) let Bush/Cheney have a field day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, at least you recognize that ISIS, al Qaida, and al Nusra haven't attacked Israel. That puts you ahead of most of the people, who still lump all Islamic fighters together.
I don't know why ISIS hasn't attacked Israel.
Do you really think that the USA government is committed protecting you from Saudi/Wahabbi Islamic terrorists??
Ahem!
The USA DoD, State etc never had a problem with al Qaida (Yes, even under Bush-Cheney). They didn't have a problem with the various Saudi terror projects in the Mideast.
Heck, after 9-11 - in which nearly all of the terrorists were Saudi- what did Bush do? He allowed Saudis to fly out of the USA ... during a time when all planes were supposedly grounded.
The mastermind - bin Laden - was Saudi.
And who did Bush decide to invade?
Saudi Arabia???
NOPE!
Afghanistan!
The reason why is because OUR GOVERNMENT (and is really doesn't make any difference whether it is Dems or Repubs in office) find the Saudi terror projects tolerable and at times EVEN USEFUL. They were useful in attacking Russia in Afghanistan (we funded and armed them under Carter), and useful in attacking Russia from Chechnya, and useful in taking out Libya (which was making a push to move away from the petrodollar). And useful in attacking the USA on 9-11. If the Saudi al Qaida hadn't done it, Bush and Cheney would have wanted to do it themselves, it was that useful (to them).
Our "concern" over al Qaida has been merely superficial. As long as al Qaida doesn't attack our essential interests in the Mideast (petrodollar, oil), as long as al Qaida and its affiliates and offshoots never attack Israel, as long as we overlap on most of our enemies (Iraq, Libya, Russia) and goals, our government will be content to peck away at them from the sidelines in a way guaranteed never to do away with them altogether.
Only within the past year has daylight opened up between us and the Saudis, and that's over Syria.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Curiously, I just wandered to ZeroHedge and found this
Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad
Quote:
From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world's stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al Qaeda as the world's terrorist bogeyman, we suggested that the "straight to beheading YouTube clip" purpose behind the Saudi Arabia-funded Islamic State was a simple one: use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a political goal: depose of Syria's president Assad, who for years has stood in the way of a critical Qatari natural gas pipeline, one which could dethrone Russia as Europe's dominant - and belligerent - source of energy, reaching an interim climax with the unsuccessful Mediterranean Sea military build up of 2013, which nearly resulted in quasi-world war.
The narrative and the plotline were so transparent, even Russia saw right through them. Recall from September of last year:
If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, LiveLeak reports that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama's new strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline through (as was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push), Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for bombing Syrian government forces and warning that "such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa."
But it's one thing to speculate; it's something entirely different to have hard proof.
And while speculation was rife that just like the CIA-funded al Qaeda had been used as a facade by the US to achieve its own geopolitical and national interests over the past two decades, so ISIS was nothing more than al Qaeda 2.0, there was no actual evidence of just this.
That may all have changed now when a declassified secret US government document obtained by the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.
According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the "leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states [Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc-SIGNY] and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.”
... The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.
Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition [ie. known terrorists-SIGNY]"
... The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the “rise of the insurgency in Syria” has increasingly taken a “sectarian direction,” attracting diverse support from Sunni “religious and tribal powers” across the region.
In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, reNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig - bin Laden wasn't in Saudi Arabia, so why attack them ? He was in Afghanistan. As he was in Somalia before. And in Sudan before that...
* 1991 -- Bin Laden is expelled from Saudi Arabia by its regime. Eventually he and his followers relocate to Sudan, funded by assets that had grown to as much as $250 million, according to some officials. In that African nation, al Qaeda begins to evolve into a terror network.
* December 1992 -- U.S. forces land in Somalia, spearheading a U.N.-authorized humanitarian plan to bring in famine relief supplies. Part of their challenge is disarming the various warlords who controll the country. Prosecutors charge that bin Laden threw himself into the conflict, sending some of his followers to Somalia to train the warlords to fight the U.S. troops
Should we have attacked them as well ?
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rappy you and I disagree a lot but some here are just propaganda shovelers. It's one thing to be wrong due to being an ideolog, and quite different to be a liar. Sig and 1kiki are liars. I will no longer respond to them, but I will post about them.
Perhaps you disagree, no matter.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sig - bin Laden wasn't in Saudi Arabia, so why attack them ? He was in Afghanistan. As he was in Somalia before. And in Sudan before that...
* 1991 -- Bin Laden is expelled from Saudi Arabia by its regime. Eventually he and his followers relocate to Sudan, funded by assets that had grown to as much as $250 million, according to some officials. In that African nation, al Qaeda begins to evolve into a terror network.
* December 1992 -- U.S. forces land in Somalia, spearheading a U.N.-authorized humanitarian plan to bring in famine relief supplies. Part of their challenge is disarming the various warlords who controll the country. Prosecutors charge that bin Laden threw himself into the conflict, sending some of his followers to Somalia to train the warlords to fight the U.S. troops
Should we have attacked them as well ?
But bin Laden was funded by Saudi families. The Saudis, by and large, were eager to export their Wahabbi fundamentalism, via Islamic terrorists. They just didn't want it at home. Even the NYT says so.
Quote:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — During the 1980s and ’90s, the historic alliance between the wealthy monarchy of Saudi Arabia and the country’s powerful clerics emerged as the major financier of international jihad, channeling tens of millions of dollars to Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere. Among the project’s major patrons was Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, who last month became Saudi Arabia’s king.
And this isn't just in the far-distant past. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were arming anti-Qaddafi Islamic terrorists in Libya beginning 2011. There was an article that I posted here, about the (literally) dozens and dozens of planeloads of arms that were shipped from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to al Qaida and its Islamic terrorist affiliates in Libya. And when their work was done in Libya, many of those arms were then shipped to Syria (via Benghazi and Turkey) to bolster the al Qaida-affiliated terrorists in Syria.
There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are still arming and funding the radical Wahabbi Islamic terrorists in Syria. I could provide link after link, to major newspapers, investigative reporters .... would that make any difference to you? Would that convince you that what is happening, is really happening?
THUGR, you think these are lies? Then you're a naive child. Your belief in/ loyalty to the American government is sweet and touching. You apparently believe that the President lies awake at night, thinking of how to protect you. My crude assessment of the USA government is that, if the President and Congress thinks of you at all, is how to get you to bend over and spread your cheeks. I could name on the fingers of one hand the Congresspeople who actually worry about you. Elizabeth Warren is one and Rand Paul is another.
---------------
But did nobody wondered WHY that particular report (by the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA], as quoted by ZeroHedge) was declassified now?
Why wasn't it buried for the next 30 years?
There has been, until now, a very tight relationship between the Saudis, their terror projects, and the USA government, beginning with Jimmy Carter (Afghanistan), and running thru Bush I (invade Iraq), Clinton (Bosnia, Chechnya), Bush II (9-11, invade Iraq again), and Obama (Libya and Syria- up to a point). An agreement between USA and the Gulf states about oil, Treasuries, and the petrodollar. About Israel. About geopolitics. Our interests and their interests intersect on several absolutely critical points. It's been a relationship of necessity, as long as the USA holds these interests to be of key strategic importance.
I PREDICT, and KPO can put this in his prediction thread, that you will be hearing a LOT MORE about Saudi Arabia's complicity in Mideast terrorism. More official secrets will be revealed, more official papers will come out. That is because the Obama admin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll say this, to anyone and no one in particular... it seems no matter what the issue, the topic, be it politics, religion, science... there are some folks who I just want to say " How in the HELL can you think like that ?? "
Seriously, by what thought processes does one go through to arrive at their tightly held beliefs and views ?
Now, w/ religious folks ( like young Earth creationists ), it's sorta understandable. For their faith to " work ", they MUST buy into the Holy Book as being literal, and therefore the Earth can only be so many years old, man can't have evolved, etc... their comprehension is short circuited so that they are unable to process the known evidence. In short, they put the cart in front of the horse, no matter what. The facts have zero chance of deviating from the stated TRUTH, and anyone who says different is doin' the devil's work, or some such.
We converse in a common language here, we understand basic tenants of science and cause and effect. Sun comes up in the East, sets in the West, water runs down hills, there's a change of seasons which always occur, .... there are basic things which we all can agree on, but for some reason, take another couple of steps down that road, and all hell breaks loose.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RAPPY, the facts are that Saudi Arabia has been supporting Islamic terrorism for decades. Not just in the distant past, but in Libya and Syria. Heck, look at Yemen, where fighting is going on even now: ISIS is fighting the Houthis, and who is Saudi Arabia fighting? ISIS? Or the Houthis? [HINT: Houthis]
I think "like that" because I look at facts. Not some of the facts, but ALL of the facts. And then, I try to let the facts tell me their story, with as little pre- judgment or interference as possible from my fears, desires, and assumptions.
I know it's difficult, but it's the only way to be scientific. Anything else is just a belief. But just because you really want something to be true doesn't make it so.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ideology, is "the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence." It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one's goals, expectations, and motivations.
Ideology refers to the system of abstracted meaning applied to public matters, thus making this concept central to politics. Implicitly, in societies that distinguish between public and private life, every political or economic tendency entails ideology, whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.
Some can learn new facts and change their opinions, at least shift them a bit. My experience with these threads suggests many who post here are incapable of grasping new concepts. At least that has been the case so far. In many cases they just do the math in the same way Jane from Firefly does and are not capable of critical thinking. In other words, if Saudi Arabia supports radical elements of Islam then by virtue of our relationship with them we must as well. It's pretty lame thinking but it works for the propagandist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME