Syria and political hypocrisy

Rana said:
Your not believing the facts doesn't change them.
Click to expand...

LOL, channeling Desh?

Try these facts:

Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.


http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513



Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives.

Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.

Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy.

Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure.

If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq.


http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm
 
Big money said:
LOL, channeling Desh?

Try these facts:

Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.


http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513



Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives.

Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.

Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy.

Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure.

If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq.


http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm
Click to expand...

You can post as mush as you want of sources to prove your claim and I can post sources to prove my claim, actually one link is enough for me:
http://www.zcommunications.org/top-lies-about-iraq-from-the-bush-administration-by-andy-dunn.html

Does the links makes what you claim as facts.

I can open a blog, site, forum, news site or even a research site and claim whatever I want, does this means my website info are facts!

What you do not understand, is your government lie and lie and anyone with a small brain knows they are the biggest lairs and hypocrites. Most nations and people do not even respect you anymore. That's a fact, it does not need any source :)

Now you can go a head and continue posting sources about the evil Saddam and how the the brave heroic Americans are saving the world :)
 
Rana said:
It is the CIA, the Senate, even the Bush administration's facts, not the New Yorker's, they just report the facts.
Click to expand...
And

lol. Oh yeah, they do.

No, it is not the CIA, the Bush Administration saying this. Read your own link. One unnamed source.

But meanwhile, why zero in on this? What about all of the sources that say there were terrorist camps in Iraq? You chose to ignore all of that.

You present links that say there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, based on Saddam. lol.

You also seem to believe there are no other terrorist organizations other than Al Qaeda. lol at that too.

But that's fine. Revel in your ignorance. You'll find out soon enough that when is Obama is denied authorization to bomb Syria, your Obamaphone isn't going to be turned off.
 
Voice said:
You can post as mush as you want of sources to prove your claim and I can post sources to prove my claim, actually one link is enough for me. Does the links makes what you claim as facts. I can open a blog, site, forum, news site or even a research site and claim whatever I want, does this means my website info are facts! What you do not understand, is your government lie and lie and anyone with a small brain knows they are the biggest lairs and hypocrites. Most nations and people do not even respect you anymore. That's a fact, it does not need any source :) Now you can go a head and continue posting sources about the evil Saddam and how the the brave heroic Americans are saving the world :)
Click to expand...

LOL.
 
Taft2016 said:
And

lol. Oh yeah, they do.

No, it is not the CIA, the Bush Administration saying this. Read your own link. One unnamed source.

But meanwhile, why zero in on this? What about all of the sources that say there were terrorist camps in Iraq? You chose to ignore all of that.

You present links that say there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, based on Saddam. lol.

You also seem to believe there are no other terrorist organizations other than Al Qaeda. lol at that too.

But that's fine. Revel in your ignorance. You'll find out soon enough that when is Obama is denied authorization to bomb Syria, your Obamaphone isn't going to be turned off.
Click to expand...

there are terrorist organizations all over the world. red brigade...IRA... shining path... the list goes on and on and on and on. Iraq specialized in training arab nationalist groups....NOT AQ. If you knew shit from fat meat about what the goals of Al Qaeda really were, you would readily agree with me that there was no fucking way in hell that Saddam was going to support an organization whose primary raison d'être was the elimination of secular arab regimes exactly like his.
 
maineman said:
there are terrorist organizations all over the world. red brigade...IRA... shining path... the list goes on and on and on and on. Iraq specialized in training arab nationalist groups....NOT AQ. If you knew shit from fat meat about what the goals of Al Qaeda really were, you would readily agree with me that there was no fucking way in hell that Saddam was going to support an organization whose primary raison d'être was the elimination of secular arab regimes exactly like his.
Click to expand...

You are correct, finally someone making sense. Saddam and his regime was a Baathist and an Arab Nationalist, same Ideology as the Syrian regime. He has nothing to do with AQ, actually all Islamist groups as well as Baathist supporters entered and gathered in Iraq after the fall down to resist the occupier and the Iraqi Islamist Army was formed which was responsible for most serious attack and operations on the Occupier.
 
Taft2016 said:
And

lol. Oh yeah, they do.

No, it is not the CIA, the Bush Administration saying this. Read your own link. One unnamed source.

But meanwhile, why zero in on this? What about all of the sources that say there were terrorist camps in Iraq? You chose to ignore all of that.

You present links that say there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, based on Saddam. lol.

You also seem to believe there are no other terrorist organizations other than Al Qaeda. lol at that too.

But that's fine. Revel in your ignorance. You'll find out soon enough that when is Obama is denied authorization to bomb Syria, your Obamaphone isn't going to be turned off.
Click to expand...

There are other links that discredit your information, like you told me, google it.
 
evince said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/04/syria-chemical-weapons-un-report.html



France, Britain confirm use of sarin gas in Syria

UN report also accuses both regime and rebels of committing war crimes

The Associated Press

Posted: Jun 4, 2013 6:55 AM ET








Some experts cautioned that the type of evidence currently available to investigators — videos, witness reports and physiological samples of uncertain origin — leaves wide doubts.

At the same time, forensic evidence of alleged chemical weapons use is fading away with time, and the longer UN inspectors are kept out of Syria, the harder it will be to collect conclusive proof, they said.



the conclusive PROOF is now in hand.

that is why NOW is the time to talk of action.
Click to expand...

Not quite, as more recent examinations have shown that the gas used did not have the signatures of the military grade that would be in the Syria army stockpile.

So exactly what "action" should be taken? And by whom? I for one do NOT agree with the Obama administration's rhetoric...and I don't the Republicans in the House will either, given their obstructionist stance.
 
Taft2016 said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You need to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY MY ANSWERS AND ORIGINAL STATEMENTS. Taft is just a knee jerk neocon/teabagger who is doing EXACTLY what I said his mindset are doing...somehow trying to rewrite history and blame Obama (i.e., democrats, liberals, etc.) for all ills.
Click to expand...


OK dude, I'll gonna give you one last chance before you're flushed...

Translation: this neocon/teabagger blowhard REFUSES to acknowledge the historical FACTS I referred to, and will not alter his statement from what the chronology of the posts shows in order to avoid admitting error.

I asked "when did the USA ever get involved in a civil war where neither side represented American interests?"

MY point has been that this country has a history of getting involved in civil wars to back our interest DESPITE the dire consequences it has on the local population. Look to the Phillipines, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran. Iran, if you recall, was NOT a US ally until we installed the SHAH.

You replied "Iran"

Not quite, as the chronology of the posts shows I gave MULTIPLE answers. You need to stop lying "dude", because it can be easily checked, and your bluff and bluster is so much BS that can be easily flushed.

The conversation continued (in paraphrase)... "When did the USA get involved in an Iranian civil war where neither side represented American interests?"

Iran, if you recall, was NOT a US ally until we installed the SHAH. Sorry "dude", but you're a liar paraphrasing non-withstanding. You keep altering your statements when proven wrong. Grow up, will ya please?


You replied with an example wherein the USA did participate in a struggle for Iranian leadership, but an example wherein one side clearly represented American interests. So it was an irrelevant example. It didn't fit the criteria.

Iran, if you recall, was NOT a US ally until we installed the SHAH. What's irrelevant is this lame as attempt of yours to try and discredit my opening post. You can't, so you keep trying to move the goal post.

So I ask again for example where the USA participated in an Iranian civil war where neither side represented US interests and you give the same example.

Since I NEVER stated that the USA participated in any foreign civil war where they did not have any interest in either side, your attempted straw man just falls apart.

What you're saying is not factually false, it's just factually irrelevant. You may as well be saying, "The sky is blue and oranges are orange." Yeah, it's true, but has nothing to do with the question.

You cannot disprove any information in my opening post, so you try to enforce a statement that I never made. In effect, you're just blowing smoke.

A person of *normal* intelligence would have said, "Oh yeah, I see your point. No, the USA never got involved in an Iranian civil war where neither side represented American interests."

I never said they did, genius. YOU did. I defy you to link the post or give the post number where I did. If you can't, then that makes you just another foolish and frustrated neocon/teabagger with an axe to grind.

But not you...you have to drag the discussion all over creation to hide the fact that you slipped on a rather rudimentary question. Grow up. Man up already.
Click to expand...

The chronology of the post shows you're just babbling, son. If you don't understand the opening post, get an adult to explain it to you. Otherwise, I'll just sit back and laugh at your dopey ass attempts at "got'cha". Carry on.
 
Last edited:
Taft2016 said:
As you may or may not recall... there was an embargo on Iraqi oil prior to the invasion.

Afterwards, no country pillaged the oil reserves.

Ten years later, the invasion was still not about oil.

As for Palestine being the center of the world... that fact is about 1000 years out of date.
Click to expand...

the invasion of Iraq was about

1. Securing a pipeline of natural resource through the area to supply US/European interest (ie, the Caspian Sea)

2. To keep Hussein from gaining (or regaining) control of Kuwait, which would give him a heavy margin control of the regional oil supply to the world.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The chronology of the post shows you're just babbling, son. If you don't understand the opening post, get an adult to explain it to you. Otherwise, I'll just sit back and laugh at your dopey ass attempts at "got'cha". Carry on.
Click to expand...

Hey, scrotum cheese. Pay attention. For the bazillionith time, the question was:

When did the USA get involved in a civil war in Iran where neither represented American interests. Your responses are all along the lines of:

MY point has been that this country has a history of getting involved in civil wars to back our interest DESPITE the dire consequences it has on the local population. Look to the Phillipines, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran. Iran, if you recall, was NOT a US ally until we installed the SHAH.
Click to expand...

All the cases you cited had an American interest, including installing the Shah.

Why can't you just admit... "OK, I see your point now. I misunderstood the question.... no, the USA has never been involved in a civil war in these countries where one of the sides did not represent American interests."

But no.... you're a stubborn douchebag who resorts to name calling.

So here you go.... FLUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSH
 
Taichiliberal said:
the invasion of Iraq was about

1. Securing a pipeline of natural resource through the area to supply US/European interest (ie, the Caspian Sea)

2. To keep Hussein from gaining (or regaining) control of Kuwait, which would give him a heavy margin control of the regional oil supply to the world.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where any of the discussions leading the second Gulf War discussed Saddam retaking Kuwait. Fiction.

Iraqi oil to the USA comes through the gulf. Why a pipeline to the Caspian Sea would be of any use is a mystery. Fiction.
 
Since I NEVER stated that the USA participated in any foreign civil war where they did not have any interest in either side, your attempted straw man just falls apart.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

At this point maybe we should just put all of our cards on the table, OK? Maybe you should just admit you never got passed the 3rd grade and have serious contextual issues. I'm sure your efforts in the 3rd grade looked like this...

Teacher: Taichiliberal, can you please tell the class what 6 divided by 2 is?

TL: 4

Teacher: No, I'm sorry the answer is not 4.

TL: Yes it is.

Teacher: No, when you divide 6 by 2 the answer is 3.

TL: When you add 3 plus 1 the answer is 4.

Teacher: That's true, but that's not the question I asked.

TL: So my answer is right? You dumb fuck.

Teacher: No, your answer is wrong.

TL: You just admitted "That's true," 3 plus 1 is 4.

Teacher: That's the right answer, but the question is wrong.

TL: I got the answer right. If there's something faulty with the question that's your fault you dumb bitch.

Teacher: You answered a question nobody asked...

TL: And I got the right answer to that question.

Teacher: I don't think you're quite cut out for the 3rd grade yet, but we have special classes for youngsters like you.

TL: Good, get me the fuck out of here, you asshole.
 
Taft2016 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
The chronology of the post shows you're just babbling, son. If you don't understand the opening post, get an adult to explain it to you. Otherwise, I'll just sit back and laugh at your dopey ass attempts at "got'cha". Carry on.
Click to expand...

Hey, scrotum cheese. What is that, a 6th grade insult? Pathetic! Pay attention. For the bazillionith time, the question was:

When did the USA get involved in a civil war in Iran where neither represented American interests. Your responses are all along the lines of:

MY point has been that this country has a history of getting involved in civil wars to back our interest DESPITE the dire consequences it has on the local population. Look to the Phillipines, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran. Iran, if you recall, was NOT a US ally until we installed the SHAH.
Click to expand...

All the cases you cited had an American interest, including installing the Shah.

Why can't you just admit... "OK, I see your point now. I misunderstood the question.... no, the USA has never been involved in a civil war in these countries where one of the sides did not represent American interests."

But no.... you're a stubborn douchebag who resorts to name calling.


So here you go.... FLUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSH
Click to expand...

See folks, a typical neocon/teabagger tactic....they create some idiotic premise that actually does NOT address the original facts presented, and then claim victory when you consistently point out there folly. Bottom line: the sheer stupidity of Taft2016 statement is in effect asking one to prove a negative. The USA has a HISTORY of getting involved in foreign country's politics where NO LOCAL side was particularly "pro-American". All one has to do is understand how and why the CIA helped create the Baath party, or intallation of the Shah Pahvil in Iran.

But perhaps I should dumb it down for the likes of Taft2016.....when one country becomes physically involved in another country's politics, it is to promote/establish THEIR INTEREST (why else would they do it?). The target country DOES NOT have to be "friendly", the protagonist can easily play the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" card. As it is with Syria, although that will be a long haul, as with Iraq and the Baath party.

Taft2016 has YET to address the contents of the link of my opening post here....and he never will, because like all good little neocon/teabagger parrots, it's about discrediting Obama and maintaining the fantasies of the Bush era regarding Iraq. So be it, as Taft2016 has spent his intellectual load and announced that he's flushed it away.

R
 
Taft2016 said:
Since I NEVER stated that the USA participated in any foreign civil war where they did not have any interest in either side, your attempted straw man just falls apart.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

At this point maybe we should just put all of our cards on the table, OK? Maybe you should just admit you never got passed the 3rd grade and have serious contextual issues. I'm sure your efforts in the 3rd grade looked like this...

Teacher: Taichiliberal, can you please tell the class what 6 divided by 2 is?

TL: 4

Teacher: No, I'm sorry the answer is not 4.

TL: Yes it is.

Teacher: No, when you divide 6 by 2 the answer is 3.

TL: When you add 3 plus 1 the answer is 4.

Teacher: That's true, but that's not the question I asked.

TL: So my answer is right? You dumb fuck.

Teacher: No, your answer is wrong.

TL: You just admitted "That's true," 3 plus 1 is 4.

Teacher: That's the right answer, but the question is wrong.

TL: I got the answer right. If there's something faulty with the question that's your fault you dumb bitch.

Teacher: You answered a question nobody asked...

TL: And I got the right answer to that question.

Teacher: I don't think you're quite cut out for the 3rd grade yet, but we have special classes for youngsters like you.

TL: Good, get me the fuck out of here, you asshole.
Click to expand...

As you can see folks. the statement I make here is true...as the chronology of the posts will verify. All this silly little neocon/teabagger parrot can do is double down on his fantasy....so much more to pity him.
 
Taft2016 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
the invasion of Iraq was about

1. Securing a pipeline of natural resource through the area to supply US/European interest (ie, the Caspian Sea)

2. To keep Hussein from gaining (or regaining) control of Kuwait, which would give him a heavy margin control of the regional oil supply to the world.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where any of the discussions leading the second Gulf War discussed Saddam retaking Kuwait. Fiction.

Iraqi oil to the USA comes through the gulf. Why a pipeline to the Caspian Sea would be of any use is a mystery. Fiction.
Click to expand...

My God man, you are one proudly ignorant little teabagger/neocon wonk!

Pay attention:

Amb. Glaspie meets with Hussein to discuss oil pipeline concessions. Hussein mentions that he's having problems with Kuwait (border disputes over lateral oil drilling) and that if things go to blows, how will the US react? Glaspie assures Hussein that US policy is NOT to interfere with a sovereign nations border disputes.

Iraq and Kuwait goes to blows, the Kuwait family/gov't reps falsely testify before the UN that Iraqi soldiers are killing babies in hospitals, Daddy Bush beats the war drum with them, and we have Gulf War 1.

Skip down a few years after strategic bombings, no fly zones, dismantling of WMDS. The Shrub violates Congressional and UN sign rulings that he must produce concrete evidence that Hussein has active WMDs by invading based on lies.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

As for the Caspian Sea pipeline

http://www.alternet.org/story/47489/from_afghanistan_to_iraq:_connecting_the_dots_with_oil

Now don't be a typical neocon/teabagger stupe and scream " I'm not gonna read it because dem commie liberal websites".....READ the information and THEN try to logically and factually refute them, if you can.

So far you haven't even touched the information I put forth in the opening post...and I wonder if you have the intellectual courage to ever do so. Time will tell. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
.READ the information and THEN try to logically and factually refute them, if you can.
Click to expand...

Oh, this is rich. *YOU* are telling *ME* to respond logically if *I* can. lol.

Perhaps if I use your logic. Here:

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States.
Al Capone was originally from Brooklyn.
Ireland is a predominantly Roman Catholic country.

There. I'm right. Prove me wrong.

Dipstick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top