US from Afghanistan to Iraq

[M.Dancer]

He was a CIA operative prior to 9/11.

Nonsense. What's more there is not a shred of evidence he was an operative.

Note, there is a huge differene between receiveing funds and weapons and being an operative. If that was the case, every afghan mujeehadin, every mercenary there awere operatives.....

That distintion though is lost on the partisan brigade.

I suggest that you actually research what you claim .. which does not appear to be the case.

Bin Laden comes home to roost

His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story

By Michael Moran

MSNBC

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1245.htm

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 — At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow

-----------------------------------------

Osama Bin Laden

CIA’s Toy Gone Awry

http://www.worldpress.org/1101binladen_cia.htm

Here's how it works in the real world. You make a fantastic claim, I call bullshit. You must come up with proof that backs up your claim.

I read the first MSM article and could find now where where it says Bin Laden was an operative of the CIA. After that I don't bother reading spam.

[blackascoal]

He was a CIA operative prior to 9/11.

Nonsense. What's more there is not a shred of evidence he was an operative.

Note, there is a huge differene between receiveing funds and weapons and being an operative. If that was the case, every afghan mujeehadin, every mercenary there awere operatives.....

That distintion though is lost on the partisan brigade.

I suggest that you actually research what you claim .. which does not appear to be the case.

Bin Laden comes home to roost

His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story

By Michael Moran

MSNBC

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1245.htm

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 — At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow

-----------------------------------------

Osama Bin Laden

CIA’s Toy Gone Awry

http://www.worldpress.org/1101binladen_cia.htm

Here's how it works in the real world. You make a fantastic claim, I call bullshit. You must come up with proof that backs up your claim.

I read the first MSM article and could find now where where it says Bin Laden was an operative of the CIA. After that I don't bother reading spam.

NO .. here's how it works .. feel free to believe whatever you want.

I didn't come here to teach you anything. You call it bullshit .. so what?

In the world of intelligent people, someone makes a claim that you don't believe, you research it for yourself. I've presented a plethora of information that anyone who seeks truth can dig into to discover if it's true or is this just the musings of a "moonbat".

Additionally, you and I have been down this road before and I already know that even if you were looking at classified CIA documents, you still wouldn't believe it.

You've made claims that I immediately proved incorrect.

It's your turn, prove what you claim is true .. I already have.

[Catchme]

That's amusing one does not even have to go to the links to read that Bin Laden was CIA, the snipped quotes are right there for open viewing.

And it is correct Bin Laden being CIA is common public knowledge. Always has been from the get go.

And here we all sit paying 1.5 billion a year for our Canadian military to be Oils private military, NICE! Of course equipment costs are on top of that. Butheh, we know who is getting profits from that seeing as O'Connor, our very own little Dick Cheney, was an arms manufacturers lobbyist. Makes one really think about that no bid Italian air craft deal, eh?

[gc1765]

Not sure how accurate gc is in his statement more Canadians approve than Americans.

Support varies...so I'll conveniently choose this particular poll (Jan 2007= same time period) which proves I am right: Link

The online Jan. 8-10 survey of 2,206 Canadians by Innovative Research Group found 58 per cent of respondents support the military action compared with 38 per cent who are opposed.

[blackascoal]

This is all about OIL and it has been planned long before 9/11.

If one is truly interested in truth .. it's right in front of you. An 8th grader could figure it out. Start by looking at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and take a look at who they are. Don't take my or anybody else's word for it, take a look for yourself. PNAC claims that the US has a right to subjugate the world through an imperialist agenda based on military expansionism and dominance.

PNAC also believes that the US should be creating in "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". .. In other words, race-specific murder.

Why is PNAC important and do they have the influence to carry out their plans? This is an exerpt from a letter they sent to then President Bill Clinton in 1998, just before his State of the Union address ..

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

"... in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons."

"... if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard."

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Who are these people that believe in US world domination by military force and that we should remove Saddam whether he has weapons or not and that we should be creating demonic weapons that target specific races of people? .. Here's who they are ..

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush R. James Woolsey

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz William Schneider, Jr.

William Kristol Richard Perle Richard L. Armitage John Bolton

Heard any of these names before?

They had a plan and they don't care if you read it .. because they didn't think there would be anything you can do about it .. and they were right ..

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ .. "Rebulding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources"

They had a plan, and all they needed to set the plan in motion was, in their words, "a catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor".

On September 11, 2001 .. they got it.

There is little mystery left to the horror of the wars for oil, just an unwillingness to face a truth that lies clearly in front of you.

[Fortunata]

US is proposing 9 billion in new funding for Afghanistan; 7 going for civilian assistance and 2 for military.

Furthermore Rice says that:

The U.S. Defense Department has decided to extend the combat tour of 3,200 soldiers by four months. British news reports this week said the government is considering the deployment of 600 extra troops, Poland is sending about 1,200 soldiers and Germany is expected in the next few days to announce the dispatch of six Tornado warplanes

.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/25/nat...n.ap/index.html

Nothing is mentioned, however, about either extra troops or withdrawing troops.

[M.Dancer]

You've made claims that I immediately proved incorrect.

It's your turn, prove what you claim is true .. I already have.

No you haven't. You claimed he was an operative. You have posted anything that sais he was an operative.

I say he was not. You want me tp prove a negative?

Okay.

I've looked....

There is nothing that proves he was an operative.

OBL was not an operative.

[M.Dancer]

That's amusing one does not even have to go to the links to read that Bin Laden was CIA, the snipped quotes are right there for open viewing.

Really?

Hmmm.....I didn't take creative reading comprehension is school.

Show me where it says Laden was a CIA Operative.

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 — At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow

[blackascoal]

M. Dancer,

All you've offered on this issue is what you think without any supporting evidence or documentation at all. Not once have you come back with a shred of either to challenge anything said or posted. Anytime your argument falls flat on its face, you just move to something else, because you have no evidence to back up what you think, or challenge what was presented.

You claimed that no one would build a pipeline in "the midst of a civil war" .. I posted the unquestionable evidence that the pipeline is indeed being built .. and why and how it came to being built straight out of the Congressional Record, BBC, MSNBC, and CNN .. you just moved on.

You have no challenge to the timeline and chronolgy of events that I posted on Aghanistan, nor do you have any evidence to challenge anything else. You simply moved on.

Now you're down to a semantical argument about Bin Laden not being an "operative", which you claim "there's not a shred of evidence to support". That means that you have no clue about MAK, Bin Laden's organization, and it's ties to the CIA when America backed the Taliban against the Russian, or American involvement in their training and funding, or anything about that history at all.

Unless you have some proof of what you've been claiming, while losing the argument badly, I"ll leave you to whatever it is you choose to believe .. but I thank you for the opportunity for me to prove my point.

[M.Dancer]

M. Dancer,

You claimed that no one would build a pipeline in "the midst of a civil war" .. I posted the unquestionable evidence that the pipeline is indeed being built .. and why and how it came to being built straight out of the Congressional Record, BBC, MSNBC, and CNN .. you just moved on.

No I didn't. Your selective comprehension is beneath me. I said......

The suggestion that the conflict in Afghansistan and the fighting to keep the Taleban from retaking afghanstan and giving Al Qaeda a safe nation to operate from is because of a gas pipeline is right up there with the moonbat theories that the twin towers were destroyed by the US gov't.

As with all moonbat theories, the proof is in the pudding. Quite simply, there are cheaper, more relaible ways to make money and ensure energy supplies than fighting a war half way round the globe to try a re-invent the wheel and create an energy infastructure in the midst of a war zone.

To restate, if any one thinks that the war is becuase of a gas pipeline, they should examine the facts, there are cheaper and more profitable ways to make money than to start a war.

As you can see (or not, whatever...) I never said that no one would build a pipeline.

Now how about backing up your wild claim that Bin Laden was an operative.

[M.Dancer]

It's not a semantic argument.

It would be like me saying Bin Laden is a doctor. A doctor is a job title that carries real meaning.

Take the fluff you offer as "proof"...

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators

I say he ain't an operative, he's an operation and we all know doctors perform operations.

To put it in black and white terms you might be able to undderstand, Valerie Palme was an operative, Bin Laden was a recipient of an operative's money.

Clearly the fudging of terms like operative is designed to cast the worst possible light on the case, but it like most moonbat theories do not hold water.

The tenuous straws you are grasping is because the CIA funded the Mujihadeen far and wide, Bin laden is an operative......if you reach any deeper you will tickle your tonsils

[M.Dancer]

Unless you have some proof of what you've been claiming, while losing the argument badly, I"ll leave you to whatever it is you choose to believe .. but I thank you for the opportunity for me to prove my point.

Once again you fail debate 101

Proof lies with the positive claimant.

I am not required to prove a negative

[blackascoal]

M Dancer,

I am not required to prove a negative

Obviously you're not required to do anything but post what you think without proving or backing it up EVER.

Once again, thanks for allowing me to prove my point .. by using your misguided unfounded comments .. OR .. how about this .. you win. Your intelligence and facts have overwhelmed me and I don't know what I'm talking about, in fact, I made it all up.

[blackascoal]

It appears that many nations are now wary of sending more troops and their continued presence in Afghanistan .. much like the beginning of their withdrawal fom Iraq. NATO appears to be following the footsteps of the "coalition".

Perhaps it's because they are finding out that the "war on terror" has been a fraud from the very beginning.

exerpt ...

NATO Allies Wary of Adding Troops in Afghanistan

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt846.html

"America’s European allies remained noncommittal about sending additional troops to Afghanistan today, even as the Bush administration sought to inject new energy into the NATO mission against the Taliban by offering more American soldiers and money.

Officially, the language at a NATO meeting here today reflected resolve and commitment on Afghanistan. NATO “is stepping up its game in Afghanistan on all fronts,” the alliance’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer of the Netherlands, said. “The fact that you saw so many people from the international community sitting around the table is a strong message itself.”

But beyond the sound bytes, the realities that have troubled the NATO mission in Afghanistan since the 26-member trans-Atlantic alliance took command last year remained on display. France and Germany continued to limit their combat role; both countries have refused to deploy troops in the south of the country, where Taliban forces are strongest. Germany’s Parliament has yet to approve a proposal to send six Tornado reconnaissance jets to southern Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi is battling allies in own party and government who oppose the Afghan mission and want the government to set a deadline for withdrawing the country’s 1,800 troops. While Mr. Prodi’s government passed a decree today to renew financing for Italy’s troops in Afghanistan, it did so without the support of all of Mr. Prodi’s coalition partners, and Italian officials said it was unlikely that Mr. Prodi could rally support for any increase in Italy’s Afghanistan troop contribution."

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Without victory there is no support for effort. As long as the indigenious peoples can extend a sustained resistance to occuping forces they are able to claim if not victory then oppression. The powers that be need to rethink their operations and politics.

Nobody has conquered the Afgan people since Alexander the Great, the nation may in fact be poor but it is extremely patriotic and determined.

[Wilber]

Without victory there is no support for effort. As long as the indigenious peoples can extend a sustained resistance to occuping forces they are able to claim if not victory then oppression. The powers that be need to rethink their operations and politics.

Nobody has conquered the Afgan people since Alexander the Great, the nation may in fact be poor but it is extremely patriotic and determined.

I wasn't aware we were trying to conquer the place.

[Catchme]

Without victory there is no support for effort. As long as the indigenious peoples can extend a sustained resistance to occuping forces they are able to claim if not victory then oppression. The powers that be need to rethink their operations and politics.

Nobody has conquered the Afgan people since Alexander the Great, the nation may in fact be poor but it is extremely patriotic and determined.

I wasn't aware we were trying to conquer the place.

What else would you call it?

We are there occupying against the will of Afghans, excluding the Karzi puppet regime, we are trying to force them to conform to western ideology? And we are conductiing ourselves outside the framework of the Geneva Convention and International Law.

[Catchme]

Taliban targets Cheney with suicide bombing

A Taliban suicide bomber apparently on a mission to kill U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney blew himself up at the gate of the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan Tuesday, killing as many as 20 people, officials said.

Cheney was unharmed, but reports said one U.S. soldier and one coalition soldier were among the dead.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which they said had targeted Cheney while he was in Afghanistan on a visit.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/27/c...ack-070227.html

[White Doors]

Without victory there is no support for effort. As long as the indigenious peoples can extend a sustained resistance to occuping forces they are able to claim if not victory then oppression. The powers that be need to rethink their operations and politics.

Nobody has conquered the Afgan people since Alexander the Great, the nation may in fact be poor but it is extremely patriotic and determined.

I wasn't aware we were trying to conquer the place.

What else would you call it?

We are there occupying against the will of Afghans, excluding the Karzi puppet regime, we are trying to force them to conform to western ideology? And we are conductiing ourselves outside the framework of the Geneva Convention and International Law.

One whole sentence of far left lunacy and all of it verifiably false.

1) All polls conducted in Afghanistan show that the majority of the populace wants us there.

2) We are according all Taliban and AlQuada prisioners 'rights' under the geneva convention even though we are under no obligation to do so as they are not POW under the rules of the geneve convention. In short, we are going above and beyond in according 'rights' to these terrorists.

3) International Law? This is a UN mandated mission. What Internaitonal law are we breaking here? (Oh, please stick to reality not fantasy in your response)

haha

thanks for coming out!

[White Doors]

Taliban targets Cheney with suicide bombing

A Taliban suicide bomber apparently on a mission to kill U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney blew himself up at the gate of the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan Tuesday, killing as many as 20 people, officials said.

Cheney was unharmed, but reports said one U.S. soldier and one coalition soldier were among the dead.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which they said had targeted Cheney while he was in Afghanistan on a visit.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/27/c...ack-070227.html

haha

You must be licking your chops. Tell me, if the Taliban had killed Cheney (for the records they didn't even come close) would you think that to be a good thing?

IOW, Do you think Cheney deserves to die?

[Catchme]

We are there occupying against the will of Afghans, excluding the Karzi puppet regime, we are trying to force them to conform to western ideology? And we are conductiing ourselves outside the framework of the Geneva Convention and International Law.

One whole sentence of far left lunacy and all of it verifiably false.

1) All polls conducted in Afghanistan show that the majority of the populace wants us there.

2) We are according all Taliban and AlQuada prisioners 'rights' under the geneva convention even though we are under no obligation to do so as they are not POW under the rules of the geneve convention. In short, we are going above and beyond in according 'rights' to these terrorists.

3) International Law? This is a UN mandated mission. What Internaitonal law are we breaking here? (Oh, please stick to reality not fantasy in your response)

hahathanks for coming out!

You are wrong, yet again, that is why the BCCLA and Amnesty International have launched court actions to stop our military from turning prisoners over to the Afghan government.

A poll of 500 conducted by the military does not a poll make.

Perhaps you should read the Senlis council report that says regular Afghans are turning to the Taliban because of the treatment they are receiving at the hands of the USA and Canadians.

And indeed another civilian was killed today by our military!

Kill the driver, but hey don't shoot out the tires or anything that could save a life! Kill first ask questions later.

[White Doors]

Yes, according to your judgement Canadian soldiers are a bunch of murderers aren't they.

Here is the poll that refutes yoru scurious claims:

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/articles/home_p...nt=155&lb=hmpg1

Eighty-one percent of Afghans said they think that al-Qaeda is having a negative influence in the world with just 6% saying that it is having a positive influence. An even higher percentage—90%—said they have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 75% saying they have a very unfavorable view. Just 5% said they have a favorable view (2% very favorable). These levels were slightly lower in the country’s war zone, the eastern and south-central part of the country: three in five (60%) in those areas had a very unfavorable view of bin Laden.

Perhaps most telling, 82% said that overthrowing the Taliban government was a good thing for Afghanistan, with just 11% saying it was a bad thing. In the war zone, 71% endorsed the Taliban’s overthrow while 16% saw it as a bad thing; in the north, 18% saw it as a bad thing.

International agencies also get a warm endorsement. An overwhelming 93% gave the United Nations favorable ratings (57% very favorable). International agencies providing aid for reconstruction were rated as effective by 79%, with 38% saying they are very effective.

Afghans were also asked whether they approve or disapprove of US military forces “conducting operations to capture or kill al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.” This has been controversial, as Afghan civilians have at times been killed or wounded in these efforts. Nonetheless, overall 79% said they approve, with just 13% disapproving. In the east and south-central regions where most US operations take place, approval was 10 points lower at 69%, while one in five (20%) said they disapproved.

Afghans express remarkably positive attitudes about how things are going in their country. It should, of course, be noted that over the last several decades, Afghanistan has suffered a tremendous amount of conflict, instability and repression such that their evaluations are likely influenced by comparisons to past conditions.

Asked whether their country is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction, 83% of Afghans said it is heading in the right direction. Just 11% said it is heading in the wrong direction.

and most telling especially considering your oft repeated slurs of Karzai:

The central government is viewed very positively. When a list of different authorities was read to respondents, a remarkable 55% called the central Afghan government “very effective” and another 36% said it is somewhat effective. However, given that Afghanistan remains a weak state with very limited reach over the country as a whole, it may be that Afghans were expressing their positive attitudes about the government, more than assessing its performance. President Hamid Karzai received an extraordinarily high approval rating, with 93% saying they have a favorable view of him (68% “very favorable”). There were no significant ethnic or regional variations on these two questions, which may suggest the strength of public hopes for national unity in the future.

Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

[GostHacked]

Was there anything in the news as of late that tells us of Cheney's trip to Afghanistan? I find it a bit odd that the Taliban , which so far has been taking back parts of Afghanistan, would have known a seceret trip. Or the attack just happened to occurr when Cheneyn was there. Making a false connection between a regular occurance of a truck/suicide bomb and Cheney being there. If Cheney was not there, this would not have been OMG breaking news.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/27/markets/ma...dex.htm?cnn=yes

This article is retarded. Only two short mentions of the Cheney attack, and the rest is just stock market stuff. And the two don't even seem to be connected in anyway. Seems like useless but purposeful 'connection' OMG the Taliban can influence the stock markets of the USA. Phswaawww.

Catchme

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007...py.html?ref=rss

Essentially paying the Afghans to produce opium so we can make pharmacuiticles out of it. And if Dion is a supporter of this, then I think he cannot be Liberal Leader... but I will save the rest of this part for a Canadian Politics thread.

Edit le

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6399527.stm

The Taleban said they carried out the attack and that the attacker was trying to get to Mr Cheney, who was on an unannounced visit to the region.

OK looks like it was kept under the hat that Cheney was going to Kabul. So how did the Taleban know about his arrival and where he was staying?

[Catchme]

Ah, the Cheney target was just smoke mirrors and lies to cover up/distract from what's going on at home with the Scooter Libby case that Cheney is avoiding!

[BC_chick]

I'll believe it if I see it.

Then open your eyes.