Canadian Blue Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 So what are you saying?After doing a QUICK search that you conclude that the Americans and BIN were not friends? Yes, you haven't provided anything to refute it other than your partisan rhetoric. That BIN Baby was not trained by the CIA to help the Americans in their battle with the Soviets in Afhganistan. Show me evidence he was. You have all the brilliant answers. I have some, you have none. Who do you think the Mujahideen became. The Northern Alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Northern_Alliance But I can tell you arnt a complete fool so I suspect you know the answer and are just playing a game here. The game is called fighting ignorance. Plus backing it up with, I'm trying to find the word, what word is it, oh yeah facts. BTW: Since you have made the same error over and over again, arnt is suppose to be aren't, it's a contraction of are not. Isnt that what trolls are accused of doing? Proving you wrong, and showing your ignorance of the world isn't trolling. Theirs a reason you don't give links in any of your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Osama was CIA trained, the Bush family has a long history with the Bin Laden family even. In fact, George Sr was having breakfast with some of them the morning the Towers went down. "OSAMAGATE" by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal Posted at globalresearch.ca 9 October 2001 Confronted with mounting evidence, the US Administration can no longer deny its links to Osama. While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to "go way back". Most news reports consider that these Osama-CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as "irrelevant" to an understanding of present events. Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA in supporting and developing international terrorist organisations during the Cold war and its aftermath is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.A blatant example of media distortion is the so-called "blowback" thesis: "intelligence assets" are said to "have gone against their sponsors"; "what we've created blows back in our face."1 In a twisted logic, the US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims: The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US - and Britain - are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback', whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. 2 The US media, nonetheless, concedes that "the Taliban's coming to power [in 1995] is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen, the radical Islamic group, in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union".3 However, apparently, it is not blowback at all: The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network". Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have in become increasingly sophisticated. New undercover initiatives financed by the Golden Crescent drug trade were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus (controlled by the CIA) essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 4 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html And still more, and it was revealed in a US court case nonetheless, so much for no proof, or proof only being at conspiracy sites. LOLOLOL. From February to July this year, court 318 in the southern district of New York saw the prosecution and conviction of four of those involved in the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa in 1998. What was most remarkable about the trial was the way it uncovered the secret workings of al-Qaida, the 5,000-strong terror organisation run by Bin Laden. How the group used videos to brainwash people into doing Osama bin Laden's will. How, typically, it followed political and religious induction with hardcore military training. No less shocking were the details of America's deep and insidious connection with this man, whose status as an alleged former "client" of the CIA became an issue for the defence. As Jeremy Schneider, attorney for one defendant, put it in his opening: "And you know what? You know who backed the Arab freedom fighters? United States. United States. We supported the Arab resistance in 1984 in Afghanistan. We, the United States, supported the training in Afghanistan. We gave them guns." http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0...rticle_continue The Taliban is NOT al Qaida al Qaida was alleged to have committed 911 not the Taliban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Hmmm, was just thinking about this, if the USA does not recognize what we are doing in Afghanistan as anything much, and definitely not enough to thank us for, then they would NOT miss our being there. A pertinent fact seeing as how we should have gotten out of there last fall.What a slap in the face Bush gave to Canadians and an even laerger one to the families who have lost loved ones, and to those who are recovering from grevious injury. Maybe one day this country will grow up and do something by itself without always referring to the US. You don't like the guy anyway, why are you desperate for his approval? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 No, I reread what I said a few times, and no where did I mention a thing about wantin Bush's approval. Moreover, a thanks of appreciation instead of being ignored, really isn't seeking/wanting approval now is it? But what I did mention and what is pertinent: What a slap in the face Bush gave to Canadians and an even laerger one to the families who have lost loved ones, and to those who are recovering from grevious injury. It seems, those who over look this aspect, really do not care very much for our military personal, even though they profess too. If they did, they would acknowledge the slap Bush gave to our military, and the families who have suffered through injuries and loss of a loved one. In particular those who have lost loved ones to US friendly fire incidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaponeer Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 We have spent the last 6 years in this country bashing Bush endlessly. He does not mention Canada and we are outraged, come on!!! All we do is insult this guy, now we feel bad because he did not mention us. His army helicopters evac our wounded off the battlefield, US aircraft airlift our casualties to Europe, his military doctors in Germany patch up our guys. Get off it!! He actually did apologize to Canada for the 2002 friendly fire incident. Guest he should has msg'd each of us..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Bush insults us every time his goverment passes more laws about our border. Thousand of people come into the US from Mexico every year because they need them. How many could be his manufactured terrorists. Don't you think is is a bit ironic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Its a good thing the Americans don't get their knickers in a knot every time Canadians bash them with impunity. They would have an awful lot of knotted knickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Funny how some folks want us to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans no matter what they do simply because we are next door. Would you stand by your neighbour if he's shooting up the neigbourhood? Would you stand by him even if you think he's delusional? If he says "The neighbours in the blue house are out to get me!" Do you believe him or do you investigate the blue house neighbours yourself? (I love analogies!) Reminds me of that cartoon -- two dogs, one little one which keeps jumping up and down "Hey Spike lets play!" (or something like that) and the big dog says "Ah Shad up!" and slaps the little dog down. Well Canada is no longer the little dog. We used to be. We used to look at America with wistful envy but now we look on America with disgust. Sorry but that is the truth. The world has not changed in the last 6 years. America has. The only way America get get her groove back is... frankly I don't think America will ever really get her groove back. Sad really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 When the wall in Berlin came down, I, Like many others celebrated but I was also aware that now The US had been given carte blanch to step up her bullying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayLee Posted February 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Osama was CIA trained, the Bush family has a long history with the Bin Laden family even. In fact, George Sr was having breakfast with some of them the morning the Towers went down. "OSAMAGATE" by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal Posted at globalresearch.ca 9 October 2001 Confronted with mounting evidence, the US Administration can no longer deny its links to Osama. While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to "go way back". Most news reports consider that these Osama-CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as "irrelevant" to an understanding of present events. Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA in supporting and developing international terrorist organisations during the Cold war and its aftermath is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.The Taliban is NOT al Qaida al Qaida was alleged to have committed 911 not the Taliban ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Excellent post Catchme Of course this C B character will probobly still try and deny the relationship between the Americans and Osama and the Americans and the Taliban Gee,he will probobly even try and say there was no relationship between the Americans and Saddam ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BLOWBACK "Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided "covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy. The pattern has become all too familiar. Osama bin Laden, the leading suspect as mastermind behind the carnage of September 11, is no more (or less) "evil" than his fellow creations of our CIA: Manuel Noriega, former commander of the Panama Defense Forces until George Bush père in late 1989 invaded his country and kidnapped him, or Iraq's Saddam Hussein, whom we armed and backed so long as he was at war with Khomeini's Iran and whose people we have bombed and starved for a decade in an incompetent effort to get rid of him. These men were once listed as "assets" of our clandestine services organization. Osama bin Laden joined our call for resistance to the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan and accepted our military training and equipment along with countless other mujahedeen "freedom fighters." It was only after the Russians bombed Afghanistan back into the stone age and suffered a Vietnam-like defeat, and we turned our backs on the death and destruction we had helped cause, that he turned against us. The last straw as far as bin Laden was concerned was that, after the Gulf War, we based "infidel" American troops in Saudi Arabia to prop up its decadent, fiercely authoritarian regime. Ever since, bin Laden has been attempting to bring the things the CIA taught him home to the teachers. On September 11, he appears to have returned to his deadly project with a vengeance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Well Canada is no longer the little dog. We used to be. We used to look at America with wistful envy but now we look on America with disgust. Sorry but that is the truth. You use the plural 'we', where you should be using the singular 'I'. The 'we' makes you feel powerful, whereas the 'I' makes you feel small and inconsequential. Get used to using 'I' more often because that is it, your opinion is small and inconsequential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 No, I reread what I said a few times, and no where did I mention a thing about wantin Bush's approval. Moreover, a thanks of appreciation instead of being ignored, really isn't seeking/wanting approval now is it? Then why are you so PO'd when he doesn't go out of his way to acknowledge us? You don't care what he thinks anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 The pattern has become all too familiar. Osama bin Laden, the leading suspect as mastermind behind the carnage of September 11, is no more (or less) "evil" than his fellow creations of our CIA: Manuel Noriega, former commander of the Panama Defense Forces until George Bush père in late 1989 invaded his country and kidnapped him, or Iraq's Saddam Hussein, whom we armed and backed so long as he was at war with Khomeini's Iran and whose people we have bombed and starved for a decade in an incompetent effort to get rid of him. These men were once listed as "assets" of our clandestine services organization. Let us also not forget Gamel Abdel Nasser and my good buddy Mummar (Moe) El-Kaddafi. The CIA also approached Fidel Castro and make a deal before that unshaven commie said no. Then there were other wonderful people like Gen. (Gus) Pinochet in Chile and Samoza in Nicaragua. Some stooges turn on you, others do your bidding and others get kicked out. All part of the game of trying to control countries and turn them into client states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Funny how some folks want us to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans no matter what they do simply because we are next door. Would you stand by your neighbour if he's shooting up the neigbourhood? Would you stand by him even if you think he's delusional? If he says "The neighbours in the blue house are out to get me!" Do you believe him or do you investigate the blue house neighbours yourself? (I love analogies!) Well Canada is no longer the little dog. We used to be. We used to look at America with wistful envy but now we look on America with disgust. Sorry but that is the truth. The world has not changed in the last 6 years. America has. I am sure you love analogies, is there one in your post ?? No I would not stand with my neighbour if he was shooting up the hood in a delusional state. Neither would any american. One mans actions are not the same as one countries actions. We are the little dog. Have been and will be for your and my lifetime. Get used to it. Here ,you can use this one , little dog is a mere 10% of the big dog. So then......little dog is not a little dog...huh? Sure you are sad that the US does not have its "groove back" , and that was obvious mere lines above in your post where you stated "we now look on America with disgust". We need the US and frankly they do need us. That becomes more apparent everyday to the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Excellent post CatchmeOf course this C B character will probobly still try and deny the relationship between the Americans and Osama and the Americans and the Taliban Gee,he will probobly even try and say there was no relationship between the Americans and Saddam No, I like to look at both sides of the debate. You fail to provide a link to anything, and your arrogance on here is probably second to none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayLee Posted February 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 n try and say there was no relationship between the Americans and Saddam No, I like to look at both sides of the debate. You fail to provide a link to anything, and your arrogance on here is probably second to none. Well actually you were the one coming right out and saying there was no America /Osama connection LINKS? Like any other right wing forumIf the link you provide happened to say be a story from the Star..iot is ridiculed,even if the story had nothing to do with the Star... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8110 As for you CB and arrogance Go support a RCMP cop in Richmond BC Seems the way you write you have someting in common..maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Are you insinuating that I'm into kiddie porn Baylee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayLee Posted February 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Are you insinuating that I'm into kiddie porn Baylee? No But now I see on another thread your true feelings about Canada and I am shocked.. "C B.s words... "So perhaps you should stop hating them so much as they are partially the reason you're living in this pathetic little country I hardly think of Canada as being pathetic as you do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Well, I and two others on this forum are the only ones who can be ordered to die for this country. What can you say that you have done that's so great for this country? My point was that you have spewed only rhetoric at our troops and police officers. Yet you say you love this country, despite the fact the only reason you have the ability and freedom to do it, is because of the troop's who are willing to fight for this nation, and the police who uphold the laws of this nation. In general the populace of this country takes everything they have for granted, so yes it is a pathetic country. So are most western nation's, because many take everything they have for granted. Are culture is one made up of greed, materialism, and violence. Something which I blame for many of the problem's in our world. The only reason you are here is to try to inflame people. You have been given a warning by Greg about your behavior, and you have yet to correct it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Well, I and two others on this forum are the only ones who can be ordered to die for this country. What can you say that you have done that's so great for this country? First of all, you chose that life, good, bad or indifferent. Secondly, define "great"? Being in the military doesn't automatically earn one's livlihood as great in my books. I'd rank firemen and police at the top, given the likelihood of danger and dying on the job is there for their entire career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Because, to say that you love this country, yet bash the people who actually volunteer to serve this country isn't a mark of greatness. The member has consistently bashed those in the military and law enforcement, as can be seen in previous posts he has made. Anyone can be great, a person who contributes to society to help improve it is great. However it's inane to attack those who are in the service of this country as nothing more then "murderers" of innocents. My point being towards the poster who has made claim's which have very little merit, and often condemn's those who are putting their lives on the line because Canada sent them there. The point however was to bash a group of people who ensure the safety and sovereignty of a nation which one claim's to love is simply inane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.