- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump was right. Obama was the founding father of ISIS.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:30 am to WhiskeyPapa
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:30 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
The foreign policy of the US government includes the destabilization of the Middle East to further the national interests of Israel.
Where are you getting this idea from? Seems counterintuitive that Israel would want a completely anarchic middle east. Weak states, sure, but not failed ones.
1
Posted on 7/21/17 at 4:06 am to GumboPot
One would think that "impressive 48-4 vote" on the latest health care bill would keep Trumpkins happy.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 4:56 am to GumboPot
I was on the record saying this for 3 years
Posted on 7/21/17 at 5:03 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
So your go to sources to fight the "Soviet style tactics," of the fake news MSM is The National Enquirer and The Conservative Treehouse, which is ran by a former grocery store manager who can't seem to pay his taxes.
Yep. This is 100% a conspiracy theory. Right up there with "9/11 was an inside job."
Posted on 7/21/17 at 7:12 am to PetroBabich
quote:
The foreign policy of the US government includes the destabilization of the Middle East to further the national interests of Israel.
Where are you getting this idea from? Seems counterintuitive that Israel would want a completely anarchic middle east. Weak states, sure, but not failed ones.
This is my interpretation. It makes Bush 43 Administration actions look rational. Monstrously evil, but rational.
The Bushies invaded Iraq with about 50% of the force posited in the CENTCOM plan required to pacify Iraq. When Gen. Shinseki testifies about this shortfall, the Bushies smoothed that over by saying, "Oh, we'll use the Iraqi Army rank and file to help keep order after we purge the Ba'athist leaders."
Then they immediately disbanded the whole Iraqi Army and sent it home with no pay but plenty of weapons.
And since we had a way too small force now to control the country, many many US service people fell victim to IED's constructed from munitions in Iraqi Army depots. You know that - you see those guys every day on the Wounded Warrior commercials. The Bush Administration never planned to pacify Iraq; they wanted it to be fertile ground for mayhem and murder. We lost a bunch of guys and Bush, Cheney, everyone's hero Condi Rice -- they could GAF less.
Israel has sent over 800,000 settlers into land that was promised to the Palestinians. Any urge for peace died when an Israeli shot Yitzhak Rabin at a peace rally in 1995.
""In April 2012, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, in response to moves by Israel to legalise Israeli outposts, reiterated that all settlement activity is illegal, and "runs contrary to Israel's obligations under the Road Map and repeated Quartet calls for the parties to refrain from provocations."[18] Similar criticism was advanced by the EU and the US.[19][20] Israel disputes the position of the international community and the legal arguments that were used to declare the settlements illegal.[21] In December 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 confirmed the illegality of the settlement enterprise and renders Israeli citizens involved with settling the West Bank vulnerable to lawsuits throughout the world.[22]"
LINK
It is clear to me that invading Iraq was the first step in the Israeli plan for the future of the region. And the central part of that plan is to disrupt its neighbors and trick-frick the U.S. into taking many, many undesirables as refugees into this country.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 7:42 am
Posted on 7/21/17 at 7:19 am to Pocket Kingz
quote:
You know, where you immediately spin into something
No spin, Obama provided material support for ISIS. What part of that don't you understand?
Posted on 7/21/17 at 7:29 am to bencoleman
quote:
What exactly is bullshite about the Obama administration funding ISIS? This is a fact. Bush may have caused the vacuum but Obama stepped in with the support. To act like ISIS was just a byproduct of the vacuum is disingenuous.
I don't want to jar you or anything but was originally posited on this thread that Obama FOUNDED ISIS. That isn't true. ISIS could never have come into existence unless we deposed Saddam Hussein first. The Bushies did that.
Did Obama FUND ISIS? Looks like that happened with the CIA as the conduit. And how degraded and depraved is our national life when that little factoid causes not even a ripple in our national conversation?
Can you imagine - the CIA working as a flunky for another country - the Jewish State?
To me it seems that Obama sold out completely to the Globalists. The one thing he wanted to do was get the ACA passed, which he did. After that, if you noticed, the control of the House and Senate slipped away from the Democratic Party. Obama didn't give a shite. It was easier to make excuses when the GOP controlled the purse strings.
But he did stick up for transgender bathrooms.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 7:31 am
Posted on 7/21/17 at 8:00 am to WhiskeyPapa
I'll quote myself:
"This is my interpretation. It makes Bush 43 Administration actions look rational. Monstrously evil, but rational."
I often post this video of Cheney from 1994:
Cheney on Iraq 1994
So in 1994 he says invading Iraq would lead to a quagmire, and pieces might fly off - Iran wants a piece, Turkey wants a piece, Syria wants western Iraq -- but in 2002, he says that we will be greeted as liberators.
How do you put a pattern on that which makes any sense?
Simple. In 2002 Cheney wanted a different outcome than the potential outcome of invading Iraq that he saw in 1994.
in 2002 he WANTED Iraq blown to pieces. Would we benefit from that? No......
But Israel would.
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
That’s what Cheney said at a speech on August 26, 2002, at the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, as the Bush-Cheney administration prepared to roll-out its campaign to win popular support for an invasion of Iraq.
This statement—no doubt at all about Iraq’s WMD!—was false. The intelligence regarding Iraq’s supposed WMD program was full of uncertainty—and there was no intelligence indicating the Iraqi dictator was gathering weapons to use against the United States. On the stage with Cheney that day was retired General Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command. He recently recalled his reaction to Cheney’s assertion: “It was a shock. It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program.”
LINK
The Bushies fricking lied. They lied to put Israel's plans into operation.
ETA: I can never get over how many sheep will bleat - "But we did find WMD in Iraq!" Yes, some artillery shells with Sarin and other chemical agents were found. But the Bushies kept talking about nuclear weapons -- weapons that could cause mass causalities in the USA. And Iraq's ability to do that did not exist. And it was known not to exist.
Note the date:
FEBRUARY 27, 2003
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that “raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist,” the magazine’s issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq’s deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek‘s John Barry— who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade— obtained the transcript of Kamel’s 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM."
But on Wednesday (2/26/03), a complete copy of the Kamel transcript— an internal UNSCOM/IAEA document stamped “sensitive”—was obtained by Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who in early February revealed that Tony Blair’s “intelligence dossier” was plagiarized from a student thesis. This transcript is posted here (pdf) at the FAIR website.
In the transcript (p. 13), Kamel says bluntly: “All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed.”
LINK
"This is my interpretation. It makes Bush 43 Administration actions look rational. Monstrously evil, but rational."
I often post this video of Cheney from 1994:
Cheney on Iraq 1994
So in 1994 he says invading Iraq would lead to a quagmire, and pieces might fly off - Iran wants a piece, Turkey wants a piece, Syria wants western Iraq -- but in 2002, he says that we will be greeted as liberators.
How do you put a pattern on that which makes any sense?
Simple. In 2002 Cheney wanted a different outcome than the potential outcome of invading Iraq that he saw in 1994.
in 2002 he WANTED Iraq blown to pieces. Would we benefit from that? No......
But Israel would.
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
That’s what Cheney said at a speech on August 26, 2002, at the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, as the Bush-Cheney administration prepared to roll-out its campaign to win popular support for an invasion of Iraq.
This statement—no doubt at all about Iraq’s WMD!—was false. The intelligence regarding Iraq’s supposed WMD program was full of uncertainty—and there was no intelligence indicating the Iraqi dictator was gathering weapons to use against the United States. On the stage with Cheney that day was retired General Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command. He recently recalled his reaction to Cheney’s assertion: “It was a shock. It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program.”
LINK
The Bushies fricking lied. They lied to put Israel's plans into operation.
ETA: I can never get over how many sheep will bleat - "But we did find WMD in Iraq!" Yes, some artillery shells with Sarin and other chemical agents were found. But the Bushies kept talking about nuclear weapons -- weapons that could cause mass causalities in the USA. And Iraq's ability to do that did not exist. And it was known not to exist.
Note the date:
FEBRUARY 27, 2003
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that “raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist,” the magazine’s issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq’s deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek‘s John Barry— who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade— obtained the transcript of Kamel’s 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM."
But on Wednesday (2/26/03), a complete copy of the Kamel transcript— an internal UNSCOM/IAEA document stamped “sensitive”—was obtained by Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who in early February revealed that Tony Blair’s “intelligence dossier” was plagiarized from a student thesis. This transcript is posted here (pdf) at the FAIR website.
In the transcript (p. 13), Kamel says bluntly: “All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed.”
LINK
Posted on 7/21/17 at 8:04 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Did Obama FUND ISIS? Looks like that happened with the CIA as the conduit. And how degraded and depraved is our national life when that little factoid causes not even a ripple in our national conversation
It enrages me to know that we were giving material support to an entity that was killing Americans, let alone committing genocide on innocents. It angers me even more that they'll never be held accountable. Then you have the Obama defenders that are ignorant beyond belief.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 8:11 am to GumboPot
I have been posting that America was team ISIS for years. The writing is not in the paper, it's on the wall.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 8:12 am to WhiskeyPapa
"According to Newsweek, Kamel told the same story to CIA analysts in August 1995. If that is true, all of these U.S. officials have had access to Kamel’s statements that the weapons were destroyed. Their repeated citations of his testimony— without revealing that he also said the weapons no longer exist— suggests that the administration might be withholding critical evidence. In particular, it casts doubt on the credibility of Powell’s February 5 presentation to the U.N., which was widely hailed at the time for its persuasiveness. To clear up the issue, journalists might ask the CIA to release the transcripts of its own conversations with Kamel.
Kamel’s disclosures have also been crucial to the arguments made by hawkish commentators on Iraq. The defector has been cited four times on the New York Times op-ed page in the last four months in support of claims about Iraq’s weapons programs—never noting his assertions about the elimination of these weapons. In a major Times op-ed calling for war against Iraq (2/21/03), Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote that Kamel and other defectors “reported that outside pressure had not only failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was bigger and more cleverly spread out and concealed than anyone had imagined it to be.” The release of Kamel’s transcript makes this claim appear grossly at odds with the defector’s actual testimony.
The Kamel story is a bombshell that necessitates a thorough reevaluation of U.S. media reporting on Iraq, much of which has taken for granted that the nation retains supplies of prohibited weapons. (See FAIR Media Advisory, “Iraq’s Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact,” 2/4/03.) Kamel’s testimony is not, of course, proof that Iraq does not have hidden stocks of chemical or biological weapons, but it does suggest a need for much more media skepticism about U.S. allegations than has previously been shown.
Unfortunately, Newsweek chose a curious way to handle its scoop: The magazine placed the story in the miscellaneous “Periscope” section with a generic headline, “The Defector’s Secrets.” Worse, Newsweek‘s online version added a subhead that seemed almost designed to undercut the importance of the story: “Before his death, a high-ranking defector said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions.” So far, according to a February 27 search of the Nexis database, no major U.S. newspapers or national television news shows have picked up the Newsweek story."
LINK
I have often said that Saddam was a great thug. After his son-in-law Kemal defected to Jordan and was debriefed by the CIA and others, he became a nobody. He had a hotel room. Saddam for his part made sure that everything Kemal had blabbed about was exposed to UN inspectors and even went beyond that. This insured Kemal’s “nobody” status. Kemal chafed at being a nobody; he had been a very important person in Iraq. Saddam then promised that if Kemal returned to Iraq, he Saddam, would take no punitive actions. And even though his wife (Saddam’s daughter) told him DO NOT NOT NOT go back to Iraq, he did any way. Saddam called in one of the tribal elders: “Can you do me a solid?” And Kemal soon died in a hail of bullets.
Kamel’s disclosures have also been crucial to the arguments made by hawkish commentators on Iraq. The defector has been cited four times on the New York Times op-ed page in the last four months in support of claims about Iraq’s weapons programs—never noting his assertions about the elimination of these weapons. In a major Times op-ed calling for war against Iraq (2/21/03), Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote that Kamel and other defectors “reported that outside pressure had not only failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was bigger and more cleverly spread out and concealed than anyone had imagined it to be.” The release of Kamel’s transcript makes this claim appear grossly at odds with the defector’s actual testimony.
The Kamel story is a bombshell that necessitates a thorough reevaluation of U.S. media reporting on Iraq, much of which has taken for granted that the nation retains supplies of prohibited weapons. (See FAIR Media Advisory, “Iraq’s Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact,” 2/4/03.) Kamel’s testimony is not, of course, proof that Iraq does not have hidden stocks of chemical or biological weapons, but it does suggest a need for much more media skepticism about U.S. allegations than has previously been shown.
Unfortunately, Newsweek chose a curious way to handle its scoop: The magazine placed the story in the miscellaneous “Periscope” section with a generic headline, “The Defector’s Secrets.” Worse, Newsweek‘s online version added a subhead that seemed almost designed to undercut the importance of the story: “Before his death, a high-ranking defector said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions.” So far, according to a February 27 search of the Nexis database, no major U.S. newspapers or national television news shows have picked up the Newsweek story."
LINK
I have often said that Saddam was a great thug. After his son-in-law Kemal defected to Jordan and was debriefed by the CIA and others, he became a nobody. He had a hotel room. Saddam for his part made sure that everything Kemal had blabbed about was exposed to UN inspectors and even went beyond that. This insured Kemal’s “nobody” status. Kemal chafed at being a nobody; he had been a very important person in Iraq. Saddam then promised that if Kemal returned to Iraq, he Saddam, would take no punitive actions. And even though his wife (Saddam’s daughter) told him DO NOT NOT NOT go back to Iraq, he did any way. Saddam called in one of the tribal elders: “Can you do me a solid?” And Kemal soon died in a hail of bullets.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 8:13 am
Posted on 7/21/17 at 8:20 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Yep. This is 100% a conspiracy theory. Right up there with "9/11 was an inside job."
Well one of the benefits from 911 is that high-rise building demolition companies have discovered that burning loose leaf paper and starting office fires can bring down high-rise buildings perfectly on their very own footprint. High-rise building demolition is now very profitable. They no longer need engineers and technicians and high explosive material to cut major beams, they can just hire any ole person off the street to help them light loose leaf paper with a bic lighters and start office fires. It's the new high-rise demolition method.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 3:24 am to WhiskeyPapa
I can definitely agree that the Bush admin thought getting rid of Saddam would be good for regional stability and therefore Israel. I think where we differ is that I believe Rumsfeld, Cheney and their neocon cabal (Wolfowitz et al) were truly arrogant enough to believe we could go in with a smaller force than the CJCS recommended and be greeted as liberators. The video you posted of Cheney from 1994 did not reflect how he felt in 2002. 9/11 either completly changed his calculations (which is possible) or he didn't really believe what he was saying in 94 and was just toeing the Bush I party line so as not to bite the hand that fed him. For all we know he could have been pushing for a full on invasion of Iraq in 1991 but when it came time to speak publicly he didn't dissent from his boss. I truly believe the neocons were that dumb and arrogant and were totally taken aback by the chaos that ensued in Iraq. They had no plan and left the military to figure it out. Typical politicians.
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 3:37 am
Posted on 7/22/17 at 5:29 am to PetroBabich
My God. You are completely wrong.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 5:30 am to GumboPot
The Obama Administration worked diligently to take guns from Americans while secretly taking every opportunity to arm terrorists and border thugs.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:07 am to GumboPot
If you add a link to the pipelinespiracy and sprinkle on a little pedophilia you'd hit the poliboard trifecta.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:32 am to PetroBabich
quote:
I can definitely agree that the Bush admin thought getting rid of Saddam would be good for regional stability and therefore Israel.
Even the Bushies never said that, and no one else has either.
Who is this below?
It's Rummy the Dummy with Saddam Hussein. Iraq at one point was our big buddy in the region. Why?Because Iraq - for an arab nation - had a well equipped and effective army. That made Iraq a counter-balance to both Iran and Saudi Arabia, especially the latter.
But that didn't matter when Israel wanted Iraq wrecked. Our best interests were subordinated to those of Israel when we invaded Iraq.
How should it work over there? What is our best policy? Using history as our guide always, we can look at the Brits going back to the Golden Age under Elizabeth. Now there may be a half awake would be strategist who will say, "Isn't she the queen right now?"
I am talking about Good Queen Bess, who ruled England from 1558 to 1603.
Brit policy was to support a weaker continental country against the strongest continental country. Spain ascendant? Support the Dutch. France Ascendant? Support the Spanish. Russia a problem? Ally with France and support Turkey. Germany ascendant? Support France. Germans at your throat again? Support France again. Unceremoniously ejected from the continent? Enlist the United States.
That policy works. It worked for the Brits for 300 years. We are doing exactly the opposite in our policy currently. The ally we need in that region is IRAN. We pretty much shanghaied them into being our ally in the 1950's. After their revolution we should have enlisted them as such again. The Reagan Administration took them a cake. The Iranians have a large population they have a long and proud history and they are NOT Arab. They hate the Arabs. THEY could act as a foil to Saudi Arabia. which is our greatest enemy in the region by far, and perhaps the world.
Supporting the second strongest power in a region against the strongest is a proven policy.
We don't pursue that policy because the Jewish State doesn't like it.
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 6:36 am
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:36 am to WhiskeyPapa
If you fell for that horrible photoshop of Rumsfeld and Hussein then there is no hope for you.
Congrats Walt. You are back to being an insane nutjob. That cites himself.
ETA: Let me help an old man out;
Congrats Walt. You are back to being an insane nutjob. That cites himself.
ETA: Let me help an old man out;
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 6:40 am
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:38 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
The Obama Administration worked diligently to take guns from Americans while secretly taking every opportunity to arm terrorists and border thugs.
Your statement is too thin to merit any notice.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:45 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
If you fell for that horrible photoshop of Rumsfeld and Hussein then there is no hope for you.
What about this one?
Or this one?
Here is a video:
LINK
What the Hell is wrong with you?
Rumsfeld was a special envoy to Iraq for the Reagan Administration.
"The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive."
LINK
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News