Syrian rebels bulldoze Abraham Shrine

[onwebcam]

Al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front terrorists have destroyed the historic mausoleum of Prophet Abraham (PBUH) in Syria.

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1479507

Not that I really give a shit except the fact Obama is arming and supporting these people..

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front terrorists have destroyed the historic mausoleum of Prophet Abraham (PBUH) in Syria.

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1479507

Not that I really give a shit except the fact Obama is arming and supporting these people..

He was always supporting terrorists, so it's not a surprise

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

He was always supporting terrorists, so it's not a surprise

The fact that these people are desecrating historical sites should be enough to piss you off. But most will try to ignore one of two sides of the coin as far as this story is concerned.. Hell we might need more coins.

[Captain Kawaii]

There's money in war. Come on everybody, buy some bullets!

[EddyTheDog]

You learn something every day - I didn't know Abraham was important to Muslims - I thought he was a strictly Jewish figure...

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

You learn something every day - I didn't know Abraham was important to Muslims - I thought he was a strictly Jewish figure...

Believe it or not he is a revered Prophet like Jesus and a few others. Jesus is a Prophet, not son of God to them. I know many Sunni Muslims from North Africa. Every single one is respectful of the bible and the prophets and disciples. Thats my experience anyway.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

You learn something every day - I didn't know Abraham was important to Muslims - I thought he was a strictly Jewish figure...

Considering all religion is based off of ancient mythology it should be no suprise unless you have faith in one or the other.

[lezinterracial]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

There's money in war. Come on everybody, buy some bullets!

True. KKR didn't create an entire division for General Petraeus because of his good looks and his abilities to seduce biographers.


cheezy movie, but I like it.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

You learn something every day - I didn't know Abraham was important to Muslims - I thought he was a strictly Jewish figure...

um............you know that the Islamic god Allah is the same god the Jews believe chose them, and the Christians share the same god as well. The Muslims/Arabs felt left out of the party and a thousand years after Judaism was born and hundreds of years after Christ concocted their own story with their own fantasy interpretation.

Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham was married to Sarah, Sarah couldn't have children. Sarah hooked up her Egyptian handmaiden Hagar with Abraham to give him a son, resulting in the birth of Ishmael. 14 years later a miracle, Sarah finally gets knocked up - before she gives birth God makes his covenant with Abraham, the chosen people and the Promised Land. That covenant according to God and the Bible went through Isaac, Sarah's son, bypassing Ishmael. Ishmael became the patriarch of the Arab people. And that's the Biblical source for the hatred between Arabs and Jews.

Of course it's all fantasy, there was no Abraham, no Isaac and no Ishmael but let's keep fighting and killing over it for the next 5000 years just for shits and giggles.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

You learn something every day - I didn't know Abraham was important to Muslims - I thought he was a strictly Jewish figure...

Islam is based on Judaism... pretty much word for word until Mohamed.. same dietary laws, same prophets and rules etc..

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Mutt

um............you know that the Islamic god Allah is the same god the Jews believe chose them, and the Christians share the same god as well. The Muslims/Arabs felt left out of the party and a thousand years after Judaism was born and hundreds of years after Christ concocted their own story with their own fantasy interpretation.

Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham was married to Sarah, Sarah couldn't have children. Sarah hooked up her Egyptian handmaiden Hagar with Abraham to give him a son, resulting in the birth of Ishmael. 14 years later a miracle, Sarah finally gets knocked up - before she gives birth God makes his covenant with Abraham, the chosen people and the Promised Land. That covenant according to God and the Bible went through Isaac, Sarah's son, bypassing Ishmael. Ishmael became the patriarch of the Arab people. And that's the Biblical source for the hatred between Arabs and Jews.

Of course it's all fantasy, there was no Abraham, no Isaac and no Ishmael but let's keep fighting and killing over it for the next 5000 years just for shits and giggles.

so basically it's just like the TV show Dallas then???

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

Believe it or not he is a revered Prophet like Jesus and a few others. Jesus is a Prophet, not son of God to them. I know many Sunni Muslims from North Africa. Every single one is respectful of the bible and the prophets and disciples. Thats my experience anyway.

yes like Christians are respectful of the old testament which is just the to rah ... the to rah was started while the Jewish were in Babylon, just a basic Jewish history with a bunch of legal arguments and laws in it.... FYI

this is a pretty informative unbiased book if you're interested in Jewish thoughts and influences

BTW there is some speculation that the Palestinians are 'the people from the sea' that invaded the area in the late bronze age...

and that monotheism was not a Jewish concept but a concept of King Tut's daddy, Akhenaten who went crazy, moved the capital out of Memphis into the fucking middle of nowhere, dumping all the god's and went with the one god... caused some big ass issue for sure... BUT the Jews were in town at that time as slaves and possibly grabbed onto the 'one big guy' concept at that time and ran with it....

[Mutt]

I have my own '3 Stooges' theory of the Abrahamic religions

1)Judaism is Moe - the originator and ring leader, no nonsense, hands out a lot of punishment, the smartest and most conniving. even his name derives from Moses.

2)Christianity is Larry - the kinder gentler stooge, not all that bright but more fun than Moe. forgiving and not very demanding of himself or others. something of a hippy.

3)Islam is Curly - child like simpleton, emotionally stunted, frustrates easily, deteriorating into self abusive behavior, tragic fool.

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

yes like Christians are respectful of the old testament which is just the to rah ... the to rah was started while the Jewish were in Babylon, just a basic Jewish history with a bunch of legal arguments and laws in it.... FYI

this is a pretty informative unbiased book if you're interested in Jewish thoughts and influences

BTW there is some speculation that the Palestinians are 'the people from the sea' that invaded the area in the late bronze age...

and that monotheism was not a Jewish concept but a concept of King Tut's daddy, Akhenaten who went crazy, moved the capital out of Memphis into the fucking middle of nowhere, dumping all the god's and went with the one god... caused some big ass issue for sure... BUT the Jews were in town at that time as slaves and possibly grabbed onto the 'one big guy' concept at that time and ran with it....

You know, for a boy from Montana, you got your shit down.
I'm going to follow your links and get some learning in. Thanks.

I've been reading abut Akhenaten. Interesting story on the history of Egypt.

I will tell you, since I've moved on to shinto basically...that many in the east believe the one god of israel and the christians is a hateful god. Truly must hate his servants. I mean, look at Moore and OK City... Fuck. Those poor bastards cannot catch a break.

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by Mutt

um............you know that the Islamic god Allah is the same god the Jews believe chose them, and the Christians share the same god as well. The Muslims/Arabs felt left out of the party and a thousand years after Judaism was born and hundreds of years after Christ concocted their own story with their own fantasy interpretation.

Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham was married to Sarah, Sarah couldn't have children. Sarah hooked up her Egyptian handmaiden Hagar with Abraham to give him a son, resulting in the birth of Ishmael. 14 years later a miracle, Sarah finally gets knocked up - before she gives birth God makes his covenant with Abraham, the chosen people and the Promised Land. That covenant according to God and the Bible went through Isaac, Sarah's son, bypassing Ishmael. Ishmael became the patriarch of the Arab people. And that's the Biblical source for the hatred between Arabs and Jews.

Of course it's all fantasy, there was no Abraham, no Isaac and no Ishmael but let's keep fighting and killing over it for the next 5000 years just for shits and giggles.

Seriously. I wish people would stop looking back and look FORWARD. You can be well spoken when you not being mean to me. ;)

[Mutt]

don't take it personally, it's what religion does to people, i get frustrated because I believe it's all fantasy and mythology and it's caused far more harm than good.

i believe people can be moral without a superior being keeping them in line. the Jews weren't the first or only people to concern themselves with morals and laws.

[crockett]

Umm can someone please tell me where Obama has been pushing to arm the Syrian Rebels?

Until this new GFY revelation, Obama has specifically stated that he thinks the weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Obama has so far been very much against arming the Syrian Rebels and instead just been sending them aid..

I think you guys have your whipping boy mistaken because it's John McCain and the right, whom has been making a big fuss about how the US should arm the Syrian Rebels. McCain went as far as to sneak into Syria to meet with the Rebels just last week trying to force the issue into US politics with his typical self serving grandstanding.


http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-syrian-...190000613.html

yes there has been talks about Arming them, which of course there naturally would be in that kind of situation. However it's mostly the EU that is trying to push the US to arm them.

Obama up til now has taken a wait and see approach, which honestly I can't blame him. It's the Right in the US and the EU whom are pushing hard for us to arm them.

[femdomdestiny]

Interesting how those terrorists have heavy weapons, and no one is not supplying them. I've seen this in my own country and no one ever admitted it was done,of course.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FYdx6o02yyo
https://youtube.com/watch?v=c2kJo363NlA

Anyway, thanks to onwebcam for interesting site where we can get some more info

[crockett]

Originally Posted by femdomdestiny

Interesting how those terrorists have heavy weapons, and no one is not supplying them. I've seen this in my own country and no one ever admitted it was done,of course.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FYdx6o02yyo
https://youtube.com/watch?v=c2kJo363NlA

Anyway, thanks to onwebcam for interesting site where we can get some more info

Did you even look at those weapons? The first was a a rocket system that looked like it came from a helicopter that was jerry rigged onto a truck with a home built rack. Hezbollah has been doing the same shit for years, you really think these guys aren't smart enough to do it as well?

The second was a standard run of the mill artillery canon that is a tow behind.. Obviously something that would be left behind in a situation where a force was retreating or lost control of an area..

Oh snap! Yeah.. where have the Syrian Rebel's arms come from? Pretty much where they have been saying all along.. They have captured ground from the Assad Govt and taken the weapons.

Not to mention the entire middle east is filled to the hilt with old soviet weapons and surplus. Obviously there are going to be arms dealers flocking to the area to sell shit.. It happens in any war, specially a civil war that isn't being waged by a modern country.

[beerptrol]

as long as they don't bulldoze a kfc

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by crockett

Did you even look at those weapons? The first was a a rocket system that looked like it came from a helicopter that was jerry rigged onto a truck with a home built rack. Hezbollah has been doing the same shit for years, you really think these guys aren't smart enough to do it as well?

The second was a standard run of the mill artillery canon that is a tow behind.. Obviously something that would be left behind in a situation where a force was retreating or lost control of an area..

Oh snap! Yeah.. where have the Syrian Rebel's arms come from? Pretty much where they have been saying all along.. They have captured ground from the Assad Govt and taken the weapons.

Not to mention the entire middle east is filled to the hilt with old soviet weapons and surplus. Obviously there are going to be arms dealers flocking to the area to sell shit.. It happens in any war, specially a civil war that isn't being waged by a modern country.

Yes I did, just showing that "poor" terrorists are not fighting with spoons and forks like medias are trying to present. As mentioned, I know very well how terrorists are armed, organized and trained by NATO because I saw it in my own country. Things, you won't be able to see other way.

Do you really thing that Saudi's are doing anything without support of US?
http://arabist.net/blog/2013/3/7/do-...an-rebels.html

The "Free Syrian Army" has been receiving weapons from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - all close allies of the U.S. But the U.S. has repeatedly stated that it has sent no weapons to the opposition forces.

Meanwile:


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04...syrian-rebels/

[crockett]

Originally Posted by femdomdestiny

Yes I did, just showing that "poor" terrorists are not fighting with spoons and forks like medias are trying to present. As mentioned, I know very well how terrorists are armed, organized and trained by NATO because I saw it in my own country. Things, you won't be able to see other way.

Do you really thing that Saudi's are doing anything without support of US?
http://arabist.net/blog/2013/3/7/do-...an-rebels.html

The "Free Syrian Army" has been receiving weapons from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - all close allies of the U.S. But the U.S. has repeatedly stated that it has sent no weapons to the opposition forces.

Meanwile:


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04...syrian-rebels/

Did you even fucking read the article you use as your proof.. Of course you didn't..


"

Palettes of former Yugoslavian weapons are not game-changers in and of themselves, and the way they’ve been secured by the rebels shows that the US still refuses to place its bets on any specific group.

Further down..

Jenzen-Jones explained that three types of Eastern bloc anti-tank weapons – the M79 “Osa,” the M60 recoilless gun and the RPG–22 – now in use in Syria are “suitable for the type of hit-and-run urban warfare the rebels are conducting.” Suitable, but not “game-changing.”

Umm hello your article even stats that the weapons are not coming from the US because the US has not taken sides with the rebels in the conflict.

The imported weapons are coming from ex soviet block countries and mostly from Yugoslavia.

Of course that obviously means big daddy US is supplying everything. I mean other countries from around the world that SELL arms couldn't possible be doing it with out being able to blame the big bad boogy man USA!

Seriously get a grip put down the RT.com propaganda machine...

Is the US likely involved at some point along the way.. Perhaps having spec ops giving intel or maybe even funding some training. Yea most likely we do that shit everywhere..

Is the US shipping trucks loads of arms to these guys.. umm no.. If we were McCain wouldn't be flapping his arms around like the building is on fire trying to get a big sale for his best paying lobbyist..

[deltav]

Of course the Syrian rebels are being supplied by other countries. If they weren't, they would have been crushed long ago by two professional armies (Syria & Hezbollah) who are sure as hell being 110% supported by outside nations as well.

I posted this New York Times piece on the subject (Croatia-to-Saudis-to-rebels pipeline) a few days ago, but that thread quickly degraded into conspiracy theory crap so here it is again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/wo...-in-syria.html

Granted the Saudis probably were "permitted" to do this by the USA for the time being, but that's no different than any other world or regional powers wanting to protect their interests in the area. Russia & Iran are supplying Assad & Hezbollah far more than the Sunni nations and the West are supplying the rebels. Now, if half the rebels weren't asshole Islamists that equation might change, but they appear to be there to stay.

This is actually one rare case where *so far* the USA has shown restraint, probably because they blew their wad with two other wasteful & costly wars not long ago.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

He was always supporting terrorists, so it's not a surprise

What kind of douchebaggery is this? Why do people always inject politics into current events?

Our policy with Syria has been the same since the late 1960s. Syria has always been anti American no matter who is in the Oval Office. Would it be any different if a Republican President was in office? No, it wouldn't. You are saying that "Obama is supporting terrorists" while last week McCain visited the "terrorist linked rebels" promising them support.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What kind of douchebaggery is this?

A very stupid question indeed. Your moronic government have created and supported Taliban, Bin Laden, Saddam (yes he was your ally), Libyan "rebels" that finally thanked the US ambassador in person. You have even supported Chechen terrorists here in Russia (what? Boston? I don't believe!) Don't stop, go on with that!



Idiots.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Would it be any different if a Republican President was in office?

Course no!

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by crockett

Umm can someone please tell me where Obama has been pushing to arm the Syrian Rebels?

Until this new GFY revelation, Obama has specifically stated that he thinks the weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Obama has so far been very much against arming the Syrian Rebels and instead just been sending them aid..

I think you guys have your whipping boy mistaken because it's John McCain and the right, whom has been making a big fuss about how the US should arm the Syrian Rebels. McCain went as far as to sneak into Syria to meet with the Rebels just last week trying to force the issue into US politics with his typical self serving grandstanding.

yes there has been talks about Arming them, which of course there naturally would be in that kind of situation. However it's mostly the EU that is trying to push the US to arm them.

Obama up til now has taken a wait and see approach, which honestly I can't blame him. It's the Right in the US and the EU whom are pushing hard for us to arm them.

http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-syrian-...190000613.html

The Aid of which you speak allowed for "clandestine" support. The Benghazi "consulate" was the front for CIA Syrian gun running. Claiming he isn;t actually arming them gives him plausible deniability.

Obama and McCain are working hand in hand "acting" as if they are not.

President Obama?s newest ally: John McCain
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...601.html?hp=f1


Reuters reported Wednesday that President Obama ?signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government.? This latest leak of classified information was attributed to ?U.S. sources familiar with the matter.? Lethal covert assistance undoubtedly will help the rebel cause, but the United States is risking letting advanced weapons fall into the hands of the country?s most deadly terrorist foes.

The Reuters report alleges covert assistance, perhaps including sophisticated man-fired anti-aircraft weapons, is being funneled to the Free Syrian Army through neighboring Turkey.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2UzRZIGdR
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis? Hands

The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wo...nted=all&_r=1&

Al Qaida-linked group Syria rebels once denied now key to anti-Assad victories
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/0...l#.UaEkhJwueGY


Obama?s Liberated Libya is Now Al Qaeda?s HQ
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenf...-al-qaedas-hq/

[deltav]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What kind of douchebaggery is this? Why do people always inject politics into current events?

Just ignore him, he's a Russian trying to get his oversimplified digs in. While ignoring that Russia (and the Soviets beforehand) supports all manner of unsavory groups if it suits their interests. Neither country has any room to be indignant of the other's actions at this point.

But yeah, I'd guess if there was a rebel faction or any group in Syria that was actually a palatable & realistic ally the USA would go a long ways in helping them out. But there's not, so they are genuinely holding back (*relatively speaking*) in this case. I do think Libya was instructive, as Western weapons did end up in Islamist hands, no doubt about that.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by deltav

While ignoring that Russia supports all manner of unsavory groups if it suits their interests.

You're such a clown.

[deltav]

LOL - are you actually protesting that isn't/wasn't the case?

edit: should note that I'm not anti-Russian by any means, I think it's a fascinating place. But they got their hands dirty like any (former) superpower.

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by crockett

Did you even fucking read the article you use as your proof.. Of course you didn't..


"

Further down..




Umm hello your article even stats that the weapons are not coming from the US because the US has not taken sides with the rebels in the conflict.

The imported weapons are coming from ex soviet block countries and mostly from Yugoslavia.

Of course that obviously means big daddy US is supplying everything. I mean other countries from around the world that SELL arms couldn't possible be doing it with out being able to blame the big bad boogy man USA!

Seriously get a grip put down the RT.com propaganda machine...

Is the US likely involved at some point along the way.. Perhaps having spec ops giving intel or maybe even funding some training. Yea most likely we do that shit everywhere..

Is the US shipping trucks loads of arms to these guys.. umm no.. If we were McCain wouldn't be flapping his arms around like the building is on fire trying to get a big sale for his best paying lobbyist..

I really don't have a time or some special wish to explain. If you read good, you will see that ex Yugoslavia, means Croatia (also you should know that Yugoslavia was never Soviet block, and that is also something I don't have nerves or time to explain because if you want ,you will find it and you should know that historical fact until now. Actually, Yugoslavs (serbs,croats,etc)..said historical NO to Stalin back in the 1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split ).

If you know what happened in Croatia back in 1995 , who gave support and logistic there to one of biggest ethnic cleaning in modern history, you will finally understand why weapons is coming from there in a same way they got East German weapons from NATO in Yugoslav civil war (yes Russian weapons but from Germany not to be so obvieous - (http://128.121.186.47/ISSA/reports/Balkan/Oct3192.htm) . That was,of course, USA, (and later Albanian generals fighting on Croat side continued their work on Kosovo ,under supervision of USA in a same way as everything is organized in Syria or it was in Libya.

So, it is not so simple as it looks like, since even in smaller conflicts involvement is always kept secret as much as possible. So, to make it simple, when you see Ex Yugoslav republic sending stuff to Syrian rebels (muslim terrorists screaming Allah Abkhar on every video you see online), that ex Yugoslav republic became "independent" state (there are no independent states in Balkans anymore,they are all under NATO control) thanks exclusively to USA (and Germany). I guess you can connect it now why weapons is sent from there. More info about this you can find online,for example (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t373190/ ).


Now,I would also like to mention that we agree that there is US involvement in Syria. Not open arming with heavy weapons, but financing, training, giving logistics (like on example above) which is more then enough to push country into chaos, and start bloodshed. Personally, back in 1999 I was seeing Russian crews in my hometown even if there were not official involvement by Russian side in Serbian war with NATO then. Beside that, I was also seeing black hawks unloading people and stuff on Albanian side even if US also claimed that there is no support to Albanian side in that war ,like they are doing now in Syria.So, for me, there is no difference what you are anyone is trying to tell me because I've felt that shit on my own skin, which means it is not any kind of RT propaganda you were talking about.

Sure, as always, these are things to go public in incoming years when everyone stop care or completely forgot about it which means there is no any difference what me or you say and that is main reason why I've said that I don't have any special wish to explain my point of view)

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by deltav

LOL - are you actually protesting that isn't/wasn't the case?

I actually said you are a clown. The US government does support terrorists all the time (see my post above). But what exactly you have to say about Russia? Which exactly terrorist regime we have supported since be became a country fully independent of commies in 1991?

[deltav]

Originally Posted by femdomdestiny

More info about this you can find online,for example (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t373190/ ).

Just FYI - when citing sources, for credibility's sake it's best not to use a well-known White Power site like Stormfront

But otherwise good post. I have some Serbian friends who had pretty much the same observation far as foreign involvement on both sides, that whole situation was uniquely configured to be a total clusterfuck.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

A very stupid question indeed. Your moronic government have created and supported Taliban, Bin Laden, Saddam (yes he was your ally), Libyan "rebels" that finally thanked the US ambassador in person. You have even supported Chechen terrorists here in Russia (what? Boston? I don't believe!) Don't stop, go on with that!

This is not true.

The United States support the Afghan mujahideen, which is a vague and diverse group of people who at the time had the common goal of forcing the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States did not support Bin Laden; Bin Laden financially supported Afghan mujahideen. The United States did not support the Taliban; The Taliban was one of many groups that grew out out of the Afghan mujahideen.

Did the US support the rebels in Libya? It seems it did. NATO had a no fly zone, and I am sure we provided them with intelligence and maybe even weapons and ammo. And your fucking point is what? The government in Libya support terrorism world wide and was anti American, so we assisted in his removal. What the fuck does this have to do with a terrorist attack in Libya? Nothing.

Chechen terrorists? Did the US support Chechen terrorists? Because that's news to me.

[femdomdestiny]

US supported, and armed Muslims in Bosnia (even when there were peace talks and told them to refuse peace deal that later led into mess and complete blodsheed. Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic first agreed on peace plan and after went into US, he refused it.)

Also US supported (American president have their monument in capital of Kosovo) in Kosovo. In the begining KLA was classified as terrorist organization by US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo...errorist_group

and later US gave them own state.

If you don't want to read, here it is in short:

The Yugoslav authorities, under Slobodan Milošević, regarded the KLA a terrorist group. In February 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton's special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, condemned both the actions of Serb government and of the KLA, and described the KLA as, "without any questions, a terrorist group". UN resolution 1160 took a similar stance.

But the 1997 US Department's terrorist list hadn't included the KLA.[47] In March 1998, just one month later Gerbald had to modify his statements to say that KLA had not been classified legally by the U.S. government as a terrorist group, and the US government approached the KLA leaders to make them interlocutors with the Serbs.

[deltav]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

I actually said you are a clown. The US government does support terrorists all the time (see my post above). But what exactly you have to say about Russia? Which exactly terrorist regime we have supported since be became a country fully independent of commies in 1991?

FARC in Columbia, Hezbollah via Iran as proxy, just to name a couple of the bigger ones.

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by deltav

Just FYI - when citing sources, for credibility's sake it's best not to use a well-known White Power site like Stormfront

But otherwise good post. I have some Serbian friends who had pretty much the same observation far as foreign involvement on both sides, that whole situation was uniquely configured to be a total clusterfuck.

you are in right. Source is not good, but as I've replayed above, I don't have nerves or time to get deeper into this. On that site is just a paste in English language from other source that will help connect and understand things he is trying to explain different. There are tons of results and more official stuff if he want to search but I doubt he will so it is not important.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is not true.

Of course not, my friend. Everything there is a pure lie. You are living in the most free and democratic country which spreads peace and freedom to the rest of the world.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by deltav

FARC in Columbia, Hezbollah via Iran as proxy, just to name a couple of the bigger ones.

How do they related to Russia?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is not true.

The United States support the Afghan mujahideen, which is a vague and diverse group of people who at the time had the common goal of forcing the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States did not support Bin Laden; Bin Laden financially supported Afghan mujahideen. The United States did not support the Taliban; The Taliban was one of many groups that grew out out of the Afghan mujahideen.

Did the US support the rebels in Libya? It seems it did. NATO had a no fly zone, and I am sure we provided them with intelligence and maybe even weapons and ammo. And your fucking point is what? The government in Libya support terrorism world wide and was anti American, so we assisted in his removal. What the fuck does this have to do with a terrorist attack in Libya? Nothing.

Chechen terrorists? Did the US support Chechen terrorists? Because that's news to me.

To anyone not living under a rock or in complete denial would by now know for a fact we backed Bin Laden.

Who do you think she is talking about here?



and here




Once again Al Qaeda was/is the the name of the CIA database used to track the fighters.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by deltav

Just ignore him, he's a Russian trying to get his oversimplified digs in. While ignoring that Russia (and the Soviets beforehand) supports all manner of unsavory groups if it suits their interests. Neither country has any room to be indignant of the other's actions at this point.

But yeah, I'd guess if there was a rebel faction or any group in Syria that was actually a palatable & realistic ally the USA would go a long ways in helping them out. But there's not, so they are genuinely holding back (*relatively speaking*) in this case. I do think Libya was instructive, as Western weapons did end up in Islamist hands, no doubt about that.

See that's the problem.. In Afghan there was the Northern Alliance and that's whom we helped prop up and they still today make up the largest part of the Afghanistan Army...

Meanwhile Syria is just lots of various rebel groups nothing like the Northern Alliance that we could actually work with. We might send them some basic equipment at some point, but I can't see us doing much with what they have right now.

We can't just go there and send truck loads of m16's and anti tank weapons, as say "here yea go"..

Meanwhile the other side is getting arms from Russia and bombing cities with it. So who is the real terrorists?

[Barry-xlovecam]

The Russians will fight to keep their Navy Base in northern Syria down to the last Syrian life -- Bravo!

On the other hand, with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah in the fight there are no "winners" .

Lose-Lose proposition for everyone.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

To anyone not living under a rock or in complete denial would by now know for a fact we backed Bin Laden.

Who do you think she is talking about here?



and here




Once again Al Qaeda was/is the the name of the CIA database used to track the fighters.

Can you show me where it says we created Al-Qaeda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Here's what Wikipedia says about it:

The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979 ? February 1989). The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahideen, some of whom were radical Islamic militants, on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. A CIA program called Operation Cyclone channeled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet occupation.

Which supports exactly what I said - Al-Qaeda was an off shoot from Afghan mujahideen, which the US did support and fund and train.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Can you show me where it says we created Al-Qaeda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Here's what Wikipedia says about it:



Which supports exactly what I said - Al-Qaeda was an off shoot from Afghan mujahideen, which the US did support and fund and train.

She can't come out and state that we supported Osama so as usual she generalizes it but it's an undeniable fact. I guess you would be one who also denies the fact the the Bush and the Bin Ladin family have been lifelong friends. In fact it was the Bin Ladin family who backed Jr's bankrupt oil company.

The official claim is Bin Ladin got pissed when we just left them after they surved their purpose which is what Hilary is talking about. But the reality is OBL stayed on CIA payrolll right up until 9-11. Also his real (government) name is Usama not Osama. His US government alias/cover is Tim Osman.

[deltav]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

She can't come out and state that we supported Osama so as usual she generalizes it but it's an undeniable fact. I guess you would be one who also denies the fact the the Bush and the Bin Ladin family have been lifelong friends. In fact it was the Bin Ladin family who backed Jr's bankrupt oil company.

There are plenty of arguments against this direct Bin Laden CIA connection - many of them are well laid-out here: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

I actually believe it could have gone either way, and most likely there is a nuanced middle ground. But to say "it's an undeniable fact" as you do, well that's kinda stretching it. Also, posting some random piece of official-looking paper scrawled with notes on the internet (including mention of the fabled "a-neutronic bomb" popular in other conspiracy theories) does not make it an authentic document undoubtably supporting your beliefs.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Mutt

I have my own '3 Stooges' theory of the Abrahamic religions

1)Judaism is Moe - the originator and ring leader, no nonsense, hands out a lot of punishment, the smartest and most conniving. even his name derives from Moses.

2)Christianity is Larry - the kinder gentler stooge, not all that bright but more fun than Moe. forgiving and not very demanding of himself or others. something of a hippy.

3)Islam is Curly - child like simpleton, emotionally stunted, frustrates easily, deteriorating into self abusive behavior, tragic fool.

I think you've nailed it Dan

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by deltav

There are plenty of arguments against this direct Bin Laden CIA connection - many of them are well laid-out here: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

I actually believe it could have gone either way, and most likely there is a nuanced middle ground. But to say "it's an undeniable fact" as you do, well that's kinda stretching it. Also, posting some random piece of official-looking paper scrawled with notes on the internet (including mention of the fabled "a-neutronic bomb" popular in other conspiracy theories) does not make it an authentic document undoubtably supporting your beliefs.

To understand how that document came to light

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...den_osman.html

BBC news article:
"...Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight
against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The
Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars
and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan. He received security
training from the CIA itself."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

Forbes business information service article:
"...[Osama bin Laden] received military and
financial assistance from the intelligence services
of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States."

http://www.forbes.com/charitable/200...4whoisobl.html

ABC News article:
"In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable
Saudi home for Afghanistan to participate in the
Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading
forces of the Soviet Union - a cause that,
ironically, the United States funded, pouring
$3 billion into the Afghan resistance via the CIA."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...n_profile.html

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Can you show me where it says we created Al-Qaeda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Here's what Wikipedia says about it:



Which supports exactly what I said - Al-Qaeda was an off shoot from Afghan mujahideen, which the US did support and fund and train.

Actually, I think Al Qaeda's birth is more firmly rooted in Egypt. If you want to see a very interesting documentary, by a man who spent most of his adult life living and teaching in Islamic nations like Egypt, consider checking out "My Trip To Al-Qaeda": http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/my-.../synopsis.html

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

She can't come out and state that we supported Osama so as usual she generalizes it but it's an undeniable fact. I guess you would be one who also denies the fact the the Bush and the Bin Ladin family have been lifelong friends. In fact it was the Bin Ladin family who backed Jr's bankrupt oil company.

The official claim is Bin Ladin got pissed when we just left them after they surved their purpose which is what Hilary is talking about. But the reality is OBL stayed on CIA payrolll right up until 9-11. Also his real (government) name is Usama not Osama. His US government alias/cover is Tim Osman.

Which one is it - she can't come out and say it, or she did come out and say in the two videos?

Why would the United States need to fund someone in the Bin Laden family? Osama didn't need financial support - He was the one WITH the financial support.

Do I deny that Bush is friends with the Bin Laden family? I do not. In fact, one of the oddest things about 9/11 is how the Bin Laden family flew out the day after 9/11 when all other airplanes were grounded. But WTF does that have to do with anything really? Bush was on friendly terms with the Bin Laden family - not all the forty-nine sons.

Tim Osman? Someone found Tim Osman on a document that might or might not be related to any thing and has no connection to Osma Bin Laden what so ever? How the fuck do you people make this shit up?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

....But the reality is OBL stayed on CIA payrolll right up until 9-11......

Then why was the Clinton administration trying to kill Osama?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Which one is it - she can't come out and say it, or she did come out and say in the two videos?

Why would the United States need to fund someone in the Bin Laden family? Osama didn't need financial support - He was the one WITH the financial support.

Do I deny that Bush is friends with the Bin Laden family? I do not. In fact, one of the oddest things about 9/11 is how the Bin Laden family flew out the day after 9/11 when all other airplanes were grounded. But WTF does that have to do with anything really? Bush was on friendly terms with the Bin Laden family - not all the forty-nine sons.

Tim Osman? Someone found Tim Osman on a document that might or might not be related to any thing and has no connection to Osma Bin Laden what so ever? How the fuck do you people make this shit up?

She directly says we funded the terrorists we are fighting now. Who are/were the terrorists we are/were fighting? She can't come out and say "Osama" That would be political suicide.

It's a unclassified document by request of Ted Gunderson who met with Tim Osman = Usama/Osama Bin Laden as it shows in the document. The document is about said meeting.