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.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/osama_alias.gif

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.

I think you've nailed it Dan

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

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

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?

Then why was the Clinton administration trying to kill Osama?

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.

It was obviously a play to throw off the general public, but thank god for our internet conspiracy heroes we are given the "real" truth.

If you want a real twist on this.. Michael Jackson's monkey's uncle, was the second cousin removed from Abrek, the very first Russian monkey Cosmonaut. The real twist is that Justin Bieber's monkey Mally, is the love child of Michael Jackson's monkey Bubbles and Iran's monkey whom was later sent into space inside a "Pishgam" rocket, but was never seen again.

Iran tried to play this off by using another picture of a second monkey.. but it's pretty obvious they tried to cover it up and just made the monkey disappear due to the solid connection to Bubbles. Now we have Justin Beiber's Monkey held hostage in Germany and being "sent" to a new home..

Things that make you go hummmm

Osama was so unimportant that he's pictured here with the brains behind our "efforts" there

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/18/687...a94c2aafa2.jpg

Who just happens to be Obama's right hand man now.

Sorry man, when you cite a conspiracy website like Whatreallyhappened.com (seriously, just look at their homepage) as evidence that your 'smoking gun' document scan is authentic, you're going to lose credibility with a good % of readers.

But I'm not even fully disagreeing with you and neither is Rochard. We did train mujahideen to resist the Soviet invasion (just as both superpowers routinely supported insurgencies in numerous locations as a sort of proxy conflict during the Cold War), some of them turned out to be militant Islamists. No one's arguing that.

it's near hebron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of...triarchs#Islam

so it's not possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum

So only one mausoleum...

This was the Shrine of Abraham in Ayn al-Arous, Syria. A shrine not the burial place..

ok i see, this is a sanctuary not a mausoleum...

No fucking way... Got proof to back this up?

Please ... !!!!

He says he wont arms rebels on one hand...

But on the other , he supplies training in Jordan, arms thru Saudia Arabia and Israel ...

Remember Afghanistan ... the USA never supplied DIRECTLY arms to the rebels ... ( lol ... rebels ... ) ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nwarposter.jpg

I thought in 2008 that Obama would be a fresh breath of air in the USA .... he is just like his predecessor ... just smarter :2 cents:

I honestly believe that each president starts with the best of intentions.

They have a handful of goals and a handful of promises, but quickly discover that exactly half of everyone is dead set against them and trying to make them look bad. Simple tasks and daily routine business - getting someone appointed to a certain office - is a six month uphill battle. Things completely out of control of the President - the FEMA disaster under Bush or the recent terrorist attack in Libya - ends up with months of congressional hearings. Add in some hot spots - North Korea, Iran, Syria - and stir it up with some foreign governments (Russia now arming the Syrian government, Israel bombing Iran / Lebanon / Syria), toss in domestic problems not caused by the Oval Office (The IRS targeting political groups)... Heaven forbid should the President get a blow job in the Oval Office!

A good example of problems the President has little control over was Bush's FEMA disaster. Was that really Bush's fault? One out of hundreds of departments the President supposably has control over was unable to handle a massive disaster where a large city got slammed with a hurricane then got flooded? (I mean, who the fuck builds a city under sea level that is next to a fucking ocean in the first place?) Does each President come into office with their "own men" and do a complete review of each government agency and their policies and practices from the ground up? Did Obama when he entered office?

Just to point out a few.

1. Benghazi wasn't a terrorist attack on a "consulate" over a group of people pissed about some video. If you pay any attention to anything other than the government news networks you will find that it was a CIA front. Everyone there outside of 2 or 3 people were CIA. It's admitted Stevens was there to meet with foreign officials reguarding the transfer of weapons. Many non-US government officials have come out saying Stevens was a gun runner. The ex-Seal who was killed went on record via mainstream news that he was there to track weapons long before the incident. His father says he was there working for the CIA.

2. Bush appointed the Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association to run FEMA. How was he qualified for the position again? He wasn't, it was give your(or someone's) buddy a job day.

As far as their intentions and what do they know? Do you honestly believe they would be allowed to even get near such a position without being informed of things prior to that you and I likely don't won't to know about? Why has no President tried to investigate or preosecute prior Presidents?

Review each department? lol The reason they won;t let someone like Ron Paul get near the Presidency is because he would not only review but eliminate most departments. They want people who won't stir the pot. A yes man.

I never believed this attack was a "mob of angry people". Personally, I don't even consider this a terrorist attack - this was a military attack.

I don't care if this was an Embassy or a CIA front; Nearly every embassy we have across the globe is involved in intelligence and espionage. This is nothing new.

What's your point here? That the government is telling us lies about this? I don't believe they are. This was a real embassy, which doubled as a CIA front, which us just like any other US embassy in the world... And it was attacked by terrorists. The President of the United States cannot come out and say "Opps, you caught us, this was really a CIA operation".

But you say apples and I say.... Something different. I had never heard of this man until you mentioned him, and nor am I a huge supporter of Bush... But you claim this guy was just the "Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association". He was an attorney who ran for Congress, and had been working as the General Counsel for FEMA when he was nominated to run it. He also ran the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Integration Center, the National Disaster Medical System, and the Nuclear Incident Response Team.

Sounds pretty qualified to me.

Was he "Bush's buddy". Sure was. He helped to run Bush's Presidential campaign.

Why would a sitting President go after a former President? He would either be demonized as going after the opposition party, or attacking "someone on his own team".

This assumes any President has ever done anything illegal to begin with. (I bet you each and every one of them has, but catching, having proof, AND being able to sell it to the US public would too difficult.)

I see now - You are behind Ron Paul. Because "He would be different if he was President". Sure thing. How many times have we heard this before?

This is what I was talking about earlier - Ron Paul couldn't shut down those agencies. He would walk into the Oval Office, pretend he has swagger, only to discover the agency he is trying to shut down spends billions of dollars in dozens of states, and the Congressmen and Senators from those states will make everything he does for the next four years pure hell - every single appointment, every single press release the Oval Office makes - will be shot down or at a standstill. And that's the tip of the ice berg... Imagine the political might and clout that would rain down on the Oval Office - not to mention the businesses that would loose out if such an agency is shut down.

Now multiple that times ten agencies that Ron Paul would shut down... Ron Paul would never get anything done.

It wasn't an embassy or a consulate. Just because an Ambassador was there for a day or two doesn't make it either. It was nothing but a CIA gun running operation and labeled a consulate after the incident.

Did you ever consider it was another government whom might not like the idea of us sending to weapons to say, Syria? Because that's what Stevens was there for.

You are talking about USSR. I totally agree with you that USSR did a lot for dirty things all other the World as well as towards their own citizens. I'm not a pro-commie and I never liked commies when I was living in the USSR. It was a rotten two-faced system which was built on blood.

Fortunately the USSR does not exist anymore, so forget about it when you speak about Russia. The modern Russia (Russian Federation) does not support terrorists, while the USA does it all around the globe. The question is: WHY?

This is nothing new. The Islamic fundies have been doing the same in Timbuktu for months.

In Egypt there's even talk of blowing up the pyramids.

The Saudi's have been methodically destroying Mecca since the late 1800's. There's very little left of the original city now.

It's like they (the fundies) are determined to remove any and all remaining evidence that their ancestors were in fact a highly civilized people.

Sadly, they will no doubt succeed in accomplishing just that.

It was a consulate. And I don't understand why are you harping on this point.

Perhaps you don't understand how this works. If the United States government decides it needs a diplomatic mission in any city in any country, it sets up a consulate. A consulate is basically an embassy, but smaller. It operates under the same rules as an embassy. If the United States government decides it wanted a diplomatic presence in Benghazi, it sets up a consulate - even if the entire diplomatic presence is nothing more than a CIA front. The difference between an embassy, a consulate, and a regular building.... Is nothing more than some paperwork the US government filed with the new Lybian government.

This is not something that Obama set up, that Bush set up, or Clinton set up.. This is the way the United States government has been setting up the CIA using diplomatic missions since the CIA was created. Most governments do this.

Is this consulate a CIA front? Most likely yes. And your point is? That the CIA was running an operation in another country? Surprise! I bet you three out of four consulates are running ops for the CIA. But the President, the State Department, the CIA, etc, will never admit that in public.

Do you think Ron Paul is going to do any differently?

Would that be like not publicly admitting bankrolling Osama or arming Syrian rebels? Or is that a different type of withholding information?

Ron Paul won't be running again so no need. Rand? I think he might surprise us all.

No. It would be like the US President admitting we had a CIA office with a connection to a diplomatic mission. We don't comment in intelligence matters.

I could care less if we were arming the Libyan rebels or not. It's irrelevant to this conversion, and it's irrelevant constant Republican attacks trying to make this into something it's not by claiming the White House didn't "properly defend the consulate" or "didn't react quick enough".

Here's what I think happened... It's pretty obvious that the United States was giving the Lybian Rebels all kinds of support, everything from intelligence to training to finances to directly arming them. Nothing illegal about it, it might have been signed off by the president, and it must have been signed off members of both parties in Congress. The Republican members who signed off on this can't come out and embarrass the President by exposing our activities in Libya. The Republicans can't come out and expose our operations because (a) they signed off on it and (b) it's freaking illegal for Congressmen to disclose secret intelligence operations.

Instead, they just want to keep harping on the issue until it does come out. This is all about the Republicans trying to embarrass the President over sensitive intelligence operation. This is what the Republican does when they loose - they try to embarrass the President.

It's just like that shit with Clinton - They put the President of the United States under oath and then forced him to answer questions that nothing to with anything... It was nothing more than an attempt to embarrass the President. It did, it embarrassed the United States and made us look like fucking idiots.

This is what our government has become - just attack the other side and embarrass them at all costs. And fuck the American people at the same time.

I think we need a Ban on Weapons... Oh wait, Money is involved...

Obama did it secretly via executive order

Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8701OK20120801

You do understand that Syria and Libya are different countries, right?

We are discussing a diplomatic mission in Libya that may or may not have been a CIA front, and this diplomatic mission was attacked by terrorists.

The Republican party keeps harping on this, implying that the Obama administration did something wrong. And I'm not seeing angle other than trying to make the President look bad. The US set up a diplomatic mission in Libya, ok. The diplomatic mission was most likely a CIA front, very common, ok. The diplomatic mission / cia front was most likely signed off by members of Congress of the Republican party, ok. The diplomatic mission was not properly protected, ok (that's most likely the fault of Congress, who decides such funding issues). The diplomatic mission was attacked by a terrorist force, ok.

Where is the problem here? A diplomatic mission (very common) that was a CIA front (very common) was unfunded (very common) and not properly protected (very common) and was attacked by a terrorist group (very common).

The are trying to place blame at the foot of Obama or Clinton (ick!) for a terrorist attack on an embassy in another country... Short of turning every diplomatic mission into a US military base, I'm not sure what else could have been done.

lol - I wish - If we could wipe out history with a name change then half the world's wars would not have been fought - Think about it.....

What terrorists does the US support? I must have missed that news article.

The Syrian conflict is now in its third year :Oh crap

Stevens was there regarding an arms shipment to Syria...... The Benghazi "consulate" was the base of operations for arming of Syrian rebels.

you think the rebels are capturing htese weapons from government forces?

how in the world do you think that.

all over our news is 'we should give more money

fuck it

I dunno what's funnier. The suggestion that these lunatic Wahhabi terrorists are "rebels" or the suggestion that they're "Syrian". Oh yeah, it's the suggestion that we're not arming them.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

let me think about that ....:)

.. getting ready for another war :

US to deploy missiles and jets to Jordan
Washington says weapons may remain there after exercise to help Amman deal with threat from conflict in Syria.

:1orglaugh

Do you think war is funny?