Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 07:13:26 PM
There is absolutely no question that Snowden committed a crime.  Revealing classified information to anyone not authorized to view that information is a crime under US law.  However, Snowden also took an oath to defend the US Constitution, which is the highest law in the land.  Since the government was systematically violating the Constitution with its mass collection of metadata and warrantless surveillance programs, Snowden had a choice to make.  He chose to honor the higher law and break the lower law.

The question was not whether Snowden broke the law.  The question is whether he committed "treason" and, more importantly, whether we as Americans should view him as a patriot and hero or as a despicable criminal. 

You DON'T have probable cause that Snowden gave any secret documents to any foreign government. 

Are you opposed to all government abuse whistleblowers or just Snowden?  Do you view Daniel Ellsberg as a traitor as well? 

Are you honestly saying that you would prefer to remain in total ignorance about the mass surveillance programs that the US government was conducting indiscriminately on all Americans?

One of the Snowden documents details a program whereby the government would intercept orders for internet routers, unpack the boxes and install secret backdoors and hacks on the router that would permit them to intercept all your internet traffic.  Then they would repackage the box and ship it to you with you having no idea, thinking that the box came directly from the seller.

Do you really want to live in a world where the government is doing that sort of thing to American citizens in secret?  You really want to live in an Orwellian dystopian future?

For EVERY positive legislative effort to reign in the NSA snooping and every reform to reassert the Bill of Rights and regain the privacy of all American citizens, you can thank Edward Snowden.  Without him this debate would not be happening and the Bill of Rights would continue to be shredded in secrecy.

There is really a warped set of values that would compel you to defend State secrecy to the detriment of your own civil liberties, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

You have a warped sense of values, not me pal, you admidt Snowden broke the law, You admidt he violated his trust AS A GOVT Employee whose LOYALTY should be to the CONSTITUTION which has a certain prceedure NOT INVOLVING FOREIGN GOVTS OR JOURNALISTS.

Yes I applaud Whistleblowers WHEN THEY FOLLOW THE LAW....SNOWDEN could have followed the law of common sense, DONE THE RIGHT THING gone to someone Like Gowdy, Cruz or better yet RAND PAUL and laid out what he had and turned over evidence, I would be willing to bet any one of them would have advised him the best way to do it, probably kept him confidential (There are rules and laws about confidential GOVT Informants that would have protected Snowden's Identity) had he done that HE WOULD BE  HERO and a tremendous raly point for those who oppose such Govt surveillance (Myself among them)

But no...the little bastard has to flee like a theif in the night and then tries to extort the US Govt...the absiolute worst thing he could have done...thats the sign of someone who is mentaly unstable and exercising faulty logic.

And what is the result of all this?....is the Govt still snooping...very likely....is the world a better place because of this....UNLIKELY.

The only thing that was accomplished was foreign powers got access to whatever data SNOWDEN stole. True we don't know for sure what he gave them, Logic would suggest whatever SNOWDEN offered would have to be an awful big poker chip for them to torque off the US Govt as diminshed as it may be.

Now you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to put two and two together and SURMISE that recent hack attacks by CHINA and RUSSIA against US institutions MAY have had something to do with Snowden.

Now IF TRUE that poses an intersting conundrum for you, doesn't it skippy.....The US Govt was spying on it's citizens, Snowden stole that info and turned it over to foreign powers who used it to spy on US citizens and HARM them by interfereing with commerce.
WHICH IS WORSE???????

Thats your Hero..........

Quote from: Mountainshield on September 23, 2014, 12:38:00 PM


What factors led to ISIS? hmmm let me think... ISLAM
US military interventions is the cause of instability? Hmm oh right so that's why China is annexing SE Asia sea's and Russia is invading Ukraine.
Bush and Cheney created the geopolitical instability (bullshit term btw) so Iraq invaded Kuwait and the Arabs invaded Israel because of Bush, I see...
So if we attack ISIS which is raping shia women, the shia men will start loving ISIS? I see....
Ah the only just war is a defensive war, yeah we should have let those North Koreans enslave all of Korea, that would have been "just"...
If leftist in the west who lives in capitalist wealth protected by private property rights dont bother to read Locke, then what in  the world makes you think muslims would?
The only change I want to see in the middle east is total annihilation of Islam, only then will there be peace.

You think too highly of the Mohammedans.

This is just straight up bigotry.  I don't think highly of ISIS, Al Qaeda or any terrorist organization.  But I don't stereotype nearly 2 billion people like you are doing.  Do you understand that for most people, religion is a cultural institution.  It is something they are born into and follow through cultural osmosis and habit.  Just as many Christians don't believe everything that the Bible says (murdering homosexuals for example), most Muslims don't believe or even understand everything that is in the Quran. 

Are you a Christian?  Can you defend Leviticus 20:13, that says: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"?

Should we go to war with Christianity because some fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics?  If you insist on condemning people because they belong to groups rather than looking at the individual, you are a contemptible bigot.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and exonerate yourself from this charge.  I don't want to judge in haste.

Are you even aware that the United States government basically created Al Qaeda when they were called the Mujahadeen when we were fighting the soviets?  We armed them and trained them.  We have been arming many of the radicals that make up ISIS for a couple of years now, selling weapons and recklessly picking one side over another in civil wars in Syria and throughout the region.  And you think our policy has NOTHING to do with the threat posed to the United States by extremists like ISIS and Al Qaeda?

If you were not so blinded by your hatred of Islam and actually bothered to read something about the middle east and our many interventions over the past half century you might learn something.  Maybe then you'll see why we should quickly extricate ourselves from the middle east and mind our own business.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 23, 2014, 08:02:32 PM
This is just straight up bigotry.  I don't think highly of ISIS, Al Qaeda or any terrorist organization.  But I don't stereotype nearly 2 billion people like you are doing.  Do you understand that for most people, religion is a cultural institution.  It is something they are born into and follow through cultural osmosis and habit.  Just as many Christians don't believe everything that the Bible says (murdering homosexuals for example), most Muslims don't believe or even understand everything that is in the Quran. 

Are you a Christian?  Can you defend Leviticus 20:13, that says: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"?

Should we go to war with Christianity because some fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics?  If you insist on condemning people because they belong to groups rather than looking at the individual, you are a contemptible bigot.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and exonerate yourself from this charge.  I don't want to judge in haste.

Are you even aware that the United States government basically created Al Qaeda when they were called the Mujahadeen when we were fighting the soviets?  We armed them and trained them.  We have been arming many of the radicals that make up ISIS for a couple of years now, selling weapons and recklessly picking one side over another in civil wars in Syria and throughout the region.  And you think our policy has NOTHING to do with the threat posed to the United States by extremists like ISIS and Al Qaeda?

If you were not so blinded by your hatred of Islam and actually bothered to read something about the middle east and our many interventions over the past half century you might learn something.  Maybe then you'll see why we should quickly extricate ourselves from the middle east and mind our own business.

Cry me a river you sensitive libbie, you have already judged me as a bigot so spare me your sense of moral superiority. If I'm a bigot for recognizing that the entire religion of Islam is a evil cult that deserves only extermination then I happily and wholly embrace your accusation. The truth is more important to me than being labeled a bigot or racist. But I will tell my black wife you called me a bigot, it will make her day 

You clearly don't know many muslims, I lived with muslims all my life growing up in a majority muslim neighbourhood and going to a school where 30% were muslims and none of them followed Islam, they never ever prayed or talked about Islam so by definitions were not Mohammedans. Most Western Muslims do not bother to worship Allah, they may pay lipservice when cornered but they are not Islamist, and the few that do follow Islam is in the minority even though they are the ones most represented in the MSM they are still the minority.

Yes I'm a Christian and absolutely I defend Leviticus 20:13, it is against God's will to engage in homosexuality, as for the execution it is a whole different debate but to shortly summarize then you should know Jesus made the obligations of the old testament a spiritual obligation instead of a material one, to use an analogy we are no longer required to offer animal sacrifice to God. The punishment of Homosexuals is a spiritual one, not a material one. So there you have it, Leviticus remains in full force except the obligation of punishment is reserved to God and not us.

As for the Christian fundamentalists I see you are using liberal arguments, but I will play along. If a Christian organization started massacring innocents, raping and enslaving women and beheading opponents you would see all other Christians in the world not only condemning that group but actively fight against it. Mohammedans on the other hand cheered when 9/11 happened, cheers as innocent Jews and Christians are slaughtered and actively so called moderate Mohammedans lie on TV stating that Islam is a religion of peace which it is clearly not. Notice all these  Mohammedans groups protesting ISIS are really protesting generalization of Islam and not ISIS itself!

If you can't see there is a huge difference between Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other then you have no clue, only Islam is seeking active total world domination, mutilation and conquest. Christians are waiting for Jesus, Buddhists are waiting for Rigden-jyepo and Shintoists follow the Emperor, none of these are seeking murder of others as a religious institution though all have few members in the extreme minority that may claim so but they remain irrelevant and all christian anti-abortion acts is under 50 incidents, and that's taken vandalism into account as well.

The Mujahideen existed before American assistance was given and it still exist today, geez how daft can you get? And even if it is true that al-qaida is a CIA creation what does that tell you about Mohammedans sense of loyalty and gratitude? It doesn't exist! They hate us for helping us liberating them from the Soviets so they attack us and in their own words want to enslave us. And the Muslim hate of the western world didn't start with Bush, it has always existed for over 1300 years. Start reading some European history instead of only watching prison planet or wherever you get your limited facts from.

The Mohammedans will never leave Europe alone, and with the political correctness symptoms you yourself suffer from you are showing them that we are too weak to defend ourselves. If your theory about minding our own business is correct then why the hell are Mohammedans in the Philippines and SE Asia attacking both Buddhists, Hinduists and Asian Christians? WHY? It's because of Islam, don't be a pc fool.

Quote from: Mountainshield on September 24, 2014, 10:11:33 AM
Cry me a river you sensitive libbie, you have already judged me as a bigot so spare me your sense of moral superiority. If I'm a bigot for recognizing that the entire religion of Islam is a evil cult that deserves only extermination then I happily and wholly embrace your accusation. The truth is more important to me than being labeled a bigot or racist. But I will tell my black wife you called me a bigot, it will make her day 

You clearly don't know many muslims, I lived with muslims all my life growing up in a majority muslim neighbourhood and going to a school where 30% were muslims and none of them followed Islam, they never ever prayed or talked about Islam so by definitions were not Mohammedans. Most Western Muslims do not bother to worship Allah, they may pay lipservice when cornered but they are not Islamist, and the few that do follow Islam is in the minority even though they are the ones most represented in the MSM they are still the minority.

Yes I'm a Christian and absolutely I defend Leviticus 20:13, it is against God's will to engage in homosexuality, as for the execution it is a whole different debate but to shortly summarize then you should know Jesus made the obligations of the old testament a spiritual obligation instead of a material one, to use an analogy we are no longer required to offer animal sacrifice to God. The punishment of Homosexuals is a spiritual one, not a material one. So there you have it, Leviticus remains in full force except the obligation of punishment is reserved to God and not us.

As for the Christian fundamentalists I see you are using liberal arguments, but I will play along. If a Christian organization started massacring innocents, raping and enslaving women and beheading opponents you would see all other Christians in the world not only condemning that group but actively fight against it. Mohammedans on the other hand cheered when 9/11 happened, cheers as innocent Jews and Christians are slaughtered and actively so called moderate Mohammedans lie on TV stating that Islam is a religion of peace which it is clearly not. Notice all these  Mohammedans groups protesting ISIS are really protesting generalization of Islam and not ISIS itself!

If you can't see there is a huge difference between Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other then you have no clue, only Islam is seeking active total world domination, mutilation and conquest. Christians are waiting for Jesus, Buddhists are waiting for Rigden-jyepo and Shintoists follow the Emperor, none of these are seeking murder of others as a religious institution though all have few members in the extreme minority that may claim so but they remain irrelevant and all christian anti-abortion acts is under 50 incidents, and that's taken vandalism into account as well.

The Mujahideen existed before American assistance was given and it still exist today, geez how daft can you get? And even if it is true that al-qaida is a CIA creation what does that tell you about Mohammedans sense of loyalty and gratitude? It doesn't exist! They hate us for helping us liberating them from the Soviets so they attack us and in their own words want to enslave us. And the Muslim hate of the western world didn't start with Bush, it has always existed for over 1300 years. Start reading some European history instead of only watching prison planet or wherever you get your limited facts from.

The Mohammedans will never leave Europe alone, and with the political correctness symptoms you yourself suffer from you are showing them that we are too weak to defend ourselves. If your theory about minding our own business is correct then why the hell are Mohammedans in the Philippines and SE Asia attacking both Buddhists, Hinduists and Asian Christians? WHY? It's because of Islam, don't be a pc fool.

Well said my man. You are much wiser than the other 28 year old on this board who has labeled himself a genius. When are you coming to the US. We need more young people like you here.

Quote from: supsalemgr on September 24, 2014, 10:49:28 AM
Well said my man. You are much wiser than the other 28 year old on this board who has labeled himself a genius. When are you coming to the US. We need more young people like you here.

What's not to like?

Quote from: Mountainshield on September 24, 2014, 10:11:33 AM
Cry me a river you sensitive libbie, you have already judged me as a bigot so spare me your sense of moral superiority. If I'm a bigot for recognizing that the entire religion of Islam is a evil cult that deserves only extermination then I happily and wholly embrace your accusation. The truth is more important to me than being labeled a bigot or racist. But I will tell my black wife you called me a bigot, it will make her day 

You clearly don't know many muslims, I lived with muslims all my life growing up in a majority muslim neighbourhood and going to a school where 30% were muslims and none of them followed Islam, they never ever prayed or talked about Islam so by definitions were not Mohammedans. Most Western Muslims do not bother to worship Allah, they may pay lipservice when cornered but they are not Islamist, and the few that do follow Islam is in the minority even though they are the ones most represented in the MSM they are still the minority.

Yes I'm a Christian and absolutely I defend Leviticus 20:13, it is against God's will to engage in homosexuality, as for the execution it is a whole different debate but to shortly summarize then you should know Jesus made the obligations of the old testament a spiritual obligation instead of a material one, to use an analogy we are no longer required to offer animal sacrifice to God. The punishment of Homosexuals is a spiritual one, not a material one. So there you have it, Leviticus remains in full force except the obligation of punishment is reserved to God and not us.

As for the Christian fundamentalists I see you are using liberal arguments, but I will play along. If a Christian organization started massacring innocents, raping and enslaving women and beheading opponents you would see all other Christians in the world not only condemning that group but actively fight against it. Mohammedans on the other hand cheered when 9/11 happened, cheers as innocent Jews and Christians are slaughtered and actively so called moderate Mohammedans lie on TV stating that Islam is a religion of peace which it is clearly not. Notice all these  Mohammedans groups protesting ISIS are really protesting generalization of Islam and not ISIS itself!

If you can't see there is a huge difference between Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other then you have no clue, only Islam is seeking active total world domination, mutilation and conquest. Christians are waiting for Jesus, Buddhists are waiting for Rigden-jyepo and Shintoists follow the Emperor, none of these are seeking murder of others as a religious institution though all have few members in the extreme minority that may claim so but they remain irrelevant and all christian anti-abortion acts is under 50 incidents, and that's taken vandalism into account as well.

The Mujahideen existed before American assistance was given and it still exist today, geez how daft can you get? And even if it is true that al-qaida is a CIA creation what does that tell you about Mohammedans sense of loyalty and gratitude? It doesn't exist! They hate us for helping us liberating them from the Soviets so they attack us and in their own words want to enslave us. And the Muslim hate of the western world didn't start with Bush, it has always existed for over 1300 years. Start reading some European history instead of only watching prison planet or wherever you get your limited facts from.

The Mohammedans will never leave Europe alone, and with the political correctness symptoms you yourself suffer from you are showing them that we are too weak to defend ourselves. If your theory about minding our own business is correct then why the hell are Mohammedans in the Philippines and SE Asia attacking both Buddhists, Hinduists and Asian Christians? WHY? It's because of Islam, don't be a pc fool.

"You clearly don't know many muslims, I lived with muslims all my life growing up in a majority muslim neighbourhood and going to a school where 30% were muslims and none of them followed Islam, they never ever prayed or talked about Islam so by definitions were not Mohammedans. Most Western Muslims do not bother to worship Allah, they may pay lipservice when cornered but they are not Islamist, and the few that do follow Islam is in the minority even though they are the ones most represented in the MSM they are still the minority."

So what you are saying is many folks who were born and raised Muslim have actually left the religion? That makes sense based on the philosophy of their teachings and practices. I always go back to what I call the "Bush test" after 9/11. "You are either with us or you are against us" and I do not think we should waiver from that in dealing with Islamists. That is not bigotry, it is self preservation.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 23, 2014, 08:02:32 PM

Are you even aware that the United States government basically created Al Qaeda when they were called the Mujahadeen when we were fighting the soviets?   We armed them and trained them. 

We have been arming many of the radicals that make up ISIS for a couple of years now, selling weapons and recklessly picking one side over another in civil wars......

Absolute bullshit.

EVERYONE of the different factions and AFGHANI tribesmen fighting the soviets were collectively known as Mujahadeen which means "Holy warrior".

It was Ben Laudin who created Al Q'ieda out of his own pocket, they were essentially Muslim mercenaries from different countries brought into Ghani to fight the soviets, after the Russians left they stayed and went to war with the various tribes particulaly the ones the USA supported, the ones known as the Northern alliance. In short AQ took over most of the country, displacing various nuetral indigenous tribes. So in this context AQ and OBL had no more right to meddle about in Afghanistan than the Russians or the USA for that matter. And you are equally wrong about the US arming them, most of their weapons were Soviet made, captured from the Russians or bought from the Pakistani's.

It is no wonder that about two weeks before 9/11 AQ assassinated the leader of the northern alliance (I forget his name but he was known as the Lion of the North).  His was the best bet for a new Premier, President, Dictator King whatever in a reconstituted Afghanistan.

Because of his former association with the USA, they rightly figured that he would assist the USA in routing AQ and the Taliban should the US respond to the upcoming attacks on the twin towers.

OBL was wrong about that as well his assassination enraged his fighters followers and they helped the coalition route the Taliban/AQ.

You need to stop relying on myth and wishful thinking before running off at the mouth, destroys your credibility.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 26, 2014, 06:30:24 PM

Absolute bullshit.

EVERYONE of the different factions and AFGHANI tribesmen fighting the soviets were collectively known as Mujahadeen which means "Holy warrior".

It was Ben Laudin who created Al Q'ieda out of his own pocket, they were essentially Muslim mercenaries from different countries brought into Ghani to fight the soviets, after the Russians left they stayed and went to war with the various tribes particulaly the ones the USA supported, the ones known as the Northern alliance. In short AQ took over most of the country, displacing various nuetral indigenous tribes. So in this context AQ and OBL had no more right to meddle about in Afghanistan than the Russians or the USA for that matter. And you are equally wrong about the US arming them, most of their weapons were Soviet made, captured from the Russians or bought from the Pakistani's.

It is no wonder that about two weeks before 9/11 AQ assassinated the leader of the northern alliance (I forget his name but he was known as the Lion of the North).  His was the best bet for a new Premier, President, Dictator King whatever in a reconstituted Afghanistan.

Because of his former association with the USA, they rightly figured that he would assist the USA in routing AQ and the Taliban should the US respond to the upcoming attacks on the twin towers.

OBL was wrong about that as well his assassination enraged his fighters followers and they helped the coalition route the Taliban/AQ.

You need to stop relying on myth and wishful thinking before running off at the mouth, destroys your credibility.

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/2001/09/14/0914whoisobl.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/DailyNews/binladen_profile.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/20/the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/06/reagans_osama_connection.html

Quote
How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS
by GARIKAI CHENGU
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran's growing influence in the region.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, "by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation."

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of "the database" in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America's relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.

In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization's American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein's secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni's lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni's were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America's Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington's thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel's neighboring enemies, Lebanon's Hezbollah and Palestine's Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media's war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.donate now

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.

By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama's government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens' power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.

The so-called "War on Terror" should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group's actions. Since George W. Bush declared the "War on Terror" in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington's military elite.

In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.

In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, "the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S." Truth is, the only way America can win the "War On Terror" is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2014, 10:24:46 PM
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/2001/09/14/0914whoisobl.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/DailyNews/binladen_profile.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/20/the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/06/reagans_osama_connection.html

Your assertion holds no water. It is quite a stretch to take a militant who joined a cause. Then that cause was somewhat financed by the USA. That in no way proves the USA was the reason Bin Laden became the terrorist he was.

Quote from: supsalemgr on September 27, 2014, 08:47:05 AM
Your assertion holds no water. It is quite a stretch to take a militant who joined a cause. Then that cause was somewhat financed by the USA. That in no way proves the USA was the reason Bin Laden became the terrorist he was.

Exactly! He's a Wahabi educated radical, and regardless of who he chooses as a target, the Caliphate is their end goal, whether it be India, Russia, or the U.S., anyone that doesn't accept Islum is the enemy.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2014, 10:24:46 PM
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/2001/09/14/0914whoisobl.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/DailyNews/binladen_profile.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/20/the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/06/reagans_osama_connection.html

Again I reiterate; Absolute bullshit.

What follows is a rather lengthy group of links to more CREDIBLE sources that confirmed (as OBL himself did) that he hated the US so much he would have and did refuse all aid. Remember he hated the US mainly because of their support of the house of Saud which he hated and wanted to overthrow.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

For what its worth, ISLAMIC MILITANTS created their extremist organizations, AQ, ISIS whatever else they call themselves, without any help from the CIA, the US military, George Bush or the ghost of Gen Curtis LeMay.

Here is a new interview with a man who actually knows something about middle east history and what motivates these terrorist groups, Michael Scheuer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIDCGy9V9mw&feature=youtu.be

You would be wise to listen to what he says.  There are few who are honest and informed enough to tell the truth about these foolish airstrikes and our catastrophe of a foreign policy. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 29, 2014, 04:40:53 PM
Here is a new interview with a man who actually knows something about middle east history and what motivates these terrorist groups, Michael Scheuer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIDCGy9V9mw&feature=youtu.be

You would be wise to listen to what he says.  There are few who are honest and informed enough to tell the truth about these foolish airstrikes and our catastrophe of a foreign policy.

YEs I've heard him before, one thing I agree with him 100% and actually touted before is
that part about developing our own oil as a way to nuetralize the Middle east, especially Iran.

He's a question I have for him (and you) we've never tried isolationism he proposes, suppose we DON't Intervene as he says the Muji's want and they STILL attack us? It would prove him wrong wouldnt it and likely seriously imperil the country.

Second, that part about abandoning Isreal is stupid and dangerous...Isreal WILL pop nukes if they have no allies and are surrounded by their enemies without Big Boy US backing them up. When the Muj start talking "the US intervenes" a great deal of that means We support the Isreal they hate and want to eliminate.

Third, He doesn't address the goal of the militant muslim movement that is a pan islamic caliphate....Ayatollah Khomeni wanted it, Ben Lauden wanted it, this current crop of assholes want it, the next crop will as well. Such a goal practically mandates "intervention"

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 29, 2014, 08:00:48 PM
YEs I've heard him before, one thing I agree with him 100% and actually touted before is
that part about developing our own oil as a way to nuetralize the Middle east, especially Iran.

He's a question I have for him (and you) we've never tried isolationism he proposes, suppose we DON't Intervene as he says the Muji's want and they STILL attack us? It would prove him wrong wouldnt it and likely seriously imperil the country.

Second, that part about abandoning Isreal is stupid and dangerous...Isreal WILL pop nukes if they have no allies and are surrounded by their enemies without Big Boy US backing them up. When the Muj start talking "the US intervenes" a great deal of that means We support the Isreal they hate and want to eliminate.

Third, He doesn't address the goal of the militant muslim movement that is a pan islamic caliphate....Ayatollah Khomeni wanted it, Ben Lauden wanted it, this current crop of assholes want it, the next crop will as well. Such a goal practically mandates "intervention"

Yes we should permit the extraction of our own natural energy sources especially if it reduces our reliance on a volatile part of the globe.  However, the US government shouldn't do a thing.  Private businesses can drill for oil and natural gas BUT they must respect private property rights.  Pollution is an act of aggression and if the use of fracking or oil drilling causes harm to the person or property of another, then the company must be made to pay restitution to the victims.  But people should be permitted to use their own land as they see fit as long as they don't violate the property rights of others.

What if we don't intervene and Muslim terrorists still attack us?  It is not an impossible scenario but it is far less likely than if we removed our government's presence from the middle east.  And you are dead wrong to say we have never tried the "isolationism" that Scheuer proposes.  For most of the history of the United States we didn't have much of a presence in the middle east.  From our founding through the 1950s we did not run a world empire and we didn't prop up puppet dictators and wage war in middle eastern countries.  At the end of World War 1 the United States was remarkably popular throughout the middle east. 

Can you even cite any high profile Muslim terrorist attacks against Americans prior to the 1960s?  Where was the 9/11 of the early 20th century?  It may well have been true that fundamentalist Muslims didn't approve of Western culture in many ways, but they didn't organize to attack us.  The problems of the middle east remained internal until we started to expand our post-WW2 military empire.  Our CIA overthrew the democratic elected Iranian leader and moderate Mohammed Mosedec in 1953 and supported the brutal Shah of Iran for more than 20 years.  We became closer to Israel and aligned ourselves with their interests.  We made ourselves out to be targets for their retribution. 

Israel can take care of themselves.  They are so vastly more powerful and technologically superior to every other nation in the region.  And, frankly, I don't care whether Israel survives or not.  I don't want to see people killed anywhere, but whether or not some nation State called "Israel" continues of dissolves is none of my concern.  Now, if YOU are so concerned about the welfare of Israel, then you should renounced your US citizenship and go to Israel and fight right beside Netanyahu.  But don't loot me, don't use force against me to support a foreign nation State.  Don't endanger Americans by making Israel's enemies OUR enemies.  Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been deplorable and I want absolutely nothing to do with the far right radical government of Israel and the Likud party.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 29, 2014, 09:45:39 PM


Can you even cite any high profile Muslim terrorist attacks against Americans prior to the 1960s?  Where was the 9/11 of the early 20th century?  It may well have been true that fundamentalist Muslims didn't approve of Western culture in many ways, but they didn't organize to attack us.  The problems of the middle east remained internal until we started to expand our post-WW2 military empire.  Our CIA overthrew the democratic elected Iranian leader and moderate Mohammed Mosedec in 1953 and supported the brutal Shah of Iran for more than 20 years.  We became closer to Israel and aligned ourselves with their interests.  We made ourselves out to be targets for their retribution. 

Israel can take care of themselves.  They are so vastly more powerful and technologically superior to every other nation in the region.  And, frankly, I don't care whether Israel survives or not.  I don't want to see people killed anywhere, but whether or not some nation State called "Israel" continues of dissolves is none of my concern.  Now, if YOU are so concerned about the welfare of Israel, then you should renounced your US citizenship and go to Israel and fight right beside Netanyahu.  But don't loot me, don't use force against me to support a foreign nation State.  Don't endanger Americans by making Israel's enemies OUR enemies.  Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been deplorable and I want absolutely nothing to do with the far right radical government of Israel and the Likud party.

Boy are you ever wrong.

Perhaps our first known result of Mulim terrorism was the preying upon the US ships by the Barbary Pirates back in the early 1800's, Pacifist and some say comprable to modern day libertarians Thomas Jefferson sent in the US Navy, thus the US marines were created.
Piracy was the terrorism of the day.

Then came along Teddy Roosevelt the Spanish American war in which we got the Philippines (among other territorial possessions) from teh spanish, we also got their problems with the ultra violent, untra savage Bangsamoro....muslim tribes (Pirates and raiders) that still exist today. They carried out terror campaigns against american Citizens and Christian Filipinos until they were blasted to hell by Black Jack Pershing.

Then there was WW1 which we had no business being involved in at all.
The result was the modern day equivilent of the UN in which we supported other imperialistic nations such as French, Belgium and the British....TAKE NOTES......

When WW2 came along Britain was more responsible for some of the modern day problems we are facing...not the USA, the Brits got together and decided to make the world british long ago, then got their asses whipped by Japan in the far east and threatened seriously by the Nazi's thus the old British empire began to fall apart, India went nuts and went to war with itself, some British cartographer drew lines on a map all over the middle east that was a key factor in some of the hostilities you see today......then of course there was that Business about creating an Isreali state.

Then the Russians got involved, Stalin gobbled up parts of Turkey and LOTS of Iran, with an aim to start trouble elswhere via their KGB, Algeria, North Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan
etc etc.

So before you start blaming the USA start looking at history and some of the other countries who were major players and instigators or out right villians....particularly Russia in creating some of this dissent among Muslim countries....it was all about the oil...then and now.

And to emphasize said point you don't see these militant Islamic groups messing with the Russians...in many cases Russia is stirring them up and arming them (why do you think these assholes are seen waving AK's and RPG-7's in every photo?) or even finacing them, IMHO, all they have to do is point them at the USA.

Now lets get back to our previous discussion about Aghanistan, Ben Laudin and the CIA, which if you read those links I gave you should have enlightened you.

There was a case in which we DIDN't intevene int heir politics after the russians were defeated, we supplied them with SOME weapons, primarily stinger missles to shoot down russian helicopters, but we (neither did the UN) try to stabilize the country. That was a Petri dish for OBL's (who didn't even belong in Afghanistan to begin with) creating his terror organization and turned it against the USA. The of course Idiot Clinton who pretty much did nothing but allowed things to fester was no help to the situation either.

So 'doing nothing' doesn't guarentee us peace and tranquility...the die is cast, they'll fight us a thousand years for the insults and aggrievments half a century ago or two cneturies or more (those morons still view westerners as "crusaders"), you can't reason with such people.....you can only deal with them with an iron fist.