Sarah Palin on Syria conflict: Let Allah sort it out
Options
Comments
-
dude, i specifically commented on each of your sources and why in several ways your sources aren't even supporting your claim(s).kingblaze84 wrote: »You don't believe Bin Laden received aid from the CIA and America during the 80s, despite many sources online saying so?
i have literally answered that question MULTIPLE times in this thread. go ahead and read the posts and you'll see that.kingblaze84 wrote: »Do you believe America funded future members of Al Qaeda and other terror groups back then as well? I know what I believe but believe what you wish.
I know you prefer your sources over mine but here's another source that shows some links between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden back in the eighties.........
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/24198
Made in the USA
According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).
John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American "black Muslims" were taught "sabotage skills".
The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained "bin Laden's operatives" in 1989.
These "operatives" were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.
The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called "Operation Cyclone".
Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.
Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, "Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did."
In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built "training camps", some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.
These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.
- See more at: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/24198#sthash.ptGlhSc0.dpuf
-
If one wants to believe Osama Bin Laden and future members of Al-Qaeda did not receive indirect funding and help from America back in the 80s, then I guess the world is still flat and pigs learned to fly last night. I've provided more then enough sources and there are much more online.
-
nope and nope.Elam Ferguson wrote: »Of course America funded Bin Laden in the 80's. They armed the ? with guns.
he didn't NEED the US for funding, as he brought his own wealth to the table and had connections in the Middle East to further fund him. and if you look at his ethos, it runs counter to that. and if you're funding... it's not like you need the US to be armed.
-
alright, let's break THIS source down.kingblaze84 wrote: »I know you prefer your sources over mine but here's another source that shows some links between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden back in the eighties...
well, let's start with this: you ever read Rashid's stuff? because i have and his contention is not "the US funded Bin Laden." which is, you know, sort of the topic. but this comes back to favoring my sources over yours.kingblaze84 wrote: »According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).
all this comes right back under the whole "the whole "future members of al-Qaeda" thing is either not being disputed (hence the part about you NOT READING MY POSTS) or involves you not being specific about these "future members of al-Qaeda"" thing again. might need to check out those past posts.kingblaze84 wrote: »John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary ... The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called "Operation Cyclone".
also, Hekmatyar is heavily the ISI's boy in that conflict. check out what i said about THEM again as well.
the CIA being AWARE of his activities would not be surprising at all considering the fact that we were involved in Afghanistan. did someone claim otherwise? but it is NOT the same thing as funding Bin Laden. or supplying him. and the CIA's direct connections would more likely be guys they preferred.kingblaze84 wrote: »Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.
so here the source you're citing against me LITERALLY agrees with me: Bearden states they knew of him (again, no surprise) and that Bin Laden was funding himself. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE THREAD.kingblaze84 wrote: »Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, "Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did."
seriously, between this and the last post, are you going to keep posting sources that agree with me and then claiming they don't?
so now we get to the single part of this that actually starts to agree with you a little. however, the problem is that when you get down to how this works, it always comes back to "the ISI insisted on the CIA not having boots on the ground." so while they might have taken US money and spent it as they saw fit (again, on dudes like Hekmatyar who have their OWN set of problems), it makes no sense for them to run with this policy but say "eh, ? it, go train the dudes if you want." that "collaboration" is going to be "the ISI did what they wanted with CIA money."kingblaze84 wrote: »These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.
and we're STILL talking about guys who needed the money. Bin Laden doesn't at this point in history.
...and i've commented on them at length and you've had nothing to say about all of that. so there we go.kingblaze84 wrote: »I've provided more then enough sources and there are much more online. -
alright, let's break THIS source down.kingblaze84 wrote: »I know you prefer your sources over mine but here's another source that shows some links between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden back in the eighties...
well, let's start with this: you ever read Rashid's stuff? because i have and his contention is not "the US funded Bin Laden." which is, you know, sort of the topic. but this comes back to favoring my sources over yours.kingblaze84 wrote: »According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).
all this comes right back under the whole "the whole "future members of al-Qaeda" thing is either not being disputed (hence the part about you NOT READING MY POSTS) or involves you not being specific about these "future members of al-Qaeda"" thing again. might need to check out those past posts.kingblaze84 wrote: »John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary ... The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called "Operation Cyclone".
also, Hekmatyar is heavily the ISI's boy in that conflict. check out what i said about THEM again as well.
the CIA being AWARE of his activities would not be surprising at all considering the fact that we were involved in Afghanistan. did someone claim otherwise? but it is NOT the same thing as funding Bin Laden. or supplying him. and the CIA's direct connections would more likely be guys they preferred.kingblaze84 wrote: »Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.
so here the source you're citing against me LITERALLY agrees with me: Bearden states they knew of him (again, no surprise) and that Bin Laden was funding himself. WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE THREAD.kingblaze84 wrote: »Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, "Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did."
seriously, between this and the last post, are you going to keep posting sources that agree with me and then claiming they don't?
so now we get to the single part of this that actually starts to agree with you a little. however, the problem is that when you get down to how this works, it always comes back to "the ISI insisted on the CIA not having boots on the ground." so while they might have taken US money and spent it as they saw fit (again, on dudes like Hekmatyar who have their OWN set of problems), it makes no sense for them to run with this policy but say "eh, ? it, go train the dudes if you want." that "collaboration" is going to be "the ISI did what they wanted with CIA money."kingblaze84 wrote: »These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.
and we're STILL talking about guys who needed the money. Bin Laden doesn't at this point in history.
...and i've commented on them at length and you've had nothing to say about all of that. so there we go.kingblaze84 wrote: »I've provided more then enough sources and there are much more online.
Ok a bit of misunderstanding on my part I admit, if you do not dispute America did fund future members of Al-Qaeda thats good enough for me. But Bin Laden did receive indirect help, as I have said several times now. Osama set up camps which received indirect and direct help from the CIA, with most of the funds probably coming from Pakistan, who received billions of dollars from the USA. And America was very aware of Osama's activities. When he was blowing up Soviet military supplies, it was not a problem. It became a problem when he started blowing up Americans though......this is why I'm so against funding the Syrian rebels, many of them have already pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. Obama is really losing it this 2nd term, it's like he's becoming out of touch with what Americans want. -
Young_Chitlin wrote: »By ASSOCIATED PRESS and DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has criticized the Obama administration’s decision to supply weapons to the rebels in the civil war in Syria, arguing that the U.S. should ‘Let Allah sort it out’ until there is a stronger leader in the White House. ‘Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We’re talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander and chief who knows what he’s doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren’t even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, “Allah Akbar,” I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out,’ Palin said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference on Saturday.
The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against rebel forces. The use of weapons such as the nerve agent sarin crosses what President Barack Obama has called a 'red line' that would trigger greater American involvement in the crisis. Obama discussed the civil war in Syria with European leaders in a teleconference on Friday, and the issue is expected to dominate much of the conversation at next week’s G-8 Summit in Northern Ireland. The White House is now considering arming the opposition fighters and enforcing a no-fly zone that could cost an estimated $50 million a day.
The final speaker at the three-day Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference, former Alaska Gov. Palin rejected calls for an immigration overhaul that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally. ‘I think it’s kind of dangerous territory, territory to want to debate this whole one race’s fertility rate over another, and I say this from someone who’s kind of fertile herself,’ Palin said. ‘I don’t think that’s where we want to go in deciding how will we incentivize the hardworking responsible families who want to live in the light, follow the law, become Americans, versus those whose very first act on our soil is to break the law? There are different ways that we can debate this.’
As she warned the conservative crowd of ‘tyranny’ in government, Palin said that the recent scandals involving the Internal Revenue Service and the National Security Agency make the country feel ‘so Orwellian around here, you know, “1984.’”
Sometimes, I want to like Palin and want to defend her since there is some common ground that I share with her political philosophy (even if she's not entirely aware of what her political philosophy is), but she just comes off as disrespectful and not-very-bright. I generally agree with what she said here but not how she said it.
The point that we shouldn't be involved in Syria because our president is incompetent is not only debatable and derisive but also far less important than the point that we shouldn't be involved in Syria because America is broke, needs to be focused on fixing its own problems at home, shouldn't be the policeman of the world/Middle East, doesn't need to create more enemies to further compromise its national security, etc. Something tells me Palin didn't talk about any of that and just focused on bashing Obama. But why is she still even relevant? Hopefully she's not thinking of a 2016 bid.
She's about right on immigration too. There's an illegal way of entering this country, and then there is a legal way. Why reward the former and discourage the latter? Or is it just about pandering for votes?
-
well, it would have helped to read my posts, because...kingblaze84 wrote: »Ok a bit of misunderstanding on my part I admit-
...what i said was a little more nuanced. for example, you don't really want to say what "future members of Al-Qaeda" really MEANS.kingblaze84 wrote: »-if you do not dispute America did fund future members of Al-Qaeda thats good enough for me.
look, you can say he received "indirect help" for a million reasons because, if NOTHING else, we were both on the same side of the conflict. but the CLAIM was that we funded him and i have yet to see you back down from that or even defend your sources, some of which didn't even support your claim.kingblaze84 wrote: »But Bin Laden did receive indirect help, as I have said several times now. Osama set up camps which received indirect and direct help from the CIA, with most of the funds probably coming from Pakistan, who received billions of dollars from the USA. And America was very aware of Osama's activities.
further, the claim is still being disputed here, because camps he set up had most of the funds (if not ALL) coming from Bin Laden himself and the contacts he had in the Middle East. you have LITERALLY posted sources "supporting" your argument that have said this. are you not reading your own sources?
did you ever actually think Obama gave a ? about Americans?kingblaze84 wrote: »...this is why I'm so against funding the Syrian rebels, many of them have already pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. Obama is really losing it this 2nd term, it's like he's becoming out of touch with what Americans want.
-
well, it would have helped to read my posts, because...kingblaze84 wrote: »Ok a bit of misunderstanding on my part I admit-
...what i said was a little more nuanced. for example, you don't really want to say what "future members of Al-Qaeda" really MEANS.kingblaze84 wrote: »-if you do not dispute America did fund future members of Al-Qaeda thats good enough for me.
look, you can say he received "indirect help" for a million reasons because, if NOTHING else, we were both on the same side of the conflict. but the CLAIM was that we funded him and i have yet to see you back down from that or even defend your sources, some of which didn't even support your claim.kingblaze84 wrote: »But Bin Laden did receive indirect help, as I have said several times now. Osama set up camps which received indirect and direct help from the CIA, with most of the funds probably coming from Pakistan, who received billions of dollars from the USA. And America was very aware of Osama's activities.
further, the claim is still being disputed here, because camps he set up had most of the funds (if not ALL) coming from Bin Laden himself and the contacts he had in the Middle East. you have LITERALLY posted sources "supporting" your argument that have said this. are you not reading your own sources?
did you ever actually think Obama gave a ? about Americans?kingblaze84 wrote: »...this is why I'm so against funding the Syrian rebels, many of them have already pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. Obama is really losing it this 2nd term, it's like he's becoming out of touch with what Americans want.
The camps that Bin Laden set up in Afghanistan DID receive some help from the Americans, you forgot about this quote from my last source......
"These camps, now dubbed "terrorist universities" by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers"
What part about that don't you understand? Listen, be in denial all you want. You're clearly seeing what you want to see, read the above quote carefully line by line and get back to me. If you're going to pretend America didn't at least partially help Bin Laden and other future members of Al Qaeda, you're clearly lying to yourself. Whatever helps you sleep better at night man, I'd bring up more sources proving what I'm saying but you'll find a way to lie to yourself again. Believe whatever the flying ? you wana believe, I know the truth and so does Brezinski, who himself said he helped train Afghan mujahadeen with help from the American govt. If you're going to sit there and say many of those mujahadeen did not later on become Al Qaeda members, you have a lot of history to learn. I'm done discussing this topic with you, you're obviously willfully ignorant as ? on this subject. America knew damn well what Pakistan was doing with that money, and Pakistan knew what America was doing as well funding terror policies against the Soviets. -
Somebody get Janklow some ? glasses for Christ sake......I'm starting to think Jank is a closet member of the NSA or CIA, I know others have said this before
-
did i? or did i say this:kingblaze84 wrote: »The camps that Bin Laden set up in Afghanistan DID receive some help from the Americans, you forgot about this quote from my last source......
"so now we get to the single part of this that actually starts to agree with you a little. however, the problem is that when you get down to how this works, it always comes back to "the ISI insisted on the CIA not having boots on the ground." so while they might have taken US money and spent it as they saw fit (again, on dudes like Hekmatyar who have their OWN set of problems), it makes no sense for them to run with this policy but say "eh, ? it, go train the dudes if you want." that "collaboration" is going to be "the ISI did what they wanted with CIA money."
and we're STILL talking about guys who needed the money. Bin Laden doesn't at this point in history."
it's almost like that entire section of my post specifically commented on the quote you just used again, only you didn't read it for some mysterious reason, and then just posted the exact same thing without adding to it or responding to what i actually had to say about it. WEIRD.
the irony in this post is INCREDIBLY thick.kingblaze84 wrote: »Listen, be in denial all you want. You're clearly seeing what you want to see, read the above quote carefully line by line and get back to me.
if you're going to pretend THAT is what i have been saying, you're a ? idiot.kingblaze84 wrote: »If you're going to pretend America didn't at least partially help Bin Laden and other future members of Al Qaeda, you're clearly lying to yourself.
which is the exact same thing as saying he funded Bin Laden, which is the ACTUAL POINT BEING DISPUTED BY ME? why, it's almost like i posted this about your article quoting Brzezinski:kingblaze84 wrote: »-so does Brezinski, who himself said he helped train Afghan mujahadeen with help from the American govt.
"your first source (Veterans Today) talks about the timing of the funding while making some ridiculous complaint about being "suppressed" by Google (which basically disqualifies them as a source IMO). it does not talk about Bin Laden at ALL. since no one is disputing that funding went from the US to mujahedeen, i don't understand what this article is supposed to prove if we're talking about how BIN LADEN got his funding."
i know you didn't read that because you don't want to discuss your source.
please. you haven't been DISCUSSING this topic for days, as literally all you do is post the same quotes and ignore what i have to say about them, and then it's just a matter of time before you head directly to talking ? because you're not intellectually capable of discussing something when people don't immediately agree with you.kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm done discussing this topic with you, you're obviously willfully ignorant as ? on this subject.
exactly: you can't actually debate a topic so you start this stupid ? -talking instead. which, of course, mysteriously occurs on the occasions when someone disagrees with random articles you found on the internet.kingblaze84 wrote: »Somebody get Janklow some ? glasses for Christ sake......I'm starting to think Jank is a closet member of the NSA or CIA, I know others have said this before
sorry, Young_Chitlin, you may need a new thread for this topic.
This discussion has been closed.