Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Nordic Superman on February 26, 2007, 08:49:23 AM
-
America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.
In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.
The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UUAVXPRLGDJOHQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml
Not exactly the approache I would undertake.
-
America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.
In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.
The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UUAVXPRLGDJOHQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml
Not exactly the approache I would undertake.
And you find this surprising how?
When George Bush gave his speech at the start of the "War on Terror" very few believed him when he said the US would no longer fund and support terrorist groups. They didn't stop then, ...they've been doing it throughout the entire Iraq war, ...and they're not about to stop now.
-
I'm not suprised. Whatever it takes I say.
-
I'm not suprised. Whatever it takes I say.
So you supporting fighting terror with terror? The US should not have to stoop to this level..
-
This is what has started so many messes to begin with. When will they learn? The blowback is a bitch!
-
So you supporting fighting terror with terror? The US should not have to stoop to this level..
No, but how can you argue a delusional Canadian nymphomaniac who believes she's infallible? ???
-
I'm not suprised. Whatever it takes I say.
LOL! You endorse terror, as long as it's us doing it! HA!
-
LOL! You endorse terror, as long as it's us doing it! HA!
::) Note my post above homo.
-
LOL! You endorse terror, as long as it's us doing it! HA!
Terror is dispicable whoever is doing it, I have serious doubts on this story, however.
-
This is what has started so many messes to begin with. When will they learn? The blowback is a bitch!
Incredibly, but I find myself agreeing with this post of yours. :o
-Hedge
-
::) Note my post above ####.
Where you said "not exactly the approach I'd take"?
Are you condemning those actions?
-
Terror is dispicable whoever is doing it, I have serious doubts on this story, however.
Do you believe that in the past, America has funded "disruptive" groups in other nations to undermine their governments' ability to control the place?
-
Do you believe that in the past, America has funded "disruptive" groups in other nations to undermine their governments' ability to control the place?
I don't know, I should hope they haven't funded terrorist organisations though.
-
I don't know, I should hope they haven't funded terrorist organisations though.
If someone told you they funded resistance groups which committed terrorist acts, would you believe that?
-
If someone told you they funded resistance groups which committed terrorist acts, would you believe that?
Depends on who told me and what evidence they had.
-
Depends on who told me and what evidence they had.
Is it so hard to answer? Do you, under any circumstances, endorse terrorism?
-
Is it so hard to answer? Do you, under any circumstances, endorse terrorism?
Look 240 or Bust, he's stated it depends on the credibility of the source and the evidence.
I think most of us could agree with that.
What does that has to do with endorsing terrorism?
-Hedge
-
Is it so hard to answer? Do you, under any circumstances, endorse terrorism?
No, it's not hard to answer at all, consider how you phrased the question if you don't like my response.
I abhor terror regardless of the perpetrator, it's the epitome of cowardice - I do not, however, agree that the US has ever engaged in such activity.
-
Look 240 or Bust, he's stated it depends on the credibility of the source and the evidence.
I think most of us could agree with that.
What does that has to do with endorsing terrorism?
-Hedge
Thanks Hedge, that's what I was trying to get at.
-
No, it's not hard to answer at all, consider how you phrased the question if you don't like my response.
I abhor terror regardless of the perpetrator, it's the epitome of cowardice - I do not, however, agree that the US has ever engaged in such activity.
Great post.
I do however think that USA on numerous occasions have supported acts of terrorism.
Look at the support of Contras during the 80's, eg.
-Hedge
-
Great post.
I do however think that USA on numerous occasions have supported acts of terrorism.
Look at the support of Contras during the 80's, eg.
-Hedge
I'm not sure, Hedge, it's a whole lot of information to consider and I honestly have no idea if the US has supported terrorist groups in adminstrations gone by.
I'd like to think that the current administration certainly doesn't assist terror, based on what I know and what I've seen. As you know, I don't buy into the conspiracy theories that point the finger at the US government.
-
This is where Bruce acts uber-naive.
"We would NEVER knowingly help bad guys. They did it without us knowing".
I expect something like that, just like "No one in America thought Saddam would use chem agents that we gave his universities during war to hurt his enemies".
it's a waste of time. Bruce has a mindset that we do the right thing morally. I'm under the impression we do very bad thigns when it's for the greater good. he will invent scenarios and possibilities to explain away any list of things. So it's pointless.
-
This is where Bruce acts uber-naive.
"We would NEVER knowingly help bad guys. They did it without us knowing".
I expect something like that, just like "No one in America thought Saddam would use chem agents that we gave his universities during war to hurt his enemies".
it's a waste of time. Bruce has a mindset that we do the right thing morally. I'm under the impression we do very bad thigns when it's for the greater good. he will invent scenarios and possibilities to explain away any list of things. So it's pointless.
Is there any danger of you not making up quotes on my behalf and then using them in argument?
If I am indeed the mindless pro-US zombie you make me out to be (I'm not), then you are surely my opposite.
-
Is there any danger of you not making up quotes on my behalf and then using them in argument?
If I am indeed the mindless pro-US zombie you make me out to be (I'm not), then you are surely my opposite.
I didn't make up quotes. I said i expected something like that. Read.
And I love the USA. But for the sake of discussions of history, I see no need to candycoat everything and create this fallacy of "we never meant for anything bad to happen - we was foooled."
I mean come on dude. the argument you made that no one in the US knew saddam would take dangerous shit from his own universities, after we delivered them, while he was fighting a war at home and next door.
it's laughable.
I love the USA and I would stand in my yard with a rifle and fight off foreign aggressor. I back her right or wrong. But I am at least honest about the history of things. And people who believe we became numero uno without getting a little dirt on our hands are, IMHO, dumb shits. HTH.
-
I didn't make up quotes. I said i expected something like that. Read.
I did, and you didn't.
I mean come on dude. the argument you made that no one in the US knew saddam would take dangerous shit from his own universities, after we delivered them, while he was fighting a war at home and next door.
it's laughable.
And you're the one that said the US gave Saddam WMD including anthrax and mustard gas - a claim you have absolutely no evidence to support. I, on the other hand, gave the board UN and US Senate information to consider, proving this not to be the case. If you'd like to debate me on the topic again, I'd be more than happy to show you up once again.
-
And you're the one that said the US gave Saddam WMD including anthrax and mustard gas - a claim you have absolutely no evidence to support. I, on the other hand, gave the board UN and US Senate information to consider, proving this not to be the case. If you'd like to debate me on the topic again, I'd be more than happy to show you up once again.
oh ok. after we spend 3 hours debating it, and at the end, we're both holding reliable sources from govt agencies which say contrasting things, will ya feel better?
come on dude. If you believe we sent things there with no idea they'd be used for nefarious purposes, well, hey, we're coming at this from 2 very diff directions.
have fun with that.
-
oh ok. after we spend 3 hours debating it, and at the end, we're both holding reliable sources from govt agencies which say contrasting things, will ya feel better?
If you can show me any legitimate document that proves anything deliberately untoward in terms of the US giving WMD to Saddam I will publicly apologise on both my weblog and this board. If not, you'll admit you're wrong - how's that sound?
Or are you afraid to put your 'reputation' on the line for this?
-
1. who give a shit what 1 guy says to another on a board?
2. dude, you believe that no one in the us thought saddam would use dangerous agents, given to his universities during time of war and domestic unrest, after he had slaughtered hundreds publicly his first day in office and killed thousands after that.
people who run our country are not that naive. for you to say they are is frankly, offensive.
;D
-
1. who give a shit what 1 guy says to another on a board?
2. dude, you believe that no one in the us thought saddam would use dangerous agents, given to his universities during time of war and domestic unrest, after he had slaughtered hundreds publicly his first day in office and killed thousands after that.
people who run our country are not that naive. for you to say they are is frankly, offensive.
Great. Now will you answer my question?
-
Great. Now will you answer my question?
Nah. I don't enjoy chatting with you anymore. You're naive.
-
Nah. I don't enjoy chatting with you anymore. You're naive.
Says the clown who believes everything conspiracy nuts living in their mums basements tells him ::)
-
Says the clown who believes everything conspiracy nuts living in their mums basements tells him ::)
two posts and you have called me two names.
Aren't you the guy who said you support terrorism, as long as we're the ones doing it?
"Whatever it takes"?
-
This is where Bruce acts uber-naive.
"We would NEVER knowingly help bad guys. They did it without us knowing".
I expect something like that, just like "No one in America thought Saddam would use chem agents that we gave his universities during war to hurt his enemies".
it's a waste of time. Bruce has a mindset that we do the right thing morally. I'm under the impression we do very bad thigns when it's for the greater good. he will invent scenarios and possibilities to explain away any list of things. So it's pointless.
I definitely believe that CIA has been supporting terrorist organisations such as the Contras in the past, I'd say that is a wide-known fact.
Meaning: USA has been interfering in foreign countries domestic affairs, supporting undemocratic groups when doing so.
But I do not believe there is some conspiracy behind it all, that it would be some secret society directing all this.
I simply believe this is the "nature of the beast", or bad habits that comes when you're the biggest and best kid in the schoolyard, so to speak.
Sticking with the schoolyard allegory, showing respect and consideration won't be as important to that kid after awhile, simply because he can do whatever he want, since he's the biggest baddest mofo in the schoolyard.
The only way he could get beat up, is if all the other kids unite against him...
USA is the leading nation in the world. The president of the USA needs to be someone who is capable of building bridges.
George W Bush is clearly not that person.
Giuliani, Obama, McCain, Edwards or even Clinton... They all would be much better at it.
-Hedge
-
two posts and you have called me two names.
Aren't you the guy who said you support terrorism, as long as we're the ones doing it?
"Whatever it takes"?
I explained my post in the post that followed. If you're too stupid to comprehend that's your problem.
I don't condone terrorism whoever the perpetrator may be.
-
I abhor terror regardless of the perpetrator, it's the epitome of cowardice - I do not, however, agree that the US has ever engaged in such activity.
THis is where it gets tough.
You can google CIA actions since 1948- WIki has a nice list. Many of them involved giving resources to groups who used terror to get into power.
When you say you "don't agree the US has ever engaged in such an activity", there isn't really anything to debate. THe vast majority of people in the world would look at the history and say "hell yes we funded groups which did a lot of terror-like shit", we just call it freedom-fighting, liberating them, yada yada.
NO offense bruce, i just see people with your mindset as naive - but more than that. It's like you bury your head in the sand to any possibility we do anything shady. I mean, it's like I'm arguing with a 7th grader with a middle school history book. Pointless.
-
US support of the Contras is well documented and the contras counter revolutionaries did commit acts of terror. Let's also not forget Iran in the 60's where the US and UK funded a coup against a democratically elected official only because he wanted to nationalize his nation's oil industry.
The US always meddles in the affairs of nations that don't agree with its policies.
-
NO offense bruce, i just see people with your mindset as naive - but more than that. It's like you bury your head in the sand to any possibility we do anything shady. I mean, it's like I'm arguing with a 7th grader with a middle school history book. Pointless.
You don't think he actually buys the bs he's spewing, do you? He knows he's been caught, so he wants you to "provide documents" even when they're right before his eyes. I mean where are you going to find a document that blatantly states the "US gave weapons to Saddam so he could fight Iran." What you ARE going to find is documents stating the US sent chemicals weapons to Iraqi universities. The documents are there in front of us and their purpose is to disclose information, but we cannot just expect "US gave Saddam weapons - Ronald Reagan" written in a document. It's like the footnotes on Enron's financial statements. ;) No one except for top exucutives knew what the hell was going on when Enron was at its peak, but they sure as hell know now. For Bruce to say that US didn't give weapons to Saddam would be equalvilent to an auditor saying Enron didn't commit fraud. ::)
-
You don't think he actually buys the bs he's spewing, do you? He knows he's been caught, so he wants you to "provide documents" even when they're right before his eyes. I mean where are you going to find a document that blatantly states the "US gave weapons to Saddam so he could fight Iran." What you ARE going to find is documents stating the US sent chemicals weapons to Iraqi universities. The documents are there in front of us and their purpose is to disclose information, but we cannot just expect "US gave Saddam weapons - Ronald Reagan" written in a document. It's like the footnotes on Enron's financial statements. ;) No one except for top exucutives knew what the hell was going on when Enron was at its peak, but they sure as hell know now. For Bruce to say that US didn't give weapons to Saddam would be equalvilent to an auditor saying Enron didn't commit fraud. ::)
He admits we gave shit to their universities. THAT is his defence. That NO ONE HERE thought saddam would take them from his schools and use them for evil.
Stupid fking position. naive to the extreme. We watch Saddam kill nonstop for several years then we don't think he'll use these agents for negative purposes?
Wait - is he a WMD sympathizer ???
-
You don't even have to go back as far as the contras....
Remember when the Soviet Union was occupying Afghanistan? And back then they were the Supreme Evil Bad Guys Who Ever Was? So we figured we'd undermine them by giving lots of weapons to the locals? But then they became the Taliban?
Honestly, is there a single piece of repeatedly-discredited warmongering insanity that these thuggish morons haven't embraced?
-
I don't know, I should hope they haven't funded terrorist organisations though.
Bruce, ...where do you think AlQ came from... or the Nicaraguan Contras? :o
-
This is where Bruce acts uber-naive.
"We would NEVER knowingly help bad guys. They did it without us knowing".
I expect something like that, just like "No one in America thought Saddam would use chem agents that we gave his universities during war to hurt his enemies".
it's a waste of time. Bruce has a mindset that we do the right thing morally. I'm under the impression we do very bad thigns when it's for the greater good. he will invent scenarios and possibilities to explain away any list of things. So it's pointless.
This is where you and I differ. I think countries do very bad things when it serves their purpose.
There need'nt be any good in the purpose... and quite often alot of bad, ...but they will do it anyway.
-
yes CJ, I think you're right. I think he's purposely trying to appear naive.
In the off chance I'm wrong (even though we all know I never am ;) )
Bruce, please consider reading "Rogue State" by William Blum. It's a real eye opener.
-
US support of the Contras is well documented and the contras counter revolutionaries did commit acts of terror. Let's also not forget Iran in the 60's where the US and UK funded a coup against a democratically elected official only because he wanted to nationalize his nation's oil industry.
The US always meddles in the affairs of nations that don't agree with its policies.
This wasn't just about oil, at least from the American perspective. Remember that this occurred when the Cold War was in full swing. President Truman refused to support an overthrow, but after Eisenhower became president he gave the go-ahead because he had evidence that prime minister Mossadegh was friendly with the USSR. Really it was the British who were concerned about oil (as it was BP, British Petroleum that was to be nationalized).
Yes, America meddles in the affairs of other nations. And so does every other nation with clout, and that's the way the world works. Every nation acts in its own best interests.
-
Yes, America meddles in the affairs of other nations. And so does every other nation with clout, and that's the way the world works. Every nation acts in its own best interests.
And it hides its actions and lies about them. ::) are you going to justify that too?
-
Lots of posts regarding 'America-the-terrorist-state', and yet not a single shred of information or evidence.
I hope you lads are enjoying your little group-think.
-
Lots of posts regarding 'America-the-terrorist-state', and yet not a single shred of information or evidence.
I hope you lads are enjoying your little group-think.
BRUCE,
Is it your position that there is no evidence the US has ever funded terrorist groups?
-
Lots of posts regarding 'America-the-terrorist-state', and yet not a single shred of information or evidence.
I hope you lads are enjoying your little group-think.
And this is why many kids aren't able to achieve in school, ...because the teacher always has to teach to the slowest, ...most retarded little turd in the classroom, while the rest of the kids are twiddling their thumbs.
Crack a book or two Bruce. Get yourself up to speed. A good place to start is with William Blum's "Rogue State"
-
BRUCE,
Is it your position that there is no evidence the US has ever funded terrorist groups?
-
BRUCE,
Is it your position that there is no evidence the US has ever funded terrorist groups?
No, it's not.
-
No, it's not.
What is your position?
-
What is your position?
If they have, I want evidence. Too much to ask? I thought so.
-
If they have, I want evidence. Too much to ask? I thought so.
Huh?
Do you believe they have, or not?
-
Huh?
Do you believe they have, or not?
I think you must be dieting too much, mate. Read my previous posts.
-
I think you must be dieting too much, mate. Read my previous posts.
eh, it's a clusterfvck of dull witticisms which make the reader infer meaning.
Here, I'll ask you: "Do you believe the US has funded terror groups?"
And you will do anything but answer yes or no. It's your MO.
-
eh, it's a clusterfvck of dull witticisms which make the reader infer meaning.
Here, I'll ask you: "Do you believe the US has funded terror groups?"
And you will do anything but answer yes or no. It's your MO.
Man, you're one whacky fuck! :-*
Still haven't responded in that other thread mate.
You're a liar and a coward.
-
I support it. I kinda wished we meddled in Iraq instead of invading. This meddling keep the world from blowing itself out during the cold war. These secret wars keep a lid on alot of things. Everybody does it...saying we should be above these things would make us a 3rd rate nation pretty quickly.
-
I support it. I kinda wished we meddled in Iraq instead of invading. This meddling keep the world from blowing itself out during the cold war. These secret wars keep a lid on alot of things. Everybody does it...saying we should be above these things would make us a 3rd rate nation pretty quickly.
If a country "meddled" here to change some corrupt policy, we would invade their nation, install a govt, and siphon any resources they had to make it worth our while. Do you agree?
-
We would..I'm sure..however this is us not them..its guys outside our country that will or may attack us so we do what we have to keep them from doing harm to us.
-
We would..I'm sure..however this is us not them..its guys outside our country that will or may attack us so we do what we have to keep them from doing harm to us.
Have you returned?
This meddling coupled with their religion = more terrorism.
-
eh, it's a clusterfvck of dull witticisms which make the reader infer meaning.
Here, I'll ask you: "Do you believe the US has funded terror groups?"
And you will do anything but answer yes or no. It's your MO.
I'm convinced you're losing it, I answered every question you had right up until the point you repeated one.
-
I'm convinced you're losing it, I answered every question you had right up until the point you repeated one.
Not only losing it, he's also a liar and a coward!
Aren't yah 240? :-*
-
This kind of stuff has been going on for at least 100 years. What do you people think the OSS, CIA, KGB and similar organizations in other countries do? I very much doubt party lines have anything to do with their operations.
-
Says the clown who believes everything conspiracy nuts living in their mums basements tells him ::)
240 isn't naive. He is GULLABLE!
-
You don't even have to go back as far as the contras....
So we figured we'd undermine them by giving lots of weapons to the locals? But then they became the Taliban?
Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt ANYBODY could have predicted what would fill the power vacuum.
-
Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt ANYBODY could have predicted what would fill the power vacuum.
That's what you call running off half-cocked... not thinking it through.... kinda like Iraq.
And each time they do this... the blowback is a bitch! For every action, ...an equal & opposite reaction.
-
Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt ANYBODY could have predicted what would fill the power vacuum.
Obama did.
-
That's what you call running off half-cocked... not thinking it through.... kinda like Iraq.
And each time they do this... the blowback is a bitch! For every action, ...an equal & opposite reaction.
Jag, what the heck is blowback?
-
OK, for Jag, 240 etc... what were we supposed to do in Afghanistan? Let the Soviet Union run successfully invade? We were wrong in helping the Mujaheedan? By helping the Mujaheedan defeat the Soviets we basically drove a stake through the heart of communism in Europe. In that same year the Berlin wall came down. The next year the Soviet Union crumbled.
-
OK, for Jag, 240 etc... what were we supposed to do in Afghanistan? Let the Soviet Union run successfully invade? We were wrong in helping the Mujaheedan? By helping the Mujaheedan defeat the Soviets we basically drove a stake through the heart of communism in Europe. In that same year the Berlin wall came down. The next year the Soviet Union crumbled.
we weren't wrong to do it.
my only beef is with the little bitches here on getbig who deny we did it.
people like BRUCE who say there is no evidence we've ever funded terrorism.
just have the sack to admit we have dirt on our hands.
-
just have the sack to admit we have dirt on our hands.
You're the biggest lying coward on getbig. Rich coming from you homo.
-
You're the biggest lying coward on getbig. Rich coming from you homo.
name calling with no facts.
i own you on the politics board, you terror-supporting racist.
-
name calling with no facts.
i own you on the politics board, you terror-supporting racist.
Hahaha no FACTS?
What's this:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=130983
You're a liar and a coward 240.
Know your role.
-
I can't even read this board anymore. It's not even a political board. It's a clusterfuck of 240's conspiracy theories and whatever bullshit he can come up with.
-
I can't even read this board anymore. It's not even a political board. It's a clusterfuck of 240's conspiracy theories and whatever bullshit he can come up with.
I don't mind, but when he acts like a coward i.e. unable to retract his position on his lies when asked for proof... well that's when he's shown as the lying coward he is.
And too many threads are ruined with conspiracies posts... how XXX relates to conspiracy XXX... ::)