Blowback: Why They Try to Bomb Us

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
The Bush administration made the phrase up to support their military agenda. It essentially gave them carte blanche to attack anyone, anywhere that they deemed to be harboring terrorists. It was the foundation for invading Iraq. The promise of WMD's just made that objective an easy, painless sell to Congress and the American people. If their true agenda was to capture Bin Laden and root out Al Qaeda terror cells, why did they switch their focus from that objective to Saddam Hussein and Iraq?



Trench


rewriting history,now,are we?...

funny...i always thought that the dems signed off on the war in iraq......

oh...and please don`t give me the "skewed" intelligence meme...the cia was full of valerie plame types...hell,colin powell was there....not to mention much of the intel was from foreign allies....

you can`t "fake" intel of this magnitude when you have your preeminent secret service oraganization infested with ideologues like plame just waiting for any chance to take you down...and become the new woodward and bernstein....

you`re better off sticking with the "troofer" schtick....
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
So then, because I understand the cause and effect relationship between our foreign policy and blowback events like 9/11, and because you see military imperialism preserving our democracy and I see it destroying it, I've "turned my back on my country"? In the annals of history, no imperialistic military empire has ever survived. Nor will we if we stay that course.

Trench

yeah...real imperialists we are..:0002 ...

.imagine what our economy would look like if we weren`t still "plundering" germany and japan....thank god we still have our bootheel on their necks...

and taking all of iraq`s oil ...thank god for....????...
oops!...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/global/01chinaoil.html
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
rewriting history,now,are we?...

funny...i always thought that the dems signed off on the war in iraq......

oh...and please don`t give me the "skewed" intelligence meme...the cia was full of valerie plame types...hell,colin powell was there....not to mention much of the intel was from foreign allies....

you can`t "fake" intel of this magnitude when you have your preeminent secret service oraganization infested with ideologues like plame just waiting for any chance to take you down...and become the new woodward and bernstein....

you`re better off sticking with the "troofer" schtick....
I pay Truthers no more attention than I do Birthers, so as usual, your aim's way off Weezy.

Your claim that "you can't fake intel of this magnitude" is disingenuous. Members of the Bush Administration, in the months leading up the to invasion, made 273 public statements proclaiming the presence of WMD's in Iraq. Combine that kind of a sales campaign with a country still in the grips of a 9/11 hangover and they could have convinced Neil Armstrong the Moon landing was a hoax.

Trench
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
yeah...real imperialists we are..:0002 ...

.imagine what our economy would look like if we weren`t still "plundering" germany and japan....thank god we still have our bootheel on their necks...

and taking all of iraq`s oil ...thank god for....????...
oops!...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/global/01chinaoil.html

Just more evidence that...

...you have achieved a level of denial that's normally only seen in battered wives, Catholic priests & Cubs fans.

Trench
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Wease, there is more than enough evidence to support a sensible belief that the oil was a main reason to go into Iraq, and the faked intelligence and lack of substance of evidence showed reasons to doubt why we went there. No doubt Powell was strongarmed into making his statement - one he really didn't want to make and hated making. And, he came out looking like a fool after, which is what he of all people didn't want to do.

People who support the war in Iraq will stand by situations put up by that administration. People who don't, won't. And nothing that has come out since has proven or changed any of that, to any degree. Democrats did NOT have the same intelligence - which was incorrect, flawed, and disputed, and the story that was given to them was not the real story. It was a political firestorm at that time, and any dem standing up to the Bush regime was attacked, labeled a terror sympathizer, and faced losing their elections. Many went along for that reason alone. The statements they made, based on bad (or false) "intelligence", were made for political viability, nothing more. Does that make it right? No. Does it make it understandable, considering the system we have created in this country? Yes. If the situations were reversed, the scenario probably would have played out the same way, with different people doing the deeds.

And another thought - if all of us had to think about things and view them where we stand today - would we think and react the same way? Thankfully, I would. I have felt this way from day one, but, of course, I am a Bush ripper, always have been, probably always will be. But many who bought into the story would not think of it the same way at this point, and rightfully so. People who didn't spend hours arguing for the Bush administration, that is.
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
Lighten up Weezy. You "War on Terror" protagonists should be happy. After all, Obama's lived up to his campaign promises to redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and to root out terrorist cells in Pakistan.

But if you think for one second that Bush's (and now Obama's) "War on Terror" will not bring blowback on the U.S. and Western Europe for generations to come, then you have achieved a level of denial that's normally only seen in battered wives, Catholic priests & Cubs fans.

Trench

Priests cursed with same lot as Muslims
Joe Fitzgerald By Joe Fitzgerald

If you?re big on compassion and fair play, then these past few days have been heartening, watching civic leaders and media pundits circling their wagons around the Muslim community, railing against the injustice of blanket indictments.

Their point is unassailable: Every man of Middle Eastern descent is obviously not responsible for the savagery of a lunatic fringe that shares their heritage and their faith.

Since last week?s arrests of three New England Pakistanis in connection with the attempted Times Square bombing, we have been deluged with stories of how innocents are now feeling the heat of unmerited suspicion.

But that?s nothing we haven?t seen here before; indeed, no group has been more wrongfully profiled than priests whose ministries have been besmirched by reprobates in their ranks.

Brookline selectwoman Jesse Mermell cried out against ?painting people with broad strokes,? showing solidarity with Elias Audy, at whose Brookline filling station one of the arrested Pakistanis worked.

Good for her. By all accounts, Audy, a Lebanese immigrant, has been a model citizen and pillar of the community.

?Of course this has affected us,? he told reporters. ?We?re human. It?s tension; it?s pressure; it?s stress.?

Audy was talking about guilt by association.

But is that any less unfair to a brutally maligned priesthood?

A parochial vicar in a bustling Boston parish raised that issue here in 2002.

?There?s a retired priest I?m friendly with, a very traditional guy rarely seen not wearing his clerics,? he noted. ?But he stopped wearing them as often, and when I asked why, he said, ?I feel ashamed.?

?I knew exactly what he meant. When I go into a CVS or supermarket now, people either look through me as if I?m not there, or I get a contemptuous stare.

?I feel like telling them, ?Look, I didn?t do it!? It wouldn?t surprise me if these are the same people who say, ?Now let?s not profile all Middle Eastern men because a few blew up the World Trade Center.? ?

He was right when he said it and he?s still right eight years later.

Good Muslims are not hard to find, which seems to be the message of the day. But neither are good priests. What?s hard to find is anyone willing to give them a similar benefit of any doubt.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Priests cursed with same lot as Muslims
Joe Fitzgerald By Joe Fitzgerald

But that?s nothing we haven?t seen here before; indeed, no group has been more wrongfully profiled than priests whose ministries have been besmirched by reprobates in their ranks.
I was only kidding about Catholic priests Rusty. I'm Irish Catholic myself.

...wasn't kidding about Cubs fans though. :tongue
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
I pay Truthers no more attention than I do Birthers, so as usual, your aim's way off Weezy.

Your claim that "you can't fake intel of this magnitude" is disingenuous. Members of the Bush Administration, in the months leading up the to invasion, made 273 public statements proclaiming the presence of WMD's in Iraq. Combine that kind of a sales campaign with a country still in the grips of a 9/11 hangover and they could have convinced Neil Armstrong the Moon landing was a hoax.

Trench

nope... wrong again..that is what the intelligence was...not only from our own cia...but from foreign inteligence agencies...

it`s obvious you don`t know a damned thing about the government..you can`t purge an organization as large as the cia after every administration...there were and are oodles of democrat ideologues embedded in the cia...plame was just the most high profile...they would have taken down bush if there were a conspiracy...the media fawning over them...book deals...they would have cashed in just as plame did...


should i re-quote all the comments from clinton and his administaration regarding wmd`s,saddam hussein and iraq(all btw,pre george bush and pre-911)?

was that intelligence also fudged?...

should i repost the fact that more democrats voted for the invasion of iraq than voted to remove him from kuwait(after he invaded a sovereign country trying to take over their oil fields by force)...

don`t let facts get in the way of the old memes...

rolleyes: :lol:
 
Last edited:

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
Wease, there is more than enough evidence to support a sensible belief that the oil was a main reason to go into Iraq, and the faked intelligence and lack of substance of evidence showed reasons to doubt why we went there. No doubt Powell was strongarmed into making his statement - one he really didn't want to make and hated making. And, he came out looking like a fool after, which is what he of all people didn't want to do.

People who support the war in Iraq will stand by situations put up by that administration. People who don't, won't. And nothing that has come out since has proven or changed any of that, to any degree. Democrats did NOT have the same intelligence - which was incorrect, flawed, and disputed, and the story that was given to them was not the real story. It was a political firestorm at that time, and any dem standing up to the Bush regime was attacked, labeled a terror sympathizer, and faced losing their elections. Many went along for that reason alone. The statements they made, based on bad (or false) "intelligence", were made for political viability, nothing more. Does that make it right? No. Does it make it understandable, considering the system we have created in this country? Yes. If the situations were reversed, the scenario probably would have played out the same way, with different people doing the deeds.

And another thought - if all of us had to think about things and view them where we stand today - would we think and react the same way? Thankfully, I would. I have felt this way from day one, but, of course, I am a Bush ripper, always have been, probably always will be. But many who bought into the story would not think of it the same way at this point, and rightfully so. People who didn't spend hours arguing for the Bush administration, that is.

wrong again...the removal of saddam from kuwait was about kuwait sovereignty and oil....if iraq was about the oil,we imperialists(lol) are getting a royal screwing...

china just outbid us for the rights to procure iraqi`s most lucrative oil reserves...

outbid?....i thought we just took what we wanted?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/3708649/China-to-develop-Iraq-oil-fields

damned imperialists...:mj07:....
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
wrong again...the removal of saddam from kuwait was about kuwait sovereignty and oil....if iraq was about the oil,we imperialists(lol) are getting a royal screwing...

china just outbid us for the rights to procure iraqi`s most lucrative oil reserves...

outbid?....i thought we just took what we wanted?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/3708649/China-to-develop-Iraq-oil-fields

damned imperialists...:mj07:....

Wrong again, Wease. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with removing Saddam from Kuwait (which I was very much for, and I think Bush 1 handled in a sensible, successful manner, BTW). The war in Iraq was Dubbya's war - either for oil, or to try to prove to his daddy that he could get Saddam - which was never a real question, had we wanted to get Saddam. Kuwait asked us to help them, we had worldwide support and real allies back then. The elective war in Iraq had nothing to do with Kuwait.

As for the oil there, are you saying that private oil interests received no benefit from our occupation and control of the oil there? The fact that China could outbid other entities for oil at this point in time - all things considered - is not surprising, as that is their main objective at this point. Of course some of the oil in Iraq, and a great deal elsewhere, is being bought up by China. Since we could not say we went in to Iraq to control the oil, how could some of it not be sold on the open market? It's not like the regime wants to be called out that obviously, right? C'mon, you can't think that oil had NOTHING to do with us going there, can you? Considering the ties the Bush administration had to oil and energy interests? Do you seriously maintain that at this point?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Not only that - I don't think these oil companies hold the rights to the oil reserves, they are bidding on the right to create and produce oil, and get paid for doing that. The Iraqi government owns the oil, right? And who essentially owns the Iraqi government? Weren't those American helicopters that were providing the security for the unsealing of the bids event?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
160
63
Bowling Green Ky
First, there's no such thing as a "War on Terror". It's a meaningless phrase that plays well in soundbites. War's are fought between nations. Terror is an emotion. It's an overpowering fear in response to a stimulus. Now ask yourself how a nation declares war on an emotion?

The Bush administration made the phrase up to support their military agenda. It essentially gave them carte blanche to attack anyone, anywhere that they deemed to be harboring terrorists. It was the foundation for invading Iraq. The promise of WMD's just made that objective an easy, painless sell to Congress and the American people. If their true agenda was to capture Bin Laden and root out Al Qaeda terror cells, why did they switch their focus from that objective to Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

The fact is if they had captured Bin Laden, it would have complicated things. It would have been a tough sell to both Congress and the American people to convince them an invasion of Iraq was necessary if we had already captured the men responsible for 9/11.

Trench

Nothing better than critque on war from liberals
:)

Freedom fighters right--no such thing as radical islam--ask Gumby and crew--of course he has reason to be biased--you don't- other than being responsible for electing him.


Just a coincidence that 99% of conflicts in past decade in "all countries" have to do with Radical Islamic Muslims right?

They are so misunderstood.
 

shawn555

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 11, 2000
7,189
130
63
berlin md
Nothing better than critque on war from liberals
:)

Freedom fighters right--no such thing as radical islam--ask Gumby and crew--of course he has reason to be biased--you don't- other than being responsible for electing him.


Just a coincidence that 99% of conflicts in past decade in "all countries" have to do with Radical Islamic Muslims right?

They are so misunderstood.

Do you have some sort of faux news type poll to back up these bullshit numbers?
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
it`s obvious you don`t know a damned thing about the government..you can`t purge an organization as large as the cia after every administration...there were and are oodles of democrat ideologues embedded in the cia...plame was just the most high profile...they would have taken down bush if there were a conspiracy...the media fawning over them...book deals...they would have cashed in just as plame did...
Your obsession with Valerie Plame's getting downright creepy Weez. Be careful. Two words: Robert Novak. Draw you own conclusions. :SIB
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
C'mon, you can't think that oil had NOTHING to do with us going there, can you? Considering the ties the Bush administration had to oil and energy interests? Do you seriously maintain that at this point?
Yes, he seriously believes that.

small%5CPharaoh.jpg

Weasel: Last Pharaoh and King of D' Nile
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Freedom fighters right--no such thing as radical islam--ask Gumby and crew--of course he has reason to be biased--you don't- other than being responsible for electing him.


Just a coincidence that 99% of conflicts in past decade in "all countries" have to do with Radical Islamic Muslims right?

They are so misunderstood.
Go right on believing they "hate us for our freedom" DTGumby. Personally, I prefer to know "the real reason" my enemy hates me rather than some self-exonerating excuse. How can you understand your enemy if you don't understand what motivates him? Is it REALLY that painful for some of you guys to admit that the U.S. is fallible? That our leaders made politically expedient choices, knowing full well those choices carried consequences? Why is the "truth" so painful to some of you guys?

Trench
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
160
63
Bowling Green Ky
Go right on believing they "hate us for our freedom" DTGumby. Personally, I prefer to know "the real reason" my enemy hates me rather than some self-exonerating excuse. How can you understand your enemy if you don't understand what motivates him? Is it REALLY that painful for some of you guys to admit that the U.S. is fallible? That our leaders made politically expedient choices, knowing full well those choices carried consequences? Why is the "truth" so painful to some of you guys?

Trench

Lets see you can't clean up your own back yard with gangbangers increasing-prisons buldging--illigitamcy getting worse every year--yet you got the answers to world problem--:SIB

I sure wish I had You -Gumby and Pelosi on our 5 man recon teams--We would have felt much safer--you got anymore kumbaya stratagies you like to share with our miltary--like waving that white flag in iraq-surge won't work--retreat :)

Striking fear in hearts of enemies everywhere-




<CENTER> </CENTER>
 
Last edited:

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Maybe another reason why they hate us?

Now there are battlefield executions because of the "BLOW BACK" trials of the 3 SEALS

U.S. Launches Criminal Probe on Soldiers in Afghanistan

by Reuters

KABUL - The United States has launched an investigation into allegations that a number of American soldiers were responsible for the "unlawful deaths" of at least three Afghan civilians, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

criminalinvestigation_soldiers_afghanistan.jpg
The United States has launched an investigation into allegations that a number of American soldiers were responsible for the "unlawful deaths" of at least three Afghan civilians, the U.S. military said on Thursday. (AFP/File/John D McHugh)
"There are also allegations of illegal drug use, assault and conspiracy," the military said in a statement, adding that while no charges had yet been laid, one soldier was in pre-trial confinement.
The United States, which has the bulk of some 140,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, has been criticized several times by rights groups and Afghans for allegedly maltreating civilians and torturing suspected militant prisoners.
"United States forces Afghanistan has launched a criminal investigation into allegations that a small number of U.S. soldiers were responsible for the unlawful deaths of as many as three Afghan civilians," the statement said.
The U.S. army's criminal investigation command began an investigation after receiving credible information from the soldiers' unit earlier this month, it said.
Further details were not immediately available.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Lets see you can't clean up your own back yard with gangbangers increasing-prisons buldging--illigitamcy getting worse every year--yet you got the answers to world problem--:SIB
Seriously DTGumby... try to stay on topic. I know how hard that is for you but this response is weak (even for you)!

Trench
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top