[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The US funneled money and weapons to various Afghan tribes and trained some of them via the CIA. Of course it goes through various channels along the way, but the US put him in power. The CIA even shipped sniper rifles directly to Bin Laden:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a89sniperrifles…[/quote]
False. You post lies.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The US funneled money and weapons to various Afghan tribes and trained some of them via the CIA. Of course it goes through various channels along the way, but the US put him in power. The CIA even shipped sniper rifles directly to Bin Laden:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a89sniperrifles…[/quote]
False. You post lies.
[/quote]
Really?
Is this also false:
Before the US propped up the Mujaheddin Afghanistan produced very little opium. The Mujaheddin made the farmers grow it in order to finance their war. This is the very same pattern that happened in Kambodia and Nicaragua, just that it was cocaine in Nicaragua.
Of course the very same products that were produced and shipped with the help of the CIA are then used to justify pulling the noose tighter in the US for the average US citizen.
Now Bin Laden might or might not have been receiving direct aid from the US, but his men were most likely trained by men that in turn were trained by the US, al Quaeda was founded during the US financed struggle against the SU and as far as it is knowable he got radicalized during the revolutation against the Persian Sha who was very much a UK/US puppet.
Right now the US is at least helping the PKK, the Iranian arm of the PKK and the Peoples Mujaheddin of Iran, which, by the way, are all considered to be terrorist organizuations by the US officialy.
That actually makes me look forward to seeing how all these accusation of “aiding and abetting terrorists” against Assange turn out, because if that is the current standard, half of the Pentagon, half of the CIA and several administrations need to be in jail too.
Or executed, since that is what a lot of people want for Assange.
Ah, the follies of dying empires, mankind at its best really.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The US funneled money and weapons to various Afghan tribes and trained some of them via the CIA. Of course it goes through various channels along the way, but the US put him in power. The CIA even shipped sniper rifles directly to Bin Laden:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a89sniperrifles…[/quote]
False. You post lies.
[/quote]
Really?
Is this also false:
Before the US propped up the Mujaheddin Afghanistan produced very little opium. The Mujaheddin made the farmers grow it in order to finance their war. This is the very same pattern that happened in Kambodia and Nicaragua, just that it was cocaine in Nicaragua.
Of course the very same products that were produced and shipped with the help of the CIA are then used to justify pulling the noose tighter in the US for the average US citizen.
Now Bin Laden might or might not have been receiving direct aid from the US, but his men were most likely trained by men that in turn were trained by the US, al Quaeda was founded during the US financed struggle against the SU and as far as it is knowable he got radicalized during the revolutation against the Persian Sha who was very much a UK/US puppet.
Right now the US is at least helping the PKK, the Iranian arm of the PKK and the Peoples Mujaheddin of Iran, which, by the way, are all considered to be terrorist organizuations by the US officialy.
That actually makes me look forward to seeing how all these accusation of “aiding and abetting terrorists” against Assange turn out, because if that is the current standard, half of the Pentagon, half of the CIA and several administrations need to be in jail too.
Or executed, since that is what a lot of people want for Assange.
Ah, the follies of dying empires, mankind at its best really.
[/quote]
The US has policies that directly aid the opium trade. No doubt.
And the US support of PKK and other resistance in Iran contradicts its stated policy on terrorism.
And 1/2 the CIA probably should be in jail, or at least put out of business.
That does not mean the US armed Bin Laden. That is a lie. Ryan is a liar.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The US funneled money and weapons to various Afghan tribes and trained some of them via the CIA. Of course it goes through various channels along the way, but the US put him in power. The CIA even shipped sniper rifles directly to Bin Laden:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a89sniperrifles…[/quote]
False. You post lies.
[/quote]
Really?
Is this also false:
Before the US propped up the Mujaheddin Afghanistan produced very little opium. The Mujaheddin made the farmers grow it in order to finance their war. This is the very same pattern that happened in Kambodia and Nicaragua, just that it was cocaine in Nicaragua.
Of course the very same products that were produced and shipped with the help of the CIA are then used to justify pulling the noose tighter in the US for the average US citizen.
Now Bin Laden might or might not have been receiving direct aid from the US, but his men were most likely trained by men that in turn were trained by the US, al Quaeda was founded during the US financed struggle against the SU and as far as it is knowable he got radicalized during the revolutation against the Persian Sha who was very much a UK/US puppet.
Right now the US is at least helping the PKK, the Iranian arm of the PKK and the Peoples Mujaheddin of Iran, which, by the way, are all considered to be terrorist organizuations by the US officialy.
That actually makes me look forward to seeing how all these accusation of “aiding and abetting terrorists” against Assange turn out, because if that is the current standard, half of the Pentagon, half of the CIA and several administrations need to be in jail too.
Or executed, since that is what a lot of people want for Assange.
Ah, the follies of dying empires, mankind at its best really.
[/quote]
The US has policies that directly aid the opium trade. No doubt.
And the US support of PKK and other resistance in Iran contradicts its stated policy on terrorism.
And 1/2 the CIA probably should be in jail, or at least put out of business.
That does not mean the US armed Bin Laden. That is a lie. Ryan is a liar.[/quote]
From what I’ve read, the US armed and financed tribes of Afghan fighters through the CIA, which funneled those resources through Pakistan. The CIA never had any contact with Bin Laden, and never set out to “put the taliban in power”. However, many of the resources provided to those tribes were eventually funneled into the taliban, who eventually found a friend in Bin Laden. So as it turns out, ryan is half right.
Follies of interventionism really.
Yes, from you, while you CONTINUE to dance around the issue (I notice now you’re ignoring the original argument, once you saw you had no way to respond).
Oh, so you don’t intend to kill innocent people, and so that makes it OK? Even if I were to ignore that obvious bit of illogic, there’s still the fact that you’re wrong–military actions are NOT designed to minimize civilians casualties, otherwise they’d discontine tactics that result in large amounts of civilian deaths, and terrorist operations are designed to make an effective statement, not necessarily to maximize casualties.
HAHA!!! Man, for a guy as anti-government when it’s trying to do the right thing as you, you sure do place a lot of faith in it when it holds the power of life and death in its hands.
You’re more gullible than I thought.
When the war itself is a crime, “military justice” means nothing, even if this code is effective, which is doubtful. The Obama administration has refused to prosecute the war criminals in the Bush administration, when it clearly has the right, and some would argue, the responsibility, to do so. Yet the DOJ is preparing to bring criminal charges against Wikileaks, when it has absolte no legal authority whatsoever to prosecute Assange. The torturers go free while the people who expose their crimes are punished.
Could you be more deranged?
Nope, as I’ve explained to you, and which you’ve sidestepped, there is utterly no difference between the two.
But you knew this.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But seriously, please explain to me why I should give a shit about a few beheaded people when you appear to be OK with the slaughter of literally millions? [/quote]
When did I say that I’m OK with the slaughter of innocents?
[/quote]
In your support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In your dismissal or my post listing extensively-documented terrorist US military actions as “nutjobbery.”
So? You tried to pin the 1929 stock market collapse on the Federal Reserve, ignoring mountains of other evidence to the contrary because it’s what you want to hear. Even if I were misrepresenting facts, which I’m not, you wouldn’t have any right to complain about it.
So no, as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated, I’m one of the only intellectually honest members here.
Not necessarily, but I don’t think they should be shot at either, but no one made them sign up with the military. Since they volunteered to serve in a controversial institution, they accept everything that comes with it. They would probably be the first to tell you this.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:False. You post lies.
[/quote]
Ha, OK tousles Big Banana’s hair whatever you say, sport.
[quote]orion wrote:Really?
Is this also false:[…][/quote]
Don’t you know? It’s false if Big Banana says so.
“I am rubber, you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
Since that’s approximately the level you’re on.
But seriously, sorry, you lose once again, as even the manufacturer of the weapons testified that they were sent to Bin Laden. Of course, the CIA denies it, so I’m sure they’re telling the truth…
[quote]bigflamer wrote: So as it turns out, ryan is half right.
Follies of interventionism really.
[/quote]
No, I’m ALL right. The US set in motion a series of event which culminated in the rise of bin Laden. It’s funny how all of a sudden you want to be careful and consider lots of details, while you ordinarily just run roughshod over them.
"October 16, 2001 - New York Times
U.S. Sent Guns to bin Laden in 1980s
WASHINGTON (AP) – More than a decade ago, the U.S. government sent 25 high-powered
sniper rifles to a group of Muslim fighters in Afghanistan that included Osama bin Laden, according to
court testimony and the guns’ maker.
The rifles, made by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. of Murfreesboro, Tenn., and paid for by the
government, were shipped during the collaboration between the United States and Muslims then
fighting to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.
Experts doubt the weapons could still be used, but the transaction further accentuates how Americans
are fighting an enemy that U.S. officials once supported and liberally armed.
In a trial early this year of suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, Essam Al-Ridi,
identified as a former pilot for bin Laden, said he shipped the weapons in 1989 to Sheik Abdallah
Azzam, bin Laden’s ideological mentor. The weapons had range-finding equipment and night-vision
scopes.
During the late 1980s, the United States supplied arms worth $500 million a year to anti-Soviet
fighters including Afghanistan’s current Taliban rulers, bin Laden and others. The supplies included a
range of weapons from small arms to shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.
Al-Ridi, an American citizen born in Egypt, testified that Azzam liked the rifles because they could be
``carried by individuals so it’s made in such a way where you could have a heavy cannon but mobile
by an individual.‘’
While in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Al-Ridi said he saw bin Laden several times with Azzam."
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
“I am rubber, you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
Since that’s approximately the level you’re on.
But seriously, sorry, you lose once again, as even the manufacturer of the weapons testified that they were sent to Bin Laden. Of course, the CIA denies it, so I’m sure they’re telling the truth…[/quote]
Son, I have zero tolerance for childish bullshit and lies such as yours. You have already proven yourself a liar. You post links to websites that actually contradict the claims you make.
You are not worth the time.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
… according to
court testimony …[/quote]
According to court testimony Michael Corleone is an olive oil importer.
The USA did not supply OBL weapons.
They supplied many mujahadeen weapons but OBL was not one of them. It is possible he was in proximity to some US weapons but he did not want them due to his ideology.
This is well documented by all involved but you can dig up as many links as you like and it will not prove otherwise.
You need to get off the internet and read a few dozen books on the subject.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, from you, while you CONTINUE to dance around the issue (I notice now you’re ignoring the original argument, once you saw you had no way to respond).
Oh, so you don’t intend to kill innocent people, and so that makes it OK?[/quote]
Yes, and without question it places them in a league above the terrorists. See, you’re starting to get it.
[quote]Ryan wrote:
Even if I were to ignore that obvious bit of illogic, there’s still the fact that you’re wrong–military actions are NOT designed to minimize civilians casualties, otherwise they’d discontinue tactics that result in large amounts of civilian deaths[/quote]
Here’s a shocker, ryan’s wrong…again.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE56548T20090706?pageNumber=1
New U.S. combat order to cut Afghan civilian deaths
[i]KABUL (Reuters) - The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has issued new combat orders designed to reduce civilian casualties, especially from air strikes, underscoring new counter-insurgency tactics.]/i]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/24/eveningnews/main6330179.shtml
Low-Flying Tactic May Ease Civilian Deaths
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/06/mil-090623-voa03.htm
US Will Restrict Afghan Air Strikes to Reduce Civilian Casualties
[i]The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan says he will sharply restrict the use of air strikes in an effort to reduce civilian casualties in the fight against Taliban militants.
General Stanley McChrystal has told The New York Times newspaper that in most cases, air strikes will only be used in Afghanistan to prevent U.S. and other coalition troops from being overrun by adversaries.[/i]
CIA refines methods to reduce civilian deaths in Pakistan.
The CIA is using new, smaller missiles and advanced surveillance techniques to minimize civilian casualties in its targeted killings of suspected insurgents in Pakistans tribal areas, according to according to current and former officials in the United States and Pakistan. The technological improvements have resulted in more accurate operations that have provoked relatively little public outrage, the officials said.[/i]
[quote]Ryan wrote:
and terrorist operations are designed to make an effective statement, not necessarily to maximize casualties.[/quote]
More intellectual dishonesty from you, big surprise. The terrorists, more often than not, try to maximize casualties in an effort to make an effective statement. Are you being willfully ignorant, or are you so stupid as not to know this?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, the military has a Uniform Code of Military Justice, which holds the members of the military to military law. Perpetrators of war crimes and atrocities get weeded out and held to that law.[/quote]
HAHA!!! Man, for a guy as anti-government when it’s trying to do the right thing as you, you sure do place a lot of faith in it when it holds the power of life and death in its hands.
You’re more gullible than I thought.[/quote]
Never did I say that I am “anti government”, this is a lazy supposition at best. Yes I am against a creeping federal government and all the trappings that come with an overly large centralized government, but that hardly makes me anti government. It would be far more correct to say that I’m a constitutional federalist.
And yes, I do put faith into the fact that the military is absolutely bound to the rule of law through the UCMJ. The fact that that the US military is bound to this rule of law, and the terrorist organizations bind themselves to no rule of law, pretty much shits on your argument as a whole.
[quote]Ryan wrote:
When the war itself is a crime, “military justice” means nothing, even if this code is effective, which is doubtful. The Obama administration has refused to prosecute the war criminals in the Bush administration, when it clearly has the right, and some would argue, the responsibility, to do so. Yet the DOJ is preparing to bring criminal charges against Wikileaks, when it has absolte no legal authority whatsoever to prosecute Assange. The torturers go free while the people who expose their crimes are punished.[/quote]
So does that make Obama a war criminal for not prosecuting purported war criminals? This is an interesting line of thought, ryan. And DID Assange break the law?
Whether or not the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are “legal” or not is a whole other discussion. My point is that every member of the US military is subject to the rule of law that is the UCMJ. Now, if you want to start another thread discussing the war powers act, the constitutionality/legality of the war, US interventionism, etc., feel free to do so. You might be surprised with my thoughts regarding this.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
So? You tried to pin the 1929 stock market collapse on the Federal Reserve, ignoring mountains of other evidence to the contrary because it’s what you want to hear. Even if I were misrepresenting facts, which I’m not, you wouldn’t have any right to complain about it.
So no, as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated, I’m one of the only intellectually honest members here.[/quote]
Awesome. I point out, in detail, your intellectual dishonesty, and you reply with…[b]SO?[/b]
LOL…you’re a gem. That literally made me laugh out loud, and for that…I thank you.
And referencing another thread where I pointed out, with the support of economists smarter than you and I, that you were in fact wrong, is another clear fail for you. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Do you ever tire of being wrong?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So you think the idividual soldier, marine, etc., should be held accountable and ostracized for the political decisions of their elected leaders?[/quote]
Not necessarily, but I don’t think they should be shot at either, but no one made them sign up with the military. Since they volunteered to serve in a controversial institution, they accept everything that comes with it. They would probably be the first to tell you this.[/quote]
“but I don’t think they should be shot at either”
Please explain.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote: So as it turns out, ryan is half right.
Follies of interventionism really.
[/quote]
No, I’m ALL right. The US set in motion a series of event which culminated in the rise of bin Laden. It’s funny how all of a sudden you want to be careful and consider lots of details, while you ordinarily just run roughshod over them.
[/quote]
What’s funny is you accusing me of running roughshod over details, when this is consistently your MO. Thanks for the laughs…
Wrong, that’s ALL you have time for, seeing as you apparently haven’t had time to post one single lack backing up anything you say, while everything I’ve said is documented to be correct.
The fact that you have a problem with reality is not my fault, and your cowardly behavior is starting to get annoying.
You’re wrong. End of “debate.” Quit pussyfooting around this fact, man up, and admit it.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:According to court testimony Michael Corleone is an olive oil importer.
The USA did not supply OBL weapons.
They supplied many mujahadeen weapons but OBL was not one of them. It is possible he was in proximity to some US weapons but he did not want them due to his ideology.
This is well documented by all involved but you can dig up as many links as you like and it will not prove otherwise.
You need to get off the internet and read a few dozen books on the subject.[/quote]
Hmmm…I can do this too:
According to books, the earth was created in six days, and womankind was created from the rib of the first man.
Pretty much gives you license to dismiss anything that contradicts your ideolgy, doesn’t it?
You are the biggest joke on this forum, and that’s really saying something.
No, it does only in your deranged world. Terrorists use battle tactics that kill civilians. US uses battle tactics that kill FAR more civilians. Dance around it all you wish, it just makes it all the apparent that you are a liar.
Ha, “again.” Whenever you get the opportunity to prove me wrong, you simply equivocate and dissemble. I assume you concede the argument about CNN playing terrorist “propaganda,” and admit that you were wrong.
[quote][i]KABUL (Reuters) - The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has issued new combat orders designed to reduce civilian casualties, especially from air strikes, underscoring new counter-insurgency tactics.]/i]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/24/eveningnews/main6330179.shtml
Low-Flying Tactic May Ease Civilian Deaths
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/06/mil-090623-voa03.htm
US Will Restrict Afghan Air Strikes to Reduce Civilian Casualties
[i]The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan says he will sharply restrict the use of air strikes in an effort to reduce civilian casualties in the fight against Taliban militants.
General Stanley McChrystal has told The New York Times newspaper that in most cases, air strikes will only be used in Afghanistan to prevent U.S. and other coalition troops from being overrun by adversaries.[/i]
CIA refines methods to reduce civilian deaths in Pakistan.
The CIA is using new, smaller missiles and advanced surveillance techniques to minimize civilian casualties in its targeted killings of suspected insurgents in Pakistans tribal areas, according to according to current and former officials in the United States and Pakistan. The technological improvements have resulted in more accurate operations that have provoked relatively little public outrage, the officials said.[/i][/quote]
Wow! That’s great! Simply question though: they know these tactics kill civilians; are they still using them? If so, they’re terrorists, pure and simple. Only a brain dead right-winger trying to twist and distort logic and reality would even think to argue.
Come on, bigflamer, a child could answer this question easily. Why do you have such a problem with it?
Sorry, employing logic properly is not intellectual dishonest. Employing double standards and clouding the issue, is, though, and I remind you, you do nothing else on this forum.
“More often than not” IS NOT the same thing as “by definition.” But furthermore, even if I ignore this, and agree with you, then the military is still the largest terrorist organization in the world.
I’m serious, you need to learn at least a little bit about logic and how facts work.
No, when you dishonestly and irrationally ignore evidence and lie in a systematic manner as you do, that’s proof positive that you are anti-government. If you weren’t anti-government, you’d evaluate facts fairly, but this thread has been a magnificent proof that this ability simply escapes you. You cannot be honest, and your defense of large-scale murder while criticizing small-scale murder shows this.
No, it simply further illustrates that you lack even the rudiments of a working brain. The US military, while supposedly bound by the rule of law, illegally invades countries and starts wars. Our government, supposedly bound by the rule of law, keeps a hit list of American citizens, and sends its agents all over the world to kill with impunity.
There’s obviously no way to defeat your programming in this matter, so I won’t say much else.
I don’t think he’s a war criminal for DECLINING to prosecute war criminals (though I think it’s a gross miscarriage of justice and a real embarrassment for this country), but I wouldn’t necessarily object if someone called him a war criminal for expanding the civilian-murdering drone strikes, and stepping up illegal capture, interrogation, rendition, and indefinite detention of “enemy combatants.”
And no, Assange is not an American citizen, so he could not possibly have broken a law.
If Australia attempted to prosecute an American living in England, for breaking an Australian law, there would be such an outcry made that Australia would immediately cease and desist, as they should in the circumstance.
But now that the exact opposite has occurred, and America is attempting to prosecute an Australian living in England (or wherever he is now) for…they don’t exactly know what, but they’ll think of something! then it’s imperative that he be brought to “justice,” while George W. Bush and John Yoo live comfortable lives. It’s an absolute outrage.
No, not really–the issue is whether or not the military is more ethical than terrorists, which has nothing to do with law.