Obama says anti-terror 'buck' stops with him


gopher
#31
''They have the majority.''


You forgot how many of them are DINOs.
 
bobnoorduyn
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post




I would agree but only if you include their sponsors.

But what I find really odd is that the US supplied arms to Osama and the Northern Alliance to help them fight the Russians, who had invaded Afghanistan for no other reason than to expand the Soviet Empire. They then turn around and attack the US once the Soviets are driven out.
 
bobnoorduyn
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Whether anyone likes it or not, no one in history has sponsored more terrorism world wide, whether it be in the Middle East or in Central America or where ever than did Reagan. This is a fact for which I posted numerous links on this forum over the years. To this day, not one person here has ever refuted that fact.

No one could refute it anyway because no other counrty besides Switzerland is freer than the US. Any other countries that engaged in terrorism supressed its citizens or officials from exposing them. To be fair to Reagan, there were still plenty of threats to go around, the Soviet Union was still thought to be a force to be reconed with. If they would shoot down a commercial airliner 30 seconds before it left their airspace, who knew what else they were capable of. They also supported their share of dictators and could easily arm them, they proved that in Cuba. They kept it a well guarded secret just how broke they were. There was the Islamic revolution in Iran, then the hostage drama, which preceeded Regan. If you remember the old joke, "What's flat, black, and glows in the dark? Iran after Reagan is elelcted. Odd that the hostages were released the day he took office. As for the circumstances surrounding all that, well, you should at least be thankful that people can criticize your government and its leaders without fear of night time visits, for now anyway.
 
EagleSmack
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

But what I find really odd is that the US supplied arms to Osama and the Northern Alliance to help them fight the Russians, who had invaded Afghanistan for no other reason than to expand the Soviet Empire. They then turn around and attack the US once the Soviets are driven out.

The US supplied weapons to the Afghan fighters who were fighting against the Soviets. They did not supply weapons to Osama and Osama was kept clear of CIA agents because of his anti-American sentiments on the first occassion of meeting with them. After the initial meeting the Afghans did not want Osama screwing up the Stinger shipments so again he was kept well clear of the US agents.

The Northern Alliance was formed after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan and was a gathering of many tribes for the sole purpose of resisting the Taliban government.
 
bobnoorduyn
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

The US supplied weapons to the Afghan fighters who were fighting against the Soviets. They did not supply weapons to Osama and Osama was kept clear of CIA agents because of his anti-American sentiments on the first occassion of meeting with them. After the initial meeting the Afghans did not want Osama screwing up the Stinger shipments so again he was kept well clear of the US agents.

The Northern Alliance was formed after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan and was a gathering of many tribes for the sole purpose of resisting the Taliban government.

Yes, I got a bit mixed up, I meant the Mujahadeen, but bin Laden was still fighting the Soviets with them, along with other ex pat fighters. They apparently even had recruiting offices in Brooklyn and Detroit. I still find that after being helped to fight the Soviet invaders they would turn against those who helped just shows that fighting a war against your main opponent by proxy is just as much a mug's game as getting involved in someone's civil war. But would the public have allowed any President to just sit back and let events unfold without involvement? I don't know the answer to that one. With the furor that followed 9/11 it's kind of hard to blame Dubya for taking action either, but the action he ended up taking was poorly thought out, to say the least. I guess it's the price we pay for political expediency.
 
gopher
#36
''you should at least be thankful that people can criticize your government and its leaders without fear of night time visits, for now anyway''

Palmer raids, COINTELPRO, suppression of Puerto Rican independistas, arrest and harassment of AIM, etc. I can list dozens of cases of the US government engaging in activity that parallels that of the KGB.
 
ironsides
#37
Puerto Ricans have rejected independence every time it came up for a vote, never even a close vote.

"A majority of independentistas today seek to achieve independence through either the electoral or the diplomatic process. In 1946, Gilberto Concepción de Gracia founded the Puerto Rican Independence Party , the most influential organization participating in the electoral process. The party has successfully elected some legislative candidates, but has yet to win more than a few percentage points of the vote in gubernatorial elections (2.04% in 200 or the legislative elections (4.5-5% of the island-wide legislative vote in 200. [28] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_independence_movement
 
gopher
#38
I am aware of that. However, the government smeared Pedro Albizu Campos, Alicia Rodriguez, and others by attacking and harassing them. Significantly, both of these patriots are viewed as great heroes in PR. This is the same fate suffered by Russell Means and other genuine patriots of AIM and they, too, are viewed as heroes by the people as opposed to the government,
 

Similar Threads

0
34
US Terror Suspects Making Canadian Stops
by FiveParadox | Apr 7th, 2006