Sound like a terrorist..as they dont wear a uniform..and are quite militarized.
Care to elaborate please.
AMERICA: NO 1 WAR MONGER.....
- Thread starter mazHur
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Care to elaborate please.
-
2KReplies
-
19KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
AMERICA: NO 1 WAR MONGER.....
Sunni Caliphate Has Been Bankrolled By Saudi Arabia
By Robert Fisk
The jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Wahhabis - and by Kuwaiti oligarchs - now rule thousands of square miles.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38798.htm
How The US Is Arming Both Sides Of The Iraqi Conflict
By Tyler Durden
The clear winner here? The US military-industrial complex.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38799.htm
Do you object?..if so who do you want armed and why.
This is the debate section maz...not a bill boarding section
Why don't you check out with them directly ? Or GoogleCouldn't answer the question......or refuse to?.........
read more...
Letter From Baghdad In The Growing Shadow Of War
By Nesreen Melek
http://www.countercurrents.org/melek150614.htm
I will never forgive the Americans for the atrocities they committed in Iraq. The ones who are still here are protected in their Green Zone castle. For them, Baghdad has become another American city. I had lunch a week ago by the river Dijlah (Tigris), and there was a long wall—the Great Wall of America—facing the restaurant. I told my friend that it will be hard for me to swallow my food knowing that my people’s killers are facing us and are safe behind that wall
How Obama Lost Iraq And The War on Terror
By Shamus Cooke
15 June, 2014
The fall of Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, to an al-Qaeda linked militia elicited a curiously muted response from the Obama administration. Yes, Obama “denounced” the terrorist invasion, but when the Iraqi government asked for U.S. airstrikes to repel perhaps the most powerful terrorist group in the world, Obama thus far refused, only hinting at some form of aid in the yet-to-be-determined future.
This is perhaps the first time Obama has initially refused such an offer from an allied government. Indeed, he’s suspected to have approved airstrikes in 8 other countries under the guise of fighting terrorism. So why the hesitation?
One might also ask why the Obama administration didn’t act earlier to prevent this invasion, since the Iraqi government has been asking for U.S. aid for over a year to combat the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been building its strength on the borderlands between Iraq and Syria.
One likely reason that Obama refused aid to his Iraqi ally is that he has other, much closer allies, who are funding the terrorist group invading Iraq. For example, since the war in Syria started, it’s been an open secret that Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia have been giving at least hundreds of millions of dollars to the Islamic extremist groups attacking the Syrian government.
This fact is occasionally mentioned in the mainstream media, but the full implications are never fleshed out, and now that the Syrian war is gushing over its borders the media would rather pretend that ISIS sprang from a desert oasis, rather than the pocket books of the U.S. allied Gulf States.
The Obama administration has consistently looked the other way during this buildup of Islamic extremism, since its foreign policy priority —toppling the secular Syrian government — perfectly aligned with the goals of the terrorists. Thus the terror groups were allowed to grow exponentially, as their ranks were filled with Gulf State cash, foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia and illegal guns trafficked with the help of the CIA.
The Obama administration hid the reality of this dynamic from view, calling the Syrian rebels “moderates” — yet what moderates existed were always a tiny, ineffectual minority. The big dogs in this fight are the Sunni Islamic jihadi groups who view Shia Muslims as heretics worthy of death and other religious and ethnic minorities as second-class citizens polluting their Islamic caliphate.
Middle East journalist Patrick Cockburn recently noted:
“ISIS now controls or can operate with impunity in a great stretch of territory in western Iraq and eastern Syria, making it militarily the most successful jihadi movement ever.”
Now that ISIS has invaded Iraq, a U.S. ally, you’d think a different approach would be used. But Obama’s hesitation to support the Iraqi government against ISIS may be a reflection of the U.S. having yet more shared goals with the terrorist organization.
For example, the U.S. has never trusted the Iraqi government. Ever since the Iraqi elections brought a Shia-dominated government to power, the Bush and Obama administrations have looked at Iraq as an untrustworthy pawn of Iran. And there is some truth to this: the Shia dominated Iraqi government has many close religious and political ties with Iran.
Further upsetting Obama is that Iraq hasn't prevented Shia fighters from traveling to Syria to fight on the side of Assad. Many in Shia-majority Iraq were stunned by the Sunni extremist massacres against the Syrian Shia population, which consequently drew Iraqi and Hezbollah Shia fighters into the Syrian war. Thus, Iraq was on the “wrong side” of the U.S. sponsored proxy war in Syria. In fact, Iraq went so far as to refuse Obama's "request" that Iraq deny Iran use of Iraqi airspace to fly military weapons to Assad. Iraq's consistent refusal to bend to key U.S. demands has strained relations with the U.S., which demands obedience from its "allies".
Most importantly, a strong independent Iraq is seen as a threat to U.S. “regional interests,” since Iraq is a potential ally to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the regional powers that the U.S. does not have influence over and consequently desires either their “regime change” or annihilation.
Thus, when the Iraqi president came to the U.S. to plead for aid in October to fight ISIS, he was largely given the runaround, as U.S. politicians shifted the focus away from ISIS toward the Iraqi president’s “authoritarian” government. Of course, this criticism was pure hypocrisy; the U.S. never questions its Gulf State allies about their “authoritarianism,” even as these countries continue to be ruled by the most brutal dictatorships on earth.
Some analysts have speculated that Obama will allow the Sunni terror groups to carve out a section of Iraq to help partition the country into smaller nations based on ethnic-religious regions, each represented by a Shia, Sunni, or Kurdish government. This would be the easiest way to ensure that Iraq remains weak and is not a threat to “U.S. interests.” Mike Whitney describes the Iraqi partition idea:
“The plan was first proposed by Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and then-senator Joe Biden. According to The New York Times the ‘so-called soft-partition plan ….calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions…There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella.’”
The events in Iraq and Syria further prove that the Bush-Obama “war on terror” is not only a complete failure, but a fraud. Bush and Obama have not waged a war against terrorists, but wars against independent nation-states.
The secular nations of Iraq, Libya, and Syria were virtually free of terrorism before U.S. military intervention, and now they’re infested. The war on terror has done nothing but destabilize the Middle East, create more terrorists, and drain the U.S. economy of billions of dollars it could have otherwise used towards jobs and social programs.
that could be your mother.
Iraq is not the war Pakistan and al Qaeda started on the US.
Wrong English again,,,It is quit not acquit, fool!
You started the War in Iraq...
Pakistan is your ally and has nothing to do with warring against you or anyone else.
You are a hardened liar and a blackmailer on this forum, so is man.
If you still can't realize that you have lost the War then you are worse than stupid
You should be ashamed to say that,,,,
Blaming others for your own faults seems to be your forte,,,
Am reading this now...
Why The U.S. Must Not Arm Syria’s Opposition: In Disagreement With Robert Ford
By Taj Hashmi
http://www.countercurrents.org/hashmi150614.htm
Paying heed to not-so-responsible advice to arm groups to topple the Assad regime would be disastrous and counterproductive. America should not ignore Russia, Iran, and Iraq (among others) who have geo-politic and other interests in Syria. It is time to work for restoring order in both Syria and more so in Iraq, in collaboration with others, including Russia, China, Syria, Iran, and Iraq
It needs No comments,,,,,
QED: Stone is a bloody liar...
“We are waging war on terrorism even as we embody terrorism. No wonder we seem sometimes to be at war with ourselves, and have been for most of the 21st century….. No American under 12 Has Lived in a Country at Peace…whatever the U.S. government knows, or thinks it knows, is not widely shared with most of its citizens….. The American Enemies List Is Decided Anonymously and Secretly.” (William Boardman, “Is America a country at war with an Illusion.” Information Clearing House: 8/19/2013: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35906.htm).
Late Dr. Ali Shariati (the persuasive intellectual force of Iran’s Islamic revolution), once noted: “when people live in darkness, they lose sense of direction.” The 21st century knowledge-based information age tells a lot about how some of the global politicians and sadistic leaders tend to ignore the lessons of history. The darkness is returning to Baghdad. In March 2003, America waged a bloody war against Iraq under a false pretext of having ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction.’ All impartial accounts of the decade long war point out to the American-led insanity to have murdered approximately 3 million innocent people in Iraq and destroyed countless human habitats and hub of one of the ancient human civilizations. American occupation and war strategy built sectarian divides and barriers to maintain law and order. It helped the US military strategists to ensure the operational capability of US contractors to manage the constant flow of precious oil exports without Iraqi presence and control. George W. Bush was keen to see Iraq remaking the dollar as the only exchange currency for oil exports and that all the major oil businesses were taken over by the US contractors including of his own family and the reconstruction work by Halliburton under Dick Cheney-the VP. According to the Project for the New American Century - PNAC, it is clear that George W. Bush administration had no other interests to propagate human rights, freedom or democracy in that part of the troubled world. It was a ‘mission accomplished’ by occupation. Iraq continued to be a place of bloody sectarian encounters, political and economic instability and missing legitimate political governance since that invasion of the few monsters of history. Iraq’s one-sided Shiite governance by Nour Al-Malki regime is under threat of being replaced by a new popular movement of the ISIS groups led by Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi after their sudden success in capturing several major towns in Iraq.
QED: Stone is a bloody liar...
“We are waging war on terrorism even as we embody terrorism. No wonder we seem sometimes to be at war with ourselves, and have been for most of the 21st century….. No American under 12 Has Lived in a Country at Peace…whatever the U.S. government knows, or thinks it knows, is not widely shared with most of its citizens….. The American Enemies List Is Decided Anonymously and Secretly.” (William Boardman, “Is America a country at war with an Illusion.” Information Clearing House: 8/19/2013: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35906.htm).
Late Dr. Ali Shariati (the persuasive intellectual force of Iran’s Islamic revolution), once noted: “when people live in darkness, they lose sense of direction.” The 21st century knowledge-based information age tells a lot about how some of the global politicians and sadistic leaders tend to ignore the lessons of history. The darkness is returning to Baghdad. In March 2003, America waged a bloody war against Iraq under a false pretext of having ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction.’ All impartial accounts of the decade long war point out to the American-led insanity to have murdered approximately 3 million innocent people in Iraq and destroyed countless human habitats and hub of one of the ancient human civilizations. American occupation and war strategy built sectarian divides and barriers to maintain law and order. It helped the US military strategists to ensure the operational capability of US contractors to manage the constant flow of precious oil exports without Iraqi presence and control. George W. Bush was keen to see Iraq remaking the dollar as the only exchange currency for oil exports and that all the major oil businesses were taken over by the US contractors including of his own family and the reconstruction work by Halliburton under Dick Cheney-the VP. According to the Project for the New American Century - PNAC, it is clear that George W. Bush administration had no other interests to propagate human rights, freedom or democracy in that part of the troubled world. It was a ‘mission accomplished’ by occupation. Iraq continued to be a place of bloody sectarian encounters, political and economic instability and missing legitimate political governance since that invasion of the few monsters of history. Iraq’s one-sided Shiite governance by Nour Al-Malki regime is under threat of being replaced by a new popular movement of the ISIS groups led by Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi after their sudden success in capturing several major towns in Iraq.
Here is more for the ignorant Stony crony and man fan!
Foreign Policy Bait And Switch
By Jack A. Smith
15 June, 2014
Countercurrents.org
President Obama chose to ignore the most important strategic aspect of U.S. foreign policy in his major address May 28 at West Point graduation ceremonies. It was perhaps thought politically wise to emphasize current events rather than military preparations for a possible major future confrontation with China.
Instead Obama mainly focused on defending his policies against mounting criticism from warhawks in both parties variously demanding that the U.S. attack Syria, or Iran or Venezuela, and adopt more provocative measures toward Russia. He was even criticized for not being tougher toward China, which is preposterous, as we shall discuss in this article when deeds, not words, are examined.
Obama swings back and forth on toughness (he’ll bomb, not bomb, Syria) but he was correct to spend time explaining why he opposed the hawks this time around. Why get bogged down in Syria and Iran or into immediate clashes with Beijing and Moscow when there is a far more important long-range objective for the White House and those who rule America. At the same time, on his trip to Poland in early June, Obama rattled sabers to the delight of European allies, sending jets and military equipment and encouraging them to increase defense spending against the nonexistent “threat” from Russia.
Oddly, the president identified “terrorism” as the main direct threat to America “for the foreseeable future,” but just a year ago he suggested the war on terrorism was ending. He also wants several African countries to join the war on terrorism in place of the U.S. in most cases and is spending $5 billion to pay them off. He further pledged to continue supplying the non-jihadist sector of the war against the Syrian government when everyone knows the jihadists, particularly al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, are responsible for the large bulk of the fighting.
Foreign Policy Bait And Switch
By Jack A. Smith
15 June, 2014
Countercurrents.org
President Obama chose to ignore the most important strategic aspect of U.S. foreign policy in his major address May 28 at West Point graduation ceremonies. It was perhaps thought politically wise to emphasize current events rather than military preparations for a possible major future confrontation with China.
Instead Obama mainly focused on defending his policies against mounting criticism from warhawks in both parties variously demanding that the U.S. attack Syria, or Iran or Venezuela, and adopt more provocative measures toward Russia. He was even criticized for not being tougher toward China, which is preposterous, as we shall discuss in this article when deeds, not words, are examined.
Obama swings back and forth on toughness (he’ll bomb, not bomb, Syria) but he was correct to spend time explaining why he opposed the hawks this time around. Why get bogged down in Syria and Iran or into immediate clashes with Beijing and Moscow when there is a far more important long-range objective for the White House and those who rule America. At the same time, on his trip to Poland in early June, Obama rattled sabers to the delight of European allies, sending jets and military equipment and encouraging them to increase defense spending against the nonexistent “threat” from Russia.
Oddly, the president identified “terrorism” as the main direct threat to America “for the foreseeable future,” but just a year ago he suggested the war on terrorism was ending. He also wants several African countries to join the war on terrorism in place of the U.S. in most cases and is spending $5 billion to pay them off. He further pledged to continue supplying the non-jihadist sector of the war against the Syrian government when everyone knows the jihadists, particularly al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, are responsible for the large bulk of the fighting.
you are simply repeating the dialogue of the editor of those photographs...don't you have sense?
You seem to be as 'innocent' and 'naive' like that bugger...here
St. Louis Archbishop denies knowing that child rape is a crime
Does this headline, from The Raw Story, really surprise you?
What shameful dissimulation! One thing’s for sure: Archbishop Carlson is lying not for Jesus, but to save his own skin.
The backstory:
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members