America - The Official Thread

[mustafur]

Remind me why Saudi Arabia is even a US ally
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/21...s-the-28-pages-to-blame-iran-for-911-attacks/

 

[Dennisch]

Remind me why Saudi Arabia is even a US ally
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/21...s-the-28-pages-to-blame-iran-for-911-attacks/

Black stuff.

 

[Omnis]

Remind me why Saudi Arabia is even a US ally
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/21...s-the-28-pages-to-blame-iran-for-911-attacks/

When Iran nationalized everything and became an enemy of the US Government, all of their enemies became our "friends".

 

[Milouse]

Proof of a lie? I guess not.

Even if you have a strong conviction about something, but no proof and that you fabricate an evidence to convince others of your conviction, as genuine your conviction is, it IS a lie.

 

[Danoff]

Even if you have a strong conviction about something, but no proof and that you fabricate an evidence to convince others of your conviction, as genuine your conviction is, it IS a lie.

Which part showed fabrication of evidence?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which part showed fabrication of evidence?

The part where the coalition presented evidence that was not correct and/or did not exist.

 

[Danoff]

The part where the coalition presented evidence that was not correct and/or did not exist.

What part showed fabrication of evidence? Also, strange article given that WMDs were found in Iraq and we knew they had them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What part showed fabrication of evidence? Also, strange article given that WMDs were found in Iraq and we knew they had them.

We've been around that before, old expired WMDs that were unviable, corroded or mostly empty were not what we were told they had. Knowing that they'd had them some fifteen years before the war was not something that meant they had viable weapons in the early 2000s - chemical weapons of that nature simply do not last, the discovered evidence proved that to be true.

The Chilcott Report is hardly a "strange article" given the depth it covers into the reasons, rational and true facts behind the second Gulf War. The report in its entirety is here, it's been pretty well dissected by now (despite being several thousand pages long) and there's a good summary of just a few hundred pages available on that link too.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't see how we're to blame for the actions of others.

For clarification, others in this case refers to?

 

[Milouse]

No you haven't you've yet to prove any thing. You touting something isn't a fact, and then claiming it as some common knowledge when three other members and me have all echoed the basis of ISIS origin and their build up which is vastly different from the one you've given.

Well, I don't see why three not even matching and non-documented informations should weight mine.
I've finally found the documentary, The Rise of Isis by Martin Smith, i was looking for about this:

It focus on the Obama phase of the retreat from Iraq (inherited from who we know), and local consequences. Without this war, Isis would probably still be just an idea, no matter what fueled it after.

However, I don't disagree with some intelligence reports in regards to many French military and electronic manufactures doing deals with Iraq

Before 1991, France indeed sold lot of weapons to Iraq (planes, helicopters, missiles) and had other collaborations. The Osirak civil and very small nuclear plant has been built with France between 1975 and 1981, when it has been destroyed by Israel (killing 10 Iraqis and a french engineer).

No you didn't bring the subject in this thread, you just brought it up as a weak defense in another thread, and basically went on this tangent.

Weak? Your opinion. Anyway, this note was directed to anyone but you (to say i didn't came here to talk about that old subject with a kind of agenda)

It seems to me that yet again media/journalistic views of some were more to blame for this wave, with no real sources ever being identified just claimed from with in the DoD. I think the move pulled by then French Ambassador to the U.S. was clever to try and stop all of that: http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2003/07/france-vaisse

Thanks for the link (and the read).

 

[Danoff]

We've been around that before, old expired WMDs that were unviable, corroded or mostly empty were not what we were told they had.

Don't move the goalposts. I said the article was strange, and it is.

Blair's beliefs had a distorting effect on the actual facts inside the report — which said Iraq did not have WMD

Except that we know they did, because they used them on their own people. And of course we found them in Iraq, because they had them. The Article goes on to make a bunch more weird and semi-contradictory statements like this:

The Executive Summary of the dossier stated that the JIC judged that Iraq had “continued to produce chemical and biological agents”. The main text of the dossier said that there had been “recent” production. It also stated that Iraq had the means to deliver chemical and biological weapons. It did not say that Iraq had continued to produce weapons.

Excuse me? It said that Iraq produced chemical and biological agents (weapons) recently and that it had delivery mechanisms (weapons) but not that it continued to produce weapons? Are you friggin kidding me? Only if you're holding your common sense behind your back does that even begin to hold water.

Nor had the assessed intelligence established beyond doubt that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued. The JIC stated in the Executive Summary of the dossier that Iraq had:

• made covert attempts “to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons”;

• “sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active nuclear programme that would require it”; and

• “recalled specialists to work on its nuclear programme”.

Whether or not that convinces you beyond a doubt is up for debate. For some it would, for some perhaps not. Keyword "develop".

542. But the dossier made clear that, as long as sanctions remained effective, Iraq could not produce a nuclear weapon.

Keyword "effective", which they were assessed as not being. Honestly it's a very strange article, written by someone who is not very careful with their words who is taking someone to task for that very thing.

Knowing that they'd had them some fifteen years before the war was not something that meant they had viable weapons in the early 2000s - chemical weapons of that nature simply do not last, the discovered evidence proved that to be true.

Only in this very strange revisionist history is discovering WMDs in Iraq evidence that they never existed and that people lied. Let's get back to the original statement which is that satellite evidence PROVES that they lied, and the subsequent statement that evidence was fabricated.

The Chilcott Report is hardly a "strange article" given the depth it covers into the reasons, rational and true facts behind the second Gulf War. The report in its entirety is here, it's been pretty well dissected by now (despite being several thousand pages long) and there's a good summary of just a few hundred pages available on that link too.

I was referring to Mr. Jim Edwards's article that you linked.

For clarification, others in this case refers to?

ISIS

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Well, I don't see why three not even matching and non-documented informations should weight mine.
I've finally found the documentary, The Rise of Isis by Martin Smith, i was looking for about this:

It focus on the Obama phase of the retreat from Iraq (inherited from who we know), and local consequences. Without this war, Isis would probably still be just an idea, no matter what fueled it after.

Once again, ISIS had no stronghold or footing in Iraq before the Syrian civil war, and when they decided to expand out they found it just as difficult. What made it easy for them to grow as I've stated already was the flotilla of weaponry going to Syria from various nations no less the U.S. and orchestrated with help of the CIA.

Since it's like throwing darts at a board on who you can trust and can't trust, it's no surprise that money and weapons ended up in the hands of people the U.S. Gov't and other nations wouldn't have found ideal, e.g. ISIS. Who before the civil war I'll remind you had no strength and was an idea. If the war in Iraq had really made them the beast we see today they'd have been a threat back in the mid 2000s when they came to life and no real structure of government was in Iraq.

http://truthinmedia.com/truth-in-media-the-origin-of-isis/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/w...gle-missed-key-but-many-strands-of-blame.html

Others even suggest that the origins are even further within such as Guantanamo itself, which would lay blame easily on a couple administrations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-origins-of-isis-finding-the-birthplace-of-jihad/

In reality there had been several things done since Bush left, and yet you blame the guy that basically pushed on France with his admin over the refusal to go to war in Iraq, that same chip you bear (to me) as reason he is solely to blame for ISIS? Seems silly, which is why I challenged it. Blame the U.S. and others like your country for their hand in the after math of the Arab Spring and why so many areas who wanted peace and equality now have more unrest than before. I blame my nation as much as I blame European nations and Israel for stirring a pot that they never had the reigns of.

Before 1991, France indeed sold lot of weapons to Iraq (planes, helicopters, missiles) and had other collaborations. The Osirak civil and very small nuclear plant has been built with France between 1975 and 1981, when it has been destroyed by Israel (killing 10 Iraqis and a french engineer).

I'm aware.

Weak? Your opinion. Anyway, this note was directed to anyone but you (to say i didn't came here to talk about that old subject with a kind of agenda)

No you yourself basically broke down in the other thread because of the fact so many told you how and why you were wrong. If it wasn't so easy to refute then I wouldn't have called it as such.

 

[fumunaplz]

ISIS

That is a pretty wild idea you have to accuse the guilty

I tend to agree that some western meddling has not been very helpful as of late but it is never a good idea to give a criminal murderer a pass under any circumstance. All I really see are the animals spilling over due to immigration.

I have no idea how we can pick and choose who to give a legit chance at a new life to. Did they wish to migrate before the loose cannons became loose?

It is probably important for me to say that I supported Gaddafi a decent amount and I did not mind Sadam all that much, his approach on Kuwait was very wrong and he also played a few tricks and games with the international community. Neither of them were saints by any means but they did not have a negative impact on me directly they way that ISIS does.

My thought process must be confusing to some but it's what I think.

 

[Milouse]

Only in this very strange revisionist history is discovering WMDs in Iraq evidence that they never existed and that people lied. Let's get back to the original statement which is that satellite evidence PROVES that they lied, and the subsequent statement that evidence was fabricated.

I'd be curious to have your answer about this:
- Why do you value more a proof by picture than a counter-proof by picture ? What you saw in the first place, presented by Collin Powell, is satellite photo with annotations that proved nothing. I could provide a photo with a cow on the moon.

- Second, it would be wise to consider that an ally of the US, who have then the same level of information than the one provided, pointed out their US counterparts as liars. By two state ministers from opposite side. Not a proof for an external viewer, but something that should ring an alarm, at least.

- And then, Collin Powell, i quote :
"I presented the best evidence that we had, it was evidence that persuaded the congress of the United States months earlier to pass overwhelmingly a resolution of support if the president decided that military action was required, and so that's the basis upon which i presented."
[...]
"It turned out, as we discovered later that a lot of the sourcing that have been attested to by intelligence community was wrong".
[...] Speaking about the source that was supposed to be the proof (we guess the satellite images were provided for illustrative purpose, then):
"it's one guy, and he's loopy, and he's in a German jail, and we've never talked to him."
Sadly, they forget to pin him to the satellite images...
(source)

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't see how we're to blame for the actions of others.

ISIS

I'm not saying that we are to blame for how ISIS acts, but our actions spurred their creation. They are the blowback that people like Ron Paul warned about.

The trick with war is someone fires first, then the other party fires back. It goes back and forth until someone wears down and decides to talk. If they're lucky, the other side is also willing to talk. Behind them lies a swath of innocent civilians, which only acted to spur on the fighting.

Even assuming that the second invasion of Iraq was justified and ISIS forming was just a result of war, ISIS found it easy to grow afterward when we began bombing in four more countries that had not done anything to us. It is easy to recruit the families of innocent victims.

I do understand this is not completely simple. This has been going on for decades and is ultimately the long-term result of the Cold War.

 

[Milouse]

Once again, ISIS had no stronghold or footing in Iraq before the Syrian civil war, and when they decided to expand out they found it just as difficult. What made it easy for them to grow as I've stated already was the flotilla of weaponry going to Syria from various nations no less the U.S. and orchestrated with help of the CIA.

To expand out, you need to expand from. The from is Iraq. Whatever size we consider the embryon to have constitute itself in Iraq, it was required for the following.

you blame the guy that basically pushed on France with his admin over the refusal to go to war in Iraq, that same chip you bear (to me) as reason he is solely to blame for ISIS? Seems silly, which is why I challenged it. Blame the U.S. and others like your country for their hand in the after math of the Arab Spring and why so many areas who wanted peace and equality now have more unrest than before.

You ignored that i wrote:

Without this war, Isis would probably still be just an idea, no matter what fueled it after.

So "Bush messed* in Irak, which led to the birth of Isis and ended in many deaths in my country" is still true to me. It is a reductive idea, i know it is, you know it is, you should now know that i know it is, state that it is not relevant to point it again since:
Considering "A => B1" and "B1+B2...+Bn => C", we can say that A led to C.

* just to be clear, the "mess" word refers to the why more than the how.

 

[Omnis]

What part showed fabrication of evidence? Also, strange article given that WMDs were found in Iraq and we knew they had them.

Wow, that is ridiculous. It's like the last 20 years have been a complete fiasco. How many lies and how much corruption must there be to support another line of lies, and on and on?

 

[IforceV8]

Thank Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby for ISIS, they are the ones that gave it a purpose and a leader. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-of-isis/

 

[Omnis]

Miss Cleo died. Sad day for America.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

To expand out, you need to expand from. The from is Iraq. Whatever size we consider the embryon to have constitute itself in Iraq, it was required for the following.

The following grew out of Syrian civil unrest, then migrated back to Iraq and grew further. The real creation of ISIS was hatched at Guantanomo, and then grew up in Syria. Iraq was a stopping point which then later on became a place of ownership for the group. You trying to say "that's where it got kickstarted" is false because of said info provided. Which then basically debunks your theory that Bush is solely to blame.

You ignored that i wrote:

No I didn't because there is no indication that it wouldn't have been born even if the war had not happened. Syria still happened without any intervention from the U.S. (as far as we know). And these ideologies weren't new, and thus could have easily spurred still because of the Civil War in Syria. Thus coming back to Iraq and causing a major take over with Sadam in power instead.

So "Bush messed* in Irak, which led to the birth of Isis and ended in many deaths in my country" is still true to me. It is a reductive idea, i know it is, you know it is, you should now know that i know it is, state that it is not relevant to point it again since:
Considering "A => B1" and "B1+B2...+Bn => C", we can say that A led to C.

* just to be clear, the "mess" word refers to the why more than the how.

Of course it's true to you, because you're the one with the chip on your shoulder, your the one who even after looking at facts still rather blame a guy who made your nation look bad about a war they didn't want to commit to. And after said war was over what was really accomplished? To you nothing but wasted money which in turn became innocent lost lives due to remote terror attacks across the globe. Also you may want to work on your Taylor Series if that's what you're going for with that math sequence for an analogy.

Wow, that is ridiculous. It's like the last 20 years have been a complete fiasco. How many lies and how much corruption must there be to support another line of lies, and on and on?

I don't know it depends on what you see and consider as WMDs, the administration at the time considered Nuclear arms and chemical arms as WMDs. However, the lie that people keep seeing is the one with Yellow Cake uranium being purchased out of Africa which never happened. This I agree was faulty fact gathering and a reason of many I didn't find Iraq a needed war. However, there is plenty of evidence to show that they had many chemical weapons in the country when our military got there.

 

[ryzno]

Miss Cleo died. Sad day for America.

I wonder if she saw it coming in the cards..?

 

[Milouse]

Of course it's true to you, because you're the one with the chip on your shoulder

And you're the one putting the chips on shoulders, right?
That's basically my problem with your way to do.

still rather blame a guy who made your nation look bad about a war they didn't want to commit to

Correction to your trial of intent: the Bush presidency, and more specifically the Iraq war made the country looks shinny (at least to its own eyes). Our Foreign minister UN speech has even been turned to a song.

Also you may want to work on your Taylor Series if that's what you're going for with that math sequence for an analogy.

Don't you think this is slightly pedant? This has nothing to do with Taylor serie and you know it (or you don't know what you're talking about). I took common algebra notation for the sake of clarity and to avoid being too verbose.

That being said, i have to close that tab since i spent too much time here. I'm truly sorry for that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And you're the one putting the chips on shoulders, right?
That's basically my problem with your way to do.

No, you explained things from a perspective on how the French were treated, which then seemed to expand on why you and other perhaps from your country (France) solely blame Bush. This seems to be a chip if I'd ever seen one. It's a perspective that seems only you could garner as opposed to other nations who didn't have that issue.

Correction to your trial of intent: the Bush presidency, and more specifically the Iraq war made the country looks shinny (at least to its own eyes). Our Foreign minister UN speech has even been turned to a song.

Correction unnecessary considering before the war when all the anti-french sentiments were happening, you hindsight evaluation hadn't yet come to fruition. So yeah after the fact that could easily be argued, but we're not talking about that. What seems to have you up in arms and solely ready to blame Bush despite evidence given, is the mass of misinformation about the french before the war began. And considering you're French and par took in protest or were in the area, you have a bias you seem to be unwilling to admit to.

Don't you think this is slightly pedant? This has nothing to do with Taylor serie and you know it (or you don't know what you're talking about). I took common algebra notation for the sake of clarity and to avoid being too verbose.

That being said, i have to close that tab since i spent too much time here. I'm truly sorry for that.

It was a math joke, I'm quite traversed in mathematics more so than I'd like but have to be. Spent to much time here? Okay then as I said in the other thread it's your call. Thanks for not responding to the evidence rather what you thought was an attempt on your character.

I wonder if she saw it coming in the cards..?

O' course she di child

 

[Danoff]

I'd be curious to have your answer about this:
- Why do you value more a proof by picture than a counter-proof by picture ? What you saw in the first place, presented by Collin Powell, is satellite photo with annotations that proved nothing. I could provide a photo with a cow on the moon.

Huh? I value proof by picture more than counter-proof by picture? I don't know what you're talking about. You made the accusation of fabrication of evidence and proof of lies via satellite imagery. I'm explaining to you why you're not on solid ground with that statement. I don't know why you think I value what you think I value.

- Second, it would be wise to consider that an ally of the US, who have then the same level of information than the one provided, pointed out their US counterparts as liars. By two state ministers from opposite side. Not a proof for an external viewer, but something that should ring an alarm, at least.

Show me where they pointed out their US counterparts as liars. You keep making these statements as if constant assertion will make them true. You have no evidence of that.

- And then, Collin Powell, i quote :
"I presented the best evidence that we had, it was evidence that persuaded the congress of the United States months earlier to pass overwhelmingly a resolution of support if the president decided that military action was required, and so that's the basis upon which i presented."
[...]
"It turned out, as we discovered later that a lot of the sourcing that have been attested to by intelligence community was wrong".
[...] Speaking about the source that was supposed to be the proof (we guess the satellite images were provided for illustrative purpose, then):
"it's one guy, and he's loopy, and he's in a German jail, and we've never talked to him."
Sadly, they forget to pin him to the satellite images...
(source)

I'll have to try to remember to watch that later. I'm bandwidth and time limited at the moment. "We discovered later" does not mean "we lied at the time". Huge difference.

Thank Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby for ISIS, they are the ones that gave it a purpose and a leader. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-of-isis/

You mean Islam right, because that's their stated purpose.

 

[IforceV8]

You mean Islam right, because that's their stated purpose.

If I had meant Islam I would have said Islam.

 

[Danoff]

If I had meant Islam I would have said Islam.

Oh, ok. Then you're just wrong.

 

[IforceV8]

Oh, ok. Then you're just wrong.

Keep trolling...

 

[Danoff]

Keep trolling...

Who's the troll really?

You're claiming that an American politician or two is responsible for a group of religious extremists set on making their way to heaven via the blood of the infidels - whose entire existence is to fulfill the wishes set out in a book from thousands of years ago - whose every move is to bring about the justice of an angry God - who are devoted to only one cause, the murder of the non-believer.

There is only one possible purpose for ISIS, and it's the Koran - their own stated purpose. They are telling you why they are bent on murder - it's the Koran. To try to pin it on anything else is to troll.

 

[IforceV8]

Who's the troll really?

You're claiming that an American politician or two is responsible for a group of religious extremists set on making their way to heaven via the blood of the infidels - whose entire existence is to fulfill the wishes set out in a book from thousands of years ago - whose every move is to bring about the justice of an angry God - who are devoted to only one cause, the murder of the non-believer.

There is only one possible purpose for ISIS, and it's the Koran - their own stated purpose. They are telling you why they are bent on murder - it's the Koran. To try to pin it on anything else is to troll.

Why stop there and just say all organized religion is to blame and call it a day, or DNA, the big bang, etc etc.

 

[Dennisch]

all organized religion is to blame

That's perhaps a step too far but religion is an outdated concept. The human species has so much more information available than the tripping 'wise' men from the past.