Gates Remarks - Backed Up by Al Qaeda in Iraq ?

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
38,928
Reaction score
6,436
Points
1,130
The cable TV news stations are doing back flips over the latest book ("Duty") by ex-Sect. of Defense Bill Gates, in which he charges that Obama dropped the ball regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

I don't know if I agree entirely, but I do think Obama is too focused on getting out of these countries, with the takeover of Fallujah and Ramadi now by al Qaeda, adding firepower to Gates' remarks. For years, we heard an endless chorus of "It's about OIL!" Well, maybe it's more about oil than any of those people ever thought.

If Al Qaeda were to topple the Malaki govt (with the help of Sunni militants), then a much worse situation presents itself than the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and training camp issue. With Iraq, not only would al Qaeda have everything they were denied in Afghanistan (at the cost of thousands of US troops' lives), but they would also have in their pockets the world's largest unproven oil reserves, and fortunes$$$$ to go with it, making them far more capable to attack the US, Israel, and any non-Muslim country. It could also put them in position to acquire nuclear weapons.

Right now, the families of 80 US troops killed in Fallujah, who heroically won that city, must be sick to their stomachs.
 
Last edited:

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,517
Reaction score
3,189
Points
280
The irony is that this is not news: We already know who Obama is. The tragedy is that most people don't care.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
38,928
Reaction score
6,436
Points
1,130
The irony is that this is not news: We already know who Obama is. The tragedy is that most people don't care.
I think a lot of people are foolishly going with what feels comfortable at the moment, rather than the big picture, and the critical nature of it. It could be that US troops may NEVER be able to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and may be needed in quite a few other countries as well.

People in the year 2314 may look back at us (after having had US troops all over the Middle East for 300 years) and say >> "What made them think they could pull US troops out of there ?"
 

SayMyName

Live, Love, Laugh.
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
156
Points
98
Location
Shanghai, China
The cable TV news stations are doing back flips over the latest book ("Duty") by ex-Sect. of Defense Bill Gates, in which he charges that Obama dropped the ball regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

I don't know if I agree entirely, but I do think Obama is too focused on getting out of these countries, with the takeover of Fallujah and Ramadi now by al Qaeda, adding firepower to Gates' remarks. For years, we heard an endless chorus of "It's about OIL!" Well, maybe it's more about oil than any of those people ever thought.

If Al Qaeda were to topple the Malaki govt (with the help of Sunni militants), then a much worse situation presents itself than the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and training camp issue. With Iraq, not only would al Qaeda have everything they were denied in Afghanistan (at the cost of thousands of US troops' lives), but they would also have in their pockets the world's largest unproven oil reserves, and fortunes$$$$ to go with it, making them far more capable to attack the US, Israel, and any non-Muslim country. It could also put them in position to acquire nuclear weapons.

Right now, the families of 80 US troops killed in Fallujah, who heroically won that city, must be sick to their stomachs.
If you start a war, I believe you should darn well finish it before your successor comes to office. 8 years was long enough. Bill Gates should be grateful that Obama extended a hand to him for service after serving so long with the Bush administration. It showed a true wish for continuity in the fight, even though he didn't pick it.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
38,928
Reaction score
6,436
Points
1,130
The cable TV news stations are doing back flips over the latest book ("Duty") by ex-Sect. of Defense Bill Gates, in which he charges that Obama dropped the ball regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

I don't know if I agree entirely, but I do think Obama is too focused on getting out of these countries, with the takeover of Fallujah and Ramadi now by al Qaeda, adding firepower to Gates' remarks. For years, we heard an endless chorus of "It's about OIL!" Well, maybe it's more about oil than any of those people ever thought.

If Al Qaeda were to topple the Malaki govt (with the help of Sunni militants), then a much worse situation presents itself than the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and training camp issue. With Iraq, not only would al Qaeda have everything they were denied in Afghanistan (at the cost of thousands of US troops' lives), but they would also have in their pockets the world's largest unproven oil reserves, and fortunes$$$$ to go with it, making them far more capable to attack the US, Israel, and any non-Muslim country. It could also put them in position to acquire nuclear weapons.

Right now, the families of 80 US troops killed in Fallujah, who heroically won that city, must be sick to their stomachs.
If you start a war, I believe you should darn well finish it before your successor comes to office. 8 years was long enough. Bill Gates should be grateful that Obama extended a hand to him for service after serving so long with the Bush administration. It showed a true wish for continuity in the fight, even though he didn't pick it.
Interesting and good point. I think Obama truly believed in the war and the mission of it initially, but slowly fell prey to too many loudmouths in his party, who, without really examining the ramifications, got into hollering for withdrawl.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
142
Points
85
what are you people talking about?


Meet “Al Qaeda”
“Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden’s personal property . . . The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified, or joint. These crimes put the Turkish government in a difficult position vis-a-vis the British and the Israelis. But the attacks certainly intended to ‘punish’ Prime Minister Erdogan for being a ‘toot tepid’ Islamic politician.
” . . . In the Third World the general opinion is that the countries using weapons of mass destruction for economic purposes in the service of imperialism are in fact ‘rogue states,” specially the US and other NATO countries.
” Some Islamic economic lobbies are conducting a war against the ‘liberal” economic lobbies. They use local terrorist groups claiming to act on behalf of Al Qaida. On the other hand, national armies invade independent countries under the aegis of the UN Security Council and carry out pre-emptive wars. And the real sponsors of these wars are not governments but the lobbies concealed behind them.
“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.”
In yet another example of what happens to those who challenge the system, in December 2001, Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted by a secret French military court of passing classified documents that identified potential NATO bombing targets in Serbia to a Serbian agent during the Kosovo war in 1998. Bunel’s case was transferred from a civilian court to keep the details of the case classified. Bunel’s character witnesses and psychologists notwithstanding, the system “got him” for telling the truth about Al Qaeda and who has actually been behind the terrorist attacks commonly blamed on that group.
It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of “Al Qaeda.” We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
French officer Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel, who knew the truth about “Al Qaeda” — Another target of the neo-cons.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
38,928
Reaction score
6,436
Points
1,130
what are you people talking about?


Meet “Al Qaeda”
“Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden’s personal property . . . The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified, or joint. These crimes put the Turkish government in a difficult position vis-a-vis the British and the Israelis. But the attacks certainly intended to ‘punish’ Prime Minister Erdogan for being a ‘toot tepid’ Islamic politician.
” . . . In the Third World the general opinion is that the countries using weapons of mass destruction for economic purposes in the service of imperialism are in fact ‘rogue states,” specially the US and other NATO countries.
” Some Islamic economic lobbies are conducting a war against the ‘liberal” economic lobbies. They use local terrorist groups claiming to act on behalf of Al Qaida. On the other hand, national armies invade independent countries under the aegis of the UN Security Council and carry out pre-emptive wars. And the real sponsors of these wars are not governments but the lobbies concealed behind them.
“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.”
In yet another example of what happens to those who challenge the system, in December 2001, Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted by a secret French military court of passing classified documents that identified potential NATO bombing targets in Serbia to a Serbian agent during the Kosovo war in 1998. Bunel’s case was transferred from a civilian court to keep the details of the case classified. Bunel’s character witnesses and psychologists notwithstanding, the system “got him” for telling the truth about Al Qaeda and who has actually been behind the terrorist attacks commonly blamed on that group.
It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of “Al Qaeda.” We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
French officer Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel, who knew the truth about “Al Qaeda” — Another target of the neo-cons.
Are you a member of al Qaeda or just a lone wolf, unattached nutjob ? Who do you think Osama bin Laden was with ? Or al Zawahiri ? Or the 19 9-11 hijackers ? Or Zarqawi ? Or al Awlaki ? Or his student, Major Nidal Hasan ?

Never mind answering, because as the Rock, of WWE fame would say, IT DOESN'T MATTER who these Muslim jihadist loons were/are attached to. All that matters is that they exist (as they have for 1400 years, and aren't going away very soon).
Call them whatever you like. Doesn't change a thing.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top