USA backing Islamic uprising?

[Londoner]

"Reagan also decided to build up Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a counterweight to Khomeinist Iran, authorizing US and Western companies to send him precursors for chemical and biological weaponry. At one point Donald Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq to assure Saddam that it was all right if he used chemical weapons against the Iranians. Reagan had no taste in friends."

 

[Londoner]

The cultivation of terrorist cells has its consequences

"On becoming president, George H. W. Bush made a deal with the Soviets that he would cut the Mujahideen off if the Soviets would leave Afghanistan. The last Soviet troops departed in early 1989. The US then turned its back on Afghanistan and allowed it to fall into civil war, as the radical Muslim factions fostered by Washington and Riyadh turned against one another and used their extensive weaponry on each other and on civilians.

In the meantime, Saddam, whom the US had built up as a major military power, invaded Kuwait. The Bush senior administration now had to take on its former protege, and put hundreds of thousands of US troops into the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. The radical Muslim extremists with whom Reagan and Bush had allied in Afghanistan now turned on the US, objecting strenuously to a permanent US military presence in the Muslim holy land."

 

[Londoner]

Reagan created a frankenstein in the region . . .

From 1994 Afghanistan was increasingly dominated by a faction of Mujahideen known as Taliban or seminary students (who were backed by Pakistani military intelligence, which learned the trick from Reagan and which were flush from all those billions the Reagan administration had funneled into the region). In 1996 Bin Laden came back and reestablished himself there, becoming the leader of 5,000 radical Arab volunteers that Reagan had urged Fahd to help come to Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Fast forward to the War on Terror

"The American Right, having created the Mujahideen and having mightily contributed to the creation of al-Qaeda, abruptly announced that there was something deeply wrong with Islam, that it kept producing terrorists."

Why did Reagan remove Hussein from the terrorist list? Why did he increase weapons support to Saudi Arabia? Why did he provide endless support to the mujahideen?

Why don't Republican voters know Reagan's history? Because they get their information from the machine.

There is a logic to Reagan did. In order to bend this crucial region to American interests, Reagan strengthened the power of terrorists. Reagan used these terrorist chess peices to A) fight the Soviets and B) soften the region to US energy needs.

Reagan had no choice. He was part of a powerful movement who silenced Carter, the man who said we needed to re-think energy in order to get out of the middle east. Carter was worried that our oil addiction was strengthening terrorist nations. He was worried that the cost of stabilizing the middle east -- a.k.a. the military extraction of petroleum -- would not only bankrupt us, but required too many questionable alliances. Reagan called him crazy and doubled down in the middle east. He formed alliances with terrorists because he had to "play ball" with whatever powers he could harness. Through all of his shadowy dealings with Iran, Iraq, the Saudis, and Mujahideen -- he made terrorism a much more powerful force going forward. Nearly all of his policies served to radicalize the region.

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences.

Welcome to what happens when Republicans trust Washington too much.

They say they hate government.

They say government is incompetent.

But their love for Reagan -- a Washington politician -- and their willingness to trust Bush's explanation & execution of the War on Terrorism . . . has hurt this country more than they will ever realize. Not only do they trust Government, they trust it enough to create a democratic utopia atop Islamic soil. They trust dear leader. They have more faith in government power than any other group of Americans in history.

America's dirty little secret has always been that the Right trusts government. The Left opposed LBJ when he spoke about Vietnam. The Right, on the other hand, trusts Washington completely when it comes to war and geopolitics. Their trust in Washington has destroyed us. They didn't know how to challenge Bush because they don't know how to question government. They are only allowed to fight and question liberals. But they are not allowed to fight and question their government leaders.

 

[skookerasbil]

anybody paying 1/2 attention knows that this administration loaths Israel!!

 

[skookerasbil]

The cultivation of terrorist cells has its consequences

"On becoming president, George H. W. Bush made a deal with the Soviets that he would cut the Mujahideen off if the Soviets would leave Afghanistan. The last Soviet troops departed in early 1989. The US then turned its back on Afghanistan and allowed it to fall into civil war, as the radical Muslim factions fostered by Washington and Riyadh turned against one another and used their extensive weaponry on each other and on civilians.

In the meantime, Saddam, whom the US had built up as a major military power, invaded Kuwait. The Bush senior administration now had to take on its former protege, and put hundreds of thousands of US troops into the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. The radical Muslim extremists with whom Reagan and Bush had allied in Afghanistan now turned on the US, objecting strenuously to a permanent US military presence in the Muslim holy land."

Geez......what a surprise Another America hater shows up on the USMESSAGEBOARD!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Londoner]

Geez......what a surprise Another America hater shows up on the USMESSAGEBOARD!!!!

I love America, but I am skeptical of Washington's power and competence.

You should learn to question Washington bureaucrats whenever they speak, no matter what the topic, i.e., the war on poverty or the war on terrorism. A Government bureaucrat is a government bureaucrat. If they can't run a laundromat on Tuesday, they can't be trusted to rebuild whole Arab nations on Friday.

America is the greatest nation on earth, but Washington must be questioned when it spends money or exercises power. The Right can't imagine a Washington bureaucrat making a mistake on matters of war. They view it as unpatriotic to question Washington. They think citizens must accept what Washington bureaucrats say with blind faith.

Son, sometimes Washington bureaucrats lie.

...and sometimes they are incompetent.

It's your job to question them on everything -- not just what your party and pundits allow you to question. By loving Reagan uncritically, by not being able to question Bush, the Right proves that it does not know how to question its Washington leaders. The Left chased LBJ out of office because they used to view it as patriotic to question the policy decisions of their leaders (-now they're just brain dead Obamacons). The Right is to tightly controlled by the message machine to ever protest widely against a sitting Republican president.

It's not unpatriotic to oppose bad policies. We need you to be more skeptical of the bureaucracy son.

 

[Trajan]

Reagan created a frankenstein in the region . . .

From 1994 Afghanistan was increasingly dominated by a faction of Mujahideen known as Taliban or seminary students (who were backed by Pakistani military intelligence, which learned the trick from Reagan and which were flush from all those billions the Reagan administration had funneled into the region). In 1996 Bin Laden came back and reestablished himself there, becoming the leader of 5,000 radical Arab volunteers that Reagan had urged Fahd to help come to Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Fast forward to the War on Terror

"The American Right, having created the Mujahideen and having mightily contributed to the creation of al-Qaeda, abruptly announced that there was something deeply wrong with Islam, that it kept producing terrorists."

Why did Reagan remove Hussein from the terrorist list? Why did he increase weapons support to Saudi Arabia? Why did he provide endless support to the mujahideen?

Why don't Republican voters know Reagan's history? Because they get their information from the machine.

There is a logic to Reagan did. In order to bend this crucial region to American interests, Reagan strengthened the power of terrorists. Reagan used these terrorist chess peices to A) fight the Soviets and B) soften the region to US energy needs.

Reagan had no choice. He was part of a powerful movement who silenced Carter, the man who said we needed to re-think energy in order to get out of the middle east. Carter was worried that our oil addiction was strengthening terrorist nations. He was worried that the cost of stabilizing the middle east -- a.k.a. the military extraction of petroleum -- would not only bankrupt us, but required too many questionable alliances. Reagan called him crazy and doubled down in the middle east. He formed alliances with terrorists because he had to "play ball" with whatever powers he could harness. Through all of his shadowy dealings with Iran, Iraq, the Saudis, and Mujahideen -- he made terrorism a much more powerful force going forward. Nearly all of his policies served to radicalize the region.

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences.

Welcome to what happens when Republicans trust Washington too much.

They say they hate government.

They say government is incompetent.

But their love for Reagan -- a Washington politician -- and their willingness to trust Bush's explanation & execution of the War on Terrorism . . . has hurt this country more than they will ever realize. Not only do they trust Government, they trust it enough to create a democratic utopia atop Islamic soil. They trust dear leader. They have more faith in government power than any other group of Americans in history.

America's dirty little secret has always been that the Right trusts government. The Left opposed LBJ when he spoke about Vietnam. The Right, on the other hand, trusts Washington completely when it comes to war and geopolitics. Their trust in Washington has destroyed us. They didn't know how to challenge Bush because they don't know how to question government. They are only allowed to fight and question liberals. But they are not allowed to fight and question their government leaders.

did you get the check?

 

[Trajan]

America helped put the ruthless, terrorist-funding Shaw in power because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs. America has been in bed with the ruthless Saudis for over 1/2 a century - a terrorist haven if there ever was one. [Do Republicans know how much Reagan increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia?

was that after carter sold them the F-25's ? yeaaa had to be..eh?

How is it possible that an entire block of Americans is kept in a hermetically sealed talk radio bubble?] When our guy in Iran, the Shaw, was chased out of the country, we shifted our support to a new brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. This is when Reagan had Iraq and Hussein removed from the list of terrorist nations. America provided weapons, protection, and funding to this monster during some of his worst atrocities. Once Iran-Contra came to light, it was clear that Reagan was cultivating back-channel alliances across the board. Reagan also supported the mujahideen (a terrorist cell which later splintered into Al Qauda) against the Russians in Afghanistan.

This stuff isn't lies. Our alliance with the brutal terrorist Shaw is not in dispute. Reagan's removal of Iraq & Hussein from the list of terrorist nations is on the record, along with the weapons support provided to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and whole hose of terrorist cells who were used for various regional purposes.

The poor right wing voter. He is constantly fed horror stories about Chinese communists and Iranian terrorists. Meanwhile his dear leaders have done everything possible to strengthen these groups, building the entire US economy from Chinese credit and terrorist crude.

It's a sick joke.

Ask a Republican voter about Mossadegh or Pinochet or any policy specifics about Reagan's approach to South America, the Caribbean theater, and the Middle East and you will get a blank stare. They will just repeat empty slogans about how freedom is on the march, and evil empires.

These people vote, and they're getting their history from a Washington political machine.

Reagans been out of office for oh, 23 years? yes its all him! that basssssssstard!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

America helped put the ruthless, terrorist-funding Shaw in power because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs. America has been in bed with the ruthless Saudis for over 1/2 a century - a terrorist haven if there ever was one. [Do Republicans know how much Reagan increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia? How is it possible that an entire block of Americans is kept in a hermetically sealed talk radio bubble?] When our guy in Iran, the Shaw, was chased out of the country...

Uhhhhh.......that's SHAH!!!!

......we shifted our support to a new brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. This is when Reagan had Iraq and Hussein removed from the list of terrorist nations. America provided weapons, protection, and funding to this monster during some of his worst atrocities.

You must be reading one o' those Texas-approved History text-books.

We were working with Hussein, long-before the Shah took sick.....​

"The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963 was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. Washington's role in the coup went unreported at the time and has been little noted since. America's anti-Kassem intrigue has been widely substantiated, however, in disclosures by the Senate Committee on Intelligence and in the work of journalists and historians like David Wise, an authority on the C.I.A.

From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh repression, the Eisenhower administration abided him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt.

In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies chiefly France and Germany resisted.

The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s "Health Alteration Committee," as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.

Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.

As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958."

HERE​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

America helped put the ruthless, terrorist-funding Shaw in power because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs. America has been in bed with the ruthless Saudis for over 1/2 a century - a terrorist haven if there ever was one. [Do Republicans know how much Reagan increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia?

was that after carter sold them the F-25's ? yeaaa had to be..eh?

Yeah....right.....Carter had them sent-back (from 1994) in our military's "secret"-transporter.

​

April 04, 1988​

"The Carter administration considered -- and then rejected -- an arms dealer's offer to trade up to $10 million in military spare parts for 52 American hostages held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1980, The Miami Herald reported Sunday.

Quoting newly declassified government documents, the newspaper said the plan was canceled because U.S. officials thought the man who offered the deal, an Iranian-born arms broker in New York, did not have support from Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr.

Carter could not be reached Sunday for comment.

Among the documents were memos from the CIA to Carter's deputy National Security Council chief David Aaron and from the State Department by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Harold Saunders.

In a CIA memo to Aaron dated Oct. 3, 1980, an unidentified agency officer reports a conversation the previous day with Long Island resident Houshang Lavi in which the arms dealer turned over a seven-page list of military jet parts and made his offer. The list was attached to the memo.

The CIA officer recommended against pursuing the offer. The memos indicate Carter officials ended their contacts with Lavi on Oct. 29, 1980, after a foreign ambassador in Tehran reported Bani-Sadr was unaware of the Lavi offer. The documents detailing Lavi's contacts with the Carter administration were declassified recently by the State Department and turned over to Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House judiciary criminal justice subcommittee, as part of Conyers' probe into whether the 1980 Reagan campaign made a secret arms-for-hostages deal with Iran."

HERE​

MORE (...On REAGAN'S Iran...)
HEREhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/iran/index.htm​

 

[CMike]

Pretty retarded to help the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization responsible for assassinating Sadat.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

this has nothing to do with religion. Please at least read the reasons behind the riots before making dumb assumptions.

Based on the facts in http://www.usmessageboard.com/3263326-post20.html
The reason behind the riots may be one thing, but the out come entirely different.
There is little doubt how this will shake out.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

nice speculation. perhaps you should type more when you have support to your blind guesses.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

When 2/3 of the people express desire for Islamic fundamentalism, they will get it.
Nothing to argue about just wait the facts will present themselves soon enough.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Jordan's opposition: Arabs will topple tyrants



AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - The leader of Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood warned Saturday that unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.
Hammam Saeed's comments were made at a protest outside the Egyptian Embassy in Amman, inspired by massive rallies in neighboring Egypt demanding the downfall of the country's longtime president, Hosni Mubarak.
About 100 members of the fundamentalist group and activists from other leftist organizations and trade unions chanted "Mubarak, step down" and "the decision is made, the people's revolt will remain."

My Way News - Jordan's opposition: Arabs will topple tyrants

 

[SmarterThanHick]

When 2/3 of the people express desire for Islamic fundamentalism, they will get it.
Nothing to argue about just wait the facts will present themselves soon enough.

You mean, IF 2/3 of the people express that desire. Which they don't. You have yet to provide evidence that supports such an idea.

Jordan's opposition: Arabs will topple tyrants

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - The leader of Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood warned Saturday that unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.

So you're saying the unsupported propaganda of an extremist in ANOTHER COUNTRY is going to decide how Egypt goes? This is the best you can produce?

Let's get the facts straight: despite extremists attempting to capitalize on the free media to push their agenda, the actual reason for the protest is in regards to economic stagnation and political suppression. Protesters are NOT calling for Islamic fundamentalism, but rather democracy.

If you see direct evidence that riots and crowds are demanding Sharia law, or religion in government, then by all means point it out. UNTIL THEN, realize your oversensitive conspiracy suspicions are little more than smoke.

 

[bodecea]

sigh...another conspiracy theory is born.

Yep...they are licking their chops.

 

[Ozmar]

Why would the U.S. back the overflow of its own ally? This makes no sense at all.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

When 2/3 of the people express desire for Islamic fundamentalism, they will get it.
Nothing to argue about just wait the facts will present themselves soon enough.

You mean, IF 2/3 of the people express that desire. Which they don't. You have yet to provide evidence that supports such an idea.

Jordan's opposition: Arabs will topple tyrants

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - The leader of Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood warned Saturday that unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.

So you're saying the unsupported propaganda of an extremist in ANOTHER COUNTRY is going to decide how Egypt goes? This is the best you can produce?

Let's get the facts straight: despite extremists attempting to capitalize on the free media to push their agenda, the actual reason for the protest is in regards to economic stagnation and political suppression. Protesters are NOT calling for Islamic fundamentalism, but rather democracy.

If you see direct evidence that riots and crowds are demanding Sharia law, or religion in government, then by all means point it out. UNTIL THEN, realize your oversensitive conspiracy suspicions are little more than smoke.

I did you just ignore it.
Democracy is mob rule what ever the majority wants.

Nearly a century later, the preponderance of contemporary mainstream Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, apparently share with their murderous, jihad terror waging co-religionists from al-Qaeda the goal (if not necessarily supporting the gruesome means) of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate.

Polling data just released (April 24, 2007) in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007-1000 Moroccans,

1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians-reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a "fringe minority"-desired this outcome

(i.e., "To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate"), including 49% of "moderate" Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition "To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country."