9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 08:22 pm
"It's a tired old story, look it up." hahaha. Aint that the truth. Bushies never heard of blowback although many were pragmatic enough to invest in it. Arming Saddam and bin Laden has been very lucrative for the arms merchants.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 08:30 pm
Quote:
As recently as Friday, when he was interviewed by Jim Lehrer of PBS, Mr. Bush refused to confirm the report the previous evening in The New York Times that in 2002 he authorized the spying operation by the security agency, which is usually barred from intercepting domestic communications. While not denying the report, he called it "speculation" and said he did not "talk about ongoing intelligence operations."

But as the clamor over the revelation rose and Vice President Dick Cheney and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, went to Capitol Hill on Friday to answer charges that the program was an illegal assumption of presidential powers, even in a time of war, Mr. Bush and his senior aides decided to abandon that approach.

"There was an interest in saying more about it, but everyone recognized its highly classified nature," one senior administration official said, speaking on background because, he said, the White House wanted the president to be the only voice on the issue. "This is directly taking on the critics. The Democrats are now in the position of supporting our efforts to protect Americans, or defend positions that could weaken our nation's security."

Democrats saw the issue differently. "Our government must follow the laws and respect the Constitution while it protects Americans' security and liberty," said Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the Senate's leading critic of the Patriot Act.


NYT Link

Oh, so the politics of it is to switch it around from Bush having overreached his authority and make it into a "blame the democrats if anything happens because of this leak."

Phhhttt! How childish is this guy?

It wasn't the democrats that leaked it, printed the story, or had anything to do with outing it.

Gawd, I have no idea how anyone can't see what is happening or what this man is.
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 08:45 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
"It's a tired old story, look it up." hahaha. Aint that the truth. Bushies never heard of blowback although many were pragmatic enough to invest in it. Arming Saddam and bin Laden has been very lucrative for the arms merchants.


Tico just wants to play games and I'm at work and too tired right now to play! Anyone with a beginners knowledge of how to run a search on the internet can find all too much information on the subject. Like I said, Tico just wants to play Ticos cute little games and I'm in no mood!
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 08:51 pm
squinney wrote:
It wasn't the democrats that leaked it, printed the story, or had anything to do with outing it.

Gawd, I have no idea how anyone can't see what is happening or what this man is.


It's the usual game of deflect and redirect the blame, as the Bush Admin is so good at doing. Then you have the doglike Bush supporters panting and slopping it up.

They know what the deal is, and what is happening. They just don't give a **** because as long as Bush is in there pushing the rightwing agenda, he can do no wrong!!

The end is worth the means!!

P.S. Wups, I guess I shouldn't insult your puppy by associating him with Bush supporters :wink:
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 09:01 pm
Steve yeah sure. These Bushies pretenders have seen all the links and history.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 10:33 pm
Stevepax wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Stevepax wrote:
We created the terrorist AlQueda, only we called them freedom fighters at the time because they were using our tactics that we taught them on the Russians. We however don't care for it much when they turn around and use it on us!


Please substantiate that statement. How did we create al Qaeda, in your view?


It's a tired old story, look it up. I'm tired of explaining it to you guys. I'm in no mood to play games with you Tico. We did, you know it, case closed!


Yes, it is a tired old story, passed from one wacko leftist to the next. But it's just a myth, propagated by the likes of you. -- What is it about you America-hating leftists that makes you insist the US is an evil country? -- In any case, I'm sure you first read it on some far left website, and swallowed it whole ... so I understand your fear of not being able to make your case here, and I don't blame you for begging off, feigning that you aren't in the mood. I'm certainly not playing games with you ... you should know that my the mere fact that I'm replying to you -- I usually ignore your nonsense. But let me set the record straight since you choose to remain silent:

The US supported the Afghans, but didn't support the Afghan Arabs, who were funded primarily by money from Arab sources. The US funneled its support through Pakistan's ISI, which made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train. Most of the money didn't end up with the Afghan Arabs, but some did go to the MAK. However, the CIA never had a relationship with bin Laden.

There you go. That's the truth. I understand you would prefer to believe that the US funded bin Laden against the Soviets, and extrapolate that somehow to mean the US founded the terrorist organization al Qaeda. So go ahead ... ignore reality and go read commondreams.com, or whatever leftist garbage you prefer.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 11:24 pm
I read through all 19 pages of posts to this thread. I am just marking this so I know where I left off. I don't post often to the polical threads but when I do, folks who know me know where I lean. Ticocomya might describe me as a "wacko...America-hating-leftist." I would disagree, but perhaps will talk about that tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 11:46 pm
Tico, As usual your "facts" are either skewed, incomplete, or just plain wrong. All your blubbering is just that, falling all over itself in a cascading wave of horseflop. IF I have time tomorrow, I will go through and give links to valid sites, and promptly wash your horseflop down the sewer where it belongs.

I'll leave you with this gem from St. Ronnie to consider while you struggle unsuccessfully to get off your knees!

Quote:
Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders".

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.
The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:


Like I said, IF I have time, I will be glad to dish you all the crow you can eat! Meanwhile, you just piss and moan while you blubber endlessly. I imagine everyone else thinks you're as entertaining as I do!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:53 am
I missed the part where the US directly funded bin Laden, or had any relationship with him, or had any part in developing any terrorist organization. Sending funds to the ISI, which was used to to back Afghan rebels against the Soviets, only qualifies as "creating al Qaeda" in fertile minds such as yours, predisposed to believe the US is "the Great Satan."

Maybe you'll be back later with more links ... IF you have time. Maybe I'll reply ... if I have time.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:03 am
Tico,
You seem to have problems with reading comprehension today.


Quote:
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:


The CIA is funded by the US.

Back to the original statement.
Quote:
We created the terrorist AlQueda, only we called them freedom fighters at the time because they were using our tactics that we taught them on the Russians.


Hmm... what was your argument again Tico? It seems the original statement is pretty clearly supported.

The US trained the Mujahideen that became Al Qaeda. Your arguments completely ignore the original statement Tico.

They were called freedom fighters at that time. The US trained them. They became Al Qaeda.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:05 am
Interesting Reading:

Quote:
A little known member of the alphabet soup of federal agencies is the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (more familiarly known by the unpronounceable acronym NCIX) -- an organization whose main goal is "to improve the performance of the counterintelligence (CI) community in identifying, assessing, prioritizing and countering intelligence threats to the United States." To accomplish this task, NCIX now offers that ultimate necessity for Homeland security, downloadable "counterintelligence and security awareness posters." One features the text of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution ("…Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…") and the likeness of Thomas Jefferson, but with a new addendum which reads: "American freedom includes a responsibility to protect U.S. security -- leaking sensitive information erodes this freedom."


http://www.ncix.gov/images/publications/posters/jefferson_sample.jpg
Reads - US Constitution followed by first amendment followed by NCIX statement that "American Freedom includes a responsibility to protect US security - leaking sensitive information erodes this freedom.



Quote:
Another NCIX poster might come straight out of the old Soviet East Germany: "America's Security is Your Responsibility. Observe and Report." While NCIX is an obscure agency, its decision to improve on the 1st Amendment and a fundamental American freedom is indicative of where our Homeland Security State is heading; and the admonition to "Observe and Report" catches its spirit exactly.


http://www.ncix.gov/images/publications/posters/ourcountry_sample.jpg

A personal favorite

http://www.ncix.gov/images/publications/posters/lincoln_sample.jpg

It reads: America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Abraham Lincoln

To this NCIX adds - Endorse and Apply the "Need to Know" principle.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:08 am
realjohnboy wrote:
I read through all 19 pages of posts to this thread. I am just marking this so I know where I left off. I don't post often to the polical threads but when I do, folks who know me know where I lean. Ticocomya might describe me as a "wacko...America-hating-leftist." I would disagree, but perhaps will talk about that tomorrow.


Why would I do that, realjohnboy? Not all leftists are "America-hating," IMV. Are you of the "blame America first" variety?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:10 am
Are you of the "destroy America first" variety of right-wingers?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:49 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Are you of the "destroy America first" variety of right-wingers?


Perhaps that's your opinion, FD, and you are welcome to it.

My question to RJB was not to accuse him of hating America by any means, but merely to address his comment that I might think of him as an "America hating leftist," and I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't think all leftists hate America. I don't know him well enough to have formed an opinion on the matter.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:49 am
parados wrote:
Tico,
You seem to have problems with reading comprehension today.


Quote:
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:


The CIA is funded by the US.


Yes it is. But what else about the above quote causes you to believe the CIA (the US) "created al Qaeda"? What is it that makes you think the US funded the Arab mujahideen?

Quote:
Back to the original statement.
Quote:
We created the terrorist AlQueda, only we called them freedom fighters at the time because they were using our tactics that we taught them on the Russians.


Hmm... what was your argument again Tico? It seems the original statement is pretty clearly supported.


It's not supported at all, but since SteviePax doesn't have time to respond, maybe you could flesh out his argument for him. As I've stated several times, the US -- along with many other countries in the world, including Saudi Arabia, China, Egypt, Pakistan, and England -- supported the Afghans against the Soviets. The US gave money to Pakistan's ISA, and the ISA then distributed funds to various Afghan rebels.

Milton Bearden, in charge of running the CIA's covert Afghanistan program from 1986 to 1989, said in his book The Main Enemy:

Quote:
Contrary to what people have come to imagine, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used Arab volunteers. The Afghans were more than happy to do their own fighting -- we saw no reason not to satisfy them on this point.


CNN's terrorism expert, Peter Bergen, in his book Holy War, Inc., similarly dismisses any claim that the CIA funded bin Laden. He says:

Quote:


Quote:
The US trained the Mujahideen that became Al Qaeda. Your arguments completely ignore the original statement Tico.

They were called freedom fighters at that time. The US trained them. They became Al Qaeda.


Let's assume arguendo that all of what you say is true. Even if that were the case, even if the CIA trained bin Laden, how would a reasonable person believe that "training Afghan rebels" constitutes "creating al Qaeda"?

It's nonsense. If the US military trains a soldier, and that soldier later decides to become a serial killer, did the US military "create a serial killer"? No ... the US created a soldier, and the soldier later decided to become a killer.

What is the limit to how far you will stretch this type of argument? Did bin Laden's mother create al Qaeda? After all, she gave birth to him, and he became al Qaeda.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:54 am
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Are you of the "destroy America first" variety of right-wingers?


Perhaps that's your opinion, FD, and you are welcome to it.

My question to RJB was not to accuse him of hating America by any means, but merely to address his comment that I might think of him as an "America hating leftist," and I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't think all leftists hate America. I don't know him well enough to have formed an opinion on the matter.


It was a question, not an accusation. But notice how such a question makes a person intstantly defensive. In fact, I think just tossing the label out there at all makes people who might identify with any part of it defensive. Perhaps that's the intent.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 11:13 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Are you of the "destroy America first" variety of right-wingers?


Perhaps that's your opinion, FD, and you are welcome to it.

My question to RJB was not to accuse him of hating America by any means, but merely to address his comment that I might think of him as an "America hating leftist," and I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't think all leftists hate America. I don't know him well enough to have formed an opinion on the matter.


It was a question, not an accusation. But notice how such a question makes a person intstantly defensive. In fact, I think just tossing the label out there at all makes people who might identify with any part of it defensive. Perhaps that's the intent.


After I submitted my post, I realized I didn't answer your question. And I couldn't edit my post. The answer is "no."

I didn't believe your question to be an accusation, FD, but my response gave me an opportunity to make it clear, if it wasn't before, that I wasn't accusing RJB of anything. And I wasn't being defensive, so if you read it that way, you read it incorrectly. As far as my labeling SteviePax as an America-hating leftist, that's my opinion based on my observations. Will it cause him to be defensive? It might ... but then again it might not. There are, after all, some leftists who think patriotism is a bad thing.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 11:17 am
And there are some on the right that think that privacy is a bad thing, or that checks and balances are "quaint", or that the Constitution was just a suggestion. The point is, there's no point in labeling folks as there could just as easily be people on the left who feel the same way. Same goes for "America-hating left". Some might characterize a systematic dismantling of the
Constitution as "America-hating".
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 11:30 am
FreeDuck wrote:
And there are some on the right that think that privacy is a bad thing, or that checks and balances are "quaint", or that the Constitution was just a suggestion. The point is, there's no point in labeling folks as there could just as easily be people on the left who feel the same way. Same goes for "America-hating left". Some might characterize a systematic dismantling of the
Constitution as "America-hating".


Well I don't know about "some," but I characterize the constant effort to point the blame at the United States at every turn "America hating."

But your point about labels is well-taken. In my defense I'd point out that I reserve my labeling for a select few.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 11:47 am
I can accept that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:20:44