# Victory in Mosul, Daesh dead!



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

That's right! ISIS ass is kicked! US- backed Peshmerga, Iraqi forces, and SAA  and Russia done got 'um! Oh, this is a great day!




*ALL DAESH NEED TO BE DEAD!*


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 10, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> That's right! ISIS ass is kicked! US- backed Peshmerga, Iraqi forces, and SAA  and Russia done got 'um! Oh, this is a great day!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah.....but what about that imaginary Russian collusion???


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 10, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> That's right! ISIS ass is kicked! US- backed Peshmerga, Iraqi forces, and SAA and Russia done got 'um! Oh, this is a great day!



Awesome. Let's make a list of everyone we armed to do our fighting for us so when they turn on us in 5 years, we'll know who they are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 10, 2017)

mudwhistle said:


> Yeah.....but what about that imaginary Russian collusion???



What about it.  Now the Russian aligned Iranians have a stretch of territory from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Putin is seen as a power player over there and we can pretty much be ignored as they wait for us to get tired and leave.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

Watching the video, these guys have .308s and M249 SAWs.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 10, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Watching the video, these guys have .308s and M249 SAWs.



Again, we need to make sure that we keep track, so when they turn on  us like Saddam, Bin Laden and the Libyan Rebels did, we know who they are.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

Just remember, the Bushes caused a lot of that misery over there.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the video, these guys have .308s and M249 SAWs.
> ...



Saddam didn't "turn on us".

The Bushes fucked him over and he put a bounty on their heads.

As a result, countless people suffered and died.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 10, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Saddam didn't "turn on us".
> 
> The Bushes fucked him over and he put a bounty on their heads.
> 
> As a result, countless people suffered and died.



No, actually he did turn on us by invading Kuwait. The problem was, like Bin Laden, like the Libyan Rebels... we thought he was a "guy we could work with".  

Our Middle East policy is sticking our dick in a hornet's nest and then complaining about getting stung.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 10, 2017)

i am gonna go with marion on this...after bush 1 used his veto to stop saddam from being censored by the un...saddam saw no reason to think his invading kuwait would be that troublesome to bush....

Washington’s complicity in Hussein’s crimes

President Bush is fond of citing the Anfal campaign and accusing Hussein of “gassing his own people,” but the chief international backer of the Baathist regime in the 1980s was the US itself. If Hussein and his lieutenants are to be put on trial for the murder of Kurds then standing alongside them in the dock should be the surviving members of the Reagan administration, including Bush’s own father, who was Reagan’s vice-president, and the present defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was Reagan’s special envoy to Iraq in 1983-84. Moreover, the secret archives of the CIA, Pentagon and State Department should be opened up to reveal the true extent of Washington’s complicity in all of Hussein’s crimes.

Still reeling from the collapse of the pro-US dictatorship of Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979, the Reagan administration encouraged Hussein to launch a war on Iran as a means of containing the new Islamic regime in Tehran. When despite initial defeats the Iranian army began to turn the tide on the Iraqi military, Reagan moved to shore up the Baathists. In February 1982, despite objections from Congress, the US administration removed Iraq from the official American list of state sponsors of terrorism and thus the ban on providing financial and military assistance to the Hussein regime.

In his capacity of special envoy, Rumsfeld was pivotal in US negotiations with Hussein that culminated in the resumption of formal diplomatic relations in late 1984. As early as 1983, Washington was aware that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons against Iranian troops in contravention of international law. As stories of horrific gassings began to emerge in 1984, the US formally “censured” Iraq but at the same time dispatched Rumsfeld to Baghdad to assure Hussein that its support for his war and for the normalisation of diplomatic relations was “undiminished”.

The full story of US support for the Iraqi regime is yet to be told. But there is ample evidence that the Reagan administration provided Hussein with billions of dollars in credits, military intelligence including satellite data on Iranian troop movements and assistance in military planning, as well as giving the green light for US allies in Europe and the Middle East to provide military hardware and aid. American and European firms supplied Iraq with the essential ingredients for the development and manufacture of chemical and biological weapons.

In the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for instance, a US-sponsored UN resolution required Baghdad to provide a full accounting of its “weapons of mass destruction”, which by that time had all been dismantled. Iraq responded with an 11,000-page report, then was immediately censored by Washington to remove details of US and European involvement in Iraq’s WMD programs. The German newspaper _Die Tageszeitung_ obtained an uncensored copy of the report, which listed 22 prominent American corporations including well-known names such as Bechtel, Dupont, Rockwell and Honeywell, along with many European companies. “From about 1975 onwards, these companies are shown to have supplied entire complexes, building elements, basic materials and technical know-how for Saddam Hussein’s program to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction,” the newspaper wrote.

The Reagan administration’s support was political and diplomatic as well as material. In March 1986, as evidence of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons became overwhelming, the US and Britain used their veto to block a motion in the UN Security Council condemning Iraq. Moreover, the US was the only country to vote against a non-binding UN Security Council statement on the same issue. Increasingly, US agencies responded allegations of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons with a conscious campaign of deception and disinformation, claiming that the Iranian military was also using poison gas.

New charges of genocide against Hussein over Kurdish “Anfal” campaign


----------



## theHawk (Jul 10, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > That's right! ISIS ass is kicked! US- backed Peshmerga, Iraqi forces, and SAA and Russia done got 'um! Oh, this is a great day!
> ...



I agree.  I have a hard time wanting to high five over any "victories" in the ME.  "Democracy" doesn't stand a chance in any Islamic country.  In a few years they'll just vote in some hard core Jihadist type(s).  Just look at where "moderate" Turkey is headed.  The Turks were put in check by a secular military every decade or so, but that is now gone and now they are turning into batshit crazy Sunnis like the rest of the ME.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 10, 2017)

arent the shites the caliphate peeps?  i thought the sunnis are for elections?


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 10, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the video, these guys have .308s and M249 SAWs.
> ...


None of them "turned on us". They were never on our side in the first place. Your ignorance of history is astounding.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> i am gonna go with marion on this...after bush 1 used his veto to stop saddam from being censored by the un...saddam saw no reason to think his invading kuwait would be that troublesome to bush....
> 
> Washington’s complicity in Hussein’s crimes
> 
> ...




Fuckin' aye I never knew ol' Bonesey was so deep! 

In b4..owait.. I'm Op.  PS: You won't get any fairy kisses here.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 10, 2017)

do yall know saddam was given the key to detroit?


----------



## OldLady (Jul 10, 2017)

A lot of people died to free that city.  I'm glad it's over.
Why hasn't Trump taken credit yet?


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 10, 2017)

yea a lot of people died to take over a city of rubble....the idea of a caliphate cannot be defeated with bullets and bombs


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> yea a lot of people died to take over a city of rubble....the idea of a caliphate cannot be defeated with bullets and bombs



Oh, but yes it can. The daesh understand bullets and bombs.

If I was a doctor, they'd all get a bullet to the head prescription.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > That's right! ISIS ass is kicked! US- backed Peshmerga, Iraqi forces, and SAA and Russia done got 'um! Oh, this is a great day!
> ...



The Peshmerga aren't going to turn on us they are Kurds not Sunni.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

Hundreds of thousands died because of the Bushes.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> yea a lot of people died to take over a city of rubble....the idea of a caliphate cannot be defeated with bullets and bombs



The Caliphate can absolutely be stopped from forming with bullets and bombs.  Oh and thank the premature withdrawal from Iraq for Mosul becoming a city of rubble


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 10, 2017)

ahh marion i did not expect you to think that bullets can overcome ideas.....


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> i am gonna go with marion on this...after bush 1 used his veto to stop saddam from being censored by the un...saddam saw no reason to think his invading kuwait would be that troublesome to bush....
> 
> Washington’s complicity in Hussein’s crimes
> 
> President Bush is fond of citing the Anfal campaign and accusing Hussein of “gassing his own people,” but the chief international backer of the Baathist regime in the 1980s was the US itself.



That's an overt lie it was the Soviets along with the Germans and French, check your facts bud, the US only provided appx. .5% of Saddams conventional armament consisting of dual use items; such as, helicopters and bulldozers retrofitted for military use after delivery that's why they had T52s not M1A1s, AK47s not M16s, and MIGs and Mirages not F15s and F16s and; furthermore, according to Saddam's own UN disclosure his precursor chemicals didn't come from the US either.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> arent the shites the caliphate peeps?  i thought the sunnis are for elections?



The Sunnis are for the restoration of a pan-Islamic campaign it's AQ and daesh's entire raison d'etre.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> ahh marion i did not expect you to think that bullets can overcome ideas.....



They don't have ideas when bullets are in their heads. 

It kinda stops that.


----------



## tycho1572 (Jul 10, 2017)

Trump sure knows how to get things done.


----------



## FJO (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



Most Kurds consider themselves Sunni.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

FJO said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



They don't make their wimmens wear the hijab. Islam is bad all the way around.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 10, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



Saddam had his own agenda.  Saddam used the support the West gave to him to build a secret nuclear enrichment facility.  Imo, it is one of the reasons President Bush(41) snookered him into invading Kuwait.


----------



## OldLady (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> ahh marion i did not expect you to think that bullets can overcome ideas.....


You're right that bullets can't overcome ideas, but when those idea men have large cities and populations under their control, they can fund much more mischief and accomplish a lot more havoc, destruction and murder.  Their safe space had to be taken away.   But you're right, it was only step one.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 10, 2017)

Great news!
Now, how long before we go to war with those guys?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > yea a lot of people died to take over a city of rubble....the idea of a caliphate cannot be defeated with bullets and bombs
> ...



Don't forget to thank the unnecessary invasion, occupation along with the invading authority being forced to accept a SOFA that set the definitive time table for our complete withdrawal in 2008, or be forced to leave the country before 2009!


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

FJO said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



_As a whole, the Kurdish people are adherents to a large number of different religions and creeds, perhaps constituting the most religiously diverse people of West Asia. Traditionally, Kurds have been known to take great liberties with their practices. This sentiment is reflected in the saying "Compared to the unbeliever, the Kurd is a Muslim".[215]
_

Kurds - Wikipedia

The Kurds are the the most liberal Muslim group on the planet and IMHO the only Muslim group that should be granted access to western civilization.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> ahh marion i did not expect you to think that bullets can overcome ideas.....



Yet they can! Post moar! You're safe from Sonny's fairy kisses here.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Don't forget to thank the unnecessary invasion, occupation along with the invading authority



You mean OIF which the majority of Democrats voted for?  Oh I didn't.




> being forced to accept a SOFA that set the definitive time table for our complete withdrawal in 2008, or be forced to leave the country before 2009!



Don't give me that shit, the SOFA allowed the US to keep troops in Iraq in non-combat rolls, the SOFA allowed combat troops to remain in Iraq for more than a year (Dec. 2011) after Obama pulled pulled out the last of the combat troops (Aug. 2010) and Obama could have renegotiated the SOFA when the 2008 one expired in 2011 which he didn't even attempt so spare me your revisionist history, the Iraqis came begging for US troops to return after ISIS left their Assad granted safe have and crossed from Syria into Iraq.

Furthermore; there were loopholes allowing combat troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely:

Loopholes in US-Iraq Security Pact | Geopolitical Monitor

Obama withdrew before he had to and he did so not because he was bound by the SOFA but because he ran on a campaign of snatching defeat from victory.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 10, 2017)

mudwhistle said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > That's right! ISIS ass is kicked! US- backed Peshmerga, Iraqi forces, and SAA  and Russia done got 'um! Oh, this is a great day!
> ...


Ask Jr.


----------



## FJO (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



30 million mostly decent people without a country of their own.

One of the greatest crime of humanity, especially Great Britain.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jul 10, 2017)

Thankfully Obama did his job and Isis is nearly wiped out now.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget to thank the unnecessary invasion, occupation along with the invading authority
> ...



On the resolution to give President Bush the authority to use military force, in Oct 2002 the majority of Democrats in congress voted against the measure.  A vote the president urged  Congress to pass so he could add teeth to the upcoming UNSC resolution concerning a final round of unfettered inspections, which it did.

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Here is the agreement.  President Obama withdrew in Oct 2011, a few weeks early.  There were no loopholes.  All combat troop were pulled from the population centers by June 30 2009.

Btw Iraq could have asked us to leave at any time too.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be  gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.


----------



## iceberg (Jul 10, 2017)

i'll never understand why people shoot bullets up into the air in crowds. where the hell's it gonna land people?


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 10, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the video, these guys have .308s and M249 SAWs.
> ...



Who has the U.S. helped that didn't turn on us except the UK, France, and a few other European countries?


----------



## blackhawk (Jul 10, 2017)

They were defeated when they were called Al-Qaeda in Iraq as well. The question now is will the world make sure they stay defeated or just pack up and move on and let them reorganize and rearm like before?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> That's right! ISIS ass is kicked! US- backed Peshmerga, Iraqi forces, and SAA  and Russia done got 'um! Oh, this is a great day!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obama's plan worked. 

Reality though - they are far from dead.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > That's right! ISIS ass is kicked! US- backed Peshmerga, Iraqi forces, and SAA  and Russia done got 'um! Oh, this is a great day!
> ...



Many are though, however. 

It would be good if derp countries didn't allow them re-entry.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> Thankfully Obama did his job and Isis is nearly wiped out now.




Are you fucking retarded?


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Obama's plan worked.



What plan was that?  Allow them to capture several major cities in Syria and Iraq, label them the JV team, then ignore them until their bloodshed spills onto western shores?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



They still control a large part of Syria/Iraq and it's likely difficult to control those borders...and, the underlying problem of failed states and ethnic tensions still exists


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's plan worked.
> ...



Train THEM to fight Daesh, not send in our soldiers.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> On the resolution to give President Bush the authority to use military force, in Oct 2002 the majority of Democrats in congress voted against the measure.  A vote the president urged  Congress to pass so he could add teeth to the upcoming UNSC resolution concerning a final round of unfettered inspections, which it did.
> 
> https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf



58% of Senate democrats voted for the resolution including both Democrat Presidential nominees who were in the Senate at the time of the vote, the exception would be Obama who was not in Congress yet and it was not the "Joint Resolution to Grant Teeth to Future Inspections," it was the Joint Resolution for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. 



> Here is the agreement.  President Obama withdrew in Oct 2011, a few weeks early.  There were no loopholes.  All combat troop were pulled from the population centers by June 30 2009.



Obama withdrew all combat troops as of aug. 2010 more than a year before the Dec. 2011 deadline.



> Btw Iraq could have asked us to leave at any time too.



Which they didn't.  Obama could have and should have renegotiated the SOFA but instead he pulled out all combat troops more than a year before the deadline so don't fucking tell me that Obama was just going along with the Bush agreement, not only did he not attempt to renegotiate but he expedited the withdrawal of combat troops.

And you're wrong there were loopholes:

_
*Summary*
A reinterpretation of the recently signed US-Iraq security pact leaves loopholes in the agreement undermining the very concessions originally negotiated.  U.S. troops will no longer be compelled to vacate Iraqi cities as called for by the Status-of-Forces Agreement (SOFA).  Exposing the deal’s loopholes threatens a rejection by the Iraqi public via the proposed July 2009 national referendum.

*Analysis*
Though the Iraqi parliament debated and eventually passed the SOFA with the U.S. that would remove U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by mid-2009, it turns out that the Bush and al-Maliki regimes have reinterpreted the provisions of the agreement to permit U.S. soldiers to remain in active combat roles in Iraqi cities indefinitely.

While the reversal of the security pact’s intent is not unexpected, the fact that the ‘loophole’ is being publicized so quickly after Iraq’s parliament passed the pact is, indeed, quite brazen.

After months of intense negotiations, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki put his own political life, and that of his party’s, on the line by submitting a security pact that would permit the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq commencing with the end of the UN mandate, scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

Yesterday, however, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, admitted that yet-to-be-negotiated U.S. troops would remain in Iraqi cities past the mid-2009 deadline imposed by the security pact as part of so-called “transition teams”, manning numerous security outposts closely coordinated with Iraqi soldiers.  The same day, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell also revealed another loophole: U.S. troops will continue to remain in active combat roles at the “invitation of the Iraqi Parliament”.  Such an ‘invitation’ would not require a passage of law, but merely the ‘request’ of pro-U.S. Prime Minister al-Maliki.

Both revelations followed on the heels of Friday’s expose in Washington when top Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, conceded that U.S. troops would be in Iraq for another 10 years.

Opposition Sunni lawmakers are already crying foul.

Perhaps such blatant, duplicitous deception animated the Sunni Iraqi journalist Muntader al-Zaidi to throw his shoes at President Bush today at a press conference after the outgoing American leader signed the U.S.-Iraq security pact.  Al-Zaidi shouted: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” as he threw the first shoe, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!” as he threw the second, and continued to curse Bush for being the murderer of innocent Iraqi women and children.

*Background on SOFA negotiations*

Prime Minister Al-Maliki faced stiff opposition, including from his own senior coalition partner, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a Shiite political party led by stalwarts that lived in exile in Iran during Saddam Hussein’s reign, and who are still believed to be heavily influenced by Tehran which has publicly denounced the agreement.  Yet, the most vociferous opposition to date has been voiced by the ardent anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who was able to gather tens of thousands of supporters in protest marches through Baghdad.

Despite the opposition, however, al-Maliki was able to convince the three-man Iraqi presidential triumvirate, composed of a Sunni, a Kurd and a Shia, to sign off on the deal – a veto by any of the three would have killed the proposed pact.  Instrumental in obtaining the support of the presidential triumvirate, and his fellow legislators, al-Maliki and his team of negotiators were able to secure a number of key concessions hitherto opposed by the Bush administration: namely, and most importantly, that U.S. forces would vacate Iraqi cities by mid-2009 by retreating to their bases, and withdraw from the country by 2011.

It was on the basis of these major concessions that al-Maliki presented the security pact to a hostile Iraqi parliament, which had to postpone a vote on the agreement after days of raucous debate threatened to collapse the fragile Iraqi parliamentary system.  In the meantime, bowing to pressure exerted by opposition parties – particularly from members representing anti-American constituencies with an eye to upcoming provincial elections – al-Maliki’s ruling Dawa Party agreed to hold a nation-wide referendum on the security pact by July 2009.

Eventually, when Parliament resumed and the vote was held, the security pact did pass.  Interestingly, members of Parliament intimated to the press that should the Iraqi public reject the agreement in the proposed July 2009 referendum, U.S. troops would have to leave Iraq by mid-2010 – ironically, the same exact 16-month timeframe for withdrawal proposed by president-elect Barack Obama.

Manjit Singh is a contributor _

Loopholes in US-Iraq Security Pact | Geopolitical Monitor


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Oh spare me Obama absolutely sent combat troops back into Iraq:

What Obama Really Meant by 'No Boots on the Ground'


Barack Obama to send more soldiers to fight Islamic State in Syria

Obama sends more Special Forces to Syria in fight against IS

U.S. Will Deploy 560 More Troops to Iraq to Help Retake Mosul From ISIS

U.S. to Send 600 More Troops to Iraq to Help Retake Mosul From ISIS


----------



## Coyote (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



Troops were sent to train them.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



No the troops listed in those links were combat troops mainly spec ops taking direct participation in the fighting.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> 58% of Senate democrats voted for the resolution



The Senate is only half of the US Congress and you did say a majority of Democrats in Congress.



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Obama withdrew all combat troops as of aug. 2010



And left 50,000 non combat troops.



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Obama could have and should have renegotiated the SOFA



President Bush had a full year to negotiate a long term SOFA.  Why wasn't he able to get one that included a residual force?  Because the Iraqis wouldn't allow US forces immunity, the very same reason why President Obama's negotiations failed.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 10, 2017)

strollingbones said:


> arent the shites the caliphate peeps?  i thought the sunnis are for elections?



Yea, they are for electing ruthless thugs that will kill all infidels.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> The Peshmerga aren't going to turn on us they are Kurds not Sunni.


The Kurds are Sunni, lol, and a bit more secular than their other Muslim neighbors.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 10, 2017)

Hopefully, the maximum of Daesh fighters received their wish of dying for their ideas.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> The Senate is only half of the US Congress and you did say a majority of Democrats in Congress.



A) I was going from memory.

B)  Regardless every Presidential nominee of the DNC since the resolution that was able to, voted for said resolution.



> And left 50,000 non combat troops.



Sitting in their bases doing nothing allowing daesh to grow in strength, regardless it is evidence that his withdrawal had nothing to do with the SOFA as revisionists would have us believe, he ran on withdrawal from Iraq so stop trying to blame his blunder on Bush it's just sad at this point 




> President Bush had a full year to negotiate a long term SOFA.  Why wasn't he able to get one that included a residual force?



The 2008 SOFA had to expire before a new one could be negotiated.  And as evidenced by the piece I posted Bush and Maliki were even reinterpreting the 2008 SOFA as soon as it was signed to allow US troops to continue to reside in the cities past the deadline rather than remaining in their bases.



> Because the Iraqis wouldn't allow US forces immunity, the very same reason why President Obama's negotiations failed.



Obama never tried to renegotiate, show me evidence of these attempted renegotiations of the SOFA.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 10, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > The Peshmerga aren't going to turn on us they are Kurds not Sunni.
> ...



They're a hodge podge:

_As a whole, the Kurdish people are adherents to a large number of different religions and creeds, perhaps constituting the most religiously diverse people of West Asia. Traditionally, Kurds have been known to take great liberties with their practices. This sentiment is reflected in the saying "Compared to the unbeliever, the Kurd is a Muslim".[215]_


Kurds - Wikipedia


----------



## Borillar (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


The Kurds are an ethnic group. They are almost all Sunni Muslim.


----------



## Borillar (Jul 10, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate is only half of the US Congress and you did say a majority of Democrats in Congress.
> ...


Obama was elected to end the stupid Iraqnam war. Took him too long to GTFO of there.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 10, 2017)

Coyote said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Russia and SAA are working on that. They're down to 3 square Km.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

theHawk said:


> I agree. I have a hard time wanting to high five over any "victories" in the ME. "Democracy" doesn't stand a chance in any Islamic country. In a few years they'll just vote in some hard core Jihadist type(s). Just look at where "moderate" Turkey is headed. The Turks were put in check by a secular military every decade or so, but that is now gone and now they are turning into batshit crazy Sunnis like the rest of the ME.



Democracy isn't the issue here. It's that they don't want to accept the political institutions we have.  

That's kind of their business, not ours. 

Also, after 2016, when a guy most of us voted against became president because the founding slave rapists didn't trust the people any more than the Turkish military trusts theirs, we don't have any business lecturing anyone.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> The Peshmerga aren't going to turn on us they are Kurds not Sunni.



Are you some kind of a retard?  

Learn About Kurdish Religion | The Kurdish Project

The most widely practiced Kurdish religion is Islam. According to a 2011 study conducted by the Pew Research Center,* nearly all (98%) Kurds in Iraq identified as Sunni Muslim, *while the other 2% identified as Shiite Muslims. The study noted that a small minority identified as neither Sunni nor Shiite.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> None of them "turned on us". They were never on our side in the first place. Your ignorance of history is astounding.



Well, if they weren't on our side, it was pretty stupid of us to give them money and arms, wasn't it?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> The Kurds are the the most liberal Muslim group on the planet and IMHO the only Muslim group that should be granted access to western civilization.



again, are you some kind of a retard?  The Kurds have their own agenda and they are playing us for fools.  the PKK is one of the most ruthless terrorist groups in the region. (They are the ones who want the Kurdish areas of Turkey to split off from Turkey 

Again, dumb-asses like you keep thinking that you can stick your dick in the hornet's nest and not get stung.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

Lewdog said:


> Who has the U.S. helped that didn't turn on us except the UK, France, and a few other European countries?



well, Japan, South Korea... 

Heck, a lot of places helped us and we stabbed them in the back. 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> 58% of Senate democrats voted for the resolution including both Democrat Presidential nominees who were in the Senate at the time of the vote, the exception would be Obama who was not in Congress yet and it was not the "Joint Resolution to Grant Teeth to Future Inspections," it was the Joint Resolution for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.



Yes, the democrats were very cowardly. But still Bush's decision to go to war with a country that wasn't a threat to us. 



blackhawk said:


> They were defeated when they were called Al-Qaeda in Iraq as well. The question now is will the world make sure they stay defeated or just pack up and move on and let them reorganize and rearm like before?



Or we can j ust learn to mind our own fucking business. 

You see, I have a great plan for Peace in Our time.  Have a universal draft of national service, but the children of politicians and the wealthy are put in airborne units that will be the first deployed to any war zone. 

You know, instead of poor kids just looking for a college education that never happens.  

Peace in our Time.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > None of them "turned on us". They were never on our side in the first place. Your ignorance of history is astounding.
> ...


Yes it was stupid of you Democrats to arm AQ in Libya. 

It was illegal.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Yes it was stupid of you Democrats to arm AQ in Libya.
> 
> It was illegal.



Not as stupid as arming Al Qaeda like Reagan did.  Or the Sunni Militias like Bush and Petreaus did.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it was stupid of you Democrats to arm AQ in Libya.
> ...


Reagan did not arm AQ. AQ did not even exist when Reagan was in office.

You are simply a liar.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > Who has the U.S. helped that didn't turn on us except the UK, France, and a few other European countries?
> ...




Japan and South Korea haven't yet.  All it takes is some idiot like Duterte to come into power and you see what happens.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Reagan did not arm AQ. AQ did not even exist when Reagan was in office.
> 
> You are simply a liar.



Yes, he did. Try reading a book, stupid. 








Lewdog said:


> Japan and South Korea haven't yet. All it takes is some idiot like Duterte to come into power and you see what happens.



Okay, first of all, it's kind of hard to blame the Filipinos for turning on us. Besides fighting a genocidal war in the beginning of the last century, followed by 50 years of colonialism, we've kind of treated that country like shit. 

Duterte is the result of Democracy not getting the job done, and from what I understand, he's actually pretty popular even though he is massively violating the civil rights of drug suspects.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan did not arm AQ. AQ did not even exist when Reagan was in office.
> ...




That's all?  He once shot a guy in the head to show the police how easy it was to kill someone, and pushed another guy out of a helicopter.  Not to mention he regularly says God talks directly to him... like a schizophrenic.  Then one day he'll curse up a storm, then the next he promises he won't curse anymore... and then curses up a storm.  The guy is a certifiable nut case.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

Lewdog said:


> That's all? He once shot a guy in the head to show the police how easy it was to kill someone, and pushed another guy out of a helicopter. Not to mention he regularly says God talks directly to him... like a schizophrenic. Then one day he'll curse up a storm, then the next he promises he won't curse anymore... and then curses up a storm. The guy is a certifiable nut case.



I agree.... Good thing something like that could never happen in this country... 





Oh, wait.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan did not arm AQ. AQ did not even exist when Reagan was in office.
> ...


I'm very well read. Neither the Taliban nor AQ existed in 1985.

You were fooled by fake news again, jackass.

FALSE: Photo of Ronald Reagan with Taliban


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > The Peshmerga aren't going to turn on us they are Kurds not Sunni.
> ...



_As a whole, the Kurdish people are adherents to a large number of different religions and creeds, perhaps constituting the most religiously diverse people of West Asia. Traditionally, Kurds have been known to take great liberties with their practices. This sentiment is reflected in the saying "Compared to the unbeliever, the Kurd is a Muslim".[215]_


Kurds - Wikipedia


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, the democrats were very cowardly. But still Bush's decision to go to war with a country that wasn't a threat to us.



Everytime they fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone they violated the armistice and committed an act of war and they fired on us hundreds of times.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, he did. Try reading a book, stupid.



No he didn't AQ did not exist and there is zero evidence that the US funded the foreign jihadists we aided indigenous mujahadeen like Ahmad Shah Massoud who went on to form the Northern Alliance.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it was stupid of you Democrats to arm AQ in Libya.
> ...





JoeB131 said:


> Not as stupid as arming Al Qaeda like Reagan did.


Reagan was a private citizen when AQ broke off from the *Mujahideen.

Read a book*


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > The Kurds are the the most liberal Muslim group on the planet and IMHO the only Muslim group that should be granted access to western civilization.
> ...



Pro Islamo-fascist propaganda from an Islamist Erdogan shill, the PKK demand equal rights and democracy and no longer even demands an independent state.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 11, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Obama never tried to renegotiate, show me evidence of these attempted renegotiations of the SOFA.



U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Furthermore President Obama was always open to a residual force.  It was his first major flip-flop that angered the Anti war left.

Topic A -- Obama's Plan for Iraq


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Obama never tried to renegotiate, show me evidence of these attempted renegotiations of the SOFA.
> ...



 Again I have already provided evidence to counter that assessment.




> Furthermore President Obama was always open to a residual force.  It was his first major flip-flop that angered the Anti war left.
> 
> Topic A -- Obama's Plan for Iraq



This does not show an attempt to renegotiate the SOFA.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 11, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the democrats were very cowardly. But still Bush's decision to go to war with a country that wasn't a threat to us.
> ...



The no-fly zone were set up after the armistice.  Furthermore, we killed more coalition forces in those zones than Iraq did.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 11, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



Not only did you miss it at the time in 2011 but in the article I linked to as well.

"Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troopsâ€™ staying on.

Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.

Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals â€” particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi â€” would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq."

U.S. and Iraq Had Not Expected Troops Would Have to Leave


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Irrelevant on both points the zones were established to enforce compliance with the armistice in accordance with UNSC resolution 688, every time fired on us was an act of war.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



What a load of crap, so now according to your article the National Security Advisor and his deputy are the commanders in chief not the POTUS:

_
Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.

In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military._


 But Obama really really wanted to keep a contingent force in Iraq but his own cabinet strong armed him, pinky promise.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 11, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



They were not established by the armistice nor by a vote from the UNSC.  They were established by three nations.  Weren't the SAM sites and radar stations appropriately targeted and fired on in response?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 11, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



Recall the purpose was to demonstrate that there were negotiations between Obama and Maliki on keeping a residual US force in the country, not who the Commander in Chief delegated the process to.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



No the point in the end is that Obama DID NOT attempt to renogotiate it even though Maliki wanted to and had support from the opposition in doing so, in the end it was Obama who torpedoed any chances of keeping troops in Iraq the buck stops with him not the National Security Advisor or his deputy.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



They were authorized under UNSC 688 so spare me.  Regardless 1441 itself found Saddam in material breach of the armistice.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 11, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



"But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, *the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.* Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 11, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




_Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. *Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.*

In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military._


----------



## theHawk (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. I have a hard time wanting to high five over any "victories" in the ME. "Democracy" doesn't stand a chance in any Islamic country. In a few years they'll just vote in some hard core Jihadist type(s). Just look at where "moderate" Turkey is headed. The Turks were put in check by a secular military every decade or so, but that is now gone and now they are turning into batshit crazy Sunnis like the rest of the ME.
> ...



The founding fathers, whom obviously you hate, created the EC because they didn't trust corruption often found in "democratic" elections where ballot stuffing wins.  Back then there wasn't even a popular vote since there was no way to verify that meany votes.  Over two hundred years later we still can't verify every voter and vote because democrats keep blocking voter ID laws.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> I'm very well read. Neither the Taliban nor AQ existed in 1985.
> 
> You were fooled by fake news again, jackass.



Okay, Dummy, what they were calling their little clubhouse in 1985 doesn't take away form the fact it was the same people in the club- Namely Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.  



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Pro Islamo-fascist propaganda from an Islamist Erdogan shill, the PKK demand equal rights and democracy and no longer even demands an independent state.



They are willing to use ethnic cleansing and terror against Turks to get it. 

But here's the thing, buddy.  None of this is our problem. So in a couple of years, when these Kurds are blowing up Americans because we are allied with Turkey through NATO, you'll be right back here saying "Muzzies are EEEEEEvil" because we stuck our dicks in the hornet's nest... again.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

theHawk said:


> The founding fathers, whom obviously you hate, created the EC because they didn't trust corruption often found in "democratic" elections where ballot stuffing wins. Back then there wasn't even a popular vote since there was no way to verify that meany votes. Over two hundred years later we still can't verify every voter and vote because democrats keep blocking voter ID laws.



Naw, guys who said, "All men are created equal" and then went home and raped their slaves, are totally worthy of our respect. 

I'm not sure how an electoral college would prevent "ballot stuffing". I think it's more likely there were 80,000 fraudelent voters in MI, WI and PA than there was 3 million across the whole country.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Reagan was a private citizen when AQ broke off from the *Mujahideen.
> 
> Read a book*



Again.  

1985-  Bin Laden was killing Russians because they didn't accept Islam. 

1998- Bin Laden was killing Americans because they didn't accept Islam. 

Same asshole, different victims, same reason. 

Just remember, in 1985, he was a "Freedom Fighter". 

In 1998, he was a "Terrorist"


----------



## Desperado (Jul 11, 2017)

Victory in Mosul
Its about time! Now can we leave?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan was a private citizen when AQ broke off from the *Mujahideen.
> ...



AGAIN...

AL QUEDA DID NOT EXIST WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.

LOOK IT UP


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> AGAIN...
> 
> AL QUEDA DID NOT EXIST WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.
> 
> LOOK IT UP



So the same assholes called themselves something else.  

"Hey, didn't you guys used to be the Muhajadeen Freedom fighters?" 

"Nope, now we are calling ourselves Al Qaeda!!!"  

What do you think Bin Laden was doing in 1985?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > AGAIN...
> ...



Minor soldier in the Mujahideen.

Lets try it this way...

joe smith is a football player.

He plays for Cleveland Brown.

He doesn't like the way Cleveland is doing things.

He quits, and goes to Pittsburg Steelers.

Is he a Brown, or a Steeler?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Minor soldier in the Mujahideen.



Hardly minor, given the fact that his family resources provided massive amounts of logistics, support and recruitment of Arab Volunteers. 

You see, here was the ugly little secret of Reagan's stupid support of rebels in Afghanistan.  THe CIA didn't understand the Pushtans and the Tajiks and the Uzbeks and the other ethnic groups and their tribal customs. But Arabs who wanted to go over and kill infidels, the CIA had plenty of guys who spoke Arabic and could work with them. 

Again, read a book, Stupid.  

https://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Project/dp/0805075593&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Minor soldier in the Mujahideen.
> ...





JoeB131 said:


> Again, read a book, Stupid.



*AL QUEDA DID NOT EXIST WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.
*
What will it take to get that into your head?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> *AL QUEDA DID NOT EXIST WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.
> *
> What will it take to get that into your head?



repeating the same irrelevent point doesn't get you anywhere. 

Bin Laden did exist, and teh CIA had him on the payroll.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 11, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > *AL QUEDA DID NOT EXIST WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.
> ...



IN the Mujahideen, he was a minor soldier.

After he left, and helped create Al Queda , his money and family standing gave him a leading role.

but, Al Queda did not exist while Reagan was president..



and you can't seem to get that fact into your tiny, locked brain.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> IN the Mujahideen, he was a minor soldier.



No, he was a fairly major commander AND a major provider of logistics and support.  That's what you don't seem to get.  Or don't want to get. But I can't help you with your learning disability. 

Bin Laden wasn't fighting the Russians because he though Communism sucked and Capitalism was nifty. He fought the Russians because the thought of women reading and wearing pants horrified him. 

The CIA armed him anyway. Then acted all surprised when he flew planes into our skyscrapers.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 12, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, Dummy, what they were calling their little clubhouse in 1985 doesn't take away form the fact it was the same people in the club- Namely Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.



There is zero evidence thatwe gave aid of any sort to either Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. In fact there is zero evidence that the US funded the foreign jihadists we aided indigenous mujahadeen like the Lion of Panjshir Ahmad Shah Massoud who went on to form the Northern Alliance which was the Talibans and Al Qaedas primary rival in Afghanistan.



> They are willing to use ethnic cleansing and terror against Turks to get it.



You are a sick demented son of a bitch, it is the Turks that use terror and ethnic cleansing against the Kurds not the other way around.



> But here's the thing, buddy.  None of this is our problem. So in a couple of years, when these Kurds are blowing up Americans because we are allied with Turkey through NATO, you'll be right back here saying "Muzzies are EEEEEEvil" because we stuck our dicks in the hornet's nest... again.



Erdogan is an Islamist scumbag and is no friend of the United States and never has been he has tranformed Turkey from a secular democracy to a theocratic tyranny governed by state terror and political oppression, the Kurds on the other hand have never been anything but staunch and loyal allies to the United States and comprise one of if not the most secular and liberal Muslim groups on the planet.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 12, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> There is zero evidence thatwe gave aid of any sort to either Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. In fact there is zero evidence that the US funded the foreign jihadists we aided indigenous mujahadeen like the Lion of Panjshir Ahmad Shah Massoud who went on to form the Northern Alliance which was the Talibans and Al Qaedas primary rival in Afghanistan.



Again, read a book. The CIA preferred dealing with the Arab fighters because they could communicate with them. 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> You are a sick demented son of a bitch, it is the Turks that use terror and ethnic cleansing against the Kurds not the other way around.



Again, do some reading, stupid. 

Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) - Wikipedia



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Erdogan is an Islamist scumbag and is no friend of the United States and never has been he has tranformed Turkey from a secular democracy to a theocratic tyranny governed by state terror and political oppression, the Kurds on the other hand have never been anything but staunch and loyal allies to the United States and comprise one of if not the most secular and liberal Muslim groups on the planet.



Well, Turkey can't call itself a "Democracy" if the military stages a coup every time the people voted for something they don't like.  the only thing Erdogan did was break the power of the military to dictate to the government. 

Again, NONE OF WHICH IS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS.  

So in a few years, when the Kurds are blowing up American Embassies and Airliners because of our alliance with the Turks, keep in mind you exempted them from your "Muzzies are Eeeeevil" list.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 12, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > There is zero evidence thatwe gave aid of any sort to either Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. In fact there is zero evidence that the US funded the foreign jihadists we aided indigenous mujahadeen like the Lion of Panjshir Ahmad Shah Massoud who went on to form the Northern Alliance which was the Talibans and Al Qaedas primary rival in Afghanistan.
> ...



Again you are historically ignorant we did not aid the foreign Arab mujahadeen in any way, shape, or form, and there is no evidence that we did, they had their own sources of funding from the wealthy gulf states.



> Again, do some reading, stupid.
> 
> Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) - Wikipedia



Take your own advice yoy sick fuck:

_

Kurds have had a long history of discrimination and massacres perpetrated against them by the Turkish government.[1] Massacres have periodically occurred against the Kurds since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. Among the most significant is the Dersim massacre where 13,160 civilians were killed by the Turkish Army and 11,818 people were taken into exile.[2] According to McDowall, 40,000 people were killed.[3] The Zilan massacre of 1930, was a massacre[4][5]of the Kurdish residents of Turkey during the Ararat rebellion, in which 5,000 to 47,000 were killed.[6]

The use of Kurdish language, dress, folklore, and names were banned and the Kurdish-inhabited areas remained under martial lawuntil 1946.[7] In an attempt to deny their existence, the Turkish government categorized Kurds as "Mountain Turks" until 1991.[8][9][10] The words "Kurds", "Kurdistan", or "Kurdish" were officially banned by the Turkish government.[11] Following the military coup of 1980, the Kurdish language was officially prohibited in public and private life.[12] Many people who spoke, published, or sang in Kurdish were arrested and imprisoned.[13]Since lifting of the ban in 1991, the Kurdish population of Turkey has long sought to have Kurdish included as a language of instruction in public schools as well as a subject. Currently, it's illegal to use the Kurdish language as an instruction language in private and public schools.

During the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, food embargoes were placed on Kurdish populated villages and towns.[14][15] There were many instances of Kurds being forcefully deported out of their villages by Turkish security forces.[16] Many villages were reportedly set on fire or destroyed.[17][16] Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, political parties that represented Kurdish interests were banned.[11]In 2013, a ceasefire effectively ended the violence until June 2015, when hostilities renewed between the PKK and the Turkish government over the Turkey–ISIL conflict. Violence was widely reported against ordinary Kurdish citizens and the headquarters and branches of the pro-Kurdish rights Peoples' Democratic Party were attacked by mobs.[18]The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Turkey for the thousands of human rights abuses.[19][20] Many judgments are related to systematic executions of Kurdish civilians,[21] torturing,[22] forced displacements,[23] destroyed villages,[24][25][26]arbitrary arrests,[27] murdered and disappeared Kurdish journalists, activists and politicians.[28]_

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey - Wikipedia



> Well, Turkey can't call itself a "Democracy" if the military stages a coup every time the people voted for something they don't like.  the only thing Erdogan did was break the power of the military to dictate to the government.
> 
> Again, NONE OF WHICH IS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS.
> 
> So in a few years, when the Kurds are blowing up American Embassies and Airliners because of our alliance with the Turks, keep in mind you exempted them from your "Muzzies are Eeeeevil" list.



Turkey can't call itself a democracy when they try to turn it into a theocracy, it has been the roll of the Turkish military since Ataturk founded the modern Turkish republic to maintain secularism in order to insure that representative republicanism is maintained whereby the will of the majority is respected only so long as the rights of the minority are not infringed upon.

And your assertion that Kurds will be attacking the U.S. just goes to demonstrate that you are one of the most politically illiterate morons on this board.  God you're fucking dumb.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 12, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...





Call Sign Chaos said:


> Again you are historically ignorant we did not aid the foreign Arab mujahadeen in any way, shape, or form, and there is no evidence that we did,


Started under Carter.
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 12, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Not the foreign Arab jihadists we did not aid them in any way, shape, or form we aided the indigenous Afghan mujahadeen some of which would go on to join the Taliban but others of which would go on to form the Northern Alliance; such as, Ahmad Shah Massoud the Lion of Panjshir.

_
The so-called Afghan Arabs included some well-intentioned people, Bearden told us, but also a lot of “whack jobs,” including “an awful lot of derelicts emptied out of Saudi Arabian prisons. … It became sort of a Club Med Jihad.”

“For the most part, they were a joke, these guys,” Bearden said.

The CIA decided supporting the Arab fighters “would get out of hand,” he said. “There was no serious discussion of arming these Arab legions.”

There were “very few” Arabs who actually saw any combat in Afghanistan, Bearden said, although bin Laden got into a couple “dustups.” But that doesn’t mean their influence was not felt. Arab fundraisers were bringing in nearly $25 million a month at one point in the war, largely used for humanitarian and construction projects, Bearden said. And one of the most prominent fundraisers was bin Laden, although Bearden said that at the time bin Laden was largely unknown to U.S. intelligence.

The U.S. covertly funded the Afghan fighters through Pakistan. So how does Bearden know the Pakistanis didn’t simply give some of the money to the Arabs, including bin Laden?

“They didn’t,” Bearden said. “We had ways to check where the money was going.”

Besides, he said, the Arabs were “awash with money from the Gulf.” In other words, they didn’t need it. Bearden said the CIA made efforts to keep its support for Afghan forces “very discreet from everything else.”

“There was a policy not to do that [support the Arab fighters],” Bearden said. “The question is, ‘Did the CIA secretly support the radical Islamic Arabs in Afghanistan?’ The answer is absolutely not.”_

Rand Paul's Bin Laden Claim Is 'Urban Myth' - FactCheck.org


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 13, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Again you are historically ignorant we did not aid the foreign Arab mujahadeen in any way, shape, or form, and there is no evidence that we did, they had their own sources of funding from the wealthy gulf states.



Uh, yeah, we did.  Read a book. 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Turkey can't call itself a democracy when they try to turn it into a theocracy, it has been the roll of the Turkish military since Ataturk founded the modern Turkish republic to maintain secularism in order to insure that representative republicanism is maintained whereby the will of the majority is respected only so long as the rights of the minority are not infringed upon.



Uh, guy, what if the majority WANT theocracy?  That's democracy. You might not like it but that's what it is. 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Not the foreign Arab jihadists we did not aid them in any way, shape, or form we aided the indigenous Afghan mujahadeen some of which would go on to join the Taliban but others of which would go on to form the Northern Alliance; such as, Ahmad Shah Massoud the Lion of Panjshir.



guy, you can go on all day, but the fact is, we DID support the Arab jihadists, and they came back to bite us in the ass.  

Osama Ben Laden: A creation of the CIA, by Michel Chossudovsky - internationalnews

*Osama Bin Laden*


Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp. 


During the Reagan administration, Osama, who belonged to the wealthy Saudi Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by  Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities were used to finance the recruitment of Mujahieen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden.


----------



## Meathead (Jul 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Again you are historically ignorant we did not aid the foreign Arab mujahadeen in any way, shape, or form, and there is no evidence that we did, they had their own sources of funding from the wealthy gulf states.
> ...


Joey, your first point was correct in that Carter started support for the anti-Soviet mujaheddin which included groups like the Northern Alliance who fought the Taliban. The rest is unadulterated conspiracy bullshit only someone with serious pathological damage would believe. 

Why don't you go save some thugs lives on the streets of the shit hole where you live? Too dangerous?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 13, 2017)

Meathead said:


> Joey, your first point was correct in that Carter started support for the anti-Soviet mujaheddin which included groups like the Northern Alliance who fought the Taliban. The rest is unadulterated conspiracy bullshit only someone with serious pathological damage would believe.



This is why I have you on ignore, buddy, you never add anything to the conversation. 

Yes, Carter Started it. And REagan escalated it and recruited guys like Bin Laden.  Gorbachev BEGGED Reagan to stop so the whole region wouldn't be destabilized, and Reagan kept on doing it. 

And now we all scratch our heads wondering why we have to take our shoes off at the airport.


----------



## Meathead (Jul 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Joey, your first point was correct in that Carter started support for the anti-Soviet mujaheddin which included groups like the Northern Alliance who fought the Taliban. The rest is unadulterated conspiracy bullshit only someone with serious pathological damage would believe.
> ...





JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Joey, your first point was correct in that Carter started support for the anti-Soviet mujaheddin which included groups like the Northern Alliance who fought the Taliban. The rest is unadulterated conspiracy bullshit only someone with serious pathological damage would believe.
> ...


First off, I am not your buddy. Second, I am obviously not on ignore, but snowflake that you are I am sure you have a list, and finally Joey, you're full of shit. Degree in history - my ass.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 13, 2017)

Meathead said:


> First off, I am not your buddy. Second, I am obviously not on ignore, but snowflake that you are I am sure you have a list, and finally Joey, you're full of shit. Degree in history - my ass.



First, yes, you are on ignore and I don't read most of your posts. 
Second, no, you are not anyone's buddy with your personality. 
Third, sorry, man, I lived through the Reagan folly in Afghanistan, and a lot of people at the time asked these very valid questions about why we were supporting religious fanatics in Afghanistan when they were giving us so much trouble in Iran and Lebanon.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, we did.  Read a book.



I have, stop reading unsubstantiated far left propaganda 


> Uh, guy, what if the majority WANT theocracy?  That's democracy. You might not like it but that's what it is.



No it is not, by your standards Nazi Germany was a democracy because they came to power through the democratic process, the only democratic systems which matter are liberal democracies which guarantee equality, liberty, and pluralism, they respect the rights of the majority only in so long as they don't violate the inalienable rights of the minority otherwise you have nothing but a tyranny of the masses.



> guy, you can go on all day, but the fact is, we DID support the Arab jihadists, and they came back to bite us in the ass.
> 
> Osama Ben Laden: A creation of the CIA, by Michel Chossudovsky - internationalnews
> 
> ...



Pure myth not substantiated by a scrap of evidence:

_The so-called Afghan Arabs included some well-intentioned people, Bearden told us, but also a lot of “whack jobs,” including “an awful lot of derelicts emptied out of Saudi Arabian prisons. … It became sort of a Club Med Jihad.”

“For the most part, they were a joke, these guys,” Bearden said.

The CIA decided supporting the Arab fighters “would get out of hand,” he said. “There was no serious discussion of arming these Arab legions.”

There were “very few” Arabs who actually saw any combat in Afghanistan, Bearden said, although bin Laden got into a couple “dustups.” But that doesn’t mean their influence was not felt. Arab fundraisers were bringing in nearly $25 million a month at one point in the war, largely used for humanitarian and construction projects, Bearden said. And one of the most prominent fundraisers was bin Laden, although Bearden said that at the time bin Laden was largely unknown to U.S. intelligence.

The U.S. covertly funded the Afghan fighters through Pakistan. So how does Bearden know the Pakistanis didn’t simply give some of the money to the Arabs, including bin Laden?

“They didn’t,” Bearden said. “We had ways to check where the money was going.”

Besides, he said, the Arabs were “awash with money from the Gulf.” In other words, they didn’t need it. Bearden said the CIA made efforts to keep its support for Afghan forces “very discreet from everything else.”

“There was a policy not to do that [support the Arab fighters],” Bearden said. “The question is, ‘Did the CIA secretly support the radical Islamic Arabs in Afghanistan?’ The answer is absolutely not.”_

Rand Paul's Bin Laden Claim Is 'Urban Myth' - FactCheck.org

Provide the actual paper trail tying US finances to the foreign Arab jihadists, what guerilla camp did the CIA train him at, who recruited him, where is the evidence?  Your laughably baseless claims from the far left activist and creator of the "global research" propaganda network Michel Chossudovsky means less than nothing you joke of a human being.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 13, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> No it is not, by your standards Nazi Germany was a democracy because they came to power through the democratic process, the only democratic systems which matter are liberal democracies which guarantee equality, liberty, and pluralism, they respect the rights of the majority only in so long as they don't violate the inalienable rights of the minority otherwise you have nothing but a tyranny of the masses.



Okay. Let me know when they invent one of those. 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Pure myth not substantiated by a scrap of evidence:



Other than tons of books that have been written on the subject by ex-CIA guys.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 13, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay. Let me know when they invent one of those.



All modern western democracies are liberal democracies, other examples would be South Korea, Japan etc.  

Again by your standards Hamas controlled Gaza or Nazi Germany are democracies because a tyrannical political regime managed to obtain power through a democratic process, it's not how a regime comes to power it's what they do with it once they have it.



> Other than tons of books that have been written on the subject by ex-CIA guys.



Provide the actual paper trail tying US finances/aid/training to the foreign Arab jihadists, what guerilla camp did the CIA train him at, who recruited him, where is the evidence?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 14, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> All modern western democracies are liberal democracies, other examples would be South Korea, Japan etc.
> 
> Again by your standards Hamas controlled Gaza or Nazi Germany are democracies because a tyrannical political regime managed to obtain power through a democratic process, it's not how a regime comes to power it's what they do with it once they have it.



Okay, that's your opinion and stuff, if you really think the people have a say in their leadership and just don't have to put up with what the Rich want.  But if you really think that, more power to you, Pollyanna. 

Reality- No regime exists without the tacit support of its people. The "Good Germans" never show up. 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Provide the actual paper trail tying US finances/aid/training to the foreign Arab jihadists, what guerilla camp did the CIA train him at, who recruited him, where is the evidence?



Um, I've posted that several times. 

Now, I know you don't want to believe your God Reagan screwed this up, but he did.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 14, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, that's your opinion and stuff, if you really think the people have a say in their leadership and just don't have to put up with what the Rich want.  But if you really think that, more power to you, Pollyanna.
> 
> Reality- No regime exists without the tacit support of its people. The "Good Germans" never show up.



Yes it is my opinion and that of the majority of rational thinking humans that a tytanny established through the democratic process is no less a of a tyranny.  You can take you peoples democracy tyranny of the masses propaganda and shove it right up your ass.



> Um, I've posted that several times.



Um no you haven't you posted BS from the far left Mikel Chossudovsky who provided no evidence to back his claims.   Again, rovide the actual paper trail tying US finances/aid/training to the foreign Arab jihadists, what guerilla camp did the CIA train him at, who recruited him, where is the evidence?  Because you have not presented that in any way, shape, or form.

Oh and I've been meaning to tell you for awhike, Capaldi sucks 10th doctor 4 life.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 14, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Yes it is my opinion and that of the majority of rational thinking humans that a tytanny established through the democratic process is no less a of a tyranny. You can take you peoples democracy tyranny of the masses propaganda and shove it right up your ass.



Okay, real world.  Most governments have the tacit support of their people. 

Hitler was a bastard... but Germans fought to the last old man and little boy for him because he was their bastard.  



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Um no you haven't you posted BS from the far left Mikel Chossudovsky who provided no evidence to back his claims. Again, rovide the actual paper trail tying US finances/aid/training to the foreign Arab jihadists, what guerilla camp did the CIA train him at, who recruited him, where is the evidence? Because you have not presented that in any way, shape, or form.



Dude, if I had those papers, I'd be charged with treason... we havea  government that keeps secrets from us... 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> Oh and I've been meaning to tell you for awhike, Capaldi sucks 10th doctor 4 life.



Meh...  I like both of them in the role.  When he regenerates on the Xmas special, I'll put the new guy up there, whoever that is.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 15, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, real world.  Most governments have the tacit support of their people.
> 
> Hitler was a bastard... but Germans fought to the last old man and little boy for him because he was their bastard.



The point was sir, that coming to power through the democratic process didn't make the Nazi regime democratic.



> Dude, if I had those papers, I'd be charged with treason... we havea  government that keeps secrets from us...



So make any wild baseless claim without evidence and then claim oppression when asked to back it up...my how convenient.



> Meh...  I like both of them in the role.  When he regenerates on the Xmas special, I'll put the new guy up there, whoever that is.



He's a good actor and to be honest it was his companions are what made it not great plus also Russel T. Davies and Steven Moffat left.  Is it this Christmas for a new regeneration though?

Can you hear the drums?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> The point was sir, that coming to power through the democratic process didn't make the Nazi regime democratic.



Not really. Point is, most Germans enthusiastically supported Hitler up until the war ended.  When the July 20 plot was launched to kill Hitler, even after all the misery being inflicted on the country up to that point, Germans turned on the conspirators. 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> So make any wild baseless claim without evidence and then claim oppression when asked to back it up...my how convenient.



Except they aren't baseless.  A lot of reporting has gone into how the CIA worked with the Arab "volunteers", mostly because they were easier to work with.  They were just there to kill Russians.  and our CIA had lots of people who spoke Arabic, but not so many that spoke Pushtun or Baluch. 



Call Sign Chaos said:


> He's a good actor and to be honest it was his companions are what made it not great plus also Russel T. Davies and Steven Moffat left. Is it this Christmas for a new regeneration though?



They are supposed to announce the new actor today.  (Hopefully they won't do something stupid like cast a woman). And yes, the regeneration is supposed to happen on the Christmas special. 

I think Capaldi is a good actor, but I'm not sure he was right for this role. He had some great episodes and great moments, but he never really connected with the audience the way Matt Smith or Tom Baker did.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 16, 2017)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really. Point is, most Germans enthusiastically supported Hitler up until the war ended.  When the July 20 plot was launched to kill Hitler, even after all the misery being inflicted on the country up to that point, Germans turned on the conspirators.



It was a tyranny of the masses just like what Erdogan is trying to establish in Turkey with his authoritarian policies and locking up of political dissidents even judges and journalists who don't tow the party line.

For Judges Who Defy Turkey’s Leaders, Short Road to Jail

Turkey’s Human Rights Rollback



> Except they aren't baseless.  A lot of reporting has gone into how the CIA worked with the Arab "volunteers", mostly because they were easier to work with.  They were just there to kill Russians.  and our CIA had lots of people who spoke Arabic, but not so many that spoke Pushtun or Baluch.



Then where's the evidence?  It's a debunked political myth.  The Arabs didn't need our funding they had plenty of aid from the rich gulf states.



> They are supposed to announce the new actor today.  (Hopefully they won't do something stupid like cast a woman). And yes, the regeneration is supposed to happen on the Christmas special.
> 
> I think Capaldi is a good actor, but I'm not sure he was right for this role. He had some great episodes and great moments, but he never really connected with the audience the way Matt Smith or Tom Baker did.



Ya I kind of lost interest with the 12th doctor when they cast the woman to play the master, she couldn't hold a candle to Saxon and the story arc was nowhere near as good.  I'll keep an ear out for the announcement.


----------

