SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: mishedlo who wrote (106044)1/3/2010 7:38:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) of 116555
 
Mish.. I suggest you stick to economics.

Because your lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the politics of the Middle East is fatally flawed.

But they do care we have troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Bin Laden's major beef with the US (and he said so himself), was we had "troops on sacred Arab soil".

So every Arab in the world can declare "Jihad" because an Americans are located in a Muslim country? What's next, every US plane that lands in a Muslim country? Every ship that visits an Arab port?

Can I declare a Crusade because Arabs because they have their military pilots training here in the US?

Can White Supremists kill Black Federal Agents who get stationed in their cities?

I mean.. MY GOD.. THINK!!

And btw, we didn't train him. He was a Saudi asset. There is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that the CIA actually had anything but peripheral contact with Bin Ladin. So quit proliferating outright LIES.

The closest the CIA got to Bin Ladin was funneling a "small" amount of funds to the "MAK" THROUGH Pakistan's ISI (they demanded all funds pass through their hands first and no direct CIA contact/agents in Afghanistan).

en.wikipedia.org

Furthermore, we can tie Abdullah Yusuf Azzam to Bin Ladin, and the "Blind Sheik", Omar Abdel-Rahman:

en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

Stupid US invasion of Iraq

Saddam's regime was involved with Islamist groups and recruiting them to conduct "false flag" operations against the US and American forces. I know.. I PERSONALLY SAW the documents from Saddam to his intelligence director DATED IN 1992. He specifically wanted to attack US forces supporting the humanitarian relief effort in Somalia ("blackhawk down").

THAT was a direct violation of the cease fire.

And we're not EVEN going to get into Ramzi Yousef and the 1993 WTC bombing, despite the fact that Yousef had an IRAQI PASSPORT, and was the nephew of Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, who we're about to put on trial for 9/11.

The reality is that Saddam was a threat. He was intransigent, he was in MATERIAL VIOLATION of a UN Cease-Fire, and post-facto to the invasion we had discovered he was waging a covert war using Islamist groups to attack Americans and US interests.

And given the reported intelligence at that time, it was uncertain whether Saddam had been involved in providing support to Al Qaida or not, but that it was clear it was in his interest to do so if it would distract the US from dealing with Iraq.

) Drones accidentally blowing up innocent Pakistani citizens

And how do you think Pakistanis feel about their people dying as a result of DELIBERATE TERRORIST ATTACKS by the Taliban?

msnbc.msn.com

) US not going after Bin Laden but other nebulous goals to the point that it looks more like an oil grab than anything else

And wow!! Look at all that oil we grabbed!! Looks like we control all of that Iraqi oil, now doesn't it? We're filling our coffers FULL of Iraqi oil revenue, aren't we now?

What an IDIOTIC thing to say!!

Hell.. Shumer and a few other democratic senators made SURE that China got the first oil contracts out of Iraq.

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext