Great idea! Let's fund terrorism

[landrun]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1039767420070410

Say what you want, but our ignorant president and corrupt democrat congress just decided to spend MILLIONS of our tax dollars to train terrorists to fight and kill.

This is such a stupid move I'm shocked. I know we're screw up but this is screwed up at a whole new level.


This sum includes $14.5 million for "basic and advanced training," $23 million for nonlethal equipment, $2.9 million to upgrade the guard's facilities and $3 million to provide "capacity building and technical assistance" to the office of Abbas's national security advisor, a long-time foe of Hamas.

Now. Let's be objective. Both Hamas and Fatah are terrorists organizations.

This article even admits that they've united to form a single government. So, the logic is, we're giving money only to Fatah (which is a terrorists organization in its own right) but not Hamas.

And they're going to be everyone's friend as we provide them with facilities, training and 'technical support' - here mr. muslim terrorist dude. Let us show you how to really fight as a military. Before long, you won't be needing those little car bombs.

Unreal... http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif

[royalfan5]

We've been paying to support terrorism for years already by buying oil from the Saudis.

[TUSooner]

And let's not forget all the aid we gave to the Taliban & Al Qaeda types when they were anti-Soviet "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. George Washington has turned summersaults in his grave.

[Pricetag]

And the backing we gave Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.

[bri]

Shhhhhh...precedent and logic are just going to confuse and frighten him.

[landrun]

Shhhhhh...precedent and logic are just going to confuse and frighten him.

Logic? In your mind this is a logical thing to do. So, because we've made stupid decisions in the past (the great precedent you're speaking of) its a good decision to make even more ignorant ones now? Is that the logic you're using? Please tell us. I want to hear your brilliant explanation on the 'logic' of this.

The difference between these previous examples (as bad as they were) and what we're doing now is that before we were supporting groups who were fighting our enemies. But today, we are supporting groups who are fighting our allies.

It is a new level of stupidity.

[mdklatt]

But today, we are supporting groups who are fighting our allies.


Those allies don't seem to care.



"This has also been done with Israeli agreement and understanding," the official said of the U.S. funding.

[bri]

Shhhhh, again. You're only gonna get him more worked up with additional facts and logic. :D

[landrun]

"This has also been done with Israeli agreement and understanding," the official said of the U.S. funding.

Somehow I don't believe this unnamed official is speaking in the confines of 100% truth. But that's just me. :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

Somehow I don't believe this unnamed official is speaking in the confines of 100% truth. But that's just me. :rolleyes:

So you're familiar with the Bush administration. :D

[royalfan5]

Somehow I don't believe this unnamed official is speaking in the confines of 100% truth. But that's just me. :rolleyes:
Hey stayed on Israel's side after they pumped a missile into one of our Navy vessels, so they can't bitch too much. Plus from their point of view, I would guess they would rather have some sort of functioning Palestinian gov't than every body running around without any sort of central authority.

[mdklatt]

Hey stayed on Israel's side after they pumped a missile into one of our Navy vessels, so they can't bitch too much. Plus from their point of view, I would guess they would rather have some sort of functioning Palestinian gov't than every body running around without any sort of central authority.

Some of the funding is supposed to go towards border security in Gaza, so that's a good thing, too.

[Hatfield]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1039767420070410

Say what you want, but our ignorant president and corrupt democrat congress just decided to spend MILLIONS of our tax dollars to train terrorists to fight and kill.

This is such a stupid move I'm shocked. I know we're screw up but this is screwed up at a whole new level.



Now. Let's be objective. Both Hamas and Fatah are terrorists organizations.

This article even admits that they've united to form a single government. So, the logic is, we're giving money only to Fatah (which is a terrorists organization in its own right) but not Hamas.

And they're going to be everyone's friend as we provide them with facilities, training and 'technical support' - here mr. muslim terrorist dude. Let us show you how to really fight as a military. Before long, you won't be needing those little car bombs.

Unreal... http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif

you aren't very familiar with U.S. history I take it

[JohnnyMack]

I'd have no problem cutting ties with Israel and SA tomorrow.

[Hatfield]

landrun if you want more reading to up your rage...google the following

US protecting MEK

that should raise your blood pressure a few points. Nothing like providing protection to a terrorist organization as they make supply runs into baghdad.

[Octavian]

the brilliance of The Decider knows no bounds

[bri]

It's part of his new "No Jihaadi Left Behind" program. :D

[SicEmBaylor]

Shhhhhh...precedent and logic are just going to confuse and frighten him.
First, you can't really apply prior precedent to international diplomacy now can you? Situations and national security interests are constantly changing which brings us to my second point...

It was completely logical to fund the mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion simply as a means of countering and standing up to soviet power and aggression. Now, calling them "freedom fighters" is absurd of course and was back then but the point remains the same.

Ditto with funding Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.

Look, like I said, national security interests are CONSTANTLY changing. Are you critical of US support of the Soviet Union during WWII because we'd eventually enter into a Cold War with them? Are you critical of our support for China in that war because they were eventually taken over by communists? Should we not be trade partners with Japan because we were once at war?

You have to adapt and change to new situations and criticizing the US for supporting Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980s during the Cold War because of events that would transpire in those nations during 10-20 years later is asinine and stupidity of the highest order.

[Octavian]

It's part of his new "No Jihaadi Left Behind" program. :D


they're either with or us against us...


guess they're with us :O

[bri]

Settle down, Skippy. I'm not critical of any of those events. I was merely taking all the examples given by everyone else and pointing out that if Sonny Jim up there is gonna be p*ssed off about this, he's a few decades behind in his anger. ;)

[SoonerProphet]

Some folks keep toting out that our support of SH during the Iran-Iraq war was part of our global strategy to fight the Cold War. I don't see it, neither was endanger of falling pray to a communist takeover...so what gives.

[SicEmBaylor]

Some folks keep toting out that our support of SH during the Iran-Iraq war was part of our global strategy to fight the Cold War. I don't see it, neither was endanger of falling pray to a communist takeover...so what gives.

Iraq had a relationship with the Soviet Union but it was mostly business and not philosophical. Arms purchases was the major component of that. Eventually the relationship broke down, and the US was constantly trying to bolster its standing in the region to stave off Soviet influence and possible domination of the region threatening our oil supply. Obviously, we had a very very bad relationship with Iran because of their support for terrorism and the hostage taking in the 1970s. Our relationship with Iraq had more or less been severed during one of the Arab/Israeli conflicts but I don't recall which one.

Initially, the US was neutral in the conflict but we started fearing the possibility of a victorious Iran because of their previous history of aggression toward the west and these United States, as a result, we started supporting Iraq in a variety of ways serving the duel purpose of preventing an Iranian victory and becoming the primary supplier for Iraq over the Soviet Union.

[OklahomaTuba]

Some folks keep toting out that our support of SH during the Iran-Iraq war was part of our global strategy to fight the Cold War. I don't see it, neither was endanger of falling pray to a communist takeover...so what gives.

Well, we are talking post-Jimmuh here.

[SicEmBaylor]

Also, let me add that it wasn't really about a fear of those nations becoming communist and directly tied to the Soviet Union as some sort of satellite state...the issue revolved around influence and the threat to our supply of oil if the Soviet Union were influential enough in the region to affect that supply.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, that last thing we needed is the ruskies going around building more dams and migs for them there muslims.

And its not like the ruskies have any love for the Jew either.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

First, you can't really apply prior precedent to international diplomacy now can you? Situations and national security interests are constantly changing which brings us to my second point...

It was completely logical to fund the mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion simply as a means of countering and standing up to soviet power and aggression. Now, calling them "freedom fighters" is absurd of course and was back then but the point remains the same.

Ditto with funding Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.

Look, like I said, national security interests are CONSTANTLY changing. Are you critical of US support of the Soviet Union during WWII because we'd eventually enter into a Cold War with them? Are you critical of our support for China in that war because they were eventually taken over by communists? Should we not be trade partners with Japan because we were once at war?

You have to adapt and change to new situations and criticizing the US for supporting Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980s during the Cold War because of events that would transpire in those nations during 10-20 years later is asinine and stupidity of the highest order.Bravisimo! Our resident lefties already knew what you said, but are hoping this board's memories and capabilities are inadequate to know the truth.

That isn't to say that Bush is infallible, of course. I can certainly think of things he's done that were not good.

[SicEmBaylor]

Bravisimo! Our resident lefties already knew what you said, but are hoping this board's memories and capabilities are inadequate to know the truth.

That isn't to say that Bush is infallible, of course. I certainly think most things he's done were disastrous.

Thank you, and fixed it up a little bit.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thank you, and fixed it up a little bit.Just when you were firing on all cylinders, you go and drink some Zima.

[SoonerProphet]

Iraq had a relationship with the Soviet Union but it was mostly business and not philosophical. Arms purchases was the major component of that. Eventually the relationship broke down, and the US was constantly trying to bolster its standing in the region to stave off Soviet influence and possible domination of the region threatening our oil supply. Obviously, we had a very very bad relationship with Iran because of their support for terrorism and the hostage taking in the 1970s. Our relationship with Iraq had more or less been severed during one of the Arab/Israeli conflicts but I don't recall which one.

Look, I get all that. The Soviets supplied the Syrians too, yet Iraq and Syria were often at odds. Lets face facts here, the Soviets had very little political play in the region, sure the Arabs wanted their weapons...but they were not even close to forming an alliance with the Soviets.

To say this was a proxy war in the classical sense, imo, is a mistake. Neither nation had an alliance established with the Soviets and neither was in danger of working in concert with Soviet foreign policy.


Initially, the US was neutral in the conflict but we started fearing the possibility of a victorious Iran because of their previous history of aggression toward the west and these United States, as a result, we started supporting Iraq in a variety of ways serving the duel purpose of preventing an Iranian victory and becoming the primary supplier for Iraq over the Soviet Union.

Initially my ***, the US(see Carter administration) wanted to put as much pressure of post 79 Iran possible. That included egging on SH to wage war on the Persian...everyone knew the emirates would pay. Again, the Soviets had no clout in the region, we had the money and the hookups for the Sunni's to go after them Persian.