• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Closing Embassies in Mideast for a Day amid Possible Qaeda Threat.....

Has it? You still offer no numbers nor analysis. You yourself said that this was a complex issue well before, yes? Did you take the time to disentangle the non-linear effects to say that interventionism=better? Or are you taking coincidence of economy and claiming that interventionism had positive effect on it? I just want your evidence for the claim, nothing more.

Well, the evidence would be found in the positive effect that oil from the Middle East after World War II had on the American economy and thus people. The evidence would be found in the power of United Fruit. The evidence is everywhere. I'm kinda shocked that you 'want proof' (although I've already given you one graph), but you're not doing anything to support your claims. But then again...your sig...

You have proof for this, or is it just assumption? My opinion is that without the interventionism our actions wouldn't play into the hands of terrorists. Hell, had we not trained OBL and the terrorists to fight the Russians, we'd likely see decreased threat now. Each time we intercede unjustly into foreign lands, we play into the propaganda of terrorists. We make the world a little less stable, a little more at risk. You can only bomb people for so long before they become REALLY pissed off about it, and if they can find no satisfaction through diplomatic means, they are all the more likely to try non-diplomatic means.

The US didn't train OBL. I honestly stopped reading there.

Not really. It's simplified because there has been growth in sectors not in industry, but those revolve around technology and would require that we educate more of our population to maintain. However, the wealth gap is not confused and the buying power is not confused. One of the reasons people bitch that we can't buy our own products is because wealth distribution did not keep up with labor and environmental laws. So to subsidize that, we use slave labor where we can get it. Currently it's China. Which in and of itself does lend to some stability because China is less likely to involve itself militarily against the United States with its economy so deeply entwined with our own. Which would bolster my point that trade, not war, make for stability.

Using cheap labor isn't knew. That has nothing to do with US policies, really.

Government is the same way. I did say it was necessary, and its necessity is in securing the rights and liberties of the People. Anarchy does not work. Measured fact as well. So we must have some, but too much currently has affected our freedom and liberty as well as put us in more danger of international retaliation.

So you just subjectively say it's too much. I say it's not. Okay. Stop pushing your opinion as fact, thanks.

I can marry a guy in some states. It's not a wash though, all you have is superficial things which obviously would have been allowed had we invested in our freedom instead of killing those around us.

You also only have superficial things, then. You're not the arbiter of what is or isn't superficial.

We have something worse. A former Soviet block selling arms to others, not being able to account for some, and we trained the terrorists to help fight them and that pretty well backfired.

That's not worse.

Overall cost of the WoT. 1% of our debt

You didn't answer my question.

Indeed it is. America has some of the most aggressive police in the world. We also jail more people per capita than any other nation on the planet. We've restricted areas of free speech, we monitor the "malcontents", there is no privacy anymore, and the 9th and 10th amendments are all but ignored.

loooooooooooool?! Where else have you been?!

If you're ever honest about the data, you'd see it already.

You've not shown me one link whatsoever. And you've argued purely from emotion thus far.

You said it helped, so that means it made things a bit better, I'm just trying to see if you could actually quantify your statements. Pssst....you haven't.

Psssst...you don't know how to read a graph.

Are we? We no longer have the Soviet Union it's true. But we're worried about North Korea having weapons, Iran going nuclear, Russia not being able to account for all its nukes, etc.

And? We were worried about North Korea before that. Pakistan before that. India before that. South Africa before that. Israel before that. These things have nothing to do with American policy.

Because you've produced nothing to actually back it up other than saying the same thing again. Of course the standards of living neigh across the globe have increased but proportionally so? And still? 70+ years we've been in the ME, how have we fared?

We've fared well? Are you student of history or what? I don't mean youtube videos, I mean real scholarly works. Mearsheimer. Walt. Waltz. Kyle. Coll. History didn't start in 1999.


Oh, America make some money, it's just that the money isn't distributed along natural demographics. Which is the dishonesty in that plot of yours, you're purposefully skipping over all the statistics.

We already talked about the gilded age. Wealth disparity was much worse than now. And the graph covers that so.....

Stop being so emotional. Start learning even basic historical things, like who trained OBL. Otherwise I can't continue.
 
Well, the evidence would be found in the positive effect that oil from the Middle East after World War II had on the American economy and thus people. The evidence would be found in the power of United Fruit. The evidence is everywhere. I'm kinda shocked that you 'want proof' (although I've already given you one graph), but you're not doing anything to support your claims. But then again...your sig...

My sig has nothing to do with it, stop trying to deflect. So you claim that dependence of foreign oil ultimately is better than had we developed energy independence?

The US didn't train OBL. I honestly stopped reading there.

That's because you don't care to know. We trained the "freedom fighters" in the Middle East to combat Russia, OBL was part of that group and he ultimately went on to start Al Queda.

Using cheap labor isn't knew. That has nothing to do with US policies, really.

It isn't, but it becomes necessary when wealth distribution is driven to such opposing extremes as is in America currently

So you just subjectively say it's too much. I say it's not. Okay. Stop pushing your opinion as fact, thanks.

Deflection. It's objectively too much as it has now significantly affected our freedoms.

You also only have superficial things, then. You're not the arbiter of what is or isn't superficial.

Freedom of speech, privacy, property, etc. are not "superficial" they are essential to a free state.

That's not worse.

Not knowing where the arms are isn't worse than a country who wished to oppose America but was all too unwilling to engage in major military battle with us?

You didn't answer my question.

I did, 1.5 trillion is the cost of the WoT

loooooooooooool?! Where else have you been?!

Insult and deflection.

You've not shown me one link whatsoever. And you've argued purely from emotion thus far.

Deflection, I have argued nothing from emotion. Just detailing the gross expansion of government power against our free exercise of rights.

Psssst...you don't know how to read a graph.

Got a PhD in experimental physics, I can read a graph.

And? We were worried about North Korea before that. Pakistan before that. India before that. South Africa before that. Israel before that. These things have nothing to do with American policy.

Not quite to this extent. Pakistan we still worry about, didn't really improve that. South Africa isn't really any better. We still involve ourselves with Israel. Interventionism has fueled a lot of the conflicts.

We've fared well? Are you student of history or what? I don't mean youtube videos, I mean real scholarly works. Mearsheimer. Walt. Waltz. Kyle. Coll. History didn't start in 1999.

Good thing 70 years ago wasn't 1999.


We already talked about the gilded age. Wealth disparity was much worse than now. And the graph covers that so.....

No, your graph is aggregate gains, wealth disparity is shown in the breakdown of economic classes. Your graph purposefully hides thay

A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93% | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.

That's a 32% swing is disparity.

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The distribution of income in the United States has been the subject of study by scholars and institutions. Data from a number of sources[1] indicate that income inequality has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[2][3][4][5][6] after several decades of stability.[7][8] While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[9][10][11]

Studies indicate the source of the widening gap (sometimes called the Great Divergence) has not been gender inequality, which has declined in the US over the last several decades,[12] nor inequality between black and white Americans, which has stagnated during that time,[13] nor has the gap between the poor and middle class been the major cause—though it has grown.[14] Most of the growth has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity becoming more extreme the further one goes up in the income distribution.[15] Upward redistribution of income is responsible for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.[16] The Brookings Institution said in 2013 that income inequality was increasing and becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.[17]

A 2011 study by the CBO[18] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[18] Other sources find that the trend has continued since then.[19] In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[20] Income inequality is not uniform among the states; as measured by the Gini coefficient: after tax income inequality in 2009 was greatest in Texas and lowest in Maine.[21]

Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.jpg

Median family income flattened out in the 70's while production continued to rise, the remainder went to the elite.

Stop being so emotional. Start learning even basic historical things, like who trained OBL. Otherwise I can't continue.

Maybe it's time for you to do some research and figure it out.
 
My sig has nothing to do with it, stop trying to deflect. So you claim that dependence of foreign oil ultimately is better than had we developed energy independence?

No. The US wasn't going to achieve energy independence then, though.


That's because you don't care to know. We trained the "freedom fighters" in the Middle East to combat Russia, OBL was part of that group and he ultimately went on to start Al Queda.

Please stop. You know nothing about this, obviously.

It isn't, but it becomes necessary when wealth distribution is driven to such opposing extremes as is in America currently

It's a shame we're talking about the US over the past century plus and not just currently then, isn't it?

Deflection. It's objectively too much as it has now significantly affected our freedoms.

No, that's still subjective. Do I need to link you to a dictionary?

Freedom of speech, privacy, property, etc. are not "superficial" they are essential to a free state.

Nor are freedoms to pursue happiness...especially when it's within those freedoms. You don't get to decide, I'm sorry.

Not knowing where the arms are isn't worse than a country who wished to oppose America but was all too unwilling to engage in major military battle with us?

No, it's not.

I did, 1.5 trillion is the cost of the WoT

What does that include? Does it include troop and support salaries?

Insult and deflection.

Just laughing at you. No, the US doesn't have some of the most aggressive police in the world. How sheltered.

Deflection, I have argued nothing from emotion. Just detailing the gross expansion of government power against our free exercise of rights.

Stop arguing from emotion, please.

Got a PhD in experimental physics, I can read a graph.

Then you refuse not to? Interesting. Again: emotion.

Not quite to this extent. Pakistan we still worry about, didn't really improve that. South Africa isn't really any better. We still involve ourselves with Israel. Interventionism has fueled a lot of the conflicts.

South Africa isn't any better? Why are you talking about things you know nothing about? This is on par with the 'US trained OBL' escapade.

Good thing 70 years ago wasn't 1999.

Not for you.

No, your graph is aggregate gains, wealth disparity is shown in the breakdown of economic classes. Your graph purposefully hides thay

A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93% | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

Hint: you're the only one talking about wealth disparity. Since you brought it up, I corrected you and told the Gilded Age included an even worse disparity. Lemme guess: you know as much about it as you do South Africa and OBL?


Good thing I've been talking about 100+ years and you linked to something in the past few.

View attachment 67151730

Median family income flattened out in the 70's while production continued to rise, the remainder went to the elite.

Good thing I was talking about 100+ years and you just talked about something from the 1970s.

Maybe it's time for you to do some research and figure it out.

Said the guy who thought the US trained Bin Laden and said the South African situation is still there. lol
 
No. The US wasn't going to achieve energy independence then, though.

Stop presenting your opinions as fact.


Please stop. You know nothing about this, obviously.

This is known. We trained groups in the ME to fight our proxy war with Russia and from there came the terrorist organizations. Do some reading.



It's a shame we're talking about the US over the past century plus and not just currently then, isn't it?

It doesn't matter, for even if taking out to earlier time periods, this deviation is still there. You're just trying to redefine goal posts and pretend that makes a difference.



No, that's still subjective. Do I need to link you to a dictionary?

You can link me to some of your proof if you could ever provide it.

Nor are freedoms to pursue happiness...especially when it's within those freedoms. You don't get to decide, I'm sorry.

Quite true, for if I got to decide, we wouldn't have such large government force being used against our rights and liberties as they are now.

No, it's not.

Interesting opinion. But knowing that a major country had nukes and were unwilling to use them was a lot better than not knowing who has those nukes now.

What does that include? Does it include troop and support salaries?

It's the overall cost of the interventionist wars in the ME.

Just laughing at you. No, the US doesn't have some of the most aggressive police in the world. How sheltered.

We jail more people per population than any other country on the planet. How sheltered.

Stop arguing from emotion, please.

Deflection, that wasn't emotion

Then you refuse not to? Interesting. Again: emotion.

No, I read it fine. And deflection, that wasn't emotion.

South Africa isn't any better? Why are you talking about things you know nothing about? This is on par with the 'US trained OBL' escapade.

It's one of the most crime ridden countries on the planet. The Western world just doesn't really care much about Africa anymore. It's not that it's gotten better. Africa in general is rather messed up and we don't really pay much mind.

Not for you.

Not for anyone skilled in subtraction.

Hint: you're the only one talking about wealth disparity. Since you brought it up, I corrected you and told the Gilded Age included an even worse disparity. Lemme guess: you know as much about it as you do South Africa and OBL?

Wealth disparity is part of the problem. You didn't show any disparity in the Gilded Age.

Good thing I've been talking about 100+ years and you linked to something in the past few.

It doesn't change the fact that disparity has grown between the economic classes

Good thing I was talking about 100+ years and you just talked about something from the 1970s.

It doesn't change the fact that disparity has grown between the economic classes

Said the guy who thought the US trained Bin Laden and said the South African situation is still there. lol

Insult is not argument. We trained folk for our proxy wars, and South Africa is still a hell hole. But you're free to go there and check it out.
 

Attachments

  • Wealth disparity.jpg
    Wealth disparity.jpg
    12.2 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:
Stop presenting your opinions as fact.




This is known. We trained groups in the ME to fight our proxy war with Russia and from there came the terrorist organizations. Do some reading.

This is as far as I got. I can't take you seriously. Read a book, dude. This is just pathetic. You're supposed to be a scientist? Holy ****.
 
This is as far as I got. I can't take you seriously. Read a book, dude. This is just pathetic. You're supposed to be a scientist? Holy ****.

Well it is possible that we could be dependent on only NA sources of oil, including Canada and Mexico.
 
This is as far as I got. I can't take you seriously. Read a book, dude. This is just pathetic. You're supposed to be a scientist? Holy ****.

Insult and emotional outburst do not make an argument. All you have shown here is an inability to address the points.
 
Insult and emotional outburst do not make an argument. All you have shown here is an inability to address the points.

That's rich, coming from you.
 
Is anyone else seeing the pattern? Clinton, Bush, Obama....nothing has changed. Same crap, same wars, same dangers. The only thing that changes is the amount we are in debt to other countries. And that one isn't changing for the better.

Yes.....I see the pattern. One of the problems was that Bush.....didn't purge the systems with anything Bilbo and the Democrats touched.

The other part of the problem comes in with that Presidents can only be round 8years max. While those in Congress and the Senate have made a livelihood out of their political careers.

The solution is clear.....no more lifetime politicians or judges. If they can't get anything done in a Decade. Time for pasture and there should be a stipulation with that after their Federal Service. They can no longer serve Federally. Which means no more moving to another state and then running for a National office. No more free rides. No more time with the media. Nothing but down on the farm and chewing that cud.

No more working in Washington with any Depts. Time to let others serve.

They want to continue their life of service. Then volunteer locally and do the rest of America a favor. Stay out of the lime-light and STFU.
 
I woke up, still shocked. Ikari:

#1- Doesn't know the difference between the mujahideen and Azzam's Service Office, who funded which, and what Bin Laden was a part of (clue: the US and ISI funded Hekmatyar and Massoud, they never financed the Arabs in Pakistan/Afghanistan because they were barely a blip on the radar, do some simple reading, man).

#2- Doesn't know that there was a wealth disparity during the Gilded Age that puts the current one to shame.

#3- Doesn't know that South Africa went from a nuclear, possibly aggressive power and is now simply a human rights concern and not an international security concern.

#4- Continues to change time frames when I asked him and he specifically said "since the US started to become interventionist" which is universally considered to be the 1890s.

Why would you talk about things when you know nothing of them? You think government is too big? Great. That's your opinion. You think the US gave money or training to Osama bin Laden? You either gloss over/are ignorant to facts or you're a conspiracy theorist, there's no other options.
 
I woke up, still shocked. Ikari:

#1- Doesn't know the difference between the mujahideen and Azzam's Service Office, who funded which, and what Bin Laden was a part of (clue: the US and ISI funded Hekmatyar and Massoud, they never financed the Arabs in Pakistan/Afghanistan because they were barely a blip on the radar, do some simple reading, man).

#2- Doesn't know that there was a wealth disparity during the Gilded Age that puts the current one to shame.

#3- Doesn't know that South Africa went from a nuclear, possibly aggressive power and is now simply a human rights concern and not an international security concern.

#4- Continues to change time frames when I asked him and he specifically said "since the US started to become interventionist" which is universally considered to be the 1890s.

Why would you talk about things when you know nothing of them? You think government is too big? Great. That's your opinion. You think the US gave money or training to Osama bin Laden? You either gloss over/are ignorant to facts or you're a conspiracy theorist, there's no other options.

Mornin" OWO.
yo2.gif
Are you stating you don't think the US gave money and training to OBL? Were you aware of OBL's interactions with Brzezinski.....you know the Father of Mika on MSNBC. Course you know he was working as a CIA op back in the 70s and 80's.....Right?

Now lets step into the present.....you're not under the impression we haven't been giving AQ money now, are you?
 
Mornin" OWO.
yo2.gif
Are you stating you don't think the US gave money and training to OBL? Were you aware of OBL's interactions with Brzezinski.....you know the Father of Mika on MSNBC. Course you know he was working as a CIA op back in the 70s and 80's.....Right?

Now lets step into the present.....you're not under the impression we haven't been giving AQ money now, are you?

Ah conspiracy theories. What about the van full of Israelis with explosives on 9/11? Sandy Hook was a false flag?
 
Ah conspiracy theories. What about the van full of Israelis with explosives on 9/11? Sandy Hook was a false flag?

Ah I see
icon_cyclops_ani.gif
No knowledge of what the Democrat Brzezinski himself has admitted to and on MSNBC as well as on NBC.

Was Osama Bin Laden a CIA operative code named, "Tim Osman"?

Osama Bin Laden was a contract operative of the CIA and was recruited long before 9/11.

Osama Bin Laden traveled to the United States and toured military bases and the White House. He used a CIA code-name, “Tim Osman”, and was looking for help against the Soviets.
http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timo…

Osama Bin Laden was officially recruited into the CIA in 1979. His activities were backed by the CIA, which, like him, had an account at BCCI Bank.
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

Bin Laden’s group of Afghans received backing from the CIA.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BR…
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghan…

Bin Laden’s CIA ties became well-known in April 1998, when MSNBC exposed his connections to the Agency.
Bin Laden comes home to roost | NBC News

The Papist-controlled US Government has claimed that it broke it’s ties with Bin Laden long before 9/11. However, an FBI insider said that Bin Laden was employed by the CIA until the very day of 9/11.
The BRAD BLOG : Ryland: A Sibel Edmonds 'Bombshell' - Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Until 9/11

There is some evidence to support her story. In July 2001 (Two months before 9/11), French media reported that a local CIA chief met with Osama Bin Laden at an American hospital in Dubai.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov…

There is absolutely no doubt that Osama Bin Laden and his associates are CIA. Thus, they are subservient to the Papist Crime Network. The CIA is a front operation for the Jesuits/Vatican.

Was Osama Bin Laden a CIA operative code named, "Tim Osman"? - Yahoo! Answers

"Uhm"
glasses12.gif
.....like as in. So much for Conspiracy Theories. :shock: See the one thing they could never get round.....was the pictures of him here touring in the US and on US Army Bases.
 
This is known. We trained groups in the ME to fight our proxy war with Russia and from there came the terrorist organizations. Do some reading.


This is false. The US trained forces in Afghanistan formed the Northern Alliance following the Soviet withdrawal from the region. The Northern Alliance was the voice of moderate Islam and the chief source of resistance to radical Islam in Afghanistan.

I always find it funny when we see videos of Radical Islamists toting AK-47s and ME dictators waving at parades of T-74s while hearing from the peanut gallery that this is all America's fault.
 
Yes.....I see the pattern. One of the problems was that Bush.....didn't purge the systems with anything Bilbo and the Democrats touched.

Yes, but I do believe that to because there is little to no difference in the Republocrats

The other part of the problem comes in with that Presidents can only be round 8years max. While those in Congress and the Senate have made a livelihood out of their political careers.

True, but this should not all be on the President, the President isn't supposed to be that powerful. This should be on Congress, they're to be the most powerful branch of government. Of course it's a simplification, but in general the things necessary to get the country back on track will have to be Congress

The solution is clear.....no more lifetime politicians or judges. If they can't get anything done in a Decade. Time for pasture and there should be a stipulation with that after their Federal Service. They can no longer serve Federally. Which means no more moving to another state and then running for a National office. No more free rides. No more time with the media. Nothing but down on the farm and chewing that cud.

Perhaps, or perhaps it would leave them more susceptible to corruption. If they can only serve X years and they're out, there's more incentive to perhaps pass some favorable laws for a corporation and at the end of the tenure, retire from politics and take a high paying, do nothing job with said corporation. Of course, that's what happens now, so it's not like we aren't already there.

No more working in Washington with any Depts. Time to let others serve.

They want to continue their life of service. Then volunteer locally and do the rest of America a favor. Stay out of the lime-light and STFU.

Because the political process is so closed off and now pretty much only party backers and the very wealthy can run, the people who make up our politicians are not the ones particularly well inclined towards volunteerism. Mostly just shoring up the powers and privileges of the aristocracy.
 
This is false. The US trained forces in Afghanistan formed the Northern Alliance following the Soviet withdrawal from the region. The Northern Alliance was the voice of moderate Islam and the chief source of resistance to radical Islam in Afghanistan.

I always find it funny when we see videos of Radical Islamists toting AK-47s and ME dictators waving at parades of T-74s while hearing from the peanut gallery that this is all America's fault.

I'm not saying it's exactly our fault, or that we're getting our comeuppance. Merely that we had a hand and our interventionist policies and decades of meddling in the affairs of others has oft come to bite us in the ass.
 
I woke up, still shocked. Ikari:

#1- Doesn't know the difference between the mujahideen and Azzam's Service Office, who funded which, and what Bin Laden was a part of (clue: the US and ISI funded Hekmatyar and Massoud, they never financed the Arabs in Pakistan/Afghanistan because they were barely a blip on the radar, do some simple reading, man).

#2- Doesn't know that there was a wealth disparity during the Gilded Age that puts the current one to shame.

#3- Doesn't know that South Africa went from a nuclear, possibly aggressive power and is now simply a human rights concern and not an international security concern.

#4- Continues to change time frames when I asked him and he specifically said "since the US started to become interventionist" which is universally considered to be the 1890s.

Why would you talk about things when you know nothing of them? You think government is too big? Great. That's your opinion. You think the US gave money or training to Osama bin Laden? You either gloss over/are ignorant to facts or you're a conspiracy theorist, there's no other options.

Hey look at that. A temper tantrum and post of insults...not surprising; but as I said emotion and insult do not make argument. Come back when you can figure that out.
 
Yes, but I do believe that to because there is little to no difference in the Republocrats



True, but this should not all be on the President, the President isn't supposed to be that powerful. This should be on Congress, they're to be the most powerful branch of government. Of course it's a simplification, but in general the things necessary to get the country back on track will have to be Congress



Perhaps, or perhaps it would leave them more susceptible to corruption. If they can only serve X years and they're out, there's more incentive to perhaps pass some favorable laws for a corporation and at the end of the tenure, retire from politics and take a high paying, do nothing job with said corporation. Of course, that's what happens now, so it's not like we aren't already there.



Because the political process is so closed off and now pretty much only party backers and the very wealthy can run, the people who make up our politicians are not the ones particularly well inclined towards volunteerism. Mostly just shoring up the powers and privileges of the aristocracy.

You're Right about the average guy on the block or even with the Schooling, isn't going to have a chance without the money. Even if he were to win the Popular vote.
 
I'm not saying it's exactly our fault, or that we're getting our comeuppance. Merely that we had a hand and our interventionist policies and decades of meddling in the affairs of others has oft come to bite us in the ass.

It's not the intervention that Radical Islam hates, it's the cultural influence. They fight against modernity and tolerance.
 
Hey look at that. A temper tantrum and post of insults...not surprising; but as I said emotion and insult do not make argument. Come back when you can figure that out.

That's not a temper tantrum, there's just no point in debating someone who didn't know facts. What's the use? I talk about South Africa no longer having nuclear weapons and you say something about its domestic problems? Come on.
 
It's not the intervention that Radical Islam hates, it's the cultural influence. They fight against modernity and tolerance.

Perhaps they do, but our interventionism fuels anger and hatred against the West, and that plays right into the propaganda and recruitment of terrorist organizations.
 
That's not a temper tantrum, there's just no point in debating someone who didn't know facts. What's the use? I talk about South Africa no longer having nuclear weapons and you say something about its domestic problems? Come on.

You said that South Africa wasn't any better after our interventionism. It really isn't.

So enough of your emotional outbursts and insults. When you can figure out how to debate come back, till then I have no need to entertain your tantrums and insults.
 
Ah I see
icon_cyclops_ani.gif
No knowledge of what the Democrat Brzezinski himself has admitted to and on MSNBC as well as on NBC.

Was Osama Bin Laden a CIA operative code named, "Tim Osman"?

Osama Bin Laden was a contract operative of the CIA and was recruited long before 9/11.

Osama Bin Laden traveled to the United States and toured military bases and the White House. He used a CIA code-name, “Tim Osman”, and was looking for help against the Soviets.
http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timo…

Osama Bin Laden was officially recruited into the CIA in 1979. His activities were backed by the CIA, which, like him, had an account at BCCI Bank.
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

Bin Laden’s group of Afghans received backing from the CIA.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BR…
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghan…

Bin Laden’s CIA ties became well-known in April 1998, when MSNBC exposed his connections to the Agency.
Bin Laden comes home to roost | NBC News

The Papist-controlled US Government has claimed that it broke it’s ties with Bin Laden long before 9/11. However, an FBI insider said that Bin Laden was employed by the CIA until the very day of 9/11.
The BRAD BLOG : Ryland: A Sibel Edmonds 'Bombshell' - Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Until 9/11

There is some evidence to support her story. In July 2001 (Two months before 9/11), French media reported that a local CIA chief met with Osama Bin Laden at an American hospital in Dubai.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov…

There is absolutely no doubt that Osama Bin Laden and his associates are CIA. Thus, they are subservient to the Papist Crime Network. The CIA is a front operation for the Jesuits/Vatican.

Was Osama Bin Laden a CIA operative code named, "Tim Osman"? - Yahoo! Answers

"Uhm"
glasses12.gif
.....like as in. So much for Conspiracy Theories. :shock: See the one thing they could never get round.....was the pictures of him here touring in the US and on US Army Bases.

Lol...uh....no.
 
You said that South Africa wasn't any better after our interventionism. It really isn't.

So enough of your emotional outbursts and insults. When you can figure out how to debate come back, till then I have no need to entertain your tantrums and insults.

Stop being so emotional. I didn't say anything about South Africa being better. I gave a list of nuclear threats through the years. You talked about crime lol
 
Back
Top Bottom