What's new

Rise of al-Qaeda backfired on the United States, Putin says

Let me put this in a way even the most brain-damaged child can understand. Let's say there is a house of 20 (+ the bully) people run by a deranged bully. 5 people support him...the other 15 want him gone. Out of the 15, 3 are "child-molesters" (people you don't agree with). You support wanting the bully gone, and help them. Doesn't mean you support the "child-molesters." Another way to think of it if that doesn't help. In WW2, we bombed German cities. Let's say one of those bombs kills an anti-nazi German. Would you take this to mean we support Hitler? Get a grip...a little critical-thinking goes a loooong way. And as noted...the Taliban and those who fought the Soviets were different movements....but yes...both rely on medival muslim thought...and we should support none of that. ever. period. They are ALL our enemies. Even the Iranian mullahs thought they were extremist.
 
Let me put this in a way even the most brain-damaged child can understand. Let's say there is a house of 20 (+ the bully) people run by a deranged bully. 5 people support him...the other 15 want him gone. Out of the 15, 3 are "child-molesters" (people you don't agree with). You support wanting the bully gone, and help them. Doesn't mean you support the "child-molesters." Another way to think of it if that doesn't help. In WW2, we bombed German cities. Let's say one of those bombs kills an anti-nazi German. Would you take this to mean we support Hitler? Get a grip...a little critical-thinking goes a loooong way. And as noted...the Taliban and those who fought the Soviets were different movements....but yes...both rely on medival muslim thought...and we should support none of that. ever. period. They are ALL our enemies. Even the Iranian mullahs thought they were extremist.

You can't reason them. They have a different definition of logic.
 
Imagine there was a group to feed hungry children...imagine 5% were al-queda....would you let the kids starve for that?:disagree:
 
Imagine there was a group to feed hungry children...imagine 5% were al-queda....would you let the kids starve for that?:disagree:

They feed them to make them terrorists, do you know how they recruit people?? they get money from countries that support them that way they have money to buy weapons and bring in little teenagers...... should i name those countries?
 
2000 in 10 years oh no....our enemies are so useless in the field they can only pull of occasional suicide attacks....or shoot their own women.;)
Your anemy is not a super power like you but a banned millitia force having no country or land, what they are enough against you..killing your soliders almost everyday.and then you cry "Oh no its ISI helping them"
 
Let me put this in a way even the most brain-damaged child can understand. Let's say there is a house of 20 (+ the bully) people run by a deranged bully. 5 people support him...the other 15 want him gone. Out of the 15, 3 are "child-molesters" (people you don't agree with). You support wanting the bully gone, and help them. Doesn't mean you support the "child-molesters." Another way to think of it if that doesn't help. In WW2, we bombed German cities. Let's say one of those bombs kills an anti-nazi German. Would you take this to mean we support Hitler? Get a grip...a little critical-thinking goes a loooong way. And as noted...the Taliban and those who fought the Soviets were different movements....but yes...both rely on medival muslim thought...and we should support none of that. ever. period. They are ALL our enemies. Even the Iranian mullahs thought they were extremist.
Whoaaa...Whoaa...Whoaaa...!!! You are asking waaaaaay too much there, buddy. Cut that out...!!!
 
Let me put this in a way even the most brain-damaged child can understand. Let's say there is a house of 20 (+ the bully) people run by a deranged bully. 5 people support him...the other 15 want him gone. Out of the 15, 3 are "child-molesters" (people you don't agree with). You support wanting the bully gone, and help them. Doesn't mean you support the "child-molesters." Another way to think of it if that doesn't help. In WW2, we bombed German cities. Let's say one of those bombs kills an anti-nazi German. Would you take this to mean we support Hitler? Get a grip...a little critical-thinking goes a loooong way. And as noted...the Taliban and those who fought the Soviets were different movements....but yes...both rely on medival muslim thought...and we should support none of that. ever. period. They are ALL our enemies. Even the Iranian mullahs thought they were extremist.
Keep it up you almost a senior member! :D
 
Let me put this in a way even the most brain-damaged child can understand. Let's say there is a house of 20 (+ the bully) people run by a deranged bully. 5 people support him...the other 15 want him gone. Out of the 15, 3 are "child-molesters" (people you don't agree with). You support wanting the bully gone, and help them. Doesn't mean you support the "child-molesters." Another way to think of it if that doesn't help. In WW2, we bombed German cities. Let's say one of those bombs kills an anti-nazi German. Would you take this to mean we support Hitler? Get a grip...a little critical-thinking goes a loooong way. And as noted...the Taliban and those who fought the Soviets were different movements....but yes...both rely on medival muslim thought...and we should support none of that. ever. period. They are ALL our enemies. Even the Iranian mullahs thought they were extremist.

Yep, sure, you help the child-molesters by providing young kids to them (as a payment) but that surely doesnt mean you support them :lol:

Yep, it was Hitler who asked you to bomb German cities. Surely that means you supported Hitler :lol:
 
US position on Syria directly endorses terrorism - Lavrov

Washington’s reaction to blasts in Damascus is a downright justification of terrorism, slams Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. US State Department announced that terror acts in Syria are not surprising in light of the Assad regime’s actions.

“This is direct endorsement of terrorism. How are we supposed to understand that?” Sergey Lavrov shared his astonishment at a press conference in Moscow. “This is a sinister position, I cannot find words to express our attitude towards that.”

Lavrov also expressed his surprise that the UN Security Council refused to condemn acts of terror in Syria. The US permanent representative to the UN Susan Rice has stated that terror acts in Damascus contribute to speeding up the adoption of a resolution on Syria according to the Chapter 7 of the UN Statute, which implies harsh sanctions, including resorting to force.

“In other words this means ‘We are going to support such acts of terrorism until the UNSC does what we want’,” Lavrov commented on the US representative's actions.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said recently that there should be closer work with opposition in Syria as it captures more and more territories to prepare new actions of resistance to the government in Damascus.

Lavrov noted that there were reports that the opposition has taken control over border posts on the Iraqi and Turkish border with Syria and reportedly, there were cases of looting of Turkish property. According to some sources it was not Free Syrian Army militants that captured those posts, but by groups linked to Al-Qaeda, and Russian diplomats are verifying this information.

“If such actions of taking territories by terrorists are supported by our partners, we would like to ask them what their position on Syria is. What do they want to achieve in this country?” Russian FM demanded.

As for the EU unilateral sanctions against Damascus, they contradict the decisions taken by the UN Security Council and agreements reached at the Geneva talks, stated Lavrov.

“We believe the chosen unilateral way contradicts the principal of shared management of affairs accorded with the Geneva agreement,” Lavrov said, adding that Russia advocates collective discussion of any questions.

“Unfortunately, when the EU, US and some other states began to adopt sanctions on Syria they did not consult with us at all,” Lavrov observed.

Now that the Syrian crisis is over a year and a half old it is not exactly correct to appeal to the Security Council to adopt sanctions, shared the Russian diplomat.

Lavrov stressed that should the international community intended to address the Syrian crisis collectively – it should have been done that way from the very beginning, dealing with both combatant sides equally.

The heads of the EU foreign ministries have made a decision to broaden the list of Syrian officials banned from EU, also freezing their bank accounts and assets in EU countries.

Additional measures have also been adopted to ensure arms embargo on Syria. Henceforth, sea vessels and cargo aircraft heading for Syria are subject to compulsory inspection in case there are grounds to suspect they carry arms and prohibited equipment to Syria.

US position on Syria directly endorses terrorism - Lavrov — RT
 
Rise of al-Qaeda backfired on the United States, Putin says

President Vladimir Putin spoke frankly about the quandary the U.S. finds itself in Syria. Responding to a specific question about the controversial policy of some Western nations for their sponsorship of terrorism and certain terrorist groups in Syria, Putin had this to say:

“You know when someone aspires to attain an end they see as optimal any means will do. As a rule they will try and do that by hook or by crook and hardly even think of the consequences. That was the case during the war in Afghanistan , when the Soviet Union invaded in 1997. At that time our present partners supported a rebel movement there and it basically gave rise to al-Qaeda – which later back fired on the United States itself", he said (see video link in article: Putin Suggests West Uses Al Qaeda to Bring Down Assad Putin Suggests West Uses Al Qaeda to Bring Down Assad | Atlantic Sentinel ).

Applying that same example to the current situation in Syria Putin said: “Today someone want to use militants from al-Qaeda or some other organization with equally radical views to accomplish their goals in Syria. This policy is dangerous and very short sighted. In that case, one should unlock Guantanamo, arm all the inmates and bring them to Syria to do the fighting. They are practically the same kind of people. But what we should bear in mind is that one day these people will get back at their former captors. On the other hand, these same people should bear in mind that they would eventually end up in a new prison, very much like the ones off the Cuban shore.”

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a controversial detainment and interrogation facility of the United States military located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.

The interview ended with Putin warning those nations that support al-Qaeda of “dire consequences” for their short sighted policy in this regard.

Russian president Vladimir Putin speaking on RT television, September 6, 2012.

Rise of al-Qaeda backfired on the United States, Putin says - Wichita Military Affairs | Examiner.com

'Foreign Islamists seek to turn Syria into Sharia state'

Around half of the rebel fighters in Syria are foreign Islamists who aren’t interested in toppling the Assad regime. Instead, they’re seeking to implement Sharia law throughout the country, according to a prominent French doctor.

The co-founder of the medical charity Doctors Without Borders, Jacques Beres, discovered some interesting information while treating Syrian rebels in the besieged city of Aleppo.

According to Beres, 60 per cent of his patients during his two week service in Syria were rebels– and about half of those were foreign. He says the fighters aren’t focused on the fall of the Assad regime. Instead, they have their eyes on a different kind of prize – implementing Sharia law throughout the country.

"It's really something strange to see. They are directly saying that they aren't interested in Bashar Assad's fall, but are thinking about how to take power afterward and set up an Islamic state with Sharia law to become part of the world Emirate," the French doctor told Reuters.

The foreign jihadists include Frenchmen who believe they are waging a “holy war,” claiming they’re inspired by Mohammed Merah, an Islamist militant from the French city of Toulouse. Merah killed seven people in March, in the name of Al-Qaeda.

"Some of [the patients] were French and completely fanatical about the future," he said. "They are very cautious people, even to the doctor who treated them. They didn't trust me, but for instance they told me that Mohammed Merah was an example to follow,” Beres said.

The Syrian government has consistently maintained that the uprising against Assad is being orchestrated from outside the country and is the work of “foreign-backed terrorists.”

It’s a claim that Beres denied until his recent two-week stint in Aleppo.

Beres spoke of treating rebel fighters from other Arab countries as well, but says his list of patients included at least two Frenchmen.

But the list of nationalities continues to grow – jihadist fighters from Britain have joined the fight as well.

The inflow of foreign fighters has even worried some Syrian rebels, who have accused them of being “too extreme.”

As the uprising enters its 18th month, the home countries of foreign rebels are worried, too.
Paris has expressed concern in recent years that French radical Islamists who have traveled to lawless zones would return to plot terrorist attacks at home. This was the case for Mohammed Merah, who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan before organizing the Toulouse shooting.

'Foreign Islamists seek to turn Syria into Sharia state' — RT
 
'US-backed Libyan militias are turning on each other'

Washington continues to support militant Islamist groups as long as it’s politically expedient to do so, says global affairs researcher Benjamin Schett.

*US military adventurism, and the war crimes committed by the country's forces, impoverish the entire region and ultimately lead to a rise in the number of Islamic militant groups, he told RT. Such groups, he says, can end up posing a threat to US citizens.

Schett spoke to RT about the killing of American Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff in Libya.

RT: Ambassador Stevens was responsible for building Washington's relations with the Libyan post-revolution interim leadership. Does that indicate that the people behind the attack are of a very different mindset to Libya's current rulers?

Benjamin Schett: Not necessarily. The United States supported militant extremist Islamic groups in order to topple the government of Muammar Gaddafi last year. And one example is the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. It is, according to the Washington Post, a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda. :meeting: Nevertheless, in 1996, they received support from British Secret Service MI6 to kill Gaddafi, which did not work out, as we know. :tsk: After 9/11, in 2001, they still got support from Western powers during the so-called uprising in Libya last year and the NATO bombing campaign. They got support from the US and Saudi allies, so obviously the US never stopped supporting militant Islamist groups as long as it’s in their geopolitical interests. :meeting:

RT: What does this attack say about the authorities' grip on security in post-Gaddafi Libya?

BS: It shows that Libya is part of a broader organization of the Middle East and South and Central Asia, which is a direct result of US policies. We saw what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq after the US invasion – the clashes between Sunnis and Shias. We see what’s happening now in Syria, where the sectarian violence is being supported from the outside :meeting: – from the Gulf states, from the US, and from France. And it’s what’s happening in Libya – all these different militias that received support in order to fight against Gaddafi are now turning against each other and are pushing for a tribalization of Libya.

RT: It's believed the attacks were a response to this US film deemed offensive to Islam. But could it also be a side effect of US foreign policy in the region?

BS: Definitely. The whole story of the clash of civilizations and Christianity versus Islam – all these stories, they don’t show the real picture. The real picture is that the majority of Muslims are as peaceful as the majority of Christians or Jews or whoever. The policy of supporting militant extremist Islamist groups as long as it serves geopolitical interests and fighting secular independent governments in the Middle East, or direct military intervention and war crimes, impoverishing of the whole region – certainly this leads to an increase of Islamic militant movements, which can turn out to be a threat to US citizens, as we’ve just seen.

RT: It's the first death of a high-profile US diplomat on duty abroad since 1979. Could this killing affect future policymaking in the State Department?

BS: The US official propaganda has a very cynical term regarding civilian deaths during a bombing campaign, called “collateral damage.” Of course, they wouldn’t use this term when it comes to the death of a US citizen. But I think in the mindset of the US establishment, in a certain way this also was collateral damage because it won’t make them stop their policies in the Middle East, even if it threatens the lives of American citizens.

'US-backed Libyan militias are turning on each other' — RT
 
dont you guys think that now america will/is trying to be friendly with Al-Qaeda and Taliban to use them against Pakistan and other players in region i.e Russia, Iran , China etc post withdrawl 2014.
 

Back
Top Bottom