NY times article (islamic girls)

...and moderate Muslims wonder why they are viewed with distrust.

the bs meter is pinned, and all filters are off. Distortion is inevitable.

 

What distortion are you referring to? Could you be referring to the "distortions below"?

Lets see, Noriega , Planted CIA puppet in Panama. After a few years Panama is raided and the govt. ( Read panamanian Banking system ) is overhauled. Now Panama is the largest money laundering center cleaning up all the CIAs drug money.

Afghanistan, new puppet put in place, poppy and opium production explodes to un heard of levels.

Iraq, Saddam, planted CIA puppet. After a few years raided and new govt. ( read re assigning of Oil contracts) is installed.

Saudi Arabia. Wahabi puppets in place funding Muslim religious fundamentlist schools world wide. Wahabi CIA agents like Osama and Atta put forward as "Muslim fundamentalist terrorists". This creates terror and fear in the minds of the average simple minded citizens of the U.S. thereby giving CIA the tools to consolidate power into the hands of its corporate handlers.

USA, previous CIA chief now president, then his son made president. 911. New govt. ( read shadow govt. ) in the process of being installed.

Simple minded people like "tradernik" see and yet can't figure out what's happening. In the absense of the old "enemy", the Soviet Union and the "commies" , Simple minded and terrorised "traderNik" now has a new go to enemy " islam".

So what does simple minded "trader nik" say when he sees his fuhrer kissing the lips of the terrorists?

<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/1865/2bd4scdhy2.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

He posts the following

But on the topic of why the CIAs golden boy is kissing the lips of the CIAs "wahabi terrorist puppet", simple minded "Trader nik" is silent.


< crickets chirping>

 

Actually I haven't said anything about the events you referred to. You have no idea what my take is on those allegations. And I am not an American.

My comment was simply in response to this bit of nonsense that you posted. You said


"most of the 'fundamentalist islam' is a construct of the CIA and their Wahabi puppets".

I didn't bother with a serious response because, since you knowingly chose to post something that is totally ridiculous, it's clear that you are not inviting serious discussion.

Anyone who knowingly posts garbage here gets the same type of response - just ask Z-GOD/EVADER.

Some of my ancestors come from a country where the fundamentalist Muslims are responsible for more death and sorrow and broken families and murdered women than we could sit down and count. Their stated aim is the destruction of the Western way of life and creation of a global Islamic state. This is not covert - they state this openly. Their leaders seek power as lasciviously as any despot you would care to name.

Please note - I differentiate, in my ealrier post and in this one, between these fundamentalist morons and moderate Muslims, who are (hopefully) the majority among them.

Whether or not the Bush family is complicit in all of this is not the subject of my posts (my feelings on that theory are recorded elsewhere).

Oh and by the way, I admit that I am a simple minded sort of person.

Have a nice day.

 

We already know a lot about your personal life, Z-GOD/EVADER.

Our curiousity about your sexual life is the same sort of curiousity we display when driving by a car accident.

by the way... is your first name Garth, by any chance? Then we could call you GARTH EVADER, aka Z-GOD.

 

"most of the 'fundamentalist islam' is a construct of the CIA and their Wahabi puppets".


Don't be so glib in admitting your simple minded support for the 4th Reich. So far all you've been commenting is how you "feel". Maybe this will change your views based on "feeling" to views based on fact.





http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...p+OSAMA+and+CIA+link&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 — At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.
BEFORE YOU CLICK on my face and call me naive, let me concede some points. Yes, the West needed Josef Stalin to defeat Hitler. Yes, there were times during the Cold War when supporting one villain (Cambodia’s Lon Nol, for instance) would have been better than the alternative (Pol Pot). So yes, there are times when any nation must hold its nose and shake hands with the devil for the long-term good of the planet.
But just as surely, there are times when the United States, faced with such moral dilemmas, should have resisted the temptation to act. Arming a multi-national coalition of Islamic extremists in Afghanistan during the 1980s - well after the destruction of the Marine barracks in Beirut or the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 - was one of those times.
BIN LADEN’S BEGINNINGS



As anyone who has bothered to read this far certainly knows by now, bin Laden is the heir to Saudi construction fortune who, at least since the early 1990s, has used that money to finance countless attacks on U.S. interests and those of its Arab allies around the world.
As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.

Taliban militiamen watch as one of their tanks light up an opposition position northeast of Kabul on Aug. 15.
By no means was Osama bin Laden the leader of Afghanistan’s mujahedeen. His money gave him undue prominence in the Afghan struggle, but the vast majority of those who fought and died for Afghanistan’s freedom - like the Taliban regime that now holds sway over most of that tortured nation - were Afghan nationals.
Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.
WHAT’S ‘INTELLIGENT’ ABOUT THIS?
Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA’s reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.
In fact, while he returned to his family’s construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.
Exiled Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden is seen in this April, 1998 photo in Afghanistan. Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt’s Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.
Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.
“Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said.
HINDSIGHT OR TUNNEL VISION
It should be pointed out that the evidence of bin Laden’s connection to these activities is mostly classified, though its hard to imagine the CIA rushing to take credit for a Frankenstein’s monster like this.
It is also worth acknowledging that it is easier now to oppose the CIA’s Afghan adventures than it was when Hatch and company made them in the mid-1980s. After all, in 1998 we now know that far larger elements than Afghanistan were corroding the communist party’s grip on power in Moscow.
Even Hatch can’t be blamed completely. The CIA, ever mindful of the need to justify its “mission,” had conclusive evidence by the mid-1980s of the deepening crisis of infrastructure within the Soviet Union. The CIA, as its deputy director Robert Gates acknowledged under congressional questioning in 1992, had decided to keep that evidence from President Reagan and his top advisors and instead continued to grossly exaggerate Soviet military and technological capabilities in its annual “Soviet Military Power” report right up to 1990.
Given that context, a decision was made to provide America’s potential enemies with the arms, money - and most importantly - the knowledge of how to run a war of attrition violent and well-organized enough to humble a superpower.
That decision is coming home to roost.

Michael Moran is MSNBC’s International Editor

 

Go away you freaking stalker…

<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1139734>

 

Oh, and there was no "Blowback" as far as Osama is concerned.

He's still alive living off the CIA dole. Not only is the bastard CIA agent alive, his brothers are knee deep growing his money by being the largest investors in the Carlyle group, Daddy Bush's global investment corporation that has its money invested in Oil and Arms.

And why is Osama alive? well, because the CIA would never kill off one of its most valuable operatives, at least not yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sheyqAjPp-k&mode=related&search=bush lies

 

My only problem with what you are saying is that 1) Osama Bin Laden is actively CIA? 2) It seems to me as though the operational CIA has pretty much turned on Bush. They may have been cycled out and replaced w/ Pro-Bushies but I seriously doubt all of that could have transpired w/ Osama answering to the CIA and we don't have a smoking gun.

I think we can agree on the "something smelling in the sink" notions with regard to Osama. This is why I am seriously beginning to believe that he is a Saudi proxy. One they can deny. "This is your mission if you choose to accept it. The Royal Family and Saudi government cannot officially recognize you...blah..blah"

I can also believe that Herr Bush and/or Herr Cheney may be aware of this and simply think that exposing it will cause more trouble than it would solve, especially regarding business interests. With that said, do I myself believe the Saudi's to be preferable to the Iranians? Absolutely. I am simply interested in understanding the region ( especially as it relates to the price of oil) and cannot stand lying SOB's like Bush/Cheney who will sell out their own country for their own personal gain.

 

It has already been documented that the Bin Laden family is NOT "the largest shareholder in the Carlyle group." Far from it. If you could read you'd stop posting this garbage.

Then again, in order to read and comprehend something, it takes a semblance of education, which you were obviously deprived of.

Oh yeah, where did they film the false moon landing? Surely you and your den of sneaky conspiracy moonbat brethren have the answer to that one...