LaDairis Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 On 911, there was an ongoing war in Afghanistan between The Taliban (including Al Qaeda) and The Northern Alliance, a collection of Taliban opponents armed and funded by Iran, then under the leadership of Rafsanjani, an Iranian "moderate" in his third term. Hence, the "enemy of our enemy" on 911 was Iran. There is a great piece here http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539 on what happened within W's Administration on the issue of Iran. Some select quotes... "Almost from the beginning of Bush's presidency, two groups in the administration were waging an intense struggle over Iran, while the U.S. government went month after month without an official policy. Those officials who wanted to try diplomacy had a champion in Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage, a close confidante of Secretary of State Colin Powell." "Within weeks (after 911), Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan all approached the United States through various channels to offer their help in the fight against al-Qaeda. "The Iranians said we don't like al-Qaeda any better than you, and we have assets in Afghanistan that could be useful," Leverett recalls." ... because... "The Iranians, who had been working for years with the main anti-Taliban coalition, the Northern Alliance" "It was the beginning of a period of extraordinary strategic cooperation between Iran and the United States. As America began preparing for the military operation in Afghanistan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ryan Crocker held a series of secret meetings with Iranian officials in Geneva. In those meetings, Iran offered search-and-rescue help, humanitarian assistance, and even advice on which targets to bomb in Afghanistan, according to one former administration official." So, the reality was, immediately post 911, that Iran, under then moderate Rafsanjani, was actually totally cooperating with us to nail Taliban/AQ in Afghan. We had a working relation with Iran under a moderate and rational leader to get Taliban. THEN WHAT HAPPENED??? "The inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil" was at first opposed by then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, because, as Hadley told journalist Bob Woodward, Iran, unlike Iraq or North Korea, had a "complicated political structure with a democratically elected president." But Bush had already made up his mind; regime change was the goal." Ummm, at the time of the "Axis of Evil," W has deployed our forces to Afghan to fight with Northern Alliance against Taliban/AQ. The Axis comment was an intentional flip off of Northern Alliance. In other words, if a Prez deploys US troops to theatre X to fight with ally A against enemy B, it would be 100% pure treason to intentionally flip off ally A while our troops are still deployed next to ally A, but that is precisely what W did with "axis of evil." Needless to say, our "working relationship" with the Rafsanjani government quickly evaporated with W's treasonous flip off. Why did W do that, flip off our allies in Afghanistan? "But it was Douglas Feith, the abrasive and aggressively pro-Israel undersecretary of defense for policy, who was responsible for developing the details of the policy. Feith had two staff members, Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode, who spoke Farsi, and a third, William Luti, whom one former U.S. official recalls being "downright irrational" on anything having to do with Iran" In other words, there was one and precisely one and only one reason for W to flip off Iran at the time - to SUKK UP to ISRAEL. So, instead of being allies against those who actually hit us on 911, Iran quickly realizes that W is 100% owned by Zionist money and media coverage, doesn't want those (not a priority) AQs behind 911 dead, but rather wants to pursue a war on all of Israel's enemies who had nothing to do with 911, and responds accordingly... "Reflecting the mood in Tehran, in May 2002, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced the idea of negotiations with the United States as useless" Indeed, Iran had helped us in Afghan, and the next thing the Iranians discover is that they are "evil" according to w. "In a masterstroke, Rumsfeld and Cheney had shut down the only diplomatic avenue available for communicating with Iran and convinced Bush that Iran was on the same side as al-Qaeda." ... despite being actually at war with Al Qaeda on 911... Then we got ever more lies to get the US to use the US military to wipe out all of Israel's enemies who had nothing to do with 911 while those who did were publicly "not a priority" according to W, because the "priority" was always to SUKK UP TO ISRAEL for W, get that cash and favorable media coverage that sunk his pappy's 92 campaign with the Zionist BS that the US had not "finished the job" in Desert Storm. Lie after lie after intentional lie is used to justify invading Iraq, which has a 60% Shia population that views Shia Iran as an ally. A few months after the noWMD Iraqi military gets crushed, Iraqi Sunnis start blowing up Iraqi Shia mosques, something that gets endless media coverage in Iran. The Iraqi Shias tell the Iranian media (correctly) that the US won't arm them (the Shias) to stop these Sunni attacks. Hence, the Iranian media tells the Iranian people that the US wants this to happen, Shia mosques being blown up, because the US is "in charge" and won't do anything to stop it. Alas, being called "evil" and watching their like minded mosques blowing up across a border, the Iranian people in 2005 elect Ahmadinejad over Rafsanjani in a "runoff" (a very close election). There is precisely no way that Ahmadinejad wins in 2005 if W just does the US national interest and stays focused on wiping out Taliban/AQ with Iran's help. There is precisely no way that Ahmadinejad wins in 2005 if W stays out of Iraq. Ahmadinejad is 100% the creation of W's treason, and we should never forget that, especially over the next few weeks...
LaDairis Posted February 9, 2010 Author Posted February 9, 2010 Jimmy Carter. Begin. The Shah was a Shia version of Saddam. We were wrong to support him and the terrible Saddam-esque things he did. After the "revolution" and the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Iran moderated and really had done nothing for more than a decade come 911. The election of Rafsanjani signaled that the radicals were marginalized... until W's treason, which "verified" what the radicals like Ahmad were saying, that the US is owned by Israel, that the US lies and wants to destroy Iran regardless (even if Iran helps the US off those behind 911). As lousy a Prez as Jimmy was, the fall of the Shah was not something he could have prevented. That was brewing for decades. And as lousy a Prez as Jimmy was, he was not a traitor like W, and W actually outspent Carter too.
/dev/null Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Bush sent Butterfly ballots to Iran and hid ballot boxes in Ohioastan
LaDairis Posted February 9, 2010 Author Posted February 9, 2010 Our "US media" calls him a "conservative," but Daniel Pipes is yet another Zionist Traitor (the true definition of "Neocon"). He was pulling for Ahmadinejad to win... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...mp;aqi=&oq= In other words, he would rather have radicals in power in Iran, because that makes it more likely some traitor like W or John Sellout McCaipac would use the US military to wipe out Israel's main enemy Iran, Pipes' real goal as an "American Conservative."
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Actually the Supreme Council is 100% responsible for Ahmedinijad.
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Actually the Supreme Council is 100% responsible for Ahmedinijad. Actually, the Wachowski Brothers are 100% responsible for Ahmedinijad. It's in Matrix: Reloaded.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Actually, the Wachowski Brothers are 100% responsible for Ahmedinijad. It's in Matrix: Reloaded. They like cross-dressers in Iran?
/dev/null Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Actually, the Wachowski Brothers are 100% responsible for Ahmedinijad. It's in Matrix: Reloaded. There is no Brandon Spoon
murra Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 I feel partly responsible. At least .00001%. If you're rounding, please clarify next time.
LaDairis Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 I feel partly responsible. At least .00001%. If you're rounding, please clarify next time. Indeed, in 2004, you voted for the biggest spending Prez of our time to be re-elected, one who had intentionally not gone after those who hit us on 911 by sending way too small a force to "not a priority" Afghanistan, flipped off our allies in Afghanistan, broke our laws and treaties to board a Gitmo (who wasn't even an AQ) to lie and say "Saddam is training AQ in chem," which Cheney then took to Meet The Press and said "we know Saddam is training AQ in chem." There were two reasons why W didn't want to get "not a priority" OBL. 1. Israel likes AQ, because they fight against Iran 2. W wanted to remind us "I'm a War President" because pappy Bush 41 had done the US national interest in 1991 by uniting 120 countries to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and leave him as a toothless UN problem, which is precisely what Saddam was in 2003, a toothless UN problem who had nothing to do with 911 and had precisely NO US NATIONAL INTEREST. But little W didn't want to lose in 2004 like his pappy did in 92, when Zionist "neocons" in the media blasted Bush 41 for "not finishing (Israel's, not our) the job" in Iraq. Indeed, the same Zionists who supported Bill Clinton with fury in 92 (Dick Morris, George Tenet etc.) were all for W in 2004. We invaded Iraq in 2003 over intentional lies and precisely nothing in our national interest so that Treasonous Sub Human Invalid Bible Thumping Socialist George W Bush would get tons of cash and favorable media coverage from the pro gay, pro abortion, pro socialism Israel lobby that supported Clinton in 92, nothing more. Every lie used to dump our heroes in uniform in Iraq was intentional, and most of the 120 allies we had in 1991 saw right through those lies, because it was obvious to anyone with a third grade understanding of the Middle East that smoking drinking Saddam and Islamic Lifestyle Osama could not possibly be pals. Everyone still defending W is either a Zionist Traitor or a sold out sub human invalid too dumb to have a clue, too lazy to get a clue, and too much of a hateful treasonous lowlife to care.
LaDairis Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 Actually the Supreme Council is 100% responsible for Ahmedinijad. Just the most recent one in 2009. In 2005, Iranians accepted the election results as fair. And it wasn't the Council as much as it was all of Ahmad's cronies he installed who lied to the Council.
Keukasmallies Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 I'm convinced that George Bush is responsible for all things great and small. I'm not exactly sure how he engineered that quake in Haiti, but I know for a fact he was the moving force behind Kroger printing false sell-by dates on their 85% ground beef in January, 2009. Damn that George Bush; will his nefarious impact on our great land never fade away....?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Just the most recent one in 2009. In 2005, Iranians accepted the election results as fair. And it wasn't the Council as much as it was all of Ahmad's cronies he installed who lied to the Council. You, sir, are a retard. No one becomes President of Iran without the backing of the Supreme Council. Thanks for playing.
keepthefaith Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Indeed, in 2004, you voted for the biggest spending Prez of our time to be re-elected, one who had intentionally not gone after those who hit us on 911 by sending way too small a force to "not a priority" Afghanistan, flipped off our allies in Afghanistan, broke our laws and treaties to board a Gitmo (who wasn't even an AQ) to lie and say "Saddam is training AQ in chem," which Cheney then took to Meet The Press and said "we know Saddam is training AQ in chem." There were two reasons why W didn't want to get "not a priority" OBL. 1. Israel likes AQ, because they fight against Iran 2. W wanted to remind us "I'm a War President" because pappy Bush 41 had done the US national interest in 1991 by uniting 120 countries to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and leave him as a toothless UN problem, which is precisely what Saddam was in 2003, a toothless UN problem who had nothing to do with 911 and had precisely NO US NATIONAL INTEREST. But little W didn't want to lose in 2004 like his pappy did in 92, when Zionist "neocons" in the media blasted Bush 41 for "not finishing (Israel's, not our) the job" in Iraq. Indeed, the same Zionists who supported Bill Clinton with fury in 92 (Dick Morris, George Tenet etc.) were all for W in 2004. We invaded Iraq in 2003 over intentional lies and precisely nothing in our national interest so that Treasonous Sub Human Invalid Bible Thumping Socialist George W Bush would get tons of cash and favorable media coverage from the pro gay, pro abortion, pro socialism Israel lobby that supported Clinton in 92, nothing more. Every lie used to dump our heroes in uniform in Iraq was intentional, and most of the 120 allies we had in 1991 saw right through those lies, because it was obvious to anyone with a third grade understanding of the Middle East that smoking drinking Saddam and Islamic Lifestyle Osama could not possibly be pals. Everyone still defending W is either a Zionist Traitor or a sold out sub human invalid too dumb to have a clue, too lazy to get a clue, and too much of a hateful treasonous lowlife to care. It's nice to have a historian on the board. The present and the future has more weight for me.
LaDairis Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 You, sir, are a retard. No one becomes President of Iran without the backing of the Supreme Council. Thanks for playing. Rafsanjani won three times, and the radicals hated him. The Council does "certify" the election. The election is what matters. The elected President runs the day to day operations of Iran, and appoints who he wants (including who he wants to count ballots). The 80 year old mullahs don't run Iran day to day. They are the "supreme power," but they abided by the results of the three elections Rafsanjani won. The problem is Ahmadinejad. And W is 100% responsible for him winning in 05. Thanks for playing are you a treasonous sub human Bible Thumping Socialist W supporter who thinks the US exists to serve Israel as W did...
LaDairis Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 I'm convinced that George Bush is responsible for all things great and small. I'm not exactly sure how he engineered that quake in Haiti, but I know for a fact he was the moving force behind Kroger printing false sell-by dates on their 85% ground beef in January, 2009. Damn that George Bush; will his nefarious impact on our great land never fade away....? You are to the GOP what Danny Glover is to the Dems. As for W's handling of China, well, China owns all the debt we had to print to cover for W's endless Bible Thumping Socialist porkfest. If W had just kept spending flat during his tenure mostly with a completely "Republican" Congress, we would still have an annual budget surplus...
LaDairis Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 It's nice to have a historian on the board. The present and the future has more weight for me. In other words, unless it comes from your pastor or your Zionist masters at FIXED NOISE, you won't accept it. Were you outraged when it came out that the "document" claiming Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger was determined to be a forgery? Did you ask "Who forged a document to dump our heroes in uniform in Iraq over intentional lies and precisely nothing in our national interest? NOPE... As a "Christian," you support lies that get our troops killed for nothing in our national interest, socialism as long as the socialist doing the socializing is a Bible Thumper just like you (with a sub 30 IQ as well), making Zionist crooks like Madoff above the law as long as such Zionists give W cash and say nice things about him in the media, mass Christian Bible Burnings in Israel directed by elected Israeli officials still in office... http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/28/...ning/index.html that one three days after W went to Israel and sukked up in a manner way beyond a "bow," deploying way too few troops to Afghan to get "not a priority" OBL and then flipping off our allies there, breaking our laws and treaties to "waterboard" prisoners to lie to justify the Iraq Treason. Indeed, there were some in the GOP in the late 1860s who argued that a mass hanging of Baptist pastors and other religious leaders who supported the attack on Ft Sumter was in order. They were right. Allowing such traitors to live then just allowed such traitors to breed new traitors to support W later...
keepthefaith Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 In other words, unless it comes from your pastor or your Zionist masters at FIXED NOISE, you won't accept it. Were you outraged when it came out that the "document" claiming Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger was determined to be a forgery? Did you ask "Who forged a document to dump our heroes in uniform in Iraq over intentional lies and precisely nothing in our national interest? NOPE... As a "Christian," you support lies that get our troops killed for nothing in our national interest, socialism as long as the socialist doing the socializing is a Bible Thumper just like you (with a sub 30 IQ as well), making Zionist crooks like Madoff above the law as long as such Zionists give W cash and say nice things about him in the media, mass Christian Bible Burnings in Israel directed by elected Israeli officials still in office... http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/28/...ning/index.html that one three days after W went to Israel and sukked up in a manner way beyond a "bow," deploying way too few troops to Afghan to get "not a priority" OBL and then flipping off our allies there, breaking our laws and treaties to "waterboard" prisoners to lie to justify the Iraq Treason. Indeed, there were some in the GOP in the late 1860s who argued that a mass hanging of Baptist pastors and other religious leaders who supported the attack on Ft Sumter was in order. They were right. Allowing such traitors to live then just allowed such traitors to breed new traitors to support W later... I'm suprised they let you out of the straight jacket long enough to type.
LaDairis Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 I'm suprised they let you out of the straight jacket long enough to type. I got that response many times over the past 10+ years explaining to science invalids that planet Earth was not warming, just the surface of growing urban areas. It is a tribute to your treasonous idiocy that you sit there as a so-called "Christian" supporting treasonous wars, lies, and selling out this country to the same folks who sold out Jesus to the Romans for crucifixion. Your religion has supported 1. attacking Ft. Sumter 2. enslaving a race because of color forever 3. jimCrow/segregation 4. bombing black churches 5. sicking attack dogs on black voters 6. intentional lies to get US troops killed for nothing in US national interest 7. making those behind 911 "not a priority" 8. breaking our laws and treaties to 'board a lie out of a Gitmo to justify the Iraq Treason Now, just how stupid would a (sub) human have to be to read the Bible, claim to be a follower of Christ, and support the above? You are the single lowest form of scum in the human species, below child molester and those rabbis selling Palestinian body parts. Jesus hates you. Jesus would like to see you, your pastor, and everyone involved in your pseudo Christian faith rounded up and exterminated as the traitors you truly are.
Recommended Posts