SAS unit ‘snatched’ Woolwich terror suspect Michael Adebolajo in Kenya???

stuar

Here's another strange one, an SAS unit thought Woolwich terror suspect so important in 2010 that they sent a helicoptor into Kenya in 2010 to snatch him, what's it lately with all these "terorists" and various security agencies having a keen interest in them, the Boston "bombers" and the FBI, now new revelations about an SAS team sent to Kenya, is there some type of Psy-ops at play here?



Here's the newspaper article about this strange case:
SAS seized terror suspect three years ago: Michael Adebolajo deemed so significant, Special Forces were sent to grab him in Kenya in 2010

• Terror suspect was 'snatched' in 'highly dramatic' helicopter operation
• 'Deemed important' by British security services who had been monitoring him since before his arrest in 2010
• Adebolajo was deported from Kenya and flown back to UK
• Despite warnings stretching back ten years, he remained on 'low-risk' watch.

The decision to use the SAS, working closely with MI5, to snatch Adebolajo in a helicopter-borne

operation was highly unusual and contradicts earlier claims that he was arrested by local police as he tried to cross into Somalia to join jihadists in November 2010.

He was photographed at high-profile protests – even standing next to hate preacher Anjem Choudary (SEE BELOW)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333005/Michael-Adebolajo-deemed-significant-Special-Forces-sent-grab-Kenya-2010.html

Rally: A man identified as Woolwich suspect Michael Adebolajo (circled) pictured at a demonstration in Paddington Green, London, in 2007 with Anjem Choudary.

Police rush to home of hate preacher Anjem Choudary to protect him and his family after threats as he blames Cameron's 'crusade' for 'turning young Muslims to terror'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333199/Police-rush-home-hate-preacher-Anjem-Choudary-protect-family-threats-blames-Camerons-crusade-turning-young-Muslims-terror.html

Does anybody notice anything strange about this picture of the "Radical Fundamentalist Hate Preacher's" family photo?, their clothing maybe?, Louis Vitton handbag his wife is carrying, Hello Kitty etc, not the type of clothing I'd expect from a dedicated fundamentalist radical Muslims family, could he be a tool for MI5/6?

I'll get back to this tomorrow, but there's a few questions floating around my head. It all just seem's a little strange that firstly the SAS were so interested in somebody pictured in 2007 with the hate preacher that they snatched him from Kenya and sent him back to the UK in 2010, then in 2013 he turns up in Woolwich and beheads a British soldier.

I think theres more to this than meets the eye.

Brown Bomber

stuar wrote: »

Does anybody notice anything strange about this picture of the "Radical Fundamentalist Hate Preacher's" family photo?, their clothing maybe?, Louis Vitton handbag his wife is carrying, Hello Kitty etc, not the type of clothing I'd expect from a dedicated fundamentalist radical Muslims family, could he be a tool for MI5/6?

I've had him called out as a fraud years ago. Fundamentalist Muslim in Nikes,? :pac:

Have you seen these photos?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74144166&postcount=543

stuar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've had him called out as a fraud years ago. Fundamentalist Muslim in Nikes,? :pac:

Have you seen these photos?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74144166&postcount=543

Thanks Bomber, didn't see your post before, yea I'm now convinced he's a fraud/tool/agent for British secret services.

I wonder how much of a part he and his handlers played in encouraging the Woolwich beheading.

Brown Bomber

stuar wrote: »

Thanks Bomber, didn't see your post before, yea I'm now convinced he's a fraud/tool/agent for British secret services.

I wonder how much of a part he and his handlers played in encouraging the Woolwich beheading.

Yeah, it feels like we are in the Truman Show sometimes. It's all smoke and mirrors. Actors with roles and lines all playing out their parts. Fake radical Muslims scaremongering, fake nationalists reacting, like the EDL, fake moderate Muslims like Quilliam condemning them both.




Take the EDL and Chodary. Both serve the same agenda, The formenting of "The Clash of Civilisations"

It's no coincidence that the two civilisations involved are the colonisers and the colonised.

Same thing happened after Boston. There was an interfaith service held for the victims and they replaced the Muslim representative with a guy who is funded by the same Zionist millionaires and billionaires who are bankrolling the anti-Muslim propaganda network.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/weddadys-free-arabs-american-islamic-congress-and-pro-israel-funders-who-helped-them-rise

stuar

Old game of divide and conquer I'd imagine, same as Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah/Assad falling out.

Who gains?, not really a hard question to answer............

Brown Bomber

The younger brother of one of the men accused of murdering Drummer Lee Rigby was paid thousands of pounds by MI6 as part of spying operations in the Middle East, The Mail on Sunday has discovered.

Jeremiah Adebolajo, who uses the name Abul Jaleel, was also asked to help ‘turn’ his brother, Michael, to work for MI5, who were already aware of Michael’s close links to extremist groups.
The claims are made by the Adebolajo family and a well-placed source who contacted The Mail on Sunday.

Jeremiah Adebolajo, 26, who works as an English teacher at a university in Saudi Arabia and returned to Britain this week, is to be questioned about his brother by Scotland Yard counter-terrorism detectives today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334476/Woolwich-murder-MI6-connection-Younger-brother-Michael-Adebolajo-paid-thousands-spy-Middle-East.html#ixzz2V5aVP2W6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Anynama141

Are we astonished that the British secret services are interacting with people in the Muslim fundamentalist world, despite the fact that the authorities publicly acknowledge that this is what is happening?

Who exactly should they be trying to recruit/turn/spy on - the normal moderate Muslims?

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Are we astonished that the British secret services are interacting with people in the Muslim fundamentalist world, despite the fact that the authorities publicly acknowledge that this is what is happening?

Who exactly should they be trying to recruit/turn/spy on - the normal moderate Muslims?

Why do they feel the need to recruit anyone in the first place? why extremist Muslims?

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

Why do they feel the need to recruit anyone in the first place? why extremist Muslims?

Due to the threat of terrorism. The largest terrorist threat these days appears to be from extremist Islam, followed (in the West, at least) by the far right.

You might recall that there was a terrorist campaign by the PIRA during the 60s to the 90s or thereabouts - it will not surprise you to learn that the British security services were focused on infiltrating them at that time and they succeeded admirably.

Unless of course we believe that all the terrorist attacks by the IRA were also false flag attacks - but I believe conspiracy theories really only became fashionable with the growth of the internet in the last 15 years or so, so the fact that it was genuine terrorists behind those killings does not seem to be in any dispute.

Brown Bomber

Anynama141 wrote: »

Due to the threat of terrorism. The largest terrorist threat these days appears to be from extremist Islam, followed (in the West, at least) by the far right.

You might recall that there was a terrorist campaign by the PIRA during the 60s to the 90s or thereabouts - it will not surprise you to learn that the British security services were focused on infiltrating them at that time and they succeeded admirably.

Unless of course we believe that all the terrorist attacks by the IRA were also false flag attacks - but I believe conspiracy theories really only became fashionable with the growth of the internet in the last 15 years or so, so the fact that it was genuine terrorists behind those killings does not seem to be in any dispute.

Never heard of the FRU then so?

Brown Bomber

Anynama141 wrote: »

Are we astonished that the British secret services are interacting with people in the Muslim fundamentalist world, despite the fact that the authorities publicly acknowledge that this is what is happening?

Who exactly should they be trying to recruit/turn/spy on - the normal moderate Muslims?

They do recruit/spy on "moderate" Muslims. They also entrap desperate, homeless and mentally deficient Muslims.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Due to the threat of terrorism.

Why would there be a threat of terrorism?

The largest terrorist threat these days appears to be from extremist Islam, followed (in the West, at least) by the far right.

Why though?

You might recall that there was a terrorist campaign by the PIRA during the 60s to the 90s or thereabouts - it will not surprise you to learn that the British security services were focused on infiltrating them at that time and they succeeded admirably.

Yeah, why were PIRA trying to bomb Britain?

Unless of course we believe that all the terrorist attacks by the IRA were also false flag attacks - but I believe conspiracy theories really only became fashionable with the growth of the internet in the last 15 years or so, so the fact that it was genuine terrorists behind those killings does not seem to be in any dispute.

right....

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Never heard of the FRU then so?

I have, yes. Why the demeaning tone?

Are you proposing that the FRU was behind all of the terrorist attacks in Britain? That poses the problem as to why the PIRA leadership claimed these attacks. Can you propose a plausible reason as to why they would do so?

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They do recruit/spy on "moderate" Muslims. They also entrap desperate, homeless and mentally deficient Muslims.

Which category would you put those who murdered the British soldier the other day? Just because you are mentally deficient does not mean that you do not pose a terrorist threat.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Which category would you put those who murdered the British soldier the other day? Just because you are mentally deficient does not mean that you do not pose a terrorist threat.

How is Brown Bomber "mentally deficient" in your opinion?

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

Why would there be a threat of terrorism?



Why though?



Yeah, why were PIRA trying to bomb Britain?



right....

Uh...these are all very interesting questions, but they seem rather more suited to a forum on politics.

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

How is Brown Bomber "mentally deficient" in your opinion?

I think you misunderstood the meaning of my post.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Uh...these are all very interesting questions, but they seem rather more suited to a forum on politics.

I know they're challenging questions but they're questions I like to ponder rather than accept whatever the mainstream media tell me.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

I think you misunderstood the meaning of my post.

Ah okay, my mistake.

So, just because a man is mentally deficient, doesn't mean he's not valuable for some agenda? Is that what you mean?

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

I know they're challenging questions but they're questions I like to ponder rather than accept whatever the mainstream media tell me.

The mainstream media features plenty of insightful commentators on these issues. I can recommend Robert Fisk as in interesting mainstream media commentator if you are interested in learning more.

faustino1

I already learn plenty without Robert Fisk.

You refused to answer my question Why Islamic people would carry out such attacks on British citizens.

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

Ah okay, my mistake.

So, just because a man is mentally deficient, doesn't mean he's valuable for some agenda? Is that what you mean?

Well, I mean that an attack by a mentally deficient person can be just as deadly as an attack by a mentally competent person. I wouldn't count Anders Breivik as mentally competent, or James Holmes.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Well, I mean that an attack by a mentally deficient person can be just as deadly as an attack by a mentally competent person. I wouldn't count Anders Breivik as mentally competent, or James Holmes.

I think a mentally deficient person is easier to exploit for an agenda, wouldn't you agree?

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

I already learn plenty without Robert Fisk.

You refused to answer my question Why Islamic people would carry out such attacks on British citizens.

Many reasons. I'm not going into it here. I'm sure what the relevance is to a thread discussing the attempt to turn Islamic extremists to prevent terrorist attacks.

I might as well ask 'why doesn't everyone just get along?' and demand answers much like you are. I don't think the thread would tell us much about its ostensible subject in that case.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Many reasons. I'm not going into it here. I'm sure what the relevance is to a thread discussing the attempt to turn Islamic extremists to prevent terrorist attacks.

Prevent them? Surely if you had an agenda, you'd want the extremist to carry out his attack successfully, wouldn't you?

I might as well ask 'why doesn't everyone just get along?' and demand answers much like you are. I don't think the thread would tell us much about its ostensible subject in that case.

Why doesn't everyone get along? Because that's not what the powerful people in our society want. Divide and Conquer. It's worked throughout history and continues to work it's magic.

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

I think a mentally deficient person is easier to exploit for an agenda, wouldn't you agree?

Its hard to say. It might explain how the extremist leadership convince so many of them to blow themselves up or take part in hopeless attacks. It might also mean that they are easier to turn as they have arrived at their extremist position due to external influences.

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

Prevent them? Surely if you had an agenda, you'd want the extremist to carry out his attack successfully, wouldn't you?

It depends on whether your agenda is to prevent Islamic terror or to carry it out.

faustino1 wrote: »

Why doesn't everyone get along? Because that's not what the powerful people in our society want. Divide and Conquer. It's worked throughout history and continues to work it's magic.

Oddly enough, though, we live in the most peaceful, safest and wealthiest time in human history. If the agenda of the powerful people is something else, then it's not working very well.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Its hard to say. It might explain how the extremist leadership convince so many of them to blow themselves up or take part in hopeless attacks. It might also mean that they are easier to turn as they have arrived at their extremist position due to external influences.

Imagine if you're a powerful person and you feel you're losing your grip on the population which have the numbers to remove you from power.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to you, if those people threatening you were divided over some issue?

Brown Bomber

Anynama141 wrote: »

Its hard to say. It might explain how the extremist leadership convince so many of them to blow themselves up or take part in hopeless attacks. It might also mean that they are easier to turn as they have arrived at their extremist position due to external influences.

I suggest you look into the work of Robert Pape if you want to understand why "people blow themselves up"

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

It depends on whether your agenda is to prevent Islamic terror or to carry it out.

Execute the odd terror attack to accomplish your objective.
Think of 9/11 and all the freedoms America has been stripped of.

Oddly enough, though, we live in the most peaceful, safest and wealthiest time in human history. If the agenda of the powerful people is something else, then it's not working very well.

Really?

Perhaps for you, Orchids are growing out of the sewers but that's not the case for everyone ON THIS PLANET.

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

Imagine if you're a powerful person and you feel you're losing your grip on the population which have the numbers to remove you from power.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to you if those people threatening you were divided over some issue?

I read Machiavelli many, many years ago. The difference between now and the age of Machiavelli is that information nowadays has a way of getting out, and once it's out you can't stop it spreading.

It would take a very brave leader in a democratic country to come up with a murderous plot involving the murder of their own citizens in the internet age, when every secret document is a CTRL+C CTRL+V from the internet.

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I suggest you look into the work of Robert Pape if you want to understand why "people blow themselves up"

A quick look at Wikipedia:

Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) contradicts many widely held beliefs about suicide terrorism. Based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2003 (315 attacks as part of 18 campaigns), he concludes that there is "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions... . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" (p. 4). "The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism," he argues; it is "an extreme strategy for national liberation" (pp. 79–80). Pape's work examines groups such as the Al-Qaeda to the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers. Pape also notably provides further evidence to a growing body of literature that finds that the majority of suicide terrorists do not come from impoverished or uneducated background, but rather have middle class origins and a significant level of education.

How does Pape explain the suicide bombings in Afghanistan before the US invasion, or the suicide attacks in Iraq targeting other Muslim sects? And that's before we consider suicide attacks such as 9/11 or the London Tube bombings. His theory rather falls down there.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

I read Machiavelli many, many years ago. The difference between now and the age of Machiavelli is that information nowadays has a way of getting out, and once it's out you can't stop it spreading.

Hmm, your viewpoints seem to contradict that assertion.

It would take a very brave leader in a democratic country to come up with a murderous plot involving the murder of their own citizens in the internet age, when every secret document is a CTRL+C CTRL+V from the internet.

Brave leader?

I wouldn't consider Tony Blair taking the UK to war with Iraq based on lies a "Brave Leader"

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

Hmm, your viewpoints seem to contradict that assertion.

They don't. Please explain how you think so?

faustino1 wrote: »

Brave leader?

I wouldn't consider Tony Blair taking the UK to war with Iraq based on lies a "Brave Leader"

Nor would I. A very foolish one, yes. He's not very popular in the UK any more, is he?

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

They don't. Please explain how you think so?

Well, for start, the earth was FLAT when Machiavelli was around so I doubt he can give you any insight into the mind of a person TODAY.

Nor would I. A very foolish one, yes. He's not very popular in the UK any more, is he?

But UK citizens died because of his lies.
In 2012, an average of 22 US veterans committed suicide EVERY DAY.

22 people per DAY.

Not to mention the millions of Muslims that were displaced/killed because of lies by Tony Blair.......

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

Well, for start, the earth was FLAT when Machiavelli was around so I doubt he can give you any insight into the mind of a person TODAY.

With respect, how does that show that my statement contradicted my own views? And I suggest if you don't understand what Machiavelli has to do with what you were talking about, you could do worse than reading his work. Times change quickly, but people change slowly.

Incidentally, the world has been known to be spherical for thousands of years.

faustino1 wrote: »

But UK citizens died because of his lies.
In 2012, an average of 22 US veterans committed suicide EVERY DAY.

22 people per DAY.

Not to mention the millions of Muslims that were displaced/killed because of lies by Tony Blair.......

Yes - and what has this got to do with what I posted? It's like you are responding to posts that someone else is writing.

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

With respect, how does that show that my statement contradicted my own views?

Machiavelli isn't going to teach you anything about the conflict in the Middle East.

Incidentally, the world has been known to be spherical for thousands of years.

Yep..we know that now but Machiavelli didn't, nor did he know then what people are truly capable of, that's my point.

Yes - and what has this got to do with what I posted? It's like you are responding to posts that someone else is writing.

You want to believe governments are acting on your behalf at all times.
You're unwilling to accept covert operations by the security services are against you, and unfortunately that's not the case.

Writings of Machiavelli are absolutely worthless in any attempt to analyze what's happening in the world today.

A book like this would be worth 100x more. when trying to understand foreign policy of the Middle East.

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

Machiavelli isn't going to teach you anything about the conflict in the Middle East.

I suggest that you read his work before you state that. I disagree - he was writing about the principle of 'divide and rule' rather a long time ago.

faustino1 wrote: »

Yep..we know that now but Machiavelli didn't, nor did he know then what people are truly capable of, that's my point.

For thousands of years people knew that the earth was NOT flat. I'm not sure why you think that Machiavelli thought otherwise?

faustino1 wrote: »

You want to believe governments are acting on your behalf at all times.
You're unwilling to accept covert operations by the security services are against you, and unfortunately that's not the case.

With respect, I have no evidence to suggest otherwise. I don't believe things without evidence, as that is religion or madness.

faustino1 wrote: »

Writings of Machiavelli are absolutely worthless in any attempt to analyze what's happening in the world today.

A book like this would be worth 100x more. when trying to understand foreign policy of the Middle East.

You are declaring that one of the most fundamental tracts on real politik is 'absolutely worthless' without actually reading it?

faustino1

Anynama141 wrote: »

I suggest that you read his work before you state that. I disagree - he was writing about the principle of 'divide and rule' rather a long time ago.

For thousands of years people knew that the earth was NOT flat. I'm not sure why you think that Machiavelli thought otherwise?

If we were arguing about the origin of the universe, writings from the 1500s probably wouldn't be acceptable.

You are declaring that one of the most fundamental tracts on real politik is 'absolutely worthless' without actually reading it?

To understand US foreign policy, I'd recommend Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power

To understand the criminality of it, Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War

Millions of innocent people have died in the last 10 years because of lies you choose to believe in...

Anynama141

faustino1 wrote: »

If we were arguing about the origin of the universe, writings from the 1500s probably wouldn't be acceptable.

...and if we were discussing the strategies used by people in power, they certainly would be acceptable - unless you are suggesting that people have totally changed in that time?

faustino1 wrote: »

To understand US foreign policy, I'd recommend Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power

To understand the criminality of it, Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War

Millions of innocent people have died in the last 10 years because of lies you choose to believe in...

At this point I am tired of your strawman strategy so I am reporting this post.

Brown Bomber

Anynama141 wrote: »

A quick look at Wikipedia:

How does Pape explain the suicide bombings in Afghanistan before the US invasion, or the suicide attacks in Iraq targeting other Muslim sects? And that's before we consider suicide attacks such as 9/11 or the London Tube bombings. His theory rather falls down there.

Seeing as he is an expert in suicide bombings and you clearly aren't I'm sure he would laugh in your face at your mentioning of phantom suicide bombings in Afghanistan pre-invasion.

I'm not getting into the others but the US and friends formented the sectarian civil war in Iraq to suit their own ends.

Do you remember the SAS guys caught with explosives and dressed as Arabs?

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Seeing as he is an expert in suicide bombings and you clearly aren't I'm sure he would laugh in your face at your mentioning of phantom suicide bombings in Afghanistan pre-invasion.

He's a soi disant expert, it seems, seeing as he needs to ignore important data to make his hypothesis fit. And what's this about 'phantom suicide bombings'? I assure you for the people blown up, they felt very real.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not getting into the others but the US and friends formented the sectarian civil war in Iraq to suit their own ends.

Those ends being to make the country ungovernable and to totally discredit the idea of regime change? The US will have to wait 20 years before trying to 'spread democracy' somewhere else on the back of the Iraq disaster. I think you give them far too much credit - never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.

Brown Bomber

Anynama141 wrote: »

He's a soi disant expert, it seems, seeing as he needs to ignore important data to make his hypothesis fit. And what's this about 'phantom suicide bombings'? I assure you for the people blown up, they felt very real.

Nah, you are wrong. From the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=publisher&publisher=UNAMA&type=&coi=&docid=49997b00d&skip=0

In Afghanistan, suicide attacks are a new phenomenon. Before the assassination of
Ahmad Shah Massoud on September 9th 2001, the notion that suicide might be used to
kill others was considered alien. Indeed, when such attacks began appearing with
regularity in 2005 and 2006, the community’s initial response was to reject the possibility
that Afghans themselves might be involved.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Those ends being to make the country ungovernable and to totally discredit the idea of regime change? The US will have to wait 20 years before trying to 'spread democracy' somewhere else on the back of the Iraq disaster. I think you give them far too much credit - never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.

Twenty years? What about the "regime change" for "democracy" in Libya? And the US armed, trained and backed Shia and Kurdish militias like the Wolf Brigade and these went on a rampage in Sunni areas which led to a Sunni resistance which led to the Civil War.

Iraq is now essentially 3 states, before the war nobody cared who was Shia or Sunni, they intermarried, lived in the same neighbourhoods, went to the same schools and so on.

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nah, you are wrong. From the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=publisher&publisher=UNAMA&type=&coi=&docid=49997b00d&skip=0

So is that one of your phantom assassinations? It pre-dates the US invasion, doesn't it?

I think that makes me right, actually, and you wrong.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Twenty years? What about the "regime change" for "democracy" in Libya? And the US armed, trained and backed Shia and Kurdish militias like the Wolf Brigade and these went on a rampage in Sunni areas which led to a Sunni resistance which led to the Civil War.

There was a popular uprising in Libya, as there was in Egypt and in Tunisia. Why focus on Libya? I don't think you can credit/blame the US with any of them.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Iraq is now essentially 3 states, before the war nobody cared who was Shia or Sunni, they intermarried, lived in the same neighbourhoods, went to the same schools and so on.

Citation needed.

Brown Bomber

Anynama141 wrote: »

So is that one of your phantom assassinations? It pre-dates the US invasion, doesn't it?

I think that makes me right, actually, and you wrong. .

You are just splitting hairs. There was no culture of suicide bombing in Afghanistan before the US invasion as you implies. Therefore your criticism of Pape on this was uninformed and misguided.

Anynama141 wrote: »

There was a popular uprising in Libya, as there was in Egypt and in Tunisia. Why focus on Libya? I don't think you can credit/blame the US with any of them.

Citation needed.

I'm not sure which you need the citation for but here is information on the US formenting sectarian war in Iraq
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13122-how-petraeus-quietly-stoked-the-fires-of-sectarian-war-without-getting-burned

And here is information regarding the lack of sectarian troubles in Iraq before the US occupation.

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Communications Director Raed Jarrar joins Ahmed Shihab-Eldin to talk about America creating a sectarian divide between during the Iraq War.
"These issues were not a part of the daily life," Jarrar said. "We didn't talk about who's a Sunni and who's a Shiite...until 2003. There is a very clear line in Iraq's consciousness when these issues were introduced."
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/did-america-create-sectarian-divide%3F/51474c0402a760656300032f

Anynama141

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are just splitting hairs. There was no culture of suicide bombing in Afghanistan before the US invasion as you implies. Therefore your criticism of Pape on this was uninformed and misguided.

I said that Pape ignores suicide bombings that do not fit his hypothesis. He ignores the suicide bombings in Afghanistan that happened before the US invasion. This is not splitting hairs - it means that the roots of the culture of suicide bombing pre-date the invasion.

So perhaps it is Pape and your good self who are uninformed or misguided?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure which you need the citation for but here is information on the US formenting sectarian war in Iraq
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13122-how-petraeus-quietly-stoked-the-fires-of-sectarian-war-without-getting-burned

And here is information regarding the lack of sectarian troubles in Iraq before the US occupation.

Thanks for the links. It's one man's opinion, but if you listen to the piece you linked, Raed Jarrer actually blames the Iraqi ruling council for causing the sectarian divide.

The second piece you link starts thusly:

In April 2004, the US-supported Iraqi Civil Defense Corps units, recruited from Sunni communities, collapsed in the face of insurgent offensive, shrinking overnight by more than 50 percent - including 82 percent of the troops in the Sunni stronghold of western Iraq. The US military and the Bush administration suddenly realized that they could not rely on the Sunni troops and police to fight the Sunni insurgency.

So the Sunni insurgency which devastated Iraqi civilians was already well underway at the start of this tale? I would suggest that it was the Sunni insurgency that was responsible for most of the sectarian bloodshed; of course this would not have happened under Saddam's regime, so to that extent you can blame the US and company for its existence, but it is also entirely possible that this would have happened anyway if Saddam's regime came to a 'natural' end given the way that Saddam favoured Sunnis.

Either way, it seems a stretch to suggest that they deliberately set the country at war with itself as - I have pointed out - that made the country virtually ungovernable and totally destroyed the idea that you can just rock up and 'install' democracy wherever you like by force of arms.

Anynama141

Another suicide bombing in Afghanistan - nine children dead. I wonder why it doesn't seem to bother the Islamic extremists that by far the greatest victims of Islamic terror are innocent Muslims.

A suicide bomber has killed at least nine children and a policeman in eastern Afghanistan, police say.

The attacker, who was on a motorcycle, struck at a market in Samkani district near the Pakistan border. At least 15 other people were injured.

Local officials said a passing military patrol was the target and coalition soldiers were among casualties.

The Nato-led Isaf force had no word on casualties, but said it is investigating the attack.

The police chief in in Paktia province, where the attack happened, said the bomber detonated his explosives at midday just as a local school was letting pupils out for lunch.

Good job, bomber. 72 virgins for you.

BloodBath

A drop in the ocean compared to how many the Yanks have killed.

Anynama141

BloodBath wrote: »

A drop in the ocean compared to how many the Yanks have killed.

Well that's ok then...?

BloodBath

I'm not saying it's ok but when you throw around terms like "Islamic terror" you should realise it's nothing compared to American terror.

Anynama141

BloodBath wrote: »

I'm not saying it's ok but when you throw around terms like "Islamic terror" you should realise it's nothing compared to American terror.

It depends, I guess. How many were killed by the Americans in Iraq, and how many were killed by Islamic insurgents? In Afghanistan?

I'm not a fan of US foreign policy, but it's rare that they set out to murder civilians.