The Bush Administration Responsible For Sunni Extremists?

[Apotheoun]

The Islamic religion creates its own extremists, as anyone familiar with the teachings of the Qu'ran and Hadith knows.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1282400' date='May 27 2007, 08:27 PM']George H.W. Bush, also had him on the payroll if I remember correctly and was even involved with him during his CIA days.
Congress funds wars, but the president also has a financial ability, as the CIA for years gave money to the Taliban and Al-Quida, as money was also trickeling to Al-Fatah [not the same Fatah party as the Palestinian PM is apart of], an extremist jihadist militant group.

Peace and Blessings to you this penecost also
Reza[/quote]
Congress holds the purse strings. Nothing can be funded without the whole Congress (or a committee within the House and Sentate in particular instances) knowing about it.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1282418' date='May 27 2007, 08:42 PM']Congress holds the purse strings. Nothing can be funded without the whole Congress (or a committee within the House and Sentate in particular instances) knowing about it.[/quote]

That's not true, what happens is that the administration is given so much of a budget [which has been used to support various networks, etc]. When Mr. Bush asked for congress to fund the war, it was just that, funding for the war. That doesn't mean that he didn't already have a budget. He doesn't go before congress everytime that he needs money for various purposes, rather he's given a budget from the beginning, and if he needs more, he asks congress for more.

[quote]The Islamic religion creates its own extremists, as anyone familiar with the teachings of the Qu'ran and Hadith knows[/quote] That's your interpretation of the Quran and Hadeeths, there's another thread about that, you're more then willing to discuss this in, if you'd like but this isn't about that.

...now back to the original issue, how can the administration say that they are fighting terrorists by aiding them financially?

Edited May 28, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mercy me]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1282333' date='May 27 2007, 07:28 PM']Bush claims to be a Christian, but his fruits are sorely lacking. During Katrina, he puts one of his friends as the head of Fema, a friend who had no prior experience with mass natural disaster. You'd think, if Bush was a praying man, God would have moved him to put a more competent person to be the head of Fema.

It seems Bush has a total lack of Wisdom, something a Christian who follows our lord Jesus Christ would hold in his heart.[/quote]

These comments are out of line. Who are you to say what kind of a Christian President Bush is or any other human for that matter.

I do not understand why people feel so free to attack personally people whom they do not know.

By the way, Katrina has nothing to do with this thread. If you have something to say on the matter I would be happy to discuss it with you if you want to create a new thread.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Mercy me

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1282309' date='May 27 2007, 05:47 PM']His administration funded the Jihadists in Lebanon, so what do you have to say about that? In nearly every other thread that painted every middle easterner as a "terrorist", that worked in favor of the Bush administration's policy, you had alot to say, now you got nothing good to say once it comes out that the Bush Administration actually funded Jihadists? Go figure...



Note: This isn't a thread on "is Islam a threat", "Are Sunni Muslims bad", "Is Islam Violent" or any of those discussions. Those are for another thread [which has been discussed a million times over], this is about The Bush Administration's funding of Muslim Extremists, the same extremists that they claim to be against.

Reza[/quote]

What a foolish and untrue statement I have never "painted" such a thing. You've put words in my mouth something you're always crying and wining about when others apparently do it to you. In other threads you charged that CNN and other News outlets as being propagandist, now their not. You can't live up to your own standards, always changing your arguments. Blah blah blah.

I dont care to waste time I could be making money going into a deep debate about something that has no proof. Bush is not a terrorist, nor does he support terrorist. No proof has been given to prove otherwise.

The only proof is that of the opinion of one man? Hersh offers no proof no documents no names, just statements of his opinion.

Edited May 28, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

...

Edited May 28, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1282487' date='May 28 2007, 12:12 AM']What a foolish and untrue statement I have never "painted" such a thing.[/quote] Oh whatever, you gave a bunch of propaganda articles, over and over again [literally litering this board with your propaganda] about "the jihadists", but the minute someone posts an article about your own political affiliation supporting terrorists, literally funding them, you don't condemn them but rather find ways to justify the administration.

[quote] In other threads you charged that CNN and other News outlets as being propagandist, now their not.[/quote]I never said that CNN was a propagandist, but more importantly I didn't say they weren't either, what I did say is that the very news media outlets that you quote from in regards to "WMD being found" [even thou it's a fact that they haven't] have proven that the Bush administration funded Jihadists, and you condemn the jihadists and "liberals" and of course "democrats" all of the place but don't condemn the Bush administration, which is pure hypocracy.

[quote]You can't live up to your own standards.[/quote] On the contrary... you're the one that can't live by your own standards. Maybe it's best that you don't condemn "liberals" or "democrats" no more, since you obviously have a very partisan bias agenda.

[quote]I dont care to waste time I could be making money going into a deep debate about something that has no proof. Bush is not a terrorist, nor does he support terrorist. No proof has been given to prove otherwise.[/quote]Watch the video and you'll find otherwise.

[quote]The only proof is that of the opinion of one man? Hersh offers no proof no documents no names, just statements of his opinion.[/quote] You obviously havn't watched the video.

[KnightofChrist]

Indeed I have watched the video, he offers no real proof. And the other reporter repeatedly says "according to your report."

[Sojourner]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1282487' date='May 28 2007, 01:12 AM']The only proof is that of the opinion of one man? Hersh offers no proof no documents no names, just statements of his opinion.[/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh"]Seymour Hersh[/url] is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who has covered military matters longer than you've been alive.

[url="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh"]This is the article[/url] that the interviewer refers to (you know, when she says "according to your report").

I didn't read the whole thing. It's long, and I don't care that much. But the outline does give a fuller explication of Hersh's discoveries.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1282509' date='May 28 2007, 05:39 AM']Oh whatever, you gave a bunch of propaganda articles, over and over again [literally littering this board with your propaganda] about "the jihadists", but the minute someone posts an article about your own political affiliation supporting terrorists, literally funding them, you don't condemn them but rather find ways to justify the administration.[/quote]

It was more than just one mans opinion, which is all this video is. You don't have a consensus of different news articles based on the same event, you don't have quotes from real and named officials, and you don't have any official documents. I had all those things in my [i]litter of propaganda[/i] you dont. Now sure you'll agrue "So not true, na na na yah didnt." But like you said that is not what this debate is about.

Its about wether or not the President of the Untied States supports terrorism, nothing but speculative hearsay and commentary has been offered up as "proof" and "evidence".

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1282509' date='May 28 2007, 05:39 AM']I never said that CNN was a propagandist, but more importantly I didn't say they weren't either, what I did say is that the very news media outlets that you quote from in regards to "WMD being found" [even thou it's a fact that they haven't] have proven that the Bush administration funded Jihadists, and you condemn the jihadists and "liberals" and of course "democrats" all of the place but don't condemn the Bush administration, which is pure hypocracy.[/quote]

Still living outside the realms of reality I see, oh well. 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium and 1500 gallons of chemical weapons arent WMD's anymore. Well everywhere but reality.

I'm not going to condemn the President of the Untied States based on one mans opinion. Offer some real proof or all this is hearsay and commentary.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1282509' date='May 28 2007, 05:39 AM']On the contrary... you're the one that can't live by your own standards. Maybe it's best that you don't condemn "liberals" or "democrats" no more, since you obviously have a very partisan bias agenda.[/quote]

As normal always very bossy. "Do this dont do that", "Your the worse person on earth", "Your not Catholic" Blah blah blah. Liberals consist of both Republicans and Democrats, more so Democrats, but so what if political leaders are going to pass laws which kill 50 million babies, that action deserves condemnation. If political leaders are going to pass immorality that action deserves condemnation. If political leaders are aiding and abiding the enemy that action deserves condemnation. Theres no proof that Bush is aiding and abiding the enemy. Just more speculative hearsay and commentary from the anti-american left.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1282509' date='May 28 2007, 05:39 AM']Watch the video and you'll find otherwise.

You obviously havn't watched the video.[/quote]


He names no sources only in generality's, and shows no documents to back up his statements. Hearsay, and commentary.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1282675' date='May 28 2007, 02:17 PM'][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh"]Seymour Hersh[/url] is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who has covered military matters longer than you've been alive.

[url="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh"]This is the article[/url] that the interviewer refers to (you know, when she says "according to your report").

I didn't read the whole thing. It's long, and I don't care that much. But the outline does give a fuller explication of Hersh's discoveries.[/quote]

Obviously KnightofChrist ignored your post [for obvious reasons], but I'm glad that you brought it to light, so I didn't have to...

Reza

[Sojourner]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1282972' date='May 28 2007, 09:24 PM']Obviously KnightofChrist ignored your post [for obvious reasons], but I'm glad that you brought it to light, so I didn't have to...

Reza[/quote]
He did ignore it.

I wasn't hurt. But thanks for the props.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1282972' date='May 28 2007, 09:24 PM']Obviously KnightofChrist ignored your post [for obvious reasons], but I'm glad that you brought it to light, so I didn't have to...

Reza[/quote]


Why respond to something that proofs nothing of the charges against the President? Pulitzer-prizes or not, that does not prove anything and his age proves nothing as well. It's nice he has all those things but its largely illrelavent to the charges implied.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1283002' date='May 28 2007, 09:34 PM']Why respond to something that proofs nothing of the charges against the President? Pulitzer-prizes or not, that does not prove anything and his age proves nothing as well. It's nice he has all those things but its largely illrelavent to the charges implied.[/quote]
I was just saying that his opinion on this matter does actually carry some weight.

He has investigated it, and offers more concrete proof in the article, should you want to read it. So don't just blow him off.

[Apotheoun]

I just finished reading the article, and it is well written, but it is hardly "proof" that the Bush administration is causing Islamo-fascist terrorism. Islam is the real problem, not the Bush administration.