Carter and Bin Laden

[Skylark-69]

Bin Laden family gave $1 million to Carter

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=50468

Does this mean Carter is in on the Protect-Saudi Arabia-no-matter-what conspiracy too? You lefties say taking money connected to them is. So, is this?

[Red Regal T]

Morgan says the connection between Carter and the bin Laden family is exactly the kind of charge leveled by Michael Moore against President Bush in the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Morgan's group commented in a statement: "If you think this news troubles Michael Moore and his friends in the liberal, anti-war crowd, think again. You see, they’re not interested in the truth – they only seem interested in advancing their defeatist political message: America is almost always wrong–America is the source of many of the world’s problems."

SAY IT ISN'T SO, JIMMA!

[weester87]

How much money/weapons did we give Osama when he was fighting the Russians?

[1QWIK6]

#1 WORLDNET DAILY = right wing news = NOT RELIABLE.

#2 What POLITICIAL PARTY ARMED, TRAINED AND FUNDED TERRORIST?

[Red Regal T]

Originally Posted by 1QWIK6

#1 WORLDNET DAILY = right wing news = NOT RELIABLE.

#2 What POLITICIAL PARTY ARMED, TRAINED AND FUNDED TERRORIST?

And who are the cowards that give the terrorist enemy, aid and comfort by undermining the war against Islamic jihadists terrorists?

To the contrary, right wing new organizations are the only truthful news sources and our answer to the 40 year leftist monopoly of media, the left NO LONGER possesses. It exposes the left, the enemy of America, and reveals stories leftist would rather not become public such as the subject of this thread.

[1QWIK6]

Originally Posted by Red Regal T

And who are the cowards that give the terrorist enemy, aid and comfort by undermining the war against Islamic jihadists terrorists?

To the contrary, right wing new organizations are the only truthful news sources and our answer to the 40 year leftist monopoly of media, the left NO LONGER possesses. It exposes the left, the enemy of America, and reveals stories leftist would rather not become public such as the subject of this thread.

It's nice to see you dont refute the FACT the REPUBLICAN PARTY ARMED/TRAINED/FUNDED THE ENEMY.

[Skylark-69]

That's it Qwik, keep lying and say America funded and supplied terrorists. That has been disproven here (and elsewhere) many times. The only people who believe it are moonbats like you.

You and Wee are just mad your kind has been causght doing what you accused Bush of. Buwahahahahahahaha. It must hurt you so.

[Red Regal T]

Originally Posted by 1QWIK6

It's nice to see you dont refute the FACT the REPUBLICAN PARTY ARMED/TRAINED/FUNDED THE ENEMY.

I chose not to waste my time refuting your old, tired, lies. Get some new allegations and accusations against America. Being a leftist, you're good at that and nothing else.

[Skylark-69]

A fact we armed them? What BS. It's a FACT WE didn't. Pointing out the Russians, French, Chinese, and the Germans did would make your fellow leftist countries look bad. That's why you blame the U.S.

[1QWIK6]

Originally Posted by Skylark-69

That's it Qwik, keep lying and say America funded and supplied terrorists. That has been disproven here (and elsewhere) many times. The only people who believe it are moonbats like you.

LOL!!! Where was this disproved?

Afghan Mujahideen

The best-known and arguably most feared mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s and then fought against each other in the following civil war.

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (Reagan administration), China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. President Reagan praised them as freedom fighters, and an American movie at this time, Rambo III, portrayed them as heroic. This connection is ironic, in light of the future turn of events in which many of the same men would end up as a major threat to the United States. This sort of blowback, in which a state helped to create a force to fight another state, only to have that force turn against them, was seen earlier in the 20th century, e.g., the German support for the Bolshevik underground in Russia which led to a Soviet Russia and the eventual occupation of East Germany by the Red Army.

Following the Soviet retreat, many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other. After several years of this fighting, a village mullah organized religious students into an armed movement, with the backing of Pakistan, who was being funded by the United States, which found the existing government to be too Russia-influenced. This movement became known as the Taliban, meaning "students", and referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools which produced Islamic fundamentalism along the pacific coast of Asia. With each success the Taliban had, their popularity and numbers grew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Now would be the time to put your tail between your legs and walk away.

[Red Regal T]

Correct me if I'm wrong......oh I forgot who I was talking to. This is for the information of others who may read this thread. It is an debate between anti-American individuals and those who support the US.

I am of the 'theory' that the USSR was the arch enemy of the US, with thousands of nuclear weapons, capable of blowing the US off the face of the earth. Would you prefer that Russia be victorious in subjugating Afghanistan? Or, would you have preferred the use of American Armed forces to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan? Of course you wouldn't, because leftists obviously are not in favor of the US taking the correct action no matter what the conflict. With American support, the Afghans were able to defeat the Russians, and not long after this defeat, the Soviet Union fell. Quite a disappointment for the left.

[1QWIK6]

Originally Posted by Red Regal T

Correct me if I'm wrong......oh I forgot who I was talking to. This is for the information of others who may read this thread. It is an debate between anti-American individuals and those who support the US.

I am of the 'theory' that the USSR was the arch enemy of the US, with thousands of nuclear weapons, capable of blowing the US off the face of the earth. Would you prefer that Russia be victorious in subjugating Afghanistan? Or, would you have preferred the use of American Armed forces to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan? Of course you wouldn't, because leftists obviously are not in favor of the US taking the correct action no matter what the conflict. With American support, the Afghans were able to defeat the Russians, and not long after this defeat, the Soviet Union fell. Quite a disappointment for the left.

Thank you for not disputing my facts.

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (Reagan administration), China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. President Reagan praised them as freedom fighters, and an American movie at this time, Rambo III, portrayed them as heroic. This connection is ironic, in light of the future turn of events in which many of the same men would end up as a major threat to the United States. This sort of blowback, in which a state helped to create a force to fight another state, only to have that force turn against them, was seen earlier in the 20th century, e.g., the German support for the Bolshevik underground in Russia which led to a Soviet Russia and the eventual occupation of East Germany by the Red Army.

Following the Soviet retreat, many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other. After several years of this fighting, a village mullah organized religious students into an armed movement, with the backing of Pakistan, who was being funded by the United States, which found the existing government to be too Russia-influenced. This movement became known as the Taliban, meaning "students", and referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools which produced Islamic fundamentalism along the pacific coast of Asia. With each success the Taliban had, their popularity and numbers grew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

[weester87]

"That's it Qwik, keep lying and say America funded and supplied terrorists. "

Exxxxxxxxcuse me, didnt we supply weapons to Osama when he was figting the Soviets?

And didn't we supply weapons to Saddam when he was fighting with Iran?

[1QWIK6]

I guess Skylark and Red get fed MISinformation (via FAUX NEWS and Pill-Popper RUSH Limbaugh) insted of FACTS.

[Skylark-69]

Did he try that, "we armed the Taliban" BS again? I have him on ignore so I don't know. For those that don't know the true story, here it is. We supplied the Mujahadeen with weapons. The Taliban did not exist at that time in any significant numbers. The few that there were sat out the war until Russia had left and we cut supplies. A SMALL number of Mujahadeen joined the Taliban at it's inception. The vast majority did not. The Taliban were a 3rd party that formed then attacked and was mostly made up of those NOT previously involved in the Afghan war.

[SFITurbo]

WOOOHOOO! Here's my cut and paste:

"Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/, /ˌwiki-/, or /ˌwɪkə-/) is an international Web-based cooperative free-content encyclopedia. It exists as a wiki, a website that allows visitors to edit its content; the word Wikipedia itself is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia and is often abbreviated to WP by its users. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing articles to be changed by anyone with access to the website.

The project began on January 15, 2001 as a complement to the expert-written (and now defunct) Nupedia, and is now operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has more than 3,800,000 articles in many languages, including more than 1,173,319 in the English-language version. Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity[1] and has spawned several sister projects.

Wikipedia's most controversial style policy is that editors are required to uphold a "neutral point of view", under which notable perspectives are purportedly summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth. Application of this policy has proven difficult to enforce consistently.

Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, has called Wikipedia "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."[2] However, there has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference of consensus or popularity over credentials. Nevertheless, its free distribution, constant updates, diverse and detailed coverage, and numerous multilingual versions have made it one of the most-used reference resources on the Internet."

I don't think this is a very reliable source to be quoting boys. Crap.. the name alone gives me a chuckle! "But WIKIpedia says it, so it must be true!" (insert foot stomp here).

[Red Regal T]

Originally Posted by SFITurbo

WOOOHOOO! Here's my cut and paste:

"Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/, /ˌwiki-/, or /ˌwɪkə-/) is an international Web-based cooperative free-content encyclopedia. It exists as a wiki, a website that allows visitors to edit its content; the word Wikipedia itself is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia and is often abbreviated to WP by its users. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing articles to be changed by anyone with access to the website.

The project began on January 15, 2001 as a complement to the expert-written (and now defunct) Nupedia, and is now operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has more than 3,800,000 articles in many languages, including more than 1,173,319 in the English-language version. Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity[1] and has spawned several sister projects.

Wikipedia's most controversial style policy is that editors are required to uphold a "neutral point of view", under which notable perspectives are purportedly summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth. Application of this policy has proven difficult to enforce consistently.

Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, has called Wikipedia "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."[2] However, there has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference of consensus or popularity over credentials. Nevertheless, its free distribution, constant updates, diverse and detailed coverage, and numerous multilingual versions have made it one of the most-used reference resources on the Internet."

I don't think this is a very reliable source to be quoting boys. Crap.. the name alone gives me a chuckle! "But WIKIpedia says it, so it must be true!" (insert foot stomp here).

Really, I didn't want to waste my time again telling these lefties that wikipedia is not a reliable source. Within the past couple weeks I pointed that out to JSA. He's fond of Wikipedia. Of course, it may be a point of reference for things you know nothing about, but I find whenever I look there for information of any kind, it is biased with a leftist slant.....kind of like watching CNN. It's almost comical when anyone cites information from Wikipedia, but, in this case, I considered the source. A prolific poster who isn't capable of writing his own opinion.

[JSAautomotive]

Originally Posted by SFITurbo

I don't think this is a very reliable source to be quoting boys. Crap.. the name alone gives me a chuckle! "But WIKIpedia says it, so it must be true!" (insert foot stomp here).

Originally Posted by Red Regal T

Really, I didn't want to waste my time again telling these lefties that wikipedia is not a reliable source. Within the past couple weeks I pointed that out to JSA. He's fond of Wikipedia. Of course, it may be a point of reference for things you know nothing about, but I find whenever I look there for information of any kind, it is biased with a leftist slant.....kind of like watching CNN

Hello girls. Did you guys miss me??

Funny youz guyz mentioned Wikipedia. I was watching Faux News sunday night.... you know?? The Comedy Central for those of us with big brains??

And lo and behold.... they had a story about how Wikipedia was actually more reliable than Britannica online!!!

So I guess if Faux News said it.... it must be the truth!! Right!!??

I tried looking for the Faux News story, but couldn't find it. But here's the exact same story where Nature magazine did a comparison of Wikipedia vs Online Brittannica. You should have seen the spokesman from Brittanica. He was pissed and thought the study was B.S.

Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
Jim Giles

One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource. But it is also controversial: if anyone can edit entries, how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?

Several recent cases have highlighted the potential problems. One article was revealed as falsely suggesting that a former assistant to US Senator Robert Kennedy may have been involved in his assassination. And podcasting pioneer Adam Curry has been accused of editing the entry on podcasting to remove references to competitors' work. Curry says he merely thought he was making the entry more accurate.
However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use