View Full Version : CIA Now Says Iraq is a Terrorist Training Ground!!

06-22-2005, 07:40 PM

06-22-2005, 08:31 PM
I forgot what I wanted to say for a moment.

Oh, yeah!!

I remember when President Bush said, "I wouldn't want to be occupied." Who would, but we are!!! We are occupied by terrorists as far as I'm concerned.

Order out of chaos!! Destabilize the region and create order (their NWO) out of chaos (chaos they create).

Who is training the terrorists?

Who is supplying the weapons?

Why is it all of a sudden a training ground for terrorists?

Didn't appear that Saddam had any connections to Al Qaeda before we invaded.

People are dying right and left and now the fighting in Afghanistan has accelerated!

The more we speak, the more they'll kill!! Didn't they do this in Viet Nam?

Now that the American people are growing sick and tired of this "unjust" war based on lies and their representatives are asking for an exit strategy, I presume we are suppose swallow the terrorist training ground as reason to stay PUT!!!

Well, who created it? It wasn't there before we invaded. There weren't suicide bombers on a daily basis and now there are.

How much do they pay the families of the men and women who carry out these suicide missions?

What are they trying to sell us now??? More BS!!!!

Well, I would prefer that GOSS capture Bin Laden. Afterall, he has a good idea where he is and the man, as they've said, is responsible for 911!!

Excuse me, but I think their priorities are somewhat out of order.

I wouldn't trust a word that came out of Goss' mouth. Look at his history. Wasn't he a sleeper?

Like I said, the CIA betrayed me. My country betrayed me. I have reason to distrust them.

President Kennedy wanted to abolish the "Psychological Strategy Board." The entity behind the mind control programs. Another nail in his coffin was the issuing of silver certificates; trying to restore the power to Congress to print money.

Oh, well, another topic for another day!!

In Peace,

06-22-2005, 09:32 PM
Reasons - :-o :-o :-o

They are there for world dominion (ala PNAC), for regime change, to get Saddam out of the payroll, for oil & oil pipelines throughout the region, for middle-east region control, for Israel, for the NWO, to use & expend stored weapons & munitions, for real combat training, for population reduction, to take more cash from US & our future generations for new weapons & new technologies, to hand-out billions or dollars to their wealthy buddies & themselves, for destruction & reconstruction, to create chaos & disorder, etc., …& the list goes on.

Hey don't be shy, & share your UFO story...


06-22-2005, 10:04 PM
Oh, really, they're there for all of that!!

I thought it was because Saddam posed an imminent threat of danger to the United States;

cause he aided Al Qaeda;

cause he had WMD's;

cause he purchased uranium from Nigeria;

cause he was a brutal dictator unlike those in power in the United States;

cause he tortured his own people the way our military doesn't;

I guess invading an "oil rich" nation, taking Saddam off the payroll, installing their own puppet government, etc. and advancing the NWO could be some of the REAL reasons, but they'd never TELL US THAT NOW WOULD THEY?

We're out of the loop, or are we???

Don't be shy!! Ha, ha!!!

In Peace,

06-24-2005, 03:20 PM
So, Bush calls a press conference today and the PM of Iraq is with him to answer questions. Too afraid to go it alone!!! Has to have their hand-picked puppet with him.

What does the PM say? This:

"The Iraqi people wanted Saddam out."

This is then the headline on CNN!!

Are we suppose to believe this was just cause for invasion now?

Mind control maybe!!

Do the Chinese want their leader out?

How 'bout Iran?

Did they take a poll?

Is that all we need to know?

The people want someone out and then boom we invade!!

For cryin' in another bucket!!

There are bombs bursting all over the place as of late in Iraq!!


Trying to shut us up???

Supplying the bombs???

Killing intellectuals and scientists??

Oh, Gawd, what a disgrace!!

Impeachment anyone???

In Peace,

06-24-2005, 06:10 PM
The United States government states the following:

"The terror group al-Qaida in Iraq claimed it carried out the bombing, one of the single deadliest attacks against the Marines — and against women — in this country."


Al Qaeda wasn't there before we invaded, wasn't there after we invaded and NOW


Thus, our President and his men can be credited with the following:

Allowing Bin Laden freedom, creating a terrorist training ground in Iraq, allowing Al Qaeda inside and for the wounding of thousands and deaths of almost 2,000 American service men and women!!

Incidentally, I'd have to second Mr. Kennedy's motion or was it a question posed to Rumsfeld, "isn't it time you resign?"

Pack of "LIARS??"

In Peace,

06-26-2005, 02:35 PM
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on for any number of years."

Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job


Boy, the fellows in Washingston certainly seem to possess the ability to predict the future about world events.

What a lucky group they are. So clairvoyant!!

Wish I had their God-given talents!!

IRAQ security forces taking the lead!! not US or foreign troops.

MY QUESTION: Will our troops and foreign troops be home or will they be in the same position as they are today which is being presented in the media as though they are working behind the Iraqi Security Force.

Will they be HOME? or are you bracing for another 12 years of our troops in Iraq?

Answers, Mr. Rumsfeld, answers, please!!! The American people deserve nothing less. Stop with the double-speak.

P. S. I'm sure he's bracing!!! Does he have a son or daughter fighting on the front lines??

Does he care who is killed?

We know the answers.

Need I say more??

In Peace,

06-26-2005, 04:58 PM
WHOM should WE believe?

Rummy says that defeating the insurgency may take as long as twelve years.


Our Vice President had this to say:

But last month, Vice President Dick Cheney broke from the administration's "message discipline" and declared that the insurgency was in its "last throes." The White House has been paying a price ever since.


Seems Cheney's remarks contradict both the President and Rumsfeld's assessment of the war.

I have just one question.

Does this mean that the last throes of the insurgency will last twelve years?

In Peace,

06-26-2005, 06:52 PM
Ooops!! Just found this one!!

Even Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld distanced himself from the vice president's words. "I didn't use them, and I might not use them," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. Rumsfeld said the insurgency could conceivably "go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever…. We don't know. It is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq."


Not twelve years, but, perhaps, 15 years, whatever....says, Rumsfeld.


You invade a country, kill and wound thousands and use such non-chalant language!!!

"It's going to be a problem for the people of Iraq," Rumsfeld said.


Seems the people of Iraq may have been better off had they left their "brutal dictator" in power.

In Peace,

P. S. When using the word THEY in the last sentence I am referring to the corrupt government of the United States of America.

06-27-2005, 06:19 AM
Rummy said this:

On ABC's This Week, Rumsfeld defended Vice President Cheney's recent statement that the insurgents are in their "last throes," saying there are many ways to measure their strength.

"If you look up "last throes," it can mean a violent last throe, Rumsfeld said. Violence may escalate, he said, because insurgents "have so much to lose between now and December."


What do they have to lose? Their country?

I looked up "last throes," in several dictionaries and could not find a definition for those two words.

However, when I looked up throes, the definition was "painful struggle," as in childbirth.

In Peace,

So, will the painful struggle be over shortly or in 5, 8, 10, 12, 15 years???

Please tell us how you measure their strength and about the meetings that some of our government officials had with them.

Where they productive meetings? Did they help you measure their strength?? Give you updates?

06-27-2005, 02:14 PM

This just in:

Iraq Leader Foresees Security in 2 Years
AP - 1 hour, 1 minute ago
LONDON - Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said Monday that two years would be "more than enough" to establish security in his country. Following talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, al-Jaafari said the success of that effort depends on building up Iraq's own security forces, controlling its porous borders and pushing ahead with the political process.


Two years to establish security in Iraq. Okay, now does this mean it's not 5, 10, 12 years any longer!?!


Didn't think so.

That would just be wishful thinking!!

In Peace,

06-27-2005, 07:10 PM

THIS: 2 hours, 18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces have not held talks with insurgent leaders involved in attacks in Iraq but may do so soon, the U.S. commander in Iraq said on Monday in remarks that appeared to differ from those of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

On Sunday Rumsfeld said meetings between U.S. representatives and insurgent commanders "go on all the time."

Asked by a reporter whether U.S. forces had met with "known leaders of the insurgency who have been involved directly in attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces," Army Gen. George Casey said: "Not yet. Not, to the best of my knowledge, yet."


Rumsfeld confirms talks with insurgent leaders
Defense secretary suggests violence may last for years
Dana Priest, Washington Post

Monday, June 27, 2005

Washington -- The U.S. military in Iraq has been holding face-to-face meetings with some Iraqi leaders of the insurgency there, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S. commander in charge of Iraq confirmed Sunday.

The talks are part of the military's revised campaign to drive a wedge between the Iraqi and foreign insurgents, according to U.S. commanders. Pentagon officials have acknowledged the new strategy but have not, until now, spoken openly about efforts to make contact with some Iraqi insurgent leaders.


It appears that the US Commander in Iraq and the Secretary of Defense do not communicate with one another.

Have there been or have there not been talks held with insurgents?

If our military doesn't know what the HELL is going on, well, then, people, we need to demand that they either do their jobs or RESIGN!!!

In Peace,

06-27-2005, 08:32 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military said Monday it plans to expand its prisons across Iraq to hold as many as 16,000 detainees, as the relentless insurgency shows no sign of letup one year after the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqi authorities.


Kill, wound and imprison them!!

Do I understand correctly here?

Yes, I'll answer myself, I do!!

They're sending military personnel door to door, kind of like they'll be doing in America soon, Nazi style, (afterall, Iraq is under military control and the citizens have no RIGHTS, freedoms) rounding up WHOM? anyone who looks suspicious, anyone who anyone said something about and throwing them in prison.

Or, am I to believe these detainees are INSURGENTS?

How does this work, Mr. Rumsfeld?

In Peace,

P. S. How is the Iraqi military force being trained? Nazi-style?

Just wondering???

06-28-2005, 07:53 AM
They don't know who is responsible for the dozens of bodies they are finding bound and gagged, handcuffed, electricshocked, beaten to death.

Witnesses say they are driving SUV's marked as police cars, carrying weapons, and wearing police uniforms.

Who is supplying these "sadistic pigs" with cars, ammo and uniforms??

If they are the Iraqi police force, who is training them in this manner?

If they are INSURGENTS, who is supplying them with the equipment?

Who is allowing them the FREEDOM to carry out their "evil deeds?"

In Peace,