TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Osama was on our payroll in the 80s

Are you sure you're not thinking of Saddam?

It has been fairly widely reported Osama Bin Laden was a former CIA "asset".

mojo84 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Osama was on our payroll in the 80s

Are you sure you're not thinking of Saddam?

It has been fairly widely reported Osama Bin Laden was a former CIA "asset".

The opposite is true as well. There's evidence both ways. The fact is we will probably never know the truth.

We did such a great job with Libya. We did such a great job with Egypt ( and still send them a ton of money and arms). We have sent a lot of support to other Arab countries around Syria. Let them do the support of the rebels if they think that is a good idea. I personally don't see Syria as a better country with Assad gone for the US. I seem to remember the US supporting rebels in Afghanistan once and that led to OSB. They can fight their own wars. Either side that wins will still hate us and try to kill us.

As Mamabear said, this isn't about keeping Obama's red line pledge or even about Syria. It is about changing the subject. Nothing like a war to get peoples mind off the NSA, IRS, Benghazi, prostitute in Belgium and other scandals.

Wait a sec, let me see if I understand this right....

Obama now supports arming citizens with military grade weapons for the purpose of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government regime?

mamabearCali wrote:Didn't this motley crew just execute a teen for saying something mean about Mohammed. I don't want to send a red cent or pepper spray to people who are willing to shoot a teenager in the head for saying something stupid. If they cannot handle a teen being a teen without executing people then I don't want to give them so much as a club to fight anyone with. They are not mentally stable.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... 370881538/

If you just made a $100 donation to one of these groups, not giving them weapons like The One wants to do, you'd find yourself rendered to Gitmo or on trial for Treason.

ShepherdTX wrote:Wait a sec, let me see if I understand this right....

Obama now supports arming citizens with military grade weapons for the purpose of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government regime?

mamabearCali wrote:Didn't this motley crew just execute a teen for saying something mean about Mohammed. I don't want to send a red cent or pepper spray to people who are willing to shoot a teenager in the head for saying something stupid. If they cannot handle a teen being a teen without executing people then I don't want to give them so much as a club to fight anyone with. They are not mentally stable.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... 370881538/

Those are extremists, I despise them and I hate them. This just a criminal act, that should never be allowed or tolerated.

Beiruty wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Didn't this motley crew just execute a teen for saying something mean about Mohammed. I don't want to send a red cent or pepper spray to people who are willing to shoot a teenager in the head for saying something stupid. If they cannot handle a teen being a teen without executing people then I don't want to give them so much as a club to fight anyone with. They are not mentally stable.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... 370881538/

Those are extremists, I despise them and I hate them. This just a criminal act, that should never be allowed or tolerated.

Glad to hear it. I hope there are more Muslims out there like you. (but with tea or root beer).

mojo84 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Osama was on our payroll in the 80s

Are you sure you're not thinking of Saddam?

It has been fairly widely reported Osama Bin Laden was a former CIA "asset".

To bad it is totally without basis in fact

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Osama was on our payroll in the 80s

Are you sure you're not thinking of Saddam?

It has been fairly widely reported Osama Bin Laden was a former CIA "asset".

To bad it is totally without basis in fact

Nope, just what you choose to believe. Not proven, but NOT without basis is fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama ... ontroversy

VMI77 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Osama was on our payroll in the 80s

Are you sure you're not thinking of Saddam?

It has been fairly widely reported Osama Bin Laden was a former CIA "asset".

To bad it is totally without basis in fact

Nope, just what you choose to believe. Not proven, but NOT without basis is fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama ... ontroversy

And did you read the article. Sure it posts the claims and then thoroughly debunks them.

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Osama was on our payroll in the 80s

Are you sure you're not thinking of Saddam?

No, bin ladin was worked by the CIA in the 80's against the Russians in Afghanistan. I went through a terrorism course for LE some years ago. The instructor actually met Osama back in the 80's when he worked intel in that region. They all knew back then he was bad news, but at the time was what they needed.

EEllis wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Osama was on our payroll in the 80s

Are you sure you're not thinking of Saddam?

It has been fairly widely reported Osama Bin Laden was a former CIA "asset".

To bad it is totally without basis in fact

Nope, just what you choose to believe. Not proven, but NOT without basis is fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama ... ontroversy

And did you read the article. Sure it posts the claims and then thoroughly debunks them.

No it doesn't. You presumptively believing what those in authority say doesn't constitute a debunking of anything. You simply choose to believe one set of claims over the other. And frankly, given all the recent proof of pervasive government lying, fraud, and deception, believing the government version of events makes no more sense than believing anyone else.

VMI77 wrote:
No it doesn't. You presumptively believing what those in authority say doesn't constitute a debunking of anything. You simply choose to believe one set of claims over the other. And frankly, given all the recent proof of pervasive government lying, fraud, and deception, believing the government version of events makes no more sense than believing anyone else.

I believe it because of reason and logic. I know Pakistan wasn't allowing the US to directly fund anyone, they wanted to control all money and arms dispersal's themselves. There were no massive CIA camps because Pakistan wanted to get their cut of everything. If the CIA did have some secret programs where they directly funded anyone they wouldn't of picked some rich foreigner. There is no logic this is crap the lefties made up during Bush's campaigns and now some far right people are starting in on it. It's just sad. The Arabs who came in had their own funding sources and would of had no need for US money. They were also only about 1% of the fighters in Afghanistan and not particularly well liked. The main US "associates" were tribal and were attacked by the Taliban after the Russians left. You know the Taliban right? The group UBL was so friendly with. So you got a couple of people, and really you can count on one hand, who state that UBL was somehow connected, but all facts and logic debunk it but you decide you believe the conspiracy. Enjoy I'm done wasting my time.