Pakistan helped Iraq in defeating IS, says Iraqi envoy

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Yes, they were. The US fought in Viet Nam with the intention of partition. If the intention was otherwise, Hanoi would have been obliterated. Same for Iraq and Afghanistan. You do not know what you are yakking about.

And Iraq according to the Americans had WMD that could destroy Europe within 30 mins..........you're going to tell me that it's true..............lol.........lol.....

 

[gambit]

And Iraq according to the Americans had WMD that could destroy Europe within 30 mins..........you're going to tell me that it's true..............lol.........lol.....

Let me know when you are ready to debate the charge that the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq. I will embarrass you like I have done to others in the past.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Let me know when you are ready to debate the charge that the US 'lied' about WMD in Iraq. I will embarrass you like I have done to others in the past.

So the Iraqis did have WMD that can destroy Europe in 30 mins? Not much use if you're not going to use them in times of conflict. Didn't realise that Iraq was a superpower. Hope it was a real one not the "indian" version of a superpower.....

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I never actually stated that the U.S was trying to establish ISIS in its current form. If you had bothered to read the article, you would have known exactly my thinking.

Since it's clear you did not bother to read the article, all my responses will now be quotes from it, so that you may understand what I am saying:

"A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria."

The intelligence reports states that it would be good if the Syrian Government would
lose control over Eastern Syria, so safe havens could be established.
I have no problem with that.

Western countries are supporting the opposition.
Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are the major forces of the opposition.
From that You cannot draw any conclusion which groups are supported by the West.

The report says that "supporting powers" of the opposition desires a Salafist state in Eastern Syria. This is not a fact, this is presented as an assumption.

This is an intelligence report prepared for US decision makers to allow the US decision makers
to decide what to do. Intelligence Officers does not make US policy.

I believe "supporting powers" can therefore hardly refer to the US government.
It is more an opinion on the Gulf States and possibly Turkey.

The US government may of course decide to support such a creation as a result of the report,
but the report warns of "dire consequences" if an Islamic State is created.
The report can therefore not be used as proof of the fantasy that the US supported the creation of ISIS.

 

[hassamun]

 

[Muhammed45]

We won't if you allow our UCAVS inside 4km your borders.

You're welcome to attack Haqqani network, indeed.
The main problem is your zero presence in that region which has left a wide open area for extremists. Not to mention that who is supplying them. One day they are fleeing into Afghanistan, an other day they are in Pakistan.
Your governors are asking USA-NATO for permission to operate against the Haqqani network. Isn't irony?
but you hit our drone which was already observing terrorist activities. I could tell you many truth about the corruption of some guys but i have no doubt as usual you will start insulting me and whole Iranians.
So leave it, we will continue to target them, at least i am sure that it will ensure the safety of Pakistan's western boundaries.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I will take this as that you are too chickenshit to debate your charge. That is fine with me. Intellectual cowardice is quite common.

Lol.......so please can you give the REAL data and proof that the Iraqis had WMD that can destroy Europe in 30 mins that even the Americans and British Ministry of Defence could not find................................keep going.......

 

[Pakistani E]

The intelligence reports states that it would be good if the Syrian Government would
lose control over Eastern Syria, so safe havens could be established.
I have no problem with that.

Western countries are supporting the opposition.
Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are the major forces of the opposition.
From that You cannot draw any conclusion which groups are supported by the West.

The report says that "supporting powers" of the opposition desires a Salafist state in Eastern Syria. This is not a fact, this is presented as an assumption.

This is an intelligence report prepared for US decision makers to allow the US decision makers
to decide what to do. Intelligence Officers does not make US policy.

I believe "supporting powers" can therefore hardly refer to the US government.
It is more an opinion on the Gulf States and possibly Turkey.

The US government may of course decide to support such a creation as a result of the report,
but the report warns of "dire consequences" if an Islamic State is created.
The report can therefore not be used as proof of the fantasy that the US supported the creation of ISIS.

The report identifies that the majority of the opposition is full of extremists and terrorists. The U.S and it's allies than continued to support said opposition through the years and still continue to do so to this day.

The intelligence report conclusively proves that the U.S and it's allies knew exactly what their support would lead to. It even says so in the report, yet they continued with their plans, only because they wanted to weaken Iran and Syria.

Only a spin doctor like yourself would try to make U.S and its' allies innocent in this matter. Your spin on "Supporting Powers" is funny as well. The report states, "Western countries, the Gulf states states and Turkey are supporting these efforts."

And then again, "The West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition..." The same opposition that has been identified as the above.

You obviously will not accept that the self righteous West can ever do any wrong and all the blame is on "Gulf states and possibly Turkey".

The intelligence officers certainly don't make policy decisions, but this report showed who the opposition was and what the purpose of the allies of the opposition was. Yet did it prevent the U.S and its' allies from stopping their support to the opposition?

You even accepted in your second paragraph exactly what I am saying. So what's your other rant about?

 

[gambit]

Lol.......so please can you give the REAL data and proof that the Iraqis had WMD that can destroy Europe in 30 mins that even the Americans and British Ministry of Defence could not find................................keep going.......

How can I give that kind of proof when it turned out that Iraq did not have FUNCTIONAL nuclear weapon ?

The issue and the charge is that the US 'lied'. To lie about something means you must know the truth but instead tells something else. So if you charge that the US 'lied' about Iraq's WMD program, are you ready to have your charge challenged ? Simple question, no ?

You sound like just another 12 yr old who thinks he can play with adults.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

How can I give that kind of proof when it turned out that Iraq did not have FUNCTIONAL nuclear weapon ?

The issue and the charge is that the US 'lied'. To lie about something means you must know the truth but instead tells something else. So if you charge that the US 'lied' about Iraq's WMD program, are you ready to have your charge challenged ? Simple question, no ?

You sound like just another 12 yr old who thinks he can play with adults.

By that premise anyone can accuse anyone of anything and can then destroy them if they are super weak.

 

[gambit]

By that premise anyone can accuse anyone of anything and can then destroy them if they are super weak.

You can argue that. But that still DOES NOT support your supposition that the US 'lied' about Iraq's WMD. Why are you so afraid of defending your charge ?

I am an American, that means I am supposed to be less intelligent than you. I have been brainwashed by Fox News and the Christian neo-cons. Surely a brave Muslim warrior like you can handle me, at least in the intellectual arena, no ?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

You can argue that. But that still DOES NOT support your supposition that the US 'lied' about Iraq's WMD. Why are you so afraid of defending your charge ?

I am an American, that means I am supposed to be less intelligent than you. I have been brainwashed by Fox News and the Christian neo-cons. Surely a brave Muslim warrior like you can handle me, at least in the intellectual arena, no ?

If you are a genuine American and not some indian hiding behind a different nationality.

 

[gambit]

If you are a genuine American and not some indian hiding behind a different nationality.

What fecking difference does it make ? Why does it matter to you if an Indian or JPNese or a Martian defends the US ?

You -- just like many others -- alleged that the US 'lied' about Iraq's WMD program. Why are you so afraid of defending your charge ? If you are brave enough to make that charge, you should be brave enough to defend it, correct ?

 

[CAD]

You can argue that. But that still DOES NOT support your supposition that the US 'lied' about Iraq's WMD. Why are you so afraid of defending your charge ?

I am an American, that means I am supposed to be less intelligent than you. I have been brainwashed by Fox News and the Christian neo-cons. Surely a brave Muslim warrior like you can handle me, at least in the intellectual arena, no ?

It was clear to nearly everyone that George W. Bush had launched a foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq, and then compounded the error by mismanaging it (and the war in Afghanistan too). So Americans chose a candidate who had opposed Bush’s war in Iraq which was Obama at that time.

But, Yet a mere two years later, you find yourselves back in the fray once again. Since taking office, Obama had escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of your intervention is regime change at the point of a gun. At first you hoped that most of the guns would be in the hands of the Europeans, or the hands of the rebel forces arrayed against Muammar al-Qaddafi, but it’s increasingly clear that U.S. military forces, CIA operatives and foreign weapons supplies are going to be necessary to finish the job.

Reasons Why America Keeps Fighting Foolish Wars?

The most obvious reason that the United States keeps doing these things is the fact that it has a remarkably powerful military, especially when facing a minor power like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan when you’ve got hundreds of planes, smart bombs, and cruise missiles, the whole world looks like a target set for the USA. So when some thorny problem arises somewhere in the world, it’s hard to resist for the USA and the temptation to “do something!”

 

[Muhammed45]

If you are a genuine American and not some indian hiding behind a different nationality.

Puhahhah
There is no genuine swine in USA, they are all murderers and invaders. USA is built on native's blood twin of Israel !!!