Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1685600" data-attributes="member: 2189">Humor aside, are you accusing me of making that argument or is this to the broader discussion? I will say that Bush Iraq policy enabled AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) to come to fruition but can&#039;t say the point of the policy was to the ends of creating AQI.&nbsp; On other fronts I&#039;m open to the hypothesis but it&#039;s way to early to reach hard and fast conclusions.&nbsp; Being AQI became and is now known as ISIS, one can take the rest from there.Al Qaeda sprang out of the fertile seed bed of Sunni Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia along with the Saud royal family cultivated by British Intel officer <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_Philby" target="_blank">St. John Philby</a> and from that seed bed did Al Qaeda and thus ISIS emerge.&nbsp; If one is going to blame Bush for creating Al Qaeda and thus ISIS, one has to blame FDR as well in which his agreement with King Saud at <a href="http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/51ee4866-95c1-4603-b0dd-e16d2d49fcbc/The-Day-FDR-Met-Saudi-Arabia-Ibn-Saud.aspx" target="_blank">Bitter Lake</a> to protect the Kingdom and the Wahhabist version of Islam in concession for oil interests has now proven most destructive to the Middle East and Western Civilization.&nbsp; Also raises the question, were the Middle East dictators like in Iraq and under the Shah in Iran&nbsp; enabled and backed to truth out of interest for protecting Saudi Arabia?&nbsp; Thus begs the question, on whose behalf actually was the War in Iraq and the continuous saber rattling in Iran actually for?&nbsp; Israel also focused almost exclusively on the side of Shia Islam (Iran and Syria) as opposed to the Arab Sunni brand of Wahhabism which is more dangerous IMO?Just seems to me the deeper one looks under the surface narratives we are told, the more contradictions come to the surface.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1685600, member: 2189"] Humor aside, are you accusing me of making that argument or is this to the broader discussion? I will say that Bush Iraq policy enabled AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) to come to fruition but can't say the point of the policy was to the ends of creating AQI. On other fronts I'm open to the hypothesis but it's way to early to reach hard and fast conclusions. Being AQI became and is now known as ISIS, one can take the rest from there. Al Qaeda sprang out of the fertile seed bed of Sunni Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia along with the Saud royal family cultivated by British Intel officer [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_Philby'][COLOR=#ff0000][B]St. John Philby[/B][/COLOR][/URL] and from that seed bed did Al Qaeda and thus ISIS emerge. If one is going to blame Bush for creating Al Qaeda and thus ISIS, one has to blame FDR as well in which his agreement with King Saud at [URL='http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/51ee4866-95c1-4603-b0dd-e16d2d49fcbc/The-Day-FDR-Met-Saudi-Arabia-Ibn-Saud.aspx'][COLOR=#ff0000][B]Bitter Lake[/B][/COLOR][/URL] to protect the Kingdom and the Wahhabist version of Islam in concession for oil interests has now proven most destructive to the Middle East and Western Civilization. Also raises the question, were the Middle East dictators like in Iraq and under the Shah in Iran enabled and backed to truth out of interest for protecting Saudi Arabia? Thus begs the question, on whose behalf actually was the War in Iraq and the continuous saber rattling in Iran actually for? Israel also focused almost exclusively on the side of Shia Islam (Iran and Syria) as opposed to the Arab Sunni brand of Wahhabism which is more dangerous IMO? Just seems to me the deeper one looks under the surface narratives we are told, the more contradictions come to the surface. [/QUOTE]

Verification