Thursday, April 08, 2010

Total bribed Saddam

"A French judge has charged Total SA (TOT) with bribery in connection with the oil major's involvement in the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program in Iraq during the late 1990s and early 2000s, company lawyer Jean Veil said Tuesday, confirming a statement in the group's annual report."

37 comments :

Habis said...

You should have posted the video showing American murdering dogs slaughtering Iraqis. And you claim to be an Iraqi? What a fucking joke, what a bad fucking joke.

Anonymous said...

Hey stupid have you declined my comments?

Habis said...

Stupid the comments are taking too long to post. Look into that for me. And post that video.

Anonymous said...

Hey stupid, Habis is a gay Arab.

Anonymous said...

Habis welcome back abushabab.

Did you know Iraqimojo is a really cool dude. He goes to Purto Rico for the weekends, throws back a few cold beers and partys with the Latin Women.

Saddam Hussein said...

Habis kick his ass.

Saddam Hussein said...

Whats up really cool dude. I see youre not around. Must be on a Caribean Island somewhere, throwing back a few cold beers, and chilling with the hot latinas. party animal mojo. rah rah rah.

Anonymous said...

There's no need to be jealous of Mojo, Saddam. All the goats you fucked thought you were great in the sack.

Habis said...

Saddam Hussein said...
Whats up really cool dude. I see youre not around. Must be on a Caribean Island somewhere, throwing back a few cold beers, and chilling with the hot latinas. party animal mojo. rah rah rah.

4/9/10 12:34 AM



Abu Uday ya habib al shab,
That is very fucking funny. I did find the thread and read where he said that. And I promise you if I ever see him I will kick has for you and bitch slap him, with a shoe Arab style. Seven years after the mighty empire destroyed your land, the dogs taking over, using depleted uranium, white phosphorous, drilling holes in Iraqi heads, occupation, rape, and torture, it is your boys ya saddam they still scare the living shit out of them. You are alive and well. They know it and we know it.

Anonymous said...

Muslim jailed for strangling 'too Australian' wife

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/refugee-jailed-for-strangling-too-australian-wife-20100408-rty9.html

Anonymous said...

"We typically think of terrorism as a political act.
But sometimes it’s very personal. It wasn’t a government or a guerrilla insurgency that threw acid on this woman’s face in Pakistan. It was a young man whom she had rejected for marriage"

"Terrorism that's personal (12 images"

http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html

Anonymous said...

"Terrorists Executing Iraqi men"

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3d1_1187027927

Anonymous said...

Nazi salutes and swastikas as "hundreds gather for funeral of murdered white supremacist Eugene Terreblanche"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264753/Funeral-Eugene-Terreblanche-takes-place-amid-tight-security.html#ixzz0kkQEbID4

Dolly said...

What are you trying to say with all this crap, Anonymous. That the mooslims are the problem,
while U.S. and the Zionists would never hurt a fly?

After what happened in Iraq in 2003, only a sick fuck would say anything against the muslims - even if it's factually true.

Because once the U.S. is identified as the embodiment of evil, it becomes uncool to bash U.S. opponents.

That's why I call on Bruno not to criticize AQ until the U.S. is finished.

Maury said...

"only a sick fuck would say anything against the muslims - even if it's factually true"

Good point Dolly. That's the problem with the world these days. Too many sick fuckers telling the truth. Off with their heads!

Sick fucks that aren't raping,looting and burning everything in sight irk my nerves too. Break out the TNT!

Men neglecting to beat their wives. Sheep roaming around without diapers. Tomotoes lying next to cucumbers. Sick fucking world indeed. Whatever would we do without wahabbi's around to save us Dolly?

Anonymous said...

"Yemeni child bride dies of bleeding after intercourse"

http://www.news.com.au/world/yemeni-child-bride-dies-of-bleeding-after-intercourse/story-e6frfkyi-1225851585843

Anonymous said...

"Indonesian Police Kill Terrorist Involved In Beheadings Of 3 Christian Girls"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/ap_on_re_as/as_indonesia_terror_arrests

Bruno said...

[dolly] "Because once the U.S. is identified as the embodiment of evil, it becomes uncool to bash U.S. opponents. That's why I call on Bruno not to criticize AQ until the U.S. is finished."

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

Absolutism serves no practical purpose and is one of the things that I detest about US foreign policy.

Frankly AQ has done more damage to the resistance against American imperialism than contributed towards resisting it - and that's just weighing the practical merits of the organisation and not considering its ideological bent which I disagree with too.

If one looks at early 2003/2004 in Iraq there were real signs of cross-sect cooperation against the invader. The people of Najaf and Fallujah stood together.

Bring in the Americans and their divide-and rule games, and also Al Qaeda with its idiotic insistence on turning the fight into a Sunni/Shia battle ... and the Resistance was finished. Frankly it imploded into a bloody sectarian slaughter, whereby Iraqis that would otherwise have fought the Americans fought each other instead.

That's not resistance, that's lunacy.

So, no, I cannot support or even remain silent about AQ.

AQ=USA in my books.

Anonymous said...

"AQ=USA in my books"

This is what makes you dumb

Bruno said...

"With the support of Pakistan's military dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, the U.S. began recruiting and training both mujahideen fighters from the 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and large numbers of mercenaries from other Islamic countries. Estimates of how much money the U.S. government channeled to the Afghan rebels over the next decade vary, but most sources put the figure between $3 billion and $6 billion, or more. Whatever the exact amount, this was "the largest covert action program since World War II" - much bigger, for example, than Washington's intervention in Central America at the same time, which received considerably more publicity. According to one report:

"The CIA became the grand coordinator: purchasing or arranging the manufacture of Soviet-style weapons from Egypt, China, Poland, Israel and elsewhere, or supplying their own; arranging for military training by Americans, Egyptians, Chinese and Iranians; hitting up Middle-Eastern countries for donations, notably Saudi Arabia which gave many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid each year, totaling probably more than a billion; pressuring and bribing Pakistan-with whom recent American relations had been very poor-to rent out its country as a military staging area and sanctuary; putting the Pakistani Director of Military Operations, Brigadier Mian Mohammad Afzal, onto the CIA payroll to ensure Pakistani cooperation."

[...]

In camps near Peshawar and in Afghanistan, these radicals met each other for the first time and studied trained and fought together. It was the first opportunity for most of them to learn about Islamic movements in other countries, and they forged tactical and ideological links that would serve them well in the future. The camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism. One of the first non-Afghan volunteers to join the ranks of the mujahideen was Osama bin Laden, a civil engineer and businessman from a wealthy construction family in Saudi Arabia, with close ties to members of the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, raising money from private Saudi citizens. By 1984, he was running the Maktab al-Khidamar, an organization set up by the ISI to funnel "money, arms, and fighters from the outside world in the Afghan war." Since September 11, CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden. These denials lack credibility. Earlier this year, the trial of defendants accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya disclosed that the CIA shipped high-powered sniper rifles directly to bin Laden's operation in 1989. Even the Tennessee-based manufacturer of the rifles confirmed this."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

Bruno said...

Osama bin Laden, a civil engineer and businessman from a wealthy construction family in Saudi Arabia, with close ties to members of the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, raising money from private Saudi citizens. By 1984, he was running the Maktab al-Khidamar, an organization set up by the ISI to funnel "money, arms, and fighters from the outside world in the Afghan war." Since September 11, CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden. These denials lack credibility.

Bruno said...

Since September 11, CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden. These denials lack credibility.

Bruno said...

Get it, now?

Bin Laden was tops when he was doing the American's dirty work, with their knowledge and support.

But let him turn against Uncle Sam, and he becomes evil incarnate.

Uh, no. He's the same person he was when fighting the Soviets.

USA=AQ

Anonymous said...

Thirdworldtraveller.com, Bruno? Is that the best mendacious source you could come up with to confirm your disinformation? Not even Chomsky or ZNET?

Here is the truth for you based on experts who have studied the CIA's role in supporting the Afghan mujahideen. Note that Jason Burke is the author of a book on Al Qaeda that even Chomksy praised.

CIA money “went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen
groups, not the Arab volunteers” (Jason Burke). Bin Laden was “outside of CIA eyesight” and
there is “no record of any direct contact” (Steve Coll). There is “no evidence” of funding,
“nor is there any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone in his circle”
(Peter Bergen). There is “no support” in any “reliable source” for “the claim that the CIA
funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen”
(Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin).

Anonymous said...

Got it now, Bruno? Try reading a few books instead of trawling the internet and you might learn something.

Bruno said...

A few fragmented sentences which may well be only the product of your imagination? With a couple of names thrown alongside?

LOL!

Is that the best you could come up with, "anonymous"?

See, that's not good enough.

This is how it's done:

"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. "

- Robin Cook British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/former_blair_minister_points_out_alqaeda_cia_ties.htm

Bruno said...

Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Bruno said...

Consider yourself spanked, nonny.

Anonymous said...

Pathetic, Bruno, really pathetic Do you know what the word "evidence" means? Here's a hint for you. A politically motivated statement by a British foreign secretary who resigned his job because of his opposition to his government's support of US policy is not evidence.

If someone wants to show the CIA supports X or Y, they have to produce a credible witness or documents in support of their allegation. This has never been difficult in cases where the CIA genuinely did support X or Y, but is glaringly lacking in the case of bin Laden, for the simple reason that it never happened.

Anonymous said...

Here are the full sources for you, Bruno. You probably won't find them on the internet, so you'll have to go to a library to confirm them. You know what a library is, right?

CIA funds "went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers"
Jason Burke, Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam (Penguin, 2003), p59

Bin Laden was “outside of CIA eyesight” and there is “no record of any direct contact”
Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden (Penguin, 2004), p87

“Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri denied receiving any US aid, support or training” Marc Sageman,Understanding Terror Networks (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), p57

"There is no support in any reliable source for the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World (Penguin, 2006), p579,n48.

Now if you want to refute these authors, you have produce something from the CIA's documents (available under the Freedom of Information Act) or testimony from someone who was in a position to WITNESS their alleged support of bin Laden or his followers. Until such time, consider yourself cooked and stuffed like a turkey.

Anonymous said...

Wonders never cease, someone has put all this stuff on the internet so you won't need to go to a library after all. Here's the full quote from Jason Burke's book:

It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up. A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency.The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world. Most of the major Gulf-based charities operating today were founded at this time to raise money or channel government funds to the Afghans, civilians and fighters. In fact, as little as 25 per cent of the monet for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html

Bruno said...

nonny "A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government"

Sure, and I have no doubt of this. The ISI is a protege' of the CIA, having had much help and guidance from the CIA and being modelled on the Iranian SAVAK, another spy agency that the CIA helped establish. It goes without saying that the CIA did more than just hand some money over to the Pakistanis and leave it at that:

"Washington has been far more credulous about the ISI and has frequently entertained both former and incumbent spymasters, evidently under the illusion that the maverick organisation is still beholden to the CIA for the close ties developed during the golden 1980s decade. That was when the two organisations worked hand in glove to arm the Afghan Mujaheedin (Mooj in CIA parlance) against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Although the two agencies fell out in the early 1990s amid reports of financial skulduggery by the ISI and a spat over weapons inventory, especially missing Stinger missiles, Washington continued to engage important Pakistani spooks. It was mandatory for all new ISI chiefs to pay their respects in appearance at least - to Langley and Foggy Bottom, home of the CIA and the State Department respectively."

http://www.hvk.org/articles/1001/432.html

Bruno said...

nonny "A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government"

Sure, and I have no doubt of this. The ISI is a protege' of the CIA, having had much help and guidance from the CIA and being modelled on the Iranian SAVAK, another spy agency that the CIA helped establish. It goes without saying that the CIA did more than just hand some money over to the Pakistanis and leave it at that:

"Washington has been far more credulous about the ISI and has frequently entertained both former and incumbent spymasters, evidently under the illusion that the maverick organisation is still beholden to the CIA for the close ties developed during the golden 1980s decade. That was when the two organisations worked hand in glove to arm the Afghan Mujaheedin (Mooj in CIA parlance) against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Although the two agencies fell out in the early 1990s amid reports of financial skulduggery by the ISI and a spat over weapons inventory, especially missing Stinger missiles, Washington continued to engage important Pakistani spooks. It was mandatory for all new ISI chiefs to pay their respects in appearance at least - to Langley and Foggy Bottom, home of the CIA and the State Department respectively."

http://www.hvk.org/articles/1001/432.html

Bruno said...

That article speaks about Afghan resistance. But it seems that the ISI had dealings with bin laden himself, as well:

"And yet few seem to be troubled by the fact these militants were mentored and lavishly funded by the CIA. Long ago relegated to the memory hole are uncomfortable facts: Gen. Akhtar Abdul Rahman, Pakistani ISI’s head from 1980 to 1987, regularly met with bin Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan; the CIA essentially micromanaged Afghanistan’s opium production; the ISI trained “militants” (i.e., patsies and useful idiots) to attack the Soviet Union proper; well over 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992 in camps constructed and overseen by the CIA and MI6, with the British SAS training future al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts, etc., on and on, ad nauseam."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7713

Basically, it doesn't matter how many condoms one puts on before fucking a whore ... you still fucked that whore even if you had ten on. But the Americans like to put many layers of "plausible deniability" protection on before banging that whore ... fact is, America was in bed with the Al Qaedists and every other anti-Soviet radical during the 80's in Afghanistan, and no amount of humming and hawing by government shills like Bergen can gloss over that fact.No amount of glossing can cover the fact that Howard Hart, the CIA station chief for the operation, both met extensively with Akhtar and also toured Afghanistan personally to see how things were getting on.

Let's be serious: if I were to contribute generously to one of the "Muslim Charities" that funnel cash to Al Qaeda and its affiliates, I would be viewed as an accessory to terrorism and probably be prosecuted if it were possible. That would be a pale shadow of what the CIA really got up to in Afghanistan, and its involvement with both Afghan and Arab radicals.

Bruno said...

This is a comprehensive article on how America and the Al Qaeda connection worked:

In 1981, Casey of the CIA, Prince Turki of Saudi intelligence, and the ISI worked together to create a Foreign Legion of jihadi Muslims or so-called "Arab Afghans" (who in fact were never Afghans and not always Arabs) in Afghanistan.[1] The foreigners were supported by the Services Center (Makhtab al-Khidmat, or MAK) of the Jordanian Palestinian Abdullah Azzam, in the offices of the World Muslim League and Muslim Brotherhood in Peshawar, Pakistan.[2]

This project did not emanate from the Afghan resistance but was imposed on it. According to the Spanish author Robert Montoya, the idea originated in the elite “Safari Club” created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches in 1976, bringing together other intelligence chiefs such as Gen. Akhtar Abdur Rahman of ISI in Pakistan, and Kamal Adham of Saudi Arabia.[3]

The relationship of the CIA to the Arab Afghans, the MAK, and bin Laden has been much debated. Jason Burke denies the frequently-made claim that “bin Laden was funded by the CIA.”[4] The 911 Commission Report goes further, and asserts that “Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.”[5]

But as we shall explore in the next chapter, MAK Centers in America, such as the al Kifah Center in Brooklyn, were in the 1980s a major source of both recruitment and finance for the MAK, if only because America was one of the few countries in which such recruitment and financing were tolerated and even protected. “Millions of dollars each year” are said to have been raised for the MAK in Brooklyn alone.[6]

In addition Jalaluddin Haqqani, the chief host in Afghanistan to the so-called “Arab Afghans,” “received bags of money each month from the [CIA] station in Islamabad.”[7] (This was an exception to the general rule that CIA aid was funneled through General Zia and the ISI in Pakistan, cited by Jason Burke as the reason why CIA funding “would have been impossible.”)[8]

Peter Bergen, in arguing that the CIA “had very limited dealings” with the Arab Afghans, concedes that “the CIA did help an important recruiter for the Arab Afghans, the Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.” Sheikh Rahman, despite his known involvement with Egyptian terrorists, “was issued a visa for the United States in 1987 and a multiple-entry visa in 1990 [and] at least one of the visas was issued by a CIA officer working undercover in the consular section of the American embassy in Sudan.”[9] (This was in addition to the visas reluctantly issued in Jeddah by Michael Springman, as noted earlier.)

John Cooley describes the Sheikh as “helpmate to the CIA in recruiting young zealots, especially among Arab-Americans in the United States, for the jihad in Afghanistan.”[10] Those recruited through the Al Kifah Center in Brooklyn were trained (as we shall see) by a former CIA contract agent, Ali Mohamed, another Egyptian with connections to the same terrorist group as Sheikh Rahman. Eventually both Sheikh Rahman and Ali Mohamed would be convicted for their involvement in 1990s al Qaeda plots.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2348

I'd say that there's a heck of a lot more connection between AMERICA and AL QAEDA than between, ohhh, say, for argument's sake, IRAQ and AL QAEDA before the war.

Poor ol' nonny.

Are you trying to plug the holes in that crumbling dam with your fingers?

You will run out of fingers before you run out of holes ... LOL

Anonymous said...

"That article speaks about Afghan resistance. But it seems that the ISI had dealings with bin laden himself, as well:"

What the hell does that prove, you dumbass? The US is not the ISI. The CIA had only a handful of field agents in Pakistan and none whatever is Afghanistan. It did not and does not control what the ISI does.

"This project did not emanate from the Afghan resistance but was imposed on it. According to the Spanish author Robert Montoya, the idea originated in the elite “Safari Club” created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches in 1976, bringing together other intelligence chiefs such as Gen. Akhtar Abdur Rahman of ISI in Pakistan, and Kamal Adham of Saudi Arabia."

Again, what the hell has that got to do with US support for Al Qaeda.

"But as we shall explore in the next chapter, MAK Centers in America, such as the al Kifah Center in Brooklyn, were in the 1980s a major source of both recruitment and finance for the MAK"

Yeah, big deal, America is a free country. Again no evidence of any CIA support or US government funding.

"John Cooley describes the Sheikh as “helpmate to the CIA in recruiting young zealots, especially among Arab-Americans in the United States, for the jihad in Afghanistan"

John Cooley can describe the Sheikh as whatever he wants. That's still not proof of any US government funding for bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

You must be fucking desperate to put this shit up, Bruno. I think I'll stick with the judgement of experts like Jason Burke, Peter Bergen and Steve Coll who've studied the issue in depth and come to the conclusion that supposed CIA connection with bin Laden is "a myth".

Anonymous said...

Says Peter Bergen:

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.


So the CIA were supporting a guy they never even knew existed. Yeah right!

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html