Home | Community | Message Board


Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2323534 - 02/11/04 11:18 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

isn't the whole chechnyan seperatist movent a muslim
fundamentalist issue as well?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: afoaf]
    #2323815 - 02/11/04 12:56 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Yes, but I didn't mention it because pinky was referring specifically to the Soviet Union, and not to present-day Russia.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2324722 - 02/11/04 04:57 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

And please, let's not rehash past American foreign policy....Osama and the boys

Rehashing helps you learn.

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France),

Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*



Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?


Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense!
It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: silversoul7]
    #2328136 - 02/12/04 09:09 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

silversoul7 writes:

No, the proper response to 9/11 would have been to search for the man behind it, not wage war on a nation.

Osama and his band of Merry Pranksters were known to be operating from Afghanistan, with the help of the head Taliban dude whose name escapes me at the moment.

The Taliban not only refused to hand over bin Laden, they refused to step aside and let Americans go in and get him. Their response was "If one armed American sets foot on Afghani soil, we will wage war on America."

So please explain to us, silversoul7, just exactly how America was supposed to search for bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Look, this kind of thing drives me nuts! Don't you people have memories? This was all covered pretty thoroughly less than three years ago in all the media. If the Taliban had co-operated, they would have been left alone to fight it out with the various warlords in their own country.

We had the support of practically the whole world after 9/11, and if Bush & Co. hadn't fucked that up, I'm sure many nations would be much more willing to help us capture Bin Laden.

Ahem. May I once again ask that you use your memory? The military operation in Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned event. Many countries were involved in it, and many countries still have troops stationed there.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2328164 - 02/12/04 09:22 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Evolving writes:

First off, those who perpetrated it DIED - it was a suicide mission.

I guess that let's off all the Mafia bosses who hire hitmen, and husbands who hire a pro to bump off their wives, then.

The term "co-conspirator" is applicable here if we treat a terrorist attack as a legal issue (a la John Kerry) and "commander in chief" is applicable if we treat it as a military issue. Either way, the guys who planned and instigated the attacks are as culpable (arguably more so) as the shlubs conned into taking the suicide mission.

Secondly, no where did I state nor did I imply that those who had offered material and logistical support to the suicide operation should be given a free pass.

Yet the actions you listed omitted any mention of action to be taken against them. It was a thorough and thoughtful list. I therefore presumed you had therefore listed all the steps you felt to be necessary. My bad.

I await additions to the list.

Whether or not a country is a democracy is irrelevant, it's how the man on the street is treated and whether or not he perceives (rightly or wrongly) that the U.S. is supporting a government which mistreats it's own citizens.

Agreed. Hence my qualifying phrase -- and even to some which ARE (Turkey and Israel to name two)

I did not state that, nor did I imply it.

Same comment as above. Absent any actions to capture the ringleaders, is one to rely solely on appeasement to prevent further attacks?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2328184 - 02/12/04 09:29 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

pinksharkmark originally wrote:

Quote:

And please, let's not rehash past American foreign policy in South and Central America, or Viet Nam or even Korea. It is not Chilean terrorists or Viet Namese terrorists or Korean terrorists who are the problem, it is Middle Eastern ones. Osama and the boys don't give two shits about the peasants in Guatemala or Viet Nam.




pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2328821 - 02/13/04 01:01 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Yet the actions you listed omitted any mention of action to be taken against them. It was a thorough and thoughtful list. I therefore presumed you had therefore listed all the steps you felt to be necessary.



I guess you missed this statement, "I'm sure there are a few more things I've missed, but an intelligent threat reduction strategy would include all of these."

Quote:

Absent any actions to capture the ringleaders, is one to rely solely on appeasement to prevent further attacks?



Are you under the impression that I am against apprehending any ringleaders of 9/11? Do you think the things I listed constitute appeasement? My statements started with, "I think that the U.S. would have a lot fewer enemies in the world if..." and ended with,"... an intelligent threat reduction strategy would include all of these. The U.S. does not have an intelligent threat reduction strategy." The things I listed are basic libertarian, non-interventionist foreign policy suggestions. I am not addressing retaliation in my remarks, but policy changes that could address the fundamental problems which led up to people hating the U.S.

Please answer the following questions,

1) Do you think having that U.S. troops stationed around the globe in 120 - 160 countries can be conducive to making enemies? (yes or no)

2) Do you think the U.S. giving monetary and military training and support to regimes which suppress and torture their own people is conducive to making enemies? (yes or no)

3) Would you say that by the U.S. giving monetary support and selling arms to Israel that we are more likely to make friends or enemies among the Muslim and non-Jewish Semitic peoples?

4) Do you think that by the U.S. giving military aid to other countries under the intention of 'fighting the drug war,' aid which is used to destroy the livelihood of impoverished people in 2nd & 3rd world countries, prompts those people to consider the U.S. as their friend or as their enemy?

5) Do you think having agents of the U.S. federal government in foreign countries engaged in activities against the resident population prompts those people to consider the U.S. as their friend or as their enemy?

6) Do you think that having the U.S. government promote U.S. based businesses overseas with us taxpayer subsidies is a good idea, taking into consideration that these business are seen by some non-U.S. people as a threat to their culture, their businesses and their way of life?

7) Do you think if U.S. imposed tariffs cause the demise of a foreign business, that the former employees might feel bitter towards the U.S.?

8) Do you think that bombs dropped on civilians by U.S. armed forces are more likely to lead to the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors to look upon the U.S. as a friend or an enemy?

9) Is it better to avoid making enemies, or is it better to conduct yourself in a manner which will make enemies who will attack innocent people and then spend huge sums of money fighting the enemies you've made while losing additional lives in the process?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2328949 - 02/13/04 01:29 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Excellent questions, all. I don't know how pinky's going to respond, but the stock response of people like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz would probably be:

It doesn't matter how many enemies we make as long as we do what is RIGHT. What is "right", you ask? Well, anything the United States does is, by definition, RIGHT. Even if doing what is "right" (which is, after all, anything we care to do) pits us alone against the entire rest of the world, so be it. We're the United States of America after all. (Those last two sentences are an actual quote from Bush, by the way.)

Even if we have to go it alone, no need to fear. US military capacity (and the pockets of the taxpayers who prop it up) is damn near infinite. Either you're for us or against us. And if you're against us, it doesn't matter how many of you there are, we can kill you all.
*******

The view expressed above is NOT an exaggeration. It is drawn from public and written views expressed by George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, David Frum, and others.

I think it safe to say that the view above is, prima facie, insane. Anybody who doesn't see that is also, by definition, insane.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Evolving]
    #2330203 - 02/13/04 12:19 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Evolving writes:

I guess you missed this statement, "I'm sure there are a few more things I've missed, but an intelligent threat reduction strategy would include all of these."

As it happens, I am in favor of the US taking all those steps. You have been here long enough to know that I have advocated most of them myself in past posts.

But I was hoping to see from you something which addressed some of the questions I had asked afoaf --

Quote:

You have no way of knowing whether eliminating terrorists produces more. There is no evidence either way.
But assuming it does, what's the answer? Should those who are attacked by terrorists make no response? If the American government had sat on their hands post 9-11, would there have been no more terrorist attacks? Bali would not have happened, for example?

To say that striking back at terrorist organizations produces more of them is to say that to striking back at thieves, murderers and rapists produces more.
And so sorry but responding to an attack is not "bullying". Would America have gone chasing bin Laden in Afghanistan if there had been no attack on the WTC and Pentagon? Nope.




Perhaps if the US had behaved impeccably in the past, and never instituted any of the points you mentioned in your list, then bin Laden would not have attacked. But as you yourself have argued in this forum, absent a time machine, there is no way to undo the past.

My question was not "why do terrorists do what they do," it was, "how do we deal with them?"

Your response implied that part of the way to deal with them was to withdraw from the global stage (a view I have advocated here myself, as previously noted), in the hopes that they will turn their attentions elsewhere. That's all well and good. But do you believe there no other steps which should prudently be taken?

1) Do you think having that U.S. troops stationed around the globe in 120 - 160 countries can be conducive to making enemies? (yes or no)

Of course it can.

Do you think having those troops in those countries can be conducive to making allies? With the exceptions of Iraq and Iran and Cuba, I'm having a hard time thinking which of those garrisons are there contrary to the wishes of those countries.

2) Do you think the U.S. giving monetary and military training and support to regimes which suppress and torture their own people is conducive to making enemies? (yes or no)

Certainly. Do you believe "enemy" is equivalent to "terrorist"?

Do you believe if the US were to stop giving such support to said countries terrorists would leave the US alone?

3) Would you say that by the U.S. giving monetary support and selling arms to Israel that we are more likely to make friends or enemies among the Muslim and non-Jewish Semitic peoples?

More likely to make enemies.

Do you believe that if the US ceased selling arms to Israel terrorists would leave the US alone?

4) Do you think that by the U.S. giving military aid to other countries under the intention of 'fighting the drug war,' aid which is used to destroy the livelihood of impoverished people in 2nd & 3rd world countries, prompts those people to consider the U.S. as their friend or as their enemy?

I imagine those who grow the coca and the poppies consider the US their enemy. Which of those people are terrorists?

Do you believe that if the US were to were to cease handing out money to countries to destroy the crops, terrorists would leave the US alone?

5) Do you think having agents of the U.S. federal government in foreign countries engaged in activities against the resident population prompts those people to consider the U.S. as their friend or as their enemy?

Since this appears to be an extension of the last question, same answer.

6) Do you think that having the U.S. government promote U.S. based businesses overseas with us taxpayer subsidies is a good idea, taking into consideration that these business are seen by some non-U.S. people as a threat to their culture, their businesses and their way of life?

Is it a good idea? No. You know already the only uses I consider legitimate for taxpayer money.

Do you believe that if only US private companies (as opposed to US government) could advertise their goods, terrorists would leave the US alone? Do you believe that the other countries which engage in exactly the same practices are inciting terrorists to act against them? If not, why not?

Do those who lose a sale to a US product become terrorists?

7) Do you think if U.S. imposed tariffs cause the demise of a foreign business, that the former employees might feel bitter towards the U.S.?

Probably. Is such a person likely to become a terrorist? How many American workers who have lost their jobs due to protectionist policies by countries such as Japan have committed acts of terror against Japan?

Do you believe that if the US were to drop all tariffs, terrorists would leave the US alone?

8) Do you think that bombs dropped on civilians by U.S. armed forces are more likely to lead to the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors to look upon the U.S. as a friend or an enemy?

Depends. How many bombs were dropped by US armed forces on France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Japan? Do the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors in those countries see the US as a friend or an enemy? Does the Iraqi family who had seven relatives "disappear" during Hussein's reign consider the US a friend or an enemy?

9) Is it better to avoid making enemies...

If possible, it is better to avoid making enemies. Which dealings with other countries can we know to a certainty won't piss off some people at some point down the road? As just one example, in retrospect, no one should have helped the Afghanis repel the Soviets.

And how about economic dealings? As an example, there are one hell of a lot of countries pissed off at the ship-building subsidies engaged in by the Scandinavian countries. When can we expect a terrorist attack on Norway?

Be realistic. In a world where any country in the world has the potential to trade with any other country in the world, some action taken sometime by someone will piss off somebody else. It's inevitable.

...or is it better to conduct yourself in a manner which will make enemies who will attack innocent people and then spend huge sums of money fighting the enemies you've made while losing additional lives in the process?

So every country must defend itself by itself from aggressors both internal and external? No country may ever for any reason ally itself with another?

Do you believe that if the US were to renounce all military alliances, terrorists would leave the US alone?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2330338 - 02/13/04 12:48 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

So every country must defend itself by itself from aggressors
both internal and external? No country may ever for any reason
ally itself with another?


where did he make that assertion?

I think there's a difference between strategic alliances and
imperialistic expansionism.

I also think that most people can tell the difference.

This isn't an either/or situation.

It is not a question of isolationism or unilateral interventionism.

Surely there is a balance that can be struck between the two
that would both behoove american economic, politial and
military interests while also not perpetuating the image of
America as a global conquerer.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: afoaf]
    #2330444 - 02/13/04 01:14 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

afoaf writes:

where did he make that assertion?

It's implied. Think it through.

Hint -- think Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, aid to Afghani resistance groups, etc.

I think there's a difference between strategic alliances and
imperialistic expansionism.


Sure there is.

Which country has the US added to its "empire" lately?

The thing is a strategic alliance by its very nature means that you are associated in some way (in the minds of some) with the actions of whomever one is allied with. For example, no one claims the US deprived Palestinians of their rights. No one says the US is repressing Saudi Arabian residents.

I also think that most people can tell the difference.

Apparently, many of those who can't choose to become terrorists.

This isn't an either/or situation.

Unfortunately, it is. Who could have predicted that the very people the US assisted in overthrowing their oppressors (bin Laden and the boys) would a few decades later decide to repay that assistance with the most spectacular terrorist attack in history?

If it can happen once, it can happen again.

For example, many people were calling for the US to intervene in the Balkans to put an end to the ethnic cleansing going on there. The US did so. What if two decades down the road, some of the Balkan Muslims saved from death by the US decide to stage a terrorist attack on the US? Does that mean the ones who called for the US to intervene were responsible?

One can ask the same question about Liberia, or judging from today's news, Haiti as well.

The only way to avoid "blowback" from alliances is to make no alliances. That's not my opinion, that's the historical record.

It is not a question of isolationism or unilateral interventionism.

No?

Please tell us, then -- who is it safe to ally with?

Surely there is a balance that can be struck between the two
that would both behoove american economic, politial and
military interests...


I'm keenly interested in hearing your detailed and specific description of that balance.

...while also not perpetuating the image of
America as a global conquerer.


Who believes America is a "global conqueror"? Which country has America conquered in the last century?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2330802 - 02/13/04 02:26 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Do you believe if the US were to stop giving such support to said countries terrorists would leave the US alone?



Not all, but most would. If you mind your own business, it becomes rather difficult to convince someone to blow themselves up to fight you.

Quote:

Do you believe that if the US ceased selling arms to Israel terrorists would leave the US alone?



Again, not all, but most. And without having forces stretched out across the globe, we could devote more resources to intelligence gathering, thus helping us prevent more future terrorist attacks.

Quote:

Do you believe that if the US were to were to cease handing out money to countries to destroy the crops, terrorists would leave the US alone?



Not all, but...well, you get the point.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2331275 - 02/13/04 04:11 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

afoaf: where did he make that assertion*?

*So every country must defend itself by itself from aggressors
both internal and external? No country may ever for any reason
ally itself with another?

pinky: It's implied. Think it through.

Hint -- think Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, aid to Afghani resistance groups, etc.


that wasn't what was implied at all. we don't need to break alliances with ALL countries, just the ones that would tend to create more enemies for us.

hint - think Israel, Saudi Arabia.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemuhurgle
Turtles all theway down

Registered: 10/29/03
Posts: 299
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2331595 - 02/13/04 06:05 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

pinksharkdude, explain your extreme ignorance on the world outside the US, and why you choose to use that igonrance to debate your point.


--------------------
"To make this mundane world sublime
Take half a gram of phanerothyme."

Aldous Huxley


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: muhurgle]
    #2331653 - 02/13/04 06:31 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

muhurgle said:
pinksharkdude, explain your extreme ignorance on the world outside the US, and why you choose to use that igonrance to debate your point.




/me pulls up a chair


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: muhurgle]
    #2333619 - 02/14/04 07:06 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Ignorance of the world outside the US?

I don't live in the United States. I have never lived in the United States. I've visited in various places in the US here and there over the years, but I was born and raised in Canada, studied and worked in Canada, and I've lived and worked in the Dominican Republic for the last sixteen years. I once spent a few weeks in Germany.

Tell you what, why don't you explain your extreme ignorance of the world including the United States and why you use that ignorance to avoid addressing a single point raised by anyone in this thread?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2333623 - 02/14/04 07:22 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

we don't need to break alliances with ALL countries, just the ones that would tend to create more enemies for us.

You ignore my point. How can one know, decades in advance, which alliances of today won't produce enemies decades down the road? How can we know which allies tend to create more enemies for us?

The most obvious example of all being the guy responsible for 9-11, Osama bin Laden. At the time the US assisted him and his homies (the mujahadeen) he was perceived by pretty much everyone except the Soviets and Alex123 as a freedom fighter aiding the people of an invaded country in ejecting their invaders. You of course remember that the US was not alone in providing aid to the mujahadeen.

Or is your point that we are to make alliances but renounce them at some unspecified point in time where we (who do you mean by "we" in this case anyway? Whoever happens to be president at the time?) suspect there may be someone out there who disapproves of our ally?

If that's your meaning, then I can't argue that. However, why bother even to make the alliance in the first place if it is to be broken (with inevitable embarassment and finger-pointing and "told you so" accusations accompanying the breakage) down the road anyway? See Iraq as a prime example.

Hence my point -- the only way to avoid being perceived by some as sharing responsibility for the actions of our allies is to have none.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,771
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2333761 - 02/14/04 10:25 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

he was perceived by pretty much everyone except the Soviets and Alex123 as a freedom fighter aiding the people of an invaded country in ejecting their invaders.

Close...but then why was the aid started before the country was invaded?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2333789 - 02/14/04 11:02 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

At the time the US assisted him and his homies (the mujahadeen) he was perceived by pretty much everyone except the Soviets and Alex123 as a freedom fighter aiding the people of an invaded country in ejecting their invaders.

Nice dodge but it really won't wash. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Afghanistan in the 80's will have been aware of how difficult it would be to describe the fundamentalist fanatics that would go on to form the Northern Alliance and Taliban as "freedom fighters".

Only the most outrageously insane of neocon lunatics would have considered it a sensible act to arm and fund these maniacs.

BTW, remember the arming and support for the nightmarish Northern Alliance in Afghanistan a couple of years ago? Here's a little resume of those sweethearts:

"But it remains a fact that from 1992 to 1996, the Northern Alliance was a symbol of massacre, systematic rape and pillage. Which is why we - and I include the US State Department - welcomed the Taliban when they arrived in Kabul. The Northern Alliance left the city in 1996 with 50,000 dead behind it. Now its members are our foot soldiers. Better than Mr bin Laden, to be sure. But what - in God's name- are they going to do in our name?"

The Independent (UK), November 14, 2001

The U.S. and its allies were supporting the policies that helped foster Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban. Today they are sharpening the dagger of the 'Northern Alliance.' So many of those now involved in what has come to be called the Northern Alliance have the blood of our beloved people on their hands, as of course do the Taliban. Their sustained atrocities have been well documented by independent international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and others. From 1992 to 1996 in particular, these forces waged a brutal war against women, using rape, torture, abduction and forced marriage as their weapons. Many women committed suicide during this period as their only escape. Any initiative to establish a broad-based government must exclude all Taliban and other criminal Jehadi factions, unless and until a specific faction or person has been absolved of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Otherwise, the people will again be plunged into the living hell that engulfed our country from 1992 to 1996"

http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR111501.htm


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2333795 - 02/14/04 11:06 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Close...but then why was the aid started before the country was invaded?

...pulls up chair.. :smile2:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
spacedragon 7,575 148 06/21/04 08:26 AM
by st0nedphucker
* Terrorists want Bush Vvellum 606 14 06/23/04 11:34 AM
by grib
* Terrorists get free ride in the UK Phred 928 12 05/22/06 10:15 AM
by GazzBut
* Muslim women, children shield terrorists in Thailand lonestar2004 807 7 09/24/05 09:12 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Is Cat Stevens a Terrorist? Los_Pepes 523 2 01/10/06 04:00 PM
by Tao
* Muslims are terrorists.
( 1 2 all )
looner2 2,924 20 12/12/05 07:37 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Infidels had Bali coming wingnutx 393 2 08/14/03 07:13 PM
by Cornholio
* What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
1stimer 8,107 80 07/01/05 03:22 PM
by Ancalagon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,173 topic views. 5 members, 3 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.091 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.