Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2335661 -

Trendal writes:

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

Perhaps because the US got wind of the invasion plans before it occurred, or perhaps because the US at the time thought it a good idea to be friendly with those Afghanis opposed to the Soviet-installed puppet regime in Afghanistan.

Remember that at that time (Cold War) the Soviets were doing exactly the same thing in countries they considered to be run by US-installed puppet regimes.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2335671 -

Remember that at that time (Cold War) the Soviets were doing exactly the same thing in countries they considered to be run by US-installed puppet regimes.

I never said they weren't...

However I do find it interesting that the United States was supporting, both financially and logistically, activities that can only be considered "terrorist" in nature.


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2335742 -

trendal writes:

However I do find it interesting that the United States was supporting, both financially and logistically, activities that can only be considered "terrorist" in nature.

Were the mujahadeen fighting the Soviet-backed puppet government killing innocent civilians as well as government and military? That's a serious question, by the way. I don't recall reading at the time that they were targeting non-combatants, but it may have come to light later and I missed it.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336390 -

Remember these were the same people who went on to form the Taliban and Northern Alliance, renowned for mass torture, murder and brutal repression of women. It's a little difficult to believe they were once "freedom fighting" angels who had many principles about not attacking "non-combatants".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2336573 -

Can you show anything to substantiate your belief?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2336628 -

What "belief" are you talking about?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336637 -

Yes there were uncountable instances of civillian deaths at the hands of the mujahideen during the period that the US funded them. One of the most aggressive factions of the mujahideen, which was given the most support by the CIA, was known for going around throwing acid in the faces of women who did not wear the veil. Their leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was a known woman-hater. Car bombings were also quite common, as the CIA was training the mujahideen in the art of urban combat as well as feeding them supplies for such activities.

In fact...much of what the mujahideen was responsible for can be compared to what the "Iraqi resistance" is now doing in Iraq...and you won't hear them called "freedom fighters".


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336650 -

Oops. In the post this one is replying to, I had asked a question of Evolving in response to his point # 7 --

Quote:
Evolving -- 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.?

pinky -- 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?


Well, it seems that even though we know of no American workers who have become anti-Japanese terrorists yet, Japan managed to do something to piss off Al Qaeda.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/15/japan.alqaeda.ap/index.html

According to the article, the attack was planned, but not carried out because (apparently unlike the US) Japan had no network of Al Qaeda support cells.

Let's ask ourselves some questions --

1) Are Japanese troops stationed around the globe in 120 - 160 countries?

2) Does Japan give monetary and military training and support to regimes which suppress and torture their own people?

3) Does Japan give monetary support and sell arms to Israel?

4) Does Japan give military aid to other countries for the purpose of 'fighting the drug war' ?

5) Does Japan have agents of their government in foreign countries engaged in activities against the resident population?

6) Does the Japanese government promote Japanese-based businesses overseas with taxpayer subsidies?

7) Do Japanese tariffs cause the demise of foreign businesses?

8) Did bombs dropped on civilians by Japanese armed forces lead the surviving friends, relatives and neighbors to look upon Japan as an enemy?

I don't know how the rest of the readers of this thread would answer the above, but I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say "no" to all except 6) and 7) and 8). I will say that I judge it unlikely any Al Qaeda member has lost a job due to a Japanese company putting the company he once worked for out of business, but I certainly can't say it is impossible.

I'm guessing it's more likely that some of the Asian members of Al Qaeda had ancestors killed by Japanese, and presumably the influence of the Asian Al Qaeda caucus pulls enough weight with the Al Qaeda leadership to make an attack on Japan seem reasonable.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2336660 -

trendal writes:

Yes there were uncountable instances of civillian deaths at the hands of the mujahideen during the period that the US funded them.

If this is the case, all the more reason for not making any alliances, or assisting anyone involved in any struggle against oppression. It would have been better to let Afghanistan become another republic of the USSR. It would have been better to let the various subdivisions of what was once known as Yugoslavia to proceed with their ethnic cleansing on their own, etc. It certainly would have been better to let the USSR conquer Hitler's Europe on their own.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336671 -

Oh come now, I never said any of that and I think you know that I wouldn't say any of that.

The US was not aiding the mujahideen with the best intentions of the afghani people in their hearts...they aided the mujahideen because they wanted the Soviets to experience a humiliating defeat as the US had in Vietnam. On top of that, they hoped to create and stir up as many groups of Islamic fundamentalists as they could within the Soviet Union with the hopes of bringing down the whole Union.

I will never have anything against the support of freedom and the downfall of oppressive regimes. However I don't agree with using this as an excuse to further the self-interests of another country.

Also, as far as Afghanistan becoming another republic of the USSR...that may very well never have happened if the CIA had not goaded the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place. Remember, the US wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan so they could suffer their own Vietnam.

Oh, and I certainly wouldn't use the term "freedom fighters" for a group who is known to violently oppress women...


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2336672 -

Try and compare like with like.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2336680 -

Also, as far as Afghanistan becoming another republic of the USSR...that may very well never have happened if the CIA had not goaded the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place. Remember, the US wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan so they could suffer their own Vietnam.

And of course Russia has had enormous influence over Afghanistan for decades anyway. A puppet government was nothing out of the ordinary. Just like America propped up dictators throughout South America.

Perhaps if America was really so concerned about freedom they could have attended to their own maniacs like Pinochet first.

I suppose what this really boils down to is in the neocons childish and limited belief system. If America slaughters people by definition that can only be done in the name of "freedom" or "defending the world from tyranny" and can therefore be defended. If anyone the americans don't approve of slaughters people that is by definition "tyranny"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: trendal]
    #2340601 -

trendal writes:

Oh come now, I never said any of that and I think you know that I wouldn't say any of that.

I know. *I* am saying it. If it is true that terrorists attack because of the alliances a country once had, then it makes sense to have no alliances. This is perfectly logical -- if one's goal is to have terrorists leave one alone.

The US was not aiding the mujahideen with the best intentions of the afghani people in their hearts...

Well, duh! And how is this wrong?

...they aided the mujahideen because they wanted the Soviets to experience a humiliating defeat as the US had in Vietnam.

No, they aided them because they didn't want the Soviets to gain another province.

On top of that, they hoped to create...

"Create"? Nope.

... and stir up as many groups of Islamic fundamentalists as they could within the Soviet Union with the hopes of bringing down the whole Union.

The Soviet marched into a muslim country. They did so of their own volition. The US had no need to do anything other than assist the Afghanis. Nothing the US could do would get muslims pissed off at the Sovs more than they were already.

The US was of course hoping that those they assisted would be grateful. Turns out they weren't. Hence -- alliances are a bad idea.

I will never have anything against the support of freedom and the downfall of oppressive regimes.

You supported the coalition's deposition of Hussein? I'm a bit surprised to hear that.

However I don't agree with using this as an excuse to further the self-interests of another country.

Countries will further their self-interests no matter what. Might as well kill two birds with one stone. Are you saying you may not assist others unless there is no possible benefit to yourself?

Also, as far as Afghanistan becoming another republic of the USSR...that may very well never have happened if the CIA had not goaded the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place.

Yeah, right. All those other countries (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia and a dozen others) just happened to invade themselves using Soviet troops. The Soviets weren't "goaded" into invading them at all, oh no.

Look, the well-documented imperialist acts of the ex-USSR, while fascinating, are not the issue here. Time to stop the derailment and get back on topic.

Remember, the US wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan so they could suffer their own Vietnam.

If true, so what? The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own volition. They got whupped. It still has nothing to do with the fact that alliances are a bad idea.

Oh, and I certainly wouldn't use the term "freedom fighters" for a group who is known to violently oppress women...

Letr me get this straight. Only those of impeccable moral rectitude may repel invaders? If China invades the US, the pimps, Hell's Angels, wife-beaters, queer-bashers and all get to sit it out?

If this is the case, it bolsters my argument even more firmly, since there is no country anywhere free from assholes. If the only time it is right to ally yourself with another country is if none of the residents are assholes, then it is never correct to ally yourself with any country.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2340622 -

Quote:
I will never have anything against the support of freedom and the downfall of oppressive regimes.

You supported the coalition's deposition of Hussein? I'm a bit surprised to hear that.




No read it again. Pay attention to the "support of freedom" part.

And for "coalition" read "The solomon islands" and the Federated Islands of Micronesia  :smile2:

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own volition. They got whupped

But only because the US supported Bin Laden and the boys.

Only those of impeccable moral rectitude may repel invaders?

Repelling invaders is fine. Funding maniacs who murder, torture and rape and install their own savage dictatorship is the thing we're having trouble with.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2340656 -

No read it again. Pay attention to the "support of freedom" part.

it's been less than a year. we'll see what happens.

And for "coalition" read "The solomon islands" and the Federated Islands of Micronesia.

or the UK, australia, spain, portugal, the netherlands, italy, japan, poland, denmark, ukraine...

But only because the US supported Bin Laden and the boys.

we've gone over this before alex. the soviets were aiding the PDPA takeover of afghanistan before the US was involved.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: ]
    #2341284 -

it's been less than a year. we'll see what happens.

Lets just say it sure as hell ain't looking good.

or the UK, australia, spain, portugal, the netherlands, italy, japan, poland, denmark, ukraine...

Didn't send too many troops tho. Over 90% are either US or UK. Not exactly a coalition to brag about is it.

And as far as "support" goes, the UK had the biggest demonstration in it's history against the war. I don't think the people of Spain were exactly keen either. And those were the two "strongest" members of the coalition. How many of the others believed in Bush and how many do you think were bought?

the soviets were aiding the PDPA takeover of afghanistan before the US was involved.

And the US was agitating terrorists to destabilise Afghanistan. 6 of one, half of dozen of the other.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2341409 -

Lets just say it sure as hell ain't looking good.

what makes you say that?

Didn't send too many troops tho. Over 90% are either US or UK. Not exactly a coalition to brag about is it.

my point was that the coalition includes more than just micronesia and the solomon islands. many nations (including most of europe) voiced support for the invasion, even if they could not send troops. more nations voiced support for the war than dissent.

And the US was agitating terrorists to destabilise Afghanistan. 6 of one, half of dozen of the other.

how and when?

the soviets helped the PDP topple the afghani president in 1978 and then helped prop up the new soviet-allied government against popular resistance. the CIA started covertly aiding that resistance in 1979. when the resistance started to gain too much ground, the soviets invaded. we've covered this before.

when did the US start attempting to "destabilize" afghanistan? before or after the soviet-assisted coup of the US-friendly president?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: ]
    #2341515 -

what makes you say that?

You think Iraqs looking good now?

my point was that the coalition includes more than just micronesia and others

Don't you think it's kind of pathetic when the UN utterly reject you and you have to buy countries like the Federated Islands of Micronesia into your "coalition"? I think someone rang Micronesia and asked them what they thought of being in the coalition and they said "Are we?" :lol:

the soviets helped the PDP topple the afghani president in 1978

You mean like Daoud toppled the monarchy 5 years earlier? What goes around generally comes around with dictators. Whether the Russians helped anymore than the Americans were helping Daoud and trying to influence and control him is questionable.

against popular resistance

Are you serious? "popular resistance?"  :rolleyes:

when the resistance started to gain too much ground, the soviets invaded

No, it's a lot more involved than that. For the real story read here:

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/afghan.htm

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Xlea321]
    #2341727 -

You think Iraqs looking good now?

i honestly don't know, and neither do you. our only real picture of life in iraq before and after the invasion comes through the media, and right now, it really cannot provide us with a clear picture. i do believe that the future iraq will be better than it was under hussein. i don't see why it can't be. time will tell.

Don't you think it's kind of pathetic when the UN utterly reject you and you have to buy countries like the Federated Islands of Micronesia into your "coalition"? I think someone rang Micronesia and asked them what they thought of being in the coalition and they said "Are we?"

my point is that the coalition also includes nations like the UK, australia, japan, spain, portugal, and the netherlands, just to name a few.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How to handle terrorists [Re: Phred]
    #2342536 -

Well it appears our views differ on this one, pinksharkmark, and I'll leave it at that :wink:


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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 11,882 148 06/21/04 06:26 AM
by st0nedphucker
* Terrorists want Bush Vvellum 683 14 06/23/04 09:34 AM
by grib
* Terrorists get free ride in the UK Phred 1,101 12 05/22/06 08:15 AM
by GazzBut
* Muslim women, children shield terrorists in Thailand lonestar2004 902 7 09/24/05 07:12 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Is Cat Stevens a Terrorist? Los_Pepes 563 2 01/10/06 02:00 PM
by Tao
* Muslims are terrorists.
( 1 2 all )		 looner2 3,195 20 12/12/05 05:37 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Infidels had Bali coming wingnutx 444 2 08/14/03 05:13 PM
by Cornholio
* What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 1stimer 9,656 80 07/01/05 01:22 PM
by Ancalagon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,261 topic views. 0 members, 35 guests and 36 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.