|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
16-03-04, 05:25 PM | #21 | |||
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
I read your post again and I still say you have no clue what you are talking about when you group the IRA with the rest of those groups. The IRA were and are not a terrorist undergroud movement. If you say they are then you will also have to say the British Government the largest working terrorist group in the world with Irsael a close second. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend Last edited by Sinner : 16-03-04 at 05:40 PM. |
|||
16-03-04, 05:46 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
|
|
16-03-04, 06:58 PM | #23 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
Sinner got a little side-tracked by my use of the IRA as an example. your pals in the White House consider them a terrorist group, but the one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter argument is a whole 'nother thread. the point remains: while the war in Iraq has was sold to the world as a strategic necessity in the war on terror, to date, there is only evidence to the contrary. |
|
16-03-04, 08:12 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
Saddam Hussein supplied financial support, training and shelter for an array of deadly terrorist organizations right up until the onset of the Iraq war a year ago, including such notorious groups as Hamas, Ansar al-Islam, the Palestinian Liberation Front, the Abu Nidal Organization and the Arab Liberation Front, according to a comprehensive report released by the Hudson Institute. Titled "Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror," the report details the role played by terrorists supported by Saddam's regime in an array of infamous attacks that have killed hundreds of American citizens both inside and outside the U.S. before and after the Sept. 11 attacks - including the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Palestinian Intifada. Compiled by Deroy Murdock, a Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Fairfax, Va., and columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, the report chronicles Saddam's support for: # Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six New Yorkers and injured over 1,000. Yasin fled to Baghdad after the attack, where he was given sanctuary and lived for years afterward. # Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, who reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad last April and was taken into custody by U.S. Marines. # Abu Nidal, whose terror organization is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans, and wounding 788 more. Nidal lived in Baghdad from 1999 till August 2002, when he was found shot to death in his state-supplied home. # Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last week. # Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Al Zarqawi is still at large. # Ramzi Yousef, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as Operation Bojinka, a foiled plot to explode 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific. Bojinka was later adopted by Yousef's cousin Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the blueprint for the Sept. 11 attacks. Arrested in Pakistan in 1995, Yousef is currently serving a triple life sentence in Colorado's Supermax federal lockup. # Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada. Besharat and others disbursed the funds in payments of $10,000 to $25,000 to West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis. After Saddam announced his Intifada reward plan, 28 Palestinian homicide bombers killed 211 Israelis in attacks that also killed 12 Americans. A total of 1,209 people were injured. For more details on Saddam Hussein's sponsorship of the terrorist networks that killed hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens, go to: http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...damarticle.pdf link |
|
16-03-04, 09:16 PM | #25 |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
the Hudson report fits my contention nicely - every terrorist incident listed is credited to people who were terrorists before they ever got to Iraq. the incidents listed occurred independently of Iraq, without any established cause-and-effect relationship. no question, Iraq would be a stop on the Wide World Of Terror tour, but should it be the main event? in terms of getting a return on our investment in the war on terror, the cost/benefit relationship remains quite thin.
the question remains: 550 + dead American soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars later, has the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq reduced terrorism and made the world a safer place? not yet. |
16-03-04, 10:46 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
it may be cold to say but if those 550 lives somehow, through some Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of seperation, stops another 3000 American lives from being lost then it was all worth it. |
|
17-03-04, 03:03 AM | #27 |
===\/------/\===
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
|
I wonder what the world thinks about having American Troops in these many countries:
Afghanistan Albania Algeria Antigua Argentina Azerbaijan Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chad Chile China Columbia Congo Costa Rica Cote D'lvoire Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Guinea Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iraq Israel Italy Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Jamaica Japan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Mali Malaysia Malta Mexico Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Singapore Sierra Leone Slovenia Spain South Africa South Korea Sri Lanka Suriname Syria Sweden Switzerland Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html |
17-03-04, 05:56 AM | #28 |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
most of those countries probably have less than 20 troops in country, plus the troops wouldn't be there if those countries governments didn't want them there.
|
17-03-04, 10:28 AM | #29 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
Your crystal ball is wrong knife...I do read....so do you by the looks of it, to bad you read a bunch of non-sense and buy into it. Your link doesn't work (http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/rira.htm), but I notice it says RIRA in it. If you had any idea at all on what you were taking about you would know the RIRA and the IRA are two different groups. EDIT---- I am not going to say the IRA never used violence because we have, but to say the IRA is a terrorist movement is darn right retarded. Little quote from a PPS doc...\ There is a perception that the IRA and other paramilitaries have used mindless violence. That is very far from the truth. The violence has always been used for a purpose. And, simply put, violence is used as a communicative dimension. It is saying to the state or to government, "We are here. You have to talk to us. If we have to bomb our way to a negotiating table, we will." So, very rarely do you get examples of mindless violence in the Northern Ireland context. And when you look at the type of violence, over time it has changed. Because the violence was a classic example of armed propaganda. Sometimes car bombs would be used, which would be simply about causing as much economic destruction as possible, as making Northern Ireland so expensive for the British exchequer that there would be a demand for the British to withdraw. Or they would target British soldiers. There always was the belief that the death of one British soldier was worth at least, in propaganda terms, ten policemen from Northern Ireland, because in Britain itself, the British mainland, the demand to get out would grow. --It is worth pointing out that Belfast, for example, never became Beirut. There was a control to most of the violence. Before the violence occurred, there were usually plenty of warnings. Very rarely could you put your finger and say that innocent people were targeted deliberately. They were very conscious in their propaganda of how they sold their violence. They were always conscious they had to bring their people with them.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend Last edited by Sinner : 17-03-04 at 10:59 AM. |
|
17-03-04, 07:53 PM | #30 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
I agree with span here, we had to start somewhere and if anything the war in Iraq served a utilitarian need: Saddam was himself a terrorist against his own people and millions of people are safer now that he's in custody, and a large fraction of those people are Americans. I find it interesting that many Iraqis are mad that we haven't executed him already, instead of keeping him in prison. But anyway, we finished what we started in '91 because we couldn't have rightly turned our collective back on Iraq while trying to fight terrorism elsewhere. Now the military has done its part to ensure our security; that success was incrimental, and now it's time to use other tatics to fight on other fronts in further incriments.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|