State sponsored terrorism

[QUOTE][B]And perhaps you could justify why another country should not make a pre-emptive strick on the US if it thinks that the US might pose a threat to its security as some time in the future.[/QUOTE][/B]Other countries have made preemptive strikes on us for exactly that reason. It was the whole purpose behind the Pearl Harbor bombing.As for what's going on right now, I'd much rather push Saddam out of office than have a nuclear weapons detonated in a US city. Oh by the way, the pretext of war did change somewhat during WWII...nuclear weapons were developed.As for the guerilla war in Vietnam, it matters not where the fighting took place, the Vietnamese were still illegitimate combatants.

[QUOTE][B]I found that to be awfully weak evidence.[/QUOTE][/B]That's too bad considering it was a source dating from the Soviet invasion and from a Congressional source. I don't think it gets any better than that, I prefer that to a report by the news media, based on the assumption that congresspeople should know what's going on better than they would. If you don't accept it, my suspicion is that you won't accept anything.I couldn't find a source on bayoneting pregnant women because all my search terms pulled up references to Taliban. Seems they were quite fond of using sharp objects in their executions.Zhimbo, I wonder what you are trying to do here. Are you a revisionist historian, wanting to post a nice and friendly outlook on the Soviets and pretend they committed no atrocities, or are you just being obtuse and attempting to waste my time by hunting sources when you know that the claims I am making are credible without them? My online time is more precious than it once was. I'm going to have to suspend my participation in this thread soon enough as it is. I don't have time to waste fulfilling your curiousity about a very minor point in this thread when debating you is probably already a waste of effort in the first place.

[QUOTE][B]Moose did not call in a bomb threat so this is a strawman[/QUOTE][/B]That's true in a sense, Moose's threat did not specifically involve a bomb. Actually I was assuming he meant more along the lines of a hijacked airliner. But the fact is he wants the White House and the Pentagon to be destroyed, presumably along with hundreds of people inside, and it really doesn't make a difference if he specified it was by a bomb or not.This is what Moose said: [QUOTE][B]I am currently feeling that the world would be far better off, if God (or some other party) came and wiped the White House and the Pentagon off of the face of the earth.[/QUOTE][/B]Note the reference to "some other party". Moose isn't supporting the terrorists with that remark? [QUOTE][B]So you are claiming the right to dictate what is unacceptable? I hate the Ku Klux Klan but I do not deny they have a right to their opinions no matter how odious they may be.[/QUOTE][/B]When the KKK makes something that sounds like a threat, they need to be hunted down. You do know that there is no one, centralized, KKK, right? The government shut them down, and rightfully so, years ago because they were a threat. So they're not a good example for you to use to make this point. [QUOTE][B]monsterously insensitive and unacceptable, in your view, decide the mormons have to go....it works both ways.[/QUOTE][/B]Mormons are not out there supporting terrorists. They're not making threats either. [QUOTE][B]I guess it is possible in the US as well but unlikely to happen...here it does.[/QUOTE][/B]I wouldn't try that here either. As you've said, litigation in recent years is changing what was once acceptable. [QUOTE][B]Why stop with military...maybe the mormons by having a different christian worldview could be dangerous and someday might want to take over the government...so a premptive strike against mormons would be the only way to be secure...[/QUOTE][/B]Actually they already tried, several times. But the Mormons are not making threats so it's a false analogy. If the church decided the government needed to go, I'd believe that government would be justified in dissolving the church. (Just like they did to the KKK, which was your earlier example) [QUOTE][B]Why is it a strawman[/QUOTE][/B]It is a strawman because it is not my opinion that the White House is necessarily benevolent, or that it even always should be. [QUOTE][B]what evidence do you have that the government is looking out for US interests[/QUOTE][/B]Chasing terrorists. [QUOTE][B]even Republican interests for that matter?[/QUOTE][/B]No Bush critic would ever deny he was after Republican interests. Even Moose believes it. The only way to not believe he is advancing Republican interests would be if you believe he is walking around with an alien microchip in his colon, serving their purposes.Or that he turned benevolent and wants to save the world.

[QUOTE][B]...and so the cycle of terror and war is fueled.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually terrorism right now is fueled by the US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Why do we have military there? To protect our interests. Why do they not want us there? Because they want a Middle Eastern Islamic state - kind of like a really big Taliban, and we will never allow it. So do you think human rights would not be violated in such a state? [QUOTE][B]You have made it clear that you don't particularly care about the human rights of non-Americans.[/QUOTE][/B]International Human Rights Police is a nice pc game for the US military to occasionally play but it is not the purpose of the US govt. The primary purpose of the US govt is to keep enemy paratroopers out of my backyard and to keep infrastructure working.Do you think policing human rights is going to make people like us?Well, we overthrew the Taliban and now Afghani women don't have to wear shawls. So why the hell were they burning US flags in Pakistan when we did that? We advanced human rights and people hate us more.
They love Osama. Osama stands for everything the Taliban stood for, and human rights are not in their job description.This isn't about dictatorships. This is about the percieved threat to Islam generated by the Western Devil.By the way, wasn't the Kosovo operation human-rights oriented? Well have you read what radical Islamists are saying Kosovo was about? I suggest you do, if you think being pro-human rights appeases those people. [QUOTE][B]Why is Iran in the state it's currently in? It's because of a revolutionary movement which rose up against the U.S,-backed, corrupt government headed by the Shah.[/QUOTE][/B]Coups are a regular feature in any third world country. Surely you don't blame that on the Evil Americans? [QUOTE][B]frequently proven to make things worse in the long term[/QUOTE][/B]"Proven"? How can you claim to know how things would have turned out had history been different? You're just speculating. [QUOTE][B]we probably wouldn't have the problems of anti-American sentiment there that we do now.[/QUOTE][/B]I'm going to look into this, but it seems to me that you are only speculating.

Gene, you seem to share Bush's confusion. Is there any evidence of connection between terrorist acts such as 9/11 and Sadam Hussain? If so, I'm sure it would have been widely publicised. You do realise that most of the hijackers involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally of the US? Does the US contemplate a regime change in a country which has bred such terrorists? If so, I haven't heard about it.

quote:

---

Oh by the way, the pretext of war did change somewhat during WWII...nuclear weapons were developed.

---

Again you seem to be confused. My original comment was:

quote:

---

BTW, the US was a late entry in both WW1 and WW2. Did the moral justification for engaging in war changed during the progression of the wars? Wasn't the pretext for US entry into WW1 the sinking of the Lusitania?

---

Nuclear weapons were not the excuse (pretext) for the US entering WW2 against Germany and Italy.

quote:

---

As for the guerilla war in Vietnam, it matters not where the fighting took place, the Vietnamese were still illegitimate combatants.

---

It is a fundamental point as to where the fighting took place. It took place in Vietnam, the homeland of the Vietnamese. Where do you suggest the Vietnamese should have gone to fight for their homeland? Singapore? Netherlands? Ethiopia? Perhaps Americans have gotten into the habit of fighting proxy wars and have forgotten that one is entitled to fight an oppressor in one's own homeland. Shouldn't Americans be grateful that the Vietnamese did not adopt terrorist tactics and sabotage facilites in the US as the US was bombing Hanoi. You do recall that the IRA adopted such tactics against the British government. And the Vietnamese did not attack American targets after the US pulled out of Vietnam.Perhaps it might be more comprehensible to some Americans if they thought of the Vietnam War as analogous to the American War of Independence with the Vietnamese taking the place of the colonialists and the foreign armies (US, Australia, NZ etc) as the British army. Did the colonialists have a right to fight in their own homeland? Most Americans think so.

[QUOTE][B]Is there any evidence of connection between terrorist acts such as 9/11 and Sadam Hussain?[/QUOTE][/B]According to US media reports I have heard the Iraqi government gives the equivalent of US$20,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Plus Saddam is focused on weapons of mass destruction. Al-qaida agents would be a convenient delivery mechanism to the US. The mere fact that he is producing these weapons is justification enough because we believe he clearly has a motive to attack the United States. Plus, in the past he has shown a tendency to invade his neighbors, destabilizing the region. Finally, think about this: he has absolute rule over his nation and without sanctions would be filthy-rich. Why does he need weapons of mass destruction???Oh, and your fallacy here is that the war on terror is not confined to 9/11. The attacks, were, however, a wakeup call that (1) people want us dead and (2) we have to be more proactive. That means we need to go around toppling governments that pose a threat. [QUOTE][B]Did the moral justification for engaging in war changed during the progression of the wars?[/QUOTE][/B]It changed after the wars. First with the development of nuclear weapons. Secondly it demonstrated that the US can no longer afford neutrality. Pacifism and isolationism both got us stung. Now we know that we can't pacify people like Saddam, and that if we like it or not, we *are* the world's police force. 9/11 drove that point home once again. When we get lax by allowing people like the Taliban and Osama to live, we get stung. Now we are going to root out every possible threat we can think of until we get complacent, years go by, and we will get stung again. Something you don't seem to understand is that the US is not Australia. Your country is not the World Power. Nobody much feels threatened because you don't have the biggest navy, the best military, or the second biggest nuclear arsenal. You are only allied with the best military, the biggest navy, and the second-biggest nuclear arsenal. While your nation is under the threat of terrorism from your association with us Australia has rarely had to risk global controversey by backing a government, fighting a war to hold back communism, or sending in a peacekeeping force (East Timor excluded, good job by the way). When Japan wanted to build up a Pacific empire, they weren't afraid enough of your navy to bomb your holdings in a sneak attack like they did ours. When Osama wanted to get Westerners out of Saudi Arabia, he didn't fly airplanes into Australian financial districts. This is not because Australia is necessarily opposed to US policy but because Australia is not the superpower maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East so the oil keeps flowing. I do hope you get out of this without further incident but your nation will never be the primary target of al-Qaida because your nation does not pose a significant threat to anyone. The good thing about that is that you won't get "stung" like we do.It is easy for you to criticize American policy because you can afford isolationism. If Saddam develops a nuclear arsenal I think New York is a more likely target than Melbourne, don't you? [QUOTE][B]Perhaps Americans have gotten into the habit of fighting proxy wars and have forgotten that one is entitled to fight an oppressor in one's own homeland.[/QUOTE][/B]Forgetting your history? Before we lost the war in Vietnam there were two Vietnams: north and south. United States troops were attempting to defend the nation of South Vietnam from the invading Communist north. We were not an invading force there, we were helping them defend their homeland because it served our vested interests of holding back Communism. We (Congress included) were also lied to by our own government about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. If you want a US history lesson I can go into that but I don't think it's relevant.One more thing: the fact that most of the hijackers were of Saudi origin does not mean the Saudi government endorses terrorism, although I realize there is probably some under-the-table cash flow to bin Laden and his allies.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-21-2002]

quote:

---

According to US media reports I have heard the Iraqi government gives the equivalent of US$20,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

---

Be that as it may, what was the IRA's primary source of finance throughtout its guerilla war in Northern Ireland? Or the finance for the Contra's in central America? Was this sponsorship of terrorism by a rogue state?

quote:

---

That means we need to go around toppling governments that pose a threat.

---

Again you miss an important message out of 9/11. This was not the act of a government which you can topple. It was the act of a group of fanatical individuals. They were Suadis. The US has the Saudi Arabian government in its pocket but the terrorism still occurred.Forgetting my history? That the division of Vietnam into north and south was implemented by the French colonial powers when they didn't like the popularity of communist supported nationalist Ho Chi Minh? And the Viet Minh were popular in South Vietnam throughout the years of war, unlike the puppet regimes installed by France and later the US.

quote:

---

Actually terrorism right now is fueled by the US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Why do we have military there? To protect our interests. Why do they not want us there? Because they want a Middle Eastern Islamic state - kind of like a really big Taliban, and we will never allow it. So do you think human rights would not be violated in such a state?

---

Sure, America America had to overthrow Salvador Allende (who fixed up the Chilean economy and reduced infant mortality to First world rates and eliminated malnutrition and subsistence poverty) and replace him with general Augusto Pinochet who began a reign of terror that saw 130 000 Chileans tortured then murdered to protect their "interests".

quote:

---

Coups are a regular feature in any third world country. Surely you don't blame that on the Evil Americans?

---

Coups are usually from the people, for the people, benefiting them. America seems to have made a habit of removing the democratically elected government and replacing them with dictators of their own choosing.

quote:

---

I'm going to look into this, but it seems to me that you are only speculating.

---

If 9/11 and other terrorist attacks against America didn't happen wouldn't you think anti-muslim sentiment would be basically non-existent in America? If America didn't terrorize other countries, then there wouldn't be anti-American sentiment. And at least in countries such as Chile malnutrition, subsistence poverty would have been eliminated, and (at least) 130 000 less people tortured and murdered.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 11-22-2002]

That's true in a sense, Moose's threat did not specifically involve a bomb. Actually I was assuming he meant more along the lines of a hijacked airliner. But the fact is he wants the White House and the Pentagon to be destroyed, presumably along with hundreds of people inside, and it really doesn't make a difference if he specified it was by a bomb or not.This is what Moose said:

quote:

---

I am currently feeling that the world would be far better off, if God (or some other party) came and wiped the White House and the Pentagon off of the face of the earth.

---

Note the reference to "some other party". Moose isn't supporting the terrorists with that remark?M: Considering the first choice was God I guess you consider God a terrorist ?G:
When the KKK makes something that sounds like a threat, they need to be hunted down. You do know that there is no one, centralized, KKK, right? The government shut them down, and rightfully so, years ago because they were a threat. So they're not a good example for you to use to make this point.M: Actually you made my point..."sounds like a threat"...who determines? The KKK say lots of stupid things some of which sound threatening...should they be "hunted down" for using derogatory words against minorities?..that could be construed as threatening...again, you either live with freedom and the inconvienciences that it entails or you don't.G:
Mormons are not out there supporting terrorists. They're not making threats either.M: However, the mormons have been considered dangerous in the past...some may still hold that view...should they be "hunted down" as well?G:
I wouldn't try that here either. As you've said, litigation in recent years is changing what was once acceptable.M: I was actually agreeing with you that it is more restricted in Germany...a particularly bizarre and profoundly stupid example was during the recent election campaign for chancellor, an opposition party member accused the chancellor of staining his hair (he is in his mid 50's yet does not have a single grey hair). The party member said, if he stains his hair to give a false impression ofhis age he must be lying about policy as well....a really lousy newspaper (Bild) printed this exchange...the chancellors response? Sued and won in court against the Bild ever being allowed to say he stains his hair...G:
Actually they already tried, several times. But the Mormons are not making threats so it's a false analogy. If the church decided the government needed to go, I'd believe that government would be justified in dissolving the church. (Just like they did to the KKK, which was your earlier example)M: Fortunately, up until now, it was still possible to make such comments (i.e. all the para military organizations that are anti-govt) without being immediately hauled into jail or killed. As long as they don't actually do anything illegal..why should they be dissolved? And if you think it is a good idea to dissolve groups that are in opposition which ones should be "dissolved"?...I guess you have to hope you are not one of those chosen for dissolution.what evidence do you have that the government is looking out for US interestsChasing terrorists.M: pretty flimsy evidence...do you know they are chasing terrorists?
Why can't an agency like the CIA with the billions it recieves every year in funding find bin laden? What does starting a war with Iraq gain when they have been exceptionally unsuccessful at damaging Al Qaeda? Since Sept 11 have they made any of us any safer? In the Homeland security bill just past they tacked on a bunch of provisions to benefit big industry that had nothing to do with homeland security...does not seem like they are doing much for US interest but more for self interest.even Republican interests for that matter?[/QUOTE]No Bush critic would ever deny he was after Republican interests. Even Moose believes it. The only way to not believe he is advancing Republican interests would be if you believe he is walking around with an alien microchip in his colon, serving their purposes.M: Does he really look out for Republican interests? You did not provide evidence for this...he supports those who serve HIS agenda...but there are plenty of Reps bitching already that he is not doing what they want...why does he have to spend so much time keeping them in line with Tom Delay and Trent Lott if they are all a harmonious group?Or that he turned benevolent and wants to save the world. [/QUOTE]M: LOL!

quote:

---

I am scheduled to be doing a radio program (on WOJB-FM) this coming Friday, Nov. 22nd. It will start at 9:00 pm, U.S. central time. I may well be going until c. 4:00 am. I have not personally tested it, but the station webcast link is available at WOJB - Home

---

Updated playlist (new URL) of the program is available at http://www.lakenet.com/~mnmoose/cfo4-1.htm .The show starts at 10:00 pm (U.S. eastern zone & time).This is even on topic! Look at the playlist for (1)Laurie Anderson tune, (1)Ani Difranco tune, and (3)Eugene Chadbourne tunes.Mooseps. Oops, sorry, computer slipped into "Admin" mode on me.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-22-2002]

quote:

---

That's too bad considering it was a source dating from the Soviet invasion and from a Congressional source. I don't think it gets any better than that

---

You really think that things spouted off in Senate debates is the MOST reliable source of evidence? It's not even evidence, it's an assertion!

quote:

---

Zhimbo, I wonder what you are trying to do here. Are you a revisionist historian, wanting to post a nice and friendly outlook on the Soviets and pretend they committed no atrocities,

---

Since I specifically said I believed the Soviets committed atrocities, I'm not sure why you think this.

quote:

---

or are you just being obtuse and attempting to waste my time by hunting sources when you know that the claims I am making are credible without them?

---

No. I think the claim is extreme, think bomb-toys meant for children are, a priori, more likely to be a propaganda claim than a real strategy of war, and seriously went to the source you listed and, knowing the kind of crap Senators say - you know, they spout off urban legends and 2nd hand news reports just like in most debate in America - found your source unconvincing. I myself then tried to find what the actual evidence was for the claim, and found primarily 2nd and third hand claims, not evidence.Why do I post on this?: 1) I *don't* think it's a minor point - it's part of your justification for U.S. foriegn policy at the time, and 2) because I thought you were pretty darn snotty and superior sounding on this point and snottiness invites close scrutiny.

gene90:"Do you think policing human rights is going to make people like us?"I think her point is more along the lines of: We would be hated less and liked more world-wide if we didn't actively supress and destroy human rights. I don't think she's talking about "policing human rights" at all. There's a difference between running in to countries to cure their human rights abuses (which would be the policing you refer to), and refraining from actively supporting oppressive human rights violaters, which is more along the lines of what Schraf is talking about.

The US would be hated by people no matter what our politcal agenda's where. While our involvment in the world is a big part the other major part is the fact that it is also a case of the "have-nots" hating the "haves" The US has a unique geographical situation that has allowed us to generate the most needed substance on the planet to such a degree that people have been freed up to pursue other financially benificial activities. Food, we make enough food to feed the world, in fact we produce so much that Farmers are often paid NOT to farm. Compare that to the middle east. Sand is not very conductive to farming, unless you are Isreal and transform your nation into a livable, farmable area(compared to Palistine were dirt is the major export). The fact that we are such a productive country, that allows its citizens to become wealthy through hard work make us an easy target for hatred.Dirt-Eating Terroroist: Look at the evil US, they have so much and we have so little.. They are the reason we are so poor and have so little to eat.Granted our foreign policy does nothing to help the situation. However regardless of whatever you wish to think, until there are alternative fuel sources WE ALL have interests in the Mid East, and those who control the oil. I for one would not be happy about paying $10 a gallon for gasoline, or paying $1000 a month to heat my house. But I guess its easier to look back with 20/20 hindsite and say its our own fault than it is to accept the fact that there are ugly truths. Does it give us the right? Well since we provide the majority of funding to the UN, provide more money to AIDS research than all other countries combined and basically get bad mouthed by everyone yes I do think we have the right to do what we need to do to protect our intrests and promote the contiuned success of nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
The US would be hated by people no matter what our politcal agenda's where. While our involvment in the world is a big part the other major part is the fact that it is also a case of the "have-nots" hating the "haves" The US has a unique geographical situation that has allowed us to generate the most needed substance on the planet to such a degree that people have been freed up to pursue other financially benificial activities. Food, we make enough food to feed the world, in fact we produce so much that Farmers are often paid NOT to farm. Compare that to the middle east. Sand is not very conductive to farming, unless you are Isreal and transform your nation into a livable, farmable area(compared to Palistine were dirt is the major export). The fact that we are such a productive country, that allows its citizens to become wealthy through hard work make us an easy target for hatred.

​

Dirt-Eating Terroroist: Look at the evil US, they have so much and we have so little.. They are the reason we are so poor and have so little to eat.

---

I don't think I agree that we would be hated no matter what just because we are successful.I think we are hated not because of our success, but because we blatantly disregard people in certain less-successful lands of the world so we can (we think at the time) continue to succeed.Our government, like Gene, seems to feel that the human rights of Americans are the only ones that count. Back when the only way to get across the ocean was by ship, and we didn't have automatic weapons or those capable of mass-destruction, we could afford the arrogant luxury of feeling like we were more important, more valuable, or simply better than other people simply because we were American.The world is now a much smaller place, so to speak, and this continued attitude is not going to work. People can take revenge on us at pretty much any time now.

quote:

---

Granted our foreign policy does nothing to help the situation. However regardless of whatever you wish to think, until there are alternative fuel sources WE ALL have interests in the Mid East, and those who control the oil.

---

There are alternative fuel sources which briefly got some attention in the mid-seventies after the oil shortage, and if we lowered each passenger car's gas mileage to 35 MPG, we wouldn't need any Saudi oil.

quote:

---

I for one would not be happy about paying $10 a gallon for gasoline, or paying $1000 a month to heat my house.

---

If alternative energy esearch was funded at a fraction of the corporate handouts the oil companies get, you wouldn't have to.

quote:

---

But I guess its easier to look back with 20/20 hindsite and say its our own fault than it is to accept the fact that there are ugly truths. Does it give us the right? Well since we provide the majority of funding to the UN, provide more money to AIDS research than all other countries combined and basically get bad mouthed by everyone yes I do think we have the right to do what we need to do to protect our intrests and promote the contiuned success of nation.

---

I'm not saying that we shouldn't protect our interests. I am saying that the government's interests are often not long-term and have often served to make things worse in the future.I am also saying that there is NEVER a justification for our overturning a government which was elected by the people of another country simply because we want someone who will do what we want them to do in power in that country. There is RARELY justification for our support of dictators at the expense of the human rights of the people of those countries.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-26-2002]

[QUOTE][B]I think her point is more along the lines of: We would be hated less and liked more world-wide if we didn't actively supress and destroy human rights.[/QUOTE][/B]I would like to see the US defend human rights more and dictatorships less. BUT her point that it would make people like us more is senseless. The reason we are hated around the world has little or nothing to do with human rights. We are hated because we are strong, and because we occasionally use our military to defend our interests. The operation in Afghanistan is an excellent example. The Taliban were diehard Muslims. We were the Infidels, and we drove the Muslim extremists out.The average guy on the street in Pakistan doesn't care about how much better human rights are in Afghanistan, what matters is that the Infidel came in and attacked a Muslim theocracy, overthrew it, and planted liberal, Western-backed government in to replace it. *That* is what is breeding contempt.If we attack Saddam, 95% of the Middle East is not going to care how he gassed the Kurds. They're going to pretend that he's a nice guy because he is a Muslim under attack from the Western Devil. That's all they see. Plus you have the people throughout the Middle East who live for one reason alone, and that is to destroy Israel, and the supporters of Israel (the United States).Nevermind that the last few times Israel went to war with the Arabs they won, took a lot of ground, and the US made Israel give back the land they conquered to the nations who attacked them. Nevermind that the US seems to be holding Israel's attack dogs on a leash all the time, the US is always portrayed as being the root cause of the "Israeli problem". In actuality we just don't want the Arabs to finish what Hitler started. So burn us is in effigy and fly planes into our buildings for preventing genocide.This "terrorism" thing is just the price we pay for being a world power, and policing the planet...even in times and places where we probably shouldn't (Vietnam, Somalia, etc).Back to the point though, before I got sidetracked: any interference in any foreign nation, junta, dictatorship, what have you, will generate hatred, whether our interference was justified or not. The only way for people to like us more would be to turn our subs and planes and missiles and carriers into scrap, and try to enjoy our own nation while unchecked tinpot dictatorships light wars all over the planet and we are ultimately subjugated by the next superpower when the power vacuum caused by our retreat is finally filled.