State sponsored terrorism

Is the U.S. a perpetrator of "state sponsored terrorism"?As a short answer, I say YES.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Is the U.S. a perpetrator of "state sponsored terrorism"?

---

Well considering that the CIA provided Bin Ladin with training I would say yes....

In the wake of the recent U.S. elections, I bump this topic.I find these to be a most depressing of times. The Republican successes has further firmed up the U.S. government as being "of, by, and for the military/industrial complex".Unfortunately, the political left (and center?) has fragmented into multiple movements/parties. In Minnesota, the Republicans took both the Senate seat and the governership. In both cases, it seems to have come down to being the Republicans versus the rest - the rest being fragmented between the Democratic, Green, and Independent parties.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.George W. (Dubya / Shrub / 5-4) Bush is a puppet of big business, and in particular, the oil industry.The White House is a prime "axis of evil" in this world.Moose

There is also the fact that most, if not all of the weapons these dictators have were supplied by US, Britain, France, and others on the UN security council. Where did Iraq's weapons of destruction come from? Who sold them to Suddam Hussein? Even after the gassing of ~4000 Kurds and other ethnic groups in Iraq before the Gulf War (in which Hussein asked Washington whether they could attack Kuwait, and they gave the green light, and when Washington decided to attack, he decided to retreat, but America decided to still attack, killing 250 000 Iraqs, and according to UNICEF killed 500 000 children from malnutrition from the side-effects), Britain gave $375 million in trade credits to Hussein (yes, they did know about the gassing too; the gassing was performed for the British ambassador).
America, Britain, etc sold weapons to both Pakistan and India, Israel and Jordan... they have a history of selling weapons to both sides of a conflict. Even to countries where the government has supposedly banned sales of weapons they still sell weapons via companies, for example, hawk trainers to Indonesia, which can be converted into planes carrying about 3tons of explosive. Then there's Cambodia. Under Nixon and Kissenger, they bombed Cambodia with the equivalent of 7 Hiroshimas (if I recall correctly).America's war on terror? If that was true, they should be at war with their government.

Well Moose, I suppose you'll have a chance for a "regime change" in two years. Something the Iraqis will never have without US intervention. [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]Hey umm, Moose, you feeling ok? I would NOT say something like that. First of all it looks to me like you are a terrorist sympathizer (in fact I'm disgusted by it). Secondly it reads like a threat.
You do realize that if were heard saying something like that in a public place (like, oh, say, an airport terminal) people in uniform would wisk you away where you would be questioned by g-men.This is no less a public a place. [QUOTE][B]The White House is a prime "axis of evil" in this world.[/QUOTE][/B]I can almost see that followed by a remark about "the Western Devil".[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-16-2002]

[QUOTE][B]in which Hussein asked Washington whether they could attack Kuwait[/QUOTE][/B]Evidence? Cite? [QUOTE][B]and they gave the green light[/QUOTE][/B]Evidence? Cite? [QUOTE][B]he decided to retreat[/QUOTE][/B]Only after an overwhelming display of firepower. [QUOTE][B]killing 250 000 Iraqs[/QUOTE][/B]That is, enemy combatants. [QUOTE][B]and according to UNICEF killed 500 000 children from malnutrition from the side-effects[/QUOTE][/B]That's Saddam's regime. The UN has allowed oil-for-food but do you think it actually reaches the civilian population? No, it buys weapons of mass destruction. Ooops, I guess since we are unwittingly paying for Saddam's bombs we are guilty of "state-sponsored terrorism".Please.

quote:

---

That is, enemy combatants.

---

'In excess of 200 000 civilian deaths' --The Times and Nouvelle Observateur, March 3, 1991.And General Schwarzkopf's estimate to Congress of soldiers killed is 100 000 Iraqi soldiers. He gave no estimate to civilian deaths. --Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1991.
Even most of those 100 000 soldiers killed weren't Suddam Hussein's supporters-"those who fought and died for Iraq here turned out to be from the north of the country, from minority communities, persecuted by Suddam Hussein."-the Kurds and the Turks-Kate Adie, BBC.

quote:

---

That's Saddam's regime. The UN has allowed oil-for-food but do you think it actually reaches the civilian population? No, it buys weapons of mass destruction. Ooops, I guess since we are unwittingly paying for Saddam's bombs we are guilty of "state-sponsored terrorism".

---

Ramsey Clark--"...[The US] blames Saddam Hussein and Iraq for the effects [on the Iraq people], most recently arguing that if Suddam stopped spending billions on his military machine and palaces for the elite, he could afford to feed his people. But only a fool would offer or believe such propaganda. If Iraq is spending billions on the military, then the sanctions are obviously not working. Malnutrition didnt exist in Iraq before the sanctions. ... Meanwhile, an entire nation is suffering. Hundreds are dying daily and milliions are threatened in Iraq, because of US-compelled impoverishment."--Clark, The Fire this TimeAs for the others, I'll look for the quotes and evidence. I read it somewhere.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 11-17-2002]

Between 1981 and 1985, an American terrorist army, the COntra, trained, armed and funded by the CIA, murdered 3346 Nicaraguan children and teenagers and killed one or both parents of 6236 children.--Diana Melrose, Nicaragua: The Threat of a Good ExampleWhen the American Warlords had completed their adventure in Somalia and taken the media home with them, the story died, as they say. The Marines had left 7000-10000 dead. This was not news.andBetween 1969 and 1973, American bombers killed three-quarters of a million Cambodian peasants in an attempt to destroy North Vietnamese supply bases, many of which did not exist. During one six-month period in 1973, B-52 aircraft dropped more bombs on Cambodians, living mostly in straw huts, than were dropped on Japan during all the Second World War: the equivalent of five Hiroshimas.--John Pilger, Hidden Agendas"Terrorists... become any foreign people you don't like. Moreover, terrorism is redefined to serve as an all-purpose metaphor for the Third World, demanding concerted action from the West"--Historian Frank Furedi.

[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]

quote:

---

Hey umm, Moose, you feeling ok? I would NOT say something like that. First of all it looks to me like you are a terrorist sympathizer (in fact I'm disgusted by it). Secondly it reads like a threat.
You do realize that if were heard saying something like that in a public place (like, oh, say, an airport terminal) people in uniform would wisk you away where you would be questioned by g-men.

​

This is no less a public a place.

---

This attitude of caution about what one can say in public is, to me, all the more reason to get the fear- and war-mongers out of office. [QUOTE][B]The White House is a prime "axis of evil" in this world.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

I can almost see that followed by a remark about "the Western Devil".

---

Regardless of what you see, the US has had a long standing, horrible habit of aiding terrorists and fascists when it suits our short term interests, (which are not generally about human rights but about security or oil) and then having it come back and bite us on the ass, yet we never seem to learn.We used to like and fund Hussein when we were against Iran. We didn't have much negative to say to him about his government back then.We used to like and aid Ossama Bin Laden back when we were fighting the Russians.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2002][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2002][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
'In excess of 200 000 civilian deaths' --The Times and Nouvelle Observateur, March 3, 1991.

---

Hmm, could you give us a complete sentence on this statement? This sounds alarmingly like quote mining.

quote:

---

And General Schwarzkopf's estimate to Congress of soldiers killed is 100 000 Iraqi soldiers. He gave no estimate to civilian deaths. --Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1991.

---

And?

quote:

---

Even most of those 100 000 soldiers killed weren't Suddam Hussein's supporters-"those who fought and died for Iraq here turned out to be from the north of the country, from minority communities, persecuted by Suddam Hussein."-the Kurds and the Turks-Kate Adie, BBC.

---

Well next time, I suppose we could recruit different people for Saddam's army.

quote:

---

Ramsey Clark--"...[The US] blames Saddam Hussein and Iraq for the effects [on the Iraq people], most recently arguing that if Suddam stopped spending billions on his military machine and palaces for the elite, he could afford to feed his people. But only a fool would offer or believe such propaganda.

---

I have not heard this figure of 'billions' before. What is its source? I notice that Clark does not say billions of dollars so we do not even know what currency he is referring to. Does Clark deny that the 'elite' live lives of luxury and that Saddam has not squandered money on arms? This is just another political paper with political motives. Please find a more objective report.

quote:

---

If Iraq is spending billions on the military, then the sanctions are obviously not working.

---

And this is a surprise?

quote:

---

Malnutrition didnt exist in Iraq before the sanctions. ... Meanwhile, an entire nation is suffering. Hundreds are dying daily and milliions are threatened in Iraq, because of US-compelled impoverishment."--Clark, The Fire this Time

---

Agreed. Sanctions don't work.In many ways, I agree with you. For instance, sanctions only place the burden on the people and not their leaders and are a pretty disgusting alternative. But the type of evidence you present here doesn't really sway me very much.[This message has been edited by edge, 11-17-2002]

God forbid we ever come to the point where criticism of the U.S. government gets one labelled as a terrorist sympathizer. Talk about the terrorists winning - creating a nation ruled by fear.Oh, crap, look! We're already there!" First of all it looks to me like you are a terrorist sympathizer (in fact I'm disgusted by it)."Certainly I hope you have no illusions that the U.S. is on some mercy mission. Oh, wait, apparently you do!"Well Moose, I suppose you'll have a chance for a "regime change" in two years. Something the Iraqis will never have without US intervention."Yeah, so after Iraq, I guess we'll be going to all those other countries with dictators and setting up utopian democratic societies. Hell, before Sept 11th, we were giving the Taliban foreign aid!

quote:

---

quote:The White House is a prime "axis of evil" in this world.
I can almost see that followed by a remark about "the Western Devil".

---

What is truly ironic about this exchange is that I think you're right that "Axis of Evil" is dangerously inflammatory rhetoric. But, oh, wait, that's originally the president of the U.S.'s rhetoric! It was dangerously inflammatory to start with, and George W. put it in official U.S. foriegn policy statements, while moose merely throws it back in George's face in a "Coffee Talk" section of a evolution/creation internet forum.Whether or not you want to call U.S. foriegn policy "evil", there's no denying it's long been driven by short-term "interests", not by any concern for the citizens of foriegn nations.Let's see a list of people the U.S. has supported or put in power, off the top of my head:
Miltary dictator Noriega
Military dictator Pinochet against the democratically elected government of Chile
Iraq vs. Iran
Iran vs. Iraq
The ultra-oppressive Taliban against the drug-dealing Northern Alliance
The drug-dealing Northern Alliance against the Taliban
Al Qaeda against the Russians
The drug-dealing Contras against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua
The brutal right-wing regime of El SalvadorAnd hell, those are just the glaringly obvious, well documented examples that I can come up with quickly off the top of my head.U.S. foreign policy has no moral compass, or at most a weak, broken, occasionally working one. For decades it has been driven by short term interests and fear.We also don't take responsibility for another ugly truth that no one denies: We're the world's #1 supplier of weapons to terrorist organizations. Heard an interesting NPR report on this a couple of days ago. Here's some of the same information:Attention Required! | CloudflarePredictably, Ashcroft kowtows before the gun lobby:
"The report's release follows the recent acknowledgment by Attorney General John Ashcroft that he has refused a request by the FBI to use Brady Law criminal background check records to determine if any of 1,200 foreign nationals detained after the September 11 terrorist attacks had bought guns."So, do we sponsor terrorism?...

[QUOTE][B]Talk about the terrorists winning - creating a nation ruled by fear.[/QUOTE][/B]Fear? Or common sense?Moose says he'd like to see the Pentagon and the White House disappear. Well that's interesting, a little over a year ago there were two hijacked jetliners with both of those sites on their itinerary, piloted by some terrorists with exactly the same idea.Surely you realize that this is, at the very least, a very insensitive thing to say? [QUOTE][B]Certainly I hope you have no illusions that the U.S. is on some mercy mission. Oh, wait, apparently you do![/QUOTE][/B]No, I think we're going to nail some people that hate us (and frankly need nailing). [QUOTE][B]guess we'll be going to all those other countries with dictators and setting up utopian democratic societies. Hell, before Sept 11th, we were giving the Taliban foreign aid![/QUOTE][/B]I would have supported airstrikes against the Taliban pre-9/11. I think they deserved it when they began destroying ancient religious icons of significant cultural value. [QUOTE][B]Whether or not you want to call U.S. foriegn policy "evil", there's no denying it's long been driven by short-term "interests", not by any concern for the citizens of foriegn nations.[/QUOTE][/B]I'm not denying that. The US government exists for only one reason, that is to promote the interests of the people that live there. Overthrowing dangerous regimes is an extension of that. [QUOTE][B]Let's see a list of people the U.S. has supported or put in power, off the top of my head[/QUOTE][/B]Zhimbo, I have a suggestion for you:If you don't like this country, you are free to leave. I'm sure there are quite a few nations with ideologies comparable to your own that would appreciate any and all American defectors. [QUOTE][B]What is truly ironic about this exchange is that I think you're right that "Axis of Evil" is dangerously inflammatory rhetoric.[/QUOTE][/B]And here it is being used against one's own nation. Bush calls some oppressive dictatorships who have practiced ethnic cleansing and chemical warfare against their own civilian populations an "axis of evil". Moose called his own nation, whose soldiers are about to pay for yet again in human sacrifice, and wherein thousands have recently died simply for being citizens (along with hundreds of foreign nationals) of that nation, an "axis of evil". Do you not pay your Federal income taxes? If you do, that makes you a hypocrite. You're funding what you call the "axis of evil". Again, my suggestion: expatriate.Your behavior against your own county is both astounding and disturbing, especially when you are not being held here against your will.

[QUOTE][B]This attitude of caution about what one can say in public is, to me, all the more reason to get the fear- and war-mongers out of office.[/QUOTE][/B]Why? It seems like common sense to me. Theoretically, we have freedom of speech in the US -- but we don't have freedom to call in bomb threats or to shout you-know-what in crowded public spaces. We never have had the freedom to do those things. The current environment of caution is just an application of that basic principle of free speech.Moose may be free to make grossly insensitive and inflammatory remarks but my unsolicited advice is that he avoid saying anything that sounds remotely like a threat. [QUOTE][B]Regardless of what you see, the US has had a long standing, horrible habit of aiding terrorists and fascists when it suits our short term interests[/QUOTE][/B]Yes, I know. There are examples as near as South America, and possibly Cuba. For years it has been US policy to defend its interests by installing dictatorships outwardly friendly to American interests, especially during the Cold War. It made perfect sense at the time, but now it is easy for you to criticize the policy, since we know it didn't work. [QUOTE][B]We used to like and fund Hussein when we were against Iran.[/QUOTE][/B]Not like Iran is our friend either. [QUOTE][B]We used to like and aid Ossama Bin Laden back when we were fighting the Russians.[/QUOTE][/B]That was justified. The Soviets were invading Afghanistan, spreading Communism in the process. During the Afghanistan invasion the Soviets deployed bombs fashioned after children's toys and had a policy of bayoneting pregnant women -- that way they would kill the next generation of fighters before they posed a threat.

Again, figures most likely motivated politically.

[QUOTE][B]And General Schwarzkopf's estimate to Congress of soldiers killed is 100 000 Iraqi soldiers. He gave no estimate to civilian deaths.[/QUOTE][/B]How many civilians do you think there were out wandering in the open deserts where the fighting took place? The only probable source of civilian casualties would have been off-target precision bombing, and that was the (highly publicized) minority of operations conducted during the war. Simply not releasing a figure does not mean the figure is high. [QUOTE][B]Even most of those 100 000 soldiers killed weren't Suddam Hussein's supporters-"those who fought and died for Iraq here turned out to be from the north of the country[/QUOTE][/B]If you're armed, dressed like a soldier, and you're not waving a white flag, you're an enemy combatant and may be killed without question. [QUOTE][B]If Iraq is spending billions on the military, then the sanctions are obviously not working. Malnutrition didnt exist in Iraq before the sanctions. ...[/QUOTE][/B]I agree that sanctions don't work. They don't work because Saddam is using money that should be spent on food for his military regime. Therefore, the problem is with the regime. Destroy the regime and you alleviate the problem.