Define "Terrorist" and "Terror" Please

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur
?? terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.? ? brief statement on terrorism from a U.S. Army manual

So...the US and Israel are certainly considered terrorist states under that definition.


Terrorism is more accurately defined as the above but adding "in people who are our enemies."

More bashing from ppl who would never have the cojones or could never make it in the US Army.

More ignorance from the type of person who exemplifies the arrogance of US foreign policies.

So because I support US troops I am an ignorant?

No, it is because you substitute a personal attack for a superior argument.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur
?? terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.? ? brief statement on terrorism from a U.S. Army manual

So...the US and Israel are certainly considered terrorist states under that definition.


Terrorism is more accurately defined as the above but adding "in people who are our enemies."

More bashing from ppl who would never have the cojones or could never make it in the US Army.

More ignorance from the type of person who exemplifies the arrogance of US foreign policies.

So because I support US troops I am an ignorant?

No, it is because you substitute a personal attack for a superior argument.

Personal attack hehehe its an internet forum I have no reason to make any personal attacks.If you took it as a personal attack than you are wrong because when I attack a person I will do more than a wise ass response.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur
?? terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.? ? brief statement on terrorism from a U.S. Army manual

So...the US and Israel are certainly considered terrorist states under that definition.


Terrorism is more accurately defined as the above but adding "in people who are our enemies."

More bashing from ppl who would never have the cojones or could never make it in the US Army.

More ignorance from the type of person who exemplifies the arrogance of US foreign policies.

So because I support US troops I am an ignorant? I rather not bash our troops I got 3 brother out there willing to serve for ppl like you.

They are not serving in Iraq for me. Unlike you, I can separate my support of the troops from the ill-advised plans and policies of this administration.

Your family members are brave in their efforts to serve in the US military. However, their willingness to serve is being abused by the Bush administration.

I'm not talking about the Bush administration and their plans you may hate it but our military is doing what any good soldier would do and follow orders.If your going to say anyone is a terrorist apply it to the administration if you want but not our soldiers they'd do whatever told of by any US president.

Hmm...care to point out where I called our soldiers terrorists?

I refer you to the bolded part above.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur
?? terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.? ? brief statement on terrorism from a U.S. Army manual

So...the US and Israel are certainly considered terrorist states under that definition.


Terrorism is more accurately defined as the above but adding "in people who are our enemies."

More bashing from ppl who would never have the cojones or could never make it in the US Army.

More ignorance from the type of person who exemplifies the arrogance of US foreign policies.

So because I support US troops I am an ignorant?

No, it is because you substitute a personal attack for a superior argument.

Personal attack hehehe its an internet forum I have no reason to make any personal attacks.If you took it as a personal attack than you are wrong because when I attack a person I will do more than a wise ass response.

You impugned my character.

That's not a personal attack?

:roll:

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur
?? terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.? ? brief statement on terrorism from a U.S. Army manual

So...the US and Israel are certainly considered terrorist states under that definition.


Terrorism is more accurately defined as the above but adding "in people who are our enemies."

More bashing from ppl who would never have the cojones or could never make it in the US Army.

More ignorance from the type of person who exemplifies the arrogance of US foreign policies.

So because I support US troops I am an ignorant?

No, it is because you substitute a personal attack for a superior argument.

Personal attack hehehe its an internet forum I have no reason to make any personal attacks.If you took it as a personal attack than you are wrong because when I attack a person I will do more than a wise ass response.

You impugned my character.

That's not a personal attack?

:roll:

You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Me:
terrorist - one who uses extreme violence to further a political cause

Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
synonym see FEAR
- ter·ror·less /-l&s/ adjective

Yet that seems incomplete. We used "Shock and Awe" which was calculated to cause fear. It was limited, but so are terrorist attacks. A bomb here and there.

Besides "We are right and they are wrong", what is the objective qualifying difference?

One could say terrorists attack civilians. If they attack just our soldiers, are they no longer practicing terrorism?

This is a good point. Anything done between military foes I'm not sure I could ever consider terrorism - that's war.

What about when soldiers attack civilians? Isn't that a form of terrorism too?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Just like the topic says, how do you define terrorist and terror?

Going by what many in P&N think:

Suicide bombers = terrorists
M16 weilding killers != terrorists

Muslims = terrorists
US Army != terrorists

Destruction of WTC = terrorism
Flattening of Fallujah/Jenin, heck all of Iraq !=terrorism

Murdering 3000 US Soldiers = terrorism
Murdering 15000+ Iraqi civilians != terrorism

people who put on uniforms, come in plain sight, dont hide behind women and children, declare thier intentions, dont kidnap or assasinate = soldiers

people who hide like cowards, kidnap civilians, execute unarmed people, blow themselves up, hijack planes, and deliberately attack civilians with the intention of creating fear = terrorists.

get it straight.

I have it very straight First you impose sanctions for over 10 years on a nation. Then you make up a complete bulls|t story about wanting to invade it. Then you rain bombs from the skies. You level cities. THATS terrorism.

The other side's intention is clear. Get the F*** out of my country. Get it straight.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Face it when you say the US is a terrorist state that means they sponser terrorism.So Iraq would be a place where US sponsers terrorism and that makes US soldiers terrorist.You can't lump one without the other.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Have you not been paying attention?

Bay of Pigs
Operation Mongoose
Central American death squads
CIA-trained operatives attacking Muslimes in Beirut
US condoning Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran
US condoning terrorist attacks by Israel for decades
US Invasion of Iraq

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Have you not been paying attention?

Bay of Pigs
Operation Mongoose
Central American death squads
CIA-trained operatives attacking Muslimes in Beirut
US condoning Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran
US condoning terrorist attacks by Israel for decades
US Invasion of Iraq

Bay of Pigs ugh if only it worked thats why I am in the US don't get me wrong I love this country but Castro did his terrorism too in Angola and Cuba.Again you listed US invasion of Iraq as terrorism so hence you call my brothers who fought there terrorist.Stop trying to lump one thing and not the other you can't.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Yet that seems incomplete. We used "Shock and Awe" which was calculated to cause fear. It was limited, but so are terrorist attacks. A bomb here and there.

Besides "We are right and they are wrong", what is the objective qualifying difference?

One could say terrorists attack civilians. If they attack just our soldiers, are they no longer practicing terrorism?

Yes, I meant to qualify my definition as an attack on civilians. I would consider an attack on a military target an act of war rather than an act of terrorism. The problem we have with this is in cases like the USS Cole, where those making the act of war are those we can define only as 'terrorists' due to their attacks on civilians. Basically, they are defined by their attacks on civilians but do not limit the scope to civilians. Let's just call it even and call them 'crazy bastards.'

Could this be considered milita then?

 

[conjur]

No, you must separate the policies from those who must do the politicians' bidding. Iraq is being waged to further the PNAC neocons' agenda, nothing more. Your siblings have been unwittingly caught up in it.

But, some in the military are catching on and are becoming critical of the war on Iraq and some have gone so far as to refuse deployment to Iraq or even leave the country to Canada.

Vietnam could be termed a terrorist action, too. Well, at least aspects of it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Face it when you say the US is a terrorist state that means they sponser terrorism.So Iraq would be a place where US sponsers terrorism and that makes US soldiers terrorist.You can't lump one without the other.

Perhaps because we are the world leaders in the sponsoring of terror. We have (or had) the largest terrorist training school in the world for a long time and our trainees killed far more people than al qaeda could ever dream.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Have you not been paying attention?

Bay of Pigs
Operation Mongoose
Central American death squads
CIA-trained operatives attacking Muslimes in Beirut
US condoning Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran
US condoning terrorist attacks by Israel for decades
US Invasion of Iraq

Bay of Pigs ugh if only it worked thats why I am in the US don't get me wrong I love this country but Castro did his terrorism too in Angola and Cuba.Again you listed US invasion of Iraq as terrorism so hence you call my brothers who fought there terrorist.Stop trying to lump one thing and not the other you can't.

Cuba defended angola against a South African invasion. How is that terrorism?

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, you must separate the policies from those who must do the politicians' bidding. Iraq is being waged to further the PNAC neocons' agenda, nothing more. Your siblings have been unwittingly caught up in it.

But, some in the military are catching on and are becoming critical of the war on Iraq and some have gone so far as to refuse deployment to Iraq or even leave the country to Canada.

Vietnam could be termed a terrorist action, too. Well, at least aspects of it.

Thats the thing though there is no clear cut way of implying a terrorist act without saying those who did it aren't terrorist.Sure Bush sent them to do it but Bush didn't fight the soldiers did so they aided terrorism if the US invasion of Iraq is a terrorist act.Yea Vietnam was bad hell the soldiers would get spit on by ppl accusing them of being evil/terrorist.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Have you not been paying attention?

Bay of Pigs
Operation Mongoose
Central American death squads
CIA-trained operatives attacking Muslimes in Beirut
US condoning Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran
US condoning terrorist attacks by Israel for decades
US Invasion of Iraq

Bay of Pigs ugh if only it worked thats why I am in the US don't get me wrong I love this country but Castro did his terrorism too in Angola and Cuba.Again you listed US invasion of Iraq as terrorism so hence you call my brothers who fought there terrorist.Stop trying to lump one thing and not the other you can't.

Cuba defended angola against a South African invasion. How is that terrorism?

Amazing how the US never got involved when over a million were being killed in South Africa. I guess the lack of oil had something to do with it. Perhaps even a racist stance since it wasn't whites being killed.

 

[rickn]

Americans don't find our soldiers fighting for a cause anymore a terrorist than the palestinians find their jihadist a "terrorist" for fighting for a cause. It just all boils down to which side you're on

 

[miketheidiot]

Terrorism is the intentional use of violence against civilians in order to achieve any end.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Have you not been paying attention?

Bay of Pigs
Operation Mongoose
Central American death squads
CIA-trained operatives attacking Muslimes in Beirut
US condoning Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran
US condoning terrorist attacks by Israel for decades
US Invasion of Iraq

Bay of Pigs ugh if only it worked thats why I am in the US don't get me wrong I love this country but Castro did his terrorism too in Angola and Cuba.Again you listed US invasion of Iraq as terrorism so hence you call my brothers who fought there terrorist.Stop trying to lump one thing and not the other you can't.

Cuba defended angola against a South African invasion. How is that terrorism?

You do know Castro did it with the intentions to get their diamond mines and install Communism in Angola.Hell the rape stories and killings of innocents Africans was all over the place,also in Cuba the Angola war is a failure.Before I left Cuba there was a movie made showing the horrors of Angola of course the ppl who made it were then killed.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Have you not been paying attention?

Bay of Pigs
Operation Mongoose
Central American death squads
CIA-trained operatives attacking Muslimes in Beirut
US condoning Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran
US condoning terrorist attacks by Israel for decades
US Invasion of Iraq

Bay of Pigs ugh if only it worked thats why I am in the US don't get me wrong I love this country but Castro did his terrorism too in Angola and Cuba.Again you listed US invasion of Iraq as terrorism so hence you call my brothers who fought there terrorist.Stop trying to lump one thing and not the other you can't.

Cuba defended angola against a South African invasion. How is that terrorism?

You do know Castro did it with the intentions to get their diamond mines and install Communism in Angola.Hell the rape stories and killings of innocents Africans was all over the place,also in Cuba the Angola war is a failure.Before I left Cuba there was a movie made showing the horrors of Angola of course the ppl who made it were then killed.

i'll address this garbage when i return.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Beowulf
You impugned my brothers you called em terrorist.

Thats not a personal attack?

Relax ppl

Again, where did I call your brothers terrorists?

I not once claimed a US soldier was a terrorist.

Perhaps you need a reading comprehension 101 course.


Calling the US a terrorist state by its own definition of terrorism is not calling your siblings a terrorist.

So why would the US be a terrorist state?Is it because they have soldiers in Iraq?

Have you not been paying attention?

Bay of Pigs
Operation Mongoose
Central American death squads
CIA-trained operatives attacking Muslimes in Beirut
US condoning Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran
US condoning terrorist attacks by Israel for decades
US Invasion of Iraq

Bay of Pigs ugh if only it worked thats why I am in the US don't get me wrong I love this country but Castro did his terrorism too in Angola and Cuba.Again you listed US invasion of Iraq as terrorism so hence you call my brothers who fought there terrorist.Stop trying to lump one thing and not the other you can't.

Cuba defended angola against a South African invasion. How is that terrorism?

You do know Castro did it with the intentions to get their diamond mines and install Communism in Angola.Hell the rape stories and killings of innocents Africans was all over the place,also in Cuba the Angola war is a failure.Before I left Cuba there was a movie made showing the horrors of Angola of course the ppl who made it were then killed.

i'll address this garbage when i return.

Please do oh and tell me how Castro isn't a terrorist.

The Soviets and Cubans shared the targets for reaching their

respective objectives to varying degrees. The main targets were the U.S.,

South Africa, Zaire, and the FNLA and UNITA. These factions were

targeted in an attempt to halt direct opposition to the MPLA. In each case,

the use of Cuban troops, either as Soviet proxy forces or acting solely

in Cuban interests, had direct applications on perceptions of the

utility of the intervention.

One of the reasons that the Cuban troops were often seen as acting

entirely for Soviet objectives is stated by Fontaine:

The creation of dependent Marxist regimes in Africa, at small
expense and little risk, is patently to the advantage of the
Soviet Union, particularly if Moscow's strategic position is
thereby enhanced. In this endeavor, Cuban troops serve as
convenient instruments. Since Cuba is not formally a member of
the Warsaw Pact by a self-avowed participant in the "non-aligned
movement," Cubans are more "acceptable" to superpower military
presence on their continent.1

Vanneman and James list two probable objectives for the Soviets in

their intercention in Angola:

One Soviet objective in Southern Africa, in general, is access to
its enormous reserves of raw materials. As one Soviet spokesman
put it: "Africa holds a leading position in the world both in
reserves and output of many kinds of raw material. The deposits
of some of the minerals in Africa are unique, most of which are
concentrated in Southern Africa.2

The second goal that Vanneman and James put forth is that of

denying the access of other powers to these resources:

Soviet planners are acutely aware of the strategic value of retarding
the access of the United States and China to raw materials in the
Third World. The Soviet Press and Radio Moscow continually harp on
the strategic value of Southern Africa's raw materials, suggesting
that China seeks to exploit them just as other so-called "imperialists"
are doing now.3

The fact that Africa seems to be the last major source, outside the

borders of the Soviet Union and China, of many important industrial

raw materials has been important in the formulation of Soviet goals for

Angola and all of Africa. From a worldwide position, this focus on the

ability to garner raw materials is discussed by Van Rensburg. Although his

work is concerned solely with South Africa, it is instructive to review

his comments. He states:

It is also becoming clear that competition for supplies of raw
materials will play an increasingly important role in the economic
development of nations and in the balance of power. This
realization has contributed materially to shifting the emphasis in
the conflict between East and West. The Soviet Union has come to
appreciate that the supply of industrial raw materials represents
a major vulnerability of the industrialized nations of the West.
They have intensified their efforts to gain points of leverage
with respect to the lifelines of supplies to the West, initially
by diplomatic and economic means, but lately, in a more direct
and aggressive fashion.4

Thus, the evidence is clear for the involvement of the strategic

goals of the Soviets for the region and the Angolan intervention. In

summation of this point Bissel states:

While the revolutionary tradition of the Soviet Union in Africa
has much to build upon, there exists a new song in the wind that
sounds distinctly different from the Internationale. Some Soviet
policymakers call not for the revolution and disruption, but
rather for influence and regularization. There are influential
leaders that argue for working with the power centers that
exist, rather than destroying them with a Marxist faith in the
future of the dialectic. The Soviet empire builders are
leaving their tracks in Africa, and recent years have provided
abundant evidence of their existence.5

Cuban history is certainly not remarkable for its successes

in foreign military involvement. This leads scholars who wish to

support a Cuban orientation to the intervention in Angola into some

difficulty. Although exporting the revolution has always been

a tenet of Cuban policy, Angola gave the Cubans their first chance to

attempt to export Castro's brand of communism outside the western

hemisphere. As such, it represents the first chance in many years for

us to examine Cuba's foreign policy and the use of their military forces

to support it. Discussing methods by which the student can

delineate Soviet and Cuban objectives, Bender states:

Most Americans assume that the Cubans in Angola and elsewhere in
Africa are little more than proxies for the Soviet Union. Rarely
is any distinction made between Soviet and Cuban interests, goals,
and actions in Africa. As a result, the Cuban presence in any
part of the continent is generally perceived as a setback for
the United States in its global competition with the Soviet Union.
So much national attention has been focused on a perceived Soviet-
Cuban threat in Africa that many have forgotten some larger, more
important questions plaguing U.S.-Soviet relations. Even if it
could be established that the Cubans are nothing more than the
Soviet proxies, for example, the problem of how to act toward
Soviet-backed regimes or movements in the Third World would remain.8

Domininquez, writing on Cuban foreign policy states that Cuba has

always had a "big countries foreign policy", and says that the first

tenant of that policy is the maintenance of the revolutionary

government. He states:

The survival of revolutionary rule remains the foremost objective
of their foreign policy. And I think it would today be widely
accepted--as it was not, at least in American capitals in the
1960s--that it was the practical imperative of survival,
considerably more than ideological affinity, that made the
Soviet connection as strong as it was from the outset.9

Domininquez further states:

Instead, the Revolutionary government (of Cuba) sacrificed short-
run internal welfare to its principle aim: the survival and
consolidation of its own kind of political regime.10

Thus, at least one purely Cuban objective was probably the maintenance

of power of the Castro government in Cuba. This would seem to be a very

self-evident claim. In order to maintain his position internationally,

Castro had to ensure his domestic power was unchallenged. He had to

maintain the image of the Western hemisphere's leading revolutionary

if he was to remain the leader of the third world nations' struggle for

independence from the superpowers. By showing that he was willing

to expend his most valuable resource, his people, in a struggle for an

emerging nation halfway across the world, he proved his support for

revolutionary solidarity at home and internationally. Castro has used

the presence of his troops in Angola as the strongest possible signal

to other countries of the Third World that he would support, militarily

and economically, those countries that were responsive to his ideas of

revolutionary solidarity.

Castro's international position as a leader in the Non-aligned

Movement was at first enhanced, and then tarnished, by the Angolan

intervention because of the awareness of Cuban reliance on Soviet

assistance. Without Soviet supplies, aircraft, ships, and support to

the Cuban economy, there would have been no or very few Cuban troops

in Angola. Even when the Soviet support is considered, however, one

cannot overlook Castro's desire to further advance his position in the

Third World through his Angolan ventures. As Halperin states:

Nonetheless, to assume that Castro was acting under Soviet orders,
or simply paying back part of his enormous debt to the Soviets,
fails to account for a significant factor in his motivation. The
Revival and expansion of Cuba's (and Castro's) world role,
unprecedented among small Third World states, was its own reward.11

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...ry/report/1984/STP.htm

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: conjur
No, you must separate the policies from those who must do the politicians' bidding. Iraq is being waged to further the PNAC neocons' agenda, nothing more. Your siblings have been unwittingly caught up in it.

But, some in the military are catching on and are becoming critical of the war on Iraq and some have gone so far as to refuse deployment to Iraq or even leave the country to Canada.

Vietnam could be termed a terrorist action, too. Well, at least aspects of it.

Thats the thing though there is no clear cut way of implying a terrorist act without saying those who did it aren't terrorist.Sure Bush sent them to do it but Bush didn't fight the soldiers did so they aided terrorism if the US invasion of Iraq is a terrorist act.Yea Vietnam was bad hell the soldiers would get spit on by ppl accusing them of being evil/terrorist.

But, in the case of our forces in Iraq, they didn't have a choice. The war was sold as ridding the world of WMDs with the revised justification of liberating Iraq from a ruthless dictator. The American public (and our MSM) bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Few are afraid to call it for what it is and also to point out the hypocrisy in our foreign policy.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Terrorism is the intentional use of violence against civilians in order to achieve any end.

Does that rule out the USS Cole attack?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Terrorism is the intentional use of violence against civilians in order to achieve any end.

Does that rule out the USS Cole attack?

USS Cole attack was NOT a terrorist action.