Osama bin Laden a terrorist

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
I just saw this movie/documentary called Bowling for Columbine.

According to the movie/documentary, Mr. Bin Laden and fellow Afganis were trained, equipped and armed them with $3 billion. I am quite sure other sources may be able to verify this.

So let me get this straight. How does $3 billion go to a/group (of) "terrorist/s"? And what makes a terrorist now and a friend before? Leave aside the US government's viewpoint. I would like to know the opinion of the American people.

Also I'm sure many of you will argue that the money went to them to fight against the Soviet Union. Would that not be called "Sponsoring Terrorism"? If not, then why would money going to the Palestian Al-Fatah or the insurgents in Iraq or the "militants" in Kashmir be called "Sponsoring Terrorism"? And if the answer to this question is cause my argument doesnt take into account the civilian deaths caused by the groups I mentioned, keep in mind that in a war, there is always "Collateral Damage" be it intentional or unintentional. In Iraq alone, there have been from 13000-55000 civilian deaths in the conflict alone. Ofcourse, the Vietnam war gives a whole other meaning to collateral damage which all of you should really be aware of.



 
  • Wow
Reactions: shortylickens

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Sultan,
I think I follow the jist of your statement... point.

Didn't you see the Rambo movie?
Each situation should be evaluated in the context and time of its own situation. Foreign policy does not seek to do more than effect the current policy decisions. The objective is what is supported. The people who battle to achieve it can easily go from friend to foe depending on their deviation from the Agenda.. (Objective).
Collateral damage is known or estimated before hand, that is why it is called collateral, an adjective. World War ll had a bit too! It is what occurs in the course of war when the desire for precision (absence of or reduced collateral damage) is denied by the conditions present. Someone determines these things and it must weight heavily on their heart to know they are vectoring a bomb laden plane toward a drop point that contains a target and innocent civilians who both are to become statistics when earlier they were simply farmer and soldier.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
LunarRay:

All your points may be valid.

But they dont quite answer my question.

Does the United States fund terrorists, Osama bin Laden being an example? If he is one now, I logically conclude that he was then. Without sounding offensive, and with sincerest condolences to the families of those who died on 9/11, I look at him more as barbaric Warrior/Fighter/Leader. Only that, the tables have turned onto those who initially supported him being a Mujahid/terrorist. So now the opinion is that he is a terrorist and was a "friend" then.

LunarRay, by "Agenda", do you mean support of terrorism (or was it freedom fighting then?) against another nation/state? If it was freedom fighting then, I dont quite understand the American perception of calling Chechens, Palestinians and Kashmiris terrorists.
 

Pers

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,603
1
0
the friends we have today will be the terrorists of tomorrow. Although they currently practice terrorism...we don't label it that, because we're helping them.

so much for the war on terrorism, eh?

anyway...for the most part, you don't want an american's opinion on this matter. They have become influenced by so many different outlets pushing separate agendas, while manipulating their emotions - they hardly realize what they're talking about anymore.

look at the british reaction towards our 'war on terrorism' for a better perspective. :)

people like cad and corn will justify conservative ideology no matter how cruel it seems to be.

 
  • Like
Reactions: shortylickens

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Sultan
LunarRay:

All your points may be valid.

But they dont quite answer my question.

Does the United States fund terrorists, Osama bin Laden being an example? If he is one now, I logically conclude that he was then. Without sounding offensive, and with sincerest condolences to the families of those who died on 9/11, I look at him more as barbaric Warrior/Fighter/Leader. Only that, the tables have turned onto those who initially supported him being a Mujahid/terrorist. So now the opinion is that he is a terrorist and was a "friend" then.

LunarRay, by "Agenda", do you mean support of terrorism (or was it freedom fighting then?) against another nation/state? If it was freedom fighting then, I dont quite understand the American perception of calling Chechens, Palestinians and Kashmiris terrorists.
I'm sorry. I thought I did answer your point. I said the US funds 'Objectives'. The folks who effect these objectives are, at the time they are effecting such objectives, acting in a manner inconsistent with 'our' notion of terrorism but may, by definition, be acting in a manner consistent with the noun definition of terrorism. These same folks may, from time to time, while acting under the sponsorship of another source of objectives be again acting in a manner both defined as terrorism and 'our' notion of the term.

Terrorism is a simple word who's primary definition, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons", speaks to not the manner but the intimidating and coercing of folks etc. I'd venture to say that use of a MOAB goes a long way to meeting that definition. This then would mean to me, at least, that every one in every military is a potential terrorist and their sponsors are potentially terrorist organizations.

 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
By reading your comments (and not cad and corn's), is the United States a prime target for future attacks on its soil? Especially since its fighting this so called "War on Terror"?

If the answer is yes, then why do some people blatantly support the acts of agression by US against Iraq (and of some sort against Afghanistan)? The US does have a loooooooong history (as evident by the link Zebo provided) of meddling in the affairs of many a nations. Do Americans really think they are getting safer by these methods?

If the answer is no, I really hope you are right. American interests have been targetted from way back. Examples include taking Americans hostage in Iran, bombings of Kenya's US embassy, attack on US military base in Saudi Arabia and ofcourse the culmination was 9/11.

Maybe instead of blaming these "terrorists" for hating Americas ideals and economic success, people like Cad and Corn should really look into the US sticking their authority where its not welcome.

Who knows, someday the Japanese from Okinawa will rise up, or those from the South Korea or Turkey or Germany, all countries with SIGNIFICANT American military presence. And the Japanese and South Koreans clearly make their hostility against American forces visible.
 

Pers

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,603
1
0
when it all comes down to it, look at the what's taught in our schools. America engages in a very common and acceptable practice. although it's animal like in nature - we are a bunch of animals.

Natural selection - the most dominant species remains - the rest die out.

Any policy the US engages in is for the good of itself. I guess that's acceptable. HOwever, when it's a premptive attack on a sovereign nation... which is motivated by a bunch of lies to fulfill ulterior agendas, american policy will be rightfully questioned. NOt by americans, but by the rest of the world. So i advise you to do your own research on the matter, use a bit of common sense, and come to a conclusion. American intellectuals exist and whatnot, but they don't frequent forums. Look at articles posted on www.counterpunch.org for instance.


in the end...a war on terrorism is quite intangible.. you don't even need to do any research to know that.. the term terrorism is also very subjective. People can interpret it in a number of ways. As of late, it has been used to cause americans to respond w/ overwhelming emotion. Anyone who knows anything about human behaivor knows that emotion sometimes gets teh best of us. I got in a fight w/ a very close friend (practically dating her) and i'm about to drown in emotion. just try not getting too pissed at the US while digesting reality.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Pers:

All fine, except:

Any policy the US engages in is for the good of itself. I guess that's acceptable
Dont you believe what goes around comes around? Short term good may be present. B look how it came around on 9/11 from a former "friend". America, or rather, its citizens should realize that being "selfish" and acting out in "self-interest" against others, trampling others would have VERY serious consequences in the not so far future.

As for the emotions, no argument there. Also imagine what 1.2 billion Muslims feel when they hear and see the US killing and maiming thousands of fellow Muslims on false pretexts and on top of that, turning a complete blind eye to Israel's blatant UN violations. I can factually say that the Muslims share a very common bond with other Muslims regardless of their nationality. Mr. Laden was a Saudi, he fought in Afghanistan. Numerous citizens of other countries aid the Palestinian cause (not just vocally but also with materials). Shall we then regard 9/11 as emotions of some completely psyched out Muslims? And the civilian killings in Israel? Honestly speaking, I would very much agree to this viewpoint.
 

Pers

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,603
1
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
Pers:

All fine, except:

Any policy the US engages in is for the good of itself. I guess that's acceptable
Dont you believe what goes around comes around? Short term good may be present. B look how it came around on 9/11 from a former "friend". America, or rather, its citizens should realize that being "selfish" and acting out in "self-interest" against others, trampling others would have VERY serious consequences in the not so far future.

As for the emotions, no argument there. Also imagine what 1.2 billion Muslims feel when they hear and see the US killing and maiming thousands of fellow Muslims on false pretexts and on top of that, turning a complete blind eye to Israel's blatant UN violations. I can factually say that the Muslims share a very common bond with other Muslims regardless of their nationality. Mr. Laden was a Saudi, he fought in Afghanistan. Numerous citizens of other countries aid the Palestinian cause (not just vocally but also with materials). Shall we then regard 9/11 as emotions of some completely psyched out Muslims? And the civilian killings in Israel? Honestly speaking, I would very much agree to this viewpoint.
administrations of the past have skillfully fvcked threatening countries quite rampantly. During clinton's reign we had subsequent missile attacks on iraq on a weekly basis. We starved them through sanctions and practically endorsed policies which would further villanize saddam for the sake of calling him an evil dictator. saddam didn't pull weapons out of his ass to kill iranians with. WE have pretty much always stomped across the globe destroying threatening countries ruthlessly. In the past we wore gloves so that our fingprints wouldn't be left behind in the atrocities. W/ bush's agressive policy towards his definition of terrorism, which only seems to be a provoked threat, we are explicitly telling the world we're reshaping it, w/ or w/o their intervention. And no matter how much it affects them economically, we dont' give a sh!t. People are starting to act very hostile towards the US, and with reason. Of course many in america who wrap themselves in american flags, and remain living their isolated perky lives, reason that the rest of teh world is jealous of our freedom, or that they hate freedom altogether. no one bites the hand that feeds them. No american is gonna object to America's policies as long as it keeps teh country prosperous. i don't know if the saying 'what goes around comes around is always true'. If it were..the world would be fair, and kids wouldn't be starving to death in the middle of africa. Since we know that isn't true...the idea of "what comes around - goes around" doesn't seem to have any validity in this world. Maybe the elite such as bush will be punished in another world? However, i believe with america's current policies, they make themselves vulnerable, and are asking for intolerance from the rest of the world.

mr. laden as you call him is no representative of the muslim world. I'm not muslim, but i know his beliefs don't follow that of islams.
The Qur'an has a chapter called the "Hypocrites". It does not carry the traditional meaning of hypocrite. It means someone who uses the "banner" of Islam for his own political or earthly ambitions. Someone who claims to be Muslim, but only using it as a cover to exploit the people and gain control.

Osama bin Laden can be put in that category.

if the Muslims could, they would have overthrown the Taliban and Saddam themselves. Iran tried for 8 years (but back then, the US supported Saddam), and Iran even tried to overthrow the Taliban, citing to the United Nations that the Taliban was oppressing the people.

the problem with muslims in american society is that they have a negative image. this image could be considered rightfully earned or a ploy by our society to fulfill some of our agendas. Much of their retaliation towards western aggression will only add to this negative image. Be they 1.2 billion or 20 million. influence isnt accounted for by numbers, but w/ money. Unfortunately the 1.2 billion don't really have what matters in this world. A voice backed w/ $.
Any sort of muslim retaliation, be it justified or not, will be labeled terrorism today.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Hi,

I'm sure that the governments of the western world, up until the breakup of the USSR, would much rather have neighbours who were dictatorial tyrants (ie Saddam Hussein) than communists intent on targetting democracies. It is for that reason alone that many dubious regimes and quasi-terrorists were supported/funded. The threat of global communism simply outweighs other considerations from a national security perspective.

Cheers,

Andy
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortylickens

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Sultan
By reading your comments (and not cad and corn's), is the United States a prime target for future attacks on its soil? Especially since its fighting this so called "War on Terror"?

If the answer is yes, then why do some people blatantly support the acts of agression by US against Iraq (and of some sort against Afghanistan)? The US does have a loooooooong history (as evident by the link Zebo provided) of meddling in the affairs of many a nations. Do Americans really think they are getting safer by these methods?

If the answer is no, I really hope you are right. American interests have been targetted from way back. Examples include taking Americans hostage in Iran, bombings of Kenya's US embassy, attack on US military base in Saudi Arabia and ofcourse the culmination was 9/11.

Maybe instead of blaming these "terrorists" for hating Americas ideals and economic success, people like Cad and Corn should really look into the US sticking their authority where its not welcome.

Who knows, someday the Japanese from Okinawa will rise up, or those from the South Korea or Turkey or Germany, all countries with SIGNIFICANT American military presence. And the Japanese and South Koreans clearly make their hostility against American forces visible.
"The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.

This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity." - Ronald Reagan

I'd agree that we need to mind our own business more, but this world has become a Global economy and there are things that threaten it. We should and will do what is neccessary to promote a better and more peaceful world. We(USA) are not the cause of the terrorists, although some like to claim such, so no - your suggestion (to Corn and I) is based on false pretenses. People will hate us wether we strike back and root them out or not(Cole, first WTC bombing;)) You can't coddle a terrorist into suddenly liking you...or do you believe that can happen? IMO we can't ignore that these people exist and sit by, just hoping they won't attack us or our interests.

LunyRay answered your question quite nicely, so I don't know why you felt it neccessary to start spouting off about what you percieve Corn or I think.

CkG
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
It's all a matter of perspective. Arms sales is a tricky business as a friend one day may soon become a foe. Britain was still supplying Argentina with arms 8 days prior to the opening of that war. Remember during the cold war what kept it cold was that the US and the USSR did not come directly to blows. We fought through proxy wars, aiding the afghani freedom movement was our way of striking at Russia without directly going to war with them. I'm sure someone made the decision that the possibility of the Afghani freedom fighters becoming international terrorists was mitigated by the chance that they would successfully defeat the Soviet Union. We've obviously had a switch in ideologies since then, gone is the period of containment, now we are much more concerned with the "war on terror."
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortylickens

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
LunarRay:

All your points may be valid.

But they dont quite answer my question.

Does the United States fund terrorists, Osama bin Laden being an example? If he is one now, I logically conclude that he was then. Without sounding offensive, and with sincerest condolences to the families of those who died on 9/11, I look at him more as barbaric Warrior/Fighter/Leader. Only that, the tables have turned onto those who initially supported him being a Mujahid/terrorist. So now the opinion is that he is a terrorist and was a "friend" then.

LunarRay, by "Agenda", do you mean support of terrorism (or was it freedom fighting then?) against another nation/state? If it was freedom fighting then, I dont quite understand the American perception of calling Chechens, Palestinians and Kashmiris terrorists.
Refer to my previous post, however you have to understand the definition of terrorist which is one who aims to inspire terror in others using force. Our definition of terror is more closely associated with armed combatants actively targeting noncombatants. In Afghanistan, the freedom fighters were fighting the Russian army, can you not see the difference between armies fighting and armies fighting civilians? By your logic every single war ever fought was an act of terrorism.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
By reading your comments (and not cad and corn's), is the United States a prime target for future attacks on its soil? Especially since its fighting this so called "War on Terror"?

If the answer is yes, then why do some people blatantly support the acts of agression by US against Iraq (and of some sort against Afghanistan)? The US does have a loooooooong history (as evident by the link Zebo provided) of meddling in the affairs of many a nations. Do Americans really think they are getting safer by these methods?

If the answer is no, I really hope you are right. American interests have been targetted from way back. Examples include taking Americans hostage in Iran, bombings of Kenya's US embassy, attack on US military base in Saudi Arabia and ofcourse the culmination was 9/11.

Maybe instead of blaming these "terrorists" for hating Americas ideals and economic success, people like Cad and Corn should really look into the US sticking their authority where its not welcome.

Who knows, someday the Japanese from Okinawa will rise up, or those from the South Korea or Turkey or Germany, all countries with SIGNIFICANT American military presence. And the Japanese and South Koreans clearly make their hostility against American forces visible.
There are two levels of security, High and low, high obviously refers to millitary matters and low refers to domestic matters such as welfare legislation etc. The US has experienced such a long period of prosperity and economic growth that we focused almost entirely on low politics. Our "meddling" is protecting our interests, which is a principle supported by the United Nations. If a threat is perceived to a country's security they have the right to defend themselves. If someone breaks into your house and threatens to kill your family do you not have the right to defend yourself? Its the same principle, they disturb our security we kill them, the same as if that burglar breaks into my house, he's getting a hollopoint through the chest.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
Pers:

All fine, except:

Any policy the US engages in is for the good of itself. I guess that's acceptable
Dont you believe what goes around comes around? Short term good may be present. B look how it came around on 9/11 from a former "friend". America, or rather, its citizens should realize that being "selfish" and acting out in "self-interest" against others, trampling others would have VERY serious consequences in the not so far future.

As for the emotions, no argument there. Also imagine what 1.2 billion Muslims feel when they hear and see the US killing and maiming thousands of fellow Muslims on false pretexts and on top of that, turning a complete blind eye to Israel's blatant UN violations. I can factually say that the Muslims share a very common bond with other Muslims regardless of their nationality. Mr. Laden was a Saudi, he fought in Afghanistan. Numerous citizens of other countries aid the Palestinian cause (not just vocally but also with materials). Shall we then regard 9/11 as emotions of some completely psyched out Muslims? And the civilian killings in Israel? Honestly speaking, I would very much agree to this viewpoint.
I take you you have never taken any type of IR class? Listen, you are spouting off with emotion and emotion blinds reason, hindsight is 20/20, yet you profess that we should not defend ourselves because it might come back around? Well suppose we make sure that it can NOT come back around? Make it so deplorable to attack the United States that no one will even consider it, then we have fulfilled our first and primary goal, which is to ourselves, the security and prosperity of our nation. These are basic principles of international relations, man is self serving, and has no absolute duty beyond that to his own survival, I have no duty to protect Palestinian children against Israeli agression unless that I perceive that child to be more of a threat to me having suffered israeli agression. Like I said its all a matter of perspective, and we have to look out for number one.
 

P.O.W.

Senior member
Feb 8, 2000
359
1
0
Originally posted by: Sultan
LunarRay:

All your points may be valid.

But they dont quite answer my question.

Does the United States fund terrorists, Osama bin Laden being an example?
In the case of Osama the United States funded a guerilla army that was fighting Soviet expansion. Much in the same way the soviets funded the vietcong in Vietnam or the north koreans for that matter.



Originally posted by: Sultan

Maybe instead of blaming these "terrorists" for hating Americas ideals and economic success, people like Cad and Corn should really look into the US sticking their authority where its not welcome.
Not welcome to whom? Iraq is a good example. If your a a sunni muslim and enjoyed the good life under saddam all the while terrorizing the majority shiites, then yes, U.S. authority was and is not welcome. However if you are a Shiite muslim in Iraw and can now freely practice your religion then you may have welcomed what the U.S. did to saddams government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortylickens

beyoku

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2003
1,568
1
71
cut the crap, the answer is YES. We have pumped so much money in to countries to support dictators and start coups its pitiful. We have so much history of paying/helping a terrorist groupd, or opposition take over and or kill the elected officials - democratic at that. And it has always led to ruin. WE keep doing and and we are about to do it again. IN iraq and currently in afghanistan. This is old news. Anybody that says we dont really dosent know or doesent want to know their history.

exaple BTW - we were giving Saddam the bio and chemical weapons to use on IRAN, at the same time we were giving iran weapons to use on iraq. This is history.....and it has been repeating itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortylickens

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Sultan
By reading your comments (and not cad and corn's), is the United States a prime target for future attacks on its soil? Especially since its fighting this so called "War on Terror"?

If the answer is yes, then why do some people blatantly support the acts of agression by US against Iraq (and of some sort against Afghanistan)? The US does have a loooooooong history (as evident by the link Zebo provided) of meddling in the affairs of many a nations. Do Americans really think they are getting safer by these methods?

If the answer is no, I really hope you are right. American interests have been targetted from way back. Examples include taking Americans hostage in Iran, bombings of Kenya's US embassy, attack on US military base in Saudi Arabia and ofcourse the culmination was 9/11.

Maybe instead of blaming these "terrorists" for hating Americas ideals and economic success, people like Cad and Corn should really look into the US sticking their authority where its not welcome.

Who knows, someday the Japanese from Okinawa will rise up, or those from the South Korea or Turkey or Germany, all countries with SIGNIFICANT American military presence. And the Japanese and South Koreans clearly make their hostility against American forces visible.
Attacks on the property of the US is, I suppose, directly related to both our objectives pursued and our defense against such attacks. The key factor for me to consider in order to respond intelligently is whether or not I know all I need to know in order to form an opinion. I've concluded long ago that I only know what I know and don't have a clue about what I may not know. The folks we elect into office and the folks they hire are the creator of objectives that affect our and other lives. They know what they know and it is a lot more than I do... so, I can only say. I hope they do what is in our best interest first and everyone else's second.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Sultan
By reading your comments (and not cad and corn's), is the United States a prime target for future attacks on its soil? Especially since its fighting this so called "War on Terror"?

If the answer is yes, then why do some people blatantly support the acts of agression by US against Iraq (and of some sort against Afghanistan)? The US does have a loooooooong history (as evident by the link Zebo provided) of meddling in the affairs of many a nations. Do Americans really think they are getting safer by these methods?

If the answer is no, I really hope you are right. American interests have been targetted from way back. Examples include taking Americans hostage in Iran, bombings of Kenya's US embassy, attack on US military base in Saudi Arabia and ofcourse the culmination was 9/11.

Maybe instead of blaming these "terrorists" for hating Americas ideals and economic success, people like Cad and Corn should really look into the US sticking their authority where its not welcome.

Who knows, someday the Japanese from Okinawa will rise up, or those from the South Korea or Turkey or Germany, all countries with SIGNIFICANT American military presence. And the Japanese and South Koreans clearly make their hostility against American forces visible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.

This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity." - Ronald Reagan

I'd agree that we need to mind our own business more, but this world has become a Global economy and there are things that threaten it. We should and will do what is neccessary to promote a better and more peaceful world. We(USA) are not the cause of the terrorists, although some like to claim such, so no - your suggestion (to Corn and I) is based on false pretenses. People will hate us wether we strike back and root them out or not(Cole, first WTC bombing) You can't coddle a terrorist into suddenly liking you...or do you believe that can happen? IMO we can't ignore that these people exist and sit by, just hoping they won't attack us or our interests.

LunyRay answered your question quite nicely, so I don't know why you felt it neccessary to start spouting off about what you percieve Corn or I think.

CkG
First, this thread was having a quite amicable discussion, and I didnt feel it neccessary, nor did I spout off about what I perceive you and Corn think. Problem is you take everything to be confrontational. And you probably will take this as confrontational too :)

None of what you said has any relevance to this thread. And what has relevance, (We(USA) are not the cause of the terrorists, although some like to claim) is very well proved by We(USA) in posts above.

Please try not to contribute to this thread. I understand you have a quite contrasting viewpoint to many on this forum. You must realize why many people of this forum have an objection to your views.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
P.O.W

In the case of Osama the United States funded a guerilla army that was fighting Soviet expansion. Much in the same way the soviets funded the vietcong in Vietnam or the north koreans for that matter.
As discussed above, would that not count as Sponsoring Terrorism against another country? The very first post mentions your very case. Please read and post.

Not welcome to whom? Iraq is a good example. If your a a sunni muslim and enjoyed the good life under saddam all the while terrorizing the majority shiites, then yes, U.S. authority was and is not welcome. However if you are a Shiite muslim in Iraw and can now freely practice your religion then you may have welcomed what the U.S. did to saddams government.
This is a prime example of the US' divide and conquer strategy as well as of complete ignorance. Shias and Sunnis are BOTH Muslims. Saddam Hussein was as @sshole, whether looked from a Sunni viewpoint, Shia viewpoint or a Kurd viewpoint. Please dont put words into the mouths of others. If you arent a Sunni, or a Shia, or a Kurd, you shouldnt be making a generalization about what their community thinks or does.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Sultan
Pers:

All fine, except:

Any policy the US engages in is for the good of itself. I guess that's acceptable
Dont you believe what goes around comes around? Short term good may be present. B look how it came around on 9/11 from a former "friend". America, or rather, its citizens should realize that being "selfish" and acting out in "self-interest" against others, trampling others would have VERY serious consequences in the not so far future.

As for the emotions, no argument there. Also imagine what 1.2 billion Muslims feel when they hear and see the US killing and maiming thousands of fellow Muslims on false pretexts and on top of that, turning a complete blind eye to Israel's blatant UN violations. I can factually say that the Muslims share a very common bond with other Muslims regardless of their nationality. Mr. Laden was a Saudi, he fought in Afghanistan. Numerous citizens of other countries aid the Palestinian cause (not just vocally but also with materials). Shall we then regard 9/11 as emotions of some completely psyched out Muslims? And the civilian killings in Israel? Honestly speaking, I would very much agree to this viewpoint.
I take you you have never taken any type of IR class? Listen, you are spouting off with emotion and emotion blinds reason, hindsight is 20/20, yet you profess that we should not defend ourselves because it might come back around? Well suppose we make sure that it can NOT come back around? Make it so deplorable to attack the United States that no one will even consider it, then we have fulfilled our first and primary goal, which is to ourselves, the security and prosperity of our nation. These are basic principles of international relations, man is self serving, and has no absolute duty beyond that to his own survival, I have no duty to protect Palestinian children against Israeli agression unless that I perceive that child to be more of a threat to me having suffered israeli agression. Like I said its all a matter of perspective, and we have to look out for number one.
As a matter of fact, no, I have not taken any IR class. I'm a computer science geek.

How am I spouting off emotion? I just agreed with Pers.

If the majority of Americans agree with your views, I really wish this country well. History has proven that what you call "protecting our interests" (which basically means stage coups - example: Pinochet, install puppet regimes - example: Shah of Iran and fund Mujahids/terrorists - example: Osama bin Laden) has proved eventually disastorous to this nation.

If someone breaks into your house and threatens to kill your family do you not have the right to defend yourself? Its the same principle, they disturb our security we kill them, the same as if that burglar breaks into my house, he's getting a hollopoint through the chest.
I believe that was the principle on the basis of which the US attacked Iraq? :) Well, atleast thats the principle the Iraqis are going by now. And the US calls them terrorists. Hey wait, isnt this the principle the Palestinian follow too? And we still call them terrorists? Hmmm... maybe by this principle and according to the label we give to those who follow this princple, we should call ourselves terrorists :D.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Sultan
LunarRay:

All your points may be valid.

But they dont quite answer my question.

Does the United States fund terrorists, Osama bin Laden being an example? If he is one now, I logically conclude that he was then. Without sounding offensive, and with sincerest condolences to the families of those who died on 9/11, I look at him more as barbaric Warrior/Fighter/Leader. Only that, the tables have turned onto those who initially supported him being a Mujahid/terrorist. So now the opinion is that he is a terrorist and was a "friend" then.

LunarRay, by "Agenda", do you mean support of terrorism (or was it freedom fighting then?) against another nation/state? If it was freedom fighting then, I dont quite understand the American perception of calling Chechens, Palestinians and Kashmiris terrorists.
Refer to my previous post, however you have to understand the definition of terrorist which is one who aims to inspire terror in others using force. Our definition of terror is more closely associated with armed combatants actively targeting noncombatants. In Afghanistan, the freedom fighters were fighting the Russian army, can you not see the difference between armies fighting and armies fighting civilians? By your logic every single war ever fought was an act of terrorism.

Please also address the other examples I mentioned.

By your very logic, I can say that in Iraq, freedom fighters are fighting against the US army. If you argue that these insurgents are of other nationalities, Osama bin Laden was definitely a foreign national. We call these insurgents terrorists and militants :) Quite hypocritical :)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Sultan
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Sultan
By reading your comments (and not cad and corn's), is the United States a prime target for future attacks on its soil? Especially since its fighting this so called "War on Terror"?

If the answer is yes, then why do some people blatantly support the acts of agression by US against Iraq (and of some sort against Afghanistan)? The US does have a loooooooong history (as evident by the link Zebo provided) of meddling in the affairs of many a nations. Do Americans really think they are getting safer by these methods?

If the answer is no, I really hope you are right. American interests have been targetted from way back. Examples include taking Americans hostage in Iran, bombings of Kenya's US embassy, attack on US military base in Saudi Arabia and ofcourse the culmination was 9/11.

Maybe instead of blaming these "terrorists" for hating Americas ideals and economic success, people like Cad and Corn should really look into the US sticking their authority where its not welcome.

Who knows, someday the Japanese from Okinawa will rise up, or those from the South Korea or Turkey or Germany, all countries with SIGNIFICANT American military presence. And the Japanese and South Koreans clearly make their hostility against American forces visible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.

This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity." - Ronald Reagan

I'd agree that we need to mind our own business more, but this world has become a Global economy and there are things that threaten it. We should and will do what is neccessary to promote a better and more peaceful world. We(USA) are not the cause of the terrorists, although some like to claim such, so no - your suggestion (to Corn and I) is based on false pretenses. People will hate us wether we strike back and root them out or not(Cole, first WTC bombing) You can't coddle a terrorist into suddenly liking you...or do you believe that can happen? IMO we can't ignore that these people exist and sit by, just hoping they won't attack us or our interests.

LunyRay answered your question quite nicely, so I don't know why you felt it neccessary to start spouting off about what you percieve Corn or I think.

CkG
First, this thread was having a quite amicable discussion, and I didnt feel it neccessary, nor did I spout off about what I perceive you and Corn think. Problem is you take everything to be confrontational. And you probably will take this as confrontational too :)

None of what you said has any relevance to this thread. And what has relevance, (We(USA) are not the cause of the terrorists, although some like to claim) is very well proved by We(USA) in posts above.

Please try not to contribute to this thread. I understand you have a quite contrasting viewpoint to many on this forum. You must realize why many people of this forum have an objection to your views.
Then don't mention me;) What you fail to understand is that our "actions" didn't cause terrorism - it was alive and well without our actions. Doing nothing and sitting by is not the right answer. Do our actions cause us to team with people that someday might be our "enemy"? Sure - it's been that way from the beginning of time. Today's friend it tomorrow's foe.

I find it funny that you got defensive about my post. It wasn't any more confrontational than your post that you used Corn and I in.
"people like Cad and Corn should really look into the US sticking their authority where its not welcome."-YOU Now why would you say such a thing if you didn't "spout off about what I perceive you and Corn think"?

Now again - Luny has explained the reasoning quite well.

CkG
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,522
4,943
126
"Terrorist" or "Freedom Fighter" are terms of Propoganda. Each is used as needed, for "Terrorist" conjures thoughts of Cruelty, extreme Violence, and Evil, while "Freedom Fighter" conjures feelings of Justice, Honour, and Righteousness. The users of such terms use them as Tools, a way to motivate others towards Support of a cause.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY