• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

100% Proof that Russia is supporting terrorisim!!!

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The following article, which can be viewed at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/ap_on_re_eu/russia_iran_arms
provides ABSOLUTE proof that Russia is a pro-terrorist nation and that Russia MUST be embargoed back to the stone age. Russia MUST BE SEVERLY PUNISHED for selling weapons to Iran.

All economic support to Russia needs to be stopped and all diplomatic ties must be severed. Additionally, Russia needs to lose its seat on the United Nations. Futhermore, there needs to be an embargo placed on ALL Russian oil sales.

The Russians need to learn that selling missles to a terrorist nation comes with heavy consequences.

- Vader
 

mustafa

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
malaysia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vader said:
The Russians need to learn that selling missles to a terrorist nation comes with heavy consequences.

- Vader
hmmmm ....

I have an idea .... Let's go there with guns and all kinds of weapons , and invade their country .... just like the great savior of mankind america did in Iraq ....

Heavy consequences my ass .... when western people especially americans are going to stop being so self-centered .... and stop trying to impose their way of thinking on other people ....
 

RealityCheck

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vader said:
The following article, which can be viewed at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/ap_on_re_eu/russia_iran_arms
provides ABSOLUTE proof that Russia is a pro-terrorist nation and that Russia MUST be embargoed back to the stone age. Russia MUST BE SEVERLY PUNISHED for selling weapons to Iran.

All economic support to Russia needs to be stopped and all diplomatic ties must be severed. Additionally, Russia needs to lose its seat on the United Nations. Futhermore, there needs to be an embargo placed on ALL Russian oil sales.

The Russians need to learn that selling missles to a terrorist nation comes with heavy consequences.

- Vader
Well then I guess the US should have sanctions imposed on them as well, right? Do you agree? After all Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for the supposed nuclear threat from North Korea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons. "

Hold on now! Don't you Liberals get to fiesty yet. Afterall Clinton Administration Gave Top Nuclear Secrets...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940025/posts

"A scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has provided information that seriously contradicts Clinton administration claims that nuclear secrets obtained by China were solely the result of espionage during the late 1980's. "

See they plan ahead. When the coming staged war with China upon us, you can bet your bottom dollar that the nuclear card will be played. Just as it will with North Korea.

Catch the drift here? They covertly create an enemy, arm them, then create a war to disarm them, in order to produce the desired outcome, all the while keeping the American people bickering over Republicans vs Democrats. Bust out those history books, your fighting for the same team!

Here's a hint: Problem-Reaction-Solution

Known as the Hegalian Dialectic, or: Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
Search and Ye shall find!
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
mustafa said:
hmmmm ....

I have an idea .... Let's go there with guns and all kinds of weapons , and invade their country .... just like the great savior of mankind america did in Iraq ....

Heavy consequences my ass .... when western people especially americans are going to stop being so self-centered .... and stop trying to impose their way of thinking on other people ....
Stick a sock in it, Mustafa, you terrorist-loving fruitcake. While I realize you are pro-terrorist and I realize you do not want to see extremist Islamic assholes like the mullahs disarmed; it should be noted that the damage that will be done WILL EFFECT YOUR SORRY TERRORIST ASS AS WELL.

I don't give a DAMN what you think or what your pathetic extemist religon says about it. Russia needs to be sanctioned sidewats and Iran needs to be disarmed.

Screw you and Islam too!!!

Mustaffa -----> :flame: <----- Iran with weapons
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
RealityCheck said:
Well then I guess the US should have sanctions imposed on them as well, right? Do you agree? After all Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for the supposed nuclear threat from North Korea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons. "

Hold on now! Don't you Liberals get to fiesty yet. Afterall Clinton Administration Gave Top Nuclear Secrets...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940025/posts

"A scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has provided information that seriously contradicts Clinton administration claims that nuclear secrets obtained by China were solely the result of espionage during the late 1980's. "

See they plan ahead. When the coming staged war with China upon us, you can bet your bottom dollar that the nuclear card will be played. Just as it will with North Korea.

Catch the drift here? They covertly create an enemy, arm them, then create a war to disarm them, in order to produce the desired outcome, all the while keeping the American people bickering over Republicans vs Democrats. Bust out those history books, your fighting for the same team!

Here's a hint: Problem-Reaction-Solution

Known as the Hegalian Dialectic, or: Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
Search and Ye shall find!

You are pro-terrorist. THE U.S. DID NOT SELL MISSLES CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A NUCLEAR PAYLOAD TO CHINA, NORTH KOREA, OR ANYBODY ELSE. RUSSIA DID EXACTLY THAT... TO A COUNTRY KNOWN FOR TERRORIST ACTIVITES, WHICH MADE A CLEAR THREAT AGAINST ANOTHER NATION.

You need to wake up and get your head out of your arse. Iran IS A THREAT, and now RUSSIA'S TOTAL WANTON ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY IS A THREAT.

 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Vader said:
Stick a sock in it, Mustafa, you terrorist-loving fruitcake. While I realize you are pro-terrorist and I realize you do not want to see extremist Islamic assholes like the mullahs disarmed; it should be noted that the damage that will be done WILL EFFECT YOUR SORRY TERRORIST ASS AS WELL.

I don't give a DAMN what you think or what your pathetic extemist religon says about it. Russia needs to be sanctioned sidewats and Iran needs to be disarmed.

Screw you and Islam too!!!

Mustaffa -----> :flame: <----- Iran with weapons

You are pro-terrorist. THE U.S. DID NOT SELL MISSLES CAPABLE OF DELIVERING A NUCLEAR PAYLOAD TO CHINA, NORTH KOREA, OR ANYBODY ELSE. RUSSIA DID EXACTLY THAT... TO A COUNTRY KNOWN FOR TERRORIST ACTIVITES, WHICH MADE A CLEAR THREAT AGAINST ANOTHER NATION.

You need to wake up and get your head out of your arse. Iran IS A THREAT, and now RUSSIA'S TOTAL WANTON ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY IS A THREAT.
[mod mode]

:smash:

Hey you. No flaming. Take it to the basement if you insist on flirting with your fellow members.

[/mod mode]
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Meh, the US has sold weapons to Iran. Come to think of it, the US has sold weapons to Iraq (under Saddam) and to Afghanistan (under the Taliban, mostly). Not to mention when the sold weapons to waring nations (at the time) Iraq and Iran at the same time! Oh, when we found out a good laugh was had by all... You know except the Iraqis and stuff, but you get what I mean.
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kelzie said:
[mod mode]

:smash:

Hey you. No flaming. Take it to the basement if you insist on flirting with your fellow members.

[/mod mode]

Ok.

Sorry, Kelsie. I will keep flames in the basement :p

:2razz:
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
-Demosthenes- said:
Meh, the US has sold weapons to Iran. Come to think of it, the US has sold weapons to Iraq (under Saddam) and to Afghanistan (under the Taliban, mostly). Not to mention when the sold weapons to waring nations (at the time) Iraq and Iran at the same time! Oh, when we found out a good laugh was had by all... You know except the Iraqis and stuff, but you get what I mean.
Yeah, I get ya! I know we sold them M16 rifles and some grenades and the like, but we never sold either of them anything capable of delivering a nuclear payload. :p
 

MDSkinsInNC

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Greenville, NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Vader, how can you consider yourself even slightly liberal, as said in your profile, when you hold beliefs like:

Screw you and Islam too!!!
I don't give a DAMN what you think or what your pathetic extemist religon says about it.
You are a full-grown adult yet you hold the views of a misguided teen.
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
MDSkinsInNC said:
Vader, how can you consider yourself even slightly liberal, as said in your profile, when you hold beliefs like:





You are a full-grown adult yet you hold the views of a misguided teen.
I am U.S. Sailor. I served my country. My views are based on the things I saw while I served.

I am sorry for the mad outburst as seen above :>
 

mustafa

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
malaysia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vader said:
Stick a sock in it, Mustafa, you terrorist-loving fruitcake. While I realize you are pro-terrorist and I realize you do not want to see extremist Islamic assholes like the mullahs disarmed; it should be noted that the damage that will be done WILL EFFECT YOUR SORRY TERRORIST ASS AS WELL.

I don't give a DAMN what you think or what your pathetic extemist religon says about it. Russia needs to be sanctioned sidewats and Iran needs to be disarmed.

Screw you and Islam too!!!

Mustaffa -----> :flame: <----- Iran with weapons
I really feel sorry for you man .... you have the mentality of an infant
Just because I said you're wrong , I suddenly became pro terrorist

even when RealityCheck replied , you're first words were

Vader said:
You are pro-terrorist.


Don't forget to drink your milk , ok sweetie :mrgreen:
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Vader said:
The following article, which can be viewed at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/ap_on_re_eu/russia_iran_arms
provides ABSOLUTE proof that Russia is a pro-terrorist nation and that Russia MUST be embargoed back to the stone age. Russia MUST BE SEVERLY PUNISHED for selling weapons to Iran.

All economic support to Russia needs to be stopped and all diplomatic ties must be severed. Additionally, Russia needs to lose its seat on the United Nations. Futhermore, there needs to be an embargo placed on ALL Russian oil sales.

The Russians need to learn that selling missles to a terrorist nation comes with heavy consequences.

- Vader
thats really not a big deal in comparison to the fact that America has activly suporrted terroist states pretty much from the end of world war 2 onwards [the dictatorships of general pinochet and Fulgencio Batista
for one, look em up if you dont belive me] bush is particually good mates with the saudi royal family. Maybe someone should invade america.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Red_Dave,

History is what it is - unless modified by the revisionists, of course. ;)

A little more research will show that over the years, the theory of how to best put forward the interests of the American people has changed, often from one administration to the next administration. Sure, there have been times when we supported dictators; we did so when we thought it was in our best interest to do so. Often, we publicly tolerated dictators while simultaneously working with pro-democratic groups to overthrow the dictators and establish democratic governments. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't.

Over that same history, there have been factions within the US government that have fought such activities tooth and nail. Others have supported it. I don't recall there ever being a time of unanimity except in times of national peril (WWII).

This is all by way of saying: that was then, this is now. Times change and theories of what is in our best interest changes. For example, google on 'new realism' and 'kissinger' and 'theories of foreign policy' and peruse the various approaches to foreign policy. Note especially the evolution over time, especially between presidencys.

We made mistakes in the past- some of which are evident only in hindsight - and we had some successes in the past - most of which go unremarked on in favor of highlighting the mistakes, 'cause thats what sells papers. No doubt such will be the case again in the future.

Just my opinion - YMMV.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Red_Dave,

History is what it is - unless modified by the revisionists, of course. ;)

A little more research will show that over the years, the theory of how to best put forward the interests of the American people has changed, often from one administration to the next administration. Sure, there have been times when we supported dictators; we did so when we thought it was in our best interest to do so. Often, we publicly tolerated dictators while simultaneously working with pro-democratic groups to overthrow the dictators and establish democratic governments. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't.

Over that same history, there have been factions within the US government that have fought such activities tooth and nail. Others have supported it. I don't recall there ever being a time of unanimity except in times of national peril (WWII).

This is all by way of saying: that was then, this is now. Times change and theories of what is in our best interest changes. For example, google on 'new realism' and 'kissinger' and 'theories of foreign policy' and peruse the various approaches to foreign policy. Note especially the evolution over time, especially between presidencys.

We made mistakes in the past- some of which are evident only in hindsight - and we had some successes in the past - most of which go unremarked on in favor of highlighting the mistakes, 'cause thats what sells papers. No doubt such will be the case again in the future.

Just my opinion - YMMV.
I think everyone can agree that just because one country supported dictators or is now supporting dictators does not make it right for another country to as well.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Red_Dave,

History is what it is - unless modified by the revisionists, of course. ;)

A little more research will show that over the years, the theory of how to best put forward the interests of the American people has changed, often from one administration to the next administration. Sure, there have been times when we supported dictators; we did so when we thought it was in our best interest to do so. Often, we publicly tolerated dictators while simultaneously working with pro-democratic groups to overthrow the dictators and establish democratic governments. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't.

Over that same history, there have been factions within the US government that have fought such activities tooth and nail. Others have supported it. I don't recall there ever being a time of unanimity except in times of national peril (WWII).

This is all by way of saying: that was then, this is now. Times change and theories of what is in the our best interest changes. For example, google on 'new realism' and 'kissinger' and 'theories of foreign policy' and peruse the various approaches to foreign policy. Note especially the evolution over time, especially between presidencys.

We made mistakes in the past- some of which are evident only in hindsight - and we had some successes in the past - most of which go unremarked on in favor of highlighting the mistakes, 'cause thats what sells papers. No doubt such will be the case again in the future.

Just my opinion - YMMV.
I think Post war american foreign policy has followed the same pattern really in that its only suporrted democracy when it suits itself. When it doesnt suit america it has done the opossite and suporrted the likes of General Pinochet and Carlos Castillo Armas. Both these people overthrew left leaning democracys that damaged american mulinationals to establish a rightist dictatorship. Any leader that damages american mulinationals to much is removed and those that do them good are suporrted. If you look at china it has both an apalling humans rights record and weapons of mass destruction but its suporrted by america because it provides the american economy with cheap goods. Thats why the "War on Terror" is bogous, america has used terroist methods for its own means more than any other nation in the last 50 years or so. If bush was really after terroist states he would be attacking saudi-arabia [where bin larden comes from] but both the saudi-royal family and the bush family are in the oil buissness together so thats not very likely to happen. This all makes it pretty ironic that you guys are moaning about russia selling a few weapons to iran when america suporrted general pinochet, one of the most brutal dictators in history.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think everyone can agree that just because one country supported dictators or is now supporting dictators does not make it right for another country to as well.
I agree, but I'm not sure that other posters will agree. Every country has to determine and implement policies that they believe serve their own interests. Historically, in some cases, that has meant, at least temporarily, adopting the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' attitude, even if that 'friend' is a despotic dictator (e.g., Saddam vs Iran after the Iranian revolution and US embassy hostage taking).
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
I agree, but I'm not sure that other posters will agree. Every country has to determine and implement policies that they believe serve their own interests. Historically, in some cases, that has meant, at least temporarily, adopting the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' attitude, even if that 'friend' is a despotic dictator (e.g., Saddam vs Iran after the Iranian revolution and US embassy hostage taking).
Oh sure. Like we could support islamic fundamentalists as they battle Russia in Afghanistan and help them train, grow and acquire weapons. Hope that wouldn't come back to bite us in the ass.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RD,

Thats why the "War on Terror" is bogous, america has used terroist methods for its own means more than any other nation
The US has never deliberately targeted innocents. The US has never called for the killing of any the citizens, military or civilian, of any nation to be killed whereever they might be found. And your saying the "War on Terror" is "bogus" because we are opposing that deliberate targeting of all US citizens?

If you are, and if you haven't already, you should peruse bin Laden's fatwa, issued in 1998, which can be found here in its entirety.

And RD, I certainly can't speak for everyone, but it seems to me that there has been plenty of recognition in the halls of american govt that we have from time to time done some stupid things, including supporting dictators whom we shouldn't have. Thats what I meant by our mistakes.

But, look, we need to move forward. It is very important that we learn from our mistakes so as to not repeat them in the future - though that sometimes seems like a near impossible undertaking. But we gotta' try.

Don't confuse what we thought was in our best interest years ago(generations ago, in terms of the world events that have transpired) with today's realities. We have already acknowledged some mistakes in the ME, and we are likely to make more. But, there can be no mistaking the fact that despite those missteps, there is now the best chance for peace in the ME that we have seen in decades.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh sure. Like we could support islamic fundamentalists as they battle Russia in Afghanistan and help them train, grow and acquire weapons. Hope that wouldn't come back to bite us in the ass.
Hey, I did say that we made mistakes, did I not? Or, wait, maybe assisting the Mujahdeen wasn't a mistake?

December, 1979: Russian paratroopers land in Kabul. The country was already in the grip of a civil war. Thousands of Muslims joined the Mujahdeen guerilla force on a holy mission to overthrow the more western leaning government.

By 1982, the Mujahdeen controlled about 75% of Afghanistan. The UN had condemned the Russian invasion in January 1980 but a UNSC motion calling for Russian withdrawal was vetoed...by Russia. Mujhadeen fighters were given access to American surface-to-air missles - though not through direct sales by America (which doesn't really matter, 'cause those sales were 'facilitated' by the CIA through third and fourth parties, but just to be factually correct).

February 1989: Russians withdraw from Afghanistan as Gorbachev, realizing that Russia could not win the war and the cost of maintaining such a vast force in Afghanistan was crippling Russia's already weak economy.

End of 1980's: the Mujahdeen was at war within itself with hard line fundamentalist Taliban fighters taking a stronger hold on the entire country and imposing very strict Muslim law on the Afghani population.

To sum up, can we really say that supporting the Mujahdeen was a mistake? Perhaps. But only given subsequent events which were unknowable at the time of our assistance. At said time, we expected to further weaken the Russian military and the Russian economy. How much did doing so help to eventually win the Cold War? Problematic. Arguable. But did it assist in doing so? Yes. No doubt.

The true, unequivocal aspect of this notion is that the Mujahdeen did become hardened fighters. They learned about modern weapons. And though most of the Mujahdeen were a bit too long in the tooth to do a lot of fighting by the time bin Laden issued his Fatwa, they were able to train younger zealots to take their places.

But to say that had we not supported the Mujahdeen, bin Laden's fatwa, 9/11, the USS Cole, the Embassy Bombings, etc., would not have happened, is fatuous and not provable. Hold on to that opinion, if you wish, but recognize that it is just that - an opinion.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Hey, I did say that we made mistakes, did I not? Or, wait, maybe assisting the Mujahdeen wasn't a mistake?

December, 1979: Russian paratroopers land in Kabul. The country was already in the grip of a civil war. Thousands of Muslims joined the Mujahdeen guerilla force on a holy mission to overthrow the more western leaning government.

By 1982, the Mujahdeen controlled about 75% of Afghanistan. The UN had condemned the Russian invasion in January 1980 but a UNSC motion calling for Russian withdrawal was vetoed...by Russia. Mujhadeen fighters were given access to American surface-to-air missles - though not through direct sales by America (which doesn't really matter, 'cause those sales were 'facilitated' by the CIA through third and fourth parties, but just to be factually correct).

February 1989: Russians withdraw from Afghanistan as Gorbachev, realizing that Russia could not win the war and the cost of maintaining such a vast force in Afghanistan was crippling Russia's already weak economy.

End of 1980's: the Mujahdeen was at war within itself with hard line fundamentalist Taliban fighters taking a stronger hold on the entire country and imposing very strict Muslim law on the Afghani population.

To sum up, can we really say that supporting the Mujahdeen was a mistake? Perhaps. But only given subsequent events which were unknowable at the time of our assistance. At said time, we expected to further weaken the Russian military and the Russian economy. How much did doing so help to eventually win the Cold War? Problematic. Arguable. But did it assist in doing so? Yes. No doubt.

The true, unequivocal aspect of this notion is that the Mujahdeen did become hardened fighters. They learned about modern weapons. And though most of the Mujahdeen were a bit too long in the tooth to do a lot of fighting by the time bin Laden issued his Fatwa, they were able to train younger zealots to take their places.

But to say that had we not supported the Mujahdeen, bin Laden's fatwa, 9/11, the USS Cole, the Embassy Bombings, etc., would not have happened, is fatuous and not provable. Hold on to that opinion, if you wish, but recognize that it is just that - an opinion.
So is an "opinion" that supporting them had no effect. Realistically, the "opinion" that training and supporting a group had an effect in their subsequent attack on us is a lot more credible than the "opinion" that supporting them had no effect.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So is an "opinion" that supporting them had no effect
Where did I say supporting them had "no effect"? Read what I said again,

can we really say that supporting the Mujahdeen was a mistake? Perhaps. But only given subsequent events which were unknowable at the time of our assistance.
And,

to say that had we not supported the Mujahdeen, bin Laden's fatwa, 9/11, the USS Cole, the Embassy Bombings, etc., would not have happened, is fatuous and not provable
In other words, whatever the effect was in terms of future terrorist events, is unknowable. The hardening of fighters,etc, as noted, is accepted as self-evident.

So where do you get "no effect"?
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
RD,



The US has never deliberately targeted innocents. The US has never called for the killing of any the citizens, military or civilian, of any nation to be killed whereever they might be found. And your saying the "War on Terror" is "bogus" because we are opposing that deliberate targeting of all US citizens?

If you are, and if you haven't already, you should peruse bin Laden's fatwa, issued in 1998, which can be found here in its entirety.

And RD, I certainly can't speak for everyone, but it seems to me that there has been plenty of recognition in the halls of american govt that we have from time to time done some stupid things, including supporting dictators whom we shouldn't have. Thats what I meant by our mistakes.

But, look, we need to move forward. It is very important that we learn from our mistakes so as to not repeat them in the future - though that sometimes seems like a near impossible undertaking. But we gotta' try.

Don't confuse what we thought was in our best interest years ago(generations ago, in terms of the world events that have transpired) with today's realities. We have already acknowledged some mistakes in the ME, and we are likely to make more. But, there can be no mistaking the fact that despite those missteps, there is now the best chance for peace in the ME that we have seen in decades.
Ive already provided examples of how the u.s has deliberatly targetted inocents. Look at the c.i.a coup in geutamala for example. Overthrowing a democratic government is hardly a "mistake". It was a deliberate act of terror to retain americas authority, and that of its mulinations over the rest of the world.

Im saying the war on terror is bogous because [A] america is a terroist state Alot of what the u,s has done in the name of the war in terroism neither has, or was intended to counter terroism.

The u.s has damaged the prospects for peace in the M.E more than anything. How many suiside bombing where there in palestine before the state of isreal was established? How many suisidide bombings where there in iraw before the americans invaded.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Where did I say supporting them had "no effect"? Read what I said again,

And,

In other words, whatever the effect was in terms of future terrorist events, is unknowable. The hardening of fighters,etc, as noted, is accepted as self-evident.

So where do you get "no effect"?
And yet, the probability that our actions led to a later reaction is a lot more likely than the probability that our actions either caused nothing or not acting would have caused the same thing. Do you agree or not?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kelzie said:
And yet, the probability that our actions led to a later reaction is a lot more likely than the probability that our actions either caused nothing or not acting would have caused the same thing. Do you agree or not?
First, a small clarification of your question is in order. By "our actions", I am assuming that you mean our provision of covert assistance to the Mujahdeen in their fight against the Russians. Is that correct?

If so, then I disagree. Here is why:

1) nowhere in bin Laden's fatwa does he mention anything about Afghanistan. If there were to be an affect from Afghanistan of the type you seem to suggest, it seems logical that there would be a reference to it in his fatwa. There is not.

2) We provided a assistance to the Mujahdeen, correct? bin Laden was Mujahdeen, correct? That assistance at least partly enabled bin Laden and his follow Mujahdeen to establish Afghanistan as a Muslim country according to their own beliefs, correct? If so, why would such be a cause for a later reaction against us?

3) Specifically, the fatwa clearly emphasized the US "occupying of the lands of Islam in the holiest of places..." (BTW, the fatwa says quite a lot about sympathy for Iraq - but thats another thread.)

In sum, it doesnt appear logical that bin Laden would "react" adversely to our supplying of assistance to the Mujahdeen in Afghanistan. He had what he thought were sufficient other reasons, as he delineated in his fatwa. Consequently, I disagree.
 
Top Bottom