Do You Believe We're Not Going to Fight Them Here?

[jfuh]

Was America a terrorist state during the Reagan administration? This is why "the ends justifying the means" is a logical fallacy.

Good point, forgot about that one.

 

[akyron]

Iran, Syria and Lebanon are terrorist states? Really? Source?
.

State Sponsors of Terrorism


Country Designation Date

Cuba March 1, 1982

Iran January 19, 1984

North Korea January 20, 1988

Sudan August 12, 1993

Syria December 29, 1979

Country Reports on Terrorism


"Iran

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hizballah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals. In addition, the IRGC was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups, which destabilizes Iraq.


Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on "security grounds." Iran has also resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or trial.


Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity -- rhetorically, operationally, and financially. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadi-Nejad praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups -- notably HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command -- with extensive funding, training, and weapons.


Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistent with its stated objectives regarding stability in Iraq and with the objectives of the Iraqi Transitional Government and the Multi-national Forces in Iraq. Senior Iraqi officials have publicly expressed concern over Iranian interference in Iraq, and there were reports that Iran provided funding, safe passage, and arms to insurgent elements.

State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD terrorism threat. A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organization to acquire a sophisticated WMD. State sponsors of terrorism and nations that fail to live up to their international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism. Iran presents a particular concern, given its active sponsorship of terrorism and its continued development of a nuclear program. Iran is also capable of producing biological and chemical agents or weapons. Like other state sponsors of terrorism with WMD programs, Iran could support terrorist organizations seeking to acquire WMD."


"Syria


The Syrian Government continued to provide political and material support to both Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups. HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), among others, base their external leadership in Damascus. The Syrian Government insists that the Damascus-based groups undertake only political and informational activities. However, in statements originating from outside Syria, many Palestinian groups claimed responsibility for anti-Israeli terrorist acts. Syria's public support for the groups varied, depending on its national interests and international pressure. In 2003, these groups lowered their public profile after Damascus announced that they had voluntarily closed their offices in Syria. In September, however, Syrian President Bashar al-Asad held a highly publicized meeting with rejectionist leaders, and a month later the rejectionist leaders participated in a meeting in Damascus with the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel. Syria continued to permit Iran to use Damascus as a transshipment point to resupply Hizballah in Lebanon.


Syrian officials publicly condemned international terrorism, but made a distinction between terrorism and what they considered to be "legitimate armed resistance" by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and by Lebanese Hizballah. The Syrian Government has not been implicated directly in an act of terrorism since 1986, although preliminary findings of a UN investigation into the February assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri have indicated a strong likelihood of official Syrian involvement.


During the past seven years there have been no acts of terrorism against American citizens in Syria. Damascus has repeatedly assured the United States that it will take every possible measure to protect U.S. citizens and facilities in Syria.

In the past, Damascus cooperated with the United States and other foreign governments against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations and individuals. In May, however, the Syrian Government ended intelligence cooperation, citing continued U.S. public complaints about the inadequate level of Syria's assistance to end the flow of fighters and money to Iraq.


Syria made efforts to limit the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq. It upgraded physical security conditions on the border and announced that it has begun to give closer scrutiny to military-age Arab males entering Syria (visas are still not required for citizens of Arab countries). The government claimed that since 2003 it has repatriated more than 1,200 foreign extremists and arrested more than 4,000 Syrians trying to go to Iraq to fight.


In the last six months of 2005, Damascus highlighted clashes on Syrian territory with terrorist groups, particularly with the Jund a-Sham group associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in its government-controlled press information"

 

[Goobieman]

Actually that's not true to be a terrorist state. Terrorist state is in the state of being terrorized. So seems my understanding and use of the word is wrong.

Um...whatever.

So here instead should be what I used. State Terrorism; Saudi Arabia is again such an example as is N. Korea then falling into that category, but then as do many other nations. However such nations are terrorists to thier own citizens and not towards other nations (exception to the Saudi's whom indeed support AQ).

Show that the government of SA supports AQ.

Given such a more specified defition, perhaps now you can define for us which nation is bent on the destruction of the US? As only nation states would represent having infrastructure.

Strtawman.
You don't need to be a government "bent on the destruction of the US" to be a state sponsor of terrorism, and thus a legitimate target in the war against terrorism.

Iran and Syria, unquestionably, are states that sponsor terrorism.

 

[Iriemon]

Did you REALLY need to ask this?
What's a terrorist state?
A state the supports terrorism and terrorist groups.
Iran, Syria and (to a lesser extent) Lebanon support terrorism and terrorist groups.

:roll:

"Terrorist state" = any Arab state that will not do what the US demands it do or opposes US policies.

 

[DeeJayH]

"Terrorist state" = any Arab state that will not do what the US demands it do or opposes US policies.

and just how does N. Korea fit into that absurd definition

 

[mixedmedia]

I haven't been back here long and this comment has probably already been bandied about, but in reference to the "WMD/no WMD" why-we-went-to-war-debate I'd just like to throw out President Bush's own words from his August 21, 2006 press conference...

"The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East."

I have debated the existence of this "freedom agenda" with at least 5 or 6 members of this community and I would just like to say once and for all, I told you so.

And I want to comment briefly on the use of the term "terrorist state" (also known as the "rogue state"). It is a term given to us (a gift of convenience!) in order for us to morally equivocate killing large numbers of civilians (when and if it comes to that) in these states with a modicum of effort. Not rogues or terrorists, the regular people, the ones who always end up paying the heaviest price during wartime. It is just one example of how words and catch-phrases are used to manipulate and placate the masses. And I don't say this as a left-wing wacko liberal, I say it as a person with my eyes open. I believe anyone who supports continued aggression on our behalf has the moral obligation to look at civilian casualties with open eyes and an open heart. It should hurt and hurt a lot. Bluster and feigned or real indifference like I see so often on this board are only two more dishonest ways of dealing with it.

Myself, even though I am a peacemongering liberal, I struggle constantly with the question of whether aggression is necessary. I see the danger brewing, I see the benefits of a middle east with more freedoms and opportunity, but I also see the precarious balance between being liberators and oppressors and I wonder if we have the grace it takes to walk that line. And if we don't, we stand to lose all the treasured ideals we are fighting for in the first place. There's a quote from somewhere about the road to salvation being like a razor's edge, can't think of who said it and where it comes from, but it would be beneficial if more Americans were cognizant of that idea about now. As well as the lessons of history.

Eh, guess that wasn't brief.....sorry.

 

[mixedmedia]

And I vote that the Iraq War will not prevent terrorism here, but come on, did anyone really believe that line? It's ad copy, plain and simple. And not even good copy, more like those dicey infomercial promises.

 

[jfuh]

Show that the government of SA supports AQ.

Lol, Did Iraq support AQ?
But here it is for your reading enjoyment. It's not really any wonder then why most of the terrorists are all from Saudi Arabia.
http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/alqaandsaars.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001296.php

Strtawman.
You don't need to be a government "bent on the destruction of the US" to be a state sponsor of terrorism, and thus a legitimate target in the war against terrorism.

Then why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?

Iran and Syria, unquestionably, are states that sponsor terrorism.

As is the house of Saudi.

 

[jfuh]

State Sponsors of Terrorism


Country Designation Date

Cuba March 1, 1982

Iran January 19, 1984

North Korea January 20, 1988

Sudan August 12, 1993

Syria December 29, 1979

Country Reports on Terrorism

Firstly, I think you'll have to admit, that it's no coincidence that the same nations that this administration outlines as terrorists are the ones on the site you listed. That's right I'm calling it governmental propaganda, why? Simple, it has of all places Cuba listed as a state sponser of terrorism. Come on, Cuba? Guantanomo Bay doesn't exactly qualify as terrorist training ground.

It's interesting also that Sudan is listed but Yeman, Congo and Saudi Arabia are not, nor is Lebanon as was listed by one of our colleagues on this site.

 

[akyron]

Firstly, I think you'll have to admit, that it's no coincidence that the same nations that this administration outlines as terrorists are the ones on the site you listed. That's right I'm calling it governmental propaganda, why? Simple, it has of all places Cuba listed as a state sponser of terrorism. Come on, Cuba? Guantanomo Bay doesn't exactly qualify as terrorist training ground.

It's interesting also that Sudan is listed but Yeman, Congo and Saudi Arabia are not, nor is Lebanon as was listed by one of our colleagues on this site.

This administration???
Look at the dates

 

[AcePylut]

This is why "disporportionate response" is the only option that should be taken:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6EAFE844-30C5-4B19-A154-A43EE62C8FCA.htm

"We did not think, even one per cent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview with Lebanon's New TV station.

I.E. If nasrallah knew that Israel would respond disporportionately, he wouldn't have had the soldiers kidnapped.

That he thought there wouldn't be a "disporportionate response", he thought he could get away with it.

And that's exactly why when just one US civvie/soldier gets attacked, you respond with 'everything' you have. So that people know they're going to face the full might of the US Military should they do it.

 

[aquapub]

This is why "disporportionate response" is the only option that should be taken:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6EAFE844-30C5-4B19-A154-A43EE62C8FCA.htm

:agree

A-freaking men.

 

[jfuh]

This administration???
Look at the dates

Then it's even more interesting that Iraq and Afganistan (among others) are not on there.

 

[akyron]

Then it's even more interesting that Iraq and Afganistan (among others) are not on there.

Seems logical since the terrorist supporting governments were replaced.

 

[jfuh]

Seems logical since the terrorist supporting governments were replaced.

I don't see how it's in any way logical. Because then there'd be a contradiction with Cuba. Cuba and terrorist? Seriously, Cuba and Terrorist? Drug lords absolutely, but terrorists?
I don't ever recall us ever linking those two.
Also then there's North Korea. Sure Kim Jun Ill is a trigger happy hollywood wanna be, but terrorist or AQ (aka religious fundamentalist) he is not.
Also noteable, is that the source shows when said countries were labled as terrorist supporting but not when or if they still are. To which Iraq and Afganistan are not on there.
With respect to Afganistan, let's not forget, it was those blank checks to Afganistan in the 80's during the Regan administration, producing AQ or Taliban - whichever to fight against the Soviet invasion.

Then again Iran contra ring a bell? Contras aka drug lords; So then wouldn't we, the US then be included into terrorist supporting nation? Hell we were selling weapons to IRAN an avowed enemy back then and today. how is that in any way justifiable?

 

[Goobieman]

I don't see how it's in any way logical. Because then there'd be a contradiction with Cuba. Cuba and terrorist? Seriously, Cuba and Terrorist? Drug lords absolutely, but terrorists?
I don't ever recall us ever linking those two.
Also then there's North Korea.

Cuba - Added in 1982. Hosts or supports members of Basque ETA and the Colombian FARC and ELN groups.
North Korea - Added in 1988. Sold weapons to terrorist groups and to have given asylum to Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members. The country is also responsible for the Rangoon bombing and the bombing of KAL Flight 858.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._list_of_state_sponsors_of_international_terrorism

Sure Kim Jun Ill is a trigger happy hollywood wanna be, but terrorist or AQ (aka religious fundamentalist) he is not.

Your assumption that to be a terrorist, or a state supporter of terrorism, you must be a religious zealot insn't sound.

With respect to Afganistan, let's not forget, it was those blank checks to Afganistan in the 80's during the Regan administration, producing AQ or Taliban - whichever to fight against the Soviet invasion.

The Taliban did not exist until 1994, 6 years after the USSR pulled out.
AQ did not exist until 1989, after the USSR left Afghanistan. Before that, its predecessor, the MAK was a minor, non-combatant, fund-raising and logistical arm of the Mujadeen.

So, your claim here doesnt really mean much -- certainly, far less than the argument that we shouldnt forget that blank check we wrote to the USSR when they were figthing the Germans.

Then again Iran contra ring a bell? Contras aka drug lords; So then wouldn't we, the US then be included into terrorist supporting nation?

While youcould,. I'm sure, point out some atrocities committed by the Contras, you'd be hard-pressed to show that they were terrorists.

Hell we were selling weapons to IRAN an avowed enemy back then and today. how is that in any way justifiable?

Getting the Iranians to pay for the fight aganinst the Communists in Nicaragua? Thats a GREAT idea.

 

[akyron]

I don't see how it's in any way logical.

Already answered.

Second link has the whys and wheres.

 

[jfuh]

Already answered.

Second link has the whys and wheres.

Yes as does the CIA source you posted. However Cuba again illogical and irrational.

 

[jfuh]

Cuba - Added in 1982. Hosts or supports members of Basque ETA and the Colombian FARC and ELN groups.

I'm sorry so we're going to fight CUba now, as in fighting them there? The premise of the thread is very much about AQ. Cuba supports AQ? Cuban AQ ties?
Also, Basque ETA and Columbian FARC or ELN - yawn, those were yesterday's irrlevancies.

North Korea - Added in 1988. Sold weapons to terrorist groups and to have given asylum to Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members. The country is also responsible for the Rangoon bombing and the bombing of KAL Flight 858.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._list_of_state_sponsors_of_international_terrorism

Wow you can cut and paste from Wiki, good job.
Japanese communist league is terrorist cell?
So when are we going to invade N. Korea now.

Your assumption that to be a terrorist, or a state supporter of terrorism, you must be a religious zealot insn't sound.

Isn't that the fight them there mentality? The support of AQ and other religious zealots? To spread democracy now.
Is it not revenge for those that attacked us on 9/11 (AQ) that started this war? So now we're going to invade Cuba and N. Korea?

The Taliban did not exist until 1994, 6 years after the USSR pulled out.
AQ did not exist until 1989, after the USSR left Afghanistan. Before that, its predecessor, the MAK was a minor, non-combatant, fund-raising and logistical arm of the Mujadeen.

Un huh

Sponsored by US and Pakistan
His power is founded on a personal fortune earned by his family's construction business in Saudi Arabia. Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian. While in Afghanistan, he founded the Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), which recruited fighters from around the world and imported equipment to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet army.
Egyptians, Lebanese, Turks and others - numbering thousands in Bin Laden's estimate - joined their Afghan Muslim brothers in the struggle against an ideology that spurned religion.

And of course OBL has nothing at all whatsoever to do with AQ.

So, your claim here doesnt really mean much -- certainly, far less than the argument that we shouldnt forget that blank check we wrote to the USSR when they were figthing the Germans.

Except that we created our own worst nightmare.

While youcould,. I'm sure, point out some atrocities committed by the Contras, you'd be hard-pressed to show that they were terrorists.

You see no problem with the sales of weaponry to Iran, which had since been banned?

Getting the Iranians to pay for the fight aganinst the Communists in Nicaragua? Thats a GREAT idea.

Yes giving the Iranian's advanced weaponry and taking that money to fight the democratically supported communists of Nicaragua. There's one for democracy.

 

[Goobieman]

I'm sorry so we're going to fight CUba now,
So when are we going to invade N. Korea now.

You asked, I answered. You didnt get the answer you wanted. Too bad.

Isn't that the fight them there mentality? The support of AQ and other religious zealots? To spread democracy now.
Is it not revenge for those that attacked us on 9/11 (AQ) that started this war? So now we're going to invade Cuba and N. Korea?

None of this drivel changes the fact that your assumption is wrong.
Please show me how religious fundamentalism is a requirement to be a terrorist.

Un huh

I'll take that as a concession of the point.
If its not, then please, point out the factual inaccuracies in my statements:
-The Taliban did not exist until 1994, 6 years after the USSR pulled out.
-AQ did not exist until 1989, after the USSR left Afghanistan. Before that, its predecessor, the MAK was a minor, non-combatant, fund-raising and logistical arm of the Mujadeen.

Except that we created our own worst nightmare.

In the USSR? Sure we did.
According to your logic, the cold war was out fault, and we had no business opposing the USSR, since we heled them 1941-1945.

You see no problem with the sales of weaponry to Iran, which had since been banned

?
You arent addressing what I said.
YOU said:
Then again Iran contra ring a bell? Contras aka drug lords; So then wouldn't we, the US then be included into terrorist supporting nation?
I said:
While you could,. I'm sure, point out some atrocities committed by the Contras, you'd be hard-pressed to show that they were terrorists.

Please -- support your claim and show the Contras to be terrorists.

Yes giving the Iranian's advanced weaponry

Advanced weaponry? What exactly did we SELL (not give) them?
You MUST know, as you make the claim that it was "advanced".

 

[akyron]

Yes as does the CIA source you posted. However Cuba again illogical and irrational.

US department of state source.

"Cuba

Cuba actively continued to oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the global war on terror and has publicly condemned various U.S. policies and actions. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets, although the authority to do so is contained in Cuba’s Law 93 Against Acts of Terrorism, as well as Instruction 19 of the Superintendent of the Cuban Central Bank. No new counterterrorism laws were enacted, nor were any executive orders or regulations issued in this regard. To date, the Cuban Government has taken no action against al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.


Cuba did not undertake any counterterrorism efforts in international and regional fora. Official government statements and the government-controlled press rarely speak out against al-Qaida or other designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

Cuba invests heavily in biotechnology, and there is some dispute about the existence and extent of Cuba’s offensive biological weapons program. The Cuban Government maintains friendly ties with Iran and North Korea. Cuban Foreign Minister Perez Roque visited Iran on November 13. Earlier in the year, Iran offered Cuba a 20 million euro line of credit, ostensibly for investment in biotechnology. The Cuba-Iran Joint Commission met in Havana in January. Cuba and North Korea held military talks at the general staff level in May in Pyongyang. The North Korean trade minister visited Havana in November and signed a protocol for cooperation in the areas of science and trade.


The Cuban Government continues to permit U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba, and is unlikely to satisfy U.S. extradition requests for terrorists harbored in the country. In previous years, the government responded to requests to extradite U.S. fugitives by stating that approval would be contingent upon the U.S. returning wanted Cuban criminals. U.S. fugitives range from convicted murderers, two of whom killed police officers, to numerous hijackers. Most of those fugitives entered Cuba in the 1970s.


The U.S. Government periodically requests the Government of Cuba to return wanted fugitives to the United States. Cuba continues to be non-responsive. On the other hand, the Cuban regime publicly demanded the return to Cuba of five of its agents convicted of espionage in the United States. The Cuban Government refers to these individuals as heroes in the fight against terrorism. The five are variously accused of being foreign intelligence agents and infiltrating U.S. military facilities. One is accused of conspiracy to murder for his role in the Cuban Air Force’s shooting down of two small civilian planes. Cuba has stated that it will no longer provide safe haven to new U.S. fugitives who may enter Cuba.


Cuba did not extradite suspected terrorists during the year, but demanded that the United States surrender to Cuba Luis Posada Carriles, whom it accuses of plotting to kill Castro and bombing a Cubana Airlines plane in 1976, which resulted in more than 70 deaths. Posada Carriles remains in U.S. custody. Cuba has also asked the United States to return three Cuban-Americans implicated in the same cases.


The Government of Cuba maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and North Korea, and has provided safe haven to members of ETA, FARC, and the ELN. There is no information concerning terrorist activities of these or other organizations on Cuban territory. Press reports indicate that U.S. fugitives from justice and ETA members are living legally in Cuba. The United States is not aware of specific terrorist enclaves in the country."



I have no idea where you came up with CIA sources. (Not that they are any less credible.)

 

[akyron]

Advanced weaponry? What exactly did we SELL (not give) them?
You MUST know, as you make the claim that it was "advanced".

US military involvement in Iran


Perhaps he means advanced in 1979.

"Grumman F-14 Tomcat swing-wing jet fighter, the McDonnell-Douglas Harpoon anti-ship missile, the Lockheed P-3C Orion ocean surveillance plane, and the Spruance-class heavy destroyer. Besides these potent arms, the United States also endowed Iran with the capacity to conduct warfare far from its borders. Recent deliveries have included, for instance, twelve Lockheed C-130 Hercules troop-transport planes, thirteen Boeing 707-320L tanker aircraft, 142 McDonnell-Douglas F-4E Phantom deep-strike fighter-bombers and three Tang-class submarines (which cannot even operate in the shallow Persian Gulf). These deliveries have provided Iran with a formidable military arsenal, capable of sustaining conflict at very high levels of violence and at sites far distant from Iranian territorV,[3]"