• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

EU gives $143 MILLION to terrorists

Willoughby said:
a bit paranoid are we??


Not at all ....

I see no reason to fund Hamas is all.... You apease your enemies and thats fine. If you think bending over and taking it in the a$$ anytime someone says boo to you then great. I however would prefer if my country did not help support a this organization in any way shape or form..... can't see as why the hell you would consider that paranoid....
 
but do hamas really pose a threat to the US

anyway why not fund them..you have a history of that...the IRA
 
GySgt said:
Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

Indeed it is. It's cleary scribed into International Law in the same way. So, to those that ask what is precisely meant by the definition of terrorism and 'what is a terrorist?', the answer to your question is as unambiguous as the laws that define it. It's readily available, and you only need to look.
 
Willoughby said:
but do hamas really pose a threat to the US

anyway why not fund them..you have a history of that...the IRA

They are a terrorist organization. They have vowed to wipe the only true democratic state in the region off the map. Of COURSE we shouldn't support them. It is hard to imagine anyone who seriously thinks we should support terrorists when we are in a war AGAINST terror.

Why are Leftists constantly wanting to appease the enemy? Haven't you learned the lessons of history yet?!?!?!
 
Re: EU to give $143 million to Palestinian Authority

Calm2Chaos said:
Long as they don't get any money from the US I could care less who pays them. You want to buy your security from those with there finger on the trigger feel free. But sooner or later that finger is going to get itchy and the price is going to go up
It's about helping people, it's not about buying security.
 
ludahai said:
...It is hard to imagine anyone who seriously thinks we should support terrorists when we are in a war AGAINST terror.

...Haven't you learned the lessons of history yet?!?!?!

You're precisely right. Those countries/states that have supplied, directly funded and protected terrorists from the due process of the law for the past decades and, certainly not least, states 'actually being' found guilty of International terrorism, as defined and ruled by the International Court of Justice, are indeed terrorist states themselves under the clearly stated policy of the Global War on Terrorism.

That policy therefore calls for a clear cut resolution; to seek justice from a ruling against or declare war on the United States of America.

__________
Orlando Bosch: Initially declared and wanted by the FBI and the Justice Department as a leading international terrorist. Accused of 30 terrorist acts (many on US soil), including the terrorist bombing of Cubana Flight 455 killing all 73 civillians onboard. - Granted a Presidential pardon by George Bush and resides in Miama, Fl.

Luis Posada Carriles(aka Ramon Medina): Another notorious international terrorist. Stated as being the collaborator with Bosch, in the Bombing of Flight 455 and was later caught and incarcerated for the terrorist act. Escaped from prison, fled and was later recruited by the US and put on the CIA payroll. Put to work on the illegal Contra resupply programme. Taken responsibility for a string of hotel bombings. An extradition request was made for his return from the United States. Residence: Miami, Fl.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/

Intenational Court of Justice, Case:
Nicaragua vs United States.(1984)

The US was found guilty of the unlawful use of force (international terrorism), as stipulated by international law. US refused to cease its funding, its unlawful campaign and further refused pay millions of dollars reparations.

(Full case in PDF format)

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inus_ijudgment/inus_ijudgment_19841126.pdf
 
ludahai said:
They are a terrorist organization. They have vowed to wipe the only true democratic state in the region off the map. Of COURSE we shouldn't support them. It is hard to imagine anyone who seriously thinks we should support terrorists when we are in a war AGAINST terror.

Why are Leftists constantly wanting to appease the enemy? Haven't you learned the lessons of history yet?!?!?!



I suggest you learn history. We have a dirty record of supporting dictators that overthrow democracys or keep them from happening...



Oh wait, you're not suppose to know that.
 
128shot said:
I suggest you learn history. We have a dirty record of supporting dictators that overthrow democracys or keep them from happening...



Oh wait, you're not suppose to know that.


I assure you that ludahai knows his history.

An unfortunate side affect during the Cold War. The Cold War deformed American strategic thought and our applied values beyond recognition. From the amoral defender of Europe's rotten empires, we descended to an immoral propping up of every soulless dictator who preferred our payments to those offered by Moscow. We utterly rejected our professed values, consistently struggling against genuine national liberation movements because we saw the hand of Moscow wherever a poor man reached out for food or asked for dignity. At our worst in the Middle East, and in the interests of stability, we looked the other way while secret police tortured and shabby armies massacred their own people, from Saudi Arabia to Iran.

Mistakes were made and we were used and blamed by those that oppressed and tortured.

However, the Cold War is over and the last dinosaurs of that era who have been clinging onto their jobs with the best spirit of Tyrannosaurus Rex are leaving. It is no longer acceptable among the intelligencia world and the planners to maintain the "stability" of governments that have outlived their expiration dates. From our diplomatic personnel held hostage in Iran a generation ago, to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, we have suffered for our support of repressive, "stable" regimes that radicalized their own impoverished citizens. That "Old Europe" mentality of respecting "soveriegnty" despite any humanitarian attrocity within borders is also a thing of the past. We must shake this too.

The Cold War warped our thinking so badly that when the Soviet empire finally collapsed in 1991, we proclaimed a new world order while thoughtlessly doing our best to preserve the old one. Our diplomats and decisionmakers needed new thinking at least as badly as did the men in Moscow. Look at our track record since the Gulf War: It is a litany of predetermined failures that would be laughable were it not for the human suffering that resulted.

Our age--roughly the period from 1898 through the end of the 21st century--is an age of devolution, of breaking down, of the casting off of old forms of government and territorial organization in favor of the popular will. Certainly, the forces of reaction can look very strong--deceptively strong--and the temptation is always to back the devil you know (and who allows you to explore for oil on his territory). But make no mistake--in one essential respect, today's America is on the same side as the most repressive voices in the Islamic world and the hard, old men in Beijing: We are trying to freeze history in place. And it cannot be done. In our ill-considered pursuit of stability (a contradiction in terms), we have raised up devils, from terrorists to dictators, who will not be easily put down, but the progressive future demands that we no longer support stability of these monsters. Saddam fell to the collective shame of those that prefer militant despots to western inspired democracies and it fell to those liberals who prefer to continue in the traditions of "old Europe."

With Afghanistan and Iraq, we have strayed from the old course. While people are clinging onto controversey and any angle that might lend them some support to explain away their personal inadequecies, America, with little help from "Old Europe," has freed two nations of people who are unfortunately unable to sustain themselves without the opressions and abuses of their former regimes. Regimes, we at one time, ignored as they practiced their abuses behind "sovereign" borders and frequently exported their terror. Times are changing and some of our "allies" in the Middle East and Europe don't like it.

The irony in this is that our own American people who are complaining to no end about today's events use our Cold War past to cast shadows. How sad that they are too blind to really notice the changing times as they are witnessing the very thing they want America to stand for again.
 
GySgt said:
I assure you that ludahai knows his history.

An unfortunate side affect during the Cold War. The Cold War deformed American strategic thought and our applied values beyond recognition. From the amoral defender of Europe's rotten empires, we descended to an immoral propping up of every soulless dictator who preferred our payments to those offered by Moscow. We utterly rejected our professed values, consistently struggling against genuine national liberation movements because we saw the hand of Moscow wherever a poor man reached out for food or asked for dignity. At our worst in the Middle East, and in the interests of stability, we looked the other way while secret police tortured and shabby armies massacred their own people, from Saudi Arabia to Iran.

Mistakes were made and we were used and blamed by those that oppressed and tortured.

However, the Cold War is over and the last dinosaurs of that era who have been clinging onto their jobs with the best spirit of Tyrannosaurus Rex are leaving. It is no longer acceptable among the intelligencia world and the planners to maintain the "stability" of governments that have outlived their expiration dates. From our diplomatic personnel held hostage in Iran a generation ago, to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, we have suffered for our support of repressive, "stable" regimes that radicalized their own impoverished citizens. That "Old Europe" mentality of respecting "soveriegnty" despite any humanitarian attrocity within borders is also a thing of the past. We must shake this too.

The Cold War warped our thinking so badly that when the Soviet empire finally collapsed in 1991, we proclaimed a new world order while thoughtlessly doing our best to preserve the old one. Our diplomats and decisionmakers needed new thinking at least as badly as did the men in Moscow. Look at our track record since the Gulf War: It is a litany of predetermined failures that would be laughable were it not for the human suffering that resulted.

Our age--roughly the period from 1898 through the end of the 21st century--is an age of devolution, of breaking down, of the casting off of old forms of government and territorial organization in favor of the popular will. Certainly, the forces of reaction can look very strong--deceptively strong--and the temptation is always to back the devil you know (and who allows you to explore for oil on his territory). But make no mistake--in one essential respect, today's America is on the same side as the most repressive voices in the Islamic world and the hard, old men in Beijing: We are trying to freeze history in place. And it cannot be done. In our ill-considered pursuit of stability (a contradiction in terms), we have raised up devils, from terrorists to dictators, who will not be easily put down, but the progressive future demands that we no longer support stability of these monsters. Saddam fell to the collective shame of those that prefer militant despots to western inspired democracies and it fell to those liberals who prefer to continue in the traditions of "old Europe."

With Afghanistan and Iraq, we have strayed from the old course. While people are clinging onto controversey and any angle that might lend them some support to explain away their personal inadequecies, America, with little help from "Old Europe," has freed two nations of people who are unfortunately unable to sustain themselves without the opressions and abuses of their former regimes. Regimes, we at one time, ignored as they practiced their abuses behind "sovereign" borders and frequently exported their terror. Times are changing and some of our "allies" in the Middle East and Europe don't like it.

The irony in this is that our own American people who are complaining to no end about today's events use our Cold War past to cast shadows. How sad that they are too blind to really notice the changing times as they are witnessing the very thing they want America to stand for again.



It is a black shadow, and we should be openly condemned for it. Along with all the other bastard nations involved. Then we'll talk about clean slates.


To make things short and sweet, I don't equate a different time = good measure nor do I care to forgive any government for causing these types of problems.





I assure you, I know history too. and I do actually give a big :applaud :good_job: to your post, and I'm in no doubt that ludahi knows his history, at least if he hangs around you.


Excuses are not an option, though.
 
128shot said:
It is a black shadow, and we should be openly condemned for it. Along with all the other bastard nations involved. Then we'll talk about clean slates.

To make things short and sweet, I don't equate a different time = good measure nor do I care to forgive any government for causing these types of problems.

I assure you, I know history too. and I do actually give a big :applaud :good_job: to your post, and I'm in no doubt that ludahi knows his history, at least if he hangs around you.


Excuses are not an option, though.

Reality is what it is. We can complain to know end about it, but without understanding all that was or is involved, we are merely being hypocrits. Those actions, right or wrong, ensured lesser conflicts and ensured certain securities in which ours and our hypocritical allies have benefitted.

By the way, I believe "Ludahai" is a history teacher.
 
GySgt said:
Reality is what it is. We can complain to know end about it, but without understanding all that was or is involved, we are merely being hypocrits. Those actions, right or wrong, ensured lesser conflicts and ensured certain securities in which ours and our hypocritical allies have benefitted.

By the way, I believe "Ludahai" is a history teacher.



Its totally gray, when you get to it I suppose.


However I will contest that we screwed up after the fall of the soviet union, but I take you already know that....



At least I got close to spelling his handle right hehe.
 
The post by GySgt, is pretty much a literal lift from one of Ralph Peters, a retired army officer, articles. It's the same denunciation peters shares with the US leadership, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. given to European countries that took the view of the majority of its own population, and didn't enter the war. They're bitterly deemed as "Old Europe" by Washington.
"New Europe" are the good fella's, the 'democratic warriors', who ignored what their population said; who the majority of, were also opposed to joining the US.

Wolfowitz condemned the Turkish military, for example, for not forcing its government to overrule over 90% of its population, who were not in favor of the war. That's an insight into his idea of Democracy.
 
128shot said:
However I will contest that we screwed up after the fall of the soviet union, but I take you already know that....

What's to contest?
 
Brigand said:
The post by GySgt, is pretty much a literal lift from one of Ralph Peters, a retired army officer, articles. It's the same denunciation peters shares with the US leadership, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. given to European countries that took the view of the majority of its own population, and didn't enter the war. They're bitterly deemed as "Old Europe" by Washington.
"New Europe" are the good fella's, the 'democratic warriors', who ignored what their population said; who the majority of, were also opposed to joining the US.

Wolfowitz condemned the Turkish military, for example, for not forcing its government to overrule over 90% of its population, who were not in favor of the war. That's an insight into his idea of Democracy.

Parameters.
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01winter/peters.htm
 
Brigand said:
The post by GySgt, is pretty much a literal lift from one of Ralph Peters, a retired army officer, articles. It's the same denunciation peters shares with the US leadership, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. given to European countries that took the view of the majority of its own population, and didn't enter the war. They're bitterly deemed as "Old Europe" by Washington.
"New Europe" are the good fella's, the 'democratic warriors', who ignored what their population said; who the majority of, were also opposed to joining the US.

Wolfowitz condemned the Turkish military, for example, for not forcing its government to overrule over 90% of its population, who were not in favor of the war. That's an insight into his idea of Democracy.

Now that I have time...

It's mere truth. Ralph Peters, Wolfowitz, and so many others predicted the coming storm long before 9/11. They paint pictures of reality. "Old Europe" represents the old order of global organization and was a term used long before today's Washington. Much like the use of Islam as a mundane organizational tool, it is failing in much of the world. "New Europe" is merely a casting off of those ideals that made the empires of the past. Appeasements of a tyrannical presence is also an artform of "Old Europe." "Soveriegnty" does not mean that abuse and oppression is protected. Nor does it mean that one must wait to be attacked.

Your summary is a little on the obtuse side.
 
GySgt said:
It's mere truth. Ralph Peters, Wolfowitz, and so many others predicted the coming storm long before 9/11. They paint pictures of reality. "Old Europe" represents the old order of global organization and was a term used long before today's Washington. Much like the use of Islam as a mundane organizational tool, it is failing in much of the world. "New Europe" is merely a casting off of those ideals that made the empires of the past. Appeasements of a tyrannical presence is also an artform of "Old Europe." "Soveriegnty" does not mean that abuse and oppression is protected. Nor does it mean that one must wait to be attacked.

First of all, if you're even remotely interested in the history of nations that have a praxis of appeasing or outright supporting dictators, tyrannies and terrorists, then check the record of one its worst offenders. A point I've made elsewhere is that the US is exceptionally free and the records are readily available. Much of Latin America remains devestated because of US sponsored aggression and terrorism. I mentioned Nicaragua, but infact, there is much worse than that. El-Salvador, which became nothing less than a miserable hell hole, because of US support of terrorists and its evil dictators. I mean, it spreads through much of Latin America and the Third World and some may not ever recover. Somoza, d'Aubuisson, Montt - are only a few monsters who were supported by the US Government. Take the notorious international terrorist that are living in the US today. In particular, Bosch and Carrilles I've mentioned before. Saddam Hussein reflects the same principle. A friend and favoured trading partner and considered a "moderate for the middle east", he was long supported by Washington and London, even through his very worst attrocities. It continued on even after the first Gulf War, when the Bush Administration authorized Saddam to destroy an uprising which could of overthrown his regime. Soveriegnty does not mean that abuse, oppression and dictatorships should be protected. I agree. Which is why I condemn the US for doing it and not least, its brazen hypocrisy .
 
Last edited:
Brigand said:
First of all, if you're even remotely interested in the history of nations that have a praxis of appeasing or outright supporting dictators, tyrannies and terrorists, then check the record of one its worst offenders. A point I've made elsewhere is that the US is exceptionally free and the records are readily available. Much of Latin America remains devestated because of US sponsored aggression and terrorism. I mentioned Nicaragua, but infact, there is much worse than that. El-Salvador, which became nothing less than a miserable hell hole, because of US support of terrorists and its evil dictators. I mean, it spreads through much of Latin America and the Third World and some may not ever recover. Somoza, d'Aubuisson, Montt - are only a few monsters who were supported by the US Government. Take the notorious international terrorist that are living in the US today. In particular, Bosch and Carrilles I've mentioned before. Saddam Hussein reflects the same principle. A friend and favoured trading partner and considered a "moderate for the middle east", he was long supported by Washington and London, even through his very worst attrocities. It continued on even after the first Gulf War, when the Bush Administration authorized Saddam to destroy an uprising which could of overthrown his regime. Soveriegnty does not mean that abuse, oppression and dictatorships should be protected. I agree. Which is why I condemn the US for doing it and not least, its brazen hypocrisy .

I'm no stranger to history.

It is hypocrisy. No doubt, but hypocrisy is a funny word and we are all dirty from it. To expect America to defy the natural course of progression by being clean of it is not practical. The difference between our nation and the nations of the world is exactly as you stated...we are free and our dirty laundry is in plain site for all to see. We don't hide from it, but we can understand it. South America was about keeping Soviet Communist influence out of our back yard. The Middle East has been about oil (and not just America's). Were there other interests involved? Sure, but our hypocrisy isn't about conquering or colonizing. Our hypocrisy has been our willingness to look the other way, while American interests were made secure and our "allies" were defended. Should we turn our backs on our "allies" when their citizens wish a coup or an uprising? Should we trade diplomatic hypocrisy for backstabbing tactics? "Diplomacy" is as ugly as warfare. Those that do not agree are blind. The true hypocrisy lies with those nations that have practiced this sort of "stable" diplomacy long before we have, yet "condemn" our actions just for the last 50 years. Glorious France is far more dirty than us, yet how many Frenchmen "condemn" their own nation? Not many. You will find plenty that "condemns" America though. Here is the real hypocrisy.

"Reality" is not something that you and I have a problem facing. Were it not for the dreamers and the idealogues, "reality" would be apparent to all. However, it is what it is. Were it not for 9/11 smacking our government in the face, Saddam's Regime and the Tali-Ban would still exist under the "hypocrisy" of our past. There is no denying this. It is certainly comprehensible that we cannot continue the path in which "Old Europe" thinking has taken us. Our security can no longer depend upon the false "stability" of governments that have lived beyond their expirations dates and there is no turning back.

Radical Islamic terrorists are determined to destroy and murder and they blame us for all that is wrong with their world. It is always easy to blame outward and in the Middle East it is second nature to look for the scapegoat. The Arab and Persian elite offer us up on a plate for the things they have done to their own societies. Here is more "hypocrisy" - Arab hypocrisy has been developed to a super human strength. Islamic terrorist organizations hide behind a religion and they practice their deeds under the "blessings" of their god. While slaughtering infidels and "non-believers" within Islam, they have made themselves the true blasphemers of their religion - more hypocrisy.

Like I said, "hypocrisy" is a funny word. It is not practical to expect America to defy the natural course of progression and diplomacy and remain clean. We were "clean" when we were isolated - before placing our hands in the fabrics of "Old Europe."
 
GySgt said:
"Reality" is not something that you and I have a problem facing. Were it not for the dreamers and the idealogues, "reality" would be apparent to all. However, it is what it is. Were it not for 9/11 smacking our government in the face, Saddam's Regime and the Tali-Ban would still exist under the "hypocrisy" of our past. There is no denying this. It is certainly comprehensible that we cannot continue the path in which "Old Europe" thinking has taken us. Our security can no longer depend upon the false "stability" of governments that have lived beyond their expirations dates and there is no turning back.

From my humble understanding USA still have trops in over one hundred countries, alot of them not democratic countries. Also you doing trade with almost every country in the world, and alot of them not democratic countries. Of course trade can be a way to reform. But does you companies plan there action in dictaturship so they help instead of stop reforms? Not saying that the rest of the world is better. Just that you seem to still have alot of dirty loundry. That even after the "awakening".
 
GarzaUK said:
Oh yeah gunny update on the aid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4793290.stm
EU threatens to cut off Palestinian Aid

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4801066.stm
US might increase Palestinian Aid.

Looks like Europe aren't the only appeasers around here. :roll:

Of course, America conducts a form of appeasements (there are degrees). Diplomacy cannot exist without it. However, appeasing to continue or ensure a peacful coexistence and appeasing to stay back an inevitable terror are two very different beasts. The United States has a reputation for rewarding its enemies, while taking our friends for granted. I agree with these articles, however, I don't see where the appeasement was.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
From my humble understanding USA still have trops in over one hundred countries, alot of them not democratic countries. Also you doing trade with almost every country in the world, and alot of them not democratic countries. Of course trade can be a way to reform. But does you companies plan there action in dictaturship so they help instead of stop reforms? Not saying that the rest of the world is better. Just that you seem to still have alot of dirty loundry. That even after the "awakening".


Our companies are free to do whatever they want. This is the freedom of enterprise and trades that allows the free world to flourish. Europe has companies who also do business with nations thyat are less than honorable. The "awakening" occurred a mere 4 years ago. What exactly are you expecting here?
Are you waiting for someone to flip a light switch? I think two nations from oppressive regimes and destroying a major terror organization (among innumerable smaller ones) is pretty good for just 4 years.

What many people around the globe fail to recognize is that our presence abroad benefits them too. Were America to pull out of every nation where we have allied ourselves to for free trade and commerce, many people in many different countries would feel it. It's not all just about American interests. For example: Were we to pull completely out of the Middle East and the Shi'ites and Sunni began destroying one another, the Persian theocracy were to spread as Khomeini wished it to before we stopped it, and the Saudi elite had to fend for their lives as the Saudi subjects rioted in the streets, how exactly would Europe and Asia deal with the loss of the oil stabilities that America provides? Nothing is as simple as blaming America for all that is wrong.
 
Last edited:
The reason the west gives aid to Palestine is because it will collapse causing starvation and more poverty. Palestine doesn't get aid from the Arab world because the Arab world dislikes Palestinians (they just dislike Israelis more).

There are good people in Palestine, any Christain who goes their knows it. It is a pity that their leadership is failing them, but I don't think the ordinary Palestinians should suffer for it - that is where the aid comes in. The aid does not come in cash by the way, but food and supplies. So it is hardly arming Hamas, just giving the people what they need.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, but people often overlook that during the Cartoon riots, Hamas actively protected western christain churches in Palestine from mobs. Hamas are not an absolute evil and the fact they haven't gone on a killing rampage since they came to power gives me a bit of hope.
 
GarzaUK said:
The reason the west gives aid to Palestine is because it will collapse causing starvation and more poverty. Palestine doesn't get aid from the Arab world because the Arab world dislikes Palestinians (they just dislike Israelis more).

Good vision. They dislike them for what they are and for what they are capable. A successful, flourishing Palestinian state would do far more damage to their regimes than a state of constant conflict. They also despise the Kurds for that very same reason.

GarzaUK said:
There are good people in Palestine, any Christain who goes their knows it. It is a pity that their leadership is failing them, but I don't think the ordinary Palestinians should suffer for it - that is where the aid comes in. The aid does not come in cash by the way, but food and supplies. So it is hardly arming Hamas, just giving the people what they need.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, but people often overlook that during the Cartoon riots, Hamas actively protected western christain churches in Palestine from mobs. Hamas are not an absolute evil and the fact they haven't gone on a killing rampage since they came to power gives me a bit of hope.

This is where it gets grey. This is where diplomacies and appeasements kick in. Hama has a chance to prove to the world that while their despicable acts of the past were a tactic used as a militant organization, they are now leaders of a society and they now have a greater responsibility. Theyt are the ones with the track record. It is up to them to prove they wish for a coexisting peace much more than they want a never ending feud.
 
GySgt said:
we descended to an immoral propping up of every soulless dictator who preferred our payments to those offered by Moscow. We utterly rejected our professed values, consistently struggling against genuine national liberation movements because we saw the hand of Moscow wherever a poor man reached out for food or asked for dignity.


Oh, I am ready to cry.
I started reading the article you are referring to, but what bothers me is : name those genuine liberation movements? Who did a poor man reach out for food and asked for dignity? What was Moscow’s reaction to the man? Wasn’t Moscow the first one offering food and dignity? Wasn’t it in Communist sayings --- fight for poor and suppressed? Moscow’s petting hand was the best satisfaction for poor and undignified men. Marx always had the best explanation why they were poor and undignified. Just blame USA.

GySgt said:
Mistakes were made and we were used and blamed by those that oppressed and tortured.

And Moscow is getting out clean and rosy by the blamers? On what grounds?
 
Back
Top Bottom