And Some More Terrorism!

vroom · November 3, 2005, 6:48pm

Last time I checked, who you let in to your country is your responsibility. Figure that one out if you can.

Anyway, whether or not people are searched is pretty much immaterial. What they can or can not bring aboard by way of causing trouble is.

As you can tell by all the terrorist attacks on airplanes after 9/11, the security is awfully damned lax.

–

By the way, Dean, I’m not posting so that you will be my friend. You can agree or disagree, that is up to you, but don’t expect me to worry about that impending smack down.

thunderbolt23 · November 3, 2005, 6:54pm

You don’t stop terror - terror is a tactic, as someone mentioned.

You stop your enemies.

Different enemies fight different ways - North Korea would probably favor large conventional missiles of the nuclear variety, Islamists prefer terror sneak attacks.

How do you stop them? Same way as anyone has stopped anyone historically - isolate them and take them out. The rules haven’t changed - we just need to rediscover them.

The current crop of baddies - like all of them before - want power and control. Act weak, you invite their aggression. Pacifism is never the solution.

Fahd · November 3, 2005, 7:07pm

[quote]deanec wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
fahd wrote:
How about ending US-sponsored terrorism before talking about completely ending terrorism?
This is probably the smartest comment in this thread.

That’s why it’s ignored.

But let me give you the official reply.

We in the US (I’m not really in the US, but bear with me). We in the US, don’t promote terrorism. We reserve the right to conduct our own foreign policy as we please however.

Ok, now it’s me again.

You know what. I was shocked when I saw the 9/11 attacks on TV. I couldn’t grasp what had happened.

But the next day, I was sure of one thing. It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the global powerplay had to change. With nobody safe, nobody could afford to mess with anybody.

Little did I know that several world leaders didn’t have half a brain.

What US sponsored terrorism are we talking about?[/quote]

Just a few facts:

November 19, 2000

A nonviolent demonstration is held calling on the US Army to close its infamous School of the Americas, located at Fort Benning, Georgia. [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 11/19/2000; School of Americas Watch, 7/12/2001] The school trained more than 60,000 Latin American military officers over the past 50 years [CNN, 4/3/2000] , many of whom were since implicated in egregious human rights abuses (see March 15, 1993). [Associated Press, 11/20/2000; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 11/19/2000; School of Americas Watch, 7/12/2001] 1,700 of the protestors are thrown in jail, including an 88-year old nun. [Associated Press, 11/20/2000; New York Times, 6/24/2001]
People and organizations involved: Western Hemispheric Institution for Security Cooperation (School of the Americas)

July 17, 1990

Under political pressure, the US Department of Justice allows Orlando Bosch, the alleged mastermind of the bombing of Cubana de Aviacion Flight 455 (see October 6, 1976), to remain in the US. Bosch has been in US custody since he entered the US illegally in 1988 (see October 6, 1976).The Justice Department’s decision releases Bosch from custody and puts him under house arrest. It also reverses an earlier ruling that Bosch be deported and it ignores Cuba’s request that he be extradited to Cuba to stand trial for the downing of Flight 455. Later, in 2001, he is accused of supplying the explosives used in more than a dozen 1997 bombings in Havana. Despite his alleged connection to the bombings, he is permitted to stay in the US. [Salon, 1/11/2002]

September 10, 1984

Eduardo Arocena, leader of the Cuban-exile militant group OMEGA-7, testifies during his trial in New York that in the latter part of 1980 a ship traveled from Florida to Cuba with ?a mission to carry some germs to introduce them in Cuba to be used against the Soviets and against the Cuban economy, to begin what was called chemical war, which later on produced results that were not what we had expected, because we thought that it was going to be used against the Soviet forces, and it was used against our own people, and with that we did not agree.? The testimony is later used by some to support the allegation that Cuba’s 1981 Dengue fever epidemic, which infected 300,000 and killed 154, had been the result of US biowarfare.

1983

The CIA responds to the Sandinista revolution, under US President Ronald Reagan, by creating a paramilitary force to ?stop the flow of military supplies from Nicaragua to El Salvador,? despite little evidence of this actually occurring. During the '80s the force mounts raids on Nicaragua, attacking schools and medical clinics, raping, kidnapping, torturing, committing massacres, and mining harbors. By the late '80s, the paramilitary force grows to around 50,000. [The Guardian, 7/26/2000; Media Monitors, 9/24/2001; Rosset and Vendermeer, 1986; Keen, 1992]

November 22, 1963

While a US emissary is meeting with Fidel Castro to discuss the possibility of improved relations, a CIA official offers a poison pen to a Cuban hoping that it will be used by Fidel Castro. [Sources: Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders - Cuba, 11/20/1975]

These are the cases with solid evidence and documentary. I won’t even bother arguing about crisis took place in Palestine/Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam. Invading other countries, sponsoring ultra right-wing militia, overthrowing popular leaders and imposing puppet dictators isn’t going to make people in the third world love you guys.

Shahnawaz_Islam · November 4, 2005, 6:57am

[quote]fahd wrote:
deanec wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
fahd wrote:
How about ending US-sponsored terrorism before talking about completely ending terrorism?
This is probably the smartest comment in this thread.

That’s why it’s ignored.

But let me give you the official reply.

We in the US (I’m not really in the US, but bear with me). We in the US, don’t promote terrorism. We reserve the right to conduct our own foreign policy as we please however.

Ok, now it’s me again.

You know what. I was shocked when I saw the 9/11 attacks on TV. I couldn’t grasp what had happened.

But the next day, I was sure of one thing. It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the global powerplay had to change. With nobody safe, nobody could afford to mess with anybody.

Little did I know that several world leaders didn’t have half a brain.

What US sponsored terrorism are we talking about?

Just a few facts:

November 19, 2000

A nonviolent demonstration is held calling on the US Army to close its infamous School of the Americas, located at Fort Benning, Georgia. [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 11/19/2000; School of Americas Watch, 7/12/2001] The school trained more than 60,000 Latin American military officers over the past 50 years [CNN, 4/3/2000] , many of whom were since implicated in egregious human rights abuses (see March 15, 1993). [Associated Press, 11/20/2000; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 11/19/2000; School of Americas Watch, 7/12/2001] 1,700 of the protestors are thrown in jail, including an 88-year old nun. [Associated Press, 11/20/2000; New York Times, 6/24/2001]
People and organizations involved: Western Hemispheric Institution for Security Cooperation (School of the Americas)

July 17, 1990

Under political pressure, the US Department of Justice allows Orlando Bosch, the alleged mastermind of the bombing of Cubana de Aviacion Flight 455 (see October 6, 1976), to remain in the US. Bosch has been in US custody since he entered the US illegally in 1988 (see October 6, 1976).The Justice Department’s decision releases Bosch from custody and puts him under house arrest. It also reverses an earlier ruling that Bosch be deported and it ignores Cuba’s request that he be extradited to Cuba to stand trial for the downing of Flight 455. Later, in 2001, he is accused of supplying the explosives used in more than a dozen 1997 bombings in Havana. Despite his alleged connection to the bombings, he is permitted to stay in the US. [Salon, 1/11/2002]

September 10, 1984

Eduardo Arocena, leader of the Cuban-exile militant group OMEGA-7, testifies during his trial in New York that in the latter part of 1980 a ship traveled from Florida to Cuba with ?a mission to carry some germs to introduce them in Cuba to be used against the Soviets and against the Cuban economy, to begin what was called chemical war, which later on produced results that were not what we had expected, because we thought that it was going to be used against the Soviet forces, and it was used against our own people, and with that we did not agree.? The testimony is later used by some to support the allegation that Cuba’s 1981 Dengue fever epidemic, which infected 300,000 and killed 154, had been the result of US biowarfare.

1983

The CIA responds to the Sandinista revolution, under US President Ronald Reagan, by creating a paramilitary force to ?stop the flow of military supplies from Nicaragua to El Salvador,? despite little evidence of this actually occurring. During the '80s the force mounts raids on Nicaragua, attacking schools and medical clinics, raping, kidnapping, torturing, committing massacres, and mining harbors. By the late '80s, the paramilitary force grows to around 50,000. [The Guardian, 7/26/2000; Media Monitors, 9/24/2001; Rosset and Vendermeer, 1986; Keen, 1992]

November 22, 1963

While a US emissary is meeting with Fidel Castro to discuss the possibility of improved relations, a CIA official offers a poison pen to a Cuban hoping that it will be used by Fidel Castro. [Sources: Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders - Cuba, 11/20/1975]

These are the cases with solid evidence and documentary. I won’t even bother arguing about crisis took place in Palestine/Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam. Invading other countries, sponsoring ultra right-wing militia, overthrowing popular leaders and imposing puppet dictators isn’t going to make people in the third world love you guys.

[/quote]

Dear Fahd,

I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply. You say that the US should stop acts of terrorism but give no examples of actions that the US is following at present.

In addition,
(i) the 1963 act you mention sounds like counter-terrorism,

(ii) the 1984 example has the perpetuator of a germ attack stating that his intention was not to attack civilians

(iii) the 2000 example proves that the American public is against extremism.

(iv) the 1983 example is biased because it uses the words “Sandinista revolution” as if to give it legitimacy to the leftists who were behind a reign of terror.

As such, all the examples fail to prove your point. Currently, the US is not engaged in overthrowing any popular leader (unless you are including Saddam and Omar in that category). The current bunch of terrorists are incensed not by what happened in El Salvador or Cuba but by the US support of Israel in the fight for its existance. The hypocritical terrorists support the killings of Hindus in Kashmir, Bangladesh and Pakistan while harping about the killing of any person launching missile strikes on Israel.

They support the lack of freedom in the Middle East but speak of the right of self-determination of Palestinians and Kashmiri Muslims (which actually means right for the Al-Qaeda to determine the future of these people).

The Vietnam reference is really stupid. Do you really think that the US did wrong by supporting South Vietnam? Or that supporting democracy in Iraq is worse than allowing Saddam to rule?

Have you ever heard of the phrase “choosing the lesser evil”? That’s what the American policy was in Vietnam, Cuba, El Salvador where the country tried to prevent the horrors perpetuated by Stalin and Mao from recurring.

Perhaps you should take a good look at Pakistani society where the state attaches churches to exercise control over the Christians and the President belittles rape victims by stating that women are profiting from rape before critisizing the US. The problem of terrorism has everything to do with the warped psychology of the terrorist.

If the goal of the terrorists was to alleviate the sufferings of their supposedly persecuted people they wouldn’t be shooting rockets at the US military helicopters doing relief work in quake hit areas in Pakistan.

Shahnawaz_Islam · November 4, 2005, 7:01am

Can you enlighten all the forum members how people in Pakistan are treated when they hold non-violent demonstrations against any army installation?

deanec · November 4, 2005, 7:09am

[quote]vroom wrote:

–

By the way, Dean, I’m not posting so that you will be my friend. You can agree or disagree, that is up to you, but don’t expect me to worry about that impending smack down.[/quote]

Point taken, I hope you understood mine. As far as the smackdown goes, I wouldn’t be worried either…

hedo · November 4, 2005, 8:12am

From Strategist James Dunnigan.

Al Qaeda’s New Plan

November 4, 2005:

Al Qaeda (whose name means “base” in Arabic) has no base, and no secure means of communicating with all its members and supporters. So a current debate on the future of al Qaeda, by al Qaeda members and supporters, is being conducted largely in the open (although you have to dig real hard on the Internet to find some of the sources, and then have an Arabic translator handy). It all comes down to a combination of wishful thinking and pragmatism. On the fantasy side, al Qaeda leaders really believe that they will have ?liberated? territory in either Iraq and/or Afghanistan by next year. This is very important, as the most religious al Qaeda followers believe that, without al Qaeda controlled territory, al Qaeda?s war (or jihad) is illegitimate. That?s because Islamic scripture calls for anyone on a jihad to have a patch of land to launch it from. That?s what made al Qaeda so attractive (to Islamic conservatives) when it was based in Afghanistan. That?s why so many al Qaeda enthusiasts have converged on Iraq, as that is the most likely (and convenient to reach) area to ?conquer? for a new base. Afghanistan is farther away from the Islamic heartland in Arabia, and is full of Afghans who do not like Arabs very much (that?s another story.) While this al Qaeda strategy might have seemed more reasonable in 2003, today it is rapidly slipping away. The Iraqi government, and an increasing majority of the Iraqi people, want nothing to do with al Qaeda. The terrorist suicide bombing campaign has increasingly missed its main target (foreign soldiers), and instead killed more and more Iraqis. The acreage not controlled by the government has been shrinking, as more and more Sunni Arabs forsake Islamic radicalism, and support the new democracy. Unless al Qaeda has some really, really secret weapon, that is really, really effective, there won?t be any al Qaeda base in Iraq next year.

But the other al Qaeda reform is more practical, and it?s little more than recognizing the current, dispersed, ?do-whatever-you-can-with-whatever-you-got? form of organization, as the official one. But without the real estate for a ?base,? al Qaeda will appear more and more illegitimate in the eyes of Islamic purists, and more vulnerable to the attacks of the growing counter-terrorist force raised against them.

In practical terms, al Qaeda is less an organization, and more of popular madness, dedicated to terrorism and mass murder. Al Qaeda is more dependent on mass media, than anything else. Whatever it does, if the message is spun the right way, then the contributions, volunteers and atrocities will keep coming.

Fahd · November 4, 2005, 8:18am

The US is not supporting overthrowing any popular leaders? What about Chavez?
You missed the point, my point was that America was involved in various degrees in Terrorism. I am not spreading obvious lies that America is the source of terrorism; I am saying it is supporting various terrorist groups/individuals when it suits its interest.

For example, the School Of Americas has been accused of training members of governments guilty of serious human rights abuses and advocating techniques that violate accepted standards. Graduates of the SOA include men such as Hugo Banzer Su?rez, Leopoldo Galtieri, Manuel Noriega, Efra?n R?os Montt, Vladimiro Montesinos, Guillermo Rodr?guez, Omar Torrijos, Roberto Viola and Juan Velasco Alvarado.For this reason, the school’s acronym is occasionally reparsed by its detractors as “School of Assassins”.

3)In short, terroism is merely a tool, used by many goverments/groups (The US included) to achieve differnet goals. There’s no problem with that either, but get over it and stop denying the fact the the US is/was/has been involved in events which we call terrorism (“intended to cause death to civilians with the purpose of intimidating or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” )

Fahd · November 4, 2005, 8:27am

[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:

The Vietnam reference is really stupid. Do you really think that the US did wrong by supporting South Vietnam? Or that supporting democracy in Iraq is worse than allowing Saddam to rule?

Have you ever heard of the phrase “choosing the lesser evil”? That’s what the American policy was in Vietnam, Cuba, El Salvador where the country tried to prevent the horrors perpetuated by Stalin and Mao from recurring.

[/quote]

What gives the right for the American Government to overthrow DEMOCRTICALLY ELECTED leaders and imppose dictators? Examples: Pinochet and Suharto.

Also, I hate people talking about what they don’t know. My grandparents are from China and they prefered Mao infinetly better than the previous dictator Jiang Jie Shi (who had a lot of support from the US).

Shahnawaz_Islam · November 4, 2005, 8:45am

I’m not trying to deny that American foreign policy may have been faulty but the fact remains that the Al-Qaeda is not waging a war against Chavez or for Castro. Terrorism has resulted from the frustation of Al-Qaeda terrorists to rule the world on the basis of their half-brained ideology.

The Al-Qaeda wants to establish a Caliphate with Osama as the Caliph and they don’t want democratic rights in Afghanistan and Iraq to mess with their plans. Believing that the problem stems from denying legitimate rights to people in the Middle East is plain wrong, because the Al-Qaeda is at forefront of denying people their religious freedom (examples: (1)destruction of Buddha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan (2) orders asking Kashmiri women to don the veil )

If grievances are supposed to be a justification for killing innocent people then even Milosevich cannot be held responsible for the murder of Bosnians.

Moreover, the US doesn’t have the worst foreign policy. There are many contenders for that claim such as China, Pakistan, Iran, and various Arab countries. If having a bad foreign policy is supposed to increase the danger of terrorist attacks then 9-11 should’ve taken place in these countries.

At present, American foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is helping the locals to get back those rights that were denied to them. The Al-Qaeda is against the actions of the US even when they are beneficial to the people. Doesn’t that make you wonder who the Al-Qaeda is actually fighting for?

Fahd · November 4, 2005, 9:06am

[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
I’m not trying to deny that American foreign policy may have been faulty but the fact remains that the Al-Qaeda is not waging a war against Chavez or for Castro. Terrorism has resulted from the frustation of Al-Qaeda terrorists to rule the world on the basis of their half-brained ideology.

The Al-Qaeda wants to establish a Caliphate with Osama as the Caliph and they don’t want democratic rights in Afghanistan and Iraq to mess with their plans. Believing that the problem stems from denying legitimate rights to people in the Middle East is plain wrong, because the Al-Qaeda is at forefront of denying people their religious freedom (examples: (1)destruction of Buddha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan (2) orders asking Kashmiri women to don the veil )

If grievances are supposed to be a justification for killing innocent people then even Milosevich cannot be held responsible for the murder of Bosnians.

Moreover, the US doesn’t have the worst foreign policy. There are many contenders for that claim such as China, Pakistan, Iran, and various Arab countries. If having a bad foreign policy is supposed to increase the danger of terrorist attacks then 9-11 should’ve taken place in these countries.

At present, American foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is helping the locals to get back those rights that were denied to them. The Al-Qaeda is against the actions of the US even when they are beneficial to the people. Doesn’t that make you wonder who the Al-Qaeda is actually fighting for?[/quote]

I agree mostly with your post. The reasons for my posts were that I find it extremely hypocritical when most Americans associate “terrorism” with some bearded, eccentric mullahs.

More often than not, United States shares the blame when a child, woman, man, is displaced, tortured or disappeared at the hands of goverments and militia due to its support of extreme-right government and guerrilla in the third world (especially Latin America).

Shahnawaz_Islam · November 4, 2005, 9:21am

[quote]fahd wrote:
Shahnawaz Islam wrote:

The Vietnam reference is really stupid. Do you really think that the US did wrong by supporting South Vietnam? Or that supporting democracy in Iraq is worse than allowing Saddam to rule?

Have you ever heard of the phrase “choosing the lesser evil”? That’s what the American policy was in Vietnam, Cuba, El Salvador where the country tried to prevent the horrors perpetuated by Stalin and Mao from recurring.

What gives the right for the American Government to overthrow DEMOCRTICALLY ELECTED leaders and imppose dictators? Examples: Pinochet and Suharto.

Also, I hate people talking about what they don’t know. My grandparents are from China and they prefered Mao infinetly better than the previous dictator Jiang Jie Shi (who had a lot of support from the US). [/quote]

It’s interesting that you bring up the matter of Mao. There are some Tibetan refugees in Mumbai who have some excellent stories to tell about the humanitarian nature of Mao.

Since your grandparents did not experience this gentle side of Mao, they obviously would have a different story to tell. Perhaps you should meet the Maoists in India and witness some of the great work they’ve been upto. But obviously since I am supposed to be talking what I don’t know about when it comes to China, I think I’ll limit myself to responding on your comments on Suharto and Pinochet.

Did your family have any connection with Pinochet and Suharto? No? Then by your logic, you wouldn’t know anything about the situation in Latin America and South East Asia. Don’t worry. Since my grandparents did not know Pinochet and Suharto personally I too know as little as you do.

Obviously, according to you, it is okay for the kind-hearted Mao to have a puppet…oops, I meant a leader… of his choice in North Korea and a religious head of his choice in Tibet but it’s not okay for the US to install Pinochet and Suharto. Since you believe that Mao was actually Florence-Nightingale-in-disguise, the idea of preventing stopping Maoist-style “popular leadership” from coming to power will not appeal to you.

However, this is besides the point. The Al-Qaeda don’t hate the USA for installing Pinochet and Suharto, they have a problem with the existance of Israel and it would make sense to simply accept this fact.

Of course, the US has no right to

vroom · November 4, 2005, 9:25am

Well damn, how can I be all angry and antagonistic if you are going to be all agreeable and reasonable…

Anyhow, if you do express an opinion, it is hard not to get a bit heated around these parts, as you will get slammed from all quarters for saying something - even if it isn’t what you actually said.

Does that make any sense?

[End off topic hijack]

Zap_Branigan · November 4, 2005, 9:27am

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
…

And as I said before, political correctness is ok, but not at the expense of the safety of others.[/quote]

I prefer politeness and decency to political correctness. The whole idea that you should act correctly for political reasons is strange to me.

Zap_Branigan · November 4, 2005, 9:30am

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…The pertinent question, though, is: Where is he leading us?

He is leading us on an ambitious effort to marginalize radical Islam by changing the face of the middle east.

Believe it is possible or not, that is your choice.

The rest of the blather is just political bullshit.

But…Iraq wasn’t radical. in fact, compared to the countries surrounding it, it was barely Islamic.

Isn’t it possible that answer is a nit political, as well?

[/quote]

You are thinking small. Iraq is a mere foothold to MidEast Makeover.

Fahd · November 4, 2005, 9:30am

[quote]Shahnawaz Islam wrote:
fahd wrote:
Shahnawaz Islam wrote: