T Nation

So Not All Terrorists Are Bad?

This is seriously messed up. As someone who completely supports the war on terror this sickens me. Terrorists are terrorists and they should ALL be wiped out. Absolutely no exceptions.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
This is seriously messed up. As someone who completely supports the war on terror this sickens me. Terrorists are terrorists and they should ALL be wiped out. Absolutely no exceptions.[/quote]

This ain’t news. It just confirms the double standards by which US foreign policy operates and that terror is OK when Washington uses it.

Hypocrisy is indeed sickening.

[quote]lixy wrote:
It just confirms the double standards by which US foreign policy operates and that terror is OK when Washington uses it.

Hypocrisy is indeed sickening.[/quote]

Please cite. Unless you call humanitarian efforts terror, I don’t know how you can even think less say this.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Please cite. Unless you call humanitarian efforts terror, I don’t know how you can even think less say this.[/quote]

The list is long buddy; Take a look at the following page if you’re interested;

IMHO, the least conspicuous act of terror to Americans is the gratuitous use of WMDs against Vietnam by JFK.

“In 1961 and 62 the Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemicals to destroy rice crops in South Vietnam. Between 1961 and 1967
the US Air Force sprayed 20 million US gallons (76 million liters) of concentrated herbicides (mainly Agent Orange) over 6 million acres
(24,000 km?) of crops and trees, affecting an estimated 13% of South Vietnam’s land. In 1997, an article published by the Wall Street Journal
reported that up to half a million children were born with dioxin related deformities, and that the birth defects in South Vietnam were
fourfold those in the North. The use of Agent Orange may have been contrary to international rules of war at the time. It is also of note
that the most likely victims of such an assault would be small children. A 1967 study by the Agronomy Section of the Japanese Science Council concluded that 3.8 million acres (15,000 km?) of land had been destroyed, killing 1000 peasants and 13,000 livestock.”

Also, I think half a century of arming and bailing out Israel with vetoes in the UN (about 30 times!) does qualify as support of terrorism.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Look at the figures closely. Every time, the US is the ONLY country in the world to differ from the general concensus that Israel is misbehaving.

Oh, I should also add that threatening to use violence also qualifies as terrorism; That is, by US’ own definition. Bush sure used a lot of that in recent years.

[quote]lixy wrote:

It just confirms the double standards by which US foreign policy operates and that terror is OK when Washington uses it.

Hypocrisy is indeed sickening.[/quote]

Weird, I was under the impression that the “I” in ICRC stood for “International”?

Here is another interesting list:

There must be a larger one somewhere. This one is partial.

In 2004, the US gave Indonesia 760.6 Million dollars in Tsunami aid.

(the government there said Christians weren’t welcome)

In 2005, the US gave Pakistan 50 Million dollars for earthquake aid.

(the earthquake hit the tribal area where al-qaeda hides)

what was the amount of aid given to America by Muslim nations to help when Katrina hit?

(I recall radicals praising the hurricane)

Yeah well I know the U.S. does a lot of humanitarian stuff but that still doesn’t excuse them supporting this terrorist group.

You know they did the same thing with the Taliban thinking “Oh we’re helping them fight the Soviets they’ll be indebted to us.” A couple of decades later they betray us.

Well now we know from experience that terrorists are not to be trusted just because we have a common cause now doesn’t mean we’ll be allies forever.

What happens when Iran is out of the picture and these guys don’t need us anymore? We shouldn’t make the same mistake again.

Here’s an article at ABC News that says America is giving money to a Pakistani terrorist group, to kill people in Iran.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

I fail to see the logic in supporting terrorist groups with money or weapons, even if they seem to be on “our side” because lets face it, loyalties can change. When Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, he was getting our support. Who is the next Bin Laden who is being groomed with our tax dollars? How can we be sure he won’t be turning against us, in the future?

Is a smart approach to international policy just too much to hope for?

Here’s an interview with Seymour Hersch of The New Yorker, where he says the Bush administration is secretly funding Sunni terrorist groups connected to Al Qaeda, because Bush is hoping that they will take on Hezbollah and other Shi’ite groups, in countries like Lebanon. First of all, funding military action without Congress’ approval is totally illegal (shades of Iran-Contra, all over again). Second, it seems like funding foriegn militia groups is incredibly short-sighted and will ultimately be counterproductive in the long run.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/25/seymour-hersh-negroponte-iran-contra-fundsoh-my/

[quote]lixy wrote:

Oh, I should also add that threatening to use violence also qualifies as terrorism; That is, by US’ own definition. Bush sure used a lot of that in recent years.[/quote]

Absurd. Utter, incomprehensible bullshit.
I don’t have the time to waste to explain to you how stupid a statement that is(not that you would listen). Yet again, I’m sorry I even looked at this forum. Let me suffice it to say that a good number of people in the world deserve to have violence visited upon them. Threatening them first actually gives them a chance to change their behavior.

Ah, forget it…

Go back to your relativist world…

I agree, It would seem the smart thing to do in a “War on Terror” is to stop the funding of ALL terrorist groups.

Who is more a threat to America, Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda?

Why fund the group who participated in the attacks on America hoping that they MAY attack Iran next.

Seems smarter to back governments who want to see this group destroyed.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
In 2004, the US gave Indonesia 760.6 Million dollars in Tsunami aid.

(the government there said Christians weren’t welcome)

In 2005, the US gave Pakistan 50 Million dollars for earthquake aid.

(the earthquake hit the tribal area where al-qaeda hides)

what was the amount of aid given to America by Muslim nations to help when Katrina hit?

(I recall radicals praising the hurricane)[/quote]

Does anyone know if Iran send financial and humanitarian aid to any non-muslim nation and/or nations outside the Middle East directly?

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
This is seriously messed up. As someone who completely supports the war on terror this sickens me. Terrorists are terrorists and they should ALL be wiped out. Absolutely no exceptions.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html[/quote]

First of all, if this sickens you then you really need a major wake-up call in regards to U.S. foreign policy.

You may want to research who the “terrorists” were in the 1970’s and 80’s, and who are our “friends” were, as well.

I see the level of intellect on this board dropping steadily and I don’t intend to stick around if this trend continues. I’m sure none of the neocons would miss me.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
In 2004, the US gave Indonesia 760.6 Million dollars in Tsunami aid.

(the government there said Christians weren’t welcome)

In 2005, the US gave Pakistan 50 Million dollars for earthquake aid.

(the earthquake hit the tribal area where al-qaeda hides)

what was the amount of aid given to America by Muslim nations to help when Katrina hit?

(I recall radicals praising the hurricane)[/quote]

Chavez offered 5 Million dollars to the US after Katrina, but Bush turned it down.

As far as I know, the US got about 500 Million dollars from Mulsim nations to help with Katrina. That’s a boatload of money!

Also, you can’t compare something like Katrina to the Indonesian Tsunami. Not the same.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
Ah, forget it…

Go back to your relativist world…[/quote]

When did relativizing become a bad thing?

You may want to research who the “terrorists” were in the 1970’s and 80’s, and who are our “friends” were, as well.

Please enlighten us. (I’m looking forward to reading this!)

P.S.

YOU might also want to research who the terrorists were in the 1970’s and 80’s and who our “enemies” were, as well.

[quote]lixy wrote:

When did relativizing become a bad thing?[/quote]

So there is no moral difference between a society that believes in imperialism and one that rejects it?

Lixy has officially demonstrated where his limit is.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Ah, forget it…

Go back to your relativist world…

When did relativizing become a bad thing?[/quote]

Uh, when you become so obsessed with seeing the viewpoint of cutthroat, murderous bastards that you lose all sense of right and wrong…

[quote]JD430 wrote:
lixy wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Ah, forget it…

Go back to your relativist world…

When did relativizing become a bad thing?

Uh, when you become so obsessed with seeing the viewpoint of cutthroat, murderous bastards that you lose all sense of right and wrong…
[/quote]

Of course, in a wider sense, right and wrong have changed considerably in the course of human history, and they will change again. I am no relativist, but the world is more complicated than right and wrong, no matter how you want to look at it.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
lixy wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Ah, forget it…

Go back to your relativist world…

When did relativizing become a bad thing?

Uh, when you become so obsessed with seeing the viewpoint of cutthroat, murderous bastards that you lose all sense of right and wrong…
[/quote]

How do you define a cutthroat, murderous bastard?

Do ends justify means?