You couldn't be more wrong. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan ul Haq offered to fight them which resulted in much warmer relations with the US (in the Height of the Cold War), both Carter and Regan gave huge amounts on money to ul Haq as part of Operation Cyclone. In 1981 Reagan even gave Pakistan 40 F-16 jet fighters as well as stinger missiles to the radical muslims (oh sorry I meant Mujahadeen, I always get the two mixed up). Following the end of the conflict two of these mujahadeen groups morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and declared war on America, you armed and trained your own enemy. It was always well known that the Mujahadeen and the likes of ul Haq were radicals and could become dangerous but the US didn't care as long as they could fight the Soviets, well you know what they say about playing with fire. And and don't forget about the US arming Pakistan against India as India had close relations to Russia at the time, now the US has gone crawling to India for help in the fight against Al-Qaeda (India has been fighting these Pakistan based groups for decades and had to struggle with the CIA arming and training them) and I'm pretty sure Indian gave them a well deserved :thefinger. See any US troops on Indian soil? Now that's historical FACT!
Had the Times Square bomb detonated . . .
- Thread starter Facetious
- Start date
You couldn't be more wrong. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan ul Haq offered to fight them which resulted in much warmer relations with the US (in the Height of the Cold War), both Carter and Regan gave huge amounts on money to ul Haq as part of Operation Cyclone. In 1981 Reagan even gave Pakistan 40 F-16 jet fighters as well as stinger missiles to the radical muslims (oh sorry I meant Mujahadeen, I always get the two mixed up). Following the end of the conflict two of these mujahadeen groups morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and declared war on America, you armed and trained your own enemy. It was always well known that the Mujahadeen and the likes of ul Haq were radicals and could become dangerous but the US didn't care as long as they could fight the Soviets, well you know what they say about playing with fire. And and don't forget about the US arming Pakistan against India as India had close relations to Russia at the time, now the US has gone crawling to India for help in the fight against Al-Qaeda (India has been fighting these Pakistan based groups for decades and had to struggle with the CIA arming and training them) and I'm pretty sure Indian gave them a well deserved :thefinger. See any US troops on Indian soil? Now that's historical FACT!
None of these groups are currently on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization list, so I would posit to you that it is not the U.S. that defines these gruops as terrorist, but rather their own actions that classify them as such.
While the State Department has never officially listed the IRA as a foreign terrorist group I think it would be hard to argue that the United States would view them as "freedom fighters" considering all the violence and terror that the IRA has perpetuated against the UK over the course of their existence, such as the bombing of Heathrow Airport and the PM's residence in the early 90's; the 1984 bombing of a Brighton hotel where then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet were meeting; along with the fact that the primary targets of the IRA were British troops, police officers, prison guards, and judges. The US is far more friendly with the British than most countries around the world, and just because the IRA was never officially listed on the State Dept's list of foreign terrorists in no way bolsters the argument that the US viewed them as "freedom fighters."
Understood, but equating radical islamists, not fighting for a specific country or any elected or at least centralized leader, but rather an ideal shared by a minority of people within a given country is a real stretch, and in no way reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Tojo's Japan. Not to mention, in the case of Bosnia and Ethiopia, the terrorists are neither Bosnian nor Ethiopian for the most part to begin with, they are just countries that are harboring, willingly or otherwise, terrorist activity and terrorist groups. To equate these groups to the likes of Nazi Germany and WWII Japn is irrelevant.
So, Kurds killing Sunis and Shiites is not religiously motivated? How do you figure? The Muslims that are being killed by the PKK in Turkey and Iraq are essentially being killed because they believe in the wrong type of Islam, the PKK is just using "Kurdish independence" as their justification. Plus, you mean to tell me that circumventing the political process in favor of fire bombings, suicide bombings, kidnappings and attacks on diplomatic offices does not, to your mind, constitue terrorism? What exactly would your definition be, then?
Complete bull.
We gave Stingers and other equipment which was delivered to Pakistan via Saudi Arabia. Upon arrival the ISI decided who got what.
Ahmad Shah Massoud who is an Afghan hero (murdered by AQ on Sept 9, 2001) was the Muja's best tactician and he was pro West. Did he get any of the goodies from the ISI?
Nope because the ISI didn't like him. All the goodies went to religious fanatics.
Ulysses you really need to brush up on history.
India had pro Soviet leanings going back to the 1960s.
I don't dispute that they are a brutal and violent terrorist group group but their overall aim is a state for the Kurdish people, they fought alongside Shia Iran in the Iran-Iraq war to that end. I still think their primary reason for killing Iraqis and Turks is because they want independence from these countries as opposed to them being a different type of muslim. I also maintain that it is extremely complex when defining what a terrorist group actually is, there are many non radical non Al-Qaeda groups based in Iraq/Afghanistan that will attack coalition troops and release statements saying all they want is foreign troops to leave their land, to me this is no different as attacking someone who breaks into your home, this along with these wars have no real international legality. Ultimately I would be weary of what is listed on the State Departments list of banned/terrorist organisations, US foreign policy is so inconsistent and ever changing ('friends' becoming 'foes') that I don't see at as the most comprehensive take what groups are actually involved in 'terrorist' activities. As a UK citizen who has put up with years of IRA bombings on our mainland and on civilian targets I still don't think the US understands what terror really is from a non American viewpoint.
So what if India had Soviet leanings, they needed to get weapons from somewhere as the US was making $ arming their arch rivals Pakistan obviously profitting greatly from the wars and military tension between the two countries. It's only America that has changed sides. The ISI learnt much of what it knows from the CIA, how else do you think that a security service from a backward country barely 3 decades old could get so big and powerful, the US may have not been responsible for the actions of the ISI, but they certainly turned a blind eye to what they were doing. The ISI as always has remained loyal to the extremists, only the US has changed their view.
I completely agree. The US, as a whole, has no idea what it is like to be "terrorized," in the sense that we're discussing it: "domestically," on an even remotely consistent basis. But to that end, to not understand "what terror really is from a non American viewpoint," is simply impossible for us and so we tend to define "terrorism" on our own terms. Terms that, IMO, are not that completely inconsistent with how the rest of the world would define terror.
Of course there is a fine line that breeds disagreement, and certain operational definitions of the term "terror" that differ from region to region, but I think a legitimate definition would contain the concept that "terrorism is any act or consistent behavior(s) that threatens the economic, political or otherwise dominant interests of a nation or nations, either individually or as a part of a whole, on either a domestic or international level." The reason, I believe, that the rest of the world chooses to believe that the US has such a different view on what is and what is not terrorism is the simple fact that most times, the US is viewing these incidents from an international perspective, whereas most countries throughout the world experience far more domestic terrorism, thus making the US' views seem unjustified and contorted.
The simple truth, I believe, is that it is in the best interest of any nation to protect their interests, both domestically and internationally. And for the US, most of our interests are indeed international, mostly revolving around stability in certain geographically important regions of the world. So to that thought, yes, friends can become foes quite quickly if we as a nation see their attitudes and behaviors coming in conflict with that ever so important geographic stability that we as a country need. Is it callous, of course. Does it adversely effect the lives of people in other countries? At times. But state-making is not about being everyone's friend, or making sure that everyone gets a chance to be heard, but rather maintaining a beneficial (to one's country) balance of stability in the areas where one's national interests are at stake, and if that means upsetting some other interested players along the way, so be it.
Facetious
Moderated
Of course you guys are gonna play this incident down, it took not the action of a vigilant DHLS, but the action of an alert hot dog cart operator in order to bring this thing to light. :sunny: :1orglaugh
Didn't the fedz actually ruffle the hot dog cart operator's feathers a bit in the aftermath?
''Don't you dare expose the incompetence of our sophomore senator standing president and his fine intelligence experience deficient DHLS chairwoman :nono: :1orglaugh
Meh . . Even if Mr. Muhammad - muhammad what's-his-face had been successful in carrying out his assignment, it wouldn't have mattered . . .
. . . the deceased would have just been ''little ikemen" anyway.
:glugglug:
Didn't the fedz actually ruffle the hot dog cart operator's feathers a bit in the aftermath?
''Don't you dare expose the incompetence of our sophomore senator standing president and his fine intelligence experience deficient DHLS chairwoman :nono: :1orglaugh
Meh . . Even if Mr. Muhammad - muhammad what's-his-face had been successful in carrying out his assignment, it wouldn't have mattered . . .
:glugglug:
Meh . . Even if Mr. Muhammad - muhammad what's-his-face had been successful in carrying out his assignment, it wouldn't have mattered . . .
. . . the deceased would have just been ''little ikemen" anyway.
:glugglug:
Ward Churchill, ugh. Don't even get me started on this freaking guy. What's he doing now anyway? Maybe he was the one operating the "alert hot dog cart?" I know he probably would have just let the whole thing go down if it were up to him, it just seems to me that "hot dog cart vendor/operator," is one of the few positions that he would ever really be qualified for.
Of course you guys are gonna play this incident down, it took not the action of a vigilant DHLS, but the action of an alert hot dog cart operator in order to bring this thing to light. :sunny: :1orglaugh
Didn't the fedz actually ruffle the hot dog cart operator's feathers a bit in the aftermath?
''Don't you dare expose the incompetence of our sophomore senator standing president and his fine intelligence experience deficient DHLS chairwoman :nono: :1orglaugh
Meh . . Even if Mr. Muhammad - muhammad what's-his-face had been successful in carrying out his assignment, it wouldn't have mattered . . .
. . . the deceased would have just been ''little ikemen" anyway.
:glugglug:
Who is he:dunno: A right wing Nazi?
Facetious
Moderated
^ No, it's Ward Churchill, the falsely credentialled tenured professor of :uhem: the ''ethnic studies dept'' @ the University of Colorado. :hatsoff:
He's back at work incidentally, still w/out teaching credentials . . . filling twenty-something year old students head's full of garbage. I think he claimed to be an American Indian . . he lied!
Than just why in the hell is the FBI, under the apparent distracted eyes of the barack obama administration working on such projects in the first place?
If I'm a taxpayer, I should be able to
He's back at work incidentally, still w/out teaching credentials . . . filling twenty-something year old students head's full of garbage. I think he claimed to be an American Indian . . he lied!
Than just why in the hell is the FBI, under the apparent distracted eyes of the barack obama administration working on such projects in the first place?
If I'm a taxpayer, I should be able to
Sorry Friends...nothing in this thread is a serious threat to the Republic. All this talk of islamic doom and gloom is just tired military industrial rhetoric...
The only way to achieve peace is by acting peaceful. :thumbsup:
Your violent brutal solutions never cease to amaze me. Do you really want to live in a world like this:
Sorry Friends...nothing in this thread is a serious threat to the Republic. All this talk of islamic doom and gloom is just tired military industrial rhetoric...
The only way to achieve peace is by acting peaceful. :thumbsup:
Point well taken, the only hiccup is that you're asking human beings to act peaceful, which really hasn't happened throughout the whole of history. To my mind the best path to "peace" is through democracy. While a lot of people contend that democracies don't always act in a peaceful manner, I would posit that democracies tend to be peaceful with one another, and the only reason that democracies are militant towards certain non-democratic entities is for the simple fact that they (NDs) do not respect the rule of law and governance, thus the only way to compel NDs is through force. If we as a Western world are intent on the rule of law, and survival as a collection of states, we must promote and further the cause of democracy. :2 cents:
What if Alice had chosen Brand X?
What if Neo had taken the blue pill?
What if Hitler just laughed it off?
What if mothers DID let their babies grow up to be cowboys?
What if everybody BUT you could prevent forest fires?
What if McDonald's sold Sad Meals?
What if bullets had to stand trial and the gunman was kept inside a plastic bag as evidence?
What if a piss took YOU?
What if Neo had taken the blue pill?
What if Hitler just laughed it off?
What if mothers DID let their babies grow up to be cowboys?
What if everybody BUT you could prevent forest fires?
What if McDonald's sold Sad Meals?
What if bullets had to stand trial and the gunman was kept inside a plastic bag as evidence?
What if a piss took YOU?
In Soviet Russia, Sad Meals sell you!
Are they feeding a bear?Your violent brutal solutions never cease to amaze me. Do you really want to live in a world like this:
The ISI was formed by Major General R. Cawthome, a British officer in 1948.
You see Ulysses you're blaming the wrong side..........AGAIN!
I know India needed to get weapons from someone and that someone was the SU. I'm not saying they shouldn't have.
Similar threads
