Terrorism????...Blame America!!!!

kagein

kagein

Member
Messages
70
Likes
4
I think by now, many of us have seen the plight suffered by the 21 South Korean christian missionaries still being held hostage by Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan. What perplexes me is, why would you want kill off innocent people who just want to help the ordinary Afghan on the ground but hey, it is the Taliban after all.

What perplexes me even further is why America seems to get the blame, or should take responsibility for this and other groups murderous acts. The argument that is often used is "if America didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq we wouldn't be facing these problems now ". You can legitimately argue that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq shouldn't have taken place, fair enough but what you can't do is give these murders a free pass by apportioning most of the blame America's way. Nothing justifies Murder and the terrorists must be held fully accountable for their attacks on innocent civilians.

Interested to hear other view points
 
Who is blaming the US for the kidnapping of the Sth Koreans ?

The US is directly responsible for the death of at least hundreds of thousands in Iraq, the displacement of over 4 million refugees. I might add that Syria and Jordan are getting almost no assistance in helping these refugees. A recent UN study revealed that over a third of the population of Iraq is in urgent need of aid.

If you want to talk about terror, this is terror on a grand scale. Oh, sorry, they are just collateral damage. Osama Bin Laden is an amateur in comparison.
 
I think to better understand why America is responsible it is necessary to look at Iran in 1953 and operation Ajax. This was a joint UK, US operation which was in response to Irans nationalisation in order to increase profits from its energy reserves which were under control of Western big oil. The end result of this intervention by the West was the 1979 Islamic revolution which is generaly cited as the birth of widespread Islamic fundamentalism targeting Western culture.
 
Last edited:
dcraig1 said:
Who is blaming the US for the kidnapping of the Sth Koreans ?

The US is directly responsible for the death of at least hundreds of thousands in Iraq, the displacement of over 4 million refugees. I might add that Syria and Jordan are getting almost no assistance in helping these refugees. A recent UN study revealed that over a third of the population of Iraq is in urgent need of aid.

If you want to talk about terror, this is terror on a grand scale. Oh, sorry, they are just collateral damage. Osama Bin Laden is an amateur in comparison.
Click to expand...
well i don't dispute that many Iraqi civilians have died due to the DIRECT actions of coalition forces, whether the figure is in the hundreds of thousands i doubt. If there is a report out there that says otherwise, please post the link.

Your reply just goes to highlight my point, we can argue whether or not the the invasions were right or wrong, we can even argue as you have, that the US are guilty of terror on a grand scale but that doesn't mean you shouldn't criticize the actions of these or other murders does it?
 
TWI said:
I think to better understand why America is responsible it is necessary to look at Iran in 1953 and operation Ajax. This was a joint UK, US operation which was in response to Irans nationalisation in order to increase profits from its energy reserves which were under control of Western big oil. The end result of this intervention by the West was the 1979 Islamic revolution which is generaly cited as the birth of widespread Islamic fundamentalism targeting Western culture.
Click to expand...

i also agree that the islamic revolution was due to the west's interventions, to that degree the West is resposible. However fundamentalism is something i think they've created by themselves. Maybe they have the right to be pissed off, maybe they've been given a raw deal but becoming a suicide bomber, hijacking airplanes killing innocents that just cant be justified.
 
kagein said:
i also agree that the islamic revolution was due to the west's interventions, to that degree the West is resposible. However fundamentalism is something i think they've created by themselves. Maybe they have the right to be pissed off, maybe they've been given a raw deal but becoming a suicide bomber, hijacking airplanes killing innocents that just cant be justified.
Click to expand...

I think you might find that modern fundamentalism had it origins in the good ol' USofA. Christian fundamentalism that is. They call themselves evangelicals these days. Islamic fundamentalism came later.
 
mmm, poor old US gets the blame for everything. No encouragement for trying to sort out a troubled world. 'Course if they went isolationist that'd be wrong too.

Someone, sometime had to do something about state sponsored terrorism that was causing so much havoc around the world. As far as that's concerned the US actions have put something of a stop to that (overtly at least).

Anyone could point to a load of necessary tragedies/atrocities (depending on your point of view) committed by the allies in WW2 but not many would suggest the war shouldn't have been fought.

If governments embark on such things - which they often must - horrible things are bound to happen since you can't fight a forest fire with a water-pistol. 'Course, if you do nothing you can't do anything wrong.

jon
 
barjon said:
mmm, poor old US gets the blame for everything. No encouragement for trying to sort out a troubled world. 'Course if they went isolationist that'd be wrong too.

Someone, sometime had to do something about state sponsored terrorism that was causing so much havoc around the world. As far as that's concerned the US actions have put something of a stop to that (overtly at least).

Anyone could point to a load of necessary tragedies/atrocities (depending on your point of view) committed by the allies in WW2 but not many would suggest the war shouldn't have been fought.

If governments embark on such things - which they often must - horrible things are bound to happen since you can't fight a forest fire with a water-pistol. 'Course, if you do nothing you can't do anything wrong.

jon
Click to expand...

Poor old US my ars*. If we want to talk about state sponsors of terrorism the US right up there with the best of them.

Try this one for starters

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/HxGuatemala_DeathSquads.html

From the installation of the Shah in Iran, to the strategic hamlets in Vietnam, the Generals in Greece, the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile and many more appalling violations of human rights, the US has a shocking history of covert (and not so covert) operations.
 
Someone, sometime had to do something about state sponsored terrorism that was causing so much havoc around the world. As far as that's concerned the US actions have put something of a stop to that
Click to expand...

IMO the US has only actually ensured that state sponsored terrorism will become more prolific. There are many many more people now who are prepared to take up arms against the US than their were before the energy grab in Iraq. Money will always find ways to fund this movement and the latest crusades ensure we will have at least another generation of Western haters who unite behind the ideas of a perverted version of Islam to justify their "retaliation".

Everybody should be aware that Saddams regime was secular and suppressed Islamic revolutionary movements he had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, that is a neocon invention. He was a ruthless and nasty maniac no doubt, but he came from a totally different ideology to Osama. That is why the US initially dealt with him and sold him loads of weapons in order that he could wipe out the pesky Iranians who were an Isalmic state and with whom the US still had a bone to pick.

One thing that always strikes me as strange is that a suicide bomber is always a terrorist and yet a hitech attack helicopter or stealth bomber blowing to hell an entire street is seen as something different. The end result is the same in that people who were alive are now dead. Who wins?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
kagein said:
I think by now, many of us have seen the plight suffered by the 21 South Korean christian missionaries still being held hostage by Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan. What perplexes me is, why would you want kill off innocent people who just want to help the ordinary Afghan on the ground but hey, it is the Taliban after all.

What perplexes me even further is why America seems to get the blame, or should take responsibility for this and other groups murderous acts. The argument that is often used is "if America didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq we wouldn't be facing these problems now ". You can legitimately argue that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq shouldn't have taken place, fair enough but what you can't do is give these murders a free pass by apportioning most of the blame America's way. Nothing justifies Murder and the terrorists must be held fully accountable for their attacks on innocent civilians.

Interested to hear other view points
Click to expand...


Chapter 3 - Assassinations - Rogue State by William Blum

On June 26, 1993, President William Clinton went before the American people and announced that the US had fired several missiles against Iraq that day. It turned out that the missiles killed 8 people and injured many more. The attack, said the president, was in retaliation fro an Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush who was due to visit Kuwait. (This alleged plot remains no more than that ... alledged.)

Clinton announced that the US attack "was esseential to send a message to those who engage in a state-sponsored terrorism and to affirm the expectation of civilised behaviour among nations."

Following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the US has been involved in since the end of the Second Wolrd War. (CIA humoirsts have at times referred to this type of operation as "suicide involuntarily administered", to be carried out by the Agency's "Health Alteration Committee".)

  • 1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
  • 1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany to be "put out of the way" in the even of a Soviet invasion
  • 1950s - Zhou Enlai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
  • 1950s, 1962 - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
  • 1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
  • 1953 - Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran
  • 1950s - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
  • 1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
  • 1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
  • 1959/63/69 - Norodom Sihanouk, Leader of Cambodia
  • 1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
  • 1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
  • 1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
  • 1961 - patrie Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo
  • 1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
  • 1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, Presiden tof South Vietnam
  • 1960s-70s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts and plots on his life
  • 1960s - Raul Castro, high official in goverment of Cuba
  • 1965 - Francisco Caamafio, Domincian Republic opposition leader
  • 1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
  • 1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
  • 1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
  • 1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander in Chief of Army Chile
  • 1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
  • 1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
  • 1975 Mobutu Sese Seko, Presidnt of Zaire
  • 1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
  • 1980 - 86 - Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts on his life
  • 1982 Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
  • 1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
  • 1984 The nine comandeantes of the National Directorate of Nicaragua
  • 1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader
  • 1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
  • 1993 - Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia
  • 1998, 2001-2 - Osama bin Laden, leading CIA trained terrorist
  • 1999 - Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia
  • 2002 - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Afghan Islamic leader and warlord
  • 2003 - Saddam Hussein and his two sons, Qusay and Uday, and his half brother, Barzan Ibrahim Hassan al-Tikriti; all had been senior goverment officials.

Anybody who disagrees with US foreign policy is likely to be target, if they rise beyond their station of insignificance.

Several statements on assinations have been made and withdrawn by US presidents.

eg: On April 10, 1985, Reagan canceled the "licence to kill" because the previous month, the CIA had paid some people in Beirut to kill a certain sheikh Fadlallah, who was not to Washingtons's liking; a car bomb had been used and 80 people were killed, the sheikh not being among their number.

Oct 13th 1989: George H.W. Bush added a new twist. He issued a "memorandum of law" that would allow "accidental" killing if it was a byproduct of legal action: "A decisiion by the President to emply overt military force... would not consititute assassindation if US forces were employed against the combatant forces of another nation, a guerrilla force, or a terrorist or other organisation whose actions pose a threat to the security of the US.


What perplexes me even further is why America NEVER seems to get the blame, or take responsibility for this and other murderous acts.
 
kagein said:
i just read that article from the wall street journal....you throw out a number like 600,000 without qualifying it. Most of those deaths are a result of
insurgents, terrorists and sectarian violence, not the US led coalition. As the article says
Click to expand...

Your heart is cold.
Your eyes are blind.
Your ears are deaf.
And your mind is very clever.
 
Atilla said:
Your heart is cold.
Your eyes are blind.
Your ears are deaf.
And your mind is very clever.
Click to expand...

The rogue state isnt the most reliable source now is it....America could have done all thats on that list, however still doesnt give terrorists a free pass
 
dcraig1 said:
I think you might find that modern fundamentalism had it origins in the good ol' USofA. Christian fundamentalism that is. They call themselves evangelicals these days. Islamic fundamentalism came later.
Click to expand...
i don't see any fundamentalist christian suicide bombers....do you??? Clearly we have different definitions.
 
kagein said:
The rogue state isnt the most reliable source now is it....America could have done all thats on that list, however still doesnt give terrorists a free pass
Click to expand...

I agree it doesn't give the terrorists are free pass. Hang the lot of them. Execute them. However, hold them to account in court of law first.

Are you arguing against your self or something?

Many bodies in previous comments have written facts and put up arguements.

Kindly answer them instead of simply stating the obvious.

Apply your logic and intelligence.
 
TWI said:
IMO the US has only actually ensured that state sponsored terrorism will become more prolific. There are many many more people now who are prepared to take up arms against the US than their were before the energy grab in Iraq. Money will always find ways to fund this movement and the latest crusades ensure we will have at least another generation of Western haters who unite behind the ideas of a perverted version of Islam to justify their "retaliation".

Everybody should be aware that Saddams regime was secular and suppressed Islamic revolutionary movements he had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, that is a neocon invention. He was a ruthless and nasty maniac no doubt, but he came from a totally different ideology to Osama. That is why the US initially dealt with him and sold him loads of weapons in order that he could wipe out the pesky Iranians who were an Isalmic state and with whom the US still had a bone to pick.

One thing that always strikes me as strange is that a suicide bomber is always a terrorist and yet a hitech attack helicopter or stealth bomber blowing to hell an entire street is seen as something different. The end result is the same in that people who were alive are now dead. Who wins?
Click to expand...
well i think the difference is intention. The US don't go out to kill civilians, whereas a terrorists main aim is to kill as many innocents as possible and spread fear throughout.
 
kagein said:
i don't see any fundamentalist christian suicide bombers....do you??? Clearly we have different definitions.
Click to expand...

The Roman Catholics fighting the US sponsored regimes in latin America were called geurillas.

The Muslims fighting the US sposored regimes are called terrorists.

The white Christian supremecists in the US were tought that the black man was created to serve the white man.

The Klu-Klax clan were err Christian teaching who a lesson. That's right they were teaching lessons and not terrorising.

Read the book The World According to Garp.
 
kagein said:
well i think the difference is intention. The US don't go out to kill civilians, whereas a terrorists main aim is to kill as many innocents as possible and spread fear throughout.
Click to expand...

You really are very clever and like to argue with your self.
 
Atilla said:
I agree it doesn't give the terrorists are free pass. Hang the lot of them. Execute them. However, hold them to account in court of law first.

Are you arguing against your self or something?

Many bodies in previous comments have written facts and put up arguements.

Kindly answer them instead of simply stating the obvious.

Apply your logic and intelligence.
Click to expand...
A lot of the people on the list that you put up were BAD guys...Wherever people are being oppressed there's a cry for the worlds only super power to do somthing about it..When they do years down the line they're called terrorists.
Go to D.R.C and ask if they are Mourning the death of Mobutu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Atilla
Afghanistan & Iraq
2 3
Replies
45
Views
10K
fibonelli
fibonelli
C
Suddenly, it all seems worth it.....
Replies
0
Views
2K
charliechan
C
Pat494
Terrorism. New approach !
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
12K
piphoe
piphoe
T
So why exactly are we at war?
Replies
9
Views
3K
Merlins
M
bbmac
Obama and the Future
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
11K
abbeyandriana
A
Top