Mossadegh in Iran. He was a reformist in Iran who we supported Islamists against, because Mossadegh threatened the U.K.'s and our oil interests in his plans to nationalize the oil supply. If we had let him stay in power, he could have led Iran to a more Western-style democracy, but we cared more about oil than principles.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Recent example please?
Not the first time Governments have colluded with terrorists - McGuiness / Adams ?
It would be hypocritical if I or my government or the majority of the country supported killing civilians. They/I don't. Nice try. Seriously some people on this forum....coke wrote:
And of course Ireland has never been in involved in the training and habouring of people who have carried out acts of terrorism against innocent civilians...CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6637481.stm
Have some principles for fuck's sake! This man blew up a civilian airliner with his CIA training! The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
"The hypocrisy is mind-boggling."
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-09 00:25:53)
Investigators from Cuba, Venezuela and the United States traced the planting of the bombs to two Venezuelan passengers, Freddy Lugo and Hernán Ricardo Lozano. Both men were employed by Posada at his private detective agency based in Venezuela, and they both subsequently admitted to the crime. A week after the mens' confessions, Luis Posada and Orlando Bosch were arrested on charges of masterminding the attack, and were jailed in Venezuela. Several Miami residents and Bosch met in the Dominican Republic shortly before the bombing and issued a statement declaring their intention of waging a terrorist campaign against Cuba.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Did he do it? Do you know? Unless I'm quite mistaken, you've in the past criticized heavy-handed decisions from high up that are based on 'iffy' information.CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6637481.stm
Have some principles for fuck's sake! This man blew up a civilian airliner with his CIA training! The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
Also on the 1997 tourist bombings in Cuba:
In a taped interview with the New York Times, Posada said: "It is sad that someone is dead, but we can't stop." Posada was reportedly disappointed with the reluctance of American news organisations to report the bombing attacks, saying "If there is no publicity, the job is useless."
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-09 02:03:16)
Saddam ? Supported by the US when he was still fighting the then "bad" iranians ( and killing thousands of innocents in the process ) in the 70's and 80's. Good friend of "holly-golly" Rumsfeld, if I remember correctly. There is a nice photograph of the two shaking hands. A true classic.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Recent example please?
The Taliban ? Once supported by the US ( taxpayer's money ) when they were still fighting the then "bad" russians in Afghanistan.
Funny, isn't it ? Both have coma back to bite you in the ass.
Mossadegh has already been mentioned. And there is always our old friend Osama bin Laden, who allegedly was involved in CIA-funded operations in Afghanistan in the 1980's, too.
You'll notice I put allegedly in capitals, as his involvement in these operations has never been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But none the less, an impressive list, don't you think ? Should I go on, with Noriega for example ?
Let's face it, later US foreign policy seems to be somewhat short-sighted. Some difficulties in chosing your allies, I'd say.
But I am straying off-topic. Sorry bout that.
As far as the topic is concernd, the legal procedure in question was around an immigration issue, not the alleged downing of a cuban airliner in the 70's. And if the US government handled the issue wrong, the judge was certainly right in releasing the guy.
Wether they'll hand him over to the venezuelans or some other foreign nation about the airliner, remains to be seen.
Well, it's not surprise. It's been going on for a while (I mean, we all know about who Bin Laden was funded by). It's just the height of hypocrisy coming from a country that started up the "War on Terror".
-konfusion
-konfusion
Don't forget the Muhajideen in Afghanistan. They were heavily supported by the US due to the fact they were fighting the USSR. And then they became the Taliban.
[/sarcasm]
Oh, what a fantastic contribution. Truly inspirational.classic hissy fit
[/sarcasm]
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The US has always been complete hypocrites when it comes to terrorism. They have a long history of supporting terrorist groups sympathetic to US interests, whether it's Afghanistan, Cuba, Palestine, Central America or Venezuela. Most American people just choose to accept or ignore this and swallow the bull shit 'war on terror' rhetoric that comes out of the white house (and it's not just Bush who's guilty ...the innocent victims of 9/11 were punished unjustly as a result of the extremist hatred inspired by many, many years of dubious US foreign policy).
It seems the US can throw anyone they want in Guantanamo bay but this guy can walk free on a technicality? Funny how technicalities don't apply to Muslims.
It seems the US can throw anyone they want in Guantanamo bay but this guy can walk free on a technicality? Funny how technicalities don't apply to Muslims.
Short sighted? Surely not. Using others to fight their war and at the same time creating controllable enemies to keep the industry of war going is something the US foreign policy has excelled at. Give them some creditB.Schuss wrote:
Let's face it, later US foreign policy seems to be somewhat short-sighted. Some difficulties in chosing your allies, I'd say.
ƒ³
lol brilliant post above...
I love how a "catch phrase" was created by the American government ! you see how they carefully chose the words "WAR on Terror?" not "Fight against terror", War now that simple statement changes the whole perspective now when they capture a "suspected" terrorist they can hold him indefinably in a detention center because America is fighting a WAR ! So in terms of the Geneva convention POW can be held until hostilities cease.... hmmmm and do you think thats eva going to happen.
People what America experienced is known as Blowback its a specific CIA term used to state that one policy that is implemented today will end up hitting America in the face later. 9/11 Blowback for pulling out support for Osama's Group when they where fighting the "Ruskies"
What amazes me is that Americans always have something to fear ! have you noticed that. Ever since WWII which was a real threat then it was "Evil Communism" then the great old cold war ended ! now what ! what can the Americans fear now? The old Bush administration used Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as another opportunity to create fear among the American populace.
And now American's generally fear Terrorism, "Arabs or Muslims" its the whole circle of control if the people have something to fear they need protection and once again the good ol Soldiers of the US of A are here to save the day and protect the American Way of Life ! Protect the American people from the .... wait for it wait for it.... I think I heard this some where before in 1940....
"The AXIS of EVIL!!!!!!" *dan* *dah* *DA* *NA* America can only accomplish its goals if the American people are behind the idea! So what do we do? We need to find another enemy! another "threat!" keep the people scared and the government is yours to do with as you please !
I love how a "catch phrase" was created by the American government ! you see how they carefully chose the words "WAR on Terror?" not "Fight against terror", War now that simple statement changes the whole perspective now when they capture a "suspected" terrorist they can hold him indefinably in a detention center because America is fighting a WAR ! So in terms of the Geneva convention POW can be held until hostilities cease.... hmmmm and do you think thats eva going to happen.
People what America experienced is known as Blowback its a specific CIA term used to state that one policy that is implemented today will end up hitting America in the face later. 9/11 Blowback for pulling out support for Osama's Group when they where fighting the "Ruskies"
What amazes me is that Americans always have something to fear ! have you noticed that. Ever since WWII which was a real threat then it was "Evil Communism" then the great old cold war ended ! now what ! what can the Americans fear now? The old Bush administration used Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as another opportunity to create fear among the American populace.
And now American's generally fear Terrorism, "Arabs or Muslims" its the whole circle of control if the people have something to fear they need protection and once again the good ol Soldiers of the US of A are here to save the day and protect the American Way of Life ! Protect the American people from the .... wait for it wait for it.... I think I heard this some where before in 1940....
"The AXIS of EVIL!!!!!!" *dan* *dah* *DA* *NA* America can only accomplish its goals if the American people are behind the idea! So what do we do? We need to find another enemy! another "threat!" keep the people scared and the government is yours to do with as you please !
well, if you want to call the Taliban or Al'Quaeda "controllable" enemies, then that's probably one way of looking at it....oug wrote:
Short sighted? Surely not. Using others to fight their war and at the same time creating controllable enemies to keep the industry of war going is something the US foreign policy has excelled at. Give them some creditB.Schuss wrote:
Let's face it, later US foreign policy seems to be somewhat short-sighted. Some difficulties in chosing your allies, I'd say.
Yeah, everything sure is under control in Iraq and Afghanistan....
sarcasm ftw..
Just like creating Al quaeda was a good thing?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Who cares? I say using an enemy against an enemy is a good thing.Kmarion wrote:
If you wanted a real head scratcher you would point out the fact the US is now arming using the Mehdi Army. It seems to be having a good effect right now, but man that one could blow up in our face. We were just fighting them a few months ago.
That kind off stuff is what spawned this post.
Meh.. He said he didn't do it... That's good enough for me. Fuck Cuba and VenezuelaCameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6637481.stm
Have some principles for fuck's sake! This man blew up a civilian airliner with his CIA training! The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
All a matter of perspective. Russia during the Cold War was not a controllable enemy for example. The Taliban and Al' Quaeda, no matter how much the US media try to convey them as being of global reach (especially Al' Quaeda) are of limited capabilities. And maybe things are not under control in Iraq and Afghanistan, but remember, the US is on the offence.B.Schuss wrote:
well, if you want to call the Taliban or Al'Quaeda "controllable" enemies, then that's probably one way of looking at it....oug wrote:
Short sighted? Surely not. Using others to fight their war and at the same time creating controllable enemies to keep the industry of war going is something the US foreign policy has excelled at. Give them some creditB.Schuss wrote:
Let's face it, later US foreign policy seems to be somewhat short-sighted. Some difficulties in chosing your allies, I'd say.
Yeah, everything sure is under control in Iraq and Afghanistan....
sarcasm ftw..
ƒ³
And you are saying because of this case America does?CameronPoe wrote:
It would be hypocritical if I or my government or the majority of the country supported killing civilians. They/I don't. Nice try. Seriously some people on this forum....coke wrote:
And of course Ireland has never been in involved in the training and habouring of people who have carried out acts of terrorism against innocent civilians...CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6637481.stm
Have some principles for fuck's sake! This man blew up a civilian airliner with his CIA training! The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
"The hypocrisy is mind-boggling."
seconded...oug wrote:
All a matter of perspective. Russia during the Cold War was not a controllable enemy for example. The Taliban and Al' Quaeda, no matter how much the US media try to convey them as being of global reach (especially Al' Quaeda) are of limited capabilities. And maybe things are not under control in Iraq and Afghanistan, but remember, the US is on the offence.B.Schuss wrote:
well, if you want to call the Taliban or Al'Quaeda "controllable" enemies, then that's probably one way of looking at it....oug wrote:
Short sighted? Surely not. Using others to fight their war and at the same time creating controllable enemies to keep the industry of war going is something the US foreign policy has excelled at. Give them some credit
Yeah, everything sure is under control in Iraq and Afghanistan....
sarcasm ftw..
Russia was not directly fought against, because it was uncontrollable, i.e. it was widely accepted that a conflict between the two superpowers would lead to a loss/loss situation. Some conflicts can not be won.
Limited Capabilities ? well, the russians tried to destroy the afghan insurgency for 9 years, and couldn't do it.
What makes you think the US will be more succesful ?
If Vietnam and Afghanistan have proved anything, it is that even superpowers have their problems with a well-organized armed insurgency. Manpower and superior weaponry won't do the trick.
I couldn't agree more ! its been very evident the the hearts and minds are not won over...B.Schuss wrote:
If Vietnam and Afghanistan have proved anything, it is that even superpowers have their problems with a well-organized armed insurgency. Manpower and superior weaponry won't do the trick.
Hmmm thats funny, seeings how we have been raiding the OMS compounds every chance we get....Kmarion wrote:
If you wanted a real head scratcher you would point out the fact the US is now arming using the Mehdi Army. It seems to be having a good effect right now, but man that one could blow up in our face. We were just fighting them a few months ago.
That kind off stuff is what spawned this post.
I guess no one told my unit....
True, USA is probably the king of the proxy war.oug wrote:
Short sighted? Surely not. Using others to fight their war and at the same time creating controllable enemies to keep the industry of war going is something the US foreign policy has excelled at. Give them some creditB.Schuss wrote:
Let's face it, later US foreign policy seems to be somewhat short-sighted. Some difficulties in chosing your allies, I'd say.
There is a difference between fighting a country and using terrorism against a country.
Care to elaborate?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
There is a difference between fighting a country and using terrorism against a country.
Agreed, agreed. And I'm not saying the US will be more successful! But lets not forget that the Afghan insurgency back then were called freedom fighters and they had the aid of the CIA.B.Schuss wrote:
Limited Capabilities ? well, the russians tried to destroy the afghan insurgency for 9 years, and couldn't do it.
What makes you think the US will be more succesful ?
If Vietnam and Afghanistan have proved anything, it is that even superpowers have their problems with a well-organized armed insurgency. Manpower and superior weaponry won't do the trick.
ƒ³
One man's insurgent is another man's patriot ( excuse the phrasing, but you know what I mean ). It's a matter of perspective.oug wrote:
Agreed, agreed. And I'm not saying the US will be more successful! But lets not forget that the Afghan insurgency back then were called freedom fighters and they had the aid of the CIA.B.Schuss wrote:
Limited Capabilities ? well, the russians tried to destroy the afghan insurgency for 9 years, and couldn't do it.
What makes you think the US will be more succesful ?
If Vietnam and Afghanistan have proved anything, it is that even superpowers have their problems with a well-organized armed insurgency. Manpower and superior weaponry won't do the trick.
When the colonies broke off the British Empire, the British called them rebels. The "rebels" however, called themselves patriots.
History will show what the iraqui insurgency will ultimately be looked at.
You right about that but there is a famous Latin proverb that stats Historiae est scripta ver vicotria (History is written by the Victor!) As we all know its a really difficult situation to evaluate you have soldiers form the USA dying and Civilians and insurgents dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. However its how the general public views the situation and the information that is provided to them by the media (which is really "trust worthy").B.Schuss wrote:
When the colonies broke off the British Empire, the British called them rebels. The "rebels" however, called themselves patriots.
History will show what the iraqui insurgency will ultimately be looked at.
I feel for both sides the insurgents as well as the US troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan no-one should ever face such atrocities no matter what colour, creed or conviction!
But I'm sure the US military was well aware that Mr Husain's Republican Guard would go to ground when US troops stepped on Iraqi soil their sole purpose was to start insurgent groups to fight off invading forces weather they be Iranian or American.
My point is that the US was well aware of the Republican Guard yet the invasion went ahead and now US troops are faced with fighting a faceless enemy who knows the country is indigenous and these people can muster up support in the community.
The US saw it happen in Vietnam on a larger scale but if America stays in Iraq I can foresee many more body bags coming home to fatherless children.
You mean like a certain group called the 'Taliban'?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Who cares? I say using an enemy against an enemy is a good thing.Kmarion wrote:
If you wanted a real head scratcher you would point out the fact the US is now arming using the Mehdi Army. It seems to be having a good effect right now, but man that one could blow up in our face. We were just fighting them a few months ago.
That kind off stuff is what spawned this post.
And certain gentleman whos name begins in 'Osama' and ends in 'Bin Laden'?