Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

My God. A long line of responders. There is way too much to repond to bit by bit, so I am going to cover the key areas.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15730707

Sometimes mistakes are made. Innocents do get killed. But if we were Al Qaeda, we would be seeking masses of people for their innocence. That is what terrorists do. They also do it even if it has close to no chance of helping their cause. Killing people to make Allah happy is the sort of thing that separates the terrorists from us. Al Qaeda would never take the first step toward minimizing civilian deaths. They are all about aiming at civilians to spew rage and screw imaginary virgins.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No. We couldn't. Why couldn't we? Because every nation on the planet would turn against us; the American people at large would turn against our government; foreign relations would take a severe hit (both in terms of economically and the possibility of any allied forces, in future military campaigns), and our government, in the eyes of the entire world, would be the same "terrorist organization" that we have just labeled the Iranian Republican Guard.

That is right. We would never stand for that now. That is what I am saying. And any foreign backlash would be small compared to the fact that we would own all of the oil in the Middle East. Imagine how many customers we would have. And nobody is going to be stupid enough to invade us. We don't use Al Qaeda style tactics because we are much better people than they are. We would not keep anybody in office if they tried such junk.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Hardly the fate of the world is at stake, it seems your government randomly picked out a country that was totalarian and made an excuse that was a lie and then invaded.

That is incorrect. See the Iraq threads for my arguments about the necessity of fighting in Iraq. There is a long list of good reasons.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The world does not depend on you people if anything the american government is fucking the world over and making the world a more unstable place as a result that is fact.

In terms of foreign policy it looks like to me the US hasnt changed much...remember the attemped coup in Venezuela largely beleived to have had American backers involved.

The U.S. has liberated more people than any other country in history, and we lead the world in the giving of foreign aid. We prevented the Soviet Union from taking over the world, majorly helped prevent the Nazis from taking over the world, and are the biggest deterrent in the world to invasions of countries like yours right now.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I heard today that the Blackwater operants who allegedly badly botched an operation and killed many innocents were just given immunity from prosecution. This before most of the facts of the case were even unearthed. Looks like this organization that has absolutely no oversight and answers to no laws now has the right to do whatever they please, including killing whomever they like without fear of prosecution. The Iraqi government that we are claiming to help is certainly not happy about this.

What happens when we decide it's ok for private sector vigilantes to operate like this at home?

Edit: News link

It looks like the military oversight saw that a mistake was made and national interests to protect by not getting into the business of prosecuting every military person who accidentally killed what turned out to be civilians. War can't work that way.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The main problem with the idea that it is better to kill 999 innocents to save 1000 that would have otherwise died is this: how is it possible to quantify how many people a terrorist will kill? How is it possible to say 1000 would have died instead of, say, 50?

I was using a hypothetical to illustrate the legitimacy of wars that are necessary. Of course the exact numbers cannot be predicted.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It is also important to realize that, when reasoning this way, a suicide bomber can only really be guilty of a single murder, since killing himself makes up for killing all but one of his victims.

Huh? I am totally lost on what you mean by that. What mass of people is the suicide bomber saving?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Finally, as has been pointed out before, killing 999 innocents to save 1000 creates 999 x N new terrorists, where N is proportional to the number of people who can be moved to action by the murder of a loved one.

Killing 999 innocents to save 1000 is much closer to immoral than killing 1 to save 1000 because of the lack of certainty of the numbers. Also, you need to take into account the fact that we are killing and capturing terrorists like flies, and you need to consider that we are changing the political landscape to take the region out of the third world. The idea there is to create a much better future, one where people do not become suicide bombers.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Those terrorists would kill many times over the number of people the original terrorist would have killed, and would justify the killing of even more innocent people, and the cycle continues. In order for this method of rationing lives to work, a great many people must be expected to watch their families die by the hands of a foreign army and to not seek revenge. The sectarian violence works in the same way.

Taking away two Islamofascist governments and the power they could provide from the face of the Earth put a big dent in that plan. Taking them out of the third world is going to have a further positive effect.

Originally Posted by jaasum

I am not simply talking about pissing off terrorists. The terrorists aren't simply pissed off because they have nothing better to do. Usually their reactions are a retaliation to our killing of innocent people. That is why I keep stressing that you cannot compare our relationship with terrorism and the middle east with a criminal/police anology in a neighborood setting, it simple isnt the same and to think of it in that matter is an oversimplification.

We have done countless things in the middle east that are unjustifiable and evil. We not meaning you and I but our nation, and it usually happens behind the peoples back or without the people's say.

I have told you why I disagree with that.

Originally Posted by jaasum

IAnd to answer your final question, every post I have made is radically and passionately against terrorism. It just isn't the hyped up emotional faux patriotism that the "Have you forgotten 9/11" right agenda pushes. No I haven't forgotten 9/11 and no I do not side with terrorists I hate them just as much as you do.

Good. You are the only person who has answered that question, by the way. Are you going to start any threads about how much you hate them?

Folks, there is way too long a line for me to respond to long posts at this point. If you want me to respond to points and quesions, please be very brief.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I heard today that the Blackwater operants who allegedly badly botched an operation and killed many innocents were just given immunity from prosecution. This before most of the facts of the case were even unearthed. Looks like this organization that has absolutely no oversight and answers to no laws now has the right to do whatever they please, including killing whomever they like without fear of prosecution. The Iraqi government that we are claiming to help is certainly not happy about this.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It looks like the military oversight saw that a mistake was made and national interests to protect by not getting into the business of prosecuting every military person who accidentally killed what turned out to be civilians. War can't work that way.

I think you're missing the point on this one. Blackwater is not a part of the military! They are private Rent-a-Goons that do not have to follow military law. This is exactly the problem, because this means they do not have to be held to the same standards as the armed forces. They can run around over there, ignore basic protocol and US military planning, and create a relations disaster.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Good. You are the only person who has answered that question, by the way. Are you going to start any threads about how much you hate them?

Actually, I didn't see that question until now, but I have already stated how I've felt about the terrorists in other conversations with you. I will add to it, though, by saying this: (and whether or not you want to respond is up to you. I'm simply stating my opinion.)

The reason that I spend more of my time outlining U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy is because these are the people that represent us. These are the people we trust to be fair, supportive and representative of the will (and morals) of the very best aspects of American society. The idea of the methods and tactics of the radical-islamists (and all terrorists), as being completely vile and asinine, is completely obvious. Their disregard for human life (in response to their enemies) is completely obvious. Turn on any mainstream media outlet and (no matter how much "America Bashing" is going on) it is easily seen. It is talked about 24/7. I don't think there is any one of us that actually supports what is being done by the terrorists. Do not confuse our disdain for U.S. foreign policy as any sort of a refusal to acknowledge the evils of the "radical Islamist movement."

On the other hand, the U.S. government (taking into account what I said about them, above) lies to us constantly to promote their agenda. A "need to know" basis has been in place, in the military, for as long as the military has existed. The same goes with government. I feel it is more important, as an American, to do what I can to open peoples' eyes to the injustices that are being imposed upon not only us, but people all over the world, by our "representatives," than to continuously regurgitate the obvious condemnation of what the terrorists are doing. So many people want to try to act like we bear absolutely no responsibility for what is going on. The government wants us to believe that we have absolutely no responsibility for what is going on. The government wants us to believe that its actions are completely benevolent; that it is 100% ethical; that it does not violate human rights; that everything we do is justified. It wants us to believe that there are no secrets kept that (should they be known to the American people) would provoke outrage. It is swallowed daily, by many Americans, and the public is so quick to defend the government on a sheer "this is my family" basis than try to look at things objectively, and see that we have been (and still are) committing many wrong-doings in the world stage. I am more passionate about having us all realize that our government plays us all, on a daily basis, than I am about stating the obvious; that the terrorists that kill civilians to make a point are primitive, savage nut-cases that should be stopped. That goes without saying. Everyone knows that. What everyone doesn't know is that there are immoralities committed by our government that can be compared to what the terrorists do, most realistically, and I feel, unequivocally, that it is a truth that should be voiced rather than ignored.

From Universal Mind
Killing 999 innocents to save 1000 is much closer to immoral than killing 1 to save 1000 because of the lack of certainty of the numbers. Also, you need to take into account the fact that we are killing and capturing terrorists like flies, and you need to consider that we are changing the political landscape to take the region out of the third world. The idea there is to create a much better future, one where people do not become suicide bombers.
...
Taking away two Islamofascist governments and the power they could provide from the face of the Earth put a big dent in that plan. Taking them out of the third world is going to have a further positive effect.

Perhaps the reason we are capturing and killing terrorists like flies is because there are so many of them. It's as if the War on Terror hasn't had any effect at all, unless you count the NIE's statement that the number of terrorists is growing, despite all of the killing we're doing. It's almost as if more terrorists are created than we are destroying. Is it so far-fetched to think our actions are exacerbating terrorism rather than tamping it down?

Any action, no matter how vile, can be justified by arguing that things will get better in the future for the victims, and that will make it all worthwhile. The future will always be better than the present at some point, regardless of what atrocities take place, and such an justification takes advantage of that inevitability.

I'm not sure what 'plan' you're referring to when you say the war put a big dent in it. If the plan was for the cycle of murder and revenge to continue indefinitely, then it is certainly moving along as planned. If you are referring to terrorist plots to gain political power by inciting chaos, that's going along well, especially since the only secular dictatorship in the Mid-East is gone. What plan are you referring to?

Nah. It wasn't just any totalitarian country at random. It was the one where we had the most to gain by protecting American interests.

When you say it was one where you (americans) had to gain by protecting american interests, what do you mean?

Are you refering to oil?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

When you say it was one where you (americans) had to gain by protecting american interests, what do you mean?

Are you refering to oil?

More or less, yes. As UM said: If we were to take full control of that region, we would have control of all of the oil that that region possesses. Even if complete control were left to the Iraqi's, they would (more or less) owe that control to us, after all of the instability now. Having a close ally that owns all of the oil in that region is the next best thing to owning all of the oil in that region.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

More or less, yes. As UM said: If we were to take full control of that region, we would have control of all of the oil that that region possesses. Even if complete control were left to the Iraqi's, they would (more or less) owe that control to us, after all of the instability now. Having a close ally that owns all of the oil in that region is the next best thing to owning all of the oil in that region.

Except it's not "we", as in the people. It's all for corporations to get rich on.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Except it's not "we", as in the people. It's all for corporations to get rich on.

Exactly. A lot of times when I use "we" I don't mean "we the people." I mean America in general. In that context, I meant the American government and corporative powers.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Good. You are the only person who has answered that question, by the way. Are you going to start any threads about how much you hate them?

No, because HATING terrorists and write pages of why isn't going to do an ounce of good. I would rather spend my time supporting something like the Ron Paul movement which I firmly believe could eliminate the motive of terrorism. I choose not to be so emotionally wrapped up and blind with hatred. You will say I don't care, but you are wrong. Because caring the way you do results in supporting people like Guiliani who's every second word out of his mouth is Terrorists or 9/11.

Don't muslim people raise and love their children? Don't they care for their sick and give charity to their poor? Don't they serve their friends and family with loyalty? And yet here you are UM, claiming they are born and raised in a culture of hatred and violence. And you evidence rivals that used by the girls in the movie Crucible. You rely on the fact that there is no evidence for or against that to the average American, you simply claim it, and its true.

And now people are being born and raised in this country to hate Muslim people because of attacks they committed from the exact same misconceptions of us, and the cycle continues. The greedy have played off our fear and ignorance to gain wealth and as you continue to pretend that the United States has not had a part in corrupting the natures of the terrorists by bringing their culture to the brink, you continue to catalyze ignorance. But you don't profit from it. In the long run, you can only suffer from it as terrorists will continue to be bred out of fear and desolation, and our generalized hatred will continue to breed as our media continue to draw a curtain over recent history of our transgressions.

It's exactly what they want, both the corrupt leaders of the Muslim world, and of this one. As long as we, the people, hate each other and not the bastards that profit from such hatred, they will continue to win.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I think you're missing the point on this one. Blackwater is not a part of the military! They are private Rent-a-Goons that do not have to follow military law. This is exactly the problem, because this means they do not have to be held to the same standards as the armed forces. They can run around over there, ignore basic protocol and US military planning, and create a relations disaster.

I am not familiar with that. Who takes on the responsibility of renting them?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Perhaps the reason we are capturing and killing terrorists like flies is because there are so many of them. It's as if the War on Terror hasn't had any effect at all, unless you count the NIE's statement that the number of terrorists is growing, despite all of the killing we're doing. It's almost as if more terrorists are created than we are destroying. Is it so far-fetched to think our actions are exacerbating terrorism rather than tamping it down?

Any action, no matter how vile, can be justified by arguing that things will get better in the future for the victims, and that will make it all worthwhile. The future will always be better than the present at some point, regardless of what atrocities take place, and such an justification takes advantage of that inevitability.

I'm not sure what 'plan' you're referring to when you say the war put a big dent in it. If the plan was for the cycle of murder and revenge to continue indefinitely, then it is certainly moving along as planned. If you are referring to terrorist plots to gain political power by inciting chaos, that's going along well, especially since the only secular dictatorship in the Mid-East is gone. What plan are you referring to?

Governments can give major funding and major weapons to organizations like Al Qaeda, WMD's such as nuclear weapons if we are not on their asses at every turn. Even that is not totally dependable. That is a big part of the reason overthrowing the Hussein regime and the Taliban was so important.

Two weeks ago, we had the first week of zero U.S. casualties in Iraq. Many parts of Iraq are in great condition, and we have gotten a lot more Iraqi people to turn on the terrorists in the past few months. Things are getting better. They can have an awesome country. They could never have had that under the Hussein regime. The world is going to be a better place because of this.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Don't muslim people raise and love their children? Don't they care for their sick and give charity to their poor? Don't they serve their friends and family with loyalty? And yet here you are UM, claiming they are born and raised in a culture of hatred and violence. And you evidence rivals that used by the girls in the movie Crucible. You rely on the fact that there is no evidence for or against that to the average American, you simply claim it, and its true.

And now people are being born and raised in this country to hate Muslim people because of attacks they committed from the exact same misconceptions of us, and the cycle continues. The greedy have played off our fear and ignorance to gain wealth and as you continue to pretend that the United States has not had a part in corrupting the natures of the terrorists by bringing their culture to the brink, you continue to catalyze ignorance. But you don't profit from it. In the long run, you can only suffer from it as terrorists will continue to be bred out of fear and desolation, and our generalized hatred will continue to breed as our media continue to draw a curtain over recent history of our transgressions.

It's exactly what they want, both the corrupt leaders of the Muslim world, and of this one. As long as we, the people, hate each other and not the bastards that profit from such hatred, they will continue to win.

Huh? Where do you get that I am against all Muslims? I have a problem with the religion itself, just like I have a problem with Christianity itself. Both religions are very dangerous when their "holy" books' words are taken literally. Islamofascists take the Koran's words literally. That makes them want to kill "infidels" to please Allah so they can screw virgins. That means we have a huge problem on our hands. But most Muslims do not take the text so literally, so I don't have a problem with most Muslims.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am not familiar with that. Who takes on the responsibility of renting them?

Wow. With all of the discussion that has been going on about the war, lately, I'm really surprised you're not familiar with Blackwater USA, UM. They have been all over the news, recently.

They are basically mercenaries that the U.S. government hires. They have been coming into play a lot, lately, because the U.S. forces are having a lot of trouble doing the job "on their own." The most recent scandal has come because many (not just the ones skysaw mentioned) civilian deaths have been caused by Blackwater agents and, unlike the U.S. military, they face no immediate consequences for their actions. They operate outside of U.S. military directives and, over there, U.S. civil law doesn't necessarily apply.

In other words, they are unbound vigilantes (more or less), hired by the U.S. to help us fight, but are automatically exonerated for things that military personnel would be court-martialed for, or worse.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Wow. With all of the discussion that has been going on about the war, lately, I'm really surprised you're not familiar with Blackwater USA, UM. They have been all over the news, recently.

They are basically mercenaries that the U.S. government hires. They have been coming into play a lot, lately, because the U.S. forces are having a lot of trouble doing the job "on their own." The most recent scandal has come because many (not just the ones skysaw mentioned) civilian deaths have been caused by Blackwater agents and, unlike the U.S. military, they face no immediate consequences for their actions. They operate outside of U.S. military directives and, over there, U.S. civil law doesn't necessarily apply.

In other words, they are unbound vigilantes (more or less), hired by the U.S. to help us fight, but are automatically exonerated for things that military personnel would be court-martialed for, or worse.

I am familiar with the term and what they generally do, but the "vigilantes for hire" part is something I missed. It seems to me that if they are working for the government, which I assumed was the case the times I came across their name, the government is responsible for their actions in the scope of employment. That does not mean they should be responsible for everthing they do in life. If the government is not being held responsible for their reportedly wrong actions on the job, they should be. I am of course speaking in hypotheticals here. I will need to look more into the details of what you and Skysaw are saying before I comment about facts.

EDIT: I just read the Wikipedia article. It looks like there are several investigations of them being conducted and Congress is pushing a bill to make contractor crimes in Iraq prosecutable in the United States. The bill has already been passed in the House. And of course the Iraqi government is free to prosecute them for crimes in Iraq. They are also being sued on behalf of certain Iraqi families. They are not exactly above all laws and free to rape and plunder.

From Universal Mind
Two weeks ago, we had the first week of zero U.S. casualties in Iraq. Many parts of Iraq are in great condition, and we have gotten a lot more Iraqi people to turn on the terrorists in the past few months. Things are getting better. They can have an awesome country. They could never have had that under the Hussein regime. The world is going to be a better place because of this.

We should not mistake recovery for improvement. The world will become a better place, certainly, but it will not be because hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed or because terrorist groups were given the greatest recruiting tool they have ever known. It won't be a better place because the status of the U.S. as a powerful broker of peace was thrown out the window. If and when Iraq becomes a great and wealthy nation, it will not be because of the war, but because Iraq's future generations will grow up in a society that has recovered from the devastation.

There is a reason war is the last resort: because it is never beneficial. It is always the least-worst option, an act of desperation. In order to achieve peace, it is necessary to seek alternatives to war, not to fantasize that war can right wrongs and create peace.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

We should not mistake recovery for improvement. The world will become a better place, certainly, but it will not be because hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed or because terrorist groups were given the greatest recruiting tool they have ever known. It won't be a better place because the status of the U.S. as a powerful broker of peace was thrown out the window. If and when Iraq becomes a great and wealthy nation, it will not be because of the war, but because Iraq's future generations will grow up in a society that has recovered from the devastation.

There is a reason war is the last resort: because it is never beneficial. It is always the least-worst option, an act of desperation. In order to achieve peace, it is necessary to seek alternatives to war, not to fantasize that war can right wrongs and create peace.

No, it will not be because of those things. It will be because of the reasons I have stated. And we are not going to end up with hundreds of thousands of dead innocents. We are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of dead terrorists and at least two dead terrorist governments.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

EDIT: I just read the Wikipedia article. It looks like there are several investigations of them being conducted and Congress is pushing a bill to make contractor crimes in Iraq prosecutable in the United States. The bill has already been passed in the House. And of course the Iraqi government is free to prosecute them for crimes in Iraq. They are also being sued on behalf of certain Iraqi families. They are not exactly above all laws and free to rape and plunder.

No no. I don't mean to say they are forever free of any persecution. As the government's position stands right now they are free of those things. I'm well aware of the investigations that are going into their actions. That is why they have been in the news so much lately. But as far as the Administration's position stands, now, they are basically excused, because they are a private organization.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And we are not going to end up with hundreds of thousands of dead innocents. We are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of dead terrorists and at least two dead terrorist governments.

I'm not sure how you can say that with such certainty. You do know that the civilian death count is estimated to be up near the 90,000 mark (and that is only the accounted cases). The count of dead terrorists is only a fraction of that. That isn't to say that all the civilian deaths are our fault, because they are not, but one must acknowledge the fact that our invasion has a large part to do in many of their deaths, as opposed to the number that may or may not have been killed, had we not gone over there - both in terms of how many we've killed, and the escalated number of how many the radical-Islamists have killed in response to our invasion.

It's the first I've heard of Ron Paul, not being an American. But it's refreshing to know that SOMEBODY is looking at the real problems.
America need some serious housecleaning if they want to keep themselves grounded and stable for the future.

Just a side note from a non-american..

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, it will not be because of those things. It will be because of the reasons I have stated. And we are not going to end up with hundreds of thousands of dead innocents. We are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of dead terrorists and at least two dead terrorist governments.

And hundreds of thousands of more terrorists to replace the dead ones.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am not familiar with that. Who takes on the responsibility of renting them?

UM, you expect us to believe that you never heard of Blackwater? If that's true, and you are that insulated from current events, it could explain a lot of your attitudes towards this war.

Terrorism exists because of stupid minds...
the mind ( peoples ) influenced on their life experience, parents, teachings, boundaries that were put by parents, friends..

There are various numbers for the Iraqi death toll so far. IBC has the lowest numbers, with less than 100,000 total up until 2007, while the lancet study(from last year), estimated around 650,000 civilian casualties, and is based on extrapolating survey data from across the country, as opposed to counting verified deaths, which are certainly less than the actual number.

It is verified, however, that at least 2.2 million Iraqis have fled the country and an additional 2.2 have been displaced within Iraq.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001442_pf.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true

Do we assume that, had we not attacked Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency would have killed far more than 80,000 innocents? It is assumed that terrorists would have acquired a nuclear weapon, but in hindsight it's obvious that while we pursued the Iraq war, our nuclear non-proliferation efforts took a nosedive in North Korea and elsewhere. I still remember this story from last year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/wo...ref=middleeast

The presence of nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and Israel are huge incentives for Arab nations to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, especially when Israel urges attacks on countries like Iraq or Iran, and actually bombs countries like Lebanon and Syria, whether or not their actions are justified. We think Israel is made safer by its nuclear stockpiles. Other Mid-East countries want the same protection.

Paul O'Neil, former Treasury Secretary for the Bush administration, revealed in a CBS interview that an attack on Iran was planned before 9/11. At the same time, Colin Powell was providing his analysis of Iraq's nuclear program: that it had nothing. He now says he was misled about Iraq's weapons programs, and there is little reason to disbelieve him.

The evidence provided by an Iraqi taxi-cab driver, known as Curveball, that attested to Iraq's nuclear capabilities was never validated, or even seriously questioned, before the war.

The war in Iraq did not prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, and it never will. Its only justification is to fight terrorists, killing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, and for what? Al Qaeda has regrouped elsewhere, and even the Taliban has revived. An insurgency has developed where none existed before. Removing Saddam will be small comfort indeed if a regional war erupts and kills thousands more, or if terrorists do get their hands on one of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, you expect us to believe that you never heard of Blackwater? If that's true, and you are that insulated from current events, it could explain a lot of your attitudes towards this war.

I already corrected that misconception. You just gave away the fact that you did not read the other things I said. That tendency could explain a lot of your attitude toward my posts.

You didn't correct it with any evidence. You make claims witohut backing them up, here we are listing the countries the United States has taken their freedom from to outline the hypocrisy of claiming they can export it around the world.

Explain to me why the United States reinstalled the Shah, please, I would like to know why the government that stands up for liberty, as you claim, would reinstall a dictatorship over a democratically elected leader. I know the real answer, to internationalize the oil fields, but let's see what bullshit reason you come up with.

Sandino nationalized their fruit companies, and got his ass disappeared by the United States and replaced by Contra death squads that gutted people in the streets. You make the bullshit claim he was in bed with the USSR which has 0 factual basis, you just think its true because you make the argument. And that argument is replayed again and again on this thread. You just make the claim this is the way it is, and it becomes true in your own head. There's evidence to support what we believe, where's yours?

And look at the retardedness of your claim as to why terrorism really exists. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to kill yourself over being jealous of someone else.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You didn't correct it with any evidence. You make claims witohut backing them up, here we are listing the countries the United States has taken their freedom from to outline the hypocrisy of claiming they can export it around the world.

Explain to me why the United States reinstalled the Shah, please, I would like to know why the government that stands up for liberty, as you claim, would reinstall a dictatorship over a democratically elected leader. I know the real answer, to internationalize the oil fields, but let's see what bullshit reason you come up with.

Sandino nationalized their fruit companies, and got his ass disappeared by the United States and replaced by Contra death squads that gutted people in the streets. You make the bullshit claim he was in bed with the USSR which has 0 factual basis, you just think its true because you make the argument. And that argument is replayed again and again on this thread. You just make the claim this is the way it is, and it becomes true in your own head. There's evidence to support what we believe, where's yours?

Why do you ask those questions as if you have never been informed of the U.S. rationale? You did not even mention it. It's a little relevant to the conversation, wouldn't you say? We have been over this. Why do you want to go through the same motions again? I am really starting to think you are just here to troll. Are you?

Both were Cold War strategies because of alleged ties those governments had to the Soviet Union. We were fighting the most serious war in our history, the one to stop Soviet expansion, a threat that was extremely real and concerned something that would have ruined human life on Earth as the free world knew it. Those moves might have been extreme or bad moves. It looks in Hindsight like the Shah sucked and the Iranian revolution threw some monkey wrenches into the picture. It was also mainly a British move to install the Shah, and we went with their intelligence, perhaps too much. But now you know the rationale. Hold onto it this time.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And look at the retardedness of your claim as to why terrorism really exists. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to kill yourself over being jealous of someone else.

Me either, not that Islamofascists are rational. Now go back and look at what I actually said are the primary reasonS. Where do you come up with this stuff?

That is about your fiftieth mischaracterization of my points made in the last month. Are you here to troll? Or do you just not at all care about honesty as long as you can be insulting? I challenge you to show me where I said that jealousy is the only reason Islamofascists want to die to kill us. You won't be able to do it. Jealousy is part of the reason, but there are many other reasons I have discussed. Fundamentalist brainwashing in a climate of poverty and despair is the number one reason. Now read this and face the fact that you lied once again...

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733