It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DYepes
Why was communism so important to stop that it justified all that suffering?
I want to know why it was ok to sacrafice the stability of several nations and allow the suffering of countless thousands in order to stop it.
Originally posted by Boatphone
Originally posted by Souljah
So - who is the No.1 World Terrorist Sponsor?
I believe it's Iran right now...
-- Boat
A Brief History of Terrorism by the USA
- In the 1950s, we are also involved in covert operations, overthrowing the governments of Iran and Guatemala. And almost as soon as we get involved in Vietnam, we are sending military troops into the Dominican Republic. In that period, we are also giving enormous amounts of aid to the government of Indonesia, helping the dictator Suharto carry on an internal war against the opposition, in the course of which several hundred thousand people are killed. Then the U.S. government, starting in 1975, provides critical support to Indonesia's brutal campaign to subdue the people of East Timor, in which hundreds of thousands of people are killed.
- In the 1980s, when Reagan comes into office, we begin a covert war throughout Central America, in El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and especially in Nicaragua, creating the counterrevolutionary force, the Contras, whom Reagan called "freedom fighters."
- If you put up photos of the graduating classes of the School of the Americas on the wall, you would have a rogues' gallery of terrorism. I think of the El Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson; of the graduates who took part in the massacre of 811 people in El Mozote in December 1981; of the many generals and dictators who went through the School of the Americas. In fact, some of the manuals used in the School of the Americas give advice on how to carry out what amount to terrorist acts.
- In 1978, even before the Russians were in Afghanistan, we are covertly sending arms to the rebel forces in Afghanistan, the mujahedeen. Some of these people turned out later to be the Taliban, the people who suddenly are our enemy. The national security adviser to Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, boasted that he knew U.S. aid would "induce a Soviet military intervention" in Afghanistan. In fact, this happened, provoking a war that lasted ten years. The war was devastating to the people of Afghanistan and left the country in ruins. The moment it was over, the United States immediately moved out. The people that we supported, the fundamentalists, took power in Afghanistan and established their regime.
- Almost as soon as George Bush Sr. came into office, in 1989, he launched a war against Panama, which left perhaps several thousand dead. Two years later, we were at war in the Gulf, using the invasion of Kuwait as an excuse to intensify our military presence in that area and to station troops in Saudi Arabia, which then became one of the major offenses for Osama bin Laden and other Saudi Arabian nationalists. Then in the Clinton administration we were bombing Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq again.
In fact, it is safe to say that since World War II, there has not been a more warlike nation in the world than the United States.
The United States has consistently opposed the creation of an international war crimes tribunal because it could be used against people in the U.S. government and military. They are very explicit about it. In effect, the government is saying, "Yes, we have people who could be accused of having committed war crimes." The United States wants to find other people who have committed war crimes, but an American by definition cannot commit a war crime
Originally posted by Boatphone
Howard Zinn oversimplifies all the issues...
The United States must look out for the United States. That is the correct thing to do.
-- Boat
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Now who is oversimplifying?
Why must the US look out for the US by invading soveriegn countries
or denying non-US citizens the rights enshrined in the US constitution?
Originally posted by Boatphone
Howard Zinn oversimplifies all the issues when he writes his anti-American grabage. Nice try, but everything the United States did was to help it own interests in the world.
The United States must look out for the United States.
Originally posted by Boatphone
Only U.S. citizens need to be affored the rights under the Constitution.
Originally posted by Boatphone
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why must the US look out for the US by invading soveriegn countries
Because nations control world power. [/quote
Chile?!? controls world power? Grenada controls world power? Cambodia?
Let's take a quick look at where the US has flexed its muscles and foreign policy in my living memory. Libya, Iran (didn't work out so well), Lebanon (likewise), Kuwait, Panama (why don't you watch the Oscar-winning, but banned in the US, documentary?), Nicaragua, Kosovo, Afghanistan (twice), Somalia (how not to conduct an exit-strategy), East Timor (wow, actual democracy and independence being defended!). Iraq ("they'll greet us with flowers in our rifle barrels!").
Now, which of these nations controls world power? Somalia? Lebanon? Panama? East timor?
At least Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Libya have oil, but that's all they have (except for the sand), and ETimor will have oil.
Where didn't they go? Rwanda (nearly 1,000,000 dead in 100 days of genocide), Bosnia (now we have a new term: ethnic-cleansing) Croatia, Serbia, Congo (ever!), Chechnya (let's give it to the Islamists!), Sudan.
Now, which of these countries don't have oil and/or are Muslim or African?
or denying non-US citizens the rights enshrined in the US constitution?
Only U.S. citizens need to be affored the rights under the Constitution.
-- Boat
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wrong. Everyone on your soil must be afforded the rights guaranteed by your constitution.
Why are Americans so willing to see US troops deny other people the rights they demand?
Originally posted by IAF101
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wrong. Everyone on your soil must be afforded the rights guaranteed by your constitution.
Would you like terrorists to have the right to own firearms ? THats a right too.
Why are Americans so willing to see US troops deny other people the rights they demand?
Claiming that the terrorists in Guantanomo are in fact "people" is almost funny were it not so tragic.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wow, IAF has just re-written the encyclopedia. David Hicks is not a person, he is some new species...Islamistes Guantanomos Iafious, perhaps? Homo Guantanomus?
It's a constitutionally guaranteed right. One Timothy McVeigh exercised.
Given that one of those incarcerated at Guantanomo is an Australian whom you chose to regard as non-human, I find the tragedy to be your attitude to your own laws and their basis, let alone international law. I find the tragedy to be your utter lack of understanding.
Your nation styles its head of state "Leader of the Free World" but then includes military dictators who use kidnapping, torture and murder in the club. Ask a Chilean what significance September 11 has.
Originally posted by IAF101
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wow, IAF has just re-written the encyclopedia. David Hicks is not a person, he is some new species...Islamistes Guantanomos Iafious, perhaps? Homo Guantanomus?
Lol well firstly it wouldnt be encyclopedia it would be more like Anthropology 101
and second David Hicks ?? Come on!! Hes a terrorist and a dangerous one at that. Al-Qaeda, Lashkar Toiba, KLA, Taliban.....the list goes on!
You still beleive that this terrorist, who is out to rid the world of "Western-Jewish" control and return to the old order of the "islamic way", can be seen as a normal "person"?
It's a constitutionally guaranteed right. One Timothy McVeigh exercised.
Are you trying to teach me the laws of my land ?? Thats ludicrous! Citizens of the United States of America have the right to "bear arms" not aquire, make and detonate explosives in the vicinity of children and Federal offices !
There is a subtle difference which I am sure most people can catch!
Is this really an argument ?:shk:
Given that one of those incarcerated at Guantanomo is an Australian whom you chose to regard as non-human...
Well ... the fact that this Australian "gentile" is a hard core terrorist, ready to carry out acts of terrorism against innocent citizens on command by his master Osama Bin Laden.
Your nation styles its head of state "Leader of the Free World" but then includes military dictators who use kidnapping, torture and murder in the club. Ask a Chilean what significance September 11 has.
That is not a formal title but merely a convention used to reflect the geopolitical position of the USA in the world and everybody knows this. There are no "military dictators" that can be considered as members of the free world
and the USA makes no such claim for any dictator.
Considering the nature of the USA and its interests often it does have to interact with nations run by dictators, this in no way makes them free nations. Any reasonable person would understand this.
And if you are going to throw up arcana to compensate for a lack of points to continue your fustian verbiage you have lost already. For as we say in the US: "Its a swing and a miss! "
Originally posted by grimreaper797
you just called a human being less then a person, I think the nationalistic propaganda is working on you. I mean that with all respect,
Nazis did the EXACT same thing to the jews. The dehumanized them, just like you are doing right now.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Anthropology 101 is a course, the encyclopedia is a reference which classifies.
Then why did NATO bomb Serbia and why is Kosovo under UN administration? Don't quote what you don't understand.
Waiting for proof that Hicks is out to rid the world of anything. You know what makes me superior to the terrorists? The fact that I will guarantee their rights under the law. That is also what makes me superior to you.....
The constitution says "arms". If I want I can ride my horse down the street in full plate armour carrying my lance under that definition. There is no restriction on the word "arms". But under your explanation Timothy McVeigh owned no "firearms", this after you told me that terrorists could exploit said right and that's why the US constitution should not be extended to all people on US soil.
Proof please, of the kind that will stand up in court.
Oh, and this Australian "gentile" is a hardcore democratist. What the hell has his non-Jewishness, or mine, got to do with anything?
So who was Pinochet, then? What was happening in Nicuragua?
......
Any reasonable person would ask why the US gives and/or sells them arms and protects them at the UN.
If you cannot understand why you failed to protect the developing world from communism, how can you expect to protect the developed world from terrorism?
I'd rather know the arcana than class people as untermencshen, but hey, that's what my job requires...
Oh, and why use a long word when an exiguous one will do...
Originally posted by IAF101
I am a nationalist, there is no need for any propaganda! And I do realize how I refer to them. Though my view might be considered as a "product of the system", it is in fact based more on my experience than any government "propaganda" .
I will not expatitate on this but would like to point you to Article 1 on the Universal declaration of human rights;
All human beings .....are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one....
I dont remember any Jews crashing a planes into a buildings or beheading Nazis on TV do you ? Even the Reichstag was said to have been gutted by the Communists!
To compare the Jews to these "detainees", is ridiculous to say the least.
Originally posted by IAF101
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Anthropology 101 is a course, the encyclopedia is a reference which classifies.
Sheesh...Do you know what Anthropology is ?? Hello...Phsyical anthropology ?
Nevermind, you wont get it!
Oh, and why use a long word when an exiguous one will do...
I have noticed that you have a problem with English, so I will tone down the "exiguous words". If you have a problem just say so.
Originally posted by IAF101
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Then why did NATO bomb Serbia and why is Kosovo under UN administration? Don't quote what you don't understand.
Your statement is non sequitur. If you are talking about Operation allied force and what followed, then google will help answer your questions. Everybody knows the answers but I dont see how your statement has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Waiting for proof that Hicks is out to rid the world of anything.
He is treated like any other illegal combatant in Guantanomo and he is entitled to nothing other than what the US military feels that he deserves.
He was meant to be tried by a military commission but apparently some technicalities prevented this from happening.
In any case he will eventually be tried in a court of law and he will receive what he is due.
The constitution says "arms". If I want I can ride my horse down the street in full plate armour carrying my lance under that definition. There is no restriction on the word "arms". But under your explanation Timothy McVeigh owned no "firearms", this after you told me that terrorists could exploit said right and that's why the US constitution should not be extended to all people on US soil.
The utter naivity of these statements reflects a trend that your posts often tend to carry. Apparently a desperately scavenge for some facts or the other to put up a "front" for a non-issue. Anyways, I will indulge myself here;
First, incase you missed it the last time, the Second ammendment is meant solely for American citizens and permanent residents. Nobody else, not tourists, terrorists or illegals.
Second, the Second Ammendment is but the start of the many THOUSANDS of gun laws in the USA.
There are both State and Federal Laws for possesion and purchase of weapons. There also numerous other acts that control the use and type of "arms" that are available to people.
Third, the term "arms" and the Second Ammendement, which I seriously doubt that you have ever read,
states that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Arms here are considered those that are of military nature generaly.
The classification of what is and isnt allowed is long and extensive and depends from state to state.
Fourth, high explosives are in no way allowed for personal use in the USA. They are only granted for special purposes and even possesion of such devices is illegal everywhere in the US.
Fifth, even to get a gun in the US there are a lot of checks and documents that need to be presented to obtain a weapon. The DoJ is responsible for granting permission for obtaining weapons in most states. Though it is gauranteed by the second amendment, by no means is it easy to obtain weapons legally.
and the lance would have to be also approved by the govt before you can even posses it.
Proof please, of the kind that will stand up in court.
The Proof is with those who need it to present the case. I dont have to provide anything to you. The burden of finding any proof is your own, look and you will see!
Oh, and this Australian "gentile" is a hardcore democratist. What the hell has his non-Jewishness, or mine, got to do with anything?
Democratist or choir boy, that is irrelevant! A Terrorist is a terrorist above all.
You know Gentile...Christian(muslim in this case!)... Its sarcasm...you dont get it.
So who was Pinochet, then? What was happening in Nicuragua?
......
Any reasonable person would ask why the US gives and/or sells them arms and protects them at the UN.
This has firstly nothing to do with the topic.
All these are separate issues that the US has dealt with in a way that was best for the US and the free world.
Giving them arms or supporting them in the UN...
If you cannot understand why you failed to protect the developing world from communism, how can you expect to protect the developed world from terrorism?
I dont know what "trip" you are on but we broke up the USSR, toppled communisms greatest stronghold...