Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gurdur · 03-28-2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman

Syria provides weapons, training, and material support to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. Please prove that the US government provides weapons, training, and material support to the IRA.

One of the charges against Iraq by the USA was that Iraq provided passive refuge to terrorists such as Al-Qaida.

Please provide proof that the USA admin actively discouraged IRA fund-raising and gun-buying inside the USA. If you can't, admit that the USA passively gave terrorists refuge and allowed assistance.

Layman · 03-28-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
One of the charges against Iraq by the USA was that Iraq provided passive refuge to terrorists such as Al-Qaida.

I was talking about Syria.

Quote:

Please provide proof that the USA admin actively discouraged IRA fund-raising and gun-buying inside the USA. If you can't, admit that the USA passively gave terrorists refuge and allowed assistance.

Cute. But irrelevant. If you are going to back the comparison of the US as a state sponsor of the IRA to Syria's state sponsorship of Hezobollah, its up to you to prove your point.

excreationist · 03-28-2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
The biggest source of terrorists is Saudi Arabia, a rather nasty monarchy.....Why aren't we going after them first?

Maybe they'd be next, after all, apparently Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves in the world (Iraq was the second largest).
But the problem is that though Saudi Arabia has about the same number of people as Iraq, it spends more than 10 times as much on its military. ($18.3 billion in 2000 vs. $1.3 billion in 2000)

Gurdur · 03-28-2003, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
I was talking about Syria.

Obviously. And you don't like valid comparisons which show the hypocrisy of the USA, or your own empty stance.

Quote:

Cute. But irrelevant. If you are going to back the comparison of the US as a state sponsor of the IRA to Syria's state sponsorship of Hezobollah, its up to you to prove your point.

Cute strawman and mischaracterization, but you're way off-track.

So you admit the USA did not actively discourage IRA fund-raising and gun-buying for a long, long time ?
Wjy am I not surprised ?

I look forward eagerly to your next evasion.

Duck! · 03-28-2003, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
One of the charges against Iraq by the USA was that Iraq provided passive refuge to terrorists such as Al-Qaida.

Please provide proof that the USA admin actively discouraged IRA fund-raising and gun-buying inside the USA. If you can't, admit that the USA passively gave terrorists refuge and allowed assistance.

Although I can't find any links on the legal status of Noraid (Irish Northern Aid), it's my understanding that the United States government didn't criminalise Noraid throughout the 1980's. I think that Noraid may have been made an illegal organisation sometime in the late 90's but I can't verify this. By not criminalising and clamping down on Noraid, did the US government passively supported the IRA throughout the 1980's when US arms dealers were one of it's chief source of arms?

This the kind of "support" you were talking about Gurdur?

Duck!

Layman · 03-28-2003, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
Obviously. And you don't like valid comparisons which show the hypocrisy of the USA, or your own empty stance.

Once again. The comparison is between Syria's support Hezbollah and the USA's purported support of the IRA. The comparison fails. If you want to start a discussion about the hyposcrisy of the USA in general, go ahead. But that's not the one I was participating in.

Quote:

Cute strawman and mischaracterization, but you're way off-track.

No. The track is a comparison between Syria's support of Hezbollah and the USA's purported support of the IRA.

Quote:

So you admit the USA did not actively discourage IRA fund-raising and gun-buying for a long, long time ?

No, I do not admit that the USA did not actively discourage IRA fund-raising and gun-buying for a long, long time.

Just Another Infidel · 03-28-2003, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Talon
THE STORY

The more this guy opens his mouth, the more shit get stirred up. It'll be decades before an American can safely set foot anywhere in the Arab world.TALON

This article pretty much lays it out the way I see it and the beauty part is I don't have to type a lot:
Practice to Deceive

Quote:

In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East.

Quote:

In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism.

Quote:

Ending Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it with something stable and democratic was always going to be a difficult task, even with the most able leadership and the broadest coalition. But doing it as the Bush administration now intends is something like going outside and giving a few good whacks to a hornets' nest because you want to get them out in the open and have it out with them once and for all. Ridding the world of Islamic terrorism by rooting out its ultimate sources--Muslim fundamentalism and the Arab world's endemic despotism, corruption, and poverty--might work. But the costs will be immense. Whether the danger is sufficient and the costs worth incurring would make for an interesting public debate. The problem is that once it's just us and the hornets, we really won't have any choice.

Thing is... I'm leaning towards, "not a bad idea." I came to the conclusion many years ago (after the Iranian revolution) that the entire middle east has been shanghaid by Islam. Everything I've seen in the interim only reinforces my initial impression. Introducing democratic reforms, successful economic measures, western education systems and new leadership may circumvent a world wide religious war in the future.

My $.02
JAI

Randi · 03-28-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism.

In view of our own domestic terrorism, what does this theory say about the current state of our government?

Just Another Infidel · 03-28-2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Randi
In view of our own domestic terrorism, what does this theory say about the current state of our government?

You'll have to help me out here. Other than some right wing whackos working "mostly" independently, what domestic terrorism?

If you're alluding to the U.S. Govt. as the "ultimate terrorists", I submit, that it's a question of which end of the military action you are on, kicking or receiving.

JAI

Randi · 03-28-2003, 09:18 PM

Well, what I mean is the theory that non-democracies breed terrorism is flawed, and I think pretty laughable to be advanced by a government that has classified some of it's own citizens as terrorists. While in the media "domestic terrorists" are charactarized as basically whacko, in reality this encompasses a lot more people than is generally realized. In essence, you cannot simultaneously claim democracy does not breed terrorists and also acknowledge its own terrorists.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2003, 09:18 PM	#30
Randi Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Freedonia Posts: 133	Well, what I mean is the theory that non-democracies breed terrorism is flawed, and I think pretty laughable to be advanced by a government that has classified some of it's own citizens as terrorists. While in the media "domestic terrorists" are charactarized as basically whacko, in reality this encompasses a lot more people than is generally realized. In essence, you cannot simultaneously claim democracy does not breed terrorists and also acknowledge its own terrorists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.