Author Topic: The Campaign of Hate and Fear (Read 1604 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #30 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:35:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031215/usnews/15terror.htm

In your opinion, does that link, in any way, change what I wrote in my post to you?

Hortlund · « **Reply #31 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:41:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Spin it all you like hortland. Terrorism against isreal was not terrorism in the US eye till very recently. That is exaclty why Bush didnt make a big deal about the link between Sadam and those orginisations until several months into the invasion.
spin away. have fun.
It speaks to the centeral issue of the war on terror. Our freedom fighters are another countries terrorists. If you cant see that I will just opt out of your little rant..

Please list whatever terrorist/freedom fighter organizations that the US or UK has supported since 2001 who target civilians in the same manner as Hamas, Al Queida, Hezbollah or Al Aqusa Martyrs Brigades. Please. Im serious. If you cant in 2001, list the ones closest in time. I'm supposing you are aiming at organizations like the Contras or the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but those were a) in the 80s, b) during the cold war, and c) they never targeted civilians like the moslem terrorists do.

If I am wrong here, I would be very interested in hearing about it. So please list them, and I am serious.

As for the terrorism in Israel. US policy vs Palestinians has shifted depending on two things palestinian behavior and who sat in the Oval office. The US has always (since Reagan) held the position that the suicide bombers, aircraft hijackers and teh cross border grenade attacks were acts of terrorism.

Sandman · « **Reply #32 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:48:07 AM »

Sure does... there are bigger fish to fry than Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was convenient. A government hostile towards the U.S. after a decade of being under our thumb, plots (apparently unsuccessfully) to gain weapons of mass destruction knowing full well that their weak excuse for a defense force cannot hope to stand toe to toe against the might of our armed forces.

Bush had a hard-on for Hussein even during his campaign. 911 was simply an excuse. No credible links to Al Quaeda. No weapons of mass distruction. Nothing at all to hang our hat on but "ill will".

I want more.

Hortlund · « **Reply #33 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:30:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sure does... there are bigger fish to fry than Iraq.

[/b] And in what way does that change the fact that Iraq was a fish?

Quote

The invasion of Iraq was convenient. A government hostile towards the U.S. after a decade of being under our thumb, plots (apparently unsuccessfully) to gain weapons of mass destruction knowing full well that their weak excuse for a defense force cannot hope to stand toe to toe against the might of our armed forces.

Bush had a hard-on for Hussein even during his campaign. 911 was simply an excuse. No credible links to Al Quaeda. No weapons of mass distruction. Nothing at all to hang our hat on but "ill will".

I want more.

With all due respect Sandman, you dont know anything about that. You are in no position to know anything about Iraqi WMD's or ties to Al Queida. It may come as a shock to you, but you dont have the full story. See my sigline.

-tronski- · « **Reply #34 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:41:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
And in what way does that change the fact that Iraq was a fish?

Great whites and fish like nemo are equally dangerous I suppose...

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031215/usnews/15terror.htm

Back in your box with material like that disbeliever!

Saudi Arabia is on our side, so therefore is a bastion of freedom and democracy in the middle east.

Tronsky

Hortlund · « **Reply #35 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:56:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -tronski-
Great whites and fish like nemo are equally dangerous I suppose...

[/b]
And this is relevant how? Just because one country is a larger threat than another (in your own very personal opinion) why is that even remotely relevant?

Tronski believes that Saudi is a bigger threat than Iraq, that means it was wrong to invade Iraq, even though Iraq was one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism.

I dont understand the logic behind that

Saintaw · « **Reply #36 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:08:15 AM »

Time for you to move over there and enlist Hurlund... your super Jizz powers are best used fighting your "fish" than trying to convince us.

Hortlund · « **Reply #37 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:31:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saintaw
Time for you to move over there and enlist Hurlund... your super Jizz powers are best used fighting your "fish" than trying to convince us.

And here I was thinking I was on your "racist jerk" ignore list...

Btw, that was classy Saw, really classy.

Anyway, I cant move over there and enlist since I have done my military service in Sweden, and since I am in fact still active in the Swedish army. And I think I'm too old to enlist anyway, I dont think they accept ppl over 25.

And Im not trying to convince you or any other euro for that matter, since euro opinions are both irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to the 04 presidential election.

Dowding · « **Reply #38 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:44:21 AM »

The US refused to outlaw groups such as the Real IRA until 2001, despite the fact they blew up Omagh only a couple of years before. I call that tacit support.

Are you saying the Mujahadeen did not kill any civilians during the Soviet Afghani occupation? It's funny that, because their whiter than white image must have dulled by the time Bosnia came around. They were shooting British aid workers and dumping their bodies in rivers. Nice guys.

I love the 'it was the cold war' excuse; used to the narrow the argument.

Choose a terrorist organisation:

1) Providing it doesn't in anyway show Hortlund to be wrong.

Hortlund · « **Reply #39 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:52:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
The US refused to outlaw groups such as the Real IRA until 2001, despite the fact they blew up Omagh only a couple of years before. I call that tacit support.

[/b]
Well, with that definition..."refuse to outlaw = support" then you would have pretty much all of Europe supporting terrorism all over the world. Are you sure you want to stick by that definition?

Quote

Are you saying the Mujahadeen did not kill any civilians during the Soviet Afghani occupation? It's funny that, because their whiter than white image must have dulled by the time Bosnia came around. They were shooting British aid workers and dumping their bodies in rivers. Nice guys.

[/b]
No, Ive never said that.

I congratulate you on your ability to construct a strawman argument though. First you make something up, then attribute it to me, and then attack your made up argument.

What I said was

Quote

Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but those were a) in the 80s, b) during the cold war, and c) they never targeted civilians like the moslem terrorists do.

How you spun that one to somehow include moslems in Bosnia in the 90s is beyond me.

Quote

I love the 'it was the cold war' excuse; used to the narrow the argument.

Choose a terrorist organisation:

1) Providing it doesn't in anyway show Hortlund to be wrong.

huh?

Torque · « **Reply #40 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:59:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
I like pizza.

Me too!!!:aok

Dowding · « **Reply #41 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:09:44 AM »

Yup, I'll stick by that definition. Feel free to apply it where you like. The US was giving free passage to known Real IRA members up until 2001.

I assumed that you would realise that the Mujahideen is a non-localised term of reference for a supposedly religious body, that those fighting against the Soviets in the 80s would be the same people who went to Bosnia and killed civilians, took part in in-fighting during the NA/Taliban struggle (lots of civilians killed) and are the same guys who are now warlords in Afghanistan.

But I guess they must be reformed characters.

Quote

huh?

Your response to the argument 'the US/UK supported insurgents' was 'ignoring anything before 2001, ignoring the entire cold war - they never supported any bad guys'.

Hortlund · « **Reply #42 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:26:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Yup, I'll stick by that definition. Feel free to apply it where you like.

[/b]Nah, I'll just ignore it because it is ridiculous. Any definition of "terrorist supporter" that ends up with Norway supporting Al Queida meets that fate.

Quote

The US was giving free passage to known Real IRA members up until 2001.

[/b]
So when I was asking for examples of US supporting terrorists after 2001, you replied with an example of what happened before 2001? Figures.

Quote

I assumed that you would realise that the Mujahideen is a non-localised term of reference for a supposedly religious body, that those fighting against the Soviets in the 80s would be the same people who went to Bosnia and killed civilians, took part in in-fighting during the NA/Taliban struggle (lots of civilians killed) and are the same guys who are now warlords in Afghanistan.

But I guess they must be reformed characters.

[/b]
I said mujahedeen in Afghanistan because those were the guys the US was supporting during the war in Afghanistan, in the 80s, during the cold war. When that war ended, so did the US support. Whatever those guys did after the US stopped supporting them isnt really relevant now is it? Since whatever they did after that was not something sanctioned or supported by the US I mean.

Quote

Your response to the argument 'the US/UK supported insurgents' was 'ignoring anything before 2001, ignoring the entire cold war - they never supported any bad guys'.

Maybe you are of the opinion that nations and governments never change and that they should for all future bear equal blame for actions done last week or actions committed tens or hundreds of years ago. The position is truly absurd, and it suits you.

However, the rest of us tend to believe that nations can change policy, and if they have, then the history is just that...history.

Manedew · « **Reply #43 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:34:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

Well, with that definition..."refuse to outlaw = support" then you would have pretty much all of Europe supporting terrorism all over the world. Are you sure you want to stick by that definition?

[/b]
No, Ive never said that.

I congratulate you on your ability to construct a strawman argument though. First you make something up, then attribute it to me, and then attack your made up argument.

What I said was
How you spun that one to somehow include moslems in Bosnia in the 90s is beyond me.

huh? [/B]

hey Troll ... work on your english .. you didn't understand him

Dowding · « **Reply #44 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:38:25 AM »

Quote

Any definition of "terrorist supporter" that ends up with Norway supporting Al Queida meets that fate.

Norway gives free passage to known members of Al Queida? Not even your beloved France does that - they arrested loads recently. I think my definition is pretty useful.

Quote

So when I was asking for examples of US supporting terrorists after 2001, you replied with an example of what happened before 2001? Figures.

No-one said the US supported terrorists post 2001 - except you as a strawman argument. Figures.

Quote

Whatever those guys did after the US stopped supporting them isnt really relevant now is it?

Who do you think was fighting the Taliban and was supported by the US? Jesus, I thought I covered that one. Many of the anti-Soviets became the warlords who fought against and for the Taliban (or both).

Quote

Maybe you are of the opinion that nations and governments never change and that they should for all future bear equal blame for actions done last week or actions committed tens or hundreds of years ago. The position is truly absurd, and it suits you.

Thanks for telling me what I think. Your pomposity is amusing. Don't change the subject to one of judgemental hindsight - we are discussing facts. The US/UK supported insurgents who killed civilians just like the generic unwashed moslem terror you often like to troll out. That is a fact.

You can't get away from it with imposed qualifications relating to time-frame or circumstance. Someone said the US/UK had supported terrorists - it was you who took that off at a tangent and demanded examples that fitted your argument.