[Calm]

Thanks for joining me here.

This post is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it was brought to my attention that I used the wrong name when highlighting a terrorist issue in the 1980's. I wish to apologise for that. This is what happened.

I asked my husband "what was that terrorist thing we were talking about the other night where America had supported one of the terror organisations...how did that go, so I can post it?" He said (in summary), "It was where the CIA supported, armed and trained the organisation, and then Oliver North had fear of a terrorist for his safety when America withdrew support..." etc regarding the Mujhadin.

I put the name Osama bin Laden in there, my husband didn't, when in actual fact it was Abu Nidal. I didn't have the chance to say at the time, but it was to show one instance (of many) where America had supported terrorists for their own gain, then withdrew support thereby leaving America vulnerable.

There seems to be a united thought with war supporters that Iraq should have been bombed because of supporting terrorists. It is very important that it is known that the US has supported terror organisations. Therefore, it is hypocritical to say that is a good reason to bomb another country. So, in summary, it is a moot point as to which terrorist we supported. The fact is we supported a terrorist organisation (many times). See what I am saying?

There is so much more I would like to say on this issue and on the war in general, however, I will have to post those thoughts as a post at a later date.

 

[mountain mom]

Why should a Mother and a babe have to pay for the acts of a corupt government. Do we, as humans, not have more intelligence than that?

 

[sleeping queen]

Quote:

America had supported terrorists for their own gain

Isn't that what we elect our officials to do? To take care of our country and look out for our best interest. I wouldn't vote for a politician who would look to the UN to look out for us nor would I vote for a politician who's main priority wasn't doing what was best for our country.

 

[Unagidon]

Quote:

Isn't that what we elect our officials to do? To take care of our country and look out for our best interest. I wouldn't vote for a politician who would look to the UN to look out for us nor would I vote for a politician who's main priority wasn't doing what was best for our country.

I didn't realize that you were so into realpolitik. Of course, if and when they retaliate against us this will be just another day in paradise for you, right?

Regarding THIS particular terrorist, we have become so used to the general cynical illegality of the GOP that some people forget that the Reagan administration BROKE THE LAW with their little Iran-Contra games.

If THAT's why you voted for Reagan, then I can see you voted for Bush this time.

 

[mountain mom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unagidon Of course, if and when they retaliate against us this will be just another day in paradise for you, right?.

Yah Karma is a real boomarang...oh perhaps believing in karma makes me morally dirty?

 

[merpk]

Calm, not a war supporter but I'm here anyway. Out of curiosity.

And out of that same curiosity, can you please elaborate on when the US supported and trained Abu Nidal and his ... friends?

Thanks.

 

[Calm]

Ok, let me try and get clearer (please excuse me, I am not feeling well). This is how this particular problem went down. The US injected large amounts of money into a terrorist organisation:

Quote:

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.

As time went on (and much killing and terror), then we move on to:

Quote:

Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American "black Muslims" were taught "sabotage skills".

Bin Laden was known as a "freedom fighter", but became known as evil once he fell out of favour with his own country and kicked out (Saudi). This happened because he got pissed when Saudi kept US troops on it's soil after the invasion of Kuwait.

The terror organisations (Mujaheddin etc) were supported by the US for many reasons, some of which were "noble" causes in certain people's eyes. As it was a main factor for the end of the cold war and the disarming of the Soviet, for example. However, terrorism is terrorism. Whether you are fighting for your Christian God in America, fighting to gain knowledge/technology or fighting for Islamic religions, it is still indiscriminant killing of innocents to gain what you believe to be right.

Sleeping queen mentioned that we should support our government in our best interests. I really hope you don't mean you actually support terrorism, even if it was in America's best interest. For whomever would think such a thing would be no purer in thought than the terrorist who is fighting for HIS best interests, or HIS country's best interests.

Are you really saying that terrorism is OK as long as WE are the ones terrorising - for the good of us?

If you support what the US has done for terrorists, you support terrorism, it is as simple as that. So say it out loud and proud "I support terrorism!" Please, let's all just start to get honest here. Many people we are looking for and fighting today are the result of our own training and financing.

You may care to peruse this article, and I have many more up my sleeve if necessary - including government documentation. This one is long, sorry.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

 

[Calm]

Merpk, I am getting to that bit, it just goes on and on, you know? Everyone is linked to everyone, and the US trained them, then they train others and it is just ad nauseum. I have an article somewhere, it is about how O. North was in fear of Abu Nidal after he was looking for him and attacked due to some fall outs. North has written a book. I forget the title.

 

[sleeping queen]

I'm saying it is okay for the government to do what they think best to keep us economically and physically safe. Do I want to see others harmed? No, but the reality of the history of the world is there has been a very small amounts of time of peace. I wish I could remember where I read this, that out of over 3000 years of recorded history there has only been 200 and some years of peace. I deal with reality and there are countries and people in this world that would kill every last American if they could and wouldn't give one thought to the innocents. The saddest part is that women and children suffer the most in any type of war situation.

 

[MamaRBH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping queen I wish I could remember where I read this, that out of over 3000 years of recorded history there has only been 200 and some years of peace.

Yes... I've seen this in a few dirrerent readings. It is the reality of mankind as history proves it to be. I'm not saying that makes it "right"... but it does make it a real part of the history of our world....

 

[monkey's mom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping queen there are countries and people in this world that would kill every last American if they could and wouldn't give one thought to the innocents.

But, if they were trying to liberate us, that might be OK, no?

 

[IslandMamma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping queen I deal with reality and there are countries and people in this world that would kill every last American if they could and wouldn't give one thought to the innocents.

No. I vehemently disagree-- the above is the kind of rhetoric that feeds hatred. There are NOT entire countries and whole groups (be it ethnicity or religion) of people hellbent on your destruction-- there are individuals and factions.

I'm sure most Muslims would be appalled to be associated and lumped in with Al Quaeda, much as I am by other citizens of the world to be lumped in with war-mongering neocons just because I'm American.

As far as 3000 years of war (and I don't necessarily agree with that figure), well, I'm a heathen who firmly believes in our capacity to evolve and rise above violence. It's got to start somewhere.

 

[sleeping queen]

Quote:

our capacity to evolve and rise above violence

You can't change human nature. For as long as there have been humans there has been violence

Quote:

the above is the kind of rhetoric that feeds hatred

It isn't rhetoric, there are people out in the world that would be more than happy to hurt as many americns as possible. If you don't understand that then you don't understand why it is necessary to go after any terrorist organization that wishes our country harm.

 

[monkey's mom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping queen If you don't understand that then you don't understand why it is necessary to go after any terrorist organization that wishes our country harm.

Only that's not what we are doing.

 

[mountain mom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping queen It isn't rhetoric, there are people out in the world that would be more than happy to hurt as many americns as possible.

You are clearly missing Island Mamas point. There are people, not countries, that are wishing harm to america.

America retaliates by invading a COUNTRY.

But I tell ya this much, America keeps acting like an a**hole and there will be countries hellbent on attacking america.

No man is an island...

:

 

[bayviewbill33]

It is not a secret we trained Bin Laden to defeat the Russians. When he turned on us, that is when we turned on him. He was (past tense) our ally until he became an extremist (even his family is not happy with his behavior). The same with Saddam Hussein. We supported him because Reagan thought Iran was more of a problem than Iraq. Well, Iraq & Iran are problems when it comes to peace in the Middle East. So some of the hands we fed are now biting us. Tisk tisk. Actually, I saw something about Bin Laden. The report said he would leave us alone if we left the Middle East and did not support Israel. Sorry buddy but Saddam and his henchmen had to go and now your next.

 

[IslandMamma]

Thank you, Mountain Mom. That's exactly what I was saying.

Laura, would you see it differently if I called it semantics instead of rhetoric? I think you are missing my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bayviewbill33 Sorry buddy (OBL) but Saddam and his henchmen had to go and now your next.

Guess what-- that's a very different order of operations than we the people were given immediately post 9-11. What, was Saddam a practice run?

 

[Calm]

Well, this discussion is interesting and a good example of why I become confused (how do I write that scratches-head smiley?). You see, in a couple of other threads I have discussed in, over and over it was repeated that
"Iraq harbored terrorists",
"Saddam trained terrorists"
"Safe haven was granted to terrorists in Iraq"
"Iraq supported terrorism"
and so on. Remember, these are reasons war supporters have given to attack Iraq.

I explained that so did America. I explained that America supported trained and armed terror organisations and did so for some ill-gotten gains for quite some time. I explained that we trained some of the best terror organisations in the world. I explained that they also lived on our soil, when the government had full knowledge of their intentions.

The replies were such that I was not believed. The replies were such that I was all but ignored. No one would address it and if they did, it was to say that it isn't true.

So, I write this thread, and people are now saying "Well, whatever, as long as it's best for us." and "It is no secret we did this."

How did we go from saying we need to stop terrorism, that we need to bomb Iraq because of their support of terrorists - to THIS? Will you all make your minds up? Do you really think it is ok to support terrorism as long as it is America terrorism? That is what you are saying here. And think about that, because terrorists (American trained or otherwise) are horrific killers. They bomb buildings with children in them, they throw acid onto the faces of women and children - and those are their good points.

So, you can see my confusion. People are changing their minds as new information hits their eyes like it is nothing much - and simply will not stop defending this war even if it means they defend terrorism. Whoa. How far we will go!

And it still isn't addressed if we are fighting Iraq or freeing them. You fight an enemy, you free a friend. If you are on Bush's side, then you believe we are FREEING them, right? Because although we were doing a "pre-emptive strike" at first, we quite willingly changed that to "freeing these poor oppressed souls" when the first reason ran out of gas. I call that puppetry, and Bush is a master puppeteer.

Anyone want to help me with my confusion?

s:

 

[Calm]

Came back to add.

I must admit that this faith in the government has it's positive sides. It would be a nice feeling to have that kind of faith in the humans running the show. I, too, often throw back my head and outstretch my arms, close my eyes and submit with the words "Do your will, I have the faith. Rain down upon me that which must be shown to me."

However, I reserve that for God.

 

[chicagomom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeping queen You can't change human nature. For as long as there have been humans there has been violence

You realize that this is exactly the opposite of what this administration is doing and saying, right? The neocon reason for introducing democracy (even at gunpoint) in the ME is that democratic governments are less likely to be violent. Do you think this administration shares your view, or actually believes in this PNAC/neocon ideal? Just curious...