More US Funding of Terrorism

[MichaeltheGreat]

USAID usually just fronts funding for CIA covert ops. Didn't know they were working for other terrorists as well as our own.

[DinoDoc]

Re: More US Funding of Terrorism

Originally posted by Berzerker
How bizarre, the very politicians who want to protect us from terrorism were stealing our money to enrich terrorists. But they want to blame you for smoking pot?

The Libertarian bit about giving money to the Taliban is a lot better than this.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Nor is it the intent of drug users to fund Al Qaida, but intent doesn't matter when politicians are trying to blame them. It's called a double standard..."

Nobody is saying the government never has double standards. You are correct with the WOD being bad.

"I think the far more important part of the show was the fact that they showed that our "allies" our funding our enemies."

You mean Saudi Arabia? That's a sough situation. You may not like the current government there, but the alternative would probably be much worse, that is a complete Talibanista pro-OBL government there. SA's people are a good deal more fundamentalist then other regional countries. It would also be alot harder to intevene in Saudi Arabia; the image of US Marines storming Mecca would probably incite a full scale war between civilizations.

[yavoon]

shi I think u distort the logic when u compare drugs funding terorrism to USAID. wouldn't it hold that lets pretend both did fund terorrism. that those who stopped using drugs and the gov'ts that stopped the USAID would both be doing about the same thing?

so its really only the ppl who continue to use drugs that aren't under any double standard. .

[Berzerker]

Geez, where did some of you get the idea I was saying Congress intentionally funded terrorists? I said they did fund terrorists without making any judgements about intent.

yavoon -

that those who stopped using drugs and the gov'ts that stopped the USAID would both be doing about the same thing?

No, USAID gave the money directly to terrorist fronts, God only knows how many hands drug money goes thru before getting to Al Qaida if it ever did. These people who keep insinuating that Al Qaida was getting drug money never offer any proof and they ignore that the reason Congress was giving the Taliban money before 9/11 was to wage a war on drugs in Afghanistan, and the Taliban were serious about their drug war. They nearly eliminated poppy production within their area and since they've been gone, poppy production has exploded. Furthermore, Congress didn't outlaw USAID which is what they've done with drugs, so your analogy is illogical. And then we'd still be faced with all the other sources of revenue available to terrorists and also the fact most drugs aren't even involved, only heroin/opium and only a percent of the world's production. Congress taxes us to support Arab countries which have ties to Al Qaida, and then there's the oil we buy. Hell, we've been buying oil from Iraq and we're told Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden.

hrrm I dont see why u r flipping out, I hardly think the intent of the USAID program was to fund terorrism.

oh wait, it helps ur politics to flip out. well carry on then.

I can't point out this hypocrisy without "flipping out"? Maybe that's just your politics talking. Tell us, whenever you post something of a political nature, are you "flipping out" or are you just being hypocritical too? I never said it was the intent to fund terrorists, try reading slower. But if it helps your politics to criticise the messenger and avoid the message, well, carry on.

Dinodoc -

The Libertarian bit about giving money to the Taliban is a lot better than this.

"Libertarian bit"? Whichever is "better" is hardly relevant, just that both happened.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Kramerman


For the sake of not being a hypocrit, i hope you have also stopped being amazed or in denial when other nations are equally hypocritical as well...

What other nations are you talking about? Noone has funded as much terrorism as the US. And noone other then the US has bombed the crap out of countries when their "freedom fighters" suddenly become "terrorists" because they ceased to be useful for the the american regime.

I´m not saying other countries are totally innocent when it comes to hypocrisy in the foreign policy, but the US really excels in this. They are every bit as bad as the Soviets was, two-faced lying weasels the lot of them

[Sava]

wow! Shi, I never thought you'd turn into a Saudi apologist.

[uggabugga]

the best part about the entire segment was when the woman pointed out that poultry operations were one major means of hiding and/or laundering terrorist funds.

i can't wait for the public service ad to come out scolding us chicken eaters for funding terrorism

[Sava]

w00t DL!!!

[Straybow]

Contras were a diverse group

Originally posted by Berzerker
Pro-Democracy forces were being funded in Afghanistan? One group's "unconventional means" is another's terrorism. Btw, if you think the Contras were pro-democracy, just who do you think they were before the Sandanistas? Somoza's henchmen who helped prop up his dictatorship…

No, only one of three or four major forces of "Contras" were Somoza thugs. The Democrats in Congress pushed a bill thru that said they would only fund one "Contra" organization, or none. They had to unite or face extinction.

I met one of the leaders of a Contra band that joined the united effort. When the Somoza thugs insisted on including Interrogation/Torture in the training manual the man and his uncle (who started the band) dropped out. The uncle went into hiding. The man I met turned himself in to the Sandanista government, because in prison he would get visits from his family. After a couple years he was paroled and exiled (hence I met him on a speaking tour in America).

So, if you don't like what was going on in Nicaragua in the '80s, spread the blame around a bit.

[uggabugga]

Originally posted by Sava
w00t DL!!!

sorry, no. why don't you ask one of the mods to check?

..but party on, garth!

[Berzerker]

the best part about the entire segment was when the woman pointed out that poultry operations were one major means of hiding and/or laundering terrorist funds.

i can't wait for the public service ad to come out scolding us chicken eaters for funding terrorism

Forgot that one, it seems most everyone else is exempt from the "funding terrorists" charge for except drug users.

Straybow -

No, only one of three or four major forces of "Contras" were Somoza thugs.

And who was (or ended up) in charge?

The Democrats in Congress pushed a bill thru that said they would only fund one "Contra" organization, or none. They had to unite or face extinction.

Face extinction? They left for Honduras (or was it Guatemala?) and other nearby countries and proceeded to kick Indians off their land to set up military bases for terrorist attacks into Nicaragua. I'm no fan of the Sandinistas, but the Contras were no force for good.

I met one of the leaders of a Contra band that joined the united effort. When the Somoza thugs insisted on including Interrogation/Torture in the training manual the man and his uncle (who started the band) dropped out. The uncle went into hiding. The man I met turned himself in to the Sandanista government, because in prison he would get visits from his family. After a couple years he was paroled and exiled (hence I met him on a speaking tour in America).

I heard some guy talk about his (very similar) experience joining the Contras. He thought it was about bringing democracy to Nicaragua and quickly learned how evil the Contras were and he left too. The Contras may have started out recruiting or accepting well meaning people, but the power was held by Somoza's cronies. They were butchers and cowards, attacking small defenseless villages and targeting health care people, teachers, etc., while avoiding any direct battles with the Sandinista army. And Ronald Reagan was a buffoon when he compared them to the Founding Fathers...

So, if you don't like what was going on in Nicaragua in the '80s, spread the blame around a bit.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. I hold my government more accountable for what it does because it acts in our names and with our money, that adds an element of complicity that reflects on us. And the Sandinistas were a reaction to the US government's propping up the Somozas, so some of the blame still ends up with the Republicrats just as the US laid the groundwork for the Ayatollah in Iran by propping up another brutal dictatorship under the Shah.

And it wasn't just the 80's, it goes back alot further with both Somozas. The Republicrats have a long history of supporting dictators because they are easier to bribe, then they preach "democracy" as if they were true believers. The funny thing was that the Republicans took credit for bringing Democracy to Nicaragua when the reality was that the people voted out the Sandinista leadership in '90 because they knew the US would keep funding the Contras and the war would continue until they voted for the candidates the US supported (or could allow). It's no concidence the Contra war effectively ended right after the election. But how did the people vote to replace Ortega with Chamorra if democracy wasn't already in place? The US supported ~5 decades of Somoza rule and the Sandinistas were having elections within just a few years of coming to power and lost power within a decade.

What really angers me is that the Sandinistas asked the US for help and recognition after coming to power and we turned them down and started up the Contras. Then, faced with an opposing force seeking to restore the status quo, the Sandinistas were forced to ask the Russians and Cubans for help and the US then used that as an excuse to argue that the commies were trying to invade thru Nicaragua. Hey, if you're trying to murder me and the only guy around willing to give me a gun is a communist, then fine, I'll take it...

[Straybow]

If you read what I wrote, the ones who ended up in charge did so because of the Dems in Congress refusing to aid Contra groups selectively. The guy I met wasn't just someone who joined the Contras, he and his uncle had been peacefully Contra-Somoza for years and formed one of the paramilitary Contra-Sandanista groups.

The Sandanistas refused to work with other Contra-Somoza groups. The Sandanistas weren't "forced" to turn to the Commies, they were always leftists aided by the Commies. A little more idealistic, a little more populist, but still leftist. Yes, they held elections; so did Saddam Hussein.

They may have appealed to the Hollywood lefties, thinking they were exemplars of American opinion. They didn't "ask the US for help" from staunch anticommunist Reagan any more than Hillary Clinton volunteered to sign on with the Marine Corps.

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

If you read what I wrote, the ones who ended up in charge did so because of the Dems in Congress refusing to aid Contra groups selectively.

I did read your post. Now, which group(s) did Reagan fund covertly? The terrorists or the good Contras? The one's involved in the cocaine trade? Was Reagan and his foreign allies like the Saudis funding groups selectively?

The guy I met wasn't just someone who joined the Contras, he and his uncle had been peacefully Contra-Somoza for years and formed one of the paramilitary Contra-Sandanista groups. The Sandanistas refused to work with other Contra-Somoza groups.

And he left because torture, etc., was being used by the Contras?

The Sandanistas weren't "forced" to turn to the Commies, they were always leftists aided by the Commies.

The US didn't support them, the US supported the Somozas, that's why they were forced to seek help from the commies. Ortega did ask the US for help and recognition and was rejected.

A little more idealistic, a little more populist, but still leftist. Yes, they held elections; so did Saddam Hussein.

Oh right, Ortega has been defeated twice in elections, by Chamorra in '90 and in '97 by another candidate from her party. How many times has Saddam lost an election? You want election fraud, look at how the Somozas stayed in power for decades. The revolution was in '79 and Ortega won election in '84, the first election held since the revolt. He served his 6 year term and was defeated in '90. That hardly smacks of election fraud. If anything, the fact the US government was waging a proxy war against the Sandinistas and would continue doing so if Ortega won in the '90 election WAS election fraud. One power using proxy terrorists to compel people to vote a certain way and then claiming it was done in the name of democracy is Orwelian doublespeak.

They may have appealed to the Hollywood lefties, thinking they were exemplars of American opinion. They didn't "ask the US for help" from staunch anticommunist Reagan any more than Hillary Clinton volunteered to sign on with the Marine Corps.

It was Jimmy who started funding the Contras before Reagan, so the policy was already set by Reagan's turn in office.

[Dis]

U.S.

every other country