Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Then you are only opposed to people that use terrorism against you. You're just fine with using it on other people.

Ah, you're one of those guys.

 Seaward wrote:

Ah, you're one of those guys.

Kid, you haven't seen the gak I have so take your 'those guys' thing and shove it up your ass sideways. You want to know the difference between the contras and the PLO? One sucked Washington dick and the other didn't. Hell, as long as they were willing to terrorize Russia, we were happy to even fund guys like Osama.

90% of the IRA's funding came from the US, and I'm sure that those of you across the pond know what I'm driving at.

Sometimes terrorism is what people feel forced into when their enemy is vastly more powerful than they are and shows no empathy or consideration for their position.

But I know I'm basically pissing into the wind on this one, and Seaward isn't going to acknowledge my point.

 Da Boss wrote:

But I know I'm basically pissing into the wind on this one, and Seaward isn't going to acknowledge my point.

Based on his earlier post, Seaward isn't going to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit in his rose tinted view of the nation that can do no wrong. We'll just pretend that there's a difference between Hamas and the CIA doing exactly the same things.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. Also on an Earlier point made in this thread about the fact Israel "Warns" people to leave before they perform air strikes and therefore its the fault of the people for not running away. If i came into your house and planted a bomb, then phoned you and said "I put a bomb in your house". It's all your fault when you die right, i'm not a killer, I told you to leave.

 kamakazepanda wrote:
If i came into your house and planted a bomb, then phoned you and said "I put a bomb in your house". It's all your fault when you die right, i'm not a killer, I told you to leave.

Ironically, the IRA are terrorists despite largely having exactly that MO when it comes to bombings.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Kid, you haven't seen the gak I have so take your 'those guys' thing and shove it up your ass sideways.

I'd be willing to bet I've seen more, actually, but we can compare trigger time somewhere else.

You want to know the difference between the contras and the PLO?

Other than geography?

One sucked Washington dick and the other didn't.

One also received secret, illegal support from the US that became a massive scandal when it was discovered and led to a fair few people losing their jobs. You know, just like what happens when it's discovered that Palestinian leadership is directly supporting terrorism. Oh, wait.

Hell, as long as they were willing to terrorize Russia, we were happy to even fund guys like Osama.

I guess I can expand "those guys" to include "those guys who don't know the difference between terrorism and asymmetric warfare."

90% of the IRA's funding came from the US, and I'm sure that those of you across the pond know what I'm driving at.

And here you're mistaking "idiot private citizens" with "official US policy." There's a difference. It's not, for example, official US policy to rob liquor stores, despite the fact that some Americans do indeed rob liquor stores.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Based on his earlier post, Seaward isn't going to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit in his rose tinted view of the nation that can do no wrong. We'll just pretend that there's a difference between Hamas and the CIA doing exactly the same things.

Tell you what: name one of these exact same things that the CIA and Hamas have both done. I've got a shiny American dollar that says you cop out with something along the lines of, "Walked around Ramallah once."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kamakazepanda wrote:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. Also on an Earlier point made in this thread about the fact Israel "Warns" people to leave before they perform air strikes and therefore its the fault of the people for not running away. If i came into your house and planted a bomb, then phoned you and said "I put a bomb in your house". It's all your fault when you die right, i'm not a killer, I told you to leave.

No, you would be a killer in that case, nothing changes that. The guy who decided to stay, though, would be an abject idiot.

 Seaward wrote:

Tell you what: name one of these exact same things that the CIA and Hamas have both done. I've got a shiny American dollar that says you cop out with something along the lines of, "Walked around Ramallah once."

Let's see...

Guns to Syria
Trained Bosnian Muslims.
Used a SE Asian bank as a front
Killed prisoners
killed civilians
Killed US Citizens
Practiced torture
Kidnappings
Run afoul of Human Rights Watch (I wonder why?)
Got funding from operations in South and Central America to conduct operations in the middle east. (Though, supposedly, Hamas aims more for the Paraguay/Argentina/Brazil area, the CIA more form the Colombia/Peru area)
Worked with the Iranians in the 1980's. (Hamas still does, not sure about the CIA.)

Unless you mean 'things they have both done together at the same time'.

Again, it's 'asymmetrical warfare' when you like them, it's 'terrorism' when you don't. The IRA is a good example of this, depending on who you ask.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

One also received secret, illegal support from the US that became a massive scandal when it was discovered and led to a fair few people losing their jobs.

Technically, all support for terrorism is 'illegal'. And, OMG someone lost their job. Did that make it ok? It certainly didn't stop (or even slow down) operations of the same type in Colombia, Peru, or South East Asia. Tell me who was defrocked for slaughtering FARC aligned villages in Colombia?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

And here you're mistaking "idiot private citizens" with "official US policy." There's a difference.

Yeah, idiot private citizens like congressmen and then President Clinton, who's change of policy allowed me to meet Gerry Adams in the late 90's in Pittsburgh, PA, where he was raising funds thanks to being allowed into the country.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let's see...

Guns to Syria
Trained Bosnian Muslims.
Used a SE Asian bank as a front
Killed prisoners
killed civilians
Killed US Citizens
Practiced torture
Kidnappings
Run afoul of Human Rights Watch (I wonder why?)
Got funding from operations in South and Central America to conduct operations in the middle east. (Though, supposedly, Hamas aims more for the Paraguay/Argentina/Brazil area, the CIA more form the Colombia/Peru area)
Worked with the Iranians in the 1980's. (Hamas still does, not sure about the CIA.)

I was actually hoping it was going to be a vague, context-free list like this. With the possible exception of guns to Syria, you could equate a fair amount of Western Europe with Hamas, too. It'd be just a puerile.

Unless you mean 'things they have both done together at the same time'.

I was actually hoping you knew of some decades-long campaign of indiscriminate civilian killings run by the CIA that nobody else knew about. You know, something with substance, an actual comparative link between Hamas and the CIA that went beyond, "They used similar methods for wildly different aims once." Because when you fail to take motivation into account, you might as well say that a soldier's no different from a suicide bomber. They've both trained to kill people, after all.

Again, it's 'asymmetrical warfare' when you like them, it's 'terrorism' when you don't. The IRA is a good example of this, depending on who you ask.

It's asymmetrical warfare when the primary goal is still military in nature, or political victory through military means. The opposing force is still the target. That's not the case with terrorism.

Technically, all support for terrorism is 'illegal'. And, OMG someone lost their job. Did that make it ok? It certainly didn't stop (or even slow down) operations of the same type in Colombia, Peru, or South East Asia. Tell me who was defrocked for slaughtering FARC aligned villages in Colombia?

It certainly didn't make it okay, which is I think the point you flew right over in your effort to get on to speculation.

We tend not to support terrorist campaigns in this country. Our leaders tend to get into trouble when they've been caught doing so. Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, tend to get praised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Yeah, idiot private citizens like congressmen and then President Clinton, who's change of policy allowed me to meet Gerry Adams in the late 90's in Pittsburgh, PA, where he was raising funds thanks to being allowed into the country.

You're saying Bill Clinton contributed cash to the IRA? That was your claim, don't forget - that we've funded the IRA. Here's the quote, just to jog your memory:

90% of the IRA's funding came from the US, and I'm sure that those of you across the pond know what I'm driving at.

My response was that that funding came from idiot private citizens, not the US government, and you responded as shown above. Arafat was allowed into the country, too, I suppose we must be huge backers of Palestinian terrorism. And don't look now, but Ahmadinejad has been here a few times; I suppose that makes us sponsors of Iran's nuclear program?

It is well past time that this thread was locked.

 Seaward wrote:

I was actually hoping it was going to be a vague, context-free list like this. With the possible exception of guns to Syria, you could equate a fair amount of Western Europe with Hamas, too.

I was unaware that most of Europe financed it's covert and not so covert operations in the Middle East with Latin American cash.

 Seaward wrote:

I was actually hoping you knew of some decades-long campaign of indiscriminate civilian killings run by the CIA that nobody else knew about. You know, something with substance, an actual comparative link between Hamas and the CIA that went beyond, "They used similar methods for wildly different aims once."

Actually I do, but the CIA supposedly only 'consults'. The CIA fully supported Colombia in it's genocide in the interior, a fact that is only now slowly coming to light, but receiving almost zero coverage in the US news. Over 1500 separate incidents were reported, but so far only 149 convictions have been handed down.

 Seaward wrote:

It's asymmetrical warfare when the primary goal is still military in nature, or political victory through military means. The opposing force is still the target. That's not the case with terrorism.

Depends on how you define 'opposing force' If you mean Israel, it's allies, and possible collaborators in the population, I'd say Hamas qualifies as 'asymmetrical warfare'.

 Seaward wrote:

You're saying Bill Clinton contributed cash to the IRA? That was your claim, don't forget - that we've funded the IRA.

Dunno about Bill, personally, but I do know he signed the order giving Adams free entry, which is a big difference from what, I understand, both Ahmadinejad and Arafat received. Rep Peter T. King (R, NY) does, in fact, contribute to the IRA, did both before and during his election to office. He currently sits on (and chairs) the House Homeland Security Committee, but previously was involved in NORAID, supposedly a gun running front for the IRA. This has been brought up pretty much every time he's run for re-election since 1994, and... so far hasn't kept him out of Washington in the least.

 Seaward wrote:

My response was that that funding came from idiot private citizens, not the US government, and you responded as shown above.

Granted, idiot private citizens can be found in the halls of power in Washington DC. There's a pretty thin line between 'your government is doing it' and 'your congressman, as a private citizen, is doing it and gives speeches that you should too'.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine,

Not like the Persians, Macedonians, Babylonians, Romans, Turks, or British?
The parallel you're trying to draw here doesn't work very well, as in not at all.

You might have had a point if you painted the Indians as Palestinians and the US as the Western Zionist Horde. It's a tenuous link at best, and you aren't doing a very good job of making it. Especially since the end result is assimilation with extremely limited self rule, Whic is a shade better than Mexico where the end result is total assimilation and the near total erasure of native culture.

so America is at fault here not the guys bombing each other and killing civvies, got ya.


this thread really needs to be locked now.

 nomsheep wrote:
so America is at fault here not the guys bombing each other and killing civvies, got ya.

Not even close. My point was that it's hypocritical of Seaward to condemn Hamas and extol the US on the grounds that the US does not support terrorism, when, in fact, they do, just not 'officially'. Personally, I think that Hamas is at least honest about it, though I can't say that I approve of what they're doing any more than I approve of the CIA helping butcher thousands in South America.

Incidentally, the US funded Hamas, albeit indirectly, under the Bush administration. Ironically, this came out of US aid money sent to Israel. http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16447

 d-usa wrote:
One last post to sum up my feelings on this subject, and then I am leaving this thread:

There is only one group of victims in this conflict:

The civilians in the area. Both the Palestinian civilians and the Israeli civilians. They are the ones who don't know if their neighborhood will be blown up tomorrow or if they will see the end of the day. They are the groups that are trying to make a living, raise families, and stay safe and alive.

I am not defending either side in this. I can understand some of the motivations on both sides, and I can see many errors and wrongs on both sides. My issue with the usual arguments is that they absolve Israel of any wrongs, and that is what I don't agree with. But thinking that Israel is committing wrongs does not mean that I think that Hamas is right.

This I agree with you.

I just disagree with comparing the Natives to anything like the Israeli/Palistinian conflict.

Doesn't make it right, but history is littered with powerful groups conquering a weaker group.. that just doesn't happen nowadays due to how integrated news are in our societies. That just doesn't happen anymore. So the the larger/more powerful group is forced to stalemant, which in turns extends the conflict. THAT is what exposes the civilians on both sides and makes things really ugly.

There are no angels here... but sometimes you have to either stay out and let the parties work it out... or you pick a side.

 whembly wrote:
or you pick a side.

Or you mediate to resolve the confllict and/or put in place mechanisms to prevent the conflict escalating.

We are well past the point where might is right.

 whembly wrote:

Doesn't make it right, but history is littered with powerful groups conquering a weaker group.. that just doesn't happen nowadays due to how integrated news are in our societies. That just doesn't happen anymore. So the the larger/more powerful group is forced to stalemant, which in turns extends the conflict. THAT is what exposes the civilians on both sides and makes things really ugly.

Personally, I think Balian of Ibelin had the right idea. The only way you'll ever see these two groups sit down and sincerely negotiate is if the other option was sending Jerusalem back to God, by reducing it to a sea of radioactive glass and make it so that no man can see it and live for the next ten thousand years.

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Then you are only opposed to people that use terrorism against you. You're just fine with using it on other people.

Ah, you're one of those guys.

The United States supports those that use torture, terrorism and war crimes when it is in their interest. This is not new.

"General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States."

-Nixon

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The United States supports those that use torture, terrorism and war crimes when it is in their interest. This is not new.

"General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States."

-Nixon

Yep. It's often a choice of lesser evils.

I didn't say otherwise. I do, however, think that putting Hamas and the United States on the same level of moral standing is absolutely absurd. I'm not sure how you can take anyone who makes that argument seriously.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The United States supports those that use torture, terrorism and war crimes when it is in their interest. This is not new.

"General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States."

-Nixon

Yep. It's often a choice of lesser evils.

I didn't say otherwise. I do, however, think that putting Hamas and the United States on the same level of moral standing is absolutely absurd. I'm not sure how you can take anyone who makes that argument seriously.

Franco was not a lesser evil. Claiming to moral high ground and at the same time justifying the support of a fascist state is beyond ludicrous.

Both US and Hamas have committed illegal and immoral acts. Morally, the States have the edge in that what they do, they do to defend a stable society, while Hamas have theirs in shamble. That's not enough in my opinion to discount one as dirty terrorists and elevate the other ones as shiny knights of democracy and freedom.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Morally, the States have the edge in that what they do, they do to defend a stable society,

Not always even that. How many people died in Panama when we invaded to bury the fact that CIA Director George HW Bush had helped create the whole Noriega-drug cartel relationship, potentially embarrassing President George HW Bush. How many people would have died if the CIA plot to assassinate that moron Chavez disguised as an attack by the Colombian army had managed to trigger the hoped-for war between Colombia and Venezuela so the US could buy cheap oil and sell guns to both sides?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Franco was not a lesser evil.

Sure he was. Compared to our former valued ally, Josef Stalin. And let's not forget our valued ally Saddam Hussein...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Morally, the States have the edge in that what they do, they do to defend a stable society,

Not always even that. How many people died in Panama when we invaded to bury the fact that CIA Director George HW Bush had helped create the whole Noriega-drug cartel relationship, potentially embarrassing President George HW Bush. How many people would have died if the CIA plot to assassinate that moron Chavez disguised as an attack by the Colombian army had managed to trigger the hoped-for war between Colombia and Venezuela so the US could buy cheap oil and sell guns to both sides?

I do not know much about the Contras, I'll admit that. But beyond individual interests of high ranking members of the government, I'd at least be willing to agree that the U.S. have a moral edge in that such actions would not have come to pass if it had been a matter of public policy.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Franco was not a lesser evil.

Sure he was. Compared to our former valued ally, Josef Stalin. And let's not forget our valued ally Saddam Hussein...

I guess I don't think in these terms. Caucescu, Franco, Stalin... All ordered murders, torture and violence against their own. If the difference is between pliers to the eyes, or sarin gaz, or the number of victims... well those are differences for historians. The moralist in me hate each of them equally.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 kamakazepanda wrote:
If i came into your house and planted a bomb, then phoned you and said "I put a bomb in your house". It's all your fault when you die right, i'm not a killer, I told you to leave.

Ironically, the IRA are terrorists despite largely having exactly that MO when it comes to bombings.

Because the International power that supports IRA is not the United States of America. nor its allied powers. (Indeed, American Irish might fund them, much like how Chinese Americans funds Triads)
at one point. Gaddhafi did indeed support IRA since he viewed them being Anti-Imperialist right next to British door. he withdrew their supports recently however (several years before the Civil War) in exchange of foreign investment.

 Lone Cat wrote:

Because the International power that supports IRA is not the United States of America. nor its allied powers.

The United Stat6es does support it, though it's a support through willful blindness. Send money to unpopular terrorists, get your assets frozen and cool your heels in a cell. Support popular terrorists and chair the house homeland security committed,

there is no WE in ME


I don't get it, how are people in this day and age so blind to the world around them?

Religion is a mask of ignorance, I do it because a book says my god told me to.


I have had an experience where I have met what I think to be my maker, the singular power that runs through us all. I caused me to cry and contemplate every wrong I had ever done, not bomb innocent kids and women.


It's not a race thing, it's a brain function thing. These people are fething insane. They live by stone age laws and have nothing to go on but blind faith. It makes me sick that they kill their own children, rage non stop war, all over ancient books that are most likely BS to start. How many times can a text be translated before the original meaning is totally lost? I'll tell ya, 2-3. Language from the time the gospels were written till the time they were interpreted for the masses to read they became completely different stories. They became stories to enslave and shackle, not set free.

Holy books are unjust law books with funky titles

Well actually that's the interesting thing about the Quran and Islam, it's never "truly" been translated. A real Quran is ONLY in Arabic and changes and even commentary on the Quran have extensive pedigrees behind them. I get what you're trying to say but I've always found that interesting.

 DIDM wrote:

I don't get it, how are people in this day and age so blind to the world around them?

Religion is a mask of ignorance, I do it because a book says my god told me to.

Religion. Profit Honor. Patriotism. Plain ol sociopathy. The fact is, the book doesn't say that. People say that, because it lets them justify their inhumanity to others.

"I was only following orders!" they scream, like it justifies it all.

*sigh* Well, judgment is coming, one way or another. I suspect more than a few will be very surprised as the name of God becomes molten brass on their lips for the evils they have done.

 d-usa wrote:
One last post to sum up my feelings on this subject, and then I am leaving this thread:

There is only one group of victims in this conflict:

The civilians in the area. Both the Palestinian civilians and the Israeli civilians. They are the ones who don't know if their neighborhood will be blown up tomorrow or if they will see the end of the day. They are the groups that are trying to make a living, raise families, and stay safe and alive.

I am not defending either side in this. I can understand some of the motivations on both sides, and I can see many errors and wrongs on both sides. My issue with the usual arguments is that they absolve Israel of any wrongs, and that is what I don't agree with. But thinking that Israel is committing wrongs does not mean that I think that Hamas is right.

This pretty much should sum it up.

Although the digression talking about US support of terrorists is a legitimate one, as we've supported a lot of terrible people and organizations over the years, out of political expediency. We don't have a lot of moral highground to stand on, although most of us try to be better. Dismissing any side in this conflict as subhuman or barbaric is fundamentally hypocritical, given the history of every nation including our own recent history.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Although the digression talking about US support of terrorists is a legitimate one, as we've supported a lot of terrible people and organizations over the years, out of political expediency. We don't have a lot of moral highground to stand on, although most of us try to be better. Dismissing any side in this conflict as subhuman or barbaric is fundamentally hypocritical, given the history of every nation including our own recent history.

Mod...agreeing...with...me...

Who are you, and what have you done with Mannahnin?

Also... aren't the Palistinians traditional Syrians?