Can I get a let's connect all this to that: Iran continues to back Hezzbelloh - this is not rogue Iranians, this is coming from the top of the leadership. Calling for the destruction or removal of a state is a form of terrorism. What is bin laden - a spokesperson endorsing jihad against u.s. citizens. How is it different for a man who calls for a state to be elminated? Can I say Bush is a lot friendlier to gay rights than Ahole?...
So far as I know Bush is the only one who has called for the removal of a sovereign state and followed through on it.
Ted Kazinski was the uni-bomber - an american. That doesn't mean Clinton was helping him. NOn of your points tie the heads of state to terrorism. 15/19 hijackers were Saudi - ok? So what if they were black? Does that mean all African leaders are behind their activities? Pakistan made a truce because for the time it couldn't win and was taking heavy loses, that doesn't mean they support and fund them. Iran has a policy of supporting terrorism, again, it's not rogue elements with in Iranian power structure.
And we pulled support when they started acting like terrorists. We worked with the Afgans to go against the Russian army fighting in Afganistan, not to bomb Russian citizens or commit terrorist activity.
Oh, so I guess it's just my imagination that Iraq is in shambles with a puppet government the US installed after committing what amounts to a military coup and overthrowing the sovereign government of Hussein. my bad
It's not a trivial difference between removing a regime and removing the entire state. One implies a change in leadership, the other implies a change in population. Coup or genocide - you want to try to compare those two things?
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnny Ray South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, Television North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe Rosenbergs, H Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom Brando, The King And I, and The Catcher In The Rye Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new queen Maciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dancron Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Khrushchev Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Suez We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, Bridge On The River Kwai Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California baseball Starkwether, Homicide, Children of Thalidomide Buddy Holly, Ben Hur, Space Monkey, Mafia Hula Hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go U2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy Chubby Checker, Psycho, Belgians in the Congo We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Hemingway, Eichman, Stranger in a Strange Land Dylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs invasion Lawrence of Arabia, British Beatlemania Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats Patterson Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British Politician sex J.F.K. blown away, what else do I have to say We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock Begin, Reagan, Palestine, Terror on the airline Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law Rock and Roller cola wars, I can't take it anymore We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it
I see the distinction you are making, but that raises the question. Is it worse to threaten to remove a state, but actually do nothing. or to actually invade a nation and lead it into chaos, and civil war.
OK, before going forward, I'm making an assumption here. Please let me know if this is wrong. My assumption is that you would say that the leader of Iran supports terrorism. If that is not correct, then disregard the following. But assuming you do believe that Ahmadinejad supports terrorism, it is my supposition that you will find on the internet as much hard 'evidence' linking Ahmadinejad to terrorism as the Saudi royal family to terrorism - none. But that doesn't mean that Ahmadinejad and the Saudi royal family aren't supporting terrorists; it simply means that the CIA, the FBI, and Interpol don't post classified intelligence dossiers on the internet. So my supposition is that your 'burden of proof' in this instance is not reasonable. I am asking you to use the rules of evidence that you have set as a baseline show me that Ahmadinejad is a terrorist. If we agree that: Ahmadinejad supports terrorism. You can not provide the exacting specific details that you require for the Saudis. ...then hopefully we can agree to find a more realistic standard of proof of Terrorism-ness. Do you understand? I’m saying that I can not provide absolute proof that the Saudis support terrorism, but that absolute specific proof is too high a standard to expect from browsing a few web pages. Again, these vague statements don't seem to comply to the standards you have set for specific proof about the Saudis. If you want some vague rumor and innuendo on this level linking the Saudis to terrorism, I can provide you with evidence at this degree of vagueness. But your statements indicate you want more substantial, concrete evidence than New Yorker has given. I can run off things like: [rquoter] The Saudi royal family both individually, and through the state gives money to Fatah and Hamas. The Saudi Royal Family has organized programs which give money to support the families of suicide bombers. The CIA has said that Saudi royal family support of the 9/11 hijackers is 'incontrovertible’. [/rquoter] This level of evidence roughly corresponds with what New Yorker posted for Iran. If that is sufficient, that's fine with me. In fact, I really don't care what your level of burden of proof is. I'm just saying that wherever you set it, I want to make sure that it is the same level of proof that you are willing to provide in discussing Ahmadinejad. Show me an acceptable dossier of proof for Ahmadinejad, and I will provide you one with the same level of detail for the Saudi royal family. I repeat, show me an acceptable dossier of proof for Ahmadinejad, and I will provide you one with the same level of detail for the Saudi royal family.
Well, they have been terrorists from the beginning. So in your mind, if they are our friends, then they are not terrorists?
You might want to take another pass at that sign and try to figure out why I posted it with the big smilies.
A very good question, and one that should encourage thought. I don't know the answer to that - but there is one correction you must make. Is it worse to threaten to remove a state, but actually do nothing AS OF YET, or to actually invade a nation and lead it into chaos and civil war. Unfortunately, the answer to this question may not be known for a few more decades, and perhaps never.
If you are using this logic, I can also say any kids (or adults) who threatened can be worse guys than convicted murderers because AS OF YET, you don't know what the future will unfold. Don't you find this standard ridiculous? Don't you know talking and actually doing are very different things?
well, to draw a more accurate analogy... A kid tries to take down a bully who's been bothering other kids, and ends up going to far and breaking his legs. His intentions weren't bad, but they ended up bad. Compare that to a kid that talks about killing everyone at school, assoicates and supports other kids who have had such talk, and is collecting M-16's for a hobby in shooting ducks. Oh, he hasn't done anything, we should just ignore it right? Right? Which one is worse?
