I haven't seen any evidence of GWB supporting or sponsoring terrorists (about the closest thing to it was a claim with no evidence provided by CreepyFloyd about the US working with MEK in Iran), but if he is ever connected with terrorists, then yes. Because his policies can be used as a recruitment tool for terrorists is not reason enough though, no.
So I guess you're still tacitly dismissing them Since you said it, I want to see a document by the Libyan government which says they took responsibility for pan am 103 to see what the exact wording is. I'm going to assume you can't or won't provide one. A definite argument can be made that Libya was coerced into 'confessing' and paying compensation as a requirement for sanctions to be removed (if they didn't, sanction would remain in place), which taints western claims against Tripoli and doesn't demonstrate that they were or weren't involved. What it does demonstrate is western blackmail against a developing country. What does aggregious mean? I guess the Univ of California Press and Verso Press just publish fantasy novels and not academic scholarship. The fact that Finkelstein and Dershowitz who basically disagree about everything have both said that Libya was not responsible shows that pinning pan am 103 on libya and the trial itself were both flawed. How do you know what popular sentiment is in Libya, especially since the Libyan people don't have basic freedoms? Do you condemn the US for hugging another dictatorship? How about supporting democracy in Libya? I guess for you, democracy and freedom are only good for some people and not for others. I haven't seen any proof implicating Libya in acts of terrorism, I apologize if I require proof before jumping to serious conclusions, I guess I'm old fashioned that way. If you have proof, please present it. I never said Libya has a right to WMD so that statement you made in regards to me is false...Libya is an absolute dictatorship...you criticize Iran everytime something you disagree with happens there....I don't have the right to criticize a dictatorial regime under the rule of one man since 1969? I've also never seen anything that would lead me to support and validate sanctions on Libya. I'm not sure what you mean by intervention. You didn't think I knew that was one of the theories? You're even less intelligent than I thought. There is more than one alternate theory as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_into_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_103 If a rogue group within Iran or the PFLP-GC and Ahmad Jibril or somebody else was responsible, I want to know. Again, I'm only interested in the facts. I would also condemn the party responsible the same way I have condemned the US government and military for shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988. However, I haven't ever seen you condemn the US for supporting and sponsoring dictatorships.
Lots of other posters, ex-MKO members, anonymous US govt officials, ex-US govt officials, and media sources have said this as well. I consider Israel a racist and terrorist regime and the US is sponsoring them as well
and what sort of constructive engagement are we doing in regard to the human rights situation in Libya? None of the reasons cited for the sudden warming to Libya have anything to do with human rights within Libya. While Qadhafi may not be working with international terrorists anymore he hasn't softened his internal controls. That's true he stopped cooperating with Abu Nidal but if I recall the Fatah pullout of Libya and other places had a lot to do when the PA was set up in occupied territores so they could have a home base. Anyway I don't recall Qadhafi stopping or backing off of his stated support of the Palestinian cause including the Intifada. Well SM seemed to feel it was a pretty major claim. I will agree proponents of the invasion haven't made it the sole claim but depending on how other claims were debunked or downplayed its important to the argument increases. So in assessign the argument for the invasion it is important to point out that Saddam's support of terrorists is not much different compared to our new friend Libya's support or our allies the Gulf States. Therefore it is hypocritical to make so much of an issue about Saddam's ties to groups that undertook suicide bombings while ignoring the fact that our allies also have ties to those groups.
I'm curious Creepy other than the US and Israel do you consider any other country as having engaged in or been tied to terrorism?
US invades Iraq = Bush and America are evil and stupid. US tries to make peace with Libya through dimplomacy = Bush and America are evil and stupid. Darned if you do, darned if you don't. Maybe some of you would be happier if we did it half way? Send in diplomats to discuss trade agreements and to lift sanctions while we bomb at the same time? Even if you think Iraq is the biggest mistake ever, and we are horrible in fighting that war, wouldn't you want this to be the course we take with our enemies? Wouldn't you want us to reach out with diplomacy despite past mistakes? What is the argument here?
How about not cozying up and legitimizing dictatorships that deny their people basic freedoms? How about supporting their people instead and genuinely supporting democracy no matter what the outcome is even if you don't agree with it? Libya hasn't changed
Lots of them....if you have a specific question or issue, please go ahead my turn to ask you a question: do you not consider the billions of us dollars going to israel as funding a racist and terrorist regime?
The whole idea of constructive engagement is to build ties and bring the target country more into the first world. Using backroom diplomacy and opening the economic system to the outside world internal reform (it is hoped) will follow. That Libya hasn't softened internal controls is not suprising since this just happened. It is not realistic to assume a change is going to happen overnight. Well, I provide some evidence he's cut ties with Fatah - if you want to provide something contradicting that then feel free. I guess this is where we diverge then. It is one of the reasons to remove Saddam, but far from a stand alone justification. Libya has renounced those ties, which was the original point where Iraq came into this conversation. However, I think you claim hypocrisy where it doesn't exist. I think the claim that we ignore the Gulf States involvement with terrorist groups is completely inaccurate. The absense of military intervention there doesn't prove that - as this thread makes it apparent that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The is and has been a significant amount of pressure being put on those states to reform vis-a-vis terrorism.
No, I'm pointing out that you're a hypocrite. In one thread you dismiss out of hand a post using wikipedia and then when it suits your case you quote it. As I previously indicated, this is pointless because no matter what the case you'll claim coercion. That's your opinion. I think it consistutes 'proof' and I'm pretty sure which of us is in the minority with said opinion. However, here is another article backing up my claim - not that you've shown anything otherwise: Sunday, August 17, 2003 Libya submits Lockerbie responsibility letter to UNSC UNITED NATIONS: Libya officially accepted responsibility for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, submitting a letter late Friday to the UN Security Council that paves the way for the lifting of sanctions. The United States and Britain also delivered letters to the president of the Security Council declaring that Libya had met the conditions required to lift UN sanctions. The letter came two days after lawyers for Libya and for the families of the Lockerbie victims agreed to a US$2.7 billion compensation fund for the bombing that killed 270 people – 259 people on board the flight and 11 on the ground. Two Libyans were indicted in connection with the bombing, and in an effort to force Moammar Gadhafi’s government to hand them over, the UN Security Council banned arms sales and air links to Libya. Under a 1992 UN resolution, sanctions against Libya were not to be lifted until the government acknowledged responsibility for the bombing, paid fair compensation, renounced terrorism and disclosed all it knows about the explosion.—AP http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-8-2003_pg7_45 If you want to examine the exact wording of the letter I'm pretty sure you can google it. Of course, there's also yet another contradictory position from you when you advocate that we work against dictators and then slam such action as blackmail, lol. Funny. Again you use contradictory sources. Color Finkelstein severely indicted - both by the quotes above from Dershowitz and others and from the earlier article I posted - of course you still haven't shown how Finkelstein is qualified to write about Libya or terrorism). Dershowitz was a paid consultant for the defense team (oops) and even then his assessment was it was 50/50 either Libya or Iran, lol. That hardly a ringing endorsement of your theory. Well, I read a lot - lol. Do you have something to show otherwise? If so, please do tell. I think we should support democracy everywhere. I have said so many times. But I have also said that you can achieve that goal in different ways in different places. I understand. I'm not trying to convince you. I have provided enough proof for a reasonable person to come to the same conclusion I do. Lol, you advance Dershowitz as your credible expert. HIS alternate theory is that Iran did it. Now you've made your bed so pick your poison (that's kinda rhetorical since you'd never admit it even when you're stone cold busted). Your advocacy is that he is an impartial source - someone we should believe - so you tell us - was it Iran or Libya?
Just curious since you go to great lengths to argue that Iran and now Libya have never engaged in terrorism or been tied to terrorism while you're quick to accuse the US and Israel. IMO your definition of what constitutes terrorism or terrorism seems to fall on which side you agree with and your definition of terrorism is mutable. To answer your question I don't consider Israel to be a terrorists or racist regime, knowing a few Israelis myself, although I do believe the Israeli military has engaged in terrorists acts and specific Israeli Administrations are racists. So some Israelis yes the whole or even majority of the country no. That said I don't support funding Israel or constantly supporting them in the UN and don't believe they or the Palestinians hold the moral high ground in their conflict.
Again, you're tacitly dismissing the alternate explanations and doing what you do best: name-calling We all know that Libya has 'confessed,' but there is a distinct possibly this was a coerced confession. I guess you support tortured confessions of prisoners as well. Again, I'm assuming you either can't or won't provide the letter. I don't believe you should use sanctions, which punish an entire nation and its people, as punishment for the acts of one man. And, yes, telling Libya that they had to admit to this and that and pay for this and that before sanctions were removed is blackmail. But both men agreed that pinning the blame on Libya is flawed. So you're googling 'skills' make you an expert on Libya....lol I guess all the people that get snatched up and murdered in Libya don't concern you. See Imam Musa as-Sadr for a representative example. Libya hasn't changed since the day Gadhafi took over in 1969, but now the US has legitimized his regime by establishing relations with him. Thus, the incentive for him to change his ways is now completely nonexistent. You haven't provided any proof Sometimes I wonder if you even read people's posts before your emotions get the best of you and the impulse to respond in true Pavlovian fashion take over. As I said before, I want to know who was responsible. The alternate explanations raise a lot of important and unanswered questions. Again, if a rogue group in Iran or Ahmad Jibril and the PFLP-GC or anybody else was responsible, I want to know. I guess you don't care to know. One last question: Since you calim that the US should support democracy everywhere. Do you condemn the US for sponsoring dictatorships?
I don't go to great lengths, I just ask for proof. As I told Hayes, I apologize if I require proof before jumping to serious conclusions, I guess I'm old fashioned that way. If you have proof, please present it, because I haven't see any. In relation to the US and Israel there is plenty of proof. For example, the US was using Red Cross helicopters to transfer material to the Contras in Nicaragua, who were fighting against the democratically elected government of that country and committing horrendous acts in the 1980s. Another example, many of individuals who would become Israel's leaders were wanted terrorists, because of the atrocitites they committed in Palestine, such as Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Israel also has a rich history of targeting civilians (see the Qana massacres of 1996) and sponsoring terrorism (see the SLA and Phalange). Shlomo Ben-Ami, a foreign minister under Ehud Barak, said Israel has been guilty of terrorism as well (see Democracy Now interview with Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben-Ami by Amy Goodman). Again, I'm only interested in the facts. I believe Israel is much worse than apartheid South Africa...Archbishop Desmond Tutu said what was going on there is apartheid....there are also official policies in place that discriminate against people based on their ethnicity....that is racist. I think there is way too much sentiment in the US that blames the victims, the Palestinians, which have been under an illegal military occupation since 1967.
Not at all. Alternate explanations were used in the defense and found lacking. That is enough, especially when combined with Libya admittance of guilt. Again, I've provided several sources confirming my claims. If you want to see the actual letter then look it up. Sigh. You continue to ignore responses as is your habit. You assertions get weaker by the post. Finkelstein is an untrustworthy source - I've done enough to establish that and your use of Dershowitz legitimizes it. Dershowitz, a paid consultant for the defense, hardly substantiates anything except that you have MAJOR problems with your positions re: Iran vs Libya. More silly non-responsive charges. Your 'representative example,' even if it was documented which as usual it isn't, doesn't disprove the Ghaddafi is popular in Libya. Yes, a court decision and an admission of guilt is proof. Your position is fairly ridiculous - what has been presented so far stands up as 'proof' by any reasonable use of the term. If it weren't so tiresome your continued evasion and lack of rejoinder might be amusing. As it stands you have peaked. You aroused some curiousity when you first started posting by taking positions no one else was taking, but there's no depth or argument behind it. You're a little sideshow with no substance. You presented Dershowitz's opinion - he says its 50/50 Libya or Iran. That puts you in the unenviable position of looking like an idiot. But its a fruit of your own labor. You've lost the privilege of asking questions as far as I'm concerned. You don't answer posters responses to you, you don't cite any substantiation of your views, you dismiss sources out of hand and then later use the same sources yourself, and you consistently regress in your demands on what others should have to show while showing nothing yourself.
I guess you have no problem with blackmail and coerced, co-opted, and tortured confessions. I've already demonstrated that Finkelstein has credibility. Dershowitz got involved in the case, because he felt that there was a miscarriage of justice. I have no major problems. I'll repeat myself for you again: I want to know who was responsible. The alternate explanations raise a lot of important and unanswered questions. If a rogue group in Iran bombed Pan Am 103 in retaliation for the US bombing of Iran Air Flight 655 or Ahmad Jibril and the PFLP-GC or anybody else was responsible, I want to know. I guess you don't care to know. I guess you think Ghaddafi is popular....good for you...although you haven't demonstrated how or why he's popular. I guess since he's a US supported dictator, that makes him a 'popular' leader in your book. Why was only one man convicted if both were involved and worked together every step of the way and the same evidence was used? It's funny how somebody who uses fake photos and other people's opinions as evidence is trying to call me out....lol Your ideas are so ridiculous that other people start entire threads in order to mock you...lol The pattern is clear if you disagree with somebody you call them names as you've done to vlaurelio plenty of times. Again, you've said that you would stop responding to me plenty of times. Why do you continue to respond? Nobody is forcing you. Are you a liar or is it the Pavlovian hysteria and emotion that causes you to salivate when you see my posts thereby forcing you to respond. I guess this is your way of saying that you do support the United State sponsoring dictatorhips
i read that Ghadafi was all paranoid that he'd get invaded after Iraq got invaded, so he decided to pay up for the Pam AM bombing and become friends with the US. regardless about how slimmy this dude is, economic and diplomatic relations will help that country out.
I'm not trying to call you out. I am calling you out. That others who might even be sympathic to your slant also do so proves my point.
