France And Germany Fund Terror

[Craig Read]

It is well known that the French have been funding US enemies for decades - including Iraq.

This was after all, the reason why the French opposed the war - they would lose their investments.

They are the No. 1 lenders to Iran and Cuba and past and present U.S. foes such as Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam.

This type of financing is shared by Germany, France's partner. German banks are North Korea's biggest lenders, and Syria's -- and Libya's. But France is the most active. In Castro's sizzling gulag, French banks plunked down $549 million in the first trimester this year, a third of all credit to Cuba. The figure for Saddam's Iraq is $415 million. But these pale in comparison with the $2.5 billion that French banks have lent Iran.

We could add to this list the U$300 million the EU pours into Arafat so he can buy weapons, use 17 year old girls and lace their bras with semtex to blow up pizzerias and of course pocket a few million for himself for being the great Egyptian born leader of Palestinian terror.

And the world has to listen to France and Germany preach about 'power' and 'unipolarity' ?

Please.

[Mr Farrius]

You forgot to mention the U.S. in the list of nations that fund its enemies, which funded Afghanistan and trained Osama Bin Laden.

[SirRiff]

who buys all of saudi arabis oil?

hmmm...its odd that all those dictators in saudi arabia are filthy rich....and hmm..the us has never demanded elections there...hmmm.....

yeah and dont forget teh 3B to osamas crew..

sirriff

[Craig Read]

Well as usual you don't acknowledge the post. France and Germany are sponsoring terror and the nations in the list are NOT funded by the US. Europe imports most of its oil needs from the Middle East so your argument about Saudi oil is pointless. The Middle East and Opec hold too much sway and power in the world and their regimes need reform which is what is underway.

France and Germany are doing next to nothing in the war on terror [some good work in Afgh. but that is not enough] and sponsoring illiberal regimes and terrorist elements. Listening to their tripe about morality, concern for Iraqi citizens and the need to bow down before the Useless Nations Org is a bit rich and more than a little nauseating.

EU imports of Oil 2002: Europa Intelligence, MBBl

Norway: 842 - outside of the EU

Russia; 544

Saudi Arabia; 492

Libya; 324

Iran; 246

Iraq; 229

Nigeria; 167

Syria; 87

It is clear that Franco-German investments in oil and other industrial areas drive their foreign policy in Iraq and Iran. They are hugely dependent on Saudi oil as well. Collectively the middle east is the main source of imported oil to the EU.

So much for that argument.

[Mr Farrius]

Well it's not that we're not acknowledging the post. What I'm saying is that it's rather futile to complain about nations funding US enemies when the US funds it owns enemies.

[Craig Read]

Really - what a fantastic post that is Farrius the faineant. So list your sources, your proof and the amounts involved. List some detailed analysis as i have done on who funds what regimes.

Otherwise stop posting your nonsense and go away.

Financing the Axis of Evil

Some countries financed by France but not by the U.S., countries in which French banks are the leading lenders.

1) Total loans, in millions of dollars 2)France's contribution in percentage terms 3) France's contribution (in millions of dollars)

Somalia 44 100 44

Djibouti 108 91 98

Sao Tome 9 89 8

Burkina F. 245 89 217

Madag. 768 87 670

Burundi 82 87 71

Mali 282 77 217

Benin 89 70 62

Mauritan. 179 69 124

Comoros 13 62 8

Rwanda 45 56 25

Sudan 332 53 177

Lesotho 27 52 14

St Vincent 367 51 186

Togo 130 40 52

Mozambique 646 37 239

CAR 20 35 7

Niger 49 31 15

Cuba 1,801 30 549

Laos 39 23 9

Cambodia 54 20 11

Vanuatu 122 17 21

Syria 514 16 80

Dominica 124 15 19

Source: Real Instituto Elcano

The figures come from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, and were cobbled together and interpreted by Inigo More for Madrid's new hard-hitting think tank, the Real Instituto Elcano. As Mr. More says, "one could think that Parisian bankers wait for the U.S. to have an international problem before taking out their check books." His report can be read at realinstitutoelcano.org.analisis/360.asp.

Mr. More told me on the telephone that the figures are statistically significant. French banks seem to be almost anywhere U.S. banks are absent. They lend in 57 countries where the U.S. is not present, and are the main lenders in 23 of those.

The report does not bode well for Franco-American ties in the foreseeable future, and it offers additional reasons why Dominique de Villepin really ought to stop using the phrase "our American friends" every time he talks about the U.S., as he did again this week when he called on the U.S. to leave Iraq now. Nobody believes Mr. de Villepin thinks of the Americans as friends and he comes out sounding slippery and insincere. As French foreign minister he has helped craft a policy that is inimical to U.S. interests, but one that is in keeping with what France is becoming as a nation.

[Mr Farrius]

Well, I already assumed that you, just like everyone else on this forum, knew that the US back in the days trained Osama Bin Laden and even funded Afghanistan back in the Cold War. This is basic history here. I don't want to waste my time proving what everyone already knows.

[righturnonred]

You forgot to mention the U.S. in the list of nations that fund its enemies, which funded Afghanistan and trained Osama Bin Laden.

Since you don't seem to be following the conversation Farrius, let me fill you in.

First off, consider the logic of what you're saying here. The US does not fund it's own enemies. We do not fund bin Laden, we do not fund the Taliban, we do not fund Saddam. We are currently locked in a war to destroy these regimes and organizations.

Whether or not the US supported said regimes years ago in order to oppose the larger threat of Soviet power/Communism IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

The point here is that some European nations are CURRENTLY funding enemies of the United States.

Please tell me you see the HUGE difference here?

[Mr Farrius]

Not really. Hypocrisy is based on history. If you're asking me to disregard history then not only my post, but a large chunk of the threads on this forum are pointless. What kind of idiot expects people to disregard past actions at his convenience??

[righturnonred]

There is no hypocracy here. Alliances between nations have been forged and broken throughout history as circumstances change.

The US alligned itself with the USSR to achieve the common goal of defeating Nazi Germany in WWII, then almost over night repositioned itself in diametric opposition to Soviet power. This is not hypocrasy.

Japan Alligned itself with Nazi Germany for the common purpose of defeating the US in WWII, only to become one of Americas stauchest allies years later. This is not hypocracy.

The US allied itself with the Mujahiddeen in Afgahnistan to oppose the imperialistic Soviet occupation of that country. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US later finds itself in oppostion to the government in Afghanistan as a state sponsor and supporter of terror. This is not hypocracy.

The US allied itself with Saddam's regime in Iraq to oppose the spreading influence of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran. Later, Iraq becomes an enemy of the US by manufacturing, and using WMD, and for the invasion and pillaging of its neighbor. This is not hypocracy.

Your notion of "once in support, always in support" is completely bogus, and so is your bonehead application of history in context to events that occur today.

[SirRiff]

Whether or not the US supported said regimes years ago in order to oppose the larger threat of Soviet power/Communism IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

The point here is that some European nations are CURRENTLY funding enemies of the United States.

that is the stupidest thing i have seen on here in weeks.

so there is a statute of limitations of supporting global terrorism?

by that logic osama is innocent if he can remain free for 10 years? by that logic saddam is completely innocent because the last time he waged war was 12 years go?

oh my god...doesnt your brain censor these kind of thoughts? if you just avoid attention for long enough supporting terrorism is ok? that means 9/11 would be forgiven in 10 years or so if osama can keep on the run?

this is why nobody cares whatever pidly things france is supposidly doing. they just do whatever serves them, they are are not far from what the US has done for decades.

if france was actually worse then the US, maybe you would have a point. but considering they are just as corrupt as the US, i think the US is the one that needs to defend its actions first considering its actions around the world.

sirriff

[righturnonred]

Calm down Riff, I never made any determination of guilt or innocence. I'm merely making the point that the shifting allegiances of nations over the course of time due to changing geostrategic circumstances does not constitute hypocricy.

so there is a statute of limitations of supporting global terrorism?

by that logic osama is innocent if he can remain free for 10 years? by that logic saddam is completely innocent because the last time he waged war was 12 years go?

oh my god...doesnt your brain censor these kind of thoughts? if you just avoid attention for long enough supporting terrorism is ok? that means 9/11 would be forgiven in 10 years or so if osama can keep on the run?

No, No, and No. I don't know how you could have come to these absurd conclusion based upon what I have said. Incredible. Amazingly, this is not the stupidest thing I've heard all day on this forum.

Farrius is trying to say that because the US supports a particular nation while it's an ally and then opposes the same nation once it becomes an enemy, this renders the US guilty of hypocracy. This is nonsense. What course of action would you suggest when a strategic ally morphs into a strategic adversary?

The problem here is that you liberals have these fluffy conceptions about how to conduct foreign policy and ensure the future success of the United States amidst a dynamic, chaotic world.

So you can quit pooh-poohing me for having a realistic approach to world affairs.

[Mr Farrius]

It is hypocrisy to complain about current affairs that resulted from something you did in the past.

[Craig Read]

You don't really grasp history or politics or bother to read posts. The US has freed 35 nations in the past 50 years. How many did Russia, Islamo-Fascism, or Communism 'liberate' ? Georgia currently proves that a non-Western Central Asian nation WANTS more freedom, more capital, higher living standards and honesty in public offices.

I know plenty of Iraqi's and Iranians and they want FREEDOM not mullahs and chanting fascists.

The US is their best and only hope for a reconstruction of their region, which will occur despite ardent pleas from the liberal media and other 'Useful Idiots' that the US is immoral and intemperate.

It is neither - it is worried about security, access to resources and stability.

[Mr Farrius]

You don't really grasp history or politics or bother to read posts. The US has freed 35 nations in the past 50 years. How many did Russia, Islamo-Fascism, or Communism 'liberate' ? Georgia currently proves that a non-Western Central Asian nation WANTS more freedom, more capital, higher living standards and honesty in public offices.

Wow. Really? Tell me in one instance where the U.S. did not free any nation that it did not benefit in doing so.

[Craig Read]

Ukraine.

Belarus.

Latvia.

Estonia.

Lithuania.

South Korea.

Nicaragua.

Grenada.

Haiti.

Afghanistan.

Just to name a few. You think that Western Europe would be better off fascist ? When self interest, economics and morality intersect, policy is not only compelling but necessary.

You believe that the FSU citizens yearn for Communism ? Trust me they do not.

Georgians want a dictator do they ? No - and this is why US troops are in Georgia. Do the Georgians hate the US? - no, they view the Americans rightly as the guardians of their freedom.

And how many nations look to Canada for their freedom, their ideals, their visions and their hope ?......How about

NONE.

[righturnonred]

It is hypocrisy to complain about current affairs that resulted from something you did in the past.

Yeah, that's right. Every problem is always the fault of big bad America who speads their wicked influences around the world.

You poor ignorant sap. Instead of posting these dopey one liners, why don't you actually try defending your confused view of the world.

For starters, answer this:

Why don't you tell me exactly how past US actions have resulted in the growth of Islamo-Facist terror around the world. Don't just pull some bull out of your ass, I want historical examples.

If you can't handle this, then stay quiet and let one of your colleauges take a stab at it.

[Craig Read]

Don't worry he can't even answer the simple question that i posed to him either. Being brain dead has little virtue.

I was just reading the anti-semiticism abounding in Europe.

France and Germany apparently do not want to learn from history.

Researchers at a German institute who found young Muslims were to blame for many attacks on Jews were told several times by the EU to change their conclusions....Alterations were also sought when it linked anti-Semiticism to both anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli policies...

This is Socialist Europe. Too afraid to state the obvious, terrified to protect the Jews, ashamed to fight in the war on terror, and funding illiberal regimes across the world, including Arafat's and Iran's.

Welcome to paradise.

[SirRiff]

Whether or not the US supported said regimes years ago in order to oppose the larger threat of Soviet power/Communism IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

righturnonred, what you said above absolves all american responsability for their part in radicalizing terrorists, strengthening the future taliban extremists, and abandoning afganistan after they used it as a cold war chess board, leaving tens of millions to suffer endlessly.

so yes, when you say their obviously criminal and violent actions "YEARS AGO" are "TOTALLU IRRELEVANT" what you are saying is that the statue of limitations has run out and no consideration should be made of those actions. yet many who make those arguments use very similiar actions as justification against iraq or others. thus my point is valid, you cannot dismiss one action and embrace another as a point of justification.

the error in logic is using irrelevant evidence that you yourself invalidate. if you dismiss one action, a similiar action cannot be used as the basis of another argument, namely;

The point here is that some European nations are CURRENTLY funding enemies of the United States.

the only difference is in time period. anything else is just perception and frame of reference. from any moral or ethical perspective, no difference. and without morality, we are just monkeys who use forks.

sirriff

[Craig Read]

The nonsensical nature of the liberal - LIEberal- argument never ceases to amuse and amaze.

The Bush doctrine is rather clear - no funding of terrorist regimes, regime change when necessary and aggressive war against terror.

The previous philosophy had been 'he is a son of a bitch, but he is OUR SOB', and thankfully it no longer applies.

I posted that 35 countries are now free thanks to US military and foreign policy strength - in times past as well as current.

This is valid.

The Bush doctrine is a new US policy that seeks to eradicate terror at the source. So now we have Lie-berals stating:

1. Past policy which freed 35 nations and destroyed Communism [Rep. policy thank you] was no good. Some bad guys were supported and we don't [tears in eyes, reaching for kleenex] like that.

2. Current policy to protect against another 9-11 and depose fascist regimes that murder their own citizens is not good, since well, the UN and France don't like it and is frankly too manly for us.

So how to please the Lie-berals ??

Easy - let the fascists control the world, the UN become a world government and let terrorists win the war.

Then MAYBE they will be content [as long as they can still watch the BBC or CBC and Joe Millionaire].

[Mr Farrius]

Mr Read, I can't believe some of the nations you posted as benefited under honest and purely unselfish U.S. intentions. For instance, South Korea?? Give me a break. Have you ever of heard of a term called geostrategic advantage? Without American presence in South Korea, it's position in the Korean peninsula is perilous against the North. That's just one example.

[Mr Farrius]

Why don't you tell me exactly how past US actions have resulted in the growth of Islamo-Facist terror around the world. Don't just pull some bull out of your ass, I want historical examples.

Why not, though of course I know you right-wingers are going to find some clever way to fight facts and history. You always do, so though my attempts are futile, and you are bound to argue me down fact to fact, here it goes:

1948-present U.S. has "manufactured consent" since for its support of Israel, to the exclusion of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their native lands resulting in ever worsening day-to-day conditions for the people of Palestine. Hundreds of towns and villages were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the early days of Israeli colonization.

In 1982 the villagers of Sabra and Shatila were massacred by Israeli allies with direct Israeli complicity and direction.

1980s Israel, with US backing, inflicts terror on Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousand of people.

1991 US undeclared war on Iraq killing 200,000 people, including U.S. pilots literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers.

1989 U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season and killed over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned enemy, Manual Noriega.

1980s U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or "soft targets".

1980s U.S. attacked and bombed with impunity the nation of Libya, including killing the infant daughter of Khadafi.

1952-1979 Shah of Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from.

1979 Ayatollah Khomani, who overthrew the Shah, and who was the U.S. public enemy for decade of the 1980s, was also on the CIA payroll, while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s.

1954-1975 U.S. assault on Indochina, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually "hands on" murdered in the "Phoenix Program" (this is where Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in "The Pentagon Papers," released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation. In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war.

1973 U.S. sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens.

1973 U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the U.S. government used to call them before the term "collateral damage" was invented--"soft targets").

1970- present U.S. sponsored terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that continues to this day and has resulted in the deaths and mutilations of over 1,000,000.

1965 U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic and helped to murder 3,000 people.

1965 U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

1954 US undeclared war on Guatemala resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 Guatemalan peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four decades. U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia have resulted in deaths running into the hundreds of thousands.

http://www.incite-national.org/issues/usterrorism.html

Or will you counter me saying that the source is screwed up? Or will you counter by providing examples of other nations that have inflicted more egregious acts on mankind? PolPot? Stalin? Hitler?

Anyways, this is history. For the last time I'll tell you right-wingers. You cannot argue with history. If you look at these atrocities historically, you can tell why terrorists exist around the world. For the sake of defense.

[righturnonred]

righturnonred, what you said above absolves all american responsability for their part in radicalizing terrorists, strengthening the future taliban extremists, and abandoning afganistan after they used it as a cold war chess board, leaving tens of millions to suffer endlessly.

Riff,

There are certainly times when the US could have done things better, worked to improve the lives of ordinary afghanis for instance. And although US policy has never been perfect, I believe you are inappropriately placing blame on the United state for ultimately fighting the forces that cause the suffering of tens of millions. Our responsibilty was to halt Soviet expansion, not to rebuild counties ravaged by that empire.

Bottom line, the US is not responsible for the madrasas that educates young muslims to hate Christians and Jews. The US did not cause Saddam to use WMD or to invade or terrorize his neighbors and his own people. The US is not responsible for the backward, perverted nature of Islam in general. You are part of the "blame America first" crowd and you fail to recognize that the US has been an undeniable force for good in this world dating back decades.

Place the blame for human suffering where it belongs, with the evil regimes and dicators the caused it in the first place.

Mr Read, I can't believe some of the nations you posted as benefited under honest and purely unselfish U.S. intentions.

What difference does it make? If a nation benifits from US foreign policy, it means that nation has interests in common with the United States. The ultimate aim of American foreign policy has been to ensure the survival and growth of our principles of democracy and freedom, principles that many nations, like S. Korea, have in common with the US.

Your argument that the US can only do good if its actions do not benifit itself defies logic.

[righturnonred]

Or will you counter me saying that the source is screwed up?

I not going to be able to say anything to please you here Farrius. Everything in that post is the result of twisted perceptions and outright fabrications. None of it really has any basis in fact. It's the perfect example of how individuals who possess pure hate for America twist reality to conform to their view of the world.

Its unfortunate that you have been indocrinated to actually believe such garbage. Now we know where you get your funny ideas.

[Mr Farrius]

Your endless accusations of bad sources are getting disgusting. But then again, why am I surprised. It appears that you're the one that needs a dose of reality. You seem to have the notion that unless a web address ends with a .gov or .proudtobeamerican or .rightturnonred it cannot be believed. At all. None of it! What confuses me is why. Why can't something be credible if it is from the opposition? Such blatant, stubborn resistance is for fools. Let me tell you something. You just keep on fooling yourself. You poor ignorant sap. Do you really think that any of your "credible" sources is going to expose the atrocities of the American government? Do you honestly believe that the American government is perfect in its foreign policy? Do you believe that its motives are purely for the sake of its people? Do you not believe that in such a powerful nation, corruption and egregious acts can emerge from its government? I wonder why so many nations hate the U.S. Regardless, you go on thinking that your country is perfect and incapable of doing any wrong. If you cannot fathom such, what you call "assusations" against the U.S., then you are a fool. That goes for all the right-wingers on this forum.