Cuba documentary

[lost&outofcontrol]

If they knew what he was up to, do you think it would have been necessary for the FBI to investigate him?

I don't know and certainly don't care.

All I know is that the United States knew he masterminded the attack on Cubana Flight 455 in 1976 and that in 1990:

[...]Posada was shot whilst sitting in his car in Guatemala city by unknown assailants that Posada believed were Cuban assassins. In his memoir, Posada said that his recovery and medical bills were paid by the Cuban American National Foundation, with additional payments from Richard Secord.

Stop moving the goal post. The US knew he was a terrorist and could have stopped him anytime they wanted.

Edited September 25, 2007 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

I don't know and certainly don't care.

All I know is that the United States knew he masterminded the attack on Cubana Flight 455 in 1976 and that in 1990:

Stop moving the goal post. The US knew he was a terrorist and could have stopped anytime they wanted.

Like when they arrested him?

[lost&outofcontrol]

Like when they arrested him?

He was arrested for violating immigration laws. He has never been arrested by the United States for his terrorist activities. Nice try.

[Higgly]

Yes and accurate too. Surely you can differentiate a car bombed designed and deployed to kill hundreds of civilians and a cigar designed to kill a dictator?

Well in fact I can. The car bomb kills lots of people (hundreds, well than that's just you awfulizing again). Killing a leader generally results in civil war, which usually kills one hell of a lot more. Look at Iraq (smug chuckle).

Of course dealing with the guy as a leader, coming to terms with the fact that you've lost this round and that a brighter day might one day dawn, is beyond the neocon mindset. Better to kill, kill, kill, until everybody who disagrees with you is dead. That's the way to bring in democracy, by gum. Then we're gonna have free speech. The we're gonna have freedom of worship. Then we're gonna have... Walmart!

[myata]

What else would be an acceptable use of killing?

- sponsoring a group of military thugs to overthrow an elected leader, establish rule of "terror" and conduct mass killings of "civilians"; (Chile);

- sponsor and train gangs of thugs to instill rule of "terror" by indiscriminate killing of "civilians" (Honduras, Nicaragua);

- discourage "civilian" population from supporting one or another faction through use of superior military force, terror, and indiscriminate killing of civilians (Vietnam, Iraq).

Note that all of the above involve killing of civilians to instill terror. Then, wouldn't an attempt to kill a leader of a country, with direct involvement of greatly superior power, look like a way to terrorize its people from resisting? The line is growing really thin. So thin one starts wondering - does it really exists?

[August1991]

I wonder if Al Quaida uses these sorts of justifications? "Don't worry guys. It's not terrorism. It's realpolitik."

Are you equating al-Qaeda and the US government?

Do you not see a difference?

That's like saying that since the RCMP have guns, the Hell's Angels have the right to have guns too.

Edited September 25, 2007 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

..........awfulizing .........

Glad to see it isn't just facts you make up.

But to the point, are yo saying that car bombs can't or haven't killed 100s of people? Or is that you just minimizing again?

[M.Dancer]

Killing a leader generally results in civil war, which usually kills one hell of a lot more. Look at Iraq (smug chuckle).

Really? How many times has that happened? Iraq? No so sorry, the violence was in full gear while Saddam was Alive and free.....

Do you always chuckle smuggly while thousands ar killed every month? Rwanda must have been a virtual laughfest for you.

Edited September 26, 2007 by M.Dancer

[myata]

Iraq? No so sorry, the violence was in full gear while Saddam was Alive and free.....

If so, you should be able to substantiate this claim with numbers.

[M.Dancer]

If so, you should be able to substantiate this claim with numbers.

Easy

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

And then continue here.......

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/page214

Saddam was captured in December 2003.....wasn't executed till 2006.

And while the debate over whether there is a civil war in iraq or it is merely anarchistic sectarian violence goes on.

No debate though whether Higgy uses overthetop bombastic hyperbole or not......

Edited September 26, 2007 by M.Dancer

[myata]

the violence was in full gear while Saddam was Alive and free.....

....

Easy

You meant to say, once the american invasion has started? One can only agree with that (somewhat modified) statement - but wasn't it something what was said all along? - as the site you referred to (Iraq bodycount) only provides data since beginning of US invasion.

Couldn't resist commenting on the addition: you mean, monstrous Saddam has been directing the insurgency for three years from his prison cell while innocent american GIs used their highly explosive ammos for ... help me with an example of an absolutely peaceful and innocent use of highly explosive ammo ... really struggling here. Perhaps, you can work on stretching it (the truth i.e.) even more, what do you think?

Edited September 26, 2007 by myata

[M.Dancer]

You meant to say, once the american invasion has started? One can only agree with that (somewhat modified) statement - but wasn't it something what was said all along? - as the site you referred to (Iraq bodycount) only provides data since beginning of US invasion.

You are being obtuse. Hiigy's claim was:

Killing a leader generally results in civil war, which usually kills one hell of a lot more. Look at Iraq (smug chuckle).

I responded with:

Really? How many times has that happened? Iraq? No so sorry, the violence was in full gear while Saddam was Alive and free.....

And you asked for (for some reason) a citation. Am I expected to believe you wanted citations of a civil war before Saddam was executed and before the Iraq invasion? Listen, I like sophisty as much as the nest person, but it has to be at least logical or rational.

[M.Dancer]

- but wasn't it something what was said all along? -

I don't know, was it? And what was said exactly?

Cite please.

[myata]

Yes, killing Saddam did result in huge casualties and all but full blown civil war despite massive occupation force, which was what the original poster said all along and what was obvious from the numbers posted on the site in your own link. Who's been obtuse?

[M.Dancer]

Yes, killing Saddam did result in huge casualties and all but full blown civil war despite massive occupation force, which was what the original poster said all along and what was obvious from the numbers posted on the site in your own link. Who's been obtuse?

You are. The all but full blown civil war was going on before Saddam was exucuted after a lengthy trial by the Iraqi judiciary. In other words the example that hiigy used was false.

Deposing a tyrant who kept the majority ethnic group under the boot of his heel by periodic pogroms and terror resulted in civil war. Creating a power vaccum resulted in civil war. Killing Saddam did not result in civil war.

[myata]

You are. The all but full blown civil war was going on before Saddam was exucuted after a lengthy trial by the Iraqi judiciary. In other words the example that hiigy used was false.

Deposing a tyrant who kept the majority ethnic group under the boot of his heel by periodic pogroms and terror resulted in civil war. Creating a power vaccum resulted in civil war. Killing Saddam did not result in civil war.

My, you really want to go nut picking here. Have it your way: deposing a ... (whatever you want to call him) by foreign invasion resulted in a civil war. Does that take care of semantical nuances.

Now the real question: would such an act qualify as "terrorism" toward the part of population that supported Saddam and attempted to resist foreign invasion?

[M.Dancer]

.

Now the real question: would such an act qualify as "terrorism" toward the part of population that supported Saddam and attempted to resist foreign invasion?

Your langauge isn't clear so I willjust assume that you are asking if insurgents are terrorists.

No.

Resistance in itself is not terrorism. Although resistance could be terrorism if they employ terrorist methods. Planting an anti tank mine along a known tank corridor is resistance. Planting a car bomb outside a marketplace is terrorism.

In the first the goal is to disable a tank, a legitimate military target. The second is to cow the civilian population.

That being said, just becasue on Monday an iraqi insurgent attacks a shia wedding and on Tuesday a military convoy doesn't mean he is no longer a terrorist. The goals of the Baathist are two fold, drive out the coalition forces and to opress the Shia majority.

On the other hand if you can find a Sunni insurgent who has waged war only against legitimate military targets you will probably find a very lonely man.

[myata]

No, to clarify, I'm asking if bombing of Faluja (and the like) qualifies as terrorism. Because, it is:

1) killing

2) of innocent civilians

3) to achieve political purpose (i.e force population to abandon supporting insurgence)

4) via terror (hugely superior military force).

[ScottSA]

No, to clarify, I'm asking if bombing of Faluja (and the like) qualifies as terrorism. Because, it is:

1) killing

2) of innocent civilians

3) to achieve political purpose (i.e force population to abandon supporting insurgence)

4) via terror (hugely superior military force).

No. Your premises and definitions are drunkenly askew.

[ScottSA]

dbl post

Edited September 26, 2007 by ScottSA

[myata]

No. Your premises and definitions are drunkenly askew.

Hi Scott,

this is the last warning from me that this kind of posts will not be tolerated and from now on will be instantly reported as trolling.

I'm normally far from being fussy, but I just don't like stumbling on garbage.

[M.Dancer]

No, to clarify, I'm asking if bombing of Faluja (and the like) qualifies as terrorism. Because, it is:

1) killing

2) of innocent civilians

3) to achieve political purpose (i.e force population to abandon supporting insurgence)

4) via terror (hugely superior military force).

No, your premise is soberly askew.

But I suffer more readily than Scott so I will counter with valid arguments, just to humour you.

Killing innocent civilians

1) Did the US forces intentional set out as a goal to target civilians....or as a prelude to the operation were civilians given an opertunity to leave? Answer, prior to the offensive civilians were given an opportunity to leave. Just to clarify, it wasn't the US that choose Falluhja as a battleground, the insurgents did. Therefore the responsibility lies with the insurgenst to ensure there are minimal civilian casualties. But given that the insurgents attack the army one day and the food market the next, that hope is vapour.

Operation's goals

2) You state that the goal was to achieve a political purpose (force the civilians to abandon supporting the insurgents) I'm not sure what brand of tinfoil you were wearing the day you heard or came up with that, but if that was the case, why bother allowing the civilians to leave then go about killing insurgents. Why not just kill civilians inseatd of engaging those who fight back?

Hugely Superior Force = Terror

3) That's just plain foolish. Should they have tried to rid falluja with a vastly inferior force? Now I will be the first to admit you try to terrorize the enemy combatants with what ever you can, that psyops. Could be the rumble of a dozen tanks or a 12 barrage of heavy howitzers....what ever it takes to get them to surrender instead on them making you kill them. But to suggest that superior firepower is in itself terror is just stupid.

So to reiterate what Scott said quite succinctly. All your premises are false. Slanderously false and stupidly false.

[myata]

Killing innocent civilians

1) Did the US forces intentional set out as a goal to target civilians....or as a prelude to the operation were civilians given an opertunity to leave? Answer, prior to the offensive civilians were given an opportunity to leave. Just to clarify, it wasn't the US that choose Falluhja as a battleground, the insurgents did. Therefore the responsibility lies with the insurgenst to ensure there are minimal civilian casualties. But given that the insurgents attack the army one day and the food market the next, that hope is vapour.

And who cares (what they're saying their goals may have been)? Did you ever ask about Alcaeda goals, maybe they are all about salvation of humankind. The fact is that dropping a bomb on an apartment building full of civilians is bound to kill civilians and shelling densly populated area with high explosives is also bound to kill civilians. The intent or at least reasonable knowledge of the effect cannot be denied, no matter how much you squirt about the "moral" goals.

Operation's goals

2) You state that the goal was to achieve a political purpose (force the civilians to abandon supporting the insurgents) I'm not sure what brand of tinfoil you were wearing the day you heard or came up with that, but if that was the case, why bother allowing the civilians to leave then go about killing insurgents. Why not just kill civilians inseatd of engaging those who fight back?

You said nothing to prove otherwise. I can't care less why this is done that isn't. The result is clear: demonstration of hugely superior military might to force people abandon insurgency. Otherwise, they could have used police tactics and went after specific individuals.

I will be the first to admit you try to terrorize the enemy combatants with what ever you can, that psyops.

Thanks for the admission. I guess terror can be a useful tool when it serves your purpose.

So to reiterate what Scott said quite succinctly. All your premises are false. Slanderously false and stupidly false.

Guess lacking a better argument, the last resourt is pointing finger and insult.

[Higgly]

<<edited>>

Edited September 26, 2007 by Higgly

[M.Dancer]

Thanks for the admission. I guess terror can be a useful tool when it serves your purpose.

Had a feeling you would purposely and deliberately misconstrue that. I suppose for you then, spin is a useful tool when it props up your weak arguments.