US sponsored Terrorism (for subaruguru)
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Nice smiley.
And again, typical. It's easy to make any argument seem insignificant (because, really, everything that goes on in this forum has no impact on anyone's life). But if you really didn't care, you wouldn't have even responded to me.
Edit: First and last time? It must be nice to always be right except for one time...
And again, typical. It's easy to make any argument seem insignificant (because, really, everything that goes on in this forum has no impact on anyone's life). But if you really didn't care, you wouldn't have even responded to me.
Edit: First and last time? It must be nice to always be right except for one time...
Last edited by MVWRX; Oct 27, 2004 at 04:44 PM.
Originally Posted by syncopation
You'll have to remind me which document, as there are several and thru a quick peruse I did not find what you are suggesting.
As of July 1975 we supported and armed Pinochet, which I would consider aiding terrorism.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B8/ch04-01.htm
Not to mention that we (CIA) deposed the democratically elected leader prior to this.
As of July 1975 we supported and armed Pinochet, which I would consider aiding terrorism.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B8/ch04-01.htm
Not to mention that we (CIA) deposed the democratically elected leader prior to this.
Also, go ahead then and name the terrorist acts Pinochet was responsible for. Again, being a military leader who commits crimes does NOT make you a terrorist. It's almost silly on face to claim this about Pinochet, as he had no need for terrorism. He was quite capable of telling whomever in Chile that he wanted what to do, and he obviously had enough control of the country to make whoever he wanted disappear.
Not seeing the terrorism yet. Documents forthcoming from your site.
Edited to add: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B8/ch21-01.htm
And I almost missed the last part. No, we did not. The CIA tried to depose Allende before Pinochet's coup, but it failed and only made Allende look better in doing so. Pinochet, a military leader who hated socialists and political squabbling, took over the country with the help of Chile's military (which he was in charge of at the time.)
Last edited by subaruguru; Oct 27, 2004 at 06:04 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,004
From: Northern Bay Area: Larkspur
Car Info: 02 Silver WRX sedan. Eibach springs, Blitz NUR cat back, Rota 17" Attacks, Cobb AccessPort/DP
Try this def.:
Originally Posted by syncopation
Ok, then let us begin by agreeing on a definition for terrorism:
Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Sounds good to me, do I need to add anything to make any of you happy? I want to make sure and play by your rules.
Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Sounds good to me, do I need to add anything to make any of you happy? I want to make sure and play by your rules.
Terrorism: The absolute methodical destruction of innocent human life for the sole purpose of delivering a message to a select target audience (the world).
Sure America has supported guerilla operations around the world in the name of winning the cold war. We do it better than anyone. That’s why we won the cold war. Don’t think for an instant that there is a major superpower that doesn’t. If America was the equivalent to modern day terrorists (and that’s what I’m assuming this thread is all about, trying to show similarities) we would be using our nukes to take out entire civilian populations. Not military but specifically civilian masses. For the sole purpose of instilling fear and showing our hate. We used nukes once against Japan (as if I have to tell you, but I knew exactly what your response would have been if I didn’t add this). A nation with, at the time, the mightiest navy. It crippled our own fleet and with the help of it’s allies would have rolled right up to the mainland. We had to stop them.
Ok, now for a little off topic rambling:
Thankfully we're doing everything we can to keep nukes and other WMD's out of the hands of terrorists. Can you imagine waking up every day wondering if the building you work in, or the bus you ride, or the movie theater you go to on a crowded friday night is going to blow up killing everyone inside? What about your kids going to school? It would be horrible to think that at anytime a terrorist could walk into your little girls classroom, wait for the media to arrive and then blow him/herslef up. That's not the way I want to live.
I remember back in 91 when I was still in the military. We recieved a class on terrorism. The last thing they told us was that it's not a matter of if, it was a matter of when. I knew it was just a matter of time (9/11). Hopefully our government keeps it's stance against terrorism and does everything in it's power to prevent further attacks.
school of the americas anyone?
and in this day and age your best bet would be to first define terrorism as it currently shifts with the wind...
here is a test watch the news and tell me the difference between an insurgent and an terrorist
and in this day and age your best bet would be to first define terrorism as it currently shifts with the wind...
here is a test watch the news and tell me the difference between an insurgent and an terrorist
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,709
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by Salty
Care to tell me about the SOA, Dre?

-Chris
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
The SOA has produced it's fair share of crooked SOB's but it's not entirely the SOA's fault. I don't see people protesting outside of American colleges for the education of those that've been involved with terrorism. It's the Chain of Command of those people that send them to the SOA... afterall, you're held accountable for your actions when the day’s done, right? If I went around sniping people for fun I don't think the victims families would be marching to the SOI on the same post as the SOA.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by bassplayrr
I can tell you that they have sh1tty warranty coverage... oh you're talking about the school of americas still. 
-Chris

-Chris
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,709
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by Oaf
Nice one...

-Chris
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 409
From: Sunnyvale
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
Originally Posted by subaruguru
haha, well, you might want to look up when Pinochet actually became the President then. Hint: before 1975.
If you say that's his business, it's his country.....then why is our (US policy) claim that Saddam needed to be deposed because he oppressed and terrorized civilians. Where is the consistancy?
There is no need to qualify Pinochet as an instigator and dictator of terrorism because this is beyond will known. If you refuse to accept it then I can't argue with you. Just don't feed me some line about how it's OK if he's ruling the country. State sponsored terrorism is still terrorism. Its not acceptable to ignore facts or brush them aside becasue they do not support your argument.
Last edited by Salty; Oct 28, 2004 at 10:07 AM. Reason: OMG learn how to quote!
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 409
From: Sunnyvale
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/s/state-terrorism.htm
A little light reading about terrorism for the confused.
qoute:
State terrorism is a term referring to acts of violence which fit the common international definition of terrorism, but are committed by an official state military or sponsored by a sovereign government. State terrorism thus refers to hostile actions outside of the context of a declared war, which target civilians or show a disregard for civilian life in attacking targets — either people or facilities.
Specific example:
Chile, under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, pursued an extensive policy regarded by many as state terrorism against both civilians at home and perceived enemies abroad. On the international stage, the Chilean state's actions included the assassination of former ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington, D.C., by means of a car bomb, the killing of Gen. Carlos Prats in Argentina in similar circumstances, and the attempted assassination of Bernardo Leighton in Italy.
But I take it subaruguru wants body counts and specific sight of mass graves etc.. etc.. before he believes that Pinochet was a terrorist.
A little light reading about terrorism for the confused.
qoute:
State terrorism is a term referring to acts of violence which fit the common international definition of terrorism, but are committed by an official state military or sponsored by a sovereign government. State terrorism thus refers to hostile actions outside of the context of a declared war, which target civilians or show a disregard for civilian life in attacking targets — either people or facilities.
Specific example:
Chile, under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, pursued an extensive policy regarded by many as state terrorism against both civilians at home and perceived enemies abroad. On the international stage, the Chilean state's actions included the assassination of former ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington, D.C., by means of a car bomb, the killing of Gen. Carlos Prats in Argentina in similar circumstances, and the attempted assassination of Bernardo Leighton in Italy.
But I take it subaruguru wants body counts and specific sight of mass graves etc.. etc.. before he believes that Pinochet was a terrorist.
Originally Posted by syncopation
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/s/state-terrorism.htm
A little light reading about terrorism for the confused.
qoute:
State terrorism is a term referring to acts of violence which fit the common international definition of terrorism, but are committed by an official state military or sponsored by a sovereign government. State terrorism thus refers to hostile actions outside of the context of a declared war, which target civilians or show a disregard for civilian life in attacking targets — either people or facilities.
Specific example:
Chile, under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, pursued an extensive policy regarded by many as state terrorism against both civilians at home and perceived enemies abroad. On the international stage, the Chilean state's actions included the assassination of former ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington, D.C., by means of a car bomb, the killing of Gen. Carlos Prats in Argentina in similar circumstances, and the attempted assassination of Bernardo Leighton in Italy.
But I take it subaruguru wants body counts and specific sight of mass graves etc.. etc.. before he believes that Pinochet was a terrorist.
A little light reading about terrorism for the confused.
qoute:
State terrorism is a term referring to acts of violence which fit the common international definition of terrorism, but are committed by an official state military or sponsored by a sovereign government. State terrorism thus refers to hostile actions outside of the context of a declared war, which target civilians or show a disregard for civilian life in attacking targets — either people or facilities.
Specific example:
Chile, under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, pursued an extensive policy regarded by many as state terrorism against both civilians at home and perceived enemies abroad. On the international stage, the Chilean state's actions included the assassination of former ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington, D.C., by means of a car bomb, the killing of Gen. Carlos Prats in Argentina in similar circumstances, and the attempted assassination of Bernardo Leighton in Italy.
But I take it subaruguru wants body counts and specific sight of mass graves etc.. etc.. before he believes that Pinochet was a terrorist.
The guy was a terrorist a family friend left Chile because of him and she still to this day will not return.
Originally Posted by syncopation
Duh. We armed and gave money to him, yes during his 'Presidency'. The point is that we were still doing it through 1975...which is about the time we decided to back away from him. If you want to claim that a dictator terrorizing civilians with weapons form the US is indeed not terrorism, OK.
If you say that's his business, it's his country.....then why is our (US policy) claim that Saddam needed to be deposed because he oppressed and terrorized civilians. Where is the consistancy?
There is no need to qualify Pinochet as an instigator and dictator of terrorism because this is beyond will known. If you refuse to accept it then I can't argue with you. Just don't feed me some line about how it's OK if he's ruling the country. State sponsored terrorism is still terrorism. Its not acceptable to ignore facts or brush them aside becasue they do not support your argument.
If you say that's his business, it's his country.....then why is our (US policy) claim that Saddam needed to be deposed because he oppressed and terrorized civilians. Where is the consistancy?
There is no need to qualify Pinochet as an instigator and dictator of terrorism because this is beyond will known. If you refuse to accept it then I can't argue with you. Just don't feed me some line about how it's OK if he's ruling the country. State sponsored terrorism is still terrorism. Its not acceptable to ignore facts or brush them aside becasue they do not support your argument.
That is totally and completely inaccurate. The CIA gave no arms to pinochet before his rise to power; he didn't need arms, becuase he was in charge of the Chilean army. It's not like there were any counter armies. And no, he didn't need US weapons to terrorize his own people, because, again, he was the head of the ARMY already. He controlled all the weapons Chile.
Again, you ignore the fact that all crimes are not terrorism. It's silly and the word becomes meaningless if you say that any type of violence anywhere is terrorism. Now, according to YOUR own definition, what Pinochet did was NOT terrorism. Is your definition wrong, and if so, what's one that includes Pinochet?
Originally Posted by Unregistered
The guy was a terrorist a family friend left Chile because of him and she still to this day will not return.
Not all criminals are terrorists.


