US sponsored Terrorism (for subaruguru)
10-28-2004, 10:55 AM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
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.
"Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population."
What Pinochet most definitely was NOT doing was trying to create discord in the hopes that it would enforce compliance. Instead, what he was doing was actually executing everyone who opposed him. If we read terrorism the way you do, then executing murderers is also an act of terrorism, because it is the state killing to set an example for others.
What you have in this website is more of a propaganda piece in international law. Everyone was hoping Pinochet would be tried for crimes against humanity in spain, and post September 11th, trying to call him a terrorist is one more way of trying extend the law to him. But the fact the remains that if "terrorism" is what Pinochet was doing, then all executions or punishments by the state in any place are "terrorist", and the term becomes meaningless.
10-28-2004, 01:15 PM
#48
250,000-mile Club President
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bizerkeley
Posts: 4,770
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Do you concider Sadamm a terrorist then?
Originally Posted by subaruguru
.......He was a brutal dictator. That doesn't automatically make him a terrorist, this website notwithstanding. ....... post September 11th, trying to call him a terrorist is one more way of trying extend the law to him. But the fact the remains that if "terrorism" is what Pinochet was doing, then all executions or punishments by the state in any place are "terrorist", and the term becomes meaningless.
Welcome to the world according to Bushlogic
Last edited by psoper; 10-28-2004 at 01:18 PM.
10-28-2004, 01:24 PM
#49
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Posts: 2,064
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Originally Posted by psoper
Welcome to the world according to Bushlogic
But Saddam and Osama were golfing buddies! He would have given the non-existant WMD's to terrorists that he wasn't connected too! LOL
10-28-2004, 01:26 PM
#50
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by SilverScoober02
hahahaha.....Nice one!
But Saddam and Osama were golfing buddies! He would have given the non-existant WMD's to terrorists that he wasn't connected too! LOL
But Saddam and Osama were golfing buddies! He would have given the non-existant WMD's to terrorists that he wasn't connected too! LOL
-Chris
10-28-2004, 02:18 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Nice to see a solid debate in progress
Pissing in mid-stream here, but to clarify, are there some people who question the CIA / US involvement in the overthrow of Salvodor Allende? Allende was a socialist. He pissed of the United Fruit Company with threats of govt intrusion, and drew the ire of the Dulles brothers (one in the CIA, the other affiliated with UFCO).
Seem far-fetched? Read up on the Senate Subcommittee findings... they are public record and can be found at any reputable library (ok, maybe no the library at Bob Jones U but any other library)
Oh, and reports that Allende shot himself are unsubstantiated. He was definitely shot, but nobody can definitively say if it was self-inflicted or resulted from the coup d'etat.
Pissing in mid-stream here, but to clarify, are there some people who question the CIA / US involvement in the overthrow of Salvodor Allende? Allende was a socialist. He pissed of the United Fruit Company with threats of govt intrusion, and drew the ire of the Dulles brothers (one in the CIA, the other affiliated with UFCO).
Seem far-fetched? Read up on the Senate Subcommittee findings... they are public record and can be found at any reputable library (ok, maybe no the library at Bob Jones U but any other library)
Oh, and reports that Allende shot himself are unsubstantiated. He was definitely shot, but nobody can definitively say if it was self-inflicted or resulted from the coup d'etat.
10-28-2004, 02:31 PM
#52
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Lorenzo
Posts: 1,118
Car Info: 2000 2.5 RS
You may want to try to dissprove US sponsored terrorism another way. I could link off of www.dogs.com for all I care, it doesn't invalidate the truth.
10-28-2004, 02:33 PM
#53
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 409
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Again, you're misrepresenting my position. When did I say Pinochet did not kill people? He was a brutal dictator. "Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population."
Instead, what he was doing was actually executing everyone who opposed him.
What you have in this website is more of a propaganda piece in international law. Everyone was hoping Pinochet would be tried for crimes against humanity in spain, and post September 11th, trying to call him a terrorist is one more way of trying extend the law to him. But the fact the remains that if "terrorism" is what Pinochet was doing, then all executions or punishments by the state in any place are "terrorist", and the term becomes meaningless.
Instead, what he was doing was actually executing everyone who opposed him.
What you have in this website is more of a propaganda piece in international law. Everyone was hoping Pinochet would be tried for crimes against humanity in spain, and post September 11th, trying to call him a terrorist is one more way of trying extend the law to him. But the fact the remains that if "terrorism" is what Pinochet was doing, then all executions or punishments by the state in any place are "terrorist", and the term becomes meaningless.
I doubt that my referenced website from a world history encyclopedia is a 'propoganda' website run by radical chileans.
Originally Posted by subaruguru
The Saddam terrorism connection has nothing to do with personal contacts. He was a known sponsor of terrorism, as he sponsored suicide bombings and publically stated on numerous occasions that one of his primary goals was to destroy Israel. That gives him an aligned interest with terrorists everywhere, and there's no reason to assume he wouldn't have ever acted on that. He may have in the past. As you said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..
Mucho gracias to Salty for fixing my qoutes.
.
10-28-2004, 03:00 PM
#56
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 409
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
Originally Posted by subaruguru
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?
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?
I never said all crimes were terrorism, you did.
And even if we except your theory that no weapons and financial suport were given before the 'rise to power' (not really a rise as much as an execution of the democratically elected leader)...we supported him DURING his reign of terror!
10-28-2004, 03:02 PM
#57
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 409
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
Originally Posted by dub2w
Nice to see a solid debate in progress
Pissing in mid-stream here, but to clarify, are there some people who question the CIA / US involvement in the overthrow of Salvodor Allende? Allende was a socialist. He pissed of the United Fruit Company with threats of govt intrusion, and drew the ire of the Dulles brothers (one in the CIA, the other affiliated with UFCO).
Seem far-fetched? Read up on the Senate Subcommittee findings... they are public record and can be found at any reputable library (ok, maybe no the library at Bob Jones U but any other library)
Oh, and reports that Allende shot himself are unsubstantiated. He was definitely shot, but nobody can definitively say if it was self-inflicted or resulted from the coup d'etat.
Pissing in mid-stream here, but to clarify, are there some people who question the CIA / US involvement in the overthrow of Salvodor Allende? Allende was a socialist. He pissed of the United Fruit Company with threats of govt intrusion, and drew the ire of the Dulles brothers (one in the CIA, the other affiliated with UFCO).
Seem far-fetched? Read up on the Senate Subcommittee findings... they are public record and can be found at any reputable library (ok, maybe no the library at Bob Jones U but any other library)
Oh, and reports that Allende shot himself are unsubstantiated. He was definitely shot, but nobody can definitively say if it was self-inflicted or resulted from the coup d'etat.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/#10
Last edited by syncopation; 10-28-2004 at 03:12 PM.
10-28-2004, 03:34 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by syncopation
subaruguru refuses to concede that this is true. His pigheadedness helps his argument.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/#10
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/#10
Now, what I am maintaining is that brutal statehood and criminal laws that are unfair IS NOT terrorism, wrong or right. You didn't answer my question: Is the death penalty for crimes terrorism, under your definition? If it's not, then explain why. Explain why any criminal penalty is not terrorism, for that matter.
First of all, your online source only says "some believe", then lists countries that "some" think are terrorist...including the United States. It's basically a website that repeats exactly what you said in your initial posts, so all of my first arguments against your post apply just as well to the website. You didn't respond to any of them except to cite the website....so, I'm waiting to see the difference between terrorism, war crimes, and unfair criminal prosecution. If you think those are all the same thing, then say so, and everyone can see that your definition of terrorism is worthless.
10-28-2004, 03:35 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by dub2w
Nice to see a solid debate in progress
Pissing in mid-stream here, but to clarify, are there some people who question the CIA / US involvement in the overthrow of Salvodor Allende? Allende was a socialist. He pissed of the United Fruit Company with threats of govt intrusion, and drew the ire of the Dulles brothers (one in the CIA, the other affiliated with UFCO).
Seem far-fetched? Read up on the Senate Subcommittee findings... they are public record and can be found at any reputable library (ok, maybe no the library at Bob Jones U but any other library)
Oh, and reports that Allende shot himself are unsubstantiated. He was definitely shot, but nobody can definitively say if it was self-inflicted or resulted from the coup d'etat.
Pissing in mid-stream here, but to clarify, are there some people who question the CIA / US involvement in the overthrow of Salvodor Allende? Allende was a socialist. He pissed of the United Fruit Company with threats of govt intrusion, and drew the ire of the Dulles brothers (one in the CIA, the other affiliated with UFCO).
Seem far-fetched? Read up on the Senate Subcommittee findings... they are public record and can be found at any reputable library (ok, maybe no the library at Bob Jones U but any other library)
Oh, and reports that Allende shot himself are unsubstantiated. He was definitely shot, but nobody can definitively say if it was self-inflicted or resulted from the coup d'etat.
10-28-2004, 03:54 PM
#60
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 409
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
Originally Posted by subaruguru
You didn't answer my question: Is the death penalty for crimes terrorism, under your definition? If it's not, then explain why. Explain why any criminal penalty is not terrorism, for that matter.
Death penalty for crimes (and I'm assuming you mean the US defenition of a crime that is punishable by death) is not the unlawful use or threat of violence against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.
Thus it is not terrorism.
Of course the link in question post dates the 'Junta'. The CIA debrief files aren't good enough for you!!! These files must come from those propaganda leftists.
Here is another 'propaganda' link, as a summary to the actual CIA files I had just posted.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/a....cia.chile.ap/