🚀 go-pugleaf

"Michael A. Clem" <mclem@vigoris.net> wrote in message
news:3BD34717.16BF1E64@vigoris.net...
>
>
> Verne wrote:
>
> > "
> > > > Ok to both of you, your [sic] making the point that this terrorist
act
> > is
> > > a plot
> > > > to take away individual freedom from the western nations of the UK
and
> > the
> > > > USA. Making the point that some freedom may suffer a temporary
setback
> > > due
> > > > to this act of war is not making that point. You need to show a
> > connection
> > > > between our governments and the bombing. Your idle speculation is
> > mindless
> > > > and useless
> > >
> > > I made NO such point.  I'm using my eyes and brain to SEE exactly what
> > human
> > > nature and -power- does to someone in power.
> > >
> > > I need make no such connection, either as it isn't relevant to my
comment.
> > > Nor was this relevant to your "another conspiracy nut" comment.
> > >
> > > >  Make that point or admit your [sic] just spouting b.s.
> > >
> > > You just can't stand that someone saw through your BS.
> >
> > You can not and will never show a conspiracy. In other words you have no
> > point to make so you went off in another direction.
> >
> > So is your claim now that this terrorist activity may have
coincidentally
> > caused a loss of personally freedom?
> >
> > And that some in power may like this?  Who are these people and why
would
> > they do this?
> >
> > Do they have a dark purpose?
> >
> >  Are they involved with the terrorists in some way?
> >
> > Nobody on this thread seems able to stick to a point. Try making one and
> > back it up, if not with facts at lest with reason
> >
> > Verne
> > >
> >
>
> I'm not pointing to a "conspiracy", just the unintended consequences of a
flawed
> foreign policy, and, of course, the dangers of the concentration of power.
>   It's fairly common knowledge that Bin Laden, among many others, was
funded and
> trained way back when to fight the Soviet Union when they invaded
Afghanistan.

No we were just on the same side he never has needed US money

> We also provided them with weapons.  The U.S. *encouraged* the radicalism
of the
> extreme Islamic groups, because it supported the U.S. agenda *at the
time*.


That's simply not true we supported anyone fighting the USSR.  Remember they
were a far greater threat at that time. The policy worked and Communism is
no longer with us to any degree that is a threat

> It's been a common tactic of our government to provide support to people
opposed
> to regimes in governments that we oppose.  The main flaw is and has always
been
> that we fail to consider the rebels' own agenda, not to mention the
destruction
> in these countries that we're helping to take place.  Afghanistan has been
a
> devastated, war-torn country for a long time.

Staying with one nation at a time, the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR
is what started the devastation and the the civil war that followed was none
of our doing unless you believe we should have let the USSR expand at will

>   Even as recently as 1998, the U.S. gave the Taliban a lot of money to
stamp
> out drugs.  Apparently, Afghanistan is a large source of heroin that gets
to
> America.  But do you think the Taliban actually used the money the way the
U.S.
> really wanted them to use it?

Foreign aid is usually a bad idea were in agreement. But of course this
wasn't a part of why we were attacked was it?


>   This is no evil conspiracy, just rampant stupidity and a flawed foreign
> policy.

And none of it has anything to due with why were attacked

>   But our politicians are all too ready to take advantage of this
so-called war
> to increase defense spending and engage in indefensible legislation to
"protect"
> us.  In other words, to give us more of the same stuff that's caused these
> problems.  Oh boy, what a solution!

Now tie what you just said to why we were attacked if you can. The question
was why do they want to kill us. So what form of appeasement should we give
these guys to make them happy?


>   The patriotism that we see, while well-intentioned, plays into the
> politicians' hands quite well.  Any restriction on freedom can not only be
> justified but supported by the majority of the public.  We must stand
together
> for the "war" effort, and not question
> any of their actions on behalf of the effort?  Nonsense!  Now is the time
when
> criticism is most needed, because now is the time when they're likely to
do the
> dumbest things.

So specifically were are the infringements that your concerned about?

>
> Want a link?  Here's an article that goes into more detail than I can:

The Guardian? I will read it but it has no credibility unless your and old
washed up leftist

>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,559756,00.html
>
> There's nothing "hidden" here;  it's just too often ignored by the
American
> citizens and media.
>
> --