The War on "some" Terrorism

**KafirChobee** · 06-30-2005, 06:03

Curious, I was hoping the news media would become more involved in this story - rather than the one day 2 minute span it was given. Then again, it wasn't as important as Michael Jackson or a follow up on Schiavo's autopsy.

No, instead it is about our president considering giving "ass"ylum to a known terrorist. Then again, as I suggest, maybe we are only at war with some terrorists - others being OK if they work along the ideological lines we like or oppose those in our disfavor.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200..._terrorism.php

Now, one doesnot have to agree with the source (look for other sources in the main stream if you like), but it is as good as any for now.

Luis Posada Carriles, was responsible for the Oct, 1976 airlines bombing that killed 73 persons. Including members of a teenage fencing team. He was caught by the Venezuelan police and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. Carriles escaped in 1985 - and was totally unrepentant for his actions. [actually he was quite proud of them]

In 1991 he tried to assassinate a head of state - Castro (it is in our laws btw that it is illegal to condone such a thing, let alone protect an assassin).

He openly admits involvement in a series of hotel bombings in Cuba - "to keep the tourists away". One such bombing killed an Italian tourist, and many others were injured by them.

Now this guy has filed for asylum in the USA. To even imagine a president considering such a move is preposterous. I mean, the guy is here illegally anyway - give him up to the nations he has injured and be done with it. Why should he be given any more consideration than the combatants held at Gitmo (and other points around the globe where torture is condoned)?

Turn the slime bucket over to Castro, let him deal with it. After all the man is a known terrorist, and proud of it. Or, are we just in a war against some terrorist?

**PanzerJaeger** · 06-30-2005, 06:28

I think your definition is much more accurate than the one the president uses. Of course presidents have to dumb things down a bit.

The truth is that we are only fighting some terrorists.. those that have declared themselves our enemies.

As others have said on this board - terrorism is a form of warfare, not a person or group.

We are fighting AQ and the other islamic extremists who hate us, but its much easier to simply say we are fighting all terrorists.

As for the cuban - as far as i know he was once working for us via the CIA. We should never turn over our former agents to the enemy they worked against. That would undermine our credibility and intelligence even more than it already is.

Imagine what our agents in Syria or Iran would think if they saw us turning over a former agent to the government he helped us work against. Its ridiculous.

**sharrukin** · 06-30-2005, 06:54

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I think your definition is much more accurate than the one the president uses. Of course presidents have to dumb things down a bit.

The truth is that we are only fighting some terrorists.. those that have declared themselves our enemies.

As others have said on this board - terrorism is a form of warfare, not a person or group.

We are fighting AQ and the other islamic extremists who hate us, but its much easier to simply say we are fighting all terrorists.

As for the cuban - as far as i know he was once working for us via the CIA. We should never turn over our former agents to the enemy they worked against. That would undermine our credibility and intelligence even more than it already is.

Imagine what our agents in Syria or Iran would think if they saw us turning over a former agent to the government he helped us work against. Its ridiculous.

And what about the terrorists that other countries are working with? Do they adopt the same policies as the United States? What about Osama Bin Laden who the United States was working with in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation? If he is caught in Venezuela or Cuba, what then? Do we really want to establish this as a precedent because these things have a tendency to return and haunt us in later years. Osama Bin Laden sounded like a good idea at the time as well.

We should wage war against all terrorists wherever they are and whoever supports them.

**PanzerJaeger** · 06-30-2005, 06:59

I dont expect for a second that Cuba or any other nation would hand over any of its former agents to us.. so there is no precedent to be made.

Your definition of terrorist and mine are probably different. We should focus on fighting the people that hate us, not the tactic they use.

**sharrukin** · 06-30-2005, 07:51

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I dont expect for a second that Cuba or any other nation would hand over any of its former agents to us.. so there is no precedent to be made.

Libya did!

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Your definition of terrorist and mine are probably different. We should focus on fighting the people that hate us, not the tactic they use.

My definition of terrorist is a paramilitary or civilian who targets civilians rather than military targets.

That kind of logic gave us Osama Bin Laden! He was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, so he was of use to us, and it only made sense to use him as a tool against the Soviets who were our enemies. We did the same thing in Kosovo with much the same result. How many times will we create, fund and train the very groups that murder our own people? Who exactly is the enemy then?

**Tribesman** · 06-30-2005, 09:13

We should focus on fighting the people that hate us, not the tactic they use.
So its OK if you put bombs on civilian airliners and murder tourists as long as you are a friend of the US governmnet .

**Steppe Merc** · 06-30-2005, 18:39

Washington wasn't a terrorist. Some of the "freedom fighters" were, like those that tar and feathered loyalists, as well as the Tea Party people. But not Washington, as far as I know.

And we should not give this guy asylum. He doesn't deserve it, he's killed innocents. End of story, for me.