John walker lindh pleads guilty

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 15 2002,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know you havent.

Maybe I didnt make my point properly.

It's the essential hypocrisy that the US government is displaying...

Try this on for size...

Al Queda commited a crime against the people of the US. The Taliban is culpable for the actions of Al Queda because they gave support to them.

Now replace:

Al Queda with Contra(s)

US with Nicaragua

Taliban with US

I think if you were to look into it, the Contras were responsible for as many deaths in Nicaragua in the 80's ass Al Queda will ever be responsible for in the US.<span id='postcolor'>

There is one important difference: the Contra affair was a clandestine operation run by members of the CIA, and not sanctioned by US government.

Once the facts came to light, the United States prosecuted members of its own military, intelligence organizations, and government for their actions.

[Warin 0]

Frag,

I am not disagreeing with your opinion. What I am asking is if you believe that as an outsider, I should view the US any differently than I should view the Taliban.

I am not slamming the US. The fact is that in the name of self interest, governments will do things that the people of the governed nation would find totally unacceptable.

So please give me an opinion... is this a case of 'do as I say or not as I do', or do you buy into the US rhetoric that this is a war of good vs evil?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And a lot of Afgani people have died for supporting their culture and religion.<span id='postcolor'>

What's your point? Are you suggesting that the United States went to war over culture or religion?<span id='postcolor'>

No but that in their point of view their struggle is just as legitimate as the American struggle against the British.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorist/Freedom fighter is all a question of point of view.<span id='postcolor'>

You'd have to have a very twisted point of view to call the people who hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into New York sky scrapers "freedom fighters".

<span id='postcolor'>

As twisted as dropping nukes or firebombing Dresden in in the fight for freedom, no more, no less. You might think that I am relativizing too much, but that is to provide a point to those who like to see the world in black/white.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I have no intention of arguing the Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter debate, since that is a general case, if you will. All I am concerned with here is a concrete example of a group of individuals who murdered civilians in a terrorist attack, and that of an organization (call them a government if you will) who supported them. Even if the Taliban were in fact a legitimate government, it would merely make the attacks a case of state-sponsored terrorism, which could be considered an act of war.<span id='postcolor'>

If you want to apply that rule in general then a lot of world leaders would be in jail right now. State-sponsored terrorism is a very common phenomenon where usually the sponsor is a superpower like Soviet was or like USA is. If Walker should go to jail for his actions then George Bush Sr. sure as hell should. He provided the Mujahedin and therefor indirectly the Taliban with much more support then Walker could ever dream of.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,01:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is one important difference: the Contra affair was a clandestine operation run by members of the CIA, and not sanctioned by US government.

Once the facts came to light, the United States prosecuted members of its own military, intelligence organizations, and government for their actions.<span id='postcolor'>

You couldn't be more wrong there. The funding of Contras was approved by Congress.

US Government reference

[Renagade 0]

Hey thats life :|

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am not disagreeing with your opinion. What I am asking is if you believe that as an outsider, I should view the US any differently than I should view the Taliban.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I'm not asking you to view the United States any differently.

The people who serve and govern the United States have all sworn an oath to serve and protect their country. The same is true in any other country in the world. Ultimately, they will take actions and make decisions that are in their own best interest.

Regarding the "Good vs. Evil" debate, I have absolutely no problem with cultures, ethnic groups, or religions other than my own. All that I am asking is that I be left in peace, and I will gladly reciprocate.

What I do have a problem with (and all people should, I believe) is when someone, anyone, comes along and tries to kill me or anyone else in the name of their cause, whatever it may be. When that happens, don't expect me to turn a blind eye towards the perpetrators, or the people who support them and enable the attacks.

[Warin 0]

Thanks Frag

You've cut through a lot of BS and explained your position and I totally respect that.

My beef is when certain people wave the flag and live in a world where the US cant and hasnt ever done anything wrong. the distressing part is that at least here on this board, you are in a minority of people with a pro-american viewpoint.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,01:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regarding the "Good vs. Evil" debate, I have absolutely no problem with cultures, ethnic groups, or religions other than my own. All that I am asking is that I be left in peace, and I will gladly reciprocate.

What I do have a problem with (and all people should, I believe) is when someone, anyone, comes along and tries to kill me or anyone else in the name of their cause, whatever it may be. When that happens, don't expect me to turn a blind eye towards the perpetrators, or the people who support them and enable the attacks.<span id='postcolor'>

The problem that springs then is that people have different views on what is good and worth fighting for. For some it might be for freedom against the British and for some for religion and culture against USA. Conflicts arise when two sides have diametrically opposed views on what is good and it gets worse if they are willing to die for it.

The complications don't end there however. You say that you want to be left alone and that would perhaps be possible if your way of life and thinking would be the only one in the world. It isn't however and we live in a society where people with different ideas of the world interfere. When it gets violent your wish of being left alone won't hold. And it is two sided. Just as the American innocent civilians were killed in the WTC attacks there were innocent Afganis killed that had nothing to do with the attacks on USA.

And then of course there are those that are caught in between - like the Walker kid. Niether innocent nor guilty he will pay the price for the conflict of interests.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 15 2002,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,01:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is one important difference: the Contra affair was a clandestine operation run by members of the CIA, and not sanctioned by US government.

Once the facts came to light, the United States prosecuted members of its own military, intelligence organizations, and government for their actions.<span id='postcolor'>

You couldn't be more wrong there. The funding of Contras was approved by Congress.

US Government reference<span id='postcolor'>

Did you actually read that page?

The United States government provided funding to the opposition in Nicaragua, but that was not a clandestine act, it was part of the public Congressional process.

Furthermore, there were explicit government directions that the funds not be used "for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua." Finally, less money was authorized by Congress for the opposition than what the Reagan administration wanted.

This did not sit well with Lt. Col. Oliver North and members of the NSA and CIA, and they sought alternate means of financing and supporting the opposition in Nicaragua. This clandestine support included money, weapons, and training, and it was not authorized by the President or Congress. That is the reason why Oliver North and others went to jail.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On October 17, 1986, Congress approved $100 million in funds for the Contras. In 1987, after the discovery of private resupply efforts orchestrated by the National Security Council and Oliver North, Congress ceased all but "non-lethal" aid in 1987. The war between the Sandinistas and the Contras ended with a cease-fire in 1990.<span id='postcolor'>

The whole operation was blown not because it was illigitimate but because Contras fractions turned against the USA culminatin in threats to shoot down US civil airliners with Stinger missiles provided by the USA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The United States government provided funding to the opposition in Nicaragua, but that was not a clandestine act, it was part of the public Congressional process.

<span id='postcolor'>

You were the one that said that it was a clandestine act, not me. On the contrary, I said that it was an open political act.

[Warin 0]

LOL.

Have this money, but dont you DARE use it to buy guns!

The money was being provided to groups that had the stated goal of overthrowing the lawful government of Nicaragua (Yes, the Sandinistas won free elections, ones that had neutral observers that declared it was fairly held, just like the elections they lost in 1990) and you think for one moment that the support they received didnt go towards guns? Can the American government document that not once cent of the aid given was ever spent on arms? I think not.

As for Ollie North...he made a deal with Iran, a government that at the time was the most anti American in the world, one that called for jihad against the US. He sold them weapons that could have been used against Americans. Did he get 20 years in jail? Hell..is he in jail NOW? I dont think so. He sells books and speaks at schools and likely makes a load of money doing it. But locking Lindh up is perfectly reasonable, for doing a lot less.

ARGH! It's a rant!

Sorry... And it's not aimed at you Frag..

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 15 2002,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem that springs then is that people have different views on what is good and worth fighting for. For some it might be for freedom against the British and for some for religion and culture against USA. Conflicts arise when two sides have diametrically opposed views on what is good and it gets worse if they are willing to die for it.<span id='postcolor'>

That is why education and the teaching of tolerance for other people's religions and points of view are so important.

I'm not going to tell anyone else what or who they should believe in, or how they should live their lives. I expect the same respect of my rights from them. If they decide to try to impose their views on me or anyone else, they should not expect me to make their job easy.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 15 2002,17:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The United States government provided funding to the opposition in Nicaragua, but that was not a clandestine act, it was part of the public Congressional process.

<span id='postcolor'>

You were the one that said that it was a clandestine act, not me. On the contrary, I said that it was an open political act.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say the United States government wasn't opposed to the regime in Nicaragua -- that fact and their support for the opposition are part of the public record.

What I did say was that the Contra affair (which involved financing and suppoirt through non-government and foreign sources) was a clandestine operation by rogue members of the military and intelligence community. I stand by that statement.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I did say was that the Contra affair (which involved financing and suppoirt through non-government and foreign sources) was a clandestine operation by rogue members of the military and intelligence community. I stand by that statement.<span id='postcolor'>

And in that you are correct.

Iran/Contra or Contragate was totally an illegal operation. Why isnt Oliver North still in jail then?

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 15 2002,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I did say was that the Contra affair (which involved financing and suppoirt through non-government and foreign sources) was a clandestine operation by rogue members of the military and intelligence community. I stand by that statement.<span id='postcolor'>

And in that you are correct.

Iran/Contra or Contragate was totally an illegal operation.  Why isnt Oliver North still in jail then?<span id='postcolor'>

Beats me -- I didn't let him out.

[Guest]

The Iran/Contras affair was the illegal part of the Contras funding. Most part of the funding was however legal and until 1987 that included giving military material.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Beats me -- I didn't let him out.<span id='postcolor'>

Heh.

Seems like I am preaching to the converted. And it was really a rhetorical question

To any Americans reading this:

Look at the inherent hypocrisy inherent in what has been discussed to death here. Then sit down and think about why some people get rather irritated with the US.

That's perhaps the first step to making sure that the US works on seeing that it's government is held accountable... and fairly represents the real spirit of the US. From my posts you might not believe it, but I hold my American friends in high regard.

[ralphwiggum 6]

it's been 4 hrs since I last saw this thread and will somebody gimme an update? I'm too lazy to read last 3 pages.

ok..i think this thread is boiling to point where US's "hypocracy" is the center light.

well, to all those snear at US for "hypocracy", let me ask you this. does your country have clean hands? If not, stop bashing others and start cleaning your act up first.

Then, take an initiative to go into global political arena. There are some US troops on "supposedly" peacekeeping mission. Why don't you ask US to get the heck out of there and let the rest of the world figure it out? If you can't ask your gov't to intervene in global politics and conflicts, then don't bother talking about it. whether it's good or bad, US has guts to stick its nose in while rest of the world doesn't.

and talk about hypocracy. global community criticizes US for being intervenist, but when Bush announced policy closer to isolation, global community went nuts and called it stupid. DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 16 2002,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it's been 4 hrs since I last saw this thread and will somebody gimme an update? I'm too lazy to read last 3 pages.

ok..i think this thread is boiling to point where US's "hypocracy" is the center light.

well, to all those snear at US for "hypocracy", let me ask you this. does your country have clean hands? If not, stop bashing others and start cleaning your act up first.<span id='postcolor'>

I suggest that you read the three pages you missed and don't jump to conclusions before reading them

[ralphwiggum 6]

hhmm..onething suddenly hits my mind.

why is it that rest of the world ask US to stop sticking their nose in, but it's ok for them to stick nose into US's internal matter like JLW?

is it because it's right? or is it because "US did it, so we can do it"?

[Guest]

There have been no international comments about the JWL trial. Nice try there, but it simply ain't the truth.

[ralphwiggum 6]

maybe i should put it more blunt way.

So what does JLW trial has to do with you and Iran-Contra?

in some sense this is going off-topic to another US bashing, isn't it?

[Guest]

Not at all. It is not about bashing the US but about defending JLW and the actions of the Taliban.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 16 2002,04:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">maybe i should put it more blunt way.

So what does JLW trial has to do with you and Iran-Contra?

in some sense this is going off-topic to another US bashing, isn't it?<span id='postcolor'>

JLW was prosecuted on the basis of illegal acts against the United States, in support of terrorists. In order to save himself a much longer sentence, he plead guilty to two charges. He will very likely spend the next 20 years in prison.

ON was prosecuted on the basis of illegal acts against the United States, in support of terrorists. He spent much less time in prison. Why? Because his terrorists were American supported terrorists.

So one gets speaking engagements, the other gets derisionand death threats.

And you cant see the hypocrisy?

[ralphwiggum 6]

now we are finally back to topic

as I said previously, out of those thrown out charges, only 2 can apply. He did provide resource(himself) to Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

now, your point about jurisdiction and nationality seems to be a bit problematic.

how about this scenario.

A man with more than one wife immigrates to country with monogamy in law. so does he have to give up rest of his wife?

since his jurisdiction no longer supports previous jurisdiction's approved case, does the man have to follow new jurisdiction's law? in that case, as long as old jurisdiction does not have another law that prohibits husband to devorce his wife easily, it's no problem. but if there is one, then which should he follow?