It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by skippytjc
Funny, terrorism in the USA is down. Wierd how that works.
Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Originally posted by skippytjc
Funny, terrorism in the USA is down. Wierd how that works.
True but Tyranny and capitilism is on the rise.
Originally posted by skippytjc
Funny, terrorism in the USA is down. Wierd how that works.
Originally posted by skippytjc
As far as tyranny, I cant disagree with you. But the bright side of that is we have an opportunity to shed that tyranny every 4 years or so. Dubya will be gone in 3.5 years no matter what.
Originally posted by Koka
8 years to late.
Yeah, Capitalism gives opportunities, but seldom to the disadvantaged.
Capitalism plays on the human instinct that is greed and selfishness and promotes inequality.
Originally posted by Souljah
Question: Do you think that Terrorism is the weapon of the Rich and Powerful, or of the Poor and Powerless?
Originally posted by sanctum
Originally posted by Souljah
Question: Do you think that Terrorism is the weapon of the Rich and Powerful, or of the Poor and Powerless?
I would have to say both.
Good question, Souljah.
Originally posted by skippytjc
Posted by Souljah:
"OR are the REAL terrorists that sold these people weapons and equipment in the first place - and they made money doing that before, and they are still making money doing that same thing."
You are right on!! By this logic FRANCE is the Terrorist, as they provide anybody with the cash with whatever weapons they want. Thanks Soul for clearing this all up.
Originally posted by skippytjc
I cant believe I am going to say this, but Souljah is kinda right. BUT, big But here: Nearly every nation in the world has sold another nation arms. So, even though the remark has some merrit, its hardly conclusive or meaningfull.
The Reagan administration came into office with a declaration that war against international terrorism would be the core of US foreign policy, and it responded to the plague by creating its own extraordinary international terrorist network, unprecedented in scale, which carried out massive atrocities all over the world, primarily in Latin America.
One case is Nicaragua and it is an incontrovertible case, because of the judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Security Council. But how often has this precedent for a lawabiding state's response to terrorism been mentioned since September? The ReaganUS war against Nicaragua was more extreme than I I September: it left tens of thousands of people dead, and the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery.
Nicaragua responded not by bombing Washington but by taking Washington to the ICJ. The ICJ accepted Nicaragua's case, ruled in its favour, condemned what it called the "unlawful use of force" by the US (which had mined Nicaragua's ports), ordered the US to end the crime and pay massive reparations. The US dismissed the judgment with contempt and announced it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court.
Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No state was mentioned but everyone understood which one was meant. The US vetoed the resolution. The US now stands as the only state on record which has been condemned by both the ICJ for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the UN general assembly, where there is technically no veto, but where a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution, which only the US, Israel, and El Salvador opposed.