Continuation on the FRNs are unconstitutional topic

[SteveSy]

EDIT: I just saw the edit to your post. You haven't said anything to hurt my feelings, but apparently I've touched a raw nerve with you. Tell us again, what actions did the colonists undertake that could compare them to contemporary terrorists?

Honestly, come on. If a group of people tared, feathered and burned the homes of tax collectors. Raised arms against the police and the national guard, destroyed government property, seized and or destroyed goods for personal use or to make a political point, claimed the government had no power over them and they would use their weapons to defend their political beliefs, they would be labeled terrorists plain and simple. The word terrorist is a modern word, the founders were simply terrorists in the eyes of England.

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This is exactly what the founders did.

Like Dark said, it simply matters what side you're on whether being labeled a terrorist is a good thing or bad. They are hero's if you happen to be on the side committing the act and a terrorist if you're on the receiving side of their acts.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

You can't have it both ways.

You didn't read the thread, do you have some type of reading disability we need to know about. It matters what side you are on. PERIOD. I believe them to heroes.

Now if you lived back then you would probably be one of the Loyalist sitting there waiting for someone to do your dirty work. You would be calling them terrorist, traitors, tax cheats, TP, rebels, law breakers, etc.

I can't make it any simpler for you. The words do hurt you -- I know they do.

A reduction of one's arguments to ad hominem is a sign of desperation and defeat.

Go away troll.

[Leftcoaster]

And Leftcoaster, the French, Dutch and Spanish were opportunistic whores. And the one time the French provided visible, tangible support for America (at Yorktown) it was because the British Caribbean fleet was incapacitated with disease, allowing the French fleet to get away and sail north. The French provided some weaponry, some money and some training - just enough so the Americans could continue annoying the British.

<cough> Battle of the Chesapeake <cough>

No French fleet, and Cornwallis gets re-supplied. Since the British strategy at the time was to hold the cities and raid the countryside until the European and Indian situations were settled, this would appear to have been the decisive moment of the war. The French did have "boots on the ground" as well, less than 10k if memory serves, but still a tangible force.

This was a global conflict, and as far as the British were concerned, America was a backwater compared to (what was then) more valuable real estate in the Caribbean and Asia.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

[

Honestly, come on. If a group of people tared, feathered and burned the homes of tax collectors. Raised arms against the police and the national guard, destroyed government property, seized and or destroyed goods for personal use or to make a political point, claimed the government had no power over them and they would use their weapons to defend their political beliefs, they would be labeled terrorists plain and simple. The word terrorist is a modern word, the founders were simply terrorists in the eyes of England.

I find it unreasonable to equate tarring and feathering with killing of dozens, hundreds, even thousands of civilians in order to gain the attention needed to further a cause.

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This is exactly what the founders did.

Like Dark said, it simply matters what side you're on whether being labeled a terrorist is a good thing or bad. They are hero's if you happen to be on the side committing the act and a terrorist if you're on the receiving side of their acts.

I was asking DBD's opinion. He seemed to equate the two, first stating they were terrorists and then labelling them heroes. But yes, history is usually recorded by the victor.

[SteveSy]

[

Honestly, come on. If a group of people tared, feathered and burned the homes of tax collectors. Raised arms against the police and the national guard, destroyed government property, seized and or destroyed goods for personal use or to make a political point, claimed the government had no power over them and they would use their weapons to defend their political beliefs, they would be labeled terrorists plain and simple. The word terrorist is a modern word, the founders were simply terrorists in the eyes of England.

I find it unreasonable to equate tarring and feathering with killing of dozens, hundreds, even thousands of civilians in order to gain the attention needed to further a cause.

So do I but you don't have to kill just civilians to be identified as a terrorist. Even so, we have engaged in similar activities. Not defending Bin Laden but he wouldn't be squat if it were not for us supplying him with money and weapons. He was certainly considered a terrorist by the Russian's and we helped him accomplish all his dirty deeds all the way through, he was not considered a terrorist by us then but a "resistance fighter". Of course we have a long record of helping the bad guy in the interests of our own country and then turning around and complaining that the bad guy is now our enemy, a terrorist, he must be destroyed at all cost, Saddam Hussein ring a bell? We supported him even after it was publicly known he used VX, Sarin and Mustard gas on his own people. I think our government bears a lot of the responsibility for the acts of terrorism. Of course little details like that are shoved under the carpet.

But, back to the sub point, its all in what side you're on whether you're a terrorist or a hero. Today if TP's raised up and tried to remove power from the government by force they would be labeled terrorists by you, back in 1776 you label them hero's.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
But, back to the sub point, its all in what side you're on whether you're a terrorist or a hero. Today if TP's raised up and tried to remove power from the government by force they would be labeled terrorists by you, back in 1776 you label them hero's.

Fundamentally, terrorism isn't definable by what side one is on.

Terrorism can be defined as actions or behaviors that are perpetrated to cause a perceived population of opponents to materially alter their actions or behaviors because they can be made to believe there is an increasingly imminent and lethal threat to their ordinary pattern of life.

The more the target population alters its lifestyle in response, the more effective the terrorist agenda is. Instilled fear breeds other uncertainties and alters ordinary decision making processes that destabilize the status quo.

I can't fathom any scenario in which the IRS alters it's modus operandi as a result of a fear of TPs.

Thus, SteveSy is correct in one sense, but the mere "rising up" and trying to "remove power" from the government by force isn't terrorism. That's rebellion and requires massive popular involvement not peripheral skirmish actions. Terrorism involves small, albeit noisy actions that fall way short of "rebellion" and are often so narrowly drawn that the perpetrators are almost always confused as to why the expected results never materialize. Terrorism involves small numbers of truly radical participants using stealth to facilitate the imposition of mystery and fear in the larger target audience. TP's have no such understanding or finesse. The financial impact of taxes on the vast majority of citizens in the US just doesn't rank up there with death at the hands of an invading military force.

If we stretch the definition of terrorism to disaffected tax loonies we give them vastly more credence than they deserve.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

So do I but you don't have to kill just civilians to be identified as a terrorist. Even so, we have engaged in similar activities. Not defending Bin Laden but he wouldn't be squat if it were not for us supplying him with money and weapons. He was certainly considered a terrorist by the Russian's and we helped him accomplish all his dirty deeds all the way through, he was not considered a terrorist by us then but a "resistance fighter". Of course we have a long record of helping the bad guy in the interests of our own country and then turning around and complaining that the bad guy is now our enemy, a terrorist, he must be destroyed at all cost, Saddam Hussein ring a bell? We supported him even after it was publicly known he used VX, Sarin and Mustard gas on his own people. I think our government bears a lot of the responsibility for the acts of terrorism. Of course little details like that are shoved under the carpet.

Yes, the US has supported those who at the time served our interest, at least initially. There was no way to know that they would eventually come to serve against our interests. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

But, back to the sub point, its all in what side you're on whether you're a terrorist or a hero. Today if TP's raised up and tried to remove power from the government by force they would be labeled terrorists by you, back in 1776 you label them hero's.

There is a vast difference between the reasons why the Colonists raised a rebellion, and the reasons why TP's who due to laziness, ignorance, or mental defect, rail against income tax which is fully legal and has been for nearly ninety years. Afterall we do have poiltical recourse in the form of elected representation to government who could banish income tax IF there were enough of the constituency who demanded recourse. To favorably contrast the TP sacred cow against the reasons why the Colonists raised a rebellion only after many attempts at peaceful resolution, is at best laughable and indeed demonstrable of the pitiful, baseless nature of the TP "cause".

[SteveSy]

There is a vast difference between the reasons why the Colonists raised a rebellion, and the reasons why TP's who due to laziness, ignorance, or mental defect, rail against income tax which is fully legal and has been for nearly ninety years. Afterall we do have representation in government whom could banish income tax IF there were enough of the constituency who demanded recourse. To favorably contrast the TP sacred cow against the reasons why the Colonists raised a rebellion after many attempts at peaceful resolution, is at best laughable and demonstrable of the pitiful, baseless nature of the TP "cause".

That's kind of funny actually. The colonists had it made compared to what we have now as it relates to freedom and government intrusion, and the tax that was laid upon them was legal for centuries prior. Their claims were just as baseless under English law, actually more so. I mean seriously, they were in an uproar over a less than 1% tax on printed materials, the vast majority didn't even have to pay taxes on their land and they were free to claim land at will free of charge. The British were fighting off the Indians, and protecting commerce on the high seas on their behalf, what did they expect a free ride? If they desired they could probably live their entire lives without even having to deal with the government at all. If anything the colonists had far less to complain about than the modern day TP. The only reason England started doing some of the stuff it did was because the colonists were not cooperating and making the rule of law difficult to maintain. You didn't see England demanding that every single colonist report their books and records concerning everything they made the year prior to the government nor did you seen England demand a considerable percentage of every single colonists earnings with the threat of imprisonment if they refused to comply.

No, they didn't have all the technology we have and yes they had to work very hard for a living, but they had far more freedom and liberties than we have now. After all, their mission wasn't to have a free school, regulated drugs or have the government regulate the production and safety of the food they ate, it was their freedom from government intrusion, whether it be freedom from overly burdensome taxation or freedom of commerce that they fought for.

As far as representation, they were offered it and they refused it. It wasn't about taxation without representation in the sense that all they wanted was a representative. They didn't want a representative who was a thousand miles away, disconnected from their local affairs. They wanted to control their own lives, nearly everything they fought for has been lost. Some would argue the loss of freedom and liberty they fought for has been replaced with something more beneficial others would not. What's better, a caged animal who has everything taken care of for him, including his health, or a free animal faced with dangers and the predators that go along with it. I've seen some pretty nice animal pens at zoos, somehow I think the animals would still be happier roaming around in their native environment, control is still control and a cage is still a cage. I guess its all in what you want.

[notorial dissent]

Steve, it is so nice to see that your grasp of history is right on par with your grasp of reality. So I guess we can add history to the rest of the classes you slept through in school.

[SteveSy]

Steve, it is so nice to see that your grasp of history is right on par with your grasp of reality. So I guess we can add history to the rest of the classes you slept through in school.

lol....You are a well trained troll I can certainly say that. Nothing of substance whatsoever to disprove anything I've said, just your attempt to cause an emotional response. btw, most of what they teach you in school concerning the revolutionary war is nonsense or at best overly simplified, watered down version of it.

Declaration of Rights
3d. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.

4th. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain.

5th. That the only representatives of the people of these colonies are persons chosen therein, by themselves; and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them but by their respective legislatures.

- http://www.constitution.org/bcp/dor_sac.htm

Here is the info showing it was to pay for their defense, namely against the Indians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765

The colonists wanted more than just a representative in government. They wanted to control their own local government separate and apart from England. Something akin to a local State government. This grievance was also related to a rather minuscule tax on printed materials. A tax completely insignificant compared to taxes today on the same type products. Mind you this was one of the very few taxes England ever laid on them. They had it frigging made compared to our current tax situation and they thought it was egregious enough to separate from the English government in the end.

Maybe instead of perfecting your troll posts you should read a little history instead of having someone spoon feed you.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Yet more stupid definitions of what terrorism is. The only difference is what side you are on -- we were wiping whole civilian villages in Vietnam -- it was pure terrorism. Bin Laden was a Freedom Fighter when fighting the Russians, now all of sudden he is a terrorist. As soon as he was off the CIA's payroll he was than a terrorist. You had so called freedom fighters/terrorist in Central American killing innocent civilians in which we were giving funds, guns and supplies -- and even direct military support.

The only difference is what side you are on -- the rest is nonsense.

What I find funny is Bin Laden is using the exact same tactics used against Russians and used by the North Vietnam against the U.S. and South Vietnam. Seems to be working -- get them to come over with their troops and big guns -- fight a guerrilla style war until you finally break the bank. Whities go home. Stupid Bush, stupid Americans.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Yet more stupid definitions of what terrorism is. The only difference is what side you are on -- we were wiping whole civilian villages in Vietnam -- it was pure terrorism.

Spoken like the true arm-chair general you're not.

Bin Laden was a Freedom Fighter when fighting the Russians, now all of sudden he is a terrorist.

You're obviously even dumber than I thought. Bin Laden has never been a "freedom fighter." His objectives are to fight for religious dominance, not freedom.

As soon as he was off the CIA's payroll he was than a terrorist. You had so called freedom fighters/terrorist in Central American killing innocent civilians in which we were giving funds, guns and supplies -- and even direct military support.

Ever consider doing a little exploration of legitimate historical references when you shoot your foot off? Nah, that would detract from your nonsense.

The only difference is what side you are on -- the rest is nonsense.

Thank God we've never had someone so stupid in charge of anything. It's bad enough to see the mistakes made let alone have some childish, ignorant nutball parroting something he's heard or been told.

What I find funny is Bin Laden is using the exact same tactics used against Russians and used by the North Vietnam against the U.S. and South Vietnam.

And I'm sure you know all about tactics in a global combat theater. I'm reminded of the phrase "dogs chase cars; doesn't mean they know how to drive."

Seems to be working -- get them to come over with their troops and big guns -- fight a guerrilla style war until you finally break the bank. Whities go home. Stupid Bush, stupid Americans.

And you really know what a guerrilla-style war is, eh? You wouldn't know which end of a weapon to point in what direction. Come back in a few decades when you may have some understanding of the real world.

[The Observer]

Ever consider doing a little exploration of legitimate historical references when you shoot your foot off? Nah, that would detract from your nonsense.
.
.
.
Thank God we've never had someone so stupid in charge of anything. It's bad enough to see the mistakes made let alone have some childish, ignorant nutball parroting something he's heard or been told.

Judge, as you have seen, DBD isn't interested in details or facts that might cast some doubt on his world view. This is why he can't or won't see the differences inherent between people participating in a civil war, a revolutionary war, a guerilla action, an insurgency/counter-insurgency, a coventional war and a terror campaign. By simply believing that they all are "terrorists" on one hand or "heroes" on the other, he then can just pretend that it is all just relative and there is really no "right" or "wrong". This is the same warped thinking that allows him to "justify" why people shouldn't have to pay taxes or follow the law - after all it just some "terrorists" who passed these laws, and if you are stupid enough to believe that somehow these "terrorist" have legitimate authority, well that's your problem.

This isn't an issue of DBD being a nutball per se. This is just the typical rationalization that TPs go through in trying to come up with "facts" that support the conclusion they had jumped to at the very beginning of their crusade.

[Judge Roy Bean]

This is an excellent example of terrorism accomplishing its objective:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 8820080807

Random House pulls novel on Islam, fears violence
Thu Aug 7, 2008 6:39pm EDT

By Edith Honan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Publisher Random House has pulled a novel about the Prophet Mohammed's child bride, fearing it could "incite acts of violence."

"The Jewel of Medina," a debut novel by journalist Sherry Jones, 46, was due to be published on August 12 by Random House, a unit of Bertelsmann AG, and an eight-city publicity tour had been scheduled, Jones told Reuters on Thursday.

The novel traces the life of A'isha from her engagement to Mohammed, when she was six, until the prophet's death. Jones said that she was shocked to learn in May, that publication would be postponed indefinitely.

"I have deliberately and consciously written respectfully about Islam and Mohammed ... I envisioned that my book would be a bridge-builder," said Jones.

Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a statement the company received "cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

"In this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel," Perry said.

Jones, who has just completed a sequel to the novel examining her heroine's later life, is free to sell her book to other publishers, Perry said.

The decision has sparked controversy on Internet blogs and in academic circles. Some compared the controversy to previous cases where portrayals of Islam were met with violence.

Protests and riots erupted in many Muslim countries in 2006 when cartoons, one showing the Prophet Mohammed wearing a turban resembling a bomb, appeared in a Danish newspaper. At least 50 people were killed and Danish embassies attacked.

British author Salman Rushdie's 1988 book "The Satanic Verses" was met with riots across the Muslim world. Rushdie was forced into hiding for several years after Iran's then supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proclaimed a death edict, or fatwa, against him.

Jones, who has never visited the Middle East, spent several years studying Arab history and said the novel was a synthesis of all she had learned.

"They did have a great love story," Jones said of Mohammed and A'isha, who is often referred to as Mohammed's favorite wife. "He died with his head on her breast."

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Spoken like the true arm-chair general you're not.

Common sense that stupid American terrorist don't seem to understand.

You're obviously even dumber than I thought. Bin Laden has never been a "freedom fighter." His objectives are to fight for religious dominance, not freedom.

Didn't seem to bother us when he was on the US's payroll, you don't seem so smart yourself. When he was on your side you fine with it. If he is on the payroll he was a freedom fighter when he was off of the CIA's payroll he became a terrorist. If he was always a terrorist than we support terrorist.

Ever consider doing a little exploration of legitimate historical references when you shoot your foot off? Nah, that would detract from your nonsense.

Yet you have offered nothing.

Thank God we've never had someone so stupid in charge of anything. It's bad enough to see the mistakes made let alone have some childish, ignorant nutball parroting something he's heard or been told.

When all else fails put a label on someone or call them names. Why don't you just call me a terrorist.

And I'm sure you know all about tactics in a global combat theater. I'm reminded of the phrase "dogs chase cars; doesn't mean they know how to drive."

I know boys come back in body bags every time this stupid tactic is tried. Seems like the truth hurts -- it won't change the outcome. Now you are military expert. The next thing you are going to say is that when we torture someone it's an investigation inquiry and when some other country does it, it's plain torture.

And you really know what a guerrilla-style war is, eh? You wouldn't know which end of a weapon to point in what direction. Come back in a few decades when you may have some understanding of the real world.

Yes, you know everything... you probably never had a real job in your whole life... you live off others. Sorry daddy, I don't do what someone tells me. I am horrible at being someone else's bitch but you got it down to a science.

If you want to sleep better at night just quit reading this thread -- truth hurts some people I guess.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Judge, as you have seen, DBD isn't interested in details or facts that might cast some doubt on his world view. This is why he can't or won't see the differences inherent between people participating in a civil war, a revolutionary war, a guerilla action, an insurgency/counter-insurgency, a coventional war and a terror campaign. By simply believing that they all are "terrorists" on one hand or "heroes" on the other, he then can just pretend that it is all just relative and there is really no "right" or "wrong". This is the same warped thinking that allows him to "justify" why people shouldn't have to pay taxes or follow the law - after all it just some "terrorists" who passed these laws, and if you are stupid enough to believe that somehow these "terrorist" have legitimate authority, well that's your problem.

This isn't an issue of DBD being a nutball per se. This is just the typical rationalization that TPs go through in trying to come up with "facts" that support the conclusion they had jumped to at the very beginning of their crusade.

You just want to make yourself feel better -- it is as simple as that. You are right those torturing techniques are pretty justified until you are the one subject to them. Anyone can justify anything. To admit what I have said is to say you are a terrorist for supporting it.

I am sure when we shot down that civilian Iranian airliner it was conventional war.

[The Observer]

You just want to make yourself feel better -- it is as simple as that. You are right those torturing techniques are pretty justified until you are the one subject to them.

If you want to engage in sophistry, go right ahead. But that only means you have nothing else (in other words, facts) to back up up your theory. You also are on the verge of incessantly repeating yourself, which is another classic sign of rationalization.

Anyone can justify anything.

No - anyone can attempt to justify anything, which is significantly different. It doesn't mean that they actually justified it. Just like you trying to justify non-payment of taxes because you want to label the government as being a terrorist organization. It is a argument motivated out of your own greed and hatred, and the thin veneer you are putting up isn't fooling anyone.

To admit what I have said is to say you are a terrorist for supporting it.

I haven't admitted anything you said - to the contrary I have had to explain that what your saying is just self-motivated rationalization on your part.

I am sure when we shot down that civilian Iranian airliner it was conventional war.

No, you want to believe that it was a terrorist act - just as much as the Iranians would want to. But that is just a belief and has nothing to do with the circumstances and events at the time. You and the Iranians want it to be a terrorist act since it would further your and their agenda and goals. So much so that both of you have to ignore facts such as:

1) There had been ongoing hostility in the Persian Gulf with the Iranians and Iraqi's targeting neutral oil tankers with missiles causing loss of life and destruction.

2) The United States sent forces into the region to stop these kind of attacks from occurring and so that oil could continue to flow to the rest of the world.

3) Iranian government policy had a long history of hatred and antagonism towards the US and had an functioning policy of supporting and financing terrorism against the US in other parts of the world; as well as the Iraqi government started developing hostile intentions towards the US.

4) Both Iran and Iraq carried out hostile acts against US forces in the Gulf, and the US ended up having to conduct several attacks at the time to repel these actions or to stop attacks on neutral shipping.

5) The airliner was shot down shortly after the USS Vincennes had engaged in activity against Iranian gunboats and the crew believed they were under attack from a lone enemy jet fighter; this conclusion was reached because radar showed the jet had originated from a base where military aircraft were located, the airliner failed to respond to seven radio attempts to contact it across civilian and military channels, and the flight path was heading directly towards the Vincennes.

6) The US paid damages to the Iranians after the incident in recognition that it had shot down a civilian airliner.

But these facts can't be allowed to get in the way of a nice theory, right? We don't want to consider the fact that the whole incident was a tragic error - that would mean we could accuse the US goverment of being a terrorist organization. We need sensationalism to mislead the naive and ignorant, whether they are poor fanatic Islamists or simple blue collar workers in the heartland - these people are important pawns that we can't allow to be confused with the facts. So that is why Iran to this day wishes to believe that the US deliberately decided to shoot down a airliner and why you wish to cling to this little myth so you can attempt to justify why no one needs to pay taxes.

It is too bad that you cannot see the irony of you being in the proverbial political bed with some fanatical and hate-mongering ayotollahs. It is also too bad that you never seemed to have heard of Occam's Law.

[Leftcoaster]

Yes, I mentioned Yorktown - the land portion of the Battle of Chesapeake Bay.

Even the USN considered the land battle more important as it named a front line carrier after the Battle of Yorktown, where as Chesapeake Bay got a sh*tty little escort carrier.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the results of Yorktown very much depended upon what the French accomplished on the Chesapeake (which wasn't much in a tactical sense, but it was enough!)

And yet when the dust fianlly settled, in the long run France sold Louisiana to the US, the Spanish sold us Florida and lost all of Mexico (part of which we eventually acquired) and eventually lost all of South America (except Brazil, which the Portuguese lost).

Because of the war, the British developed the Commonwealth system and as it turns out, that for a naval power who uses their navy for force projection in the age of wooden ships and iron men, Canada was far, far more important (in terms of raw materials) than the Caribbean. In the really long run, the USA and the British turned out to have a lot more in common than the other dare admit.

From what I've read of the history of the Sugar Industry, the real prize was the Caribbean, and a great deal of the foreign policy in London and Paris revolved around control of the region. I also understand that many mercantilists in England wanted to have France keep control of some of the sugar producing areas, since it would help their monopolies and keep the price up in England. This was one of the reasons that Canada remained an English possession after the Seven Years War.

[Leftcoaster]

And more importantly, they were often paid in paper money of dubious value. But at least they were not FRNs and there was no debate over their constitutionality.

See, we are back on subject.

Damn I'm smooth.......

A valiant effort, but to no avail.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

The Observer,

There is no theory, it's a fact. Iraq was our friends when we were shipping them funds, money and weapons during the 80s... as soon as it doesn't support what the US want they are a brutal dictatorship. We certainly didn't have a problem with Hussein when he was dipping humans in chemical baths in 80s as long as he was doing other things to help the US. It's all Hogwash.

We shot down a civilian airliner, period. I assure you if they shot down an American airliner you wouldn't hear anything but terrorists and evil talk from the US and probably a nuke strike. The US supports terrorist around the world, we were doing it in the 80s, 90s, and even today. They are doing in Iraq at this given moment to say otherwise is just foolish. They are paying groups to go kill other groups -- oh, than down the line when it doesn't work out -- you than label that group terrorist. Nonsense.

The US gave money, funds, weapons and military support to both Bin Laden, Iraq and various terrorist organization in Central American throughout the 80s... to say otherwise is like trying to rewrite history. Now all of sudden they are the bad guys, no they are exactly the same as they were before. The US knew exactly what Hussein was doing in Iraq -- they had absolutely no problem with it -- matter of fact they were supporting it. What is kind of sad is that he was looked down later for gasing his own people yet the US has used radiation and nuclear fallout on it's own people.

If it makes you sleep better at night just go put your head in some sand.