Terrorism - Are you worried?
- Thread starter _incubus_
- Start date
We already have been attacked.
I think whatever happens, happens. There's really no way to stop it, so why kill yourself worrying about it.
Nobody in the WTC had a chance of stopping those planes.
Even those who say to be "vigilant", and watch your neighbours, are just perpetuating stereotypes. Mark my words, someone's going to see a couple of young arab-looking people whispering together some day, and freak out.
IMO
I think whatever happens, happens. There's really no way to stop it, so why kill yourself worrying about it.
Nobody in the WTC had a chance of stopping those planes.
Even those who say to be "vigilant", and watch your neighbours, are just perpetuating stereotypes. Mark my words, someone's going to see a couple of young arab-looking people whispering together some day, and freak out.
IMO
terrorism
I think "something" probably will happen here in Canada, as well as in the other countries mentioned. After all, we did send soldiers to Afghanistan in order to (from the terrorists' point of view) to kill Muslims. Not to mention the fact that some of the Arabic hardliners consider 9/11 retribution for the Crusades!
I think "something" probably will happen here in Canada, as well as in the other countries mentioned. After all, we did send soldiers to Afghanistan in order to (from the terrorists' point of view) to kill Muslims. Not to mention the fact that some of the Arabic hardliners consider 9/11 retribution for the Crusades!
bin laden
Bin laden did not mention Canada, the U.S said that Canada could be included. This is all the usual yankee propoganda. They are just using the standard fear monger tackics to get everyone on board with them.
I am not the least big afraid, they hate americans not us. Look at how many of them we let live here and start a new life.
Fuck the americans, they reap what they plant.
Bin laden did not mention Canada, the U.S said that Canada could be included. This is all the usual yankee propoganda. They are just using the standard fear monger tackics to get everyone on board with them.
I am not the least big afraid, they hate americans not us. Look at how many of them we let live here and start a new life.
Fuck the americans, they reap what they plant.
J
Jay_toronto
I'm far more worried about the impact that runaway urban sprawl is having on our city, than any terrorist threat. And it's only just beginning!
I'll have to agree with that sentiment. Typically, our American friends have gone overboard on the anti-terrorist thing. The case of the Quebec guy who bought gas and was arrested is a prime example of that. Fingerprinting Middle-Eastern Canadians is another. The US really needs to tread carefully and not confuse common border control / management with military response to terrorism.Goober Mcfly said:
As for terrorism itself, my life overall will not be dictated by small groups of people who are fundamentally blinded by their own beliefs to the detriment of others. (This comment is also directed at an American government hell-bent on isolationism.)
Re: bin laden
.
Excerpt from the tape:
Nice postDevilman666 said:
.Excerpt from the tape:
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,839151,00.html
DonQuixote - thanks for the lead
I have read the articles in the Village Voice article by Roger Trilling and the link to Institute for National Strategic Studies Report dated September 2002 as recommended by DonQ.
These put an interesting spin on the true US aims in the Iraq war. As I have suspected all along the Saudis are the real problem in the region and not Iraq.
In any event, none of this really has any effect on the operations of the lunatics allied with Bin Laden. I still believe that an aggressive and methodical policy of targeted killings is the only way to deal with these lunies and reduce their ability to carry out future terrorist attacks.
Bin Laden realizes that in an open society, he can carry out operations with impunity. Open societies are very poorly equipped to identify terrorists and exclude them. Just look at the furor at fingerprinting and photographing expatriats of Iraq, Iran, Yemen etc.
Think about this: Before they pulled their razors and comandeered the commercial planes, the hijackers of 9/11 broke no laws for which they could be convicted. Sure, they were part of a criminal conspiracy, but nothing was on paper. The plans were in their heads. They boarded planes with razor cutters which at that time were legal to carry onto planes (anything under a 4" blade was allowed). They could not be prosecuted for what they had in their minds.
Identifying the leaders of these radical muslim groups and putting a bullet into each skull would at least keep them off balance. In many cases the west knows who these leaders are and where they are. Putting them in jail does not work. The legal process takes too long. Most would get off claiming racial profiling or that the evidence was collected improperly. Even those who are convicted and sentenced to prison, will eventuall be released by liberal Democratic governments of the future.
Think about this: Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers was in an Israeli prison in the early 1990's for bombing a bus in Israel and killing civilians. The US does not want this widely known but it was the Clinton White house which insisted that Atta and other murderers be released together with political prisoners as part of the Oslo Accord.
Atta thanked Clinton and the US by flying a plane into the World Trade Center.
These attacks can only be prevented by decimating the ranks of the terrorists neutalizing their leaders. American courts are useless at dealing with terrorism. This is a war. No war can be fought where each combatant is entitled to due process before he can be despatched.
No doubt the bleeding hearts will flame me for this. But how will they feel when their kids are in the Sky Dome when Bin Laden's buddies fly their Airbus onto the 50 yard line during a Brittney Spears concert?
Cheers
I have read the articles in the Village Voice article by Roger Trilling and the link to Institute for National Strategic Studies Report dated September 2002 as recommended by DonQ.
These put an interesting spin on the true US aims in the Iraq war. As I have suspected all along the Saudis are the real problem in the region and not Iraq.
In any event, none of this really has any effect on the operations of the lunatics allied with Bin Laden. I still believe that an aggressive and methodical policy of targeted killings is the only way to deal with these lunies and reduce their ability to carry out future terrorist attacks.
Bin Laden realizes that in an open society, he can carry out operations with impunity. Open societies are very poorly equipped to identify terrorists and exclude them. Just look at the furor at fingerprinting and photographing expatriats of Iraq, Iran, Yemen etc.
Think about this: Before they pulled their razors and comandeered the commercial planes, the hijackers of 9/11 broke no laws for which they could be convicted. Sure, they were part of a criminal conspiracy, but nothing was on paper. The plans were in their heads. They boarded planes with razor cutters which at that time were legal to carry onto planes (anything under a 4" blade was allowed). They could not be prosecuted for what they had in their minds.
Identifying the leaders of these radical muslim groups and putting a bullet into each skull would at least keep them off balance. In many cases the west knows who these leaders are and where they are. Putting them in jail does not work. The legal process takes too long. Most would get off claiming racial profiling or that the evidence was collected improperly. Even those who are convicted and sentenced to prison, will eventuall be released by liberal Democratic governments of the future.
Think about this: Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers was in an Israeli prison in the early 1990's for bombing a bus in Israel and killing civilians. The US does not want this widely known but it was the Clinton White house which insisted that Atta and other murderers be released together with political prisoners as part of the Oslo Accord.
Atta thanked Clinton and the US by flying a plane into the World Trade Center.
These attacks can only be prevented by decimating the ranks of the terrorists neutalizing their leaders. American courts are useless at dealing with terrorism. This is a war. No war can be fought where each combatant is entitled to due process before he can be despatched.
No doubt the bleeding hearts will flame me for this. But how will they feel when their kids are in the Sky Dome when Bin Laden's buddies fly their Airbus onto the 50 yard line during a Brittney Spears concert?
Cheers
Last edited:
Re: Re: bin laden
As for the attack in Bali, isnt Bali a very well known American tourist destination, was the attack not against the Americans there as well? Sure it resides on Australian soil but its still an attack against Americans.
I read it, and what does it say to me? It says we should not be siding with the US without truely understanding what we are involving ourselves in, distance ourselves from the American foreign Policy and we won't have to worry about an attack. I'm not saying we shouldnt have foreign policies of our own, but we certainly shouldnt be siding with another country's foreign policies.Goober Mcfly said:
As for the attack in Bali, isnt Bali a very well known American tourist destination, was the attack not against the Americans there as well? Sure it resides on Australian soil but its still an attack against Americans.
You are correct
You are correct, which makes me wonder about the "statement" and how it references the attack on Bali as a further warning to Australia:
"We had warned Australia about its participation in Afghanistan...It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali. "
That is why I incorrectly reference Bali in Australia, guess I made the same mistake that the terrorists did, although my belief is they were out to get Americans simply put.
You are correct, which makes me wonder about the "statement" and how it references the attack on Bali as a further warning to Australia:
"We had warned Australia about its participation in Afghanistan...It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali. "
That is why I incorrectly reference Bali in Australia, guess I made the same mistake that the terrorists did, although my belief is they were out to get Americans simply put.
Bali is a tourist destination for Aussies the same way Canadians head to Florida all the time.
An attack on Miami, or Disney World, or JFK Space Centre would be an attack on America - not Canadians. So I wonder why that bomb in Bali was an attack on Australians and not on Indonesians?
Then again, I don't really understand the logic of flying airplanes into buildings either.
An attack on Miami, or Disney World, or JFK Space Centre would be an attack on America - not Canadians. So I wonder why that bomb in Bali was an attack on Australians and not on Indonesians?
Then again, I don't really understand the logic of flying airplanes into buildings either.
Logic?
Logic? Who said there would be any logic here. These are crazy evil people who manipulate young impressionable simpletons to give their lives for a false radical religious cause.
Where does logic come in?
Cheers
Logic? Who said there would be any logic here. These are crazy evil people who manipulate young impressionable simpletons to give their lives for a false radical religious cause.
Where does logic come in?
Cheers
Re: DonQuixote - thanks for the lead
I have to admit I'm a little dissappointed that you've been duped to pass this misinformation as fact. You're one of the few who post on these threads that actually shows some measure of objectivity. Might I kindly inform all that Mohammed Atta never spent one day in Israel and that the above account, first plastered on here by Dr. Gonzo, is patently false. It makes no sense that Clinton would have ever intervened in such a case. Given the amount of Clinton bashing going on by the Repugnican Wingnuts down here, you can bet this information would be prominent along with the disclosure that Clinton failed to get Bin Laden when offerred a chance by the Sudan.
May I direct to any of several online credible biographies of Atta. The following is proferred from:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta
Initially, Mohammed Atta's identity was confused with that of a native Jordanian, Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta, who bombed a bus in 1986 on the Israel-controlled West Bank, killing one and severely injuring three. Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta, a naturalized US citizen, was subsequently deported from Venezuela to the United States, extradited to Israel, tried and sentenced to life in prison. The Israeli supreme court later invalidated his extradition and set him free; his whereabouts are unknown. He is 14 years older than Mohammed Atta. After the September 11 attacks, a general furor arose over the supposed failure of immigration authorities and the US intelligence community to stop a known terrorist from entering the country under his true name. Eventually, the Boston Globe factually reported details from records at the US Circuit Court of Appeals detailing the detention and subsequent extradition of Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta from the US.
Respectfully,
EBS
Niplust,niplust said:
I have to admit I'm a little dissappointed that you've been duped to pass this misinformation as fact. You're one of the few who post on these threads that actually shows some measure of objectivity. Might I kindly inform all that Mohammed Atta never spent one day in Israel and that the above account, first plastered on here by Dr. Gonzo, is patently false. It makes no sense that Clinton would have ever intervened in such a case. Given the amount of Clinton bashing going on by the Repugnican Wingnuts down here, you can bet this information would be prominent along with the disclosure that Clinton failed to get Bin Laden when offerred a chance by the Sudan.
May I direct to any of several online credible biographies of Atta. The following is proferred from:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta
Initially, Mohammed Atta's identity was confused with that of a native Jordanian, Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta, who bombed a bus in 1986 on the Israel-controlled West Bank, killing one and severely injuring three. Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta, a naturalized US citizen, was subsequently deported from Venezuela to the United States, extradited to Israel, tried and sentenced to life in prison. The Israeli supreme court later invalidated his extradition and set him free; his whereabouts are unknown. He is 14 years older than Mohammed Atta. After the September 11 attacks, a general furor arose over the supposed failure of immigration authorities and the US intelligence community to stop a known terrorist from entering the country under his true name. Eventually, the Boston Globe factually reported details from records at the US Circuit Court of Appeals detailing the detention and subsequent extradition of Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta from the US.
Respectfully,
EBS
Correction
EBS: I take exception to the fact that you attribute that little anecdote about the late Mr. Atta and his imprisonment in Israel to me. I never stated anything of the sort. The first time you see this story is when it was introduced by niplust in another thread. Do a search for "Atta" and see for yourself. I can't say whether the story is true or not, I honestly don't know enough about the man. I would take it with a grain of salt unless backed up further, however. Your explaination does strike me as being likely.
So nice try discrediting me once again. A gold star for effort, but I do not spread disinformation and lies. Everything I assert is the truth to the best of my knowledge or it is simply my opinion based on the facts as I see them. Take it or leave it but don't say I'm "duping" people.
DonQ: Poverty does not lead to rebellion? You'd better back than one up, my friend. And your characterizations of anarchists are particularly disturbing as well, lumping them in with Al Qaeda and terrorists in general. What of the very successful anarchist co-operatives in Brazil, a real lesson in functioning anarchist principles or the anarchists in Spain in the 1930's before they were crushed by communists and liberals?
niplust: On how I would feel if my children were the victims of terrorists: Of course I would be angry with the terrorists. I've always been angry and opposed to terrorists. But I'd be even angrier at my government and the governments of the world that took steps to increase the risk of terror instead of taking the sane and rational option of addressing underlying concerns.
EBS: I take exception to the fact that you attribute that little anecdote about the late Mr. Atta and his imprisonment in Israel to me. I never stated anything of the sort. The first time you see this story is when it was introduced by niplust in another thread. Do a search for "Atta" and see for yourself. I can't say whether the story is true or not, I honestly don't know enough about the man. I would take it with a grain of salt unless backed up further, however. Your explaination does strike me as being likely.
So nice try discrediting me once again. A gold star for effort, but I do not spread disinformation and lies. Everything I assert is the truth to the best of my knowledge or it is simply my opinion based on the facts as I see them. Take it or leave it but don't say I'm "duping" people.
DonQ: Poverty does not lead to rebellion? You'd better back than one up, my friend. And your characterizations of anarchists are particularly disturbing as well, lumping them in with Al Qaeda and terrorists in general. What of the very successful anarchist co-operatives in Brazil, a real lesson in functioning anarchist principles or the anarchists in Spain in the 1930's before they were crushed by communists and liberals?
niplust: On how I would feel if my children were the victims of terrorists: Of course I would be angry with the terrorists. I've always been angry and opposed to terrorists. But I'd be even angrier at my government and the governments of the world that took steps to increase the risk of terror instead of taking the sane and rational option of addressing underlying concerns.
Last edited:
I don't understand this and other references I've read as to the U.S. policy of isolationism.xarir said:
As I understand it, isolationism means a country feels that it can flourish without having anything to do with any other countries. They isolate themselves from the rest of the world.
The U.S. has far too many interests in every corner of the globe (I know, there are no corners in a sphere) to be considered isolationist. In fact they are routinely criticized for meddling too readily and frequently into other countries' affairs to protect their own interests.
It is a small world indeed, and it is ridiculous to perpetuate this myth of isolationism, because it no longer exists. They may be considered centrist, that is the whole world revolves around them, but not isolationist.
As to U.S. policies on terrorism, all I will say is that they have every right to set whatever policies they feel necessary to protect their borders. The last I saw, they are a sovereign state and they have this right. I, for one, appreciate their vigilance. Anyone ever heard of an ounce of prevention...?
It's unfortunate that some policies are going to be unfair to certain groups and individuals but how fair is it when a family member gets killed by a hate-filled lunatic because political correctness states you can't profile people crossing your border. Get real people. Look at the big picture and the ramifications of lack of vigilance.
And speaking of hate, sure they hate the U.S. more than us, but they hate our way of life just as much. We are just not as visible and overt about it as the U.S. They'd attack us in a heartbeat if they felt it would advance their cause and with our policies, we'd be sitting ducks. Right now they are more focussed on the Amerks but they have no intention of stopping there. Their goal is to make the world fundamentalist Islam. Just look at what they did to their OWN PEOPLE in Afghanistan who were not observant enough for their liking. They are fanatics and will not stop until everyone lives their lives according to their interpretation of the laws of Islam.
Last edited:
Re: Correction
My apologies for that error in attribution. I guess I was still seething over your unsubstantiated accusation that terror is taught at the School of the Americas. BTW-no need to take my explanation..I provided a reference link. It's a fact that is easily verified by doing proper research. I have been racking my brain, however, and I am unable to find the name of the current sitting US Senator who was pardoned by Reagan with regards to School of the Americas activity. Now I know former President George Bush was Dir of the CIA when we knocked off the guy in Chile..(whether or not he was assasinated or he committed suicide is still in question..there is no doubt that our CIA was involved in at least the first of two attempted overthrows, the second of which was successful.
Realistically, the way I look at intervention in these cases is that in most cases it was done in a country already ravaged by unrest for the benefit of steering the outcome to a government that would be friendly to US interests. If people are going to die, I'd rather them die in my favor. As for whether these countries are poorer or worse off..well you must have a crystal ball if you can state that with conviction. I notice you make no reference whatsoever to any types of intervention by Britain, France or Russia...I guess we messed the Middle East and the Orient up all by our lonesone. We don't quite have that view down south. We have, however, reluctantly taken the lead to clean up the mess. Monday morning quarterbacking is pretty easy. Seeing things from an insular/rose glasses perspective is also easy as you don't have Mexico at your southern border, but instead a big buffer aka the US that keeps the backyard in order so that you can bitch about the results. I think a lot of Canadians perspective on foreign affairs as well as immigration would change if for say 10 years we could let you have the US geopolitical situation..nah...WW3 would just come sooner...LOL.
EBS
Dr. Gonzo,Dr. Gonzo said:
My apologies for that error in attribution. I guess I was still seething over your unsubstantiated accusation that terror is taught at the School of the Americas. BTW-no need to take my explanation..I provided a reference link. It's a fact that is easily verified by doing proper research. I have been racking my brain, however, and I am unable to find the name of the current sitting US Senator who was pardoned by Reagan with regards to School of the Americas activity. Now I know former President George Bush was Dir of the CIA when we knocked off the guy in Chile..(whether or not he was assasinated or he committed suicide is still in question..there is no doubt that our CIA was involved in at least the first of two attempted overthrows, the second of which was successful.
Realistically, the way I look at intervention in these cases is that in most cases it was done in a country already ravaged by unrest for the benefit of steering the outcome to a government that would be friendly to US interests. If people are going to die, I'd rather them die in my favor. As for whether these countries are poorer or worse off..well you must have a crystal ball if you can state that with conviction. I notice you make no reference whatsoever to any types of intervention by Britain, France or Russia...I guess we messed the Middle East and the Orient up all by our lonesone. We don't quite have that view down south. We have, however, reluctantly taken the lead to clean up the mess. Monday morning quarterbacking is pretty easy. Seeing things from an insular/rose glasses perspective is also easy as you don't have Mexico at your southern border, but instead a big buffer aka the US that keeps the backyard in order so that you can bitch about the results. I think a lot of Canadians perspective on foreign affairs as well as immigration would change if for say 10 years we could let you have the US geopolitical situation..nah...WW3 would just come sooner...LOL.
EBS
Amazing!!
I cant believe some of the shit i read here,"Fuck the Americans" and stuff like that,do any of you CBC watching,Toronto Star reading,Liberal voting bleeding hearts realize that our economy and our way of life is based on the United States??
Without them this country is nothing!
Bin Laden and the rest of his religious zealots hate everything about our way of life,do you think that this country could survive unscathed if the US wasnt around to look after us??
Oh but i forgot,we have the "Good Liberals" in Ottawa to look after things,makes me feel soo much better!
Wake up for chissakes,smell the fuckin coffee!!
I cant believe some of the shit i read here,"Fuck the Americans" and stuff like that,do any of you CBC watching,Toronto Star reading,Liberal voting bleeding hearts realize that our economy and our way of life is based on the United States??
Without them this country is nothing!
Bin Laden and the rest of his religious zealots hate everything about our way of life,do you think that this country could survive unscathed if the US wasnt around to look after us??
Oh but i forgot,we have the "Good Liberals" in Ottawa to look after things,makes me feel soo much better!
Wake up for chissakes,smell the fuckin coffee!!
A attack will hit us unfortunately, all the signs are there. I am sure the Colin Powell visit was nicely timed. Since the USA is warning us off terrorist attacks, maybe they know something we do not know. They seem to be preparing us for something worse than WTC and it is hard to read between the proproganda. The fact remains that the USA gov't does not have any qualms about sending 100,000 troops to Iraq, despite not "knowing" what type of arsenal Saddam supposedly has. World War III sounds like it is on its way, heck who thought that some guy being shot in Serbia would start World War I.
Mr EBS what has CIA not been involved in?
Mr EBS what has CIA not been involved in?
First off it is very well known that the School of the Americas teaches "counter insurgency", which is euphemism for the creation of paramilitary groups that seek to subvert and undermine revolutionary action and thought. This is largely achieved by assassinating journalists, union organizers, dissidents and indeed by terrifying the general population into not siding with rebel factions. All one needs to do is take an objective look at the history of intervention in latin America, particularly Nicaragua, El Salvador and Chile, to see this doctrine in action. Since I've already documented Nicaragua at length I see no reason to repeat it here, anyone with the intellectual capacity to do a web search can easily find very instructive cases in support of this.
SOA has some famous graduates indeed, although most are unknown outside Latin Amercia. Manuel Noriega is probably the most famous example of the model SOA grad, but if you look further there is a long list of South American dictators as well as lower on the totem pole generals and commanders who have been charged with genocide, mass murder, corruption, arms dealing, drug trafficking and other wonderful things. Those suspected and indeed indicted by human rights groups as the murderers of Archbishop Oscar Romero were SOA graduates. I can go on and on all day, listing atrocities and connecting their perpetrators to the SOA.
The government, of course, denied that torture and assaults on civillians was taught at SOA, this was until training manuals leaked and tehn they backpedaled and said that it was NO LONGER taught. Hmmmm....
Do the search. Look at the names and ages of the dead. Then consider that the overwhelming majority of the soldiers who committed these atrocities were instructed on how to do so with the assistance of the American government and by extension the taxpayer. The blood is on our hands.
If the SOA is such a wonderful and moral institution, then tell me why they keep on display the gift of a sword from SOA supporter, if not graduate, and violent genocidal dictator Augusto Pinochet?
This, to me, is akin to diplaying greeting cards from Hitler in the grand foyer of the White House. It is at least distasteful, at worst it is a very telling monument to the core beliefs of that institution.
Senator Oliver North was pardoned for his role in the Iran/Contra affair, and I believe it was President Reagan who issued the pardon. If not it was the senior Bush. In any case, a convicted war criminal is now a senator.
Tell me sir, just how was Nicaragua in a state of "unrest"? What did we have to "save" them from? Why did we need to fund and arm mercenary murder squads? What "unrest" did we rescue Panama from, invading and toppling it's leadership in an action not supported by the UN ironicly only months before Saddam did the same thing in Kuwait? If Iraq had veto power, would it be considered an international criminal? I would suggest that if you want to find the true international criminals you should look to those who have the power to veto UN decisions. This is the only thing preventing the US and indeed most of the G-8 from such condemnation.
People did not die "in your favor", they died FOR you. They died to service your and other nations interests. They died BECAUSE of you.
SOA has some famous graduates indeed, although most are unknown outside Latin Amercia. Manuel Noriega is probably the most famous example of the model SOA grad, but if you look further there is a long list of South American dictators as well as lower on the totem pole generals and commanders who have been charged with genocide, mass murder, corruption, arms dealing, drug trafficking and other wonderful things. Those suspected and indeed indicted by human rights groups as the murderers of Archbishop Oscar Romero were SOA graduates. I can go on and on all day, listing atrocities and connecting their perpetrators to the SOA.
The government, of course, denied that torture and assaults on civillians was taught at SOA, this was until training manuals leaked and tehn they backpedaled and said that it was NO LONGER taught. Hmmmm....
Do the search. Look at the names and ages of the dead. Then consider that the overwhelming majority of the soldiers who committed these atrocities were instructed on how to do so with the assistance of the American government and by extension the taxpayer. The blood is on our hands.
If the SOA is such a wonderful and moral institution, then tell me why they keep on display the gift of a sword from SOA supporter, if not graduate, and violent genocidal dictator Augusto Pinochet?
This, to me, is akin to diplaying greeting cards from Hitler in the grand foyer of the White House. It is at least distasteful, at worst it is a very telling monument to the core beliefs of that institution.
Senator Oliver North was pardoned for his role in the Iran/Contra affair, and I believe it was President Reagan who issued the pardon. If not it was the senior Bush. In any case, a convicted war criminal is now a senator.
Tell me sir, just how was Nicaragua in a state of "unrest"? What did we have to "save" them from? Why did we need to fund and arm mercenary murder squads? What "unrest" did we rescue Panama from, invading and toppling it's leadership in an action not supported by the UN ironicly only months before Saddam did the same thing in Kuwait? If Iraq had veto power, would it be considered an international criminal? I would suggest that if you want to find the true international criminals you should look to those who have the power to veto UN decisions. This is the only thing preventing the US and indeed most of the G-8 from such condemnation.
People did not die "in your favor", they died FOR you. They died to service your and other nations interests. They died BECAUSE of you.
