Silver Rider Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) FBI Arrest 2 terrorist supporters in FL Wow, this will be an interesting case to follow. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U.S. imams arrested for alleged Pakistani Taliban links Two South Florida imams and a third family member were arrested Saturday on charges of providing support to the Pakistani Taliban, the Justice Department said. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The four-count indictment alleges that all six defendants conspired to provide material support to a conspiracy to kill, injure and kidnap people abroad, and that they provided support to the Pakistani Taliban. Source: CNN Edited May 16, 2011 by Silver Rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Blaming Americans for everything is what a lot of people around the world do best. Danny and I don't really get along, but that isn't what has been happening here at all. Dan has been repeating the point that Americans - among others, and he has mentioned those others several times - funded the IRA and their terrorist activities - that's a FACT - look up NORAID. That does NOT mean that he is blaming all of America and all Americans, or that he is blaming them for everything the IRA ever did. (And I know that isn't exactly what you're saying Elizabeth) Edited May 16, 2011 by Knebby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Danny and I don't really get along, but that isn't what has been happening here at all. Dan has been repeating the point that Americans - among others, and he has mentioned those others several times - funded the IRA and their terrorist activities - that's a FACT - look up NORAID. that does NOT mean that he is blaming all of America and all Americans. Money coming from citizens of Canada too ! It's not anti Canadian to state that fact but make no mistake about it folks...it is a fact ! Edited May 16, 2011 by ally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Money coming from citizens of Canada too ! It's not anti Canadian to state that fact but make no mistake about it...it is a fact ! Ally thanks for this response - it doesn't make you anti-Canadian to admit to that fact. I'm not anti-UK when I admit to the faults of some of my own country(men) (and there are MANY). Edited May 16, 2011 by Knebby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Ally thanks for this response - it doesn't make you anti-Canadian to admit to that fact. I'm not anti-UK when I admit to the faults of some of my own country(men) (and there are MANY). I understand exactly where you're coming from. Sadly, money from Canada has aided both sides in the conflict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZoSo Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Danny and I don't really get along, but that isn't what has been happening here at all. Dan has been repeating the point that Americans - among others, and he has mentioned those others several times - funded the IRA and their terrorist activities - that's a FACT - look up NORAID. That does NOT mean that he is blaming all of America and all Americans, or that he is blaming them for everything the IRA ever did. (And I know that isn't exactly what you're saying Elizabeth) No, he said America...Then corrected it, and it's been repeated over and over again that private citizens of the US, and many other countries funded the IRA. Danny want's America to take responsabliity for not stopping it BEFORE 9/11. What point is Danny trying to make??? As a nation, The US does not support the IRA, that's a fact. Edited May 17, 2011 by MrZoSo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 No, he said America...Then corrected it, and it's been repeated over and over again that private citizens of the US, and many other countries funded the IRA. Danny want's America to take responsabliity for not stopping it BEFORE 9/11. Well, I didn't read it that way, but to be fair, we all read through our own lenses. What point is Danny trying to make??? Well that I can never answer you for sure, but my take on this it is that he's making the point that terrorism existed before 9/11. I was in North America when 9/11 happened, and in discussions after the event I was shocked that many people didn't even consider the IRA attacks to have been acts of terrorism. I lived through the fear and horror that those acts inflicted in the UK for 30 years. Earlier in this thread I was told that if 9/11 had happened in my back yard, I might feel differently about it. I think Dan is pointing out that that goes both ways. My take, and Dan will probably disagree! As a nation, The US (as a whole)does not support the IRA, that's a fact. You're right - that IS a fact. Now I think I'll go to more pleasant threads. See ya there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) First of all this was a CIA operation and the SEALS were part of that operation. But for a moment just consider this: If it were a fact that powers within the Pakistani goverment and/or military either had knowledge that OBL was in Pakistan, or they supported his presence there; then taking him alive might create a political nightmare for US/Pakistain relations. Killing OBL would then have been the easiest out for the United States.... and the Pakistani government too for that matter. They could easily have whisked him off to the Navy ship nearby, as they did with his remains. He would have been en route and incommunicado to Guantanamo in no time flat. The SEALS are efficient in what they do. But again, the reason they gave was that Osama refused to surrender and resisted being taken into custody, which at that point constituted imminent danger in the judgement of the commanding officer who confirmed the order to kill. They had permission to kill where they encountered imminent danger, but if he had peacefully surrendered they could easily have arrested him and taken him into custody onto the nearby Navy ship. From there he could have been transported to a more secure location. The SEALS are an elite and sophisticated group who are usually well-prepared as a matter of course for just about any scenario they can envision. When the helicopter with radar-evading technology flew in from Afghanistan, it was to prevent anyone in Pakistan from knowing about the mission at all. The first Pakistanis to learn of the helicopter's presence were those who occupied the compound and the neighbor randomly blogging on his twitter account. This was a secret operation, and surprised the Pakistani government, which raised issues of sovereignty in retrospect. Certainly his death created a political nightmare for US/Pakistani relations as it stands. It's a little impolite to trespass into the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign nation without its permission. The Department of State, of which Hillary Clinton currently serves as Secretary, will resort to etiquette now to preserve what is left of value in those relations. But the world knew that OBL was a person wanted by the United States on charges related to terrorism and 9/11. Pakistan can only act a little surprised about his apprehension. No one loyal to the United States would have informed Pakistan ahead of time and jeopardized this mission. Pakistan was the scene of the assassination of its own Prime Minister Bhutto in recent years, and is not a highly secure place. Edited May 17, 2011 by Silver Rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Wouldn't it also be fair to say that the people of Britian through their government and their military also contributed to the troubles? I agree that it is a complicated matter, but from the perspective of many on this side of the pond, the imperialist policies by the British for many centuries is where the troubles began. Again, a difference of perspective. It is also a fact that the British government funded, supported and even commanded for centuries opressive policies against the Irish people... look it up as well. As an American I accept my nation's guilt for slavery, the treatment of native people's and other failures without excuse. I believe that some of you Brits ought to also consider the same when it comes to your history in Ireland. Most of the working, middle class in Britain had very little say over Britain's policy in Ireland during those early years of conflict. It was the Tudor monarchs of England who confiscated Irish land, starting with Henry the VIII in the 1530s. There also were very repressive laws in regard to property, taxes and various civil rights. It would not be fair to say the people of Britain were at fault except those specifically engaged in the oppression of Ireland. Most of the common people of Britain had no idea of Britain's foreign policy in Ireland during those early years of problems. There was a minority of conniving and powerful individuals who conspired to oppress Ireland, often in secret, mostly unbeknown to the commoners of Britain, who were preoccupied with their own labors and struggles. Some of the ruling class purposely tried to prevent the working class from becoming too well educated so they would not understand what had happened, thus perpetuating the monopoly of power exercised by Britain's ruling class. At times the ruling class used a divide and conquer strategy to reach their goals in this regard. Gradually that changed, but some residual problems persist. As many of the world's governments modernized, they developed representative systems of checks and balances designed to concentrate power in several branches of government rather than only in the executive (royal) branch. This process began in France when the judiciary (parlements) conflicted with the executive, royal monarch over taxes, in a series of rebellions, termed collectively as the Fronde, that failed in the 1640s, mainly because the judiciaries were too dependent on the French monarchy for resistance during periods when the city of Paris was under siege, and later, dilemmas posed by intrigues. Cardinal Mazarin arrested many of the members of the judiciary, putting pressure on them to pay their taxes to the French monarch rather than seek aid from Spain to counter the siege of Paris by the Prince of Condé of the House of Bourbon, which is a European royal house of the Capetian dynasty. Later conflicts led to the Revolution. From this process, the newly minted citizens of the United States drew inspiration and declared their own independence as they struggled to secure a more representative system of government, ending policies of taxation without representation. As time progressed many of the monarchs saw the wisdom of diffusing power into the various branches of government because it reduced the corruptive aspect of power, and the heavy burden they bore in having to govern when they did not always want to do so. For the monarchs, the duty of governing was often a do or die situation into which they were born and had no choice over.The more that power is shared in a system of checks and balances, the less corruptive it is to those who exercise it. At least some of the monarchs preferred to delegate duties to free up their time to pursue more pleasurable activities. Still, they learned a lot about the power of the executive over the centuries, and are a source of knowledge on government and history. Source: wiki Edited May 17, 2011 by Silver Rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) I know what they said was the reason OBL was shot. I just don't know if I accept the explanation. If the mission was to take him alive, then I believe they would have done so, even accepting that by attempting it there might be American causualites. But again, I believe the mission was to not take him alive. This may sound complicated, but it is likely that powers in Pakistan were benefiting greatly by keeping OBL alive. Just as with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, having a bonafide "threat" is cause for a lot of attention. Attention that converts to BILLIONS of dollars in the accounts of Pakistan's power elite. We saw the same scenario after the break-up of the old Soviet Union. The west made many billionaires in Russia in an attempt to buy stability. North Korea is attempting the same type of "shakedown" as well. Could be that when we discoverd OBL alive and well snuggled up alongside the Pakastani military, we finally decided to put and end to that part of the "shakedown". Just my opinion. They didn't want any American casualties though, in my opinion. But anyway, here's the press release. cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-2011/justice-done Message from the Director: Justice Done Statement to Employees by Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon E. Panetta on the Death of Usama Bin Ladin May 2, 2011 Today, we have rid the world of the most infamous terrorist of our time. A US strike team stormed a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed Usama Bin Ladin. Thankfully, no Americans were lost, and every effort was taken to avoid civilian casualties. Edited May 17, 2011 by Silver Rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 If it is your claim that the domestic terrorism inflicted by the IRA is the same as the foreign terrorist attacks by OBL and company, then I don't see where there will ever be agreement. I wonder why I don't fear being bombed by the IRA here in the United States? You're disgusting Del. See ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) If it is your claim that the domestic terrorism inflicted by the IRA is the same as the foreign terrorist attacks by OBL and company, then I don't see where there will ever be agreement. I wonder why I don't fear being bombed by the IRA here in the United States? When the United States revolted against the rule of King George the III of England at the time it declared independence from the British monarchy, the U.S. established credibility in regard to protecting liberties threatened by the British crown, which had oppressed Ireland. The IRA initially developed as a means to regain control that was lost during the conquest by the British monarchy and subsequent actions taken by the British ruling class. So in some ways the United States and the IRA shared similar values. Later, the IRA resorted more and more to retaliatory, criminal actions, similar to Bin Laden, often with callous disregard for the citizenry as a whole, and people got tired of living in fear and danger, so the IRA lost popular support.The IRA developed more of a reputation as feared thugs in later years. Edited May 17, 2011 by Silver Rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) As with most common people they have little or no power over the decisions of their government. Obviously much more difficult centuries ago, and at what point are people to retain collective guilt for the actions of their governments... Unless of coarse the people today are unwilling to reflect on how or why they may have benefited from the policies of the past. To say that we here in the United States are sorry for the treatment of the Indians is not enough unless we at the very least willing to attempt to see things from their perspectives. My grandmother was Scots-Irish and born in Ulster but came to America after WW 1 as a girl. During the 70s she used to tell me that Ireland "never got a chance to grow up". And what she meant by this was that as long as Britian continued to intervene with their army, the people of Ireland would never be able to deal directly with each other in an honest way. She compared it to the American Civil war where the two parties had to come to terms one way or the other. By having the British army there to "keep the peace" it only prolongs the agony. There is an element of Scots-Irish who are loyal to England because initially during an earlier time near the onset of the Industrial Revolution, England's industrial powers imported Scottish labor into Ireland and deliberately displaced Irish workers through a process of discrimination, thus preventing equal employment. From this policy and similar ones, the conflict represented by Bernadette Devlin and Ian Paisley evolved. It is this element of Scots-Irish modernly characterized by support for Paisley and similar leaders that believes it needs support from England or else be targeted by some of those Irish descendants who remain from generations dating back to Tudor times. So even if England wants to leave, the Paisley supporters and similar others insist that England stay. If England were to make a complete exit, some of the Irish who are of Scots origin would not feel safe in Ireland. Edited May 17, 2011 by Silver Rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Bingo! A system where some (mostly Protestants) were allowed special privledges over others (mostly Catholics). And thus the roots for deep divisions and resentments. For some people to deny this, it would be the same as an American denying that whites were given special privledges over blacks, and then not accpeting the basis for long held resentment and hostilities. It all had it's start during Henry the VIII's reign when the Tudors served as monarchs. As for Bin Laden, his plans that resulted in the 9/11 catastrophe are similar to actions by the IRA and other militant groups. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Incidentally, these headlines appeared today. Queen Elizabeth II honors fallen Irish heroes First British royalty visit in century goes on after bomb discovered Queen Elizabeth honored Irish people killed fighting for independence from Britain on Tuesday in a powerful gesture of reconciliation just hours after police and army officials discovered a bomb on a bus near Dublin. The queen laid a wreath at Dublin's Garden of Remembrance, Ireland's monument to its fallen heroes, before a hushed crowd of dignitaries, soldiers and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, whose uncle was killed by militant Irish nationalists in 1979. The visit, the first by a British monarch since Ireland won independence from London in 1921. The queen's grandfather, King George V, visited 100 years ago. The queen's visit highlights exceptionally strong Anglo-Irish relations and the slow blooming of peace in neighboring Northern Ireland following a three-decade conflict that left 3,700 dead. msnbc.msn.com Edited May 17, 2011 by Silver Rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidersandsnakes Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I'm glad to see some peeps open up and ACKNOWLEDGE that the American Revolution WAS a REAL revolution:):)!!! HOOOOORRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeplives66 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Well, I didn't read it that way, but to be fair, we all read through our own lenses. I couldnt agree with you more as i can definately see by alot of the posts in this thread are full of half truths while masking a deep rooted resentment for a country(America) who was determined to get results after it was attacked and got them thusfore creating a jealous resentment by those who have been suffering for decades because of its own goverment's failure for which they attempt to find any wrongdoing in America it can find whether past or present in order to feed their resentment instead of saying hey i give your goverment alot of credit for its will and wish my goverment would do the same to stop it my own backyard. All i can say is i wish the countries of Euope, Middle East, Asia and Africa nothing but peace and hope there are no more 9/11's here or abroad and, no more World Wars or any wars for that matter and hope your goverments along with its citizens can work together along with mine if you wish for our assistance to stop terrorism of any kind as i am proud of not just my goverment but also my fellow citizens in preventing any further attacks in our homeland since 9/11 even if we get hit again we are working together over here and abroad as it was evident to me when people were waving their flag singing God Bless America, Amazing Grace, Chanting USA showing support for our troops after the news that Bin Laden was killed reflecting and realizing that we took a major step towards PEACE! Believe nothing what you hear and only half of what you see and think twice before speaking once..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZoSo Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Well, I didn't read it that way, but to be fair, we all read through our own lenses. Well that I can never answer you for sure, but my take on this it is that he's making the point that terrorism existed before 9/11. I was in North America when 9/11 happened, and in discussions after the event I was shocked that many people didn't even consider the IRA attacks to have been acts of terrorism. I lived through the fear and horror that those acts inflicted in the UK for 30 years. Earlier in this thread I was told that if 9/11 had happened in my back yard, I might feel differently about it. I think Dan is pointing out that that goes both ways. My take, and Dan will probably disagree! You're right - that IS a fact. Now I think I'll go to more pleasant threads. See ya there! Knebby, I understand you position/point as you had made it earlier in the thread. I think Danny's was full of arrogance, ignorance, hate, jealously, inaccurate information, with a smattering of "you will get yours" thrown in for good measure, as compared to yours which was one seeking acknowledgement for atrocities of terrorism exist other than OBL, and 9/11. Big difference. Always happy to talk with you on any subject. I know that disagreeing with you will be met with conviction, but also respect. Something you cannot say for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I couldnt agree with you more as i can definately see by alot of the posts in this thread are full of half truths while masking a deep rooted resentment for a country(America) who was determined to get results after it was attacked and got them thusfore creating a jealous resentment by those who have been suffering for decades because of its own goverment's failure for which they attempt to find any wrongdoing in America it can find whether past or present in order to feed their resentment instead of saying hey i give your goverment alot of credit for its will and wish my goverment would do the same to stop it my own backyard. All i can say is i wish the countries of Euope, Middle East, Asia and Africa nothing but peace and hope there are no more 9/11's here or abroad and, no more World Wars or any wars for that matter and hope your goverments along with its citizens can work together along with mine if you wish for our assistance to stop terrorism of any kind as i am proud of not just my goverment but also my fellow citizens in preventing any further attacks in our homeland since 9/11 even if we get hit again we are working together over here and abroad as it was evident to me when people were waving their flag singing God Bless America, Amazing Grace, Chanting USA showing support for our troops after the news that Bin Laden was killed reflecting and realizing that we took a major step towards PEACE! Run-On Sentences A run-on sentence consists of two or more main clauses that are run together without proper punctuation. Sometimes even sentences which are technically correct are easier to read if they are made into shorter sentences. We often speak in run-on sentences, but we make pauses and change our tone so people can understand us. But when we write, no one can hear us, so sometimes we must break our sentences into shorter units so that they do not sound run-on. Incorrect: The boy showed us his tickets someone gave them to him. Correct: The boy showed us his tickets. Someone gave them to him. Incorrect: We often speak in run-on sentences, but we make pauses and change our tone so people can understand us, but when we write, no one can hear us, so sometimes we must break our sentences into shorter units so that they do not sound run-on. (Technically punctuated OK, but too long to be easily understood. See better sentence structure above.) http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000011.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeplives66 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 http://englishplus.c...ar/00000011.htm I apologize for my grammar as i know it is not proper English due to my reading and writing disability that i was diagnosed with when i was a young boy thusfore never received the proper skills for which i am thankful that this is a Message Forum called Ramble On and not 1 of those dreaded English classes where everytime i had to explain myself for my run-on sentances but i do appreciate the "nudge" and will definately try and do better the next time i post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) This is all true. I think the problem for Ireland is that being as close to Britian as they are, they never stood a chance at being free from British involvement. The United States was lucky to have revolted at a moment when Britian was at war with France. But of course (in the case of the IRA), after many years an organization like that becomes more and more brutal out of sheer frustration. You see similar with the Palastinians. The IRA become consumed by the ghosts of the past and lock into battle with their opponents, caring not for the well-being of the present inhabitants of the region and wishing only to avenge history. That part of the world is very haunted. Whatever keeps the current population in a state of grace is what matters. Not sure if that was what drove Bin Laden. He mainly seemed to want to force the United States out of the Arab lands. Edited May 17, 2011 by Silver Rider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Fills the Air Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I knew something about that quote was off pudding to me. Turns out that quote was not made by Dr. King, it's a hoax. The second part of it was from a book he wrote, but the "I mourn the loss / will not rejoice" is just a plain fabrication, and all the more reason it was taken badly by people in this thread. Exactly, in fact it was on the BBC news website that the week Bin Laden died, this was one the most misquoted quotes being used. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13265368 Maybe some members should check their facts before posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I believe you mean "off-putting" not "off pudding". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie29 Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I had off pudding once and it was, off putting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.