What constitutes terrorist threats? Is the U.S. also guilty

Archive - Caveat Emptor!

Moderator: Super Moderators

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

What constitutes terrorist threats? Is the U.S. also guilty

Post by Ninerism » 09-26-2006 04:39 PM

Pirates and Readers:
With the recent statement by Musharaff of Pakistan that former Secretaty of State RICHARD ARMITAGE had personally informed him and Pakistan, that were Pakistan not to comply with the Bush administration's courses of action with regard to the WAR ON TERROR, that Pakistan would find itself "back in the STONE AGE".

It was a threat that Musharaff took seriously, and he found personally repugnant, though he stopped short of calling it a TERRORIST THREAT! He complied, for fear that Pakistan would be bombed.

What standards do we seek to instill in the body politic of the World, when we have our leaders and representatives and officials calling for the NUKING of other nations, prior to any conflicts actually existing?

Should we allow such terrorist threats or bellicosity from our Secretary of State? Would we allow Condi Rice to make statements similar with RICHARD ARMITAGE's statements to Musharaff of Pakistan, and not recognize and never regret that we are provoking hostilities worldwide?

Do you personally find Mr. RICHARD ARMITAGE guilty of spreading hateful rhetoric, if not constituting TERRORIST THREATS, by suggesting that the United States has the will and the might to completely nuke another nation into the STONE AGE?

Do you find it alarming and reprehensible that the WAR ON TERROR has ignited and fueled further bloodshed and violence and hostilities and terrorism in other nations in the world? That is exactly the findings of our very own intelligence agencies -- SIXTEEN UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES are in concert in that critique of the BUSHOILCO invasion of Iraq, though they do not point fingers at anyone responsible, of course.

If a person, a rider/passenger on a plane or bus or train, were to espouse bombing that plane or bus or train back into the STONE AGE, as a mere joke, wouldn't that person be met with swift consequences, despite statements merely meant to be construed as a joke? How do we dismiss the remarks of an official representive of the united States, a man who acting as SECRETARY OF STATE, goes to a foreign nation, such as Pakistan, and makes statements (to Musharaff) which can only be interpreted as terroristic?

RICHARD ARMITAGE was not making nice pleasantries with Musharaff on the day he threatened the entire nation of Pakistan to comply with Bush's schemes for WAR ON TERROR, that much is certain.

What do you think constitutes "freedom of speech", and otherwise could or ought to be interpreted as a violent threat against other human beings and other nations?

Is it alarming that our vicious neo-cons can actually state to the World that they seek to nuke Iran? Shouldn't that also be challenged as a terrible TERRORIST THREAT, too?

What sort of "food" are we consuming collectively, as we acquiesce and accept terrorist threats issued from our State Department, and/or other officials and agencies of the United States? If that food is a real toxic poison to anyone, or could be considered genocidal or racist, then it ought to carry swift penalties which officially do not allow TERRORIST THREATS.

If we are 'against them' -- those provoking and seeding terrorism and terrorist mind-sets -- then we must be outraged that our nation's officials, without any provocation's existing, are allowed to officially or otherwise provoke other nations via terrorist statements or implication's.

Frankly, knowing the militaristic imagery of RICHARD ARMITAGE, if he even suggested any sort of carpet bombing or nuking which would cause Pakistan to go back into the STONE AGE, then the man has serious problems with negotiation's, and probably is too damnably militaristic to resolve things in a peaceful fashion. It is not merely 'playing psychology' when world peace is at stake, were any nation to drop nuclear weapons on other nations.

In freeing the Iraqi's from Saddam, we are now engaging other enemies longer than it took the Allies to free Nazi Germany from Hitler. We are not wanted there. We have become a thorn in the side of most Muslim people's of that region. We have become an occupying force.

Per the recently released report by sixteen intelligence agencies of our United States, clearly we must recognize that we are only furthering violence and terror with our BUSHOILCO war in Iraq. In order to send a clear message to all Muslim people's, the United States troops must leave Iraq to the Iraqi's to create their own solutions, or to continue with their own civil war strife.

No matter the propaganda spewed out by the BUSHOILCO regime and the DOD, our cause was never just in attacking Iraq based upon sets of false and unreliable data.

If mere rhetoric is any sign for warnings and alarm bells, with regard to the wishes of PNAC desiring that the United States suffer a "new" Pearl Harbor type event (just several years prior to 9/11) we can now see that those vicious neo-cons are prepared to sacrifice more of humanity in Iran, and perhaps all around the World, should they be allowed to engage in dangerous nuke-rhetoric which preordains their own desired course of action.

What those PNAC vicious neo-cons stated and wrote, as their desires for EMPIRE BUILDING, and desries to create a war against IRAQ, and create a new more powerfully advancing Amerika in the process, was sufficiently alarming, and became fulfilled with 9/11. Some of us believe it was not mere sets of strange coincidences which brought 9/11 to our shores. There was the stated will, the might, and the intent to destroy Iraq via invasion, as expressed by PNAC.

Why shouldn't we be alarmed that those vicious neo-cons can "get away" with terrorist threats, too?! Maybe it is they who ought to be on trial in the court of public opinion for spreading international divisiveness and hate-rhetoric, too? Is our glorious might and unchecked will, under PNAC, also becomming our intent to nuke Iran, too? We will unleash a nightmare upon all nations if we continue, or if we allow PNAC to continue controlling Congress.

From the encouragement of terrorism and degradation and humiliations aand devious torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and GITMO, under the pleasant watchful eye of grandfatherly Rumsfeld, to the outright bold threats of nuking other nations to seek their compliance and support of WAR ON TERROR, is there anything nice about this administration that we can uphold to foreign nations and say: THIS IS WHAT WE ARE MOST PROUD ABOUT AMERICA TODAY!

If this is totally off-the-beam, please respond. Sometimes it feels as if we are in another time-zone, a time-warp, a warp of national identity and conscience, if any remains?

Ninerism

User avatar
Jon-Marcus
Pirate
Posts: 1409
Joined: 01-08-2005 09:10 AM
Location: Bonham, Texas

Post by Jon-Marcus » 09-26-2006 05:06 PM

Do you personally find Mr. RICHARD ARMITAGE guilty of spreading hateful rhetoric, if not constituting TERRORIST THREATS, by suggesting that the United States has the will and the might to completely nuke another nation into the STONE AGE?



Niner, I have a simple question .....
Has Armitage admited to having made this threat, or are we to just take Musharaff at his word?

Is it alarming that our vicious neo-cons can actually state to the World that they seek to nuke Iran? Shouldn't that also be challenged as a terrible TERRORIST THREAT, too?


Yes, if true.
Yes, again, if true.

If this is totally off-the-beam, please respond. Sometimes it feels as if we are in another time-zone, a time-warp, a warp of national identity and conscience, if any remains?


Honestly, Niner, I'm of two minds on the whole NWO thing. That being;
1 It may be so. ( and probably is)
2 It may not. ( less likely, but still possible)
But I try to keep an open mind about it. That ain't always easy to do.
"You have forgotten the face of your father." Roland Deschain

User avatar
Iris
Pirate
Posts: 13539
Joined: 01-01-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Iris » 09-26-2006 06:55 PM

Jon-Marcus wrote: Niner, I have a simple question .....
Has Armitage admited to having made this threat, or are we to just take Musharaff at his word?
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/pu ... 8572.shtml

Of course denials followed. Instead, Armitage says, he told Pakistan's top intelligence official on Sept. 12, 2001, that Pakistan would have to decide if it were "with us or against us" in the American effort to confront al-Qaida and the Taliban.
A threat? Or an implied threat? A lie, or the truth? Either way, is this good? The current administration is the "schoolyard bully" of the world.

I guess the important thing to know about "terrorists" is that if "they" do it, it's terrorism, and if "we" do it, it's not? Niner, I think your point is well taken.
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

User avatar
whskyfan
Pirate
Posts: 2767
Joined: 06-22-2006 11:27 PM

Post by whskyfan » 09-26-2006 07:31 PM

I guess the important thing to know about "terrorists" is that if "they" do it, it's terrorism, and if "we" do it, it's not?


So, what do we call it??
1N73LL1G3NC3 15 7H3 4B1L17Y 704D4P7 70 CH4NG3.
-573PH3N H4WK1NG

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 09-27-2006 10:19 AM

Niner -- action -- thats how I would describe terrorism. Threats on a verbal level - maybe, depends on who is saying them and their ability to carry them out.

Do I think Armitage might have said something to that effect -- anything is possible. The more I've read about him the more I think its possible he did say something to that effect.

As to terrorism and terrorists - they come in all walks of life - as I've said elsewhere you have terrorism on "minor levels - such as the schoolyard bully" on up to the vile acts of those who kill, murder and maim.

Thing is -- I believe (and may be wrong) that the real terrorists don't give advance warnings - they just strike.

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 09-28-2006 10:27 AM

Jon-Marcus wrote: Niner, I have a simple question .....
Has Armitage admited to having made this threat, or are we to just take Musharaff at his word?




Yes, if true.
Yes, again, if true.




Honestly, Niner, I'm of two minds on the whole NWO thing. That being;
1 It may be so. ( and probably is)
2 It may not. ( less likely, but still possible)
But I try to keep an open mind about it. That ain't always easy to do.


Jon-Marcus, me too, trying to keep an open mind.

Here's the thing: We have invaded two sovereign nations, and are presenting similar war-rhetoric in invading or bombing a third, possibly seeking to nuke Iran. I would call those actions extremely violent, and not mere threats -- and as the new 16-intell-agencies report indicates, violence is only increasing with our present BUSHOILCO WAR IN IRAQ and our continued occupation of it.

Ninerism

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 09-28-2006 10:28 AM

Cherry Kelly wrote: Niner -- action -- thats how I would describe terrorism. Threats on a verbal level - maybe, depends on who is saying them and their ability to carry them out.

Do I think Armitage might have said something to that effect -- anything is possible. The more I've read about him the more I think its possible he did say something to that effect.

As to terrorism and terrorists - they come in all walks of life - as I've said elsewhere you have terrorism on "minor levels - such as the schoolyard bully" on up to the vile acts of those who kill, murder and maim.

Thing is -- I believe (and may be wrong) that the real terrorists don't give advance warnings - they just strike.


Cherry, please read my response to Jon-Marcus.

Ninerism

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 09-28-2006 10:30 AM

Iris wrote: A threat? Or an implied threat? A lie, or the truth? Either way, is this good? The current administration is the "schoolyard bully" of the world.

I guess the important thing to know about "terrorists" is that if "they" do it, it's terrorism, and if "we" do it, it's not? Niner, I think your point is well taken.


Hello, IRIS! Always good to see you here!

And THANKS for your support, too. I, too, feel that the "current administration is the "schoolyard bullly" of the World."

Ninerism

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 09-28-2006 10:55 AM

Niner -- sorry to see you thinking that way. I look back in time and say IF -- IF we had taken a stronger stance and done something -- after (no particular order)
WTC...
Somalian incident with our dead people dragged through streets...
OKC bombing...
Embassies attacked and bombed...
Military housing - attacked and innocent people killed...
USS Cole...
UN sactions followed in Iraq...
Food for Oil scandal....

JUST maybe IF those things had better follow up - and stronger actions -- then the rest would not have happened.

History tells us that the lack of action only leads to further and more severe actions by those committing them.

I can refer back to criminal justice situations. Where a youth gets a mere slap on the hand for -- small criminal acts - shoplifting - killing small animals in cruel acts - stealing cars - on up. IF you were listening to C2C - you heard how this cold blooded killer started out as a youth - with killing small animals - nothing was done.
APPLY that same lack of doing anything with all the attacks that went on in the 90s - when nothing was really done.
Think about it. Follow the concept.

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 09-28-2006 11:16 AM

Cherry Kelly wrote: Niner -- sorry to see you thinking that way. I look back in time and say IF -- IF we had taken a stronger stance and done something -- after (no particular order)
WTC...
Somalian incident with our dead people dragged through streets...
OKC bombing...
Embassies attacked and bombed...
Military housing - attacked and innocent people killed...
USS Cole...
UN sactions followed in Iraq...
Food for Oil scandal....

JUST maybe IF those things had better follow up - and stronger actions -- then the rest would not have happened.

History tells us that the lack of action only leads to further and more severe actions by those committing them.

I can refer back to criminal justice situations. Where a youth gets a mere slap on the hand for -- small criminal acts - shoplifting - killing small animals in cruel acts - stealing cars - on up. IF you were listening to C2C - you heard how this cold blooded killer started out as a youth - with killing small animals - nothing was done.
APPLY that same lack of doing anything with all the attacks that went on in the 90s - when nothing was really done.
Think about it. Follow the concept.


Cherry, oh, I don't refute what you are implying at all about certain people as youth who harm and terrorize animals -- you are absolutely correct on that matter.

Cherry, i am talking about the concept that there are those who are too terribly intelligent and devious to ever be suspected that they might plot and conspire with others to set-up events in order to bamboozle millions. Hitler's groups did it in Germany, and that nation was highly literate, too. Imagine what such people could even do here in the United States -- that is the point I would reference in the concepts of good versus evil, sometimes it is not in check, sometimes evil people are NOT in check and are left to their sordid plots because others are too ignorant or unwilling to see how they work via government agencies.

No-one wants to believe, either, cherry, that there are people in government who will arrange events to start wars! YES, even war-profiteering going on with BUSHOILCO ONE AND TWO, that sort of thing, no-one in polite public events will ever suggest that sort of thing going on, will they? NOT EVER! No-one silly reporters such as Catie Kouric, will ever ask President BUSHOILCO about anything pertinent, either!

As for the high-strangeness of OKCity bombing, oh, yes, I would refer back to the book, THE THIRD TERRORIST, by JAYNA DAVIS and repeat that certain government operatives who spoke with her also repeatedly stated that they knew that former IRAQI OFFICERS brought to the United States following the end of the Persian Gulf War of BUSH ONE and OIL COMPANIES including ENGLAND, those former IRAQI OFFICERS were involved and leading that bombing, not Timothy McVeigh, he was merely another government patsy whowent along for the ride, after protesting about the government's slaughter of AMERICAN CITIZENS at MOUNT CARMEL, Waco, Texas.

Patterns of events, provocations, war footing, can be based in series of events preceding any sort of 9'11, yes, I do agree on that much, too! It's called FALSE HISTORY, manufacturing history to create certain reactions -- eg. basing an invasion upon mere associations that are not valid, eg., SADDAM - and -OSAMA, as TERRORISTS, as P.BUSHOILCO does all the time, repeatedly, it's his favorite mantra, and forget about WMD, it's about those ASSOICATIONS he does all the time, SADDAM AND OSAMA, SADDAM AND OSAMA AND TERRORISTS! Big Lie tactics as described done best by the likes of Hitler in MEIN KAMPF.

Ninerism

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 09-28-2006 11:56 AM

Cherry Kelly wrote: Niner -- action -- thats how I would describe terrorism. Threats on a verbal level - maybe, depends on who is saying them and their ability to carry them out.

Do I think Armitage might have said something to that effect -- anything is possible. The more I've read about him the more I think its possible he did say something to that effect.

As to terrorism and terrorists - they come in all walks of life - as I've said elsewhere you have terrorism on "minor levels - such as the schoolyard bully" on up to the vile acts of those who kill, murder and maim.

Thing is -- I believe (and may be wrong) that the real terrorists don't give advance warnings - they just strike.


Cherry, we all know that with your creative mind, sometimes its kinda throws you off-track at times, now and again, again, here, as we see.

Well, I've nothing against your being creative, either.

How do we go from bullying other nations with bellicose threats of violence? Isn't the fact that we are threatening to bomb other nations with NUKES a form of terrorism, too?

Can you please respond to that much of the equation here?

Ninerism

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 09-29-2006 11:31 AM

Niner -- world politics. We "threatened" well Armitage did evidently... but take a good look -- North Korea threatens, Iran threatens, The new Al Qaeda threatens -- lot of verbal threats exist in world politics. They are verbal - - could they be backed up by action? Yes they could be, but have they been?

Granted after 11 yrs of UN sanctions and non compliance a threat was given AND followed through. But we didn't nuke them did we?

North Korea has fired missiles - "tests" so they say - missiles that have hit in AK, came near Japan -- have we fired missiles back? Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map - then we get the oh -- just remove the people to elsewhere? The Al Qaeda group has threatened to kill Americans (and infidels) and they have done so -- as the saying goes lord protect us if they actually get ahold of nuclear warheads.

So my answer as to "verbal" threats - they are verbal. You said nations - plural - so far all I've heard is the one bombing threat so-called verbal threat. DID you hear nuclear? or just bombing?

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 09-30-2006 12:22 PM

Cherry Kelly wrote: Niner -- world politics. We "threatened" well Armitage did evidently... but take a good look -- North Korea threatens, Iran threatens, The new Al Qaeda threatens -- lot of verbal threats exist in world politics. They are verbal - - could they be backed up by action? Yes they could be, but have they been?

Granted after 11 yrs of UN sanctions and non compliance a threat was given AND followed through. But we didn't nuke them did we?

North Korea has fired missiles - "tests" so they say - missiles that have hit in AK, came near Japan -- have we fired missiles back? Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map - then we get the oh -- just remove the people to elsewhere? The Al Qaeda group has threatened to kill Americans (and infidels) and they have done so -- as the saying goes lord protect us if they actually get ahold of nuclear warheads.

So my answer as to "verbal" threats - they are verbal. You said nations - plural - so far all I've heard is the one bombing threat so-called verbal threat. DID you hear nuclear? or just bombing?


Cherry, PAKISTAN. Not only PAKISTAN, there have been other nations, such as VIETNAM, which we threatened using NUKES, too. I believe we dropped a couple on JAPAN. We told them, too! Gee, that's nice.

Cherry, the World cannot afford to engage in greater violent talks about using NUKES, plain and simple.

Oh, sure, we bombed under BUSH ONE, the ancient city of Baghdad back into the STONE AGE, too. Now Musharaff states that Armitage also threatened to bomb PAKISTAN back into the STONE AGE, not using conventional weapons, as it was in the same breath as discussing NUKES Iran might have.
So, really, we used DU all over the hell in IRAQ, and people gonna get many cancers, you will see. DU is a form of NUKING! BUt it's called "CONVENTIONAL WEAPONRY" ,eh?! How deceitful can we be, Cherry?! We spread CANCERS ALL OVER VIETNAM, via the nice sounding Agent Orange.

Oh, yes, just recently the DOD announced that there is NO GULF WAR SYNDROME!!!! What are they smoking in the dOD these days, eh?! We can call anything a conventional weapon, however, DU weapons are not conventional, and the DU is spreading all over. THOUSANDS OF YEARS half-life for DU -- it's highly toxic to our human nervous system, and for babies, and your children's children, too.

Ninerism

User avatar
Waverider
Pirate
Posts: 7809
Joined: 09-22-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Waverider » 09-30-2006 02:36 PM

""terror

User avatar
OidarAM
Guest
Posts: 291
Joined: 01-08-2003 03:00 AM

Post by OidarAM » 09-30-2006 02:55 PM

The truth is......DENIAL......is so powerful for many in our country......

The PTB know this and like Hitler make sure they always point their fingers at others and say they are the terrorists......how could we ever doubt our own leaders....we have never caught them lying their asses of to us have we?

VN>>agent Orange......not harmful ?

Nixon>>I ma not a crook ??

fill in the list....if they are in power they are big ass LIARS>period !

Knowing this we the people have to dig deep and scream loud and often to shine the light on the small and large lies we find.

We should be thought of as the terrorists...funny it looks like we sure will be now.

Our government should fear its own people not the other way around.

This is the main problem. They see themselves as such great LIARs that we will never see what they are really doing to us.

Now they must push major fear.....with new laws to cause people to fear saying anything against them.....if they don't it could all turn on them real fast.......and I pray it will!!!
OidarAM

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government Pre-2007”