Re: 40 REASONS TO SUPPORT GUN CONTROL

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:30:22 -0000, Bill Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> ben wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:35:07 -0000, Bill Weston
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I have to agree with you - if your country took airport security as
> > > seriously as we always have, 911 may have been avoided.
> >
> > Pray tell, what did the events of September 11, 2001 have to do with
> > airport security?  The hijackings were a succesful exploitation of
> > the then current hijacking response protocol.
> But the protocol as you put it was clearly ineffective as anyone who has 
> got on an internal flight in the US will testify.

Clearly.  However your previous post (quoted above in case you lost it) 
pretty clearly states it was a failure of "airport security," when in 
reality it was a failure of an FAA policy.

> > > Of all the govt.s that have allowed and sponsored terrorism, the US
> > > contributed certainly the most funds.
> >
> > Nice try.  Prove it.  Supplying arms, or money to buy arms, to foreign
> > nations or factions for legitimate purposes which are subsequently
> > used by terrorists is not the same as sponsoring terrorism.
> Arms and money were transferred directly to the mujahadeen in afghanistan 
> by the CIA when they were fighting the russian invasion. There was no 
> afghan nation or govt at the time, so the stinger missiles, 88mm rockets  
> et al were given directly to the terrorists/freedom fighters.

"Terrorists/freedom fighters" huh?  Either you are saying they are the 
same, or you don't know which the mujahdeen were.  I think that since they 
were as you say, "fighting the russian invasion," most people would 
categorize them as the later, but I guess that doesn't support your 
bullshit claim of the US sponsoring terrorism.

> > > Or, in typical American fashion, are they only terrorists if they are
> > > against you?
> >
> > Well, duh.  Were the IRA terrorists or revolutionaries?  I guess it
> > depends on who you ask.
> I'm afraid not - whether you agree with the aims of a particular group or
> not, if they use terrorist actions against democratic govts and innocent
> civillians, they are terrorists. It is your way of thinking that 
> encourages terrorism.

My way of thinking?  Bwah ha ha.  You seem to be the one with the moral 
equivalency problem.  You call the Mujahdeen terrorists, for fighting off a 
totalitarian government in their own land, but you turn around and call the 
IRA terrorists as well because they were fighting a democratic government.  
I see a difference, do you?


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/