posted
Yes, during the Soviet/Afghan War, the CIA did get involved, but it never gave money to Bin Laden. Instead, it gave money to Pakistan, who let its intelligence agency choose which rebel groups to fund... and it picked the ones most feverently Islamic... meaning the Taliban and Bin Laden.
It's all spelled out in a new book, "Holy War, Inc." by Peter Bergen.
So there.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
If Joe Schmoe hands Fat Tony $25,000 to contract someone to kill his wife Leslie Schmoe (even though he may not know who the hit men is or are), Joe is still as guilty of murder as the guy who actually pulled the trigger.
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
posted
Typical Liberal pseudothink. People are responsible for their OWN actions, not those of others.
If you ask me for 500 dollars to 'help you out,' and then turn around and use the 500 to buy a gun and shoot your wife, I'm not guilty of helping you kill your wife, not matter HOW much you may think I was 'helping you.'
Admittedly, we should have thought twice before handing money to the Pakistanis, but a directive to "Help the Afghans resist communism" is not equal to "Fund the most militant Islamic group you can find, simply because they're the most radically Islamic."
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
quote: Typical liberal pseudothink
Is it your habit of taking comments you dont agree with, and attributing them to a group you dislike in order to discredit the group?
I agree with the rest of the statement, even though you present yet another scenario... There is a difference between giving someone money and intending for them to do something with it than it is to just give someone the money.
These are three different scenarios by the way, and they dont match:
If you gave Fat Tony 25,000 to kill your wife, telling him to kill your wife.. thats you committing murder.. you are most certainly responsible for those actions. You are most definitely, 100% responsible for the actions of the man who pulls the trigger. Maybe First of Two's moral sense is a little impaired, but i still recognize contract murder as a crime.
If you give Fat Tony 25,000 to help him out and he kills somebody with it, thats Fat Tony committing murder. I agree with First of Two here.. you dont realyl have to take responsibility for what happened, but giving 25,000 to Fat Tony is a dumb thing to do, and your payment would be never getting that back. But you had no criminal intent.
If you give Fat Tony 25,000 to fight communism, and then he splits it up and gives it to a bunch of guys to do that, and once they are done fighting communism one of them has 500 left and buys a gun and kills your wife, is that really your fault? Is it even Fat Tony's fault? Not really. Its a little irresponsible to be spending that money on disreputable people to begin with, but this one does boil down to the guy with the gun.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
quote:If you ask me for 500 dollars to 'help you out,' and then turn around and use the 500 to buy a gun and shoot your wife, I'm not guilty of helping you kill your wife, not matter HOW much you may think I was 'helping you.'
Rob, you're a very intelligent guy, but I really wish you would read my analogy more carefully before responding, okay?
The U.S. gave the Pakistanis money to fund anti-Soviet fighters.
If Joe Schmoe borrows $500 from Rob to fund Fat Tony to kill his wife and Rob thought he was planning on buying a new grill, Rob is not guilty. On the other hand, if Rob knew Joe Schmoe was planning on having his wife killed, Rob is very much guilty (at least of being an accessory to murder or attempted murder).
But Joe Schmoe is still very guilty of murder because he knew when he gave the money to Fat Tony *exactly* what Fat Tony would be doing with it. And if you tell me the U.S. didn't know what the Pakistanis were planning on doing with the money, I've got a three headed cat to sell you.
posted
We DIDN't know exactly where the money was going. We had a vague general idea, but no specifics.
Further, your analogies are all flawed. It's more like:
I give mobster "a" $1000 to have him kill my wife. He gives, say, $100 of that money to a hired assassin "b", so the guy can buy a gun and ammunition with which to kill my wife. My wife is then killed, for which I can be held responsible. However, the killer then uses that same gun and box of ammo to kill three other people. Am I then responsible?
A little more vague, but I'd have to say "no".
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
quote:We DIDN't know exactly where the money was going. We had a vague general idea, but no specifics.
We didn't know the money was going to be used to fund a guerrila army to fight the Soviets? That is rather hard to believe.
If you provide someone the means to kill people (even if you only wanted them to kill one person, or one group of people), you're just as guilty as if you pulled the trigger yourself when they kill more then who you wanted them to.
So, Joe Schmoe gives Fat Tony cash to hire a hit-man to wack his wife. Fat Tony gives the money to the hit-man, Bob. Bob kills Joe Schmoe's wife, then, a few years later, decides that Joe Schmoe is a bad man for whatever reason and goes and tries to kill Joe Schmoe. Bob doesn't kill Joe Schmoe (Joe's at work), but he does kill Joe's new wife and kid in the attempt (stupid car bombs). Joe Schmoe is furious and Fat Tony works with him to kill Bob.
Joe Schmoe = United States o' America Joe's Wife: Union of Socialist Soviet Republics Fat Tony = Pakistan Bob = Islamic Extremists
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
posted
If the army enlists you as a soldier, issues you a rifle, and tells you to kill the enemy soldiers, and you do so, that's war and the Army is responsible.
If the army enlists you as a soldier, issues you a rifle, and tells you to kill the enemy soldiers, and you knowingly kill civilians, YOU are responsible.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
If the U.S. wants to give money out to fund guerilla insurrections, it might want to give a thought to the long-term (and not short-term) implications of what may arise.
The U.S. didn't. We just wanted to give the Soviets a headache. We succeeded.
And as a result of short-term planning, we're now at war with the Taliban.
quote:and you knowingly kill civilians
Interesting point, given that as I understand it, Osama and his ilk considered anyone who paid US tax (with which to fund the US military) a "soldier" and thus, in their minds at least, a legitimate target.
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
"I give mobster 'a' $1000 to have him kill my wife. He gives, say, $100 of that money to a hired assassin 'b', so the guy can buy a gun and ammunition with which to kill my wife. My wife is then killed, for which I can be held responsible. However, the killer then uses that same gun and box of ammo to kill three other people. Am I then responsible?"
Legally? No. Morally? I'd say so.
"Interesting point, given that as I understand it, Osama and his ilk considered anyone who paid US tax (with which to fund the US military) a 'soldier' and thus, in their minds at least, a legitimate target."
Interesting point. How would you define "soldier", Rob? If it's limited to people enlisted in the enemy military, then any "civilian" who comes at you w/ a gun isn't a legitimate target. However, if you broaden "soldier" to include such a person, it can easily be broadened to include anyone who gives tangible support to the enemy. Thus, a civilian whose tax money pays for the enemy military would, in fact, become a "soldier".
posted
Wasn't all this pinned down in the Geneva convention?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
