Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I'm just wondering: if this is a reasonable justification for the United States to attack a country, would it also justify a Cuban attack on the United States? After all, the United States harbors one of the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, which was brought down by a terrorist attack in 1976, killing 73 people. The CIA later admitted to knowing in advance about the attack, and one of the bombers, Luis Posada Carriles, lives in Miami.

I ask this only because I find Americans often reserve for the United States "the right" or the "justification" for actions that they would not afford to other countries. I do not ask this as a statement of support for Cuba, or in any way taking sides in the Barack Obama debate in this thread.

I think there is a difference. When Bush talked about countries who harbor terrorists, I'm pretty sure he was talking about major terrorist groups. Not individual terrorists. Since 1998 Bin Laden's terrorist group has been at war with the US. Since al Qaeda is at war with is, we have justification to fight back. Only thing is they have no country. But they are allowed to exist and train for continuing war with the US in certain countries. Some of these countries even provide arms and intelligence to al Qaeda. I think we are perfectly justified to go into those countries and hunt down al Qaeda.

Besides, isn't Luis Posada Carriles in custody now? If not he has been a few times, so it isn't exactly like the US is giving this individual full support.

btw, I'll bet Afghanistan with Taliban rule and Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't didn't think we were justified to invade either, but they had no problem with these terrorist groups attacking the US. So if the US hypothetically harbored a major terrorist group, it wouldn't be the only country that had the double-standard.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think there is a difference. When Bush talked about countries who harbor terrorists, I'm pretty sure he was talking about major terrorist groups. Not individual terrorists. Since 1998 Bin Laden's terrorist group has been at war with the US. Since al Qaeda is at war with is, we have justification to fight back. Only thing is they have no country. But they are allowed to exist and train for continuing war with the US in certain countries. Some of these countries even provide arms and intelligence to al Qaeda. I think we are perfectly justified to go into those countries and hunt down al Qaeda.

Besides, isn't Luis Posada Carriles in custody now? If not he has been a few times, so it isn't exactly like the US is giving this individual full support.

btw, I'll bet Afghanistan with Taliban rule and Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't didn't think we were justified to invade either, but they had no problem with these terrorist groups attacking the US. So if the US hypothetically harbored a major terrorist group, it wouldn't be the only country that had the double-standard.

I would hardly agree that Posada is strictly an "individual" terrorist, since he is part of the Cuban American National Foundation, which employs a so-called education and advocacy group as the front for a long history of terrorist activity. And Posada is not in jail. In 2005, he was held in Texas for being in the country "illegally" (not on terrorism charges), but an immigration judge ruled that he couldn't be deported. He was released on bail early in 2007. His latest "trial" is scheduled for later this year.

But the guy has been a CIA operative for decades, and has been convicted in absentia in other countries for his involvement in a host of various terrorist attacks and plots, some of which he has even admitted to (such as several bombings in 1997 of hotels and nightspots in Cuba). And it is clear that he was trained in the United States (after all, he was involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion).

It's an interesting discussion when double-standards are involved, eh?

[qw6666qw]

But it is!