Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: piasa
piasa wrote:
Yugoslavia's "Iraq-gate" complicates NATO dialogue

Ever hear of Iran-Contra Gate? Guilty of selling arms to known terrorist organization. I think that said enough.

Two “scandals” almost toppled the aforementioned pillar of United States power. The Middle Eastern country of Iran received, “arms for [United States] hostages,” and the money acquired by the United States for such sales went to Nicaraguan “Contras,” or, “rebels.” These two interrelated scandals had a further thing in common. Both went forward with knowledge of Executive Branch officials yet no approval by the Legislative Branch. One of the key “players” in the both “scandals” was the National Security Council’s Oliver North. (Fried, 1997, pp. 63-64) Reaching to the highest levels of government, North told Congress he thought, “he was acting under the authority of the Commander in Chief.”(Fried, p. 69)

What else do you want to know about the duplicity of the US govt role in their support of other terrorist organizations? Shall I show you the KLA/NATO buddy relationship? Need proof?

I tell you what, you just rely on "internet sources"... How many times did NATO/US lie to you on Bosnia and Kosovo and you fell for it, How many times? Do you want examples of those lies?

What proof do you need on those areas?

My credibility? Where were you in Bosnia in what years or months? Where?

36 posted on 03/09/2003 10:21:18 AM PST by smokegenerator (www.pedalinpeace.org ---- Serbian Cycling Challenge for the Children of Serbia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: smokegenerator; piasa
What else do you want to know about the duplicity of the US govt role in their support of other terrorist organizations? Shall I show you the KLA/NATO buddy relationship? Need proof?

Logic error: "Two Wrongs Make a Right"

Description of Two Wrongs Make a Right
Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":

It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.

You justify allowing innocents to be murdered because you question US action in Iran Contra. This is quite illogical and even more alarming, it is immoral.

38 posted on 03/09/2003 10:34:44 AM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson