Skip to main content

The US for the most part has been void of many terrorist activities until recently. Even then most of the acts were "perfected" in countries associated with terrorism; Ireland, Mid-Eastern etc. After the incident in Russia where terrorist targeted a school is the US next and ready for such an action if terrorist decide to go that route? What would be the impact if there were such an attack on an institution normally considered "off limits" such as a school, hospital, retirement home and such? Would that help or harm the plight of terrorist if they did strike such a target here in the ood ol' U S of A?

Thought about putting this in a poll but I didn't think it would work..........


Catch
____________________________________________________ Got no love for politicians Or that crazy scene in D.C. It's just a power mad town But the time is ripe for changes There's a growing feeling That taking a chance on a new kind of vision is due I used to trust the media To tell me the truth, tell us the truth But now I've seen the payoffs Everywhere I look Who do you trust when everyone's a crook? Revolution calling Revolution calling Revolution calling you (There's a) Revolution calling Revolution calling Gotta make a change Gotta push, gotta push it on through catch
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think terrorists going after children as they did in Russia is simply barbaric behavior.

The situation is quite ominous now because the Russians have said they are going to go after the terrorists wherever they would find them and use nukes to wipe them out. The whole sorry world is spiraling out of control. I strongly believe with such irresponsible language by super powers there going to be a mad scramble for nuclear bombs by every country capable of producing the bomb in their bid to protect themselves from a bear that seems to be out of control.
Terrorism is usually fighting back against the bully in the playground. America is getting the pay back from many years of abuse of their power in the Middle east. The following article seems to indicate that the Russians are getting a just payback for their own diabolical acts in Chechnya.

----------------------------------------------

Rights groups slam Russia 'cover-up'

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Human rights groups accused Moscow on Wednesday of initially hiding the truth about the Beslan hostage siege and said it took place against a backdrop of years of rights abuses by Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

A statement from eight international and Russian rights groups began, however, with "unreserved" condemnation of Chechen separatists who held more than 1,000 children and parents.

It urged President Vladimir Putin's government to guard against vigilante reprisal attacks.

Amnesty International, which released the statement in London, said it had been delayed during mourning out of respect for the at least 326 who died in the siege.

"This abhorrent and calculated action by an armed group on a school displays a callous disregard for civilian life," the groups said. "Our organizations denounce this act unreservedly."

But the groups, which include Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and several leading Russian rights groups, also sought to turn the focus on Russia's hard-line Chechnya policy since Putin sent troops back there as prime minister in 1999.

"The Beslan attack took place against a backdrop of five years of widespread, persistent and largely unpunished human rights violations by Russian troops against civilians in Chechnya as well as egregious human rights abuses by rebel fighters," it said.

"The impunity for such abuses has served to perpetuate the conflict and has led to serious human rights atrocities committed by both sides. In our opinion, lasting peace in Chechnya cannot be achieved without justice for all victims of human rights abuses committed in the context of the conflict."

The groups accused the authorities of initially "covering up the extent of the crisis" in Beslan by playing down the number of hostages. Officials initially said there were only 350 hostages.

A probe should include "an investigation into the way in which the authorities released information, both to the public and to the families of the hostages," they said.

The groups also expressed concern that the Beslan deaths might spark revenge killings.

"We remind the Russian government of its positive obligation to protect civilians at risk of spontaneous reprisal attacks in North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya and other Russian regions."


Copyright 2004 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
quote:
Originally posted by henry38:
I think terrorists going after children as they did in Russia is simply barbaric behavior.

The situation is quite ominous now because the Russians have said they are going to go after the terrorists wherever they would find them and use nukes to wipe them out. The whole sorry world is spiraling out of control. I strongly believe with such irresponsible language by super powers there going to be a mad scramble for nuclear bombs by every country capable of producing the bomb in their bid to protect themselves from a bear that seems to be out of control.


I just recently saw where Russia said they were "done with the kid gloves". I have always believed that China and Russia were 2 countries that you didn't want to get riled up and it seems the comments made are proof of that. They are not overly concerned with public opinion so some nukes being shoved up someones nose is a distince possibility. Russia aslo made a statement that the US was harming their efforts fighting terrorism as the US does business and recognizes the Chechnyians (sp) right to independence. I underestand their point as well, if you're going to be against terrorism then do it at all levels. I doubt that would happen though then we would have to intervene in Africa and the genocides being committed there.

ER,
I agree with you but I do wonder would that unify us as a nation even more or cause more fracturing along moral issues. There are some that truly believe that our political agendas are the cause of this mistrust so we are just getting our just desserts.

catch
I think 'going after' a school is the ultimate in desperation. It is 'bottom of the barrel' mentality. It says, "I will kill your children, and am willing to die doing it." The mentality of being willing to die to achieve your goal is nearly impossible to defend. To apply this mentality to children, is an entirely different game.

The response will be: "I believe you. Wherever I find you, I will kill you with whatever it takes to stop you." Thus thus the language of nucular (oops! been listening to Bush again) nuclear weapons.

I agree such language is bad to add to elevate in any society.

What if the Russian example were to happen in the U.S.?

Remember the Murrah Building. There were known day-care centers in the building. The terrorists were not grown somewhere else. They were all home-grown, born and bred.

We have American-born terrorists entirely capable of all we have seen in Europe and Asia and Africa. They have been doing it for centuries. They were never called terrorists, because their vile acts were typically directed against us, and occasionally Jews.

When the Murrah Building was blown up, we immediately ran after 'people from the Middle East.'

When the terrorism is against we typically do not run after anyone. Until the pressure comes, that is.

PEACE

Jim Chester
I don't have a "progressive" view on stuff like this. Terrorist acts, especially against children, should eliminate any work toward goals, even if those goals were worthy. Chechnya is part of Russia only because of early Soviet policy toward expansionism. It was annexed into Russia itself, not simply a Soviet republic. I would have favored Chechen independence simply because they should have been independent. But not anymore. You can't allow this type of action to be rewarded; otherwise, these type of actions will grow in frequency. Plus, who'd want to see a country governed by people who would specifically target children like that?
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:

The mentality of being willing to die to achieve your goal is nearly impossible to defend. To apply this mentality to children, is an entirely different game.


I don't know about that. Nat Turner killed babies...And I personally would have done the same thing in his shoes.

quote:
We have American-born terrorists entirely capable of all we have seen in Europe and Asia and Africa. They have been doing it for centuries. They were never called terrorists, because their vile acts were typically directed against us, and occasionally Jews.


I completely agree. International terrorism is U.S. foregn policy right about now and the Eurpoean colonialism/imperialism of the past.

To quote Dead Prez...

"I guess, if you're a terrorist for the U.S., than it's o.k.!"

I find it strange that anyone in this country who is aware if the history of the Native American genocide, the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade and global colonialism/imperialism, and are simultaneousely horrified by someone elses "terrorism"...
I find it interesting that so many people are appalled by the killing of Children as if adult life is meaningless. Children deaths are used as a means to garner sympathy, but a death is a death, regardless of age. It is even more hypocritical from the stand point of the U.S criminal justice system that lock children up and make hardened criminals out of them.

I do not see how the death of a child could change ones view on an issue, a death is a death. I am sure those women who have been labeled "the Black widows" view the death of their husband in the same light as those who lost children.

As Oshun pointed out, Nat Turner my hero killed men, women and children, Dr.Khalid said he would give white folk 24 hours to get out of South Africa and after that he would kill everything insight that was white, he would kill the men, the women, the babies and the cripple. You ask why kill the babies? He said because we are talking about a legacy of opression those white babies wil grow up to kill and opress our Black babies. Some of you probably can't stomach that but it is the unadulterated truth.

On the original question, does this help their cause, probably not but I do not think it change very many things either in that, their cause is still the same they simply made a political blunder by taking a school. Many of those terrorist actually objected to taking children hostage and was killed by the guy leading that particular cell. In every group you have hardliners and you have those who seek non-extreme ends to bring about their freedom.
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
ER,
I agree with you but I do wonder would that unify us as a nation even more or cause more fracturing along moral issues. There are some that truly believe that our political agendas are the cause of this mistrust so we are just getting our just desserts.

catch


I am one that truly believes that our political (foreign affairs) agenda are the cause of mistrust and that we are, indeed, getting some type of payback for it!!

I also believe that there has never been any kind of unification the way there was on 9/11!!! It was truly beautiful that for awhile were really were just Americans, suffering together, grieving together, being horrified together. The singular thought of let's get the SOB's who did this was as if it were coming from one mind!!

However, then a few nutcases decided to go out and beat, abuse and kill their Middle Eastern neighbors. The government decided to lock up Middle Easterners because they were Middle Easterners! And togetherness splintered into greed and (false) accusations.

I think for us, a terror act would draw us together no matter where or what was hit. But, would it hold? Well, now, that's another question.
quote:
From Catch:
The US for the most part has been void of many terrorist activities until recently. Even then most of the acts were "perfected" in countries associated with terrorism; Ireland, Mid-Eastern etc.


Not true - this country has been "perfecting" terrorism for 500+ years.

* Slave trade * revolutionary war * atom bomb * separate but equal doctrine * kkk * ok city * columbine h.s. * the constitution * Amadou Diallo * Willy Horton *

ALL of these acts were home grown acts of terrorism.

quote:
After the incident in Russia where terrorist targeted a school is the US next and ready for such an action if terrorist decide to go that route? What would be the impact if there were such an attack on an institution normally considered "off limits" such as a school, hospital, retirement home and such? Would that help or harm the plight of terrorist if they did strike such a target here in the ood ol' U S of A?


If you believe that acts such as 9/11 were perpetrated by terrorists who acted independent of the u.s., then the country may be ready to handle future attempts.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the perpetrators of 9/11 were assisted, if not guided by entities within this country, then the u.s. will never be ready. There is a "Judas" among us.

Terrorism does not unify anyone except those who are perpetrating it.

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, I have never seen white people as a whole, who were nicer. That lasted about 2 weeks - after that the picture of who the terrorists were started to become clearer and darker - unification ended at that point.
quote:
Not true - this country has been "perfecting" terrorism for 500+ years.

* Slave trade * revolutionary war * atom bomb * separate but equal doctrine * kkk * ok city * columbine h.s. * the constitution * Amadou Diallo * Willy Horton *


Forgive me but I guess I'm still looking at things from the mindset I've been a part of all these years.....
"kill all krauts, japs, commie bastards and ragheads etc." Cool

With that do you think the terrorist as we see them feel justified considering our history in our own country and abroad?

catch
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
...With that do you think the terrorist as we see them feel justified considering our history in our own country and abroad?

catch


I am assuming that you are referring to "middle eastern" terrorists in your question. I make the distinction because all the acts I posted previosly were done by non-middle easterners.

As far as considering acts in this country perpetrated by this country, I don't know. As far as acts by this country against others, they would not act against this country if there was no justification. Terrorists may be scum, but they do not typically act without provocation.
ocatchings,

Here are some "reason" for "terrorism". Remember one mans' terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and war is never pretty.

I personally didn't feel the "unity" many speak of after 9/11. I saw false unity that quickly dissolved, or like AudioGuy pointed out "overly nice white people", that soon changed their minds. I was actually sickened by the whole fake, media sponsored "unity" show. I hated to here phrases like "The world will never be the same.", like the rest of the world hasn't had to deal with catostrophic bombings and terrorism(sometimes at the hands of our government). This is life as usual for others!

I was awoken by a friend who called to let me know it happened on 9/11(I was working a night shift at the time)...I responded to his notification of the 1st building being hit with ..."It finally happened huh? The chickens are coming home to roost."...It might sound cold, but why cry over U.S. deaths when our government and their multinational cronies finance and do acts like these listed below? Or are American born lives the only ones worth crying over?


US wars of aggression and intervention


by William Blum

The engine of American foreign policy has been fuelled not by a devotion to
any kind of morality, but by the necessity to serve other imperatives:

1) to make the world safe for American corporations;

2) to enhance the financial statements of defence contractors at home who
have contributed generously to members of Congress;

3) to prevent the rise of any society that might serve as a successful
example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

4) to extend political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as
possible, as befits a "great power".

All of this in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what
cold warriors convinced themselves and the American people, was the
existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact
never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more
than 70 nations in this period. Among these were the following:

China 1945-49: The US intervened in a civil war, taking the side of
Chiang Kai-shek against the communists, even though the latter had been a
much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The US used
defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The communists forced
Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy 1947-48: Using every trick in the book, the US interfered in
the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally
and fairly.

This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in
Italy. The Communists lost.

For the next few decades, the CIA, along with US corporations, continued to
intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars
and much psychological warfare to block the spectre that was haunting
Europe.

Greece 1947-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the
neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis
courageously.

The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the
CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was
carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere,
including systematic torture.

Philippines 1945-53: US military fought against leftist forces
(Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese
invaders.

After the war, the US continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them,
and then installing a series of puppets as President, culminating in the
dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea 1945-53: After World War II, the United States
suppressed the popular progressive forces in favour of the conservatives
who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt,
reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania 1949-53: US and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow
the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-
Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian
fascists and Nazis.

Germany 1950s: The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of
sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East
Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the
Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran 1953: Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint US and
British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large
majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading
the movement to nationalise a British-owned oil company, the sole oil
company operating in Iran.

The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years
of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign
ownership, as follows: Britain and the US, each 40 per cent, other nations
20 per cent.

Guatemala 1953-1990s: A CIA-organised coup overthrew the
democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz,
initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass
executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims "”
indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century.

Arbenz had nationalised the US firm, United Fruit Company, which had
extremely close ties to the American power elite.

As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been
on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the USSR had so little
interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations
with it.

The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit,
was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries
in Latin America.

Middle East 1956-58: The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United
States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country
"requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled
by international communism".

The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to
dominate, or have excessive influence over, the Middle East and its oil
fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by
definition, "communist".

In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow
the Syrian Government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean
to intimidate movements opposed to US-supported governments in Jordan and
Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or
assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome Middle-East nationalism.

Indonesia 1957-58: Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World
leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the Cold
War seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the
White House as well).

He nationalised many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial
power. And he refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party,
which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains
electorally.

Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas".

Thus it was that the CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted
Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phoney sex film, and
joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war
against the Government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guyana, 1953-64: For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies
in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to
prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office.

Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and
independent. He was elected three times.

Although a leftist "” more so than Sukarno or Arbenz "” his policies in
office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he
represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a
successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model.

Using a wide variety of tactics "” from general strikes and disinformation
to terrorism and British legalisms, the US and Britain finally forced Jagan
out in 1964.

John F Kennedy had given a direct order for him to be outed as, presumably,
had Eisenhower.

One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the
1980s, became one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73: The slippery slope began by siding with the
French, the former colonisers and collaborators with the Japanese, and
against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the
Allied war effort and admired all things American.

Ho Chi Minh had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State
Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence
from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his
entreaties were ignored.

For he was some kind of communist. Twenty-three years, and more than a
million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from
Vietnam. Most people say that the US lost the war.

But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene
pool for generations, Washington had in fact achieved its main purpose:
preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for
Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia 1955-73: Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not
fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his
regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger
secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk
in a coup in 1970.

This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to
enter the fray. Five years later, they took power.

But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional
economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.

Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon this
unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot,
militarily and diplomatically, after the subsequent defeat of the Khmer
Rouge by the Vietnamese.


****

United States Interventions (Part II)


by William Blum

Since 1945 the United States has carried out extremely serious
interventions into more than 70 nations. Part I of this series, published
last week, looked at wars and other interventions commenced during the
1940s and '50s. This week the series continues from the Congo to
Greece.

The Congo/Zaire 1960-65: In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the
Congo's first Prime Minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium
retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province and prominent
Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth.

Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign
dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political
liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the
white owners of the country.

The poor man was obviously a "communist". The poor man was obviously
doomed. Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded.

In September, Lumumba was dismissed by the President at the instigation of
the United States and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express
request of Dwight Eisenhower.

There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to
power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on
to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and
cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers.

The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the country's plentiful
natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multi-billionaire.

Brazil 1961-64: President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual
crimes. He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations
with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba.

His administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits
multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was
nationalised; he promoted economic and social reforms.

US Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing
"communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no
radical.

He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic. That, however, was not
enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup that had
deep, covert American involvement.

The official Washington line was ... yes, it's unfortunate that democracy
has been overthrown in Brazil ... but, still, the country has been saved
from communism.

For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship which
Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down,
political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for
"political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the President was forbidden
by law.

Trade unions were taken over by government, mounting protests were met by
police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down,
priests were brutalised.

Disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree of depravity, torture ...
the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of
Brazil.

Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became
one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66: In February 1963, Juan Bosch took
office as the first democratically elected President of the Dominican
Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F Kennedy's liberal anti-
communist, to counter the charge that the US supported only military
dictatorships.

Bosch's government was to be the long sought "showcase of democracy" that
would put the lie to Fidel Castro.

Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform; low-rent housing;
modest nationalisation of business; and foreign investment provided it was
not excessively exploitative of the country.

A number of American officials and Congressmen expressed their discomfort
with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United
States.

Land reform and nationalisation are always touchy issues in Washington, the
stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the US
press Bosch was red-baited.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States,
which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did
nothing.

Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled
Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush
it.

Cuba 1959 to present: Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of
1959. A US National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on
its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in
Cuba".

There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military
invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations ... Cuba had
carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a
"good example" in Latin America.

Indonesia 1965: A complex series of events, involving a supposed
coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with
American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the removal
of President Sukarno from power and his replacement by General Suharto.

The massacre that began immediately "” of communists, communist
sympathisers, suspected communists, suspected communist sympathisers, and
none of the above "” was called by the New York Times "one of the
most savage mass slayings of modern political history".

The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at
half a million and go above a million.

It was later learned that the US Embassy had compiled lists of "communist"
operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000
names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons
down and killed them.

The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed
or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a
lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands", said one US
diplomat.

"But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a
decisive moment."

Chile, 1964-73: Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for
a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a
Marxist in power "” an elected Marxist in power, who honoured the
constitution, and became increasingly popular.

This shook the very foundation stones upon which the anti-communist tower
was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that
"communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can
retain that power only through terrorising and brainwashing the population.

After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavour in 1964, the CIA and the
rest of the American foreign policy machine failed to do so in 1970,
despite their best efforts.

Over the next three years they left no stone unturned in their attempt to
destabilise the Allende Government, paying particular attention to building
up military hostility.

Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the Government. Allende
died in the process.

Thus it was that they closed the country to the outside world for a week,
while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang
with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and
floated in the river.

The torture centres opened for business; subversive books were thrown to
the bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In
Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and
the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international
finance opened up their cheque-books.

In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or
disappeared.

Greece 1964-74: The military coup took place in April 1967, just two
days before the campaign for national elections was to begin, elections
which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George
Papandreou back as Prime Minister.

Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright
majority in the history of modern Greek elections.

The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint
effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military
and CIA stationed in Greece.

The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law,
censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling
some 8,000 in the first month.

This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was
all being done to save the nation from a "communist takeover".

Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed.
Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church
attendance for the young would be compulsory.

However, it was torture, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with
equipment supplied by the United States, which most indelibly marked the
seven-year Greek nightmare.

James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International,
wrote in December 1969: "Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little
speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which
displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid.

"He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: `You
make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is
divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the
free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we?
Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is
NATO, behind NATO is the US. You can't fight us, we are Americans.'"

****

United States Intervention (Part III)


by William Blum

Since 1945 the United States has carried out extremely serious wars of
aggression and interventions in more than 70 nations. Parts I and II of
this series, published in the last two issues of The Guardian,
brought the series up to the 1960s. This week, the final in the series,
covers actions commenced in the 1970s up to the present.

East Timor, 1975 to present: In December 1975, Indonesia invaded
East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago,
and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished
control of it.

The invasion was launched the day after US President Gerald Ford and
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving
President Suharto permission to use American arms which, under US law,
could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable
tool in Southeast Asia.

Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the
aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a
population of between 600,000 and 700,000.

The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor
(unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable
degree.

At the same time the US supplied Indonesia with all the military hardware
and training it needed to carry out the job.

Nicaragua 1978-89: When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza
dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be
that long-dreaded beast "” "another Cuba".

Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic
and economic forms.

Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long
years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy
army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guardsmen and
other supporters of the dictator.

It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic
programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics,
raping, torturing, mining harbours, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald
Reagan's "freedom fighters".

There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Grenada 1979-84: What would drive the most powerful nation in the
world to invade a country of 110,000?

Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup. Although
their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, public
appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met
with great enthusiasm.

Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba". US
destabilisation tactics against the Bishop Government began soon after the
coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation
and dirty tricks.

The US invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the US
suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian
casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.

What conceivable human purpose these people died for has not been revealed.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held. It was won by a man
supported by the Reagan administration.

One year later, the human rights organisation, Council on Hemispheric
Affairs, reported that Grenada's new US-trained police force and counter-
insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary
arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.

In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which
were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the Prime Minister
suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting
from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style".

Libya 1981-89: Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state
of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to
be punished.

US planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air
space. The US also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40
people, including Qaddafi's daughter.

There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow
him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya
for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Panama, 1989: Washington's mad bombers strike again. December 1989,
a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left
homeless.

Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-
something dead was the official body count (what the US and the new US-
installed Panamanian Government admitted to).

Other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died;
3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.

Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their
death for this? To get Noriega?"

George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes,
it has been worth it."

Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he
outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the
attack.

Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an
election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they re-
elected the Sandinistas.

Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the
need for a large combat-ready force, even after the very recent dissolution
of the "Soviet threat".

The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug
trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at
all bothered by.

Iraq 1990s: Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights,
against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating
its ancient and modern capital city.

177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most
concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; using depleted
uranium weapons and incinerating people, causing cancer.

Chemical and biological weapon storages and oil facilities blasted,
poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere;
soldiers buried alive, deliberately.

The infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions
continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million
children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.

Iraq was the strongest military power amongst the Arab states. This may
have been their crime.

Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of US
foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy
resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United
States and its clients and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous
force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the
administration of oil production and price."

Afghanistan 1979-92: Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression
of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even
before the Taliban.

But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s,
Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward
nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights?

What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of
dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because
it was supported by the Soviet Union.

Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a
Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States
won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost.

More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in
total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92: Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the
system. But with US support, the government made that impossible, using
repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers.
In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.

Officially, the US military presence in El Salvador was limited to an
advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more
active role on a continuous basis.

About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes
while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and
considerable evidence surfaced of a US role in the ground fighting as well.

The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the US
Treasury depleted by US$6 billion.

Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the
wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents
still have to fear right-wing death squads.

Haiti, 1987-94: The US supported the Duvalier family dictatorship
for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers and
drug traffickers.

With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the
awkward position of having to pretend "” because of all their rhetoric
about "democracy" "” that they supported Aristide's return to power in
Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup.

After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had
its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest
to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich,
and that he would stick closely to free-market economics.

This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the
Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.

Yugoslavia, 1999: The United States set about bombing the country
back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its
intervention was motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses.

Perhaps the above history of US interventions, can help one decide how much
weight to place on this claim.
Last edited {1}
Obviously, they can and will probably attack a school or hospital some day here. Little can be done to stop that totally. Fortunately, they've had their eyes set on much bigger targets, like bringing down the US economy, which they miscalculated and underestimated in the 9/11 attacks. The US economy is a true force to be reckoned with, and the simple tumbling of these landmark buildings was but a hurdle which was quickly swallowed and overcome by the vastness of the US economy.

But especially in urban areas, schools, hospitals, and any place were innocent unaware non-combatants congregate, there are the targets of preference for terrorist girly-men who are afraid of actual combat and seek out children and the defensless. Thats why I feel so bad about how the black community isn't adequately alarmed or prepared to deal with, or even MAD enough about, the terrorist threat they face.

Just where do you think a chem or bio attack is going to take place, in Butte Montana? Hell no, its urban black folks who are on the front lines when it comes to terrorist targets, and we damn better wake up and start supporting the killing of terrorists worldwide if we are to survive their lunacy. On 9/11 more black folks were murdered on any one day than in any other day in american history. If the terrorists win, many more black folks will fall victim in any urban attack of any type. Thats just the facts.

Your vote can be a tool of your survival when it comes to who will kill terrorists and devalue terrorism better. Use that tool wisely my brothers and sisters, your very life and those of our families may hang in the balance.
quote:
Originally posted by JanesT:
Obviously, they can and will probably attack a school or hospital some day here. Little can be done to stop that totally. Fortunately, they've had their eyes set on much bigger targets, like bringing down the US economy, which they miscalculated and underestimated in the 9/11 attacks. The US economy is a true force to be reckoned with, and the simple tumbling of these landmark buildings was but a hurdle which was quickly swallowed and overcome by the vastness of the US economy.

But especially in urban areas, schools, hospitals, and any place were innocent unaware non-combatants congregate, there are the targets of preference for terrorist girly-men who are afraid of actual combat and seek out children and the defensless. Thats why I feel so bad about how the black community isn't adequately alarmed or prepared to deal with, or even MAD enough about, the terrorist threat they face.

Just where do you think a chem or bio attack is going to take place, in Butte Montana? Hell no, its urban black folks who are on the front lines when it comes to terrorist targets, and we damn better wake up and start supporting the killing of terrorists worldwide if we are to survive their lunacy. On 9/11 more black folks were murdered on any one day than in any other day in american history. If the terrorists win, many more black folks will fall victim in any urban attack of any type. Thats just the facts.

Your vote can be a tool of your survival when it comes to who will kill terrorists and devalue terrorism better. Use that tool wisely my brothers and sisters, your very life and those of our families may hang in the balance.


JanesT,

Are you serious? Did the actions of the U.S. government mentioned in my last post even ruffle your feathers? Or do you not care about your fellow human being unless they are a U.S. citizen/resident?

I would much rather work on curing the ills that makes people into terrorists. A ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. As long as Black folks and everyone else stay ignorant of and do not rise up in organized protest against the U.S. capitalist foreign policy...than the terrorists will see us as parts of the problem(which we would be).

This government is doing horrendous things to HUMANITY globally. We need to stop breeding terrorists. Trying to treat the cancer of violence with the drug of violence is a never ending cycle.(Check Isreal) We need to get to the root cause of so-called terrorism...otherwise we are just chasing our tales. The elites aren't going to be effected either way. Terrorism is good for buisiness and the industrial war machine. It is the masses effected either way. The masses of humanity outside of and inside of the U.S. border. IMHO ALL human life matters. Terrorists are created not born!
The fact that terrorist are created not born is true but the fact is the genie is out of the bottle. There is nothing that this country can do to repair the damage and that includes electing John Kerry that is going to stop people hating us and plotting to kill americans whenever they can.

Does anybody truly believe that the US stopping our intervention in other countries affairs is going to bring us peace, don't think so, us bringing our troops home and allowing countries to manage their own affairs whether it be for good or bad will give us peace, don't count on it. Will making amends for all the ugly s*** that we have done make us new friends and uplift our image, PLEASSSE get real.

The fact is that as long as we represent a free society, as long other people are envious of us, people are going to want to bring us down.

It would be nice if us doing the right thing would fix alot of these problems people have with us and people would view us in a positive image, but its to late to do that, so we might as well "lock and load" and protect ourselves and our own.
Jazzdog, I believe if the U.S. changed its foriegn policy in many areas especialy towards the rogue state of Israel there will be an immediate change in how the world view America. America is the Big Bully that spend more money on defense than than the next 20 nations combined, then it uses that military strenght to threatened the world. As with all Bullies, the bully do not have to kick your ass for you to recognize their strenght and they do not have to tell you that you better not touch so and so lest You have to deal with me, you simply know who have the support of the Bully and who does not. Terrorism will not end overnight but a simple change in America's foreign policy will be a step in the right direction. If not, then America will have to choose to be on the defensive for the ret of its existence or continue to use pre-emption in hopes it will stop terror. However even Bush and his supporters admit, "They have to stop the terrorist 100% of the time and the terrorist only have to get through those defenses once."
Faheen,

I agree with you 100% but its not just Israel where we need to change our policy, how the hell do we critize other countries on human rights violations when we have innocent people sitting in jails and on death roll.

How do we justified getting involved in Bosia but looked the other way when Rwanda was ten times the horror.

Its just not policy that needs to change but attitudes that frankly gets us involved in s*** where we don't belong and makes us give excuses for other places where we really need to be.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Faheen,

I agree with you 100% but its not just Israel where we need to change our policy, how the hell do we critize other countries on human rights violations when we have innocent people sitting in jails and on death roll.

How do we justified getting involved in Bosia but looked the other way when Rwanda was ten times the horror.

Its just not policy that needs to change but attitudes that frankly gets us involved in s*** where we don't belong and makes us give excuses for other places where we really need to be.


I remember in Baghdad while we getting another S pep talk this subject came up. As they were giving us the "we must free the oppressed and liberate the down trodden" I asked the question what about the oppressed and down trodden in Africa. You wouldn't believe how quiet it got and once they regained composure I got some of the lamest excuses and theories as to why this was different and why we weren't needed over there.
Our attitude does suck and I'm begginning to see that all the more.
I've seen the "ugly American" in action in many countries and that attitude of our superiority is definetly a major issue. Pride is one thing and I don't believe anyone faults us for that. It's the impression that it's our way or the hi-way that turns people off and against us.
Policy change would be nice but other than turning a blind eye to Israel is there really anything we can do to "make amends"?


catch
quote:
Originally posted by JanesT:
_Did the actions of the U.S. government mentioned in my last post even ruffle your feathers_

No Oshun, I found your diatribes childish, contrived, and wholly inaccurate. The stuff of comic books, not even worth debate.


In other words...the facts spoke for themselves and you choose, like so many others of your ilk, to ignore them... I guess you don't care about human life outside of American born people...You are a negro-con...you don't even care about your own people within these borders, so it's no surprise.
catch,

I think in addition to turning the blind eye to Isreal, it would be nice if the US tempored its sometimes arrogant pride with overwhelming compassion. We don't have to do everything to bend over backwards and do everything ourselves, but working with other countries to help settle and solve their own problems, being a "team player" in matters of global and universal situations, such as global warming and environmental issues, perhaps if the US would stop backing and initiating coups around the world ... and stop being the a**hole to countries like Cuba that we have been for, what, 40 years now??

Our image as a super-power cannot be overlooked, because we are the biggest, baddest thing on the block!! That's a bottom line. We have every right to be proud of that. We do help countries (I don't know to what percentage to the amount that we also hurt countries!) and I believe those that we help are grateful. But, it is the image of the destruction we cause that typically sticks to the hearts and minds of the world at large. But things like being neutral towards Isreal, doing something about our relationship with Saudi after we make the big, grand statement about wiping out terrorism, not kidnapping the president of Haiti and forcing him to give up his power, not arming countries with weapons and then bombing them to smitherines ... would probably go a long way towards more sympathy and compassion for the US.
quote:
Originally posted by JanesT:
Obviously, they can and will probably attack a school or hospital some day here. Little can be done to stop that totally. Fortunately, they've had their eyes set on much bigger targets, like bringing down the US economy, which they miscalculated and underestimated in the 9/11 attacks. The US economy is a true force to be reckoned with, and the simple tumbling of these landmark buildings was but a hurdle which was quickly swallowed and overcome by the vastness of the US economy.


The purpose of the 9/11 attacks was not to bring down the economy - surely someone whos is sophisticated enough to put a plan like 9/11 knows that. The purpose was to make america feel what it's like to experience the fear and horror of terrorism - mission accomplished.

quote:
But especially in urban areas, schools, hospitals, and any place were innocent unaware non-combatants congregate, there are the targets of preference for terrorist girly-men who are afraid of actual combat and seek out children and the defensless. Thats why I feel so bad about how the black community isn't adequately alarmed or prepared to deal with, or even MAD enough about, the terrorist threat they face.

Just where do you think a chem or bio attack is going to take place, in Butte Montana? Hell no, its urban black folks who are on the front lines when it comes to terrorist targets, and we damn better wake up and start supporting the killing of terrorists worldwide if we are to survive their lunacy.


I guarantee that no terrorist is going to strike in bed-sty - brooklyn, roxbury - boston, southeast - d.c., southside - chicago, or south central - l.a. ... ever.

quote:
On 9/11 more black folks were murdered on any one day than in any other day in american history. If the terrorists win, many more black folks will fall victim in any urban attack of any type. Thats just the facts.


What percentage of the 3000+ were Black? And where do you get your "facts"?

quote:
Your vote can be a tool of your survival when it comes to who will kill terrorists and devalue terrorism better. Use that tool wisely my brothers and sisters, your very life and those of our families may hang in the balance.


That's right, use it to get rid of the incumbent.
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
I remember in Baghdad while we getting another S pep talk this subject came up. As they were giving us the "we must free the oppressed and liberate the down trodden" I asked the question what about the oppressed and down trodden in Africa. You wouldn't believe how quiet it got and once they regained composure I got some of the lamest excuses and theories as to why this was different and why we weren't needed over there...

catch


I... I... I love you man Big Grin
I thought this article spoke to some of the issues addressed in this thread.

Arabs: Terror War Has Spread Instability
By PAUL GARWOOD, Associated Press Writer


CAIRO, Egypt - Victims of the Sept. 11 attacks were mourned worldwide Saturday, but in the Middle East, amid sympathy for the dead, Arabs said Washington's support for Israel and the war on terror launched in the aftermath of the World Trade Center's collapse have only fueled anger and violence.

From Egypt to Yemen, Arabs said the world had become less safe during the three years since 19 militants from the Middle East hijacked four passenger planes in the United States and used them to kill more than 2,900 people.

"Sept. 11 was a tragic day in our history because so many innocent people were killed at the hands of militants, who find a fertile ground in our region in view of the biased U.S. policies toward Israel and against Arab causes," said 34-year-old banker Mahmoud Obeid in the Jordanian capital, Amman.

The Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and other bombings since have fueled widespread soul-searching among Arabs over the connection between Islamic extremism and terrorism.

But that has not shaken a long-held belief that U.S. policies in the region "” including Washington's support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians "” are also to blame for fomenting the kind of anti-American hatred that could drive people to launch an attack of the magnitude of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York and Washington D.C.

Egyptian columnist Fahmy Howeidy called for critical self analysis from people in the Middle East and Islamic worlds "because those people who committed the Sept. 11 attacks ... were (also) Muslims and Arabs."

"But ... the problem is the Americans don't want to criticize themselves," he told The Associated Press. "They don't look at their policies and mistakes, like the U.S. position toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By defending the terrorism committed by Israel against the Palestinians, they are filling people with anger."

The archbishop of Canterbury, in Egypt to help mend religious rifts, urged Muslims, Christians and Jews to move beyond "the way the faithless world thinks" and reject violent revenge, terror and the killing of innocents.

"If we do act in the same way as our enemies, we imprison ourselves in their anger, their evil," Rowan Williams said during a speech to religious leaders at a top Sunni Muslim center in Cairo.

"We are not forced to act in revengeful ways," added Williams, who was in New York when al-Qaida militants slammed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center's twin towers three years ago.

For some, the anniversary underlined the need to press on in military action. U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) held small ceremonies to coincide with the moment the first jetliner slammed into the World Trade Center.

Commemorating Sept. 11 "reinforces the fact that we should go kick ...," said Sgt. Dionna Eves, 23, a medic from Clearwater, Fla. "It reminds you of why you're here. Anyone who poses any kind of threat should be taken out to prevent something so tragic from happening again."

But Capt. Rick Hewitt, 31, of La Crosse, Wisconsin, said the attacks don't "really change our mission here one iota. We're trying to rebuild this country."

The U.S. 9/11 Commission has said there's no evidence Saddam Hussein's ousted regime had a role in the attacks or a "collaborative relationship" with al-Qaida. Still, the Bush administration has painted the Iraq war as part of the war on terror and says bringing democracy to the country will help reduce support for extremism.


Russia pointed to last week's tragic hostage-taking at a southern school, which was blamed on supporters of Chechen separatists and which ended with some 330 hostages dead.


After the Sept. 11 attacks "the world had changed irreversibly," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "But not all of us then fully understood the real danger of the enemy appearing before us. (Now) the whole world recognized this, shuddering from another barbaric terrorist act "” this time in Russia, this September."


The ministry rankled at past criticism of the Kremlin's bloody war in Chechnya, where it says separatists have al-Qaida links. The ministry called for "a new level of antiterrorism partnership, free from 'double standards'."

Spain's press linked the anniversary with the six month commemoration of the Madrid bombings, which killed 191 people. Leading daily El Pais said the world has not become safer since Sept. 11, with Casablanca, Istanbul and Jakarta being added to the list of cities affected by Islamic terrorism.

The third anniversary of the attacks was welcomed by some, particularly contributors to militant Islamic Web sites.

"I thank God that He made us see such a day," said one online contributor who identified herself only as Umm Rafida. "Whenever I look to the picture of the tower while its collapsing, tears well in my eyes and I thank God."

The Saudi English-language Arab News daily denounced the Sept. 11 plane hijackers, including 15 Saudis, as "twisted fanatics" and called for a "jihad "” struggle "” ... to rid Islam of its deviants ... to restore the honor of Islam."

In an editorial, it called for an end to the "blame game" among Arabs, which it said perpetuates "our own poisoned sense of victimhood."

In Amman, Jordan, supermarket owner Hamzeh Ghazawi, 26, said the anniversary for him only marks the start of a more dangerous world.

"On this day every year, I remember the beginning of the chaos, the fear and the insecurity which the United States has brought upon the whole world," he said.
you don't even care about your own people within these borders

Actually Oshun, I saw nothing in your writing that was uplifting, motivational, inspiring, or in any way helpful to my people. In fact, that was the major problem with copying the wrong text books, they are tired words on tired pages, not motivational ideas that the community can act on.
quote:
Originally posted by henry38:
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
There are some that truly believe that our political agendas are the cause of this mistrust so we are just getting our just desserts.

catch


Agreed. The Us should have the courage to change thier foreign policy and there would be peace in the world.


The US government should change its foreign policy, but there still wouldn't be peace in the world - let's not go overboared here. There would, however, be more peace and prosperity for Americans, who could then go out and work privately with their own resources to promote world peace.

As for the Chechen situation, someone mentioned that Russia alluded that the may use nuclear weapons - this is false. What was said was that Russia would strike preemptively but that that does not mean that they will use nuclear weapons.

In any event, Russia's situation should be the prime example of how not to fight a war on terror. Also, this event clearly shows that terrorism is the price of empire. Russia decided to use its weight to subdue these people long ago with brute force. Ten years ago, they tried it again and we've just seen the results. The Russian government's criminal actions against these people led to the rise and legitimatization of criminals that have lead attacks on other Russian citizens.

The Russian government, like our own here in the US, has made its citizens less safe due to boneheaded, imperialistic, savage policies.
quote:
Originally posted by JanesT:
_you don't even care about your own people within these borders_

Actually Oshun, I saw nothing in your writing that was uplifting, motivational, inspiring, or in any way helpful to my people. In fact, that was the major problem with copying the wrong text books, they are tired words on tired pages, not motivational ideas that the community can act on.


Your people are negro-cons...I wouldn't expect you to be inspired.

Ebony Rose, Thanks for the article.
Now Ebony's article was inspiring. Its good to see some self examination and soul searching going on in the middle east. Long over-due actually. And in the coming years as Iraq grows politically and economically, just wait until the people of the middle east start confronting their unelected governments and corrupt leaders and start demanding democracy, freedom, and economic prosperity.

Yes, its already beginning to reshape the hearts and minds in the middle east. Finally, the struggle has taken legs there....
Bagdad was so economically prosperous before the U.S. sanctions that in the Middle East and North-East and Eastern Africa if you were living well and rich, then the expression was "You are living Baghdadi"...

If the imperialists will stop supporting the dictators like Saddam(C.I.A.'s finest) and his Bathe party(put into power by U.S. intervention to stop the Iraqi people's revolution), by placing them into power in the first place with military and financial support, a.k.a meddling when their interest(in the past anything to stop communism, much like Osama/C.I.A.'s finest also) then maybe no foreign occupation(I mean intervention) would be needed. Oh! I forgot...It was all a set up anyhow to get their oil. Put in a dictator, take out a dictator, look like you are saving the people, set up multinational corporations to rebuild country and control natural resources...never mind.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×