Jump to content

Terrorists In The United States


dojafx

Recommended Posts

A Cuban exile, accused by President Fidel Castro Havana of plotting to kill him, is preparing to apply for asylum in the United States, his lawyer says.

 

Luis Posada Carriles managed to cross illegally into the US from Mexico, lawyer Eduardo Soto said.

 

Mr Castro called Mr Carriles, 77, "a monster" comparable to Osama Bin Laden, and demanded to know how he had breached US border security.

 

He is also wanted in Venezuela over the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976.

 

Seventy-three people were killed in that attack.

 

Mr Carriles once boasted of being responsible for a series of bomb attacks of Havana tourist spots in the 1990s.

 

In hiding

 

Five years ago he was arrested in Panama and accused of plotting to kill Fidel Castro during a summit there.

 

He was convicted of a lesser charge, but was later pardoned and freed by the outgoing Panamanian president - causing Cuba to break off diplomatic relations.

 

Since then he has been in hiding.

 

Mr Soto said he crossed the US-Mexican border some weeks ago, but would not reveal his whereabouts.

 

In a three-hour appearance on television on Monday, Mr Castro raged: "It is as if Bin Laden were in the United States and the US president did not know."

 

Mr Soto says his client will apply for asylum on Wednesday.

 

He says that his application will be based partly on his claim that he worked "directly and indirectly" for the CIA for years, and has thus helped US interests.

 

(source)

 

I wonder what the government will do about this gentleman, who is sought by different governments for carrying out terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. We shall see....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

KaBar, get that bullshit out of here. If one of your family or friends boarded a subway car and where blown up or exposed to some kind of lethal chemical I'm sure your opinion would be slightly different. As much as I disagree with the provocative and counter-productive ways our country is going about handling business, I still would never sympathize with a person whos only motivation in life is to disrupt, and ideally end mine... I Don't really understand how you could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no pacifist. There are some things worth dying for. And if there are some things worth dying for, there are things worth killing for. Terrorism is a a tool used by people too poor and powerless to buy cruise missles, B-52's, missle frigates and nuclear submarines. It's just regular old war, on a very cheap budget.

 

It does no good to say that terrorism is inhumane, or that it attacks innocent, defenseless people. That's a straw man argument. ALL war is inhumane and kills innocent, defenseless people. So what? The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we returned the favor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

The Germans blitzed London, we burned hundreds of thousands of German civilians to death at Dresden.

 

Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center, and we will be hunting him down like a rat for years to come, along with all his terrorist organization. (We're getting them, too, a few at a time.)

 

This guy Posada Carriles that has been conducting guerrilla warfare in Cuba is only doing the EXACT SAME THING that Castro himself did in 1958-59 Cuba, against the goverment of Batista. Communism is a totalitarian form of government, so I shed no tears for Mr. Castro and his band of Merry Men. Too bad Posada Carriles wasn't better at his trade, maybe they could have gotten the Supreme Leader himself. To quote Lenin (or was it Stalin?) "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True dat. The word "terrorist" often is used falsely to describe freedom fighters and gurilla warriors, and is never used to describe the actions of the US and US affiliated governments.

 

Not claiming to know shit about said dude, just stating a fact.

 

The US government kills inoscent civillians knowingly and on the regular with high technology. Then cries "Terrorists!!!" when someone else does the same shit to them with low technology. It's like swinging a sword at someone then bitching when they duck it and stab you with a pen knife.

Not taking shit away from the countless innoscent American civillians that have died from "terrorism", but it's a fact that the government instigated shit. Do you really believe that that many people just desided to dedicate years of their lives to go through the training and shit to learn how to highjack a plain and kill mass amounts of Americans along with themselves just on a whim? Just because they hate us? The fact is that our government instigated it all (some people claim deliberately, just to have an excuse to usher in the new world order police state).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KaBar2@Apr 15 2005, 06:59 AM

I'm no pacifist. There are some things worth dying for. And if there are some things worth dying for, there are things worth killing for. Terrorism is a a tool used by people too poor and powerless to buy cruise missles, B-52's, missle frigates and nuclear submarines. It's just regular old war, on a very cheap budget.

 

It does no good to say that terrorism is inhumane, or that it attacks innocent, defenseless people. That's a straw man argument. ALL war is inhumane and kills innocent, defenseless people. So what? The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we returned the favor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

The Germans blitzed London, we burned hundreds of thousands of German civilians to death at Dresden.

 

Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center, and we will be hunting him down like a rat for years to come, along with all his terrorist organization. (We're getting them, too, a few at a time.)

 

This guy Posada Carriles that has been conducting guerrilla warfare in Cuba is only doing the EXACT SAME THING that Castro himself did in 1958-59 Cuba, against the goverment of Batista. Communism is a totalitarian form of government, so I shed no tears for Mr. Castro and his band of Merry Men. Too bad Posada Carriles wasn't better at his trade, maybe they could have gotten the Supreme Leader himself. To quote Lenin (or was it Stalin?) "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."

 

Regardless of what you think of Fidel Castro

the fact remains, he attacked civilians in Venezuela, he plotted to bomb a auditorium in Panama, which had Panamanian students in it at the time.

During the Cuban Revolution, auditoriums with students were not targeted by the Revolutionists, neither were commercial jetliners.

I'm not sure how the government and people like you can use double standards and "condemn" terrorism when it comes from an Arab, but when it comes from a guy who doesnt like Castro its ok.

Bin laden didnt like Sadaam either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SF1@Apr 15 2005, 02:38 AM

The US government kills inoscent civillians knowingly and on the regular with high technology. Then cries "Terrorists!!!" when someone else does the same shit to them with low technology. It's like swinging a sword at someone then bitching when they duck it and stab you with a pen knife.

 

well said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dojafx---

 

Simple. It's because Castro, Osama Bin Laden, and all the pieces of shit like them are our enemies. They only recognize rules and law when it's convenient for them. When we get them on the ropes, they start squalling "No fair! No fair! Geneva Convention!"

 

Fuck 'em. Any way we can eliminate them is fine by me. They create conspiracies which have as their goal the murder of American citizens and our friends, and the destruction of our government and way of life. I see no reason to give them any quarter whatsoever.

 

The Japanese government, and by extension, the Japanese people, attacked the United States without warning, without a declaration of war, and without regard that Pearl Harbor Naval Station was smack in the middle of a populated area. Their goal was to completely destroy the Pacific Fleet, which at that time was the only genuine defense of the West Coast, if you don't count land-based aircraft and coastal artillery (coastal artillery was a big deal in 1941, but it's completely outdated now, of course.) They succeeded beyond their wildest hopes.

 

What the Japanese did not count on was the American people rebuilding all those warships in a matter of months, and being willing to sacrifice 330,000 lives to defeat them and Nazi Germany. If for no other reason, we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki as PAYBACK for fucking with us in the first place. But the rationale was to demonstrate to Japan that we did not need to invade their island if we didn't want to do so (it was estimated that an invasion of mainland Japan would have cost at least a million American lives, and probably ten million Japanese lives.) And, of course, the Japanese did not realize we only had two bombs. The implication was "Give it up, or tomorrow Number Three falls on Tokyo."

 

Somehow or another some of you guys have the idea that the Japan of 1945 was like the Japan of today. Why do you think the Chinese are so pissed off about Japan trying to alter history in their school books? The Japanese murdered and raped and tortured and enslaved everybody within their reach during the WWII period. Sure, they're peaceful NOW. Haven't you ever heard of the Rape of Nanking? The Korean comfort women? (The Koreans still hate the Japanese for what they did.) The internment of the British civilians in concentration camps after the fall of Singapore? Medical experiments on POW's? The Death March of Bataan? The beheadings of POW's with samurai swords?

 

And, AFTER the war, we RE-BUILT JAPAN AND GERMANY. Our allies could not fucking believe it, and neither could the Japanese or the Germans. ("You're going to do bloody WHAT? After Singapore? You Yanks must be bloody crazy!") By 1955, only ten years after the war ended, Germany was once again a sovereign nation. And unbelieveably, sixty years later, they have the balls to talk shit to us. If we had executed the entire nation of Germany and split the land up into Allied colonies after WWII, nobody would have said shit. That's what Stalin and the USSR wanted to do, but Churchill, Roosevelt and De Gaulle wouldn't let them do it. Germany was to become "Europe's Trip Wire" to prevent the Russians from invading Europe. (Never mind. It was the Cold War. Remember? No, I guess you don't, it ended when you guys were still little kids.)

 

I have a hard time understanding why you guys think the U.S. is the bad guy. We are everybody's sugar daddy, all over the whole world--everybody has their hand out. I hope the American people get tired of it soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words you're saying that Atom bombs deliberately dropped on civilians was payback for attacking a millitary base. And was aimed at sending a message to their government.

 

Not picking sides with the enemy, but don't you think 9-11 was "payback" (in their minds) for the shit we been doing in the middle east for decades? And aimed at sending a message to our government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, despite what they teach in history class, Japan didn't exactly attack us out of the blue entirely. If you corner a rat it's gonna attack. Our sanctions we were putting on them would have destroyed them, so they fought. Not claiming that they were great people or that we were wrong to put sanctions on them or anything, just stating a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fuck the u.s.....we are allies with people until they are of no use to us anymore, as is the case with the taliban. We created the taliban those "freedom fighters" we armed to fight our enemies for us...when it comes back to bite us in the ass they are jerks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sect One---

 

There's no chains on you, buddy. If you don't like the U.S., there's a plane leaving out on the hour, every hour. Try Mexico. It's close enough that you can walk home once you realize how big a mistake you've made. Or, for that matter, there's plenty of other places to go. You don't have to stay here if you hate it all that much.

 

And by the way, EVERY NATION is allies with another nation as long as it serves their interests. And when it doesn't, then it's "adios." And the same thing goes for "enemies." We're enemies as long as it's necessary, then it's like "How many million cars, TV's, VCR's, motorcycles and computers can you ship us?" It's a dog-eat-dog world. I'll bet you that Saddam Hussein wishes to fuck that Osama bin Ladin had left the U.S. the fuck alone.

 

 

 

Originally posted by sect one@Apr 16 2005, 07:28 PM

fuck the u.s.....we are allies with people until they are of no use to us anymore, as is the case with the taliban. We created the taliban those "freedom fighters" we armed to fight our enemies for us...when it comes back to bite us in the ass they are jerks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SF1--

 

I think that 9-11 was definately a message to the U.S. that the Muslim extremists in the Middle East consider the U.S. (and especially New York City) to be a tool of "the Jews." They wanted to bring it home to the American people that they are capable of murderous acts of duplicity far beyond anything we ever thought possible. Personally, I am very grateful that 9-11 wasn't a shipping container with a nuclear weapon inside.

 

Al-Quaida is essentially a fascist organization. They are not democratic, nobody votes, opinions of the rank-and-file are of no consequence. They exploit vulnerable, mentally ill people as kamikazi "suicide bombers," they attack civilian targets, they murder hostages, and they are every bit as genocidal, racist, and totalitarian as the Nazis ever hoped to be. They hate and despise Jews to a degree most Americans would perceive as "mentally unbalanced." They believe that women should be cloistered in their homes, virtually prisoners or chattel possessions of their husbands. They do not believe that women or girls should be educated. They believe in capital punishment for offenses like "dating someone of whom your father disapproves." Or, rather, "dating" at all.

 

There are aspects of Muslim culture that are simply not understandable to most Westerners, and that will never be acceptable to us. I do not see how the two can intermingle much. Muslims who come to the West cannot continue to live like that, and expect not to be at odds with the society around them.

 

The Muslim teenagers are attracted to much of the Western lifestyle, and I have known several who were college students here, who looked and behaved much like American teenagers, but when they return home, they revert. I have known several immigrants from Middle Eastern countries who came to the U.S. looking for wealth and also because they see the West the same way that many Americans see Thailand: basically, one gigantic whorehouse. The Middle Eastern men are just overwhelmed--beautiful women EVERYWHERE, no veils, out walking around in public, and being racists, of course, the first thing they want is some blonde pussy. If an American woman (or for that matter, any Western woman) marries a Middle Eastern man, usually everything is fine until there are children, especially if there are sons. Once children are born, he wants to RAISE THEM BACK IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. We see Saudi-American children or Iraqi-American children as American citizens, with all the rights, priveleges and responsibilities as any other American citizen, once they are adults.

 

They see these children as their own personal property--Saudis or Iraqis who just happen to be born in the U.S. They want to take them "home," where they won't be polluted and corrupted by the Giant Whorehouse that they believe the U.S. to be. And since they have a very low opinion of women in general, they become irrational if their wives say "Move to Iraq? Are you fucking CRAZY?" and they want to kidnap the children (AMERICAN children) and take them back to Tikrit, or wherever they are from.

 

Any American or Western woman who allows herself to become involved with people like this will regret it in a huge way. I know several women in Houston who were married to Jordanians, or Saudis or whatever, and the story is virtually exactly the same in every case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why it's probably better if we stopped medeling in their side of the world, stop backing Isreal so much, pull our military bases out of their "Holly lands" and let them just have their little corner of the world instead of trying to spread our western ways that they aint trying to have.

Let the Muslim fundamantalists have their shit without our intrusions and pupet governments, and let Capitalism stay on our side of the world.

 

And if they want to live here they can come here and live by our standards just like every other imagrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SF1---

 

Let me be sure I understand, you're saying that we should just "Let Hitler be Hitler" and that it's okay for 50% of the population of Middle Eastern countries to be brutally oppressed, forced to remain prisoners in their own homes, prohibited by religious fanatics from working, dressing in whatever fashion they consider to be acceptable, to remain under threat of being murdered if they do not comply with this irrational insanity, and that all this is okay?

 

Sorry. I disagree. I'm all for religious tolerance and respecting tradition and a moral society, but the Taliban and the other Muslim extremists are just way over the top. They have passed from religious piety into fundamentalist Islamic fascism.

 

Iraq has the basis of a democratic, Constitutional republic. If they are successful, Iraq will lead a tidal wave of modernity and democracy into the Middle East, overturning centuries of repressive, brutal, backwards religious and social oppression. There's a good chance that a more tolerant, modern Islam will result, and the Middle East will stop being such a danger to everybody else. We cannot just allow the fundamentalists to remain there, like a cancer. If we do, they will see that as a victory, and they will become WORSE than they already are.

 

Israel is not going away. It is also not going to become a multi-cultural, inclusive society. It's true that the U.S. probably gives them way too much support (thanks to the pro-Israel lobby,) but if the Arab nations around Israel would stop making war on them, it would be a lot easier to cut off the support. The Palestinians blame Israel for all their troubles, but every nation that has a civil war has a losing side. Texas was once part of Mexico. It is NEVER going to be part of Mexico again, although I will admit it seems that Mexico is coming to Texas in the form of a zillion illegal immigrants.

Israel, like every nation, has a right to protect it's borders. If Israel wishes to build a wall around itself, that's Israel's right. The problem arises when Israel fences in land that belongs to some other country. Of course, Israel would not be occupying that land IF THERE HADN'T BEEN A WAR REQUIRING THEM TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. (Too bad they didn't have the good sense to take the Golan Heights and the West Bank and Gaza back during the war for independence in 1948, then they wouldn't be arguing about it today. If the British hadn't been such idiots, they would have divided the Palestine Mandate into two countries before they left.)

 

What he Palestinians should do is quit focusing on ISRAEL, and start focusing on building PALESTINE. They should ignore the Israelis, and build their own industries, their own suburbs, their own little paradise.

 

Lebanon, which is in a lot better shape today than it was in the 1980's, was once known as the "Switzerland of the Mediterranean." It was kind of like Monaco is in Europe, a luxury vacation destination for Muslims. And Israelis too. Then the Palestinians decided to try to seize control of Lebanon, and they caused the Lebanese Civil War, which pretty much destroyed Beirut completely, and damaged a lot of the rest of the country. They sort of disassembled the city, using mortars, artillery and RPG rocket launchers. I have a neighbor born there, and who lived through it. He told me "My country is completely crazy, they killed everybody for nothing." He hates the Jews, but he acknowledges that they retaliate for attacks upon their country. His complaint is that when the PLO or Hezbollah kills ten or twelve Israelis, that the Israelis drop bombs or shoot artillery that kills scores of Palestinians or Lebanese. I'm like "Why don't the Hezbollah just leave them the fuck alone and then the Israelis won't be bombing?" "We can't. We hate them for being Jews. Someday we are going to kill them all, and destroy the whole country of Israel and take our land back."

 

Yeah. Right. Well, there's a good argument for the Israelis to back down off their aggressive military stance, don't you think? Now this guy is just one person, but he is telling the truth, and he is saying what millions of Palestinians think. The Israelis may be unhappy about it, but they cannot put down their chair and their whip, or the Arab tiger will eat them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you fail to realize is that this is how they live, how they've been brought up, their way of life for centuries. It's who they are and who the fuck are we to have the arrogance to think we can just go and "show them the light"?

 

How would we take it if shit was fliped and they were the super power and they decided to come rescue us from our vial Capitalizm and spread their fundamental Muslim way to us "infedels"?

And don't get it twisted, what were spreading is puppet government Capitalizm, under the guise of Democracy. But that's a different subject.

As for Isreal and Palastine, Palastine never gave Isreal their land. So who the fuck is Isreal to just pop-up and claim they own the Palastinians land? As long as they are squating in their enemy's land they aint never gonna have peace. And us jumping in the mix is one of the things that brought terrorism to us. That's just common sense. This country would be alot better off if we had leaders that opperated more on common sense and less on arrogance and Ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Kabar, that we are the ones that created Al Queda. If we hadn't taken the path of least resistance and recruited the most vile and extreme muslim fundamentalists we could find then we wouldn't be having such problems. Then after we create such a volatile organization, we abandon it and our promises to them creating enemies for life. Our two best counter-terrorism experts, Bob Woodward and Michael Scheuer jumped ship from this administration saying we are doing this all wrong. That should have sent up red flags for everyone, having our self proclaimed "war time president" in this "war on terror" have the two most important counterterrorism experts leave him.

 

This new millenium has really gotten off on a bad start. It seems that a wave of right wing extremists have come to power, Bush the child-king, Sharon the extremist, and for a while I was worried about some nations in europe having fascists come to power, such as Le Pen in France. Thankfully it hasn't been a total loss for freedom and democracy and sanity in the world. But you would note that this most recent war in Isreal/Palestine whatever you call it did not happen until these extremists came to power. We were on good terms with North Korea and had surveillance of their nuclear facilities until idiot Bush came about. There's scores and scores of evidence on how Bush almost single handedly created this hostile world for the US. To make generalizations about Muslims like you are is exactly the kind of hatred Bush is trying to create. I know you are better than that. We both know that Palestinians and Isrealis are capable of living together side by side in peace from history. And I'm sure somewhere inside yourself you know that the Sharon government has been spearheading this most recent settlement movement.

 

Even Iran is becoming more democratic, despite the fearmongering of the Bush administration. It is a natural tendency of an educated and stable country to move towards democracy. But it will be their own kind of democracy. Even Russia and China have liberalized their economies while their governments retained much of their powers. And it IS important to have a strong government with a free market. The weakness of our own government to the private sector is all too clear.

But who's to say we should be exporting our own brand of democracy and capitalism across the world? We have been trying to do this for years with the IMF and World Bank and it is widely acknowledged across the world as a failure.

Japans own brand of capitalism has proven to be stronger than our own. So strong, in fact, that if they decided to gear up, they could have a technomilitary capacity equivalent to or exceeding our own in less than 15 years. This is a tiny island in the middle of the ocean with few natural resources. It is preposterous to assume we are the best, and that everyone should be like us. Especially since everyone is trying to get away from us these days.

 

The irony of all of this is that just as the world is learning that it can live without us, we are realizing that we can't live without the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, nothing would suit me better than the world "learning to live without us." I despise the multinational, stateless corporations that puit their own interests before the intersts of the U.S., and if I had my way, they would be arrested for deliberately attempting to harm our economy, and serving their own interests over the interests of the American people.

 

Government officials serve in office here at the pleasure of the citizenry. It is a PRIVELEGE for them to use our banks, to locate their headquarters here, to operate a business here, a privelege GRANTED by the people of the U.S. They have no RIGHT to do so. To operate a business, they must be registered with the Secretary of State of the state in which they are located. To import or export anything (including money), they must have a license and a permit from the U.S. Department of Commerce. THEY WORK FOR US, not the other way around. We could seize the assets and physical plant of any corporation anywhere within the U.S., any time we wanted to do so. Foreign corporations exist here only because we ALLOW them to exist here.

If the multinatioonal corporations do anything contrary to the interests of the American people, we can shut down their U.S. operations with the stroke of a Federal judge's pen. If they don't like it, FUCK 'EM, let them get their ass OUT of our country. While they whine and snivel in Court, their bank accounts will be frozen as solid as an iceberg.

 

This idea that the U.S. is somehow dependant on the rest of the world is utter bullshit. The American people are the victims of an international banking conspiracy that has as it's objective the control of governments through international debt. We do not need 90% of the things we own as individuals, and we do not need the rest of the world's assistance to function. We could get along just fine without them, but the reverse is unfortunately not true. The U.S. feeds much of the rest the world. Russia, with some of the best grain-growing land in the world, IMPORTS millions upon millions of tons of American grain. Our problem is not that we can't produce enough to feed ourselves, but that we produce FAR TOO MUCH to feed ourselves. We wind up storing grain in huge piles outside the grain elevators.

 

If the rest of the world decided to boycott the U.S., we would just say "Fine. Give us a call when you're ready for something to eat."

 

We burn way too much petroleum, I'll grant you that, and that is something that MUST CHANGE. Americans are spoiled when it comes to cars. We need reliable, cheap, public transportation. We will get it when the people are fed up with paying $5.00 a gallon for gasoline. I see bicycles, motorbikes, buses and light rail in our future. Don't buy a car unless you are rich. Within ten years, the fuel will be more than your car payment. People are commuting twenty, thirty, forty miles to work. I predict that the companies will move their premises to where their employees live. We will have more "company town" type neighborhoods, a la Microsoft in Seattle. We will have light rail corridors that run through industrial areas to move the workers to and from work. White-collar workers will work from home, via the net.

 

American workers are going to go through big changes in lifestyle. Social Security is a joke. You guys better start investing right now, at age 16, 17, 18 years old, because there will be NO Social Security for you fifty years from now. Probably there will be no Social Security for me when I retire, fifteen years from now. We are going to see the lifestyles of people in other countries rise, and our standard of living will drop, dramatically. The good thing about this is that the U.S. will stop being an attractive destination for illegal immigrants. Why be poor in the U.S. when you can stay right there in El Salvador or Guatemala and be poor?

An authoritarian, national security state is coming. Some say it is already here, but IMHO, we are just seeing the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Kabar is right... If only we had more direct controls over our own government however. The election process has long been questionable as voter apathy (still half the country voted for NOBODY!) is testament to our own feelings of disenfranchisement with the government. Seemingly the only way we can make a difference in our government these days is by organizing to protest against it. And that is not so easily done. Perhaps the hardest thing is making everyone aware of the issues which is not easy in this atmosphere of overbearing corporate media... even in the ether of the internet. But independent media seems to be gaining some ground. The fourth estate, societies watchdog, is not what it used to be.

So then, what if we were to stand against these corporations? What then? They might just pack up and leave and destroy our economy (which they are basically doing anyways with all this outsourcing). Or would it destroy our economy? The implosion of Enron (was it the 3rd largest corporation at the time?) cause hardly a ripple. Is that because Enron was destroyed in name only, and it's assets merely relocated? Perhaps so. There is also the question of the "end" of capitalism, which in classical economic theory, constitutes the drive for company profits reaching a point of depressing workers wages so much, there becomes a decrease in demand, and thus the system collapses.

 

The international banking conspiracy is an interesting one. Robert Anton Wilson's new book (TSOG: The Thing that Ate the Constitution) touches on that (humorously with a marijuana theme), tracing it back to the origins of the CIA with it's assimilation of Gehlen and it's utter dependency on him and his spy network during the cold war, connecting James Jesus Angleton to former Gestapo informant Licio Gelli who formed P2. And through P2 formed connections with Roberto Calvi, also president of Banco Ambrosiano in Milan. Gladio merged the Mafia's drug laundering system with ongoing CIA projects, using as screens the Vatican Bank and 200 "ghost banks" which existed only in Calvi's ledgers. He goes on and on and on to explain all of these connections with all sorts of interesting facts and basically it comes down to the Tsarist-CIA-Mafia chieftains in almost total control over both the multi-billion dollar illegal drug business and the even more profitable anti-drug business. It's a good book. I recommend it. Actually I recommend everything by RAW.

 

Surely we are the breadbasket of the world but as our foreign trade statistics shows, we have become far more dependent, even indebted to, other countries. This is a trend that began in 1994 and went off the rails with the current Bush administration. (actually our industrial capacity peaked in WWII, and as we became more involved in world affairs, we became more dependent)

 

I'm inclined to believe, as I've pointed out in another thread, that the fuel shortage is artificially created:

 

"As you can see here:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statis...ts/i211111.html

 

We get over 70% of our fuel from the Americas... Namely Canada, Mexico, Venezuela etc...

By controlling middle eastern oil it is a move to control the oil flow in Eurasia, particularly to control our greatest industrial allies Germany and Japan to keep them dependent on us. Though there is greater and greater trade recently with Russia due to our empirical maneuvering. Russia has astronomical amounts of natural resources.

 

There is no shortage... As evinced here:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-040405u...-home-headlines

 

The US oil and gas companies are doing quite well for themselves, as all the extra profits allowed chevron-texaco to acquire unocal. (Condoleeza Rice must be happy)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've seen a similar article on 12oz somewhere but I'm not sure.

 

 

Bush administration eliminating 19-year-old international terrorism report

 

WASHINGTON - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

 

Several U.S. officials defended the abrupt decision, saying the methodology the National Counterterrorism Center used to generate statistics for the report may have been faulty, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.

 

Last year, the number of incidents in 2003 was undercounted, forcing a revision of the report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism."

 

But other current and former officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office ordered "Patterns of Global Terrorism" eliminated several weeks ago because the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush's administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism.

 

"Instead of dealing with the facts and dealing with them in an intelligent fashion, they try to hide their facts from the American public," charged Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who first disclosed the decision to eliminate the report in The Counterterrorism Blog, an online journal.

 

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who was among the leading critics of last year's mix-up, reacted angrily to the decision.

 

"This is the definitive report on the incidence of terrorism around the world. It should be unthinkable that there would be an effort to withhold it - or any of the key data - from the public. The Bush administration should stop playing politics with this critical report."

 

A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, confirmed that the publication was being eliminated, but said the allegation that it was being done for political reasons was "categorically untrue."

 

According to Johnson and U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the issue, statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State Department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004.

 

That compared with 175 such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades.

 

The statistics didn't include attacks on American troops in Iraq, which President Bush as recently as Tuesday called "a central front in the war on terror."

 

The intelligence officials requested anonymity because the information is classified and because, they said, they feared White House retribution. Johnson declined to say how he obtained the figures.

 

Another U.S. official, who also requested anonymity, said analysts from the counterterrorism center were especially careful in amassing and reviewing the data because of the political turmoil created by last year's errors.

 

Last June, the administration was forced to issue a revised version of the report for 2003 that showed a higher number of significant terrorist attacks and more than twice the number of fatalities than had been presented in the original report two months earlier.

 

The snafu was embarrassing for the White House, which had used the original version to bolster President Bush's election-campaign claim that the war in Iraq had advanced the fight against terrorism.

 

U.S. officials blamed last year's mix-up on bureaucratic mistakes involving the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the forerunner of the National Counterterrorism Center.

 

Created last year on the recommendation of the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the center is the government's primary organization for analyzing and integrating all U.S. government intelligence on terrorism.

 

The State Department published "Patterns of Global Terrorism" under a law that requires it to submit to the House of Representatives and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a country-by-country terrorism assessment by April 30 each year.

 

A declassified version of the report has been made public since 1986 in the form of a glossy booklet, even though there was no legal requirement to produce one.

 

The senior State Department official said a report on global terrorism would be sent this year to lawmakers and made available to the public in place of "Patterns of Global Terrorism," but that it wouldn't contain statistical data.

 

He said that decision was taken because the State Department believed that the National Counterterrorism Center "is now the authoritative government agency for the analysis of global terrorism. We believe that the NCTC should compile and publish the relevant data on that subject."

 

He didn't answer questions about whether the data would be made available to the public, saying, "We will be consulting (with Congress) ... on who should publish and in what form."

 

Another U.S. official said Rice's office was leery of the methodology the National Counterterrorism Center used to generate the data for 2004, believing that analysts anxious to avoid a repetition of last year's undercount included incidents that may not have been terrorist attacks.

 

But the U.S. intelligence officials said Rice's office decided to eliminate "Patterns of Global Terrorism" when the counterterrorism center declined to use alternative methodology that would have reported fewer significant attacks.

 

The officials said they interpreted Rice's action as an attempt to avoid releasing statistics that would contradict the administration's claims that it's winning the war against terrorism.

 

 

To read past "Patterns of Global Terrorism" reports online, go to http://www.mipt.org/Patterns-of-Global-Terrorism.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...