0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:24 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, By all the evidence from your posts, you are the first terrorist I would like to see destroyed.


By all the evidence of your posts, I believe you need psychiatric counseling.

I believe that based on my assumption that you like I have never murdered anyone.

I believe that besides your need for psychiatric counseling, we differ in that I advocate murdering (i.e., intentionally killing) murderers and you advocate doing something else.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:27 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
hbg, Some people will never learn that just because Iraq established a government as "progress," that the sectarian violence will end based on the new government. Some people just keep there heads up their arse.

First, Iraq has not yet established and organized its government.

Second, even when the Iraqi people have established and organized their government, that government will have much work ahead, but nonetheless the Iraqi people will have made some progress in securing their liberty simply by establishing and organizing their government.

Third, the violence, sectarian and terrorist will not end, but will only be diminished with much time and effort to the point where the liberty of almost all of the Iraqi people will be acceptably secured.

Fourth, when you are perfect, we'll all be perfect.
It won't end because it's us doing it. Manifest Destiny? Divine right? or Terrorist malignancy?

Amercan trained Ba'athist TERRORIST death squads for the perpose of TERROR in Iraq.

"According to the investigative writer Max Fuller (National Review online), the key CIA manager of the Interior Ministry death squads "cut his teeth in Vietnam before moving on to direct the U.S. military mission in El Salvador." Professor Grandin names another Central America veteran whose job now is to "train a ruthless counter-insurgent force made up of ex-Ba'athist thugs." Another, says Fuller, is well-known for his "production of death lists." A secret militia run by the Americans is the Facilities Protection Service, which has been responsible for bombings. "The British and U.S. Special Forces," concludes Fuller, "in conjunction with the [U.S.-created] intelligence services at the Iraqi Defense Ministry, are fabricating insurgent bombings of Shias."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:36 pm
ican, You advocate killing people you "think" are murderers, along with thousands of innocent people that just happens to be "in the way." Your kind of sickness is dangerous to the innocent people like the thousands killed in Iraq by this administration - whom you support. You're the one that needs psychiatric treatment.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:38 pm
Amigo wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
SUMMARY

I believe there is no way to protect our liberty from destruction by terrorists determined to do so, except by exterminating the terrorists.
And anybody who resist our Manifest destiny or divine right is a terrorist.
What the hell has our "Manifest destiny or divine right", if there actually be such, got to do with our desire to survive without losing our liberty?

Manifest Destiny - a political philosophy common among American statesman and business leaders in the nineteenth century that held that United States was destined to, or deserved to, conquer the heart of North America from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.

Devine right -the doctrine that kings derive their right to rule directly from God and are not accountable to their subjects; rebellion is the worst of political crimes; "the doctrine of the divine right of kings was enunciated by the Stuarts in Britain in the 16th century"

So no matter what Anybody who resist in a Terrorist except for us. Our Terror is "Devine right" and "Manifest Destiny"?
I believe all that is nuts! If you believe I believe that, you too require some psychiatric counseling.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:41 pm
ican. You are terrorist malignancy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:45 pm
Isn't it interesting that ican, the terrorist malignancy, can't see himself as the real terrorist.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:47 pm
And to borrow from username from another thread:

Quote:
username wrote:
Civilized people don't kill people on speculation!!!!!!
Civilized people don't kill people on speculation!!!!!!
Civilized people don't kill people on speculation!!!!!!
Civilized people don't kill people on speculation!!!!!!
Civilized people don't kill people on speculation!!!!!!
-Intrepid

Intrepid has produced possibly the finest sentence I have seen on this topic since our greasy administration took office.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:50 pm
I was just going to do the same exact thing. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:51 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, You advocate killing people you "think" are murderers, along with thousands of innocent people that just happens to be "in the way." ...

I'll take the liberty to restate your statement of what I advocate so that it matches what I actually advocate.

RESTATEMENT: ican, You advocate murdering the murderers of civilians, or their abettors, or their advocates, or their silent witnesses in order to save the lives and liberty of civilians that would otherwise be murdered.

Yes, I sure do!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:55 pm
ican, You're keeping yourself ignorant of what our country has been doing to people all across this planet. Supporting tyrants who have killed innocents, and killing innocents by our military for unjustified reasons. You need to get a grip on reality.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 08:58 pm
Here's a sample of what our country has been doing.

By Peter Kornbluh

WASHINGTON -- A caller to the office of a senior State Department adviser hears this message: "This is Richard Nuccio. I resigned my position on February 25. Consequently, I can no longer be reached at this office."

The curt message contrasts sharply with the long-running drama of Nuccio's departure from the Clinton administration. In one of the most high-profile resignations over Latin American policy since the early 1980s, Nuccio left his Bureau of Inter-American affairs post denouncing both the CIA -- for covering up its connection to atrocities in Guatemala -- and Bill Clinton's White House -- for failing to defend him and his reputation when the CIA stripped Nuccio of his top-security clearance last December, a move that effectively ended his promising diplomatic career.

In a letter to President Clinton, Nuccio wrote that he was leaving the administration "unwillingly" because of a three-year CIA campaign to "exact revenge" on him for providing the name of a CIA asset in Guatemala to then Rep. (now Sen.) Robert Torricelli, D-N.J.

"I faced no easy choices in March 1995," Nuccio's letter stated. "I had given my word to the Congress that your administration was not covering up wrongdoing in Guatemala. When it became clear to me that the CIA was, I felt obliged to tell the truth to the people's elected representatives. I made a choice that was consistent with the values of your administration and the law."

It was Torricelli, not Nuccio, who subsequently gave the name of Col. Julio Alpirez to The New York Times, along with information that the CIA had covered up its connection to the colonel who was involved in the torture and murder of both American citizen, innkeeper Michael Devine, and Guatemalan rebel leader Efraim Bamaca, the husband of American lawyer Jennifer Harbury.

The Times story, "Guatemalan in Killings Tied to CIA," set off a scandal -- forcing the CIA to conduct a full review of its so-called "liaison" relationships with human rights violators like Alpirez, as well as an internal investigation of wrongdoing inside the agency. On the basis of a 700-page "top secret" report by the CIA's inspector general (that remains classified), two former CIA station chiefs were fired in September 1995 and seven other officials were reprimanded for misconduct.

But Nuccio, a tall, balding, former professor from Williams College, was another casualty. Because he passed on the crucial information to Torricelli, CIA director John Deutch lifted Nuccio's security clearance, known as SCI for Sensitive Compartmented Information. Deutch's decision prevented Nuccio from reading highly sensitive cable traffic and intelligence reports necessary for doing his job.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:02 pm
July 2, 2004

Kirk Admits C.I.A. Connection

Mark Kirk (Republican, 10th District - Illinois) admitted on the floor of Congress that he has been working for the Central Intelligence Agency at the same time he is serving in Congress. Lee Goodman, Kirk's Democratic opponent, called for Kirk's resignation from Congress. "The conflict of interest is blatant and appalling," said Goodman. "Congress has been struggling to investigate intelligence failures by the CIA and now it turns out Kirk is working for the CIA. No wonder Kirk voted not to investigate these failures after 9/11. He is working for the people who didn't want to be investigated. Any high-schooler who has studied the separation of powers in U.S. history class would recognize the problem."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:06 pm
Here's a whole list. I deleted those earlier than 1975 to save space.

The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."

The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington's dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation's desire to stay out of the Cold War.

The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.

The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed ?- it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.


1975

Australia ?- The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola ?- Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" ?- Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

"Inside the Company" ?- Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing ?- Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission ?- In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission's namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission's eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

1979

Iran ?- The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA's backing of SAVAK, the Shah's bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Afghanistan ?- The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

El Salvador ?- An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" ?- the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

Nicaragua ?- Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

1980

El Salvador ?- The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981

Iran/Contra Begins ?- The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say ?'uncle.'" The CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

1983

Honduras ?- The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA's full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

1984

The Boland Amendment ?- The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA's informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

1986

Eugene Hasenfus ?- Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan's claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

Iran/Contra Scandal ?- Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media's attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

Haiti ?- Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1989

Panama ?- The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA's knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega's growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington… so out he goes.

1990

Haiti ?- Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide's return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

1991

The Gulf War ?- The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein's forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein's power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism ?- in Kuwait, for example.

The Fall of the Soviet Union ?- The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn't been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community's budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

1992

Economic Espionage ?- In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA's clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

1993

Haiti ?- The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country's ruling class.

EPILOGUE

In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage."

Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.

Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA. These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern. (Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. (See Philip Agee's On the Run for an example of early harassment.) However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.

Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?"

The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.

Endnotes:

1. All history concerning CIA intervention in foreign countries is summarized from William Blum's encyclopedic work, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995). Sources for domestic CIA operations come from Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen's The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1997).

2. Coleman McCarthy, "The Consequences of Covert Tactics" Washington Post, December 13, 1987.

read about A History of Secret Human Experimentation

Wake up and smell the coffee, ican. That's if you can.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:24 pm
I advocate:

(1) Exterminate terrorist malignancy: that is, exterminate the mass murderers of civilians, their abettors, their advocates, and their silent witnesses.

(2) Cease protecting the government of Iraq after June 30, 2006, if that government has failed to reorganize its newly elected representatives by that date.

A simple rule and a simple test?

Simple Rule:
Repeatedly, publicly announce the Simple Rule and Simple Test.
Require only trained military persons in uniform to perform the Simple Test.

Simple Test:
Are they non-uniformed humanoids in possession of ordnance?
Did they shoot at soldiers
Did they shoot at civilians?
Did they behead prisoners?
Are they shooting at soldiers?
Are they shooting at civilians?
Are they beheading prisoners?
Are they inserting ordnance in holes alongside roads?
Are they inserting ordnance in vehicles?
Are they abetting people to do any of the above?
Are they advocating that people do any of the above?
Are they silent about witnessing people who have done any of the above?
Are they training people to do any of the above?
Are they cohabiting with, co-locating with, travelling with, or walking with humanoids for whom the answer to anyone of the previous questions is YES?

If the answer to any of these questions about any humanoids is yes, then they are part of terrorist malignancy and must be exterminated.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:30 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, You advocate killing people you "think" are murderers, along with thousands of innocent people that just happens to be "in the way." ...

I'll take the liberty to restate your statement of what I advocate so that it matches what I actually advocate.

RESTATEMENT: ican, You advocate murdering the murderers of civilians, or their abettors, or their advocates, or their silent witnesses in order to save the lives and liberty of civilians that would otherwise be murdered.

Yes, I sure do!
You advocate Terror on civilians under the guise of liberating of the civilians you terrorize.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:31 pm
I'll save some space and not repeat this that I've previously posted.

Evaluation of USA foreign policy both up to 9/11/2001 and after 9/11/2001.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2025262#2025262
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:32 pm
ican wrote:
I advocate:

(1) Exterminate terrorist malignancy: that is, exterminate the mass murderers of civilians, their abettors, their advocates, and their silent witnesses.


ican, You'd better start exterminating our government that would include Bush, Cheney, and Rummy, but especially the people working in the CIA.

They're all responsible for the mass murder of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:35 pm
Amigo wrote:

...You advocate Terror on civilians under the guise of liberating of the civilians you terrorize.

No! I advocate doing that which will save more civilian lives than would otherwise be lost if I did something else.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:37 pm
Oh, I forget. Don't forget to commit suicide after you finish exterminating the malignancy of this administration, because you're an advocate of what they have done - killing thousands of innocent civilians.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 09:38 pm
ican711nm wrote:
I'll save some space and not repeat this that I've previously posted.

Evaluation of USA foreign policy both up to 9/11/2001 and after 9/11/2001.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2025262#2025262
Where in our foreign policy does the following come in:

On October 27, 1992, the Senate committee heard expert testimony that revealed that "dozens of United States firms, many holding United States export licenses, contributed directly to Iraq's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program, let alone its chemical weapons." The same hearings revealed that the Commerce Department "approved at least 220 export licenses for the Iraqi armed forces, major weapons complexes and enterprises identified by the Central Intelligence Agency as diverting technology to weapons programs."[1] US officials could have no doubt as to the end users of such exports, since they knew their destination.

Assumed and often articulated in these hearings were the interests at stake in US policy?-the role of oil and the value of the Iraqi market for US agribusiness and high-tech defense industries. The pursuit of such interests was at the root of US courting of the regime of Saddam Hussein, irrespective of its record of aggression and domestic repression.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer234/gendzier.html
____________________________________

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, go to: www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php )
-----------------------------------
Gary Pitts, a Houston attorney, has sued American and European companies for supplying Iraq's program to build weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations and the United States have so far refused to disclose publicly all the companies named by Iraq in U.N. documents as suppliers for its weapons programs. Pitts then sent his consultant, Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector, to Baghdad. Ritter returned with a copy of Iraq's 1997 weapons declaration to the U.N., which Pitts is now incorporating into his lawsuit.

http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/made-in-the-usa/3025/
-----------------------------

Since 1980, U.S. policy has been to deny export licenses for
commercial sales of defense items to Iraq, except when the items were
for the protection of the head of state. As a result of the
exception, license applications valued at $48 million were approved.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has not made any foreign military
sales to Iraq since 1967. In contrast, U.S. policy toward Iraq for
sales of dual-use items (items that have both civilian and military
uses) was not constrained by national security controls, and there
were few applicable foreign policy controls until August 1990. Thus,
the Department of Commerce approved the licenses for exporting $1.5
billion of dual-use items to Iraq between 1985 and 1990.

Available information showed two cases of unauthorized transfers of
U.S. military items to Iraq by Middle East countries. Although
three other Middle East countries and one of the other countries had
proposed to serve as transshipment points of military equipment for
Iraq, the proposals were turned down by the Department of State.
There were also two additional cases of diversion to Iraq by two of
the three other countries, and one case of possible diversion-related
activity by the third. While this data does not suggest patterns of
diversion, we were unable to determine whether other unauthorized
transfers were made.

Because of sovereign political sensitivities, we were unable to visit
UAE to conduct a physical inspection; therefore, we could not
determine whether the U.S.-origin mortar bomb fuses shipped to UAE
were diverted to Iraq. We, therefore, recommended that the U.S.
Ambassador use an alternative method to verify that the fuses are
still in UAE's possession. After issuance of our classified report,
the U.S. Embassy in UAE reported that its personnel verified that
the U.S.-origin mortar bomb fuses shipped to UAE were not diverted to
Iraq.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9498.htm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 03/01/2026 at 12:53:06