To take glee in the death of anyone is to be a moron, at best.

How many millions would cheer the death of Henry Kissinger?
How many millions would cheer the death of James Wolfensohn?

Must be the CIA isn't behind the Bush Admin hard enough yet - this'll get them in line.

. . . of evil men is righteous. To let them live is moronic.

One CIA Officer Killed, Two More Hurt in Training Accident in Eastern Afghanistan

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN Thursday, February 6, 2003 11:15 PM CST

One CIA officer was killed and two others were injured in a training accident in eastern Afghanistan, agency officials said.

The officer, Helge Boes, was killed Wednesday when a grenade detonated prematurely during a live-fire exercise, CIA officials said in a statement issued Thursday evening.

The injuries to the two other officers were not believed to be life-threatening, although one was wounded seriously. Officials did not identify the officers.

http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2003/02/06/ap/Headlines/d7p1jqdo0.txt

cia agents have been given the right to torture and kill with impunity in afghanistan, pakistan, iraq and throughout the middle east. since september 11 2001 the use of torture ha s suddenly become official policy.

Click here:

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

... i thought the war in afghanistan was all over? that everyone was living happily there? that nobody got killed there, especially americans. that disney was planning a building a small theme park and shopping mall there. that since that operation was completely done, and all the bad guys had been killed, just like the soviet union did, that we could move on to iraq...

Well when all the neo-cons and Israel Supporters rejoice in the horrific deaths of Muslim women and children on a major neo-con website I doubt this fellow's remarks, which I do not share, about the late agent will tarnish this site at all.

>and shows a CIA agent getting what they all so richly deserve.

And don't forget, you're still in my crosshairs. I do things on my timetable.

Read this:

http://www.indybay.org/features/judibari/

she was gang raped for 12 hours by a CIA run torture team in 1989, which also forced her to hold a knife with which they stabbed another woman, and was held in a pit swarming with rats, full of mutilated dead and dying torture victims. for more details check out her website.

Funny you should be so happy to see the CIA lose one of its own, because without them, you would not likely have the right to be here proclaiming your delight!
You knuckleheads better be careful what you ask for. You might someday get what you wanted. And it may not be quite what you expect.
You should be grateful knowing there are some US citizens and US military personnel who have chosen to risk their lives to protect YOUR freedom. And all you want to do is spit in their faces?
All I have to say is you are ungrateful bastards!
Toad

I don't get it. Which of you thinks that the CIA can protect us from 9-11 type attacks by just asking the terrorists to cooperate in their interrogation?

How far removed are from reality that we so soon forget the thousands of innocent people murdered by vary bad people who would, if given the chance, behead every one of you that would "protect" them from the CIA.

Grow up. This is a dangerous world full of dangerous people that will kill you in a heartbeat because you do not believe that women should be denied medical care or education. People that will rape your daughter for your mistakes. People that have no tolerance for any freedoms whatsoever.

If it takes torture of these murderous criminals to keep from having an anthrax attack on a day care center in Chicago or a nerve gas attack on Cleveland or a suit case nuke attack on the Peoples Republic of Berkley than I say more power to them.

If you miss the point of torturing terrorist murderers to protect innocent citizens of this country you are hopeless. If you believe there is another way you are dreaming. If you think these men who do vary hard things to protect you and your way of life are worse than those they protect you from you are a MORON.

Can one justify the use of these methods? I say yes. If the torture of a few terrorists would have saved the people at the WTC from the suffering they endoured I say it is justifiable indeed.

Are they ever wrong? Yep. Are innocent people cought up in the errors? Yep. Fairness is not the point. Hang around with terrorists and you may get mistaken for one. Plot to kill millions of innocent people and you may get tortured and even killed.

Sin Loy Dumamie!!!

Is it true that the CIA is an organization founded for and managed by the Skull & Bones society?

Check out this movie trailer:
http://www.theskulls.net/fs_media.html

"How far removed are from reality"

I think you hit the nail on the head; these people like to stick to their humanitarian and righteous beliefs even in the face of common sense.

Here are some of the solutions offered by the anti-war crowd.

Don't you know Whiskey Jack, all we had to do to get rid of the Taliban, was to start a letter writing campaign; strongly worded letters would have got rid of them.

Or my personal favorite, supplied by Chomsky, (the leader of the idiots) All we had to do was gather information that the Taliban supported Bin Laden and then set up an international court and share this information with the world community and then the Taliban would give up these "terrorists" because they care so much about international law.
I mean these people have completely lost touch with reality, thankfully since 9-11 they have be exposed as the idiots they are, and no one should take them seriously anymore.

My only complaint is that they promised to go to Iraq as human shields (as if these cowards would ever to that). But the war is only weeks away, get a fucking move on, I want to watch you "peaceniks" get a taste of reality, don't worry no one will miss you back here.

Three threads of American social history -- espionage, drug smuggling and secret societies -- intertwine into one.

Elihu Yale was born near Boston, educated in London, and served with the British East India Company, eventually becoming governor of Fort Saint George, Madras, in 1687. He amassed a great fortune from trade and returned to England in 1699. Yale became known as quite a philanthropist; upon receiving a request from the Collegiate School in Connecticut, he sent a donation and a gift of books. After subsequent bequests, Cotton Mather suggested the school be named Yale College, in 1718. A statue of Nathan Hale stands on Old Campus at Yale University. There is a copy of that statue in front of the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Yet another stands in front of Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts (where George H.W. Bush ('48) went to prep school and joined a secret society at age twelve). Nathan Hale, along with three other Yale graduates, was a member of the "Culper Ring," one of America's first intelligence operations. Established by George Washington, it was successful throughout the Revolutionary War.

continued:
http://www.rense.com/political/drugshistoryetc.html

The CIA, as the premier US foreign "intelligence" agency, is directly tied to the deaths of millions around the world. Think: Iran, Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Chile, Zaire, Angola, Paraguay....

It was through the CIA that the Mujahadeen, the precursor to the Taliban, were built into a fighting force. Osama Bin Laden was a beneficiary of that noble effort, and worked shoulder-to-shoulder with the CIA in the 80s.

Those who blame radicals in the US for WTC are sick scum. So are those who defend the CIA.

BTW, take a look at Afghanistan today (i know american amnesia precludes such reflection) and
argue with a straight face that the US' foray there was some great victory.

so tell me, can you kill enough arabs, and start enough wars, and overthrow enough governments to stop terrorism? can you kill enough drug dealers to prevent drug dealing. lock up enough criminals to prevent crime...

so if a man is liar and murderer, is he worthy of any respect? so if a man is liar and a murderer, but he's C.I.A. agent, is he worthy of more respect? is he "more" of a man. is he a "special" case. if he lies to people and kills people in a foreign land, should they NOT kill him, and not treat him like the liar and murderer he is...

reality... gimme a fuckin break. yeah so tell me all about "reality" mother fucker. tell me about how simple it is. and how easily and simply it works. and how black and white everything is.

And that's why it exceeds the capacity of the Treasonous Left to understand. Deaths happen in conflict. Countries are often in conflict.

Hell, even your intellectual inspiration, V.I. Lenin, realized this. Wasn't it he who said "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs?"

So give me a fucking break, guys. In the Great Accounting of Human Misery, states founded according to your principles have accounted for more death and misery BY FAR than western democratic republics.

This particular post is extremely boring.....

Note that YAWG-Sottoth doesn't bother to substantiate his lame-brained assertions.

I, for one, don't take Lenin as my "intellectual inspiration". Lenin forged, and Stalin sealed, a state capitalist hell-hole that held far more characteristics in common with your typical US client-state than anything I consider a model....

When Stalin helped to crush the libertarian socialist revolution in Spain, I'm sure your US brethren were pleased...American capitalists were happy to make profits under Hitler's rule...The US aided and abetted the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and pushed for it to retain its position on the UN after it had been overthrown... The US supported the brutal maoist, Savimbi, in Angola....

I raise Stalin, Hitler, and maoists' because they are most frequently invoked by those who seek to argue that the US is comparatively noble. But the distinctions aren't always so clear, mr. apologist.

Several years ago, the UN Development Program announced that 12,000,000 children under the age of five die of disease related to malnutrition every year, and 447 multi-millionaires own a greater fortune than the annual income of half of humanity. It is these inequities which the US ruling class is intent on preserving, and you are intent on justifying.

So I guess the problem can be solved by killing the 447 millionaires and confiscating their property. Then we just devide it equally right!

You have much more faith in mankind than I'll ever have.. Show me one revolution in history wherein the revolutionaries took over the ruling class and than shared the bounty with the common folk. Where is this utopian country you advocate. Do you not understand that no one, save a few irrational pychopaths, is stupid enough to want to over through the USA. Why? Because of the simple fact that it's still the best damn brand of ruling class ever invented. If you had the oppurtunity and brains you could have been onre of the 447 in America where else in the world is that more possible than right here in the USA.

When you have the answer please post it so it can be the model for the revolution you advocate. If no such model exists your revolution is just a batch of crap aimed at killing the rich so you can usurp their power and wealth.

Whiskey Jack,

As a combatant in the genocidal, neo-colonial war in Vietnam (and a proud one, judging how frequently you remind us of this fact), it's understandable that you're cynical about the human condition. But let us not engage in projection, okay, Jack?

If you want to argue that there is no such thing as social progress--that we should all complacently adjust ourselves to the massive, cruel inequities of the present world, that's your prerogative. But don't think for a moment that stating that the ways things are is the way they always will be makes it so.

The class struggle exists, and no matter how hard you beat people with your reactionary twaddle, that fact remains. All over the world, people fight against injustice and exploitation. Think how much worse things would be if they didn't. Indeed, YOU yourself are the beneficiary of past struggles for a fairer, more decent world, whether it be the 8-hour day, unemployment insurance, veterans benefits, environmental and work safety regulations, public health and education, habitat preservation. The list goes on. All these were fought for AGAINST the power of capital, and throughout, there were always small-spirited fools (like you?) arguing that it couldn't be done, or wasn't worth doing.

As to the question of revolutions--let us be clear. The US ruling class fights with all the resources it can marshal to insure that successful revolutions don't break out. Consider Nicaragua: the US supported the Somoza dictatorship for forty years and when it was overthrown immediately organized the remnants of Somoza's National Guard to launch terrorist actions, in order to destabilize, fatigue, and demoralize those working to create a more free, just society. The US' plan was explicitly to destroy any independent force emerging that could inspire others to see that the capitalist hell millions and millions are consigned to isn't an inevitability. Despite massive US counter-insurgency in the first several years illiteracy and malnutrition and preventable disease were nonetheless effectively fought against. Land reform was instituted. There was promise, and while there were authoritarian streaks within the revolution, it was ultimately brought down via US embargoes and terrorist assaults. Now what's the situation in Nicaragua, twenty-four years after the revolution? None of the anti-communist balls-of-shit that waged the war care at all, but there is 50-60% unemployment, mass hunger, and children die of preventable disease as the commodity price of coffee bottoms out.

That's capitalism and it can and will be fought.

The huge arsenal wielded against the possibility of revolution is held not only by the US. All ruling classes' are vigilant to suppress outbursts against the dominant capitalist social relations. If the present order is so fucking peachy and inevitable why do the ruling scum feel a need to be build such massive arsenal? Because there's NOTHING inevitable about the way things now are. Period.

The following link lays out some of the important issues related to revolution. I'm not in perfect agreement, but think it's pretty damn incisive and inspired.

http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev.htm

Finally I get to read what Aaron proposes. I particularly enjoyed the abolishment of money. Where do I get my credits for luxuries? Because if that load of crap ever comes to pass, toilet paper will be a luxury.

Refute the past then regurgitate it with seemingly new rationales. If only the capitalists didn't have us all under their control, then the truth would get out. The revolution would ensue. Load up on the guns and ammo boys because the only way that revolution is happening is when all of us non-believers are dead. And in your world that would be justice.

just saw danny yont's egregious post. just a few comments:

1) The Taliban, as well as bin Laden, were assisted in their rise by the US. The US poured hundreds of millions into Afghanistan in the 80's, in effect financing an Islamist Woodstock. Bin Laden was on the US' side during that fight. The Taliban, once they took power, met with US diplomats in the US and were viewed as a stabilizing force and received financial support. Contrary to Yont's lying assertion that the left countenanced the Taliban: it was ONLY the left that criticized US policy in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. The right couldn't give a shit.

2) Islamist's have been aided and abetted by US clients in the Middle East as a counter-weight to anti-capitalist and secular/nationalist forces in the region. Israel financed Hamas in the late 70s and 80s to marginalize the PLO.... US client, Sadat, bolstered his hold on power by resucitating the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 70s to fight leftists and Nasserites. The Muslim Brotherhood was an outgrowth of the World Anti-Communist Federation.... The number one purchaser of US weapons in the 90s was the totalitarian, Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia..... In Morocco, the US-backed Hassan regime has used Islamist's as a counter-weight to progressive, anti-capitalist forces..... Through the 90s, the US backed the Pakistani state whose intelligence agency, ISI, was (and still is) over-run by pro-Taliban Islamists.

3) The US/CIA assisted the Iraqi B'aath Party to power in a coup d' etat against Kassim in 1963. Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which replaced Kassim, said: 'We came to power on a CIA train.'.... In the 80s, the US financed Hussein's war-drive against Iran, granting his regime chem and biological weapons, credits, and advanced intelligence. The Reagan Adm. refused to censore Hussein when he used chemical weapons against his enemies, preferring to maintain its relationship with the regime.

4) Huge numbers of people die of preventable disease throughout the capitalist world. Look at the malnourishment rates in Central and South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and tell us otherwise.

5) Many who defend capitalism point to South Korea. Indeed, in the past twenty-five years the standard of living has risen dramatically, but it is hardly a model. To wit: South Koreans work more hours a week than any other people in the world and the environmental damage associated with industrialization has been massive. S. Korea built itself up via large scale land reform and a highly regulated business environment. In other words, S. Korea didn't follow the neo-liberal nostrums that the US ruling class imposes on its subordinates. The Vietnam war and broader fear of communism and S. Korea's strategic location meant that the US allowed reforms and policies that it otherwise wouldn't have. It also poured huge huge amounts of aid to S Korea as part of a broader effort to create a bulwark, politically and economically, against "communism". Also: Korea's "success" isn't replicable without jeopardizing its position as a "second world" industrial power. Indeed, S. Korea is threatened by China's growth as an industrial power-house. S. Korea's hey-day has already come and gone.

6) Yonts the liar says the left defends N. Korea. Name two who do, fuck-face. I, for one, hope the state-capitalist lunatics that rule that hell-hole get smashed--by their own people.

7) Yonts says that the left is defeated electorally in America. Presumably he's referring to the latest election in which 17% of the eligible electorate bothered to participate.

8) Yont's politics are based on lies and distortions. That is why his side will defeated. Remember shit-bag: the whirligig of time has its revenges. HA HA HA!

you "libertarians" are so predictable.

the only thing you believe in is your market fetish. why not look at the market--the real world market, not your "libertarian" version--with the same skepticism? or better yet, why don't you put aside yer canned response? Remember: cynicism is a cowards creed.

I take it you agree with the rest of my post!

i infer

Aaron, nice post criticizing my assertions for their lack of factual grounding. Because you were able to accomplish your re-buttal without benefit of any factual grounding of your own, I salute you for your rhetorical coup.

Yet I inhabit the realm of science, not rhetoric. In science, we test our models and hypothesis against reality, and discard the theories and MODELS that don't hold up to the ultimate test: reality.

Marxist-Leninist-Socialist-Utopias have been attempted muliple times in the past. All have collapsed or failed until present. What is your MODEL of socialism that hasn't been tried and discarded in the laboratory of reality?

You must admit, the experimental climate of Late Czarist Russia must have been the ideal crucible, the ultimate primordial soup for revolution. Yet this revolution failed of its goals, utterly. How is Aaron's model different from all the failed models? How is it superior to the present case? What is the proof?

Big UP to Daniel Yonts and Whiskey Jack.

Dan, Whiskey Jack, Yawg, I know its frustrating. Logic, objectivity, rationality, reason, intellect; these are the true enemies of those opposing freedom, whether its personal or economic. They use false logic, irrationality, emotion and cynicism to make their case for an unknown and impossible utopia with justice for all. None of us has ever proclaimed perfection in our beliefs or its outcomes. We seem to have a greater faith in mankind and his imperfections then do the statists, anarchists or whatever name they are using presently. An unfortunate outcome for a single person renders all of our "theories" useless while their disasters aren't theirs. Socialism, communism, fascism etc., all that we've seen in practice, they run from proclaiming no-where has their theories really been tried and tested. If only we would subjugate ourselves to their "plans" then we'd have universal harmony and peace. A world devoted to making itself better. These are the delusions of people not fully matured still struggling with a case of arrested adolescence. The world knows all to well what their "plans" entail, and slowly country after country, person by person, time after time they say NO!

I didn't say AMERICAN millionaires, I said "447 multi-millionaires own a greater fortune than the annual income of half of humanity". While, certainly, a good number of these MULTI-MILLIONAIRES are American, a good portion are not.

Per millionaires in America: in the past several years, the number of millionaires has fallen quite dramatically, as a good number of them were simply the beneficiaries of the largest asset bubble in the history of the world. The 90s boom wasn't the product of some great productivity boom, but instead the result of the combined force of massive liquidity, a strong--but now deteriorating--dollar, and cheap--but shoddy--goods from low-cost/high-profit producers based in freedom-loving capitalist states like China.
You rightists who take the prosperity of the 90s (prosperity for a relative few that is--for most wage-slaves the 90s just meant rising rents and an eviscerated safety-net) as your reference will see how great capitalism is when the credit crunch comes. Mark my words: the combined force of a falling dollar, massive corporate and household debt, huge current accounts deficits, financial chaos (think derivatives!), and excess capacity is American capital's achilles heal. I'm looking forward to your "scientific" and "objective" circumlocutions when the capitalist shit really hits the fan.

To YAWG: it doesn't seem terribly scientific of you to claim that my counter-argument isn't factually grounded when it so clearly was. Indeed, it seems doubly unscientific not even bothering to address my arguments and instead pulling out the shop-worn "there is no utopia" canard to avoid substantive debate. If you were a scientist you'd have something to say about the massive inequities of capitalism--the fact, for instance, that children die of malnutrition when arable land is exploited for cash crops like coffee or is simply pulled out of production altogether for lack of profitable outlets.

I am no fan of stalinist Cuba, but all you who maintain that market capitalism is the answer have to contend with the fact that children don't die of diaherea in Cuba, while such is par for the course throughout most of Latin America. Where would you rather live if your child was sick--in Cuba or El Salvador? This may seem like a peripheral issue to lard-ass rightists in America, but, I can assure you, it isn't for millions and millions. Look at Argentina: it was one of the most wealthy and industrial nations in the world at the turn of the 20th century and now, having adopted the neo-liberal regime in 90s, has 30-40% unemployment rate and endemic hunger in many parts of the country-side. Mind you, this is a mainly white, settler society; the suffering there only hints at the suffering endured by non-whites in the rest of CAPITALIST Latin America.

To Yonts: there is nothing anomolous about the US supporting despotic regimes (and mercenary forces) around the world. It has been going on for decades and decades, and, if people like you have your way,
will continue for decades to come. You may derive satisfaction talking about "freedom and accountability", but it doesn't alter the MO of US foreign policy one wit. If you're so concerned about freedom and all that, Yonts, I suggest you could begin by protesting the US' close relationship with the tyrannical regimes in the Central Asian "stans". Haven't heard a peep outta ya about that, mr. yonts.

As to N. Korea and the question of state capitalism: Lenin, himself, identified the Soviet Union as state capitalist. I tend to regard these regimes as statist, quasi-capitalist forms. If you look at China, for instance, the "communists" there laid the basis for "capitalist take-off" by developing a unified, non-feudal economic unit based upon wage-labor. Compare this to India, where feudalism has yet to be vanquished, in effect, holding back capitalist development. N. Korea is, in a sense, a special case in that it is ruled by absolute, raving lunatics, but if we understand capitalism to be, first and foremost, based upon the extension of waged-labor, then N. Korea qualifies. Surpluses are accrued to the "communist" capitalists based upon rank in the "communist party" of N. Korea.

During the Cold War, both sides agreed to agree that what existed in the USSR was socialist. The rulers of the Soviet Union sought to maintain the moniker because it gave the corrupt, incipiently-capitalist dictatorship a moral balm. The rulers of the US, of course, were happy to call the USSR socialist because it served to discredit the very idea.

I need to go.


I need to go. If you'd like, i'll continue demolishing your arguments at a later date.

Such items do untold to the anti-war movement

I think it rather disturbing that your headline glorifies the death of two CIA agents in Afghanistan, I know we have to preserve freespeach at all costs and is this not the reason why we are in there in the first place. Its rather shocking and I'm a Brit..

... the m.b.a. candidate and SF IMC commentator, promised me once that he would offer some thoughts on the relationship between freedom as found in the bill of rights, and freedom as found within a capitalist global economy. he said he would post them on his website.

i have yet to read these thoughts. if they are posted, then mr. daniel yonts' website is rather non-intuitive, and could use a redesign, or i could use a specific link, as i have yet to find them.

so what say you, one mr. daniel yonts? am i mistaken, or have you more "important" things to think about, such as quarterly performance indicators...

It's important that the left be exposed in all it's idiotic glory and your website is right up there with Babs Streisand in leftwing hubris:) I only wish your site were more visited.

Whatever credibility the "appeasement" movement has is destroyed by wackos like you...thank you from the bottom of my heart:)

I am appalled that someone can be happy about the deaths of people in the service of their country. These brave folks bring you the freedom you enjoy (and abuse). Shame on you.

You are doing the the centrists a great service. By celebrating the death of an American working to protect your obviously abused freedom of speech, you show the true colors of hatred the extreme Left displays. Once was a time when I was afraid of the extreme Right Wing, but you've certainly one-upped them. How does it feel to be in the company of the likes of David Duke or Jessie Helms?
Most of us, regardless of our feelings for you, would not celebrate your death. In fact, I wouldn't even bother pissing on your grave. Frankly, my bodily excretions are wasted on someone sitting at the comfort of his computer and gleeful at the death of an American fighting to liberate a formerly oppressed Afghan people. Writing this particular note has been a waste of energy already.

... getting back to the original subject, everyone please note, the c.i.a. opperatives were killed in a live fire training accident, presumably by mistakes made by themselves, or by friendly troops they were training with. they were not killed by members of al-qaida, or the taliban, or because al-qaida knew they were c.i.a. opperatives and wanted to take them out precisely because they were c.i.a.

that being said, i think to glorify the death of anyone is wrong.

- - - - - - - -

now, in a broader sense, in a sense unrelated the original story, i don't believe that any c.i.a. opperative anywhere in the world right now is somehow doing something that would make their death more horrifying or tragic than any other person's. so if a g.i. is killed, that's not tragic, but when a c.i.a. agent is killed, then that's too much to bear?

whether you consider c.i.a. opperatives heroes, or liars and murderers, they may eventually die on the job. they are agents of the government of the united states of america. they work to bring confusion or harm upon those which the u.s. government has labelled as an enemy. therefore, they are in harms way doing an often times dirty job, and may in fact be very disliked by the enemy if found out, and may in fact end up being murdered themselves. see the film "the quiet american".

i really cannot see what any of this sad fact of war and american foreign policy has to do with who's "left" or who's "right". it doesn't matter if you are the "good" guy or the "bad" guy, c.i.a., or k.g.b., or m.i.6, or mossad, or anyone else in any other government - if you lie to people, if you play games with them, if you fuck with their heads, if you plot against them, if you kill them, you will be in harms way, and you will be hunted until you escape or until you are killed. just fucking deal with it, for f*cks sake.

Thank you for clarifying that your position is not anti-war, but anti-America. CIA operatives are working to keep safe both your life and your freedom. It is one thing to disagree with the current administration's policy. But to cheer the death of your countrymen shows that you are an enemy of your own country.

> by the by...
> by this thing here Sunday February 09, 2003 at 10:31 AM

> "... getting back to the original subject, everyone please note, the c.i.a. opperatives were killed in a live fire training accident..."

Here's the original subject:

"Ok, only two CIA agents dead, but its something. With so much bad news in the headlines its nice to read some good news like this every once and awhile."

Is there any question fromwhere that sentiment comes?

Thanks - It always helpful when the left allows the rest of us to see what's beneath its mask. Celebrating the death of a brave American in the service of his or her country will only help a greater number of Americans to understand who the real enemy of their freedom really is.

Again - thank you.

They died in the service of their murderous, drug dealing, gangster bosses, in an already doomed attempt to sieze control of the source of most of the world's heroin supply.

See:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?E26F31663

The CIA's overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran (http://www.iranonline.com/newsroom/Archive/Mossadeq/) resulted in the horrible government of the Shah eventually building enough anti-Americanism to create the Ayatollah.

The CIA's training of Bin Laden, the Taliban and the rest of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in and effort to destabilize the Soviet Union (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html) resulted in Islamic extremism worldwide and ultimately 9/11.

One should not be surprised if there is some glee worldwide when people hear of the death of a CIA agent. Just look at CIA operations in El Salvador (supporting the death squads), Nicaragua (mining of commercial harbor and support for the Contras), Chile (supporting Pinochet), Indonesia (supporting Suharto and the murder of nearly 1 million political opponents in his rise to power), the Philippines (supporting Marcos), Panama (supporting Noreiga before the US turned against him), Haiti (Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier and later FRAPH and Emmanuel Constant), Zaire (Mobutu), South African (under apartheid) etc... etc...

Pacifists in the US may find it repugnant to hear of any death, but most of the world is not opposed to war in general just US war for US economic interests. I’m sure that from South American, to Central Africa to Southeast Asia there are people popping open bottles of champaign to celebrate the death of an American brown shirt.

if a cia officer's death is good news, would the death of a useful idiot like you---being murdered by one of the 15th-century extremists that he was fighting--also be good news?

Game over.
Yonts wins.
Toad

I thought modern fundamentalism wasa recent US creation that was intended to destabilize the Soviet Union.

By the 15th century the Middle East was under Ottoman rule and they were not that religous (as recent converts to Islam from Shamanism after their long migration from Northern China)

Whoever wrote that the death of a CIA officer is good news is a moronic jackass. There is simply no other way to put it. You are undeserving of reasonable discourse.

Yay! Maybe now we can get those women back in slavery, and get the execution of gays and converts back on track. Woohoo, tinfoil hats all around!!!

If supporting the death of a CIA agent is so bad and blocks discourse should the same be true for deaths of Iraqis, US extrajudicial executions, etc...

Those who support a war are supporting the deaths of thousands of civilians; its hypocritical for those same people to care at all for the death of a combatant.

The US media cheered the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan... how dare it condemn the good people of the world from having some glee in the death of one US brown shirt.

C.I.A. Death Squads in Guatemala
by Richard Stutsman, 4/7/95

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

The April 17, 1995, issue of The Nation printed an eye-opening exposé by Allan Nairn of CIA involvement in the Guatemalan Army killings of Michael DeVine, a U.S. citizen operating a Tourist hotel in Guatemala, and of Guatemalan guerrilla leader Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, husband of a U.S. citizen.

But these murders are only the tip of the iceberg, so far as CIA atrocities go. It's only when a few Americans are killed that U.S. citizens get a glimpse of the true nature of U.S. foreign policy as carried out by its covert dirty tricks department, the Central Intelligence Agency. Regarding the CIA toppling of the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, the U.S. media was silent. Regarding the subsequent brutal torture and murder of over 200,000 Guatemalan peasants who opposed the dictatorships of:

1. Carlos Castillo Armas (first military dictator after CIA intervention, who imprisoned 9000 political dissidents and murdered 8000 peasants during the first few months of his reign),

2. Julio César Méndez Montenegro (civilian president from 1966 to 1970 who invited the U.S. to bring in Green Berets and drop napalm on peasant villages while they trained Army and police forces in "counterinsurgency" tactics),

3. Colonel Carlos Arana Osoria (military dictator from 1970 to 1974 and known as the "Butcher of Zacapa" for murdering over 8000 peasants in order to "drain the sea" in which the guerrilla "fish" swam),

4. General Efraín Ríos Montt (dictator from 1982 to 1983 and current Congress President who, along with School of the Americas graduate General Héctor Alejandro Gramajo Morales ordered and presided over the "highlands" massacres and destruction of at least 660 villages and who masterminded the abduction, rape, and torture of Dianna Ortiz, an American nun),

5. General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores (military dictator from1983 to 1986), and

6. Vinicio Cerezo Arévalo (civilian President from 1986 to 1991 under whom the rate of killing actually increased)

--regarding these atrocities and U.S. State Department and CIA complicity in them, the U.S. media has been silent.

Today's Guatemalan death squads are organized and supervised primarily by two organizations, the "G-2" and the "Archivo" which are funded by the CIA and run by CIA-paid Guatemalan military and police officers who have been trained at the U.S. Army's School of the Americas, now located at Ft. Benning, Georgia.

According to former G-2 agents, the G-2 maintains a web of torture centers and secret body dumps and even has its own crematorium. It "processes" abductees--consisting of anybody branded an enemy of the state (union organizers, political dissidents, etc.)--by chopping off limbs, singeing flesh, and administering electric shocks and other forms of torture.

One of the recent CIA-paid G-2 chiefs, General Francisco Ortega Menaldo, now works in Washington as general staff director at the Pentagon-backed Inter-American Defense Board, according to Allan Nairn's article in The Nation.

President Clinton's protests that the CIA failed to inform him about the murders of Michael DeVine and Efraín Bámaca Velásquez rings hollow. While their murders might have been a routine, daily occurance so far as the CIA's death squads are concerned, the very public investigations of these murders by their U.S. survivers cannot have been unknown to either the CIA or the President, and the CIA Director cannot plausibly deny having "known" about these particular murders when asked by Congressional investigators.

Every President since Eisenhower has known and officially (if covertly) approved the not-so-covert subversion of Guatemalan democracy and its sponsorship of Guatemalan death squads.

The denials of knowledge by Clinton and by the CIA are a coverup of a very much larger and long-lasting involvement by the CIA and its commanders in chief, the Presidents, in massive human rights violations since its inception right after the end of World War II. It was at this time that the so-called "Cold War" was just starting to be waged by our corporate-serving political leaders. The Cold War has been used ever since as the excuse for all kinds of anti-democratic, unconstitutional, and immoral acts on the parts of U.S Presidents and political leaders.

Colombian general served CIA, death squads and drug dealers
By Bill Vann
2 September 1998
The resignation last month of Gen. Ivan Ramirez Quintero, the number three man in the Colombian military command, has shed light on the shadowy activities of the Pentagon and the CIA in Colombia and throughout Latin America.

Gen. Ramirez headed an elite military intelligence unit that was set up by US military and intelligence officers with the ostensible purpose of combating both drug trafficking and the guerrilla movements that have operated in Colombia since "la violencia," the protracted rural civil war that erupted a half-century ago.

At the same time, according to a report published last month in the Washington Post , the general served as a key asset of the CIA, funneling information into the agency. The Post claimed that Gen. Ramirez was paid for his services. He responded indignantly that his was a labor solely of ideological conviction.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/sep1998/colo-s02.shtml

CIA Death Squad Continues to Pile Up More Bodies

Following President G.W. Bush’s announcement that he was “taking the cuffs” off U.S. intelligence agencies, a slew of outspoken rebel leaders and re formers have turned up dead under strange circumstances.

By Wayne Madsen

President Bush toured Latin America as his newly-empowered CIA death squads rubbed out all those opposed to U.S. corporate interests and their local power-hungry surrogates.

The latest victims include:

The Archbishop of Cali, Colombia, Isaias Duarte was shot and killed in front of a church on March 17. He had previously claimed legislative candidates were receiving drug money.

However, the only “recognized” candidates are those who support the Colombian oligarchy, supported by the right-wing paramilitaries (also involved in cocaine trafficking), the U.S. military, the CIA and CIA front companies like independent contractors Dyncorp, Military Professional Resources Inc., and East, Inc.

Duarte became a “target of opportunity”—or a “terrorist” to use the language of President Bush.

The Colombian government blamed “leftist guerrillas” for Duarte’s death.

Right-wing death squads in El Salvador tried the same line in 1980 when they killed, with the support of the CIA and its local intelligence agency ANSESAL, Archbishop Oscar Romero.

Those death squads were aided and abetted at the time by State Department operative Elliott Abrams, now the human rights coordinator for the National Security Council in the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld regime.

The same day that the archbishop was assassinated, Jorge Rosal Zea, the head of operations for Guatemala’s Patriot Party in Suchitepequez Province, was gunned down by several men waiting in a parked car.

The assassination came a few days after Rosal Zea led a 3,000-person demonstration and called for the resignations of President Alfonso Portillo and Vice President Juan Francisco Reyes, both stooges of the CIA and its minions who now control U.S. Latin American policy in the State Department and National Security Council.

Reyes and Portillo, his personal secretary, have been accused by opponents of opening secret bank accounts in Panama to embezzle millions of dollars in public funds. It is a familiar pattern for CIA surrogates who have done similar things in the past, such as Noriega in Panama and Somoza in Nicaragua.

And, on March 7, in Angola, another threat to the oil oligarchy was removed. Antonio Dembo, the moderate successor to UNITA chief Jonas Savimbi, was reported to have been killed earlier in March.

Dembo was considered the best choice to lead UNITA into peace talks with the government.

The CIA claimed Dembo died from complications of diabetes.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/Censored/15_02%20CIA%20Death%20Squad%20Continues.htm

i don't want to wade into this subject too much either at this point, but you would do yourself a favor as a "business man and an american citizen" to think deeply about this debate.

anyways, two things:

>The freedom to create, innovate, buy, sell, take risks and make mistakes unimpeded by unreasonable controls are the promises of Free Market Capitalism. This empowers the individual actor within the economy. It does not gaurantee success-- but merely the opportunity to pursue success (however this is defined by the individual). Success, ideally, is determined by adding value to other individuals. If individuals see no value in an offering, the offering fails in the marketplace (or should fail). If a group of individuals find value in an offering then regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks-- it will succeed.<

this is the central part of the discussion as far as i'm concerned, especially your first sentence.

"the freedom to create, innovate, ect...".

i guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree. i do not believe that capitalism offers any freedom to do, make, say, think and pray as one wishes. it merely rewards the outcomes of those free choices. and those choices are free not because of capitalism, but because of the bill of rights, the constitution, and a host of laws.

>More than likely, the "Left" will never embrace any concept of freedom or self-determination-- since the left has no respect for the individual.<

i find this statement not up to your usual standard.

hmm, which end of the simplified political spectrum, with the "left" at one end and the "right" at the other, was more supportive of the artisitc work of say robert mapplethorpe? and which end of the political spectrum was very hostile towards the work of robert mapplethorpe?

which end of the simplified political spectrum has tried on many occasions, to stand up for the freedom of speech rights of many controversial "individuals" and artists and writers and film makers? and which has been overtly hostile and reactionary toward these same controversial individuals?

is the social crusader bill bennet a die hard lefty? jesse helms a liberal?

how can you honestly say that the "left has no respect for individuals"? i really find that hard to believe.

and i'm not sure i buy that a person who supports socialism or communism for that matter hates the concept of individuality. is spreading the wealth of nation, so that all individuals will benefit neccessarily like saying that destroys an individual's right to do, make, say, think, and pray as one wishes?

yes, certainly in a communist dictatorship, such as russia under stalin, or north korea this very minute that might be true. but look at the "almost socialist" nordic countries of norway, sweden and finland. are those people, with high taxes and many state provided services, totally lacking in individual thinking and success whether in arts or business or industry? the hives anyone? nokia? saab? ericcson?

so i think that last statement of yours was not very well thought out.

- - - - - - - - -

now, to those who responded to my earlier post by saying that i hate america and revel in the death of people, GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

YOU DON'T KNOW ME MOTHERFUCKERS. YOU CAN SHRIEK AND SHOUT AND YELL AND GO CRYING TO YOUR MOMMY WITH THOSE FUTILE CHARGES ABOUT ME FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, AND THEY WILL NEVER STICK. HMM, WONDER WHY DUMB FUCKS. COULD IT BE BECAUSE I LOVE MY FREEDOMS AND I LOVE THE MOUTAINS AND I LOVE THE BEACHES AND I LOVE THE FORESTS AND I LOVE THE ARTISTS AND I LOVE THE CITIES AND I LOVE AMERICA? HMMM, YA THINK YOU STUPID ARROGANT ASSHOLES? SO GO ON AND DIE TRYING LIKE A PACK OF FOOLS FOR ALL I CARE. SO C'MON, LET ME HAVE IT THEN. DON'T HOLD BACK. KEEP SAYING YOUR STUPID SHIT TO ME. TELL ME WHAT I THINK AND WHAT I HATE FUCKERS AND SEE WHAT IT GETS YOU.

CIA Death Squad Timeline
by Ralph McGehee

Death Squads: Miscellaneous

CIA set up Ansesal and other networks of terror in El Salvador, Guatemala (Ansegat) and pre-Sandinista Nicaragua (Ansenic). The CIA created, structured and trained secret police in South Korea, Iran, Chile and Uruguay, and elsewhere - organizations responsible for untold thousands of tortures, disappearances, and deaths. Spark, 4/1985, pp. 2-4

1953-94 Sponsorship by CIA of death squad activity covered in summary form. Notes that in Haiti CIA admitted Lt. General Raoul Cedras and other high-ranking officials "were" on its payroll and are helping organize violent repression in Haiti. Luis Moreno, an employee of State Department, has bragged he helped Colombian army create a database of subversives, terrorists and drug dealers." His superior in overseeing INS for Southeastern U.S., is Gunther Wagner, former Nazi soldier and a key member of now-defunct Office of Public Safety (OPS), an AID project which helped train counterinsurgents and terrorism in dozens of countries. Wagner worked in Vietnam as part of Operation Phoenix and in Nicaragua where he helped train National Guard. Article also details massacres in Indonesia. Haiti Information, 4/23/1994, pp. 3,4

CIA personnel requested transfers 1960-7 in protest of CIA officer Nestor Sanchez's working so closely with death squads. Marshall, J., Scott P.D., and Hunter, J. (1987). The Iran-Contra Connection, p. 294

CIA. 1994. Mary McGrory op-ed, "Clinton's CIA Chance." Excoriates CIA over Aldrich Ames, support for right-wing killers in El Salvador, Nicaraguan Contras and Haiti's FRAPH and Cedras. Washington Post, 10/16/1994, C1,2

Angola: Death Squads

Angola, 1988. Amnesty International reported that UNITA, backed by the U.S., engaged in extra-judicial executions of high-ranking political rivals and ill-treatment of prisoners. Washington Post, 3/14/1989, A20

Bolivia: Death Squads

Bolivia. Between October 1966-68 Amnesty International reported between 3,000 and 8,000 people killed by death squads. Blum, W. (1986). The CIA A Forgotten History, p. 264

Bolivia, 1991. A group known as "Black Hand" shot twelve people on 24 November 1991. Killings were part of group's aim to eliminate "undesirable" elements from society. Victims included police officers, prostitutes and homosexuals." Washington Post 11/25/1991, A2

Bolivia: Watch List

Bolivia, 1975. CIA hatched plot with interior ministry to harass progressive bishops, and to arrest and expel foreign priests and nuns. CIA was particularly helpful in supplying names of U.S. and other foreign missionaries. The Nation, 5/22/1976, p. 624

Bolivia, 1975. CIA provided government data on priests who progressive. Blum, W. (1986). The CIA A Forgotten History, p. 259

Brazil: Watch List

Brazil, 1962-64. Institute of Research and Social Studies (IPES) with assistance from U.S. sources published booklets and pamphlets and distributed hundreds of articles to newspapers. In 1963 alone it distributed 182,144 books. It underwrote lectures, financed students' trips to the U.S., sponsored leadership training programs for 2,600 businessmen, students, and workers, and subsidized organizations of women, students, and workers. In late 1962 IPES member Siekman in Sao Paulo organized vigilante cells to counter leftists. The vigilantes armed themselves, made hand-grenades. IPES hired retired military to exert influence on those in active service. From 1962-64 IPES, by its own estimate, spent between $200,000 and $300,000 on an intelligence net of retired military. The "research group" of retired military circulated a chart that identified communist groups and leaders. Black, J.K. (1977). United States Penetration of Brazil, p. 85

Brazil: Death Squads

Brazil, circa 1965. Death squads formed to bolster Brazil's national intelligence service and counterinsurgency efforts. Many death squad members were merely off-duty police officers. U.S. AID (and presumably the CIA) knew of and supported police participation in death squad activity. Counterspy 5/6 1979, p. 10

Brazil. Death squads began appear after 1964 coup. Langguth, A.J. (1978). Hidden Terrors, p. 121

Brazilian and Uruguayan death squads closely linked and have shared training. CIA on at least two occasions co-ordinated meetings between countries' death squads. Counterspy 5/6 1979, p. 11

Brazil, torture. After CIA-backed coup, military used death squads and torture. Blum, W. (1986). The CIA A Forgotten History, p. 190

Cambodia: Watch List

Cambodia, 1970. Aided by CIA, Cambodian secret police fed blacklists of targeted Vietnamese to Khmer Serai and Khmer Kampuchea Krom. Mass killings of Vietnamese. Valentine, D. (1990). The Phoenix Program, p. 328

Cambodia: Death Squads

Cambodia, 1980-90. U.S. indirect support for Khmer Rouge-- U.S. comforting mass murderers. Washington Post, 5/7/1990, A10 editorial

Central America: Death Squads

Central America, circa 1979-87. According to Americas Watch, civilian non combatant deaths attributable to government forces in Nicaragua might reach 300, most Miskito Indians in comparison 40-50,000 Salvadoran citizens killed by death squads and government forces during same years, along with similar number during last year of Somoza and still higher numbers in Guatemala. Chomsky, N. (1988). The Culture of Terrorism, p. 101

Central America, 1981-87. Death toll under Reagan in El Salvador passed 50,000 and in Guatemala it may approach 100,000. In Nicaragua 11,000 civilians killed by 1968. Death toll in region 150,000 or more. Chomsky, N. (1988). The Culture of Terrorism, p. 29

Central America. See debate carried in Harpers "Why Are We in Central America? On Dominoes, Death Squads, and Democracy. Can We Live With Latin Revolution? The Dilemmas of National Security." Harpers, 6/1984, p35

Central America, 1982-84. Admiral Bobby Inman, former head of NSA, had deep distaste for covert operations. Inman complained that the CIA was hiring murderers to conduct operations in Central America and the Middle East - eventually Inman resigned. Toohey, B., and Pinwill, W. (1990). Oyster: the Story of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, pp. 215-6

Chile: Watch List

Chile, 1970-73. By late 1971 the CIA in near daily contact with military. The station collecting the kind of information that would be essential for a military dictatorship after a coup: lists of civilians to be arrested, those to be protected and government installations occupied at once. Atlantic, 12/1982, p. 58

Chile, 1970-73. CIA compiled lists of persons who would have to be arrested and a roster of civilian and government installations that would need protection in case of military coup against government. Corn, D. (1994). Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades, p. 251

Chile, 1972-73. Drew up lists those to be arrested immediately, or protected after a coup by military. Sergeyev, F.F. (1981). Chile, CIA Big Business, p. 163

Chile late 1971-72. CIA adopted more active stance re military penetration program including effort to subsidize anti-government news pamphlet directed at armed services, compilation arrest lists and its deception operation. CIA received intelligence reports on coup planning throughout July, August and September 73. U.S. Congress, Church Committee Report. (1976) v 7, p. 39

Chile. Chilean graduates of AIFLD, as well as CIA-created unions, organized CIA-financed strikes which participated in Allende's overthrow. In 1973 AIFLD graduates provided DINA, Chile's secret police, with thousands of names of fellow unionists who were subsequently imprisoned and tortured and executed. Counterspy 4/1981, p. 13

Chile. Blum, W. (1986). The CIA A Forgotten History, 240

Chile, 1973-74. After 1973 coup, U.S. Embassy intelligence types gave their files on the Chilean and foreign left to the junta's military intelligence service (SIM). NACLA (magazine re Latin America) 8/74, p. 28.

Chile, 1973. The military prepared lists of nearly 20,000 middle-level leaders of people's organizations, scheduled to be assassinated from the morning of the coup on. The list of some 3,000 high-level directors to be arrested. Lists detailed: name, address, age, profession, marital status, and closest personal friends. It alleged U.S. military mission and the CIA involved in their preparation. Moa 186. From late June on plotters began to finalize lists of extremists, political leaders, Marxist journalists, agents of international communism, and any and all persons participating with any vigor in neighborhood, communal, union, or national organization. The Pentagon had been asked to get the CIA to give the Chilean army lists of Chileans linked to socialist countries. Names sorted into two groups: persons not publicly known but who important in leftist organizations; and, well-known people in important positions. 20,000 in first group and 3,000 in second. Second group to be jailed, the first to be killed. Sandford, R.R. (1975). The Murder of Allende, pp. 195-6

CIA provided intelligence on "subversives" regularly compiled by CIA for use in such circumstances. Blum, W. (1986). The CIA A Forgotten History, p. 194

Columbia: Watch List

Colombia. Luis Moreno, an employee of State Department, bragged he helped Colombian army create a database of subversives, terrorists and drug dealers. Haiti Information, 4/23/94, pp. 3,4

Columbia: Death Squads

Colombia. MAS (Muerte A Secuestradores): "Death to Kidnappers," Colombian antiguerrilla death squad founded in December 1981 by members of Medellin cartel, Cali cartel, and Colombian military. Scott, P. and Marshall, J. (1991). Cocaine Politics, p. 261.

Colombia, 1993-94. Amnesty International called Colombia one of worst "killing fields." U.S. is an accomplice. William F. Schultz, human rights group's newly appointed Executive Director for the U.S., told a news conference that using fight against drugs as a pretext - Colombian government doesn't reign in [its forces]. About 20,000 people killed since 1986 in one of Latin America's most "stable democracies." only 2% political killings related to drug trafficking and 70% by paramilitary or military. U.S. probably a collaborator and much of U.S. aid for counternarcotics diverted to "killing fields." AI report said human meat is sold on black market and politicians gunned down along with children, homosexuals, and drug addicts. U.S. support because of Colombia's strategic position. No one is safe, people killed for body parts. Washington Times, 3/16/1994, p. a15

Costa Rica: Watch List

Costa Rica, 1955. Ambassador Woodward reported the government should be urged to maintain closer surveillance over communists and prosecute them more vigorously, and the government should be influenced to amend the constitution to limit the travel of communists, increase penalties for subversive activities and enact proposed legislation eliminating communists from union leadership. Meanwhile USIA aka USIS programs "to continue to condition the public to the communist menace" should be maintained. Z Magazine, 11/1988, p. 20

Cuba: Watch List

Cuba, 1955-57. Allen Dulles pressed Batista to establish with CIA help, a bureau for the repression of communist activities. Grose, P. (1994). Gentleman Spy: the Life of Allen Dulles, p. 412

Cuba: Death Squads

Cuba, 1956-95 CIA's war against Cuba and Cuba's response. In 1956, CIA established in Cuba the infamous Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities, BRAC -- secret police that became well known for torture and assassination of Batista's political opponents. Unclassified W/1994-1995 16-17

Dominican Republic: Watch List

Dominican Republic, 1965. CIA composed list of 55 communist ringleaders of projected takeover of government. Crozier, b. (1993). Free Agent, p. 58

Dominican Republic: Death Squads

Dominican Republic, cover, 1965. 18 public safety program advisers, 6 of whom CIA. Police organized La Banda, a death squad. Lernoux, P. (1982). Cry of the People, p. 187

Eastern Europe: Watch List

East Europe, USSR, 1952-93. Radio Free Europe researchers have hundreds of thousands of file cards on prominent east bloc citizens and a staff of 160 researchers. Washington Post, 4/4/1993, p. A19

East Timor: Death Squads

East Timor, 1975-76. Role of U.S. Government, CIA/NSA, and their Australian collaborators in East Timor is another example of support for genocide which joins a long list of similar cases. Carter and Ford administrations have been accomplices in the massacre of anywhere between one-in-ten (Indonesian foreign minister Mochtar's latest figure) and one-in-two Timorese. Counterspy, Spring 1980, p. 19

Ecuador: Watch List

Ecuador, 1962. Subversive control watch list. With agent from Social Christian party CIA will form five squads composed of five men for investigative work on subversive control watch list. Agee, P. (1975). Inside the Company: CIA Diary, pp. 240, 247

Ecuador, 1963. The CIA maintained what was called the lynx list, aka the subversive control watch list. This a file that might have 50 to 500 names. People on the list were supposed to be the most important left-wing activists whose arrest we might effect through the local government. Would include place and date of birth, wife's name, where they worked, and biological data on the whole family, including schools the children attended, etc. In Ecuador the CIA paid teams to collect and maintain this type information. Agee, (1981). White Paper Whitewash, p. 55

Egypt: Watch List

Egypt, Pakistan, 1993. 4/16/1993 2 teams from CIA and FBI to Peshawar to check information given them by Egyptian intelligence services. Egyptians reported terrorist groups based in Peshawar belong to "Arab Afghans" with ties to fundamentalist Muslims in U.S. CIA specialists met with officers of Mukhabarat Al-Amat who had list of 300 Egyptians believed to be hard inner core of Jihad led by Mohammed Sahwky Islambuli. Names of various terrorists. On request by CIA and others, 100 expulsions on 4/10. Intelligence Newsletter, 4/29/1993, pp. 1,5

El Salvador: Watch List

El Salvador, 1980-89. On TV D'Aubuisson, using military intelligence files, denounced teachers, labor leaders, union organizers and politicians. Within days their mutilated bodies found. Washington had identified most leaders of death squads as members Salvadoran security forces with ties to D'Aubuisson. Washington Post op-ed by Douglas Farah, 2/23/1992, p. C4

El Salvador, 1982-84. Significant political violence associated with Salvadoran security services including National police, National Guard, and Treasury Police. U.S. Government agencies maintained official relationships with Salvadoran security establishment appearing to acquiesce in these activities. No evidence U.S. personnel participated in forcible interrogations. U.S. Did pass "tactical" information to alert services of action by insurgent forces. Information on persons passed only in highly unusual cases. Senate Intelligence Committee, October 5, 1984, pp. 11-13

El Salvador: Death Squads

El Salvador, 1961-79. Vigilante organization called Democratic National Organization (Orden) created early 1960s to further control countryside. Created in 1961 but abolished in 1979. But quickly regained and even surpassed former vicious role. Today its members form the core of civil defense corps. White, R.A. (1984). The Morass, p. 133

El Salvador, 1961-84. During the Kennedy administration, agents of the U.S. government set up 2 security organizations that killed thousands of peasants and suspected leftists over the next 15 years. Guided by Americans, these organizations into the paramilitary units that were the death squads: in 1984 the CIA, in violation U.S. law, continued to provide training, support, and intelligence to security forces involved in death squads. Over the years the CIA and U.S. military organized Orden, the rural paramilitary and intelligence net designed to use terror. Mano Blanco grew out of Orden, which a U.S. ambassador called the "birth of the death squads;" conceived and organized Ansesal, the elite presidential intelligence service that gathered files on Salvadoran dissidents and gave that information to the death squads; recruited General Medrano, the founder of Orden and Ansesal as a CIA agent; supplied Ansesal, the security forces, and the General Staff with electronic, photographic, and personal surveillance of individuals who later assassinated by death squads; and, trained security forces in the use of investigative techniques, weapons, explosives, and interrogation with "instruction in methods of physical and psychological torture. The Progressive, 5/1984, pp. 20-29

El Salvador, 1963. U.S. government sent 10 special forces personnel to El Salvador to help General Jose Alberto Medrano set up Organizacion Democratica Nacionalist (Orden)--first paramilitary death squad in that country. These green berets assisted in organization and indoctrination of rural "civic" squads which gathered intelligence and carried out political assassinations in coordination with Salvadoran military. Now there is compelling evidence to show that for over 30 years, members of U.S. military and CIA have helped organize, train, and fund death squad activity in El Salvador. Covert Action Information Bulletin (Quarterly), Summer 1990, p. 51

El Salvador, 1963. National Democratic Organization (Orden) formed as pro-government organization with assistance from CIA, U.S. military advisers, AID's police training program. Orden supervised by Salvadoran national security agency, intelligence organization of military. CIA chose "right hand man," Jose Medrano, to direct Orden. Orden served as base for death squad operations and sanctioned in 1970-79 all "above ground" unions. Barry, T., and Preusch, D. (1986). AIFLD in Central America, p. 33

El Salvador, 1965-85. For a report of CIA supporting death squad activities in El Salvador see "Spark," 4/1985, pp. 2-4

El Salvador, 1966. Developed death squads with help of green berets. Campaign used vigilantes to employ terror. Later called civil defense corps. White, R.A. (1984). The Morass, pp. 101-3

El Salvador, 1968. AIFLD creates Salvadoran Communal Union (UCS) which emphasized self help for rural farmers and not peasant organizing. Initially, UCS had support military government. By 1973 UCS seen as too progressive and AIFLD officially expelled. U.S. funding UCS continued through training programs and private foundations. UCS charged with ties to Orden, organization which carried out death squad activity. With failing pro-government union efforts, AIFLD called back to control UCS in 1979. Barry, T., and Preusch, D. (1986). AIFLD in Central America, p. 34

El Salvador, 1976-85. Attended conferences of World Anti-Communist League: Roberto D'Aubuisson, El Salvador. Former major in military intelligence; charged with being responsible for coordinating nation's rightist death squads. Established Arena political party with assistance of U.S. new right leaders. Anderson, J. L.. and Anderson, S. (1986). Inside the League

El Salvador, 1979-84. House Intelligence Committee investigation of U.S. intelligence connections with death squad activities concluded U.S. intelligence agencies "have not conducted any of their activities in such a way as to directly encourage or support death squad acts." House Intelligence Committee, annual report, 1/2/1985, pp. 16-19

El Salvador, 1979-88. Death squads recruited under cover of boy scouts. Boys operated as a death squad known as Regalados Armed Forces (FAR). They murdered union officials, student leaders and teachers accused of being guerrilla sympathizers. Herman Torres, a death squad member, learned that the scouts part of nationwide net based on the paramilitary organization known as Orden and coordinated from the main military intelligence unit known as Ansesal run by D'Aubuisson. After coup of 1979, Orden and Ansesal officially disbanded. In 1982, when Arena won control of the constituent assembly, the top legislative body was turned into a center for death squads. Another death squad called the secret anti-communist army (ESA). Bush and North in 12/11/1983 were sent to make it clear U.S. would not tolerate death squads. Perez Linares boasted he killed Archbishop Romero on 3/24/1980. Catholic Church's human rights office reports 1991 death squad and government killings in first half of 1988 double the number of 1987. Mother Jones, 1/1989, pp. 10-16

El Salvador, 1980-84. Colonel Roberto Santivanez, former chief of the Salvadoran Army's special military intelligence unit, testified before U.S. Senators and Congressmen. He charged that Roberto D'Aubuisson was the principal organizer of the death squads, along with Colonel Nicolas Carranza, the head of the country's Treasury Police. He said Carranza also serves as a paid CIA informer. Other reports said Carranza received $90,000 a year for providing intelligence to the CIA. Washington Post, 4/1/1984

El Salvador, 1980-84. Former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, Robert White, said the Reagan administration covered up information that Salvadoran rightist Roberto D'Aubuisson ordered the killing of Archbishop Romero. Washington Post, 2/3/1984, 2/7/1984

El Salvador, 1980. Former U.S. Ambassador Robert White, said D'Aubuisson presided over a lottery to select which Salvadoran military officer would assassinate Archbishop Romero, gunned down on 3/24/1980. White said the U.S. Embassy received an eyewitness account of the 3/22 meeting that plotted Romero's murder. Washington Post from Associated Press, 3/1984

El Salvador, 1981-83. Colonel Carranza, leader of Salvador's infamous Treasury Police, oversaw the government reign of terror in which 800 people were killed each month. Carranza received $90,000 a year from the CIA from 1979-84 Reportedly living in Kentucky. The Nation, 6/5/1988, p. 780

El Salvador, 1981-84. House Intelligence Committee concluded "CIA did not directly encourage or support death squad killings. Report added that "some intelligence relationships with individuals connected with death squads" may have given the impression that the CIA condoned, because it was aware of, some death squad killings." Washington Post, 1/14/1985, A20

El Salvador, 1981-84. Senate Intelligence Committee reported several Salvadoran security and military officials have engaged in death squads acts. Large numbers of low-level personnel also involved. Death squads have originated from the Treasury Police and the National Guard and police. Washington Post, 10/12/1984

El Salvador, 1981-84. The CIA and military advisers have helped organize, trained, financed and advised Salvadoran army and intelligence units engaged in death squad activities and torture. Information from two well-informed sources in Salvadoran government. Christian Science Monitor, 5/8/1984, p. 1

El Salvador, 1981-88. Discussion of the use of death squads in El Salvador (No indication of direct CIA participation). The Nation, 5/8/1989, p. 625

El Salvador, 1986. Despite extensive government labor clamp down (including National Guard raid of hospital workers strike), Irving Brown, known CIA and head AFL-CIO's Department of International Affairs, issues report claiming "a shift away from violent repression and an improvement in human rights." Statement incredible in light of death squad attacks on unionists. Barry, T., and Preusch, D. (1986). AIFLD in Central America, p. 35

El Salvador, 1987. Central American death squads reported operating in the Los Angeles area. NACLA (magazine re Latin America), 6/1987, pp. 4-5

El Salvador, 1988. Americas Watch in September said the military killed 52 civilians in first 6 months, compared with 72 in all of 1987. In 1988 the Salvadoran rebels have stepped up the war. Washington Post, 11/26/1988, A1&18

El Salvador. AID public safety advisors created the national police intelligence archive and helped organize Ansesal, an elite presidential intelligence service. Dossiers these agencies collected on anti-government activity, compiled with CIA surveillance reports, provided targets for death squads. Many of 50,000 Salvadorans killed in 1981-85 Attributable to death squad activity. National Reporter, Winter 1986, p. 19

El Salvador. Covert Action Information Bulletin (Quarterly) 12:14-15;12:5-13.

El Salvador. Medrano "the father of the death squads, the chief assassin of them all," according to Jose N. Duarte. On 23 March 1985, Medrano was assassinated. Medrano in 1984 admitted he had worked for the CIA in 1960-69. The Progressive, 6/1985, p. 11

El Salvador. Administration sources said at height of rightist death squad activity, Reagan administration depended on commanders of right wing death squads. The U.S. shared some intelligence with them. U.S. intelligence officers developed close ties to chief death squad suspects while death squads killed several hundred a month and totaling tens of thousands. Washington Post, 10/6/1988, A 39 and 43

El Salvador. Article contrasting results of Senate Committee 1984 news accounts of official cooperation between CIA and Salvadoran security officers said to be involved in death squad activities. First Principles, 12/1984, pp. 2-4

El Salvador. CIA supplied surveillance information to security agencies for death squads. Blum, W. (1986). The CIA A Forgotten History, pp. 321, 327

El Salvador. Falange mysterious death squad comprising both active and retired members security forces. Conducts death squad activities. Covert Action Information Bulletin (Quarterly), 4/1981, p. 14

El Salvador. Formation of Organisation Democratica Nacionalista Orden Formed in 1968 by Medrano. Forces between 50,000 and 100,000. From 1968-79, Orden official branch of government. First junta attempted to abolish, but group reorganized as National Democratic Front. Example of Orden death squad acts. Covert Action Information Bulletin (Quarterly), 4/1981, p. 14

El Salvador. See Dickey article re slaughter in El Salvador in New Republic, 12/13/1983, entitled "The Truth Behind the Death Squads." fn Dickey, C. (1985). With the Contras, p. 286

El Salvador. The CIA and U.S. Armed forces conceived and organized Orden, the rural paramilitary and spy net designed to use terror against government opponents. Conceived and organized Ansesal, the presidential intelligence service that gathered dossiers on dissidents which then passed on to death squads. Kept key security officers with known links to death squads on the CIA payroll. Instructed Salvadoran intelligence operatives "in methods of physical and psychological torture." Briarpatch, 8/1984 p. 30 from the 5/1984 Progressive

El Salvador. UGB (Union Guerrilla Blanca) (white warriors union). Headed by D'Aubuisson, who trained at International Police Academy. D'Aubuisson claims close ties CIA. Former ambassador White called D'Aubuisson a "psychopathic killer." Covert Action Information Bulletin (Quarterly), 4/1981, p. 14

El Salvador, 1979-88. See "Confessions of an Assassin," article. Herman Torres Cortez is the assassin who was interviewed and tells of death squad operations in El Salvador. Mother Jones, 1/1989, p. 10

El Salvador, 1983. Vice President Bush delivered an ultimatum to Salvadoran military to stop death squad murders. Mother Jones, 8/1986, p. 64

El Salvador, 1987. Assassins, certainly sponsored by and probably members of Salvadoran security forces, murder Herbert Ernesto Anaya, head of Salvadoran civil rights commission and last survivor of commission's eight founders. Prior harassment of Anaya solicited neither protest nor protection from Duarte or U.S. administration. Contrary to popular opinion, death squad activity has not waned. "Selective killings of community leaders, labor organizers, human rights workers, rural activists and others have replaced wholesale massacres" since signing of Arias plan. Los Angeles organization "El Rescate" has compiled chronology of human rights abuses. The Nation, 11/14/1987, p. 546

El Salvador. CIA took more than two years 1980-83 begin seriously analyzing papers captured from D'Aubuisson. ICC 242. Papers said reveal death squad supporters, atrocities. Marshall, J., Scott P.D., and Hunter, J. (1987). The Iran-Contra Connection, p. 22

El Salvador, 1988. Death squad activity surged in El Salvador in 1988 after a period of relative decline. Amnesty International report "El Salvador: Death Squads -- A Government Strategy," noted in NACLA (magazine re Latin America) 3/1989, p. 11

El Salvador, 1989. Although human rights monitors consistently link death squad acts to the Salvadoran government, many U.S. media report on death squads as if they an independent or uncontrollable force. Extra, Summer, 1989, p. 28

El Salvador, 1989 Member of Salvadoran army said first brigade intelligence unit army troops routinely kill and torture suspected leftists. First brigade day-to-day army operations carried out with knowledge of U.S. military advisers. CIA routinely pays expenses for intelligence operations in the brigades. U.S. has about 55 advisers in Salvador. Washington Post, 10/27/1989, A1,26

El Salvador, circa 1982-84. Ricardo Castro, a 35 year old Salvadoran army officer, a West Point graduate, said he worked for the CIA and served as translator for a U.S. official who advised the military on torture techniques and overseas assassinations. Castro personally led death squad operations. The Progressive, 3/1986, pp. 26-30

El Salvador, domestic, 1986-87. Article "The Death Squads Hit Home." For decades they terrorized civilians in El Salvador, now they are terrorizing civilians in the U.S. The FBI shared intelligence about Salvadoran activists in the U.S. with Salvador's notorious security services. The Progressive, 10/1987, pp. 15-19

El Salvador. Office of Public Safety graduate Colonel Roberto Mauricio Staben was, according to journalist Charles Dickey "responsible for patrolling--if not contributing to--the famous death squad dumping ground at El Payton a few miles from its headquarters." also, Alberto Medrano, founder of El Salvador's counterinsurgency force Orden, was an operations graduate. Finally, Jose Castillo, who was trained in 1969 at the U.S. International Police School, later became head of National Guard's section of special investigations which helped organize the death squads. The Nation, 6/7/1986, p. 793

El Salvador. Former death squad member Joya Martinez admitted death squad operations carried out with knowledge and approval 2 U.S. military advisers. LA Weekly, 1/25/1990

El Salvador. DCI report to House Intelligence Committee re CIA connections with death squads. National security archives listing.

El Salvador. FBI's contacts with the Salvadoran National Guard. Information in Senate Intelligence Committee Report, 7/1989, pp. 104-5

El Salvador. Former San Francisco police officer accused of illegal spying said he worked for CIA and will expose CIA's support of death squads if he prosecuted. Tom Gerard said he began working for CIA in 1982 and quit in 1985 because he could not tolerate what he saw. He and Roy Bullock are suspected of gathering information from police and government files on thousands of individuals and groups. Information probably ended up with B'nai B'rith and ADL. CIA refused to confirm Gerard's claim. Gerard said there is proof CIA directly involved in training and support of torture and death squads in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala during mid 1980s. Proof in his briefcase San Francisco police seized. Gerard said several photos seized by police show CIA agents attending interrogations, or posing with death squad members. Washington Times, 4/28/1993, A 6

El Salvador, 1963-90. In 1963 U.S. sent 10 Special Forces to help General Madrano set up Organizacion Democratica Nacionalista (Orden), a death squad. Evidence this sort activity going on for 30 years. Martinez, a soldier in First infantry brigade's department 2, admitted death squad acts. Said he worked with two U.S. Advisers. Castro, another soldier, talks about death squads and U.S. contacts. Rene Hurtado, former agent with Treasury Police, gives his story. Covert Action Information Bulletin (Quarterly) Summer 1990, pp. 51-53

El Salvador, 1973-89. El Salvador's ruling party, Arena, closed off fifth floor of National Assembly building to serve as HQ for national network of death squads following Arena's 20 March 1988 electoral victory. Hernan Torres Cortez, a former Arena security guard and death squad member, said he was trained and recruited by Dr. Antonio Regalado under orders of Roberto D'Abuisson intelligence service, Ansesal, in 1973. Official network was broken up in 1984 following Vice President Bush's visit, but was reinstated in 1988. Intelligence Newsletter, 1/18/1991, p. 5

El Salvador, 1979-90. A detailed discussion of Salvador's death squads. Schwarz, B. (1991). American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and El Salvador, pp. 41-3

El Salvador, 1980-84. Expatriate Salvadorans in U.S. have provided funds for political violence and have been directly involved in assisting and directing their operations. Senate Intelligence Committee, October 5, 1984, p. 15

El Salvador, 1980-84. Numerous Salvadoran officials involved in death squad activities - most done by security services - especially the Treasury Police and National Guard. Some military death squad activity. Senate Intelligence Committee, October 5, 1984, 15

El Salvador, 1980-89. D'Aubuisson kept U.S. on its guard. Hundreds of released declassified documents re relationship. Washington Post, 1/4/1994, A1,13

El Salvador, 1980-89. Declassified documents re 32 cases investigated by United Nations appointed Truth Commission on El Salvador reveal U.S. officials were fully aware of Salvadoran military and political leaders' complicity in crimes ranging from massacre of more than 700 peasants at El Mozote in 1981 to murder of 6 Jesuit priests in 1989, and thousands of atrocities in between. Lies of our Time 3/1994, pp. 6-9

El Salvador, 1980-89. President Reagan and Vice President Bush instituted polices re fighting communists rather than human rights concerns. From 11/1980 through 1/1991 a large number of assassinations - 11/27, 5 respected politicians; 12/4, rape and murder of 3 American nuns and a lay workers; 2 American land reform advisers on 1/4/1981. Archbishop Romero killed 3/1980. There clear evidence D'Aubuisson's involvement but Reagan administration ignored. On TV, D'Aubuisson, using military intelligence files, denounced teachers, labor leaders, union organizers and politicians. Within days their mutilated bodies found. Washington had identified most leaders of death squads as members Salvadoran security forces with ties to D'Aubuisson. With U.S. outrage at bloodshed, U.S., via Bush, advised government slaughter must stop. Article discusses torture techniques used by security forces. Washington Post op-ed by Douglas Farah, 2/23/1992, C4

El Salvador, 1980-90. COL Nicolas Carranza, head of Treasury Police, on CIA payroll. Minnick, W. (1992). Spies and Provocateurs, p. 32

El Salvador, 1980-90. State panel found that mistakes by U.S. diplomats, particularly in probing 1981 massacre of civilians at El Mozote, undercut policy during Salvador's civil war. Findings in 67-page study ordered by Secretary of State Christopher. Sen. Leahy said report "glosses over...the lies, half-truths and evasions that we came to expect from the State Department during that period." Sen. Dodd said "report is sloppy, anemic and basically a whitewash..." Washington Times, 7/16/1993, A12 and Washington Post, 7/16/1993, A16

El Salvador, 1980-91. Truth Commission report says 19 of 27 Salvadoran officers implicated in 6 Jesuit murders were graduates of U.S. Army's School of Americas in Fort Benning, Ga. Almost three quarters of Salvadoran officers accused in 7 other massacres were trained at Fort Benning. It called school for dictators. Since 46 it has trained more than 56,000 Latin soldiers. Graduates include some of region's most despicable military strongmen. Now, when U.S. wants to build democracy, school an obstacle. Newsweek investigation turned up hundreds of less than honorable grads. At least 6 Peruvian officers linked to a military death squad that killed 9 students and a professor were graduates. Four of five senior Honduran officers accused in Americas Watch report of organizing a death squad, Battalion 316, were trained there. A coalition charged 246 Colombian officers with human rights violations; 105 were school alumni. Honored graduates include General Suarez, a brutal dictator of Bolivia; General Callejas Ycallejas, chief of Guatemalan intelligence in late 1970s and early 1980s, when thousands political opponents were assassinated; and Honduran General Garcia, a corrupt person; and, Hernandez, armed forces chief of Colombia suspected of aiding Colombian drug traffickers. Newsweek, 8/9/1993, pp. 36-7

El Salvador, 1980-92. "Secret of the Skeletons: Uncovering America's Hidden Role in El Salvador." Pathologists uncovered 38 small skeletons in El Mozote. In 1981 soldiers of ACRE, immediate reaction infantry battalion created by U.S., herded children into basement and blew up building. U.S. officials denied any massacre had taken place and kept on denying for years. About 800 residents killed. Armed service leaders said they conducted war on part of Reagan and Bush administrations with bi-partisan support Congress since 1984; received daily assistance from State Department, DOD and CIA. Truth Commission investigating via U.S. Government interagency committee. State and CIA not cooperating with commission. CIA not giving one document on formation of death squads, prepared in 1983 for congressional intelligence committees. Kidnap-for-profit ring against Salvadoran business community. With U.S. Encouragement, Salvadoran government arrested several members of ring. One was a death squad assassin, Rudolfo Isidro Lopez Sibrian, who implicated in deaths of 2 American labor advisers. Washington Post, 11/15/1992, C1,2

El Salvador, 1980-93. 11/5/1993 release of thousands pages of intelligence reports shows every U.S. diplomat, military officer, and intelligence operative who worked with El Salvador's military and political leaders in 1980s knew most of those involved in organizing death squads. State Department officials lied to Congress. Intelligence reports detailed precise information on murder, kidnapping, and coup plots, and death squad funding, involving people like VP Francisco Merino and current Arena candidate Armando Calderon Sol. At least 63,000 Salvadoran civilians - equivalent of 3 million Americans were killed - most by government supported by U.S. The Nation, 11/29/1993, p. 645

El Salvador, 1980-93. Approximately 50-page article on the massacres at El Mozote. Article by Mark Danner. New Yorker, 12/6/1993

El Salvador, 1980-93. Article by Jared Toller, "Death Squads Past, Present & Future." discusses recent cases of FMLN members being murdered by resurgent death squads. Only left is calling for full implementation of UN Truth Commission's recommendations - purging armed forces, full investigation into death squads, etc. Truth Commission had recommended U.S. make it files available. U.S. Had refused to turn over 1983 FBI report on death squads organization in Miami. Salvadoran government is the death squads. Member of a death squad now imprisoned and seeking amnesty, Lopez Sibrian, explained participation of Arena luminaries in kidnappings, bombings and attacks on National University. He implicated the mayor of San Salvador in various acts. Link between phone service, Antel, and national intelligence police. Antel records calls of left and passes them to police. (The secret anti-communist Army, a former death squad, were regulars of now-disbanded Treasury Police). Upcoming elections may have generated increase in death squad activity. Z magazine, 1/1994, pp. 14-5

El Salvador, 1980-93. Colman McCarthy comments of UN's Truth Commission report and the Reagan-Abrams "fabulous achievement." Washington Post, 4/6/1993, D22

El Salvador, 1980-93. Letter to editor by Thomas Buergenthal of law school at George Washington U., who was a member of the Truth Commission for El Salvador. He denies news story that there was a chapter in the report that dealt with the structure and finances of the groups was withheld. He bemoans the ability of the commission to thoroughly investigate all aspects. Washington Post, 11/30/1993, A24

El Salvador, 1980-93. Report of UN's Truth Commission re enormous crime of a government that killed upwards of 70,000 civilians between 1980-92. Report refutes official statements made by Reagan and Bush administrations - when officials denied leaders of Salvadoran armed forces were using execution, rape and torture to sustain their power - reports says they were. We need a truth report on our own government per Rep. Moakley. Truth report adds growing body evidence U.S. Government officials may have participated in perpetuation of atrocities in El Salvador. In 1960s, CIA advisers helped create a nationwide informant net. In 1981, team of military advisers led by Brig. Gen. Frederick Woener sent to determine "rightist terrorism and institutional violence." Salvadorans generally dismissed notion that terror was a bad idea. One of Colonels, Oscar Edgardo Casanova Vejar, was one covering up rape and murder of four churchwomen. Woener recommended U.S. proceed and give $300-400 million aid. U.S. officials claimed churchwomen had run a roadblock and there was no massacre at El Mozote. Neil Livingstone, a consultant who worked with Oliver North at NSC concluded, "death squads are an extremely effective tool, however odious, in combating terrorism and revolutionary challenges." op-ed by Jefferson Morley, an Outlook editor. Washington Post, 3/28/1993, C1,5

El Salvador, 1980-93. Salvador's ruling party moved to declare amnesty for those named in United Nations.-sponsored Truth Commission. Investigators said 85% of complaints laid to government death squads. Discusses D'Aubuisson's implication in Archbishop Romero's assassination. Washington Post 3/17/1993 a25

El Salvador, 1980. Ten former death squad members were ordered killed in Santiago de Maria on 27 December 1980 by Hector Antonio Regalado, who felt they knew too much. Intelligence Newsletter, 10/4/1988, p. 6

El Salvador, 1981-84. There are two versions of first page of a CIA report, "El Salvador: Dealing With Death Squads," 1/20/1984. CIA released first version in 1987, among congressional debate over aid to El Salvador. Second version, which contradicts first, declassified by CIA in 11/1993. As recently as 10/1992, CIA continued to release censored version in response to FOIA requests. Redacted version implies death squad problem overcome - non censored version show this is not true. New York Times, 12/17/1993, A19

El Salvador, 1981-89. Salvadoran atrocity posed agonizing choice for U.S. COL Rene Ponce, chief of staff of Salvador's armed forces, has been accused of ordering murder of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter at Central American University. Newly available U.S. documents show U.S. knowingly and repeatedly aligned themselves with unsavory characters during 1980s while defending them to U.S. Public. Diplomatic cables found among more than 10,000 recently declassified State, Pentagon and CIA documents, reveal extent U.S. policy makers chose to overlook Ponce's brutality. U.S. officials long labeled Ponce a right-wing extremist tied to death squads. But documents make clear U.S. played down unsavory side of Ponce. Details from correspondence between Ambassador Walker and Baker. In 10/1983, CIA prepared a "briefing paper on right-wing terrorism in El Salvador" that described Ponce as a supporter of death squads. Impact Bush's visit in 1984 to push for human rights was minimal. By 7/1989, CIA reported that Ponce "espouses moderate political views." Ponce refused repeated requests to pursue those responsible for deaths of Jesuits. Washington Post, 4/5/1994, A13

El Salvador, 1981-90. Government operation at El Mozote consisted of Army, National Guard and the Treasury Police in operation rescue. By early 1992, U.S. spent more than 4 billion in civil war lasting 12 years and that left 75,000 dead. New Yorker, 12/6/1993, p. 53

El Salvador, 1981-90. In 1981 over 10,000 political murders committed by Salvadoran military and its death squads. In 1990 there were 108 such murders. Schwarz, B. (1991). American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and El Salvador, p. 23

El Salvador, 1981-92. Article "Death-Squad Refugees," discusses case of Cesar Vielman Joya Martinez, extradited by Bush to El Salvador to face murder charges for being part of a death squad that he claims operated with knowledge of defense minister Ponce and other top officials. FOIA documents show U.S. helping prepare extradition request for Salvadoran government. Truth Commission's report vindicates Joya. Texas Observer (magazine), 3/26/1993, pp. 9-10

El Salvador, 1981-92. Some U.S. special operations soldiers in El Salvador during civil war want Pentagon to admit they more than advisers. They say they also fought. Army memo given Newsweek says, "most personnel serving in an advisory capacity were directly engaged in hostile action." Newsweek, 4/5/1993

El Salvador, 1981-92. Truth Commission report implicates top Salvadoran officials in ordering or covering up murders of four U.S. churchwomen and six Jesuit priests; and Salvadoran troops massacred many hundreds at El Mozote. Four Dutch journalists killed 3/17/1982 were deliberately ambushed by Salvadoran army. Denials by then top U.S. government officials now exposed. U.S. government supported war with $6 billion. The Nation, 4/12/1993, p. 475

El Salvador, 1981-93. 12 years of tortured truth on El Salvador - U.S. declarations undercut by United Nations. Commission report. For 12 years, opponents of U.S. policy in Central America accused Reagan and Bush administrations of ignoring widespread human rights abuses by the Salvadoran government and of systematically deceiving or even lying to Congress and people about the nature of an ally that would receive $6 billion in economic and military aid. A three-man United Nations.-sponsored Truth Commission released a long-awaited report on 12 years of murder, torture and disappearance in El Salvador's civil war. Commission examined 22,000 complaints of atrocities and attributed 85 percent of a representative group of them to Salvadoran security forces or right-wing death squads. It blamed remainder on guerrilla Farabundo Marti National Liberation front (FMLN). In May 1980, for instance, when Carter was still President, security forces seized documents implicating rightist leader D'Aubuisson in the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero. In Fall of 1981, Army Brig. Gen. Fred Woerner supervised preparation of a joint U.S.-Salvadoran internal military "Report of the El Salvador Military Strategy Assistance Team," which noted that "the (Salvadoran) armed forces are reluctant to implement vigorous corrective actions for abuses in the use of force." One reason so many people found it hard to believe U.S. officials could not have known more about rights abuses and acted more aggressively to curb them is that the U.S. was deeply involved in running the war, from intelligence gathering to strategy planning to training of everyone from officers to foot soldiers. By 1982, U.S.. military advisers were assigned to each of the six Salvadoran brigades, as well as each of 10 smaller detachments. The U.S. put tens of millions of dollars into developing the ultra-modern national intelligence directorate to coordinate intelligence gathering and dissemination. U.S. military and CIA officials participated in almost every important meeting. Most brigades had a U.S. intelligence officer assigned to them, as well as a U.S. liaison officer. U.S. advisers regularly doled out small amounts of money, usually less than $1,000 at a time, for intelligence work. The U.S. was not informed of arrests or captures Unless they specifically asked. "They never asked unless there was a specific request because someone in Washington was getting telegrams." El Mozote, the report said, was work of U.S.-trained Atlacatl battalion, part of a days-long search-and-destroy sweep known as "Operation Rescue." In fact, the report said, the soldiers massacred more than 500 people in six villages. In El Mozote, where the identified victims exceeded 200, "the men were tortured and executed, then women were executed and finally, the children" Washington Post, 3/21/1993

El Salvador, 1981-93. A discussion of the media's treatment of the El Mozote massacres and the U.S. media's treatment of that story. Lies of our Time, 6/1993, pp. 3-4

El Salvador, 1981-93. Thomas Enders, former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs from 1981-83, writes op-ed defending U.S. officials' testimony re massacre at El Mozote as now confirmed by UN's Truth Commission report. Washington Post, op-ed 3/29/1993, A19

El Salvador, 1981-93. United Nations. Commission on Truth to release report on crimes committed against civilians in Salvador's 12-year civil war. Defense Minister Ponce already resigned. Washington Post Outlook, 3/14/1993, C1,2

El Salvador, 1981-94. Armando Calderon Sol considered shoo-in to win Presidency in impending elections. Calderon began his political career as a member of a seven-man, neo-fascist group under D'Aubuisson's guidance that supported death squad operations. Calderon has all worst elements of D'Abuisson without any redeeming qualities. When D'Abuisson running death squads out of his office, Calderon was his private secretary and a loyal soldier in a terrorist cell - Salvadoran National Movement (MNS). In 1981, D'Abuisson unified MNS into Arena party. Washington Post, Outlook, 4/17/1994, C1,3

El Salvador, 1981. Detailed article on "The Truth of El Mozote," by Mark Danner. New Yorker, 12/6/1993, pages 51 and ending on page 103

El Salvador, 1981. Skeletons verify killing of Salvadoran children of El Mozote, El Salvador. Washington Times, 10/21/1992, A9 and Washington Post, 10/22/1992, A18

El Salvador, 1982-84. Significant political violence associated with Salvadoran security services including National police, National Guard, and Treasury Police. U.S. government agencies maintained official relationships with Salvadoran security establishment appearing to acquiesce in these activities. No evidence U.S. personnel participated in forcible interrogations. U.S. did pass "tactical" information to alert services of action by insurgent forces. Information on persons passed only in highly unusual cases. Senate Intelligence Committee, October 5, 1984, pp. 11-13.

El Salvador, 1982-84. "Recent Political Violence in El Salvador," Report of Senate Intelligence Committee. Committee found ample evidence that U.S. policy was to oppose political violence. U.S. government accorded high priority to gathering intelligence on political violence. President Bush and his demarche in 1983. P8. U.S. government Relationship with Robert D'Aubuisson - bio on him. U.S. Government contact with him limited. Roberto Santivanez, director of Ansesal 1978-79. He claimed he himself had engaged in death squad activity and had a relationship with U.S. through CIA and that COL Carranza had ties to CIA. Colonel Nicolas Carranza had extensive ties to Arena and National Conciliation (PCN) parties. He involved in various activities of interest to U.S. in various positions. Senate Intelligence Committee, October 5, 1984, pp. 1-11

El Salvador, 1983-90. Former Salvadoran army intelligence agent who applied for political asylum in U.S. convicted in court of entering country illegally. Joya-Martinez's request for political asylum still pending. Washington Post, 9/19/1990, A5

El Salvador, 1985. In 2/1985, CIA reported that behind Arena's legitimate exterior lies a terrorist network led by D'Aubuisson using both active-duty and retired military personnel..." main death squad was "the Secret Anti-communist Army," described by CIA as the paramilitary organization of Arena - from the National Police and other security organizations. These were funded directly from Washington. Death squads became more active as 1994, election approached. Columbia, possibly leading terrorist state in Latin America, has become leading recipient of U.S. military aid. Since 1986, more than 20,000 people have been killed for political reasons, most by Colombian authorities. More than 1,500 leaders, members and supporters of the Labor Party (UP) have been assassinated since party established in 1985. Pretext for terror operations is war against guerrillas and narcotraffickers. Former a partial truth, latter a myth concocted to replace the "communist threat." Pmers works hand-in-hand with drug lords, organized crime, and landlords. National Police took over as leading official killers while U.S. aid shifted to them. Targets include community leaders, human rights and health workers, union activists, students, members of religious youth organizations, and young people in shanty towns. Sale of human organs. Case of Guatemala. Shift of 1962, under Kennedy administration from hemispheric defense to "internal security:" war against the internal enemy. Doctrines expounded in counterinsurgency manuals. Internal enemy extends to labor organizations, popular movements, indigenous organizations, opposition political parties, peasant movements, intellectual sectors, religious currents, youth and student groups, neighborhood organizations, etc. From 1984 through 1992, 6,844 Colombian soldiers trained under U.S. International Military Education and Training Program (MET). Z Magazine, 5/1994, 14 pages

El Salvador, 1986-87. See article "Death Squad Update, Investigating L.A.'s Salvadoran Connection." Los Angeles Weekly, 8/7/1987

El Salvador, 1986-89. Joya Martinez, former death squad member, who said two U.S. advisers attached to his unit and gave funds of 9500 month. Article names other Salvadoran death squad members. Unclassified, 7/1990

El Salvador, 1986. In 1986, Salvadoran authorities, with help of FBI, cracked a kidnap-for-hire ring in which death squads posing as leftist rebels kidnapped some of nation's wealthiest businessmen. Schwarz, B. (1991). American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and El Salvador, p. 28

El Salvador, 1987-89. Jesuit labeled ardent communist two years before by Salvadoran, U.S. officials. Religious News Service, 5/9/1990, p. 1

El Salvador, 1987-89. Salvadoran woman defecting to U.S. said she worked for death squad and provided information on six people who killed. Her claims back up those of her supervisor, Cesar Joya Martinez, who linked death squad acts to U.S. funding. Boston Globe, 3/16/1990, in First Principles, 4/1990, p. 10

El Salvador, 1988-89. Joya Martinez, former member intelligence department 1st army Brigade of Salvador's army. Said U.S. advisers funded their activity, but unaware of death squad. Washington Post, 11/19/1989, F2

El Salvador, 1988. Amnesty International report of 26 October 1988 noted "black list" are supplied to Salvadoran media by Salvadoran intelligence services. During first six months of 1988, number of murders by death squads tripled over same period of previous year. Most prominent victim was Judge Jorge Alberto Serrano Panameno who was shot in May 1988. Increase reflects rise to power of 1966 class from national military school. Class members include Colonel Rene Emilio Ponce, new chief of staff of armed forces as well as director of Treasury Police. They command five of country's six brigades, five of seven military detachments, three security forces as well as intelligence, personnel and operations posts in high command. Intelligence Newsletter, 11/16/1988, pp. 5,6

El Salvador, 1989-91. According to confidential Salvadoran military sources, decision to murder six Jesuit priests was made at a 15 November 1989 meeting of senior commanders (CO) at the Salvadoran military school. Those allegedly present were: Colonel Benavides, CO of the school; General Juan Rafael Bustillo, then CO of Salvadoran Air Force - in 1991 assigned to embassy in Israel; General Emilio Ponce, then chief of staff - in 1991 minister of defense; and Colonel Elena Fuentes, CO of 1st brigade. Initiative for murders came from Colonel Bustillo. For a listing of direct and circumstantial evidence supporting allegation, see statement of Rep. Joe Moakley, Task Force on El Salvador, 11/18/1991

El Salvador, 1989. CIA officer visited bodies of dead priests. Officer was senior liaison with (DNI) the national intelligence directorate. U.S. probably knew Salvadoran military behind assassinations but did not say anything for seven weeks. State Department panel did not review actions of CIA or DOD. Washington Post, 7/18/1993, C1,4

El Salvador, 1989. Congressman criticized a 11/ 1987 report in which Latin American and U.S. military leaders accused Rev. Ignacio Ellacuria and several other theologians of supporting objectives of communist revolution. Father Ellacuria, Rector of Jesuit university in San Salvador, was murdered on 11/16/ 1989. Religious News Service, 5/11/1990, p. 1

El Salvador, 1989. Joya Martinez and Jesuit murders. Martinez says his unit which played major role in 12/1989 murder of Jesuit priests had U.S. government advisors. INS trying to deport Martinez. Unclassified, 9/1990, p. 6

El Salvador, 1989. Salvadoran Archbishop Rivera accused U.S. officials of subjecting a witness to the slaying of 6 Jesuit intellectuals to brainwashing and psychological torment. Washington Post, 12/11/1989, A23,24

El Salvador, 1989. U.S. military adviser Benavides told FBI, later recanted, that Salvadoran army chief of staff and others knew of plan to kill six Jesuit priests. Washington Post, 10/29/1990, A17,21

El Salvador, 1990. Amnesty International reported a significant surge in number of killings by army-supported death squads this year. 45 people killed between January and August this year, compared with 40 reported in 1989. Washington Post, 10/24/1990, A14

El Salvador, 1990. Cesar Vielman Joya-Martinez, former member Salvadoran First brigade death squad, sentenced to 6 months in jail for illegally reentering U.S. 6 years after he deported. Washington Post, 12/8/1990, A22

El Salvador, 1991. Salvadoran minister of defense and other top generals attended 1989 meeting where decision was made to murder six Jesuit priests, according to confidential sources. Allegation was made by an attorney working for Rep. Moakley (D-MA), whose task force released a six page statement directly linking Salvadoran high command to slayings. Washington Times, 11/18/1991, A2

El Salvador, 1991. Summary executions continued in El Salvador despite the presence of Onusal, the UN observer mission monitoring human rights violations. In a 1991 report, Onusal noted government made few attempts to investigate slayings. Report also accused FMLN for recruiting fifteen-year-olds. Washington Times, 12/3/1991, A8

El Salvador, 1992. Cesar Vielman Joya Martinez, former Salvadoran death squad member, to be deported. Washington Post editorial, 10/23/1992, A20

El Salvador, 1993. Right-wing death squads undermining fragile peace per UN chief in campaign for March 1994 elections. Washington Times, 11/25/1993, A15

El Salvador, Central America, 1981-1993. Salvadoran death squads set up as a consequence of Kennedy administration decisions. Killers were Treasury Police and the military who were trained in intelligence and torture by U.S. U.S. personnel staffed military and intelligence apparatus. Generals selected and trained by U.S. were most notorious killers. 1984 FBI report on death squads never released. For savage expose of School of Americas' killers, see Father Roy Bourgeois's School of the Americas Watch, Box 3330, Columbus Ga. 31903; (706) 682-5369. The Nation, 12/27/1993, p. 791

El Salvador, 1989-1990. Joya Martinez testified role played by U.S. officials in death squad killings carried out by U.S. trained first infantry Brigade's intelligence unit. Two U.S. military advisers controlled intelligence department and paid for unit's operating expenses. His unit performed 74 executions between April and July 1989. Washington Post confirmed U.S. advisers work in liaison with First brigade and CIA pays expenses for intelligence operations in the brigades. Martinez said his first brigade unit attached to U.S.-trained Atlacatl battalion, which slaughtered the Jesuit priests. Member of his unit, Oscar Mariano Amaya Grimaldi has confessed to slayings. In These Times, 8/14/1990, p. 17

Europe: Watch List

Europe, 1945-92. Operation Gladio. First scandal was discovery of assassination teams in 1952 linked to Bundes Deutscher Judged - a right-wing political organization in Hesse, Germany. They prepared list of German politicians who [might cooperate with Soviets]. BBC (1992). Gladio - Timewatch (Transcript of 3 part program), pp. 19-20

Georgia: Watch List

Georgia, 1993. Woodruff worked for 2 months as CIA's Tbilisi station chief posing as a State Department regional-affairs officer. He to help Guguladze upgrade Georgian intelligence service and to monitor factional struggle. Newsweek 8/23/1993, p. 18

Germany: Watch List

Germany, 1950-54. In about 1950 pacifist ideas to be eradicated. U.S. formed German youth league (Bund Deutscher Jurgend (BDJ)) in Frankfurt. Psychological indoctrination given by Paul Luth. BDJ was a militant organization, a counterweight to communist-run free German youth (FDJ) run from East Berlin to infiltrate w. German youth. BDJ passed letters and brochures through Iron Curtain and pasted slogans on walls. Chancellor Adenauer wanted cold war and wanted to use the BDJ. Otto John told by State official Zinn that it had uncovered neo-Nazi unit BDJ run by Peters, that was organizing secret firing exercises and training for partisan warfare in the Odelwald. BDJ had drawn up a blacklist of left-wing socialists who were to be arrested or even murdered in event of attack from east. [early version of Gladio political and staybehind operation]. John, O. (1969). Twice Through the Lines: the Autobiography of Otto John, pp. 210-15

Germany, 1950-90. Bonn officials said government to disband secret resistance net Operation Gladio. Section consisted of former Nazi SS and Waffen-SS officers as well as members of an extreme right-wing youth group that drew up plans to assassinate leading members of Socialist Democratic Party in event of USSR-invasion. "Statewatch" compilation filed June 1994, p. 11

Germany, 1952-91. CIA's stay-behind program caused scandal in 1952 when West German police discovered CIA working with a 2,000-member fascist youth group led by former Nazis. Group had a black list of people to be liquidated in case of conflict with the USSR. Makeup of lists. Lembke case. The Nation, 4/6/1992, p. 446

Germany, 1953. (Stay-behind operation Gladio?). In 1953 mass arrests of neo-Nazi militant organization within ranks of German youth fellowship (BDJ) discovered. Group held secret night maneuvers in Odenwald with CIA instructors. They preparing for war with East Germany and prepared lists of communists, left-wing sympathizers and pacifists who were to be arrested in case of emergency. Members encouraged to infiltrate East German youth league (FDJ). Operation exposed in press and scores of youths arrested in East Germany as spies, propagandists or provocateurs, and sentenced to terms of up to nine years of hard labor. Hagan, l. (1969). The Secret War for Europe, p. 78

Germany, 1953. U.S. Intelligence officer told Otto John, head of BFV, one of its agents in East Germany to defect with a list of East German agents in West. 35 Communist spies arrested after Easter. Later it found many of those arrested were innocent. Arrests followed with apologies. Disaster caused by over-zealous U.S. intelligence officer. West German businessmen as consequence afraid to do business with east. This a goal of U.S. Policy - was this a deliberate "mistake?" Hagan, l. (1969). The Secret War for Europe, p. 81

Greece: Watch List

Greece, 1967. After CIA-backed coup, the army and police seized almost 10,000

You dirThe US is in Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks. To gloat over the deaths to two American intelligence officers as they worked to capture and kill those responsible reveals the worst kind of depravity.

I will not attempt to reason with you—people who utter such filth as contained in that post are almost always beyond reason. I will emphatically state for the record that you and your supports are wrong, you are immoral, and no civilized person gives much credence to your opinion.

Panama
from the book
The CIAs Greatest Hits
by Mark Zapezauer

For most of his life, Manuel Noriega got along very well with the CIA. As far back as 1959, he was reporting on Panamanian leftists to the Americans; by 1966, he was on the CIA payroll. Despite-or maybe because of-Noriega's "perverse" treatment of prisoners, he was deemed worthy to be trained at the notorious School of the Americas (also known as the "School of Dictators" or the "School of Assassins" ), run by the US Army in Panama City (it's since moved to Ft. Benning, Georgia).
As early as 1972, reports of Noriega's drug trafficking irked the DEA, and the State Department complained of his dealings with other intelligence services, notably those of Israel and Cuba. Don't worry, said the CIA-he's our boy.
In 1976, Noriega paid a visit to CIA Director George Bush in Washington. Bush's successor was less comfortable with Noriega and took him off the CIA payroll, but when Bush became vice-president in 1980, Noriega went back on, with a six-figure annual salary.
In 1981, Panama's popular head of state, Omar Torrijos, was killed in a plane crash; by 1983, Noriega had consolidated his control. In 1987, a close Noriega aide corroborated what many suspected-Noriega had sabotaged Torrijos' plane. (The CIA has also been linked to the assassination, in 1955, of Panama's president, allegedly with the approval of then-Vice-President Nixon).
Nothing Noriega did seemed to upset the CIA. If he smuggled cocaine on contra supply planes ...well, he wasn't the only one. If he beheaded a political opponent who accused him of drug running...well, he was just being firm.
If he used violence and fraud to steal the 1984 Panamanian elections...well, we couldn't have been more pleased with the outcome.
By 1989, however, the love affair was over. Noriega had angered his handlers by waffling on his opposition to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and he was showing other disquieting signs of disobedience. In December 1989, US troops invaded Panama to "arrest" Noriega, slaughtering 2,000 - 4,000 innocent civilians in the process.
What changed after the invasion? Violence, fraud and drug trafficking continued unabated. But, unlike Noriega, Panama's new rulers knew how to follow orders, and agreed to reconsider the Torrijos treaties, under which all US military bases in Panama would be shut down by the year 2000. (In 1994, Torrijos' and Noriega's old party was voted back in-so look for more CIA sabotage.)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Panama_CIAHits.html

The Indonesian Massacres and the CIA
by Ralph McGehee
Covert Action Quarterly, Fall 1990



In my original article ( The Nation, April 11, 1981) I tried to explain, through the constraints of the secrecy agreement and the deletions by the CIA's review board, one aspect of the Agency's successful effort to manipulate events in Indonesia in late 1965 and early 1966. The article was based on a classified CIA study of which I was custodian while working in the International Communism Branch of the CIA's Counterintelligence Staff. The Nation joined with me in an unsuccessful lawsuit by the ACLU to gain release of the deleted portions of the article. The Agency claims it cannot delete unclassified lies or speculations. By heavily censoring my article, it effectively admitted to an Agency role in the peration.
In a recent story in the San Francisco Examiner, researcher Kathy Kadane quotes CIA and State department officials who admit compiling lists of names of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), making those lists available to the Indonesian military, and checking names off as people were "eliminated.'' The killings were part of a massive bloodletting after an abortive coup attempt taking, according to various estimates, between 250,000 and 1,000,000 lives and ultimately led to the overthrow of President Sukarno's government.
Since then a debate has simmered over what happened. A recent study based on information from former Johnson ad ministration officials, asserted that for months the U.S. "did their damnedest" through public pressure and more discreet methods, to prod the Indonesian army to move against Sukarno without success.
Debate continues over the origins of the coup attempt called Gestapu. Was it the result of CIA machinations, a takeover maneuver by General Suharto, a revolt by leftist officers under the control of the PKI, a power play by the People's Republic of China, a pre-emptive strike by Sukarno loyalists to prevent a move by officers friendly to the CIA, some combination of these factors, or others as yet unknown? I confess to no inside knowledge of the Gestapu.

Historical Background
It is well known that the CIA had long sought to unseat Sukarno: by funding an opposition political party in the mid-1950s, sponsoring a massive military overthrow attempt in the mid-1958, planning his assassination in 1961, and by rigging intelligence to inflame official U.S. concerns in order to win approval for planned covert actions.
Before attempting to describe one aspect of the CIA's role, it is essential to provide background on the scope and nature of its worldwide operations. Between 1961 and 1975 the Agency conducted 900 major or sensitive operations, and thousands of lesser covert actions. The majority of its operations were propaganda, election or paramilitary. Countries of major concern, such as Indonesia in the early 1960s, were usually subjected to the CIA's most concerted attention.
Critics of the CIA have aptly described the mainstays of such attention: "discrediting political groups... by forged documents that may be attributed to them. . . ," faking "communist weapon shipments,'' capturing communist documents and then inserting forgeries prepared by the Agency's Technical Services Division. The CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer" then emblazoned and disseminated the details of such "discoveries."
The Mighty Wurlitzer was a worldwide propaganda mechanism consisting of hundreds or even thousands of media representatives and officials including, over a period of years, approximately 400 members of the American media. The CIA has used the Wurlitzer and its successors to plant stories and to suppress expository or critical reporting in order to manipulate domestic and international perceptions. From the early 1980s, many media operations formerly the responsibility of the CIA have been funded somewhat overtly by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
From the earliest days, the Agency's International Organizations Division (IOD) implemented and coordinated its extensive covert operations. The division's activities created or assisted international organizations for youth, students, teachers, workers, veterans, journalists, and jurists. The CIA used, and continues to use, the various labor, student, and other suborned organizations not only for intelligence and propaganda purposes, but also to participate in elections and paramilitary operations and to assist in overthrowing governments. At the same time, the CIA manipulates their organizational publications for covert propaganda goals.
The labor unions the CIA creates and subsidizes, in their more virulent stages, provide strong-arm goon squads who burn buildings, threaten and beat up opponents, pose as groups of the opposition to discredit them, terrorize and control labor meetings, and participate in coups.

Use of "Subversive Control Watch Lists"
As a matter of course, the Agency develops close relationships with security services in friendly nations and exploits these in many ways-by recruiting unilateral sources to spy on the home government, by implementing pro-U.S. policies, and by gathering and exchanging intelligence. As one aspect of those liaisons, the CIA universally compiles local "Subversive Control Watch Lists" of leftists for attention by the local government. Frequently that attention is the charter of government death squads.
After the CIA's overthrow of Arbenz's government in Guatemala in 1954, the U.S. gave the new government lists of opponents to be eliminated. In Chile from 1971 through 1973, the CIA fomented a military coup through forgery and propaganda operations and compiled arrest lists of thousands,
many of whom were later arrested and assassinated. In Bolivia in 1975, the CIA provided lists of progressive priests and nuns to the government which planned to harass, arrest and expel them. To curry the favor of Khomeini, in 1983 the CIA gave his government a list of KGB agents and collaborators operating in Iran. Khomeini then executed 200 suspects and closed down the communist Tudeh party. In Thailand, I provided the names of hundreds of leftists to Thai security services. The Phoenix program in Vietnam was a massive U.S.-backed program to compile arrest and assassination lists of the Viet Cong for action by CIA-created Provisional Reconnaissance Unit death squads. In fact, former Director of the CIA William Colby compared the Indonesian operation directly to the Vietnam Phoenix Program. Colby further admitted directing the CIA to concentrate on compiling lists of members of the PKI and other left groups.
In 1963, responding to Colby's direction, U.S.-trained Indonesian trade unionists began gathering the names of workers who were members or sympathizers of unions affiliated with the national labor federation, SOBSI. These trade unionist spies laid the groundwork for many of the massacres of 1965-1966. The CIA also used elements in the 105,000 strong Indonesian national police force to penetrate and gather information on the PKI.
Providing "Watch Lists" based on technical and human penetration of targeted groups is a continuing program of CIA covert operators. Today, U.S.-advised security services in El Salvador, using the techniques of the Phoenix program, operate throughout El Salvador and have taken a heavy toll on peasants, activists and labor leaders in that country. In the late 1980s, the CIA began assisting the Philippine government in the conduct of "low-intensity" operations by, among other things, computerizing security service records of leftists and assisting in the development of a national identity card program. Wherever the CIA cooperates with other national security services it is safe to assume that it also compiles and passes "Subversive Control Watch Lists."

Putting the Pieces Together
All of this is essential to understanding what happened in Indonesia in 1965 and 1966. In September and October of 1965, the murder of six top military officers during the Gestapu coup attempt provided a pretext for destroying the PKI and removing Sukarno. Surviving officers-principally General Suharto, who was not a target-rallied the army and defeated the coup, ultimately unseating Sukarno.
Two weeks before the coup, the army had been warned that the PKI was plotting to assassinate army leaders. The PKI, nominally backed by Sukarno, was a legal and formidable organization and was the third largest Communist Party in the world. It claimed three million members, and through affiliated organizations-such as labor and youth groups-it had the support of 17 million others. The Army's anxiety had been fed by rumors throughout 1965 that mainland China was smuggling arms to the PKI for an imminent revolt. Such a story appeared in a Malaysian newspaper, citing Bangkok sources which relied in turn on Hong Kong sources. Such untraceability is a telltale mark of the Mighty Wurlitzer.
Less subtle propaganda claimed that the PKI was a tool of the Red Chinese and planned to infiltrate and divide the armed forces. To bolster these allegations, "communist weapons" were discovered inside Chinese crates labeled as construction material. Far more inflammatory news reporting prior to October 1965 claimed the PKI had a secret list of civilian and military leaders marked for beheading.
After the coup attempt the Indonesian Army in the main left the PKI alone, as there was no credible evidence to substantiate the horror stories in the press. [Eight sentences censored.] As noted, a favorite tactic is to arrange for the capture of communist documents and then insert forgeries prepared by the Agency's Technical Services Division.
Suddenly documents were serendipitously discovered providing "proof" of PKI guilt. On October 23, 1965, the Suara Islam reported:
...millions of copies of the text of a proclamation of the counterrevolutionary Gestapu...have been recovered.... The text...was obviously printed in the CPR [People's Republic of China]. Steel helmets and a large quantity of military equipment have also been found.... There is in controvertible evidence of the CPR's involvement.... The arms sent by the CPR were shipped under cover of "diplomatic immunity." ...other important documents offer irrefutable evidence of the involvement of the CPR Embassy and the CPR ambassador....
On October 30,1965 Major General Suharto, in a speech before a military audience, angrily denounced the PKI saying that captured documents proved the PKI was behind Gestapu. Suharto demanded that the "Communists be completely uprooted."
On November 2, the Indonesian Armed Forces Bulletin asserted that the PKI had a plan for revolution, and published supposed PKI directives for the period following the October coup attempt. The document stated that the PKI "is only supporting the revolutionary council" that the coup tried to establish. It added that if the council were crushed the PKI would "directly confront" the generals whom the coup leaders accused of planning to overthrow President Sukarno. The document also said, "when the revolution is directly led by the PKI, we can achieve victory because the command will be under the PKI-our hidden strength is in the armed forces."
Military leaders [seven words censored] began a bloody extermination campaign. Civilians involved were either recruited and trained by the army on the spot, or were drawn from groups such as the army- and CIA-sponsored SOKSI trade unions [Central Organization of Indonesian Socialist Employees], and allied student organizations. Media fabrications had played a key role in preparing public opinion and mobilizing these groups for the massacre.
The documents, manufactured stories of communist plans and atrocities, and claims of communist arms shipments created an atmosphere of hysteria, resulting in the slaughter and the establishment of a dictatorship that still exists today.
The Agency wrote a secret study of what it did in Indonesia. [One sentence censored.] The CIA was extremely proud of its [one word censored] and recommended it as a model for future operations [one half sentence censored].

Yesterday's Fake News, Today's Fake History
The CIA desperately wants to conceal evidence of its role in the massacre, which it admits was one of the century's worst. The U.S. media seem equally determined to protect the American image from consequences of covert operations.
Reaction to Kadane's new revelations was swift. An Op-Ed by columnist Stephen S. Rosenfeld in the July 20, 1990 Washington Post, and an article by correspondent Michael Wines in the July 12, 1990 New York Times, each deny any CIA role in the massacre. Rosenfeld, reversing his conclusions of a week before, ignores the new evidence, cites one of many academic studies, and concludes with certainty: "For me, the question of the American role in Indonesia is closed."
Prior to his article, Wines interviewed me. His approach was to reject any information that might implicate the Agency. I told him virtually everything in this article and more. He dismissed the information and instead quoted John Hughes, an "observer removed from the controversy," citing him as formerly of the Christian Science Monitor but failing to mention that he was also State Department spokesman from 1982 to 1985. In an interview with Kadane, Hughes claimed that during the coup which brought Suharto to power, he functioned as the "eyes and ears of the embassy." Wines was uninterested.
Subversive control watch lists are an effective and deadly political tool long used by U.S. intelligence, so deadly that the Agency cannot allow them to become public knowledge. Keeping them secret depends on at least two things: Agency censorship of government employees, and self-censorship by the mainstream media.

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

Ralph McGehee worked for the CIA from 1952 until 1977 and now writes about intelligence matters, notably the book Deadly Deceits -- My 25 years in the CIA (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1983). He has compiled a computer data base on CIA activities. Persons interested may write to him at: 422 Arkansas Ave., Herndon, VA 22070.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/McGehee_CIA_Indo.html

I like the CIA and what's it's done for us in the past. If it weren't for the CIA and a strong military we'd be eating borscht and smoking cigars with Fidel. And if you don't like it, move to France. See you all in hell.

"OSAMAGATE"
Michel Chossudovsky

Confronted with mounting evidence, the US Administration can no longer deny its links to Osama. While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to "go way back". Most news reports consider that these Osama-CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as "irrelevant" to an understanding of present events. Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA in supporting and developing international terrorist organisations during the Cold war and its aftermath is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.
Yes, We did support Him, but "He Went Against Us"

A blatant example of media distortion is the so-called "blowback" thesis: "intelligence assets" are said to "have gone against their sponsors"; "what we've created blows back in our face."1 In a twisted logic, the US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims:

"The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US - and Britain - are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback', whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers." 2

The US media, nonetheless, concedes that "the Taliban's coming to power [in 1995] is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen, the radical Islamic group, in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union".3 But it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes in chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It's like "a son going against his father".

The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network". Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have in become increasingly sophisticated.

New undercover initiatives financed by the Golden Crescent drug trade were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus (controlled by the CIA) essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 4

Replicating the Iran Contragate Pattern

Remember Ollie North and the Nicaraguan Contras under the Reagan Administration when weapons financed by the drug trade were channeled to "freedom fighters" in Washington's covert war against the Sandinista government. The same pattern was used in the Balkans to arm and equip the Mujahideen fighting in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim army against the Armed Forces of the Yugoslav Federation.

Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between -- to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report of the London based International Media Corporation:

"Reliable sources report that the United States is now [1994] actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been providing weapons made in … China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran. The sources indicated that … Iran, with the knowledge and agreement of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers … made in Iran. … It was [also] reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe.

During September and October [1994], there has been a stream of "Afghan" Mujahedin … covertly landed in Ploce, Croatia (South-West of Mostar) from where they have traveled with false papers … before deploying with the Bosnian Muslim forces in the Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka areas. These forces have recently [late 1994] experienced a significant degree of military success. They have, according to sources in Sarajevo, been aided by the UNPROFOR Bangladesh battalion, which took over from a French battalion early in September [1994].

The Mujahedin landing at Ploce are reported to have been accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment, … The sources said that the mission of the US troops was to establish a command, control, communications and intelligence network to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives -- in concert with Mujahideen and Bosnian Croat forces -- in Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka. Some offensives have recently been conducted from within the UN-established safe-havens in the Zenica and Banja Luka regions.

(…) The US Administration has not restricted its involvement to the clandestine contravention of the UN arms embargo on the region … It [also] committed three high-ranking delegations over the past two years [prior to 1994] in failed attempts to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US policy. Yugoslavia is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce to US pressure.5

"From the Horse's Mouth"

Ironically, the US Administration's undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia have been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997, largely confirms the International Media Corporation report quoted above. The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network," of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:

"Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.

(…)

"Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials… the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization … has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. … TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96] "6

Complicity of the Clinton Administration

In other words, the Republican Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the Clinton Administration with several Islamic fundamentalist organisations including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

The Republicans wanted at the time to undermine the Clinton Administration. However, at a time when the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Republicans no doubt chose not to trigger an untimely "Iran-Bosniagate" affair, which might have unduly diverted public attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill Clinton "for having lied to the American People" regarding his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more substantive "foreign policy lies" regarding drug running and covert operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans agreed in unison, no doubt pressure by the Pentagon and the CIA not to "spill the beans".

>From Bosnia to Kosovo

The "Bosnian pattern" described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated in Kosovo. With the complicity of NATO and the US State Department. Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort.

Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain's Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with "former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private security companies".7 The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training programme for the KLA, said a senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.' While these covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit's D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the bombing campaign in March. 8

While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan financed by the "Islamic jihad" were collaborating in training the KLA in guerilla and diversion tactics.9:

"Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, ... Bin Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994 ... Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamentalists".10

Congressional Testimonies on KLA-Osama Links

According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organised Crime Program, in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:

"What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for Europe.11

According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:

"The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden". Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. "12

Madeleine Albright Covets the KLA

These KLA links to international terrorism and organised crime documented by the US Congress were totally ignored by the Clinton Administration. In fact, in the months preceding the bombing of Yugoslavia, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was busy building a "political legitimacy" for the KLA. The paramilitary army had --from one day to the next-- been elevated to the status of a bona fide "democratic" force in Kosovo. In turn, Madeleine Albright has forced the pace of international diplomacy: the KLA had been spearheaded into playing a central role in the failed "peace negotiations" at Rambouiillet in early 1999.

The Senate and the House tacitly endorse State Terrorism

While the various Congressional reports confirmed that the US government had been working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the Clinton and later the Bush Administration from arming and equipping the KLA. The Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the House knew the relationship of the Administration to international terrorism. To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee: "We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden…" 13

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in unison have given their full support to the President to "wage war on Osama".

In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman had stated authoritatively that "Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." In the hours following the October 7 missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for punitive air strikes against Iraq: "We're in a war against terrorism… We can't stop with bin Laden and the Taliban." Yet Senator Jo Lieberman, as member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate had access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to "KLA-Osama" links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that agencies of the US government as well as NATO were supporting international terrorism.

The War in Macedonia

In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the terrorist activities of the KLA were extended into Southern Serbia and Macedonia. Meanwhile, the KLA --renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)-- was elevated to United Nations status, implying the granting of "legitimate" sources of funding through United Nations as well as through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid.

And barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under UN auspices (September 1999), KPC-KLA commanders - using UN resources and equipment - were already preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as a logical follow-up to their terrorist activities in Kosovo. According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC had established a "sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia:

"Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the Kosovo protection brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have [March 2000] already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They are being prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as well, and their members have defined codes." 16

According to the BBC, "Western special forces were still training the guerrillas" meaning that they were assisting the KLA in opening up "a sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia. 17

"The Islamic Militant Network" and NATO join hands in Macedonia

Among the foreign mercenaries now fighting in Macedonia (October 2001) in the ranks of self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), are Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the KLA's proxy force in Macedonia are senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon as well as "soldiers of fortune" from Britain, Holland and Germany. Some of these Western mercenaries had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian Muslim Army. 18

Extensively documented by the Macedonian press and statements of the Macedonian authorities, the US government and the "Islamic Militant Network" are working hand in glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn the KLA and the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen.

In a bitter twist, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the "Islamic Militant Network" --also using Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) as the CIA's go-between-- still constitutes an integral part of Washington's covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.

The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from US military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget as well as by several Islamic organisations including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the US government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia is implemented through various Islamic groups.

US military advisers mingle with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force, Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a "blowback" where so-called "intelligence assets" have gone against their sponsors!

But this did not happen during the Cold war! It is happening right now in Macedonia. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian New Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington's envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists.19 In other words, the so-called "intelligence assets" are still serving the interests of their US sponsors.

Pardew's background is revealing in this regard. He started his Balkans career in 1993 as a senior intelligence officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff responsible for channeling US aid to the Bosnian Muslim Army. Colonel Pardew had been put in charge of arranging the "air-drops" of supplies to Bosnian forces. At the time, these "air drops" were tagged as "civilian aid". It later transpired --confirmed by the RPC Congressional report-- that the US had violated the arms embargo. And James Pardew played an important role as part of the team of intelligence officials working closely with the Chairman of the National Security Council Anthony Lake.

Pardew was later involved in the Dayton negotiations (1995) on behalf of the US Defence Department. In 1999, prior to the bombing of Yugoslavia, he was appointed "Special Representative for Military Stabilisation and Kosovo Implementation" by President Clinton. One of his tasks was to channel support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which at the time was also being supported by Osama bin Laden. Pardew was in this regard instrumental in replicating the "Bosnian pattern" in Kosovo and subsequently in Macedonia…

Justification for Waging War

The Bush Administration has stated that it has proof that Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. In the words of British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "I have seen absolutely powerful and incontrovertible evidence of his [Osama] link to the events of the 11th of September."20 What Tony Blair fails to mention is that agencies of the US government including the CIA continue to "harbor" Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

A major war supposedly "against international terrorism" has been launched by a government which is harboring international terrorism as part of its foreign policy agenda. In other words, the main justification for waging war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future.

This decision to mislead the American people was taken barely a few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Without supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the "prime suspect." Two days later on Thursday the 13th of September --while the FBI investigations had barely commenced-- President Bush pledged to "lead the world to victory". The Administration confirmed its intention to embark on "a sustained military campaign rather than a single dramatic action" directed against Osama bin Laden. 21 In addition to Afghanistan, a number of countries in the Middle East were mentioned as possible targets including Iraq, Iran, Libya and the Sudan. And several prominent US political figures and media pundits have demanded that the air strikes be extended to other countries "which harbour international terrorism." According to intelligence sources, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda has operations in some 50 to 60 countries providing ample pretext to intervene in several "rogue states" in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Moreover, the entire US Legislature --with only one honest and courageous dissenting voice in the House of Representatives-- has tacitly endorsed the Administration's decision to go war. Members of the House and the Senate have access through the various committees to official confidential reports and intelligence documents which prove beyond doubt that agencies of the US government have ties to international terrorism. They cannot say "we did not know". In fact, most of this evidence is in the public domain.

Under the historical resolution of the US Congress adopted by both the House and the Senate on the 14th of September:

"The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Whereas there is no evidence that agencies of the US government "aided the terrorist attacks" on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, there is ample and detailed evidence that agencies of the US government as well as NATO have since the end of the Cold War continued to "harbor such organizations".

Patriotism cannot be based on a falsehood, particularly when this falsehoods constitutes the pretext for waging war.

Ironically, the text of the Congressional resolution also constitutes a "blowback" against the US sponsors of international terrorism. The resolution does not exclude the conduct of an "Osamagate" inquiry, as well as appropriate actions against agencies and/or individuals of the US government, who may have collaborated with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. And the evidence indelibly points directly to the Bush Administration

http://www.nonviolence.org/commentary/108.php

Is everyone else insufficiently paranoid to understand that this thread was started by a pro-bush troll? We are all losing our edge. Eternal Vigilence.

why don't you stop lying about the "left" and its alleged support for Saddam Hussein?

I already broke down for you the US' role in the rise of the Iraqi B'aath Party and the US' financing of Hussein in the 80s. You couldn't summon a counter-response, because there is none that helps "your side". By your lights, it was an unfortunate incident (like so many others) which you're willing to acknowledge (under duress) but choose to treat as anomolous--for to view at otherwise would undermine your hackneyed thesis that the American state fights for freedom and justice.

What's your position on the US' present-day support for the despotic Central Asian "stans"? Huh, mr. anti-totalitarian? Will you be blaming that on the "left" in ten years?

You're a pathetic joke, mr. yonts.

Oh yeah, sure. Like you even know how.

If you hate all things American, go somewhere you think is more to your liking. Just don't sit here in one of the safest countries in the world, with the best standard of living in the world, with all the freedom in the world, then turn around and tell the rest of us that you don't agree on how we protect it from those who would take it away out of jealousy.
If you oppose killing avowed enemies of US citizens who have legitimately threatened to kill us and bring down our government and our way of life, don't join our armed forces or the CIA.
Not that the CIA is perfect. But I don't think we ever asked them to be. We just ask them to act in the best interest of the United States. And that is largely what they do. Sometimes, it backfires. Sometimes the results are the opposite of what they intended. Sometimes, we back a somewhat shadowy character because he is the best of many bad alternatives. And sometimes he changes his priorities and becomes an enemy.
The people our CIA opposes are enemies of the US. Plain and simple. You may not always agree with CIA's methods, but without them, our nation would be in serious trouble.
If you are actively opposed to the US protecting its people, its sovereignty, its allies, and its ability to continue as a viable nation, then you are assisting our enemies.
The far left often bases conclusions on some pretty far-fetched assumptions and partial information. That's dangerous. It can lead to further assumptions, and ever-more-bizarre claims of intentional wrongdoing by political opponents. That's why very few people take seriously what the far left has to say.
Sorry if you don't like it.
Toad

Reposted by permission of SpiesRUs.com
All rights reserved

C(onservative) I(nteligence) A(utocracy)

By Seymour Trashe


Our CIA are very bright fellows, few women are allowed into the inter circle, especially the planning of Black Ops. Their first coup was the purchase of Alaska from the future Soviet Union, as it was plain to see that Marxism would soon rule that country. Without Alaskan oil to grease it's economy, CIA conspirators knew the Socialist Republic could not maintain itself.

Next they stole Texas from Mexico using what is commonly called the Alamo Rebellion as a means to rile the paramilitary forces they had secretly infiltrated into that region. The top CIA planners in this operation formed a secret corporation they called "Texas Oil Company" which eventually became "Texaco" and later "Chevron-Texaco". Also, John D. Rockefeller was a known associate of many of it's founders.

The Shah of Iran was installed after his dad became too closely aligned with British Petroleum. Agents contracted the hit to Mafia members who also served during the Sicilian invasion. Gen. George Patton was later assassinated to keep him from revealing the truth in his memoirs.

Before the smoke cleared from the AK-47 fitted with telescopic sights used on the Grassy Knoll, CIA agents in Paris were issuing cyanide capsules to known Mafia associates from Miami under the control of Major Rolando Cubela. Cubela was there under the auspices of getting surrender terms from France under their pro-active plan of advanced and enhanced peace terms, French Revolutionary Organizational Group, also known by the acronym FROG.

Cuba, before Castro one must remember, had perfected the means of converting sugar into an alternative fuel. This process was very successful until bought by Standard Oil of Ohio, using CIA agents to help "persuade" it's inventors, all of whom died within two years of selling the patent. One of them was a particularly interesting case: Jose Fernandez. Jose died of "trauma to upper head region, cause unknown" according to the medical examiner's report.

Jose Fernandez was last seen at the Miami Airport with John Roselli, a Mafioso who had ties to Sam Giancana from Chicago and Santo Traficante from New Orleans.

Exxon Field #K-187, locally known as the Bush Field, was spared from Hussein's oil well fires in Kuwait by a team of Iraqi counter agents, all of whom have since defected and are under guard at undisclosed locations pending any further need for them in this war. It is rumored but not confirmed that many of them have been seen working with a black helicopter unit out of Langley.

Former CIA Director William Colby "accidentally" drowned in '96 after witnesses report that he told anyone who would listen at the Cobb Island, Maryland Bait and Tackle Shop that "It's all about oil." No traces of his body have been found.

It would behoove you all to now delete this from your computer, take out your hard-drive and throw it into the deepest lake in your area, and keep an eye out of your window for black Ford Crown Vics. Good luck.

<I>Seymour Trashe is a regular contributor to SpiesRUs.com and a former member of an unnamed government agency </I>

The author of this...and MOST of Hollywood, should be on trial for treason...I can't believe you morons actually think like that

To take pleasure in someone's death is a disgrace to that person's family, that person, and to the people who have given you the right to write such drivel without being blown to bits. Had you written this, for example, in Iraq, about Iraqi Intelligence... you would be dead. So, I think the sentiment is a disgrace. Also, it's "it's" not "its.." but someone with such a stupid, grad-student perspective, would likely not know the difference between possessive adjectives and the like.. It's tough not to judge people like the author of this article. My guess (not hope) is the person who wrote this will lead a miserable life, the result of wrong choices along the way, and suffer misfortunes, etc.. and all the while blame all else for his/her suffering, attempting to drag others down as well.

The article is really not worth comment, but I just think taking pleasure in anyone's death is a disgrace, much less someone you don't know, etc..........

Good luck serving up coffee at Starbucks.. we hope you can continue to "make a difference!!"

I'm a Republican, gay Catholic living with two left-wing academics, plus a few dogs, cats and fish. We make it work because love overcomes the baser instincts that can well up in human nature. But this -- rejoicing at the death of a fellow citizen -- is the triumph of hatred, rage and cruelty. To the author: look into your heart: who are you? Is this how your beliefs culminate? If you died right now, is this how you want to be recalled?

move to cuba, asshole.

rejoicing at the death of a fellow humans -- is the triumph of hatred, rage and cruelty. To those who support war look into your heart: who are you? Is this how your beliefs culminate? If you died right now, is this how you want to be recalled?

Note that NOT ONE of the slobs chiming in to defend the CIA has attempted to refute ANY of the charges leveled against it in the above posts.

Pretty fucking telling.

These are the same fulminating fools that have a hundred and one excuses for the US' support for Hussein in the 80s. The same contemptible clowns that thought the massacre of retreating Iraqi conscripts during the first Gulf War slaughter was fair play. The same claque of conformist cretins who thought nothing of it when the US gave Hussein--its on-again off-again buddy--the green-light to smash uprisings against his rule after being driven from Kuwait.

America--a nation in decline--produces some of the most despicable, lardy, mentally retarded jingoists the world has seen in quite some time.

Re:Good News:CIA Officer Killed in Afghanistan Grenade Accident

FUCK YOU.

Ctrl-C,
Ctrl-V,
Ctrl-P!

US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off crisis
Seizing reserves will be an allied priority if forces go in

Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq.

Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela.

After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve.

But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in November to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.

The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food programme.

But for opponents of war, it shows the unspoken aim of military action in Iraq, which has the world's second largest proven reserves - some 112 billion barrels, and at least another 100bn of unproven reserves, according to the US Department of Energy. Iraqi oil is comparatively simple to extract - less than $1 per barrel, compared with $6 a barrel in Russia. Soon, US and British forces could be securing the source of that oil as a priority in the war strategy. The Iraqi fields south of Basra produce prized 'sweet crudes' that are simpler to refine.

On Friday, Pentagon sources said US military planners 'have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to then preserve those prior to destruction'.

The US military says this is a security issue rather than a grab for oil, after a 'variety of intelligence sources' indicated that Saddam planned to damage or destroy his oil fields - which would inflict up to $30bn damage on the US economy and cause irreparable environmental damage.

But the prospect of British and US commandos claiming key oil installations around Basra by force has pushed global oil diplomacy into overdrive. International oil companies have been jockeying position to secure concessions before 'regime change'.

Last weekend a Russian delegation flew to Baghdad to patch up relations after Iraq's cancellation of its five-year-old contract to develop the huge West Qurna oil field - worth up to $600bn at today's oil price. Lukoil was punished by Baghdad for negotiating with the US and Iraqi exiles on keeping its concession in a post-Saddam Iraq.

The delegation of Ministers and oil executives returned to Moscow with three signed contracts. Oil is the state budget's lifeblood, and Russia requires an oil price of at least $18. Russians fear a US grip on a large reserve of cheap oil could send prices tumbling.

But Saddam has offered lucrative contracts to companies from France, China, India and Indonesia as well as Russia.

It is only the oil majors based in Britain and America - now the leading military hawks - that don't have current access to Iraqi contracts.

Richard Lugar, the hawkish chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggests reluctant Europeans risk losing out on oil contracts. 'The case he had made is that the Russians and the French, if they want to have a share in the oil operations or concessions or whatever afterward, they need to be involved in the effort to depose Saddam as well,' said Lugar's spokesman.

A delegation of senior US Republicans was in Moscow last Tuesday trying to persuade Kremlin officials and oil companies that a war in Iraq would not compromise their concessions. A leaked oil analyst report from Deutsche Bank said ExxonMobil was in 'pole position in a changed-regime Iraq'.

Washington is split along hawk-dove lines about the role of oil in a post-Saddam Iraq. Two sets of meetings sponsored by the State Department and Vice-President Dick Cheney's staff have been attended by representatives of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhilips and Halliburton, the company that Cheney ran before his election.

The dovish line, led by Colin Powell, places the emphasis on 'protection' of Iraq's oil for Iraq's people. His State Department has pointed to a precedent in the US interpretation of international law set in the 1970s. Then, when Israel occupied Egypt's Sinai desert, the US did not support attempts to transfer oil resources.

While the State Department is mindful of cynical world opinion about US war aims, officials do not always stick to the script. Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary at the US Department of Commerce, said war 'would open up this spigot on Iraqi oil which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers'.

The US economy will announce zero growth this week, prolonging three years of sluggish performance. Cheap oil would boost an economy importing half of its daily consumption of 20m barrels.

But a cheaper oil price could have been reached more easily by lifting sanctions and giving the US oil majors access to Iraq's untapped reserves.

Instead, war stands to give control over the oil price to 'new Iraq' and its sponsors, with Saudi Arabia losing its capacity to control prices by altering productive capacity.

Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.

To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies.

But, in the run-up to war, the US oil majors will this week report a big leap in profits. ChevronTexaco is to report a 300 per cent rise. Chevron used to employ the hawkish Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, as a member of its board.

Five years ago the then Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'

If US and UK forces have victory in Iraq, the battle for its oil will have only begun.

Had it been two al Qaeda operatives killed by women they had raped and tortured and sent home in their burkas, would your glee have been as great? Had it been a couple of Taliban killed by a gay Afghani after watching his lover tossed off the top of building, would you celebrate. NO! You wouldn't and didn't. Face it, friends, you want blood, American blood. You put the CIA lable on that blood to hide the dream that drives you. You are Aztec priests without a pyramid and a line of victims. Keep talking. Keep receding. It's good to see you go.

Um, unlike the US government that was supporting the Taliban before 9/11, many on the Left were trying to get the world to focus on the human righst abuses. The US invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with helping its people it was a gut reaction to 9/11 that resulted in very few gains for most people (many people outside the cities are still ruled by the same fundamentalists as befoe and policies against gay citizens are every bit as harsh as before)

The main effect of US operations in Afghanistan has been to spread ideas of fundamentalism world wide.

Where were you when the Taliban was committing attrocities? Where are you now when the US is attempting to trun Iraq into a fundamentalist state (since all signs point to that result since Hussein enemies have always been the religous right in his country) He is a horrible leader but secular and his downfall will reuslt in new waves of opression for women and gay Iraqis.

I assuming you will mourn for every Iraqi soldier dead. Every Iraqi general dead. Every Afghan fighter and civilian who died. All those killed in Israel's extrajudicial murders. All those killed by US sanctions and US greed. Will you mourn when Saddam Hussein dies? Or do you only value civilian life? The life of those who kill due to choice?

To mourn for someone only based of citizenship is to deny ones own humanity. All humans are created equal in the eyes of God. To value the life of a US soldier over that of an Iraqi child is to betray one's faith in God and humanity.

Tell that to the dead of 9/11.

There is *NO DEFENSE* against a determined terrorist. Such a thing does not exist.

Is it possible for an American soldier to get into heaven? Does it depend on their motivations for joining the military?

Were you danicng in the streets like George Bush when 9/11 happened. Do you think of 9/11 as the conservatives in the US winning a trifecta?

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/trifecta.html

"The recession -- no question, I remember when I was campaigning, I said, would you ever deficit spend? And I said, yes, only if there were a time of war, or recession, or a national emergency. Never thought we'd get -- (laughter and applause.) And so we have a temporary deficit in our budget, because we are at war, we're recovering, our economy is recovering, and we've had a national emergency. Never did I dream we'd have the trifecta. (Laughter.) "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-8.html

We have heard stated over and over again during the last few months that there is a wholecloth and endemic moral bankruptcy on the left. And here we have it in black and white, distracted minds unable to grasp the facts at hand, incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Fortunately you have marginalized yourselves out of any serious dialog concerning the direction of world events. You're no more than light entertainment for the right, and a vast embarrassment for the left.

Right = staying home and minding our own business

Wrong = attacking other countries

Left Over
by Right Intelletual Sunday February 09, 2003 at 04:04 PM
tomoe.ito [at] verizon.net

Well that is disgusting. When you go far enough left, you end up on the right.

As long as the leftists here are harping on style points, I'll note that the soul-dead nihilist who posted this neglected to include an apostrophe in the word "it's." Unfortunately, I'm falling into the same trap as so many of the well-meaning respondents here; I'm giving credence to the nihilist's views by reacting.

no wonder the term San Francisco Democrat is pejorative!

To those who celebrate the death of American soldiers: Scorn and defiance, slight regard, contempt....

To think I used to take pride in having lived on the West Coast. Celebrating anyone's death, whether you agree with their politics or not, is deplorable. I'm betting that the hypocrite who posted these deaths as good news, pats himself on the back for opposing the death penalty. Can he actually believe that men working against the Taliban are the bad guys? Does he think the denial of freedom of religion and expression through violent means was just a quante social custom which should be tolerated in a spirit of diversity. That is just twisted. Sadly twisted.

How charmingly bloodthirsty. I imagine al-Qaeda would feel the same way about killing even 2 in your office.

How charmingly bloodthirsty. I imagine al-Qaeda would feel the same way about killing even 2 in your office.

1) Afghanistan, via the Taliban, harbored the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

2) The Taliban was a morally backwards, repressive and hideous theocracy which subjegated women and the "infidels." There is NO defense for this regime. None.

3) We responded to the threat against us in the United States by ousting the Taliban (thus removing the state sponsored harboring of terrorists). In doing so, we also significantly damaged Al-qaeda and its operations. When we liberated the Afghanistan people from the Taliban, THEY CHEERED US!

4) We have helped establish a government that will result in a free and democratic Afghanistan. This is an ongoing process that will not be easy. It requires our presence for the foreseeable future. (What? Do you want us to pull out and leave the current govt to the devices of the Taliban or warlords?????)

5) We are still faced will attacks from the remnants of the Taliban (i.e. those who want to go back to the good old days of public executions for being gay or adultery, back to the burkhas and no girls in school and to the support of terrorist attacks on the US and the west).

6) Occasionally, those attacks will result in our troops (be they Army, Marines, Air Force or CIA) being injured or killed.

To the asshole who feels that there is reason to rejoice in the death of one of our soldiers (fighting to protect your weasily ass's right to speak freely without concern for being jailed or killed or imprisoned): You don't deserve to live in a free society like America. You ought to go live somewhere like Iraq or the Taliban run Afghanistan and try spouting off like this.

The audacity required to promote this filthy disregard for human life is astounding. If there was any rational argument justifying this type of blurb, then it should have been posted along with this sensationalist garbage. Otherwise, this is worse than a childish tyrade: children are willing to listen and learn.

And to think he died in the service of his country so you could utter such moronic words. Please volunteer yourself for the human shield program ASAP.

When someone claims that the CIA (founded after WW2) was involved in the annexation of Alaska (in the 1860s), no one needs to refute him. He has refuted himself already and deserves no reply.
BTW the Russian military is a very evil institution, but I didn't jump up and down when the sailors on the Kursk drowned and asphyxiated.

CIA agents aren't soldiers. They're spies.

And you are an ASS.

As a liberal Democrat, I used to CIA-bash with the best of them. But 9/11 was a wake up call for me, but evidently not for the author of this article. The CIA is defending freedom and liberal values, not only for the US, but for the entire West, and other nations who share our beliefs. Yes the CIA plays hardball, but they are aiming at all the right people. Remember we are dealing with people who fly commercial airplanes into buildings. Was it Mao who said the revolution is not a tea party? Well neither is the fight against terrorism. Your cheering of the death of American hero is just slick radical-chic posturing. You would be lucky to posess one-tenth of the bravery of that CIA man who was killed while fighting for his country.
Grow up.

An ad hominem is not a rebuttal.

See:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm

"CIA is defending freedom and liberal values"

That's right, they said not to go into Iraq unless we want Saddam to release his chemicals. They're protecting themselves and others from Bushmoron.

that is all. fuck you again.

Disgusting.

Disgusting.

people who think the CIA is defending their rights by torturing and massacring innocent civilians are sadly brainwashed, like germans who thought hitler was protecting them. the CIA works for the rockefellers (EXXON, chase manhattan) empire. the average american dpoes not benefit in any way from this neofascist agency.

Me am stupid, too! Me am think it good thing for CIA agents die when they try protect us. Me am proud to be backwards bizarro reader of Indymedia.org!

Grab your fucking water wings and start swimming to Cuba!

good news? good luck with the next big earthquake, you sick fuck

And I know that you know you're an ass.

The author of this article should thank G-d that he does not live in any other other country, as even the UK would probably jail this man (person) for sedition. As said, the "kinds of things you see when you haven't a gun.", but I will despise what you say, but not prevent you saying it.
An irritated Patriot, and supporter of the CIA, MI5 and all other organisations suppressing Fascism and its twins Stalinism, and Maoism

Sorry, a fact is a fact. Regardless.

*sigh* And the Left wonders why nobody takes them seriously anymore. The CIA has a spotty history. It's true. They've screwed up over and over again. They've acted in anti-democratic ways. They've failed on a number of intelligence fronts. All true, all true. But to cheer--to actually cheer--the death of two CIA operatives is sick and wrong. These guys were out fighting for their country. They may have been right, they may have been wrong (I think right--but you are free to disagree), but they were doing their best to try to encourage a free, democratic Afghanistan. In doing so, they were defending the interests of Americans--and not incidentally, Afghanis. The Left is fond of arguing that America is somehow the worst of all countries. If we do not invade Afghanistan, we're supporting the Taliban. When we do, it's a "knee-jerk reaction." We allow Iraq to sell oil for food and medicine, and when Saddam Hussein steals that money for himself and his cronies, we blame U.S. policy for the misery of his country, not Saddam. Folks, the U.S.A. is a good country. One of the best. Perfect? Of course not. But we're a country where people are free to live as they want, for the most part. Where an ignorant lefty is able to cheer the death of CIA agents and not fear reprisal. I'm sorry, folks. I used to be like you. But I saw what was going on in the rest of the world, and I grew up. God Bless America, and my prayers are with the families of the dead.

You, sir, are an utterly contemptable parody of a human being. I have NEVER, EVER, seen such a callous, shallow remark pawned off as news before. You are a discredit to journalists everywhere, and to humanity in general. I hope the family of the deceased reads this and sues you for libel and slander. I also hope that the FBI uses every legal tool available to make your life difficult. You criticize 'war-mongers' as evil, but see nothing wrong with celebrating a death. If I knew who you were, I'd spit in your face.

You are scum.

Wow. Fifth columnists operating openly within U.S. borders. The wonders of a free country never cease to amaze me.

The latest grissly footnote in the left's ongoing effort to completely alienate itself from the American people. Keep up the good work!

The honor that this CIA agent represents, surely escapes you. He died working to ensure that his family would not suffer the harshness that befalls all who live under extremist sharia (Muslim Law). Like all of us who serve in one capacity or another to protect the country we love; we protect also those of you who would scorn us, spit on us, demean our lives and values, taunt our families and celebrate our deaths. We do not regret that we protect you as well as our own families and friends. That freedom is to be celebrated by all who live in it, and longed for by all who don't, and understood by as many as work to protect it. Such freedom is expressed in it's full glory by your article clebrating the death of one of your protectors. How appropriate that their death has made you glad, when the rest of us realize that their LIFE makes us glad. That surely distinquishes the difference between the honor that we hold and believe in, and whatever it is that you believe in, should you believe in anything. Yes, I will protect you and your ilk; no matter whether you want it or not, believe in it or not, demand it's removal or not.
You are welcome.

On February 9, IDF forces apprehended three terrorists in the West Bank who had the intention of carrying out a suicide bombing against Israeli civilians. IDF forces apprehended a Hamas terrorist in a hotel in the Ain Um-Ashrit neighborhood of Ramallah. The terrorist, who planned on carrying out a suicide bomb attack against in Israel, was in possession of a suitcase that contained an explosives belt packed with 20kg of explosives, ball-bearings, and screws. In the village of Al-Yamoun, west of Jenin, IDF forces apprehended Salim-Abu-Hassan, a Tanzim terrorist who intended to carry out a suicide bombing. In the western part of Nablus, IDF forces apprehended Mahjdi Mahdi Salach Nasser, who was also planning on carrying out a suicide bombing. IDF forces also killed Imad Alai Kassam Mabruk, a terrorist belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Mabruk was killed after he hid from IDF forces on the roof of his house and refused to give himself up. Mabruk was a senior assistant to the head of the PFLP in Nablus and participated in the preparation of weaponry and planning of terrorist acts.

How very tolerant of you...

The funny thing is, you could post the exact same article about a Palestinian suicide bomber or leader of Hamas, and your article would be censored within the hour.

Folks who think people dying is a good thing should stop posting here, grab a rifle, get out in the field and start doing "good." We won't miss you when you're gone, but neither will we celebrate.

All over the world people hate Americans, not because of who we are and what we do, but because of who CIA agents are and what they do.

I will not allow my government to shape foreign policy to suit the taste of those who hate.

Christ, you people are sick. Seriously sick. The CIA is looking for bin Laden in Afghanistan, you IDIOTS!!!!! But ignorant pricks like you celebrate their deaths. Well, next time bin Laden hits the USA, except with biological/chemical weapons, or maybe a suitcase nuke, then maybe you'll have some sense slammed into your thick skulls. But somehow, I doubt it.

but by avarice, selfishness and, to a lesser extent, short sighted stupidity.

Wouldnt it have been nice for them to not have helped create Bin Laden in teh first place (All that money they gave him to fight teh Soviets...)It looks to me like they are actively avoiding finding Bin Laden probably because the older CIA agents on the ground were buddys with him back in the 80s.

That's a cover story. Bin Laden is their stooge. They are really in Afghanistan to consolidate their hold on the world's heroin supply.

See:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J50D22963

That someone actually feels this way about one of our guys getting killed is sickening.
In resisting all temptation to stoop to your level, I'm left with nothing to say except: please, just leave the country now. You don't deserve to be an American.

If people like you who revel in murderous treason left the country, THAT would be some good news.

Your glee at this man's death is stupefying. These CIA-types are out there keeping the darkness of Mondor from engulfing you and yet you smile. You are a hate filled monster underserving of anything but scorn.

You hate filled idiots. Orwell wrote about you. Cheering the death of Americans just shows your own lack of humanity, and lack of deep intellligence. Your knowledge of history and politics is shallow and adolescent.
Shame on you.

This outstanding young man was the first American killed in combat in Afghanistan. His father, Johnny Spann, said that Mike died in his quest to make the world a better place.

In an email to his family on September 19th, 2001 Mike said:

"Our way of life is at stake. We must fight for it. Support you government and military, especially when the bodies start coming home."

This Auburn graduate, former Marine officer, and dedicated CIA officer received an impressive military burial at the Arlington National Cemetery. George Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said at this graveside service:

"His life was shaped by dignity, decency, bravery, and liberty. Mike Spann will be forever a part of the treasured legacy of free peoples everywhere as we each owe him an immense, unpayable debt of honor and gratitude."

Mike's widow, Shannon Spann, had this to say:

"Not everyone is skilled or has the desire to go to faraway places to fight...but all of us have skills and should have the desire to serve our county by being good and Mike was certainly one of those."

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.com/shannon-spann052702a002.jpg

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.com/shannon-apann052702a001.jpg

Ah yes, the utter deparavity in the celebration of an American Soldier's death (and if you don't think a C.I.A. officer is a soldier, you're a bigger idiot than you might know).
What I want to know is, are you anti-war? Is it is just limited to being anti-American? Thinking that people who reluctantly support a war against a dictator who has killed more than two hundred thousand of his own people, and the glee at the news of a CIA officer's death are the same thing really puts the "ass" in assumption. No one wants a war, but war is a necessary tool to prevent massive loss of life down the road.
So you hate the CIA, why? Is it because some covert ops have gone bad in the past or because they're willing to play the dirty games that must be played in order to keep democracy a reality? Can't stand hearing about alleged - that's right, alleged - CIA sponsered massacres? Is the irony lost on you that you'd rather Isolate the U.S. as country and leave those who are being slaughtered at the whims of a dictator, rather than support a carefully waged campaign to ouster that dictator? It must be such delicious irony to live in a Country that grants you such freedoms and hate it so much.
But hey, what do you care? To you the Iraqis are just dark-skinned savages who are too stupid to take up arms against their oppressor. Same with the Afghanis. They don't look like you, talk like you or dress like you, why should you want them helped? Support Amnesty International do you? Or do you seriously think harshly worded letters will convince a terrorist regime to give up their power?
Too many questions?
Certainly not enough answers, certainly not from someone who rejoices at the death of a fellow human being. Make no mistake, those of us (reluctantly, and after years of trying to make inspections and sanctions work) in favor of a war against Hussein will never, EVER rejoice at the death of Iraqi civilians or even soldiers. Sure, I may get a grim satisfaction out of hearing that Saddam took a bullet to the head... We don't want to cause death, we want to prevent the continued slaughter of an oppressed people, stabilize an unfriendly-to-America region, and protect the only Democracy in the Middle East (guess which one? Hint, it aint Iraq...yet).
I wouldn't be glad, but nor would I lose any tears if I were to log on one day and see a bloggers headline: "Good News, San Francisco Democrat dies...sure its only one but it's nice to have some good news for a change."

Educate yourself. Start here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J55F25963

I saw those towers burn -- friends of mine died -- you, sfindymedia org whoever the fuck you are with your uselessness and wrongheaded glee are an accomplice after the fact -- freedon ain't free fuckwit -- but you'll probably learn that pretty soon -- at least the terrorists know who their friends are....

I suppose it shouldn't be a shock when people associated with the so-called peace movement expose themselves as hateful anti-americans, but it is still disturbing. The man that died in that accident is a better human being than you will ever be. God bless him.

People can't tell real life from the movies.

And others wouldn't know an analogy if it bit them on the ass. Country's a mess indeed.

Once again, California proves to be the land of Fruits & Nuts.

As usual, the right is..............well..................right! And the left is grasping.
Your charges of conservatives and the CIA and their nasty deeds are alarming. If only they were not simply the regurgitation of tripe that's been dumped elsewhere on the net by leftists still pissed that Al Gore couldn't steal the election away from "W". The fact that you have redeposited them here doesn't necessarily merit a response any more than they have anywhere else.
Truth is that leftists in the US are desperate. Your whining and lying and emotional tantrums are falling on deaf ears since 9-11. The American public has awakened from its comfortable slumber and realized there are some really evil people in this world and we had better start taking responsibility for our own safety.
As a country, we had too much time on our hands and had a false sense of security. We were spending too much time feeling guilty about our standard of living. No more. We earned it. Our predecessors paid for it with their sweat and blood. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE MOST BENEVOLENT COUNTRY IN WORLD HISTORY AS A RESULT. If necessary, we will use our might to destroy tyranny and evil in other parts of the world. THAT is why we are going after Saddam Hussein. Because he presents a significant threat that can be neutralized. To us and to others. That's also why we have a CIA.
If you can't deal with that, then you belong somewhere else.
You may go now......
Toad

These men knew they faced danger. They most likley lived at the sharp end for most of their adult lives. They have fear, but they are not cowards. Their lives are about self-sacrifice, and service, service to the American people. They knew their limits, their strengths, and what they believed in. They were realists, in a real world, not content to stay in their safe little worlds like many of their countrymen.

They had parents, and most likley wives and childeren who loved them and they loved.

They also loved their country, enough to place their bodies literally in the line of fire.

I have had the honor and privilige to serve with many men like these. They are like brothers. When the situation turns ugly I would chose these men for company over any of you "citizens".

Those that cheer their deaths don't deserve to share the earth they walk upon.

In your story about two CIA agents being killed, you state that "its something."

The proper usage is the contraction "it's" rather than the possessive "Its".

An example would be: "It's embarrassing to take a controversial political position and not even be able to correctly use the language."

An example of the possessive use would be: "Known for its stupidity, the sf.media.org website is unable to correcly use the language, using possessives where it means to use contractions."

This is a catagory error.

See:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/category.htm

It's like saying, "Eric is a twit, so everyone posts to SF-IMC is a twit."

I'm too lazy to read through all the comments now, but I'll just say this: is it so difficult to grasp the notion that the this article is a cut-and-paste from the corporate media with just the title altered?

Also, since when did the alleged views of each and every article published to this site become synonymous with the views of the collective that maintains this site? For christ's sake people, get it together.

Helge Boes, 32, a graduate of Harvard University Law School, joined the CIA in January 2001 after working as an attorney in private practice, the CIA said.

"Helge was everything a superior case officer should be: bright, energetic, and ever prepared to apply his skills where they were needed most," CIA Director George Tenet told CIA staff, according to a statement from the agency.

"He was no stranger to Afghanistan and its dangers, having served there before and done outstanding work," Tenet said.

"In fact, he was on the weapons training range yesterday preparing for yet another intelligence collection operation. He died doing what he loved," Tenet said.

"The work he did, both at headquarters and in the field, had as its aim the defeat of terror -- a ruthless, vicious enemy of liberty and decency," Tenet said.

Boes lived in northern Virginia with his wife Cindy. He was the son of Roderich and Monika Boes of Germany.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/02/07/cia.death/vert.helge.boes.ap.jpg

"Also, since when did the alleged views of each and every article published to this site become synonymous with the views of the collective that maintains this site?"

The editors of this site regularly exercise their right to censor articles. That is why you will NEVER see the same said about Islamic terrorists here.

I know. I tried it. As an experiment only, of course, I said the same about a Hamas leader, and my post was yanked within the hour.

The indymedia editors are morally repugnant, and I think this article expresses their views quite well.

Yeah, they do kick off posts on occasion, but ya can't really argue with em. I got a bunch kicked off a day or two ago, and for a sec I was mad....then I realized it really is their porogative. It is their site. Disappointing? a little, but well withn their rights.

so the CIA agent "alexandro", whose torture team at the "polytechnica" in Guatemala City gang raped american nun Diana Ortiz for twelve hours and held her over a pit full of mutilated , dying people, was actually doing it in order to protect us from 'communists' and 'terrorists'. what a great guy! im so glad he's out there protecting us, such men are necessary to protect american women! that is why Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton are going along with the CIA policy of protecting "alexandros'" identity. of course if they didnt all the nasty things that have been threatened in this website might happen to them?? anyways whether "alexandro " is out living it up in Afghanistan, or prowling the streets of America hes obviously a great heroe like all his colleagues

The laws of United States do not strictly legislate morality - which is why it's perfectly legal to do flagrantly immoral things. That does not make them any more appealing or moral - merely legal. And meanwhile the rest of us can exercise our legal rights and hold the author and the editors in contempt as morally deficient.

Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing even in the hands of traitors. Did you think it was a good thing that the policemen and firemen who were killed in the twin towers perished? After you get done blaming them for the Amadou Dialo debacle I suppose you will . Every American has a right to be a fool but when you start rooting for the deaths of those trying to protect you you become a traitor. I can forgive you for being the fool you are but praising the death of American servicemen earns you a prominent place in hell. Traitor!! Shame!!!

Shame on the shameless.

It simply means One Less Terrorist!

As usual, there are those who believe what they see, and there are those who see what they believe. There is no law against being stupid, unwilling to understand the facts, emotionally motivated, morally bankrupt, or just so full of political certainty that you choose to ignore common decency.
But the majority of us who do not exhibit those traits don't have to agree with you, either. And all the name-calling, cussing, swearing, bullying, and denigration in the world will not change that.
To the editors of SF Indymedia: The first amendment applies to everyone equally. WE allow YOU great latitude in expressing your opinions in nearly every venue, despite the fact that we may disagree vehemently. IF you are engaging in censorship, regardless of whether this is your forum to edit, you are certainly cowards. It's a cheap shot to exercise your right to freedom of speech, then deny others their same right.
Before all the lefties cite all the legal precedents and deny that the First Amendment can force you to allow dissenting opinions in your forum, I understand it's not a LEGAL requirement. All I said was, it's a cheap shot.
The only things that should be censored are bona fide hate speech, that which is likely to incite a riot or panic, specific individual threats of violence, or items jeopardizing national or individual safety and security. Things that are offensive to certain individuals or groups are posted here daily. You have already established that the offensiveness of a post cannot be used as a measure of whether to censor. So, quit using it selectively.
If you are not censoring..........NEVER MIND!
Toad

...who had gone down, rather than a patriotic American who was defending your right to stab your country in the back. You sick, pathetic bastard.

I may not agree or condone the policies and tatics of the CIA, but I will not side with anyone relishing the death of another - especially when his actions, views, ethics are unknown to those outside his immediate family and friends.

Truly a crass and heartless assessment of someone's death. Who made you judge and jury on his life?

How dare you? I knew Helge Boes well. He was a friend of mine fighting for a cause he believed in, protecting innocent men, women, and children whose only crime is being American from death by lunatic madmen (yes "men" because our enemy is too cowardly to allow women to be a part of their pernicious plots). Helge was a hero to me and to those who knew him. I am absolutely outraged that you would celebrate his death. I only take solace in the fact that his cause will triumph in the end, and yours will not. Translation: you're a loser.

Sorry you lost your terrorist friend. There's a special place in hell for dead CIAssholes. Educate yourself on the CIA sometime. Moron.

"Real Patriots Obey the Constitution"

This sums up the left, great sense of ethics and nobility, yet still achieve nothing. Sort of like the EU, very upset about the horrors in Yugoslavia civil war, yet not upset enough to stop it.

Who is worse?

A mass murderer, the person who killed the mass murderer, or the other person who witness their crimes, condemns them, but did nothing?

For some reason I have not been able to see the commentaries beyond my last post unless I down load a printable version of the commentaries.

Since I figured that out today I had fun reading responses. Can anyone speculate on what the problem might be.

The leftwing embarrasses itself again! Although we have lost a good soldier in the cause, I do feel better knowing that the leftwing and their allies like the poor and homeless die each day by the hundreds from starvation and exposure. Sweet dreams!

Perhaps I have missed out on my history lessons. The facists in Germany, now what happened to them? The Communists in Russia, were they the utopian governemnt you would subject all of us to. Yes siree they had it made in Russia no one ever starved there. No one ever was denied their right to live free. Great medical care and freedom of speach at it's highest level.

They never supresses any insurgencies in the Russian sattelite states cause who would want to revolt against that wonderful life you think existed. Or did they ? (Hungary the Checz) Think aaron in that world you would be in the GULAG or dead. And since thay had all that wealth they became the humanitarian idol of the world helping all those starving hoards. Is that what you are telling me.

I'm a simple man Aaron. No one ever gave me shit. I had no silver spoon in my mouth. In my day there was no free education sponsored by uncle sam I worked all my life and educated myself from the GI bill while raising a family. I took part in the system. That means I go off my ass and went out and took every oppourtunity to work and build a life for mine. While I am not rich I have had a rich life enjoying the many freedoms of being a free man in this great country.

I'm proud to have served my country and I'll tell you one thing. I put my money where my mouth is. I fought for this country and would again because I believe in America. That's the difference between us. I was, and still am willing to die for my beliefs and the American way of life.

If you are, than take up the gun and start shooting. Kind of...... Give me no-liberty or give me death.

You may not believe this but I went to war so the people of Vietnam could live in a country like the one I grew up in. At ninteen years old I was the youngest Ranger team leader to ever lead LRRP patrols in Viet Nam. I did not drive a truck my friend I took on the most dangerous jobs any warrior could.

Many brave brothers died for the belief that they might give the people of Viet Nam a chance to live like we do. To stop the advance of communism in Southeast Asia

If you think there is no difference you only need look north of Hanoi to the Koreas. Which system do you think has resulted in a better life for the people of Korea. ARE YOU BLIND???

OPEN YOUR EYES

I've been to the USSR and met with the veterans of the Russo-Afgani war . You should talk to them, after all they were trying to give the Afgani that sweet life of communist utopia. They will tell you what it is like to have lived in the land of the "peoples revolution".

I'm not saying things could not be better, of course they could. The entire world could enjoy the freedom and wealth we do as Americans ..... Now that would be a better world.

...for your model of successful True Communism, situationist drivel notwithstanding. Calling my observation a "canard" does not efface the fact that there is no such model. In fact, post-WWII world events afforded what we scientist call a "case-matched controlled study" where adjacent pairs of states were allowed to develop by either the western democratic or communist-marxist models: East Germany/West Germany, China/Taiwan, North Korea/South Korea.

Res Ipsa Loquitur, bitch.

People like Aaron are no more than spoiled brats, who don't realize how luck they are, and our not willing to find out first hand.

If you’re for Anarchy go to Somalia!
If you prefer communism go to North Korea!

will they? of course not, they would have to take that silver spoon out first. They just like to bitch, since that is what they are.

I wouldn't waste your time on them Wishkey Jack, as even their own "founder" summed it up best, when he called most of his supports "useful idiots", that term applies best to people like Aaron.

I raise a glass of Guiness to ya, pal. My dad was KIA in 'Nam, highly decorated, and very idealistic about fighting the evil of communism.

There seems to be no end of suckholes proclaiming CIA heroism. Maybe this CIAsshole was coward who murders Americans by remote controlled plane. Heroes? BU**SH**!

Say hi to that other fucker Johnny "Can't spell my own name" Spann while you're down in Dante's 9th circle of hell.

It simply amazes me, though I suppose it shouldn't, that there are people with so little intellect or moral fiber as to take joy in the death of a man who placed himself, willingly, between them and those who would gladly kill them.

I, like J. Serotta above, was a friend of Helge's. We both met him at law school. He had the opportunity to work in international law for financial rewards that are staggering, yet he didn't. Instead, he worked for poor pay, in a physically dangerous capacity, because he felt it necessary that someone stand between those who would destroy us and those of us who would use our liberty to mock him after he died. In other words, the originator of this thread is one of Helge's beneficiaries - and yet he celebrates the death of this fine, 32 year old man as if it were an occassion to party. To paraphrase: "To bite the hand that feeds you is a beastly thing to do." It shows such contempt for your own value and worth as to be simultaneously disgusting and pitiful.

I was more than an aquaintance of Helge's - I was one of his best friends - and my guess is that he would ignore this tripe - but, since he isn't here any more to decide one way or the other, I feel it necessary to speak for him - even if he wouldn't have. He believed in LIBERTY - so much so that he placed his life on the line and put his money where his mouth was. The poor, slobbering idiot that started this thread is the very definition of a hypocrite - one who professes one thing while doing another. He professes hatred of those who defend his liberty - yet uses that liberty as a means to continue the profession of his hatred. Helge was the opposite - he professed loyalty to the United States as the present home of liberty - and he acted on that profession. In short - he was a man - this thread originator is a worm.

Someone responded to Serotta by accusing the CIA of all sorts of heinous crimes and told Serotta to get "educated." Indeed. Education, and simple manners alike, appear to be sadly missing from the lost souls that started this garbage. If the CIA were the enemy of freedom you claim, you would already be dead - and Helge would have been busy hunting you and not those who would kill you and enjoy it. I think you have been watching too many X Files. Educate yourself about what liberty costs and who pays that cost.

Kelly

I think they are still upset about the flesh-eating virus and alien autopsy cover-ups.

Your friend would have been right to ignore these cretins, as the rest of the world does.

Click here:

http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages/company.html

A lot of us already are. The CIA has caused millions and millions of innocent civilians to die, and worse, much worse. We want to stop this monster before we become its next victims.

sorry, Kelly, you're friend died.

but let's be clear. you're friend was in the employ of an agency with the blood of millions on its hands. your fondness for him doesn't change that fact.

i note (again) that nobody chiming into defend the CIA has refuted the charges levelled against it on this post (or elsewhere, for that matter). I can only infer that they don't really care one way or another, paeans to protecting liberty and freedom notwithstanding.

btw, wasn't it the CIA that funneled huge sums of money and resources into Afghanistan in the 80s, in the process emboldening and strengthening the Islamists? Bin Laden wasn't carousing with leftists, that's for sure: he was too busy partying at the Islamist Woodstock MC'd by the US/CIA.

and btw again: who're the US' allies today in Afghanistan? Who're the US' allies in the Central Asian "stans"?

Same old shit. Same old apologists.

Kelly, thanks for the insight on the life of a brave American hero. You should consider not reading these ignoramuses who have never fought for anything. Most of them have never accomplished anything and never will. They like to blame the worlds problems on the country that they can not make it in. Loosers one and all thay make up for their own shortcomings by blaming their failed lives on the devil Capitalism. It must have been painful for you to loose your friend, something that I have some expierience with myself. Why give these pigs any of your heart, they have none.

YAWG

I'll raise a pint to your dad who's name shines on that wall in Washington where all the true heros that fell in Viet Nam are honored.

The CIA brought the factions in Afghanistan together and toppled the Taliban, thus preventing another 9/11 attack. This also stopped the ruinous civil war. What you hear about these days are much smaller and less destructive factional skirmishes. Thanks to the CIA, girls in Afghanistan can go to school, women can go without burqas in the cities, and fewer people are skinned alive.

That's a damn sight more than you did.

You see further good news in people dying in Mecca.

GET A LIFE

oh yeah, the same old cia that let 3000 american in the wtc get toasted so bush could have his unocal gas pipeline. the ones fighting for the end of liberty (TIA). the incompetents who let osama get away. the army of liberty that delivered hundreds of uncharged and unconvicted people to guantanamo bound and gagged. maybe a hero to a bunch of brainwashed kneejerk fascists, but never for me. live by the sword and die by it.

just one less asshole.

I used to think the worst kind of tripe was those who badmouth the very system that provides them the best living in the world. Or the best education in the world. Or the best opportunity in the world. That's until I read this thread.
Celebrating the death of one who risked his life so these ungrateful maggots can spew their nonsense on the rest of our society gives new meaning to the word scum. It is the height of ignorance and stupidity.
CIA may not be perfect, but they are necessary. The tactics may seem somewhat brutal at times for those who are sensitive. But considering how violent and oppressive the alternatives can be, I'll take CIA in a heartbeat. And it saves lives in the long run.
For a bunch who love to prevaricate and live by the twin theories of "end justifies the means" and "greater good", they seem to suddenly have a lot to say about absolute values of right and wrong. I am wondering where was your outrage when Bill Clinton was Commander In Chief????? I didn't hear this manure until GW took office. Suppose that has something to do with it???? Hmmmmm?????
As a nation, we don't always make the right decisions. But we are the most benevolent nation in world history. Bar none. And CIA provides us one method to continue that successful ambassadorship to the rest of the world.
Toad

Have no place in any true Democracy, which the U.S. clearly isn't.

So he was a two-time asshole. Good riddance.

Radian...for someone who alludes to being so intellectual ....you sure use alot of base words.........................................Xbox Xbox Xbox

and fresca is the best soft drink ever. it obviously rots the brain.

"I fought for liberty: the liberty of billionaires to send others to war." -Dead Gestapo...I mean CIA guy

Hero? No. Zero? Yes.

Ah this is what makes for americas downfall, countless babblings from cowards, railing against the imperialistic satans but unwilling to actually DO anything. I have lived among you for years and have discovered that america is cowardly. This cia terrorist you all rail at was at least man enough to die for his beliefs, but most of you here merely bleat like sheep, to afraid to rise up, and overthrow thoses you rail against. Your ideals are pitiful, too afraid of your own selves to die like this valiant enemy. At least he was not afraid, unlike you worthless rabble always crying, nothing more. I salute you Mr. Boes, although you were my enemy I would rather face a brave man like you in battle, than to have these cowards here defaming you as allies. Allah, praise and glory to his name, will soon rule over america made easier by you worthless and weak spineless COWARDS.

uuuh, i mean, "salaam"

I do have to wonder about all these inefficient cia sponsored death squads. I mean here we are wasting valuable tax dollars on training and they still can't wipe out journalists. Talk about waste. No surprise that this rag comes out of san fran bay, although I know you won't be around too long, probably even as I type, the cia is infecting one of you with aids, thereby ensureing a rapid spread to the "editorial" staff. btw you all know the bath houses are really cia houses where all kinds of new and improved diseases are tested don't you? Yeah it's a real pity that they can't get death squads to operate in sf, at least not on a large scale.

Radian there should be no questions about you being edited.....they do it to protect our sanity.....

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1571027_comment.php?theme=9

I'll watch the obits and laugh if your children are killed in a car accident.

Have a nice day.

Don't I know it. One word of dissent and you're outa here. The powers that be truly are the most closed-minded bunch of pussies I've yet encountered. So much for the left's "tolerance", but then again, they are sorta acting exactly as you'd expect , aren't they?

yea, i'd prefer if you far-right monkeys weren't ever edited.

it's fun batting your lame-ass arguments around the block. you guys are such witless and clods. heartless too. every time you speak you hang yourselves publicly--I, for one, wish the editors would stop untying the noose.

fortunately, they're pretty on-again/off-again about deleting posts, so you'll be around for awhile. goody.

BTW, point me to a rightist forum that allows anti-capitalists to have the say y'all get here.

I'm a friend of a friend of Mr. Boes; his choice to leave behind comfort and a prosperous legal career was noble, and his death was tragic. It's all too telling that people in this forum would fail to recognize nobility and celebrate tragedy, and would mock the lives of those who give theirs to protect you. I guess this is par for the course for the kind of forum that encourages cop-killers.

You guys probably thought "Saving Private Ryan" was a comedy.

Oh, but it's OK because the messages you get in your dental fillings tell you the CIA is bad, bad, bad.

Aaron, you're an ass. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm hardly a far-righter, unless by that you mean someone who doesn't toe the ridiculously sophomoric and lemming-like line of anti-semitism and global naitivite. Knowing that the "palestinian" is not the innocent victim you are obsessed with portraying him as does not make me "far-right". And, certainly, patiently explaining to deluded fools, like yourself, how utterly ludicrous an identitly such as your own, "anti-capitalist" is doesn't put me there either. You must accept the fact that your leftist views are bandwagonesque at best and fantastical at worst.
As far as a "far-right" board you can go to; I couldn't tell ya. If you find one let me know, I'll probably have fun with those extremist fools also.

I was thinking of Radian and other certifiable rightists that post frequently on this board--not you. I don't know who the fuck you are, accept that you don't toe the line of "global naitivite" (what's that?), but you do enjoy shitting on the Palestinians (not "palestinians").

So what does that make you? An illiterate bigot? i'm sure you and Radian would get along just fine.

Say, "Mr. Jefferson"--just a hunch. I'm guessing that you're writing your little screed from somewhere right here in the good old USA. It "clearly isn't a democracy," but you're here anyway. Hmmm, wonder why?

Same goes for you, Mr. Fuck CIA Terrorists. Any of the despotic nations you so idolize would have you in a noose within a week of your arrival. If you don't believe me, go give it a try.

Good riddance.

That's the minority opinion. The rest of us wish SF Indymedia would ban all these rightists, nationalists, war mongers and racists. If we wanted to read their crap we could go to Free Republic. This site is supposted to be for us, not for our enemies.

...like a true left-liberal. "Ban 'em all." Freedom of speech, y'know--which is why THE REST OF US don't trust THE LIKES OF YOU.

OK, Aaron first:

I haven't read the whole thread, I have to work for a living, but you accused me and others of ignoring your allegations of CIA misbehavior. Fine, list out your claims in your next message and i will address them. As to the things you did claim: 1. yes, we armed the Afghanis. So what? We armed them to fight the USSR when THEY were being invaded and subjegated. In other words, we HELPED the ungrateful fools. Then they turned on us. Explain how that reflects poorly on us - rather than on them. Further, in the context of the cold war, arming the Afghanis was the right thing to do since the USSR was, at that time, the far greater threat, and we would do it again in the same circumstances. 2. Detainees at Guantanamo. I fail to understand your claim. POWs are being held in a POW camp in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Where lies the problem? They are not charged with crimes because they aren't criminals - they are enemy combatants. The two categories receive drastically different treatment under the US Constitution and POWs have no constitutional right to have charges brought or prosecuted. So what's the problem? By the way, this is not my opinion, it's well-settled constitutional doctrine, upheld by the US Supreme Court and followed regularly in our history.

Salaam: You clearly need to reaquaint yourself with the famous arabic versions of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. You attribute the properties of some of a group to the entire group. This is a logical fallacy and will not serve you well in understanding us. To say that some Americans are cowards is nothing more than to say that Americans are human. I could, with far more justice, accuse arabs or muslims of cowardice and point out that Allah clearly has forsaken them since they routinely run when the shooting starts (e.g. every Israeli war, the first Gulf War, and the present POWs captured in Afghanistan). I don't make the same fallacy - some muslims are cowards - because ALL muslims are human - but that does not mean that ALL muslims are cowards. And, ipso facto, neither is it true that ALL Americans (many of whom are arabic and/or muslim) are cowards. Many of us, the majority I would claim, reflect the attitude of Helge Boes - not the converse.

Cia "dead": Who are the millions the CIA has killed? I think you first, overestimate their reach and power. But even if you didn't, you misunderstand their mission. They are not a "world control conspiracy" group. They are bureacrats who get paid little money and work day to day raising families while gathering and analyzing intelligence - i.e., they are about espionage. The fact that such a group as this exists and can accuse the BIG BAD CIA of so many crimes with impunity still, I allege, militates against your claims. In other words, your very claims and their publication carry within themselves the seeds of their own refutation.

Kelly

Click here:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1567090_comment.php#1568588

You don't have to look far for an example of the left doing the EXACT SAME THING as they accuse the Reagan administration of doing; namely, crawling into bed with Unsavory Characters. Here on sf.indymedia, we are treated to the spectacle of the left vehemently defending the rights of islamo-fascists to maintain totalitarian regimes that are UTTERLY OPPOSED to any of the left's sacred shibboleths.

Is abortion safe and legal in Islamabad? Do gays have a parade in Baghdad? Is there social justice in Tehran? How about universal suffrage? How about even suffrage? What about the 40 hour work week?

That doesn't stop demented Human Shields from going over there to overstay their priveleges as Useful Idiots. My fervent wish is that others of their ilk would develop the courage of their misguided convictions!

P. S. Still waiting for your examples of successful communist models, Aaron.

Orwell Warned: Here's an Orwell comment you may want to think about: "We sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." Helge was one of those rough men. If you are going to claim intellectual kinship with orwell, you may wish to aquaint yourself a little more closely with his ideas. He was a democratic socialist - democratic first. While he believed socialism was the best economic method to provide for most men - Animal Farm was written to lambaste Stalinism - not the west. And 1984 was a prophecy of what could happen if fascism - in its various forms - took over. It wasn't an explanation of our culture of the time - or of this time. Read him a bit more closely before you claim him as an authority for your bilge.

Kelly

Even you admit he was a rough and ready terrorist. And too incompetent to even use a grenade--or was he using it to threaten Afghanis like his CIAsshole buddies? Rot in hell, bastard.

Apparently Kelly has handed the haters a big bag of shut the fuck up. Where did they go?

"He's using facts! Run away!!! Run Away!!!"

Is this the same CIA that helped Osama and Saddam into power? We're supposed to respect this agency? Get real.

No, I don't admit he was a "rough and ready terrorist" - I admit he was "rough". There is a difference. The difference is that between the "rough" cop that catches the serial killer and rapist and the serial killer and rapist himself. A "terrorist" is a consciousless killer - and Helge was anything but that. He was willing to "fight" to protect you - and that willingness to fight on your behalf is his "roughness." If you are unable to distinguish between the two cases, I suggest you spend a little more time studying moral theory and a little less tossing around damnations. Fortunately, since you have no authority over the universe or the judgment of the dead, your desire to see Helge "rot in hell" is vacuous - even if pitiful and vicious.

As for his skill with a hand grenade - I have no idea - nor do I think it matters. If you have access to some sort of facts that would enlighten us on the circumstances, beyond what is already public, please share them - otherwise, your comments on them are pointless since they reflect your own, made-up fantasy of what was happening and I, for one, am uninterested in your fantasy life.

Kelly

Helped Osama and Saddam into power? The CIA? Your facts in support of this are - what exactly? Please provide them and then we can discuss whether it matters.

But, assuming there are such facts - what would be your point? That the CIA was a wrong to do so? If you think they were wrong to help them, then wouldn't they be "right" to oppose them now? And then wouldn't you welcome them as converts to your cause?

In other words, your objections seem to be surprisingly schizophrenic. They shouldn't have helped them in the past, and they shouldn't stop them now. Well, which is it? Is this schizophrenia intentional or just a by-product of thinking by slogan?

Further, if your complaints about CIA aid to Osama refers to his role in the Afghani war against the USSR - see my prior comments on that subject. His reversal of field does not reflect negatively on the CIA, but on Osama as an ungrateful fool. And, in any case, in the context of the cold war such aid made perfect sense and we would do it again.

Finally, I don't remember asking anyone to "respect" the CIA as an organization. It is made up of human beings who make all kinds of mistakes - and are sometimes evil - much like each of us. What I am arguing is that it is not the bogey-man you claim it is and it is not the enemy of liberty - but its ally. If you believe that it is improper for any free society to have any organization like the CIA then fine - that is a point to argue and a belief that has a long history (see Frank Church). But that doesn't translate into the often-repeated "fact" that the CIA are a crazy bunch of killers and terrorists or that those who work for it are terrorists, murderers or killers. A little more thought please.

Kelly

Kelly Whiting

Clever. How about this one:

The CIA doesn't have a charter calling for it to promote human rights, but instead is merely an organization chartered to gather and analyze intelligence. It provides its results to the decision-makers in the executive branch - the chief of which is elected by all of us. That decision-maker then decides what to do about the intel. Because that decision-maker is a democratically elected official, he makes his decision based on both what he thinks the voters will think and about what he believes is the right thing to do in the situation, given the nature of the CIA's intel report. Many times his decision is based on humanitarian motives (see Somalia and/or Serbia) and many times on national interests (see Iraq, etc.). Arguing about which motive should control his decision makes sense - so does whether he made the right one given what he knew - but tarring the intel gatherers as Satan doesn't really make any sense at all.

Human rights organizations are critically important in promoting human rights world-wide. That doesn't mean they are always - or even usually - correct about policy decisions. It means that what they say should be listened to respectfully and analyzed intelligently. But they are not our elected officials nor are they a part of our government and our chosen leaders have the responsibility to make the decisions that govern us and have no right to cede those decisions to an unelected, unaccountable body. Their reports matter - but they do not decide the case and they are often demonstrably and factually innaccurate.

The press is also valuable and important and has a role in forcing open government and debate - a role it does fairly well - considering human nature. Again, it is not elected or responsible and can not have final say over anything.

Finally, while peace protests have a place as well in registering the unhappiness of part of the nation with a policy choice, they are often extremely counter-productive because they first dilute their message by combining what they are protesting with several other major themes and/or they are incoherent in their presentation of their case. To convince the majority of Americans that we should not wage war to prevent another 9/11 takes more than signs saying "Bush is the Devil", etc. You should not be surprised when the majority of Americans, who are quite competent at distinguishing between humbug and serious proposals, ignore such irrelevant nonsense.

Kelly

So, my utter dislike of the supposed "palestinian" terrorist culture means that, not only am I a bigot, but that I can't read as well? I don't dislike them beased on their race or religion, which WOULD make me a bigot. I dislike them because they're racist, hateful murderers who wrap themselves in some sort of martyrs' shroud of suffering, which is only true to the extent that they brought it on themselves. But, you will never understand history so nevermind. Again....you're an ass. And "global naitivete"...c'mon, you're such a leftist intelectual; so much sharper than anyone right of you; figure it out. It's hardly rocket science. Christ, you are so predictably dim.

My apologies. Apparently I missed your point. But it WAS clever.

Kelly

Kelly: you write and construct your arguments like a college professor but your understanding of the world is that of a second grader.

The democratic nature of US foreign policy that you laud is purely pro forma. First, it needs to be said that not even a majority of the eligible electorate even bother to participate in this "great democratic experiment" that you find so exhilirating--the Republicans, for instance, scored a "decisive victory" in the mid-term vote last year with all of 17% of the vote. But, even if turn-out was more inspired, that wouldn't change the fact that US imperial policies are conducted behind a massive curtain of lies, deceit, disinformation, mass media propaganda, and secrecy by an elite whose power spans (and in a real sense, transcends) the major political parties. In any event the Democrats and Republicans, both controlled by millionaires, are in agreement on the basic imperatives--securing the interests of US capital--and what debate does occur is over technical matters, not over what one might call "values".

Those who have taken the brunt of US foreign policy--i.e., much of the world--don't harbor your pollyannaish "critique" of US actions. Most Americans are dazed and confused by the endless barrage of lies and distortions and cover-ups, but my sense is that many would reject your civics lesson version of the US state out-of-hand: It doesn't ring true. Even apolitical, "normal" Americans sense that America is ruled by the rich and for the rich.

You keep referring to the CIA as simply an espionage agency, giving it a sort of innocuous quality. The reality is that the CIA has played the front-guard of US foreign policy over the past fifty years--rigging elections, staging coup d'etats, organizing mercenary terrorist forces, installing USbusiness-friendly clients. The CIA isn't a disembodied "secret team" that acts independently of the US ruling class--it's power derives from the fact that it has the US states' military and financial backing.

I'm not going to give you a run-down of all the sinister shit the US/CIA has been involved in. If you're sincere you'll look into it yourself. But here's a brief list:

The CIA engineered a coup d'etet against Arbenz in Guatamala in 1954, principally because he was threatening to nationalize United Fruit. The coup ushered in a brutal US-backed military junta that is/was responsible for close to 200,000 deaths, mostly Indian, in the following thirty five years.

In 1953, the CIA had a hand in overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran, ushering in the Shah, who retained power until being overthrown in 1979.

In 1963, the CIA smoothed the Iraqi B'aathist Party to power in a coup against Kassim. Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: 'We came to power on a CIA train.’

In 1960, the CIA was involved in the overthrow and murder of Lumumba in the Congo, ushering in the US-stooge Mobuto.

In 1964, CIA coverty activity played a strong role in the overthrow of Guillart in Brazil, bringing in a military dictatorship that lasted for decades

In 1965, the CIA played a big role in the overthrow of Sukarno of Indonesia, smoothing Suharto's take-over, who with much help from the US/CIA killed at least 500,000 leftists and oppositionists in the following several years.

In 1973, the CIA was in Chile helping overthrow Allende and bringing in Pinochet.

In 1979, the US/CIA organized Islamist's in Afghanistan to launch attacks against left-leaning regime there. Brzezinski, the Secretary of State under Carter at the time, later bragged that US support for the Islamist's began six months before the Soviet invasion. The US, according to its own documents, knew that the Afghan regime was light years more progressive than the retrograde Islamist's, backed by the large land-holders, but didn't care.

In the 80s, the CIA funneled aid to the terrorist UNITA in Angola, lead by a Maoist named Savimbi. Huge numbers were killed in that war. (One interesting side-note: in that war Cuban troops protected Chevron-- which had struck a deal with the allegedly communist government of Angola--from US backed insurgents!)

Also in the 80s, the CIA organized, equipped, and financed the contras in Nicaragua, composed mainly of the remnants of the US-backed Somoza's National Guard, which had been overthrown in 79. The contras were known for killing health workers, attacking agricultural co-ops, clinics etc.

In the 80s the CIA was heavily involved in El Salvador, and was linked to the death-squad government there.

This list is hardly comprehensive, but i'm tired.

The bottom line is that the US is an imperialist state which cares about human rights nominally, and usually after the fact. The CIA is there to "serve".

Thank you, aaron, I knew you'd pull through. Please, people, these are the basics, the very basics. The CIA as only an intelligence agency? What world is Kelly living on? The CIA has taken an active role in manipulating media (including US media), assassinations, coups, support of terrorism, and assorted other very dirty activities.

Geeeze, as Archie Bunker would say. Ya Don't say. So we can list dates and coups all over the world and blame them all on the CIA. In fact, the entire fucked up world is all the fault of the CIA. If you don't believe it just read a book written by some hack/anti-american author based on conjecture and myth.

No one would blieve we do not use the CIA as a foreign policy instrument, of course we do. Point is most of the situations arise from other economic/political issues and the CIA is out tool to try to implant ruling classes that are the most favorable to our financial and political needs.

We discovered long ago that it is impossible to set up a free democratic state in every case. So we do the expiedant and rational when trying to influence outcomes.

Newsflash..... The world has been fucked up long before the CIA or the USA. The point you lefties miss is that we LIVE in America and billions in the wold are jelous of thet fact. We have our enemies and yes some are self created. Just because we once supported a dog does not mean we don't put that dog down if it becomes mad.

What happened yesterday or thirty years ago is moot. We need to survive the future. It is simple, if you are against the CIA you are for the terrorists. If you are against the USA you are for the terrorists. It makes no difference NOW where or why the terrorism came about. It is flogging a dead horse, the planes have crashed, the fire is burning. So lets not kill the fireman.

Constant whining about yeaterday is to ignore the prresent. If you must fix it that do so when the time is right. Now , we need our "agencies".

Newsflash 2..... The rich and powerful have always RULED and classless societies have failed every time to imoprove the lot of the common man or for that matter to even remain "classless". My poin,t which can not be argued against logically, is that in America we have a chance to move in freedom to live as we want as long as we stay within civil parameters. Americans have the oppourtunity to transend classes and make it to a good and rich life.

If protecting that takes supporting the CIA I'll support it. If the CIA ever leads a coup that overthroughs the US Constitution I'll pick up my gun as set out in the Bill of Rights.

Tell me you do not support the terrorist atacks that are currently directed against the USA and our Allies. Saying that, it necessarly follows that you support the efforts of TODAYS CIA to stop the attacks/

Are Kelly and ‘Whiskey Jack’ for real? I come from a genuinely conservative background and I’ve known folks who spent their lives working for ‘The Company’ (they recruit employees from conservative, authoritarian backgrounds) and I can assure you they don’t have the starry-eyed view of the CIA these two do. I’m know for certain there are decent, principled people working in the agency, but the sad fact is that the agency can work with or around the positive character traits of their employees.

This guy who tragically died… well that goes with the territory. If he was a bright as Kelly and her Harvard buds make him out to be he certainly knew the risks. I’m also certain that his view of the agency would have matured over time, and that his increasingly more realistic view about what to expect from the management would have increased his odds of living a long, self-respecting life. Alas, the gung-ho are the first to go in covert ops.

I’m in agreement with many of the outspoken former CIA agents who have said that the intelligence-gathering mission of the agency is necessary and legitimate, but the covert ops section does more harm than good for genuine US interests over the long haul.

...for decades of manufacturing wars and making enemies abroad. The 3000 dead in the WTC have you to thank. Keep that cocaine and heroin flowing!

I am a "he" - not a "she." Yes, Helge understood the risks - therefore, it follows that his death is a matter for joy and celebration? I fail to follow the logic or see the point. Gung ho has nothing to do with it - hard work done hard does. Again, unfortunately, I am too busy to say any more. I'll get back to this later.

But yes, I am for real and yes, I am a conservative - though Helge was not.

Kelly

I don't know what you been reading but having a backround in the intelligence community I have no doubt concerning the good and bad of all intelligence communities.

My point is that the constant whining about past mistakes is counter-productive. The destruction of our intelligence instruments is exactly what these attackers would like. This then flows to the destruction of our governement. I, for one, do not stand in agreement for these concepts.

Rejoicing over the death by accident or KIA of the men serving American interests is by it's nature sedition. I try not to be emotional but if you find pleasure in the death of the two CIA agents in Afganistan all I can say is... eat shit you low life .

You can call me Starry Eyed but that will not close my eyes to the trators that would destroy everything the USA stands for.

What shall we do, abolish the CIA/MI/NSA and the Armed Forces? Depend on our inner goodie feeley touchy kinda love in to protect our future generations from the likes of Osama? If my eyes have stars in them yours are blind.

Amen. I don't think many could have said it better.

> No one would blieve we do not use the CIA as a foreign
> policy instrument, of course we do. Point is most of the
> situations arise from other economic/political issues and
> the CIA is out tool to try to implant ruling classes that
> are the most favorable to our financial and political
> needs.

There you go. The CIA "implants" ruling classes favorable to the US. Not ruling classes favorable to the people of those countries. Of course, the process of "implantation" often involves a coup followed by a bloodbath - in order to prevent the people of those countries from challenging the coup, the CIA will provide the new powers with lists of dissidents or even potential dissidents to be murdered.

I'm glad to see that we've found common ground as far as the facts are concerned. I'm appalled that you approve of this morally reprehensible behavior.

Grow the fuck up!

"I'm glad to see that we've found common ground as far as the facts are concerned. I'm appalled that you approve of this morally reprehensible behavior."

Welcome to the real world. It's groups like the CIA, FBI and NSA who do all the dirty work that HAPPENS EVERYDAY in the world, by every country worth a damn and which you so categorically whine about that allows you to sit on your fat ass and bitch the way you do. Grow up! God forbid you should ever have to live in a world were the actions of the CIA and groups like them cease to exist. Deluded, Priveleged, jargonistic pieces of shit like you will be the first to go. The targets of all this "morally reprehensible" behavior eat losers like you for breakfast. Now repeat after me, "The Cia is a wonderful group, Given to a wonderful country by a wonderful God."

I think all the rednecks (conservatives/righties) should be locked up in cages
that way, the world's problems will be solved

Repeat after me, 'repeat after me':

"I, 'repeat after me', have no argument so I accuse those that do of being ingrates. My world-view is complacent, moronic, and tired. I can't articulate my position without resorting to phony non-sequitors. In fact, I couldn't argue my position to save my life. God bless America"

whew, scare me! The CIA is not needed and is not necessary. Tell me what the CIA did to prevent 911. Get somewhere!
I know a retired CIA man and he is as dirty as they come. He is also loosing his mind. Maybe the dirty deeds are doing him in.

kelly,

i respect your cordiality and apparent willingness to consider views that only days ago you thought were beneath contempt. It's far more than I've come to expect from your garden-variety rightist.

cheers,
aaron

Gary Webb's series for the San Jose Mercury News, along with supporting documentation (things like court documents and audio clips), is available on the web at

http://home.attbi.com/~gary.webb/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

Your article is disrepectful to the dead and the living. Although we may disagree with what the CIA does, these are human beings we're talking about.

Your article also does a disservice to and reflects poorly upon those who are working towards reforming the CIA, providing oversight of government agencies and who disagree with the US government position on Afghanistan, Iraq or numerous other policies.

I for one, disagree with the Bush administration on how they are dealing with Iraq, North Korea and the unilateral nature of their foreign policy. I consider their policies to be rife with foolish inconsistencies that remove their credibility. But I won't applaud when anyone dies.

In the end, you are just as bad as the war mongers, suicide bombers and others who are trying to pull us towards war.

-danny

Kelly...will you marry me?

::sigh::

I love a strong spirited woman with brains.

Sorry dude, I'm a guy - and already married.

Kelly

Comments like this confirm my belief. The leftist ideology is dying. Keep it up, I enjoy watching it dissolve. When people hear what you say, read about what you think, they go to the polls and vote. We all know how thats been turning out for ya.

Comments like this confirm my belief. The leftist ideology is dying. Keep it up, I enjoy watching it dissolve. When people hear what you say, read about what you think, they go to the polls and vote. We all know how thats been turning out for ya.

Does it matter to any of you guys who are rabidly anti-CIA that perhaps 98% of that Agency's employees are researching things like wheat production in Russia, weather patterns in Africa, who makes all those little paper drink umbrellas in Hong Kong, and the percentage of Chinese citizens who wear leather shoes?
It is truly amazing how many dirty deeds can be accomplished by the remaining 2% of the CIA payroll who are spooks and paramilitary special ops personnel. Although, I think you guys are watching a little too much TV. There's only one guy who could pull all of this off. But James Bond did NOT leave Her Majesty's Secret Service for the CIA, despite reports that you may have heard and might feel compelled to repeat here as little-known facts. Don't tell anybody, but just between you and me.........James Bond is a fictitious character! I wouldn't want you to look, well........silly!
What? You didn't know that?
Now I understand why 15% of the American public believes that Elvis still lives. They are critical thinkers just like you. And there are daily sightings of The King in all 50 states.
Now that I think about it, though, there's more eyewitness evidence that Elvis is still alive than you have presented here to support your claims that the CIA has perpetrated all these dirty deeds. Now, how could that possibly be the case? Since you rely only on the most reliable inside sources in 3rd world nations that personally witnessed CIA agents perpetrating these dastardly things, you must be keeping the hard evidence to yourself. Don't tell me you're a spook, too? And you can't tell me or you'd have to kill me? I should have guessed. OK, I won't tell anyone.
Yeah, that must be it, since you couldn't conceivably be wrong.
Toad

Click here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1571273.php

"War is more than just immoral. It kills, wholesale. if we let this war continue long enough, it could easily kill you, and all your family. No where on earth is safe, no bunker, no skyscraper, no infoshop, and nowhere that have to breath air. Is that what you want, to take your ideological purity with you to your grave and to your children’s grave? Do you care more for abstract concepts than you do for human life? Would you rather be right than alive?"

If you really care for human life then listen up:
----



The Left isn't listening

The Stop the War coalition is the greatest threat to any hope for a democratic Iraq

Nick Cohen
Sunday February 16, 2003
The Observer

"Iraq is the only country in the Arab world with a strong, democratic movement. Yet I wonder how many who marched yesterday know of the dissenters' existence. The demonstration's organisers have gone to great lengths to censor and silence. How else could the self-righteous feel good about themselves?"

[...]

"Salih was prepared for that: what he wasn't prepared for was the enmity of the anti-war movement. Foolishly, he tried to reason with it. He pointed out that the choice wasn't between war or peace. Saddam 'has been waging war for decades and he has inflicted hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.' Indeed, he continued, the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds who are still under Baghdad's control continues to this day. 'I do not want war and I do not want civilian casualties, nor do those who are coming to our assistance,' he said. 'But the war has already begun.'

"What, he then asked, about the strange insistence of the anti-war movement that Iraqis must not be liberated until Israel withdraws from the occupied territories?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,896660,00.html
----

Saturday 15 February 2003

Speech by Prime Minister Tony Blair at Labour's local government, women's and youth conferences, SECC, Glasgow.

"There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being."

http://www.labour.org.uk/tbglasgow/

> "The Stop the War coalition is the greatest threat to any hope for a democratic Iraq&
> by nessie Sunday February 16, 2003 at 12:06 PM

> Colonialist aggression is the greatest threat to any hope for a democratic Iraq .

There is none.

Too bad you couldn't address the articles. Maybe next time.

How sick for anyone to celebrate the death of anyone, especially a fellow countryman or anyone you don't agree with. I support Bush and all the efforts and although against war am not against a war with Iraq and peace will come out of it. How many of us have to die and just take it? What would justify a military response for you radicals? I hope you get your wish and have this country collapse, than let's see what was the preferred way to live. 10 years from now you will all be capitalists when you get out of school and faced with having to make a living. Every generation spills your vomit and hateful language but thank God it passes with time and maturity.

> "There is none"
> by nessie Sunday February 16, 2003 at 12:38 PM

> Sure there is. This whole WMD thing is nothing but a transparent pretext for a neo-colonialist land and resource grab.

Too bad you don't have any evidence.

Nessie, been a long time since out last discussion. Good to see how your life has(not) changed.

And Nessie, heed your own advice, 'get out once in a while.' Look at how much time you spend on Indymedia, boring us with your pseudointelletual rubbish.

By the way, taking pleasure in the death of others is a sign of insanity. So better yet. Stay home.

"What happened yesterday or thirty years ago is moot. We need to survive the future."

Don't look at the mistakes of the US, but look at the use of WMD by Iraq in the 80's. If you don't, then you support Hussein and his real threats to the existence of the US that can't be revealed just yet. The US government actually did support him. But now it is trying to correct its mistake. Forget all of the pragmatic destruction. Trust them, they really are trying to make it better now. If you do, then you are a freedom loving patriot, not a gullible tool of the wealthy elite. If you don't, then you are a bloodthirsty antiamerican idealist.

>"evidence"
>by nessie Sunday February 16, 2003 at 02:26 PM

>It's self evident to anyone who has ever read history.

Then you can demonstrate it. Proceed.

>Where's evidence to the contrary?

You might want to review the rules of argument.

Your assertion:

"This whole WMD thing is nothing but a transparent pretext for a
neo-colonialist land and resource grab."

Evidence, please.

Supporters of a full-scale invasion of Iraq can't point to evidence that the US' intentions are above-board, simply because no such evidence exists. The US/CIA helped the B'aathist regime into power in a coup in '63. The US provided advanced intelligence, weapons, and credits to Hussein in the 80s. The US dropped plutonium-tipped bombs, destroyed Iraq's civilian infrastructure--including, but not limited to, its water treatment system--and massacred retreating conscripts while looking the other way when Hussein smashed uprisings against his regime in the early 90s. Throughout the 90s, and up until the present the US, through the UN, imposed a starvation blockade on Iraq and demanded that Iraq totally disarm, while exclaiming that NO MATTER WHAT Hussein did the US state sought his overthrow.

Iraq is a militarily degraded country that poses no threat to the US. I feel silly even saying that--it's so fucking obvious.

The refrain that the US is now intent upon correcting past "mistakes"--i.e., its past support for Hussein--is pure, unadulterated bullshit. First, US support for Hussein WAS NOT a mistake, nor was it anomolous. Second, the US has not discovered a love for freedom and human rights. We need only look at the cozy relationship the US has cultivated in recent years with petrol-thugocracy's in Central Asia to gain a glimpse of what the US' chief concerns are.

Why don't you malevolent fools who support a full-scale invasion of Iraq come up with a coherent and substantiated argument? Come on. I'm waiting.

BTW to Nessie: War has biological ramifications, I don't disagree. It sounded like you were saying that the war itself is driven by biology.

As far as welcoming rightists, you still haven't convinced me. Could it be that you have accept the rightist arguments against war (the misplaced emphasis on Israel, specifically) and that in part explains your generous assessment of the anti-war right?

> The US dropped plutonium-tipped bombs

That would be uranium-tipped bombs, specifically "DU" or depleted uranium. It is possible, depending on where the DU came from and how it was processed, that trace amounts of other radioactive elements are in there, including plutonium. But if the bombs were really tipped with plutonium then anyone nearby would have died of radiation poisoning within the week.

> This whole WMD thing is nothing but a transparent pretext for a neo-colonialist land and resource grab.

There are three parts:
a) the whole WMD thing is nothing, really
b) therefore, it is a pretext
c) it is a pretext for a neo-colonialist land and resource grab.

a) There is no evidence that Saddam has, has had, or will soon be capable of having nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, nearby India and Pakistan have them and Israel has over 200 of them. Not a concern. The bio and chem weapons were given or helped by the US and other governments and US and other companies in the 1980s, few if any still exist in Iraq, Iraq is unlikely to use them (Saddam didn't use them at all in 1991 when he had lots), and lots of other countries have them. Even the US covertly develops them, against treaties it has signed. Ergo, focusing on Iraq having WMDs is nothing, really,

b) only a pretext.

c) a pretext for a nakedly aggressive war to oust the leader of Iraq. Why? To change the map of Middle East, to place some "reliable" US allies in the region, and to make it more amenable to exploitation by US capital - especially those yummy oil resources. What does one call the implantation of pro-Western Third World rulers by the West? Neo-colonialism.

Let's see, should we trust the assertions of "a" and aaron and all the other socialists and/or communists that insist that Iraq is not a threat? Or should we trust the intelligence gathering capability of the US Government that insists that Iraq is a threat, and sooner than most want to believe?
Do we go with "a" and his vast resources, his own little personal CIA, FBI, and State Dept?
Or should we go with the Bush Administration and their [somewhat more extensive] agencies?
Should we side with the socialists and communists to look out for the best interests of the citizens of the US, or do we look to the US Government to keep our best interests in mind?
Do we allow socialists and college students who have never had a real job determine US Foreign Policy, or do we go with career International Relations and Economics professionals to get the job done?
It's a tough call, a, but I think I'll stick with ol' GW and his friends in DC. I think they'll do a better job. I don't agree with everything they do, after all they're not perfect by any means. But they are there for good reason. It's pretty easy for you leftist windbags to sit here and armchair quarterback all day from your dormroom/office/cell phone/internet enabled coffee house. But these people are in DC making the tough decisions. They are trying to keep the interests of the American People in mind when they make them. Not attempting to subvert and destroy the institutions that other true patriots risked their lives and freedom to construct. It may not be perfect, but it's the best there is.
Don't like it? Go find a socialist regime in Western Europe. I'm sure you'll be plenty happy there as their society declines and ours continues to succeed.
We are a free nation, dedicated to exporting freedom to other people. Also dedicated to protecting ourselves from the likes of you who would tear it down in the process.
You like to hide behind the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression. But all you are is a wart on the ass of freedom. An anchor on the advance of liberty for those who exist in dictatorships and oppression around the world. Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. It will fail in Western Europe also. If you don't believe me, talk to the people in Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, and former Soviet Union.
If you don't like where this ship is going, you can get off at any time.
Toad

> If you don't like where this ship is going, you can get off at any time.

No thanks, we'll take a part in steering it, thank you very much.

My dear Mr "a",
Based on what I've read so far, I wouldn't trust you to sit the right way on the toilet seat, much less steer the whole ship.
You guys need to start making a lot more common sense before you'll get anyone to listen to your rantings (aside, of course, from naiive college students who are just regurgitating what their left-over '60's frustrated hippie professors are putting in their brains). You sound a little like the people claiming to have been abducted by alien spaceships. Long on speculation and wide-eyed details, but short on plausibility. With the possible exception of aaron, who has some very interesting accusations. Not that we've seen any substantiation to them, but interesting anyway.
Of course Iraq does not have the military might to attack us conventionally. That does not mean they cannot cause us great harm. They must rely on guerrilla warfare, which, by the way, is the method of choice for modern terrorists. We lump it all in the "terrorist" category, but it's guerrilla warfare nonetheless.
Can you imagine if a guy with Hitler's hunger for world domination got his hands on legitimate nuclear weapons? How about sarin gas, botulism, and anthrax spores in large quantities? That's what we are dealing with here. Saddam doesn't need a large standing army to do significant damage. As long as he's sufficiently evil, has dirty nukes and all the above bio and chemical weapons, and uses guerrilla warfare, he's fully capable of killing millions of Americans. Or Iraqis. We're about to make sure that doesn't happen. Even if we have to go there and kick his ass to make it so. It's as simple as that.
You want to beat the intelligence community over the head when they don't use what they know to stop an attack like 9-11, but you also want to beat them on the head when they do use their intelligence to stop another significant threat. Sounds like you just want to beat them over the head regardless, and these are just convenient reasons.
I suggest you all grow up and understand who your real enemy is!
Toad

<As interesting as aaron's accusations are...>

These aren't accusations, they are statements of fact which you're unable to rebut.

The US/CIA assisted the B'aathist Party to power in 63 in a coup d'etat against Kassim. The US assisted Hussein through the 80s. And in the 90s to the present the US has killed more than a million Iraqi's through destructions of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, sanctions, and massacres. Them's the facts, dickhead.

I'm for the destruction of Hussein's regime--by the Iraqi people themselves. Believe me, a popular uprising against Hussein wouldn't be to the US' liking--it never has been before.

The extent of your "argument" is this: "Hussein can't get us conventionally, but I think he wants to hurt us, but, due to the obscure nature of such things, one can never say decisively the nature of the threat, but it is certain that I'm pretty sure that the threat exists most likely. You leftists are so incoherent and elitist!"

Ever wonder why anti-war demos attract millions and pro-war demonstrations are attended by a couple dozen dull-normal fools like Toad?

BTW, if you got in my face and told me I've never worked "a real job", as you did above, rest assured I'd kick your ass.

"the US has killed more than a million Iraqi's through destructions of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, sanctions, and massacres. Them's the facts, dickhead"

Those are made up facts, dickhead!

About five days ago, Kelly the professorial apologist for the CIA, said he'd rebut my and others' analysis of the CIA.

Yoooo hooo Keeelly!!! Where are yooou?

>if a guy with Hitler's hunger for world domination got his hands on . . . sarin gas, botulism, and anthrax spores in large quantities?

(1.) Actually, he did. He never used them.

(2.) You're begging the question here. You're assuming that Saddam does have Hitler's hunger for world domination, and that if he did, nuclear weapons would advance his cause. Bush has greater hunger for world domination than Saddam does. He also has nukes. They're no help.

'And in the 90s to the present the US has killed more than a million Iraqi's through destructions of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, sanctions, and massacres. Them's the facts, dickhead."

Facts, huh? This is why the above are not facts, anymore than your hilarious "plutonium-tipped bombs".

Let's take the most egregious: "The U.S. has killed more than a million Iraqi's (sic) through ... massacres".


What massacres, Aaron? Massacres like the infamous Balkan soccer fields? Massacres like the well-documented Pol Pot Killing Fields? A massacre means something specific; namely, that unarmed civilians are organized into easily killed masses which are then killed. Please provide evidence that the U.S. was involved in something like this. "Collateral damage" casualties do not count, as obviously the intent of such actions was not specifically to slaughter civilians.

Next, sanctions. Tell me, Aaron, if Saddam Hussein has built 39 multi-million dollar palaces (NY Times, September 2002) since the end of the Gulf War, how is it that the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of civilians because of SANCTIONS? How, Aaron?

This rebuttal also goes for your claim about infrastructure. Saddam obviously would rather build palaces than replace lost "infrastructure".

Consider your ass rebutted. Like your mindless repetition of the "plutonium-tipped weapons", one can trace your sources by the fact that an error gets replicated over and over again. Your sources are suspect, and you have swallowed them whole without chewing them, then shat them out without digesting them, for the subsequent consumption of other deluded unwashed fools like yourself.

I shouldn't stoop to this troll, but I can't resist.

> "the US has killed more than a million Iraqi's through
> destructions of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, sanctions,
> and massacres. Them's the facts, dickhead"
>
> Those are made up facts, dickhead!

I have a UNICEF estimate for 500,000 extra deaths of children under 5 in the eight years between 1991 and 1998. By extrapolation, there may have been as many as 1 million deaths just of children under 5 in Iraq, due to the destruction of water infrastructure, sanctions, and DU.

http://www.unicef.org/reseval/pdfs/irqu5est.pdf

linked to from

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

> Of course Iraq does not have the military might to attack
> us conventionally. That does not mean they cannot cause us
> great harm. They must rely on guerrilla warfare, which, by
> the way, is the method of choice for modern terrorists. We
> lump it all in the "terrorist" category, but it's
> guerrilla warfare nonetheless.

Has Iraq launched any terrorist or, as you say, "guerrilla" actions against the United States? In fact, has any nation-state done so? Feel free to back up your assertions.

Thanks 'a'.

I didn't see that goonies' post and appreciate your picking up the slack.

Usually I say that US policy has killed tens of thousands--which is far more than enough--but said a million, the number most frequently sighted by activists and researchers.

What a ghoulish enterprise, enumerating the dead.

I didn't see your post before sending off my last.

Nobody here denies that Hussein is a brutal despot. The fact that can't be denied, however, is that living conditions for the average Iraqi have deteriorated massively in the past twelve years, and the independent variable isn't that Hussein is more evil than he was in the 80s (when he was a US ally), but that Iraq has been effectively destroyed by an onslaught of bombs, sanctions, and severe destruction of its civilian infrastructure. The fact that the sanctions have caused extreme misery for the average Iraqi, while failing to crimp Hussein's lavish lifestyle, is hardly an advertisement for sanctions.

Five years ago, Leslie Stahl on 60 minutes queried that little runt Madeline Albright whether in light of the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died due to sanctions if she thought sanctions were "worth it." Albright, unlike you, didn't question the veracity of that figure and said that she thought it was nonetheless
worth it,

It is a matter of record that Hussein's greatest atrocities were commited when he was an ally of the US.

I think it interesting that a two-bit American apologist like you would invoke the Khmer Rouge, given that US actions in Cambodia--years of bombings in the early 70s (which killed hundreds of thousands) and sabotage of Vietnamese attempts to smash Pol Pot--were indispensible to it's ascendance. Surely you know that the US fought to have the KR continue to represent Cambodia in the UN even after it had been overthrown!

As to massacres, I don't give US slaughters' a free pass under the rubric of "mistakes" and that despicable moniker, "collateral damage" (would you refer to someone you love as collateral damage?). When the US rains and rains and rains and rains missles down on a country it is inevitable that large numbers of civilians will die. The fact that it isn't(allegedly) deliberate is immaterial. I ask you to imagine yourself on the receiving end of these missles--would you accept it when twisted fucks (like you) blithely declare it to be a "mistake"?

Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by US "mistakes" in the past twelve years.

And then there was that charming massacre (I care not about your legalistic definition of the term) of retreating Iraqi conscripts often referred to as the "Highway of Death". I can imagine if you were there you would have had your picture taken with a charred head to send home to mommy and daddy.
"Look, YAWG is good boy".

An often unmentioned fact is that the retreating conscripts that the US massacred--like fish in a bowl-- posed a real threat to the US' former ally. They were armed and surely discontented. The US did Hussein a favor killing them en masse--in the same way as they did him a favor by looking the other way when the Republican Guard smashed uprisings shortly thereafter.

'a' already corrected me regarding my--yes, repeated--references to "plutonium-tipped weapons". (BTW, thanks for that, 'a'.) I meant to say depleted uranium weaponry--which, incidentally, have caused an upsurge in outbreaks of cancers and other syndromes among Iraqi's.

Just another "mistake", I guess.

> namely, that unarmed civilians are organized into easily killed masses which are then killed.


Tell that to Custer.

U.N. Resolution 687, which was passed upon the ending of the first Gulf War, specified that Saddam Hussein had 6 months to disarm of WMD's or else the sanction regime would begin. Why didn't he? The issue here isn't one of whether the Iraqi people are suffering (they are); the issue is one of who's to blame and what to do about it.

You are willing to perform incredible feats of denial to cut Hussein all the slack you can possibly muster in order to get him off the hook for his peoples' suffering. Curiously, you instead vehemently blame George W. Bush, who wasn't even in government at the time. That's one of the farcical aspects of the extreme left right now, transparent to the middle-of-the-road folks who relegate y'all to the fringe. It's also farcical to mention Madeline Albright to bolster any argument you have with me, as she is an unreconstructable twit.

I submit that forcibly removing Saddam Hussein will more quickly end the suffering of the Iraqi people. Ending sanctions will only make it easier for Hussein to import Italian marble and to pay French architects to add to the 39 existing palaces.

On the issue of "collateral damage". In the history of warfare, no power on earth has taken greater pains to spare the civilian population than has the U.S. If you think, as Nessie does, that All War is Immoral, then this might not make any difference to you. On this issue you attempted an emotional appeal ("if it happened to your mother you wouldn't think of it as collateral"). Maybe, like you say, I wouldn't, but I would be wrong. So what? Non-Sequitur. Are you saying the opposite, that the U.S. military will specifically go out of its way to cause civilian casualties? If you are, you are bent beyond repair. Because we don't do that, we are not terrorists.

On the subject of massacres: Let Me Splain Something to You. Person + Uniform + Weapon + WarZone = ENEMY COMBATANT, a legitimate target for death and destruction in war. Is that a difficult concept? I'm sorry that the images were disturbing to you, but the images from a coronary bypass operation might disturb you, too. And you might still need one someday. Your visceral reaction to an image is not an accurate assessment of its necessity.

Christ, man, I can't even begin to address your fantasies. This other canard you've been bandying about, that we were "allied" with Iraq, or that Saddam was our "Ally". It is an incontrovertible fact that we gave him some arms during the conflict with Iran. Remember a little caper affectionately called "The Iran-Contra Affair"? Who got arms in that one, again -- gasp, the IRANIANS?? Look it up in one of Chomsky's ponderous tomes. So we were giving arms to BOTH sides? When you're through scratching your head about that one, I'll give you the REALPOLITIK reason for that gambit.

So are the French "allies" of Saddam Hussein for selling him D'Assault Mirage fighter-bombers? Note that these sales have taken place more recently than our supposed "alliance". Are the Germans currently allies of Iraq? When the French oppose this war, is their motivation ALSO oil, namely, the billion dollar contracts they have for developing oil fields in Shatt-al-Arab?

What are you saying here, that Custer's troops weren't "massacred"?

If they weren't "massacred," then what *do* you call what happened to them?

Aaron,
You'll do anything to avoid harm to Iraqi citizens in the quest for American security, including perpetuating lies about your own government, but you want to kick my ass and harm me? Charming. Intelligent solution.

It's easy to repeat dozens of trumped-up accusations against the CIA, then demand that others who don't believe as you do must disprove them. No, that's not how it works. You made the claims, now you back them up. Otherwise, they are not worth the "plutonium" to blow them to hell. Links to articles by other leftists don't count.

If you want proof of how Saddam is linked to guerrilla warfare, or terrorism, you go argue with Colin Powell. He is far more qualified than either of us to speak on the matter, and far better informed. He was the last of Bush's Cabinet to be convinced that war was necessary, and he is now totally convinced. I, for one, trust his judgement. If you don't, then your argument is with him, not me. So, until you are as well informed as Colin Powell about Saddam's capabilities, deeds, and plans, I think I'll listen to him! Who's your authority on the subject?

Nevertheless, it's Saddam's propensity to give the finger to what the rest of the world is demanding of him that will be his undoing. Everyone but you, "a", and "history buff" thinks he's dangerous enough to demand that he disarm, and are willing to back it up with force. Everyone including the Foreign Relations Officials of all the industrialized nations, and about half of the third world. 18 UN Resolutions later, he is still giving us the finger! No more talk. Time for action. We are through playing games.

Anti war demonstrations only attract millions in your mind. Police estimates of crowd size are consistently the most accurate, and they total perhaps a million nationwide. There are actually very few "pro-war" people out there. We are anti-Saddam Hussein. And we are roughly 2/3 of the American people. We don't need to protest anything to be heard. It's our voices that are being heard around the world. The remaining 1/3 are on the fence. Your group is very vocal and vicious, but numerically insignificant.

And for Mr "history buff",
Saddam proved his hunger for world domination when he invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

He proved his willingness to use chemical weapons on his own people (Kurds), and on Iranian soldiers during Iran/Iraq war.

Hitler never quite got his hands on a working nuke, either. But we were pretty convinced he would use it if he had it. Guess what? Turns out we were right. Pretty much the same with Saddam. He's just not quite as smart as Hitler was. Which makes him only slightly less dangerous. The playground bully doesn't get a set of brass knuckles so he can be a better dodgeball player. He's got other plans.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush has aspirations for world domination. That's nothing more than an empty accusation, just like the ones aaron makes. You can't back that up with anything. If you think democracy is just another oppressive political ploy, then you're not much of a history buff, are you? You've missed the point entirely. If socialism seems better to you than what we practice here, then why are you here? Why do millions want to make the US their home? Why do citizens and governments of former Eastern Bloc countries totally agree with us? Because they have tasted oppression and tyranny like Iraqis have now, and our way is far better. Not perfect, but worlds better.

Both,
The US did not massacre anyone. Sanctions are not keeping Iraqis from getting food, medicine, and water supplies. Saddam is.
Why are you defending this guy? You have a choice in this matter. There are two sides. On one is George W Bush and the United States. On the other is Saddam and his Republican Guard and his tyrannical regime. You are choosing Saddam's side. You trust him more than your own government. I think that makes you anti-American, not anti-war. You can be against both Saddam and the war, but you choose to be against America and the war. Are you French??????
Toad

Nobody is defending him. We're defending the people of Iraq. Leave Saddam alone and a few Iraqis suffer and die. Invade Iraq and a great many, many more Iraqis will suffer and die. Which is better? Do the math.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is fatuous. Hitler had an industrial base and powerful allies. Saddam is impotent. He can't even control most of his own country.

It's not about Saddam. It's about conquering Iraq and turning it into a colony.

By a few Iraqi people, you mean the 500,000 dead your friends are admitting to? Or the 1,000,000 estimated? What about the Kurds? Sounds like more than a few suffering and dying to me.

Why do you suddenly defend them now when you couldn't give a crap about them 12 years ago? Or 10 years ago? Was that you in Iraq protesting Saddam's treatment of his own people? I didn't think so.

You misunderstood my reference to Hitler. I'm merely comparing Saddam's hunger for domination to Hitler's. I didn't say all the circumstances are the same. Just some interesting parallels.

Where do you get the idea that it's about making a colony of Iraq? I suppose if you are a socialist or monarchist, then you might feel threatened by the prospect of a new democracy in the Middle East. If you are anti-American and anti-Bush, you might not like the fact that we'll get credit for freeing the Iraqi people.

Oh, the math. Suppose 5000 Iraqis civilians die in the coming months of fighting. Saddam kills that number tenfold every year (that doesn't include the thousands who disappear and never return). That's 45000 saved lives the first year and 50000 thereafter every subsequent year. How many years shall we consider? YOU do the math.

I can only imagine what you people would say when Saddam supplies WMD to al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah terrorists, who easily slip into the US, then use it to kill 10,000 the first time it's tried. Whose fault will it be if we listen to you, and leave Saddam alone, and this happens? George Bush's fault? No, he wanted to take the guy out. But you'll scream bloody murder, won't you? You'll try to make it his fault, won't you?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want freedom and security, you have to be willing to fight for it once in a while. Because there are evil people in this world who want to take it away from you.
Toad

Were killed by the Anglo-American blockade. Even Albright didn't dispute the figure. Speaking for America, she said it was (and I qoute directly), "worth it."

If you think open ended occupation by a foriegn army is not colonialism, you're a fool.

If you think America is going to create a democracy in Iraq, your dreaming.

Your analysis is ahistorical nonsense. Most of those numbers you made up. The BS about Sadddam supplying terrorists is a red herring. Proof is totally lacking.

The US supplies weapons to terrorists. Juan Bosch comes to mind. So do these guys:

http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages/30.seconds.html

Does that give the UN the right to invade America and enforce regimen change upon us?

i'm gonna address some of the points you two apologists for empire have made. i'm tired, and'll make this quick. If I miss anything, we can revisit it at a later date.

YAWG:
I mentioned Albright because as an administrator of the sanctions regime which you rightists support she conceded that 500,000 Iraqi children had been killed by sanctions. That was five years ago. I didn't even mention George W.

(I think it's funny that you rightists hate Clinton so much. He was a right-wing liberal, closer to Wall Street than George W. Bush, in many respects, and absolutely adored by most factions of capital)

As to the US government not being a terrorist state, that's just laughable. Much of the killings that the US foments, or is an accomplice to, are commited by proxy. Think of: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Guatamala, Paraguay, Chile, Israel, Egypt, Argentina... The list goes on and on.

As to direct killings by bombs dropped and artillery deployed by US forces: Close to 3,000,000 in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands in Cambodia (noticed you didn't have anything to say about the US support for the Khmer Rouge, YAWG), quite a few hundreds in Panama, thousands in Somalia, thousands in Serbia....

As far as the intentionality of US "collaterel damage": you see, YAWG, when a country bombs as many places as the US sees fit to bomb all this talk of "mistakes" is just so much HOOOORAH. I'd say close to 95% of the people outside US borders agrees with me.

And to your straw-man argument regarding US support for Iran and Iraq: what's there to be proud about, YAWG? How does this support your argument that the US cares about the people in the Mid East (or anywhere else, for that matter)? It's funny how you American chauvinists constantly prattle on about how the US stands for freedom and justice, and opposes killing, blah blah blah--sounding like pollyanna simpletons in the process--and then, when faced with evidence of sinister machinations that you can't hedge on, suddenly adopt this world-weary manner and invoke REALPOLITIK. Don't think I don't know what your talking about, foolie. REALPOLITIK is the name of the game; when the lights go low and the happy talk fades, the guns, as always, are drawn for US capital. That, when all is said and done, is what it's all about.

But anyway: the official story is that the US "tilted" toward Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. "Tilted" is such a nice word. It's also bullshit. The US was fully behind Hussein in that war. The Reagan Administration opened up contact with Hussein in 83 and, like I said before, funneled toward his regime advanced--and, from what I understand, decisive--intelligence information, as well as weapons, and agricultural credits. The ag. credits were important in terms of allowing Hussein to build his military state while deferring the prospect of domestic unrest--and the same time were a nice subsidy to US agri-business. War is business. Business is war.

The fact that the Reagan Adm. covertly shipped arms to Iran (to support the terrorist contra war in Nicaragua) is really a sidenote when compared to the US support for Iraq.

Two things to the silly reactionary goof Toad:

1) Support for this war among Americans is about two inches wide and about a quarter inch deep. The demos against the war have been hundreds of thousands strong in the US. Last weekend the three largest W. European countries whose government's have signed on to the US war drive--Britain, Spain, and Italy--saw absolutely massive demonstrations. London's was at least a million (the cops, who always give a conservative assesment, estimated "well over" 750,000); in Barcelona there were 1.3 million; in Madrid 600,000; and in Rome close to 3 million marched. European government's that have supported US war plans have done so under pressure from the US and with enticements. The Turkish government--which is said to be a great democracy--is going along with US plans despite the fact that 90% of the population is opposed.

2) You keep on invoking Eastern Europe to buttress your claim that capitalism is the shit. Methinks you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I've travelled to E.E., before and after the wall came down, and I can tell you that the switch from stalinism (state capitalism) to market capitalism hasn't made the people there true believers in the latter. Indeed, amazingly, many I've encountered say life was considerably better under stalinism. Says alot about what market capitalism offers proles outside the metropoles. Many in those countries, while despising the Soviet system, consider themselves socialist. In fact, it was in east europe that I became acquainted with the critique of stalinism as a form of state capitalism. Suffice to say, your understanding of eastern europe is ignorant and simplistic (surprise surprise!!).

This is probably a waste of my time, but here goes one last time:
1. We don't give a damn what Madeleine Halfdumb, errrr......Albright said, or refused to rebut. She was a verifiable imbecile. Typical of most Clinton appointees; inept at their real jobs, but experts at political obfuscation, stonewalling, coverup, diversion, and straight-faced lying.
2. Clinton's policies are all liberal. Tax and spend, keep the dependent class fully dependent to get their votes, socialized medicine and retirement, pretend to be a friend of the minority voter while perpetuating a victocrat class, etc. Any ties he had to Wall Street are irrelevant to his political leanings.
3. We still have yet to hear any independent substantiation from you or anyone else to support YOUR claims that the US is a terrorist state or that the CIA has done anything in that regard.
4. War is hell. Sometimes you have to fight for what you believe, and sometimes innocents wind up in the crossfire. Especially when their so-called leaders and their chickenshit military use them as human shields. The problem must be solved regardless. The moment it threatens the safety and security of Americans, it becomes OUR BUSINESS.
5. What it's "all about" is not allowing others to step on our sovereignty, security, or customs and way of life. We earned the ability to protect our citizens and our families, and we're damn well gonna do it.
6. The US used its ability to create military parity between warring neighbors. And guess what? The war stopped. Iran, at the time, was a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq. They were the bully on the block, going after the much weaker Iraq, then on to its other neighbors the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Turks, and smaller Gulf states that couldn't protect themselves. Back then, Iran was the threat. Today, it's Iraq that threatens in much the same way, and a few additional ones that, frankly, have much greater potential for harm to the US. The vast majority of Saddam's current arsenal was supplied by France and Germany over the last 15-20 years. "Hmmmm, could there be some connection between that and their unwillingness to assist against Saddam? No, certainly not the two pre-eminent Western European Socialist governments supplying chemicals, weapons and fighter jets, and construction of chemical and weapons factories and hardened bunkers!," he said, sarcastically.
7. Again, Aaron, ACCORDING TO WHOM? Where do you get your numbers? Oh, I see. According to the organizers??? Sorry, but they have an axe to grind. The Million Man March and the Million Mom March barely scratched 100,000 between them, yet still each claimed a million "marchers". This is just more of the same. You're dreaming if you think your view is even remotely mainstream. I hear numbers around 300,000 for SF, but police say maybe 100,000. There are five times that at a typical Indy 500 race.
8. I understand full well what works and what doesn't. Democracy and capitalism work. Socialism does not. Proven time and again. I am not surprised that those you hang with in EE are also socialists. I am also not surprised they are not doing particularly well in a new system they refuse to embrace. Typical of socialists to expect someone else to provide for them. You should also understand that Rome was not built in a day. Neither was the United States. Neither will be the democracies (or reasonable facsimiles) of Eastern Europe. You don't have any idea where I've been or who I associate with, do you? Two trips to Eastern Europe does not an expert on political models make. I lay no claim to being an expert, but you've shown us all that you are not one, either.
Your pseudo-intellectual bullshit won't work, Aaron. You are a socialist. You hate that capitalism and democracy work, because it daily rubs the failures of socialism in your face. Your evidence is nothing but a bunch of baseless accusations, with nothing to back them up but a bunch of name-calling and ridicule for those who don't buy your bullshit. You can't back it up because you merely repeat what you hear from other anti-American socialist hacks. Can't back it up, can you? I didn't think so........
Did you grow up in the US? If you did, you sound mighty ungrateful for the opportunities you have had to succeed and make a nice life for yourself. Did you attend UC Berkeley? You sound amazingly like some of the PoliSci profs there. Professional socialists. I'm through wasting my time with you.
Cheers!
Toad

Do Phillip Agee and John Stockwell count as sources for giving evidence about CIA backed terrorism? What about the actions of the US in Nicaragua being labeled as terroristic by an international court in the 1980's? I see Madeline Albright doesn't count. Didn't somebody say that they trusted the Clinton administration and that now we should trust Bush? I haven't trusted either. Does any of the following sound familiar? Trust but verify. Demand transparency and accountability. I guess that is only for other countries and groups, because, after all, the US is the greatest and most free country. And, they really do try to minimize collateral damage, even while backing both sides in a war. So, the US should be allowed to not follow standards demanded of others.

If socialism is so bad, then why does the US keep giving handouts to corporations? And how about that health care in the US? It sure puts all socialized systems to shame doesn't it? Too bad all of those frivolous lawsuits made insurance companies raise premiums so much after those stock losses.

Is the united nations too leftist to cite for sources? Just in case it is acceptable, here are a few concerning Iraq.

The resolutions
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm

The effects and mocification.
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/
"In August 1990, the Security Council imposed comprehensive
sanctions on Iraq.
Concerned about the extended suffering of the civilian population as a result of the sanctions, the UN Security Council passed resolution 986 (1995) in April 1995 with an 'oil for food' formula as 'a temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people'."

Here is how it as been spent.
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/basicfigures.html

BTW, it is UN administered, Hussein can't just take it and build palaces.
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/inbrief.html
"The programme works through distribution plans prepared by the Government of Iraq and approved by the Secretary-General. Once approved, the distribution plan is the basis for Iraq’s use of the revenue raised during that phase. Distribution plans include thousands of pages of detailed annexes and, from phase V onwards, are available on the OIP Web site. The Web site also includes the status of all contracts from phase V onwards."

Can I get information to back up claims about how much Hussein has spent on palaces? Is it possible to get a total amount and a figure on how much that would be per capita for the people of Iraq?

In conclusion,
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/fact-sheet.html

"Notwithstanding the significant achievements of the programme in improving the humanitarian condition of the Iraqi people compared to their dire plight in 1996, there still remains much to be done.
The oil-for-food programme was never intended to be a substitute for normal economic activity. As long as the comprehensive sanctions remain in force, however, there is no alternative to the programme for addressing the humanitarian situation in Iraq."

Is UNICEF too leftist?
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
http://www.unicef.org/noteworthy/iraq/unicef-in-iraq.html
http://www.unicef.org/statis/Country_1Page82.html

How about the world health organization?
http://www.emro.who.int/Publications/EMHJ/0604/20.htm

If that was too extreme, than I guess these are out of the question.

Here are lists of banned imports.
http://www.iraqwar.org/list.htm
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~progress/flyers/banned.html

And, finally a few more links to disbelieve after labeling as extreme leftist.

http://iraqaction.org/factsandmyths/index.shtml
http://www.al-bushra.org/Iraq/0iraq.htm
http://www.casi.org.uk/guide/
http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

Kelly seems to have remarkable faith in economic liberty without government interference. It looks to me like a belief in a blind market that gives no preference yet is all seeing as for as consequences. I am glad that we have child labor laws, minimum wages and environmental standards, along with other government impositions that affect winners and losers. In addition, can anybody tell me how externalities can be accounted for in practice without regulation. Who believes that farmers in Iowa will give much consideration to the environment of Louisiana when deciding about applying chemicals to crops. This is just one example among many I could give if I had more time.

Kelly also seems to give capitalism alot of slack and none to socialism. Capitalism always involves some governmental control, yet it doesn't need it. While, socialism would never allow any economic liberty.

As for Nicaragua, the Sandinistas won inernational acclaim for economic development. They also put together a constitution that took points from many countries. They made the right to life a top priority and outlawed execution. After the terror war waged by the contras and the resulting conditions, they are now among the poorest in the hemisphere. And Kelly thought the contras were better than the Sandinistas.

These factors indicate to me a knee jerk faith in capitalism and hyusterical fear of socialism/communism. Kelly admits that the CIA does bad things, but seems to justify it on the basis of goals for society. I don't see support for death squads and union busting as better than tactics of the KGB or SS. Kelly doesn't either. Once again, it is justified based on a belief that capitalism is good and socialism is bad. I think these justifications do not hold up to evidence. Therefore, the CIA is no better than the KGB or SS were.

I could write more, but I too am short on time. I'll check back later and expand on this if I feel so inclined.

Obviously Kelly only read that which supports his
preconceptions and his self-serving philosophy.
Ah, but Ayn Rand told us that to *not* be self-serving
is the greatest crime against humanity. What can be
said about such people, other than that they should
be locked up in asylums where they can do is no harm?

I wouldn't count on that. You don't know who this guy is, do you?
Toad

http://www.antiwar.com/letters/letters411.html#5

I don't have time to give a satisfactory response to your above post, but just a few quick thoughts (for now):

To the extent that you acknowledge that the US has commited, aided, and abetted atrocities, you claim they were the product of a "greater good" struggle against the USSR.

If the US' brutal policies abroad were exclusively (or even primarily) the product of its fight with the USSR, then why is it that these like-same policies were in effect BEFORE the Russian Revolution? Certainly you've heard of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny. Surely you're aware of the many US "interventions" in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean prior to 1917. Right? You must be aware of the US war in Phillipines between 1899 and 1903 and the long occupation in its aftermath. The US killed approximately 1,000,000 Phillipinos in that wonderous slaughter.

Like today, these actions were taken to expand the rule and power of US capital. To give one example: in 1915 the US invaded Haiti, crushed the popular militia, and occupied the country until 1934. During that time, French, German, and British investors were pushed out and US capital investment tripled. While US apologists (like you) are apt to depict these as heroic fights against colonialism, they were, in fact, just a new form of the same ol' shit. The misery and poverty of Haiti today can not be understood without reference to the brutal and imperialist policies you cheer. (Indeed, the CIA is knee-deep: look at its role in supporting Duvalier and his hench-men.)....

I'll leave off with a couple of apropro quotes.

In 1907, Woodrow Wilson had this to say about the role of the US state vis a vis the US capitalist class (and in the process pointed to the fallaciousness of your argument):

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safe-guarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or unused.”

Flying further in the face of your argument that the US’ countless wars and interventions abroad were a noble fight against a totalitarian menace, US Major General Smedley Butler in 1933 had this to say about his long career as a battering-ram for the US ruling class:

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, it’s “muscle men” to destroy enemies, it’s “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “big boss” super-nationalistic-capitalism.

It may be seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such comparisons. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty three years and four months in active military service as a member of this countries most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from 2nd Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank Boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated in three continents.”

Quite a cynical view of the world, aaron (and especially of anything even remotely of US interest). You seem to attribute the most devious of motives to anything the US does to influence world affairs, and the most benign and sterile of motives to all those who choose to be our enemies. After all this, I am still not understanding how far you would go to protect the interests of a system you DO believe in from those who would destroy it. Or do you believe in anything?
In your view, the US, capitalism, freedom, and democracy are bad things, along with those who protect them. What system is good in your view???
There must be SOMETHING you believe in, or do you simply make a profession out of maligning that which others have worked so hard to build and protect?
Since your opponents here have been pretty forthcoming in showing their beliefs and allowing you to take potshots, I think it only fair for you to show your cards. Or do you just use the cowardly hit-and-run technique of other leftists?
Toad

Nothing? No response?
I didn't think so.......................
Toad

Click here:

http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages/anarchy.html

... of why people revile the CIA, see the movie The Quiet American, out now.

http://www.imdb.com/Title?0258068

I hope you weren’t disappointed Toad, but you won’t get any suggestions or feasible idea’s from today’s so called “left peaceful movement”, only bitching and complaints. Aaron is little more then today’s anti-american rubbish, who believes that it is the greatest evil, yet is unable to name a more “noble” nation. Not surprising for someone who is either unable or just too stupid to leave such tyranny.

We don't give a damn what Madeleine Halfdumb, errrr......Albright said, or refused to rebut. She was a verifiable imbecile. Typical of most Clinton appointees; inept at their real jobs, but experts at political obfuscation, stonewalling, coverup, diversion, and straight-faced lying.>
yes, the Clintonites were/are oily corporate liars and prevaricators, but that doesn't explain why Albright would concede that a policy THAT SHE SUPPORTED AND HELPED ADMINISTER had killed 500,000 Iraqi children.

>Clinton's policies are all liberal. Tax and spend, keep the dependent class fully dependent to get their votes, socialized medicine and retirement, pretend to be a friend of the minority voter while perpetuating a victocrat class, etc. Any ties he had to Wall Street are irrelevant to his political leanings.>
Clinton supported:
--NAFTA
--massive cuts in the social safety net
--the death penalty
--bombing Iraq, Yugoslavia, and The Sudan
--Robert Rubin, multimillionaire investment banker, as Treasury Secretary, to the delight of most sections of the capitalist class.
--a giant giveaway to the insurance industry dressed up as health care reform.
--the Omnibus anti-terror bill which centralized greater power in the hands of the state, and chiseled away at right under Habeaus Corpus (sic?).
--huge escalation in the number of people in prison
--opening up federal lands and national parks to extractive industries
if that's your definition of a liberal, toad, so be it.

<We still have yet to hear any independent substantiation from you or anyone else to support YOUR claims that the US is a terrorist state or that the CIA has done anything in that regard.>
you regard any source that doens't toe your Limbaughian doctrine as leftist, so it's impossible to provide you with the "substantiation" you request. I do note, however, that you're unable to refute any of my claims; indeed you're rendered basically speechless.

<War is hell. Sometimes you have to fight for what you believe, and sometimes innocents wind up in the crossfire. Especially when their so-called leaders and their chickenshit military use them as human shields. The problem must be solved regardless. The moment it threatens the safety and security of Americans, it becomes OUR BUSINESS.>
The US' former ally, Hussein, is no threat to the US. Iraq hasn't attacked the US. Powell's supposed proof of connections to al-Quaeda is ridiculous. The dude that he pointed to belongs to a group which is active IN THE U.S. CONTROLLED PART OF IRAQ and has close relations with the government of Qatar.

<Step on our sovereignty, security, or customs and way of life. We earned the ability to protect our citizens and our families, and we're damn well gonna do it.>
toadie talks tough

<The US used its ability to create military parity between warring neighbors.>
The US sided with Iraq, giving it advanced intelligence, weapons and credits. It also gave some armaments to Iran (hardly indication that the US gives a shit about the people in the region, despite endless self-congragulatory talk to the contrary), but was much closer to Hussein.

<And guess what? The war stopped.>
The US opened up contact with Iraq in 1983. The war ended in 1988, after millions died.

<Iran, at the time, was a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq. They were the bully on the block, going after the much weaker Iraq, then on to its other neighbors>
Iraq attacked Iran, you stupid fool.

<the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Turks, and smaller Gulf states that couldn't protect themselves.>
why don't you just say it: America's strategically important client states.

<Back then, Iran was the threat. Today, it's Iraq that threatens in much the same way, and a few additional ones that, frankly, have much greater potential for harm to the US.>
Tell us, dear toadie, how does the US' former ally constitute a threat?

<The vast majority of Saddam's current arsenal was supplied by France and Germany over the last 15-20 years. "Hmmmm, could there be some connection between that and their unwillingness to assist against Saddam?>
The US/CIA helped put Hussein's B'aathist Party into power in 1963. In the 80s, the highest reaches of the US government supported Hussein with weapons, and MANY american companies got in when the getting was good. Capitalists in Europe sold weapons to Hussein as well. The French and German ruling classes' today don't support a renewed war for several reasons, in my opinion: 1) it's America's war, in the service of the American ruling class 2) The French ruling class, in particular, views America as a slowly sinking ship--think massive external debt, crumbling infrastructure, and imperial overstretch--and sees an opportunity to assert itself independently of Pax Americana 3) Public opinion in Germany and France, like virtually everywhere else in the world, is opposed to America's faux anti-terrorist war.

<I understand full well what works and what doesn't. Democracy and capitalism work. Socialism does not.>
Capitalism works for capital and it's toadies. Shit is falling apart here in America, the imperialist hegemon. In California, according to Agricultural Dept., 20% of children under the age of 5 live in poverty--and that hardly wildly understates the situation when you consider that a family of four can't make more than $18,000/year to be deemed "poor" by the government stats. Go to Mexico City or Rio de Janeiro or Managua or Nairobi or Lima or East St. Louis or Detroit or rural Nebraska and tell me how great capitalism works... What existed in the Soviet Bloc was a statist nightmare, a quasi-capitalist form. Despite this, life has gotten considerably worse in many many many respects for millions and millions and millions in those countries. People work all the time, prices are really high, crime has gone up massively, social solidarity has crumbled....
Suffice to say, contra your brain-dead formulations, market capitalism and stalinist state capitalism are both shit.

OK hotshot,
#1: I think Mr Whiting hit the nail on the head earlier when he said your position was so far from the mean average human that you can't discern between typical mainstream liberal and conservative thought. Your arguments are with capitalism, and there's good news, aaron. That argument is over. Capitalism won! Get over it.
#2: You see everything through anarchist-colored glasses. ie: assumes that the US capitalist society is always wrong and is always solely responsible for horrible acts against completely innocent despotic villainous rulers. There is inherent fallacy in that world view. You first assume the capitalists are wrong, then go out and build your shaky little foundation on lies, impossible conspiracies, and illogical conclusions. Funny how you choose only those historical events that could possibly support your point (albeit shakily), and ignore or deny those that do not.
#3. Let's be intellectually honest: Hussein's actions and aspirations were very different when we dealt with him. We knew what Iran's plans were for the region under Khomeini, and took steps to assist their neighbors in their defense. That one of them took it as a green light to launch a pre-emptive attack was not the intention. You seem to think it was. Equal force has been proven to be the best deterrent for war ever devised. If a tyrant believes he can overwhelm his neighbors, he is likely to try. If he believes he cannot, he is likely to keep to himself. When Hussein believed he had the military might, he tried it. The only two ways to stop him were to intervene with US forces, or to attempt to make the now friendlier Iranian government an equal force. Took a while, but it worked. Always does.
#4. There is NO US CONTROLLED PART OF IRAQ. There is a no-fly zone. Hussein still controls everything he can on the ground. The tiny remainder is controlled in small pockets either by any number of splinter terrorist/regional strongman groups or a loosely-knit outlaw network of Kurds.
#5. Powell's statements are only ridiculous if you are predisposed to believe he has some nefarious ulterior motives. Personally, I believe the man knows what he is talking about. Additionally, he isn't here spouting rhetoric supporting some lawless, idealistic, impossible new world order anarchy baloney. He is credible.
#6. Maybe some day if you are ever a parent of sons that are 18 and 19 years old (just the right age to go into military service), you'll understand how important all of this is. Maybe if you ever understand what sacrifices many parents are making by allowing their sons and daughters to willingly join the military in defense of what they believe in, you will understand the depth of commitment it takes to build a society as great as this one. Very nearly the only one, by the way, that allows you to have your opinions and to express them here. Maybe when you have raised kids in the greatest nation ever to grace God's green earth, you'll understand how important it is to actually believe in something, rather than just attempting to malign and destroy societies that others have constructed for their mutual benefit.
7. I am not sure why you are citing statistics from a decidedly "capitalist" organization like the Ag Dept. First, I don't necessarily agree with the figures. But let's go with them for now. Mostly, those are illegal aliens that have chosen to take themselves outside the system and go it on their own AGAINST the system. Sounds a little like anarchy, doesn't it? Truly, statistics like this are manipulated for any number of reasons from availability of funds for charitable purposes (something anarchists NEVER attribute to a capitalist society), to fodder for anarchists like you and your friends. As I am sure you know, but haven't mentioned, there are socialist aspects to even decidedly capitalist societies. Likewise, there are capitalist aspects to societies that can't quite figure out what system they operate under. Kind of like "Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro or Managua or Nairobi or Lima or East St. Louis or Detroit or rural Nebraska". The Soviet Bloc was a socialist nightmare, not a capitalist one. Their leadership consciously maligned and avoided capitalism in much the same way as you do today. It is disingenuous to expect capitalism to be perfect before one can accept and embrace it. There is no perfect system that will ever be devised. If we can agree on that, then I believe democratic capitalism to be the best system yet. And life in former Soviet Bloc countries is only worse for those who cannot bring themselves to make an attempt at capitalism, even in the watered-down form that exists there. Those who are embracing it are doing quite well, thank you very much (and after only half a generation). And they have become significant allies of the US in the process. And they have enjoyed much more freedom in the process. Freedom to succeed or fail on their own.
aaron, the only ones who do not benefit from capitalism are those who CHOOSE not to benefit from capitalism. Capitalism brings out the best in those who choose to produce. That's why the US is far ahead of the rest of the world in almost every aspect. Including charitable donations and economic assistance for almost every third world nation on earth at one time or another. We feed them, we clothe them, we send medicine, doctors, and build hospitals. We give them technology and the training to do for themselves. Sometimes even after all that, they come back and bite us on the hand, and we continue to contribute. Your not-so-real-world anarchist rantings don't say anything about that, do they? This is why you can't formulate a system you believe in that actually works. It can't possibly work. You don't focus on what is important.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Toad

Oh, I forgot to mention:
I will live my life in the capitalist system, very comfortable, happy, and productive in a middle class environment, in the greatest nation on earth, and die surrounded by friends and family who have all lived fulfilled lives in this society. I can deal with that.
You will fight a losing battle, surrounded by a bunch of wacked-out former socialists who discovered that socialism doesn't work. So they modified it into what is now called anarchy in an attempt to repackage the same old nonsense and sell it to a world that knows better now. You will live your life full of acrimony and contempt for a system you cannot defeat, and die having achieved nothing better than an "A" in Socialism 101 at Berkeley.
Now who's the "stupid fool"?
Your friend,
The Toadster

They difference between you and us, is that we care about more than just our own lives.

Can you name another nation that gives away more foreign and domestic aid than the US? In terms of money? In terms of medical aid? In terms of food for the hungry? In terms of technology so third world nations can help themselves? In terms of ANYTHING?
What were your charitable contributions last year? Did you personally give more than $1500 to charities last year? Did you volunteer more than 150 hours of your own time to bonafide charitable organizations last year?
If not, then I don't want to hear any baloney about capitalists not helping others.
"Moral support" for other anarchists doesn't count. Time spent on SF Indymedia fighting with the evil capitalists doesn't count. Protest marches and smashing windows, graffitti, and punching cops doesn't count. Attending sociology and poli sci classes where you learn your nonsense doesn't count. Just good, hard work and cold, hard cash in the service of others.
You may go now, junior.
Toad

Toadie: judging from your frothing-at-the mouth retort, I've rocked your world. Poor li'l toad. The pathetic cipher's getting roasted!

I'll demolish your latest round of "arguments" when I have the time to do so, if I'm so inclined.

but one thing: Despite your unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary, Colin Powell has no credibility. What was his first distinction as a soldier? Assisting in the cover-up of the Mai Lai massacre! And it's only been down-hill since then!

i'll leave you a nice picture to put above your bed:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

I have discovered you are a waste of my valuable time, aaron. Retort if you wish, but I have more important things to do than play your game indefinitely.
Cheers, and have a nice life.
Toad

Toad seems to think the US is the most gererous country. Here is what others think with some facts to back it up.

http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=2093

"Foreign-aid priorities were driven by the cold war, and the U.S. saw fighting hunger and poverty as a way to slow communism and woo Third World governments. For example, the biggest recipients of U.S. aid in Africa in the 1980s were dictatorships in Somalia, Sudan and Liberia that contributed to the violence still afflicting these countries today.

Since the end of the cold war, however, funding for aid has dropped. Without a clear statement of purpose for its post-cold-war aid program, Congress has bogged down the work of USAID, the main aid agency within the U.S. government.

The U.S. now ranks last among the 22 industrialized countries in percentage of national income given away in development aid: less than 0.1 percent. Tiny Denmark contributes ten times as much of its national income as American taxpayers do. Japan has been the largest provider of official development assistance for ten consecutive years."

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
The US overtook Japan in raw dollars in 2001, partly due to US aid to Pakistan after 9/11, but mostly due to Japan's total dropping $4 billion as a result of depreciation of the yen and timing of disbursements and loan repayments. The US has given the lowest of the 22 developed countries surveyed in
terms of GNP.

Also look on that page to see the recpient of the second most foreign aid given by the US is Israel and Columbia is 7th. Is Israel that poor, and who gets the money in Columbia?

Of course you will also see on that page that "Aid has been a foreign policy tool to aid the donor not the recipient...As mentioned in the structural adjustment section, so-called lending and development schemes have done next to nothing to help poorer nations progress...Leahy noted that two-thirds of US government aid goes to only two countries: Israel and Egypt. Much of the remaining third is used to promote US exports or to fight a war against drugs that could only be won by tackling drug abuse in the United States."

Read the page for more examples of treachorous US generosity.

You may also see a graph I'm trying to include that came from
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=8&sequence=3
This page also says
"Politically, the program was intended to reduce or eliminate the wretched economic and social conditions that some U.S. policymakers believed might cause the peoples of Western Europe to turn to communism for a solution.(6) The Italian and French communist parties in particular were quite strong in the late 1940s."

So we fought communism by using socialism. Add to that the strike breakers backed by the US.

Where has US foreign aid go?
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=8&sequence=6

If toad thinks that activism doesn't count, then I think it would be fair not to count military contributions, narcotics control or promotion of US exports as aid. That would take over 1/3 away from the total.

So, how generous and helpful is the US? And if capitalism is so great, then why did it need social programs and covert thugery to provide victory over communism? Toad trumpets the US, while overlooking its imperfections, mistakes and crimes. I'll keep looking for something better regardless of what Aaron believes. I'm not convinced that there is nothing better available right now. I'd be happy to check out anything factual that Toad or anybody else sends to back up their claims.

Well argued, backup. I wish I had the time you do to choose and post the articles. Nice job. Really. I appreciate your intelligence and ability to discuss without reducing it to name-calling (unlike some others here who shall go nameless). I just have a few points of my own to share with you. Call it my critical reading of your posted links:
(I will try to post my responses as bold italicized text. I don’t know if it will work here. Unfortunately, this is likely to be my last post here on SF Indymedia. I have noticed that several of my responses on SF Indymedia have been censored and deleted. I will put up with a lot of crap from other readers on this site, but I refuse to be censored because of my views. Sorry.)

[[Toad seems to think the US is the most gererous country. Here is what others think with some facts to back it up. ]]

I think there are some critical things left out here. Don’t necessarily accept this single article as representative of ALL the facts, but let’s go with it.

[[http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=2093
"Foreign-aid priorities were driven by the cold war, and the U.S. saw fighting hunger and poverty as a way to slow communism and woo Third World governments. For example, the biggest recipients of U.S. aid in Africa in the 1980s were dictatorships in Somalia, Sudan and Liberia that contributed to the violence still afflicting these countries today. ]]

Not all priorities were driven by the cold war. US also steps in when there is famine, drought, earthquake, civil war, and political persecution. This article only addresses a fraction of that assistance (only the “public” portion), because much of it is privately provided. This article addresses strictly one publicly funded assistance program (albeit the largest one).

[[Since the end of the cold war, however, funding for aid has dropped. Without a clear statement of purpose for its post-cold-war aid program, Congress has bogged down the work of USAID, the main aid agency within the U.S. government.] ]

As tax revenues to US Treasury have increased, so have expenditures toward domestic social programs. Dramatically. There are limits. Not that Congress isn’t to blame. Quite the contrary, but if they spend too much abroad, you beat them over the head, if they spend too little abroad, you beat them over the head. We send a mixed signal, despite what the Univ of Maryland’s study suggests.

[[The U.S. now ranks last among the 22 industrialized countries in percentage of national income given away in development aid: less than 0.1 percent. Tiny Denmark contributes ten times as much of its national income as American taxpayers do. Japan has been the largest provider of official development assistance for ten consecutive years." ]]

Define “development assistance”. In detail. (Rhetorical request)
I am not sure where you stand on capitalism vs anarchy, but this article clearly suggests that the best thing we can do for foreign nations is to encourage them to embrace capitalism so they can eventually do for themselves and so our aid is no longer necessary. I think I can support that notion. To that extent, aid other than “development aid” may be just as well spent. In that regard, there is no nation on earth that can match our contributions.

[[http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
The US overtook Japan in raw dollars in 2001, partly due to US aid to Pakistan after 9/11, but mostly due to Japan's total dropping $4 billion as a result of depreciation of the yen and timing of disbursements and loan repayments. The US has given the lowest of the 22 developed countries surveyed in
terms of GNP. ]]

Japan has little need for domestic aid programs for her own citizens. She also spends next to nothing on her own military protection, thanks to the US. So you could say we remove the burden of that expense so Japan CAN contribute a larger portion of its GDP to other countries and individuals in need. There is a risk in taking a myopic view of an issue such as this. I’m not doubting the veracity of the article at all. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t take the entire picture into account. There is far more that affects this subject than what is contained in these articles.

[[Also look on that page to see the recpient of the second most foreign aid given by the US is Israel and Columbia is 7th. Is Israel that poor, and who gets the money in Columbia? ]]

I don’t have Israel’s GDP figures at hand, but certainly they are not that poor. However, they are our only real friend in the Middle East and are constantly under violent attack and threat of annihilation by virtually all of her neighbors. That is quite expensive to defend against. I am not Jewish, nor do I have an axe to grind regarding Israel, but we do have to step up and assist our friends when necessary. I hope you are not going into the “CIA supports druglord” chant. I get so tired of hearing that stuff. You sound like a pretty intelligent guy. I would hope you could sort that one out for yourself and read through the political agenda behind it.

[[Of course you will also see on that page that "Aid has been a foreign policy tool to aid the donor not the recipient...As mentioned in the structural adjustment section, so-called lending and development schemes have done next to nothing to help poorer nations progress...Leahy noted that two-thirds of US government aid goes to only two countries: Israel and Egypt. Much of the remaining third is used to promote US exports or to fight a war against drugs that could only be won by tackling drug abuse in the United States."
Read the page for more examples of treachorous US generosity.

You may also see a graph I'm trying to include that came from
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=8&sequence=3
This page also says
"Politically, the program was intended to reduce or eliminate the wretched economic and social conditions that some U.S. policymakers believed might cause the peoples of Western Europe to turn to communism for a solution.(6) The Italian and French communist parties in particular were quite strong in the late 1940s."
So we fought communism by using socialism. Add to that the strike breakers backed by the US.
Where has US foreign aid go?
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=8&sequence=6 ]]

All of this, of course, assumes it is wrong for the US to act in its own best interest. It assumes it is wrong to use our financial power to assist our friends and not our enemies. It assumes that forced contribution to others (socialism) is equivalent to voluntary contribution to others (US Foreign Aid, whether military, humanitarian, or otherwise). I believe anarchists often arbitrarily set an impossible standard for capitalist societies to meet, then when they fail to meet it, point to capitalism as a failed system. It is a fallacy that begs for some perspective.

[[If toad thinks that activism doesn't count, then I think it would be fair not to count military contributions, narcotics control or promotion of US exports as aid. That would take over 1/3 away from the total.
So, how generous and helpful is the US? And if capitalism is so great, then why did it need social programs and covert thugery to provide victory over communism? Toad trumpets the US, while overlooking its imperfections, mistakes and crimes. I'll keep looking for something better regardless of what Aaron believes. I'm not convinced that there is nothing better available right now. I'd be happy to check out anything factual that Toad or anybody else sends to back up their claims.]]

Certainly there are imperfections in the system here in the US. God, are there imperfections. But compared to the next best system (take your pick), it’s light years ahead. If you can name a better system that is operating today, great. I encourage you to go there and enjoy its benefits. The fact that you are here with us is a good indication that you feel the same as I do. You just don’t know why.

Toad over and out

why, why am i slogging through trolls to find substance? i'm sure many of you ask the same thing. toad, where do i start? you say so many words while conveying so little information. you seem to think that the essential content of argument consists in the act itself. you bring things up and seem to make an argument, but you substatiate precious little, while allowing the main points of your opponents aguments unanswered. to wit:
"Not all priorities were driven by the cold war. US also steps in when there is famine, drought, earthquake, civil war, and political persecution. This article only addresses a fraction of that assistance (only the “public” portion), because much of it is privately provided. This article addresses strictly one publicly funded assistance program (albeit the largest one)."
you havent SAID anything, except "Largely you're right, but sometimes private aid might be different" do i need to break it down to symbolic logic equations for you?
okay:
"Quite the contrary, but if they spend too much abroad, you beat them over the head, if they spend too little abroad, you beat them over the head."
i think you're close to figuring something out here.
"I think I can support that notion. To that extent, aid other than “development aid” may be just as well spent. In that regard, there is no nation on earth that can match our contributions."
you've said nothing but repeat your original assertion, which as i recall was soundly rebutted.
"There is a risk in taking a myopic view of an issue such as this. I’m not doubting the veracity of the article at all. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t take the entire picture into account. There is far more that affects this subject than what is contained in these articles. "
again: CONTENT, toad! where is it? do i need to repeat the history of america's attempt to transform japan into a manufacturing client state? is this why we were 'protecting' them? crikey. why do i do this?
i'll skip the isreal/columbia retort out of sheer disgust for pointing out the obvious.
"I believe anarchists often arbitrarily set an impossible standard for capitalist societies to meet, then when they fail to meet it, point to capitalism as a failed system. It is a fallacy that begs for some perspective. "
nice use of the words 'fallacy' and 'beg', but they're used within the context of a complete assertion. methinks you're just begging for sympathy, but that seems a pointless quest here on the ANARCHIST WEBSITE.
"If you can name a better system that is operating today, great. I encourage you to go there and enjoy its benefits. "
that would be nice, but those places, or traditional knowledge systems, or any sort of refuge, have been systymatically eradicated.
but hey, life goes on.
enough with the talk already.
bush has done more to destabilize goodwill toward the US than any anarchist could have dreamed. here's my naive, groundless assertion: world revolt against IMF, multinationals, and the US. total boycott and bioregional resource control.
now, where's my fiddle?

You're right about toad, birdy. His MO is to make ridiculous claims, fail to substantiate them, and when called on it respond with either more of the same or some absurd red herring in hopes that he can change the subject.... Thus, the fact that 20% of children under five in California live below the official poverty level (defined, incredibly, as $18,000 for a family of four--to give an example of the standard of measure) is, according to Toad, due to illegal immigration....The tens and tens and tens (and tens and tens) of millions who live in poverty under capitalism globally do so because they resist embracing the capitalist life-style, by Toad's lights.....Toadie thinks Iran attacked Iraq, precipitating the Iran-Iraq war....and that Iraq was "much weaker" then Iran in the early 80s, yet, after twenty years of war and sanctions, is now a threat to the US!!!....

What's funny is that Toad doesn't bother answering my question: How is Hussein, the US' former ally, a threat to the US? One would think that a supporter of attacking Iraq would focus on that question, but no, he gets side-tracked with phony claims about the US' generosity in the int'l foreign-aid department (since when were lame-ass rightists like Toad supporters of non-military foreign aid?--talk about a disengenuous argument!).... Toad doesn't want to address this burning question because he has NO evidence that Hussein poses a threat aside from some tawdry bullshit Colin Powell's handlers assembled.

When I pointed out that Powell's evidence of ties between Hussein and al-Quaeda were based upon the existence of some guy who belongs to a group active in the US controlled Kurdish zone of Iraq--in addition to having ties to the government of Qatar (should we attack Qatar?)--all our erstwhile Toadie could do was claim that the northern zone isn't controlled by the US!

Re the question of US control of the northern zone: I would say that since the US has control of the skies of the north of Iraq, it is fair to say that that zone is controlled by the US.

Just the other day the US convened a sham "democratic forum" presided over by Special Forces in the northern zone. Perhaps Toadie would like to read how well received it was:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=382087

You are truly sick. To celebrate the deaths of two people because you don't agree with the government is the mark of someone who needs serious help.

Could the author give some reasons for their reveling in the deaths of American officers? How are their deaths a good thing?

To disagree with American policy in Afghanstan is one thing, but the CIA officers don't make policy, they follow orders. I can't guess what the author's stand is, but simply calling the officers' deaths a good thing furthers no cause (except one of more violence).

In the name of all that is free and good, why would someone revel in the deaths of those serving our nation? Should we in turn revel in your death or those who support you? I'm certain many of the victims of September 11, 2001 were not right wing conservatives or necessarily morally upright in all their dealings and yet we mourn their deaths as we should. Tragedy however it strikes is not to be enjoyed. Even when Madeline O'Hare (separation of church and state and out spoken atheist) was kidnapped and murdered and later was found dismembered on her ranch I didn't say well she got what was coming to her. I don't think many would. It was frightening and terrible.
I would venture to say that peaceniks in this vein are more violent and blood thirsty than those the critcize. Revelling in the deaths of others, wishing horrible ends to all those who oppose us, etc. The worst though is the intentional ignorance of the facts!

Fine protest the war, but for God's sake acknowledge that Saddam has responsibility here. In Eurpoe I saw a more even handed approach: We like Iraq, but not Saddam. Let the inspections work, Mr. Hussein.

This other that I see here is just viscious stupidity.

From CNN.com

In a statement, CIA Director George Tenet called Boes' life "one of courage and sacrifice."

"He was no stranger to Afghanistan and its dangers," Tenet said. "He died doing what he loved."

He is survived by his wife, Cindy, and his parents, Roderich and Monika Boes, of Germany. He was a graduate of Georgia State and Harvard University Law School, and he joined the CIA in January 2001 after working as an attorney in private practice.

Tenet said Boes "found the call of public service to be irresistible."

"He believed deeply in our mission of defending freedom," he said. "The work he did, both at headquarters and in the field, had its aim the defeat of terror - a ruthless, vicious enemy of liberty and decency."

CIA terrorism is no more permissable than Israeli State terrorism or al Qaeda's deadly dealings. These are the CIAssholes torturing people to death in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. Lesson learned: you reap what you sow. Rest in hell with the other terrorists, assholes.

And do you still molest poodles on Thursdays?

Why don't you be a man and say your comments face-to-face with any real American. Don't hide behind anonymous comments.

What an Asshole!!. Better 1000 dead Iraqis than 1 dead American, especially our military and the CIA.

Link on Drudge: "Mainstream" war protesters dance in streets when US agents killed in Afghanistan.

Other links you dim wits are lucky have not been made: "Mainstream" war protesters vow to wage war on economy, private property, soccer moms when war begins.

Bush should have to pay people to do what you troglodytes are doing. Good luck getting you asses kicked, losing again.

The CIA has spent the last few decades killing or enabling others who kill. Those fuckers do more to spread terrorism than Saddam Hussein ever did.

The cia have murdered, tortured, and conducted experiments on thier own agents.
The cia spared captured nazi scientists from the gallows to learn from them. The cia is the most brainwashed clandestine organization of all time.

With those facts out of the way, it might be a good time to reflect on why they exist. Or maybe, why does this culture feel the need to uphold such groups? In fact , how and why does this or any civilization even exist? To overpopulate, to torment and destroy? Maybe the dinosaurs have some answers.

I don't care one way or the other when a cia agent dies. You make your choices. If you die drinking and driving, then some would say you deserved it, some would say it was unfortunate, most really wouldn't care or even know about it. All subjective judgements after the fact are usually cheap, without merit, without substance.
Ask yourself, 1. do I really care? 2. do I really care? 3. do I really care?
You may care about corruption and imperialism, but otherwise.........

The cia is deeply flawed, but so is this culture. The cia exists due to modern culture's dynamics, rapaciously irresponsible while harking on individual responsiblity.
Meanwhile, people get online and have a nice fun pissing contest, then throw some digital sticks and stones at each other.

Bottom line, he's dead; Did I even know him?
Is beating a dead horse going to solve our problems?
Do I really care?

The CIA is protecting our freedoms, huh?? Only fools believe that crock of shit. The CIA works for whatever politico-corporate parasites happen to be in power.Get your head out of your ass and into the real world. So much is now known about what those fuckers do in the "name of freedom" that
there's no excuse for your level of stupidity.

Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.

To all the inbreds who buy into the myth of American moral superiority, how about explaining our government's repeated vetoes when the UN security council tries to put human-rights observers in the occupied territories? This oughta be good.

I agree! US should NOT Veto a UN resolution that would place human rights observers in the West Bank and Gaza, and on ISRAELI BUSSES (oh wait, that clause is missing from the UN resolutions)

Which victims have the backing of the world's superpower and which victims really need the UN's help? Which victims are far more numerous? How much time does our media devote to bus explosions in Jeruslaem versus victims of the IDF in the refugee camps? Dead Israelis are good PR for our government, dead Palestinians, well, they're just terrorists, right? Head down to your local library and learn a bit about the world.

What you have just said is further proof of the hypocracy of the so called "Liberal" people, those fighting for justice of all. Justifying murdered Israeli civilians as good PR is shameful and you know it. For the last 50 years, almost half of the UN resolutions that have been passed were condemnations of Israel. When Israelis are attacked by terrorists, there are no UN resolutions calling for Palestinian Authority to outlaw terror groups such as Hamas. But when Israel decides to respond and prevent further terror, UN condemns Israel as using excessive force. I call that hypocracy and double standard when looking at the oppressive governments in the middle east and around the world who get no attention. But Israel is called the worlds biggest terrorists. So when groups calling themselves Internationalist, fighting for justice such as ISM, who protect the palestinian civilians, condemn the palestinian terror and begin to support the casualties and victims of the terror attacks on Israeli civilians, when they start riding buses and eating at cafes in Tel Aviv, then I will say that they are truly liberal.

We love you! Rupert sends his best wishes.

Please point out the part of my little blurb where you imagine I've try to justified anyone's death.

Dear sir/Madam,

This letter I know might be a surprise package to you as we have no previous acquaintance. However, We have read about your business success during my internet search for a competent and reliable investment partner.

My name is Yomi Taylor, a Liberian by birth and nephew to the President of Liberia, President Charles Taylor who took over power from the government of Liberia a couple of years ago. I and my family currently reside the republic of Benin, a small
French speaking west-African country.

During my Uncle’s control of power, as the president of Liberia, he had acquired some wealth from sales made from diamond and Gold. Currently, His accounts in Switzerland are
frozen (Seized by the Banks). This has been done in order to force Him out of power in Liberia. He is presently considering an option of political asylum in some other countries.

I am actually writing you to seek and entrust in confidence under your personal management to invest in a viable business for mutual benefit the sum of $28.5million(U.S.D)(Twenty Eight Million Five hundred United states Dollars) which is the sales proceed from diamond by my uncle. This money is kept in a foreign suspense account. My uncle President Taylor has mandated me to represent Him, in finding a foreign investor for this funds. We are interested in Real estate investments, other profitable investment alternatives
are welcomed from you.
If you are interested and ready to keep confidential the source of the money, Please, do not hesitate to send me an email, so as to discuss with you the details of the transaction/the terms and condition of sharing the money regarding the business. Your urgent response wil be highly appreciated and will swiftly bring us to the
commencement of the transaction.
We hope to conclude this transaction within 10-12 working days.Do not forget to contact me on the receipt of this mail. my email addresses are dr_williem [at] hotmail.com My telephone numbers for inquiries is +229-95-73-02, And please you have to maintain absolute confidentiality as regards this pending
transaction. Be rest assured that this business/transaction is 100% safe and risk free. As soon as I receive a convincing response from you, other details shall be disclosed to you. However, we have we propose to give to you 20% of the funds for your assistance and 10% have been set aside for any expenses incurred during the transaction, while 70% is mandated for investment.

While looking forward to your urgent response, I remain
Yours sincerely

Yomi Taylor.
Tel.00229/95-73-02.

(unbehalf of Liberian president Charles Taylor)