Law and Order in America

[Je suis Omar]

Yeah...really. Fort Benning has a much better jump school.

Nothing but the best for America's terrorists. We're in agreement. Nobody does terrorism better than the USA.

[The_Squid]

Had you heeded Al Qaeda's frequent warnings about US terrorist actions against various and sundry peoples around the globe, many lives could have been saved - many orders of magnitude more than died on September 11 and the vast majority of those, the poor from around the globe who had never done a thing to the US except that they felt they deserved a share in the wealth of their own nations.

Really? We should just make sure to do whatever terrorists ask us to do and everything will be OK?

That's not naive or anything.....

[Je suis Omar]

Really? We should just make sure to do whatever terrorists ask us to do and everything will be OK?

That's not naive or anything.....

That was a wee bit of tongue in cheek. Which terrorists do you mean, the USA or Al Qaeda?

We all pretty much follow the dictates of USA terrorists and look where that has gotten the world.

Don't you think it was good advice?

Historical data show a strong connection between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. - US Department of Defense, 1997

There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-US groundswell among Muslim societies - except perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the US so determinedly promotes and defends... Muslims to not 'hate our freedom', but rather they hate our policies... When American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy... [Muslims believe] American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. - The Pentagon's advisory panel, the Defense Science Board, 2004 (4)

[Argus]

Muslims to not 'hate our freedom', but rather they hate our policies...

Such as?

[Je suis Omar]

Such as?

Here is just one example, Argus. You can go to the link to see the other many examples of USA terrorism and war crimes against ME countries and other poor countries of the world.

Then you can ignore it all and forget you ever asked, "Such as?".

Iran, 1953:

Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

[Je suis Omar]

Such as?

For dog's sakes, Argus, the Squid, that was right from US government sources. This head in the sand approach is really unbecoming for folks who are supposed to be responsible adults.

[Argus]

Here is just one example, Argus. You can go to the link to see the other many examples of USA terrorism and war crimes against ME countries and other poor countries of the world.

Then you can ignore it all and forget you ever asked, "Such as?".

Iran, 1953:

Iran, 1953 is not a policy. You said they hate our policies. What policies do they hate?

If you mean the way the West acted in Iran in 1953 there are debatable points about whether the nascent democracy there had the slightest chance of survival anyway, especially given the strength of the communists, and the fact that Iran couldn't have run their oil industry if Mosaddegh's plan to nationalize it and expel the Brits was actually carried out. In all likelihood that would have led to an economic mess which would have unseated him. And if they hadn't then the clerics would have, just as they unseated the Shah, not because of human rights abuses, but because of his attempt to push Iran onto a more secular path.

[Je suis Omar]

Iran, 1953 is not a policy. You said they hate our policies. What policies do they hate?

If you mean the way the West acted in Iran in 1953 there are debatable points about whether the nascent democracy there had the slightest chance of survival anyway, especially given the strength of the communists, and the fact that Iran couldn't have run their oil industry if Mosaddegh's plan to nationalize it and expel the Brits was actually carried out.

You state this as if the UK and the US had some right to interfere in Iranian affairs. That is the very definition of terrorism and here you are, ostensibly someone who believes in democracy, the rights of a people to decide their own futures, making apologies for terrorists.

You make an excellent case that the USA should never have been allowed to seek their own destiny.

(Sadly, history has confirmed that.)

There was no communist threat. See the pernicious effect USA propaganda has had.

In all likelihood that would have led to an economic mess which would have unseated him. And if they hadn't then the clerics would have, just as they unseated the Shah, not because of human rights abuses, but because of his attempt to push Iran onto a more secular path.

That is for the Iranians to decide, not a group of rapacious liars, interested only in stealing Iranian oil wealth. That is simply gangsterism, no different than the worst of the Mafia.

[Argus]

You state this as if the UK and the US had some right to interfere in Iranian affairs. That is the very definition of

terrorism

Evidently your English vocabulary is not up to the task of understanding what the word 'terrorism' means.

Interfering in a country's affairs is not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination.

That is for the Iranians to decide, not a group of rapacious liars, interested only in stealing Iranian oil wealth.

That is simply gangsterism, no different than the worst of the Mafia.

<shrug>. Iran's oil industry was developed by the brits, and all the technical experts needed to run it were brits and Americans. Iran did not have the capacity to operate a complicated oil development program. Had the Brits and US left Iran's oil industry would have collapsed leading to economic chaos.

[Je suis Omar]

Evidently your English vocabulary is not up to the task of understanding what the word 'terrorism' means.

Interfering in a country's affairs is not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination.

Canada's Criminal Code defines terrorism as,

"An act or omission, in or outside Canada, that is committed (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and ) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada."

The US defines it as,

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

Edited April 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Evidently your English vocabulary is not up to the task of understanding what the word 'terrorism' means.

Interfering in a country's affairs is not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination.os.

CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

Declassified documents describe in detail how US with British help engineered coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq

The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.

...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

[Argus]

Canada's Criminal Code defines terrorism as,

"An act or omission, in or outside Canada, that is committed (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and ) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada."

The US defines it as,

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

None of which relates to one country interfering with another country.

[Argus]

CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

A coup is not terrorism.

On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling,

Countries meddle in other countries. Iran meddles in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Iraq and Syria, and in Yemen, providing troops, weapons and support to the sides it wants to win.

[Je suis Omar]

A coup is not terrorism.

n.

And folks sit silent while all manner of fiction is spread about.

[bush_cheney2004]

And folks sit silent while all manner of fiction is spread about.

Yep....just ask Haiti's democratically elected president....deposed and kidnapped by Canada in 2004.

A very Canadian coup:

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/60/60.htm

[Je suis Omar]

Yep....just ask Haiti's democratically elected president....deposed and kidnapped by Canada in 2004.

A very Canadian coup:

url]

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Haiti/USBacks_AristideOverthrow.html

Haiti: US Backing Overthrow of President

by George Friemoth

MITF Report, Spring 2004

(Marin Interfaith Task Force on the Americas)

..

Edited April 4, 2015 by Charles Anthony
deleted text of the linked article

[GostHacked]

None of which relates to one country interfering with another country.

What the CIA does best is interfere with another country. All sanctioned by Uncle Sam.

Edited April 30, 2015 by GostHacked

[Je suis Omar]

What the CIA does best is interfere with another country. All sanctioned by Uncle Sam.

There's no need to sugarcoat it, GH, the USA is, far and away, the leading terrorist group in the world.

This has been the case since before the USA became a "nation".

The only difference between the Nazis and the USA is that the Nazis had a short run and the USA has been slaughtering innocents and stealing others wealth for over two centuries.

[Michael Hardner]

The only difference between the Nazis and the USA is that the Nazis had a short run and the USA has been slaughtering innocents and stealing others wealth for over two centuries.

The only difference ? Well.

[GostHacked]

The only difference ? Well.

Many German scientists were given safe haven in the USA after WWII to help develop new weapons technologies. I would not be surprised if some leadership was also granted safe haven.

The USA does seem to be going down a dangerous road regarding the encroaching police state and legislation that marginalizes people's rights and the constitution. It's not the same as Nazi Germany, but there are some similarities.

[Black Dog]

You guys know it's possible to make the case that the U.S. is going down a dangerous path without invoking the N-word, right?

[GostHacked]

You guys know it's possible to make the case that the U.S. is going down a dangerous path without invoking the N-word, right?

I've done that already.

[Je suis Omar]

You guys know it's possible to make the case that the U.S. is going down a dangerous path without invoking the N-word, right?

A better word to describe the depravity, the evil that is the USA hasn't yet been coined.

[Black Dog]

I've done that already.

You mean above where you talked about the similarities to Nazi Germany?

A better word to describe the depravity, the evil that is the USA hasn't yet been coined.

There's not enough eyerolls in the world for this.

[Je suis Omar]

Many German scientists were given safe haven in the USA after WWII to help develop new weapons technologies. I would not be surprised if some leadership was also granted safe haven.

The USA does seem to be going down a dangerous road regarding the encroaching police state and legislation that marginalizes people's rights and the constitution. It's not the same as Nazi Germany, but there are some similarities.

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

The USA also granted immunity to the war criminals of Unit 731.

American grant of immunity

Among the individuals in Japan after their 1945 surrender was Lieutenant Colonel Murray Sanders, who arrived in Yokohama via the American ship Sturgess in September 1945. Sanders was a highly regarded microbiologist and a member of America's military center for biological weapons. Sanders duty was to investigate Japanese biological warfare activity. At the time of his arrival in Japan he had no knowledge of what Unit 731 was.[43] Until Sanders finally threatened the Japanese with bringing communism into the picture, little information about biological warfare was being shared with the Americans. The Japanese wanted to avoid the Soviet legal system so the next morning after the threat Sanders received a manuscript describing Japan's involvement in biological warfare.[44] Sanders took this information to General Douglas MacArthur, who was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers responsible for rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupations. MacArthur struck a deal with Japanese informants[45]he secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731, including their leader, in exchange for providing America, but not the other wartime allies, with their research on biological warfare and data from human experimentation.[10] American occupation authorities monitored the activities of former unit members, including reading and censoring their mail.[46] The U.S. believed that the research data was valuable. The U.S. did not want other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, to acquire data on biological weapons.[47]

The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal heard only one reference to Japanese experiments with "poisonous serums" on Chinese civilians. This took place in August 1946 and was instigated by David Sutton, assistant to the Chinese prosecutor. The Japanese defense counsel argued that the claim was vague and uncorroborated and it was dismissed by the tribunal president, Sir William Webb, for lack of evidence. The subject was not pursued further by Sutton, who was probably unaware of Unit 731's activities. His reference to it at the trial is believed to have been accidental.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Edited April 30, 2015 by Je suis Omar