ForumGarden

Jester;806798 wrote: Yep it is unfair.

Just like you acusing the US of the FARC bombing.


You've gone nowhere near "Neither does Colombia intelligence-gather cellphone voice identification from satellites to pinpoint where people are" which I consider undeniable.

I'll have a think about the bombing. Perhaps we're getting stuck on semantics. If there's five significant blast sites within fifty metres them perhaps the word we're missing means "a bomb that fragments into a number of distinct explosive elements and goes off at several locations within a fifty metre diameter circle". I've no idea what you'd call those, I innocently call them bombs. I'm sure such a device exists. One munition dropped, one aim point, one guide path, five bangs.

Jester;806794 wrote: That is interesting, interesting there are no quotes from any sources, no clarification of data used. No references whatsoever. Interesting.


An interesting take on the article certainly. Can you show me a newspaper article where the journalist references all of his sources, clarifies his data etc.

That is not the way newspaper articles work so it is no surprise that this one is no different.

The Telegraph is generally a reputable paper, rather than trying to smear it, how's about coming out with a reasoned rebuttal with some facts rather than just insinuations.

Jester;806819 wrote: I guess we had better not use newspaper articles to quote facts then eh?


As I recall I suggested that it was an interesting take on the story - I did not present it as fact.

Would you care to produce some "fact" rather than this unseemly sidestepping?

Jester;806828 wrote: Its not my link or my story bub, if you'd like to put some substance to it go ahead and try. I'm just pointing out it is merely opinion with out any posted facts. As such I dont buy a word of it.


It is all very well poo-poo ing everything put before you but unless you are prepared to put forward some "facts" of your own you carry no credibility.

The more you carry on the more it sounds like the last stages of denial.

I have no facts to offer - I have not been out there myself to see. All I have is a body of evidence from normally reliable sources. A sufficient number of sources becomes an answerable case and I hear no answer from you but "prove it" which, in the world of covert operations, is no answer at all.

Jester;806828 wrote: Its not my link or my story bub, if you'd like to put some substance to it go ahead and try. I'm just pointing out it is merely opinion with out any posted facts. As such I dont buy a word of it.


Once again the official US policy of distancing its official activities behind screens of hired participants gives grounds for supposing that what matters is the pattern rather than the available official record.

If you go back far enough you find it acknowledged. The fact that in the past is it admitted is good reason to deduce that the practice continues to exist.

This is from an official US publication, "Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, Volume XXXII":IV. The Sabotage Program in Retrospect.

Since 1 August 1963, five sabotage raids have been attempted. All were successful. There was substantial damage to the target; all participants were safely recovered and the plausible deniability of the operations was not compromised. The lack of proof of U.S. involvement did not prevent Castro from charging the CIA with responsibility.And, indeed, as "Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, Volume XXXII: IV. The Sabotage Program in Retrospect" demonstrates, Castro was correct in doing so.

Jester;806700 wrote: For instance it we would decrease tens of thousands of tons of drugs entering the US if we destroyed the FARC.That, it strikes me, is singularly unlikely.

You are aware, you do concede, that the CIA financed some of its own operations in Central and South America through its own organized drug-running and distribution into the US when Congress explicitly pulled the rug from under their financing?

spot;806842 wrote: Once again the official US policy of distancing its official activities behind screens of hired participants gives grounds for supposing that what matters is the pattern rather than the available official record.

If you go back far enough you find it acknowledged. The fact that in the past is it admitted is good reason to deduce that the practice continues to exist.

This is from an official US publication, "Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, Volume XXXII":IV. The Sabotage Program in Retrospect.

Since 1 August 1963, five sabotage raids have been attempted. All were successful. There was substantial damage to the target; all participants were safely recovered and the plausible deniability of the operations was not compromised. The lack of proof of U.S. involvement did not prevent Castro from charging the CIA with responsibility.And, indeed, as "Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, Volume XXXII: IV. The Sabotage Program in Retrospect" demonstrates, Castro was correct in doing so.


You forgot to ask why, if the CIA have never been involved in such assassinations and other terrorist acts, the President felt compelled to pass an act trying to prevent their doing so without his express permission?

This is the case of the stolen blueberry pie and one kid is sitting there with jam on his face saying he has no idea what happened to it.

Jester;806911 wrote: :wah:


That was a yes, I take it?

Or would you like a few details on that as well?

posted by jester

I've learned to steer clear of this line of questioning on specifics on FG, GM, sorry. I wont go into detail about which parts the gentleman made up. I will say that the general facts in terms of who the US supported is correct, the fact that the Contras committed atrocities on the public in the region at the time is fairly accurate. That the US sanctioned it, or ordered it, or somehow wanted those things to occur is far from fact.


It seem a more constructive approach than exchanging rants. Many americans seem to be unaware of what is actually done in their name falling for the line that the US supports democracy throughout the world when the reality is actually very different. There are in fact plenty of american sources you an cross reference if you want.

Here's how it goes in these things, the US attempts to biasly stabilize the regions where we have interests. We pay out for assitance or pay support to these groups, or even train them ourselves, and some of them do some bad stuff, in which the US gets blamed for it. And in some cases rightly so.


That really the heart of the matter. You take action to protect your interests but that often means the deliberate interference in the politics of another country and the de-stabilising of democratically elected governments that take action for the good of their people. Chile and nicaragua being just two countries. The present attitude to Venezuela is another case in point. Like it or not he is the democratically elected president of his country. That the profits made from exploiting natural resources should benefit the people and not foreign companies is an egalitarian belief most americans would agree with. Were it a feudal warlord rather than an multinational you'd probably be cheering him on. The issue is the same.

The US seems to have a terror of socialist governments in any form whatsoever taking it as being synonymous with communism and world revolution rather than just one discredited aspect which is how most other countries see it. Bear in mind most of your allies adopt socialist policies in education, healthcare etc.

Whether the actions are actually in the interest of the american people is rather a moot point, especially since it is the ordinary soldier that ends up dying. Maybe american haven't learned to cynical enough about politicians that use the loyalty and dedication of those in the armed forces like small change in a wolrdwide political gamble. While during the cold war some of it was understandable arguably it now does little to bring stability in those regions and the hostility to the US grows all the time. It's little better than economic imperialism. (actually it's not just americans at it is it? Euripeans are sneakier at these kind of things-more practice you see )

How exactly are american interests served by helping overthrow elected governments however much you dislike them? That it is done in the name of freedom and democracy is an irony that seems to be missed. Who gets to determine what american interests are? What are they? It seems a discussion that doesn't take place any more but it kind of goes to the heart of who runs things.

Jester;808717 wrote: No, that means Im not going to venture a discussion further off topic when you havn't shown any proof for your original post.


Even though we're both agreed that by the nature of government secrecy there can be no proof in the short term? I've demonstrated that there is precedent. My comments on the CIA funding some of its operations by drug trafficking into the US after Congressional action to shut them down are relevant too, in that they're acknowledged and also involved plausible deniability by keeping payrolled officers at arms length and making use of freelance agents to handle the dirty work. I'd be quite happy to give detail, just saying "it didn't happen" isn't credible. I'm still writing as much for the readers as for the participants in the thread, you really do need to put up a rational defence.

Whether the US was involved or not, the reputation of the US is now such that most people will believe they were.

From the information presented on this thread I'm fairly certain the US was involved somewhere, but I wouldn't like to say how far in a world of covert operations, plausible deniability and black propaganda.

posted by jester

The real monstor in the region is the Chavez, who is trying to destabilze to his own advantage. Time for a bullet for that one. (too bad Im not in charge, and I realize I'm disheartening for you but somes a bullet really is the most expedient manner to resolve these issues.)


Now why do you believe that?

He's the elected leader of a democratic government just because he happens to have left wing policies is no reason to advocate assassination. Arguably it's the Realpolitik of US policy in south america that is the de-stabilising influence down there not left wing politics. or do you agree with henry kissinger that just because people freely elect a left wing government there's no reason to let them get away with it?

rjwould;810293 wrote: Because he can, and he is American, and he has been to war, and since he has been wounded in war, he can say anything he damn well pleases....Right jes?

And with all those qualifications, who the f@@k are you to argue with it?


Because I'm British, i also happen to be scottish. I live in a free country and can say what I like and ask any question I like and my opinion is as good as anyone else's and if someone comes out with a statement like that they had better be able to justify it otherwise they are little better than opinionated pillocks and i have no time to for them.

Having discoursed with jester in the past I know he is opinionated, we will probably disagree, he is not, however, a pillock and is more than capable of expressing a reasoned opinion which I would be interested in seeing and we can discuss it in an amicable fashion. Which is why I asked him in a courteous manner why he viewed chavez the way he did. I doubt very much he needs you to spring to his defence.

Who the F@@K are you to butt in? Or to put it more colloquially away and play with yersel ye wee nyaff!

gmc: (surprised) I thought rjwould was being sarcastic at Jester's expense...?:-3

By gum, Scots is a great dialect for cursing in!

Clodhopper;810427 wrote: gmc: (surprised) I thought rjwould was being sarcastic at Jester's expense...?:-3


Clodhopper;810428 wrote: By gum, Scots is a great dialect for cursing in!
I agree, but without the misunderstanding we would never have gotten to read the line below.



Who the F@@K are you to butt in? Or to put it more colloquially away and play with yersel ye wee nyaff!:yh_clap:wah:

posted by clodhopper

gmc: (surprised) I thought rjwould was being sarcastic at Jester's expense...?




O.K not having re-read all the post I hadn't realised it was sarcasm. So my apologies. I'm glad I refrained from suggesting he would need a pair of tweezers and a magnifying glass.

Still want to know why jester believes that. There's no fun in just talking to people you agree with.

rjwould;810293 wrote: Because he can, and he is American, and he has been to war, andHave you watched Dr Strangelove? Jester might be a dead ringer for General Ripper, but he's *our* General Ripper. He's a good lad, he just doesn't like fluoridation.

Jester;810846 wrote: I have no problem with him being the elected offcial of his country left or right it makes no difference to me its his actions I oppose. If his poeple want him then they can have 'em. But when he gives terrorists a safe heaven he's on my list of those that deserve a bullet.


What evidence do you have that he is doing so? Also in the interests of consistency you should be condemning the US for not only sheltering terrorists but in many cases financing them. Most notably the likes of the mujahadeen when they were fighting the Russians who had gone in to support the elected govt in Afghanistan. terrorist/freedom fighter the definition is rather one that seems to depend on the point of view. For years the US refused to categorise the IRA as a terrorist organisation and happily turned a blind eye to their being financed from the states.

Jester;818146 wrote: None, no evidence, I dont give evidence, only opinion. I have to maintain a strict level of plausible deniability for Spot's sake. I shall never admit to anything the US government is alleged to have committed. I actually love the speculation and the propaganda that is spread that way, it fuels the conspiricy theorists and keeps up the plausible deniablity. Possbly its my love for the CIA, and my hell bent demon possession (based on my fundamentalism and strong literal, innerant interpretaion of the bible) and my ability to lie through my teeth. I am getting better at it...:rolleyes:


You don't have to bother about alleged goings you have a freedom of information act and with the 30 year moratorium now ended you can find out who did what to whom. Reality is you as an american get lied to on a regular basis. So do we in the UK the difference is we don't trust the bastards in power anyway, nor do we fall for the panglossian delusions that all is done for the best of motives and therefore it is all right and everything will be for the best of all possible worlds.

Kid yourself that none of it ever happened that it is all the product of jealous left wingers that just don't like the US but as you cheer your soldiers away to die and pause in respect as the coffins get lowered in to the ground maybe you should pause and ask what is going on and should you really be going along with it all. Does a patriotic american just follow blindly and not ask why? Personally i think your founding fathers would be spinning in their graves but they were a bunch of terrorists anyway aided by the frogs and the dagoes .

All the evidence is there- The deliberate overthrowing of democratic government in favour of right wing regimes just so american companies could do business the way they wanted in south america and all around the world. In another age it would be naked imperialism but you can't call it that can you because it is perpetrated by a bastion of freedom and democracy.

it is not propaganda but in once secret documents that you as an american can read. Who bombed ecuador doesn't really matter. reality is always more fantastic than anything anyone can dream up.

slightly off topic but

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser ... n-tap.html

Let's start by going back to the summer of 1969 when the CIA was telling Nixon and Henry Kissinger that Israel had either already developed a nuclear bomb or was on the verge of developing it. Even if Israel did not yet have the bomb, Nixon saw no way to stop the Israelis. He, like previous American presidents, did not want Israel to have nukes because he feared it would further de-stabilize the Mideast and possibly cause the Soviet Union, then an ally of many Arabs, to bomb Israel.

In what was then a Top Secret memo, Kissinger told Nixon that since the U.S. could not stop Israel from having nukes, the important thing was to protect Israel's secret: "While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact."




Too bad they didn't believe the CIA when they told them saddam didn't have wmd's instead of getting them to re-write the intelligence reports. Even more fantastic is the illusion that saddam had anything to do with 911

It's not your country's job, Jester. Your country has claimed that function many times and it has invariably made more of a mess than it said it had gone in to solve, time after time after time. You claim that the motivation of the country was honorable and that the motivation of the soldier was honorable. I have no comment to make about either, though I completely disbelieve the claim as far as the country's concerned. Simply in terms of cause and effect the US has to stop doing it because the US is such an utter incompetent failure when it comes to bringing any benefit to the host nation.

I'm working hard to find common ground here mate, you're meant to help out a bit.

I was, I fear, smiling as I wrote that. I really must tone down on the levity.

I suspect there are areas on which we could agree - there might even be reasons we'd share in common - but as you say we don't need to look for them. I'm not convinced you could easily introduce me to your friends though.

posted by jester

I can't really help the way things are. I hear all the time that I need to stop being so quick to fight, to kill or replace a government leader, all I see is continued corruption from one goverment to the next, and folks up in arms about what one country has done to another and what the US has its hands in now... etc. Im less inclined to care what the whiners say anymore. And Ive come to the next step in my personal policy, Im of the mindset that if you leave me alone and live your way in your land and dont threaten me then you can live at peace with me, if not to hell with you in the shortest way possible. I offer peace, right now to anyone who will be peaceful. If you threaten me after that I tried and you had your chance and now since I have the power to wipe you off the face of the earth I would. If you protect my enemies then you too are part of the problem. When Im done killing my enemies and as much of you as try to stop me then I'll go back to being at peace with you, or at least return to my lands, if you follow or strike back at me I will re-engage. if that lends itself to perpetual war then choose sides and fight, hunker down because I wont stop till I'm dead or you are.

That theres my policy. (and for the record I dont mean 'you' personally, I mean any nation or person.


Most of the people in south america or anywhere else come to that would probably wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment and ask the question why does the US not leave them alone to pick whatever government they choose? How would you react if another country decided to overthrow the government you had elected because it was too left wing and wanted to stop all the money from the sale of natural resources leaving the country-or was going to impose controls on foreign companies to stop them wrecking he environment. Or if not taking direct action itself was funding terrorists who had the aim of of imposing a right wing regime more favourable to their interests?

How about having had a free election and elected those you want to govern only to be told that your choice was not acceptable and therefore not recognised? If all peaceable means are shut to you what would you do?

The only people who have directly attacked the US in the last thirty years are a bunch of terrorists from Saudi Arabia. So why are you not advocating invading them or disposing of their leadership?

I can't really help the way things are.


As an american do you not have the right to question what goes on in your name? or is your freedom of speech and ability to make a difference just an illusion that acts as a sop for the masses in american society.

No saying ours is exactly perfect but at least we still have the power to make the bastards unemployed come election time.

posted by jester

If you wear white shirts with a pocket protector and striped english pants then Im afraid you may be right... please tell me your shoes dont buckle...


Having seen the way americans dress when they are on holiday over here you are in no position to give fashion tips to anyone. All that gangsta fashion and jewellery right bunch of posers.

Jester;818341 wrote: GMC, I was a soldier in the US military for 20 years, absolutely everytime I went to battle it was fully necessary to do so in order to protect some aspect of humanity... I do not for one second of any moment regret what I did (however I do question my internal motives at times for doing so). Do the politicians gum stuff up, you bet they do, do they serve thier own purpose, you bet they do... but generally speaking whats done is done in the best interest of humanity it doesnt always work out that way. But the intent for the most part is there to do good. Arguably over our history we have done stuff that was wrong in our pursuit of doing right, and thats wrong, no way to slice it any other way. If nations are judged by God, then all humanity is condemned period. If nations judge nations then whats fair at one time isnt fair at others and its all subjective based on whos in power and what folks decide is acceptable and what isnt, situational ethics rules the roost with the nation with the most power leading or at least setting whos got the most power, for better or worse.

I can't really help the way things are. I hear all the time that I need to stop being so quick to fight, to kill or replace a government leader, all I see is continued corruption from one goverment to the next, and folks up in arms about what one country has done to another and what the US has its hands in now... etc. Im less inclined to care what the whiners say anymore. And Ive come to the next step in my personal policy, Im of the mindset that if you leave me alone and live your way in your land and dont threaten me then you can live at peace with me, if not to hell with you in the shortest way possible. I offer peace, right now to anyone who will be peaceful. If you threaten me after that I tried and you had your chance and now since I have the power to wipe you off the face of the earth I would. If you protect my enemies then you too are part of the problem. When Im done killing my enemies and as much of you as try to stop me then I'll go back to being at peace with you, or at least return to my lands, if you follow or strike back at me I will re-engage. if that lends itself to perpetual war then choose sides and fight, hunker down because I wont stop till I'm dead or you are.

That theres my policy. (and for the record I dont mean 'you' personally, I mean any nation or person.


The only problem with this is your substitution of "humanities" for "the USA's" throughout.