I agree with Bush on this

[TWB]

American-backed Genocide (terrorism) of the Guatemalan People

Estimated civilian deaths: over 200,000 people

From Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
by William Blum:

A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military- government death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions and unimaginable cruelty, totaling more than 200,000 victims — indisputably one of the most inhumane chapters of the 20th century.

The justification for the coup that has been put forth over the years is that Guatemala had been on the verge of the proverbial Soviet takeover. In actuality, the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn’t even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem was that Arbenz had taken over some of the uncultivated land of the US firm, United Fruit Company (today’s “United Brands” and Chiquita bananas), which had extremely close ties to the American power elite.

Moreover, in the eyes of Washington, there was the danger of Guatemala’s social-democracy model spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Despite a 1996 “peace” accord between the government and rebels, respect for human rights remains as only a concept in Guatemala:

Death squads continue to operate with a significant measure of impunity against union activists and other dissidents

Torture still rears its ugly head
The lower classes are as wretched as ever
The military endures as a formidable institution

The US continues to arm and train the Guatemalan military and carry out exercises with it

Key provisions of the peace accord concerning military reform have not been carried out.

(End of Rogue State excerpt)

In 1995, a US court ordered former Guatemalan Defense Minister Hector Gramajo Morales to pay $47.5 million in damages to eight
Guatemalans and a US citizen for his responsibility in the torture of the American (Sister Dianna Ortiz) and the massacre of family members of the Guatemalans (among thousands of other Indians whose death he was responsible for).

Gramajo had been served a court summons in 1991 as he graduated from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where he had studied on a scholarship provided by the US government.

The judge stated that “The evidence suggests that Gramajo devised and directed the implementation of an indiscriminate campaign of terror against civilians.” It was only following the court judgment that the Defense Department withdrew Gramajo’s invitation to speak at a military seminar.

Gramajo subsequently returned to Guatemala, without having paid any of the court judgment. In speaking of his previous residence in Guatemala, he said that he had carried out what he described as “a more humanitarian” means of dealing with perceived dissenters:

“We instituted civil affairs [in 1982] which provides development for 70 percent of the population, while we kill 30 percent.

“Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent.”

 

[lavender]

 

[Ham Murabi]

Re: Re: Re: Here's a Few . . .

We left the Kurds out to dry, Ham Murabi. You know we did. The world knows we did. The Kurds know we did.

Many would claim, although I don't agree, that America's insistence on continued sanctions in Iraq have been a form of terrorism. Our sanctions have killed more that Saddam's firm governmental hand.

Our sanctions? Hmmm, let me see if I recall those sanctions were imposed after the Gulf War started by Saddam. Could we perhaps then safely assume Saddam might bear some responsibility for those sanctions?
And can we take the next great leap forward in logic and wonder who has not complied with the sanctions? Was it Saddam?
Iraqi oil flows to the U.S. daily, and we gladly buy it. Could it be posible "our sanctions" that have killed more than "Saddam's firm governmental hand" may really be the result of what Saddam is choosing to buy and fund with all that oil money?
Yep, we hung the Kurds out to dry. Saddam killed them with a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[TWB]

From a talk by John Stockwell, 13-year veteran of the CIA and former U.S. Marine Corps major:

“Systematically, the Contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. Remember the ‘Assassination Manual’ that surfaced in 1984? It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror to traumatize society so that it cannot function.

“I don’t mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your Government and its agents are doing.

“They go into villages. They haul out families. With the children forced to watch, they castrate the father. They peel the skin off his face. They put a grenade in his mouth, and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch, they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes, for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

“This is nobody’s propaganda!

“There have been over a hundred thousand American “Witnesses for Peace” who’ve gone down there, and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they’ve happened, and documented thirteen thousand people killed this way — mostly women and children.

“These are the activities done by the Contras. The Contras are the people President Reagan called ‘freedom fighters.’ He said: ‘They are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.’”

Edited to say that this is about Nicaragua.

 

[TWB]

From Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII
by William Blum:

El Salvador’s dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.

Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars.

Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

 

[TWB]

Just a few non-muslim terrorist campaigns our government has been involved in.

 

[TWB]

And each affecting more than 3000 lives, not that I think that the numbers of those affected by injustice is a sole determinate for outrage.

 

[JazzManJim]

Like I said earlier Jim, just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

One thing I learned from living abroad is that the American media is not impartial. They lie by ommission. For instance, did you know that the day after the 9/11 attacks, there was a march of thousands of people in Tehran showing support and sympathy for America? People were crying, lighting candles...but did we see it? No, we saw angry men burning the American flag and cheering.

Also, people in Islamic countries may not show support for anti-extremism because of fear of reprisal from their dictatorship governments. The exact same way people don't openly talk about how much they love democracy in a totalitarian state. It's dangerous. Dictatorships hardly ever represent the will of the people...but they try to make it seem like they do.

And this is an argument that's been done again and again...but it needs to be reiterated. Until recently, Christianity was an extremely violent religion. In the Middle Ages, millions of people died in the name of preserving Christianity, while at the same time Islam was the center of knowledge, tolerance, and enlightenment. Has either religion changed? I don't think so. It's the culture and the historical and political circumstances that change. The Middle East doesn't need a change in religion, it needs a change in politics.

Actually, yes I did.

Pyper, you may have a misconception about the souce of the information I have. I don't merely follow the news form America. I'm very interested in the news as reported from other places in the world. It's all slanted, and you know this as well as I do. But I try to find the most even picture I'm able, though I have to go to a dozen sourcdes to do it.

And I'm not saying that Christianity didn't account for it's share of bloodshed (though, by the way, Islam at that time period wasn't the enlightened religion you say it was. It was equally as bloodthirsty. It just didn't attempt to conquer the world. It's bloodlust was sated in a few parts of the world, and very concentrated there). I am saying that, at this present time, Islam is accounting for as much if not more bloodshed than any single motivation in the world. That's something that's not escaped the notice of a lot of very learned people, even if it's not necessarily a popular thing to say.

I, for one, believe that the leaders - the national and international leaders - of Islam need to be making the ovetures to the American people. They need to be reaching out in goodwill and tolerance and doing everything in their power to make amends. But they're not. Now My own belief isn't worth very much in the overall scheme of things and we seem to be very nicely going along the way we are. And if our making nice to Muslims in this country, reassuring them that they are valuable and loved, etc, will make life easier for everyone, then that's fine. Whatever works in the end is pretty much okay with me. But it doesn' tchange my belief that it is they who should be making the greater effort and not us. That's just a personal thing, though. That doesn't really affect anything important.

I agree that the Middle East needs a change in politics. It's a dangerous thing when one religion holds sway over any government. It's also exactly why I support fostering democracy in that region, using whatever means is most effective. That's the largest reason I support the likely use of military force in Iraw to overthrow Hussein there and it's why I would support a thousandfold increase in pressure on the Saudi Arabian government to reform. Religion makes oppressive government because power, however derived, inevitably is corrupting.

 

[JazzManJim]

Jim,

Did the UN encourage and train the Kurds to rebel or did the United States?

The United States led the rebellion effort. The training was provided by a variety of places: the US, Britain, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt among others all played a part in the training and the planning of the rebellion.

What stopped the rebellion was that the UN resolution came up short of allowing such a thing. The president was under a great deal of pressure, having invoked the UN, to stay within the boundaries of the resolutions.

In the end, the US, IMO, should have stayed with the rebellion and cleaned up the political mess afterwards. We could easily have weathered the storm, especially having in hand a friendly democratic government in Iraq. The administration didn't see it that way and played by the rules. There was plenty of blame to go 'round.

 

[Weevil]

Actually, yes I did.

Pyper, you may have a misconception about the souce of the information I have. I don't merely follow the news form America. I'm very interested in the news as reported from other places in the world. It's all slanted, and you know this as well as I do. But I try to find the most even picture I'm able, though I have to go to a dozen sourcdes to do it.

And I'm not saying that Christianity didn't account for it's share of bloodshed (though, by the way, Islam at that time period wasn't the enlightened religion you say it was. It was equally as bloodthirsty. It just didn't attempt to conquer the world. It's bloodlust was sated in a few parts of the world, and very concentrated there). I am saying that, at this present time, Islam is accounting for as much if not more bloodshed than any single motivation in the world. That's something that's not escaped the notice of a lot of very learned people, even if it's not necessarily a popular thing to say.

I, for one, believe that the leaders - the national and international leaders - of Islam need to be making the ovetures to the American people. They need to be reaching out in goodwill and tolerance and doing everything in their power to make amends. But they're not. Now My own belief isn't worth very much in the overall scheme of things and we seem to be very nicely going along the way we are. And if our making nice to Muslims in this country, reassuring them that they are valuable and loved, etc, will make life easier for everyone, then that's fine. Whatever works in the end is pretty much okay with me. But it doesn' tchange my belief that it is they who should be making the greater effort and not us. That's just a personal thing, though. That doesn't really affect anything important.

I agree that the Middle East needs a change in politics. It's a dangerous thing when one religion holds sway over any government.

I agree. Yet you people insist on electing Republicans.

On a more serious note the idea that Islam is responsible for more deaths than Western Greed is abhorrent and shows someone who doesn't even bother to look past the boortz headlines.

 

[Pyper]

Pyper, you may have a misconception about the souce of the information I have. I don't merely follow the news form America. I'm very interested in the news as reported from other places in the world. It's all slanted, and you know this as well as I do. But I try to find the most even picture I'm able, though I have to go to a dozen sourcdes to do it.

That's good, Jim, but are all those sources in English? Because if they are, they indicate an affiliation with America or one of it's allies.

I am saying that, at this present time, Islam is accounting for as much if not more bloodshed than any single motivation in the world.

I'll overlook that you aren't providing any substantion for this (compare with South America, for instance), and point out that you make my point. You say, "At this time." Well, exactly. Doesn't that tell you something? At other times, not even a decade ago, other movements and religions were responsible for the world's bloodshed. What does that tell me? It's not the religion, but the political circumstances of the time that are causing the trouble.

I, for one, believe that the leaders - the national and international leaders - of Islam need to be making the ovetures to the American people. They need to be reaching out in goodwill and tolerance and doing everything in their power to make amends.

Just like President Bush, who reached out toward the Iranian people by calling them part of the "Axis of Evil" only days after they had demonstrated their solidarity with us?

Okay, I'm done debating for the night.

 

[JazzManJim]

I agree. Yet you people insist on electing Republicans.

On a more serious note the idea that Islam is responsible for more deaths than Western Greed is abhorrent and shows someone who doesn't even bother to look past the boortz headlines.

Define "you people".

And I'm supposing that I'm one of those alleged "boortz headline" readers, though I have no idea who boortz actually is. I'm also not sure what you clasify as "Western Greed". It strikes me as a rather nebulous notion which could be defined and redefined differently every day.

But here was my original point. Leaders of Islam, IMO, seem to be getting a pass on the amount of death, oppression, and misery it is causing at this very moment around the world.

There is no doubt that the United States, Christianity, whatever bugaboo you want to call up, has caused its share. That's been trumpeted very loudly from a verly large number of places. And it will always be. What is not being said very loudly is that, right now, millions and perhaps billions of people are afraid, oppressed, and dying because of leaders who holds Islam as their ideal. It may not be the proper version of Islam, but it is the flag under which they stand and perpetrate their evil. That's an important thing, I think, and it bears saying.

 

[TWB]

Define "you people".

And I'm supposing that I'm one of those alleged "boortz headline" readers, though I have no idea who boortz actually is. I'm also not sure what you clasify as "Western Greed". It strikes me as a rather nebulous notion which could be defined and redefined differently every day.

But here was my original point. Leaders of Islam, IMO, seem to be getting a pass on the amount of death, oppression, and misery it is causing at this very moment around the world.

There is no doubt that the United States, Christianity, whatever bugaboo you want to call up, has caused its share. That's been trumpeted very loudly from a verly large number of places. And it will always be. What is not being said very loudly is that, right now, millions and perhaps billions of people are afraid, oppressed, and dying because of leaders who holds Islam as their ideal. It may not be the proper version of Islam, but it is the flag under which they stand and perpetrate their evil. That's an important thing, I think, and it bears saying.

Which "leaders of Islam" are getting a pass on the amount of death, oppression, and misery it (Islam?) is causing around the world, Jim? I am not sure to whom you are referring.

 

[JazzManJim]

That's good, Jim, but are all those sources in English? Because if they are, they indicate an affiliation with America or one of it's allies.




I'll overlook that you aren't providing any substantion for this (compare with South America, for instance), and point out that you make my point. You say, "At this time." Well, exactly. Doesn't that tell you something? At other times, not even a decade ago, other movements and religions were responsible for the world's bloodshed. What does that tell me? It's not the religion, but the political circumstances of the time that are causing the trouble.



Just like President Bush, who reached out toward the Iranian people by calling them part of the "Axis of Evil" only days after they had demonstrated their solidarity with us?

Okay, I'm done debating for the night.

Yep, Pyper, the sources are all in English. Some of them are translated from the original languages, or provided in two languages - one of them English. That the news is in English doesn't mean that it's slanted toward the Americans.

I haven't made your point. You have yet to actually refute mine. What I have said before in other posts is that people acting int he name of Islam have gotten more than their share of bloodshed, even during the height of the Crusades, Islamic factions were killing and torturing and oppressing. That history goes back thousands of years. It's been that way whenever the religion gains political sway over a country.

And, as a note, Bush's "Axis of Evil" wasn't aimed at the people of the country, per se, except to say that we hold their leaders responsible for sponsoring and formenting terrorism around the world and that we will take action against those leaders, if necessary. It was a political statement aimed at political leaders.

I'm headed to bed, too, flush from beating the socks off of you.

 

[Weevil]

Define "you people".

And I'm supposing that I'm one of those alleged "boortz headline" readers, though I have no idea who boortz actually is. I'm also not sure what you clasify as "Western Greed". It strikes me as a rather nebulous notion which could be defined and redefined differently every day.

The idea that you need to stuff your pockets with as much $$$ as you can sacrificing all others. Look at Aids deaths in Africa. Kind of waters down 9/11 a bit for those of us who can see beyond our own borders.

And there are American companies actively working against treating these people. Why? Because it's all about the bling, bling.

It's not a nebulous notion. If Americans devoted 1/10th of the money they spend on their cars to feeding people the world could be a significantly better place.

The united states, the world's leading weapons dealer, won't sign a ban on Land Mines.

Cuts into profits doncha know.

 

[TWB]

I'm headed to bed, too, flush from beating the socks off of you.

But you haven't said what leaders you are referring to. . .???

 

[JazzManJim]

The idea that you need to stuff your pockets with as much $$$ as you can sacrificing all others. Look at Aids deaths in Africa. Kind of waters down 9/11 a bit for those of us who can see beyond our own borders.

And there are American companies actively working against treating these people. Why? Because it's all about the bling, bling.

It's not a nebulous notion. If Americans devoted 1/10th of the money they spend on their cars to feeding people the world could be a significantly better place.

The united states, the world's leading weapons dealer, won't sign a ban on Land Mines.

Cuts into profits doncha know.

That's the AIDS epidemic that even one notable national leader in Africa doesn't see as a problem, right?

In 1999, the United States ponied up 9,145 million dollars to Official Development Assistance. In 2000, that number increased to 9,581 Million Dollars. In those years the US was second only to Japan in total monetary disbursement. In 2001, the US gave 10,884 million dollars, and was first in total monetary disbursements by over 1,000 millon dollars. In those years, the third place country was more than 4,000 million dollars behind either nation. The source for this is the UN. Those amounts are generally agreed upon by the countries involved in doing the giving.

That's just governmental giving.

Private aid donations average 34 billion dollars annually, more than triple the governmental total.

That means that in 2001 alone, the citizens of the United States gave more than 44 billion dollars to help people around the world. I quote from here, "International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year. Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually.American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers. Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development. $1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students. Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000."

Greed? Hardly.

 

[Johnny Cool]

That's the AIDS epidemic that even one notable national leader in Africa doesn't see as a problem, right?

In 1999, the United States ponied up 9,145 million dollars to Official Development Assistance. In 2000, that number increased to 9,581 Million Dollars. In those years the US was second only to Japan in total monetary disbursement. In 2001, the US gave 10,884 million dollars, and was first in total monetary disbursements by over 1,000 millon dollars. In those years, the third place country was more than 4,000 million dollars behind either nation. The source for this is the UN. Those amounts are generally agreed upon by the countries involved in doing the giving.

That's just governmental giving.

Private aid donations average 34 billion dollars annually, more than triple the governmental total.

That means that in 2001 alone, the citizens of the United States gave more than 44 billion dollars to help people around the world. I quote from here, "International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year. Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually.American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers. Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development. $1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students. Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000."

Greed? Hardly.

It's a fantastic distortion. It's a phenomenal drop in the bucket when compared to what the richest country in the world could be doing. Why don't they do more? Unchecked greed. It's simple.

 

[curious2c]

perhaps the United States should follow a policy of NO foreign intervention...AT ALL. Support no country at all. Just take care of our own and ignore the rest. Then after the rest of the world has destroyed itself, we can have our peace.

Fact of the matter is in every case we have tried to do the best in helping people and those we 'chose' to help have become as bad or even worse than what we were trying to save them from in the first place.

In each case our government chose who they thought would be the best possible group to back and bring a democratic will of the people to power. Usually that won't work because of the 'absolute rule'...Absoulte power corrupts absoultely...We do try our best to support those who at least say they have the people behind them...and they usually do until the power factor comes into play.

I will say I saw a big lack of compassion and an even bigger lack of public condemnation of what Osama Bin Laden brought out in the name of Islam, from Islamic leaders in THIS country. THAT is wrong. They are supposed to lead their people in the path of right and Allahs love...not into murdering innocents.

Throughout history govenrments have done wrong. Politically motivated power struggles and out and out dictatorships chief among the causes of such terror and pain. religion has been the 'banner' and in most cases, the 'cause' behind the war anyway. Intolerance, Greed, Power, and a total disregard for what is right for the people of the area at the time.

The US should just stay out completely. Even to the point of isolationisim. Let the rest of the world do its thing, ignore them. If they bring it to us, well...then do the job quickly, efficently, and with great predjudice, get it over with in a timely fashion, and then go on.

We have spent billions of dollars, sent help and aid in the form of medicine, doctors, food, seed, technological expertise only to be stabbed in the back at the first oppourtunity. Fuck em all. Been there, done that. Tired of it too. We as a nation need to take care of our own and let the rest of the world rot in its own pestilience, disease, and turmoil. There is no respect, no effort from 90% of the countries we helped. Just more BS and hate.

WE have funded the UN against our own interests. WE have helped countries that later turned against us in war. We have been accused of things that are not only untrue, but also flat out lies in a propaganda war against freedom of individuals.

As a country we do need a coherent plan on foreign policy. The best one would be...no intervention in any case, ever. Let each country in the world worry about itself. Harsh? Yes. Necessary? YES. Time to gather to ourselves and take care of us.

 

[Lost Cause]

Judge individually...

When someone says, "The US has killed..blah,blah" Why not make it a correct statement like, "Some institutions in government", instead of an equally biased condemnation of the whole? I'm not going to step lightly on this one, if you want Islamic people judged not by the actions of a few, then the same applies for your hatred of everything American. If someone gets in my face, and threatens my country, or my life, it's my right to take their head off at the shoulders. It's not because of who or what they appear, it is who they are inside. I don't believe in talking our way out of a threatening situation, it boosts the aggressiveness of the offender. Each person gets treated individually, a good person walks away, a bad person doesn't.

 

[Laurel]

http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2002/11/14/boll/story.gif

 

[TWB]

US GDP :10,082,200,000,000
Donations 10,884,000,000

That is 0.001% of GDP (2001).

Don't know what that says, but there it is.

 

[TWB]

http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2002/11/14/boll/story.gif

You funny, woman.

 

[p_p_man]

Oh, Jesus H. F. Christ people.

I hang my head in shame for this country. I truly do. After 9/11 we had the opportunity before us to realize something we hadn't. In a way, even though I do not condone nor do I wish to repeat the horrors of that day, we had an opportunity to examine what it meant to be an American. We had the chance to understand America's role in the international community. We had a chance to stop being ostriches about our country's foreign policy. (for all of those who aren't too clever in this thread, it means that we had our heads buried in the sand).

It's people like you who are America's great saving. We outside your fortress know too well that what we see and hear about your country is not indicative of the people.

Unfortunately the silent majority tend to remain silent leaving the rest of us to listen to the views of the moronic minority.

And the moronic in America are just like the moronic elsewhere: uninformed, uneducated, jingoistic and not usually listened to...

Unless it's on a forum like this, which is to their gain but is definitely to the loss of everyone else...

ppman

 

[Don K Dyck]

American Terrorism Too . . .

And each affecting more than 3000 lives, not that I think that the numbers of those affected by injustice is a sole determinate for outrage.

Thanks for the very good posts, here TWB . . . I did not know the detail of the situation in Nicaruagua, El Salvador and Guatamala, only that the US "security agencies" had a big hand in destabilising the duly elected governments in each country . . . they even had a hand in a recent by-election in Oz . . .