Man Beheads Wife in 'Honor' Killing

[scott3x]

I'm fine with admitting that the U.S. and others have made some big mistakes regarding foreign policy. I don't believe it takes away from the points I've already made, however.

you need to realize something scott, most of what sam claims as foreign policy of the US was actually clandestine operations of the CIA that was made available by the FOIA. At the time these events happened the US government AND the people had no knowledge of these events.

The CIA is definitely funded by the government. I'd also argue that a lot of important U.S. foreign policy is clandestine; even some very important domestic policy (I think you know what I'm talking about). Nevertheless, you do have a point. Many dirty things the U.S. does, it must do so clandestinely. Stoning women, forcing them to wear burkas and the like is something the U.S. government simply wouldn't be able to get away with.

and another thing, never argue with someone that is intellectually dishonest.
right sam?

I greatly dislike that term. If you think someone's lying, I'll say so. Otherwise I won't; saying something like 'intellectually dishonest' is too much hedging for my tastes; it invites the reader to come up with their own conclusion as to what you mean; not exactly something I like doing when it comes to saying if someone's honest or not.

 

[leopold]

The CIA is definitely funded by the government. I'd also argue that a lot of important U.S. foreign policy is clandestine; . . .

give me an example of US foreign policy that is unknown to the US government.

I greatly dislike that term. If you think someone's lying, I'll say so.

when it comes to the united states sam is a propagandist, an intellectually dishonest liar.
right sam?

 

[scott3x]

The CIA is definitely funded by the government. I'd also argue that a lot of important U.S. foreign policy is clandestine; . . .

give me an example of US foreign policy that is unknown to the US government.

When did I say it was unknown to elements of the U.S. government? I'm thinking of things like Iran Contra, which were certainly known by elements of the U.S. government, but not by most U.S. citizens.

I greatly dislike that term. If think someone's lying, I'll say so.

when it comes to the united states sam is a propagandist, an intellectually dishonest liar. right sam?

You're trying to get me and S.A.M. to fight aren't you, laugh .

 

[leopold]

When did I say it was unknown to elements of the U.S. government? I'm thinking of things like Iran Contra, which were certainly known by elements of the U.S. government, but not by most U.S. citizens.

you apparently have no idea how the CIA operates.
the selling of arms to fund the above named operation was UNKNOWN to the US government scott.
most of the garbage that went on in latin america during the 50s and 60s was UNKNOWN to the US government.
do you realize that an arm of the CIA operates totally outside the government with absolutely no oversight and without any transparency whatsoever? iran/contra could never have happened if that wasn't the case.

You're trying to get me and S.A.M. to fight aren't you, laugh .

not at all. you'll see what i mean the longer you haggle with her.

edit:
but i'm being unfair, there are others here just as bad.
to imply that sam is the only one is a misrepresentation.

 

[S.A.M.]

you need to realize something scott, most of what sam claims as foreign policy of the US was actually clandestine operations of the CIA that was made available by the FOIA. at the time these events happened the US government AND the people had no knowledge of these events.

and another thing, never argue with someone that is intellectually dishonest.
right sam?

Clandestine? Foreign and economic policy of the US is consistent

Elected governments are terrorists, dictators are allies. The economic policies which use debt as a tool to bankrupt developing countries are a continuation of the landlord policies that the British used in India. The American govt could hardly have missed the fact that they have bankrupted several African nations, that they regularly bomb any economy that stabilizes in the Middle East or that the G8 is complicit in their extortion of these economies by absurd trade policies guaranteed to create hunger and unemployment, not to mention endemic poverty in these places.

To suggest that any of this is unknown to policy makers who sign off on the funding for all these practices and beyond, have the power to hold them accoountable for it, is sheer lunacy

 

[Michael]

I'll only give the example of India. Which is the experience I have. After 800 years of Mughal Rule, Indians had their own culture, language and the diverse philosophies that embraced Muslims and Christians. We were a rich country that everyone traded with [possibly the richest].

After 200 years of the British, we were a Third World nation, divided as Hindus vs Others, partitioned, poor and illiterate.

The Indian civilization had already stagnated and was on it's way down before the English stuck their noses in. The English showing up was a coincidence SAM. Open a history book or two. They just stepped in and took advantage. Much like your fathers business deals: Someone wins, someone loses. That time the English won out.

That said, the English were masters for playing simple minded people against one other.

M
As a wise man once said: Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

 

[leopold]

To suggest that any of this is unknown to policy makers who sign off on the funding for all these practices and beyond, have the power to hold them accoountable for it, is sheer lunacy

lunacy? you want lunacy?
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/

BTW prouty was mr. x in the movie JFK.

 

[S.A.M.]

Uh Leo

It's been consistent economic and foreign policy.

If I, a nobody, can see it, along with several other people in the world who actually study this stuff (google debt and structural adjustment), then you can be sure that policy makers can indeed see it

Just watch CSPAN for a few days and you'll realize how many Americans can see it as well.

There is nothing hidden about these policies. Politicians consistently refer to them as "protecting US interests" that's the code word.

 

[leopold]

Just watch CSPAN for a few days . . .

don't have cable.
i used to have the c-span website bookmarked but for some reason it quit working.

. . . and you'll realize how many Americans can see it as well.

frankly i find it hard to believe that the US government would intentionally bankrupt a nation for no reason.
this brings us to the "liar" part i referred to earlier, what exactly are you leaving out?

 

[leopold]

(google debt and structural adjustment),

thanks sam, it's now clear why the US wants to kick ass in the middle east.

In fact, the underpinnings of the current financial disaster can be traced back to the end of the Second World War, when the United States found itself in a position of great surplus relative to the rest of the globe. Not wanting to sacrifice the high levels of output it had achieved during wartime, the U.S. (through commercial banks) began to administer loans to developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia so that they could keep purchasing American goods.

This North-South pattern of capital flow continued to gather momentum through the 1970's, when unprecedented increases in oil prices on the part of the nascent OPEC created massive profits for its members, who, in turn, inundated Northern banks with deposits. To properly recycle these "petrodollars", many of these banks greatly augmented their loans to the developing world, resulting in a virtual "lending frenzy." (David Simon, et al., eds. Structurally Adjusted Africa: Poverty Debt and Basic Needs. London: Pluto Press, 1995, p.62).

it's painfully obvious to me that OPEC nations (the mid-east) share a very large part of what you are saying.
as a matter of fact it wouldn't surprise me in the least if OPEC knew this would happen.

 

[S.A.M.]

Remember when you say OPEC you're talking about the dynasties set up after 1920 by the British and maintained by the Americans

Also remember that the Arab street opposes these policies and that those governments who also oppose these policies (eg Mossadegh in 1953 nationalized the oil, Saddam in 2001 shifted to the Euro) suffer consequences.

Note also that EVERY elected government (currently Iran, Palestine, Lebanon) oppose these policies. The terrorists.

 

[GeoffP]

You don't know what structural adjustment policy is, do you?

The term is unimportant. Foreign policy is dictated by all nations to the extent they're able.

 

[leopold]

Remember when you say OPEC you're talking about the dynasties set up after 1920 by the British and maintained by the Americans

Also remember that the Arab street opposes these policies and that those governments who also oppose these policies (eg Mossadegh in 1953 nationalized the oil, Saddam in 2001 shifted to the Euro) suffer consequences.

Note also that EVERY elected government (currently Iran, Palestine, Lebanon) oppose these policies. The terrorists.

there is a piece of the puzzle we are missing here sam because the US is not some kind of evil empire.
i'll almost guarantee you this piece hinges on the CIA.
various administrations have tried to dismantle the CIA starting with JFK.

 

[S.A.M.]

You seem to think it begins and ends with the CIA. But if the CIA were dismantled, what would change?

 

[S.A.M.]

The term is unimportant. Foreign policy is dictated by all nations to the extent they're able.

Ignorance my dear Geoff is not a point of view. Read "upside down world" by Eduardo Galeano

 

[leopold]

You seem to think it begins and ends with the CIA.

and you seem to think the US is some kind of evil empire.

But if the CIA were dismantled, what would change?

clandestine operations require cash, lots of it.
this money DOES NOT come from legitimate sources.

but you are correct, i doubt if anything would change because both sides would have to unilaterally dismantle their campaigns, although the end of the cold war does give us hope.

i'm in a curious position because although i desire peace i also see the need for war, if for no other reason than to purge society of its misfits.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's not evil empire as much as indifferent empire. You can see the results of those policies on your own society. Other peoples jobs and lives mean very little when compared with the profit margin

 

[leopold]

Other peoples jobs and lives mean very little when compared with the profit margin

let's not confuse corporate greed with the man in the street sam.

 

[S.A.M.]

Unemployment looks the same everywhere.

Some just have more (illusions) to lose

 

[DiamondHearts]

It's interesting to see how quickly the white supremacists come to support their own. To them their culture is still the light to guide the uneducated colored heathen people of the world. Yet they preach to us that it is we who think this way. This has always been their game, and at this age it is centered around subjugating the Muslim world. There main goal is to wipe our culture of the map and make us their cultural slaves. Unfortunately for them, Muslims don't cave that easily to foreign pressure.

Some people have stated that the Mughal empire was not as advanced nor economically sound as the European countries in its history. This distorted view completely ignores the constant interference of the British, Portuguese, and Dutch. There was a time when the Europeans would willfully attack and pillage pilgrim ships going to the Holy city of Makkah from Mughal lands. The disintegration of Mughal rule in India took hundreds of years, and was started much earlier than Europeans today would like to admit. The principle supporters of the Maratha and Sikh rebels were the British Europeans. The Portuguese sacked the the lands of Goa, killed their men, and raped the Mughal women of Goa thus giving rise to the Christian and mixed Indian-European community in Goa. The massacred thousands of unarmed pilgrims and travelers on the way to the Middle East. All of this took place more than a hundred years before the actual British occupation of India. The biggest mistake of the Mughal Empire was trusting the Europeans words that they came only to trade. As the other lands such as China, Japan, Middle East, and Africa, the Europeans constantly interfered with the economies of these lands to destabilize their host countries and pave the way for eventual European domination.

100% true SAM. The Europeans puppets are stilling running around in our lands. They are still being propped up by these foreign powers, and dissent is being silenced with an iron fist, while the occupiers of Muslim lands continue unabated to persecution our people (Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). If these people truly desired to give these regions self-determination, they could have easily done it. Look how easily they supported the independence of East Timor. The fact is they have a vested interest in keeping us oppressed. They profit from our deaths.