Terrorist attacks in London

[MaiLuk]

Nevertheless, these numers still do not take into account the so far largely unpunished collaboration of US industrialists and bankers with the Nazi party starting from the '20s, and the arming of Nazi Germany, a far deeper and more active involvement than the often cited appeasement policy of Chamberlain.

 

The relevance to the topic of this discussion: US involvement with islamic terrorists based on Wahabitism, with dictators such as Saddham Hussain, with the Taleban went along very similar lines. As the Nazis were bankrolled out of the US, present terrorists were initially trained, armed and financed by the US (and their partner Saudi Arabia).

As the US has profited from its collaboration with the nazis, and then by winning the war against the nazis, it has profited by building up this particular brand of islamic terrorism and Saddham Hussain, and now from fighting that 'war against terror'.

As involvement of keyindustrialists and bankers with the nazis were swept under the table, similar involvement with 'terrorists' is hidden from the American masses by blatant propaganda.

 

The result: more than 2000 dead American soldiers (numbers growing), somewhere between 100.000 and 200.000 dead Iraqis and Afghanis (not counting the millions who died during the US support of Saddham and the islamic fighters in Afghanisthan, and spin off conflicts such as Kashmir). Rising profits of Halliburton and Carlyle Group.

Now, can you tell me when (and how) the slaughter will finally stop?

 

 

Very interesting stuff. We supported bin laden cause we needed to oust the soviets from afghan. Yes he has turned on us. R U saying we should not have supported the afghan fighters? They never would have prevailed over the soviets without our stingers to neutralize soviet airpower and everything else we gave them. Did US companies make money when the US Gov used taxpayer money to buy stingers to give to bin ladin? Yes. Does this mean there is a conspiracy to stir trouble to make money for defense contractors?

 

Would have to go on a case by case basis but not in afghanistan. US policy was to oppose the soviets everywhere we could.

 

You can always look back in hindsight and say "we should have known better the warning signs were there." Well i doubt the US could have anticipated in the 1980s that the west would mass troops in saudi arabia in 1991 which would send bin laden into a rage.

 

Also, going back to your nazi example, we can find examples of people doing business and cooperating with the nazis everywhere, especially in germany itself. The point being that you brought this up to prove that US industry is and has always knowingly financed US enemies. The implication is that the US is some dark power. This doesn't hold up. If any one outside country is guilty of the nazi rise, we're all guilty and certainly the US is not singularly guilty (unless your an idealogue :: )

 

Many countries in europe willingly cooperated with nazis and gave no quarter to the jews. You will have to paint with a wider brush and color many countries if you want to use these historical injustices to damn the US.

[Guest]

MaiLuk said:

 

Very interesting stuff. We supported bin laden cause we needed to oust the soviets from afghan. Yes he has turned on us. R U saying we should not have supported the afghan fighters? They never would have prevailed over the soviets without our stingers to neutralize soviet airpower and everything else we gave them. Did US companies make money when the US Gov used taxpayer money to buy stingers to give to bin ladin? Yes. Does this mean there is a conspiracy to stir trouble to make money for defense contractors?

 

Would have to go on a case by case basis but not in afghanistan. US policy was to oppose the soviets everywhere we could.

 

You can always look back in hindsight and say "we should have known better the warning signs were there." Well i doubt the US could have anticipated in the 1980s that the west would mass troops in saudi arabia in 1991 which would send bin laden into a rage.

 

Also, going back to your nazi example, we can find examples of people doing business and cooperating with the nazis everywhere, especially in germany itself. The point being that you brought this up to prove that US industry is and has always knowingly financed US enemies. The implication is that the US is some dark power. This doesn't hold up. If any one outside country is guilty of the nazi rise, we're all guilty and certainly the US is not singularly guilty (unless your an idealogue :: )

 

Many countries in europe willingly cooperated with nazis and gave no quarter to the jews. You will have to paint with a wider brush and color many countries if you want to use these historical injustices to damn the US.

 

 

Yes, i am saying that the US should have never supported the Afghani fighters, starting from the CIA traing camps from the '50s onwards.

And no, the Sovietunion did not invade Afghanisthan because it was an evil empire, but it it feared that the US/Saudi sponsored fundamentalism will swap over into its own central Asian republics.

The US also did not support the Afghani fighters to win a decise victory, but to draw the war out. So were the stringer missiles, which changed the pace of the war, only given at a later stage.

Collateral damage: millions of dead and crippled Afghanis.

 

And concerning European support for the Nazis: that were the Axis Powers and its allies. It's leaders were all punished. Unpunished though were US supporters, such as Henry Ford, Prescott Bush and many others. Neither were many German secondary, but elementary leaders and scientists that were useful to the US (and to a smaller extend to the Sovietunion).

 

The US has always supported itself alone (and to some extend the countries that were temporarily to its use), regardless of what it preached. Democracy, dictatorship, genocide, no difference as long as it was in its own interest. A few moral decisions in between do not balance the sheet.

Study the US involvement in Indonesia, in Tibet, in Central and South America, and be honest, and try to tell me what good for the populations of those countries came out of (other than solving some of their over-population problems ). I believe you will be hardpressed to find much good.

The present terrorism problem is a largely US made problem resulting from a traditionally selfserving policy. And the "war against terrorism" is again a selfserving policy. Otherwise Iraq would not have, against all evidence to the contrary, under the use of fake proof, been invaded.

People of the affected countries and US soldiers have to die for the economical interests of a few leading families in the US.

[MaiLuk]

>>The US has always supported itself alone (and to some extend the countries that were temporarily to its use), regardless of what it preached. Democracy, dictatorship, genocide, no difference as long as it was in its own interest.<<

 

The US committed everything to europe during the war, and after the war committed to rebuilding. You can look at this and say "its all in their self interest" or you can say the US was helping its allies.

 

A thai gives a beggar money. You can say "hey that was nice" or you can say those fucking greedy thais are just trying to make merit.

 

Its just a matter of attitude.

 

What country has engaged in any major operation where you cannot find some self interest involved? Do you expect a major power to sit with its thumbs up its ass and not act in its interests? Should it act against its own interests?

 

When the greeks achieved what they did do you think they were acting in their own interests? Of course they were. Are you going to criticise them because they were not fighting and conquering and advancing science for purely altruistic reasons? And discount everything they did?

 

Unfortunately after the war a fucking nuclear arms race started. There is plenty of blame to be laid for that but there was paranoia in the US that its very existence (and europe's) was at stake (and it was at stake in case you forgot). Fuck i still remember the drills getting under the school desk. Not only that, our capitalistic ways were being challenged by communism with the soviets, then communists seizing control of governments in central america/cuba/afghan/vietnam. The US opposed communism and so did more than a few other countries including the western half of your own and they sure as hell could not have been successful at it by being altruistic (and not always successful btw).

 

Nasty shit went on in alot of places. At times the US involvement could have and should have been different but when nukes are pointed at you things get fucked up bad. Calling certain US campaigns stupid or bad is one thing, but you seem to take a holistic view of the US conduct and call the whole of it rotten because it acts in its self interest.

 

 

 

Just wondering. If the US did not commit to the defense of europe after WWII what would have happened? You agree i think that the soviets would not have invaded the US.

[Guest]

It is not just a matter of attitude, more a matter of interpreting and/or ignoring historical events.

 

The US involved itself into WW1, against the wishes of figures such as Winston Churchil at the end of the war, when almost all nations were slowly getting tired of the fighting.

The US changed therefore the balance between the powers, which has led to the very unlucky contract of Versailles.

Without the US involvement, without the contract, it is highly doubtful that the mad ravings of Hitler would have found much response.

Additionally, it is amply proven that US industry played a major role in bankrolling the NSDAP.

 

And no, the US did not "commit everything" to Europe during WW2. You can clearly see that if you have a look at the casualty statistics of WW2. If i rememer correctly the US is rather at the bottom with only about 200.000 dead (no civilian casualties) - a miniscule number compared to the other major warfaring powers.

Apart from that industries such as Standard Oil have committed everything to making money, supplying Nazi Germany with oil until 1944 through Spain.

And no, even after the war the US did not commit everything to rebuilding. It did though commit everything to rebuilding its own stragegically important positions. Germany was one. It is interesting to note that America's partner Britain has had food rationing far longer than its former enemy, now startegic partner, Germany.

 

It would be very helpful if you would abstain from using absolutes while descring the perceived benevolent actions of the US.

 

Concerning the nuclear arms race and paranoia: yes, paranoia existed, but it was carefully orchestrated. The US government knew very early that at no time the arsenal of the Sovietunion came even close to being a real danger in military terms. Only the US population did not know those facts. This is now common knowledge.

 

Concerning Indonesia - i wonder though where nuclear weapons were pointed from Indonesia towards the US. Only the fear of Sukarno turning "too communist" inspired the the US to sponsor Suharto's coup. In the immediate aftermath the massakers cost up to 2 million lives, and countless more during the decades of Suharto rule.

 

 

You conveniently generalise "communism", you, and the US governments at the time, ignored that the illfated ideology of communism had many different directions - from more socialist peasant liberalisation movements, strict stalinism, maoism, nationalist-communist anka madness of Pol Pot, and many more.

Many of those ideologies are actually not that far away from the founding principles of the US itself.

And strangely enough - the madest form of communism - Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge - was supported by the US during the civil war after the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia.

 

Apart from the well known theatres today US soldiers are fighting in the Phillipines, in Nepal, in the Central Asian Republics, in Somalia and many other countries.

 

I do seriously question the actions of the US, or, better - of the few powerful families there, since WW1 (actually, even way before WW1, counting the indian holocaust as well).

From what i can see, it is a history of hypocracy, of bending facts, reinterpreting history with one single result - the same leading families in the US always came out on top.

And, even worse, i do not see any change in my lifetime. Present events during the "war against terrorism" are in the same line as the past events of US foreign involvement. The same lies, the same shady deals, the same propaganda.

[AF16]

MaiLuk said:

Nevertheless, these numers still do not take into account the so far largely unpunished collaboration of US industrialists and bankers with the Nazi party starting from the '20s, and the arming of Nazi Germany, a far deeper and more active involvement than the often cited appeasement policy of Chamberlain.

 

The relevance to the topic of this discussion: US involvement with islamic terrorists based on Wahabitism, with dictators such as Saddham Hussain, with the Taleban went along very similar lines. As the Nazis were bankrolled out of the US, present terrorists were initially trained, armed and financed by the US (and their partner Saudi Arabia).

As the US has profited from its collaboration with the nazis, and then by winning the war against the nazis, it has profited by building up this particular brand of islamic terrorism and Saddham Hussain, and now from fighting that 'war against terror'.

As involvement of keyindustrialists and bankers with the nazis were swept under the table, similar involvement with 'terrorists' is hidden from the American masses by blatant propaganda.

 

The result: more than 2000 dead American soldiers (numbers growing), somewhere between 100.000 and 200.000 dead Iraqis and Afghanis (not counting the millions who died during the US support of Saddham and the islamic fighters in Afghanisthan, and spin off conflicts such as Kashmir). Rising profits of Halliburton and Carlyle Group.

Now, can you tell me when (and how) the slaughter will finally stop?

 

 

Very interesting stuff. We supported bin laden cause we needed to oust the soviets from afghan. Yes he has turned on us. R U saying we should not have supported the afghan fighters? They never would have prevailed over the soviets without our stingers to neutralize soviet airpower and everything else we gave them. Did US companies make money when the US Gov used taxpayer money to buy stingers to give to bin ladin? Yes. Does this mean there is a conspiracy to stir trouble to make money for defense contractors?

 

Would have to go on a case by case basis but not in afghanistan. US policy was to oppose the soviets everywhere we could.

 

You can always look back in hindsight and say "we should have known better the warning signs were there." Well i doubt the US could have anticipated in the 1980s that the west would mass troops in saudi arabia in 1991 which would send bin laden into a rage.

 

Also, going back to your nazi example, we can find examples of people doing business and cooperating with the nazis everywhere, especially in germany itself. The point being that you brought this up to prove that US industry is and has always knowingly financed US enemies. The implication is that the US is some dark power. This doesn't hold up. If any one outside country is guilty of the nazi rise, we're all guilty and certainly the US is not singularly guilty (unless your an idealogue :: )

 

Many countries in europe willingly cooperated with nazis and gave no quarter to the jews. You will have to paint with a wider brush and color many countries if you want to use these historical injustices to damn the US.

 

High ranking offical have admittet that the US deliberately loured the USSR into going into Afganisthan, knowing full well it would be a costly affair for the Russians. Start a war and let hte enemy stew in his own fat.

 

I'll try to google for the article, I guess it was about three years ago it leaked to the press.

 

Sadly the Afghans got pretty good at fighting the enemy. I guess one of those .. it seamed like a good idea at the time .. kind of deals.

[Evel_Penivel]

AF16 said:

[

High ranking offical have admittet that the US deliberately loured the USSR into going into Afganisthan, knowing full well it would be a costly affair for the Russians.

 

I've also heard high-ranking former Soviet officials have admitted that the U.S.S.R. lured the U.S. into going into Viet Nam, knowing full well it would be a costly affair for the Americans.

 

Moreover, the U.S. lured Saddam into attacking Kuwait, the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and the WWI Germans into attacking U.S. shipping, not to mention Lincoln luring the southern states into secession from the Union and the British luring Napoleon into attacking their Empire.

 

I'll Google those articles as well.

 

There's a a conspiracy theory under every Bush, except in BKK, where there are no bushes, at least in the Sukhumvit area.

 

My favorite, though, is that the Northumbians lured Viking chieftan Ragnar Lodbrok (Ragnar Hairy-Breeks or Hairy-Britches) into attacking them. (Ragnar var en riktig krigare! Mycket vi kan laera av honom i kriget mot terrorism, att rista blodoern som straff metod, t ex). Three of his sons also had really cool names - Bjoern Ironside, Sigurd Snake-Eye and Ivar the Boneless. My all-time favorite Viking name has to be Bjoern Butter-Box.

[ALHOLK]

Hi!

 

The US committed everything to europe during the war,

 

Are you saying that there was no war in the Pacific. I'm not disputing that the US did support the war effort in Europe but mainly through material and to a less extent with soldiers.

 

regards

 

ALHOLK

[AF16]

Evel_Penivel said:

AF16 said:

[

High ranking offical have admittet that the US deliberately loured the USSR into going into Afganisthan, knowing full well it would be a costly affair for the Russians.

 

I've also heard high-ranking former Soviet officials have admitted that the U.S.S.R. lured the U.S. into going into Viet Nam, knowing full well it would be a costly affair for the Americans.

 

Moreover, the U.S. lured Saddam into attacking Kuwait, the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and the WWI Germans into attacking U.S. shipping, not to mention Lincoln luring the southern states into secession from the Union and the British luring Napoleon into attacking their Empire.

 

I'll Google those articles as well.

 

There's a a conspiracy theory under every Bush, except in BKK, where there are no bushes, at least in the Sukhumvit area.

 

My favorite, though, is that the Northumbians lured Viking chieftan Ragnar Lodbrok (Ragnar Hairy-Breeks or Hairy-Britches) into attacking them. (Ragnar var en riktig krigare! Mycket vi kan laera av honom i kriget mot terrorism, att rista blodoern som straff metod, t ex). Three of his sons also had really cool names - Bjoern Ironside, Sigurd Snake-Eye and Ivar the Boneless. My all-time favorite Viking name has to be Bjoern Butter-Box.

 

Nope, I think it were a former president that admittet that, but I could not think of the name at the time. It were considered a very clever idea, basically contributing greatly to the cold war.

 

Why, do you think it could not be done in the context of the cold war? To unethical?

[Evel_Penivel]

AF16 said:

Why, do you think it could not be done in the context of the cold war? To unethical?

 

Certainly not too unethical, but I don't believe the Soviet leaders could be fooled into a war they really didn't want. I prefer the cock-up theory of history (shit happens) to the conspiracy theory (puppet-master pulling the strings).

 

However, once the Soviets were in Afghanistan, I'm sure the U.S. government was overjoyed. It's all part of the "grand Game" nations have played with each other for millenia.

[bibblies]

sourkraut said:

Evel_Penivel said:

 

 

Between 1933 and 1939, about 300,000 Jews emigrated from Germany and roughly one third, or 95,000, were allowed into the U.S. Between the outbreak of WWII and U.S. entry into the war in Dec. 1941, another 30,000 were allowed in the U.S. After the war, between 1945 and 1952, the U.S. accepted 400,000 displaced persons, of which about 80,000 were Holocaust survivors.

 

 

 

 

Rather accurate numers.

Between 1933 and 1945 roughly 320.000 people immigrated into the US from Europe, a bit more than 160.000 of them jews. From the whole of eastern Europe only 51 647 people were allowed to immigrate into the US.

In comparism Switzerland, about 100 times smaller than the US has taken a far larger pecentage of refugees, 40.000, out of which 20.000 were jewish.

In 1939 the magazine 'fortune' held an opinion poll - 83% of Americans were against allowing jewish refugees into the US.

 

Nevertheless, these numers still do not take into account the so far largely unpunished collaboration of US industrialists and bankers with the Nazi party starting from the '20s, and the arming of Nazi Germany, a far deeper and more active involvement than the often cited appeasement policy of Chamberlain.

 

The relevance to the topic of this discussion: US involvement with islamic terrorists based on Wahabitism...

I can't stop laughing at the relevance to this discussion of Flyonzewallism and the politics of every old left-wing hand knowing about a certain person being a certain person but keeping diplomatically quiet about it

 

Either they've got one big very odd cookie cutter in Germany or ... he's back.