Death Squads are go!

dathi1

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/75225EDD-C646-48E0-B089-BFF348E45E0E.htm
The Americans are definitely losing the plot in Iraq. Turkey has now decided to put their troop deployment on temp hold and now Bremer is going down the El Salvador route to muddy the waters in an increasing galvanized resistance to occupation. Iraq isn't Vietnam ...it will be America's Soviet style post Afghanistan.

Havelock

I wonder when American troops start painting swazticas on the sides of their vicheals?

American causalities: 300+ troops, morality, any remaining dignity, international respect.

Gains: International hatered, fear and loathing, some oil "but their not their for the oil *wink,wink*"

Sorry if I was off topic.

bonkey

I don't think the formation of a paramilitary group is a concern, in and of itself. The question is what type of paramilitary organisation it will be.

To cast it as a "death squad" would seem precipitous.

jc

mike65

Typical loony lefty reactionary re-action...

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Geromino

Originally posted by Havelock
I wonder when American troops start painting swazticas on the sides of their vicheals?

American causalities: 300+ troops, morality, any remaining dignity, international respect.

Gains: International hatered, fear and loathing, some oil "but their not their for the oil *wink,wink*"

Sorry if I was off topic.

Oh, this is priceless. Only in Europe where someone mentions "foreign sources' do they equate that with "CIA" without any evidence, of course.

Second, do you know the difference between an oil servicing company and an oil exploration company?

Three, do you really know what racism is? Do you know the true meaning of the words, "Gringo," "Wat****u," and "Janjen?" Do you have any idea how many ethnic groups there are in the USA?

Finally, do you really think that having international support will lessen the causalties or make the Iraqis more complacent?

dathi1

Do you have any idea how many ethnic groups there are in the USA?

Oh yes...and they all get along mighty fine.

Finally, do you really think that having international support will lessen the causalties or make the Iraqis more complacent?

Definitely not after the Brain Dead military crusade of the inept Rumsfeild. Not a hope..its too late.
but if Dean gets in and a compromise with Arab nations on security is worked out.. tied in with a phased withdrawal by occupation troops and the Zionist lobby in the states is told to take a hike re Gaza and west bank occupation....you never know the USA might gain back a little respect they had post Bosnia and Haiti.

dathi1

To cast it as a "death squad" would seem precipitous.

probably.. but just going by past episodes with the CIA and paramilitaries, death squads come to mind.

Havelock

I wasn't calling the American forces rasist, just their leaders (Rummy, Rice etc ) colonial, agressive and evil.

Yes I do, still does not cover the fact that you'd have to be of the same IQ as Bush to believe even half the stuff the Presidents friends are telling America. "We went their to liberate the peoples of Iraq." -Note: First Gulf War....Rise up and we will free you, who said that to the Iraqis? Hum
COme on, the fact that American contractors are getting the majority of reconstruction jobs over there, when their are other, better equiped, and in place companies who could do it faster and cheaper.

If America had cared a fig about international support (or laws), they wouldn't have invaded. Which means no casualities. Now of course with an 87 Billion Dollar bill, which I've yet to see explained, they want everyone to chip in. Come on.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Oh, this is priceless. Only in Europe where someone mentions "foreign sources' do they equate that with "CIA" without any evidence, of course.

Who mentioned the CIA, or indeed Foreign Sources?

The link was to aljazeera - not in Europe, which was referencing an article in the Washington Post - not in Europe, and a quick search of the posts reveals that no-one before you mentioned the CIA.

Second, do you know the difference between an oil servicing company and an oil exploration company?

I don't see anyone having made that confusion either. Or maybe I'm reading a different thread to you

Three, do you really know what racism is? Do you know the true meaning of the words, "Gringo," "Wat****u," and "Janjen?" Do you have any idea how many ethnic groups there are in the USA?

Again, I'm confused....no-one has referred to racism, or any of the terms you've just posted.

Finally, do you really think that having international support will lessen the causalties or make the Iraqis more complacent?

Again, I fail to see the relecance to previous posts.

Look - Havelock should know better than just to post another "I hate the US in Iraq" rant here. He even admitted that it was off-topic. But I can't see a single point in your post that refers to anything he said (which you quoted), or anything actually relevant to the link posted, nor the on-topic opinions expressed before you.

Now, before Geromino and Havelock go off on another "The US is evil to do all this / how dare you say that / because it is / oh no it isn't / oh yes it is...." journey, could we just try and get back on topic and discuss the issues at hand please?

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Now, before Geromino and Havelock go off on another "The US is evil to do all this / how dare you say that / because it is / oh no it isn't / oh yes it is...." journey, could we just try and get back on topic and discuss the issues at hand please?

jc

Agreed. I will keep it on topic as mcuh as possible unless overtly provoked of course.

Havelock

I already apologised for going off topic, it wasn't an anti-american rant. I quite like most American's I meet. Won't provoke anyone, they can PM if they want to continue via that medium.

In regards to the paramilitary force in Iraq, what different would it be than a government approved terrorist group? What would its project scope? A military police, a counter insergence group or retailation?

(the IRA and UDF are paramiltary groups)

Geromino

Originally posted by Havelock
I already apologised for going off topic, it wasn't an anti-american rant. I quite like most American's I meet. Won't provoke anyone, they can PM if they want to continue via that medium.

In regards to the paramilitary force in Iraq, what different would it be than a government approved terrorist group? What would its project scope? A military police, a counter insergence group or retailation?

(the IRA and UDF are paramiltary groups)

Actually, most police forces are "paramilitary" forces by defintion. You can also include guerilla groups authorized by governments in a "de facto" rule as paramilitary forces. To answer your specific questions, the difference is the command and control techniques used by police forces. In the US, everytime you are arrested, you are given your Miranda rights. That is, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you, and anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of command and control, but also having command and control techniques with regard to searches, seizures, inspections, investigations, intelligence, protection, and prevention do come to mind.

I would be wise not to grossly generalize ethnic, nationality, or religious groups, Havelock. I do not mind if you have specific arguments against political decisions, but to make statements as "when are the soldiers going to put swaztikas on their sleeves" is taking it a bit too far, IMO and I will be forced to respond to any gross accusation. I have traveled to many countries and have seen much and experienced much, but it still tickles me when someone makes statements like yours or Eoman.

mr_angry

Originally posted by dathi1
Oh yes...and they all get along mighty fine.

Definitely not after the Brain Dead military crusade of the inept Rumsfeild. Not a hope..its too late.
but if Dean gets in and a compromise with Arab nations on security is worked out.. tied in with a phased withdrawal by occupation troops and the Zionist lobby in the states is told to take a hike re Gaza and west bank occupation....you never know the USA might gain back a little respect they had post Bosnia and Haiti.

That sounds like sense... Quick! Discredit that poster!

Victor

I would read this as as broad "SWAT"/intel type unit or similar to the paramilitary police in France or Spain (each has 3 levels of police), not people from East Belfast wearing bandanas on their faces.

Moriarty

Paramilitary organisations are all terrible arent they dathi1? Shocking stuff really, eh? Well have none of that here!

Yeah.

/me sighs.

Perhaps the frothing around your mouth is making it hard to read. If you ever expect to be taken seriously, screaming your lungs out crying death to the great satan isnt really the best way to go about it. Of course, you dont want to really be listened to at all, you just want to continue on your own personal little war against those bastard americans dont you? Clearly, since you equate the formation of a paramilitary force with the formation of offically sanctioned death squads.

Im sure the lads in the Garda ERU will be rather surprised to find out that theyre now in a death squad when they wake up. Mind you, i always suspected there was something suspicous about those GSGN troops, never liked the cut of their jib.

So.. tell me dathi1, were you in fact just regurgitating bile to impress the other forumites that swing a similar way to yourself? That you really are still hardcore? Still able to stick it to the man? Still man enough to sit in your comfy chair and spout vitriol all over this board when a lesser man couldnt find the 'problem' to begin with?

Oh, and really do tell me how this force is a death squd, when similar organisations exist across the world. Im intrested to hear how you will back up the statement. No obfuscation, no hearsay.

dathi1

hehehe..
now,

Of course, you dont want to really be listened to at all, you just want to continue on your own personal little war against those bastard americans dont you?

Eh...no I just pointed out the fact that when the Americans get involved in foreign wars of occupation whether by stealth as in Central and south America 1960-1989, Zionist middle east death squad back up or past imperialist excursions into Vietnam and the Philippines they have played that card very well. As for Americans in general...I have no problem what so ever, as half my relatives are on that side of the fence. Anti Bush and Rummy...not anti American.

Im sure the lads in the Garda ERU will be rather surprised to find out that theyre now in a death squad when they wake up.

eh...the Garda aren't set up by a occupation army on behalf of a foreign aggressor...so eh...yer way off the mark there.

tell me dathi1, were you in fact just regurgitating bile to impress the other forumites that swing a similar way to yourself? That you really are still hardcore?

.I don't think I impress many people here anyway but if my rants on foreign occupation and murder of people in the middle east on behalf of a Zionist regime and big oil is hardcore...then I suppose I am.

Still man enough to sit in your comfy chair and spout vitriol all over this board when a lesser man couldnt find the 'problem' to begin with?

well I'm definitly not going to sit in my armchair and say everthing seems to be rosey in Iraq the Occupiers are setting up a nice paramilitary armed force.

Oh, and really do tell me how this force is a death squd, when similar organisations exist across the world. Im intrested to hear how you will back up the statement.

past : The Stern Gang, Haganna, South Lebanse Army, Mosad, Druze Milita in Beirut on behalf of Regan.
Contra "rebels" 50,000 in Nicaragua on behalf of Regan, Organizacion Democratica Nacionalista, El Salvador, Ton Ton Macoute witn their man in Haiti.. very nice American death squads. The CIA's "Phoenix Program" in Vietnam who Killed 40,000 people on behalf of Kisinger..and guess who?? yes Rummy was on board too!
Since the end of the Cold war you're right..there haven't been many CIA sponsored paramilitary organisations...but now with Bush + co in control it looks like the Reagan legacy is to be jump started. BTW General Doshtum the afgan northern Alliance comander is also a very nice man too!

Moriarty

Originally posted by dathi1
Eh...no I just pointed out the fact that when the Americans get involved in foreign wars of occupation whether by stealth as in Central and south America 1960-1989, Zionist middle east death squad back up or past imperialist excursions into Vietnam and the Philippines they have played that card very well. As for Americans in general...I have no problem what so ever, as half my relatives are on that side of the fence. Anti Bush and Rummy...not anti American.

You werent 'pointing out' much, a more accurate description would be you were flat out lying to gain peoples attention.

Originally posted by dathi1
eh...the Garda aren't set up by a occupation army on behalf of a foreign aggressor...so eh...yer way off the mark there.

So whats your point exactly? That the US has infact commissioned this paramilitary force for the purpose of acting as a death squad? I could say indymedia is a front for far left terrorist groups. I may not be far wrong. No one would listen to me until i could prove something though. See where im going with this?

Originally posted by dathi1
well I'm definitly not going to sit in my armchair and say everthing seems to be rosey in Iraq the Occupiers are setting up a nice paramilitary armed force.

And thats fine. What i object to is yourself and others with similar points of view always spouting ****e when you could instead talk about this stuff rationally. Death squads? come off it. This isnt a once off either, ive noticed it many times in the past where similar things have been posted about similarly innocent news.

Originally posted by dathi1
past : The Stern Gang, Haganna, South Lebanse Army, Mosad, Druze Milita in Beirut on behalf of Regan.
Contra "rebels" 50,000 in Nicaragua on behalf of Regan, Organizacion Democratica Nacionalista, El Salvador, Ton Ton Macoute witn their man in Haiti.. very nice American death squads. The CIA's "Phoenix Program" in Vietnam who Killed 40,000 people on behalf of Kisinger..and guess who?? yes Rummy was on board too!
Since the end of the Cold war you're right..there haven't been many CIA sponsored paramilitary organisations...but now with Bush + co in control it looks like the Reagan legacy is to be jump started. BTW General Doshtum the afgan northern Alliance comander is also a very nice man too!

Isnt it a lot more probable that this force has instead been created because there is a valid, legal need for it? Paramilitary forces work, we know this from experience elsewhere. So why should one not be created in Iraq simply because people like yourself have a (most likely completely wrong) feeling that they may be abused?

dathi1

You werent 'pointing out' much, a more accurate description would be you were flat out lying to gain peoples attention.

well now I'm a liar? eh ok...have you ever heard of attention grabing headlines?

So whats your point exactly? That the US has infact commissioned this paramilitary force for the purpose of acting as a death squad?

I'm talking about a paramilitary force being set up by an occupier in Iraq...for some reason u brought up the Gardai in Ireland.

That the US has infact commissioned this paramilitary force for the purpose of acting as a death squad?

In my view and going on past American foreign policy...yes.

What i object to is yourself and others with similar points of view always spouting ****e when you could instead talk about this stuff rationally.

Well if yer looking for rationale the American Military ocupation of Iraq isnt it.

This isnt a once off either, ive noticed it many times in the past where similar things have been posted about similarly innocent news.

shi.t bring on the thought police.

Isnt it a lot more probable that this force has instead been created because there is a valid, legal need for it?

Legal need...are you taking the piss....this whole invasion and occupation was illegal from the start.

Paramilitary forces work, we know this from experience elsewhere.

Going on past experiences and under the control of Bush and his puppet Chalibi a well known bank fraudster and criminal yes it will work alright.....stick to broadband issues..u haven't a clue....BTW I suppose the illegal destruction of recently installed civilian communication infrastructure during the invasion was the way to go too....You should set up Iraq Offline.

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
eh...the Garda aren't set up by a occupation army on behalf of a foreign aggressor...so eh...yer way off the mark there.

Well Republican Sinn Féin and certain Fianna Failers would have you believe otherwise.

Originally posted by dathi1
Since the end of the Cold war you're right..there haven't been many CIA sponsored paramilitary organisations

Well except the Bosnians (sorry apologies "contractor" trained), the KLA and the guys in Afghanistan and the ex-pats from Iraq who were trained in Hungary and well the CIA itself.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

Originally posted by dathi1
well now I'm a liar? eh ok...have you ever heard of attention grabing headlines?

Of course. Have you noticed that its usually tabloid newspapers/media that use them?

Originally posted by dathi1
I'm talking about a paramilitary force being set up by an occupier in Iraq...for some reason u brought up the Gardai in Ireland.

The only reason i brought up the garda ERU is to demonstrate what an outlandish claim you are making. The garda ERU can be classed as a paramilitary unit, as can the french GSGN and numerous other organisation around the world. Yet you continue not to acknowledge that these types of units have a role to play in iraq.

Originally posted by dathi1
Legal need...are you taking the piss....this whole invasion and occupation was illegal from the start.

The legality of the invasion has nothing to do with this. Dont start with the obfuscation. Would you deny there is a need for paramilitary forces in Iraq? If so, would you in turn deny that there is a need for paramilitary forces in, say, europe? If not, whats so different?

Originally posted by dathi1
....stick to broadband issues..u haven't a clue....

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by dathi1
BTW I suppose the illegal destruction of recently installed civilian communication infrastructure during the invasion was the way to go too....You should set up Iraq Offline.

Once again, the invasion is irrelevant to this discusion.

mr_angry

The CIA found a nice chap not to far away to help them out. Saddam summit or other.

Good one Merc. That single irony could finish off so many arguments on these boards...

dathi1

The only reason i brought up the garda ERU is to demonstrate what an outlandish claim you are making.

Now yer talking real bullsh.it...We're talking about a war situation with a foreign aggressor + paramilitary units and you're still comparing them to the Gardai SRU..I'll frame this one.

Would you deny there is a need for paramilitary forces in Iraq?

again set up by a foreign aggressor and invader on behalf pf parties I just mentioned...absolutely not. Any occupier whether its the Israelis in Gaza / west bank, Russia in Chechnya, Bush in Iraq have no right to set up paramilitary organisations to terrorise the local population in Tikrit,falluja or where ever.

The legality of the invasion has nothing to do with this. Dont start with the obfuscation.

what u said: Isnt it a lot more probable that this force has instead been created because there is a valid, legal need for it?

Once again, the invasion is irrelevant to this discusion.

I thinks its very relavant since we are talking about Iraq.

Geromino

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
I don't see how the Garda can be of any comparison tbh.
The Black and Tans is a different story though.

A decent comparison though excluding the major initial land war would be Iran, its oil nationalization programme, US get upset. CIA stick in loads of dosh, arms and training to SAVAK the secret police...install the Shah.
If I recall the SAVAK kind of pissed of the populace what with all the "death squad" thing and the CIA ended up with Ayatollah Khomeini.

Which was nice.
Still it was not all bad. The CIA found a nice chap not to far away to help them out. Saddam summit or other.

Actually, the Shaw, or the Pahlavi Dynasty, came into power after a coup from the Qajar Dynasty, which was corrupt. But even before that, Iran was plunged into social, political, and economic chaos (primarily as a result of WWI). The north was controlled by Russia and the South was controlled by Britain.

So, let us take a look at the oil nationalization. "Iran's Majles passed a law sponsored by the nationalistic (soon to be prime minister) Dr. Mossadeq to nationalize Iran's oil from British control. The British, enraged by the threat to their oil concessions, froze all of Iran's Sterling assets and took their case to the International Court of Justice. The Court ruled in Iran's favor. Undeterred, the British placed a total trade embargo on Iran and enforced it with their navy, leading to the collapse of Iran's economy. Citing the threat of a communist takeover, British Intelligence and the CIA sponsored a coup to topple Dr. Mossadeq's government. In the midst of the coup, the young Shah, having thought the plan had failed, left the country. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Mossadeq's government was overthrown and the Shah was put back in power." As you can see from this history site, it was not just the American, but British intelligence and a fear a communist takeover.

Then let us take a look at what the Shaw also promoted. "The Shah introduced his White Revolution. It consisted of major land reform, workers' rights and women's suffrage, among other initiatives. His reforms did not develop as planned due to poor execution. In a series of public speeches, Ayatollah Khomeini attacked these reforms. He was arrested and then exiled. Iran experienced rapid economic growth and prosperity coupled with a relatively stable political climate. Iran's infrastructure, public health and educational institutions were expanded. A number of highways, roads, bridges, railroad tracks, water and sewage projects, factories, schools, universities and hospitals were built. Iran's military strength grew and its international prestige was enhanced." As you can see, Iran experienced rapid growth and prosperity under the Shaw.

http://www.mage.com/TLbody.html

Now, let us take a look at the accusation of SAVAK. It is true that the Shah used this dreaded organization to enforce its domain. However, I could not find any direct evidence of the CIA involvement with the organization directly. But then again, nearly every ruler of Iran has used some form of brutality to force itis wishes upon its people. Even the current government of Iran has similar poliicies.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Actually, the Shaw, or the Pahlavi Dynasty, came into power after a coup from the Qajar Dynasty, which was corrupt. But even before that, Iran was plunged into social, political, and economic chaos (primarily as a result of WWI). The north was controlled by Russia and the South was controlled by Britain.

So, let us take a look at the oil nationalization. "Iran's Majles passed a law sponsored by the nationalistic (soon to be prime minister) Dr. Mossadeq to nationalize Iran's oil from British control. The British, enraged by the threat to their oil concessions, froze all of Iran's Sterling assets and took their case to the International Court of Justice. The Court ruled in Iran's favor. Undeterred, the British placed a total trade embargo on Iran and enforced it with their navy, leading to the collapse of Iran's economy. Citing the threat of a communist takeover, British Intelligence and the CIA sponsored a coup to topple Dr. Mossadeq's government. In the midst of the coup, the young Shah, having thought the plan had failed, left the country. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Mossadeq's government was overthrown and the Shah was put back in power." As you can see from this history site, it was not just the American, but British intelligence and a fear a communist takeover.

Then let us take a look at what the Shaw also promoted. "The Shah introduced his White Revolution. It consisted of major land reform, workers' rights and women's suffrage, among other initiatives. His reforms did not develop as planned due to poor execution. In a series of public speeches, Ayatollah Khomeini attacked these reforms. He was arrested and then exiled. Iran experienced rapid economic growth and prosperity coupled with a relatively stable political climate. Iran's infrastructure, public health and educational institutions were expanded. A number of highways, roads, bridges, railroad tracks, water and sewage projects, factories, schools, universities and hospitals were built. Iran's military strength grew and its international prestige was enhanced." As you can see, Iran experienced rapid growth and prosperity under the Shaw.

http://www.mage.com/TLbody.html

Now, let us take a look at the accusation of SAVAK. It is true that the Shah used this dreaded organization to enforce its domain. However, I could not find any direct evidence of the CIA involvement with the organization directly. But then again, nearly every ruler of Iran has used some form of brutality to force itis wishes upon its people. Even the current government of Iran has similar poliicies.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that American and British resistance to the will of the Iranian people was justified or that the Shah wasn't such a bad guy.
CIA involvement in the overthrow and execution of Mossedaq is known the world over. FOI documentation shows that they actually sought groups to specifically to overthrow Dr. M.
I notice how your source never mentions that Mossadae was democratically elected nor does it seem to be able to logically deduce the reason Iran might have been stable (nor stable for whom, nor for very long either..hence the uprising) was that the Shah was brutal enough to keep things "stable". If that's justification for supporting him then you have to acknowledge Saddam's "stabilizing" influence on the Iraqi people (of course, until America first attacked Iraq).

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that American and British resistance to the will of the Iranian people was justified or that the Shah wasn't such a bad guy.

The point was to give a brief glimpse of Iranian history. If you would notice, "legitimate" governments have been overthrown and if you would have looked at the web site, you will aslo notice that several dynasties used the word "Shah" as a form to legitimize their position.

CIA involvement in the overthrow and execution of Mossedaq is known the world over.

Somewhat like saying "it is common knowledge that the Jews are trying to take over the world," or how about "Person 'X' (put the name of a leader who supports US policy} is a lapdog for Washington." Kinda makes me wonder if it is that well known, then why is it not taught in all history books. I have seen several Asian history books (nearly all in translation) and they rarely mention something like what you have said

FOI documentation shows that they actually sought groups to specifically to overthrow Dr. M.
I notice how your source never mentions that Mossadae was democratically elected nor does it seem to be able to logically deduce the reason Iran might have been stable (nor stable for whom, nor for very long either..hence the uprising) was that the Shah was brutal enough to keep things "stable". If that's justification for supporting him then you have to acknowledge Saddam's "stabilizing" influence on the Iraqi people (of course, until America first attacked Iraq).

A better analysis of legitimacy of the Iranian leaders is found at http://www.cssaame.ilstu.edu/issues/23/23katouzian.pdf

"In fact, in Iran both before and after Islam, the ruler is set to be God’s vicegerent on earth and, unlike Europe, his legitimacy was not dependent on the law ofprimogeniture. Thus he was not bound by any writtenor unwritten law or tradition and could take decisionsup to the utmost of his physical power, the only re-straint being the fear of rebellion."

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
The point was to give a brief glimpse of Iranian history. If you would notice, "legitimate" governments have been overthrown and if you would have looked at the web site, you will aslo notice that several dynasties used the word "Shah" as a form to legitimize their position.

But we both know we are referring to the Shah who was installed as leader of a CIA led coup that toppled the democractically elected leader Moussadeq. Like I said your sites "history"was a little selective in it's facts and conclusions.
I noticed the legitimate government of Mossedeq was most definetly overthrown..what's your point here?

Somewhat like saying "it is common knowledge that the Jews are trying to take over the world," or how about "Person 'X' (put the name of a leader who supports US policy} is a lapdog for Washington." Kinda makes me wonder if it is that well known, then why is it not taught in all history books. I have seen several Asian history books (nearly all in translation) and they rarely mention something like what you have said

I can't speak for the history books of Asia but there are many things in American history books that are selective and I'd imagine that all countries have their selective history, doesn't defeat my point that it's common knowledge in most of the world.
That's besides your lack of comment on the FOI documents that prove the CIA was at least involved and at most initiated the coup because of oil interests.
As for the Jews, that's not a widely held view and it's an opinion. CIA involvement in the overthrow of Moussedeq is fact.

A better analysis of legitimacy of the Iranian leaders is found at http://www.cssaame.ilstu.edu/issues/23/23katouzian.pdf

"In fact, in Iran both before and after Islam, the ruler is set to be God’s vicegerent on earth and, unlike Europe, his legitimacy was not dependent on the law ofprimogeniture. Thus he was not bound by any writtenor unwritten law or tradition and could take decisionsup to the utmost of his physical power, the only re-straint being the fear of rebellion."

My my what big words....how is that relevant?

dathi1

well a year and a half later ..now death squads are go.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

Memnoch

dathi1 wrote:

well a year and a half later ..now death squads are go.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

so the americans are happy to slaugther more innocents to get there way.

Its sad that there is no justice in this world. Except the justice of those with power taking advantage every way they can and fooling the moronic with their hollow propaganda. I do despair

Victor

dathi1 wrote:

well a year and a half later ..now death squads are go.

Unfortunately, I suspect we might be several months behind in the news, on the flip side, a lot of the articles on this are using the same keywords, which make me think they are all working off the one source.