This is my second post since my mild stroke of March 6, 2016. I’m just happy that I can still do this. You won’t see it, but my performance took a hit. I type and write slower. And I have to work a little harder to speak. My fear is that there is a mental degradation corresponding to my physical degradation, perhaps one that’s subtle enough that I can’t really discern it. Even so. I’m lucky. Some people have bigger strokes the first time and can’t function normally at all as a result. I’ll endeavor to make the best use of the power I still I have. For me that means learning and blogging. Thanks for reading!
*edit, March 29, 2016 – I added, at the bottom of the post, a quote from John Dinges, whose interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman I just now watched. I will also add in a couple links to books about Condor, including one by John Dinges.
An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Deirdre Fulton follows:
As Argentina marks the 40th anniversary of the military coup that “disappeared” and imprisoned tens of thousands of people, President Barack Obama has promised to declassify and release secret files concerning the U.S. role in the country’s so-called “Dirty War.”…
But for some, the “gesture” is not enough to make up for the timing of Obama’s visit, and what it represents.
“His presence here [in Buenos Aires] on March 24th is a provocation,” one Argentinian woman told the Washington Post. “I can’t believe Plaza de Mayo, which is the symbol of our fight, has American flags all over, next to Argentine flags. It’s a provocation.”
“Military coups around Latin America were backed by the United States,” she added. “It’s shameful that now this man is here [in the capital] on such an important and symbolic date…
Of the soon-to-be-declassified military, intelligence, and law enforcement records, Nora Cortiñas of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo scoffed: “I don’t believe there will be anything in those documents—they always black out the names and the important parts.”
The evil government leaders and top officials involved in the incredible international terrorist operation called Condor:
My typo-corrected online response to the above linked-to article follows. I turned article titles into links for your convenience:
============ ==== =
Human Rights First CEO [Elisa Massimino] offers some very fine words about the US-backed terror in Argentina in the ’60s and 70′, which wasn’t that long ago. It would be very fine [if] she had added that the release of the documents is a good thing “if” they aren’t redacted to the point of uselessness.
Condor has always horrified me and fascinated me. Here’s an example of sheep in wolves clothing, of the violent, dark, terrifying character of the wild beast of Revelation chapter 13. There are 3 wild beasts having the same basic form presented in the Christian Bible. In chapter 13, the second wild beast (7 heads, 10 horns and crowns upon it’s horns) gets it’s authority from the first, which look[s] similar, although it’s crowns are upon it’s heads, since it’s the source of this dark world’s authority. The third beast with 7 heads and 10 horns possesses no crowns for it is an image of the second beast, representing the nations since the first dominant world power of note in the Bible, namely Egypt. That image is the United Nations.
In chapter 13, the US comes in for special attention. It’s especially violent. In one place, this last (and soon to be destroyed) dominant world power (7th), is depicted separately as a wild beast that ascends out of the ‘earth’. The other dominant world powers came about during a more turbulent time in humankind’s history. Nations were in formation and boundaries were more in flux. That is why the second wild beast came out of the ‘sea’. This ‘false prophet’ (Rev chaps 16, 19, 20) is depicted as a creature having horns (representing power and in this case having power alongside a socio-political system that it presents as democratic, godly and inoffensive) “like a lamb.” But it has a mouth “like a dragon.” It says that it’s godly and democratic and announces that it intends to ensure that others recognize that and that it will act to shape a world that is democratic the way ‘it’ [defines] democracy. You’re free, but not really. You’re only free to worship this beast, to get it’s mark, and to therefore worship the person/beast from whom this second beast gets it’s power.
“Orwell at the UN: Obama Re-defines Democracy as a Country That Supports US Policy” by Michael Hudson (http://bit.ly/1KVVtDL). An excerpt follows:
“In his Orwellian September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations, President Obama said that if democracy had existed in Syria, there never would have been a revolt against Assad. By that, he meant ISIL. Where there is democracy, he said, there is no violence or revolution.
“This was his threat to promote revolution, coups and violence against any country not deemed a “democracy.” In making this hardly-veiled threat, he redefined the word in the vocabulary of international politics. Democracy is the CIA’s overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran to install the Shah. Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan’s secular government by the Taliban against Russia. Democracy is the Ukrainian coup behind Yats and Poroshenko. Democracy is Pinochet. It is “our bastards,” as Lyndon Johnson said, with regard to the Latin American dictators installed by U.S. foreign policy.”
This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” I’m writing separately about the numerous revelations contained in that article, but want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:
Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.
This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.
But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.
“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”
The world, largely owing to the domination (‘leadership’ if someone like Obama is talking about it) of this false American prophet, is violent and scary. That’s because so many have been willing to sell their souls. Soulless ones play the great game of ‘riches for the strongest’. The winners, sadly, in that game are those who are willing to break rules (and include politicians who, perversely, [p]reside over ‘law & order’ governments). First they huddle with us and decide, democratically, on the rules (such as the UN and the US Constitution for example) that will enable civilization to operate. Then they set about strategically breaking those rules, which allows them to vault past others and come into positions of authority over others. As Jesus noted (Luke chapter 22), they (the politicians among the rule-breakers) want to be called Benefactors. That’s true in every state. But it’s taken to the extreme in the US, where state worship is very entrenched and America (the 1% and it’s tools) holds itself up as exceptional and the world’s foremost champion of democracy, while it has overthrown or attempted to overthrow over 50 countries. But Jesus also told his close followers that they were not to be that way.
“Overthrowing other people’s governments – the Master List” by William Blum (http://bit.ly/1CGTzsg)
With the entrenchment of corporatocracy, and the focus of corporatocracy states on militarization and security over democracy, you have, very much, the elements of the terrifying Plan (or Operation) Condor in place over many countries. The law & order works ‘against’ the people, not for them.
From “The Secure And The Dispossessed – How The Military And Corporations Are Shaping A Climate-Changed World” edited by Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes, the following:
“Inevitably, the highly lucrative security-industry complex holds a strong vested interest in the intensification and expansion of border securitisation and in a ‘paradigm shift’ towards militarising borders. Within this context, researchers have only just started to map the rapidly emerging industry which seeks to profit from every aspect of migration management, including surveillance, interdiction, detention and deportation. The Transnational Institute (TNI)’s NeoConOpticon report in 2009 was an early attempt to get a handle on the reframing of border-security architecture now emerging and the significance of ‘inter-operability’ in creating flexible systems of security capability sets. TNI’s follow-up report, Eurodrones Inc., showed how drone manufacturers had captured the EU policy development process. In each report, the ‘primes’ are shown to be setting the security researcy and development agenda, securing generous research subsidies and then pushing for policies that depend on the procurement of their wares.” -pg 128
= ==== ============
John Dinges, in his conversation with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (“Operation Condor Trial Tackles Coordinated Campaign by Latin American Dictatorships to Kill Leftists” – March 7, 2013, Democracy Now!), said the following:
“The current discussion about drones, I think, is very frightening, because I’m having a hard time distinguishing between what they did with Operation Condor, low-tech, and what a drone does, because a drone is basically going into somebody else’s country, even with the permission of that country – of course, that’s what Operation Condor did, in most cases: You track somebody down, and you kill them. Now, the justification is: “Well, they were a criminal. They were a combatant.” Well, that may or may not be true, but nobody is determining that except the person that’s pulling the trigger.
“I just think that this has to be something that we discuss. And maybe trials like this, going back to the ’70s, people say, “Well, that was the dictatorships of the 1970s.” But the tendency of a state to feel that they can move against their enemies in the most effective way possible is still there, and it is certainly not limited to dictatorships.”
“Predatory States: Operation Condor And Covert War In Latin American” by J. Patrice McSherry