Comments on: Apocalypse of the American Mind

By: tonywicher

tonywicher — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:12:18 +0000

What I find interesting is the concept that since the Brzezinski-inspired support of the Afghan mujahedeen and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the general U.S. geopolitical strategy has been to covertly support Islamic terrorism around the world.

By: Kingfisher

Kingfisher — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:38:04 +0000

“Well, I find it appalling that our government engages in UW, secretly, without approval from Congress or the American people”
Covert Action requires a Presidential Finding and notification of the relevant Congressional leaders. Congress also pushes its own typically hair brained schemes too (see: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

“Bara and Kingfisher: that manual specifically states that the US government has a specific policy of using third parties for subversion, drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms dealing, ect.”
No it doesn’t specifically state that the US government has a specific policy on those things. It is a Field Manual, not a policy directive.

“This is OK with you?”
UW is an instrument of foreign policy that has its uses. All Presidents have made use of it; JFK was an especially firm supporter of it, and ordered the creation of the Army Special Forces.

By: Kingfisher

Kingfisher — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:51:36 +0000

“Considering the membership of Team B, I guess “tormented soul” is about right.”
That’s a good observation.
Wolfowitz was actually considered for Director of CIA in 2000; one can only imagine how well that would have gone over at Langley. Fortunately Mrs. Wolfowitz let the powers that be know that Mr. Wolfowitz was screwing around on her with his foreign teaching assistant at Johns Hopkins, and the kibosh was put on that.

By: JRF

JRF — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:41:13 +0000

Well, I find it appalling that our government engages in UW, secretly, without approval from Congress or the American people, and specifically targets civilian populations using false flag operations for political and strategic economic purposes.

Bara and Kingfisher: that manual specifically states that the US government has a specific policy of using third parties for subversion, drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms dealing, ect. From Burghardt’s report:

Right up front they inform the reader that UW establishes a “litmus test” which is
warfare conducted “by, with or through surrogates” and that their preferred assets are
irregular forces:

“Irregulars, or irregular forces, are individuals or groups of individuals who are
not members of a regular armed force, police, or other internal security force.
They are usually nonstate-sponsored and unconstrained by sovereign nation
legalities and boundaries. These forces may include, but are not limited to,
specific paramilitary forces, contractors, individuals, businesses, foreign political
organizations, resistance or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational
terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black
marketers, and other social or political ‘undesirables.’”6

This is OK with you?

By: Bara

Bara — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:19:26 +0000

The Burghardt paper and mention of manuals reminded me of the documentary “The Power of Nightmares: Baby It’s Cold Outside”, where the analysis of the Soviet threat is debated between the CIA and Team B. According to the documentary, the high functionality of the Soviet air-defense system was supported by Team B using a Soviet training manual as evidence.

Considering the membership of Team B, I guess “tormented soul” is about right.

By: Kingfisher

Kingfisher — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:57:28 +0000

“Uh, yeah.”
That’s a huge question. UW covers a broad spectrum of paramilitary activities; from sabotage and subversion to Guerrilla War. The history of Guerrilla Warfare goes back to the classical period, that’s like 2500 years – which I am not about to break down here.
Anything specific about it?

By: Kingfisher

Kingfisher — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:34:30 +0000

“It’s been said that any nation with an “a” or an “n” in their name should be wary of the US, especially if their name ends in “stan”. Their best defense is to keep tabs on the shadiest people in their country, and know that the US will try to make those scumbags our allies. Later on, if the nation in question doesn’t capitulate to our desires, we’ll use said scumbags as an excuse to invade. The scumbags either be linked to terrorism or they will provide us with pseudo-intelligence that “proves” the nation in question to be a threat to the west.”
And how is this different from the Russians or Chinese for that matter? This interpretation of Eurasian History is very shallow.

By: JRF

JRF — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:30:48 +0000

@Kingfisher

Uh, yeah. If you post something here aren’t you generally expected to have something important to contribute?

By: Bara

Bara — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:42:39 +0000

It’s been said that any nation with an “a” or an “n” in their name should be wary of the US, especially if their name ends in “stan”. Their best defense is to keep tabs on the shadiest people in their country, and know that the US will try to make those scumbags our allies. Later on, if the nation in question doesn’t capitulate to our desires, we’ll use said scumbags as an excuse to invade. The scumbags either be linked to terrorism or they will provide us with pseudo-intelligence that “proves” the nation in question to be a threat to the west.

By: BillH

BillH — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:46:55 +0000

@ cheered

Competence vs incompetence.

Well said.

The transcript I linked in the “Victims” thread discusses how money or wealth has gone from playing games for its own benefit and more recently come to completely infect and entrench itself in our government to the point that we now live in a true plutocracy. Or perhaps more properly a “plutarchy”. (Plutocracy + oligarchy.) Perhaps that is true in this country, but, this is nothing new in terms of world history. Whether it be royals or corporations or executives of corp’s, the light seems to be fading fast. Although the argument could be made that the USA was founded for reasons of the money, by the money and for the money, there once was a dream of freedom and equality that was not about an equal opportunity to buy Nike’s. There was a certain shared morality and ethics that everyone reminded themselves of on Sunday mornings. Or Saturdays. Or five times a day every day. And most folks tried to live by it, even if only in fear of standing at the pearly gates and having to explain themselves someday.

By: Kingfisher

Kingfisher — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:54:20 +0000

@JRF,
You want my opinions about Unconventional Warfare?

By: JRF

JRF — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:29:00 +0000

@Kingfisher

Please enlighten me then!! WTF

Do you have an opinion you’d like to share with everyone on the matter?