View Poll Results: Is "Islamic Terrorism" Dependent on or Independent of U.S. Foreign Policy?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Dependent. Such terrorism would likely not exist if U.S. foreign policy were different.

    25 49.02%
  • Independent. Islamic terrorism would exist at current levels regardless.

    26 50.98%
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 107

Thread: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What's a moral agent? What does that mean?
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency]Moral agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    The capacity for moral agency necessitates that beings that possess it will also possess sufficient capacities to experience a substantial amount of happiness and suffering caused by numerous external stimuli.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I do see your point and I agree with it to a degree. But where do you feel nationality fits in? Because I am frankly proud of a lot of what my country does in the world. I'll grant you that there is a lot we have done for which there is no reason to feel proud: bombing Iraq back to the stone age in Gulf War 1, installing dictators in Latin America... But on balance, I feel we are a positive force in the world. I think pushing our values is a good thing, even though there is resistance to it.
    "We"? The nationalist conflates the political regime and the nation-state as a whole, but neither you nor I have had any influence on the formation of U.S. foreign policy. I know that I haven't, and if you had, all other American countries would be transformed into U.S. states at this point. Most U.S. influence has been negative; there are relatively libertarian domestic conditions for us but decidedly authoritarian international conditions fostered by U.S. influence, as evidenced by the anti-democratic removal of the likes of Mossadeq, Arbenz, and Allende. There's no benefit in pushing those "values." As cliched as it is...seriously, read some Chomsky.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    There's no benefit in pushing those "values." As cliched as it is...seriously, read some Chomsky.
    Good ole Noam Chomsky; you have to be one of the very few who even pay attention to this intellectual moron.

    One of my favorite things to watch is intellectuals attempting to make sense of the real world while living in a fantasy world of their own making. While Noam is so busy criticizing US policy, he conveniently, but hardly surprising, ignores the policies of terrorists, despots, dictators and communists.

    There is a reason he has been shunned; because his views are radical and basically pretty damned naive and stupid. Maybe you should just read some books instead of filling up on a diet of anti-American pabulum that illustrates why you have such warped views about the REAL world?

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    Thanks for the link.

    But where do you feel nationality fits in?

    "We"? The nationalist conflates the political regime and the nation-state as a whole, but neither you nor I have had any influence on the formation of U.S. foreign policy. I know that I haven't
    We did. We voted our say in putting politicians into office. Beyond that I didn't have anything to do with it.

    But tell me who does decide to do these negative things which I recognize we have done? Is it the State Dept, CIA, or is it ultimately the President? Congress?

    and if you had, all other American countries would be transformed into U.S. states at this point.
    Not true! I am not an expansionist, although I would like to see PR become a state.

    Most U.S. influence has been negative
    I disagree.

    there are relatively libertarian domestic conditions for us but decidedly authoritarian international conditions fostered by U.S. influence, as evidenced by the anti-democratic removal of the likes of Mossadeq, Arbenz, and Allende. There's no benefit in pushing those "values." As cliched as it is
    I'll counter that by listing Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Italy, Eastern Europe, China, Indonesia, Phillapines, S. Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada.

    ...seriously, read some Chomsky.
    I wish I could but at this time I have 12 books queued up. I just got "Just and Unjust Wars" by Walzer and I am popping that to the top.

  4. #74
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,318

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Irrationality is measured by logic and logic alone.
    While predictability does not imply on rationality, irrationality implies on unpredictability by logic acceptance.

    Now I feel like Agna with all of those big words thrown around.
    One can be predictably unpredictable by logical conclusion as well... to the rest, I agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  5. #75
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    WV, United States
    Last Seen
    11-05-09 @ 10:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    As for me Independent, I don't match idea about Islamic Terrorism,only a little, which make me believe that they're independent...

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Would the phenomenon commonly referred to as "Islamic terrorism" continue to be directed against U.S. targets at existing levels regardless of U.S. political regimes' foreign policy and support of the Israeli government due to an inherent hatred of civil rights/liberties, religious pluralism and relative secularism, and political freedoms on the part of certain Muslims?

    EDIT: I'm not necessarily asking what would happen if foreign policy approaches were changed now. Try to answer as though responding to the question of whether such terrorism would have been initiated in the first place if certain foreign policy had never existed in the first place.
    The fact that the first major attack by the fundamentalists was not on European or even Canadian soil but American is very telling. The fall of the towers symbolized a strategic front against the U.S. for all of its interventionism.

    If the U.S. had been absent in the past, the tensions would be higher between the fundamentalist areas and Europe, and especially Britain. I don't think Russia would be at risk per se. In any case, the conflict would not be nearly as widespread as it is now.

    Make no mistake, U.S. foreign policy crafted the current situation.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And the Bible was used to justify slavery. So what? There is a difference between using religion to justify one's actions, and being motivated by one's religion.
    Prove that they don't believe the rhetoric which they preach I double dog dare you.

    No, they attacked American ships because they wanted the cargo.
    They attack us because they believe it is their religious duty.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post

    "We"? The nationalist conflates the political regime and the nation-state as a whole, but neither you nor I have had any influence on the formation of U.S. foreign policy. I know that I haven't, and if you had, all other American countries would be transformed into U.S. states at this point. Most U.S. influence has been negative; there are relatively libertarian domestic conditions for us but decidedly authoritarian international conditions fostered by U.S. influence,
    What a load of ****ing horse****, the U.S. has granted more people their liberty than anyother country in the history of civilization.

    as evidenced by the anti-democratic removal of the likes of Mossadeq,
    The Shah was a bullwork against the Islamists and the Soviet proxy Tudeh party. Moreover, Mossadeq had aligned with Tudeh and started looking to the Soviets for support, also, he dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum in which he got a 99.9% yay vote when Parliament refused to grant him direct control over the military, and then he extended his "emergency powers" indefinitely. Furthermore; under the Iranian Constitution the Shah was the head of state and had the power to remove Mossadeq from power, which he did after Mossadeq's attempted coup de'ta. And the only reason why the Shah was overthrown by the Islamists is because the U.S. put pressure on him to liberalize which he did when he released political prisoners, granted women universal suffrage, and took the educational institutions out of the hands of the clerics.

    Arbenz,
    Arbenz was a Marxist attempting to set up a totalitarian communist state.



    {I}n the past 18 years, researchers have gathered and analyzed new evidence, refining the interpretations of the Guatemalan revolution. Piero Gleijeses uncovered Guatemalan documents and interviewed prominent actors, most notably María de Arbenz, the widow of the deposed president. His book, Shattered Hope: The United States and the Guatemalan Revolution, 1944–1954, focused on the internal dynamics of the revolution, providing the intellectual counterpart to Immerman’s analysis of the Washington foreign policy apparatus. Gleijeses, an admirer of Arbenz, produced irrefutable evidence of Arbenz’s gravitation toward the Communist Party and ideology, shattering previous portrayals of Arbenz as an economic nationalist or reformer. He also reassigned a portion of responsibility to the Guatemalan military, which ultimately betrayed Arbenz and allowed Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas to march unopposed into Guatemala City. Jim Handy mined the archives of Guatemala’s Agrarian Reform Institute to produce a sophisticated analysis of Arbenz’s agrarian reform. Revolution in the Countryside demonstrates how Arbenz’s agrarian reform triggered conflicts far beyond the United Fruit Company (UFCO) and the United States government. The agrarian reform generated conflict within and between indigenous communities, alienated Guatemala’s landowners, and disturbed the Guatemalan military because it disrupted the order that had long prevailed in the countryside...

    ...While some of Bitter Fruit’s general conclusions may remain intact, recent research calls into question Schlesinger and Kinzer’s characterization of important events and people. They maintain their original position on Arbenz’s ideology, arguing that Arbenz’s primary ideology was nationalism and that accusations that Arbenz was a communist “dupe” were “farfetched”(pp. 60– 61). Their characterizations of Arbenz’s ideology and his program lose credibility in the wake of Piero Gleijeses. Based on interviews with Arbenz’s widow, José Manuel Fortuny and other Communist leaders, Gleijeses concluded that although Arbenz did not join the Guatemalan Communist Party until 1957, he considered himself a communist during the last two years of his administration.

    Arbenz apologists have long felt compelled to deny Arbenz’s communist inclinations to maintain the case against the CIA. Yet Gleijeses, an open admirer of Arbenz and his program, explains how and why Arbenz believed that the triumph of communism in Guatemala and around the world was both inevitable and desirable. To reach that stage, Arbenz and other Latin American communists believed that Guatemala had to pass through a capitalist stage in its inevitable evolution toward socialism. Hence, the agrarian reform was indeed designed to make Guatemala into a modern capitalist state, as Schlesinger and Kinzer argue, but that did not make Arbenz a capitalist. Arbenz’s long-term objective, as his opponents in UFCO and the CIA alleged, was the creation of a communist state.

    Schlesinger and Kinzer maintain some positions that are no longer tenable. They argue, for example, that the Czech weaponry carried on board the Alf hem and confiscated by the Guatemalan Army in May 1954 was “intended solely for the Guatemalan Army”(p. 153). However, Arbenz’s closest political associates have confirmed that a portion of the Alfhem weapons were to be used to arm workers’ militias. Schlesinger and Kinzer insist that the Americans trumped up the charges about the workers’ militias in order to prove their case about a communist conspiracy. But the Americans did not lie in this case; at least a portion of the arms were intended for the workers.

    None of this justifies the American intervention, but assessing responsibility for the collapse of the Arbenz regime hangs in the balance. In the Bitter Fruit account, the CIA orchestrated the counterrevolutionary movement on behalf of “The Overlord,” or the United Fruit Company. After an inept and bumbling covert campaign, spearheaded by a poorly trained army of only 150 men, Arbenz simply resigned. According to Schlesinger and Kinzer, Arbenz did not fight because “he was never more than he seemed to be—a bourgeois reformer whose ideology did not extend beyond basic precepts of nationalism and the stimulation of domestic industry and agriculture” (p. 198). It is now clear that Arbenz was a communist who did not fight because he did not have an army or workers’ militias to lead into battle. He failed in his gamble to arm the workers’ militias, and the army, even knowing that it would win, refused to fight because the officers did not want a direct military confrontation with the United States...

    ...Cullather also concluded that the United Fruit Company played a minor role in the decision-making process. He argues that the CIA recognized Guatemala as a serious threat even before Arbenz expropriated the company’s property. According to Cullather, “the threat to American business was a minor part of the larger danger to the United States’ overall security” (p. 37). In Cullather’s account, United Fruit is not the “overlord” of the operation but a tool used by the CIA to remove a perceived security threat. Once the company’s usefulness expired, the Eisenhower administration proceeded with its suspended antitrust action, which ended in 1958 with a consent decree that forced the company to divest of its Guatemalan holdings (p. 118).

    Cullather’s account is in line with recent research on the Guatemalan revolution. It is significant that Piero Gleijese wrote the afterword to Secret History, giving the account his approval by praising Cullather’s intellect and integrity. Cullather’s research in the CIA files confirms that the UFCO played a minor role in the Guatemalan tragedy. He prefaces his account with a quote culled from Gleijeses’ interview with José Manuel Fortuny, who concluded: “They would have overthrown us even if we had grown no bananas” (p. 7). For those who want to believe that the CIA overthrew Arbenz simply to protect a banana company, Bitter Fruit is required reading, and a great read at that. For those who want a full account of the complex array of factors involved in the Guatemalan affair, Cullather’s Secret History has now been added to the required reading list.

    Dosal, Paul J. (Paul Jaime), 1960-


    Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, and: Secret History: The CIA's Classified Account of its Operations in Guatemala, 1952-1954 (review)

    Hispanic American Historical Review - 80:3, August 2000, pp. 633-635


    http://hahr.dukejournals.org.proxy.u...print/80/3/633

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate
    and Allende.
    A) There is no evidence what so ever that U.S. supported or directed the coup plotters.

    B) Allende only one a plurality decision of 1%, which is far from a mandate and then went about trying to erect a totalitarian Marxist regime, by his own admission his goal was to destroy the Chilean Democratic Republic:

    "The answer is the proletariat. If it wasn't so I wouldn't be here [...] As for the bourgeois state, at the present moment, we are seeking to overcome it. To overthrow it. [...] Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism" — In an interview with French Journalist Regis Debray in 1970.

    (Attributed) "I am not the president of all the Chileans. I am not a hypocrite that says so." — At a public rally, quoted by all Chilean newspapers, January 17, 1971. President Allende sent a public letter to El Mercurio newspaper to deny this alleged statement.

    After all, Allende himself had confided to Regis Debray “that his differences with apostles of violence like Guevara were only ‘tactical,’ plus his admission that he was observing legality ‘for the time being,’ and his assertion that he had agreed to the Statute of Democratic Guarantees as a ‘tactical necessity’.” (Sigmund, p. 140). And his own Socialist Party, at its Congress in January 1971, had stated that “the special conditions under which Popular Unity came to power oblige it to observe the limits of a bourgeois state for now” and had warned its members to prepare for “the decisive confrontation with the bourgeoisie and imperialism.” (Sigmund, footnote 7/12)


    Pinochet was ordered by Chilean Supreme Court and Chilean Chamber of Deputies (the equivalent of the U.S. House of Representatives to oust the tyrant Allende for his numerous usurptations of the Chilean Constitution:

    Chilean Chamber of Deputies Resolution Against Allende

    Considering:

    1. That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

    2. That the legitimacy of the Chilean State lies with the people who, over the years, have invested in this legitimacy with the underlying consensus of their coexistence, and that an assault on this legitimacy not only destroys the cultural and political heritage of our Nation, but also denies, in practice, all possibility of democratic life;

    3. That the values and principles expressed in the Constitution, according to article 2, indicate that sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation, and that authorities may not exercise more powers than those delegated to them by the Nation; and, in article 3, it is deduced that any government that arrogates to itself rights not delegated to it by the people commits sedition;

    4. That the current President of the Republic was elected by the full Congress, in accordance with a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated in the Constitution for the very purpose of assuring that the actions of his administration would be subject to the principles and norms of the Rule of Law that he solemnly agreed to respect;

    5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;

    6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

    7. That the administration has committed the following assaults on the proper role of the National Congress, seat of legislative power:

    a) It has usurped Congress's principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country's social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country's institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority;

    b) It has consistently mocked the National Congress's oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land, or who commit other offenses specified by the Constitution, and;

    c) Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.

    8. That it has committed the following assaults on the judicial branch:

    a) With the goal of undermining the authority of the courts and compromising their independence, it has led an infamous campaign of libel and slander against the Supreme Court, and it has sanctioned very serious attacks against judges and their authority;

    b) It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;

    c) It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives and, when so accused by the Supreme Court, the President of the Republic has gone to the unheard of extreme of arrogating to himself a right to judge the merit of judicial sentences and to determine when they are to be complied with;

    9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller's Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

    10. That among the administration's constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

    a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

    b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

    c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile's Channel 9, by assaulting that university's new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;

    d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

    e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

    f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

    g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

    h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

    i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

    j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

    11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;


    RESOLUTION CONTINUES BELOW

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?

    RESOLUTION CONTINUED:

    12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens' security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

    13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

    14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile's institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

    15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,


    The Chamber of Deputies agrees:


    First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

    Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

    Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

    Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.

    Chilean Supreme Court Denunciation of Allende:

    "This Supreme Court is compelled to represent to Your Excellency for the umpteenth time the unlawful attitude of the administrative authority in its illegal interference in judicial affairs, as well as for placing obstructions upon the execution of orders from a Criminal Court by the uniformed police, which orders, under the laws in force, must be carried out by the said police force without obstacles of any kind; all of which implies an open and willful contempt of judicial decisions, with complete disregard of the alterations that such attitudes or omissions produce in the judicial order; which attitude further implies not only a crisis in the state of law, as was represented to Your Excellency in a previous despatch, but also a peremptory or imminent disruption of the legality of the Nation"
    16
    There's no benefit in pushing those "values." As cliched as it is...seriously, read some Chomsky.
    Chomsky is a genocide apologist statist POS why in the hell should we listen to anything a Kymer Rouge backing, PLO supporting, and white nationalist holocaust denier fellow traveler like Chomsky has to say?

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •