General submission regarding the latest alleged message from Osama bin Laden:
“Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the Mafia,” Al Jazeera quoted Mr. bin Laden as saying. “They are the true terrorists and therefore we should refrain from dealing in the U.S. dollar and should try to get rid of this currency as early as possible.” (Jan 29, 2010, New York Times).
Chomsky is just one example of brilliant intellectuals, like many Nazis and illluminati were, who, for some reason, are dwelling immersed in a world of disgusting falseness and fabrication about the Jews, Zionists, and Israel, and it’s obviously the same for Islamic radicals, nationalists, religious leaders and Jihadists.
The trouble is, unfortunately, that just like the world believed the Nazi lies, they (including, astonishingly, many Jews) also believe Chomsky’s lies today.
Ruby Harris
In reply to “Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning,” by Ray McGovern, 01/28/10 :
I wonder if it isn’t time to leave behind the belief that the American executive has meaningful, practical control of the military and its pursuits, at least beyond our shores. It seems that logically, empirically and historically the burden of argument would be on those claiming otherwise:
1) Logically it is difficult to maintain that a president has effective control of a military entity which, for all practical purposes, defines the alternatives from which he is nominally empowered to choose. (“Define” is used here in its broader sense, to both demarcate and describe.) The political costs to a president of merely deciding against a strongly recommended military option, let alone of choosing a non-military alternative, are demonstrable from events both recent and going back decades. Those political consequences are also demonstrably shaped — to put it delicately — by the military and its industrial and congressional allies.
2) Empirically the conventional, U.S. constitutional view of executive control just doesn’t fit the facts. Taking two surprises during Obama’s first year in office as only examples, it is inconsistent with the Pentagon’s not carrying out his Executive Order to close Guantanamo, or with McChrystal’s bald-faced bullying of his “boss” to approve the “surge” into Afghanistan. In contrast, a military-dominance view solves these and other puzzles of Obama’s abject deferral to “his” generals. It should likewise be a better predictor of future actions on the part of the executive, “his” generals and their collaborators and supporters.
3) The historic pattern of empires has been the growth of and aggrandizement of power in military domains eventually leading to their dominance and escape from civilian restraints, at least with respect to foreign ventures. Is there reason to think that the American empire is different?
Were the balance of power to swing — or have swung — in favor of the military/industrial/congressional establishment, it would be in the interest of most parties to pretend otherwise. The Emperor was only one of many who benefited as long as his new clothes went unremarked.
Mark Babunovic
In reply to “The Two Faces of Interventionism,” by Justin, Raimondo, 01/20/10 :
During the twentieth century the geographical situation of America was its blessing. It allowed it to enter WW1 at a time of its choosing, and guaranteed that it was only bounced into WW2 over two years late, courtesy of Pearl Harbor, and Hitler’s contemporaneous, and lunatic, declaration of war against it.
As Haiti, after the terrible earthquake, reverts to something like medieval Europe after the Black Death, it is becoming apparent that the geographical situation of the US in the present day brings dilemmas and problems, and not just a security blanket formed of two large oceans, isolating it from the world’s trouble spots. Haiti is in your “backyard,” and problems there have the capacity to hit the heartland more readily than problems in Af-Pak, or the Gulf. Margolis seems to get that , and adjusts his non-interventionist stance according[ly]; you should consider doing the same.
Mark Lycett
