Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register
Ads by Muslim Ad Network


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 54
  1. #1
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    i was listening to this today. It is absolutely amazing. America has been playing the same game of invading countries for one hundred years. This interview reviews american history regarding america's call for regime change

    you dont learn this stuff in school, because schools are taught to teach the party line and maintain the lies and propaganda

    but i guarantee you, if you listen to this, you will have learned a valuable lesson
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  2. #2
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Friday, April 21st, 2006
    Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq

    http://www.archive.org/download/dn20...421-1_64kb.mp3

    http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demn...sp&start=28:34

    Author Stephen Kinzer discusses his new book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." In it, he writes that the invasion of Iraq "was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons." [includes rush transcript]
    "The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not an isolated episode. It was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons."

    So writes author Stephen Kinzer in his new book "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq."

    Kinzer writes that "The "regime change" in Iraq seemed for a time -- a very short time -- to have worked. It is now clear, however, that this operation has had terrible unintended consequences. So have most of the other coups, revolutions, and invasions that the United States has mounted to depose governments it feared or mistrusted."

    Stephen Kinzer, author of "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." He is a former New York Times foreign correspondent and author of several books, including "All the Shah's Men" and "Bitter Fruit."
    RUSH TRANSCRIPT

    This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
    Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

    AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Kinzer joins us today in Chicago. He is a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent, author of several books, including All the Shah's Men and Bitter Fruit. He has just recently left the New York Times. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

    STEPHEN KINZER: Its great to be with you, Amy.

    AMY GOODMAN: It's good to be in your city, Stephen.

    STEPHEN KINZER: Love it!

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, you are looking at 14 coups that the U.S. was involved with. What was the primary reason for the U.S. government's involvement in overthrowing other countries' governments?

    STEPHEN KINZER: A lot of these coups have been studied individually, but what I'm trying to do in my book is see them not as a series of isolated incidents, but rather as one long continuum. And by looking at them that way, I am able to tease out certain patterns that recur over and over again. They don't all fit the same pattern, but it's amazing how many of them do.

    You ask about the motivations, and that is one of the patterns that comes through when you look at these things all together. Theres really a three-stage motivation that I can see when I watch so many of the developments of these coups. The first thing that happens is that the regime in question starts bothering some American company. They start demanding that the company pay taxes or that it observe labor laws or environmental laws. Sometimes that company is nationalized or is somehow required to sell some of its land or its assets. So the first thing that happens is that an American or a foreign corporation is active in another country, and the government of that country starts to restrict it in some way or give it some trouble, restrict its ability to operate freely.

    Then, the leaders of that company come to the political leadership of the United States to complain about the regime in that country. In the political process, in the White House, the motivation morphs a little bit. The U.S. government does not intervene directly to defend the rights of a company, but they transform the motivation from an economic one into a political or geo-strategic one. They make the assumption that any regime that would bother an American company or harass an American company must be anti-American, repressive, dictatorial, and probably the tool of some foreign power or interest that wants to undermine the United States. So the motivation transforms from an economic to a political one, although the actual basis for it never changes.

    Then, it morphs one more time when the U.S. leaders have to explain the motivation for this operation to the American people. Then they do not use either the economic or the political motivation usually, but they portray these interventions as liberation operations, just a chance to free a poor oppressed nation from the brutality of a regime that we assume is a dictatorship, because what other kind of a regime would be bothering an American company?

    AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Kinzer, I want to begin where you do in the book, and that is, with Hawaii.

    STEPHEN KINZER: Many Americans I don't think realize that Hawaii was an independent country before it was brought into the United States. In brief, this is the story. In the early part of the 19th century, several hundred American missionaries, most of them from New England, sailed off to what were then called the Sandwich Islands to devote their lives to, as they would have put it, raising up the heathen savages and teaching them the blessings of Christian civilization.

    It wasn't long before many of these missionaries and their sons began to realize that there was a lot of money to be made in Hawaii. The natives had been growing sugar for a long time, but they had never refined it and had never exported it. By dispossessing the natives of most of their land, a group that came from what was then called this missionary planter elite sort of left the path of God, went onto the path of Mammon and established a series of giant sugar plantations in Hawaii, and they became very rich from exporting sugar into the United States.

    In the early 1890s, the U.S. passed a tariff that made it impossible for the Hawaiian sugar growers to sell their sugar in the U.S. So they were in a panic. They were about to lose their fortunes. And they asked themselves what they could do to somehow continue to sell their sugar in the U.S.

    They came up with a perfect answer: Well get into the U.S. How will we do this? Well, the leader of the Hawaiian revolutionaries, if you want to call them that, who were mostly of American origin, actually went to Washington. He met with the Secretary of the Navy. He presented his case directly to the President of the United States, Benjamin Harrison. And he received assurances that the U.S. would support a rebellion against the Hawaiian monarchy.

    So he went back to Hawaii and became part of a triumvirate, which essentially carried out the Hawaiian revolution. He was one part of the triumvirate. The second part was the American ambassador, who was himself an annexationist and had been instructed by the State Department to do whatever he could to aid this revolution. And the third figure was the commander of the U.S. naval vessel, which was conveniently anchored right off the shores of Honolulu.

    This revolution was carried out with amazing ease. The leader of the Hawaiian revolutionaries, this missionary planter elite, simply announced at a meeting one day, We have overthrown the government of Hawaii, and we are now the new government. And before the queen was able to respond, the U.S. ambassador had 250 Marines called to shore from the ship that was conveniently off the coast of Honolulu and announced that since there had been some instability and there seemed to be a change of government, the Marines were going to land to protect the new regime and the lives and property of all Hawaiians. So that meant that there was nothing the queen could do. The regime was immediately recognized by the United States, and with that simple process, the monarchy of Hawaii came to an end, and then ultimately Hawaii joined the U.S.

    AMY GOODMAN: The queen called in ambassadors from other countries for help?

    STEPHEN KINZER: The queen was a little bit shocked by all this, as were her cabinet ministers. In fact, they appealed to the United States and asked, What instability is there? Who's in danger? Tell us, and we'll protect them. The queen had about 600 troops at her disposal. That was the whole Hawaiian military force. And her cabinet ministers actually called the ambassadors from foreign countries in Honolulu -- there were about a dozen of them then -- and said, What should we do? Do you think we should fight the Marines? And the ambassadors quite prudently told her that that would be foolish. You should just accept it and then try to regain your throne by some other means. That never proved possible. But even then, it was clear to the ruler of this small, weak country that there was no hope in resisting U.S. military intervention.

    AMY GOODMAN: It still took a few years before Hawaii was ultimately annexed.

    STEPHEN KINZER: It's a very interesting story. Immediately after the revolution, the revolutionaries went back to Washington and, sure enough, President Harrison, as he promised, submitted to the U.S. Congress a law to bring Hawaii into the U.S., but there was a great resistance to this when it was understood how the coup was organized and on whose behalf it was organized, so the Congress did not immediately approve the annexation of Hawaii.

    And right at that time, the presidency changed. The Republican, Benjamin Harrison, was out of office, and the new president, a Democrat, Grover Cleveland, came in. He was against annexation. He was an anti-imperialist. He withdrew the treaty. And that meant that Hawaii had to become an independent country for a few years, until the next Republican president came into office, McKinley. And then, at the height of the Spanish-American War, when the U.S. was taking the Philippines, Hawaii was presented to the U.S. as a vital midway station between California and the Philippines. And it was at that time, five years after the revolution, that Hawaii was actually brought into the United States.

    AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Stephen Kinzer. So, first came the missionaries, then came the Marines.

    STEPHEN KINZER: Yeah, exactly. Sometimes we hear the phrase Business follows the flag. But in my research, I found that it's actually the opposite. First comes the business operations, then comes the flag. It's the flag that follows business.

    AMY GOODMAN: We're going to take a break, and then we're going to come back to this discussion about, well, the title of his book is Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: We're broadcasting from Chicago, where Stephen Kinzer is based, longtime foreign correspondent for the New York Times, author of a number of books, including All the Shah's Men, about Iran, Bitter Fruit, about Guatemala. His latest is Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. He just recently left the New York Times. You talk about 14 countries that the U.S. intervened in: Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Chile, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama. Let's talk about Cuba. What happened?

    STEPHEN KINZER: The Cuban story is really a fascinating one, partly because it illustrates one of the main themes of my book, and that is how these interventions in the long run always produce reactions and ultimately lead to the emergence of regimes that are much more anti-American than the regimes we originally set out to overthrow. Here was the story in Cuba. Americans have had their eye on Cuba for a long time, ever since Thomas Jefferson was president. But it was in 1898 that this attachment to the cause of Cuba Libr really seized the hearts of many Americans.

    Bear in mind that in 1898, the Cuban economy was totally dominated by Americans. It was a big sugar producer, and all the sugar plantations in Cuba were owned by Americans. Also, it was a very big market for American manufactured goods. About 85% of anything you could buy in Cuba had been made in the United States, so American business had very big interests there.

    Now, Cuban patriots spent much of the late 19th century rebelling against Spanish colonial rule. In 1898 they seemed very close to succeeding. This was a little bit troubling to some of the American interests in Cuba, because the revolutionaries were also social reformers. They advocated land reform, which would have meant breaking up the big sugar plantations owned by Americans. They also supported a tariff wall around Cuba to allow the growth of domestic manufacturing, which would have made it more difficult for American companies to export their goods to Cuba.

    AMY GOODMAN: And what year was this?

    STEPHEN KINZER: These are in the late 1890s. So in 1898, the American press, in some ways excited by whisperings from American businessmen active in Cuba, began a campaign to portray Spanish colonial rule in Cuba as the most unspeakably brutal tyranny that could be imagined, and the American public was whipped up into a fervor about this. The fervor intensified when the U.S. battleship, Maine, was blown up in Havana harbor. Our Warship Was Blown Up by an Enemy's Infernal Machine. That was the headline in the New York Journal that I reproduce in my book. Actually, it wasn't until 75 years later that the Navy convened a board of inquiry, which turned up the fact that the Maine was actually blown up by an internal explosion. The Spanish had nothing to do with it, but we didn't know that then, and the press seized on this to intensify the anger in the U.S.

    Now, the Americans then decided we would send troops to Cuba to help the patriots overthrow Spanish colonialism, but the Cuban revolutionaries were not so sure they liked this idea. They didn't know if they wanted thousands of American troops on their soil, because what would happen after the victory was won? In response to this concern, the U.S. government, the Congress, passed a law, the Teller Amendment, which said very explicitly, We promise Cuba that the moment independence is won, all American troops will be withdrawn, and Cuba will be allowed to become fully independent.

    After that law was passed, the Cuban rebels agreed to accept American aid. American soldiers went to Cuba, including, famously, Teddy Roosevelt, who had his own uniform personally designed for him by Brooks Brothers in New York. In the space of essentially one day of fighting, the Spanish colonial rule was dealt its final death blow, Spain surrendered Cuba, and Cuba prepared for a huge celebration of its independence.

    Just before that celebration was about to be held, the Americans announced that they changed their mind, that the Teller Amendment had been passed in a moment of irrational enthusiasm and that actually Cuban independence was not a very good idea, so the American troops were not withdrawn. We remained in Cuba for some decades, ruling it directly under U.S. military officers, and then, for a period after that, through local dictators.

    Now, flash forward to 1959. That was when Fidel Castro's revolution succeeded. Castro came down from the hills and made his very first speech as leader of the revolution in Santiago, and in that speech, which I quote in my book, he does not talk about what kind of a regime he's going to impose, but he makes one promise. He says, This time I promise you it will not be like 1898 again, when the Americans came in and made themselves masters of our country.

    Now, any Americans who might have read a report of that speech, I'm sure, would have been very puzzled. In the first place, they would have had no memory of what happened in 1898, but secondly, they would wonder, What could an event 60 years ago possibly have to do with this revolution in Cuba today? What they had failed to realize is that resentment over these interventions burns in the hearts and souls of people in foreign countries and later explodes violently.

    It's quite reasonable to say today that had we not intervened in Cuba and prevented Cuba from becoming independent, had we carried out our explicit promise to the Cubans in 1898, we would never have had to face the entire phenomenon of Castro communism all these last 40 years. Now, of course, we would love to have back a moderate democratic regime like the one that was going to come to power in Cuba in 1898, but it's too late for that, and it's an example of how when we frustrate people's legitimate nationalist aspirations, we wind up not only casting those countries into instability, but severely undermining our own national security.

    AMY GOODMAN: Now, something we see today, for example, in Iraq, is the critical role, not only of the U.S. government perhaps protecting U.S. corporations, but the role of the media in all of this. Going back to Cuba, what was the role of the media?

    STEPHEN KINZER: The press played a really shameful role in the run-up to the Spanish-American War. The Americans had never been particularly fond of the Spanish rule in Cuba, but it wasn't until the press, actually in a circulation war, decided to seize on the brutality, as they called it, of Spanish colonial rule in the summer of 1898 that Americans really went crazy.

    Now, there's one very interesting aspect of the Cuban press campaign that I think we see repeated periodically throughout American history, and that is, we never like to attack simply a regime. We like to have one individual. Americans love to have a demon, a certain person who is the symbol of all the evil and tyranny in the regime that we want to attack. We've had this with Khomeini, with Castro, with Qaddafi, various other figures over history.

    Now, in the case of the Spanish-American War, we first thought we'd like to demonize the king of Spain, but there was no king of Spain. There was a queen, who was actually an Austrian princess, so she wouldn't work. The regent, her son, was actually just a 12-year-old kid, so he wouldn't work, either. So then, we decided to focus on the Spanish general, who was the commander of Spanish troops in Cuba, General Weyler, and for a time, Weyler was thought of as the epitome of all the carnal brutality that we attributed to Spanish colonialism.

    We see this pattern again coming right up to the modern age, when we're always looking for some individual to point at. The idea behind this is that the natural state of all people in the world is to have U.S.-style democracy and to be friendly to the United States. If they're not, it must mean that there's only one person or one tiny clique that is preventing the people in this country from being the way they naturally would be, and if we could only just remove this one individual or this tiny clique, the people in that country would return to the normal state of all people, which is to wish to have the U.S. system of government and politics and economics and to embrace the United States.

    AMY GOODMAN: William Randolph Hearst, was he a key figure then?

    STEPHEN KINZER: Hearst was a crucial figure, who very cleverly realized that he could push the circulation of his newspaper dramatically higher if he hammered away on jingoistic issues by pointing at foreign nations as constantly seeking to undermine the United States. There's an undercurrent, which we're still seeing today, of seeing the world in this very Hobbesian way, that there are terrible dangers everywhere, and it's very important for the U.S. to go out and attack here and attack there before those dangers come to shore. Clausewitz, who I read a lot while I was researching my book, had a great phrase for this. He called it, suicide for fear of death. You are so afraid of what's happening to you in the world or what might happen to you that you go out and launch operations, which actually produce the result that you were afraid might happen if you didn't do these things.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about John Foster Dulles, who he was, his role in these interventions, Guatemala, and just before that, Iran?

    STEPHEN KINZER: One of the things I do in my book that I haven't done in my previous books is focus a lot on Dulles. I really believe that Dulles was one of the key figures in shaping the second half of the 20th century, and I devote some time to try to analyze him and figure out why he played this role. First of all, Dulles spent almost all of his adult life as America's most successful and most highly paid corporate lawyer. He represented all of the giant multinational corporations in America, not just United Fruit, but International Nickel and all sorts of resource conglomerates all over the world. So the whole way he saw the world was economics. He thought that American policy in the world should be oriented towards protecting American corporations.

    Dulles also came from a family of clergymen. He was a deep religious believer. His father was a preacher. His grandfather had been a missionary in India, and this gave him another strain, which is very important in the American regime-change era, and that is this sense of religious mission, this belief that since the United States has been blessed with prosperity and democracy, we have, not just the right, but perhaps even the God-given obligation to go to other countries and share the benefits of all we have with them, particularly to countries that may not even be advanced enough to realize how much they want our political system. So Dulles saw the world in a strictly black-and-white way.

    He saw, at that time, a communist conspiracy all over the world as working relentlessly to undermine the United States. For example, he opposed all cultural exchanges with any communist country. He tried for years to keep U.S. reporters from visiting China. He was against summit meetings of all kinds. He didn't want agreement with communist countries on any subject, because he thought any agreement would be just a trick to get America to lower its guard.

    Now, when Iran nationalized its oil industry, when Guatemala tried to restrict the operations of United Fruit Company, Dulles did not see this as a reflection of a desire by people in a foreign country to control their own resources. He rather saw it as an anti-American move, undoubtedly manipulated from the Kremlin, which had a much more profound goal than simply bothering an American company. This was just the beginnings of an anti-American attack.

    Now, one of the things I ask in my book is: Why did we so tragically misjudge nationalist movements in developing countries, like Iran and Guatemala and later Chile? Why did we interpret them as part of an international conspiracy, which, as documents later proved, they were not?

    I think it was for this reason. American statesmen and diplomats who study the history of diplomacy are actually studying the history of European diplomacy. We're very Eurocentric. Our diplomats and our statesmen are very well versed in European political traditions. They're familiar with alliance politics and wars of conquest and big powers that use small powers secretly for their own means, but the desire of poor people in poor countries to control their own natural resources has never been a part of European history. It's not a syndrome that Americans who study Europe are familiar with, and that, along with an instinctive desire to protect American companies, I think led them to misjudge nationalist movements and misinterpret them as part of a global conspiracy to undermine the United States.

    AMY GOODMAN: Or perhaps not care, but care about U.S. companies, as in Guatemala, United Fruit being able to have free reign.

    STEPHEN KINZER: I think it was very much a sense that the companies must know what's best for the United States in those countries, but in addition, we managed to persuade ourselves that a government that was bothering American companies must also be harassing and oppressing its own people, and this is an argument that I think is very well tailored to the American soul. You know, we really are a very compassionate people, and Americans hate the idea that there are people suffering in some faraway country. American leaders who want to intervene in those countries for very ignoble reasons understand this, and they use that motive, they play on the American compassion to achieve support for their interventions.

    AMY GOODMAN: So talk about what fuels Iran today, the feeling Iranians have for America, based on the coup the U.S. was involved with in 1953.

    STEPHEN KINZER: It's hard to believe today that we could even use the word Iran and democracy in the same sentence, but the fact is Iran was a functioning, thriving democracy in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Because Iran nationalized its oil industry, rather than allow it to continue being exploited by foreigners, Iran became a target for foreign intervention, and the U.S. did overthrow the democracy of Iran in the summer of 1953.

    We placed on the throne the Shah. He ruled for 25 years with increasing repression. His repression produced the explosion of the late 1970s, the Islamic revolution. That revolution brought to power a fanatically anti-American clique of mullahs who began their regime by taking American diplomats as hostage, has then spent 25 years oppressing its own people and doing whatever it could, sometimes very violently, to undermine American interests in the world, and that is the regime with which we are now approaching a very serious world crisis regarding the nuclear issue.

    Now, had we not intervened in 1953 and crushed Iranian democracy, we might have had a thriving democracy in the heart of the Muslim Middle East all these 50 years. I can hardly wrap my mind around how different the Middle East might be now. This regime that's now in power in Iran would never have come to power, and the current nuclear crisis would never have emerged. This is a great example of how our intervention ultimately leads us to regimes much worse than the ones we originally set out to overthrow.

    Now, how do you think that people in Iran react when Americans point a finger at them and say, Youre a tyranny over there. Youre a brutal dictatorship. You should have a democracy. You should have a free regime? Well, they say, We had a democracy here, until you came in and overthrew it. Now, the United States today has some very legitimate complaints against the Iranian government, but we have to understand that Iranians also have some very legitimate complaints against us, and that should be a recognition that would lead us into negotiations with them at this point.

    AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Kinzer, were going to have to leave it there for today, but next week, part two of this discussion on Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, looking at 14 coups of the last more than a century that the U.S. was involved with.

    To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  3. #3
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

    http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

    Monday, May 8th, 2006
    Part II...Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq

    http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demn...sp&start=36:59

    http://www.archive.org/download/dn20...508-1_64kb.mp3


    Author Stephen Kinzer discusses his book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." In it, Kinzer writes that over 110 years, the United States has deployed its power to gain access to natural resources, stifle dissent and control the nationalism of newly independent states or political movements. [includes rush transcript]
    We play Part II of our interview with former New York Times foreign correspondent, Steve Kinzer. Kinzer's new book is titled, "Overthrow: America"s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." In it, he examines how the United States has thwarted independence movements in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Nicaragua; staged covert actions and coups d'etat in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile; and invaded Grenada, Panama and Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Kinzer argues that over 110 years, the United States has deployed its power to gain access to natural resources, stifle dissent and control the nationalism of newly independent states or political movements. I interviewed Kinzer in Chicago last month. This is Part II of our conversation.

    Stephen Kinzer, author of "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." He is a former New York Times foreign correspondent and author of several books, including "All the Shah's Men" and "Bitter Fruit."

    Click for Part I of Interview with Stephen Kinzer
    RUSH TRANSCRIPT

    This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
    Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

    AMY GOODMAN: We turn to part two of our interview with the former New York Times foreign correspondent, Stephen Kinzer. Kinzer's new book is called Overthrow: Americas Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. I interviewed Kinzer in Chicago a few weeks ago. We talked about a number of coups the U.S. was involved with, from Hawaii to Iran. We started in part two with Guatemala, a year after the U.S.-backed coup in Iran.

    STEPHEN KINZER: The coup in Guatemala that the United States carried out in1954 was another one of those that not only cast a whole part of the world into instability, but led to the intensification of anti-American sentiment, not only in Guatemala, but throughout Latin America and beyond. Guatemala had become independent from Spain, with the rest of Central America, in the 1820s. Like most of the rest of Central America, it had been under a series of tyrants up until 1944. There was then a revolution. And for ten years, Guatemala was a functioning democracy.

    In Guatemala, economic life was totally dominated by one American company: the United Fruit Company. It was a uniquely powerful company, had great ties in Washington. Many of the senior people in the Eisenhower administration were either stockholders or former board members or otherwise closely connected with United Fruit. Now, in Guatemala, not only was United Fruit producing most of that country's banana exports, but it also owned more than half a million acres of land, some of the richest land in the country, that it didn't use. It was just holding this land for some potential future use.

    Now, President Arbenz, who was in power in Guatemala in the early 1950s, wanted to take that land and use it to divide up among starving Guatemalan peasants. And with a democratic vote of the elected Guatemalan congress, a land reform law was passed that required the United Fruit Company to sell its unused land to the Guatemalan government at the price that United Fruit had declared on its last years tax returns as the value of that land. Well, naturally the fruit company went crazy when they got this request and said, Of course, nobody puts down the real value of the land on their tax returns, and really the price should be about ten times higher than that. But the government said, I'm sorry. This is the way you have, yourself, valued the land, and so we're insisting that you sell it to us at this price.

    Well, this is what set the United Fruit Company in operation in Washington. It persuaded the Eisenhower administration that the Arbenz government would not have been taking steps like this, would not have launched a land reform program, would not have tried to take land from the United Fruit Company, if it were not fundamentally anti-American. In addition, there was the overlay of the Cold War. So the United Fruit Company was able to persuade the U.S. government that not only was this government hostile to an American corporate interest in Guatemala, but it was undoubtedly a tool of the Kremlin which was, as Americans then thought, working all over the world to undermine American interests.

    Now, during the run-up to the Guatemala coup, the Brazilian ambassador actually came in to see Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and asked him if he was sure, if he had proof that the Soviets were manipulating Guatemala, and Dulles very frankly answered, We do not have that proof, but we are proceeding as if it must be so. So the United States with relative ease overthrew the government of Guatemala.

    AMY GOODMAN: And just for one minute, John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, had represented United Fruit as a corporate lawyer.

    STEPHEN KINZER: Dulles was a perfect example of the tremendous influence that United Fruit had in Washington. The Secretary of State was the former attorney for the United Fruit Company. So when the United Fruit Company was aggrieved, he felt aggrieved. And as a militant anti-communist, he also assumed that this was part of a communist conspiracy. We now know from documents that have been released in Moscow that the Soviets didn't even know Arbenz and Guatemala existed, had not the slightest interest in that situation.

    Now, what was the aftermath of the Guatemalan coup? We imposed a dictatorship. Within a few years, that dictatorship provoked a rebellion. That led to a 30-year civil war, which was actually just a long series of massacres in which hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans were killed. It was such a horrific period, and I covered part of it as a correspondent, that had someone else been doing it in some other part of the world, we certainly would have denounced it as genocide.

    Now, this leads to another pattern that I see in so many of these coups. The crucial moment comes right after we overthrow the government. Then we have to decide who's going to be the new guy. Who do we want to put in as the leader of this country? We want a person who fulfills two conditions: first of all, somebody who's popular, who can stay in power and is supported by his people; and secondly, someone who will do what we want. We didn't overthrow the government just to have someone we don't like in power. So, we quickly realize that you can't have both. You cannot have somebody who's popular and also somebody who will do the bidding of the United States. A popular leader will place the interests of his own country first, ahead of the interests of the United States. That's not why we intervene.

    So, we choose the other route: we choose someone who is not popular but will do what we want. What does that mean? He has to rule with increasing repression, because people don't like him. The United States then has to support him, often militarily. That means the opposition to the dictator also becomes opposition to the United States. Resentment festers. Ultimately, there's an explosion, and we wind up with a regime far more tyrannical than the one we originally intervened to overthrow.

    AMY GOODMAN: And the Guatemalan coup of 1954, the U.S. overthrowing the democratically elected President Arbenz, came one year after the U.S. overthrew Mossadeq in Iran.

    STEPHEN KINZER: After Mossadeq was overthrown in Iran, the C.I.A. agent who carried out that coup, Kermit Roosevelt, actually the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, who was an early American intervener, came back to the White House to brief President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles and other members of the foreign policy team. And Kermit Roosevelt later wrote about this episode. He said, As I was carrying on my briefing, I looked over at John Foster Dulles, and he had a big smile on his face, and he seemed to be purring like a giant cat. Now, Roosevelt did not know what Dulles was thinking, but I think I know what he was thinking. I believe he was thinking, This is great! Now I'm listening to the news of how easy it was to overthrow the government in Iran. It means that we have a whole new tool now, a whole new way to overthrow governments.

    AMY GOODMAN: And with Iran, it was for British Petroleum?

    STEPHEN KINZER: With Iran, the sin that Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq committed, that ultimately -- that originally set this intervention in motion was nationalizing the oil company. So, actually, these two situations were very similar. Mossadeq in Iran and Arbenz in Guatemala were nationalist leaders, not responding to any Soviet influence, who, responding to their own people's legitimate demands, decided that the wealth from their own natural resources should go to benefit their own people, rather than the Americans, the British or outside powers.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let's stay in Latin America, going from 1954 to 1973, to another September 11th. You have a rare picture of Henry Kissinger shaking hands with the man who overthrew the democratically elected leader: Pinochet. Can you talk about what happened in Chile?

    STEPHEN KINZER: Chile is another one of those cases where we overthrew a leader who in many ways embraced and represented American principles, and we replaced him with a tyrant who despised everything the United States stands for. Allende was a democratically elected leader, and although he was a self-proclaimed Marxist, he had been within the Chilean democratic system all his life. He had been president of congress, and he had been a senator. He was fully integrated into the Chilean democracy and certainly would have left office at the end of his term, probably to be replaced by someone more conservative. But the United States couldnt wait for that. It's a reflection of our impatience, our insistence that we get what we want not later, but now.

    In Chile, just as in Guatemala, and just as in Iran, the great natural resource was controlled by foreign corporations. In Chile that resource was copper. And the two giant American corporations operating there were Kennecott and Anaconda. Allende moved to nationalize the Chilean holdings of those two companies. And those two companies, along with other companies like I.T.T. that were active in Chile panicked at this. They immediately went to the White House. One of the leading Chilean businessmen and the owner of the largest newspaper in Chile had a private audience with Henry Kissinger. Nixon was immediately set into motion. He became very upset about the prospect of Allende coming to power.

    And this is another example of how the motivation morphs. If Allende had not bothered Kennecott, Anaconda and other American companies, or threatened to bother them, they never would have protested to the White House. But once they did protest, the White House embraced their cause and transformed it a little bit. The U.S. did not intervene in Chile directly, as it would have said, to protect American companies, but the fact that a government was bothering our companies led us to believe that that government must also be strategically and politically opposed to the United States. So that then became the motivation that pushed Nixon and Kissinger, who were not real defenders privately of American business, into action for what they perceived were a combination of economic and political reasons. But that intervention was carried out in a covert way, and it wasn't until years later that the very rich documentation came out to show how completely it was a made-in-Washington operation.

    AMY GOODMAN: And that picture?

    STEPHEN KINZER: The picture of Pinochet with Kissinger is wonderful. Shortly after the coup, about a year or two later, Secretary of State Kissinger arrived in Chile to address a meeting of the Organization of American States. In that speech, he had to make some pro forma references to human rights and the American interest in promoting human rights. But the day before he made the speech, he went to visit Pinochet privately. We now have the transcript of that meeting. And he essentially told Pinochet, I'm going have to say some things about human rights tomorrow, but that doesn't apply to you. Don't take that seriously. We support you, and we're glad that you're here. So, the public face of the U.S. policy toward Chile even then was very different from what we were directly telling Pinochet in private.

    AMY GOODMAN: And speaking about Spanish-speaking countries, how about going back in time to Puerto Rico?

    STEPHEN KINZER: Puerto Rico is another very interesting case, because Puerto Rico was a Spanish possession. But during 1898, the new liberal regime in Spain offered Puerto Rico a tremendous amount of autonomy, which the Puerto Ricans greatly embraced. They were not rebelling against Spanish colonial rule the way the Cubans were. And they were offered an amount of autonomy that was greater than the British gave to Canada. They actually had an election. They produced a Puerto Rican domestic government, which was going to be able to have large control over the direction of Puerto Rican policy within the framework of Spanish rule. They had very visionary leader, Luis Munoz Rivera, who was to be the new prime minister of Puerto Rico.

    His government lasted only about a week, when the U.S. invaded on the way to Cuba, more or less. The Spanish-American War was not aimed at Puerto Rico. It was never intended to bring Puerto Rico into the U.S., but Puerto Rico was just grabbed because it happened to be there, it was available, it was lovely, it was on some sea routes that the U.S. wanted to control. So the U.S. stepped in and essentially crushed the self-governing home-rule government of Puerto Rico. It placed Puerto Rico under military rule.

    And very quickly, the first thing that happened in Puerto Rico over the next few years was that the small coffee farms were taken over and transformed into large sugar plantations. Coffee in Latin America is sometimes called the poor man's crop, because you can grow it on just a very small plot, but you can't grow sugar that way. So, essentially large numbers of Puerto Ricans were dispossessed to make way for four big American sugar companies, and Puerto Rico went from being a self-governing rising very confident new nation in 1898 to the status of a colony, and a greatly impoverished one, in the decades that followed.

    AMY GOODMAN: And so, what happened in these ensuing years, for people to understand?

    STEPHEN KINZER: In Puerto Rico, I think you can argue that in the long run things could have gone a lot worse. This was one intervention where the U.S., after a long period of time, decided to take responsibility for developments in the country. And that was for a very particular reason. It had a lot to do with the rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Suddenly, the idea of the U.S. having a miserably poor colony in the Caribbean didn't look so good. It was a bad contrast to Cuba. So it wasn't until that period in the 1950s and 1960s that the U.S. began to try to develop Puerto Rico and pull it up from the underdevelopment into which we had cast it for the first half of the 20th century.

    AMY GOODMAN: Were talking to Stephen Kinzer. He is author of the book, Overthrow: Americas Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. Let's talk about Grenada and Panama. What happened, as we see Grenada, Panama, and then we move on to, well, today, Iraq?

    STEPHEN KINZER: I place the American history regime change in three chronological groups. The first set of our overthrows of foreign governments came in the late 19th, early 20th century. That was the period when we could openly invade foreign countries. In the Cold War, we couldnt do that anymore, because we were afraid there might be a counter-reaction from the Soviet Union. That's why we had to use the C.I.A. to overthrow governments covertly. But with the fading of the Soviet Union, we didn't have to do that anymore. We could go back to plan A, so to speak, which was invading governments.

    Now, the Grenada situation started when a radical clique of ultra-militants within Grenada rose up and assassinated their own political leaders. A small group of a couple of hundred of American medical students were also on Grenada. Now, the U.S. could probably have evacuated those students quite easily. In fact, the new regime was eager to be rid of them, in order not to give a pretext to the United States.

    But there was a larger global political context in which the Grenada operation happened. The United States was still recovering from the humiliation of the loss of Vietnam. And actually the very weekend before the Grenada invasion was launched was the weekend when the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon was blown up, with the loss of the lives of more than 200 Marines. The U.S. had been feeling very impotent in the world, and President Reagan had come to power with the promise that he would make America stand tall again. So the possibility of peacefully resolving the Grenada crisis, which is what some of the regional leaders wanted to do -- they wanted a blockade around Grenada, which has no natural resources, doesnt even have water or gasoline or anything, so it would have been very susceptible to some kind of regional pressure. This did not appeal to the United States. Reagan and his aides immediately realized this as a chance for the U.S. to score a big military victory, something we hadn't had for many, many years.

    Now, the whole population of Grenada can fit into the Rose Bowl. Its a very, very small place. That's why, after the invasion, we had a spectacular opportunity at a very, very low price to transform Grenada into the garden spot of the Caribbean and show that something good could come after American interventions. The cost of that would have been so pitifully low -- it's 100,000 or 120,000 people -- but immediately, instead of doing that, we turned our back on Grenada, and we went on to the next project. But it did serve the purpose of the Reagan administration, which was to give America a victory, even though it was a victory over a pitifully small island, and to be able to show Marines doing something positive. That, I think, was the real reason we carried out that operation.

    AMY GOODMAN: And Panama, the picture you have of President Bush, Sr., that is with Noriega, whos now in a prison in the United States?

    STEPHEN KINZER: We intervened and invaded Panama in order to overthrow General Noriega, but what I discovered upon working on my Panama chapter is that Noriega had been on the payroll of the C.I.A. for 30 years. He committed a number of sins. Part of it was his involvement in the drug trade, although the U.S. government and the C.I.A. had been completely aware of this for years. He was leading Panama out of the U.S. orbit. He was interfering with American plans to carry out the Contra war in Central America. You'll remember the Contadora process that was part of the peace process in Central America. Contadora is actually an island in Panama, so it was there that some of this peace process that undermined the Contra project took place.

    In addition, Noriega could have been overthrown in a coup that Panamanians were carrying out just a few days before our invasion. And the Panamanian general who was carrying out this coup informed the U.S. -- he only asked the U.S. to block a couple of roads to prevent Noriegas loyalists from coming into Panama. And that coup would have succeeded, but we didn't support it, and the American commander later explained why. He said that coup would have only overthrown Noriega. It would have left the very nationalist Panamanian defense force intact. We didn't only want to get rid of Noriega. We wanted to get rid of the entire military institution which had fallen away from American influence and become a reflection of some nationalist Panamanian aspirations. And that wasnt a successful outcome of the Panamanian intervention.

    AMY GOODMAN: We only have a minute left. But you end with, of course, Iraq today.

    STEPHEN KINZER: When President Bush practiced the speech that day about two years ago, in which he announced the invasion of Iraq, he did it in a room in the White House called the Treaty Room. That was the very same room in which the Spanish document of surrender that gave the U.S. control over Cuba and Puerto Rico had been signed more than a hundred years earlier. And on the wall in that room is a picture of that episode, the signing of that treaty. That picture is dominated by the large figure of President William McKinley, so he was symbolically looking over Bush's shoulder when Bush was reading the speech announcing the invasion of Iraq. And no one would have understood better than President McKinley that Bush was not leading the U.S. into the regime change era. The U.S. had been in that era for more than a century.

    AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Kinzer, author of Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. You can visit our website to hear or see part one of this interview.

    To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  4. #4
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    In order to reassure anti-imperialist elements on the eve of declaring war on Spain, Congress adopted a measure pledging that the United States had no designs on remaining in Cuba following conclusion of the conflict.
    Sen. Henry M. Teller of Colorado drafted an amendment to the resolution of war, which stated that the United States "hereby disclaims any disposition of intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.
    The United States did not, as pledged, annex Cuba. Occupation continued until 1902 when the Platt Amendment was inserted into the Cuban constitution in return for the withdrawal of American forces.
    In 1903, the U.S. also secured rights to maintain a naval base at Guantánamo Bay, one of the world's great harbors, located at the southeastern tip of Cuba. American rights were reconfirmed in a formal treaty in 1934, an agreement that cannot be rescinded without mutual consent.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  5. #5
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    And similar stories exist with Cuba, Guatemala, Hawaii, Libya, Nicaragua,Iran

    the same game with new names

    Dulles, Hearst
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  6. #6
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    idn't know that then, and the press seized on this to intensify the anger in the U.S.

    Now, the Americans then decided we would send troops to Cuba to help the patriots overthrow Spanish colonialism, but the Cuban revolutionaries were not so sure they liked this idea. They didn't know if they wanted thousands of American troops on their soil, because what would happen after the victory was won? In response to this concern, the U.S. government, the Congress, passed a law, the Teller Amendment, which said very explicitly, We promise Cuba that the moment independence is won, all American troops will be withdrawn, and Cuba will be allowed to become fully independent.

    After that law was passed, the Cuban rebels agreed to accept American aid. American soldiers went to Cuba, including, famously, Teddy Roosevelt, who had his own uniform personally designed for him by Brooks Brothers in New York. In the space of essentially one day of fighting, the Spanish colonial rule was dealt its final death blow, Spain surrendered Cuba, and Cuba prepared for a huge celebration of its independence.

    Just before that celebration was about to be held, the Americans announced that they changed their mind, that the Teller Amendment had been passed in a moment of irrational enthusiasm and that actually Cuban independence was not a very good idea, so the American troops were not withdrawn. We remained in Cuba for some decades, ruling it directly under U.S. military officers, and then, for a period after that, through local dictators.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  7. #7
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    STEPHEN KINZER: It's hard to believe today that we could even use the word Iran and democracy in the same sentence, but the fact is Iran was a functioning, thriving democracy in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Because Iran nationalized its oil industry, rather than allow it to continue being exploited by foreigners, Iran became a target for foreign intervention, and the U.S. did overthrow the democracy of Iran in the summer of 1953.

    We placed on the throne the Shah. He ruled for 25 years with increasing repression. His repression produced the explosion of the late 1970s, the Islamic revolution. That revolution brought to power a fanatically anti-American clique of mullahs who began their regime by taking American diplomats as hostage, has then spent 25 years oppressing its own people and doing whatever it could, sometimes very violently, to undermine American interests in the world, and that is the regime with which we are now approaching a very serious world crisis regarding the nuclear issue.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  8. #8
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    STEPHEN KINZER: The coup in Guatemala that the United States carried out in1954 was another one of those that not only cast a whole part of the world into instability, but led to the intensification of anti-American sentiment, not only in Guatemala, but throughout Latin America and beyond. Guatemala had become independent from Spain, with the rest of Central America, in the 1820s. Like most of the rest of Central America, it had been under a series of tyrants up until 1944. There was then a revolution. And for ten years, Guatemala was a functioning democracy.

    In Guatemala, economic life was totally dominated by one American company: the United Fruit Company. It was a uniquely powerful company, had great ties in Washington. Many of the senior people in the Eisenhower administration were either stockholders or former board members or otherwise closely connected with United Fruit. Now, in Guatemala, not only was United Fruit producing most of that country's banana exports, but it also owned more than half a million acres of land, some of the richest land in the country, that it didn't use. It was just holding this land for some potential future use.

    Now, President Arbenz, who was in power in Guatemala in the early 1950s, wanted to take that land and use it to divide up among starving Guatemalan peasants. And with a democratic vote of the elected Guatemalan congress, a land reform law was passed that required the United Fruit Company to sell its unused land to the Guatemalan government at the price that United Fruit had declared on its last years tax returns as the value of that land. Well, naturally the fruit company went crazy when they got this request and said, Of course, nobody puts down the real value of the land on their tax returns, and really the price should be about ten times higher than that. But the government said, I'm sorry. This is the way you have, yourself, valued the land, and so we're insisting that you sell it to us at this price.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  9. #9
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    The crucial moment comes right after we overthrow the government. Then we have to decide who's going to be the new guy. Who do we want to put in as the leader of this country? We want a person who fulfills two conditions: first of all, somebody who's popular, who can stay in power and is supported by his people; and secondly, someone who will do what we want. We didn't overthrow the government just to have someone we don't like in power. So, we quickly realize that you can't have both. You cannot have somebody who's popular and also somebody who will do the bidding of the United States. A popular leader will place the interests of his own country first, ahead of the interests of the United States. That's not why we intervene.

    So, we choose the other route: we choose someone who is not popular but will do what we want. What does that mean? He has to rule with increasing repression, because people don't like him. The United States then has to support him, often militarily. That means the opposition to the dictator also becomes opposition to the United States. Resentment festers. Ultimately, there's an explosion, and we wind up with a regime far more tyrannical than the one we originally intervened to overthrow.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  10. #10
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Chile is another one of those cases where we overthrew a leader who in many ways embraced and represented American principles, and we replaced him with a tyrant who despised everything the United States stands for. Allende was a democratically elected leader, and although he was a self-proclaimed Marxist, he had been within the Chilean democratic system all his life. He had been president of congress, and he had been a senator. He was fully integrated into the Chilean democracy and certainly would have left office at the end of his term, probably to be replaced by someone more conservative. But the United States couldnt wait for that. It's a reflection of our impatience, our insistence that we get what we want not later, but now.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  11. #11
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Gl...c_Hit_Man.html

    Part II: 1971-1975
    Part III: 1975-1981
    excerpted from the book
    Confession of an Economic Hit Man
    by John Perkins
    Berrett-Koehler Publishers, SF, 2004, hardcover

    Part II: 1973-1975
    p45
    "Vietnam is just a holding action," one of the men interjected, "like Holland was for the Nazis. A stepping-stone."
    "The real target," the woman continued, "is the Muslim world?'
    I could not let this go unanswered. "Surely," I protested, "you can't believe that the United States is anti-Islamic."
    "Oh no?" she asked. "Since when? You need to read one of your own historians - a Brit named Toynbee. Back in the fifties he predicted that the real war in the next century would not be between Communists and capitalists, but between Christians and Muslims."
    'Arnold Toynbee said that?" I was stunned.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  12. #12
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Part III: 1975-1981
    excerpted from the book
    Confession of an Economic Hit Man
    by John Perkins
    Berrett-Koehler Publishers, SF, 2004, hardcover

    Part II: 1973-1975
    p45
    "Vietnam is just a holding action," one of the men interjected, "like Holland was for the Nazis. A stepping-stone."
    "The real target," the woman continued, "is the Muslim world?'
    I could not let this go unanswered. "Surely," I protested, "you can't believe that the United States is anti-Islamic."
    "Oh no?" she asked. "Since when? You need to read one of your own historians - a Brit named Toynbee. Back in the fifties he predicted that the real war in the next century would not be between Communists and capitalists, but between Christians and Muslims."
    'Arnold Toynbee said that?" I was stunned.
    "Yes. Read Civilization on Trial and The World and the West."
    "But why should there be such animosity between Muslims and Christians?" I asked.
    Looks were exchanged around the table. They appeared to find it hard to believe that I could ask such a foolish question.
    "Because," she said slowly, as though addressing someone slowwitted or hard of hearing, "the West - especially its leader, the U.S. - is determined to take control of all the world, to become the greatest empire in history. It has already gotten very close to succeeding. The Soviet Union currently stands in its way, but the Soviets will not endure. Toynbee could see that. They have no religion, no faith, no substance behind their ideology. History demonstrates that faith - soul, a belief in higher powers - is essential. We Muslims have it. We have it more than anyone else in the world, even more than the Christians. So we wait. We grow strong."
    "We will take our time," one of the men chimed in, "and then like a snake we will strike."
    "What a horrible thought!" I could barely contain myself. "What can we do to change this?"
    The English major looked me directly in the eyes. "Stop being so greedy," she said, "and so selfish. Realize that there is more to the world than your big houses and fancy stores. People are starving and you worry about oil for your cars. Babies are dying of thirst and you search the fashion magazines for the latest styles. Nations like ours are drowning in poverty, but your people don't even hear our cries for help. You shut your ears to the voices of those who try to tell you these things. You label them radicals or Communists. You must open your hearts to the poor and downtrodden, instead of driving them L further into poverty and servitude. There's not much time left. If you don't change, you're doomed."
    p48
    I wrote in my journal:
    Is anyone in the U.S. innocent? Although those at the very pinnacle of the economic pyramid gain the most, millions of us depend - either directly or indirectly - on the exploitation of the LDCs for our livelihoods. The resources and cheap labor that feed nearly all our businesses come from places like Indonesia, and very little ever makes its way back. The loans of foreign aid ensure that today's children and their grandchildren will be held hostage. They will have to allow our corporations to ravage their natural resources and will have to forego education, health, and other social services merely to pay us back. The fact that our own companies already received most this money to build the power plants, airports, and industrial parks does not factor into this formula. Does the excuse that most Americans are unaware of this constitute innocence? Uninformed and intentionally misinformed, yes - but innocent?
    Of course, I had to face the fact that I was now numbered among those who actively misinform.
    The concept of a worldwide holy war was a disturbing one, but the longer I contemplated it, the more convinced I became of its possibility. It seemed to me, however, that if this jihad were to occur it would be less about Muslims versus Christians than it would be about LDCs versus DCs, perhaps with Muslims at the forefront. We in the DCs were the users of resources; those in the LDCs were the suppliers. It was the colonial mercantile system all over again, set up to make it easy for those with power and limited natural resources to exploit those with resources but no power.
    p49
    I wondered what sort of a world we might have if the United\ States and its allies diverted all the monies expended in colonial wars - like the one in Vietnam - to eradicating world hunger or to making education and basic health care available to all people, including our own. I wondered how future generations would be affected if we committed to alleviating the sources of misery and to protecting watersheds, forests, and other natural areas that ensure clean water, air, and the things that feed our spirits as well as our bodies.
    p55
    I came to understand that most of those men believed they were doing the right thing. Like Charlie, they were convinced that communism and terrorism were evil forces - rather than the predictable reactions to decisions they and their predecessors had made - and that they had a duty to their country, to their offspring, and to God to convert the world to capitalism. They also clung to the principle of survival of the fittest; if they happened to enjoy the good fortune to have been born into a privileged class instead of inside a cardboard shack, then they saw it as an obligation to pass this heritage on to their progeny.
    I vacillated between viewing such people as an actual conspiracy and simply seeing them as a tight-knit fraternity bent on dominating the world. Nonetheless, over time I began to liken them to the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South. They were men drawn together in a loose association by common beliefs and shared self-interest, rather than an exclusive group meeting in clandestine hideaways with focused and sinister intent. The plantation autocrats had grown up with servants and slaves, had been educated to believe that it was their right and even their duty to take care of the "heathens" and to convert them to the owners' religion and way of life. Even if slavery repulsed them philosophically, they could, like Thomas Jefferson, justify it as a necessity, the collapse of which would result in social and economic chaos. The leaders of the modern oligarchies, what I now thought of as the corporatocracy, seemed to [fit the same mold.
    p57
    I recalled an economics professor from my business school days, a ma from northern India, who lectured about limited resources, about man's need to grow continually, and about the principle of slave labor. According to this professor, all successful capitalist systems involve hierarchies with rigid chains of command, including a handful at the very top who control descending orders of subordinates, and a massive army of workers at the bottom, who in relative economic terms truly can be classified as slaves. Ultimately, then, I became convinced that we encourage this system because the corporatocracy has convinced us that God has given us the right to place a few of our people at the very top of this capitalist pyramid and to export our system to the entire world.
    p72
    I had researched Guatemala and I understood [Omar] Torrjos's [President of Panama] meaning. United Fruit Company had been that country's political equivalent of Panama's canal. Founded in the late 1800s, United Fruit soon grew into one of the most powerful forces in Central America. During the early 1950s, reform candidate Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala in an election hailed all over the hemisphere as a model of the democratic process. At the time, less than 3 percent of Guatemalans owned 70 percent of the land. Arbenz promised to help the poor dig their way out of starvation, and after his election he implemented a comprehensive land reform program.
    "The poor and middle classes throughout Latin America applauded Arbenz," Torrijos said. "Personally, he was one of my heroes. But we also held our breath. We knew that United Fruit opposed these measures, since they were one of the largest and most oppressive landholders in Guatemala. They also owned big plantations in Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Santo Domingo, and here in Panama. They couldn't afford to let Arbenz give the rest of us ideas:'
    I knew the rest: United Fruit had launched a major public relations campaign in the United States, aimed at convincing the American public and congress that Arbenz was part of a Russian plot and that Guatemala was a Soviet satellite. In 1954, the CIA orchestrated a coup. American pilots bombed Guatemala City and the democratically elected Arbenz was overthrown, replaced by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, a ruthless right-wing dictator.
    The new government owed everything to United Fruit. By way of thanks, the government reversed the land reform process, abolished taxes on the interest and dividends paid to foreign investors, eliminated the secret ballot, and jailed thousands of its critics. Anyone who dared to speak out against Castillo was persecuted. Historians trace the violence and terrorism that plagued Guatemala for most of the rest of the century to the not-so-secret alliance between United Fruit, the CIA, and the Guatemalan army under its colonel dictator.
    "Arbenz was assassinated' Torrijos continued. "Political and character assassination." He paused and frowned. "How could your people swallow that CIA rubbish? I won't go so easily. The military here are my people. Political assassination won't do." He smiled.
    "The CIA itself will have to kill me!"
    We sat in silence for a few moments, each lost in his own thoughts. Torrijos was the first to speak.
    "Do you know who owns United Fruit?" he asked.
    "Zapata Oil, George Bush's company - our UN ambassador."
    "A man with ambitions:' He leaned forward and lowered his voice. 'And now I'm up against his cronies at Bechtel."
    This startled me. Bechtel was the world's most powerful engineering firm and a frequent collaborator on projects with MAIN. In the case of Panama's master plan, I had assumed that they were one of our major competitors.
    "What do you mean?"
    "We've been considering building a new canal, a sea-level one, without locks. It can handle bigger ships. The Japanese may be interested in financing it."
    "They're the Canal's biggest clients:'
    "Exactly. Of course, if they provide the money, they will do the construction."
    It struck me. "Bechtel will be out in the cold:'
    "The biggest construction job in recent history." He paused. "Bechtel's president is George Shultz, Nixon's secretary of the treasury. You can imagine the clout he's got - and a notorious temper. Bechtel's loaded with Nixon, Ford, and Bush cronies. I've been told that the Bechtel family pulls the strings of the Republican Party."
    p78
    ... both the 4 Depression and World War 11 led to the creation of organizations like the World Bank, the IMF, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The 1960s was a pivotal decade in this period and in the shift from neoclassic to Keynesian economics. It happened under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and perhaps the most important single influence was one man, Robert McNamara. McNamara was a frequent visitor to our discussion groups - in absentia, of course. We all knew about his meteoric rise to fame, from manager of planning and financial analysis at Ford Motor Company in 1949 to Ford's president in 1960, the first company head selected from outside the Ford family. Shortly after that, Kennedy appointed him secretary of defense.
    McNamara became a strong advocate of a Keynesian approach to government, using mathematical models and statistical approaches to determine troop levels, allocation of funds, and other strategies in Vietnam. His advocacy of "aggressive leadership" became a hallmark not only of government managers but also of corporate executives. It formed the basis of a new philosophical approach to teaching management at the nation's top business schools, and it ultimately led to a new breed of CEOs who would spearhead the rush to global empire.'
    As we sat around the table discussing world events, we were especially fascinated by McNamara's role as president of the World Bank, a job he accepted soon after leaving his post as secretary of defense. Most of my friends focused on the fact that he symbolized what was popularly known as the military-industrial complex. He had held the top position in a major corporation, in a government cabinet, and now at the most powerful bank in the world. Such an apparent breach in the separation of powers horrified many of them; I may have been the only one among us who was not in the least surprised.
    I see now that Robert McNamara's greatest and most sinister contribution to history was to jockey the World Bank into becoming an agent of global empire on a scale never before witnessed. He also set a precedent. His ability to bridge the gaps between the primary components of the corporatocracy would be fine-tuned by his successors. For instance, George Shultz was secretary of the treasury and chairman of the Council on Economic Policy under Nixon, served as Bechtel president, and then became secretary of state under Reagan. Caspar Weinberger was a Bechtel vice president and general council, and later the secretary of defense under Reagan. Richard Helms was Johnson's CIA director and then became ambassador to Iran under Nixon. Richard Cheney served as secretary of defense under George H. W. Bush, as Halliburton president, and as U.S. vice president to George W. Bush. Even a president of the United States, George H. W. Bush, began as founder of Zapata Petroleum Corp, served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under presidents Nixon and Ford, and was Ford's CIA director.
    ***
    Saudi Arabia
    p82
    On October 6,1973 (Yom Kippur, the holiest of Jewish holidays), Egypt and Syria launched simultaneous attacks on Israel. It was the beginning of the October War - the fourth and most destructive of the Arab-Israeli wars, and the one that would have the greatest impact on the world. Egypt's President Sadat pressured Saudi Arabia's King Faisal to retaliate against the United States' complicity with Israel by employing what Sadat referred to as "the oil weapon." On October 16, Iran and the five Arab Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, announced a 70 percent increase in the posted price of oil.
    Meeting in Kuwait City, Arab oil ministers pondered further options. The Iraqi representative was vehemently in favor of targeting the United States. He called on the other delegates to nationalize American businesses in the Arab world, to impose a total oil embargo on the United States and on all other nations friendly to Israel, and to withdraw Arab funds from every American bank. He pointed out that Arab bank accounts were substantial and that this action could result in a panic not unlike that of 1929.
    Other Arab ministers were reluctant to agree to such a radical plan, but on October 17 they did decide to move forward with a more limited embargo, which would begin with a 5 percent cut in production and then impose an additional 5 percent reduction every month until their political objectives were met. They agreed that the United States should be punished for its pro-Israeli stance and should therefore have the most severe embargo levied against it.
    Several of the countries attending the meeting announced that they would implement cutbacks of 10 percent, rather than 5 percent.
    On October 19, President Nixon asked Congress for $2.2 billion in aid to Israel. The next day, Saudi Arabia and other Arab producers imposed a total embargo on oil shipments to the United States.'
    The oil embargo ended on March 18, 1974. Its duration was short, its impact immense. The selling price of Saudi oil leaped from $1.39 a barrel on January 1, 1970, to $8.32 on January 1, 1974.2 Politicians and future administrations would never forget the lessons learned during the early- to mid-1970s. In the long run, the trauma of those few months served to strengthen the corporatocracy; its three pillars -big corporations, international banks, and government - bonded as never before. That bond would endure.
    The embargo also resulted in significant attitude and policy changes. It convinced Wall Street and Washington that such an embargo could never again be tolerated. Protecting our oil supplies had always been a priority; after 1973, it became an obsession.
    p83
    Almost immediately after the embargo ended, Washington began negotiating with the Saudis, offering them technical support, military hardware and training, and an opportunity to bring their nation into the twentieth century, in exchange for petrodollars and, most importantly, assurances that there would never again be another oil embargo. The negotiations resulted in the creation of a most extraordinary organization, the United States-Saudi Arabian Joint Economic Commission. Known as JECOR, it embodied an innovative concept that was the opposite of traditional foreign aid programs: it relied on Saudi money to hire American firms to build up Saudi Arabia.
    Although overall management and fiscal responsibility were delegated to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, this commission was independent to the extreme. Ultimately, it would spend billions of dollars over a period of more than twenty-five years, with virtually no congressional oversight. Because no U.S. funding was involved, Congress had no authority in the matter, despite Treasury's role. After studying JECOR extensively, David Hoilden and Richard Johns conclude, "It was the most far-reaching agreement of its kind ever concluded by the U.S. with a developing country. It had the potential to entrench the U.S. deeply in the Kingdom, fortifying the concept of interdependence.
    p85
    I understood, of course, that the primary objective here was not the usual - to burden this country with debts it could never repay but rather to find ways that would assure that a large portion of petrodollars found their way back to the United States. In the process, Saudi Arabia would be drawn in, its economy would become increasingly intertwined with and dependent upon ours, and presumably it would grow more Westernized and therefore more sympathetic with and integrated into our system.
    p86
    Saudi Arabia was a planner's dream come true, and also a fantasy realized for anyone associated with the engineering and construction business. It presented an economic opportunity unrivaled by any other in history: an underdeveloped country with virtually unlimited financial resources and a desire to enter the modern age in a big way, very quickly.
    p87
    I always kept in mind the true objectives: maximizing payouts t1 U.S. firms and making Saudi Arabia increasingly dependent on the United States. It did not take long to realize how closely the two went together; almost all the newly developed projects would require continual upgrading and servicing, and they were so highly technical as to assure that the companies that originally developed them would have to maintain and modernize them. In fact, as I moved forward with my work, I began to assemble two lists for each of the projects I envisioned: one for the types of design-and-construction contracts we could expect, and another for long-term service and management agreements. MAIN, Bechtel, Brown & Root, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, and many other U.S. engineers and contractors would profit handsomely for decades to come.
    Beyond the purely economic, there was another twist that would render Saudi Arabia dependent on us, though in a very different way. The modernization of this oil-rich kingdom would trigger adverse reactions. For instance, conservative Muslims would be furious; Israel and other neighboring countries would feel threatened. The economic development of this nation was likely to spawn the growth of another industry: protecting the Arabian Peninsula. Private companies specializing in such activities, as well as the U.S. military and defense industry, could expect generous contracts - and, once again, long-term service and management agreements. Their presence would require another phase of engineering and construction projects, including airports, missile sites, personnel bases, and all of the infrastructure associated with such facilities.
    p89
    Under this evolving plan, Washington wanted the Saudis guarantee to maintain oil supplies and prices at levels that could fluctuate but that would always remain acceptable to the United States and our allies. If other countries such as Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, or Venezuela threatened embargoes, Saudi Arabia, with its vast petroleum supplies, would step in to fill the gap; simply the knowledge that they might do so would, in the long run, discourage other countries from even considering an embargo. In exchange for this guarantee, Washington would offer the House of Saud an amazingly attractive deal: a commitment to provide total and unequivocal U.S. political and - if necessary - military support, thereby ensuring their continued existence as the rulers of their country.
    It was a deal the House of Saud could hardly refuse, given its geographic location, lack of military might, and general vulnerability to neighbors like Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Israel. Naturally, therefore, Washington used its advantage to impose one other critical condition, a condition that redefined the role of EHMs in the world and served as a model we would later attempt to apply in other countries, most notably in Iraq. In retrospect, I sometimes find it difficult to understand how Saudi Arabia could have accepted this condition. Certainly, most of the rest of the Arab world, OPEC, and other Islamic countries were appalled when they discovered the terms of the deal and the manner in which the royal house capitulated to Washington's demands.
    The condition was that Saudi Arabia would use its petrodollars to purchase U.S. government securities; in turn, the interest earned by these securities would be spent by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in ways that enabled Saudi Arabia to emerge from a medieval society into the modern, industrialized world. In other words, the interest compounding on billions of dollars of the kingdom's oil income would be used to pay U.S. companies to fulfill the vision I (and presumably some of my competitors) had come up with, to convert Saudi Arabia into a modern industrial power. Our own U.S. Department of the Treasury would hire us, at Saudi expense, to build infrastructure projects and even entire cities throughout the Arabian Peninsula.
    Although the Saudis reserved the right to provide input regarding the general nature of these projects, the reality was that an elite corps of foreigners (mostly infidels, in the eyes of Muslims) would determine the future appearance and economic makeup of the Arabian Peninsula.
    ***
    Osama Bin Laden
    p96
    The United States made no secret of its desire to have the House of Saud bankroll Osama bin Laden's Afghan war against the Soviet Union during the 1980s, and Riyadh and Washington together contributed an estimated $3.5 billion to the mujahideen. However, U.S. and Saudi participation went far beyond this.
    In late 2003, U.S. News & World Report conducted an exhaustive study titled, "The Saudi Connection". The magazine reviewed thousands of pages of court records, U.S. and foreign intelligence reports, and other documents, and interviewed dozens of government officials and experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Its findings include the following:
    The evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia, America's longtime ally and the world's largest oil producer, had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, "the epicenter" of terrorist financing...
    Starting in the late 1980s - after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in Afghanistan - Saudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries the money was used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members...
    Saudi largess encouraged U.S. officials to look the other way, some veteran intelligence officers say. Billions of dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries have gone to a broad range of former U.S. officials who had dealt with the Saudis: ambassadors, CIA station chiefs, even cabinet secretaries...
    Electronic intercepts of conversations implicated members of the royal family in backing not only Al Qaeda but also other terrorist groups.
    After the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, more evidence emerged about the covert relationships between Washington and Riyadh. In October 2003, Vanity Fair magazine disclosed information that had not previously been made public, in an in-depth report titled, "Saving the Saudis." The story that emerged about the relationship between the Bush family, the House of Saud, and the bin Laden family did not surprise me. I knew that those relationships went back at least to the time of the Saudi Arabian Money-laundering Affair, which began in 1974, and to George H. W. Bush's terms as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (from 1971 to 1973) and then as head of the CIA (from 1976 to 1977). What surprised me was the fact that the truth had finally made the press. Vanity Fair concluded:
    The Bush family and the House of Saud, the two most powerful dynasties in the world, have had close personal, business, and political ties for more than 20 years...
    In the private sector, the Saudis supported Harken Energy, a struggling oil company in which George W. Bush was an investor. Most recently, former president George H. NV. Bush and his longtime ally, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, have appeared before Saudis at fundraisers for the Carlyle Group, arguably the biggest private equity firm in the world. Today, former president Bush continues to serve as a senior adviser to the firm, whose investors allegedly include a Saudi accused of ties to terrorist support groups...
    Just days after 9/11, wealthy Saudi Arabians, including members of the bin Laden family, were whisked out of the U.S. on private jets. No one will admit to clearing the flights, and the passengers weren't questioned. Did the Bush family's long relationship with the Saudis help make it happen?

    ***
    Part III: 1975-1981
    p127
    ... my times in Colombia also helped me comprehend the distinction between the old American republic and the new global empire. The republic offered hope to the world. Its foundation was moral and philosophical rather than materialistic. It was based on concepts of equality and justice for all. But it also could be pragmatic, not merely a utopian dream but also a living, breathing, magnanimous entity. It could open its arms to shelter the downtrodden. It was an inspiration and at the same time a force to reckon with; if needed, it could swing into action, as it had during World War II, to defend the principles for which it stood. The very institutions - the big corporations, banks, and government bureaucracies - that threaten the republic could be used instead to institute fundamental changes in the world. Such institutions possess the communications networks and transportation systems necessary to end disease, starvation, and even wars - if only they could be convinced to take that course.
    The global empire ... is the republic's nemesis. It is self-centered, self-serving, greedy, and materialistic, a system based on mercantilism. Like empires before, its arms open only to accumulate resources, to grab everything in sight and stuff its insatiable maw. It will use whatever means it deems necessary to help its rulers gain more power and riches.
    ... I was loyal to the American republic, but what we were perpetrating through this new, highly subtle form of imperialism was the financial equivalent of what we had attempted to accomplish militarily in Vietnam. If Southeast Asia had taught us that armies have limitations, the economists had responded by devising a better plan, and the foreign aid agencies and the private contractors who served them (or, more appropriately, were served by them) had become proficient at executing that plan.
    In countries on every continent, I saw how men and women working for U.S. corporations -though not officially part of the EHM network - participated in something far more pernicious than anything envisioned in conspiracy theories. Like many of MAIN's engineers, these workers were blind to the consequences of their actions, convinced that the sweatshops and factories that made shoes and automotive parts for their companies were helping the poor climb out of poverty, instead of simply burying them deeper in a type
    of slavery reminiscent of medieval manors and southern plantations. Like those earlier manifestations of exploitation, modern serfs or slaves were socialized into believing they were better off than the unfortunate souls who lived on the margins, in the dark hollows of Europe, in the jungles of Africa, or in the wilds of the American frontier.
    p139
    Mafia bosses often start out as street thugs. But over time, the ones who make it to the top transform their appearance. They take to wearing impeccably tailored suits, owning legitimate businesses, and wrapping themselves in the cloak of upstanding society. They support local charities and are respected by their communities. They are quick to lend money to those in desperate straits. Like the John Perkins in the MAIN rsum, these men appear to be model citizens. However, beneath this patina is a trail of blood. When the debtors cannot pay, hit men move in to demand their pound of flesh. If this is not granted, the jackals close in with baseball bats. Finally, as a last resort, out come the guns.
    ***
    Ecuador
    p141
    Ecuador had suffered under a long line of dictators and , right-wing oligarchies manipulated by U.S. political and commercial interests. In a way, the country was the quintessential banana republic, and the corporatocracy had made major inroads there.
    The serious exploitation of oil in the Ecuadorian Amazon basin began in the late 1960s, and it resulted in a buying spree in which the small club of families who ran Ecuador played into the hands of the international banks. They saddled their country with huge amounts of debt, backed by the promise of oil revenues. Roads and industrial parks, hydroelectric dams, transmission and distribution systems, and other power projects sprang up all over the country. International engineering and construction companies struck it rich - once again.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  13. #13
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    So, essentially large numbers of Puerto Ricans were dispossessed to make way for four big American sugar companies, and Puerto Rico went from being a self-governing rising very confident new nation in 1898 to the status of a colony, and a greatly impoverished one, in the decades that followed.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  14. #14

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    3,219
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    and so? how many regime changes did the muslims have when they took over the arabian peninsula and north africa and other countries?

  15. #15
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    you know what? when i saw that you had read this, i thought, banga has accepted islam

    banga has seen the same lies that i saw as a youth and has now realized that this world holds no promise of truth

    but no

    banga probably didnt even read any of this, doesnt even acknowledge the evil foundation that american power is based upon, or if he acknowledges it, he doesnt really care

    this is what usamah and that guy that called the sept 11 victims little goerbels, its that americans either know and dont care, or they dont know and dont care, either way, they are supportive of the evil of the american policies as long as it gets them cheap gas, and a feeling of superiority in the world
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  16. #16
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Many Americans I don't think realize that Hawaii was an independent country before it was brought into the United States. In brief, this is the story. In the early part of the 19th century, several hundred American missionaries, most of them from New England, sailed off to what were then called the Sandwich Islands to devote their lives to, as they would have put it, raising up the heathen savages and teaching them the blessings of Christian civilization.

    It wasn't long before many of these missionaries and their sons began to realize that there was a lot of money to be made in Hawaii. The natives had been growing sugar for a long time, but they had never refined it and had never exported it. By dispossessing the natives of most of their land, a group that came from what was then called this missionary planter elite sort of left the path of God, went onto the path of Mammon and established a series of giant sugar plantations in Hawaii, and they became very rich from exporting sugar into the United States.

    In the early 1890s, the U.S. passed a tariff that made it impossible for the Hawaiian sugar growers to sell their sugar in the U.S. So they were in a panic. They were about to lose their fortunes. And they asked themselves what they could do to somehow continue to sell their sugar in the U.S.

    They came up with a perfect answer: Well get into the U.S. How will we do this? Well, the leader of the Hawaiian revolutionaries, if you want to call them that, who were mostly of American origin, actually went to Washington. He met with the Secretary of the Navy. He presented his case directly to the President of the United States, Benjamin Harrison. And he received assurances that the U.S. would support a rebellion against the Hawaiian monarchy.

    So he went back to Hawaii and became part of a triumvirate, which essentially carried out the Hawaiian revolution. He was one part of the triumvirate. The second part was the American ambassador, who was himself an annexationist and had been instructed by the State Department to do whatever he could to aid this revolution. And the third figure was the commander of the U.S. naval vessel, which was conveniently anchored right off the shores of Honolulu.

    This revolution was carried out with amazing ease. The leader of the Hawaiian revolutionaries, this missionary planter elite, simply announced at a meeting one day, We have overthrown the government of Hawaii, and we are now the new government. And before the queen was able to respond, the U.S. ambassador had 250 Marines called to shore from the ship that was conveniently off the coast of Honolulu and announced that since there had been some instability and there seemed to be a change of government, the Marines were going to land to protect the new regime and the lives and property of all Hawaiians. So that meant that there was nothing the queen could do. The regime was immediately recognized by the United States, and with that simple process, the monarchy of Hawaii came to an end, and then ultimately Hawaii joined the U.S.
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  17. #17
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    more wild conspiracy theories

    and this is only fourteen countries

    we havent began to touch on the more than 75 usa miltary interventions since 1945
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  18. #18
    Odan
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,972
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Good article and links AM!

  19. #19
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  20. #20
    Seeker of Knowlege tangents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Girl Unspecified
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    49

    Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Imperialism is nothing new. How to you think all those dynasties and empires expanded and gained power? Muslims invaded places as have other nations and races. It's the ongoing divide and conquer strategy that never fails, especially now when the ummah is so weak.

    And you are wrong how they don't teach this in school. I learned all about America's imperialism but the teachers make it shown in a more positive light. Even then most kids these days don't give a damn about history and most only study stuff for a good grade without really absorbing it.

    But there is one thing to remember; every empire that rises also falls...

  21. #21
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    this thread should be read by every patriot
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  22. #22
    Uh oh!! Boomerang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Gender
    Girl Unspecified
    Posts
    1,619
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    49

    Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Don't Muslims claim that they will take over the world and we will all bow to Allah?
    Please Re-update your Signature

  23. #23
    MDK
    Guests

    Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomerang
    Don't Muslims claim that they will take over the world and we will all bow to Allah?

    if you mean that every person will be muslims.
    This might happen, im not sure.
    But not through violence.

    La Ikra fideen (no compulsion in relgion).

    We cannot force a kafir to be a muslim.

  24. #24
    Uh oh!! Boomerang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Gender
    Girl Unspecified
    Posts
    1,619
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    49

    Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by MDK
    if you mean that every person will be muslims.
    This might happen, im not sure.
    But not through violence.

    La Ikra fideen (no compulsion in relgion).

    We cannot force a kafir to be a muslim.
    Can you force kafir to live under Muslim rule (i.e. take over their countries in the name of Allah)? Are you compelled to do so?
    Please Re-update your Signature

  25. #25
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomerang
    Don't Muslims claim that they will take over the world and we will all bow to Allah?
    so again with the obfuscating

    first you deny that america is imperialistic

    now you want to say, everyone does it

    the point was that america has its evil tenacles in every country and corner of the world, and little of it is for any good, only for profit, thus they put up tyrannical dictators who support american interests

    admit this, then we can move on

    and yes, muslims want to take over the world, i can admit that, what i cant do is continually have these same unending discussions with you euromericans acting like you are innocent, when in essence, little have accomplished the evil that is being done by euromerica
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    What are parts of the American "empire"? Puerto Rico? The Virgin Islands?

    What I can't do is stand your sweeping generalizations, lack of historical context, and conpiracy du jour jerrymandering without a single offer for any type of alternative solution or viewpoint. Repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn't make your findings factual.

    If "Euromerica" (by all means a monolithic hegemon) is so evil, perhaps you'd be better served living in a different country.

    I'll buy your ticket. Seriously.

    and yes, muslims want to take over the world
    Great. You speak for 1+ billion people??? We can add "delusions of granduer" to your list of afflictions.
    Please Re-update your Signature

  27. #27
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    moses lived amongst pharoah

    i live in america
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  28. #28
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Amid Somalia's troubles, Coca-Cola hangs on

    By Marc Lacey The New York Times

    Mogadishu, Somalia- When a Coca-Cola bottling plant opened here two years ago, the 400-plus investors invited to finance the project were carefully chosen by clan.

    There were Abgal investors and Habar Gedir investors and representatives of other clans around Somalia as well.
    Each contributed a minimum of $300 to help start the United Bottling Company, Somalia's only maker of Coca- Cola.

    The project was a deliberate effort to create a feeling of communal ownership for the factory in a place where clan-based conflict has long been the rule. Building a sparkling, $8.3 million facility in such a tumultuous capital was a bold business venture.

    The thinking was that Somalia had huge business potential and that long years of anarchy, which erupted after Somalia's last government collapsed in 1991, would eventually give way to a mending of the country.

    But Somalia is a difficult place to read, and now the Coke brand faces a much-changed business environment, one fraught with both opportunity and peril. Islamic militias took over the capital in June and brought some stability to the city - so much that the Coke bottler predicts the company's sky-high security costs will soon plummet.

    "Before we had gunmen accompanying our distributors," Mohammed Hassan Awale, the sales manager and acting general manager of the plant, said in an interview.

    "If there is peace, there is opportunity for work, for business, and people will have money to buy Coke."

    But new political conditions in Mogadishu has also taken a bite out of business. Some imams have begun railing against Coke, calling it an un-Islamic beverage that should not go down a proper Muslim's throat.

    Nur Barud Gurhan, a hard-line sheik in Mogadishu, raised the issue in January during a protest against cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that were published first in Denmark and then in other countries.

    He declared that Westerners were enemies of Islam and that their products, anything from milk that originates in Denmark to Atlanta's most famous carbonated export, should not be consumed by Somalis.

    The anti-Coke campaign was picked up by members of the Islamic courts who took over Mogadishu. They defeated the secular warlords, who had long controlled the country and who had received American financial support in recent years for their efforts to root out terrorists.

    Using Washington's support for the warlords as a rallying cry, the Islamic militias have also railed against Coke, spreading a message in mosques that has already prompted many to abstain.
    "I was selling Coca-Cola before the U.S. government formed the devil's alliance with the warlords," said Hilowle Yarow Hassan, a restaurant owner. He has since stopped selling Coke.

    Omar Hussein Omar, who owns a teashop in the capital, used to sell Coke as well, but he was persuaded by religious leaders to give it up.

    "Out of ignorance, I was selling and drinking Coca-Cola, but now I hate it so much," he said, indicating that he had no desire to help his enemies in the West profit, even if some of his countrymen were involved in the local Coke enterprise.

    "If I had the power, I would destroy the Coke plant in Mogadishu, because they are generating hard currency for our worst enemy," said another Coke detractor, Talha Kheyr Abdulla, an English teacher.

    The Coke plant was quiet on a recent morning. Awale offered a bottle of Coke to a visitor, but he acknowledged that production, which can exceed 30,000 bottles an hour, had been temporarily suspended.
    He blamed, not anti-Americanism, but the relatively cool weather last month, which had reduced sales and prompted the slowing of production of Coke, as well as of two other soft drinks, Fanta and Sprite.

    In Awale's view, most Somalis are not anti-American and most enjoy Coke as much as other people around the world, although he acknowledged that Washington's alliance with the warlords had provoked much anti-American sentiment.
    "The people do not hate the U.S.," Awale said. "They hate what the U.S. did."

    Coke was bottled in Mogadishu back in the 1980s, when Somalia was still one country, but the plant that was used then has long been in ruins. The ramshackle walls are still painted a faded red, but inside, where all the machinery used to be, there are now thousands of squatters, most of them too poor to afford a luxury like Coke.

    Before the new plant went up in July 2004, Coke found its way into Somalia by ship from the United Arab Emirates. It cost about 8,000 Somali shillings a bottle then, or about 60 cents, a significant sum in a place where jobs are scarce and most people struggle to eke out a living.

    The modern production facility has reduced the price to about a third of that, company officials here say.

    That is good news for Coke drinkers like Abdulahi Adan Abdurahman, 31, who ignores religious leaders' calls for him to stay away from it.
    "I love Coca-Cola," he said. "I drink it all the time. It's my favorite drink."

    Hussein Moalim Ali, 22, a student, agrees, advocating a philosophy not unlike the one put forward by Coke's many investors.
    "I don't have suspicions about it," he said. "I don't think hostility can work in business. Business must be free from political or religious affairs."
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  29. #29
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    46

    Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by tangents
    Imperialism is nothing new. How to you think all those dynasties and empires expanded and gained power? Muslims invaded places as have other nations and races. It's the ongoing divide and conquer strategy that never fails, especially now when the ummah is so weak.

    And you are wrong how they don't teach this in school. I learned all about America's imperialism but the teachers make it shown in a more positive light. Even then most kids these days don't give a damn about history and most only study stuff for a good grade without really absorbing it.

    But there is one thing to remember; every empire that rises also falls...
    Imperialist powers have always been using the religious fundamentalism to supress the working classes. Organizations like Al-Qaida were originally created and funded by imperialist powers to supress labor classes in various Islamic countries. Some people think that Al-Qaida fired back on America; whereas many others think that Al-Qaida is still working on the its specified agenda. Their shouting of hollow slogans of terrorism provides justification for the super power to attack on the middle east resources. In reality Islamic fundamentalism is a reactionary phenomenon representing a peculiar phase of a sick capitalist society, a society that has stagnated due to the organic crisis of capitalism. The failure of capitalism to eliminate feudalism and the existence of primitive forms of human society creates a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism. This combined and uneven development creates contradictions which provide a basis for such reactionary tendencies in a period of reaction and social crisis. Even the billions of petrodollars have not served to carry through the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, that is the industrial revolution, in the oil rich Muslim states. This shows the reactionary characters of these rulers and their historical bankruptcy. At the same time Islamic fundamentalism is a temporary and superficial phenomenon. All the efforts to modernise it have ended up undermining it. Hence the brutality and hysterical frenzy re-emerges to reinvigorate it. Its greatest enemy is history and human civilisation.

    Once the working class starts to move, this Islamic fundamentalism will vanish as a drop of water vanishes from the surface of red hot iron. But if the basic contradictions and crisis of society are not eliminated, it will come back again and again in new periods of reaction. It will keep on ravaging and raping society and human civilisation until it is eradicated and the basic cause of its existence, deprivation, is uprooted. It is a peculiar manifestation of the death agony of capitalism. To get rid of this plague will only be possible when the system on which it festers is abolished. This is only possible through a Socialist revolution.

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by AbuMubarak
    moses lived amongst pharoah

    i live in america
    Moses was raised as Egyptian royalty (a Copt, not the Arab-Egyptians of today) and led the Jews, the Israelites to their "Promised Land".
    Please Re-update your Signature

  31. #31
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    i guess i will have to lead the muslims to their promised land

    hopefully, it will be washington DC
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: : Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by AbuMubarak
    i guess i will have to lead the muslims to their promised land

    hopefully, it will be washington DC
    Hope springs eternal. The truth is a different story altogether. By the Grace of G*d most Americans are seeing your type, finally, for what they really are.
    Please Re-update your Signature

  33. #33
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    46

    Re: : Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by AbuMubarak
    i guess i will have to lead the muslims to their promised land

    hopefully, it will be washington DC
    What? Washington DC? Allah promised Washington DC to Muslims?

    Looks as if you took an overdoze of prayers in the last few days.

  34. #34
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: : Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Cagliostro
    Hope springs eternal. The truth is a different story altogether. By the Grace of G*d most Americans are seeing your type, finally, for what they really are.
    thats a good thing

    if americans would stop being impatient, self-gratifying, consumers who are blinded by commericials, entertainment and sports, they would begin to see some of the beauty of islam

    then they may accept it, and then all of you G-d worshippers will really be in for some trouble, huh?
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: : Re: : Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by AbuMubarak
    thats a good thing

    if americans would stop being impatient, self-gratifying, consumers who are blinded by commericials, entertainment and sports, they would begin to see some of the beauty of islam
    You are leaving "independant, free thinking, slow to violence, and tolerant" from your list. Those are major obstacles too. We've seen plenty of the "beauty" of Islam over the last 1400 years.

    then they may accept it, and then all of you G-d worshippers will really be in for some trouble, huh?
    Not exactly. Us G*d worshippers have been doing okay for 2,000+ years. Jews for even longer.
    Please Re-update your Signature

  36. #36
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : Re: : Re: : Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    i didnt say jesus-worshippers, i said G-d

    anyway, you want to make disparaging remarks about islamic governments?

    surely that shows ignorance on your part, you would do better to stick with the past 50 years or so, muslims have departed from islam more in that time than before

    but things are a'changin
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






  37. #37
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    46

    Re: : Re: : Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by AbuMubarak
    thats a good thing

    if americans would stop being impatient, self-gratifying, consumers who are blinded by commericials, entertainment and sports, they would begin to see some of the beauty of islam

    then they may accept it, and then all of you G-d worshippers will really be in for some trouble, huh?
    It is better not to attack other peoples religion in order to promote your own faith system.

    For example if you get peace of mind by drinking whisky, then you shouldn't make fun of those who get it from drinking wine.

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    524
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: : Re: : Re: The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by AbuMubarak
    i guess i will have to lead the muslims to their promised land

    hopefully, it will be washington DC
    Actually, I was hoping YOU'd lead them to Somalia, since America sucks so much according to you. I mean, after all that, how could anyone, particularly a Muslim, WANT to live here?

    So, what's the holdup, Abu? Can't get a flight out? Let us know... I'm sure we can take up a collection.

  39. #39

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    5,389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    Quote Originally Posted by AbuMubarak
    i guess i will have to lead the muslims to their promised land

    hopefully, it will be washington DC
    You mean you've not been told where your "promised land" is to be, abum? There's no prophecy about it? Hmmm, that is very odd. Oh well ...

    I'll pack some turkey bacon on wheat sandwiches for you when you leave. Just let me know.

    If you do head to DC, I know several former Russian and Israeli military who are now DC police who will be more than happy to intercept you and "show you around". Happy trails to you.

  40. #40
    أنا مسلم AbuMubarak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    88,299
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1697 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    710

    : The Evils and Lies of American Imperialism

    any of you comedians read the original posts?

    how about listen to the interview??
    .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
    نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
    دولة الإسلامية باقية






 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.7 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com

MPADC.com Islamic Web Hosting | Muslim Ad Network | Islamic Nasheeds | Islamic Mobile App Developement Android & iPhone | Islamic Web Hosting : Muslim Designers : Labbayk Nasheeds : silk route jilbab: Hijab: : Web Islamic Newsletter: Islamic Web Hosting

Students of Arabic Forum | Hijab Shop