The whole thing? All of it? Because the massive military and global presence of Australia is threatening enough to the USA to create a world-wide network of cables, dishes, monitoring stations and satellites in orbit all to find out what is going on in Canberra, while ignoring the happenings in the USSR and China. Each nation within Echelon spies on a part of the world. At least look up what Echelon is about and what it does before creating some leftist bullshit story about it. ~String
Of course not. Why do you ask stupid rhetorical questions? Oh, yeah - why do I ask, the reason being long familiar: The use of Echelon, and other capabilities of facilities such as the Pine Gap setup, to spy on Australia and other nations of the British Commonwealth, and worse the CIA manipulation of Australian politics in support of that and other efforts not favored by the wrong Australian politicians, a full generation and two major wars after WWII, was a major diplomatic hassle and scandal in the 1970s, not a "leftist bullshit story". The prompt, if you recall, was this odd assertion: As far as I have heard there was no confirmed collateral murder involved with the post-Vietnam Australian CIA efforts. But that is not because collateral murder had been removed from the option list, by then or by now - and we are now debating whether it is official, routine, and large scale, not whether it happens at all.
Probably because you've done little other than posit stupid, unfounded positions in this thread, and continue to do so... Yep. The CIA -- that would be the same CIA who failed to manipulate politics in most of the places it spent millions trying -- is manipulating Australian politics. They are that important...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I've challenged people to post something proving the CIA kills people before. They can't, because they don't. I mean, if you're talking in terms of arming paramilitary groups, that's a given, but "murder"? The CIA has a pretty dismal record on that account.
Oh my. The latest evidence, among the dozens of separate issues of CIA involvement in killings of various kinds that have been raised on this forum, would be the extended thread discussions here of the CIA/Blackwater partnership in drone assassinations along the AfPak border. The mere existence of past CIA operations involving killing is not even controversial, AFAIK - taking issue with that is tinfoil hat territory, depending on sincerity level.
The CIA arming drones and firing them at terrorists in a combat zone is not murder, but I'm sure you would quibble with that. As for the CIA/Blackwater issues, I've read about it and seen no evidence anyone was murdered. Then you should have no problem gracing this thread with your first example of substantive sources that back one of your claims, right? None of the assassinations came off and PHOENIX was really a military project. Elsewhere, the CIA spends most of its time stealing secrets. You don't do that by killing people (it tends to attract attention).
First, let's finish the quote you have dishonestly shortened - I said this: Which seems to me to identify specifically the evidence referenced, which has already been posted on this forum for both of you to read. Now I am perfectly willing to go find links and documents and reports and so forth providing evidence of recent CIA involvement in the killing of people along the AfPak border using drones. But first I want you to state specifically that you need such evidence - that you do not recall seeing any such reports, are completely unfamiliar with that CIA operation, that it is news to you and you need evidence for it. I want you to say that in public, explicitly.
I've acknowledged predator attacks. If your contention is that they are "collateral murder," then I'd say you are on pretty shaky ground. Those attacks are actions authorized by the president against terrorists and insurgents operating in combat zone, so "murder," collateral or otherwise, hardly comes into it. Indeed, one wonders if you think the US Air Force is "murdering" people, too? (They also operate predators). One also wonders if you know what "murder" means. Let's also not forget you made claims beyond predator attacks which you are now choosing to ignore. That is, you spoke of the CIA/Blackwater connection and suggested murders were involved there, too. I've read extensively on that and seen no evidence of it, so do you care to share any?
We won't have any "murders" if we just expand the combat zone to encompass the entire world. Just think of it! A murder-free world!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I read this, hoping we were all human. What was the effect supposed to be? What a semi-bizarre rant. It seemed to have potential coherency, if it were perhaps directed at someone else.
Do you think authorisation by a head of state makes murder justified? If any target is labeled as a threat does that make genocides alright?
No point whatsoever, save for that we wouldn't have any murders (well, at least a lot less) if the entire world were a combat zone, and everyone a potential terrorist. Don't worry, though. I'm sure we can realize that dream soon.
So it's pointless hyperbole you're after? Okay. Got it. Nobody is talking about genocide here but you (and I know where you are going with it). It's a cheap rhetorical stunt and you should stop. Somewhat on topic, I think "murder" has a specific definition which you are ignoring in your lame attempt to make a moral argument, and in doing so, portray American soldiers in the same terms as terrorists. That is, murder is an unlawful killing, and historically speaking, the term has never been applied to soldiers killing other combatants in combat (nor should it). What you're trying to do is take the word homicide -- the killing of one human by another -- and remake it murder so you can further your political aims and lob your usual grenades. It's obvious, and it's neither honest or intellectual.
Do you think the US President has the authority to determine who should be a target in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Depends on which country, I guess. Here in the US, the War on Terror[sup]TM[/sup] is clandestinely extending to encompass all political dissidents in the homeland. If certain people had their way, our country would be a perpetual combat zone. And "enemy combatant" would include just about anyone who opposed the powers that be, for any reason.
I'm not playing your standard game of Q&A because it is really little more than trolling. If you have a point, make it.
Referring to this: Does the US President have the authority to determine who is an insurgent in Iraq?
And why? And how deep does it go? Why would you assume that it only does what it says it does? Because they say that's what it does?
