*
Boston bomber apologizes, and is sentenced to death
Wed, 2015-06-24 17:07
#1
Boston bomber apologizes, and is sentenced to death
Wed, 2015-06-24 17:08
#2
[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boston-bomber-apologizes-i-am-sorry-for-the-... bomber apologizes: 'I am sorry for the lives I've taken'[/url]
Can you imagine any of the bloodthirsty mass-murdering U.S. presidents apologizing for the lives they've taken?
Now they can take one more life.
God Bless America.
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:32
#3
Catchfire
Ugh.
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:42
#4
alan smithee
Will the white terrorist in SC face the death penalty? He killed more people,afterall.
Wed, 2015-06-24 18:51
#5
Catchfire
Almost certainly, I expect.
Wed, 2015-06-24 21:03
#6
Will the white terrorist in SC face the death penalty? He killed more people,afterall.
Of course. Thirst for blood is tough to quench. That whole society should go to hell.
Wed, 2015-06-24 23:25
#7
Catchfire
The jury was asked during selection, as always in capital cases, if they would be able to deliver a death penalty verdict. They all said yes, of course.
Wed, 2015-06-24 23:49
#8
Will the white terrorist in SC face the death penalty? He killed more people,afterall.
Of course. Thirst for blood is tough to quench. That whole society should go to hell.
I'd prefer they change. And indeed, plenty oppose that penalty, including some of the victims who took part in the case:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/17/us-boston-bombings-trial-idUSK...
For that matter, how much better is our society, that puts us in any position to pass judgment?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/nebraska-death-penalty-11...
When Connecticut’s Governor Daniel Malloy ended his state’s death penalty he noted that he came to oppose capital punishment while working as a prosecutor. “I learned firsthand that our system of justice is very imperfect,” he said. “I came to believe that doing away with the death penalty was the only way to ensure it would not be unfairly imposed.”
Thu, 2015-06-25 01:47
#9
Er, I wasn't referring to the death penalty alone. I was referring to the thirst for blood. Think of international mass murdering aggrssion, domestic lynchings, collective orgasms over guns, etc. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Thu, 2015-06-25 02:07
#10
As a Yank, I stand with Unionist on what he said there. We need our leaders not only to apologize for such acts, but to pledge never to do anything like them again.
And as a people, we Americans need to stop demanding that our leaders keep soaking the world in blood.
It's time to let the human race lead itself.
Thu, 2015-06-25 09:22
#11
I know what you meant, U.
We don't have a death penalty; my comment would have made no sense if I was only referring to that.
We aren't all that different, and they aren't all bloodthirsty, and blaming it on a "whole society" that should go to hell is not only completely false, it is simplistic, doesn't address the problems, and has its roots in that same cycle of blind hatred.
We have a government which cuts refugees off from medical care, and would prefer to see hard drug users drop dead than have a safe place to use - because of ideology.
We have people who argue for blood and unending punishment every time they see a judgment they don't like, even in cases where a person is underage or mentally ill. And the rate of Canadians supporting capital punishment - 62 percent in 2010 - is the same as that in the U.S.
We could go to hell with them, or we could do our best to keep it gone, just as some there are trying to get rid of it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-views-on-crime-ar...
Thu, 2015-06-25 10:41
#12
In the context of western corporatism, tyranny such as that cannot logically be responded to by employing the same indiscriminate practices that it dishes out everywhere.
Thu, 2015-06-25 10:48
#13
Not sure exactly what you are referring to, SJ, but is our government maintaining no death penalty against the will of the majority of the people tyranny too? This is a question of justice, not autocracy.
Thu, 2015-06-25 10:48
#14
And the rate of Canadians supporting capital punishment - 62 percent in 2010 - is the same as that in the U.S.
Yeah, I knew most Canadians supported the death penalty, but I was surprised to see just now that it was equal to the percentage of Americans.
Assuming margin-of-error and the usual caveats(the Canadian poll was taken in 2012, the American this year), we can probably assume that the numbers are about equal between the USA and Canada, and that therefore the absense of the death-penalty in Canada has less to do with any greater progresive sentiment on the part of Canadians, but rather the willingness of our politicians to ignore the majority preference for bloodlust.
Which I suppose could be related to Canadian pro-hanging opinion being less VEHEMENT among the electorate, ie. the politicians can ignore the sentiment because they know that it's not a deciding issue, even for the back-to-the-noosers. The fact remains, though, that if the matter were put to a referendum, the majority of Canadians would happily see us return to the charnel-house approach to criminal justice.
Thu, 2015-06-25 11:05
#15
Er, I wasn't referring to the death penalty alone. I was referring to the thirst for blood. Think of international mass murdering aggrssion, domestic lynchings, collective orgasms over guns, etc. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Well, I'll grant you less orgasms for guns up here, but I'm not sure about the international aggression part. It seems to me that, of all the instances of western aggression since 9/11, only the Iraq War provoked widespread opposition from Canadians, with majority support for both the Afghanistan and Libyan missions, and Mali(despite the best efforts of Tom Mulcair) eliciting generally non-consequentual opposition.(It probably helped there that the Mali mission didn't last very long.)
I'll grant that the US is involved in more theatres of conflict than Canada, but that might be a little like pointing out that Nazi Germany invaded more countries and killed more people than did fascist Italy. Obviously, the major power in an alliance has more resources to carry out its plans than does a similarly inclined minor power.
Thu, 2015-06-25 11:15
#16
I'm not interested in debating opinion polls about capital punishment or aggression. Why not phone Canadians and ask whether would like their children to all come out as gay or transgender - and then draw conclusions on that basis?
Canada is better than its individual inhabitants. The United States is worse.
Thu, 2015-06-25 11:22
#17
alan smithee
The US is a shithole full of raving lunatics.Their politics are a cancer which I don't want spreading into this country.
Hear that,Harpo?
Buh-bye.
Thu, 2015-06-25 13:01
#18
Canada is better than its individual inhabitants. The United States is worse.
Really? And what does that even mean? There are plenty of areas in which that is not true at all, and areas in which we are worse. But more importantly, that value judgment is ridiculous.
I'm saying that whole line of demonizing logic, and dismissing them as a shithole, cancer and lunatics, might make people feel superior, but it isn't true, and it doesn't do anything to solve these problems and change things for the better.
The fact that we have had some victories on some of these social issues through the courts, rather than having to fight tooth and nail, state by state, as they are down in the U.S. doesn't make us better in any way. Just fortunate.
Thu, 2015-06-25 13:11
#19
Canada is better than its individual inhabitants. The United States is worse.
Really? And what does that even mean?
It's just one of those things that you either understand and agree with, otherwise it's futile to explain. Sorry about that.
It's sort of like how some people can't figure out how the Harper government has been worse, in a fundamental way, than previous regimes. Not getting that isn't a matter of lacking information. It's something else.
Thu, 2015-06-25 13:32
#20
Oh?
Nice try on the bafflegab, but I can tell you exactly what I base it on.
For one, our government being dragged kicking and screaming on the issue of climate change, its backward and murderous stand on refusing funding to reproductive health aid which put it offside from other nations including the U.S., our being to the right of them in supporting Israel's oppression, our terrible legacy on First Nations, which in many ways is far worse than the Americans'. Then there is the fact we have a system which has allowed our current PM to concentrate power in a way that would be virtually impossible in the U.S.
And for all their fireworks, they do have a far stronger tradition of questioning power and opposing government than has ever existed in Canada.
Do they do more damage worldwide? Sure. They are 10 times our size after all, and at the centre of power. Does that let our government and our people off the ways in which we act just the same or worse? Not at all.
Thu, 2015-06-25 13:56
#21
It's sort of like how some people can't figure out how the Harper government has been worse, in a fundamental way, than previous regimes. Not getting that isn't a matter of lacking information. It's something else.
Agreed.
Canada is better than its individual inhabitants.
Not so much. These days it's as if Carl Schmitt had such a place in mind.
Thu, 2015-06-25 14:16
#22
Yeah, nice. When you don't have an argument, fall back on the claim that the problem is that others are incapable of understanding, and that if they did, they'd have no choice but to agree.
Thu, 2015-06-25 14:24
#23
It's just one of those things that you either understand and agree with, otherwise it's futile to explain. Sorry about that.
Isn't that generally known as an article of faith?
Thu, 2015-06-25 14:57
#24
It's not about an inability to understand elementary concepts, but about acknowledging that people are capable of comprehending, yet choose to behave the way they do irregardless. Conservative, Liberal, Neo-Liberal and Leftists are generally produced from the same learning institutions after all. Unless we're prepared to say that in terms of human social development, there exists a fundamental learning block with certain types of politicos, say an over-preponderance of Neanderthal DNA or something? Otherwise Unionist is correct to suggest something else is in play. I tend to lean toward sociopathic determinants to account for the divide between socially minded human beings and those who are not, or those for whom notions of detrimental cause and effect, such as conservatives and neoliberals, matters not. For evidence of that we have the individuals who have made up the conservative cabinet over the years.
Thu, 2015-06-25 15:04
#25
alan smithee
Conservatives are sociopaths. They are against equality.labour,civil rigthts and progress but more importantly they have absolutely no empathy nor compassion. It's as if they have no conscience. So yeah,they are sociopaths.
Thu, 2015-06-25 15:54
#26
It's not about an inability to understand elementary concepts, but about acknowledging that people are capable of comprehending, yet choose to behave the way they do irregardless.
Are you talking about my response to Unionist's point, or about our neighbours to the south? Because if it is the latter, I have just posted a several articles which prove that assertion false on the death penalty issue.
Here's another piece, with stats, about the growing opposition and decline in use of the death penalty.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-death-penalty-be...
Of the 3,144 counties or their equivalents in the United States, just 29 counties averaged more than one death sentence a year. “That 1 percent of counties accounts for roughly 44 percent of all death sentences” since 1976, Smith observed. A 2013 report by the Death Penalty Information Center found that 59 counties—fewer than 2 percent of the total—handed down all U.S. death sentences in 2012.
As for federal sentences, as in this case:
Since the federal government reinstated the death penalty in 1988, 75 inmates have ended up on death row, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Ten have been removed, and only three have been executed.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/tsarnaev-joins-dea...
And then there is the opposition based on last year's botched lethal injection:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/29/supreme-court-lethal-inject...
Thu, 2015-06-25 16:11
#27
It's just one of those things that you either understand and agree with, otherwise it's futile to explain. Sorry about that.Isn't that generally known as an article of faith?
I'm comfortable with that characterization, as long as it's understood that articles of faith in human society are subject to change and evolution, and that there is a spectrum between faith and logic.
Examples: capital punishment as a penalty for misbehaviour is wrong; discrimination on the basis of skin colour is wrong; restricting marriage to opposite-sex partners is wrong; you get the picture. Among adults, in 2015, I think it's safe to say what I said: "You either understand and agree with that, otherwise it's futile to explain." So social truths which are learned the hard way over many years do indeed become "articles of faith". They do not need to be revisited and re-learned for every individual and every generation.
Thu, 2015-06-25 16:33
#28
Fair enough. I suppose I'd add that sometimes it *might* be possible to explain something to someone, but their (likely) rebuttal will also be an article of faith. Equal marriage might be an example. I could explain to a conservative thinker why two men marrying won't change their own life in any material way, but their response will surely be that I "just don't get it".
Thu, 2015-06-25 17:58
#29
There are more than a few people who have found significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the thing and believe the conviction/confession is bogus. Here's a GR selection for those interested.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/boston-bombing-death-sentence-dzokhar-tsarn...
Thu, 2015-06-25 19:18
#30
There are more than a few people who have found significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the thing and believe the conviction/confession is bogus.
I seem to recall at least one of them posting here, a while back, to open our eyes to the possibility that the whole thing was just a staged event at the behest of the powers, complete with amputees pretending to be the wounded, and hospitals playing along. Like the movie "Capricorn One", but 89 minutes shorter and For Realz.
Thu, 2015-06-25 19:33
#31
Yes, magoo, I can't stand that stuff.
I also want to remind people that at a lecturer said at a "North-South" school for young people, "internationalism is hard work". People in Montréal aren't bigots if they spontaneously have more feeling for Bostonians because it is a few hours' drive away and there is a longstanding love-hate hockey rivalry, and educational exchanges, or Parisians because we share a language and many cultural references including many of the caricaturists at Charlie Hebdo, but we have to work on having the same kind of feeling for people who seem more geographically or culturally "remote". There was a strong outpouring for Haiti simply because there are so many Haitians here and just about everyone has worked with, studied with or knows a Haitian. Internationalism means building such connections with people whose lives are more remote. And while the internet is shitty in many ways such as pornification and 24-7 worldwide SHOPPING, it can be a help in that respect.
I'm very sorry that this fellow is going to be executed, not only because I'm against the death penalty even for scum like Paul Bernardo (and Karla who got away via a plea bargain) and Russel Williams, but because he really seemed to comprehend the enormity of what his older brother convinced him to take part in, and his apology and remorse seemed sincere, and he could have done far more alive to convince estranged young men (mostly) of Muslim backgrounds that harming civilians was not the best way to fight imperialism and Islamophobia.
Thu, 2015-06-25 19:51
#32
but because he really seemed to comprehend the enormity of what his older brother convinced him to take part in, and his apology and remorse seemed sincere
I would agree that this was somewhat unexpected -- or, to hear others' telling of it, a sham -- but it's a respectable start. And take heart. The mandatory (and reasonably mandatory) appeals and other red tape mean that there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.
Thu, 2015-06-25 20:06
#33
Boston has a great history if you are not black, First Nations, Acadian or wiccan. Except for the listed groups they have been great neighbours to everyone. Boston is a foreign city that has nothing in common with my West Coast reality. Seattle on the other hand shares many things because of geography. I would agree with you Lagatta that Boston is way more like Central Canada than it is like Vancouver or Vancouver Island. One of the reasons why many Westerners don't trust Central Canadians is IMO is that so many centre of the universe type come off as Yankee wanna bes. For this Acadian descendant I have a hard time getting over their ethnically cleansing my ancestors and stealing the diked land around the Bay of Fundy.
As for America generally it is a nasty place full of people who think that being born in the USA makes them exceptional and better than every other human being on the planet. That attitude gives the green light for America to be currently doing to various peoples around the globe what they did to my ancesors. In human rights terms a series of events can be continuing violations of human rights or descrete incidents. In my view the USA has been engaged in continuous human rights abuses and war crimes since before it broke away from Britain. People who admire the US are admiring a unique brand of totalitarian corporatism that has murdered people during every Prsidential term.
Here is a list of US interference in the affairs of othr peoples countries since 1890.
Fri, 2015-06-26 00:18
#34
People who admire the US are admiring a unique brand of totalitarian corporatism that has murdered people during every Prsidential term.
I don't think anyone here said they admired the U.S., but since you bring it up there are quite a few things I admire about that country, though not what you mention.
As I mentioned already, I certainly have respect for those fighting struggles down there that we don't have to face, against far stronger opponents, as well as those who are standing up there in a way that many here are not; the Keystone XL Pipeline is one example. It wasn't our government, so much better than its people, which rejected the project.
That and the fact that most of the people I have met and know from there aren't all that much different than anyone here.
Ever considered that this nasty evil stuff might in part have something to do with the warped MSM media everyone keeps talkign about? Besides, where do you think Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, and in fact, most of the critics of U.S. hegemony come from but that same evil culture?
But back on topic, using a tragedy like this as a foil against the U.S., especially when we also saw the best of that culture in the family who lost a child asking for mercy, is just cheap. Besides, we can wish them anywhere we want, but they aren't going anywhere.
Fri, 2015-06-26 12:09
#35
Kropotkin wrote:
"Here is a list of US interference in the affairs of othr peoples countries since 1890.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
END QUOTE
That hardly proves a "unique brand of totalitarin corporatism". You could likely make a list of similar length for the UK, covering roughly the same time period.
And American involement in World War II is "interfering in other peoples countries"? I guess it could be construed that way, but the usual complaint I hear from Europeans(not unjustified) is that the US didn't "interfere" fast enough. You know, Stalin banging his desk and demanding "a second front against these bastards" etc.
Fri, 2015-06-26 12:24
#36
alan smithee
The only thing good about the American political system is the freedom to vote on certain issues with Propositions.
If Canada had that power,Harper's fascist stance on marijuana would be out of his hands and in the hands of the people.
That is all.
Fri, 2015-06-26 12:43
#37
The only thing good about the American political system is the freedom to vote on certain issues with Propositions.
If Canada had that power,Harper's fascist stance on marijuana would be out of his hands and in the hands of the people.
That is all.
That's actually one of the things I DON'T like about the American system. Except on matters of long-term existential consequence, I don't think issues should be settled by public ballot. That's why you elect patliamentarians.
As for things I do like, well, it should be read into the record that when litigants tried to get Alberta's ridiculously lopsided-to-rurals electoral districts(which bendfitted the right-wing Tories) redrawn to better reflect the breakdown of population, the SCOC rejected the principle of one-man-one-vote as an American concept, that need not be introduced into Canada.
Ironically, then, the most pro-oil, branch-plant provincial government in Canada got an extended lease on life, thanks to earnest concern about Canadian identity among the SC judges. As we all know, that government didn't last forever, but it might have come to an end a lot sooner had the judges not been so fired up about protecting our political culture from yankee incursion.
Fri, 2015-06-26 12:52
#38
alan smithee
The only thing good about the American political system is the freedom to vote on certain issues with Propositions.
If Canada had that power,Harper's fascist stance on marijuana would be out of his hands and in the hands of the people.
That is all.
That's actually one of the things I DON'T like about the American system. Except on matters of long-term existential consequence, I don't think issues should be settled by public ballot. That's why you elect patliamentarians.
.
And electing parliamentarians really gets things done,doesn't it?
I think on issues such as prohibition,it should be settled by the public. Our elected 'leaders' are the ones who suppress progress.
Fri, 2015-06-26 13:23
#39
Kropotkin wrote: "Here is a list of US interference in the affairs of othr peoples countries since 1890. http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.htmlThat hardly proves a "unique brand of totalitarin corporatism". You could likely make a list of similar length for the UK, covering roughly the same time period.
Agreed there would also be a similar list for all imperialist countries. Canada began as the Hudson's Bay Company, a British corporation, just as almost all colonies in North America. The corporatism is a given in the British/US tradition. The diffference between the UK and the US is the British were proud of their empire while the Americans try to pretend they are not an imperial power but the defenders of all that is good.
6079 you seem to openly dislike most things from Russian history going back to the early Tsars and all things about their current poltical system and leaders but you want to tell me all the good things about the US. LMAOROF
Fri, 2015-06-26 13:32
#40
And American involement in World War II is "interfering in other peoples countries"? I guess it could be construed that way, but the usual complaint I hear from Europeans(not unjustified) is that the US didn't "interfere" fast enough. You know, Stalin banging his desk and demanding "a second front against these bastards" etc.
The U.S. had no interest in interfering in Europe. Its sole interest was protecting its Pacific empire. So when Japan attacked Hawaii, the U.S. declared war on Japan. It did not declare war on Germany or Italy. Germany promptly declared war on the U.S., because of its treaty with Japan.
The U.S. would have happily stayed out of that war, counting its profits.
Fri, 2015-06-26 13:39
#41
Tsarnaev Framed By US Intelligence, Chechen Leader
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/tsarnaev-framed-by-u-s-intell...
"The news [of Tsarnaev's death sentence] did not surprise anyone,' Kadyrov wrote on his Instagram page Sunday. 'The American intelligence services, accused of being involved in the Boston tragedy, needed a victim[...] I don't think that the Tsarnaevs committed the attack without the knowledge of US special services, that is if they did in fact commit the attack."
Fri, 2015-06-26 13:57
#42
delete
Fri, 2015-06-26 13:58
#43
And American involement in World War II is "interfering in other peoples countries"? I guess it could be construed that way, but the usual complaint I hear from Europeans(not unjustified) is that the US didn't "interfere" fast enough. You know, Stalin banging his desk and demanding "a second front against these bastards" etc.
The U.S. had no interest in interfering in Europe. Its sole interest was protecting its Pacific empire. So when Japan attacked Hawaii, the U.S. declared war on Japan. It did not declare war on Germany or Italy. Germany promptly declared war on the U.S., because of its treaty with Japan.
The U.S. would have happily stayed out of that war, counting its profits.
I wasn't saying the US was some great humanitarian power for getting involved in the European theatre. I'm saying that I've never heard anyone from Europe(well, besides maybe neo-nazis) say that the US shouldn't have gotten involved, and in fact, most of them(from Churchill and Stalin on downwards) were on record as wishing for earlier US involvement. Which made it kind of odd for Kropotkin's list to include that as an example of "interfering in other peoples' countries".
Maybe the thuggish cop who arrests my loser brother-in-law for beating up my sister just did so because he owed my BIL money, and jailing him is a good way of getting out of having to pay the debt. But if everyone in my family had been demanding for years that the BIL be arrested, it would be kind of odd for someone else to come along and say "Sheesh, who does that cop think he is, interfering in that family's business like that?"
Fri, 2015-06-26 14:07
#44
6079 you seem to openly dislike most things from Russian history going back to the early Tsars and all things about their current poltical system
Where have I said anything remotely like that?
Just because I think their current leader is an imperialist gangster, and that their government can lie with the best of them when it comes to spinning history? In fact if we want to talk culture, and going back over my threads I think I have said more explicitly good things about Russian culture than American, not that anyone would get past their assumptions to notice.
I certainly haven't made any comment about them or any other nation condemning their entire society, as seems to be the necessary mantra about our neigbours. I'm simply saying it is ridiculous, false, and not at all productive.
Again... especially on an issue like the death penalty where the battle to get rid of it there is making steady progress.
Fri, 2015-06-26 14:43
#45
I certainly haven't made any comment about them or any other nation condemning their entire society, as seems to be the necessary mantra about our neigbours. I'm simply saying it is ridiculous, false, and not at all productive.
Again... especially on an issue like the death penalty where the battle to get rid of it there is making steady progress.
You must be talking about Russia, where the death penalty has been suspended (though not yet revoked) for almost 20 years now?
Fri, 2015-06-26 14:53
#46
Well no, I was talking about the Tsarnaev case, which is the subject of this thread.
But good on them. I'd say that is congruent with my argument that steady progress is a good thing, even if they don't have complete abolition yet.
Fri, 2015-06-26 17:08
#47
Maybe the thuggish cop who arrests my loser brother-in-law for beating up my sister just did so because he owed my BIL money, and jailing him is a good way of getting out of having to pay the debt. But if everyone in my family had been demanding for years that the BIL be arrested, it would be kind of odd for someone else to come along and say "Sheesh, who does that cop think he is, interfering in that family's business like that?"
Who hires appoints and oversees the "cop" in your touching scenario. Is the thuggish cop a visitor from Russia or America or a corporate security type or local cop who is hired and overseen by citizens? Does it matter if the house gets burnt down while the perp is being arrested and the family dog dies in the fire?
Fri, 2015-06-26 17:18
#48
I tend to think that someone recruited smarter people to carry out the Boston bombing than the RCMP did when they engaged the services of Amanda Korody and John Nuttall. I am glad to see when our domestic spy agency uses dupes they are so ignorant and ill as to be incapable of independent action. Unlike in our Canadian "terrorism" case one thing it seems we will never know is who the Boston bombers handlers were or for that matter what country they were from.
Sat, 2015-06-27 12:23
#49
Maybe the thuggish cop who arrests my loser brother-in-law for beating up my sister just did so because he owed my BIL money, and jailing him is a good way of getting out of having to pay the debt. But if everyone in my family had been demanding for years that the BIL be arrested, it would be kind of odd for someone else to come along and say "Sheesh, who does that cop think he is, interfering in that family's business like that?"
Who hires appoints and oversees the "cop" in your touching scenario. Is the thuggish cop a visitor from Russia or America or a corporate security type or local cop who is hired and overseen by citizens? Does it matter if the house gets burnt down while the perp is being arrested and the family dog dies in the fire?
Well, I said "thuggish cop" to suggest that the cop was rogue, to make it more comparable to the real-world situation during World War II, where countries can basically do whatever they want.
As for who "hired" the cop, well, again, I think it's pretty established that the British, the Russians, and (I'm assuming) the Free French, and the legitimate, non-collaborating representatives of other European countries, desired American involvement in WWII. So, I guess you can think of Stalin, Churchill etc as the ones who "hired" them.
As for how the war was conducted(ie. "the family dog"), that wasn't the issue addressed in your list, which only talked about American "interference", with no reference, at least in relation to the European theatre, to war-crimes etc. I'd be curious to know which countries America was "interfering" with in that war, given that the legitimate, anti-Nazi governments were the ones requesting American involvement.
Sat, 2015-06-27 13:48
#50
As for how the war was conducted(ie. "the family dog"), that wasn't the issue addressed in your list, which only talked about American "interference", with no reference, at least in relation to the European theatre, to war-crimes etc. I'd be curious to know which countries America was "interfering" with in that war, given that the legitimate, anti-Nazi governments were the ones requesting American involvement.
Selective reading or just sloppy?
"In my view the USA has been engaged in continuous human rights abuses and war crimes since before it broke away from Britain." that is my penultimate sentence before I posted the list of "interventions" in oither countries. Seems pretty clear to me I intended to talk about war crimes.
The people of Dresden paid for the sins of Hitler and his corporate backers like Henry Ford or IBM. Hitler arose as a force because the victorious allies insisted on interfering in German affairs after the war and made a nationalist asshole attractive. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki paid for the sins of their imperial corporate elite.
Fri, 2015-07-03 18:34
#51
The Trial of Dzhokar Tsarnaev and the Political Issues Surrounding the Boston Marathon Bombing
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/02/tsar-j02
"...The ties between the Boston Marathon bombers and US Intelligence extend to family members of the Tsarnaevs. Ruslan Tarni, the uncle of Dzhokar and Tamerlan, at one time headed a group called the Congress of Chechen International Organizations, which supplied anti-Russian rebels fighting in the Caucasus with military equipment.
The organization was run from the suburban Maryland home of former National Intelligence Council Vice Chairman Graham Fuller, Tsarni's then father-in-law. Fuller served as the CIA station chief in Kabul Afghanistan during the 1980s, supplying anti-Russian Islamists with equipment to fight the Soviet-aligned Afghan government."