Help me explain the CFR and why it is not a good thing..

[qedtanya]

I have a friend who I'm having a friendly debate with and I need some help. Here is part of a letter she wrote to me:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
As far as Ron Paul goes, I saw the debate live and, yeah, he put me off big time. I own a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report, and have read it. Perhaps he didn't state his position eloquently, which was why I was even willing to broach the subject with you, as one of his supporters. I am always open to being educated on what somebody MEANT to say or what impression they meant to give off. I don't know enough about the guy, but I do know that he went only as far back as us putting up the Shah in the 50s - without going into the reason WHY we did that, which are very important reasons. The isues with the Middle East go back way further than that. They want us dead. Period. Put another way - they want ME dead because I don't pray to their God or face Mecca twice a day or whatever. Oh, and I have a job and a mind of my own. And I show my face in public, and I am educated. Non-Muslims do not walk around preaching to kill all Islamic people, but somehow we think it's okay for them to say that about us "infidels". We are not called infidels because of what we've done there, we're called infidels because we are not Muslim. And the supposed leaders of the Islamic community won't come out and denounce the behavior. I can guarantee you, because it's happened in recent history, if a Christian came out and called for a holy war against all of Islam, all the major Christian leaders of the world (including the Pope) would come out against that type of hate speech. Not one single leader in any Islamic community has come out to denounce this bad behavior, which means they really DO believe it. It's passive agreement. At any rate, us just leaving them alone isn't going to solve the problem. They'll just kill us here, rather than us going there. They hate us, they want us all to die. You, me, your kids, my husband, your husband, my stepdaughter. All of us. And it's not because of what we've done (as it seemed to me Ron Paul contends), it's because of what we believe in.

Perhaps you can educate me on why you're against the CFR? I always thought that they were rather non-partisan, but again I don't know enough about it, so I could be fooled.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

So I guess my question is this, I know I could point her to the CFR website but in reading it she might still believe it is a good thing (in her mind), so what credible websites can I direct her to, or articles or whatever, that will show why this is not a good thing?

Thanks for your help!

[kalami]

She's lost

[Lord Xar]

I find that jewish people and those who "like the concept" of a benevolent new world order have NO PROBLEMS with CFR. They are not "getting it", and not looking at things from a deep perspective or even a perspective from the constitution... I didn't either.

Listen, 2 months ago.. I was a necon'ish type of person.. War was good, and even if it wasn't - we removed a dictator... Kill all those bastards over there so that they can have a free society...

.. but that Shamnesty bill woke me up. I saw something bigger going on. I read how bush (who supposedly was enforcing laws --- wasn't at all).. WHY? Why then if we are worried about terrorists AND illegal immigration, MORE illegals passed that border than EVER BEFORE --- yet, we have tougher laws to enforce???? Doesn't make sense..... Then that shamnesty, then I read about the NAU, and liberties being taken away.. and the whole process of "the will of the people" were being suberted by a bill that wasn't even written before they were trying to ram it thru the senate.. I was like "what gives???"... then to find out "special interest" groups sat in on the bills creation... WHAT!!!!!

no... its all wrong. I think sometimes epiphanys happen when we least expect them.

I hope soemeone chimes in with a profound answer for you.

[V4Vendetta]

CFR

Is trying to emplement the NEW WORLD ORDER

WHERE Americans will not have a say in their leadership, and they will be told what to do, and pay global taxes.

not to mention one world currency and one religion

[scrosnoe]

the NAU issue should open many doors for us as people start understanding - think it is a good place to start with many to bring them onboard

[scrosnoe]

think this may be posted elsewhere but pertinent here

Napolitano explains the Unconstitutional Patriot Act
in an excellent format in less than 10 minutes -
please watch and forward!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SU0zuUzrSg

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The CFR is no good because If you believe in national sovereignty you won't like the CFR as its goal is a corporatist NWO where we're basically a bunch of drones with verichips inside our bodies. This wouldn't be my ideal world....

ohh look, Tommy Thompson is now a director for them ha

[Seer]

Explain to her why we took the Shah in. It was to serve the interests of British petrol, not because the Shah wanted us dead. To suggest that anyone could possibly be more angry about low-cut jeans than a foreign power occupying holy land and propping up brutal dictatorships is absurd.

[LibertyEagle]

Take a gander at this. It's a paper written by Richard Haas, the current president of the CFR.

The Opportunity to Define an Era
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Opportunity_Haass.pdf

Richard Haas:

Until June 2003, Richard Haass was director of policy planning for the U.S. Department of State, where he was a principal adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell on a broad range of foreign policy concerns. Confirmed by the U.S. Senate to hold the rank of ambassador, Haass served as U.S. coordinator for policy toward the future of Afghanistan and was the lead U.S. government official in support of the Northern Ireland peace process. For his efforts, he received the State Department’s Distinguished Honor Award.

Ambassador Haass has extensive additional government experience. From 1989 to 1993, he was special assistant to President George Bush and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the staff of the National Security Council. In 1991, Haass was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal for his contributions to the development and articulation of U.S. policy during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Previously, he served in various posts in the Departments of State (1981-85) and Defense (1979-80) and was a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate.

Haass also has been vice president and director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, the Sol M. Linowitz visiting professor of international studies at Hamilton College, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and a research associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. A Rhodes Scholar, Haass holds a bachelor’s from Oberlin College and both a Master and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from Oxford University.
http://www.cfr.org/bios/3350/richard_n_haass.html


Barry Goldwater on the CFR:
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/multi/goldwatr.html

and

The following is from Barry Goldwaters: No Apologies...memoirs written dec.26,1979:


"In the Bible story of David and Goliath we are told that David’s brothers, who were older and bigger than he, ordered David to stay home while they went into the valley to confront the enemy. When David joined them a day or so later, they rebuked him. He replied with a question: “Is there not a cause?”

To my mind there is a cause. That cause is freedom. We stand in danger of losing that freedom- not to a foreign tyrant, but to those well intentioned but misguided elitist utopians who stubbornly refuse to profit from errors of the past.

If I am right, if the Republic is in danger, then time is short. I must take this opportunity to share what I have seen and experienced as a member of the U.S. Senate, as my party’s nominee for the presidency, as a man whose only aspiration has been to serve the cause of freedom.

If I am wrong, time will display my error and reprimand me. If what I say strikes a response in the hearts and minds of other Americans, perhaps they will enlist in the cause to keep our country strong and to restrain those who seek to diminish the importance and significance of the individual. (Page 14)

The Nonelected Rulers

I believe the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, monarchy, oligarchy—it’s all the same to them.

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, USN (Retd.), who was a member of the CFR for sixteen years, has written, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common—they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.” Their goal is to impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through the merger and consolidation. They see the elimination of national boundaries, the suppression of racial and ethnic loyalties as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. Their rationale rests exclusively on materialism. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension. This approach dismisses as insignificant the form of government or the political ideology expressed by that form.

It may be that if the CFR vision of the future could be realized, there would be a reduction in wars, a lessening of poverty, a more efficient utilization of the world’s resources. To my mind, this would inevitably be accompanied by a loss of personal freedom of choice and the reestablishment of the restraints which provoked the American Revolution."


The following blueprint called, "Building a North American Community", also came out of the CFR:
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

Robert Pastor, one of the chief architects has always claimed during the interviews in the U.S. that I have seen that this is pure innocence. I found his testimony before the House of Commons in Canada to provide a quite different perspective however: http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/PastorTestimonyCanada.pdf

[CurtisLow]

Educating The Public.


Here's a good web page on CFR


http://presidentialcandidates.wetpaint.com/


:rolleyes:

[Chester Copperpot]

I have a friend who I'm having a friendly debate with and I need some help. Here is part of a letter she wrote to me:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
As far as Ron Paul goes, I saw the debate live and, yeah, he put me off big time. I own a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report, and have read it. Perhaps he didn't state his position eloquently, which was why I was even willing to broach the subject with you, as one of his supporters. I am always open to being educated on what somebody MEANT to say or what impression they meant to give off. I don't know enough about the guy, but I do know that he went only as far back as us putting up the Shah in the 50s - without going into the reason WHY we did that, which are very important reasons. The isues with the Middle East go back way further than that. They want us dead. Period. Put another way - they want ME dead because I don't pray to their God or face Mecca twice a day or whatever. Oh, and I have a job and a mind of my own. And I show my face in public, and I am educated. Non-Muslims do not walk around preaching to kill all Islamic people, but somehow we think it's okay for them to say that about us "infidels". We are not called infidels because of what we've done there, we're called infidels because we are not Muslim. And the supposed leaders of the Islamic community won't come out and denounce the behavior. I can guarantee you, because it's happened in recent history, if a Christian came out and called for a holy war against all of Islam, all the major Christian leaders of the world (including the Pope) would come out against that type of hate speech. Not one single leader in any Islamic community has come out to denounce this bad behavior, which means they really DO believe it. It's passive agreement. At any rate, us just leaving them alone isn't going to solve the problem. They'll just kill us here, rather than us going there. They hate us, they want us all to die. You, me, your kids, my husband, your husband, my stepdaughter. All of us. And it's not because of what we've done (as it seemed to me Ron Paul contends), it's because of what we believe in.

Perhaps you can educate me on why you're against the CFR? I always thought that they were rather non-partisan, but again I don't know enough about it, so I could be fooled.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

So I guess my question is this, I know I could point her to the CFR website but in reading it she might still believe it is a good thing (in her mind), so what credible websites can I direct her to, or articles or whatever, that will show why this is not a good thing?

Thanks for your help!

people in the CFR are taking an oath to the CFR.. and that oath is what they remain loyal to AFTER theyve pledge the Oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution ..

[nayjevin]

ask a few questions and send a few Ron Paul library links and just hope she will look into it and open her own eyes. a sophisticated level of rationalization is hard to reverse. don't push, ask questions -- my advice

one problem is that her arguments are one big generalization of Muslims. just like Christians interpret the bible in a wide array of ways, so do Muslims with the Koran. only a very few believe so extremely that 'infidels' are out to harm all non-Muslims. someone who thinks 'all Muslims are out to get me' is a hard nut to crack.

so here's what i think, although it might not be best to tell this type of person much more than where to find out why she is wrong.

why should we carpet bomb the cities of iraq to try to rid the region of a select few jihadists that don't have any real ability to wage war with us? After standing down 30,000 nukes in russia during the cold war, are we really afraid of a few cave dwellers/ goat herders?

no matter how many Muslims think all non-Muslims should die -- the best way to protect our people is to defend them at home! Why are we putting our soldiers in THEIR front yards and give them a chance to hurt them? Keep them home to protect us.

if we want retribution for 9/11, why aren't we tracking down the 'most wanted' list provided in the media soon after the attacks? why aren't we hunting bin laden?

there are islamic leaders who have come out against acts of terror, and jihadists. one of the problems is that the islamic leaders aren't responsible for the attacks -- so why would they take responsibility by speaking out against 'their people' committing these atrocities?

The middle east and it's oil is one big hunk of cheese between many, many factions of people with different interests. with so many powerful religious cultures and authoritarian governments, and so much incentive to control land -- hundreds of years worth of power struggles are not surprising.

unfortunately our government is loaded with people who will bow to others who have most to gain (or lose) from a particular outcome of that struggle -- and millions upon millions of lobbyist money is spent to influence U.S. foreign policy in the region.

our foreign policies, as much as they tell us otherwise, are not about our freedom, or our safety. Right now, I truly believe I am Safe From Terrorism.

Ron Paul says we should leave it alone and defend ourselves from an attack on OUR SOIL. We failed miserably, missing the signs of 9/11, and we were unable to prevent it. Perhaps that's because our military and national guard is spread into over 100 countries?

So isn't it a good idea to bring our troops home, and protect OUR borders?

[The Dane]

At any rate, us just leaving them alone isn't going to solve the problem. They'll just kill us here, rather than us going there. They hate us, they want us all to die. You, me, your kids, my husband, your husband, my stepdaughter. All of us. And it's not because of what we've done (as it seemed to me Ron Paul contends), it's because of what we believe in.

Im really confused about this. My brother is a Danish Christian person and he has been living in Iran for 2 months, and he says that his experience was that the people of Iran are some of the most freindly, welcoming and warm people he knows, and he has been in most countries of Europe (and i dont think we are so bad people around here). He was even there 10 days some months ago, and my father warned him, because they "could think he was american (spy or something)" but all he experienced was freindly people. The military was present but they did not treat him badly.

So what she is saying is simply not true. It is a huge lie she has been told.



Perhaps you can educate me on why you're against the CFR? I always thought that they were rather non-partisan, but again I don't know enough about it, so I could be fooled.

So I guess my question is this, I know I could point her to the CFR website but in reading it she might still believe it is a good thing (in her mind), so what credible websites can I direct her to, or articles or whatever, that will show why this is not a good thing?


The crucial point is about globalisation. Give the example of Europe that is now so expanded that they are seriously trying to include Turkey in Europe. Its a muslim country!!!
I dont have anything against muslims as stated above, but i think that i want to keep my own country and my /our values here... Does this woman want to keep her American values???

Ask her that. And then tell her about that globalisation is destroying the culture and values and they get replaced with a chip in your body and thats it. (maybe leave out that last part though).

I have seen some good sources, links, showing that the only agenda of the CFR is globalisation (and thereby destruction of America), but you will have to look around for them. Maybe someone else here know.

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

None Dare Call It Conspiracy

[LibertyEagle]

Frankly, I think it would be a lot easier to talk to your friend about the foolishness of our foreign policy than go down the CFR path.

I mean, seriously, why would we take our focus off of bin Laden and the people who attacked us and allow them to escape to Pakistan, while we invade a country who did not attack us and overthrow a leader who was a sworn enemy of Al Qaeda? It doesn't make much sense to me.

"The politicians really are at fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties, for simply lying to the America people." -Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Second/dp/0805075593

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Report-Terrorist-Hardcover-Authorized/dp/0393060411


"His [bin Laden’s] rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources -- Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War..."-- 9/11 Commission Report, pages 48-49

"There are a lot of things that are different now [after the invasion of Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the US and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so- called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, May 2003

"One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe -- at the urging of senior U.S. leaders -- that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 8

"We assume, moreover, that bin Laden and the Islamists hate us for our liberty, freedoms, and democracy -- not because they and many millions of Muslims believe U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam or because the U.S. military now has a ten-year record of smashing people and things in the Islamic world."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 165

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq is Osama bin Laden's gift from America, one he has long and ardently desired, but never realistically expected."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 213

"Although suicide terrorism is virtually always a response to foreign occupation, only some occupations lead to this result. Suicide terrorism is most likely when the occupying power's religion differs from the religion of the occupied, for three reasons. A conflict across a religious divide increases fears that the enemy will seek to transform the occupied society; makes demonization, and therefore killing, of enemy civilians easier; and makes it easier to use one's own religion to relabel suicides that would otherwise be taboo as martyrdom instead."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 22

"An attempt to transform Muslim societies through regime change is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face. The root cause of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation and the threat that foreign military presence poses to the local community's way of life. ... Even if our intentions are good, anti-American terrorism would likely grow, and grow rapidly."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 245

"The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not 'attack America,' as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page XV

"The term 'blowback,' which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of 'terrorists' or 'drug lords' or 'rogue states' or 'illegal arms merchants' often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page 8


Press conference at National Press Club with Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer (former Chief, CIA bin Laden Unit):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

Interview after the press conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A45NG8tOCQ

This is also interesting.
Chalmers Johnson
In Conversation, at the University of San Francisco Center for the Pacific Rim (VIDEO)
http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=766

--------------


"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom."
-- John Quincy Adams

It would also be important to direct your friend to read some of Dr. Paul's speeches on the subject, way back, where he was wanting to stay focused on bin Laden and Al Qaeda and in addition, proposed legislation to in essence put a bounty on his head, with the Letters of Marquee and Reprisal.

[gravesdav]

One argument against, "They hate us because we're infidels" argument that helps support Ron Paul is Albania. This is a majority Muslim country. Yet they love George Bush and they love America.
It's political. We took a hard stance against the Russians and against communism so they like us.(politically it's more complicated, but thats the basic idea)
We get positive feelings as well as negative feelings because of our foreign policy.
Interventionism makes very few friends, but the point is its all about foreign policy.

[qednick]

Frankly, I think it would be a lot easier to talk to your friend about the foolishness of our foreign policy than go down the CFR path.

I mean, seriously, why would we take our focus off of bin Laden and the people who attacked us and allow them to escape to Pakistan, while we invade a country who did not attack us and overthrow a leader who was a sworn enemy of Al Qaeda? It doesn't make much sense to me.

"The politicians really are at fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties, for simply lying to the America people." -Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Second/dp/0805075593

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Report-Terrorist-Hardcover-Authorized/dp/0393060411


"His [bin Laden’s] rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources -- Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War..."-- 9/11 Commission Report, pages 48-49

"There are a lot of things that are different now [after the invasion of Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the US and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so- called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, May 2003

"One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe -- at the urging of senior U.S. leaders -- that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 8

"We assume, moreover, that bin Laden and the Islamists hate us for our liberty, freedoms, and democracy -- not because they and many millions of Muslims believe U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam or because the U.S. military now has a ten-year record of smashing people and things in the Islamic world."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 165

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq is Osama bin Laden's gift from America, one he has long and ardently desired, but never realistically expected."-- Michael Scheuer (former head the CIA's bin Laden unit), Imperial Hubris, page 213

"Although suicide terrorism is virtually always a response to foreign occupation, only some occupations lead to this result. Suicide terrorism is most likely when the occupying power's religion differs from the religion of the occupied, for three reasons. A conflict across a religious divide increases fears that the enemy will seek to transform the occupied society; makes demonization, and therefore killing, of enemy civilians easier; and makes it easier to use one's own religion to relabel suicides that would otherwise be taboo as martyrdom instead."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 22

"An attempt to transform Muslim societies through regime change is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face. The root cause of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation and the threat that foreign military presence poses to the local community's way of life. ... Even if our intentions are good, anti-American terrorism would likely grow, and grow rapidly."-- Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win, page 245

"The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not 'attack America,' as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page XV

"The term 'blowback,' which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of 'terrorists' or 'drug lords' or 'rogue states' or 'illegal arms merchants' often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations."-- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page 8


Press conference at National Press Club with Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer (former Chief, CIA bin Laden Unit):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

Interview after the press conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A45NG8tOCQ

This is also interesting.
Chalmers Johnson
In Conversation, at the University of San Francisco Center for the Pacific Rim (VIDEO)
http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=766

--------------


"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom."
-- John Quincy Adams

It would also be important to direct your friend to read some of Dr. Paul's speeches on the subject, way back, where he was wanting to stay focused on bin Laden and Al Qaeda and in addition, proposed legislation to in essence put a bounty on his head, with the Letters of Marquee and Reprisal.

Good points. I think it needs to be pointed out to her that RP supported going after Bin Laden in Afganistan. It's Iraq that he had a problem with. Several years later we're still there and still no WMDs to be found.

[Electrostatic]

My "quick and dirty" way to describe the CFR in a way people instantly understand is simply to call it "The National WTO Lobby"

[ThePieSwindler]

Im really confused about this. My brother is a Danish Christian person and he has been living in Iran for 2 months, and he says that his experience was that the people of Iran are some of the most freindly, welcoming and warm people he knows, and he has been in most countries of Europe (and i dont think we are so bad people around here). He was even there 10 days some months ago, and my father warned him, because they "could think he was american (spy or something)" but all he experienced was freindly people. The military was present but they did not treat him badly.



Iran is also a well developed, industrialized nation.. on top of that it is a SHI'A islam majority, whilst al qaeda is sufari sunni. What does that mean? well it means they have differences and animosity with each other that goes much deeper than anything that could compare to the west. Iran would not help Al Qaeda at all, or prop them up. The president of iran did not even say he wanted to wipe israel off the map, nor did he deny the holocaust. Those were simply mistranslations. Everything the neocons et al. try to accuse Iran of to try to justify a war is fabricated or inaccurate. The only real tangible piece of evidence, a nuke, is in and of itself not an issue- plenty of nations of dozens or more nuclear weapons. The only way that having a nuke would be a bad thing is if the leader has shown that he is insane. Kim Jong Ill has done this... yet they do nothing - it was in the news for a couple weeks but then died down. However, Iran is trying to get one, and its a huge deal because Ahmadinejad allegedly "called for the destruction of israel" (which is not true). What is the different between Iran and NK? Iran has oil. Maybe thats not the only reason they wish to attack, but i find it uncanny that Iran trying to develop one nuke is such a huge deal while NK has ALREADY DEVELOPED them and it receives limited coverage.

[Brandybuck]

From a non-conspiracy perspective: Just look up CFR on Wikipedia.

I don't ascribe to conspiracy what can be more simply ascribed to a common purpose or agenda. The nature of the CFR is such that its members have a common "globalist" and statist agenda. It is also an elite and presigious organization so a lot of DC politicians will join it, in much the same way that most local politicians will join Kiwanis or Rotary. This includes most of the movers and shakers in DC.

Most members of the CFR tend to be "globalists" in the same way that most members of the Democrat Party tend to be liberals. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the Democrat Party is a conspiracy

This in no way excuses the CFR for promoting a statist agenda. We should look at members of the CFR with extreme suspicion because of this.

p.s. I put "globalist" in quotes because I don't like that word, as it implies far more than it should. Lots of stuff that is global is good. Free trade, for example.

[lynnf]

Here's another link with interesting info about the CFR

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807/emhist.html


lynn

[Gee]

The CFR is a voluntary organization. Its only bad insofar as special interest groups have undue sway over our government. Like corporate lobbyists, I think it is a symptom of the problem of government having too much power. When government is limited, groups like the CFR can do little, and so may not even be formed.

To me it looks like an open "conspiracy", like the NAACP, the GOP, or even these forums.

[Cindy]

The CFR is a voluntary organization. Its only bad insofar as special interest groups have undue sway over our government. Like corporate lobbyists, I think it is a symptom of the problem of government having too much power. When government is limited, groups like the CFR can do little, and so may not even be formed.

To me it looks like an open "conspiracy", like the NAACP, the GOP, or even these forums.

I'm not sure about the "open" part. It's my understanding that the press is not allowed at their meetings, and that they take an oath of silence to what goes on there. I also understand that you have to be invited to attend.

The silence was more prominant back in the day-it was started in the 1950s. I think they have grown so confident of their having pretty much infiltrated everything that holds power right now, making them unstoppable "in their eyes", that they don't care much anymore who knows about it or what they are doing and why.

[Original_Intent]

I'm not sure about the "open" part. It's my understanding that the press is not allowed at their meetings, and that they take an oath of silence to what goes on there. I also understand that you have to be invited to attend.

The silence was more prominant back in the day-it was started in the 1950s. I think they have grown so confident of their having pretty much infiltrated now, making them unstoppable "in their eyes", that they don't care much anymore who knows about it or what they are doing and why.

I am not sure they are not unstoppable. But that doesn't mean I won't go down swinging.

Not trying to bring anyone down, but I have been in this fight for 15 to 20 years, and in order to win we are going to need to get, at minimum 25% of the population to REALLY wake up, and my experience has been that as long as they can have their 30 year mortgage that they will never pay off, mind-numbing "entertainment" most people just want to be left alone. They don't care if this country is going down the toilet just so long as the shit doesn't hit the fan during their lifetime.

Man I am even depressing myself. :(

[RonPaul2012grassroots]

She's lost

Agreed.


They want us dead. Period.

JMO, but I think you're wasting your time and energy on someone who harbors hate like that in his/her heart toward people they've never met. For all the time and effort expended there one could go introduce Ron Paul's message to several others who would be receptive.

[Cindy]

I said they think they are unstopable now. I don't think that myself and niether should anyone else who is left breathing.

There are waves of freedom rolling through the lands, and each set gets larger and lasts longer. These guys are the equivalent of trying to build and maintain sand walls while a 300 year tide is coming in.

Like a late afternnon at the beach, you can only hold it back for so long, before the ocean takes it with it.

We are wave makers and the tide is growing closer with every move we all make.

More and more pressure is coming in on them and they will break and crumble soon enough, is my beleif.

Not everyone is buying the "NAU is a conspiracy theory myth" propaganda. The State of Montana has some serious legislation in place to put a stop to it. They will not go along or down without a fight.

Keep making waves, keeping joining waves, keep getting people to join your waves, keep the movementum growing stronger, and keep up with the pressure on them everyone.

I beleive they are stopable if we all beleive and ACT with the power of the tidal wave!

[Thom1776]

From her letter, it's obvious she is a pea-brain.

She's a raving Islamaphobe. She has been perfectly socially engineered to believe the "they just hate us because they do" crap that the fear mongers use to control the sheeple.

Real Americans are not cowards. Only cowards run around saying stuff like that. She'd rather give up all her liberty so the government can keep her safe.

Tell her: "I'm sorry to see that you live in such fear. Maybe someday you won't be so scared to live a life of true liberty and freedom as an American and you will stop worrying about things that "could" happen."

[Gee]

I'm not sure about the "open" part. It's my understanding that the press is not allowed at their meetings, and that they take an oath of silence to what goes on there. I also understand that you have to be invited to attend.

The silence was more prominant back in the day-it was started in the 1950s. I think they have grown so confident of their having pretty much infiltrated everything that holds power right now, making them unstoppable "in their eyes", that they don't care much anymore who knows about it or what they are doing and why.
By open I meant they are not a secret organization. They have a website (http://www.cfr.org/) where they regularly suggest policies and that sort of thing. I suppose they could have secret, ulterior motives, but then so could any organization.

[Cindy]

Yes, they do have "press releases" now. It's my understanding that the press is still not allowed into all of their meetings and that they still take an oath of silence.

I don't have issue with people talking in secret in itself. I do have issue with people who help to make policy doing it.

I remember going to my first Board of Directors and Finance Committee meetings in my CDD. They are open to the public, and minutes are kept and a tape recorder runs, however, when the stuff people NEEDED to know about, that would have an effect on where policy needed to be changed came up, the tape recorder was turned off and those comments never made it into the minutes. If any of the few there "talked" to the community about it, it was written off as crazy slanderous heresay and unprovable.

I gave up on this place as the residents don't seem to care about how their million dollar a year tax budget is being pilfered away to special interests.

It's sad how trusting, ignorant and asleep people want to stay. They wouldn't let a stranger walk into their home and steal money from their wallet, yet they let their governments do it all the time and could care less.

At least trying to make positive change in the national community, there are people who care and I am glad to be with you all on this movement.

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, " Freedom requires constant vigilence".

[qedtanya]

From her letter, it's obvious she is a pea-brain.

She's a raving Islamaphobe. She has been perfectly socially engineered to believe the "they just hate us because they do" crap that the fear mongers use to control the sheeple.

Real Americans are not cowards. Only cowards run around saying stuff like that. She'd rather give up all her liberty so the government can keep her safe.

Tell her: "I'm sorry to see that you live in such fear. Maybe someday you won't be so scared to live a life of true liberty and freedom as an American and you will stop worrying about things that "could" happen."

Please do not insult my friend. She has her views and she's quite entitled to them. She is also a very educated (if misguided) woman and NOT a pea-brain. I don't believe that she lives in fear, she just lives in confusion and she's perfectly willing to have an open mind about what I have to say. I just needed a little help in pointing her in the right direction, withOUT insulting her because I love her dearly and don't want to loose her friendship. I don't think it was right of you to say this.....