Thread: Wikileaks: Latest US Death Squad Operations Manual

Originally Posted by Horhey

"Restriction of activity" is a pretty broad suggestion. And why single out labor unions and political groups? Why is "censorship" and "press control" necessary? Nah, there's no pattern here at all. And I can move on to other countries if you like. I just use the example of El Salvador cause more people know about it. And Rocco didnt answer my question regarding this part of the manual for some reason.

Because during times of civil unrest, Labor Unions and Political Groups are among the largest agitators.

Doubt me? Look back at the National Socialist Party and Solidarity.

Remember, among many things the idea is to put an end to civil unrest. And if it means limiting theactivities of groups, that is what is needed to restore order and stability.

You are from the US. And I guess you really do not have any idea how lucky you are. About the only time you have Martial Law here is after a disaster like a hurricane or earthquake. But we have had civil disorder here also, like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. To the point where martial law was proclaimed in order to restore order.

And during Martial Law, what you see as "Civil Rights" go right out the window. Because of paramount importance is restoring order, and protecting the general public.

To you, "Labor Unions" are peacefull cuddly things. That is not always the case in other countries. The same with political parties. Here in the US, about the most dangerous things they exchange is words (and the occasional walking stick). But in other countries, assassinations, attacks, and mass protests with rocks and molotove cocktails is much more common (just look at Greece to see that).

Now put yourself into a situation like that, where a group is causing destruction, and tell me you would not want to see whatever is needed done to put an end to the violence. You really are innocent when it comes to what things are like in other countries. You think "Labor Union", and think the AFL-CIO. You do not see the many outbreaks of violence even in the US started by unions (Keweenaw comes to mind there).

You simply refuse to see reality no matter what. You sit in your little isolated bubble, and think that your "civil rights" are the most important thing in the world. But you fail to see that you live in one of the few countries that is even possible at all.

Originally Posted by Horhey

Oh I see. So they actually have to call them "death squads" for them to be death squads? The term "paramilitary" isnt good enough? They do call them death squads though, right here:

Quote:
Civilian Self-Defense Forces [Paramilitaries, or, especially in an El-Salvador or Colombian civil war context, right wing "death squads"]

They are describing their own paramilitaries as "death squads." Interesting how they acknowledge their Salvadoran and Colombian paramilitaries as death squads internally. Publicly, they were "democratic forces" and the media parroted it.

Silly, you are reading wikileaks commentary as if it was part of the text. Its not. Lets read what the report actually says about death squads, instead of what Wikileaks wants you to think it says.

The major disadvantage of a CSDF program is its potential for abuse. Careful controls must be enforced to prevent the operation or even the perception of death squads or armed bandits. The SFOD, with HN officials, must constantly monitor the behavior of CSDF personnel and halt abuses early in the program.
...
Human rights training and close supervision are extremely important for the CSDF since the negative psychological effects of misbehavior can be devastating. If the populace perceives CSDFs as death squads or bullies, all government legitimacy can be lost, and the CSDF program, as well as the overall FID and/or IDAD campaign, could be badly damaged.
http://wlstorage.net/file/us-fm-31-20-3.pdf

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Because during times of civil unrest, Labor Unions and Political Groups are among the largest agitators.

Doubt me? Look back at the National Socialist Party and Solidarity.

Remember, among many things the idea is to put an end to civil unrest. And if it means limiting theactivities of groups, that is what is needed to restore order and stability.

You are from the US. And I guess you really do not have any idea how lucky you are. About the only time you have Martial Law here is after a disaster like a hurricane or earthquake. But we have had civil disorder here also, like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. To the point where martial law was proclaimed in order to restore order.

And during Martial Law, what you see as "Civil Rights" go right out the window. Because of paramount importance is restoring order, and protecting the general public.

To you, "Labor Unions" are peacefull cuddly things. That is not always the case in other countries. The same with political parties. Here in the US, about the most dangerous things they exchange is words (and the occasional walking stick). But in other countries, assassinations, attacks, and mass protests with rocks and molotove cocktails is much more common (just look at Greece to see that).

Now put yourself into a situation like that, where a group is causing destruction, and tell me you would not want to see whatever is needed done to put an end to the violence. You really are innocent when it comes to what things are like in other countries. You think "Labor Union", and think the AFL-CIO. You do not see the many outbreaks of violence even in the US started by unions (Keweenaw comes to mind there).

You simply refuse to see reality no matter what. You sit in your little isolated bubble, and think that your "civil rights" are the most important thing in the world. But you fail to see that you live in one of the few countries that is even possible at all.

You've bypassed everything else Ive shown.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Silly, you are reading wikileaks commentary as if it was part of the text. Its not. Lets read what the report actually says about death squads, instead of what Wikileaks wants you to think it says.

But all that is contridicted by other parts of the manual.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Silly, you are reading wikileaks commentary as if it was part of the text. Its not. Lets read what the report actually says about death squads, instead of what Wikileaks wants you to think it says.

We have pointed out that very passage to him several times before. It is pointless, because Horhey only sees what he wants to see, and not reality.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

We have pointed out that very passage to him several times before. It is pointless, because Horhey only sees what he wants to see, and not reality.

Ok, so you refuse to address what Ive been showing you. Why? Now who's seeing what they want to see? Nevermind. Im gonna go play Skyrim.

Originally Posted by Horhey

The "enemy" was the majority of the population which was supporting FMLN.

The Oxford Companion to American Military History explains that:



In December 1980, New York Times journalist Raymond Bonner asked Jose Napoleon Duarte, who had just become president of the US-backed ruling junta, "why the guerrillas were in the hills". Duarte, responded with an answer that surprised Bonner:



The response suprised Bonner who did not expect Duarte to offer any justification for the revolution. What suprised Bonner even more was "what he had not said":

Mr. Horhey,
I recall the book "War Is a Racket" by one Major General Smedley Darlington Butler. In this little book, he exposes the actual motivation behind US of AIPAC ( then US) foreign policies and military interventions. See, these motives are nothing new to US of AIPAC policies and foreign "diplomacy"; it is all about the control of resources to benefit US companies, which are now multi-national comglomerates. Another excellent book to read is "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham.These books opened my eyes even further than they were in the knowledge of US foreign diplomacy, foreign policies and military actions.

Originally Posted by Horhey

You've bypassed everything else Ive shown.



But all that is contridicted by other parts of the manual.

Obviously you wouldnt know becase you had never even seen the document until I provided it to you a moment ago. The manual contradicts wikileaks commentary on the manual.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Obviously you wouldnt know becase you had never even seen the document until I provided it to you a moment ago. The manual contradicts wikileaks commentary on the manual.

Just go back and review what Ive already been showing. That's why I dont post here much anymore. You can make a case and nobody sees it so I might as well be sitting here jerkin my dick.

Originally Posted by Alif Qadr

Mr. Horhey,
I recall the book "War Is a Racket" by one Major General Smedley Darlington Butler. In this little book, he exposes the actual motivation behind US of AIPAC ( then US) foreign policies and military interventions. See, these motives are nothing new to US of AIPAC policies and foreign "diplomacy"; it is all about the control of resources to benefit US companies, which are now multi-national comglomerates. Another excellent book to read is "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham.These books opened my eyes even further than they were in the knowledge of US foreign diplomacy, foreign policies and military actions.

Reaganite scholar and Carnegie Endowment's Vice President for Studies, Thomas Carothers wrote the standard scholarly work on U.S. democracy promotion in Latin America in the 1980's.

He writes in part, from an insider's perspective, having served in Reagan's State Department during the 'democracy enhancement' programmes in Central America. He regards these programs as having been a systematic failure:

The Reagan administration was trying to support the military governments that were on the way out if anything, the U.S. policy in that period worked against the democratic trend.

The underlying U.S. goal is maintaining the basic societal orders of particular Latin American countries approximately as they are-ensuring that the economics are not drastically rearranged and that the power relations of the various social sectors are not turned upside down. The underlying objective is to maintain the basic order of what, historically at least, are quite undemocratic societies.

The deep fear in the United States government of populist-based change in Latin America-with all its implications for upsetting established economic and political orders and heading off in a leftist direction- leads to an emphasis on incremental change from the top down.

The Reagan administration came to adopt prodemocracy policies as a means of relieving pressure for more radical change, but inevitably sought only limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied.

The proudest achievement was El Salvador. Here, the Reagan administration sought two goals:

ensuring that technically credible elections were held and that the Christian democratic candidate, Jose Napoleon Duarte, won.

The administration could not conceive of an El Salvador in which the military was not the dominant actor, the economic elite no longer held the national economy in its hands, the left was incorporated into the political system, and all Salvadorans actually had both the formal and substantial possibility of political participation. In short, the US government had no real conception of democracy in El Salvador.

Originally Posted by Horhey

Just go back and review what Ive already been showing. That's why I dont post here much anymore. You can make a case and nobody sees it so I might as well be sitting here jerkin my dick.

I did. I even quoted what you showed.

Originally Posted by Horhey

Quote:
Civilian Self-Defense Forces [Paramilitaries, or, especially in an El-Salvador or Colombian civil war context, right wing "death squads"]

They are describing their own paramilitaries as "death squads." Interesting how they acknowledge their Salvadoran and Colombian paramilitaries as death squads internally.

and like I said

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Silly, you are reading wikileaks commentary as if it was part of the text. Its not.

I can see you still havent grasped the fact that what you showed was commentary by wikileaks, that you interpret as coming from the manual.