Call me a conspiracy theorist, but what other explaination is there.
All administrations, for the better part of the past century, have had “talks”, “summits”, “conventions” and a sundry of other “meetings” in which Americans have found themselves beholden to various treaties and commitments involving the pouring of American dollars down various global rat-holes.
What makes me sure of a “conspiracy” is America’s inconsistant and arbitrary foreign policy. Our government condemns the social policy of country X, but turns a blind-eye to country Y’s similar social policy.
I call it “Policy Du Jour”.
For instance: America’s foreign policy towards South Africa in the 80’s was dedicated to the overturning of “aparthied”. But yet, America subsidizes Israel’s de facto aparthied government.
Meanwhile, the once prosperous countries of South Africa and Rhodesia are fast becoming typical third-world dung-hills, ripe for the exploitation of the land’s natural resources by collaborators within the Council on Foreign Relations.
NATO, the world’s global police force (if it quacks like a duck…), bombs Yugoslavia and sends “peacekeepers” to Bosnia to protect the alien Muslim population from the indigenous Christians.
Now, in post-aparthied Africa, blacks in South Africa and Zimbabwe are butchering and raping the white minority.
I find it odd that there is no concern to send in “peace-keeping” troops to protect the white population of Zimbabwe and South Africa from being “ethnically cleansed”.
Actually, I don’t find it “odd”, I find it disgustingly hypocritical and more evidence supporting the existance of The New World Order’s hidden agenda.
American foreign policy, aided the apartehid governmentr at many times. (I’m not even not touching the Israel = appartehid issue)
The Bosnian Muslims are not ‘alien’ to the area anymore than the Croatians or the Serbs. All three groups were up until a few centuries ago just plain old Southern Slavs, but adopted different religions.
Buthchered is hardly the right word, there have been sevreal attacks and few murders in Zimbawe and South Africa, but nothing that could be described as ethnic cleansing.
Now, in post-aparthied Africa, blacks in South Africa and Zimbabwe are butchering and raping the white minority
Speaking as a South African I’ve got to respond here. The vast majority of crimes still occur in poor economic areas (ie non-white areas in the old days of apartheid). If anyone’s being butchered or raped it’s still the people who live in poverty.
I have to agree with MC that the US government did aid the SA govt at times especially when the SA government claimed they were fighting the spread of communism in Africa (as shown by our forays into Angola).
Which just highlights why conspiracies spread. People with a lack of evidence, drawing conclusions from assumption and anecdotes as the OP did here.
Now, in post-aparthied Africa, blacks in South Africa and Zimbabwe are butchering and raping the white minority
Speaking as a South African I’ve got to respond here. The vast majority of crimes still occur in poor economic areas (ie non-white areas in the old days of apartheid). If anyone’s being butchered or raped it’s still the people who live in poverty.
I have to agree with MC that the US government did aid the SA govt at times especially when the SA government claimed they were fighting the spread of communism in Africa (as shown by our forays into Angola).
Which just highlights why conspiracies spread. People with a lack of evidence, drawing conclusions from assumption and anecdotes as the OP did here.
OK, You’re a conspiracy theorist. Well? That’s what he said he wanted.
Explanation for what? For the wildly inconsistent application of U.S. power to both support and oppose authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (sometimes the same regime in the same nation), depending on which U.S. political party was in power and which foreign government is perceived as the worse threat or the lesser evil and which U.S. corporation or industry either feels threatened or sees an opportunity if the government does or does not intervene on their behalf?
Actually, I would not even call you a conspiracy theorist because you do not appear to have an actual theory. You seem to have a vague feeling of resentment regarding certain events, bolstered by incredible misinformation regarding the actual situations that you claim support your feelings.
Regarding your odd comparison of the fractured Yugoslavia to the situations in Zimbabwe and South Africa (and not even bothering to correct the rather horrible errors of fact already addressed), it should be pretty obvious to most people that once Yugoslavia disintegrated, the situations in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Serbia (still known for a while as Yugoslavia) involved international situations–that is situations between nations, (as in addressable by the United Nations) while the situation in the south of Africa (which is nowhere near as bad as the situation in the Balkans) involves internal situations of the respective countries, making UN involvement more problematic, as intervention would be a violation of its charter.
I’m starting to get upset. With all the conspiracies out there, why don’t I ever get invited to join one?
Tom:
The Nato boming of Sebia was in response to the conditions in Kosovo, then a recognized part of (what remained of) Yuogoslavia. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Kosovo is even today not independent of Serbia/Yugoslavia.
Having said that, I certainly agree with the rest of your post.
Razor: Give us some numbers to go along with your assertions. How many people died in the Kosovo conflict compared to how many have died in S.A. Does the US have an uneven, or perhaps inconsistent foreign policy? Yes. Is that a conspiracy? I see no evidence. Why don’t you tell us who the conspirators are? Are they the same ones who thwarted any efforts to deal with the situation in Rwanda?
Razorsharp, while I agree with you in principle, I don’t think the evidence you mentioned constitutes a conspiracy per se. Personally, I think it’s just about greed, exploitation, and extension of the empire. The US gov. routinely ignores conflicts and genocide when it is not in their interest to intervene. Only when there is a material benefit will we intervene (oil, strategic location, pipelines, etc) - though then we will portray it as the moral and just thing to do. To me, this doesn’t seem to be a conspiracy. Just the US being selfish, dominating pigs.
If you want to get into the Bilderberg Group, Skull & Bones, Council On Foreign Relations, Illuminati - then we can talk conspiracy.
True. But, as you note, it was NATO, not the UN, that was doing the intervention.
(Had the UN gotten more involved, I suspect that it would have been a carry-over from the attempts to keep Yugoslavia/Serbia from extending its terror, but as it was, the UN pretty much did not get involved with Kosovo.)
True. But, as you note, it was NATO, not the UN, that was doing the intervention.
(Had the UN gotten more involved, I suspect that it would have been a carry-over from the attempts to keep Yugoslavia/Serbia from extending its terror, but as it was, the UN pretty much did not get involved with Kosovo.)
Yes, perhaps the U.S. did, on occasion, support South Africa, but that bit of sophistry does not refute the fact that, during the Eighties, the United States foreign policy, with regards to South Africa, dedicated itself to the overturning of apartheid.
Why won’t you touch the Israel/apartheid issue? See, this is what I mean. In one instance, “apartheid” is morally dispicable. In another instance, it is understood to be permisable. This makes for an incoherent foreign policy that engenders animosity on the side that is not favored. No mistake there.
In Serbia, there existed a situation where one ethnic group was attempting to “reclaim” the area from another ethnic group.
Say, for instance, here in the United States there existed an ethnic group that had the goal of “reclaiming” a portion of the United States that they considered their historic homeland. Hmm… come to think of it…
“The ethnic cleansing of Southern Africa’s commercial farm communities has taken the lives of 1,334 farmers, farm workers and their kin since 1994, the year the ANC took power. The farmers were killed most often in violent, organized attacks, always by young African males. Add to the death toll 12 farmers killed in Zimbabwe and four in Namibia. In 85 percent of the killings, not one item was stolen from the farms and farmhouses.”
South African President Thabo Mbeki has called the farm murders of whites “the final stage of the revolution.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28421
“While the words ‘peace’, ‘democracy’, ‘reconciliation’ and ‘justice’ are gushing out like verbal diarrhea from politicians’ mouths, something totally different is gushing out from countless defenceless, innocent victims : Blood and guts. Now classified under the euphemism ‘crime’, the terror continues unabated, - if anything, worse than ever before. The aim is still the same : To drive out the white man and to intimidate all opposition, white and black. The focus is still on lonely farms and on the weak and helpless : Especially the elderly, women, even babies are brutally attacked, beaten, raped and killed. The politically correct, fawning media reports the ‘crime’ on page 4, it even makes clucking noises every now and then, - but none dare call it what it is : Terrorism in its pure, unadulterated form. Terrorism aided and abetted by the Regime in its many forms and variations : Be they Ministers like Peter Mokaba shouting 'Kill the Boer”, Missies Mandela screaming out hate-speech, hit-squads slaying opposition politicians, or the gullible mob doing the butchering on the streets, inside houses, at the work place, or on farms. By the end of 2001, 7 years into ANC/Communist rule more than 1150 mostly white farmers have already been murdered in the so-called democratic new South Africa." http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/imagesterror.htm (nice pictures too)
“In the former British colony of Zimbabwe, this is the chaotic scene that has been repeated throughout the country. White-owned farms are being violently taken over by roving bands of disgruntled black citizens, many of whom are self- described veterans of Zimbabwe’s civil war 20 years ago. The violence has led to the murders of five white farmers since February, two killed this week. Farmer David Stephens was shot on Saturday. Then, farmer Martin Olds was murdered Tuesday after his house was firebombed.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/jan-june00/zimbabwe_4-21a.html
“In recent months, Zimbabwe has been in crisis. More than 1,200 white families have been driven off their farms, four white farmers were brutally murdered, 20 other people have been killed, and the government says to expect more land confiscations from whites.” http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/5/18/164531
If you were to make a list of the worst sectarian/ethnic/regional violence in Africa over the past decade, do you think your SA and Zimbabwe situations would make the top ten?
Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote dIvoire, Angola, Somalia, Congo/Zaire off the top of my head. From http://www.onwar.com I see that Ghana and Nigeria have both had internal spats killing thousands and displacing tens of thousands. And who can forget such long-running classics as Algeria or the Sudanese Civil war (1955-present).
Bottom line is we just don’t care much about who does what to whom in Africa (or a lot of other places for that matter). It has too little effect on us.
The only reason Zimbabwe is on the radar screen is that it is black on white oppression (the fact that most of the oppression in Zimbabwe is black on black isn’t interesting). South Africa is the case of a feel good story threatening to go bad.
I think its a stretch to say that there is a double standard operating against whites (but in favor of white Muslims and Jews?) based solely on interventions in Europe and the Middle East, where are attention and interests are both more strongly rooted
Hey, I admit it, I do resent certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Especially when it has gotten to the point that it endangers United States citizens. And as a result of that “endangerment”, America has taken a step closer to a police-state with the establishment of various “security” apparatchiks. Of course, it’s all for our own best interests that we allow “Big Brother” to watch over us.
“odd comparison”, “horrible errors of fact”??? I don’t see it. We bombed Yugoalavia into submission to the dictates of the global governance of NATO, for the crime of “ethnic cleansing”, but turn a blind-eye to ethnic cleansing on other parts of the globe, which could lead one to believe that “ethnic cleansing” is just a ruse used as an excuse for intervention. You know, sort of like “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.
I guess that would depend on whether or not a gasoline soaked tire was hanging around your neck.
“UN involvement”, “NATO involvement”, both are tantamount to United States involvement and be it “internal” or “international” doesn’t seem to amount to a hill of beans when in conflict with the “ideals” of globalism.
Well, do you ever get an invitation to join anything?
Hey, if you want numbers, well, the “information super-highway” is at your fingertips. Get your own numbers.
Anyway, do numbers really matter when it comes to “ethnic cleansing”? Whether it’s a hundred or a hundred thousand, is it any more or less evil? If you have something to say with regards to numbers, by all means do so, but I ain’t jumpin’ thru no hoops.
Wouldn’t it be considered a conspiracy to claim that the reason for intervention is based on a sense of benevolence and morality, when, behind-the-scenes, those that are planning the “intervention” are “conspiring” for an altogether different motive other than benevolence or morality?
Evidently, you didn’t read closely enough.
Whether cloaked under the auspices of UN or NATO, it’s really the United States, for without the United States taxpayer footin’ the bill, it wouldn’t get done. And to keep the U.S. taxpayer pacified, the government wraps its intentions in the appealing guise of benevolence and morality.
razor, just come out and tell us what the conspiracy actually IS. You’ve given us a bunch of separate examples of US foreign policy, but not a cohesive theory explaining the behavior.
So what’s the theory? What’s REALLY taking place? What’s the real endgame of this conspiracy?
You have provided no evidence of this “New World Order” and have provided no evidence of a conspiracy, anywhere.
Most people will agree with the notion that there is a lot of inconsistency regarding who gets saved and who does not get saved through various interventions. However, you claim that such erratic decisions are part of some grand plot while being unable to explain who is in on the plot or why they are acting the way they do. You also have a particularly poor grasp of facts when you equate the few thousand (admittedly horrible) deaths in the south of Africa to the tens of thousands of deaths in the former Yugoslavia while completely ignoring the tens of thousands of deaths in other parts of Africa (where the victims happen to be black) as well as the black victims in the countries you are complaining about–and top it off with the factually dishonest claim that someone sent “peacekeepers” to Bosnia to protect the alien Muslim population from the indigenous Christians" despite the fact that the Muslims are part of the same indigenous population.
It would almost appear that you are deliberately trying to dismiss the deaths of non-whites and non-Christians, even when they are the victims of white Christians, in order to pretend that there is some vast conspiracy (for which you have no evidence beyond your vague feelings).
It’s your thread, buddy. If you can’t provide facts to back up your claims, don’t expect people to debate with you.
Numbers do matter, not in terms of whether it is more or less evil, but whether the US or any country is going to spend it’s limitted resources on intervention. If th US sent in bombers every time one ethnic group clashes with another and someone dies, we’d be doing nothing else. When it’s state sponsored on a large scale, then we consider it a possibility. But even then it’s only one factor that goes into the decision. Others are: Is there a strategic interest to the US? Can we reasonably pick sides and get in and out without too many US casualities? Get the picture yet?
I would consider being lied to as evidence, wouldn’t you? I mean, if someone told you that they were going to do something for a specific reason, and, come to find out, it was done for a completely different reason, wouldn’t you become suspicious of the motive? Let me ask you, do you think that the terrorists that attacked the WTC did so because they have a hatred for the abstract concept of “freedom and democracy”?
I don’t. I think that the foreign policy, that the United States has been engaged in for the past half-century, contributed directly to the slaughter of innocents that took place on 9/11. And, like I said before, I resent certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Especially when it has gotten to the point that it endangers innocent American citizens. And, as a result of that “endangerment”, America has taken a step closer to a police-state with the establishment of various “security” apparatchiks.
Just the opposite, see, the deaths of non-whites and non-christians are trumpeted by the establishment media, while the deaths of whites and Christians, at the hands of “minorities” is either downplayed or even “ignored” by the establishment media. By pointing this out, you mistake that for “ignoring” the deaths of non-whites. (An obvious stretch of the imagination.) This double-standard leads me to believe that the establishment media has an agenda of manipulating public opinion rather than reporting the news as it happens.
Take Private Jessie Lynch, for example.
It was reported that the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, to which Pvt. Lynch was assigned was “ambushed” by Iraqi forces. It was further reported that the “ambush” took place after a 507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.
Now hold on a minute. “Ambushed”? After taking a wrong turn?
It was reported that Pvt. Jessie Lynch, although both shot and stabbed, was heroically and fiercly “fighting to the death” and only stopped fighting after running out of ammunition. (Well, who wouldn’t.)
Then it came to light that Pvt. Lynch was neither shot or stabbed and now can remember no details of her “ordeal”.
(How convenient for the media crafted image of “hero” that was designed specifically for the feminist agenda.)
Now, I ask you, would that not qualify as a conspiracy? See, conspiracies occur all the time.
How about Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations Security Council, where he detailed the “evidence” of Iraq’s WMD?
When Colin Powell addressed the Security Council to justify a need to invade Iraq, his “justifications” consisted of pointing to aerial photographs and proclaiming the existence of “weapons of mass destruction” within an obscure building or cargo container, and the majority of Americans embraced his words as though the government would never lie.
Then it was revealed that Colin Powell’s information regarding Iraq’s WMD was gleaned from a British intelligence report. Problem is, the so-called “British intelligence report” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) was plagarized from a California graduate student’s thesis.
Then it came to light that some of the documents Colin Powell referred to to make his case that Iraq was in posession of WMD were forgeries.
Now, all that has been “uncovered” is a “mobile lab” somewhere out in the desert. (Again, how convenient.)
Well, heck fire, how about all those buildings that Colin Powell was pointing to in those photographs that were “evidence” of Iraq’s WMD program? It would seem that all that would be necessary to provide proof to Iraq’s WMD, would be to go to those buildings and get the “evidence” that Powell spoke of. Simple as that. Now, why hasn’t that been done?
Sorry, but when I am lied to, I naturally become suspicious of anything else that the liar says. But that’s just me. You are free to continue to embrace whatever oozes out of the telescreen if that is what makes you comfortable.
George C. Collinsworth
A liberal’s worst nightmare; A redneck with both a library card and a concealed-carry permit.
No. You go far beyond that. You then project from multiple instances of dishonesty to a claim that all (or most) such instances are part of a conspiracy. Lacking any other evidence, I would note that the policies of all the administrations who have lied, (i.e., pretty much all of them), have been in direct conflict with each other. So, rather than conjuring up a world-wide conspiracy lasting many years through multiple administrations, I would simply conclude that each adminstration tells its own lies for its own purposes.
To see a conspiracy, I would need to see actual evidence that the lies were told to achieve a single goal. They don’t. There isn’t.
Only in your imagination. I am quite aware of the murders occuring against whites, non-whites, Christians, and non-Christians–and I get my information from “the media.” Granted, not all such events get the same exposure, but then, that would seem to be more a function of how much news gets reported to what audience, rather than a conspiracy to hide any information. The white deaths in Zimbabwe have been far better reported than the black deaths in Sudan–yet you falsely claim that the white deaths are not being reported–and cite reports to prove it.
You are still left with your complete mischaracterization of the Balkan situation in which you falsely claimed that the Muslims were not indigenous to the area. (And when Yugoslavia first began to disintegrate, there were numerous reports of the Christians being murdered in Croatia. You have selectively filtered the news to look at Bosnia and Kosovo where, in fact, the victims were disproportionately Muslim, in order to make false assertions about what gets reported.)
Look, Pal, my claims were facts. All I said was that the government condemns certain policies of country X, and turns a blind-eye to the same policies of favored country Y. Now, refute those “claims”.
Anyone with a semblence of intelligence, (which appears to be about 50% of the users of this forum) can see that all you were doing with your faux concern for “numbers”, was attempting to create a “straw-man” to knock down.
So, being that numbers seem to be so important to you, do you have any concern for the thousands of Palestenians that have been displaced, homes demolished, water rights removed, agriculture destroyed and isolated with the building of illegal settlements and connecting highways in the occupied West Bank?
Those activities have also been condemned by United Nations resolutions, of course, the United States ignores those resolutions. Meanwhile, previous United Nations resolutions are held as sacrosanct. (As long as those resolutions suit our intents and purposes.)
Yeah, I get the picture, and it ain’t pretty. An arbitrary foreign policy is a foreign policy based on hypocrisy and has the potential to engender animosity, thus endangering American citizens.
For what is worth, you’re probably refering to UN General Assembly resolutions, not to UN Security Council resolutions. There has never been passed, as far as I can remember, a UN SC resolution condemning Israel. As for the GA resolutions, those are generally ignored by all.
That is utter nonsense and bass-ackwards. The establishment media has only offered token acknowledgement of what is occuring in Zimbabwe because it is contradictory to the utopian dream that was crafted by the establishment media when the goal was the destruction of apartheid. Why do you think that the level of reporting from South Africa has diminished to such a great degree, compared to what it was prior to the end of apartheid? It’s because the dream turned out to be a nightmare.
No “mischaracterization” with regards to Serbia, where many of the Muslims came from neighboring Albania. I will admit, “indegineous” may not have been the most appropriate word to use being that several countries do occupy the same geographic location, but you, like Mace, are attempting to create a “straw-man” by focusing on terminology to make your case.
