psychoceramics: Fwd: [BIOWAR] AMERICANISM VS TERRORISM

["Johannes Scmidt" <redskul @ hotmail.com>]

--- Forwarded message follows ---
>
>        AMERICANISM VS TERRORISM 
>                  or  
>        TERRORISM VS AMERICANISM 
>
>   by Chip Tatum 
>   September 4, 1997 
>   Black Ops Reporter 
>   http://www.wild-life.com/TatumPages/TatumHome.html
>   ChipT--@a--.com
> 
>DEFINITIONS: Americanism - A custom or trait 
>originating in the United States. 
> 
>Terrorism - Violent acts or acts dangerous to human life 
>intended to control a civilian population or the policies of 
>a government by use of coercion, or assassination. 
> 
>At the prompting of the United States, western ministers 
>adopted a 25-point cooperative plan last year in an attempt 
>to track, stop, and convict terrorists. 
> 
>The G-7 plus one (Russia) agreed to share information 
>and resources to increase surveillance of bank accounts, 
>front organizations and the internet. Measures adopted 
>during the one-day meeting included easing extradition, 
>stiffening penalties for possession of forged travel 
>documents, and restricting access to firearms and 
>explosives. 
> 
>World leaders, angered by the explosion in Atlanta during 
>the 1996 Olympic Games, called for a united action 
>against terrorism. "This repugnant violation of the spirit of 
>the Olympic Games must be denounced around the 
>world," former United Nations Secretary-General 
>Boutros Boutros-Ghali said. 
> 
>Israel sent its condolences to Americans, still 
>remembering their loss to Palestinian terrorists during the 
>1972 Munich Olympics. 
> 
>Palestine offered condolences to the families of the 
>victims and to the American government. 
> 
>Condolences to the American government? Wait a 
>minute. No U.S. officials were hurt from the blast. Or 
>were there perhaps one or two government officials that 
>could suffer at the arm of terrorism. After 
>all...it was an election year, an increase in terrorist 
>activities can only hurt a sitting policy makers' chances for 
>re-election. But doesn't it strike a heavy note of discord to 
>have the gold medal winner of terrorism, Palestine, codle 
>up to the President, offering him their condolences? But, 
>perhaps condolences are in order. After all, terrorism is an 
>act of retribution. Certainly the terrorists target was not a 
>forty-four year old woman from Albany, Georgia. Nor, 
>I would venture to say, was it any of the 110 wounded 
>concert goers. Some journalists have hinted that the target 
>was the American spirit. But I'm going to take a large step 
>forward and tell you what the target of the Atlanta 
>olympic bombing was...the American government. 
> 
> 
>And how about the downing of TWA Flight 800? Target? 
>Not the aircraft, airline, or the passengers...but the 
>American government. 
> 
> 
>I read an article written by Tim Collie of the Tampa 
>Tribune titled, "Way of Life Faces Threat." He begins like 
>this: 
> 
>"In Israel, a stray handbag in a park or marketplace will 
>send police and civilians scrambling...In Paris, soldiers 
>with automatic weapons are a common sight in airports, 
>post offices, and tourist sites." 
> 
>Then he asks a panel of "experts" on international 
>terrorism, "Is that what life in America is coming to?" The 
>answer from the pros - NOT YET! Terrorism experts 
>caution against over reaction, pointing out that terrorist 
>incidents have actually decreased steadily since the 
>1980's. But, lets look a little closer at that statistic. 
> 
>On cross-examination, the experts admit that the decrease 
>is actually a global statistic. In fact, since 1993, the 
>incidence of terrorist threats and actual events in the 
>United States has sharply risen. To what do we, the 
>American people who actually suffer the consequences, 
>owe this horrific statistic? I can tell you with one word - 
>retribution. But to be a target of terrorism as retribution 
>we, the American people, had to have done something to 
>deserve this. (In other words, it is an act of redistributing 
>something that was distributed. Webster calls it 
>retribution." So, for example, if I did something to 
>you and you did it back to me, I "distributed" it to you and 
>you "redistributed" back to me. Thus "distribute" and 
>"retribute.") 
> 
>What has America done to deserve these hideous actions? 
> 
>In 1986, I was recruited from military Special Operations 
>into a Black Operations unit, called Operational Sub-
>Groups ("OSG"), which was directed by Vice President 
>George Bush. As a pilot, it was my duty to deliver into 
>and then extract from the target countries a team of 
>"Archers." It was the mission of the OSG to "neutralize" 
>specific targets. The neutralization of these targets was to 
>be performed by any of the following methods: 
> 
>A. Intimidation - Indirect use of coercion and termination. 
>B. Coercion - Blackmail, kidnapping, freeze accounts, etc. 
>C. Termination - A nice way to say assassinate. 
> 
>(Remember the definitions at the beginning of this 
>article?) 
> 
>This neutralization was targeted toward foreign heads of 
>state, world financiers, drug kingpins, military leaders, 
>and United States citizens. And the justification Vice 
>President Bush used for our missions was aimed at our 
>patriotism, "In the name of democracy." 
> 
>"In the name of democracy" I participated in intimidating 
>Daniel Ortega, the President of Nicaragua, to step down 
>from power and allow free elections in Nicaragua. 
> 
>"In the name of democracy" I blackmailed a top political 
>official of the newly elected Nicaraguan government to 
>follow all U.S. policy. 
> 
>"In the name of democracy" I assassinated three foreign 
>politicians, two military leaders, six foreign civilians, and 
>three foreign spies. 
> 
>Contrary to what our government would have us believe, 
>we have, in the minds of terrorists, earned whatever they 
>are able to muster. 
> 
>This is evident through governments' own actions. 
>Knowing and understanding how the United States 
>government, through their foreign policy actions, has been 
>interpreted by other countries as terrorism against them, 
>the United States has found it necessary to expand the 
>anti-terrorism task force overseas. We have grown our 
>FBI presence by staffing in all major foreign countries. 
>We have steadily opened a new foreign-based FBI office 
>every month. That's what our foreign policy 
>has netted us. But why are we experiencing terrorism 
>activities within the United States? To answer this 
>question, let us first investigate global terrorism. 
> 
> 
>There is constant pressure in global affairs from the 
>American government for foreign governments and 
>peoples to follow the dictates of America. A good 
>example is our intrusion into the daily workings of 
>sovereign countries. Colombia, for example, has been 
>decertified by the United States due to President Clinton's 
>perception that President Ernesto Samper of Colombia is 
>a "bad person." Bad person? Here is a man that has more 
>U.S. DEA agents working in his country than there 
>are combined in the rest of the world. Is he cooperating 
>with Clinton? Sure. So, what's the beef? Let the man run 
>his country. "We the people," in the name of William 
>Jefferson Clinton, have chosen to deny the people of 
>Colombia access to loans from the World Bank, thus 
>denying badly needed humanitarian medical aid to this 
>South American country. Can this cause trouble for "we 
>the people?" Possibly to the tune of retribution? Of 
>course. 
> 
>The great sense of Americanism which we portray is 
>commendable. But we have no right to push our ideals or 
>laws on foreign countries. The harder we push, the more 
>freedom we will loose. Every week President Clinton 
>announces a new plan by the Justice Department to make 
>America "more livable." But instead of a more 
>comfortable way of life, we seem to be loosing all that our 
>forefathers intended for us. 
> 
>Historically, big government doesn't work. So the solution 
>is to cut back on U.S. intimidation both in the United 
>States and outside the United States. Give the state more 
>authority. Deal less in foreign affairs, especially dictating 
>how a sovereign country should run its affairs. How 
>would we take an aggressive attack on the United States 
>by India because we eat beef?! Think about that. All 
>countries do not and should not have the same laws and 
>beliefs as Americans. 
> 
>To continue to pressure those countries to conform is 
>terrorism. That is a fact. The U.S. government has 
>adopted a high-tech form of terrorism. Countries around 
>the world continue to ask the same question, "Why does 
>such a big, powerful country pick on a little country like 
>us?" We terrorize other countries by use of intimidation, 
>coercion, and assassination. That is a fact. If we continue 
>on our present course, thousands, possibly hundreds of 
>thousands, of Americans will fall to the hands of 
>terrorists. That is a fact. 
> 
> 
>The answer must come from within. We talk of tightening 
>restrictions, filling prisons with those who speak out 
>against American policy, and forming anti-terrorist 
>enforcement offices around the U.S. Big government 
>always sees the answer as bigger government when, in 
>fact, the solution is quite simple. "Let's mind our own 
>business, Mr. Clinton." 
> 
>It is quite interesting that the rate of terrorism has seen a 
>drastic rise since the Clinton/Reno armada steamed into 
>port. Unfortunately, this two-man wrecking crew has no 
>morals to base their actions on. 
> 
>Reno, for instance, "takes the responsibility" for the 
>murder of the Waco group (which, may I remind you, 
>included children). What does that mean? Will she sign a 
>plea agreement? Or is she awaiting trial? And what about 
>Ruby Ridge. Is the "top cop" negotiating her plea on 
>that also? 
> 
>What should worry the American people is the direct line 
>of communications between the Department of Justice 
>and the White House. Americas' only hope in combating 
>injustice is headed by an immoral, baby-killing saboteur 
>of the American justice system. And look who she 
>reports to. Unfortunately for America, the spineless 
>woman is nothing more than a mole for the White House. 
>The Department of Justice is filled with good, honest 
>Americans, but their hands are tied by the use of 
>intimidation and coercion by Reno and Clinton. A prime 
>example of this is the statement made by Mr. McCurry, 
>White House Spokesperson, last year concerning the 
>possible use of a missile in the attack against TWA Flight 
>800. The statement was a warning to all government 
>employees that revealing a missile attack against the 
>aircraft would cost them their jobs. 
> 
>I have heard much disinformation concerning both the 
>availability and ability of a ground-to-air missile use on a 
>commercial jetliner. Let me dispel any question here and 
>now. I have first-hand knowledge that in the mid-1980's, 
>one hundred SA-7 (Soviet) surface-to-air missiles were 
>purchased from China by Ollie North. The missiles were 
>to be shipped to the Nicaraguan Contras to be used against 
>the Soviet gunships Hi-24 (Hind helicopter). They were 
>shipped to Guatemala and CIA personnel acknowledged 
>receipt, but they never arrived in the Contra camps. 
> 
>In October of 1995, the U.S. was offered 130 Stinger 
>missiles by Afghan rebels. The offer was refused (see 
>Rodney Stitch letter dated October 20, 1995). 
> 
>That's 230 surface-to-air missiles on the free market. So, 
>the question of availability is answered. 
> 
>Now, let's talk about ability. The SA-7 is a shoulder-held 
>rocket with a maximum distance of ten kilometers (6.2 
>miles). The Stinger is also a shoulder-held missle with 
>maximum distance of eight miles. A boat in the flight path 
>of departing aircraft would be a good platform for a 
>SA-7 or Stinger launch. Over 100 witnesses have told the 
>story of the tell-tale glow path arching toward the TWA 
>Flight 800. So, it is probable that a terrorists missle was 
>used against the aircraft. Yet the Department of Justice 
>and White House deny, to the point of threatening staff, 
>the use of a missile. And I haven't even mentioned the 
>possibility of a massive coverup concerning friendly fire. 
> 
>Janet Reno took office in 1993. Terrorist retribution took 
>a sharp turn upward by the end of 1993. William Jefferson 
>Clinton took the sacred oath of office as the new President 
>of the United States in 1993. Since he's oath of office, 
>three major scandals involving fraud and murder in the 
>White House have surfaced, and a special investigation 
>into Mr. Clinton's involvement in drug trafficking is 
>underway in Louisiana. Surely the President of the United 
>States wouldn't be involved in the trafficking of cocaine. 
>Especially with his increasingly tough stand on drugs. 
> 
>Let's look at the proof being presented to the Special 
>Prosecutor. A flight plan has surfaced which reveals a 
>secret meeting in Costa Rica involving Governor William 
>Clinton, Vice President George Bush, General Manuel 
>Noriega, and future Attorney General William Barr. The 
>topic of the discussion was the loss of $100 million in 
>drugs and proceeds. The loss occurred somewhere 
>between Panama and Arkansas. The original flight plan, 
>filed in 1985, is in the hands of Honduran government 
>officials. The pilot made notes on the reverse side of the 
>flight plan when he returned to his home base in 
>Honduras. That pilot was me. 
> 
>I was tasked with transporting not only top officials to 
>clandestine meetins, but transporting intelligence officers 
>disguised as doctors, and transporting explosives packed 
>in coolers marked "medical supplies" to Contra camps 
>throughout Honduras and Nicaragua. We found that, 
>disguised as medical, humanitarian flights, we could 
>transport any product world-wide unchallenged. For 
>example, large coolers marked "medical supplies" were 
>transported from Honduras to various destinations in the 
>United States. One of these destinations was Little Rock, 
>Arkansas. The true contents of the coolers marked 
>"medical supplies" was cocaine. Another example of the 
>use by our government of coolers marked medical 
>supplies involved the death of Omar Torrijos, the 
>Panamanian Chief of Staff. As early as 1978, it had 
>been determined that General Torrijos was no longer 
>needed by U.S. intelligence agencies. The United States 
>had groomed a new man to stand watch over the precious 
>Canal Zone, Manuel Noriega. In July of 1981, a cooler 
>marked "medical supplies" was placed on General 
>Torrijos aircraft. Historically, man does not question any 
>action which carries the tag of humanitarianism. So, the 
>cooler marked "medical supplies" was not checked. The 
>bomb, which was the true contents of the cooler, 
>exploded, sending the passengers of the flight to their 
>death. The explosion also paved the way for a Colonel 
>named Manuel Noriega, the man groomed by DCIA Bush 
>to take control of Panama.  
> 
>The 80's and early 90's proved quite productive for the 
>Bush-lead Reagan administration. Terrorist acts against 
>foreign leaders by U.S. sponsored "Archer" teams proved 
>very effective. However, members of the Archer teams, 
>consisting of U.S. Special Operations personnel (i.e. 
>SEALs, Delta Force, CIA, and other agencies), found 
>themselves compromised. They knew too much. So, a 
>team was formed at the Department of Justice to 
>"neutralize" the Archers. One of the leaders of the DOJ 
>task force was William Weld. Not only would Weld 
>receive the tasking from his boss, George Bush, to see to 
>the neutralizations of these men, but he would also 
>become George's patsy. It was Weld's calling to block 
>actions or investigations concerning the NSC's 
>involvement in drug manufacturing and trafficking. 
>William Weld fulfilled this calling so faithfully as George 
>Bush's favorite lap dog, that he would be rewarded by 
>financial backing for a governorship. And now he has his 
>eyes on Mexico...What a retirement plan. Weld's ties to 
>the DOJ and his ability as Ambassador to Mexico 
>could set to rest his old cronies retirement worries...and 
>would surely please his master...pat, pat. One must 
>question President Clinton's motives in this move. And 
>what of Clinton's lap dog, Janet Reno. It seems their issue 
>is privacy and terrorism. 
> 
>During this administration, the government, or more 
>specifically, the dynamic duo of Clinton and Reno, seem 
>hell-bent on restricting our privacy. Under the guise of an 
>increase in terrorist activity, thus requiring tighter 
>restrictions, Clinton and Reno have pushed Congress 
>for an anti-terrorism bill which would lengthen the arm of 
>the government and tighten their grasp on America. 
>However, earlier last year the failure to provide such a bill 
>by Congress prompted the Clinton administration to task 
>G-7 with tighter reigns on terrorism. That summit was 
>scheduled to take place only weeks after the terrorist 
>attack in Saudi Arabia, a week following the mysterious 
>downing of the TWA Flight 800, and days following the 
>pipe bomb explosion in the Olympic Centennial Park. 
> 
>One question which must loom in the minds of the people 
>concerns the thought processes of terrorists. Why would 
>terrorists step-up their activities world-wide in the weeks 
>which proceeded this summit? It just doesn't make sense. 
>And let me tell you...the terrorist community is savvy. 
>They are well funded, they have a cause, and they are led 
>by some of the most brilliant minds in the world. So now, 
>I ask again...why the increase in terrorism? Has 
>Americanism and our trek to improve the world prompted 
>these attacks on us? Of course. But more importantly, is 
>there government complicity in the terrorist activity 
>which we are now experiencing? "We the people" are the 
>only group in the world that are being snafu-ed by this 
>dynamic duo of Clinton and Reno. We'd best wake up or 
>we won't have any roses to smell...only gladiolas on our 
>loved ones' graves. 
> 
>ChipT--@a--.com
>http://www.wild-life.com/TatumPages/TatumHome.html
>
>***********************************************************************
>BIOWAR-L Biowar and Bioterrorism Mailing List
>To unsubscribe or subscribe: send a message to 
m--@l--.sonic.net
>with the following text: unsubscribe biowar-l or subscribe biowar-l 
(letter


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com