What's new

US, state sponsor of terrorism: Analyst

Hasbara Buster

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
4,612
Reaction score
-7
US, state sponsor of terrorism: Analyst

Interview with Rodney Martin

Press TV has conducted an interview with Rodney Martin, former US congressional staffer from Los Angeles, about a new documentary revealing that the United States is training foreign-backed Takfiri militants operating inside Syria in Qatar.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: What does this mean exactly that according to the documentary that American troops or trainers are actually training all of these potential terrorists in Qatar? How does Washington get away with this?

Martin: Well it is hypocrisy and I will have a statement tomorrow posted at ana-ann.com but this is not new, this is not new US policy. The United States you might recall shipped persons to Eastern Europe, to hidden camps in Eastern Europe for special interrogations outside of US jurisdiction.

You might recall also that in the early 1960, the United States trained Cuban exiles to invade the island of Cuba. These are gross violations of international law as well as gross violations of human rights.

The United States is training rebels to execute wounded Syrian army troops and this is a travesty. It has relegated Qatar and Saudi Arabia to that of US vassal states and I hope President Assad takes this to the Arab League and to the United Nations.

Press TV: Well let’s look at what you have just said that President Assad takes it to the Arab League and the United Nations. But throughout than more than three years of seeing what is going on in Syria, neither the United Nations nor the Arab League seems to have done a whole lot, it appears and actually trying to stop the conflict and even condemning the things that have been going on except most of the time they have alluded to the Syrian government.

So question, is there one set of rules for much of the rest of the world and then another for the United States and its allies?

Martin: Well absolutely and there have been nations like President Assad and President Putin in Russia that have stated that but now you actually have a person.

You have a person that was sent to one of these camps that he can now be a first person witness and can actually testify to the fact that United States is a state sponsor of terrorism by setting up camps and training persons to execute wounded Syrian military personnel.
This sends shockwaves to the United Sates military, particularly in light of the fact that neocons and Zionist interests want to send our troops all over the Arab world and one shudders to think what would happen if our troops are taken prisoners given this official US policy.

PressTV - US, state sponsor of terrorism: Analyst
 
As it happened in Afghanistan ... nothing new ..
 
Still praying for a revolution to retake our goverment from these corporate and foreign sponsored "representatives" who run our goverment and have it replaced with direct democracy. But i doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime. :sick:
 
Still praying for a revolution to retake our goverment from these corporate and foreign sponsored "representatives" who run our goverment and have it replaced with direct democracy. But i doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime. :sick:
Good...And most likely will never happen in your children's lifetime, or your grandchildren's, or even your great-great-multi-great-grandchildren's.

The Founders NEVER intended the country to have direct democracy. If you even bothered to study the US Constitution, never mind merely reading it, the avoidance of direct democracy is clear.
 
Good...And most likely will never happen in your children's lifetime, or your grandchildren's, or even your great-great-multi-great-grandchildren's.

The Founders NEVER intended the country to have direct democracy. If you even bothered to study the US Constitution, never mind merely reading it, the avoidance of direct democracy is clear.

Then what is that? if it is not democracy ?
 
Then what is that? if it is not democracy ?
Did I say the US is not a democracy ? I said the US was never intended to have direct democracy.

The US is a democracy. But direct democracy is about the process or application of the mechanisms of democracy, and there are many mechanisms, or methods, of democracy. That is the crucial difference that you and the other ya-hoo failed to understand.

The US is a democratic republic.

re·pub·lic
riˈpəblik/
noun
  1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Direct democracy was severely criticized by the American Founders. Each of them have different ideas -- as in mechanisms -- on how the people chose their agents to speak for their diverse interests. Up one level -- representatives -- is what make the US a republic. The result: a democratic republic.
 
Did I say the US is not a democracy ? I said the US was never intended to have direct democracy.

The US is a democracy. But direct democracy is about the process or application of the mechanisms of democracy, and there are many mechanisms, or methods, of democracy. That is the crucial difference that you and the other ya-hoo failed to understand.

The US is a democratic republic.

re·pub·lic
riˈpəblik/
noun
  1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Direct democracy was severely criticized by the American Founders. Each of them have different ideas -- as in mechanisms -- on how the people chose their agents to speak for their diverse interests. Up one level -- representatives -- is what make the US a republic. The result: a democratic republic.

It seems what you describe is not democracy, it is Aristocracy what Plato and Aristotle introduced after getting tired of stupid democracy which puts power in the hands of ordinary people i.e. "The general run of humanity was driven by its selfish passions and desires; this was a poor foundation for deliberate, considered, and selfless decision-making".
 
It seems what you describe is not democracy, it is Aristocracy what Plato and Aristotle introduced after getting tired of stupid democracy which puts power in the hands of ordinary people i.e. "The general run of humanity was driven by its selfish passions and desires; this was a poor foundation for deliberate, considered, and selfless decision-making".

People here think we have democracy with the two party bullshit but when you step back and really look at it what we have is plutocracy.
 
People here think we have democracy with the two party bullshit but when you step back and really look at it what we have is plutocracy.
Spoken by someone who never bothered to study basic political science and have pretensions of sophisticated cynicism.
 
Back
Top Bottom