Saturday, June 30, 2007

When terrorist attacks and wargames coincide

Here is a presentation by rspawn of YouTube
He writes, referring to his video compilation:

On more than one occasion there have been war games or military exercises regarding terrorist attacks that coincide in time, location and methods with actual terrorist attacks that have taken place.

1. General Meyers giving some details about the war games that took place on 9-11-2001.(C-SPAN footage)

2. mr Power describes the terror exercises his security company was involved in on 7-7-2005 in London.(from "Mind The Gap")

3. Three Russian secret agents arrested in connection to a thwarted bomb plot in Moscow in 1999, later claimed to have been an exercises. (from "Disbelief")

4. US undercover operatives involved in an attack on a barracks in Belgium, later claimed to have been a canceled exercises. Stolen weapons turned up at a militant communist group.


Stewart said...

Thanks for the alternative news articles. However much I'd like a massive conspiracy to explain everything, uses too many over-generalizations. The problem with conspiracies is that the only ones we can know about are the failed ones. I mean, really. If everything were only about oil, it would make everything very simple. For better or worse, "oil" has become a shibboleth. Saying the strife in Sudan is merely about oil (& other natural resources) is like saying the American Civil War was only about slavery, or the American Revolution about taxes.

A racist war, as in Rwanda, does not mean that both sides are not black. Ethnic groups and sects have been behind more wars in history than mere color. I'm not about to deny foreign involvement in the slaughter in Darfur or any other country right now. After all, how did any of them get their weapons? If the forces in Darfur which are butchering people are mere pawns of the great military and political powers of the world, it still needs to stop. I don't have a political agenda as much as I have a spiritual one. The fact is that the Janjaweed is killing innocent people, regardless of who is backing them. While such supporters have a darker, hidden sin, it is the souls of the perpetrators and justice for the victims about which I am most concerned.

My primary concern is dealing with injustice. If that means what those articles say, so be it. And I don't believe for a second that Iraq had anything to do with democracy (or WMDs). If anything, our involvement in World War I did anything but make the world a "safer place for democracy" as Wilson said it would. The same is true with Iraq. Even without vast conspiracy theories, both served to centralize power. And Iraq served to distract the public from the fact that its real enemy is at home. There are only a few wars in recent history that I believe were truly justified. The messes we're in today are not some of them.

"A tyrant is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." -- Plato

But seriously, thanks for your comment. You seem to patrol the underbelly of the journalism world... Have any more recommendations?

RandallJones said...


Thanks for your reply. You are talking about two different things at the same time: the articles about Darfur I posted on your blog, (which have nothing to do with and the YouTube video under which you posted your comment (in which the first clip is a C-SPAN piece gotten from

It would have been better to have put your comment on one of my Darfur posts ( ). But it doesn’t matter, I’ll reply to you here.

If the violence is to stop in Darfur, all groups/nations that are contributing to the violence need to be addressed. It is not productive to have selective punishment of those responsible for the violence; it will only make matters worse.

Much of the “Save Darfur” movement seems to be ignoring the role of the United States in fueling the violence in Africa. Here is a report about U.S. arms sales to Congo and surrounding countries. To make matters worse, the United States would sell weapons and give training to both sides of a conflict. See

Here is a more current article that talks about how the United States is the number one seller of weapons to unstable developing countries.

This is why the “Save Darfur” movement is ineffective and in my opinion disingenuous. How can the “Save Darfur” movement ignore over 4 millions dead and a large number of females raped in the Congo, especially when the United States has helped to contribute to the problem?

Ethiopia had its own problems with genocide but it hasn’t gotten the same attention as Darfur. See . It doesn’t have the same number casualties. Is it because Ethiopia is a less aggressive government? With what it is doing in Somalia (with he support of the United States), I don’t think so? It is probably because it hasn’t had foreign interests fuel the violence by supplying weapons.

The United States, Israel, and other democracies supplied people in Darfur with weapons and encouraged them to rebel. The supply of weapons is not enough to subdue the Sudanese government, only enough to create chaos.

If there is a real concern for the people of Darfur, why didn’t the U.S. government supply the rebels with the same kind of weapons it supplied Israel, when it invaded Lebanon?

Stewart said...

[Sorry for not putting this at an older post.]

The U.S. has an absurd religious and political infatuation with Israel, which I find grossly unjustified.

I agree that the number one arms dealer, the U.S., should stop. Regardless of how naive the "Save Darfur" movement itself is, there is genuine concern in citizens, if not politicians, for the plight of the victims. My vague support of the Save Darfur campaign is only incidental in my overall support of justice around the globe. Those who are afflicted should be comforted. Even if the Save Darfur campaign works, and there is intervention that at least slows (if not stops) the genocide, it is still worth it, even if it is part of a global conspiratorial chess game. It is better to use the passions of the people to galvanize the government into action than to mock them. If they are naive, let them be so. It is more useful to encourage unified political passions regarding atrocities than to dismiss an entire movement. I agree, most people don't know or care what goes on. Most people would list Rwanda--if they knew about it!--as the most bloody war since WW2, many people don't know about the Armenian holocaust... When there's Congo, which is on the brink of self-destruction. It has never been rich, and never been stable... and no one knows about it. I agree; it is a shame.

The problem with international politics (or politics in general) is that they have become largely amoral, based on the philosophy of self-interest. Each implements utilitarian principles, but only for its own citizens, if even that. At best, nations act in their own interests often at the expense of other nations, at worst they are ruled by despots acting only in their own best interests. Religion and charity help maintain the virtue of selflessness, at least to a degree. They helps thwart the efforts of evil men because such men only act in self-interest and expect others to only do the same. It's how Hilter justified the holocaust. Recalling the Armenian genocide, he said that no one remembered that one and no one would remember his. Every generation has had its own genocides, and ours are slipping by ignored like the last ones.

RandallJones said...

What about when the United States bombed VIetnam and Cambodia, resulting in 3 to 5 million deaths? People on the left don't even want to talk about this genocide.

Being selective in acknowledging who has suffered and who has committed war crimes doesn't help the situation.

The United States does not have the moral authority to place sanctions against countries for the same or worse actions the United States has committed.

As for your comment of Congo being poor, The Congo is the wealthiest nation in minerals, diamonds, and other natural resources. What the United States, Europe, and Israel have done in the Congo could be called racism,but the main motivating factor for their actions is greed.

It's interesting how you say that the Congo is "self-destructing," ignoring the role of Western countries and Israel in fueling the violence.

Let me just give the findings of the Arms report from the link I posted in my previous comment ( )

Finding 1: Due to the continuing legacies of its Cold War policies toward Africa, the U.S. bears some responsibility for the cycles of violence and economic problems plaguing the continent.
Finding 2: The ongoing civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) is a prime example of the devastating legacy of U.S. arms sales policy on Africa.
Finding 3: Although the Clinton administration has been quick to criticize the governments involved in the Congo War, decades of U.S. weapons transfers and continued military training to both sides of the conflict have helped fuel the fighting.
Finding 4: Despite the failure of U.S. polices in the region, the current administration continues to respond to Africa's woes by helping to strengthen African militaries.
Finding 5: Even as it fuels military build-up, the U.S. continues cutting development assistance to Africa and remains unable (or unwilling) to promote alternative non-violent forms of engagement.

Here is a more current article about democracies that exploit the Congo's natural resources

I conclude with the question: is it okay when democracies fuel and/or benefit from gencide?