Terrorism vs Americanism

AMERICANISM VS TERRORISM OR TERRORISM VS AMERICANISM

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 his 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.