Invasão Militar Resulta em Mais Terrorismo

Rep. Ron Paul
Candidato presidencial
13 de setembro de 2011

Dez anos atrás, ações chocantes e terríveis de terrorismo foram realizadas em território dos EUA que resultaram na morte de 3.000 americanos inocentes. Sem dúvida, esta ação demanda vingança e retaliação. No entanto, muito tem sido feito em nome de proteger o povo americano contra o terrorismo que reduziu a nossa liberdade, prosperidade e até mesmo nos fez menos seguros. Isso é irônico e triste, considerando que a linha muitas vezes repetida sobre o raciocínio por trás dos ataques é que eles nos odeiam pelo que somos – um povo livre, próspero – e que não devemos, sob nenhuma circunstância deixar que os terroristas ganhem.

Ron Paul, Candidato Presidencial Republicano

Embora seja difícil para muitos acreditar, estudos mostram que a verdadeira motivação por trás dos ataques terroristas do 11 de setembro e a grande maioria dos outros casos de terrorismo suicida não é que os nossos inimigos se incomodam com o nosso modo de vida. Nao é nossa religião ou nossas riquezas. A razão é a ocupação que EUA faz de suas terras. Imagine por um momento como você se sentiria se um país invade o seu pela força e instala bases militares e soldados nas cidades. Você pode começar a entender por que a ocupação estrangeira incomoda tanta gente. Robert Pape investigou extensivamente o assunto e fala longamente em seu livro “O corte dos fusíveis:. A explosão do terrorismo suicida global e como para-lo”. Na verdade, de 2.200 incidentes de ataques suicidas que tem sido estudados em todo o mundo desde 1980, 95% foram em resposta à ocupação estrangeira.

Pape notas que antes da invasão do Iraque, apenas 10% do terrorismo suicida foi direcionado para os americanos ou os interesses americanos. Desde então, porém, não só o terrorismo suicida tem aumentado consideravelmente, mas agora 91% é feito contra os Estados Unidos.

Sim, os ataques de 11/09 mereciam uma resposta. Mas a maneira como respondemos permitiu os radicais do mundo muçulmano, agredir com uma narrativa muito ameaçadora sobre nós e nossa motivação na ocupação de suas terras. Osama bin Laden se refere a nós como “conquistadores” com uma agenda religiosa para converter muçulmanos, ocidentalizar a sua cultura e assumir o controle de seus recursos. Se tivéssemos voltado nossa  resposta para os bandidos e criminosos que nos atacaram, e nós tivéssemos abstido de invadir países que não tinham nada a ver com isso, essa caracterização pareceria menos plausível para o desesperado e deslocado. Culpar somente o Islã é muito enganador.

Em vez disso, optamos por um curso de ação que levou à perda de mais de 8.000 vidas americanas, deixou 40 mil feridos e tem centenas de milhares de pessoas que procuram ajuda por meio da Administração de Veteranos. Nós estamos três a quatro bilhões de dólares mais pobres. Nossas forças armadas estão espalhadas ao redor do mundo perigosamente à custa da protecção que poderiam realizar aqui em casa. Não só isso, mas temos permitido que a nossa liberdade seja ameaçada e minada desde dentro. O Patriot Act, as buscas e escutas telefônicas sem habeas corpus, as buscas desnecessárias e humilhantes nos aeroportos são apenas alguns exemplos de como temos permitido que os terroristas “ganhem” e como nosso país é menos livre.

Não existia terrorismo suicida no Iraque antes que os EUA chegaram lá. Agora há. Não há casos conhecidos de terrorismo suicida cometido por iranianos. Se o Irã é invadido e ocupado, podemos esperar que isso aconteça também.

As vezes pode ser muito desconfortável ouvir ou fazer perguntas e encarar a verdade. Quando um político habilidoso chega e dá uma versão muito mais suave de eventos, é tentador acreditar apenas o que nós gostamos. Mas ouvir as mentiras não nos torna mais seguros, embora possa nos fazer sentir melhor sobre nós mesmos.

A verdade é que pôr fim a estas guerras e ocupações vai nos fazer mais seguro, mais prósperos e mais livres.

Tradução em Português Luis R. Miranda

Ocupación Militar Resulta en Más Terrorismo

Rep. Ron Paul
Candidato Presidencial
13 de septiembre 2011

Hace diez años acciones chocantes y horribles de terrorismo fueron llevadas a cabo en territorio de EE.UU., las cuales resultaron en la muerte de 3.000 estadounidenses inocentes. Sin lugar a dudas, esta acción exige venganza y retribución. Sin embargo, mucho se ha hecho en nombre de proteger al pueblo estadounidense contra el terrorismo que ha reducido nuestra prosperidad, la libertad e incluso nos ha hecho menos seguros. Esto es irónico y triste, teniendo en cuenta que la línea tantas veces repetida sobre el razonamiento detrás de los ataques es que nos odian por lo que somos – un pueblo libre, próspero – y que no debemos dejar, bajo ninguna circunstancia que los terroristas ganen.

Ron Paul, Candidato Presidencial Republicano

Aunque es difícil para muchos creerlo, los estudios muestran que la verdadera motivación detrás de los atentados del 11 de septiembre y la gran mayoría de otros casos de terrorismo suicida no es que a nuestros enemigos les molesta nuestra forma de vida. Tampoco es nuestra religión, o nuestra riqueza, La razón es la ocupación estadounidense de sus tierras. Imagine por un momento cómo se sentiría si un país ocupara Estados Unidos por la fuerza e instalara bases militares y soldados armados en nuestras ciudades. Es posible empezar a entender por qué la ocupación extranjera molesta tanto a la gente. Robert Pape ha investigado extensamente este tema y habla en profundidad en su libro “El corte de los fusibles: La explosión del terrorismo suicida global y cómo detenerlo”. De hecho, de 2.200 incidentes de ataques suicidas que ha estudiado en todo el mundo desde 1980, el 95% fueron en respuesta a la ocupación extranjera.

Pape señala que antes de la invasión de Irak, sólo el 10% del terrorismo suicida estaba dirigido a los estadounidenses o los intereses estadounidenses. Desde entonces, sin embargo, no sólo ha aumentado el  terrorismo suicida en gran medida, sino que el 91% de ahora es realizado contra Estados Unidos.

Sí, los ataques del 9 / 11 merecían respuesta. Pero la manera en que hemos respondido ha permitido que los radicales en el mundo musulmán avancen con una narrativa muy amenazante sobre nosotros y nuestra motivación en la ocupación de sus tierras. Osama bin Laden se refiere a nosotros como “conquistadores” con una agenda religiosa para convertir a los musulmanes, occidentalizar su cultura y tomar el control de sus recursos. Si hubiéramos dirigido nuestra respuesta sólo a los matones y criminales que nos atacaron, y nos hubieramos  abstenido de invadir países que no tenía nada que ver con ello, esta caracterización parecería menos plausible a los desesperados y desplazados. Culpar al Islam por sí solo es muy engañoso.

En su lugar, se optó por un curso de acción que llevó a la pérdida de más de 8.000 vidas estadounidenses, dejó 40.000 heridos y tiene cientos de miles de personas que buscan ayuda a través de la Administración de Veteranos. Nos tienen de tres a cuatro billones de dólares más pobres. Nuestras fuerzas armadas se extienden peligrosamente en todo el mundo, a expensas de la protección que podrían realizar aquí en casa. No sólo eso, sino que hemos permitido que nuestra libertad sea amenazada y socavada desde dentro. La Ley Patriota, los allanamientos y escuchas telefónicas abusivas sin hábeas corpus, las búsquedas inútiles y humillantes en aeropuertos son sólo algunos ejemplos de cómo hemos permitido que los terroristas “ganen” y que nuestro país sea menos libre.

El terrorismo suicida no existía en Irak antes de que Estados Unidos llegara allí. Ahora existe. No hay casos conocidos de los iraníes cometiendo terrorismo suicida. Si invadimos y ocupamos Irán, podemos esperar que eso suceda también.

A veces puede ser muy incómodo hacer o escuchar las preguntas adecuadas y enfrentar la verdad. Cuando un político hábil se acerca y da una forma mucho más suave versión de los hechos, es muy tentador creer simplemente lo que nos gusta. Pero escuchar las mentiras no nos hace más seguros, a pesar de que podría hacer que nos sintamos mejor con nosotros mismos.

La verdad es que poner fin a estas guerras y ocupaciones equivocadas nos hará más seguros, más prósperos y más libre.

Traducción en Español Luis R. Miranda

Foreign Occupation Leads to More Terror

Rep. Ron Paul
U.S. Presidential Candidate
September 13, 2011

Ten years ago shocking and horrific acts of terrorism were carried out on US soil, taking over 3,000 innocent American lives.  Without a doubt, this action demanded retaliation and retribution.  However, much has been done in the name of protecting the American people from terrorism that has reduced our prosperity and liberty and even made us less safe.  This is ironic and sad, considering that the oft-repeated line concerning the reasoning behind the attacks is that they hate us for who we are – a free, prosperous people – and that we must not under any circumstances allow the terrorists to win.

U.S. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life.  Neither is it our religion, or our wealth.  Rather, it is primarily occupation.  If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometowns, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much.  Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book “Cutting the Fuse:  The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It”.  In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95% were in response to foreign occupation.

Pape notes that before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests.  Since, then however, not only is suicide terrorism greatly on the rise, but 91% of it is now directed at us.

Yes, the attacks of 9/11 deserved a response.  But the manner in which we responded has allowed radicals in the Muslim world to advance a very threatening narrative about us and our motivation in occupying their lands.  Osama bin Laden referred to us as “crusaders” with a religious agenda to convert Muslims, westernize their culture and take control of their resources.  If we had targeted our response to only the thugs and criminals who attacked us, and refrained from invading countries that had nothing to do with it, this characterization would seem less plausible to the desperate and displaced.  Blaming Islam alone is grossly misleading.

Instead, we chose a course of action that led to the further loss of 8,000 American lives, left 40,000 wounded and has hundreds of thousands seeking help at the Veterans Administration.  We are three to four trillion dollars poorer.  Our military is spread dangerously thin around the globe, at the expense of protection here at home.  Not only that, but we have allowed our freedoms to be greatly threatened and undermined from within.  The Patriot Act, warrantless searches and wiretapping, abuse of habeus corpus, useless and humiliating searches at airports are just a few examples of how we’ve allowed the terrorists to “win” by making our country less free.

Suicide terrorism did not exist in Iraq before we got there.  Now it does.  There are no known instances of Iranians committing suicide terrorism.  If we invade and occupy Iran, expect that to change, too.

Sometimes it can be very uncomfortable to ask the right questions and face the truth.  When a slick politician comes along and gives a much more soothing, self-congratulating version of events, it is very tempting to simply believe what we would like to hear.  But listening to lies does not make us safer, even though it might make us feel better about ourselves.

The truth is that ending these misguided wars and occupations will make us safer, more prosperous and more free.

The techno-military control grid known as U.S.A.

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
November 15, 2010

Ten zones, not fifty states.  Ten governors, not one president, a Congress and a Supreme Court.  Hundreds of detention centers around the ten zones, not freedom of speech, assembly or movement.  Illegal searches in airports and harassment everywhere else, not individual rights.  HR 645, not the Constitution.  This is the reality of a nation that used to be the beacon of freedom, and to which all other nations used to see and try to emulate.  It turns out, all that admiration was misplaced, because the United States of America has been for a long time a piece of land under the control of elites that have prefabricated every little detail, in order to get and maintain control of everyone and everything.  Even after the people of the United States find out about it.

A recent investigation conducted by former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, has unveiled the most out of control conspiracy that no one could have ever imagined.  The United States as publicly known does not exist.  It has been transformed into a techno-military control grid with the help from presidents, congressmen and its own citizens.  Beginning with HR 645, the bill that funds the creation of large detention centers throughout the United States, the former governor visited states around the union where government sponsored programs resulted in the creation of Fusion Centers.  These facilities are intelligence gathering centers that monitor patterns, trends and eventually people who are considered to be a threat to the government.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg on this conspiracy.  In a 43 minute long video documentary, Jesse Ventura exposes how these Fusion Centers, although founded by the government with taxpayer dollars, are not overseen by any governmental entity.  They simply operate with zero oversight.  After visiting several of the centers and a few of the large detention centers, the former governor discovered that these detention centers are not for terrorists, but for dissenters, people affiliated to third political parties, people who oppose government policies, and of course “conspiracy theorists”.

After his fact finding trips, Jesse Ventura traveled to Washington to interview several of the congressmen who sponsored bill HR 645, but only one of them was available to see him.  This single congressman denied the existence of such detention centers, even though he co-sponsored the bill that created them.  He instead decided to justify their existence with the well debunked claim that those places are built for people who need housing in case there is a major natural disaster.  Some of the places were even officially labeled Residential Centers.

According to the investigation, many of the details about the Fusion and Detention Centers were cooked up during the Reagan administration.  Detention of citizens is not new to the United States.  Abraham Lincoln carried out mass detentions and suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war.  Of course, he did not have a military industrial complex waiting in the wings to abuse the powers given to them by presidents and congressmen.  Everyone is aware of the “peaceful” round-up of japanese-americans who were put in camps labeled as community centers or Residential Centers after FDR signed an executive order to allow for the detention of Americans.  Over 100,000 were detained for several years.  During the Cold War, John Kennedy also signed executive orders that allowed for similar round-ups.  But the most recent one of these orders dates January 11, 2010, and was issued by current president Barack Obama.  Among the directives it established are the creation of the Council of Governors, who in the case of a government issued emergency can take control of the whole country.  This executive order would also allow the president to put the military on the streets of any state in a state of martial law and to detain anyone he considers an enemy or a suspect.

Everyone needs to watch this and research it in order to understand what it actually means. Watch for yourself, conduct your own research and make your own conclusions.

The Top 10 Worst News Presenters

Luis R. Miranda

Every so often I hear from readers, family members and friends about a problem I have because I only write, talk and worry about serious current events.  So I thought it was a good opportunity to break the tradition and make them all happy by writing something different.  It is still about news, but less important than the usual issues I write and talk about.  This is my first list of  Worst News Presenters.  So let’s get right to it!

Keith Olbermann

Coming at number one is Countdown’s Keith Olbermann.  He has earned his place on this list given his hypocritical double standard.  Mr. Olbermann went from being my favorite news presenter to being the worst in only one year.  Although he rightfully criticized former president George W. Bush and even asked him to resign, he seems to think that Obama can do everything Bush could not do.  Rendition, torture, violation of Habeas Corpus and freedom of speech do not seem to be important anymore.  If Obama does it, it is acceptable.

Rachel Maddow

On number two, I have placed MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.  Ms. Maddow has championed an insatiable appetite for criticizing conservative views regardless of them being right or wrong.  Her show has become another Countdown.  She also strongly criticized Bush’s illegal policies, but now is an avid defender of Obama and the same policies she once strongly criticized.  After Obama got to power, she seems to fill her show up with Democratic National Committee talking points.  Just as Olbermann, she could not keep her stance on the issues and turned ‘the news’ into useless partisan politics.

The number three spot is for Fox’s Sean Hannity.  Mr. Hannity could easily be occupying the number

Sean Hannity

one place, however, given his unchanging positions I reserved this spot for him.  There is no lack of hypocrisy from his part, though.  He has been critical of Mr. Obama’s tenure in the white house when it comes to government spending, socialization of health care as well as of cap-and-trade and the global warming fraud, but there has not been lack of deception from his part.  He still continues to agree with the neocon views of invading countries, murdering millions of people and then rebuilding those countries for the sake of Democracy and Western values.  As many others at Fox, he also agrees with the military helping to take care of the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

Glenn Beck

Coming on number four is Glen Beck; another strong candidate to occupy the number one place.  In fact, the only reason why he is not there, is because there are other 3 worse television presenters.  Beck has managed to deceive most of his audience, which apparently is composed by conservative people.  I say deceive, because although he strongly criticizes the Obama administration for all their lies and crimes while lifting the patriot movement, he also calls tea party members and other unhappy citizens dangerous criminals who may, at any moment, try to assassinate the president or cause terrorist attack in the United States.  He usually interviews and congratulates Ron Paul, but calls his supporters lunatics, dangerous and kooks.

Number five is good old Bill O’reilly; or as Olbermann would call him Bill O’rally.  O’reilly is one of those

Bill O'reilly

Sean Hannity types who supports and believes in neocon policies like war and nation building for the sake of saving face.  He supported all of Bush’s Constitution-murdering policies, but hypocritically dismisses sound economic and financial policies.  He is quick to point out that taxes need to be raised and created to pay for the government’s gargantuan deficits, although he calls himself a conservative.  The no-spin zone is an everlasting spinning capsule that accommodates his ever-changing views according to what is kosher.  ‘Billo’ used to be a real reporter many years ago, but the millions he gets paid together with his cowardice and egotistical personality changed his good work for the crap he calls fair and balanced reporting.  That is why is officially the list’s pin head.

Chris Matthews

Next on the list is Chris Mathews, also from MSNBC.  Mr. Mathews, a sick follower of politics and politicians is the hardest working news presenter when it comes to keeping the audience inside the left-right paradigm.  His show is a never-ending salad of talking points propelled by a bunch of talking heads who, instead of improving the program, simply make it unwatchable.  It is liberal against conservative galore.  Never watch Hardball, as he calls his show, if you are looking for independent, objective views on current events.  Since Hardball is mainly an opinion mouth piece, there is nothing of substance.  Instead, it is plumped with baseless attacks between guests and up to the minute lies on current affairs.  Mr. Mathews’ intoxicating, obnoxious on-air personality makes him a strong candidate to become number one of this list.  On the positive side, Chris Mathews does not label himself fair, balanced or anything of the sort.

There are a number of careers that can be taken on without a college degree.  With other careers, getting a college education may be

From left to right: Mika, Willie and Joe

an option, depending on what the job is.  And then, there are those things you learn on the fly and simply wing them.  All of this is contained in our number 7 title holder: the Mika and Joe morning comedy show.  Also known as Morning Joe, this program is an example of everything that is wrong with news and journalism today.  It is a combination of three egos: Joe’s, Mika’s and the other dude, who wants to be like them.  Oh, yeah, his name appears to be Willie Geist.  It is the typical smart-looking, cute face, funny dude show-biz combination.  As I said, these presenters are all that is wrong with news and journalism.  First, going by their bios, they don’t appear to be journalists, at least not with a diploma.  And believe me, Journalism is one of those professions you cannot wing your way around.  Although there are some people who ‘make it’ without going to school in the current news business, these three fellows are not examples of them.  Take it from me, a 14 year professional journalist.  By the way, is Mika the daughter of Zbiniew Brzezinski?

Kyra Phillips

Towards the end of our list -at least for now- we have CNN’s Kyra Phillips.  Although she is simply impossible to watch and pound for pound worse than the previous seven presenters, I decided to give her a break.  The reason for this is that she is not a lady with an agenda, but simply a news presenter.  She is one of those who seats at the booth or desk and reads the prompter no matter what.  As an example of why she occupies a position in this list is her latest gaffe on live television.  She had the nerve to conduct an interview about whether or not homosexuality was in need of a cure.  Of course, she was just reading the tele-prompter, ‘the news’, doing her job.  Watch the video here.  She then allowed a guest to compare homosexuals with sexual predators.  That guest was a former homosexual as he called himself.  In one sentence, she is just sad to watch.  By the way, she changes looks come and go like seasons.

The last two spots in the count are reserved for two of CNN’s best known faces.  Number nine for Anderson slick Cooper.  Mr. Cooper

Anderson Cooper

is the anchor all the girls fall for.  However, that does not save him from making this list, because just like all other previous presenters, he is a man with an agenda.  Cooper is one of the most prominent heirs of the Vanderbilt Empire.  Yeah, don’t let the Cooper side make you think he is just another “Joe”.  He is on the way to becoming the ‘most trusted’ man in Americas news industry; that is if you trust Pentagon written news or Skull&Bones.  And one little secret that CNN does not want you to know about Mr. Cooper: He trained at the CIA.

Larry King

Lastly we have an old timer at CNN.  Who doesn’t know Larry King?  The veteran show-biz presenter has been fading away through the years not only due to the quality of his show, but also because he refuses to quit.  Part of the refusal may be because CNN has arranged he does not quit until it is physically impossible for him to present his show.  Unbelievably, Larry King Live continues to be one of CNN’s top shows.  No wonder the network is dead last.  The problem with King, or Lawrence Harvey Zeiger, as he was born, is not necessarily himself, but the quality of the content he talks about.  That is why I put him last on my list.

So this is it folks.  I hope you enjoyed my list of worst presenters.  And for all of you who enjoy real news rather than insignificant personality-oriented crap, I promise I won’t do it again!