You said "staffing", these links talk about spy rings and using former Nazis as intelligence sources for CIA, there is a difference.
you didnt read between the lines in my text. i said staffing indeed. do you really think that it will be wise to let it come out that you were employing former gestapo as 'advisors' in a national intelligence agency, had you been running it ? first of all due to 'national security', nothing comes out from such agencies in the first place. you need to follow the trail. british agencies had been as sinister and brutally effective from the start, and they just kept their characteristic into the cold war. however american agencies had a huge characteristic change right at the end of world war 2, totally in contradiction with your country's national state heritage from the last 200 years. such changes doesnt just come out of the blue.
is there any difference in between directly censoring something because it is detrimental to your interests and indirectly making them subdue by legal claims of ownership and patents ?
in the former, at least everyone knows it is censorship. in the latter censorship is veiled with seemingly valid excuses. in the end both end up the same.
at the end of the war your country hauled in gestapo agents as well as ex nazi rocket scientists. gestapo was very successful in espionage tactics, and this was known by allies. employment of wernher in rocket research drew a lot of criticism and reaction, and your government spent a lot of effort in covering his ass up. in parallel, right after the end of the war, even before any wind of cold war in the air, the methods and practices of your newly founded intelligence agencies changed a lot. more secrecy, increased efficiency, less mercy, even less respect for civil institutions and principles. all this change doesnt happen by in 1-2 years' span by itself or only with taking an agency out of army's structure and making it independent. rest is history.
let me put it this way ; wernher von braun's employment in rocket research had drawn a lot of reaction. cia didnt have that reaction problem.
by leaving, but they will earn immense PR and public support all around the world that will have far reaching consequences. economically, technically, and due to recent trends, politically.
no, you have a bubble of understanding needing to be burst. allow me to portray with an example :
fethullah gulen, an islamist sect leader currently residing in u.s. has been brainwashing kids through education institutions he has in turkey for 30 years now, in order to staff the government institutions with them. first targets were education ministry and teaching staffs, second target was justice ministry, judiciary and police. the first part of the targets were infiltrated enough in the 2nd decade. infiltration of the latter in sufficient levels has been completed just 4-5 years ago.
now turkish judiciary and police wantonly ignores laws while prosecuting opponents of gulen. despite judiciary hasnt been infiltrated and in control in sufficient level, when they can, they coincide cases with judicial districts in which they have enough staffing and hence get the results they desire. it is doubtful that, the akp government, itself an islamist party and representative of a sect, can control police as they wish, despite spending a lot of purging and staffing of their own to do so. this is despite justice minister, internal affairs minister, all the heads of police in cities have been staffed with their own people. they still cant topple gulen's effect. i would like to drop a note that fethullah gulen is currently residing in pennsylvania, under FBI protection, having been given a green card on grounds of being 'an outstanding education specialist' by your government.
however the point of the example is, in order to control an agency and set policies, changing heads do not suffice. what percentage of staffing you have matters. especially mid and upper mid level management is very important.
leaving aside the unbelievable naivete that was staffing cia with ex gestapo members and making them influential figures in cia in its founding years, cia has been shaped by conservatives. just changing heads for a while and scraping the upper management levels 3-4 years does not change an agency's policy. and naturally, it didnt, for cia followed the exact same policy they set up at the start of the cold war until recently, and then only let go of parts of it (setting up puppet dictators in s america and africa) but held on to another important part of it. (using islam and islamic governments/sects as a control tool in middle east - this creates most of the global problems we face today by the way).
what im saying is, any kid who gets into voltaire, rousseau, montesqieu will become an enemy of church, leave aside being a pursuer of enlightenment. they wont even become deists, like many of your founding fathers were.
what turkey 'did' to armenians was a forced migration, because french and russian supported armenian militas were killing not only all other ethnicities (kurds, azerbaijanis, arabs, turks) but also armenians during their 'freedom' rampages. supposedly fighting for freedom, they were just basically continuing a 500 year old tradition of anatolian highwayman lifestyle. you basically go up to the mountains on a socially acceptable excuse and start living of raiding and extorting money. despite there were valid gangs fighting for an independent armenia, many were in this classification, along with their counterparts from other ethnicities. a period for opportunism you might say.
armenian gangs were more successful than the other gangs. because they were extorting a huge amount from the area, and harrassing ottoman army, the ottoman governemnt of that time decided to force the armenians who were giving support to those gangs to migrate.
at the SAME point in time, innumerable armenians, many rich, lived in mansions in western anatolia, many in istanbul. because in ottoman empire trading and manufacturing was something generally done by minorities, jews, armenians, greeks were EXCEEDINGLY rich compared to anyone else. turks too. numerous pashas and ministers came out of minorities. NONE of these were persecuted, none of these lost their possessions, none of these were forced to do anything during this 'genocide' inflicted upon armenians. what has been done was the forced migration of armenians in east anatolia.
BUT.
eastern anatolia has always been VERY poor. leave aside people there, an entire 30.000 strong ottoman army froze to death just half a year ago or so there, due to lack of clothing and supplies for winter. despite the civilians of the area were more prepared in regard to garments for winter, supplies were still low for them too. therefore, being forced to march to migrated under circumstances NO different than ottoman army itself was subjected to, many died along the way. THIS is the genocide they are talking about. had the ottoman army decide to eradicate those armenians, no armenian would be left in eastern anatolia now.
it was stupid. it was beyond moronic, it was beyond incompetent. they forced a migration in winter. its ottoman government's failure. however it is not a genocide, for, has it been a genocide, first to lose their lives should have been the rich armenians living in mansions and palaces in istanbul.
a lot of people died indeed. horrible and tragic. however this does not make it a genocide. armenians themselves in turkey dont even tag it a genocide.
i have no qualms with nationality as i said. i have no issues with this business either. had that been a genocide, i would have trumpeted it louder than an armenian here. actually there are real genocides in ottoman history, and not once, many, including but not limited to selim I's cutting down of 30.000 shiite in se anatolia in 3 weeks, their conquests in byzantine lands and balkans in which they cut down anyone who didnt convert to islam, ottoman pashas' massacring of ottomans' OWN turcoman ethnic group in Central anatolia in the amount of 60.000 back in 1600s and more.
however, this armenian incident is not a genocide.
again, POST ww2 does not mean any period before 1945, and a few french governments, out of their arrogance, trying to hold on to old colonies themselves out of dozens of european countries do NOT make a rule.
The fact is, the European states dominated and destabilized Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia before the US ever got involved in those regions. Sure the US got involved in South and Central American politics but I think that history shows the US didn't mess up those regions near as much as the European powers destroyed western and central Africa.
someone else posted this and i will give the same reply to you too that i gave to him.
in the early part of cold war european nations lost their colonies. had they gone 'united states' on their colonies, implanted petty dictators or repressed the populace themselves, they wouldnt lose their colonies. however the attitude towards colonialism was not positive in post war europe. not to mention attitudes toward nationalism. so, one by one european nations lost their colonies by grating them independence, or not repressing any revolts or rebellions.
u.s. filled the gap. in many countries petty american backed dictators came to power and did what european nations didnt do. i linked relevant text, so i wont detail on this.
u.s. involvement in saudi arabia and the century long partnership begins in early 1940s. israel is there thanks to u.s. and its support. regardless of their right of being there though.
khomaini was helped by nato, and at a point spent time in turkey, as a houseguest in one high ranking intelligence major in SECULAR turkish army, which was so hard on islamists. he took refuge in iran, but, you see, the mastermind behind all the 'operation' there, was not france, for france didnt have such upper hand in nato, and they left military wing of nato early in cold war. not to mention that turkey, especially turkish army has been an u.s. ally since 1948, and undertaking overt and covert operations in nato with u.s. basically, it was cia, engineering all the crap around these parts, and still is.
Did the US get involved in nation-changing in Iran? Sure they did, they inherited the Great Game from the United Kingdom. Who decided the borders in the Middle East that has led to much of the friction of the past 60 years? The United Kingdom and France, not the US. Did the US colonize central Africa and mess up borders which lead to things like Rwanda? Oh hell no.
as i said to the other guy, you are talking about earlier eras, which had little to do with modern principles. humanist principles and ideass going mainstream only happened with the end of world war 2. beforehand, they always remained more in text of constitutions and books rather than in people's minds. ww2 taught a lot to people, and changed minds a lot in europe. this is the reason for them losing the colonies. hell, even before ww2, in 20s and 30s, gandhi had more popularity in u.k. than churchill himself.
but u.s. corporations, mind that, not americans, made the world a petty dictator garden catering to themselves post ww2. this is all because american people were so egocentric and self indulged enough to not know and care about what was going on abroad, and also let corporations run their country.
conservative foolery. the amount which you peopole can make yourselves believe in your holistic economy church is appalling.
first read up on what they actually did, before ranting about communism. those people have taken measures so that their seeds will KILL other seeds if they were planted at the same time, or nearby. in the end, most farmers ended up losing all the seeds they stored for generations.
leave that aside, in countries they could, they bought laws that BANNED usage of such saved seeds, ensuring that the supply of seeds would run out.
there will not be any 'alternatives'. monsanto plan , as associated press reports it, is based on removing all possible alternatives.
its a travesty, but rousseau, voltaire, montesqieu were even bigger proponents of secularism than jefferson. for starters, all of these come before jefferson, and have influenced jefferson and his generation. not to mention that their writings have practically kickstarted the enlightenment movement in late 18th century. hilarious.
excuse me but that is TOTALLY irrelevant to context here.
you are talking about times in which feudal lords dominated the countries, and there were nobles, peasants and burgers. it was a totally different age in which principles of humanism, equality, freedom, and all the modern social values we have today were nonexistent, still being written in the first books related to them by spinoza, erasmus and others.
and even so, it took still 200 years for them to really take hold in international politics, after their open declaration in 1789 with the french revolution.
this discussin is in the context of MODERN age, after world war ii. not about 1663, or 1701. those are times belonging to a whole different age.
us history is FAR worse than european history indeed. for, after the modern principles of coexistence and humanism took hold in mainstream society, u.s. was the only one which used puppet repressive dictators to further its profits, whereas europe preferred to let go of their colonies instead of repressing them in between 1945-2000.
ironically, this time period, MODERN time, is the one that happens to be the period in which a supposedly democratic country upholding democratic ideals fucked up innumerable countries for self profit.
excuse me, but you have a lot of history reading to do on age of enlightenment, revolutions and our modern age.
for refah, and its reincarnation saadet is long gone, and turkey is being islamicized by the current islamist akp in power, ironically with european union support. in 10 to 20 years you will find that the percentage of islamists who hate europe and only want to join europe to conquer it from 'within' will go from 20% to 50% at this rate.
had the founding fathers of usa, each of whom were intellectuals following the age of enlightenment principles and age of reason heard this 'role of christianity in founding of usa', im sure they would laugh their asses out. but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion, and just sit in the middle on a stool naked, as he sometimes preferred to do.
ill leave to you, finding which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'. and if you dont know what i was talking about benji, you have loooooong reading to do.
there is no 'strategy' in regard to it. each and every individual will be evaluated by their own merits, experience and prowess, and will his/her job and his/her salary, position in regard to his/her individual qualities and global market rates.
yes, at the start of cold war. they didnt do anything that could be compared with what u.s. did however. not even what french did in algiers can dwarf what 1-2 of the us installed dictators did worldwide, during the cold war.
europeans WERE dictators in their colonies, but they didnt stage mass murders assasinations of oppositions, democracy movements. because they didnt, they had to lose the colonies in the first place. had those colonies been under us dictatorship or under a us supported dictator, thosands would be repressed and killed when they demanded independence. and it is exactly what happened in us backed dictatorships until last decade.
use your brain for a while before shaping your opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
You said "staffing", these links talk about spy rings and using former Nazis as intelligence sources for CIA, there is a difference.
you didnt read between the lines in my text. i said staffing indeed. do you really think that it will be wise to let it come out that you were employing former gestapo as 'advisors' in a national intelligence agency, had you been running it ? first of all due to 'national security', nothing comes out from such agencies in the first place. you need to follow the trail. british agencies had been as sinister and brutally effective from the start, and they just kept their characteristic into the cold war. however american agencies had a huge characteristic change right at the end of world war 2, totally in contradiction with your country's national state heritage from the last 200 years. such changes doesnt just come out of the blue.
is there any difference in between directly censoring something because it is detrimental to your interests and indirectly making them subdue by legal claims of ownership and patents ?
in the former, at least everyone knows it is censorship. in the latter censorship is veiled with seemingly valid excuses. in the end both end up the same.
the means to u.s. censorship, acta was prepared, cooked and started in bush & co period.
i cant believe you dont know about this.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/cia.nazi.02/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908022.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601555.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1301306.stm
at the end of the war your country hauled in gestapo agents as well as ex nazi rocket scientists. gestapo was very successful in espionage tactics, and this was known by allies. employment of wernher in rocket research drew a lot of criticism and reaction, and your government spent a lot of effort in covering his ass up. in parallel, right after the end of the war, even before any wind of cold war in the air, the methods and practices of your newly founded intelligence agencies changed a lot. more secrecy, increased efficiency, less mercy, even less respect for civil institutions and principles. all this change doesnt happen by in 1-2 years' span by itself or only with taking an agency out of army's structure and making it independent. rest is history.
let me put it this way ; wernher von braun's employment in rocket research had drawn a lot of reaction. cia didnt have that reaction problem.
by leaving, but they will earn immense PR and public support all around the world that will have far reaching consequences. economically, technically, and due to recent trends, politically.
no, you have a bubble of understanding needing to be burst. allow me to portray with an example :
fethullah gulen, an islamist sect leader currently residing in u.s. has been brainwashing kids through education institutions he has in turkey for 30 years now, in order to staff the government institutions with them. first targets were education ministry and teaching staffs, second target was justice ministry, judiciary and police. the first part of the targets were infiltrated enough in the 2nd decade. infiltration of the latter in sufficient levels has been completed just 4-5 years ago.
now turkish judiciary and police wantonly ignores laws while prosecuting opponents of gulen. despite judiciary hasnt been infiltrated and in control in sufficient level, when they can, they coincide cases with judicial districts in which they have enough staffing and hence get the results they desire. it is doubtful that, the akp government, itself an islamist party and representative of a sect, can control police as they wish, despite spending a lot of purging and staffing of their own to do so. this is despite justice minister, internal affairs minister, all the heads of police in cities have been staffed with their own people. they still cant topple gulen's effect. i would like to drop a note that fethullah gulen is currently residing in pennsylvania, under FBI protection, having been given a green card on grounds of being 'an outstanding education specialist' by your government.
however the point of the example is, in order to control an agency and set policies, changing heads do not suffice. what percentage of staffing you have matters. especially mid and upper mid level management is very important.
leaving aside the unbelievable naivete that was staffing cia with ex gestapo members and making them influential figures in cia in its founding years, cia has been shaped by conservatives. just changing heads for a while and scraping the upper management levels 3-4 years does not change an agency's policy. and naturally, it didnt, for cia followed the exact same policy they set up at the start of the cold war until recently, and then only let go of parts of it (setting up puppet dictators in s america and africa) but held on to another important part of it. (using islam and islamic governments/sects as a control tool in middle east - this creates most of the global problems we face today by the way).
your thomas paine even set up a new church of reason. devoid of all dogma of christianity.
so someone moderate parent insightful please.
what im saying is, any kid who gets into voltaire, rousseau, montesqieu will become an enemy of church, leave aside being a pursuer of enlightenment. they wont even become deists, like many of your founding fathers were.
CIA - 1945-2010 republican.
gop has been staffing cia, pentagon et al with radicals and democrats have not been removing them. unless obama started removing them already.
what turkey 'did' to armenians was a forced migration, because french and russian supported armenian militas were killing not only all other ethnicities (kurds, azerbaijanis, arabs, turks) but also armenians during their 'freedom' rampages. supposedly fighting for freedom, they were just basically continuing a 500 year old tradition of anatolian highwayman lifestyle. you basically go up to the mountains on a socially acceptable excuse and start living of raiding and extorting money. despite there were valid gangs fighting for an independent armenia, many were in this classification, along with their counterparts from other ethnicities. a period for opportunism you might say.
armenian gangs were more successful than the other gangs. because they were extorting a huge amount from the area, and harrassing ottoman army, the ottoman governemnt of that time decided to force the armenians who were giving support to those gangs to migrate.
at the SAME point in time, innumerable armenians, many rich, lived in mansions in western anatolia, many in istanbul. because in ottoman empire trading and manufacturing was something generally done by minorities, jews, armenians, greeks were EXCEEDINGLY rich compared to anyone else. turks too. numerous pashas and ministers came out of minorities. NONE of these were persecuted, none of these lost their possessions, none of these were forced to do anything during this 'genocide' inflicted upon armenians. what has been done was the forced migration of armenians in east anatolia.
BUT.
eastern anatolia has always been VERY poor. leave aside people there, an entire 30.000 strong ottoman army froze to death just half a year ago or so there, due to lack of clothing and supplies for winter. despite the civilians of the area were more prepared in regard to garments for winter, supplies were still low for them too. therefore, being forced to march to migrated under circumstances NO different than ottoman army itself was subjected to, many died along the way. THIS is the genocide they are talking about. had the ottoman army decide to eradicate those armenians, no armenian would be left in eastern anatolia now.
it was stupid. it was beyond moronic, it was beyond incompetent. they forced a migration in winter. its ottoman government's failure. however it is not a genocide, for, has it been a genocide, first to lose their lives should have been the rich armenians living in mansions and palaces in istanbul.
a lot of people died indeed. horrible and tragic. however this does not make it a genocide. armenians themselves in turkey dont even tag it a genocide.
i have no qualms with nationality as i said. i have no issues with this business either. had that been a genocide, i would have trumpeted it louder than an armenian here. actually there are real genocides in ottoman history, and not once, many, including but not limited to selim I's cutting down of 30.000 shiite in se anatolia in 3 weeks, their conquests in byzantine lands and balkans in which they cut down anyone who didnt convert to islam, ottoman pashas' massacring of ottomans' OWN turcoman ethnic group in Central anatolia in the amount of 60.000 back in 1600s and more.
however, this armenian incident is not a genocide.
history is facts, and facts are these.
again, POST ww2 does not mean any period before 1945, and a few french governments, out of their arrogance, trying to hold on to old colonies themselves out of dozens of european countries do NOT make a rule.
The fact is, the European states dominated and destabilized Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia before the US ever got involved in those regions. Sure the US got involved in South and Central American politics but I think that history shows the US didn't mess up those regions near as much as the European powers destroyed western and central Africa.
someone else posted this and i will give the same reply to you too that i gave to him.
in the early part of cold war european nations lost their colonies. had they gone 'united states' on their colonies, implanted petty dictators or repressed the populace themselves, they wouldnt lose their colonies. however the attitude towards colonialism was not positive in post war europe. not to mention attitudes toward nationalism. so, one by one european nations lost their colonies by grating them independence, or not repressing any revolts or rebellions.
u.s. filled the gap. in many countries petty american backed dictators came to power and did what european nations didnt do. i linked relevant text, so i wont detail on this.
u.s. involvement in saudi arabia and the century long partnership begins in early 1940s. israel is there thanks to u.s. and its support. regardless of their right of being there though.
khomaini was helped by nato, and at a point spent time in turkey, as a houseguest in one high ranking intelligence major in SECULAR turkish army, which was so hard on islamists. he took refuge in iran, but, you see, the mastermind behind all the 'operation' there, was not france, for france didnt have such upper hand in nato, and they left military wing of nato early in cold war. not to mention that turkey, especially turkish army has been an u.s. ally since 1948, and undertaking overt and covert operations in nato with u.s. basically, it was cia, engineering all the crap around these parts, and still is.
Did the US get involved in nation-changing in Iran? Sure they did, they inherited the Great Game from the United Kingdom. Who decided the borders in the Middle East that has led to much of the friction of the past 60 years? The United Kingdom and France, not the US. Did the US colonize central Africa and mess up borders which lead to things like Rwanda? Oh hell no.
as i said to the other guy, you are talking about earlier eras, which had little to do with modern principles. humanist principles and ideass going mainstream only happened with the end of world war 2. beforehand, they always remained more in text of constitutions and books rather than in people's minds. ww2 taught a lot to people, and changed minds a lot in europe. this is the reason for them losing the colonies. hell, even before ww2, in 20s and 30s, gandhi had more popularity in u.k. than churchill himself.
but u.s. corporations, mind that, not americans, made the world a petty dictator garden catering to themselves post ww2. this is all because american people were so egocentric and self indulged enough to not know and care about what was going on abroad, and also let corporations run their country.
conservative foolery. the amount which you peopole can make yourselves believe in your holistic economy church is appalling.
first read up on what they actually did, before ranting about communism. those people have taken measures so that their seeds will KILL other seeds if they were planted at the same time, or nearby. in the end, most farmers ended up losing all the seeds they stored for generations.
leave that aside, in countries they could, they bought laws that BANNED usage of such saved seeds, ensuring that the supply of seeds would run out.
there will not be any 'alternatives'. monsanto plan , as associated press reports it, is based on removing all possible alternatives.
its a travesty, but rousseau, voltaire, montesqieu were even bigger proponents of secularism than jefferson. for starters, all of these come before jefferson, and have influenced jefferson and his generation. not to mention that their writings have practically kickstarted the enlightenment movement in late 18th century. hilarious.
that is half of duration of cold war. mind that. and its not the point - exploitation doesnt happen with military product sales alone.
excuse me but that is TOTALLY irrelevant to context here.
you are talking about times in which feudal lords dominated the countries, and there were nobles, peasants and burgers. it was a totally different age in which principles of humanism, equality, freedom, and all the modern social values we have today were nonexistent, still being written in the first books related to them by spinoza, erasmus and others.
and even so, it took still 200 years for them to really take hold in international politics, after their open declaration in 1789 with the french revolution.
this discussin is in the context of MODERN age, after world war ii. not about 1663, or 1701. those are times belonging to a whole different age.
us history is FAR worse than european history indeed. for, after the modern principles of coexistence and humanism took hold in mainstream society, u.s. was the only one which used puppet repressive dictators to further its profits, whereas europe preferred to let go of their colonies instead of repressing them in between 1945-2000.
ironically, this time period, MODERN time, is the one that happens to be the period in which a supposedly democratic country upholding democratic ideals fucked up innumerable countries for self profit.
excuse me, but you have a lot of history reading to do on age of enlightenment, revolutions and our modern age.
you are talking about a revolution. if that happens, then what you say becomes valid. but until it happens, money is going to remain as 'power'.
for refah, and its reincarnation saadet is long gone, and turkey is being islamicized by the current islamist akp in power, ironically with european union support. in 10 to 20 years you will find that the percentage of islamists who hate europe and only want to join europe to conquer it from 'within' will go from 20% to 50% at this rate.
had the founding fathers of usa, each of whom were intellectuals following the age of enlightenment principles and age of reason heard this 'role of christianity in founding of usa', im sure they would laugh their asses out. but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion, and just sit in the middle on a stool naked, as he sometimes preferred to do.
ill leave to you, finding which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'. and if you dont know what i was talking about benji, you have loooooong reading to do.
there is no 'strategy' in regard to it. each and every individual will be evaluated by their own merits, experience and prowess, and will his/her job and his/her salary, position in regard to his/her individual qualities and global market rates.
yes, at the start of cold war. they didnt do anything that could be compared with what u.s. did however. not even what french did in algiers can dwarf what 1-2 of the us installed dictators did worldwide, during the cold war.
serious ? any links ?
question your view of europeans then...
europeans WERE dictators in their colonies, but they didnt stage mass murders assasinations of oppositions, democracy movements. because they didnt, they had to lose the colonies in the first place. had those colonies been under us dictatorship or under a us supported dictator, thosands would be repressed and killed when they demanded independence. and it is exactly what happened in us backed dictatorships until last decade.
use your brain for a while before shaping your opinions.
F-16, F-15 and similar are recent products. we are talking about entire span of cold war here.