In the Dark on the ‘Dark Side’

The “War on Terror” now more than 14 years long has trapped the U.S. and other nations in the “dark side” of human behavior, a dilemma that is both moral and practical because the continued use of brutal methods has only made the crisis worse, as Nicolas J S Davies explains.

By Nicolas J S Davies

France and Russia’s military responses to mass murders in Paris and Egypt echo the United States’ response to mass murders in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001. As Oxford University researcher Lydia Wilson told Democracy Now on Nov. 17, Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh) is “seemingly delighted” by this warlike response to its latest atrocities.

In several interviews, Lydia Wilson has cited Abu Bakr Naji’s The Management of Savagery as a “playbook” that ISIS appears to be following closely. Naji called for mass murders in foreign cities and tourist destinations as part of a strategy to draw foreign powers into unwinnable wars that would spread chaos, fuel jihadism and leave Muslim fundamentalist groups in control of more and more of the Muslim world.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the United States, meeting with President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2002. (White House photo)

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the United States, meeting with President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2002. (White House photo)

This builds on Al Qaeda’s original strategy, which counted on an aggressive response to the 9/11 attacks to expose the iron fist inside the velvet glove of U.S. “soft power” and the hollowness of the U.S. government’s commitment to civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law. Al Qaeda astutely turned its enemy’s military superiority into a liability by provoking the U.S. to unleash disastrous wars on Muslim countries.

The U.S. invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and the concentration camp at Guantanamo became the most valuable assets in Al Qaeda’s propaganda and recruiting campaigns, now complemented by the terror of drone strikes and bombing campaigns in Syria and Iraq.

As the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein of Jordan, told the Council on Foreign Relations on Nov. 16, “it seems that the defenses against chaos and bloodshed that states erected at the close of the Second World War, the laws they wrote and swore to abide by, the agreements and treaties they signed, are giving way to increasing action bound by no principle or any foresight. … Much of the Middle East and North Africa is gripped in deadly conflict with constant, now almost routine, violations of the norms that should protect civilians, and even proxy warfare with greater powers engaged in combat rather than in making peace.”

To briefly take stock of 14 years of war, which our leaders launched and continue to justify as a response to terrorism:

–The U.S. and its allies have conducted over 120,000 air strikes against seven countries, exploding fundamentalist jihadism from its original base in Afghanistan to an active presence in all seven countries and beyond.

–The U.S. and its allies have invaded and occupied Afghanistan for 14 years, Iraq for over eight years, and destroyed Libya, Syria and Yemen for good measure.

–By conservative estimates, U.S.-led wars have killed about 1.6 million people, mostly civilians. That is 500 times the number of people killed by the original crimes in the United States. Disproportionate use of force and geographic expansion of the conflict by our side has ensured an endless proliferation of violence on all sides.

–War, occupation and human rights abuses have driven 59.5 million people from their homes, more than at any time since the Second World War.

–Since 2001, the U.S. has borrowed and spent $3.3 trillion in additional military spending to pay for the largest unilateral military build-up in history, but less than half the extra funding has been spent on current wars. (See Carl Conetta’s 2010 paper, “An Undisciplined Defense”, for more analysis of the Pentagon’s “spending surge.”)

When U.S. support for Muslim fundamentalist jihadis in Afghanistan led to the most catastrophic blowback in our history on Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. government declared a “global war on terror” against them. But less than a decade later, it once again began recruiting, training and arming Muslim fundamentalists to fight in Libya and Syria.

The U.S. also made the largest arms sale in history to Saudi Arabia, which is already ruled by a dynasty of Muslim fundamentalists whose role in the 9/11 crimes remains a closely guarded secret. It was only when ISIS invaded Iraq in 2014 that the U.S. government was finally forced to rethink its covert support for such groups in Syria. It has yet to seriously reconsider its alliances with their state sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and other Arab monarchies.

Throughout the past 14 years, whenever the fear of terrorism has temporarily receded, the U.S. government has quickly redirected its threats and uses of military force, covert operations and propaganda to a completely different purpose: destabilizing and overthrowing a laundry-list of internationally recognized governments, in Venezuela, Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and around the world.

In these operations, the U.S. government has never balked at allying with violent groups whom it would be quick to condemn as “terrorists” if they were on the other side. The American people are being treated to a new version of President Ronald Reagan’s comical division of violent groups into “terrorists” and “freedom fighters” based on their relationship to U.S. policy.

In more recent years, patriotic Iraqis who resisted the illegal invasion of their country were “terrorists” and armed neo-Nazis in Ukraine were first noble “protesters” and are now part of a new “National Guard.”

Each new U.S. military operation is justified as a response to some new crisis, while the U.S. role in creating these crises in the first place is obscured (with increasing difficulty) behind funhouse mirrors of secrecy and propaganda.

This pattern of opportunistic uses of force was exactly the strategy outlined by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld within hours of the mass murders on Sept. 11, 2001. CBS News obtained a copy of Undersecretary Stephen Cambone’s notes from a meeting amid the ruins of the Pentagon at 2:40 p.m. that day. Cambone quoted Rumsfeld saying, “Judge whether good enough hit S.H. (Saddam Hussein) at same time – not only UBL (Usama Bin Laden) … Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

In a recent article about the record U.S. military budget, I explained that President Obama’s annual military budgets have (on average and after adjusting for inflation) been higher than George W. Bush’s, 60 percent higher than President Bill Clinton’s and 2½ times what bipartisan experts recommended to the Senate Budget Committee at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. military is now more generously funded than the rest of the ten largest militaries in the world combined.

Investing our nation’s wealth in military forces and deadly weapons and deploying them all over the world is not just a tragic waste in terms of all the unmet human needs in our country and the world. It’s dangerous. By building a global war machine designed to fight anybody anywhere, while rejecting all legal and political constraints on how it may be used, U.S. leaders have set the stage for endless, unwinnable, global war.

As Prince Zeid suggested, the U.S. government has turned its back on the legitimate infrastructure of collective security enshrined in the UN Charter and international law, and reverted to something more primitive: the law of the jungle or “might makes right.”

By fostering the dangerous illusion that illegal threats and uses of U.S. military force can replace the collective will of humanity and the rule of international law as the ultimate arbiter of international affairs, U.S. leaders have set us on a collision course with history.

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia and China remained on the sidelines. Their oil companies even bid for contracts on new oilfields in Iraq, and Russia allowed the U.S. to ship war supplies through its territory to Afghanistan. In 2011, Russia and China both abstained from a UN Security Council resolution for a “no fly zone” supposedly to protect civilians in Libya when they could have simply vetoed it.

But when the U.S. and its allies abused that resolution to depose and butcher Muammar Gaddafi and plunge Libya into chaos, then transitioned quickly to launch an even bloodier proxy war in Syria, China and Russia finally accepted that the U.S. war machine was really out of control. The U.S. was treating their efforts at appeasement as a green light for aggression that would sooner or later threaten them directly.

In 2012, Russia increased its military budget by 15 percent, the largest annual increase since Vladimir Putin was elected President in 2000. After the destruction of Libya, Russia concluded that it was essential to face down U.S. aggression and that the catastrophic failures of U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya provided an opening for Russian diplomacy to start pushing back.

The U.S. responded to Russia’s support for the Syrian government by engineering a coup against an even more strategic Russian ally in Ukraine. The Western-backed coup threatened to roll NATO expansion right up to Russia’s border and sail NATO warships into its most strategic naval base at Sevastopol.

Russia responded by accepting Crimea’s request to restore its 230-year-old ties with Russia (94 percent of Crimeans had already voted for independence from Ukraine in 1991). Russia also supported the “Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics” in their resistance to the new Western-backed government in Kiev.

U.S. allies in Europe initially supported the U.S. campaign to isolate and sanction Russia over the chaos in Ukraine, but now France and Germany are working with Russia and Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements, which are gradually restoring peace to Ukraine.

Until recently, Russia played a deft diplomatic hand without being directly drawn into combat in Syria or Ukraine. But now Russia has joined the free-for-all bombing of Syria. ISIS has responded by blowing up a Russian airliner over Egypt’s Sinai. Russia has in turn escalated its aerial bombardment of jihadist targets inside Syria. Last week, Turkey shot down an Su-24 warplane along the Syrian border.

It seems that Russia is being drawn into the same escalating cycle of violence as the U.S. and its allies. Much depends on the results of the diplomatic process in Vienna and on the willingness of all the external powers involved in the war in Syria to allow the people of Syria to decide their own political future. That includes the U.S. and its allies just as much as Russia and Iran.

On a larger scale, it is vital for us to recognize that the United States, by authorizing the use of military force in 2001, became a party to this open-ended conflict and shares the responsibility for escalating or resolving it. Demonizing America’s “enemies” is not a responsible or legitimate pretext for endlessly escalating an ill-defined war that has killed far more civilians than combatants.

But by declaring that we are at war with “terror,” “Muslim extremism,” “associated forces” or whoever our leaders decide we’re at war with from one week to the next, the U.S. government has foreclosed many of the ways that wars are usually brought to an end. We cannot meet “terror” at the negotiating table.

The international military competition to “destroy” ISIS at whatever cost in civilian death and destruction, is an irresistible chance for the U.S., Russia, France and the U.K. to display and market their latest weapons technology. But it will not end the “war on terror.” Even a superficially successful military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq will instead hasten the next mutation of jihadism and drive even more Muslims from around the world into its ranks.

Even President Obama has acknowledged that there is no military way out of the trap that he and other U.S. officials have unwittingly collaborated with the “terrorists” to set for us. Yet he still soldiers on blindly as if there are no non-military alternatives either.

But there are and always have been specific policy changes that the U.S. government could make if it were serious about ending this horrific cycle of violence:

–Repeal the 2001 and 2002 Congressional Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, which have become blank checks for endless war. Reps. Lee (D), Amash (R) and Massie (R) have introduced bills in Congress to do that: HR 1303 (to repeal the 2001 AUMF) and HR 1304 (to repeal the 2002 AUMF).

–Close the U.S. concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Every prisoner must either be released or be granted a free and fair trial in a real court.

–Stop threatening, bombing and attacking Muslim countries – and other ones too.

–Stop destabilizing and overthrowing internationally-recognized governments.

–End drone strikes and comply with long-standing executive orders prohibiting assassination as an instrument of U.S. policy.

–Shut down the “rat-line” of U.S. weapons to jihadi groups everywhere.

–Enforce existing U.S. laws that prohibit arms sales to governments that commit war crimes or human rights abuses, with no exceptions for U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel or Iraq.

–Stop using the U.S. veto to block majority decisions of the UN Security Council on Israel and Palestine.

–Publicly recommit to full compliance with the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the rule of international law.

–Restore command accountability under U.S. law for war crimes ordered or sanctioned by senior U.S. military and civilian officials.

If these steps seem radical or “politically impossible,” that is only a measure of how far the United States has strayed from the basic standards of international behavior that we and other countries are committed to. But if the U.S. government refuses to take such steps, then we must recognize that we share the responsibility for perpetuating the horrors of this conflict.

As the late historian and former U.S. Air Force bombardier Howard Zinn wrote in a letter to the New York Times in 2007, “The terrorism of the suicide bomber and the terrorism of aerial bombardment are indeed morally equivalent. To say otherwise (as either side might) is to give one moral superiority over the other, and thus serve to perpetuate the horrors of our time.”

On the other hand, if we can restore some legitimacy to U.S. policy, we can begin to regain the moral and legal ground from which to respond effectively to terrorism. If or when there is another mass murder like the ones in the U.S. in 2001 or the recent ones in Egypt, Lebanon and France, we must respond to it as a heinous crime rather than as an act of war, as former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz insisted in the aftermath of 9/11.

Those responsible must be identified, pursued, arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, with only as much help from the military as is needed to bring them to justice.  But as Ferencz warned in 2001, their crimes must not be allowed to become a pretext for wreaking misdirected vengeance on other countries and innocent lives.

This is how we will defeat terrorism – theirs and ours.

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.  He also wrote the chapters on Obama at War in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

19 comments for “In the Dark on the ‘Dark Side’

  1. Peter Loeb
    December 1, 2015 at 08:26


    “In several interviews, Lydia Wilson has cited Abu Bakr Naji’s
    The Management of Savagery as a “playbook” that ISIS appears
    to be following closely. Naji called for mass murders in foreign
    cities and tourist destinations as part of a strategy to draw
    foreign powers into unwinnable wars that would spread chaos,
    fuel jihadism and leave Muslim fundamentalist groups in control
    of more and more of the Muslim world…”

    So very much of this article by Nicolas J.S. Davies is on target, at least
    for informed perspectives on the left.

    What is in serious doubt is the central premise that the current
    war is (like so many similar predecessors) “unwinnable”. As far
    as ISIS/Da’esh is concerned many reports seem to indicate
    that to the contrary it may be quite winnable indeed.

    It is an indisputable fact that many Muslims will eternally see
    it as an anti-Muslim effort. This is probably the primary
    reason for the popularity of this militancy (ISIS/Da’esh)
    throughout Muslim populations throughout the world as
    well as for the recruitment. As many have tragically
    discovered—sometimes too late— their Muslim “cause”
    is invariably cruel even (especially) to its very Muslim
    neighbors. As many nations have seen in various contexts,
    it is often easier to recruit for hate and violence. One example
    is the current popularity the explosion of belief in the
    essential “heroism” of joining the US armed forces to
    massacre others in “service” to the greater glory of
    the nation (which –of course– has always been “great).

    Sometimes the disadvantaged for whom we advocate
    are themselves guilty of horrendous crimes. An African
    American can murder although the rate, the gross injustices
    for African Americans in the US can never be denied.
    “The poor” can on occasion strangle others.

    We must know that ISIS/Da’esh does not represent
    Islam. Still there are occasions when tolerance
    of limitless hate and violence must be opposed.

    Another factor not sufficiently dealt with here are
    the domestic realities of many nations.

    Many people will die and in this case many
    “innocent civilians”. Some are not so “innocent”
    at all such as the murders of the downed
    Russians has shown.

    There is sufficient reason to agree with most
    of Russian actions to date as well as with its
    management of its policies through the UN.

    As Gabriel Kolko has shown many times the
    very structure of the United Nations was
    designed to protect American interests and
    meet American objectives. (See Gabriel
    Kolko, THE POLITICS OF WAR.) As Davies
    re-states, when nations fail to get
    their wishes, they simply act outside of the
    all-too-idealistic rules of the UN which is powerless
    to enforce these rules over any major power or
    collection of powers.

    It is not always correct to compare one event
    in history with every other despite similarities.

    Otherwise, an excellent piece.

    —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA


  2. JWalters
    November 28, 2015 at 18:30

    The U.S. has not “strayed from the basic standards of international behavior”. It has been financially muscled into the military catastrophes you described. We are witnessing the fruits of the Military-Industrial Complex of which Eisenhower warned. And the central project of the MIC, the aggressive thorn in the side of the Middle East, is the Zionist project, the project which all discussions must dance around. Historical facts on how American was taken over for this project, facts which are danced around in media discussions, are given at

    • November 28, 2015 at 23:40

      it is good to see more people are becoming aware …
      another great publication on the subject is “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict” by Norman G. Finkelstein, second edition 2003.

  3. Mortimer
    November 28, 2015 at 12:51

    Investing our nation’s wealth in military forces and deadly weapons and deploying them all over the world is not just a tragic waste in terms of all the unmet human needs in our country and the world. It’s dangerous. By building a global war machine designed to fight anybody anywhere, while rejecting all legal and political constraints on how it may be used, U.S. leaders have set the stage for endless, unwinnable, global war. — Nicolas J S Davies
    The above paragraph touches on the shadowy subject of war profiteering and Gen. Smedley Butler’s cellar dwelling pronouncement that WAR IS A RACKET.
    That the business of war is very profitable (for some) is rarely discussed. Using private citizens in the “kill chain” ought to be considered a Criminal Act – but, alas, within Our Deadly War Machinery it’s “all hands on deck.”

    Mr. WJ Hennigan put a spotlight on this little publicized part of the War Machine… .
    Air Force hires civilian drone pilots for combat patrols; critics question legality

    W.J. Hennigan

    The Air Force has hired civilian defense contractors to fly MQ-9 Reaper drones to help track suspected militants and other targets in global hot spots, a previously undisclosed expansion in the privatization of once-exclusively military functions.

    For the first time, civilian pilots and crews now operate what the Air Force calls “combat air patrols,” daily round-the-clock flights above areas of military operations to provide video and collect other sensitive intelligence.

    Critics, including some military lawyers, contend that civilians are now part of what the Air Force calls the “kill chain,” a process that starts with surveillance and ends with a missile launch. That could violate laws barring civilians from taking part in armed conflict.

    The use of contractors reflects in part the Pentagon’s growing problem in recruiting, training and retaining military drone pilots for the intensifying air war against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. It is several hundred short of its goal of 1,281 pilots.

    The contractors are Aviation Unmanned, a small, 3-year-old company based in Addison, Texas, and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., a far-larger firm based in Poway, outside San Diego, that is the only supplier of armed drones to the Pentagon.

    A redacted Air Force document approving the classified contract with Aviation Unmanned notes that the “lack of appropriately cleared and currently qualified MQ-9 pilots is a major concern.”

    Both documents black out the cost, as well as most details of the missions and sensors involved.

    The Reaper is a larger, heavier and more powerful version of the better-known Predator. Both are made by General Atomics.

    The Pentagon requires the Air Force to fly 60 combat air patrols with Predators and Reapers each day. They plan to ramp up to 90 patrols a day by 2019.

    General Atomics employees also provide logistics support, software maintenance, flight operations support, aircraft repair, ground control and other work on most Air Force drones. The company was paid more than $700 million over the last two years for those services, according to Air Force records.

    The little-known Aviation Unmanned was founded by a former Reaper pilot and instructor, and it provides aircraft, training and operations in support of commercial and government contracts, according to its website.

    >>> By 2010, the number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan had surpassed the number of U.S. military personnel and federal civilian employees, records show. <<<

    A lengthy article in the 2013 Air Force Law Review, a publication of the judge advocate general's office, contended that over-reliance on contractors in a combat zone risks violating international law that prohibits direct civilian participation in hostilities.

    It cites a Predator missile attack that killed 15 civilians in central Afghanistan in February 2010. Although the military piloted and operated the drone, the decision to fire a Hellfire missile "was largely based upon intelligence analysis conducted and reported by a civilian contractor."

    The combat air patrols flown by drones involve six steps in the kill chain: Find the target, map the location, track its movements, aim a laser to pinpoint it, fire the missile and assess the damage.

    But William D. Hartung, director of the arms and security project at the Center for International Policy, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, warned that there is a thin line between tracking an individual or vehicle and firing a deadly missile.

    Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame, also expressed alarm at the growing civilian role.

    Military drones should be flown only by those who "wear a uniform [and] are trained in the law of armed conflict," she said.

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 28, 2015 at 13:05

      I’m providing a link to an article which talks about whistleblower drone operators, having their bank accounts frozen, due to their protest about killing innocents.

      Maybe, their civilian counterparts will be easier to control, but then again Edward Snowden was a civilian contractor.

      • Mortimer
        November 30, 2015 at 13:59

        A powerful link. Joe T.

        “Sovietesque American National Security State” is a singularly foreboding hint to what follows in the rest of the report. A very chilling account of the rather savage attitude those in control of our military.
        The photo is a portrait of frustration on the faces of whistleblowers. They appear Allen Poe-ish in the anguished expression on their faces. The pic alone is worth 1,000 words.

        What kind of “just society” allows it’s government to attack the bank accounts of it’s employees?
        Does that happen to private contractors or do they simply get fired for truth-telling?
        How brutal (saddest) is the mentality of our military when killing children becomes collateral damage? Or have computer games trumped all concepts of morality?

        Where are we headed? How do we change direction? Just hold our nose, amp up the volume on Metal or hip-hop, cover our eyes & ears and protect our families? —
        There seems no alternative… .

        Thanks Joe T. for the link.

  4. Erik
    November 28, 2015 at 08:06

    Well said to those who are learning, but the prosecution of US terrorists will never happen. The corruption of the judiciary is far more extreme than the media dare to report. Those who think of judges as Santa Claus make a very childish error. The fact that we cannot run the country without an uncorrupted judiciary does not mean that we have one. Elected judges campaign with money from a political party that dictates the outcome of civil cases. State judges invariably rule along party lines, often declaring grossly unconstitutional principles, such as the idea that towns cannot commit civil rights violations because they are not people. Federal courts routinely deny basic constitutional rights in liberty and property on the basis of corrupt influence, posting vacuous excuses as judgments and completely ignoring the law, the constitution, and their own judgments in favor of Rethuglicans. See link to and also link to

    These wars are not and have never been about US security (never once threatened since WWII except as a result of these wars), or oil (which we can and do buy from anyone), nor about progress elsewhere (which the US has always ignored apart from pittances from its advertising budget), they are caused by rich anti-democratic traitors wrapped in the flag, who control the US government by buying elections and mass media.

    They are invariably right wing warmongers, because they must invent foreign enemies to demand power as protectors and accuse their opponents of disloyalty. This is the disease of tyranny over democracy against which Aristotle warned in his Politics millennia ago.

    US elections and mass media are controlled by an oligarchy of economic concentrations which cares not at all for humanity, foreign or domestic. The sheeple pretend to believe its propaganda because that is their only path to opportunity, the penalties of opposition are unsustainable, and they can pretend that personal gain is conservatism. This will not change until the fortress of the rich is reduced to poverty by universal economic sanctions, when others will continue the tyranny of money.

  5. Abe
    November 28, 2015 at 03:18

    An imperfect messenger shares Putin’s disdain for “Liver-eaters”

  6. F. G. Sanford
    November 27, 2015 at 21:49

    Unwittingly? Hey, does anybody remember when that little Caribbean nation got fed up with its corrupt leaders? They kicked out all the pimps, thugs, organized criminals, corrupt military officers, drug dealers, profiteers and crooked politicians. Then, USA recruited as many of them as they could to try to kick out the reformist government – even though it reduced illiteracy, poverty, unemployment, infant mortality, drug addiction, crime, improved public health and increased life expectancy! But then, there was blowback. That same gang of criminals and murderers who failed to kick out that new government were recruited by terrorists to assassinate a President. Today, their ideological descendants are even participating in the current Presidential elections! I like to think of them as “Sons of Anti-castro Cuban Kennedy Assassination Secret HIT Team”. I’ll leave it to the readership to come up with an appropriate acronym – there obviously is one. Come on, Doc, we’re dealing with a government based on political assassination which operates as the world’s largest criminal enterprise. It may be too late to indict G.H.W. Bush for the JFK hit, but not for the JFK Jr. Hit or the Florida Election scam or the Ohio Election Scam. There is not EVEN ONE honst branch left in our government. Sadly, I’m pretty sure collapse is the only cure, and it seems more likely every day.

    • Bob Van Noy
      November 28, 2015 at 11:48

      Thank you F.G. Sanford for Every informed word above, you are so correct. Are you aware that C.Wright Mills wrote a book at the time called “Listen Yankee” describing nearly all of what you have said? I like to tell my contemporaries that if we were young men and experienced what The corporatists were doing to our country and women; we would have acted much like Castro did. Hopefully…

    • MeNotYou
      November 28, 2015 at 13:14

      My my my, aren’t you quite the Communist lackey?

      • F. G. Sanford
        November 28, 2015 at 14:15

        My my my, aren’t you quite the disgruntled human trafficking tourism enthusiast?

      • November 28, 2015 at 17:28

        you have no clue what “communism” is … but I will educate you.
        “communism” is an ideology where all members of society own everything communally. in a truly communist society, if the c.e.o. rides a limo to work … so will the janitor. if the c.e.o. is not very good at her/his job, and the bank is about to go under … the state steps in and bails it out in an effort to keep the bank afloat.
        … wait a tick!
        that would mean that the u.s. congress, and whitehouse are BLOOD RED COMIES!
        who would have thunk it … communism for the banks … capitalism for the rest.

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 28, 2015 at 18:54

        Where were you, MeNotYou, when Castro reached out to the U.S. for it’s support?

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 29, 2015 at 00:01

      IN Remembrance:
      JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963

      “Don’t let it be forgot
      That once there was a spot,
      For one brief, shining moment
      That was known as Camelot”

    • Manny B
      November 30, 2015 at 01:40

      Yes, All Terrorisms have a purpose. In this case since 2001 it has to brutalize west. West is it death spiral and is drawn into commiting more brutal acts on more civilians half a world away. This only augments recruitment of young, sensitive and idealists. Islam has nothing to do with it. We in West are loosing !

Comments are closed.