cannabisnews.com: Colombia Guerrillas Blast U.S. 'Intervention' Colombia Guerrillas Blast U.S. 'Intervention' Posted by FoM on September 17, 2001 at 14:43:26 PT By Jared Kotler, Associated Press Writer Source: Associated Press Colombia's top rebel chieftain accused the United States on Monday of meddling with his country's internal affairs by sending "hundreds of military advisers and mercenaries." Manuel Marulanda, head of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, also warned that peace talks with the government will collapse if President Andres Pastrana forces the FARC to give up a Switzerland-sized safe haven he ceded to the rebels in southern Colombia. Marulanda, in a letter posted on the FARC's Internet site, said the peace talks "will be over and not even the next president will have an open door" should Pastrana send his troops into the 16,200-square-mile zone he granted the rebels in an effort to boost the peace process. The United States is pumping $1.3 billion in mostly military counternarcotics aid to Colombia. But the rebels, who make huge profits in protection payments from cocaine producers in Colombia, see the U.S. assistance as a counterinsurgency campaign. Up to 800 U.S. military personnel and civilians contracted by the State Department are allowed in Colombia at one time under restrictions imposed by Congress. Green Berets have been training Colombian anti-drug troops and U.S. contractors piloting planes that fumigate drug crops. Negotiations with the FARC inside the so-called demilitarized zone have yielded little. Meanwhile, Colombia's military and U.S. officials have accused the guerrillas of using the area for military preparations, to stash hostages and to further enrich themselves in the cocaine trade. The Colombian army also said Monday that more suspected members of the Irish Republican Army visited the zone than previously believed. Three suspected IRA members were arrested last month after allegedly conducting explosives training for the FARC inside the zone. But two other suspected IRA members -- identified as John Francis Johnson and James Edward Walker -- traveled into the zone in April and left Colombia before they could be detained, an army spokesman said. Pastrana must decide whether to renew safe-haven status for the rebel territory, which is set to expire Oct. 6. He has indicated he probably will do so. Leading candidates in next May's presidential elections are calling for controls on the safe haven if not its outright cancellation should peace talks continue to founder. Front-runner Horacio Serpa is planning a protest caravan from Bogota to the area later this month. Last week, the rebels warned that the FARC cannot "be held responsible for his security" during the march. Colombia's 37-year conflict kills some 3,000 people annually. Complete Title: Colombia Guerrillas Blast U.S. 'Intervention,' Warn Talks Will Collapse Without Rebel Safe HavenSource: Associated PressAuthor: Jared Kotler, Associated Press WriterPublished: Monday, September 17, 2001Copyright: 2001 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:Colombia Drug War Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/colombia.htmU.S. Reassesses Colombia Aid http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10877.shtmlColombia: Man Without a Plan http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10868.shtmlPowell Plans Reassurances Over US Aid http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10864.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #22 posted by Rambler on September 19, 2001 at 11:59:28 PT You're welcome Doug.Here's More 1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeqgovernment in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company)leading to a quarter-century of dictatorial rule by the Shah, MohammedReza Pahlevi.1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egyptreceives Eastern bloc arms.1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not supportinvasion, but the involvement of NATO allies severely diminishesWashington's reputation in the region.1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability."1960s (early): U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqileader, Abdul Karim Qassim.1963: U.S. reported to give Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed bySaddam Hussein) names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SCResolution 244, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupiedin the 1967 war.1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. prepare tointervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.1972: U.S. blocks Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Egypt.1973: U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war withSyria and Egypt.1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches anagreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurdsand U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covertaction should not be confused with missionary work."1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shahit supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully.Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save theShah, but to no avail.1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six monthsbefore Soviet invasion. Over the next decade U.S. provides more than $3billion in arms and aid.1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes anySecurity Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. removes Iraq fromits list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to betransferred to Iraq. U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. providesintelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984;U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navyinto the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an aggressive U.S. shipshoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya withthe clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires amissile and two Libyan planes were subsequently shot down. In 1986,Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacksLibyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bombgoes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing two, the U.S. charges thatQaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raidsin Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopteddaughter.1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, wheremore than 10,000 civilians were killed. U.S. chooses not to invoke itslaws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense.1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinationalpeacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war. Withdraw aftersuicide bombing of marine barracks.1984: U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish populationand uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economicties to Iraq.1990-91: U.S. rejects diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion ofKuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regionaloccupations, of Kuwait and Palestine). U.S. leads internationalcoalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. Topromote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid uprisings by Shi'ites in thesouth and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to capturedIraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. andBritain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die.Though Security Council stated sanctions were to be lifted onceHussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended,Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long asSaddam remains in power. Sanctions strengthen Saddam's position. 1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defenseagainst an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush twomonths earlier.1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over weapons inspections, even thoughSecurity Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceuticalsupply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzaniaand Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. U.S. lateracknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Silent_Observer on September 18, 2001 at 11:29:28 PT Lehder... I take that as a compliment..:) [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Lehder on September 18, 2001 at 11:17:52 PT Okay, Silent_O: You're weird.Now,I don't believe in flying saucers.I don't believe that crystals have magical powers.I don't believe that people are abducted by space beings.I don't believe the holocaust never occurred.But if you've read my comments lately then you know that I do believe there's something very fishy about this attack. It may be only gross negligence or incompetence of the intelligence services. But it's inexcusable, and if I were a congressman I would not be singing and waving the flag: I'd be red in the face with my veins sticking out and I'd be demanding answers...and more heads than bin Laden's. And I still want to know about the Pennsylvania black boxes."I don't believe in Hitler I don't believe in Jesus I don't believe in Kennedy I don't believe in Buddha I don't believe in Mantra I don't believe in Gita I don't believe in Yoga I don't believe in kings I don't believe in Elvis I don't believe in Zimmerman I don't believe in Beatles"Here are some ideas I do believe, from today's IBD:A senior official in NATO member Poland warned that an outright attack against bin Laden and his protector, the Afghan Taliban regime, was almost certainly doomed to fail."If there are two lessons of the last two centuries, the first is thou shalt not march on Moscow, and the second (is) thou shalt not march on Kabul," Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote in the Rzeczpospolita daily."The Americans, after all, could not deploy sufficient forces to this remote region. A hundred thousand troops were not enough for the Soviets."The Islamic fundamentalist Taliban warned it would attack any country that helped the U.S. against Afghanistan. Any such attacks from landlocked, extremest Afghanistan could well be terrorist attacks.Note too that the Soviets enjoyed a lengthy border with Afghanistan and so presumably had no supply-line problems. In ten years they could not win.I believe that, possibly, with much of the western world souring on Plan Colombia and the drug war in general, that the U.S. military-industrial complex seeks to exploit our present circumstance and, for the sake of profits, pursue policies that may not be in our interest. I am especially skeptical when, a few days ago, I see senior members of the defense establishment claiming on TV that our response to the plane attacks will be to "eradicate terrorism" ( sound familiar?) and that the effort will take "years" to accomplish. The plan had not even been formed, but it's going to take "years!" I could go on and on but have better things to do and to believe in too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Doug on September 18, 2001 at 09:40:55 PT Rambler Thanks for the list of bombings by the US, mostly on Third World Countries that don't have F-16 to fight back. These are facts that most Americans don't know; they will certainly not be relayed in the newspapers or on television. Ignorance of this information can leave you wondereing why anyone would have a grudge against America, after all we are the beacon on the hill and the font of truth, justice, and democracy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by theropinfool on September 18, 2001 at 06:48:35 PT with liberty and justice for all Hmmm, deny justice and you will abandon liberty. "Your weary, your oppressed, your huddled masses" are yearning to be free!To our shaken leaders?: Take it to heart, you aren't fools, so quit acting like ones.I'm ropin goats today.....theropinfool [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by kaptinemo on September 18, 2001 at 06:31:46 PT: ABALFRY, some clarifcation, please Unbelievably good? Or unbelievably bad? Which is it? [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by ABALFRY on September 18, 2001 at 06:21:03 PT: LEGALISATION MY BOYFRIEND SMOKES CANNABIS EVERYDAY AND NIGHT AND HAS DUN SO SINCE HE WAS ELEVEN HIS TEMPER IS UNBELIVABLE I THIS A RESULT OF THE DRUG [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Silent_Observer on September 18, 2001 at 06:18:31 PT Thought you may be interested... http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=533 [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Silent_Observer on September 18, 2001 at 06:01:46 PT Maybe its just me.... but, I'm a little skeptical about the strong bin Laden focus. Let me explain.On September 11 at 8:30 AM, we had no clue that anything was about to happen. Then, just a few days later, we know who did it! Call me weird, but something doesn't compute here.Did anybody else think that the reports of the rental car at Logan airport with a Koran in it, and a flight manual in Arabic sounded just a tad disingenuous? Something else that doesn't compute.All I can say is, other people can wave flags to demonstrate their patriotism - I demonstrated mine on election day, when I said "Harry Browne for President!" You can bet the Libertarians would hardle encourage such acts with misguided policies. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on September 18, 2001 at 04:51:54 PT: Unfortunately, I CAN comprehend it. It' very simple, really; money equals power. Power is what you have when you can cause other people, either through economic means or through actual beat-you-to-a-bloody-pulp force, to get what you want. The more money, the more power. And anything that stands in he way of accumulating that power is construed as being 'obstructionist', 'anti-progressive', 'reactionary', or even 'evil'.We all know the origins of the cannabis laws. The publicly stated ones and the real, economic ones.But both revolve around this concept.Since drug law reform stands in the way of the powerful becoming more powerful, it will be and is branded as 'evil'. 'Immoral'. 'Dangerous'. And of course, a 'threat to The Chil-drun'. And those presently in power know that to maintain themselves so, they must use all the means available to stifle any opportunity to debate, to argue, before the public the rationales behind the drug laws. To allow a serious debate is to open themselves to attack upon their power base.That's why I keep sounding like a nut about the dangers inherent in these new 'counter-terrorism' maesures being proposed in Congress. When these buffoons, who seem to have forgotten their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, make noises about shredding it even futher than it already has been, and that 'people have too much freedom' (despite that shredding) and that they equate cannabis dealing (and therefore, use) with treason, then it's time to batten down the hatches and sound General Quarters. And let the pols know that, they might be ignorant the difference, but you aren't. And that you will hold them personally accountable for any further infringement upon our already dwindled rights.Otherwise, 'The Great White North' might just see the reverse of the brain drain they are worried about. I said it once before; I will happily learn to sing "O Canada!" if it entails living in a country where my rights are respected and protected rather than bought and sold on a dyspeptic or insane pol's whim. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by freedom fighter on September 17, 2001 at 20:23:56 PT GCW thanks for the link especially the one that point out to the UN study..If one would read carefully, the report would not mention any damage if one choose to consume cannabis. All the report would do is point out the damage of prohibition of cannabis in regard to trafficking of hard drugs. It would point out the damages that hard drugs(cocaine/herion) do to people. People of the world would rather choose cannabis over these stuff.I am in awe. I do not understand why some folks thought it was a bright idea to ban cannabis. Not one single human being ever had to go to hospital for cannabis. Cocaine or herion or whatever, sure, but not cannabis except for the prohibition itself that killed Tom and Rolland.I am not able to comphrend the greed of the prohibition. I do not think I want to do so. It is evil. Prohibition does not represent security in any country in this world. Prohibition is what feed evil in this world. ff [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on September 17, 2001 at 18:05:11 PT Robbie and Rambler I see what you both mean. That's deep stuff. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Robbie on September 17, 2001 at 17:43:22 PT previous post My concern with my last post was about the new legislation:"Anyone who attempts to coerce a civilian population or a unit of government is a terrorist."So, if we protes against the DEA or something, we're terrorists? Yeah, I mean watch out.I thgink our cherished freedoms could be going to hell in a handbasket. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Rambler on September 17, 2001 at 17:40:27 PT FoM I dont know for sure,but I believe that most of these countriesdidnt even have the capability to do any bombing from the air.They were sitting ducks. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by dddd on September 17, 2001 at 17:36:56 PT GCW..I dont know if this is exactly what Robbie meant to say,,,but I predict a blurry,,,faint,and barelyvisible line will exsist between the wars on drugs & terror,,in fact,,,I think they will almost become one in the same,asthe insanity grows amongst our lawmakers,and the uglyarrogance further infects a new brand of law enforcement,that now has few boundaries,,,,drugs will be called a formof terrorism,,and the war will become the War on Terrorismand Drugs,,,,all of a sudden,,all the special laws that werewreckless made to combat terror,,will apply to drugs.....get readyit aint gonna be pretty...dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on September 17, 2001 at 17:29:14 PT Rambler I have a question. Have any of the countries you posted bombed any other country or have we only bombed them? I really have no idea. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 17, 2001 at 17:25:03 PT A Comment I just caught a little of a program on CNN. I think it was Crossfire but they are blurring together these days but they asked one question that stuck out in my mind. It was isn't the war on drugs and the war on terrorism basically the same? That's by no means word for word but that's the right context.The answer was NO not at all. The war on terrorism is about murdereres. That's not at all the same as the war on drugs. Not word for word again. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Rambler on September 17, 2001 at 17:24:48 PT bombings by US China 1945-46 Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War) ..Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-1961 Guatemala 1960 Congo 1964 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Vietnam 1961-73 Cambodia 1969-70 Guatemala 1967-69 Grenada 1983 Lebanon 1983, 1984 Libya 1986 El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1980s Iran 1987 Panama 1989 Iraq 1991-2000 Kuwait 1991 Somalia 1993 Bosnia 1994, 1995 Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by The GCW on September 17, 2001 at 17:14:06 PT Robbie ...who harbor a terrorist or give them money...Does that mean the government would concider if some one purchases some cannabis, they are giving terrorist money, now that there is the implication of drug sales money going to terrorist?Will they now treat cannabis users like terrorist supporters?Robbie, is that what you mean when you say: Watch out people!! It's already starting. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Robbie on September 17, 2001 at 16:57:07 PT Watch out people!! It's already starting.http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--attacks-anti-terr0917sep17.story?coll=ny%2Dap%2Dregional%2DwireThe legislation made terrorism a capital crime in New York and defined what it is--the commission of an offense designed to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or "influence the policy of a unit of government." The package also made it a violent felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison for people who solicit terrorist activities. In addition, it created punishment of up to 25 years in state prison for those who harbor a terrorist or give them money, transportation or weapons. Independent media [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by The GCW on September 17, 2001 at 16:29:19 PT ILLICIT DRUGS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A LITERATUR http://www.swan.ac.uk/cds/devres/drugs2.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by The GCW on September 17, 2001 at 15:56:56 PT The Links Between Drug Prohibition and Terrorism "Drugs have taken over as the chief means of financing terrorism." http://www.cfdp.ca/terror.htm [ Post Comment ] Post Comment