[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
World News See other World News Articles Title: Bush will authorise this month the State assassination of Hugo Chávez Bush will authorise this month the State assassination of Hugo Chávez
Bush will authorise this month the State assassination of Hugo Chávez
By Heinz Dieterich
1. The price of his anti-diabolical discourse
Hugo Chávez’s United Nations speech was the culmination of magisterial international vanguard politics, which converted George Bush into the pariah of the worldwide institution. The price for this successful spectacle—which can not be understood without the proverbial audacity of Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro—is the authorisation of State assassination by the White House.
2. Strategic change: the institutional entanglement of political assassination
The fascist government-in-formation will not use as its legal basis for the assassination the customary verbal formula applied by United States executives for such ends—“get rid of him”—rather, it will use the terminology, “Top secret presidential finding”.
Most probably it will use proxies; for example, death squads of the Israeli secret services, which habitually assassinate citizen “enemies” in other countries.
The decision of State assassination [of the president of Venezuela] constitutes a change in White House strategy, employed since 2003, which opted for a political war of annexation by wearing out, in order to impose upon the system the replacement of the president by the right-wing of the New Political Class (NPC). This strategy aspires to gradually capitalise upon the internal weaknesses of the revolution and avoid a civil war in Venezuela, which will inevitably be unleashed with the assassination of the popular president.
Not to repeat the consequences of the State assassination of the Colombian President Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, has been the slogan of the White House since the defeat of the 2002-3 oil coup d’état in Venezuela. Nevertheless, the incessant Latin American and worldwide diplomatic offensive of Hugo Chávez—which not only threatens the Monroe Doctrine but also “Manifest Destiny”, which has ruled for two centuries—has reached the point of no return. Chávez’s offensive is the equivalent of the decree of Bolívar’s “war to the death” against the Spanish empire 193 years ago.
The change of US strategy—from containment policy towards Cuba and Venezuela, while breaking the weakest link of the chain, Bolivia—towards State assassination has to resolve the danger of social explosion. The White House calculation is to avoid a long civil war by making it appear that the assassination would be a natural death or an accident. The successful poisoning of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat is the model to emulate.
In September 2003, the Israeli security cabinet publicly declared its intention to assassinate Arafat. The then Vice-Premier Minister Ehud Olmert generated a public debate regarding this project by considering this method “legitimate”.
“The question is, by which manner do we put an end to Arafat,” said the Israeli State’s number two man. “Expulsion is one option; assassination is another possibility.” Israel’s problem in applying the option of the elimination of Arafat consisted of the dilemma, “ (it) is not a moral matter, rather to know if it is practical or not.”
Following that successful operation would the fascist presidents Ehud Olmert and George Bush doubt for one second that the “removal…of the obstacle to peace” is extremely “practical” and “legitimate”? That is to say, that Hugo Chávez is a peaceful oil rich and third world leader [and thus an “obstacle”, translator’s note].
4. Hugo Chávez’s great offensive has discovered his dangerous rear guard
With all the audacity and success of the Venezuelan president’s offensive one is reminded of the great offensive of Napoleon against Moscow. Napoleon only looked forward, dreaming of a decisive lightning war. He failed to construct a rear guard capable of detaining an eventual Russian counter-offensive. When such occurred, he was completely destroyed.
The dangerous dispersion of the Bolivarian forces in Venezuela presents a similar scenario. The Bolivarian union movement is divided into, at least, four major currents. Official Bolivarian political forces rest on three major parties. The peasants have, at least, two major groupings. The popular sector is not organised into an integral national structure, such as, for example, in Cuba. The consolidation of the Bolivarian project in the armed forces requires, at least, two to three more years. The Bolivarian means of communication are insufficiently efficient. Many strategic State ministries are inefficient; partly so because in the last three years there have been six changes of ministers and vice-ministers, making quality State management impossible.
The quantitative dispersion of the Bolivarian forces offends, because many have the habit of using factious power plays, which converts the revolution and the party into second place. Hugo Chávez wants to remedy this poor political practice by forming one united political party next year. Minister William Lara hopes to convert Channel 8 into a 24-hour news service like CNN. Who knows if they will succeed, because until now the State has not had the capacity to develop a system to detect revolutionaries to control the media and the vanguard, which is required for the future process.
A frontal confrontation with the most potent world power and its European Union accomplices, in these conditions, will only be victorious if they have the talent and the luck of Alexander the Great. Or if they extend the spirit, the work and the vanguard management capacity not only on the visible front but also in the Achilles Heel of the revolution. © Translation Copyright 2006 by AxisofLogic.com
ALVARO VARGAS LLOSA SENDS HUGO CHAVEZ TO DANTE'S INFERNO
Venezuela's Chavez says assassination attempt against him foiled Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#3. To: robin (#0)
It was more of clown act; a pathetic appeal of mental masturbation that performed nothing more than a sense of personal acclaim based upon self aggrandising methods of obscure and silly rants designed to attract the attention of unintelligent humans. Hugo needs a new speech writer.
Anderson said he is hoping for leniency from the Army but isn't taking anything for granted. I hope they hang him until he is dead with a broken neck. buckeroo posted on 2006-10-01 22:13:27 ET Reply Trace So you support murder of people who do not support U.S. policy? You want Army Spc. Darrell Anderson, 24, of Lexington who won a Purple heart in Iraq hung for opposing an illegal immoral war, do you support Bush hangong Hugo too?
I support the death of anyone that does not fulfill their solemn, sworn oath. What is required to bring America back towards the founding anchors of our nation is credibility and dignity. Honour goes a long way towards ensuring that trash gets canned and not exalted.
oh boy..you ever heard of gleaning new information from experience, buck? good lord, in your world, anyone who's sworn an oath when ignorant and not fully informed should be killed, huh?
I fulfilled not only my sworn oath but remain steadfast in determining that this two-headed political snake controlling Washington DC is absolved. Still, believing that anyone can skip away from their own oaths because they have a change of heart shows nothing more than a coward. Cowards are the first to be shot to death in any revolution anyway as they have no dignity other than the belief of that the world is their personal playground.
If I were under official orders to be in the Armed Forces and in a combat zone, and my superior officer said, "Look, they are parachuting from that plane that is about to crash, fire them up!" and I absolutely refused, I would be disobeying the enlistment oath I quoted in my last post, but I would be obeying the Geneva convention accords. Do you agree? Combatants who are hors de combat are out of the fight are and entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They are to be protected and treated humanely, without adverse discrimination. (Convention I Art. 3; Protocol I, Art. 4) Attacking a person who is hors de combat is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3) Persons are hors de combat if they have been captured, if they have surrendered, or if they are unconscious or otherwise incapacitated provided that they do not attempt to fight or escape. (Protocol I, Art. 41, Sec. 2) Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1) Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2)
Mike, I don't agree with anything you say anymore. I saw a faggot thread wherein you attempted to drag me into here on 4um last week ... I don't play your stinking games, pal. I state my opinions. If you don't like them, fine .. but don't talk shit behind my back. I really don't think you know what you are doing anymore. And more to the point, I don't fucking give a damn about your opine.
#15. To: buckeroo (#14)
How do I talk behind your back by posting something in open forum? Behind the back is done in E mail. Be a man, admit you are wrong here. Don't whine, that's lame.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||