______________________________
Lieutenant General Gennady Yevstafiev
We have to remember that the Americans killed Osama bin Laden exactly one year ago, on 1 May, which was a reason for celebration on the part of the American special services. I’d say that Brennan made a rather conceptual statement in his speech at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and he talked in a broader sense about the state of affairs in the field of international terrorism. Of course, Brennan’s a very influential and important man; he’s the guy who defines the policy and who reports to the President, and we have to believe what he’s saying. Firstly, this statement of Brennan really provokes you to certain conclusions. He insists that al-Qaeda’s more alive than dead; moreover, according to Brennan, it’s still planning to attack the USA.
Yekaterina Kudashkina
Could that really be so?
Yevstafiev
I’m not quite sure that al-Qaeda’s capable of a broader attack on the United States, but this kind of statement was very important for Brennan because he went and told the world that the second major point is that the USA has the right and reserves the right for itself of killing terrorists all over the world. That’s how Brennan put it and that clearly shows that Obama’s policy isn’t different from the policies of Mr Bush Junior. Brennan didn’t speak about any serious words about cooperation with other countries; moreover, we mean cooperation on an international legal basis. Brennan speaks about the prosecution of al-Qaeda terrorists according to the laws and usages of the US legal system, which is very disturbing.
Kudashkina
Disturbing in what respect, in particular?
Yevstafiev
He says that the USA takes upon itself the responsibility to liquidate terrorism all over the world. That means that in future they’re going to act according to narrow American interests and they’re going to cooperate with other countries and with international organisations in a very limited way, only under American conditions, which sometimes poses a lot of justified questions amongst the members of the international community. We have to worry because, more and more, they try to move and extend their laws and regulations, and their policy beyond their borders, all over the world. They defend the USA, not on the territory of the USA, but somewhere else.
We sometimes doubt whether the war with terrorism’s really the only goal of the USA abroad, because they’ve pulled off some very serious operations in violation of national sovereignty under the pretext of the George Bush Junior’s “war against terrorism”; they want to establish this as normal procedure, which it isn’t. Let me tell you that in this sense he was cautious, he immediately came out with the idea that they’re going to proceed with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles over the world and that they’ve established international bases for that purpose. By the way, one of the bases is in Yemen.
Kudashkina
Now, how legal is that from the point of view of international legislation?
Yevstafiev
Literally, he said that the Constitution of the United States and a law passed by the Congress after 9/11 gave the American President the right to attack people, persons, and organisations connected with terrorist activities against the USA beyond the American borders. This was an important theme; he reiterated it several times. Of course, he made the point that they’re trying to protect the country, and so on. However, we know that the methods they were using until now are far from legal methods. To take only one thing, look at how they use drones, they use them all the time, that’s something that goes beyond any imagined aim of preserving human rights.
This strategy of bases all around the world, of special units, and drone bases, with the possibility of attacking everywhere, can help to fight terrorists in areas where the insurgents are in large organised armed units, but it’s become a part of their general military strategy. Sometimes, they fight terrorists with this kind of strategy and equipment; on the other hand, they use such methods to fight countries that aren’t terroristic countries. For example, we know they supported the Libyan operation, they used drones and US Air Force planes, but there weren’t any terrorists there, by the way. After this operation, we have every reason to believe that there are terrorists in Libya now, especially from al-Qaeda, which used this new situation to flood Libya with their followers.
Kudashkina
However, the report also looked at how the USA has improved its methods.
Yevstafiev
Of course, Brennan was talking about the increased transparency in their actions connected with the anti-terrorist activity. Now, we see how cleverly they used the documents that they took from Osama bin Laden archive, because this allegedly confirmed the increased transparency of their action. Moreover, we’re now in the situation, as far as terrorist activity is concerned, were the Americans open up new areas all the time.
Yesterday, Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, announced that they have a special unit in the State Department that’s an antiterrorist cyberattack unit, and that’s why they attack websites of terrorist organisations. In this particular case, it was the site of the Yemeni al-Qaeda organisation. However, strangely enough, they only acted after the Yemen al-Qaeda organisation committed terrorist acts against Yemeni military personnel, after killing about 100 soldiers. Of course, the net result of this was to weaken the al-Qaeda action in Yemen, but it opens some new information for us that even the US State Department has a special unit to perpetrate cyberattacks. Nevertheless, that means that it’s not solely a tool against al-Qaeda. Who can be sure that they’re not going to use it against other more above-board organisations and countries?
Kudashkina
Are we talking about a breach of sovereignty?
Yevstafiev
Americans are getting into serious trouble in Pakistan, with the court decision against Afridi; I’ll remind you that it was a secret collaboration; the CIA recruited him, he cooperated with the American special services in killing Osama bin Laden. One has to admit that they carried out the operation very elegantly, especially, the part where they located Osama bin Laden’s precise hideout. However, it’s quite clear… the Americans secretly recruited Afridi and used him in an operation without the knowledge of the sovereign state where the operation occurred. This operation clearly violated its sovereign rights of controlling its territory, of controlling the actions upon that territory, and clearly showed that the Americans aren’t prepared to cooperate with other services in trying to fight terrorism.
This statement of Mr Brennan’s a policy statement that clearly indicates that we’re going to see a very active, activist, as they say, policy outside the US borders, in different countries, mostly without, or with very limited cooperation with other countries. Therefore, the Americans continue to insist on their special rights to fight terrorism, and the definition of terrorism in the American system is quite, I’d say, flexible. That’s why we might see the use of this policy against non-extremist Leftist organisations and so on and so forth. For that reason, I think it’s a pity that the Americans are capable only of limited cooperation with others in this field. I’m afraid it isn’t good for the international community.
Kudashkina
Don’t you think that, perhaps, the international community’s already growing exasperated with what we can well see, well, it looks like it’s largely a pretext, I mean the War on Terror, which has been fought for more than ten years with al-Qaeda still alive and kicking?
Yevstafiev
Yes, it’s still very much alive.
Kudashkina
Well, according to Mr Brennan… nevertheless, I’ve heard other experts saying that al-Qaeda never existed.
Yevstafiev
Well, it’s a big question, a $64 000 question, as they say in America. No, I believe that al-Qaeda existed, and that it was a group of very ideological extremists advocating terror all around the world, but, of course, nowadays, we can’t talk about al-Qaeda as a serious organisation. It’s very convenient for real terrorists to have al-Qaeda, which the USA hunts down with huge amounts of money, and the terrorists are very happy about this. It isn’t really directed against them, it’s directed at an organisation that doesn’t really have a major presence, which isn’t really perpetrating terrorist acts. The organisations that perpetrate terrorist acts, they aren’t really al-Qaeda, but they claim that they are, as al-Qaeda became a brand, so, they claim that they’re affiliates of al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, the leaders of al-Qaeda don’t direct them. There are very serious doubts that Mr Ayman Zawahiri is in control of groups outside of his hideout. By the way, initially, the al-Qaeda cell in Yemen was the strongest one because the Americans were working on Yemen since 2001. Do you see the results?
Kudashkina
Well, I see the result that al-Qaeda and terrorist cells become stronger wherever they start working.
Yevstafiev
Yes, al-Qaeda establishes itself. I’m afraid that Libya will become a new centre of al-Qaeda activity very soon; they’ve gotten their hands on a lot of armaments from Gaddafi’s army, and they’re spreading them around the world. So, the terrorist international, so to speak, is very broad, it’s a maze of loosely-connected terrorist organisations, but they have the same idea, the same ideological grounds, which were established by Osama Bin Laden… they fight against existing governments, they fight for the Caliphate, they fight for the dominance of extremist ideology in Muslim countries (they kill moderate Muslim politicians and leaders). Therefore, in a way, the American successes are slightly deceiving, as they boast of their successes in destroying al-Qaeda. When they destroy al-Qaeda, immediately, we see other organisations working more and more actively around the world.
Kudashkina
That’s an intriguing development because the question, obviously… perhaps, it’s a naïve question, perhaps, not… but it immediately comes to mind… who are al-Qaeda, what are they fighting for? I’m not talking about grassroots organisations; I’m talking about their leaders. What’s the connection with the US government using the war on al-Qaeda as a pretext to expand its global influence? Wherever it starts operating and killing al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda grows stronger. So, isn’t it a global paradox that we’re facing?
Yevstafiev
In a way, in many areas, al-Qaeda’s a reply to the imperialistic policies of the USA. Unfortunately, the birth of al-Qaeda had connections with our invasion of Afghanistan. Whatever we say, in the eyes of the local population, it was an imperialistic move on the part of the Soviet state. That’s why dozens of organisations were born to fight against this invasion. However, after that, they switched, and fought against American imperialism, which temporarily used them for its political aims. Nevertheless, there was no serious ideological agreement between the Islamic extremists and the American imperialists. Now, what we have is that the Americans collect the harvest of their illegal activity in the international arena.
Kudashkina
You’re saying that these extremist organisations, including the so-called al-Qaeda, sprung up after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. What can we say about the so-called Palestinian terrorism, which started with the creation of Israel?
Yevstafiev
In a way, the Soviet invasion diverted Islamic extremists from their proclaimed goal of annihilating Israel. Because the concentration of efforts was in a completely different area, Israel was relieved of big problems. Now, Israel’s very worried because the fragmentation of terrorist organisations is very dangerous for it, because previously, more or less, the American and Israeli special services monitored and controlled it, but now it’s out of control. That’s one of the main points that Brennan tried to make… only the USA could control the process of monitoring and destroying extremists’ activities all over the world, nobody else in the world has the capability, consequently, there could be no international cooperation in that. The USA, and only the USA, really has the force to destroy the terrorists. I think they’re deluded in thinking this way.
Kudashkina
Well, we’ll wait another ten years and see if there’s a caliphate formed in the Middle East.
Yevstafiev
You see, they started to fight al-Qaeda from Yemen eleven years ago, and they’re still there, and the situation’s getting even worse. When they started fighting, they called it Sunni terrorism; at that time, they didn’t imagine that there was Shia terrorism, only Sunni terrorism, because Sunni people destroyed the World Trade Center. However, nowadays, we have all kinds of terrorist activities… both Sunni and Shia activities, and we don’t see really any serious diminishment in terrorist activities because they’re mostly connected with the socioeconomic conditions in the countries involved. These socioeconomic conditions lead to the younger generation turning to what they call “Jihad” against the Western countries, as they think that the West made them poor, made their culture second-rate, and so on.
Therefore, it’s a complicated issue; objectively, there are serious grounds favouring the growth of terrorist activities, as the socioeconomic situations in many Islamic countries aren’t getting any better. However, Americans are disposed to the use of force; they don’t consider the local socioeconomic conditions. They have force; they apply it in regards concrete episodes of terrorist activities.
27 May 2012
Voice of Russia World Service
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_05_27/76060753/
Editor’s Note:
Let’s keep this simple. In 2001, there was a modest surplus in the US Treasury, and it looked as though the USA would repair the wounds to the American economy made by Slobberin’ Ronnie’s unfunded toot on warmongering and irresponsible tax cuts for the fat-cats in the ‘80s. That wasn’t to be, sadly enough. GWB instituted tax cuts for the affluent effluent deeper than those enacted by Ronnie, and he started hellishly-expensive wars in foreign parts (in areas not of direct interest to the national defence of the American homeland), which led directly to the present economic mess (Obama had nothing to do with that… that was purely GWB’s affair).
The so-called War on Terrorism is nothing but a slop chute for the enrichment of Federal pols and their pals… that’s why so many pols in both parties support it. It’s much like the War on Drugs, which enriches local and state pols and coppers (save for some straight police outfits like the New York State troopers, who are known as stand-up honest guys) through rampant corruption and boodle. The USA has the goddamned gall to point the finger at Russia and call it “corrupt”… what about the coppers in the USA who “tax” drug dealers and pocket the result? The money spent on the worthless War on Terror is bad enough… the economic disruption caused by it is bad enough… but what’s unforgivable is the loss of life, both American and foreign, caused by it (and no one had best impugn the characters of the soldiers who fell… they didn’t cause the obscene mess, they only followed their orders).
That’s why I will NEVER vote for ANY Republican candidate ever again. Such money-grubbing warmongers are inhuman filth…they financed their McMansions with the blood of our soldiers and with the blood of innocent civilians abroad. Think on what we’ve become as a nation, and weep… reflect on this, those who support such barbarity call themselves “Christians”, and they drop bombs in God’s name. None dare call it blasphemy…
BMD
Voices from Russia 
Is al-Qaeda Still Planning to Attack the USA? An Interview with Lieutenant General (Retired) Gennady Yevstafiev of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR)
Tags: al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Libya, Osama bin Laden, political commentary, politics, Republican, right-wing, Russia, Russian, terrorism, terrorists, United States, United States Constitution, USA, War on Terror, Yemen
______________________________
Lieutenant General Gennady Yevstafiev
We have to remember that the Americans killed Osama bin Laden exactly one year ago, on 1 May, which was a reason for celebration on the part of the American special services. I’d say that Brennan made a rather conceptual statement in his speech at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and he talked in a broader sense about the state of affairs in the field of international terrorism. Of course, Brennan’s a very influential and important man; he’s the guy who defines the policy and who reports to the President, and we have to believe what he’s saying. Firstly, this statement of Brennan really provokes you to certain conclusions. He insists that al-Qaeda’s more alive than dead; moreover, according to Brennan, it’s still planning to attack the USA.
Yekaterina Kudashkina
Could that really be so?
Yevstafiev
I’m not quite sure that al-Qaeda’s capable of a broader attack on the United States, but this kind of statement was very important for Brennan because he went and told the world that the second major point is that the USA has the right and reserves the right for itself of killing terrorists all over the world. That’s how Brennan put it and that clearly shows that Obama’s policy isn’t different from the policies of Mr Bush Junior. Brennan didn’t speak about any serious words about cooperation with other countries; moreover, we mean cooperation on an international legal basis. Brennan speaks about the prosecution of al-Qaeda terrorists according to the laws and usages of the US legal system, which is very disturbing.
Kudashkina
Disturbing in what respect, in particular?
Yevstafiev
He says that the USA takes upon itself the responsibility to liquidate terrorism all over the world. That means that in future they’re going to act according to narrow American interests and they’re going to cooperate with other countries and with international organisations in a very limited way, only under American conditions, which sometimes poses a lot of justified questions amongst the members of the international community. We have to worry because, more and more, they try to move and extend their laws and regulations, and their policy beyond their borders, all over the world. They defend the USA, not on the territory of the USA, but somewhere else.
We sometimes doubt whether the war with terrorism’s really the only goal of the USA abroad, because they’ve pulled off some very serious operations in violation of national sovereignty under the pretext of the George Bush Junior’s “war against terrorism”; they want to establish this as normal procedure, which it isn’t. Let me tell you that in this sense he was cautious, he immediately came out with the idea that they’re going to proceed with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles over the world and that they’ve established international bases for that purpose. By the way, one of the bases is in Yemen.
Kudashkina
Now, how legal is that from the point of view of international legislation?
Yevstafiev
Literally, he said that the Constitution of the United States and a law passed by the Congress after 9/11 gave the American President the right to attack people, persons, and organisations connected with terrorist activities against the USA beyond the American borders. This was an important theme; he reiterated it several times. Of course, he made the point that they’re trying to protect the country, and so on. However, we know that the methods they were using until now are far from legal methods. To take only one thing, look at how they use drones, they use them all the time, that’s something that goes beyond any imagined aim of preserving human rights.
This strategy of bases all around the world, of special units, and drone bases, with the possibility of attacking everywhere, can help to fight terrorists in areas where the insurgents are in large organised armed units, but it’s become a part of their general military strategy. Sometimes, they fight terrorists with this kind of strategy and equipment; on the other hand, they use such methods to fight countries that aren’t terroristic countries. For example, we know they supported the Libyan operation, they used drones and US Air Force planes, but there weren’t any terrorists there, by the way. After this operation, we have every reason to believe that there are terrorists in Libya now, especially from al-Qaeda, which used this new situation to flood Libya with their followers.
Kudashkina
However, the report also looked at how the USA has improved its methods.
Yevstafiev
Of course, Brennan was talking about the increased transparency in their actions connected with the anti-terrorist activity. Now, we see how cleverly they used the documents that they took from Osama bin Laden archive, because this allegedly confirmed the increased transparency of their action. Moreover, we’re now in the situation, as far as terrorist activity is concerned, were the Americans open up new areas all the time.
Yesterday, Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, announced that they have a special unit in the State Department that’s an antiterrorist cyberattack unit, and that’s why they attack websites of terrorist organisations. In this particular case, it was the site of the Yemeni al-Qaeda organisation. However, strangely enough, they only acted after the Yemen al-Qaeda organisation committed terrorist acts against Yemeni military personnel, after killing about 100 soldiers. Of course, the net result of this was to weaken the al-Qaeda action in Yemen, but it opens some new information for us that even the US State Department has a special unit to perpetrate cyberattacks. Nevertheless, that means that it’s not solely a tool against al-Qaeda. Who can be sure that they’re not going to use it against other more above-board organisations and countries?
Kudashkina
Are we talking about a breach of sovereignty?
Yevstafiev
Americans are getting into serious trouble in Pakistan, with the court decision against Afridi; I’ll remind you that it was a secret collaboration; the CIA recruited him, he cooperated with the American special services in killing Osama bin Laden. One has to admit that they carried out the operation very elegantly, especially, the part where they located Osama bin Laden’s precise hideout. However, it’s quite clear… the Americans secretly recruited Afridi and used him in an operation without the knowledge of the sovereign state where the operation occurred. This operation clearly violated its sovereign rights of controlling its territory, of controlling the actions upon that territory, and clearly showed that the Americans aren’t prepared to cooperate with other services in trying to fight terrorism.
This statement of Mr Brennan’s a policy statement that clearly indicates that we’re going to see a very active, activist, as they say, policy outside the US borders, in different countries, mostly without, or with very limited cooperation with other countries. Therefore, the Americans continue to insist on their special rights to fight terrorism, and the definition of terrorism in the American system is quite, I’d say, flexible. That’s why we might see the use of this policy against non-extremist Leftist organisations and so on and so forth. For that reason, I think it’s a pity that the Americans are capable only of limited cooperation with others in this field. I’m afraid it isn’t good for the international community.
Kudashkina
Don’t you think that, perhaps, the international community’s already growing exasperated with what we can well see, well, it looks like it’s largely a pretext, I mean the War on Terror, which has been fought for more than ten years with al-Qaeda still alive and kicking?
Yevstafiev
Yes, it’s still very much alive.
Kudashkina
Well, according to Mr Brennan… nevertheless, I’ve heard other experts saying that al-Qaeda never existed.
Yevstafiev
Well, it’s a big question, a $64 000 question, as they say in America. No, I believe that al-Qaeda existed, and that it was a group of very ideological extremists advocating terror all around the world, but, of course, nowadays, we can’t talk about al-Qaeda as a serious organisation. It’s very convenient for real terrorists to have al-Qaeda, which the USA hunts down with huge amounts of money, and the terrorists are very happy about this. It isn’t really directed against them, it’s directed at an organisation that doesn’t really have a major presence, which isn’t really perpetrating terrorist acts. The organisations that perpetrate terrorist acts, they aren’t really al-Qaeda, but they claim that they are, as al-Qaeda became a brand, so, they claim that they’re affiliates of al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, the leaders of al-Qaeda don’t direct them. There are very serious doubts that Mr Ayman Zawahiri is in control of groups outside of his hideout. By the way, initially, the al-Qaeda cell in Yemen was the strongest one because the Americans were working on Yemen since 2001. Do you see the results?
Kudashkina
Well, I see the result that al-Qaeda and terrorist cells become stronger wherever they start working.
Yevstafiev
Yes, al-Qaeda establishes itself. I’m afraid that Libya will become a new centre of al-Qaeda activity very soon; they’ve gotten their hands on a lot of armaments from Gaddafi’s army, and they’re spreading them around the world. So, the terrorist international, so to speak, is very broad, it’s a maze of loosely-connected terrorist organisations, but they have the same idea, the same ideological grounds, which were established by Osama Bin Laden… they fight against existing governments, they fight for the Caliphate, they fight for the dominance of extremist ideology in Muslim countries (they kill moderate Muslim politicians and leaders). Therefore, in a way, the American successes are slightly deceiving, as they boast of their successes in destroying al-Qaeda. When they destroy al-Qaeda, immediately, we see other organisations working more and more actively around the world.
Kudashkina
That’s an intriguing development because the question, obviously… perhaps, it’s a naïve question, perhaps, not… but it immediately comes to mind… who are al-Qaeda, what are they fighting for? I’m not talking about grassroots organisations; I’m talking about their leaders. What’s the connection with the US government using the war on al-Qaeda as a pretext to expand its global influence? Wherever it starts operating and killing al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda grows stronger. So, isn’t it a global paradox that we’re facing?
Yevstafiev
In a way, in many areas, al-Qaeda’s a reply to the imperialistic policies of the USA. Unfortunately, the birth of al-Qaeda had connections with our invasion of Afghanistan. Whatever we say, in the eyes of the local population, it was an imperialistic move on the part of the Soviet state. That’s why dozens of organisations were born to fight against this invasion. However, after that, they switched, and fought against American imperialism, which temporarily used them for its political aims. Nevertheless, there was no serious ideological agreement between the Islamic extremists and the American imperialists. Now, what we have is that the Americans collect the harvest of their illegal activity in the international arena.
Kudashkina
You’re saying that these extremist organisations, including the so-called al-Qaeda, sprung up after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. What can we say about the so-called Palestinian terrorism, which started with the creation of Israel?
Yevstafiev
In a way, the Soviet invasion diverted Islamic extremists from their proclaimed goal of annihilating Israel. Because the concentration of efforts was in a completely different area, Israel was relieved of big problems. Now, Israel’s very worried because the fragmentation of terrorist organisations is very dangerous for it, because previously, more or less, the American and Israeli special services monitored and controlled it, but now it’s out of control. That’s one of the main points that Brennan tried to make… only the USA could control the process of monitoring and destroying extremists’ activities all over the world, nobody else in the world has the capability, consequently, there could be no international cooperation in that. The USA, and only the USA, really has the force to destroy the terrorists. I think they’re deluded in thinking this way.
Kudashkina
Well, we’ll wait another ten years and see if there’s a caliphate formed in the Middle East.
Yevstafiev
You see, they started to fight al-Qaeda from Yemen eleven years ago, and they’re still there, and the situation’s getting even worse. When they started fighting, they called it Sunni terrorism; at that time, they didn’t imagine that there was Shia terrorism, only Sunni terrorism, because Sunni people destroyed the World Trade Center. However, nowadays, we have all kinds of terrorist activities… both Sunni and Shia activities, and we don’t see really any serious diminishment in terrorist activities because they’re mostly connected with the socioeconomic conditions in the countries involved. These socioeconomic conditions lead to the younger generation turning to what they call “Jihad” against the Western countries, as they think that the West made them poor, made their culture second-rate, and so on.
Therefore, it’s a complicated issue; objectively, there are serious grounds favouring the growth of terrorist activities, as the socioeconomic situations in many Islamic countries aren’t getting any better. However, Americans are disposed to the use of force; they don’t consider the local socioeconomic conditions. They have force; they apply it in regards concrete episodes of terrorist activities.
27 May 2012
Voice of Russia World Service
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_05_27/76060753/
Editor’s Note:
Let’s keep this simple. In 2001, there was a modest surplus in the US Treasury, and it looked as though the USA would repair the wounds to the American economy made by Slobberin’ Ronnie’s unfunded toot on warmongering and irresponsible tax cuts for the fat-cats in the ‘80s. That wasn’t to be, sadly enough. GWB instituted tax cuts for the affluent effluent deeper than those enacted by Ronnie, and he started hellishly-expensive wars in foreign parts (in areas not of direct interest to the national defence of the American homeland), which led directly to the present economic mess (Obama had nothing to do with that… that was purely GWB’s affair).
The so-called War on Terrorism is nothing but a slop chute for the enrichment of Federal pols and their pals… that’s why so many pols in both parties support it. It’s much like the War on Drugs, which enriches local and state pols and coppers (save for some straight police outfits like the New York State troopers, who are known as stand-up honest guys) through rampant corruption and boodle. The USA has the goddamned gall to point the finger at Russia and call it “corrupt”… what about the coppers in the USA who “tax” drug dealers and pocket the result? The money spent on the worthless War on Terror is bad enough… the economic disruption caused by it is bad enough… but what’s unforgivable is the loss of life, both American and foreign, caused by it (and no one had best impugn the characters of the soldiers who fell… they didn’t cause the obscene mess, they only followed their orders).
That’s why I will NEVER vote for ANY Republican candidate ever again. Such money-grubbing warmongers are inhuman filth…they financed their McMansions with the blood of our soldiers and with the blood of innocent civilians abroad. Think on what we’ve become as a nation, and weep… reflect on this, those who support such barbarity call themselves “Christians”, and they drop bombs in God’s name. None dare call it blasphemy…
BMD
Share this:
Related