Day: May 31, 2001

U.S. Joint Chiefs Discussed Engaging in Terrorism on U.S. Soil

Cryptome.Org has posted documents courtesy of the National Security Archive that describe an early 1960s plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct terrorist attacks against U.S. targets and blame Cuba in order to create public support for a possible military intervention in Cuba.

In an annex entitled “Pretexts to Justify U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba,” the document recommends a number of possible ways to accomplish this. The first would be to conduct violent acts in and around the U.S. base at Guantanamo.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

(1) start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.

(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).<

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.

(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires — napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

Another possible scenario outline by the document is what it calls a “Remember the Maine” incident, in which the military would sabotage and destroy a U.S. ship and then blame Cuba.

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

Finally, why not just go all the way and engage in a violent terrorist campaign within the United States and blame it on Cuban terrorists?

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

An irresponsible government indeed.

I See Dead People

I’ve always been impressed with RJ Rummel’s books on what he calls democide — the state-sponsored murder of civilians. Rummel has written a number of books about state violence (a good introduction to his work his Death By Government).

One of the interesting things, which Rummel has written about in asides to his more scholarly works, is the difficulty of comprehending the numbers murdered by states in the 20th century. The number is easy enough to repeat. By Rummel’s estimate, about 174 million people were murdered by states in the 20th century. But as Rummel points out, that number is a bit too big for our minds to get wrapped around.

Rummel has posted on his web site some visual attempts to depict just how many people that is in more tangible ways. One non-visual way to illustrate that number is that this would be equivalent to killing 2 out of 3 Americans alive today.

One of the more surprising facts is contained in a chart comparing civilian murders to combat deaths. The comparison isn’t even close, with an estimated 36 million people killed in combat in the 20th century.

WHO Says $2 Billion Needed to Tackle Tuberculosis

At its annual meeting in Geneva, the World Health Organization issued a report saying that tuberculosis could be brought under control worldwide within five years for as little as an additional $400 million a year to target the countries most afflicted by the disease.

Currently about two billion people worldwide are infect with tuberculosis, and about 5 million people die from the disease. If the world does not act to slow the disease now, the WHO report said, tuberculous deaths could climb to as high as 10.2 million by the end of the decade, thanks in large measure to weakened resistance to the disease among the growing number of people with AIDS.

“You can effectively treat this disease and prevent its spread, including in people who have HIV,” said WHO’s Dr. David Heymann. “It is very important to treat TB in HIV-infected patients to prolong their life, and because TB can easily be transferred to others.”

The WHO plan would target the 22 countries with the most tuberculosis deaths. These are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

With an extra $400 million/year concentrated on fighting tuberculosis in these countries, WHO claims it could help those countries meet the levels needed to bring the disease under control which requires identifying 70 percent of those infected with the disease and curing at least 85 percent of them.

Although the cost of drugs to treat tuberculosis is cheap — about $10 for a six month treatment — the cost associated with administering the drugs and monitoring compliance with the regimen is beyond what some developing countries can afford.

Source:

W.H.O. says more donations can bring TB under control. Elizabeth Olson, New York Times, May 20, 2001.

Study: Milk Is Very Good For You

In the latest volley in the debate over milk, a long-running Scottish study contradicts other studies that suggest milk consumption might contribute to coronary problems. In fact, the study found that milk drinkers were significantly healthier than non-milk drinkers.

The study followed 5,700 Scottish men for a period of 25 years. The study found that even among men who drank whole milk, there was no increase in the risk of heart disease compared to those who didn’t drink milk. In fact, heart disease among regular milk drinkers was found to be lower than among non-milk drinkers.

The researchers were quick to emphasize that this applies to moderate milk drinking. Dr. Andy Ness told the BBC, “We are not talking about people who are drinking pints and pints of milk, but a moderate consumption of about a third of a pint a day. Our study does seem to show that a bit of what you like does seem to do you good.”

Reading between the lines of the study, however, the clearest implication is that whatever health effects milk has on the body, it is minor compared to other behaviors. For example, their study found that deaths from cancer and strokes were 10 percent lower in the men who were regular milk drinkers than those who weren’t. But, this was almost certainly attributable to the fact that those who didn’t drink milk at all were more likely to smoke than those who drank milk regularly.

Also, as is the case with a lot of the studies that show meat consumption or some combination of meat consumption is unhealthy, when people see studies saying a certain food causes an increase or decrease in death rates of 10 percent, they should be extremely skeptical since it is all but impossible to accurately detect such small risk factors in epidemiological studies.

Source:

Milk drinking protects health. The BBC, May 9, 2001.

On The Horrors of Being a Dairy Cow

Recently going through and weeding out my old e-mail I ran across this lovely tidbit that was sent to an animal rights e-mail list back on May 10, 2001. This is a message from activists who were trying to organize a protest on Mother’s Day in the Boston, Mass., area. It’s worth repeating in its entirety (I’ve left it just as I received it, including the annoying capitalization of every word).

UNHAPPY MOTHER’S DAY FOR DAIRY COWS:
WHERE ARE THEIR SONS???????”
DEMO.

When: Sunday, May 13th, 2001 (Mother’s Day)
Time: 3:15 p.m.
Where: Meet at Government Center T Stop and we will walk over to Fanuiel Hall
Why: MILLIONS OF MOTHER “Dairy” COWS ARE CRYING FOR THEIR BABIES WHO WERE
DRAGGED AWAY BY FORCE FROM CRUEL DAIRY INDUSTRY’S HANDS TO THE VEAL CRATES TO
BE KILLED AT FOUR MONTHS OLD AND EATEN AS “VEAL”, “HAMBURGER”, “PET FOODS”
……..

AND THEN THOSE GREEDY HANDS TURN AROUND TO STEAL MOTHER COWS’ “MILK” WITH
MACHINES TO FEED HUMAN BABIES AND ADULTS FOR PROFITS……..

Wendy McElroy on Rape Statistics

Wendy McElroy recently wrote an excellent summary of the methodological and philosophical problems with the commonly repeated claim that 1 in 4 college women have been the victims of rape and/or attempted rape.

Most disturbing is what McElroy calls the “re-definition of sexual violence” to count as rape sexual activity that doesn’t involve even threats, much less violence.

Source:


The Myths of Rape. Wendy McElroy, IFeminists.Com, May 22, 2001.