Over the last few weeks, we here at hellasfrappe have been following
the Ron Paul campaign in the US. We admit it, we are hooked and are now
openly advocating for his candidacy in the 2012 Presidential race. Even US military veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support
Ron Paul for President in 2012. Why so much hype on Ron Paul and why should we all care all over the world? Simple… he is honest, intelligent and a man of principle and honor. He believes in the US constitution, and comes across as a patriot. He also wants to put on end to the negative image the US has abroad, and sit down and communicate with all nations and he most importantly he tells it like it is, and explains in simple words why the US has suffered from various repercussions as a result of its narrow minded .foreign policy. In our opinion this is the recipe of an ideal Commander and Chief as well as the leader of one of the strongest nations on this earth.
Unfortunately the “status quo” does not like him and they have openly waged war on this wonderful man. Who and what is the “status quo” you ask… Simple it is all those “interests” that have for years allowed the US to create a society of only rich and poor with no middle class. At the moment, they are coming down very hard on Ron Paul and hitting him from all sides because they realize that everything he is saying and all the principles he stands for do not include the recipe to widen the gap even more/ Our advice to all of you is to not to pay attention to the mainstream media in the US, they will do everything in their power to discredit this man and he may very well be the last chance the US has to actually do away with all the corruption in Washington. The more they criticize him, the more we will rally for him.
We followed the debates in Iowa last week and noticed that he is totally
anti-war. Only the greatest leaders and most influential men in the
world were anti-war. Names such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother
Teresa believed we could change the world through “communication” and
“diplomacy” not by invading a country, swindling, shifting boarders on continents, or even scheming to topple great leaders.
Apparently our views are similar to that of Mr. Ron Paul. If the American people place this man in
power, we here at hellasfrappe guarantee that he will totally change the image the US has on a global scale. We need to get back to leaders with stamina and principle and stray away from leaders who are puppets to the banksters and elite as well as “shady” interests.
During the debates he also spoke about another subject which totally
caught our attention called “blowback”. We honestly did not know what this meant
until he began speaking about this, so we then googled the term and discovered that it is a result from US
interventionist foreign policy. (Watch video Below for full explanation).
Wikipedia says that blowback is the espionage term for unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public — in whose name the intelligence agency acted — are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them. Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant, violent consequences — reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation. Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequence — the attacked victims’ revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible politico-military leaders are invulnerable.
Ron Paul and Wikipedia both claim that blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the unintended, harmful consequences — to friendly populations and military forces — when a given weapon is carelessly used. Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics (see Osama bin Laden) who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries who sell drugs to their sponsor’s civil populace (see CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US); and banana republic juntas (see Salvadoran Civil War) who kill American reporters or nuns (see Dorothy Kazel).
In formal, print usage, the term first appeared in the Clandestine Service History — Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran — November 1952 – August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d’état.
We confirmed this last note in the video we present to you all below.
Examples of blowback include the CIA’s financing and support for Afghan insurgents to fight an anti-Communist proxy guerilla war against the USSR in Afghanistan; some of the beneficiaries of this CIA support joined al-Qaeda’s terrorist campaign against the United States.
In the 1980s blowback was a central theme in the legal and political debates about the efficacy of the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated public and secret support of anti-Communist counter-revolutionaries (usually the losers of civil wars). For example, by secretly funding the secret war of the militarily-defeated, right-wing Contras against the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, wherein the Reagan Administration sold American weapons to US enemy Iran to arm the Contras with Warsaw Pact weapons, and their consequent drug-dealing in American cities.
Moreover, in the case of Nicaragua v. United States, the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States’ secret military attacks against Sandinista Nicaragua, because the countries were not formally at war.
Critics of the Reagan Doctrine note that blowback is inevitable and that such unilateral intervention causes Third World civil wars to expand beyond their borders and risks the long-term safety of Americans who may be killed in the resulting violence. Reagan Doctrine advocates, principally the Heritage Foundation, replied that support for anti-Communists would topple Communist régimes without retaliatory consequences to the United States and help win the global Cold War. (Source Wikipedia)