Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia
Titolo: Cuba in the Cross-Hairs: A Near Half-Century of Terror

Cuba in the Cross-Hairs: A Near Half-Century of Terror  
by Noam Chomsky  
 
Now that the Bush administration, pursuing its "war against terrorism,"
has once again elevated Cuba into America's cross-hairs as a newly
anointed member of the Axis of Evil, it seems like a good moment to
consider the question of terrorism and Cuba. Noam Chomsky takes up this
matter in his new book, 'Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global
Dominance', and a long, chilling excerpt from that book is included below
(with his kind permission). No one has written more powerfully or
consistently on the subject of state violence and state terror or reminded
us more powerfully or consistently that "terror" isn't primarily what
small stateless bands of fanatics deliver to large and powerful states.
History is, in a sense, a history of state terror and the United States
has been a practitioner of the form, in the case of Cuba, as Chomsky
shows, with unrelenting perseverance and relish for nearly half a century.
-- Tom Engelhardt 
The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro's
guerrilla forces. In March, the National Security Council (NSC) considered
means to institute regime change. In May, the CIA began to arm guerrillas
inside Cuba. "During the Winter of 1959-1960, there was a significant
increase in CIA-supervised bombing and incendiary raids piloted by exiled
Cubans" based in the US. We need not tarry on what the US or its clients
would do under such circumstances. Cuba, however, did not respond with
violent actions within the United States for revenge or deterrence.
Rather, it followed the procedure required by international law. In July
1960, Cuba called on the UN for help, providing the Security Council with
records of some twenty bombings, including names of pilots, plane
registration numbers, unexploded bombs, and other specific details,
alleging considerable damage and casualties and calling for resolution of
the conflict through diplomatic channels. US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge
responded by giving his "assurance [that] the United States has no
aggressive purpose against Cuba." Four months before, in March 1960, his
government had made a formal decision in secret to overthrow the Castro
government, and preparations for the Bay of Pigs invasion were well
advanced. 
Washington was concerned that Cubans might try to defend themselves. CIA
chief Allen Dulles therefore urged Britain not to provide arms to Cuba.
His "main reason," the British ambassador reported to London, "was that
this might lead the Cubans to ask for Soviet or Soviet bloc arms," a move
that "would have a tremendous effect," Dulles pointed out, allowing
Washington to portray Cuba as a security threat to the hemisphere,
following the script that had worked so well in Guatemala. Dulles was
referring to Washington's successful demolition of Guatemala's first
democratic experiment, a ten-year interlude of hope and progress, greatly
feared in Washington because of the enormous popular support reported by
US intelligence and the "demonstration effect" of social and economic
measures to benefit the large majority. The Soviet threat was routinely
invoked, abetted by Guatemala's appeal to the Soviet bloc for arms after
the US had threatened attack and cut off other sources of supply. The
result was a half-century of horror, even worse than the US-backed tyranny
that came before. 
For Cuba, the schemes devised by the doves were similar to those of CIA
director Dulles. Warning President Kennedy about the "inevitable political
and diplomatic fall-out" from the planned invasion of Cuba by a proxy
army, Arthur Schlesinger suggested efforts to trap Castro in some action
that could be used as a pretext for invasion: "One can conceive a black
operation in, say, Haiti which might in time lure Castro into sending a
few boatloads of men on to a Haitian beach in what could be portrayed as
an effort to overthrow the Haitian regime, . . . then the moral issue
would be clouded, and the anti-US campaign would be hobbled from the
start." Reference is to the regime of the murderous dictator "Papa Doc"
Duvalier, which was backed by the US (with some reservations), so that an
effort to help Haitians overthrow it would be a crime. 
Eisenhower's March 1960 plan called for the overthrow of Castro in favor
of a regime "more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and
more acceptable to the U.S.," including support for "military operation on
the island" and "development of an adequate paramilitary force outside of
Cuba." Intelligence reported that popular support for Castro was high, but
the US would determine the "true interests of the Cuban people." The
regime change was to be carried out "in such a manner as to avoid any
appearance of U.S. intervention," because of the anticipated reaction in
Latin America and the problems of doctrinal management at home. 
Operation Mongoose 
The Bay of Pigs invasion came a year later, in April 1961, after Kennedy
had taken office. It was authorized in an atmosphere of "hysteria" over
Cuba in the White House, Robert McNamara later testified before the
Senate's Church Committee. At the first cabinet meeting after the failed
invasion, the atmosphere was "almost savage," Chester Bowles noted
privately: "there was an almost frantic reaction for an action program."
At an NSC meeting two days later, Bowles found the atmosphere "almost as
emotional" and was struck by "the great lack of moral integrity" that
prevailed. The mood was reflected in Kennedy's public pronouncements: "The
complacent, the self-indulgent, the soft societies are about to be swept
away with the debris of history. Only the strong . . . can possibly
survive," he told the country, sounding a theme that would be used to good
effect by the Reaganites during their own terrorist wars. Kennedy was
aware that allies "think that we're slightly demented" on the subject of
Cuba, a perception that persists to the present. 
Kennedy implemented a crushing embargo that could scarcely be endured by a
small country that had become a "virtual colony" of the US in the sixty
years following its "liberation" from Spain. He also ordered an
intensification of the terrorist campaign: "He asked his brother,
Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group
that oversaw Operation Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations,
economic warfare, and sabotage he launched in late 1961 to visit the
'terrors of the earth' on Fidel Castro and, more prosaically, to topple
him." 
The terrorist campaign was "no laughing matter," Jorge Dominguez writes in
a review of recently declassified materials on operations under Kennedy,
materials that are "heavily sanitized" and "only the tip of the iceberg,"
Piero Gleijeses adds. 
Operation Mongoose was "the centerpiece of American policy toward Cuba
from late 1961 until the onset of the 1962 missile crisis," Mark White
reports, the program on which the Kennedy brothers "came to pin their
hopes." Robert Kennedy informed the CIA that the Cuban problem carries
"the top priority in the United States Government -- all else is secondary
-- no time, no effort, or manpower is to be spared" in the effort to
overthrow the Castro regime. The chief of Mongoose operations, Edward
Lansdale, provided a timetable leading to "open revolt and overthrow of
the Communist regime" in October 1962. The "final definition" of the
program recognized that "final success will require decisive U.S. military
intervention," after terrorism and subversion had laid the basis. The
implication is that US military intervention would take place in October
1962 -- when the missile crisis erupted. 
In February 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a plan more extreme
than Schlesinger's: to use "covert means . . . to lure or provoke Castro,
or an uncontrollable subordinate, into an overt hostile reaction against
the United States; a reaction which would in turn create the justification
for the US to not only retaliate but destroy Castro with speed, force and
determination." In March, at the request of the DOD Cuba Project, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a memorandum to Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara outlining "pretexts which they would consider would provide
justification for US military intervention in Cuba." The plan would be
undertaken if "a credible internal revolt is impossible of attainment
during the next 9-10 months," but before Cuba could establish relations
with Russia that might "directly involve the Soviet Union." 
A prudent resort to terror should avoid risk to the perpetrator. 
The March plan was to construct "seemingly unrelated events to camouflage
the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban
rashness and responsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries
as well as the United States," placing the US "in the apparent position of
suffering defensible grievances [and developing] an international image of
Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Proposed measures
included blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay to create "a 'Remember the
Maine' incident," publishing casualty lists in US newspapers to "cause a
helpful wave of national indignation," portraying Cuban investigations as
"fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack,"
developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign [in Florida] and even in
Washington," using Soviet bloc incendiaries for cane-burning raids in
neighboring countries, shooting down a drone aircraft with a pretense that
it was a charter flight carrying college students on a holiday, and other
similarly ingenious schemes -- not implemented, but another sign of the
"frantic" and "savage" atmosphere that prevailed. 
On August 23 the president issued National Security Memorandum No. 181, "a
directive to engineer an internal revolt that would be followed by U.S.
military intervention," involving "significant U.S. military plans,
maneuvers, and movement of forces and equipment" that were surely known to
Cuba and Russia. Also in August, terrorist attacks were intensified,
including speedboat strafing attacks on a Cuban seaside hotel "where
Soviet military technicians were known to congregate, killing a score of
Russians and Cubans"; attacks on British and Cuban cargo ships; the
contamination of sugar shipments; and other atrocities and sabotage,
mostly carried out by Cuban exile organizations permitted to operate
freely in Florida. A few weeks later came "the most dangerous moment in
human history." 
"A bad press in some friendly countries" 
Terrorist operations continued through the tensest moments of the missile
crisis. They were formally canceled on October 30, several days after the
Kennedy and Khrushchev agreement, but went on nonetheless. On November 8,
"a Cuban covert action sabotage team dispatched from the United States
successfully blew up a Cuban industrial facility," killing 400 workers,
according to the Cuban government. Raymond Garthoff writes that "the
Soviets could only see [the attack] as an effort to backpedal on what was,
for them, the key question remaining: American assurances not to attack
Cuba." These and other actions reveal again, he concludes, "that the risk
and danger to both sides could have been extreme, and catastrophe not
excluded." 
After the crisis ended, Kennedy renewed the terrorist campaign. Ten days
before his assassination he approved a CIA plan for "destruction
operations" by US proxy forces "against a large oil refinery and storage
facilities, a large electric plant, sugar refineries, railroad bridges,
harbor facilities, and underwater demolition of docks and ships." A plot
to kill Castro was initiated on the day of the Kennedy assassination. The
campaign was called off in 1965, but "one of Nixon's first acts in office
in 1969 was to direct the CIA to intensify covert operations against
Cuba." 
Of particular interest are the perceptions of the planners. In his review
of recently released documents on Kennedy-era terror, Dominguez observes
that "only once in these nearly thousand pages of documentation did a U.S.
official raise something that resembled a faint moral objection to
U.S.-government sponsored terrorism": a member of the NSC staff suggested
that it might lead to some Russian reaction, and raids that are "haphazard
and kill innocents . . . might mean a bad press in some friendly
countries." The same attitudes prevail throughout the internal
discussions, as when Robert Kennedy warned that a full-scale invasion of
Cuba would "kill an awful lot of people, and we're going to take an awful
lot of heat on it." 
Terrorist activities continued under Nixon, peaking in the mid- 1970s,
with attacks on fishing boats, embassies, and Cuban offices overseas, and
the bombing of a Cubana airliner, killing all seventy-three passengers.
These and subsequent terrorist operations were carried out from US
territory, though by then they were regarded as criminal acts by the FBI. 
So matters proceeded, while Castro was condemned by editors for
maintaining an "armed camp, despite the security from attack promised by
Washington in 1962." The promise should have sufficed, despite what
followed; not to speak of the promises that preceded, by then well
documented, along with information about how well they could be trusted:
e.g., the "Lodge moment" of July 1960. 
On the thirtieth anniversary of the missile crisis, Cuba protested a
machine-gun attack against a Spanish-Cuban tourist hotel; responsibility
was claimed by a group in Miami. Bombings in Cuba in 1997, which killed an
Italian tourist, were traced back to Miami. The perpetrators were
Salvadoran criminals operating under the direction of Luis Posada Carriles
and financed in Miami. One of the most notorious international terrorists,
Posada had escaped from a Venezuelan prison, where he had been held for
the Cubana airliner bombing, with the aid of Jorge Mas Canosa, a Miami
businessman who was the head of the tax-exempt Cuban-American National
Foundation (CANF). Posada went from Venezuela to El Salvador, where he was
put to work at the Ilopango military air base to help organize US
terrorist attacks against Nicaragua under Oliver North's direction. 
Posada has described in detail his terrorist activities and the funding
for them from exiles and CANF in Miami, but felt secure that he would not
be investigated by the FBI. He was a Bay of Pigs veteran, and his
subsequent operations in the 1960s were directed by the CIA. When he later
joined Venezuelan intelligence with CIA help, he was able to arrange for
Orlando Bosch, an associate from his CIA days who had been convicted in
the US for a bomb attack on a Cuba-bound freighter, to join him in
Venezuela to organize further attacks against Cuba. An ex-CIA official
familiar with the Cubana bombing identifies Posada and Bosch as the only
suspects in the bombing, which Bosch defended as "a legitimate act of
war." Generally considered the "mastermind" of the airline bombing, Bosch
was responsible for thirty other acts of terrorism, according to the FBI.
He was granted a presidential pardon in 1989 by the incoming Bush I
administration after intense lobbying by Jeb Bush and South Florida
Cuban-American leaders, overruling the Justice Department, which had found
the conclusion "inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public
interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch [because]
the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly
other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists." 
Economic warfare 
Cuban offers to cooperate in intelligence-sharing to prevent terrorist
attacks have been rejected by Washington, though some did lead to US
actions. "Senior members of the FBI visited Cuba in 1998 to meet their
Cuban counterparts, who gave [the FBI] dossiers about what they suggested
was a Miami-based terrorist network: information which had been compiled
in part by Cubans who had infiltrated exile groups." Three months later
the FBI arrested Cubans who had infiltrated the US-based terrorist groups.
Five were sentenced to long terms in prison. 
The national security pretext lost whatever shreds of credibility it might
have had after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, though it was not
until 1998 that US intelligence officially informed the country that Cuba
no longer posed a threat to US national security. The Clinton
administration, however, insisted that the military threat posed by Cuba
be reduced to "negligible," but not completely removed. Even with this
qualification, the intelligence assessment eliminated a danger that had
been identified by the Mexican ambassador in 1961, when he rejected JFK's
attempt to organize collective action against Cuba on the grounds that "if
we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million
Mexicans will die laughing." 
In fairness, however, it should be recognized that missiles in Cuba did
pose a threat. In private discussions the Kennedy brothers expressed their
fears that the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba might deter a US
invasion of Venezuela. So "the Bay of Pigs was really right," JFK
concluded. 
The Bush I administration reacted to the elimination of the security
pretext by making the embargo much harsher, under pressure from Clinton,
who outflanked Bush from the right during the 1992 election campaign.
Economic warfare was made still more stringent in 1996, causing a furor
even among the closest US allies. The embargo came under considerable
domestic criticism as well, on the grounds that it harms US exporters and
investors -- the embargo's only victims, according to the standard picture
in the US; Cubans are unaffected. Investigations by US specialists tell a
different story. Thus, a detailed study by the American Association for
World Health concluded that the embargo had severe health effects, and
only Cuba's remarkable health care system had prevented a "humanitarian
catastrophe"; this has received virtually no mention in the US. 
The embargo has effectively barred even food and medicine. In 1999 the
Clinton administration eased such sanctions for all countries on the
official list of "terrorist states," apart from Cuba, singled out for
unique punishment. Nevertheless, Cuba is not entirely alone in this
regard. After a hurricane devastated West Indian islands in August 1980,
President Carter refused to allow any aid unless Grenada was excluded, as
punishment for some unspecified initiatives of the reformist Maurice
Bishop government. When the stricken countries refused to agree to
Grenada's exclusion, having failed to perceive the threat to survival
posed by the nutmeg capital of the world, Carter withheld all aid.
Similarly, when Nicaragua was struck by a hurricane in October 1988,
bringing starvation and causing severe ecological damage, the current
incumbents in Washington recognized that their terrorist war could benefit
from the disaster, and therefore refused aid, even to the Atlantic Coast
area with close links to the US and deep resentment against the
Sandinistas. They followed suit when a tidal wave wiped out Nicaraguan
fishing villages, leaving hundreds dead and missing in September 1992. In
this case, there was a show of aid, but hidden in the small print was the
fact that apart from an impressive donation of $25,000, the aid was
deducted from assistance already scheduled. Congress was assured, however,
that the pittance of aid would not affect the administration's suspension
of over $100 million of aid because the US-backed Nicaraguan government
had failed to demonstrate a sufficient degree of subservience. 
US economic warfare against Cuba has been strongly condemned in virtually
every relevant international forum, even declared illegal by the Judicial
Commission of the normally compliant Organization of American States. The
European Union called on the World Trade Organization to condemn the
embargo. The response of the Clinton administration was that "Europe is
challenging 'three decades of American Cuba policy that goes back to the
Kennedy Administration,' and is aimed entirely at forcing a change of
government in Havana." The administration also declared that the WTO has
no competence to rule on US national security or to compel the US to
change its laws. Washington then withdrew from the proceedings, rendering
the matter moot. 
Successful defiance 
The reasons for the international terrorist attacks against Cuba and the
illegal economic embargo are spelled out in the internal record. And no
one should be surprised to discover that they fit a familiar pattern --
that of Guatemala a few years earlier, for example. 
From the timing alone, it is clear that concern over a Russian threat
could not have been a major factor. The plans for forceful regime change
were drawn up and implemented before there was any significant Russian
connection, and punishment was intensified after the Russians disappeared
from the scene. True, a Russian threat did develop, but that was more a
consequence than a cause of US terrorism and economic warfare. 
In July 1961 the CIA warned that "the extensive influence of 'Castroism'
is not a function of Cuban power. . . . Castro's shadow looms large
because social and economic conditions throughout Latin America invite
opposition to ruling authority and encourage agitation for radical
change," for which Castro's Cuba provided a model. Earlier, Arthur
Schlesinger had transmitted to the incoming President Kennedy his Latin
American Mission report, which warned of the susceptibility of Latin
Americans to "the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands." The
report did identify a Kremlin connection: the Soviet Union "hovers in the
wings, flourishing large development loans and presenting itself as the
model for achieving modernization in a single generation." The dangers of
the "Castro idea" are particularly grave, Schlesinger later elaborated,
when "the distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly
favors the propertied classes" and "the poor and underprivileged,
stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding
opportunities for a decent living." Kennedy feared that Russian aid might
make Cuba a "showcase" for development, giving the Soviets the upper hand
throughout Latin America. 
In early 1964, the State Department Policy Planning Council expanded on
these concerns: "The primary danger we face in Castro is . . . in the
impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in
many Latin American countries. . . . The simple fact is that Castro
represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole
hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." To put it simply,
Thomas Paterson writes, "Cuba, as symbol and reality, challenged U.S.
hegemony in Latin America." International terrorism and economic warfare
to bring about regime change are justified not by what Cuba does, but by
its "very existence," its "successful defiance" of the proper master of
the hemisphere. Defiance may justify even more violent actions, as in
Serbia, as quietly conceded after the fact; or Iraq, as also recognized
when pretexts had collapsed. 
Outrage over defiance goes far back in American history. Two hundred years
ago, Thomas Jefferson bitterly condemned France for its "attitude of
defiance" in holding New Orleans, which he coveted. Jefferson warned that
France's "character [is] placed in a point of eternal friction with our
character, which though loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is
high-minded." France's "defiance [requires us to] marry ourselves to the
British fleet and nation," Jefferson advised, reversing his earlier
attitudes, which reflected France's crucial contribution to the liberation
of the colonies from British rule. Thanks to Haiti's liberation struggle,
unaided and almost universally opposed, France's defiance soon ended, but
the guiding principles remain in force, determining friend and foe. 
[Note that this passage (pages 80-90) is fully footnoted in Hegemony or
Survival. Chomsky's discussion of the Cuban missile crisis itself can be
found elsewhere in the same chapter of the book.] 
Noam Chomsky is a Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT. In
addition to' Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance'
(The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books), he is the author of
numerous books on linguistics and on U.S. foreign policy. 
Reprinted by permission of Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt
and Company, LLC. 
Copyright C by Aviva Chomsky, Diane Chomsky, and Harry Chomsky. 
Tomdispatch.com is researched, written and edited by Tom Engelhardt, a
fellow at the Nation Institute, for anyone in despair over post-September
11th US mainstream media coverage of our world and ourselves. 
 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

Chi combatte con la tastiera,
ogni giorno,
da mane a sera?
E' il buon sergio
che poco ha da fare:
si trastulla a scopiazzare.
Copia a destra
copia a manca,
copia, copia,
mai si stanca.
Il suo  sol dell'avvenire
resta, appunto, da venire
però il nostro mai riposa,
copia e incolla senza posa.
(lorenzo)


vedo con piacere che questo articolo ha dato fastidio a coglionazzi
come lorenzo, che non avendo argomenti per smentirlo si è messo a
comporre sciocche filastrocche (piu' di tanto non puo' andare come si
è visto già in passato in qualsiasi ng in cui interviene).

 by Noam Chomsky
- vedo con piacere che questo articolo ha dato fastidio a coglionazzi
- come lorenzo
La solita educazione e signorilità di un altissimo esempio della tollerante 
cultura comunista.
Chi è diverso da me e la pensa diversamente da me è un coglione.
Grazie sergio, questo ng senza di te, non sarebbe la stessa cosa.
Evviva la democrazia 

 Chi è diverso da me e la pensa diversamente da me è un coglione.
nel tuo caso è proprio cosi'.

 by Noam Chomsky
vedo con piacere che questo articolo ha dato fastidio a coglionazzi
come lorenzo, che non avendo argomenti per smentirlo si è messo a
comporre sciocche filastrocche (piu' di tanto non puo' andare come si
è visto già in passato in qualsiasi ng in cui interviene).
tre note.
1 - l'articolo è lungo e l'ho già letto tutto la prima volta... quando 
rispondi taglialo così evito si scorrere paragrafi su paragrafi già letti 
solo per arrivare alla tua ennesima dimostrazione di eloquenza oxfordiana
2 - mio nonno sosteneva che chi ha sempre in bocca la parola "c...." 
probabilmente lo fa perchè lo ha assagiato e gli è piaciuto il gusto
3 - so già che è inutile e che ora mi beccherò qualche improperio da parte 
tua... ma non temere... ti perdono...con i bambini va fatto così

 è visto già in passato in qualsiasi ng in cui interviene).
non mi ha preso il quote... non vorrei esere scambiato per sergio... da qui 
il mio post


 probabilmente lo fa perchè lo ha assagiato e gli è piaciuto il gusto
tuo nonno oltre che a fare l'assaggiatore evidentemente ha gusti
sessuali diversi dai miei.

 cultura comunista.
strano, devi esserti perso il msg del tuo amichetto lorenzo. Che ha di
tollerante (oltre che di intelligente) ?
- Non conosco lorenzo. Per quanto riguarda la tolleranza e l'intelligenza, 
oh mio caro sergiuccio, ma smettila di frequentare questo ng, ormai ti 
conosciamo tutti, ti schifiamo tutti, non convinci più nessuno, anzi ogni 
tuo post fa accrescere la nostra antipaticità verso di te e verso ciò che 
dici.
- Se pensi di portare acqua al tuo mulino, i tuoi modi e la tua 
antipatia-arroganza hanno ottenuto l'effetto contrario!
- E poi ti nascondi sempre, vai scappando, non dici chi sei, di che cosa ti 
occupi.. insomma sei il tipico personaggio sfuggente e antipatico che esiste 
in ogni ng che si rispetti.
- Fai un bagno di umiltà e di sincerità, forse così sembrerai più credibile. 


Giacomo hai tutta la mia solidarietà, il nostro sergino è fatto così 
purtroppo, per lui s'intende!
Chiedo a te, così come a tutti gli altri partecipanti del gruppo, di 
chiedere a sergio chi è, dove ha studiato, perchè la pensa in questo modo... 
sai perchè?
Perchè il nostro caro sergiuccio fa ricerche su ricerche per capire noi chi 
siamo, ci studia, è meschino! Invece lui scrive da newsland, si nasconde, 
non lascia tracce, come se la nostra fosse una guerra.
Invece penso che la frequentazione di un ng è un pò come incontrarsi al bar: 
ci sono persone simpatiche e coglioni, ma ci si conoscono tutti. Un tipo 
alla sergio verrebbe sbattuto fuori dopo 10 secondi netti.
Quindi, chiediamo tutti a sergio chi è, dove ha studiato, perchè la pensa 
così, insomma si facesse conoscere e riconoscere, e solo a quel punto 
instaurare discussioni "civili" con lui.
Naturalmente l'operazione trasparenza deve coinvolgere tutti quelli che sono 
d'accordo con me, a partire dal sottoscritto.
Fatemi sapere ciao 

sessuali diversi dai miei.
difatti lui quella parola non la usava... sei tu che ne infarcisci ogni 
post...per usare le tue parole "leggi e accendi il cervello"...
ps ma sul forum moderato, come fai a resistere alla tentazione di dare 
sfoggio della tua tipica eloquenza?

 Fatemi sapere ciao
Io a chiarir chi sono non ho problemi... sono un responsabile nazionale di 
Amnesty International (quindi non parlo di vittime di soprusi etc... li tiro 
fuori), laureato in Giurisprudenza e Scienze Politiche (indirizzo storico) e 
come si è visto in un post precedente non ho problemi a dichiareare la mia 
passata adesione al Grande Oriente d'Italia e la mia appartenenza agli 
ideali massonici...
a diffrenza di sergio che vive per dimostrare che tutta la storia dalla metà 
dell'800 in poi è guidata dal grande progetto di distruggere l'URSS ogni 
tanto faccio anche altro, visto che mi sono anche diplomato all'Actor's 
Studio
PS e ho un cognome da favola: Pace
PS2 ho un'amica laureata in psicologia, e spiegherebbe lei meglio di me 
"perché si comporta così" 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:pTuIi.2208$g%2.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

Mi chiamo Gabriele Granato, 25 anni, laureato in Scienze politiche tesi in 
storia contemporanea, master in diritto,economia e tecnologie informatiche a 
camerino, ho da poco terminato uno stage a roma al ministero del commercio 
internazionale.
Odio tutte le dittature di destra e di sinistra. Cerco di essere il più 
moderato ed oggettivo possibile.
Simpatizzo in questo periodo per il centro-sinistra.
ah dimenticavo sono napoletano ed orgoglioso di esserlo.
(Pronto a documentare tutto quello che ho detto)
Sergio, tocca a te! Su forza.... scommettiamo che sergio ci deluderà anche 
questa volta? 

 difatti lui quella parola non la usava...
si vede che se li gustava in silenzio.

 - E poi ti nascondi sempre, vai scappando, non dici chi sei,
nessuno e niente mi obbliga a farlo.

 nessuno e niente mi obbliga a farlo.
L'ennesima prova che sergio non diventerą mai uomo! Codardo di un pagliaccio 
comunista

 L'ennesima prova che sergio non diventerà mai uomo! 
e questo perche' non voglio dare i miei dati su un ng frequentato da
nazistelli e fascistelli a cui tu reggi il moccolo? ma rotfl!!!!!!
Granato, lo sai cosa sei tu no?
-- 



La filastrocca senza pretese era solo una garbata presa in giro del
tuo affannoso e costante copia-incolla unidirezionale. Non conteneva
volgarità o insulti.
Se io fossi stato te, cosa fortunatamente impossibile, non avrei
nemmeno replicato.
Ancor più se fosse stata offensiva.
Ti sei sentito pizzicato ?
Sarei ipocrita se affermassi che me ne dispiace: in fondo, era stata
scritta a tale scopo, che pare esser stato raggiunto.
Cordialità.
lorenzo

Ho dimenticato, mi si perdoni, che in fondo il buon .sergio dovrebbe
esser contento.
Senza la mia frivola filastrocca il suo messaggio non lo avrebbe
"cag***"  alcuno.
Con ossequi
lorenzo


Io fascistello? Ma ho appena scritto chi sono e come la penso e lì affermo 
proprio il contrario! Non c'è niente da fare spari sempre a zero, senza 
neanche fermarti a ragionare se stai dicendo una cazzata o meno.
E purtroppo tu di cazzate ne spari proprio tante.
E comunque non vogliamo sapere dove abiti e le tue generalità, cretino! Ma 
soltanto sapere quali sono le tue esperienze di che ti occupi e perchè ogni 
giorno, incessantemente, rompi gli zebedei su questo ng, insultando chiunque 
non sia un comunista disperato come te.
Evviva la democrazia 

 giorno, incessantemente,
e tu che ci fai tutto il giorno incessantemente a scrivere cretinate e
oltre a reggere il moccolo ai nazistelli e fascistelli del ng? 


 Ti sei sentito pizzicato ?
ma figurati, non ti do questa importanza normalmente figuriamoci quanto
scribacchi sciocche filastrocche.
 ho fatto solo notare il suo doppiopesismo negli interventi.
 
-- 



Eddalle! non reggo il moccolo a nessuno, CRETINO! 

 Questa è la differenza tra gli uomini e i vigliacchi codardi...
ROTFL! 
Mi diverte vederti sclerare e sbraitare a vanvera, sai?



Io? Ma se mi diverto un mondo a prenderti per il c..o?
Se non insulto il comunismo e l'urss con te, non potrei farlo con nessun 
altro al mondo.. anche perchè tu sei uno dei pochissimi che ancora si ostina 
a parlare di una cosa morta tanto tempo fà!
Evviva la democrazia (la storia ci insegna che il comunismo come tutte le 
altre dittature ha portato solo morte, povertà e sottosviluppo) 

disse chi interviene per fare le predicucce solo in una >direzione.
disse quello che legge solo i suoi post, le risposte ai suoi post, e i post 
dei suoi "nemichetti" giurati... esiste tutto un altro mondo anche se non lo 
sapete... non mi misurare con il metro con cui misuri te stesso
dai... tira fuori un altro fulgido esempio di stil novo... cambia un po' 
però, perchè ti sei limitato a usare parole legate agli organi sessuali e 
allo sterco... anche nel turpiloqui non brilli per varietà e fantasia 

 Eddalle! non reggo il moccolo a nessuno, CRETINO!
non scendere al suo livello Lele 

giacomo ha scritto:


da tempo che è andato sottoterra altro che mio livello, il reggimoccolo
dei nazi.


giacomo ha scritto:


da tempo che è andato sottoterra altro che mio livello, il reggimoccolo
dei nazi.
-- 


 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:fcucml$vi$1...@news.newsland.it...

melius abundare quam deficere??? Oppure hai avuto un raptus neurotico? 

 Io? Ma se mi diverto 
ROTFL!!!!! 
da come mi insegui compulsivamente per il ng non si direbbe proprio che
stai a divertirti ma piuttosto stai rodendoti il fegato e sbraitando cose
senza senso, Granatuccio reggimoccolo dei nazisti del ng.
 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm


 Lele ha scritto:




Evviva la democrazia (anche l'educazione è una cosa bella)
-- 


 Evviva la democrazia (anche l'educazione č una cosa bella)
quella democrazia di cui tu, reggimoccolo dei nazisti del ng (visto che
hai ripetuto le puttanate di sloamm), ti riempi la bocca e meno che mai
rispetti dato che hai fatto di tutto per buttare in caciara un thread come
questo (insieme all'altra anima bella lorenzo) non avendo NESSUN argomento
da contrapporre a quanto esponeva Chomsky nell'articolo.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
