The Black Hand, Is It Back?

The Black Hand Was A WW1 (World War 1) Terrorist Agency Type Thing, But Is It Back?
The Black Hand Has been Roomered To Have Been Planning There Terroristie Stuff In The US

[edit on 9/6/04 by Krisboton]

This may help.

arn't they the group who basically incited WWI by assassinating arch duke francis ferdinand? just making sure i remember my high school history...

and perhaps it's a new group with a same name.

ok thanx..but i was just saying, cuz some one may have re started a gang thing and just named it the black hand

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
arn't they the group who basically incited WWI by assassinating arch duke francis ferdinand? just making sure i remember my high school history...

and perhaps it's a new group with a same name.

Yes. Technically, the Black Hand was not a terrorist group. It is true that they conspired against the Hapsberg Archduke to assasinate him, but Kennedy ordered the assasination of Castro, and Reagan ordered the assasination of Khadafy, but neither were technically �terrorists�.
The Black Hand was a Serbian nationalist movement. They demanded independence from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and were willing to fight for it. The organization itself did not survive the first world war. Serbia was later annexed to Yugoslavia by the Communists, but have since declared independence again. There are still organizations of militant nationalists in Serbia, but none have any ties to the original Black Hand.

Fiat Lvx.

There was a group called the Black Hand which controlled commerce along the rail roads in the coal towns in Pennsylvania up to the south western tip of New York.

Actually, there is a Black Hand in many contries now. Even the US. There are members of our special forces the belong to the "Black Hand" or call themselfs BH. I do know that it is a lose group, basically a group only in name, however some of the constitution is the same as the original BH. The original BH has become a staple of shadow/unconventional warfare in some of the special forces community.

I don't know if the now-a-days BH is infact dirrectly linked to the original BH, or if it was brought back into exsistance because of the type of warfar the original BH started.

Again, the BH(that I know of) now-a-days has been nothing more then a name, a kind of sub group, that was no agenda, and simple is an elite buddy club of some of the special forces.

Also, this might be along the lines of the Illuminati where people have started envy groups that take on the same name. So there may be more groups of the same name that I don't know of.

The Black Hand was a Mafia thing back in the late 1800's, early 1900's.

EDIT: I can't type.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by Illmatic67]

I've never heard of anything within the ranks of our military. What branch do they opporate under(ARMY, NAVY, MARINE CORPS, AIR FORCE) and are they under the command of SOCOM, or their independent brach like Force Recon?

Originally posted by Illmatic67
The Black Hand was a Mafia thing back in the late 1800's, early 1900's.

EDIT: I can't type.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by Illmatic67]

Found this onn Illmatic67 post,

Mafia: Black Hand

They are not a part of the military structure, it is the members of the special forces community that carry it on. My experiance with it is, that it's just a name thing, they ask a few people that are in the special forces community if they want to be in. Other than that it's nothing, that I could tell.

btw Force Recon isn't an individual branch, your right it is not under SOCOM, it is simply part of the Marine Corps. SOCOM was created because conventional commanders didn't know how or didn't want to use special forces. The Marine Corps was different, they used Recon seamlessly, and therefor Recon was not asked to join SOCOM. Though I did here the Marine Corps started a SOCOM unit.

[edit on 9-6-2004 by Darktalon]

Ten men met on May 9, 1911 to form Ujedinjenje ili Smrt (Union or Death), also known as The Black Hand.

and actually there are some still left who were tied to the original Black Hand infact the deputy in command died only last summer of a heart attack.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Kennedy ordered the assasination of Castro, and Reagan ordered the assasination of Khadafy, but neither were technically �terrorists�

Great point. And let's not forget that Bush II ordered the assasination of Saddam Hussein, but he's not (really) a terrorist (in the classical sense).

Originally posted by 23rd_Degree
Great point. And let's not forget that Bush II ordered the assasination of Saddam Hussein, but he's not (really) a terrorist (in the classical sense).

How do you know of this assassination order?

Originally posted by Darktalon
How do you know of this assassination order?

Well, you won't find any documents with Bush's sig on it ordering the assassination of Hussein. However, the Bush administration has as much as advocated it publically on a few occasions:
www.cnn.com...

And also, the US government offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to the capture of Saddam or conclusive proof that Saddam was dead.:
www.cnn.com...

One way to make sure he is dead is to kill him yourself ... and then collect a cool $25 million. According to US Federal law, paying someone to commit murder (or any other crime) renders you as guilty as the person who actually committed the homicide. Of course, the government is above its own laws, so there's no problem with offering a reward for the murder of the head of soverign state.

Originally posted by 23rd_Degree
Well, you won't find any documents with Bush's sig on it ordering the assassination of Hussein. However, the Bush administration has as much as advocated it publically on a few occasions:

An obvious question comes to mind regarding this statement... Why didn't they simply shoot him dead in the hole they found him in then? I assure you they had all the opportunity to do so if that is what they desired.

I would be hesitant in making such a statement based on the factual evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that Hussein ALIVE is worth a hell of a lot MORE so they can parade him out the day we hand Iraq over to the Iraqis to do with him as they will.

This lends itself to reassuring the Iraqis, and the world, that THEY (the Iraqi people) are truly in control of their own destiny post 30JUNE2004...

m...

[edit on 6-10-2004 by Springer]

Yes of course, but George Bush Sr. was the one who put out the first hit on Hussein. There were several failed attempts, the war of 91 didnt solve the "problem" so thats what our government resulted to.

The current "war" is in shambles both militarily and politically, the government knew they needed some kind of justification, some prize or trophy which they can proudly display as the benefits of such unjustified action, hence why Hussein was taken alive. Sometime around the elections expect him to pop up in the news again and be tried for various crimes, war crimes, and human attrocities, the timing of course perfect to help Bush out in his campaign. It's all quite simple really.

Originally posted by Khonsu
Yes of course, but George Bush Sr. was the one who put out the first hit on Hussein. There were several failed attempts, the war of 91 didnt solve the "problem" so thats what our government resulted to.

another one, how do you know of these attempts?

The current "war" is in shambles both militarily and politically, the government knew they needed some kind of justification, some prize or trophy which they can proudly display as the benefits of such unjustified action, hence why Hussein was taken alive. Sometime around the elections expect him to pop up in the news again and be tried for various crimes, war crimes, and human attrocities, the timing of course perfect to help Bush out in his campaign. It's all quite simple really.

This war is not in shambles militarily. Politically yes, because people have made it political. Taking over and ousting a govenment is no short order, add in the fact that hundreds if not thousands of terrorist flood the country to get a pop at us. With less then 1000 coalition deaths in Iraq (949 deaths, 833 of which have been US, info here I would say it is a military feet. And since a military success has no dependance on who is president. Our armed forces do not take military advice from the president, they give it. He's says to go, the military says how.

It is Bush's opposers that are politically killing this war, turning it into something it shouldn't be, an issue for partisen gain. I was in Iraq 3 times during Clinton's term, I was part of the reation force to the one of the two embasies in Eastern Africa, I was part of the bombing of Al Quida positions, where were those sensitive Democrats then? Clinton took us to more military actions then any other president, and won how many? Took us to 9, won 0! Clinton had more us military personel die under his "command" then any president since the Vietnam war. Oh its about money for some, Clinton administrations took us to 9 conflicts, 4 near wars with Iraq, was that free? And solved nothing, but to leave the mess to the next administration.

And yes I was apart of, by the fact that I was in the military and directly involved with hunting Bin Ladden, I was part of that administrations disreguard to how important catching him was. Talk about military shambles.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by Darktalon]

Originally posted by 23rd_Degree

Originally posted by Darktalon
How do you know of this assassination order?

Well, you won't find any documents with Bush's sig on it ordering the assassination of Hussein. However, the Bush administration has as much as advocated it publically on a few occasions:
www.cnn.com...

And also, the US government offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to the capture of Saddam or conclusive proof that Saddam was dead.:
www.cnn.com...

One way to make sure he is dead is to kill him yourself ... and then collect a cool $25 million. According to US Federal law, paying someone to commit murder (or any other crime) renders you as guilty as the person who actually committed the homicide. Of course, the government is above its own laws, so there's no problem with offering a reward for the murder of the head of soverign state.

Not one of those is an assassination contract. Kinda stretching with those. The only time there would have been assassination attempts, or if there were attempts, was when he was in power. Since both of those links are after he was set on the run, there would be no reason, he wasn't incharge anymore.

I always thought the "black Hand" was the Cosa Nostra