The Black Hand, Is It Back?

Check my post above, the link is about mafia BH. Here are some links about the ww1 BH (Serbian). HERE , HERE , and HERE. These are just a few, do a search on google like so---> "black hand" serbia

And you will find more.

Originally posted by Darktalon
Not one of those is an assassination contract.

No kidding. I think I stated as such when I said: "you won't find any documents with Bush's sig on it ordering the assassination of Hussein." Remember that?

That doesn't change the fact that Bush and Co. advocated Hussein's assassination by encouraging the Iraqi people to kill him. When that didn't work, they offered a large cash reward.

So no, there is no proof that Bush personally signed a contract with a paid assassin to take out Saddam. You're right about that. But I don't think our government should be encouraging the kind of activities that it punishes its own people for.

I'm not asking anyone to believe that there is a tangible document with Bush's signature on it ordering a hit. Not even Bush is stupid enough to do that. I'm just asking that you look at govenment policy in the past few years and ask yourself if you think it's unreasonable to believe that Bush would have ordered such a hit.

The only time there would have been assassination attempts, or if there were attempts, was when he was in power.

I'm going to turn the tables here and ask you how you know this information. How do you know, so precisely, the strategy of the Bush war camp?

Supposing you are absolutely correct in your above statement, don't you agree that it's wrong that Bush would have ordered an assassination at any point in time? There is a still-standing executive order prohibiting US officials from participating in assassinations in any way. So if he did order an assassination (which I, admittedly, cannot prove through documentation), he would be in direct violation of US Federal law. Agreed?

Originally posted by 23rd_Degree

Originally posted by Darktalon
Supposing you are absolutely correct in your above statement, don't you agree that it's wrong that Bush would have ordered an assassination at any point in time? There is a still-standing executive order prohibiting US officials from participating in assassinations in any way. So if he did order an assassination (which I, admittedly, cannot prove through documentation), he would be in direct violation of US Federal law. Agreed?

No. Yes.

Once we are at war, it is no longer an assassination, we are allowed to take out key personel. And yes it is an executive order, so any assassination order would be against the law. Your thinking is flawed though about the reward. Even you stated that the reward was for the eventual captor or prof that Saddam was dead, so the easiest thing was for people to try to kill him themselfs? No the easiest thing if he was alive, was for them to say were he was, sit back let the US forces get him, and collect your money. Just like it happened.

How do I know the information about when assassination attempts would have happened? Well lets see, can I prove an assassination order wasn't given. Well no, last time I checked you don't submit paper work for orders you don't give. Can we use common sence? I know someone said it before...

From Springer
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...

Originally posted by Darktalon
Once we are at war, it is no longer an assassination

That's a matter of semantics. And anyway, I highly doubt executive orders mean anything to an administration that adheres to Geneva Convention only when it feels like it.

Your thinking is flawed though about the reward. the easiest thing if he was alive, was for them to say were he was, sit back let the US forces get him, and collect your money. Just like it happened.

I was unaware that the US actually awarded anyone the $25 million. If that is so, I will stand corrected. But, I still think such a reward is not an appropriate thing for the US to be offering for the proof of someone's death. It doesn't take too much of a stretch to see how a lot people would see that as open season with a cash bonus.

How do I know the information about when assassination attempts would have happened? Well lets see, can I prove an assassination order wasn't given. Well no, last time I checked you don't submit paper work for orders you don't give.

That's not what I meant. I wanted to know how you have personal knowledge of the Bush administration's internal strategies (as to when it would and would not be appropriate to order an assassination). That's beyond useful now, so never mind.

Can we use common sence?

Common sense is a very subjective term. In fact, I submit that the very concept of "common sense" is stupid. But that is another thread for another day.

Nice chatting with you.

That's a matter of semantics. And anyway, I highly doubt executive orders mean anything to an administration that adheres to Geneva Convention only when it feels like it.

No its not. Durning time of war every defination changes, if you don't know that or believe it you are ignorant to how rules of engagement work. How has the administration not adhered to the Geneva Convention?

But, I still think such a reward is not an appropriate thing for the US to be offering for the proof of someone's death. It doesn't take too much of a stretch to see how a lot people would see that as open season with a cash bonus.

Now you are stretching the reward wording to your arguement. It was a reward for the capture of Saddam, and IF he was dead, proof of that. It didn't say, Dead or Alive. Not once did they say it was ok to kill him, it never said it meant open session to commet murder.

Common sense is a very subjective term. In fact, I submit that the very concept of "common sense" is stupid. But that is another thread for another day.

Agreed, if it was so common there wouldn't be so many stupid people .

[edit on 11-6-2004 by Darktalon]

Originally posted by ladyspiritguide
I always thought the "black Hand" was the Cosa Nostra

La Cosa Nostra and the Black Hand are two different organizations.

The Black Hand came before the LCN.

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Originally posted by ladyspiritguide
I always thought the "black Hand" was the Cosa Nostra

La Cosa Nostra and the Black Hand are two different organizations.

The Black Hand came before the LCN.

Illmatic67, I know the BH gang in New York was started around 1890-1900. I can't however seem to find informaiton on when LCN started? I'm not saying your wrong, but I do believe LCN started well before BH. I can't find info to back my belief up, if you have something please post it, I'd like to be correct in my belief.

If some of you must know I think I have a pretty good Idea about when LCN started, even if it doesn't make much sense...It was one of the oldest which clues up to around after Lincolns assasination, but it could be false.

Although, I could just be well, paranoid!

Or of course, maybe people could realize that they CAN POST! Sheesh

Aero, don't mean to be rude, but your posts made little to no sence what so ever.

Originally posted by Darktalon
Illmatic67, I know the BH gang in New York was started around 1890-1900. I can't however seem to find informaiton on when LCN started? I'm not saying your wrong, but I do believe LCN started well before BH. I can't find info to back my belief up, if you have something please post it, I'd like to be correct in my belief.

The LCN was a result of the Castellamarese War in the 1930's in NYC between Joe "The Boss" Masseria and Salvatore Maranzano.

Salvatore won the war because he had all the major players such as Luciano, Lansky, Gambino, Genovese, Bonanno who all became bosses at some point.

Salvatore then called a huge meeting in the Bronx to discuss how he would separate the families and that is when he created La Cosa Nostra. Salvatore was said to be a huge fan of the Roman Empire and he created the LCN based on the Roman Empire....

Here's a link with all you ever wanted to know about the Black Hand:
www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Originally posted by Darktalon
Illmatic67, I know the BH gang in New York was started around 1890-1900. I can't however seem to find informaiton on when LCN started? I'm not saying your wrong, but I do believe LCN started well before BH. I can't find info to back my belief up, if you have something please post it, I'd like to be correct in my belief.

The LCN was a result of the Castellamarese War in the 1930's in NYC between Joe "The Boss" Masseria and Salvatore Maranzano.

Salvatore won the war because he had all the major players such as Luciano, Lansky, Gambino, Genovese, Bonanno who all became bosses at some point.

Salvatore then called a huge meeting in the Bronx to discuss how he would separate the families and that is when he created La Cosa Nostra. Salvatore was said to be a huge fan of the Roman Empire and he created the LCN based on the Roman Empire....

Again thanks for your time in this, but if I'm not mistaken, LCN started in the old world. Please a link to a credible site would help greatly, or even a book. Until then it really just looks like your opinion.

There are tons of websites that can help you out and this is not my opinion, it's fact.

In the Old Country, there was just the Sicilian Mafia. But when Mussolini swore that he would put an end to the Mafia in Sicily everyone started to ship sail to America.

La Cosa Nostra as we know it today was founded in the 1930's in New York City.

Salvatore Maranzano served as the first Boss of bosses or capi ti tutto capo

Lucky Luciano was his underboss but when Salvatore saw that Lucky was getting powerful he conspired to murder his underboss but Lucky caught plans of the assassination and he got to Salvatore first.

Then, Lucky set up the Five Families in NYC which today are known as the Colombo, Gambino, Genovese, Bonanno, and Luchesse families. Of course, in the time of Lucky it was under different names for example. The Genovese Family was first called the Luciano Family and so on and forth.

Lucky also added the role of consigleire to the family structure.

The LCN was not found in the Old Country it was definetely not founded before the Black Hand. The LCN as a matter of fact replaced the old Black Hand.

Like I said before, I can't find that information, not that I'm saying your information is wrong. I haven't been able to find any information reguard the foundation of LCN.

Obviously you have read something on it, I just wanted to know if you knew of a good place to look at.

The American Mafia has undergone many changes. From the Black Hand gangs around 1900 and the Five Points Gang in the 1910s and 1920s in New York City, to Al Capone's Syndicate in 1920s Chicago. By the end of the 1920s, two factions of organized crime had emerged causing the Castellamarese war for control of organized crime in New York City. With the murder of Joseph Masseria, the leader of one of the factions, the war ended uniting the two sides back into one organization now dubbed La Cosa Nostra. Salvatore Maranzano, the first leader of the La Cosa Nostra, was himself murdered within six months and Charles "Lucky" Luciano became the new leader. Maranzano had established the La Cosa Nostra code of conduct, set up the "family" divisions and structure, and established procedures for resolving disputes. Luciano set up the "Commission" to rule all La Cosa Nostra activities. The Commission included bosses from six or seven families.

From:

www.fbi.gov...

Originally posted by Darktalon
Durning time of war every defination changes, if you don't know that or believe it you are ignorant to how rules of engagement work.

Well, I never claimed to be an expert on beauracracy, so you might be right. Where can I find a copy of these "Rules of Engagement" that you speak of? Perhaps having a list of the rules would clear things up for me. A link would be great. Thanks

How has the administration not adhered to the Geneva Convention?

In the way they have treated prisoners since 9/11. Here's a clip from a Human Rights Watch article:
President George W. Bush correctly acknowledged that the Geneva Conventions apply to the conflict in Afghanistan, Human Rights Watch said today. But he erred in deciding that the Conventions do not cover al-Qaeda detainees and by categorically ruling out prisoner of war status for Taliban detainees without convening a competent tribunal, as the Geneva Conventions require.
www.hrw.org...

Now you are stretching the reward wording to your arguement. It was a reward for the capture of Saddam, and IF he was dead, proof of that. It didn't say, Dead or Alive. Not once did they say it was ok to kill him, it never said it meant open session to commet murder.

No, it doesn't say "it's okay to kill him" in the language of the reward, but in my opinion it is overtly implied. Also, I think Bush and Co. knew that such a reward would be interpreted as "open season" by many people. I think that was one of the reasons for offering cash (but not the only reason, mind you).

At any rate, didn't you say it would be okay encourage since we were at war at that point? And when did we officially declare war on Iraq? I must have missed that.

Agreed, if it was so common there wouldn't be so many stupid people

.

No doubt.

At any rate, didn't you say it would be okay encourage since we were at war at that point? And when did we officially declare war on Iraq? I must have missed that.

HERE for the declaration of war. At no point did I say it would be okay to encourage Iraqi civilians to kill anyone. I said..

Once we are at war, it is no longer an assassination, we are allowed to take out key personel.

I would like to point out the WE's in that statement, meaning our personel. Boy, for someone that reads into things a lot, you sure do miss whats really there.

In the way they have treated prisoners since 9/11. Here's a clip from a Human Rights Watch article:
President George W. Bush correctly acknowledged that the Geneva Conventions apply to the conflict in Afghanistan, Human Rights Watch said today. But he erred in deciding that the Conventions do not cover al-Qaeda detainees and by categorically ruling out prisoner of war status for Taliban detainees without convening a competent tribunal, as the Geneva Conventions require.

Not all prinoneers in Afghanistan were held as detainees. Or can you provide proof of prisoner assignment for the Afgan conflict? The Taliban employed terrorists, they financed terrorists, they housed, trained and commanded terrorists, last time I checked that makes em terrorists. Quoting HRW is no better then quoting people from this site, HRW is not always factual, its what they think/believe is happening or should happen.

No, it doesn't say "it's okay to kill him" in the language of the reward, but in my opinion it is overtly implied. Also, I think Bush and Co. knew that such a reward would be interpreted as "open season" by many people. I think that was one of the reasons for offering cash (but not the only reason, mind you).

Overtly? Because your reading between the lines, of something that may and probably isn't there, doesn't make it overtly. Thats a lot of thinking, and assuming. I go back to your first post about the "assassination order".

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).

That is a statement of someone not "assuming", or atleast not pertending to assume.

I would like to commend you for not blaming the Abu Ghraib on administration, or atleast not saying they did it. I was fully ready to take that on heheh.

Originally posted by Darktalon
I would like to commend you for not blaming the Abu Ghraib on administration, or atleast not saying they did it. I was fully ready to take that on heheh.

I don't think Bush and Co. knew anything about what was going in that prison. I don't directly blame any high-ranking officials for that blunder. However, I feel that everything that happens in this "war" is ultimately the responsibility of the US government, whether they ordered it or not. Bush has taken credit for everything good that's happened so far, so he and his war hawks should also take the blame for the bad things that happen. It's only fair. Life isn't fair, however, and neither is war, so I won't hold my breath.