A few friends of mine have recently started reading 'confessions of an ecnomic hit man' (an autobiography by John Perkins). I have seen video
interviews with the author before, I have known of the existence of the 'economic hit man' for quite some time.
However, I never thought of the possibility of the use of economic hit men in modern day conflict.
For those who do not know what an economic hit man is, an economic hit man is an agent who is sent to a nation or organisation to cause economic
unrest. For example, a regime does not conform to a powerful foreign power, so the foreign power will hire an economic hit man. The economic hit man
will be sent into the regimes nation with say, $1million, s/he will then maybe start a rebellion against the government (usually an effective way of
causing a crisis). Oldest tactic in the book, Divide and Conquer
I noticed that the FSA (Free Syrian Army) have been acting extremely different to how they began. The FSA started with Syrian soldiers who refused to
turn their guns on unarmed civilians. Soldiers would receive death for these crimes of fidelity so, instead of facing this punishment Colonel Riad
al-Asaad and other defectors formed the FSA. The FSA vowed to stop government killing and vowed to protect he unarmed free people.
This video just seems to me so unlike a group formed on freedom and protecting innocents, (It also has attached some wicked links relating to this
subject in it's description). The thought I've been having is what could cause such a change in the FSA's actions?
Is it desperation?
Is it a small number of renegades?
Or does Colonel al-Asaad have strings attached these days?
Now it's no secret that the US and Syria are not good friends, to ask why the US would want to weaken the Syrian government is silly. What I want to
talk about is the use of tactics like deploying EHM, is it immoral? Does it even exist?
Personally I believe that the economic hit man is one of the most damning bits of evidence for corruption caused by capitalist ideology. It also does
not surprise me coming from a country who's politicians invite lobbyists to buy them out, then use them for their own ends. I think I know of another
profession in our society who does that... Hmm..
This problem in Syria wont be an issue until the new Regime is established and starts effecting Western countries. Just another big-money backed coup
to set things up for Iran. I would gladly share my views with you if you want to discuss this situation.
Yeah I thought it might have been a bit of a dead subject here...
Just bothers me how this stuff goes on in other countries and no one gives a crap. Whereas if it happened on US soil it would be a different story!
The best course of action wouldn't have been sanctioning, supplying troops or even demanding a cease fire. They could have stated that they would
give aid based on human decency. Give more aid to whoever protects the civilians and less to those that slaughter them. You'd think that would be the
common practice really?
I mainly wanted to see if anyone has any evidence to support the idea that the US used one of these economic hit men. It just seemed likely since the
US have been backing the FSA blindly.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.