Prominent McCain supporter funded terrorists

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Fox News devoted 3,639,285 hours to Obama and 60s radical William Ayers.

I wonder how many hours Fox Noise will devote to this revelation?


McCain Backer's Firm Pleaded Guilty To Funding Terrorist Group In Colombia

July 2, 2008 03:07 AM

The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John McCain oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Carl H. Lindner Jr., the billionaire Cincinnati businessman, was CEO of Chiquita Brands International from 1984 to 2001, and remained on the company's board of directors until May 2002. Beginning under his tenure, Chiquita executives paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by the Spanish acronym AUC), which is described by George Washington University's National Security Archive as an "illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country's most notorious civilian massacres

Late last week, Lindner co-hosted a $25,000-per-person fundraiser for McCain and the Republican Party in the wealthy Indian Hills neighborhood of Cincinnati, Ohio. The event raised about $2 million; Lindner also serves on McCain's Ohio Victory Team.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-fundraiser-oversaw_n_110354.html.
Click to expand...
 
Faux is lying for McSame the racist drooler 24/7, we need Fairness Doctrine to shut them off
 
Chiquita ? Hmm just look into the poisioning of bannana republics by Chiquita and other slimy bananna republic tactics. fits right in with the Republicans.
 
DNC said:
Faux is lying for McSame the racist drooler 24/7, we need Fairness Doctrine to shut them off
Click to expand...

Hey, it takes a troll to admit the truth about the fairness doctrine. You have finally contributed something here DNC. Congratulations!
 
I believe some backstory is appropriate, although I wouldn't expect it from the right-wingers if the shoe were on the other foot:

But since the 1980's, the business of bananas there has been punctuated with gunfire. First, the area was taken over by Marxist guerillas called the "FARC," whose ruthlessness at killing and kidnapping was exceeded only by the private paramilitary army that rose up to fight them. Chiquita found itself trying to grow bananas in the middle of a war, in which the Colombian government and its army were of no help.

"These lands were lands where there was no law. It was impossible for the government to protect employees," says Fernando Aguirre, who became Chiquita's CEO long after all this happened.

Aguirre says the company was forced to pay taxes to the guerillas when they controlled the territory in the late 1980s and early 90s. When the paramilitaries, known as the "AUC," moved in in 1997 they demanded the same thing.

"Did the paramilitaries state, specifically to you, that if you didn't make the payments, your people would be killed?" Kroft asks.

"There was a very, very strong signal that if the company would not make payments, that things would happen. And since they had already killed at least 50 people, employees of the company, it was clear to everyone there that these guys meant business," Aguirre says.

Chiquita only had a couple of options and none of them were particularly good. It could refuse to pay the paramilitaries and run the risk that its employees could be killed or kidnapped, it could pack up and leave the country all together and abandon its most profitable enterprise, or it could stay and pay protection, and in the process, help finance the atrocities that were being committed all across the countryside.

"These were extortion payments," Aguirre says. “Either you pay or your people get killed.”

"And you decided to pay," Kroft remarks.

"And the company decided to pay, absolutely," Aguirre says.

There was no doubt in the company's mind that the paramilitaries were very bad people, Aguirre says.
Click to expand...


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/08/60minutes/main4080920.shtml
 
This is far more egregious, than Obama attending a board meeting with William Ayers. But, of course, Sean Hannity won't touch this.


Yeah, corporations always have all kinds of excuses for why they have to pay off terrorists, or support authoritarian governments.

Here's a clue: If you can't practice business ethically, then don't do business there. Paying off these thugs was done for one reason only: to protect corporate profits.

The multinational I worked with had a corporate policy, they loudly and proudly proclaimed: they would only do business in the highest ethical manner, and even the mere appearance of unethical business practices would be rejected. I don't know if they lived up to that standard or not, but that's the corporate image they tried to sell to citizens and governments of the world. If they couldn't live up to that image, then they were liars. If this banana company couldn't practice busiines ethically in colombia, they shouldn't have been there. Colombia is not the only country on the planet that can grow bananas. This company decided, for business and profit reasons, that paying "protection" money to right wing terrorist groups was a valid business decision.

Hogwash. Total bullsh*t. They had to pay a large fine; obviously the Justice Departement didn't buy their excuses.
 
Cypress said:
This is far more egregious, than Obama attending a board meeting with William Ayers. But, of course, Sean Hannity won't touch this.


Yeah, corporations always have all kinds of excuses for why they have to pay off terrorists, or support authoritarian governments.

Here's a clue: If you can't practice business ethically, then don't do business there. Paying off these thugs was done for one reason only: to protect corporate profits.

The multinational I worked with had a corporate policy, they loudly and proudly proclaimed: they would only do business in the highest ethical manner, and even the mere appearance of unethical business practices would be rejected. I don't know if they lived up to that standard or not, but that's the corporate image they tried to sell to citizens and governments of the world. If they couldn't live up to that image, then they were liars. If this banana company couldn't practice busiines ethically in colombia, they shouldn't have been there. Colombia is not the only country on the planet that can grow bananas. This company decided, for business and profit reasons, that paying "protection" money to right wing terrorist groups was a valid business decision.

Hogwash. Total bullsh*t. They had to pay a large fine; obviously the Justice Departement didn't buy their excuses.
Click to expand...



I agree with all of the above. I was merely providing some relevant background that I though would be useful. I wasn't excusing the behavior.

In the end, he chose to pay terrorists money to terrorists, who used the funds to do the types of horrible things that terrorist groups do, to protect profits.
 
Sean Hannity is a lying piece of shit that couldn't pass a lie detector test on fair reporting...
 
Yes but they committed acts of terror against left wing brown people. That doesn't really bother the right wing and you will hear NO DEMANDS from the right that any of the money this guy raised be returned. Only funding them sandnigger terrorists is unacceptable to the right.
 
You are all correct. All of those businesses in Jersey should shut down rather than pay extortionist demands from the mob. They shouldn't keep funding the mob for the sake of protecting their employees and their businesses. Same in Chicago and LA and NYC. Right? Same situation. Paying bad people off to leave them alone when the local governments can't protect them they should just give up.

Chiquita clearly should have just said fuck you to their employees and pulled up and left the country. Leaving the employees without jobs and at the mercy of the nutjobs.

that said, if I were McCain I would give the money back from that fundraiser.
 
Superfreak said:
You are all correct. All of those businesses in Jersey should shut down rather than pay extortionist demands from the mob. They shouldn't keep funding the mob for the sake of protecting their employees and their businesses. Same in Chicago and LA and NYC. Right? Same situation. Paying bad people off to leave them alone when the local governments can't protect them they should just give up.

Chiquita clearly should have just said fuck you to their employees and pulled up and left the country. Leaving the employees without jobs and at the mercy of the nutjobs.

that said, if I were McCain I would give the money back from that fundraiser.
Click to expand...


McCain needs every dime he can get.
 
Superfreak said:
You are all correct. All of those businesses in Jersey should shut down rather than pay extortionist demands from the mob. They shouldn't keep funding the mob for the sake of protecting their employees and their businesses. Same in Chicago and LA and NYC. Right? Same situation. Paying bad people off to leave them alone when the local governments can't protect them they should just give up.

Chiquita clearly should have just said fuck you to their employees and pulled up and left the country. Leaving the employees without jobs and at the mercy of the nutjobs.

that said, if I were McCain I would give the money back from that fundraiser.
Click to expand...



Wow. That's some of the stupidest shit I've read in a while. You are so in the tank for McCain it's hilarious.
 
Dungheap said:
Wow. That's some of the stupidest shit I've read in a while. You are so in the tank for McCain it's hilarious.
Click to expand...

So tell us Dung... what was the company supposed to do? Just pack up shop and stop producing?

Should we have supported the Afghan warlords/Saudi fighters (who turned into Al Queda) vs. the Soviets?

Should every company faced with extortion just fold?

Perhaps Chiquita should have simply let them kill their employees instead. I mean, what the hell... whats a few brown skin workers really worth... right?

As I asked, WHAT is the difference between what Chiquita did and what every business who has ever paid off the mob done?

As for McCain, yes I support him. No more so, however, than the dozens of Obama worshippers on this board bowing down to their messiah.
 
This isn't paying someone to make sure your workers got to work ok. This is paying a death squad who uses your money to murder innocent people to create terror in the populace so they don't provide support for another death squad (FARC) that kills other people who support the government in Columbia. I agree, his business was between a rock and a hard place, but you don't pay people who are terrorists. Fuck Obama went to a fund raiser at Ayer's house and the right is SCREAMING that he surrounds himself with terrorists. What I think should happen, is both campaigns should agree to discuss ONLY the issues. They should let 527's know that they will harshly renounce any personal attacks and then we can decide who would be the best person to be president. Absent some evidence that either man molested children, raped people, stole lots of money or in any other way violated the law, talking about who their acquaintences are who donated money etc, with the exception of foreign donations at Monastaries, doesn't have anything to do with how these men will run the country. THere is NO WAY to know who EVERY donor is and what else they have done in their lives and requiring that candidates and their campaigns know that is unreasonable. But until BOTH sides agree this is going to be the campaign and when your guy gets called on it, equivication equals hypocracy.
 
Socrtease said:
This isn't paying someone to make sure your workers got to work ok. This is paying a death squad who uses your money to murder innocent people to create terror in the populace so they don't provide support for another death squad (FARC) that kills other people who support the government in Columbia. I agree, his business was between a rock and a hard place, but you don't pay people who are terrorists. Fuck Obama went to a fund raiser at Ayer's house and the right is SCREAMING that he surrounds himself with terrorists. What I think should happen, is both campaigns should agree to discuss ONLY the issues. They should let 527's know that they will harshly renounce any personal attacks and then we can decide who would be the best person to be president. Absent some evidence that either man molested children, raped people, stole lots of money or in any other way violated the law, talking about who their acquaintences are who donated money etc, with the exception of foreign donations at Monastaries, doesn't have anything to do with how these men will run the country. THere is NO WAY to know who EVERY donor is and what else they have done in their lives and requiring that candidates and their campaigns know that is unreasonable. But until BOTH sides agree this is going to be the campaign and when your guy gets called on it, equivication equals hypocracy.
Click to expand...

I agree that this whole nonsense of acting as though each candidate should know every detail of every donor is quite ridiculous and detracts from the actual policies of the two and the debate on how they would lead.

Yes, they were stuck in a very tough situation. In my opinion, they acted just as those who pay off the mob respond. They took the path of least resistence rather than "standing on principles". They paid into the protection racket and gave money to those who would inflict harm and terror upon others who did not do so. Just like paying off the mob etc....

But you are incorrect in your statement that they weren't paying them off for protection of employees and their business. That is exactly what they did. FARC is little different from the mob that still operates in our country. Using terror and brute force to exact their will upon the populace. The difference lies in law enforcement. Ours is better.... not perfect.... but better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top