Dated
How to Deal With Hostage Takers: Soviet Lessons
The abductors called themselves "The Khaled Al-Walid Force" and the "Islamic Liberation Organization". According to SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) Colonel Yuri Perfilyev, who at the time was the KGG rezident (station chief) in Lebanon, the kidnapping was orchestrated by infamous Hezbollah operative Imad "Hyena"Mugniyeh in response to an offensive by Syria-backed leftist militias in the Lebanese city of Tripoli.
The Shiite radicals demanded that Moscow force Damascus to suspend the Tripoli offensive and close its embassy in Beirut. To demonstrate that they meant business, only two days after the kidnapping, Mugniyeh murdered the wounded Katkov by riddling him with machine gun bullets and left his body in a Beirut rubbish dump.
Perfilyev then met up with Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Fadlallah, then spiritual leader of Lebanese Shiites and told him: "A great power cannot wait forever. From waiting and observing, it can proceed to serious action with unpredictable consequences". Met with silence from Fadlallah, the KGB station chief spoke bluntly:
More @ Chronicles
That's how you get it done. That's how the mob got where they did, people knew they would follow thru. We are stuck with limp wristed feminine manboys in charge.
ReplyDeleteReally.
DeleteWhen Khrushchev met Kennedy in Vienna, JFK tried his Hollywood charm on him, and Ol' Nikita was convinced that he was dealing with a weakling. Within a year later, Soviet missiles were in Cuba.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
DeletePutin just closed down the US Embassy in Moscow, deemed it
ReplyDeleteas a "foreign agent." :> ))
I recall a few years ago rumors of Washington spying on Russia thru the embassy.
If I were Putin, I would also and more. :)
DeleteIndeed. Forbes is also out of Russia. A Putin law limiting foreign ownership of the country’s media outlets, the company said in a statement Thursday.
DeleteAlso, relevant, no duel citizens or foreign investments.
Forbes has to be out by Jan 1, 2016. It does have one yr to wind up their
affairs.
It's starting to sound like our real 13th Amendment.
The original 13th made slavery permanent. :)
DeleteThanks. Nice to know.
Delete:)
DeleteLincoln On Original 13th Amendment
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=132&highlight=13th+amendment
1. I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, Monday, March 4, 1861
2. North Carolina State archives to display Lincoln's slavery amendment
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200661024002
Thank you. How come the original 13th Amendment was replaced?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't ratified.
DeleteOn December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Buchanan the day before Lincoln took office.
This amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was sent to the states for ratification by the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this and the ratified Anti-Slavery amendment of 1865 are the only resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.
The resolve to amend signed by President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, read:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:
"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862.
But the onslaught of the Civil War taught that the Nation may be in even greater peril from the States than they ever were from the Nation. And so, after more than seventy years of national life, the people, by the presently acknowledged 13th Amendment and the two following, laid upon the States restrictions which a few years before would have been impossible. The Constitution had gone forty-six years (1819 - 1865) without an Amendment.
http://www.usavsus.info/usA--Original13thAmend.htm
Actually the 13th Amendment was ratified, Virginia being the last state to sign.
ReplyDeleteThen it disappeared though it is still the Law of the Land. Must have been
something in it somebodies did not like is all I can figure, then blink and it's gone.
http://www.amendment-13.org/privatepubl.htm
Thank you for your help.
Thanks, but I don't believe this is regarding the Corwin Amendment. See below.
Deletehttp://13thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=02CorwinAmend
Corwin Amendment, never even heard of it. Barefoot's World does not
Deletemention it as such.
So does the the states rights prevail over the fed gov.as I noted a fear
of being threatened by the states.
Thank you for this information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
DeleteI wish I could meet The Putin.
ReplyDeleteYes and that would be interesting.
Delete