His killers  are now in office  , yet his party WPA, joined up with them to to oust the PPP. Politics do make for strange bedfellows. 

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

I stop at page 60 will read later,how come you didn't mention some of the players from the House of Israel are with the PPP and also to most vindictive person comparable to Burnham was Janet Jagan.

Don't rub the House of Israel schitt on the PPP now.  Your lies are going way off to left field.

I dont see your point here Django.

Why are we playing a tit for tat game? Given the reputation of the members of the House of Israel and Rabbi Washington, they all need to be condemned, whether they are aligned with the PPP or the PNC.

You are a smart fella, so let me remind you of a couple of things, both of which reveal your biasness.

1)The COI is about the assassination of Walter Rodney. He was not killed by members of the House of Israel (The Rabbi and his worshipers were given space and used by the Burnham government against his opposition, primarily the members of the WPA, which lost more men than any political force.) Logically, if the House of Israel was involved, it would have been on orders from Burnham himself. The undeniable fact is that the COI place the assassination of Rodney on Burnham.

I raised the question because the COI took note of the fact that Granger also swore loyalty to Burnham.

2) Your last point about Janet Jagan being more vindictive than Burnham is a lot of BS. You are letting your guard down here for criticism from other GNIs.

For the record, like Africans, I do have a serious problem with having a white women ruling over a nation of black and brown people. I can understand the anger of Africans who felt that this act reminded them about the massa.

HOWEVER, to suggest that JJ was more vindictive than Burnham raises some question about your sanity. JJ was forced to cut her term short, even though she was democratically elected. Compare that to Burnham's dictatorship and the damage that was done to the Guyanese psyche and nation.        

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Don't rub the House of Israel schitt on the PPP now.  Your lies are going way off to left field.

Suh who is Joseph Hamilton.

It is good to see Gn&I put out the report. It was truly disturbing to see the Granjer/greene gang rewriting history to fool young Guyanese into believing that Rodney killed himself.

VishMahabir posted:

I dont see your point here Django.

Why are we playing a tit for tat game? Given the reputation of the members of the House of Israel and Rabbi Washington, they all need to be condemned, whether they are aligned with the PPP or the PNC.

You are a smart fella, so let me remind you of a couple of things, both of which reveal your biasness.

1)The COI is about the assassination of Walter Rodney. He was not killed by members of the House of Israel (The Rabbi and his worshipers were given space and used by the Burnham government against his opposition, primarily the members of the WPA, which lost more men than any political force.) Logically, if the House of Israel was involved, it would have been on orders from Burnham himself. The undeniable fact is that the COI place the assassination of Rodney on Burnham.

I raised the question because the COI took note of the fact that Granger also swore loyalty to Burnham.

2) Your last point about Janet Jagan being more vindictive than Burnham is a lot of BS. You are letting your guard down here for criticism from other GNIs.

For the record, like Africans, I do have a serious problem with having a white women ruling over a nation of black and brown people. I can understand the anger of Africans who felt that this act reminded them about the massa.

HOWEVER, to suggest that JJ was more vindictive than Burnham raises some question about your sanity. JJ was forced to cut her term short, even though she was democratically elected. Compare that to Burnham's dictatorship and the damage that was done to the Guyanese psyche and nation.        

The high lighted is off tangent,it was stated she was vindictive on par with Burnham,that says a lot about a politician looking back at incidents that happened in Guyana.

Prashad posted:

It is good to see Gn&I put out the report. It was truly disturbing to see the Granjer/greene gang rewriting history to fool young Guyanese into believing that Rodney killed himself.

Prash,we were adults then and aware that Burnham was responsible for Rodney death.

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

I dont see your point here Django.

Why are we playing a tit for tat game? Given the reputation of the members of the House of Israel and Rabbi Washington, they all need to be condemned, whether they are aligned with the PPP or the PNC.

You are a smart fella, so let me remind you of a couple of things, both of which reveal your biasness.

1)The COI is about the assassination of Walter Rodney. He was not killed by members of the House of Israel (The Rabbi and his worshipers were given space and used by the Burnham government against his opposition, primarily the members of the WPA, which lost more men than any political force.) Logically, if the House of Israel was involved, it would have been on orders from Burnham himself. The undeniable fact is that the COI place the assassination of Rodney on Burnham.

I raised the question because the COI took note of the fact that Granger also swore loyalty to Burnham.

2) Your last point about Janet Jagan being more vindictive than Burnham is a lot of BS. You are letting your guard down here for criticism from other GNIs.

For the record, like Africans, I do have a serious problem with having a white women ruling over a nation of black and brown people. I can understand the anger of Africans who felt that this act reminded them about the massa.

HOWEVER, to suggest that JJ was more vindictive than Burnham raises some question about your sanity. JJ was forced to cut her term short, even though she was democratically elected. Compare that to Burnham's dictatorship and the damage that was done to the Guyanese psyche and nation.        

The high lighted is off tangent,it was stated she was vindictive on par with Burnham,that says a lot about a politician looking back at incidents that happened in Guyana.

Where is it so stated? Why is it off tangent?

VishMahabir posted:

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

I dont see your point here Django.

Why are we playing a tit for tat game? Given the reputation of the members of the House of Israel and Rabbi Washington, they all need to be condemned, whether they are aligned with the PPP or the PNC.

You are a smart fella, so let me remind you of a couple of things, both of which reveal your biasness.

1)The COI is about the assassination of Walter Rodney. He was not killed by members of the House of Israel (The Rabbi and his worshipers were given space and used by the Burnham government against his opposition, primarily the members of the WPA, which lost more men than any political force.) Logically, if the House of Israel was involved, it would have been on orders from Burnham himself. The undeniable fact is that the COI place the assassination of Rodney on Burnham.

I raised the question because the COI took note of the fact that Granger also swore loyalty to Burnham.

2) Your last point about Janet Jagan being more vindictive than Burnham is a lot of BS. You are letting your guard down here for criticism from other GNIs.

For the record, like Africans, I do have a serious problem with having a white women ruling over a nation of black and brown people. I can understand the anger of Africans who felt that this act reminded them about the massa.

HOWEVER, to suggest that JJ was more vindictive than Burnham raises some question about your sanity. JJ was forced to cut her term short, even though she was democratically elected. Compare that to Burnham's dictatorship and the damage that was done to the Guyanese psyche and nation.        

The high lighted is off tangent,it was stated she was vindictive on par with Burnham,that says a lot about a politician looking back at incidents that happened in Guyana.

Where is it so stated? Why is it off tangent?

I am not reffering to JJ presidential term,what caught my attention is the traits of the individual, read Chapter 3--3.91.

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

You bypassed the questions I raised above.

What does the trait of the individual have to do with the tenure and rule of both individuals? Was Janet Jagan tenure as brutal as Forbes Burnham?

The COI:   

6.1 - The totality of the evidence presented to us clearly and obviously painted a grim picture as to how the country of Guyana was run but our TOR limit the period from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1980. We have no hesitation in concluding that the political directorate at that time under the leadership of the late Mr. L. F. S. Burnham, Prime Minister and late President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, and as Head of State, was the supreme authority, and Commander-inChief of the armed forces of the republic. He was not only the head of the Guyana Defence Force Board but was also head of the National Security Committee and from all the evidence kept a very tight rein on all aspects of the country’s business.

6.2 - The tight rein we have mentioned has its deep root and genesis in the concept of “party paramountcy,” a concept proclaimed by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Burnham. David A. Granger (now President Brigadier (Ret’d.) recorded in his book, National Defence: A Brief History of the Guyana Defence Force 1965-2005, (2005) at pp. 186-187 that:

“Paramountcy The increasing involvement of the Defence Force in party politics, a marked departure from the apparent non-partisan stance taken in the immediate postindependence period, raised public concern about the direction being taken by civil-military relations. This pattern of politicization became more evident after the promulgation of the Declaration of Sophia on 14 December 1974, exactly 10 years after the PNC had first come to power. . . “As a consequence of this thinking, political participation was positively promoted and many officers and soldiers were encouraged to become members of the PNC in the ensuing period. . . Similar ideas had been embraced by the GDF high command for several years and in 1977 the Chief of Staff, Clarence Prince, appeared in military uniform before the PNC’s 2nd biennial congress 80 and pledged publicly ‘. . . our loyalty and dedication to the Comrade Leader of the People’s National Congress and Prime Minister, Forbes Burnham. . .’ committing the Defence Force to ‘. . . following the road mapped out by the party and government.’ This ritual pledge of loyalty was repeated in succeeding congresses up to Burnham’s death in 1985, although not by the Chief of Staff in person. . . “As a result of these measures, the civil administration was able to establish and maintain its control over the GDF. It was not felt that there was need to install civilian political agents in military units as it was thought that there was already significant support for the PNC party in the force. This interest was fostered by the attitude of the Prime Minister who, as Minister responsible for defence, started to appear regularly at official military functions, dressed in uniform. . . The significance of this symbolism was not lost on the public or the troops.”

6.3 - We accept the analysis given by Brigadier (Ret’d.) Granger as accurate and it harmonises with the evidence in relation to the effect of paramountcy of the party on the military and paramilitary organisations of the country.

6.4 - We are satisfied that Prime Minister Burnham used this platform in order to exert control over the military and para-military organisations of Guyana during that period

Significant Findings 7.35 - In the end it is clear to us that the police were unprofessional, extremely inefficient in turning a blind eye to the obvious, or deliberately botched the investigation in Dr. Rodney’s killing or were complicit with others, including the GDF in hiding or shielding Gregory Smith from facing the brunt of the law for having murdered Dr. Walter Rodney. 99 7.36 - Given all the relevant facts, events and circumstances set out in the Report, we unhesitatingly conclude that Gregory Smith was not acting alone but had the active and full support, participation and encouragement of, and/or was aided and abetted by the GPF, the GDF, agencies of the State, and the political directorate in the killing Dr. Walter Rodney.

GRANGER WAS A MEMBER OF THE DISCIPLINED FORCES AT THE TIME 

VishMahabir posted:

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

You bypassed the questions I raised above.

What does the trait of the individual have to do with the tenure and rule of both individuals? Was Janet Jagan tenure as brutal as Forbes Burnham?

All the books I have been reading over the last few months says otherwise....not sure why you are trying to paint Burnham as as a saint compared to Jagan. 

The COI:   

6.1 - The totality of the evidence presented to us clearly and obviously painted a grim picture as to how the country of Guyana was run but our TOR limit the period from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1980. We have no hesitation in concluding that the political directorate at that time under the leadership of the late Mr. L. F. S. Burnham, Prime Minister and late President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, and as Head of State, was the supreme authority, and Commander-inChief of the armed forces of the republic. He was not only the head of the Guyana Defence Force Board but was also head of the National Security Committee and from all the evidence kept a very tight rein on all aspects of the country’s business.

6.2 - The tight rein we have mentioned has its deep root and genesis in the concept of “party paramountcy,” a concept proclaimed by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Burnham. David A. Granger (now President Brigadier (Ret’d.) recorded in his book, National Defence: A Brief History of the Guyana Defence Force 1965-2005, (2005) at pp. 186-187 that:

“Paramountcy The increasing involvement of the Defence Force in party politics, a marked departure from the apparent non-partisan stance taken in the immediate postindependence period, raised public concern about the direction being taken by civil-military relations. This pattern of politicization became more evident after the promulgation of the Declaration of Sophia on 14 December 1974, exactly 10 years after the PNC had first come to power. . . “As a consequence of this thinking, political participation was positively promoted and many officers and soldiers were encouraged to become members of the PNC in the ensuing period. . . Similar ideas had been embraced by the GDF high command for several years and in 1977 the Chief of Staff, Clarence Prince, appeared in military uniform before the PNC’s 2nd biennial congress 80 and pledged publicly ‘. . . our loyalty and dedication to the Comrade Leader of the People’s National Congress and Prime Minister, Forbes Burnham. . .’ committing the Defence Force to ‘. . . following the road mapped out by the party and government.’ This ritual pledge of loyalty was repeated in succeeding congresses up to Burnham’s death in 1985, although not by the Chief of Staff in person. . . “As a result of these measures, the civil administration was able to establish and maintain its control over the GDF. It was not felt that there was need to install civilian political agents in military units as it was thought that there was already significant support for the PNC party in the force. This interest was fostered by the attitude of the Prime Minister who, as Minister responsible for defence, started to appear regularly at official military functions, dressed in uniform. . . The significance of this symbolism was not lost on the public or the troops.”

6.3 - We accept the analysis given by Brigadier (Ret’d.) Granger as accurate and it harmonises with the evidence in relation to the effect of paramountcy of the party on the military and paramilitary organisations of the country.

6.4 - We are satisfied that Prime Minister Burnham used this platform in order to exert control over the military and para-military organisations of Guyana during that period

Significant Findings 7.35 - In the end it is clear to us that the police were unprofessional, extremely inefficient in turning a blind eye to the obvious, or deliberately botched the investigation in Dr. Rodney’s killing or were complicit with others, including the GDF in hiding or shielding Gregory Smith from facing the brunt of the law for having murdered Dr. Walter Rodney. 99 7.36 - Given all the relevant facts, events and circumstances set out in the Report, we unhesitatingly conclude that Gregory Smith was not acting alone but had the active and full support, participation and encouragement of, and/or was aided and abetted by the GPF, the GDF, agencies of the State, and the political directorate in the killing Dr. Walter Rodney.

GRANGER WAS A MEMBER OF THE DISCIPLINED FORCES AT THE TIME.

 

For those East Indians who were killed during the Burnham years their collective lives are not as valuable as the life of one African so we will never heard anything about them. That is the reality of  life for East Indians in Guyana.

VishMahabir posted:

6.2 - The tight rein we have mentioned has its deep root and genesis in the concept of “party paramountcy,” a concept proclaimed by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Burnham. David A. Granger (now President Brigadier (Ret’d.) recorded in his book, National Defence: A Brief History of the Guyana Defence Force 1965-2005, (2005) at pp. 186-187 that:

Paramountcy The increasing involvement of the Defence Force in party politics, a marked departure from the apparent non-partisan stance taken in the immediate postindependence period, raised public concern about the direction being taken by civil-military relations. This pattern of politicization became more evident after the promulgation of the Declaration of Sophia on 14 December 1974, exactly 10 years after the PNC had first come to power. . . “As a consequence of this thinking, political participation was positively promoted and many officers and soldiers were encouraged to become members of the PNC in the ensuing period. . . Similar ideas had been embraced by the GDF high command for several years and in 1977 the Chief of Staff, Clarence Prince, appeared in military uniform before the PNC’s 2nd biennial congress 80 and pledged publicly ‘. . . our loyalty and dedication to the Comrade Leader of the People’s National Congress and Prime Minister, Forbes Burnham. . .’ committing the Defence Force to ‘. . . following the road mapped out by the party and government.’ This ritual pledge of loyalty was repeated in succeeding congresses up to Burnham’s death in 1985, although not by the Chief of Staff in person. . . “As a result of these measures, the civil administration was able to establish and maintain its control over the GDF. It was not felt that there was need to install civilian political agents in military units as it was thought that there was already significant support for the PNC party in the force. This interest was fostered by the attitude of the Prime Minister who, as Minister responsible for defence, started to appear regularly at official military functions, dressed in uniform. . . The significance of this symbolism was not lost on the public or the troops.”

6.3 - We accept the analysis given by Brigadier (Ret’d.) Granger as accurate and it harmonises with the evidence in relation to the effect of paramountcy of the party on the military and paramilitary organisations of the country.

GRANGER WAS A MEMBER OF THE DISCIPLINED FORCES AT THE TIME.

 

 

What you are saying Granger is roped  in the assassination of  Rodney because at that time he was a member of GDF,you are holding on to a rotten limb,that means the entire disciplined forces is responsible along with all the members of the PNC.

Your statement does not hold water,try again.

VishMahabir posted:

 

GRANGER WAS A MEMBER OF THE DISCIPLINED FORCES AT THE TIME 

Jagdeo was the Commander in Chief when Sat Sawh, Waddell were killed. Ramotar was Commander in Chief when Crum Ewing was killed. Do you see the stupidity in your conjecture? How about all the Indians that were killed when Jagan was the Chief.

The scope of this report is between 1978 and 1980 and who if any aided and abetted in the death of Dr. Walter Rodney.

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

Are you saying with a straight face that he did not?????????

Nehru posted:

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

Are you saying with a straight face that he did not?????????

Now David G is complicit in 3 murders..two from the Corentyne also during the elections.

Nehru posted:

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

Are you saying with a straight face that he did not?????????

Where is the proof that he swore loyalty to Burham ??? what the commission did was quoting a paragraph from a book he has written lo and behold Vish Mahabir came up with his statement below.

"By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham)."

The commission seems to have a motive to mention Granger name in the report,so that some individuals can conclude you see his name is mentioned he is involved.

Unbelievable.

Django posted:

Nehru posted:

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

Are you saying with a straight face that he did not?????????

Where is the proof that he swore loyalty to Burham ??? what the commission did was quoting a paragraph from a book he has written lo and behold Vish Mahabir came up with his statement below.

"By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham)."

The commission seems to have a motive to mention Granger name in the report,so that some individuals can conclude you see his name is mentioned he is involved.

Unbelievable.

Was it not the military implicated in killing Rodney. And who was the head of of the military then besides Forbes? Was Gregory Smith an auto mechanic?

skeldon_man posted:

Django posted:

Nehru posted:

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

Are you saying with a straight face that he did not?????????

Where is the proof that he swore loyalty to Burham ??? what the commission did was quoting a paragraph from a book he has written lo and behold Vish Mahabir came up with his statement below.

"By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham)."

The commission seems to have a motive to mention Granger name in the report,so that some individuals can conclude you see his name is mentioned he is involved.

Unbelievable.

Was it not the military implicated in killing Rodney. And who was the head of of the military then besides Forbes? Was Gregory Smith an auto mechanic?

That would have been Clarence Price.

Take a read here

http://www.guyanaundersiege.co...0pages/imbalance.htm

Django posted:

Nehru posted:

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

WOW. A serious inditement of the PNC and Burnham. Rodney was an internationally renowned scholar. This is a shame. 

By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham).

Are we to infer that he may have been involved in Rodney's killing...or is this a stretch of my imagination??? 

Vish,point to the Chapter and paragraph in the report where Granger swore loyalty to Burnham.

Awaiting your reply.

Are you saying with a straight face that he did not?????????

Where is the proof that he swore loyalty to Burham ??? what the commission did was quoting a paragraph from a book he has written lo and behold Vish Mahabir came up with his statement below.

"By the way, the report vaguely (see the last part) seems to imply that Granger may have been indirectly involved (he swore loyalty to Burnham)."

The commission seems to have a motive to mention Granger name in the report,so that some individuals can conclude you see his name is mentioned he is involved.

Unbelievable.

PNC defense attorney in action.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Django posted:

 

PNC defense attorney in action.

Suh wah the PPP attorney does do,bite their finger nails.

Granger was the second highest ranking military officer when Rodney was killed.

Prashad posted:

Granger was the second highest ranking military officer when Rodney was killed.

 

Was he above Joe Singh?? trying to find some info run in to a dead end.

Granger was much higher than Joe Singh he was second to McLean. He was also the base commander of Camp Ayangana. Only a complete fool would believe that he did not know Smith and family was flown out of the airport with Gdf aircraft flown by a gdf pilot. 

Prashad posted:

Granger was much higher than Joe Singh he was second to McLean. He was also the base commander of Camp Ayangana. Only a complete fool would believe that he did not know Smith and family was flown out of the airport with Gdf aircraft flown by a gdf pilot. 

 

Thanks Prash,i knew Burnham by passed a lot of folks and appoint McLean as Cheif of Staff because he trusted him.

McLean was a policeman not a military man.

Prashad posted:

McLean was a policeman not a military man.

I know.

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

Green mother is the second cousin of Burnham. Burnham is related to the chan a sue family whose daughter married Granger. 

Django posted:

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

Django posted:

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

Django posted:

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

Django posted:

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

I would not say it was a matter of trust. Maybe Burnham believed that the man did not have the ability to do what he want the head of the military to do.

Prashad posted:

Django posted:

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

Django posted:

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

Django posted:

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

Django posted:

Prashad posted:

Granger is married to a Chan a sue girl. The Chan a sue family are related to Burnham. 

Apparently Burnham didn't trust him so he appoint Norman as chief of staff.

I would not say it was a matter of trust. Maybe Burnham believed that the man did not have the ability to do what he want the head of the military to do.

Not everyone in GDF and GPF were in agreement with the Kabaha,he was afraid of military coup,one of the reasons he took a policeman and appoint him Chief of Staff.

Burnham was afraid of the black power movement in the military overthrowino him that is why these red men like Granjer McLean lewis , douglas like Morgan and East Indians like Joe Singh were on top.

Prashad posted:

Burnham was afraid of the black power movement in the military overthrowino him that is why these red men like Granjer McLean lewis , douglas like Morgan and East Indians like Joe Singh were on top.

Seriously if it was not US backing,Burnham would have been out of Government by his third term.

Burnham always had a love/hate relationship with the Cia. He kicked the agency when he did not need it but loved it when he needed it.