The short answer is obviously yes
Is
America the World’s Largest Sponsor of Terrorism?
George
Washington
6
August, 2012
The
director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt.
General William Odom - noted:
Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.
By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.
Chomsky and Herman observed that terror was concentrated in the U.S. sphere of influence in the Third World, and documented terror carried out by U.S. client states in Latin America. They observed that of ten Latin American countries that had death squads, all were U.S. client states.
***
They concluded that the global rise in state terror was a result of U.S. foreign policy.
***
In 1991, a book edited by Alexander L. George [the Graham H. Stuart Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University] also argued that other Western powers sponsored terror in Third World countries. It concluded that the U.S. and its allies were the main supporters of terrorism throughout the world.
Both [specialists Ethan McCord and Josh Stieber] say they saw their mission as a plan to “out-terrorize the terrorists,” in order to make the general populace more afraid of the Americans than they were of insurgent groups.
In the interview with [Scott] Horton, Horton pressed Stieber:
“… a fellow veteran of yours from the same battalion has said that you guys had a standard operating procedure, SOP, that said – and I guess this is a reaction to some EFP attacks on y’all’s Humvees and stuff that killed some guys – that from now on if a roadside bomb goes off, IED goes off, everyone who survives the attack get out and fire in all directions at anybody who happens to be nearby … that this was actually an order from above. Is that correct? Can you, you know, verify that?
Stieber answered:
“Yeah, it was an order that came from Kauzlarich himself, and it had the philosophy that, you know, as Finkel does describe in the book, that we were under pretty constant threat, and what he leaves out is the response to that threat. But the philosophy was that if each time one of these roadside bombs went off where you don’t know who set it … the way we were told to respond was to open fire on anyone in the area, with the philosophy that that would intimidate them, to be proactive in stopping people from making these bombs …”
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
So
McCord and Stieber are correct: this constitutes terrorism by
American forces in Iraq.
The
U.S. has been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorists
in Afghanistan,
Bosnia, Libya, Syria and Iran.
(The
U.S. has also directly inserted itself into a sectarian war between
the two main Islamic sects, backing the Sunnis and attacking the
Shiites. See this, this and this.
Because Saudi Arabia is the seat of the most radical sect of Islam –
Wahhabism- the U.S. unquestioning support of the Saudis is
indirectly supporting terrorism.)
Torture
– which the U.S. has liberally
used
during the last 10 years – has long been recognized as a form
of terrorism.
Worldwide, 74% of countries that used torture on an administrative basis were U.S. client states, receiving military and other support to retain power.
Of
course, some would say that the American policy of assassination –
especially using drone strikes on people whose
identity isn’t even known –
is a form of terrorism. And see this and this.
Some Specific Examples …
The
CIA admits that
it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage
bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its
democratically-elected prime minister.
The
former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former
head of Italian counterintelligence admit
that NATO,
with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in
Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the
communists, in order to rally people’s support for their
governments in Europe in their fight against communism.
As
one participant in this formerly-secret program stated:
As
one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You
had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people,
unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was
quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian
public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and
see this)(Italy
and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had
joined NATO before the bombings occurred).
As
admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show
that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off
on a plan to blow
up AMERICAN airplanes (using
an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also
to commit
terrorist acts on American soil,
and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of
Cuba. See the following ABC
news report; the
official documents;
and watch this
interview with
the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News
Tonight with Peter Jennings.
Nine
months earlier, a false flag attack was discussed in order to justify
an invasion of the Dominican Republic. Specifically, according to
official State Department records, Under Secretary of State Chester
Bowles wrote on
June 3, 1961:
The Vice President [Lyndon Johnson], [Attorney General] Bob Kennedy, Secretary [of Defense Robert] McNamara, Dick Goodwin [who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs], [head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Lemnitzer, Wyn Coerr, and Ted Achilles were here. Bob McNamara and Lemnitzer stated that under the terms of the contingency paper, they were required to be prepared to move into the island on short order if required to do so, and this, in their opinion, called for substantially more troops that we had in the area. After some discussion we considered two more aircraft carriers, some destroyers, and 12,000 marines should be moved into a position some one hundred miles off the Dominican Republic shore…
The tone of the meeting was deeply disturbing. Bob Kennedy was clearly looking for an excuse to move in on the island. At one point he suggested, apparently seriously, that we might have to blow up the Consulate to provide the rationale.
His general approach, vigorously supported by Dick Goodwin, was that this was a bad government, that there was a strong chance that it might team up with Castro, and that it should be destroyed–with an excuse if possible, without one if necessary.
Rather to my surprise, Bob McNamara seemed to support this view …
The entire spirit of this meeting was profoundly distressing and worrisome, and I left at 8:00 p.m. with a feeling that this spirit which I had seen demonstrated on this occasion and others at the White House by those so close to the President constitutes a further danger of half-cocked action by people with almost no foreign policy experience, who are interested in action for action’s sake, and the devil take the highmost …
[At a subsequent meeting], Bob McNamara went along with their general view that our problem was not to prepare against an overt act by the Dominican Republic but rather to find an excuse for going into the country and upsetting it.
Department
of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in
2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having
“our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization.
It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps,
and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations
and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion
within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’
identities and to question the validity of communications.”
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.