Is America the World’s Largest Sponsor of Terrorism?

American Officials Admit that the U.S. Is a Huge Sponsor of Terrorism

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.

Odom also said:

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.

(audio here).

The Washington Post reported in 2010:

The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.

The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI.

Wikipedia notes:

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.

Some in the American military have intentionally tried  to “out-terrorize the terrorists”.

As Truthout notes:

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 …”

Terrorism is defined as:

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.

Wikipedia notes:

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.

Particularly when the U.S. is using the justifiably-vilified Al Qaeda tactic of killing people attending funerals of those killed – and targeting people attempting to rescue people who have been injured by – our previous strikes.

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: “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.”

As Chris Floyd and many others have noted, this plan has gone live.

United Press International reported in June 2005:

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.

There is substantial additional evidence of hanky panky in Iraq.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://rehmat1.com/ Rehmat

    American Jewish scholar Dr. Noam Chosky called America “world’s top terrorist state” long time ago.

    Shyam Chand, a former minister of Haryana state (India) and author of “Saffron Fascism” – in his article Terrorism Inc.: Nexus between CIA and Mossad, published in Mainstream Weekly, November 16, 2008 – stated: “How is that Zionist Americans and Israeli Jews are connected to so many things involving murders, single and plural? How is that the same Israeli security firm was incharge of all 9/11 airports as well as the London Tube and Madrid train station at the time of attack? Informed research points the finger of accusation to the same group of people. It turns out that the number of people murdered makes the Holocaust Industry victims bigger killers than victims……. Fone Fakers were invented by CIA and Mossad before 9/11 which was an inside job of both of them. The same Fone Fakers are used in India. Innocent people are arrested on the basis of calls made through these Fone Fakers…… Not only the nexus between the RSS and Mossad worth investigation, our defence co-operation with Israel needs reconsideration before the ominous shadow of Mossad falls on our defence forces.”

    http://rehmat1.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/

    • yeah but

      well he would, but only to cover the fact that america is simply doing israels bidding.

  • Kevin Beck

    So this seems to be some of the information the State Department didn’t want Wikileaks to spill.

    The State Department is becoming almost as contemptible as the NSA and the CIA. On second thought, they’re all a part of the same radical goo.

  • ken bruun-olsen

    If there were just a TRUE investigation into 9/11 done by actual Architects and Engineers on a non-biased platform then ALL of the rest of the Dominoes would Fall and ALL of this other nonsense would come to pieces and we could FINALLY start getting these Crooks and Hoodlums out of our Government. The Good News is that THEY have Screwed both Us and Our Constitutional Rights and Values up so badly that it leaves the whole affair so fragmented that we may Finally fix some of what was wrong with it before. Like Ending The Fed for example. Peace.

  • http://users.beagle.com.au/peterl P.M.Lawrence

    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.

    No, it doesn’t admit that, and that link doesn’t support that. It admits doing that in order to turn the country against its prime minister (Mossadegh) – but not against its democratically elected prime minister; quite simply, he wasn’t democratically elected. First, under most variants of the Westminster System – including Iran’s – prime ministers never are elected, but rather various MPs of different parties are, and usually the party with the most seats gets to make their leader prime minister. Second, in case you consider that a quibble, that’s not how that prime minister got in; that time, no party won and a coalition had to be worked out under a compromise arrangement (which means, there never was any sort of democratic mandate, even an indirect one). And third, and most devastatingly, if you consider even that sort of tenuous connection enough to call the prime minister “democratically elected”, no, he had lost even that by the time of the coup against him: his coalition had broken up and he had been properly, democratically and constitutionally dismissed under the regular procedures of the Westminster System, according to which new elections should have been held either confirming that it was time for his government to go or renewing his government’s position, only he had refused to go and seized power in a coup of his own instead.

    So, no, the CIA never hired Iranians in the 1950s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically elected prime minister, and never admitted it. The CIA hired Iranians in the 1950s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its undemocratically usurping dictator, and the CIA admitted that.

    None of this justifies the CIA’s actions then and afterwards, since those too were aimed at setting up a dictatorship and overthrowing democratic processes. But Mossadegh never stood for those either. This is a story without any good guys.

    • Dutch

      Thanks for that verbose and inane clarification.

      What sovereignty does the US/CIA hold over Iran? What justification does it have for meddling in the affairs of a nation half a world away? Especially in this most despicable of manners? Your point is no more illuminating than a clarification of what color pants the Prime Minister was wearing when this all went down. I think most would agree that regardless of the finer points of how Iran’s political system worked at the time, the CIAs actions “aimed at setting up a dictatorship and overthrowing democratic processes”, are the takeaway point. I’m all for responsible journalism too, and appreciate what you are trying to do, but its a fairly irrelevant point that in no way lessens the CIA’s crimes or the operative point of the story.

      “Democracy” is an overused, overvalued, and effectively irrelevant concept anyway. Both you and the author attempt to imply that their government being “Democratic” or not somehow makes this a lesser or greater crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. The crime is a deceptive, violent and disingenuous intervention into the affairs of a sovereign nation, aimed at highjacking control of their political process. Even if Iran was operating the worst, most oppressive government ever within their own borders, such an intervention is no less illegal, detestable or a departure from our Constitutional charter. Put to a vote, with the full facts disclosed, no American would have supported it, and no Constitutional authority would have permitted it. Regardless of the finer details, it was a rogue, disgraceful atrocity, committed in our names and using our money. This is the point that warrants our full attention. Iran’s governmental structure at the time bears no relevance whatsoever on the validity and seriousness of the operative point.

      • Vox.Pop

        The US has been anti-democratic & pro-elitist (rule by the rich minority) since it created its own constitution. Democracy (like liberty) are just PR words for these guys. They are without any morality – simply ‘might is right’ & ‘we are always right’.

        • TakingOneForTheTeam

          As an American I don’t know what to believe anymore, but your comment seems legit.

          • TakingOneForTheTeam

            This was supposed to be a reply to Monnie. Site not right?

  • DEDONARRIVAL

    I COULD,NT BELIEVE THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE.
    MY AUTOMATIC RESPONSE WAS: IS THE POPE A CATHOLIC?

    If the Nuremberg laws were applied,
    then every post-war American president would have been hanged
    - Noam Chomsky -
    EFINITION OF TERRORISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

  • Monnie

    Boobus Americanus is still largely unaware of the monstrous evil committed by his gov’t in his name, and is locked into the red team/ blue team “patriotic” model of American Exceptionalism (remember “USA, USA!” chants after Osama was “killed”?). It will take a major disruption in his daily routine to force Boobus to begin to examine his worldview & assumptions. That disruption is coming soon, and it wil be a savage one.

  • Angel Gabriel

    I might point out that the head of the current Zionist Israeli Government was not elected in a Democratic Election process, his Party (Likud) actually lost the Democratic Election in Israel. The Moderate ( by comparison) Kadima Party’s Candidate Tzipi Livney who won the election by a small margin was conveniently “un-chosen” through a “backroom deal” and passed the reins of power to Likud’s Netanyahoo in supposedly a Coalition decision.
    Israel is certainly not the Democracy they claim to be, but merely another Client State of the United States. Many would argue the issue of Client State, as in Israel’s case, as the US being a Client State of the Zionist Regime. Both Country’s covert foreign policies are barely indistinguishable
    The U.S Client State’s of Latin America, as spoken of above, are aligned with Israel’s Zionist Mossad as well, and there were certainly as much conspiratorial influence being passed around by both CIA and Mossad to effectively, at minimum, “Cloud the issue” of who Terrorized the Terrorists most?
    The advent of Straussian thinking has been merely an evolution of Zionist Doctrine that has renamed itself to Neo-Conservatism and under closer analysis would indicate that both Zionism and Neo-Conservatism are indistinguishable. US covert foreign policy is written and administered, not by Congressional penning, but rather a small group of thinkers who do the bidding of a core group of Elitists. This core group groom a POTUS as “Leader” to sell a Nationalist “Freedom and Democracy” policy to the grossly uniformed American “voting” Public in order to gain national support to insure the American people’s safety and security from the invisible enemy who hate their freedom.
    So although the US is certainly the advocate of Terrorism to fight Terrorist’s, it is certainly debatable as to “Who, or which State” actually directs the architecture and provides the administration of these policies… Tail Wags Dog, or Dog Wag’s Tail??

  • Neville

    The self love that Americans have for everything and anything American.

    And if you don’t participate “you are against us”.

    The macho USA USA USA chant and the PNAC “superpower might is right agenda”.

    Harold Pinter (Nobel Prize) said it best —

    Harold Pinter NobelPrize
    http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=620

    The USA with over 45 million people living below the poverty line and 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US

  • kartashok

    It’s obvious! Of course no ‘murcans have the balls to read this though!

 

 

Twitter