THE US IS A LEADING TERRORIST
STATE
Posted also in: Foreign
Policy, International
Relations, Politics/Gov.,
US, War
and Peace
BRIEF INTRODUCTION by Hugo Adan:
October 23, 2014
What Chomsky does here is describing the US as TERRORIST and FASCIST.
By definition terrorism is one features
of fascism. TERRORISM was defined by FBI and
other US State apparatus as: "Unlawful use of violence against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a government, a civilian population or any
segment thereof in furtherance of political and social objectives". OR, as "premeditated,
politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Council of Foreign Relations: http://www.cfrterrorism.org/terrorism/introduction.html.
If you read Chomsky you will be convinced that we are the most dangerous
terrorists of the world.
George Lakoff or Laurence Britt described the MAIN FEATURES OF FASCISM that I apply to the current situation : the main one is the extreme, perverse and
imperialistic Nacionalism (by lying of defending “national security”, the interest of 1% of Americans are protected
and expanded via wars abroad at the expenses of the nation “tax-payers”). This
extreme nationalistic chauvinism includes stupid ideologies like military supremacism and the “legal exceptionality” for
their war crimes. The 2nd feature is disdain for the recognition of
human rights of minorities (specially foreign Latino migrants, afro-americans and native populations abroad). The 3rd
is the identification of invented enemies as scapegoats for unifying the “national
cause” via fear. 4th National
military rituals and war monguerism to overshadow the civilian faith on pacifism.
5th Rampant machismo, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and other phobias
. 6th Corporate monopoly of the mass media and extreme paranoid and
ill surveillance everywhere. 7th
commodification of the obsession with national security (just converted in one
more profitable business). 8th
Religion and government are intertwined (god bless American wars). 9th
Extreme protection of corporate power (bailouts to bankers and crock companies and
QEs every time they wanted) vs. nasty dis-protection of the labor. 10th
Obsession with crime and punishment (that includes unnecessary policy brutality,
an invitation to armed response as happens in Canada days ago and obsession
with death penalty in several states). 11th
Rampant cronyism and corruption. 12.
Fraudulent elections, like the one in 2000. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
This is also the reason why I called the US a
fascistic State in severe articles.
-----
Read Chomsky. Here only extracts
On October 14,
the lead story in the New York Times reported a study by the
CIA that reviews major terrorist operations run by the White House around the
world, in an effort to determine the factors that led to their success or
failure, finally concluding that unfortunately successes were rare so that some
rethinking of policy is in order. The article went on to quote Obama as
saying that he had asked the CIA to carry out such inquiries in order to find
cases of “financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that
actually worked out well. And they couldn’t come up with much.” So he has some
reluctance about continuing such efforts.
There were no cries
of outrage, no indignation, nothing.
The conclusion seems
quite clear. In western political culture, it is taken to be entirely
natural and appropriate that the Leader of the Free World should be a terrorist
rogue state and should openly proclaim its eminence in such crimes. And
it is only natural and appropriate that the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and
liberal constitutional lawyer who holds the reins of power should be concerned
only with how to carry out such actions more efficaciously.
A closer look
establishes these conclusions quite firmly.
The article opens by
citing US operations “from Angola to Nicaragua to Cuba.” Let us add a little of
what is omitted.
In Angola, the US
joined South Africa in providing the crucial support for Jonas Savimbi’s
terrorist UNITA army, and continued to do so after Savimbi had been roundly
defeated in a carefully monitored free election and even after South Africa had
withdrawn support from this “monster whose lust for power had brought appalling
misery to his people,” in the words of British Ambassador to Angola Marrack
Goulding, seconded by the CIA station chief in neighboring Kinshasa who warned
that “it wasn’t a good idea” to support the monster “because of the extent of
Savimbi’s crimes. He was terribly brutal.”
Despite extensive and
murderous US-backed terrorist operations in Angola, Cuban forces drove South
African aggressors out of the country, compelled them to leave illegally
occupied Namibia, and opened the way for the Angolan election in which, after
his defeat, Savimbi “dismissed entirely the views of nearly 800 foreign
elections observers here that the balloting…was generally free and fair” (New
York Times), and continued the terrorist war with US support.
Cuban achievements in
the liberation of Africa and ending of Apartheid were hailed by Nelson Mandela
when he was finally released from prison. Among his first acts was to
declare that “During all my years in prison, Cuba was an inspiration and Fidel
Castro a tower of strength… [Cuban victories] destroyed the myth of the
invincibility of the white oppressor [and] inspired the fighting masses of
South Africa … a turning point for the liberation of our continent — and of my
people — from the scourge of apartheid. … What other country can point to a
record of greater selflessness than Cuba has displayed in its relations to
Africa?”
The terrorist
commander Henry Kissinger, in contrast, was “apoplectic” over the
insubordination of the “pipsqueak” Castro who should be “smash[ed],” as
reported by William Leogrande and Peter Kornbluh in their book Back
Channel to Cuba, relying on recently declassified documents.
Turning to Nicaragua,
we need not tarry on Reagan’s terrorist war, which continued well after the
International Court of Justice ordered Washington to cease its “illegal use of
force” – that is, international terrorism — and pay substantial reparations,
and after a resolution of the UN Security Council that called on all states
(meaning the US) to observe international law – vetoed by Washington.
It should be
acknowledged, however, that Reagan’s terrorist war against Nicaragua – extended
by Bush I, the “statesman” Bush — was not as destructive as the state terrorism
he backed enthusiastically in El Salvador and Guatemala. Nicaragua had
the advantage of having an army to confront the US-run terrorist forces, while
in the neighboring states the terrorists assaulting the population were the
security forces armed and trained by Washington.
In a few weeks we
will be commemorating the Grand Finale of Washington’s terrorist wars in Latin
America: the murder of six leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit
priests, by an elite terrorist unit of the Salvadoran army, the Atlacatl
Battalion, armed and trained by Washington, acting on the explicit orders of
the High Command, and with a long record of massacres of the usual victims.
This shocking crime
on November 16, 1989, at the Jesuit University in San Salvador was the
coda to the enormous plague of terror that spread over the continent after John
F. Kennedy changed the mission of the Latin American military from “hemispheric
defense” – an outdated relic of World War II – to “internal security,” which
means war against the domestic population. The aftermath is described
succinctly by Charles Maechling, who led US counterinsurgency and internal
defense planning from 1961 to 1966. He described Kennedy’s 1962 decision
as a shift from toleration “of the rapacity and cruelty of the Latin American
military” to “direct complicity” in their crimes, to US support for “the
methods of Heinrich Himmler’s extermination squads.”
All forgotten, not
the “right kind of facts.”
In Cuba, Washington’s
terror operations were launched in full fury by President Kennedy to punish
Cubans for defeating the US-run Bay of Pigs invasion. As described by
historian Piero Gleijeses, JFK “asked his brother, Attorney General Robert
Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation
Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations, economic warfare, and sabotage
he launched in late 1961 to visit the ‘terrors of the earth’ on Fidel Castro
and, more prosaically, to topple him.”
The phrase “terrors
of the earth” is quoted from Kennedy associate and historian Arthur
Schlesinger, in his quasi-official biography of Robert Kennedy, who was
assigned responsibility for conducting the terrorist war. RFK informed
the CIA that the Cuban problem carries “[t]he top priority in the United States
Government — all else is secondary — no time, no effort, or manpower is to be
spared” in the effort to overthrow the Castro regime, and to bring “the terrors
of the earth” to Cuba.
The terrorist war
launched by the Kennedy brothers was no small affair. It involved 400
Americans, 2,000 Cubans, a private navy of fast boats, and a $50 million annual
budget, run in part by a Miami CIA station functioning in violation of the
Neutrality Act and, presumably, the law banning CIA operations in the United
States. Operations included bombing of hotels and industrial
installations, sinking of fishing boats, poisoning of crops and livestock,
contamination of sugar exports, etc. Some of these operations were not
specifically authorized by the CIA but carried out by the terrorist forces it
funded and supported, a distinction without a difference in the case of official
enemies.
The Mongoose
terrorist operations were run by General Edward Lansdale, who had ample
experience in US-run terrorist operations in the Philippines and Vietnam.
His timetable for Operation Mongoose called for “open revolt and overthrow of the
Communist regime” in October 1962, which, for “final success will require
decisive U.S. military intervention” after terrorism and subversion had laid
the basis.
October 1962 is,
of course, a very significant moment in modern history. It was in that month
that Nikita Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba, setting off the missile crisis
that came ominously close to terminal nuclear war. Scholarship now
recognizes that Khrushchev was in part motivated by the huge US preponderance
in force after Kennedy had responded to his calls for reduction in offensive
weapons by radically increasing the US advantage, and in part by concern over a
possible US invasion of Cuba. Years later, Kennedy’s Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara recognized that Cuba and Russia were justified in fearing an
attack. “If I were in Cuban or Soviet shoes, I would have thought so, too,”
McNamara observed at a major international conference on the missile crisis on
the 40th anniversary.
The highly regarded
policy analyst Raymond Garthoff, who had many years of direct experience in US
intelligence, reports that in the weeks before the October crisis erupted, a
Cuban terrorist group operating from Florida with US government authorization
carried out “a daring speedboat strafing attack on a Cuban seaside hotel near
Havana where Soviet military technicians were known to congregate, killing a
score of Russians and Cubans.” And shortly after, he continues, the terrorist
forces attacked British and Cuban cargo ships and again raided Cuba, among
other actions that were stepped up in early October. At a tense moment of the
still-unresolved missile crisis, on November 8, a terrorist team
dispatched from the United States blew up a Cuban industrial facility after the
Mongoose operations had been officially suspended. Fidel Castro alleged that
400 workers had been killed in this operation, guided by “photographs taken by
spying planes.” Attempts to assassinate Castro and other terrorist attacks
continued immediately after the crisis terminated, and were escalated again in
later years.
There has been some
notice of one rather minor part of the terror war, the many attempts to
assassinate Castro, generally dismissed as childish CIA shenanigans.
Apart from that, none of what happened has elicited much interest or
commentary. The first serious English-language inquiry into the impact on
Cubans was published in 2010 by Canadian researcher Keith Bolender, in
his Voices From The Other Side: An Oral History Of Terrorism Against
Cuba, a very valuable study largely ignored.
The three examples
highlighted in the New York Times report of US terrorism are
only the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, it is useful to have this
prominent acknowledgment of Washington’s dedication to murderous and
destructive terror operations and of the insignificance of all of this to the
political class, which accepts it as normal and proper that the US should be a
terrorist superpower, immune to law and civilized norms.
Oddly, the world may
not agree. An international poll released a year ago by the Worldwide
Independent Network/Gallup International Association (WIN/GIA) found that the
United States is ranked far in the lead as “the biggest threat to world peace
today,” far ahead of second-place Pakistan (doubtless inflated by the Indian
vote), with no one else even close.
Fortunately,
Americans were spared this insignificant information.
=======
1
comment
george Patterson, October
23, 2014
It is tragically
chilling that there were not any cries of outrage and indignation, even nothing
such as in the following excerpt of a New York Times October 14, 2014 article :
“On October 14, the lead story in the New York Times reported a study by the CIA
that reviews major terrorist operations run by the White House around the
world, in an effort to determine the factors that led to their success or
failure, finally concluding that unfortunately successes were rare so that some
rethinking of policy is in order. The article went on to quote Obama as saying
that he had asked the CIA to carry out such inquiries in order to find cases of
‘financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that actually
worked out well. And they couldn’t come up with much.’ So he has some
reluctance about continuing such efforts.”
One can not help wondering why people can not speak up. Failure to do so is why these abuses continue to occur and develop a momentum of perpetuating and intensifying, even spiraling out of control.
It is also tragically
horrifying that the conclusion appears quite clear, according to Chomsky that
in western political culture, it is held to be totally natural and suitable
that the Leader of the Free World should be a terrorist rogue state and should
openly declare its eminence in such crimes. Also, it is even more tragically
horrifying that it is only natural and suitable that the Nobel Peace Prize
laureate and liberal constitutional lawyer who possesses the reins of power
should be concerned only with how to implement such actions more efficaciously.
One continues to wonder why this happens in a liberal democracy.
In conclusion, we must do every thing we can to reverse this authoritarian trend in American democracy. We must put an end to this imperial American presidency and restore our democracy fully by making it completely accountable and transparent to the American people. In other words, we must have ca government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
------
RELATED ARTICLES
“The Terrorists R Us” The Islamic State “Big Lie”: The Criminalization
of the United Nations By Michel Chossudovsky
------
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario