Personal View site logo
It's official: The US is the world's leading terrorist state, and proud of it
  • "It's official: The U.S. is the world's leading terrorist state, and proud of it."

    That should have been the headline for the lead story in The New York Times on Oct. 15, which was more politely titled "CIA Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels."

    The first paragraph of the Times article cites three major examples of "covert aid": Angola, Nicaragua and Cuba. In fact, each case was a major terrorist operation conducted by the U.S.

    American terrorist attacks against Cuba continued for more than 30 years. The cost to Cubans was of course harsh. The accounts of the victims, hardly ever heard in the U.S., were reported in detail for the first time in a study by Canadian scholar Keith Bolender, "Voices From the Other Side: an Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba," in 2010.

    Jihadism's most fearsome current manifestation is the Islamic State, or ISIS, which has established its murderous caliphate in large areas of Iraq and Syria.

    "I think the United States is one of the key creators of this organization," reports former CIA analyst Graham Fuller, a prominent commentator on the region. "The United States did not plan the formation of ISIS," he adds, "but its destructive interventions in the Middle East and the War in Iraq were the basic causes of the birth of ISIS."

    To this we may add the world's greatest terrorist campaign: Obama's global project of assassination of "terrorists." The "resentment-generating impact" of those drone and special-forces strikes should be too well known to require further comment.

    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state

  • 32 Replies sorted by
  • Closed due going off the rails.

    @all Reason for political topics on PV is EDUCATION, period.

  • I have travelled to 14 different countries and I have never been scared to flag wave, I may not know what fhe locals say behind my back but at least to my face they have said that generally we have been a force for good. Not virtuous, for what country is ever virtuous? No country, state, organization is virtuous. Persons might be virtuous. As far as the high body count numbers that are bandied about I caution any belief in them. It has been experience that they are extremely exaggerated, one turns to ten. Ten turns a hundred. But I will concede that one innocent non-combatant killed is one too many. The problem is in asymmetric warfare who is truely an innocent civilian? As far as judging what the US did after WWII it depends on your politics, if are of the left leaning type there will never be a justification for what the US did during the coldwar. I have had interesting conversations with El Salvadoreans (I am hispanic) that lived there during that brutal civil war. Their opinions are not what I thought they would be. They do not hate us nearly as much as they hated the izquierdistas. That is what I thought about my time in the sandpit. We may not be on there x-mas card list but they hate I mean really hate those barbarians who perveted their faith. But they feel helpless in changing the situation, at which time survival becomes more important.

  • but the reason most people with open minds give this country a pass has to do with our intentions.

    Well, if by "most people" you mean most Americans, you're right. Americans are always persuaded that their motivations, unlike other peoples', are virtuous. So when we killed a few million South-East Asian civilians in the 60s and early 70s, it was from good intentions and misguided virtue.

    As you might imagine, this argument isn't very persuasive among the victims. And it can't withstand actual scrutiny. Look at what the U.S. has actually done in its foreign policy in the post WWII period, and there's no way to make a case that the intentions were good. It could be the motivations of the ordinary Americans who, through ignorance or the pathology of patriotism, support these invasion, interventions, proxy wars and military coups were good, but that says nothing about policy makers or actual policy.

    In this we're hardly unique, however. All empires behave in this way. Chomsky himself has pointed out that foreign media love him when he bashes the U.S., but he never gets invited back on the show if he points out the atrocities of the host country.

    And the reason we get a "pass" -- to the extent anyone could do anything about a rogue empire, even if they wanted to (short of terrorism!) -- is that until recently at least, our domestic culture is or at least was freer and more open than many other industrial democracies, and is admired even when our foreign policy is deemed to be criminal. But admiration for our domestic culture is also becoming less common, with the constant diminution of civil liberties by the national security state and the wholesale purchase of all 3 branches of government by the .01%.

  • @brianl

    I want to note. Such topics are made for education only, not for fights or attempts to change position of opponent using few sentences.

  • @kurth, you need not go further than your own links. They don't even say what you think they say.

  • Rather interesting to find a discussion like this going on this site. I think I may have something to add. I like documentaries, I even enjoy a good document dump as a result of a foia request. But make no misstakes behind all these ideas, revelations operations there are ideologies with intent. The US has had a colorful and interesting history, but the reasoned most people with open minds give this country a pass has to do with our intentions. Someone mentioned the US firebombing Japan and eventually atomizing two cities. Yes we all can agree horrible outcomes, but the intent was to hasten the end of the war and hopefully save more lives. Another is that the US is responsible for creation of Alquada or ISIS this is false logic because it omits one very important aspect of our humanity, free will. Wether you have a real or perceived grievence with the US, they still are the governors of their own actions. One action does not necessarily begat another. Wether you are shaping the battlefield or influencing public opinion, never forget that the enemy has a choice or that people can come up with some of the damndest conclusions. Lastly, the law of unintended consequences, many black ops programs begin with lofty goals. Then we throw the eggheads out try our best to refine the parameters and pray. But you know Miss Pandora and I am sure you have heard of her lover Mr. Murphy . They are responsible for many runaway programs you have heard about. Makes you kind of wonder of all ones worked.

  • The Northwoods plan is quite shocking indeed. It certainly adds another group of people who would like to have seen Kennedy removed. I have no illusions about what the U.S. government (and various shadow governments) have done and will do in the future. There are some pretty sleazy, wicked characters behind the scenes. Life means nothing to them. You need look no further than Dick Cheney.

  • I didn't come close to talking about mythology. Every event I listed is historical fact. Of course @brianl , if you can't be bothered to learn about operation gladio, even from a source like bbc, then I can't expect you to read wikipedia either .....

  • caveport, It's just when leaders throw around the word "Terrorism" and misapply it haphazardly any place they want, these reflexes are what green light Iraq invasions and other such misadventures. The word "communism" used to be the same, most americans didn't even know what it meant but if they heard it, they'd be ready to support an invasion or missile strike.

  • A state may not be 'terrorist' by definition, but it can certainly be 'fascist'. The real point is that we should observe real events and not be distracted by linguistic gymnastics. Bad behaviour is what it is despite the language used to describe it. The USA has a history of interfering in other countries who do not support the prevailing USA world view. Call it what you like.

  • The USA has a long history of using terror and false terror. It was recently proven the uss maine exploded from the inside out. And the gulf of tonkin incident is proven as well. Operation Phoenix in vietnam assassinated 25,000 mostly civilians. Like Gladio in europe, Operation Northwoods was planning attacks on US soil. Iran/Contra not only used terrorism in central america but funded it by illegally smuggling drugs into the USA to sell to it's own citizens. And this is only about 1/1000th of the terror acts committed by the Land of the Free. I'd define a terror act as a drone striking a funeral , killing 40 some-odd people , many women and children , then when rescue workers arrive , strike them with another drone. This is proven fact.

    Americanism is a cult and like any cult, it's based on myth and ignorance.

  • @thorn

    Keep any discussion on moderation or such to PMs.

    I have little motivation to debate any more of Chomsky's (or Kurth's) points on terrorism.

    Well, I did not see actual discussion yet. You told that article points do not deserve to be discussed due to author.

  • I have little motivation to debate any more of Chomsky's (or Kurth's) points on terrorism.

  • Issue here, as I told many times, is that people have models and other things in their heads. Mind is made such a way that it requires good time and big energy consumption to change things. And it does not want to.

    It is fully ok. Actually someone can change his view only by himself after some reading, talking, thinking and good time passing.

  • Some highlights of Chomps.

  • @thorn

    It's one thing to decline to argue, for whatever reason; however, you openly ridiculed those who don't see the matter as you do ("L O Fucking L"), as if only an idiot would take Chomsky seriously, and when asked to substantiate your view that the man doesn't know what he's talking about, answered that you won't condescend to offer any proof because, in your view, none is needed.

    That's one way to argue, but I think you can see that it won't go over very well in public or inspire much admiration....

  • @jrd

    Then let me be more clear: yes, I've actually read quite a bit of his writing over many years - which is how my opinion was formed.

    One may choose to argue religion with an atheist, but usually both are wasting their time. That doesn't mean both are not intimately familiar with the beliefs of the other.

  • @thorn

    I will no more debate the words of Chomsky on foreign policy and economics, than I would debate Louis Farrakhan on matters of race nor Fred Phelps on religious tolerance.

    Exactly; you believe Chomsky is axiomatically wrong -- if you've actually read him, which isn't clear from your response -- but have no factual basis for your claims, and disdain to even look for one. That answers the question.

  • At the risk of just being attacked (not by you @Matt_gh2 , I genuinely accept your comment as non-aggressive)...

    Let me put it this way, just to generalize: I've been aware of Chomsky's base ideals, and opinions for years upon years. I was first made aware of his writings by a friend that I used to do tradeshows with. My friend was/is truly a dyed-in-the-wool, full blown leftist who would love to attend every meeting of the G8 and carry a puppet. My political complete opposite. However, we were very good friends and had very long, fruitful discussions on where we differed. To the rest of the world, my friend Carey is an idiot socialist, and I am a crazy gun nut capitalist. We were a great pair to invite to dinner, though... the Chomsky Acolyte, and his friend the Ayn Rand Disciple. ;) So there's a small bit of background.

    So having said that, here's my basic opinion on Chomsky: I don't bother debating anything the man writes, as I believe he begins from the baseline of "America/Capitalism/Whatever Else is completely evil. I will now employ my pseudo-degrees in linguistics and amaze you with sentences that sound true, but are in fact completely pulled out of context are framed in a way to make my argument irrefutable to those that haven't the time nor inclination to look at actual facts." Chomsky would argue the sun was green, if he thought it would prove a point on America's intended destruction of the world.

    Chomsky is an intellectual bully; in the same way that the Kim family has beaten their chests and talked of their Divine Right of Whatever; it's like listening to a very ignorant bigot give a well-worded speech on why blacks/jews/homosexuals should be eradicated. The excellent prose and the academic standing is a prop, hiding an delusional, irrational agenda. Of course, many people confuse the 2 and think he's an outstanding addition to policy debate.

    I will no more debate the words of Chomsky on foreign policy and economics, than I would debate Louis Farrakhan on matters of race nor Fred Phelps on religious tolerance. Is everything the man has ever said false? No, but even a blind squirrel will find a nut once in awhile.

  • Kurth, lots of analysts and scholars agree that states by definition cannot be terrorist. You need to read more and perhaps lay off the bad french video marathons. Not an efficient way to learn sadly.

  • @thorn Curious to know what Chomsky statements/ideas you consider false. (No disrespect intended - I'm actually interested to hear your perspective.). Thanks.

  • My education far predates wikipedia, michael moore, and truth.org. I've had several excellent history teachers in life - one in particular almost inspired me to be a history major. I'm in no way uninformed.

  • @kurth

    May be this will be better beginning : "It all began with dinosaurs forming terrorist state..."

  • ..then don't be admittedly uninformed...and then make ludicrous statements. States...all states down thru history...every last one of them...including the church....is and has been a terrorist entity !

  • Kurth, I don't watch 2.5 hour videos unless there's a paycheck at the end. I can email you my paypal.

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions