George Washington: 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 FBI station chief for Los Angeles – Ted Gundersen – 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.

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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


    1. Mike

      Jesus H. I’d always turned to Hitler as my go to example of evil. Turns out I was looking on the wrong continent entirely.

  1. Maju

    Thanks for this most informative piece, Yves and George. Sadly enough many people do not realize that this is like Orwell’s 1984, where the alleged “Resistance” is nothing but a sockpuppet of the police state, designed to keep people afraid and justify all kind of totalitarian abuses.

    Whatever happened with Osama Bin Laden in person (not actually seen since 2001-02), Al Qaeda has always been a branch of the CIA and the NSA (which supervises them all), with the invaluable help of the Saudi totalitarian regime.

    I knew that the 9-11 attack was meant as part of a coup: a coup against civil and human rights in the USA and the rest of NATOland and also a coup against the international status quo in Asia and Africa (a pretext for imperialism and a tool for sectarian divide-et-impera). But I did not know that the Oklahoma and first WTC attacks were also in that line.

    1. JamesW

      While I agree with the overall gist of GW’s blog post, some unfortunately bad historical revisionism has crept in:

      Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles wrote on June 3, 1961:

      Please ignore anything by Bowles which casts either of the Kennedy brothers in such a negative light, he was not one to be trusted!

      The US invasion and occupation of the Dominican Republic happened during the Johnson administration, as did other terrorist type operations (Operation Brother Sam against Brazil, etc.) — there was a complete reversal of foreign policy under the Johnson administration — things were much, much different under the Kennedy administration.

      Suggest people should read:

      Battling Wall Street: the Kennedy presidency — by Donald Gibson

      Thy Will Be Done — by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, and

      Brothers: the untold history of the Kennedy years — by David Talbot

      1. nonclassical

        William Blum’s, “Killing Hope”:

        About the Author

        “William Blum left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer, because of his opposition to what the United States was doing in Vietnam.
        Mr. Blum has been a freelance journalist in the United States, Europe and South America. His stay in Chile in 1972-73, writing about the Allende government’s “socialist experiment” and its tragic overthrow in a CIA-designed coup, instilled in him a personal involvement and an even more heightened interest in what his government was doing around the world.

        In the mid-1970s he worked in London with former CIA officer Philip Agee and his associates on their project of exposing CIA personnel and their misdeeds.

        He now lives in Washington, D.C., where he makes use of the Library of Congress and the National Archives to strike fear into the hearts of U.S. government imperialists.”

  2. Warren Celli

    You left out the domestic terrorism carried out against patriotic Americans who defy their aberrant sociopathic Xtrevilist corporate masters……0.0…1ac.15VxCk36feY#hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=us+cops+beating+protestors&oq=us+cops+beating+protestors&gs_l=img.3…19649.27759.2.28438.…0.0…1c.J4C6VFbmcdk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=61b499794f71e556&biw=1163&bih=1014

    Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.

  3. Kyrie Eleison

    Talking about Northwoods now, I see?

    But it was just some crazy plan on paper that they spent all that time thinking about and developing but never intended to actually carry it out. It was just an academic exercise, I guess.

    Same goes for Garden Plot and all of its iterations like REX 84 (insert video of Inouye getting pissed off at the mere mention of it here), CONPLAN 3502 and its variants, &etc. All of them are just academic exercises, too.

    All it takes to dismiss this information are a few ad hominems, and don’t forget to toss in something about a “tinfoil hat” also.

    1. JamesW

      And it was the Northwood op which President Kennedy immediately shouted “Negative” on! (and thought his military advisors to be completely crazy!)

      1. Kyrie Eleison

        Yes, thankfully only one man was there to stop it, a page right out of a Hollywood script, which is more disturbing than the fact that it got to that level to begin with.

        The same man who was later assassinated.

  4. Gerard Pierce

    It’s been a long tradition – going back to the American Revolution:

    Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779

    The Expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations
    of Indians, with their associates and adherents. The immediate objects are the total destruction and
    devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It
    will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.

    I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all
    expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the
    settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be
    merely overrun, but destroyed.

    But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is
    effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the
    chastisement they receive will inspire them.

    1. optimader

      You are correct, including the Ted Gundersion video basically destroys the credibility of the narrative. When is he going to start rolling metal balls in his hand Cpt. Queeg style? ( hat tip to H Bogart).

      No less, the video title referring to him as “Ted Gunderson former FBI Chief” implys elevation to a status in that organization that did not exist. Why not just be accurate and refer to him as a “former Special Agent In Charge and head of the Los Angeles FBI”?? It’s just primitive attempt to use the logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority

      1. Maju

        I don’t know the background of this Gundersen guy but chief of Los Angeles (and in the video also Dallas and Memphis) FBI is not to “appeal to authority” as much as to underline that the guy is a knowledgeable insider who, supposedly, knows what he is talking about.

        He’s no the first US ex-spy spreading criticism of their former employees on this matter. There’s some ex-CIA guy around also. Of course they only appear in less important sites like blogs, alternative media, etc.

      2. nonclassical

        As I noted for William Blum one day, a 7 hour movie, Spanish, called “Bloody September”, circa 1975, showed the entire Chile’=Alliende’ overthrow, including murder-hand coming out of sky, pointing to CIA agent who dragged him downstairs into the street, and executed him..

        “other” stories would appear falsified. Also showed Chilean parliament paid off by CIA to obstruct-looks pretty much like repubLIEcons today…though bushbama deserves some “obstruction” for refusing to DO “transparency, oversight, accountability”…

  5. Jay Goldfarb

    The inclusion in this post of the interview with Ted Gunderson, who also was obsessed with “chemtrails” and the “Satanic Underground”, distracts from what otherwise could be a credible narrative.

  6. Middle Seaman

    When everybody is a terrorist, no one is a terrorist. We are comfortable pretending that wars, semi-wars and almost wars are somehow baseball with tanks and live ammunition. Well, they aren’t. Wars are unclean, violence hits innocents, some actions are less honorable than others.

    We better understand it fast and try to stop wars and learn to solve conflicts around a table. This will go a long way towards eliminating questionable and sanctioned violence. Calling everything a terrorist won’t do any good.

    Get an agreement with Iran, after all the Pakistanis have the bomb, and the rest of the area not to use nuclear bombs. Don’t treat Iran as the only country forbidden from having the bomb. Let the Israelis and Palestinians solve their difficult problem without anyone “helping” out. Can’t we see that we, US and EU and RU, cause more problems than we solve?

    1. nonclassical

      NONE of this is about “wars”…General Smedley Butler:

      “War is a Racket” is marine general, Smedley Butler’s classic treatise on why wars are conducted, who profits from them, and who pays the price. Few people are as qualified as General Butler to advance the argument encapsulated in his book’s sensational title. When “War is a Racket” was first published in 1935, Butler was the most decorated American soldier of his time. He had lead several successful military operations in the Caribbean and in Central America, as well as in Europe during the First World War. Despite his success and his heroic status, however, Butler came away from these experiences with a deeply troubled view of both the purpose and the results of warfare.
      Butler’s central thesis is that regardless of the popular rhetoric that often accompanies warfare, it is waged almost exclusively for profit. He advances this argument in three decisive examples.

      In an early version of “follow the money”, Butler provides pre- and post-World War I data on some of America’s leading corporations to demonstrate the surge in profits that they experienced from the war, often totaling several hundred percent. While some companies, such as Dupont, arguably produced goods that contributed directly to America’s military victory in 1918, others such as saddle manufacturers did not. Even when these companies failed to contribute directly to the war effort, they still managed to lobby the government to retrain or expand their contracts. Its as though powerful, well connected oil services company today were to contract with the government to supply oil to the military during a foreign campaign and then deliberately overcharge it.

      Butler argues that the United States practically doomed itself to entering the First World War the moment it began lending money and material to the allies. Once the allies were faced with certain defeat, argues Butler, they approached American government and business officials and flatly told them that unless they were victorious they would not be able to repay their staggering debt. In the event that Germany and the axis powers won the war, they would have no motivation to assume and repay the allied debt to the United States. America entered the First World War, according to Butler, in order to guarantee the repayment of its massive military loans to the allies. No allied victory meant no repayment, which meant no profit. Thousands of American soldiers were killed or maimed, argues Butler, to protect corporate profits.

      Based on his own service experience in Central America and the Caribbean Butler argues that most American military interventions in small countries were done in order to “clear the way” for American corporations to set up shop and commence pillaging. It would be as if the United States were to occupy an oil-rich nation and then start doling out “rebuilding” contracts to some of its largest and best-connected corporations.

      Having focused on who profits from war, Butler then examines who pays the price. The answer, unsurprisingly enough is the average taxpayer and the young people who are either slaughtered in wartime or who return home physically and psychologically damaged. Sadly, Butler points out, once these young people are no longer useful they are ignored by their own government and are left to suffer without assistance. It’s as though a president were to employ a lot of rhetoric about supporting our troops while using them to occupy and oil-rich nation, but were to secretly slash their hazardous duty pay and veterans benefits.

      Butler’s solution to preventing the carnage and social injustices of war is to eliminate business leaders’ ability to make a profit from war or to avoid serving in it themselves. He also argues that those who put their lives at risk should have a say in whether or not to wage war. This may sound like a lot of idealistic, socialist nonsense, but thing about it. Would the United States have invaded an oil-rich nation if its unelected president had been forced to serve in the front lines as part of the process? Would business interests have supported the war if they never stood to profit from it? Probably not.

      “War is a Racket” also contains other interesting factoids including General Butler’s successful prevention of a right-wing coup against President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Unfortunately, no one of General Butler’s caliber was able to prevent a similar coup from taking place in 2000.”

    2. Bud

      “We better understand it fast and try to stop wars and learn to solve conflicts around a table.”

      Disagree. That’s the perfectly hopeless charter of the UN — or hadn’t you noticed it fails virtually every time?

      What we need to do in the US is avoid wars and disassociate ourselves from other nations engaging in tactics leading to them. If belligerants choose to blow each other up elsewhere, let them have at it. If they bring it to us, kill them.

      The idea that having forces stationed in 130(?) countries constitutes American “defense” is utterly absurd. And a vanity which will destroy the nation.

  7. cheese it

    The US painstakingly maintains the word terror as a weapon by loading it up with emotional freight and keeping it void of legal content. The civilized world doesn’t think in those terms, they think in terms of crime, and the noose is tightening on our criminal US state. The Human Rights Council and the International Court of Justice gives individual victims of human rights abuses recourse to the outside world. The new prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is advocating UNSC criminal referrals for failing states like the USA that can’t prosecute the crimes of their elite. The world is going to hold individuals to account for aggression, including heads of state. Obama and his death squad commanders are going to have to plan their retirement holidays very carefully. Which vacations spots will let them slide for wilful killing of civilians and combatants rendered hors de combat by detention; dereliction of occupiers’ protective duty; failure to prosecute torture; criminal aggression in Pakistan, Libya, Syria and other crimes of concern? We’ll see our hot-shit elder statesmen hiding from the world or skedaddling home like the cowardly third-world fugitives they are.

    1. cheese it

      You didn’t see little Switzerland make Bush run wee-wee-wee all the way home? All they have to do is say boo.

    2. nonclassical

      “This three-part series is remarkable in it’s scope and depth. It shows the parallel development of radical Islamic forces and neo-conservatives and goes into the fascinating and chilling details that show how the neo-conservatives actually fueled terrorism and oppressed citizens (well over 600 in America and Britain) with false charges. This is very well-researched, it is definitely not an opinion piece. There are many clips from interviews of insiders as well as plenty of footage from news events and speeches. This directly addresses many myths, from how Russia fell (with neocons and Islamic fundamentalists taking credit for it), to how charges against citizens (including many people in the middle east) were trumped up in a fear-driven witch-hunt. It ends with how blatantly people are being arrested because they might commit a crime, and the consequences of this approach to society. If all you’ve seen is American news, this will be like finding out that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. There is abundant information to show that most of the terrorist threat is a fabrication. The part about neo-cons believing CIA propaganda even after CIA TOLD them it was false was shocking.”

    1. nonclassical

      ..strong yes-I included it above…I assume you are on William’s e-mail list, for monthly e-mail, as you included website, as he asks…

      I was fortunate to see-meet Albee at U of Washington, speaking one evening..

  8. F. Beard

    The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Psalm 11:5

  9. Paul Tioxon

    WikiLeaks releases CIA paper on U.S. as ‘exporter of terrorism’

    By Ellen Nakashima
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, August 26, 2010; 12:43 PM

    The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks. And if that phenomenon were to become a widely held perception, the analysis said, it could damage relations with foreign allies and dampen their willingness to cooperate in “extrajudicial” activities, such as the rendition and interrogation of terrorism suspects.

    That is the conclusion of the three-page classified paper produced in February by the CIA’s Red Cell, a think tank set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet to provide “out-of-the-box” analyses on “a full range of analytic issues.”

    Titled “What If Foreigners See the United States as an ‘Exporter of Terrorism’?,” the paper cites Pakistani American David Headley, among others, to make its case that the nation is a terrorism exporter. Headley pleaded guilty this year to conducting surveillance in support of the 2008 Lashkar-i-Taiba attacks in Mumbai, which killed more than 160 people. The militant group facilitated his movement between the United States, Pakistan and India, the agency paper said.

    Such exports are not new, the paper said. In 1994, an American Jewish doctor who had emigrated from New York to Israel years earlier opened fire at a mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing 29 Palestinian worshippers. The rampage by Baruch Goldstein, a member of the militant group Kach founded by the late Meir Kahane, helped trigger a wave of bus bombings by the extremist Palestinian group Hamas in 1995, the paper noted.”

    1. gordon

      Thanks. It’s odd that the post here doesn’t seem to include the reference and link to that Washington Post article, though the original post on Washington’s Blog does include it. ????

      Incidentally, the Washington Post article includes a link to the Wikileaks release of the “secret CIA analysis”, Unfortunately, that link is dead. However the analysis can still be retrieved from Wikileaks here:,_2_Feb_2010

        1. gordon

          Yeah, looks like it. Today I can’t open that link in either Google Chrome or Firefox. Yesterday I could open it in Firefox. It’s getting bad.

  10. Capo Regime

    Am surprised the neo con trolls are not out in masse on this.

    By now all of us readers and comenters are probably on some sort of list.

  11. jsmith

    America is the biggest exporter of terrorism on the planet because America is home to the most brainwashed cowards on the planet.

    Nothing like wasting women and children from the sky with drones, huh, tough guys?

    Nothing like putting a bullet through some innocent person’s head from over 500 yards away, hey, super-cool sniper dude?

    Nothing like kicking down the door of some innocent person’s home in the middle of the night and trashing their stuff, huh, macho-man?

    Waterboarding innocent people?

    Incarcerating innocent people indefenitely?

    Waging illegal wars?

    Engaging in false-flag attacks against your fellow citizens?

    Calling a genocidal apartheid state our greatest ally?

    Yeah, it’s a bit more than appearing hypocritical.

    The U.S. should be more correctly viewed as a collection of monstrous f*cking cowards that go around the world killing innocent people with vastly superior techology so that the elite can steal even more resources for themselves.

    So, U.S. soldiers killing, torturing, terrorizing and stealing is something I should support as a fellow U.S. citizen?

    We should all be proud of people behaving like subhuman trash in the service of their sociopathic masters?

    And then when concerned citizens want to demonstrate and make known to the rest of humanity that not all of us Americans are said subhuman trash, what happens?

    That’s right, you get your f*cking head bashed in or you get pepper-sprayed in the face by ANOTHER set of monstrous cowards who like their overseas brethren love nothing better than kicking the sh*t out of unarmed innocent people.

    America: mindless cowards with awesome(!) weapons in service to the worst persons mankind has had to offer in over 60 years.

    1. F. Beard

      But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Revelation 21:8 [emphasis added]

    2. indio007

      You forgot people that are imprisoned when there isn’t any injured party and there are certainly no damages.
      That’s like 75% of the people incarcerated.

      The judicial power is restricted to “cases and controversies”.
      Without injury and damages there is no case.
      There is no cause of action.
      That doesn’t stop them though. They have social modification in mind…not a remedy for violation of a legal right.

      Every judge in America that oversees criminal cases is a terrorist according to US law.

      “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

      How many laws can you be imprisoned for that are designed to achieve a “social objective”?

    3. Linda J

      “America: mindless cowards with awesome(!) weapons in service to the worst persons mankind has had to offer in over 60 years.”

      Or even longer, as Michael Vlahos, Prof at Naval War Coll College, asserts:


      “A nation’s character is marked by mysterious patterns, and none is more salient in American life than killing with the gun, says Michael Vlahos, a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. He asks this pivotal question: Can the inhuman act of a single person lay bare the neuralgia of an entire people?

      “Though painful, this statement cannot be avoided: The gun-massacre of innocents is integral to the American way of life. Call it part of our foundational myth. It is the red reality through which a continent was taken and settled.

      “Today, we call an act like the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, or the even more recent one in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, “senseless.” Yet, we should face these events as what they really are, a much bigger national tradition. Ritual slaying is everywhere in our American history, especially sacrificial killing with guns.

      “Even if we cannot admit this, American exceptionalism is never better illustrated than in ritual human execution. Other cultures have slaughterers. Only we have made ritual killers such a mirror of us. In our history and our cinema, there are a few — like John Brown — we even celebrate.

      “Our gun-slinging killing rituals are also dark expressions of a political ethos that surrounds the theology of the citizen’s relationship to the state. “Citizen and state” is the most contentious creedal element in national identity, and is itself argued through the symbolic venue of killing with a gun. Pro-gun and anti-gun sectarianism remains the deepest fissure, a split almost, in our national identity today.

  12. rotter

    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.

    Ah yes…GOOD OL’ LYMON LEMNETZERS BABY, “OPERATION NORTWOODS”!! look it up. Im afraid we owe oliver stone an apology.

  13. Fíréan

    Is the extensive aquisition and transferral of illegitimate funds required for the financing of covert terrorist and false flag activities, as per examples referenced (or not) in this article, managed through recognised international banks and, or with assistance of, offshore funding facilities, and through the complexity of modern financial instrumensts, as well as plane loads of cash ?

  14. km4


    “The CIA’s aim in Australia was to get rid of a government they did not
    like and that was not co-operative… it’s a Chile, but
    in a much more sophisticated and subtle form.”
    – VICTOR MARCHETTI, ex-CIA officer, 1980

    “There is profoundly increasing evidence that foreign espionage and intelligence activities are being practised in Australia on a wide scale… I believe the evidence is so grave and so alarming in its implications that it demands the fullest explanation. The deception over the CIA and the activities of foreign installations on our soil… are an onslaught on Australia’s sovereignty.”
    – GOUGH WHITLAM to the Australian Parliament, 1977

Comments are closed.