What's new

It's Official: The US is a Leading Terrorist State

how many? do you see it or you count it on spot? Have you ever been to Tibet? Have you ever talk to a Tibetan live in China? Seeing is believing. No matter how USA try to sling muds at China, facts will never change.
Have you ever been to the ME ? :lol:

Osama bin Laden took it upon himself to attack US on behalf of the Muslims. Whether the Muslims agreed with him or not -- is not the point. We are not going to poll every single Muslim on the planet before we respond. Three thousand US citizens died on Sept 11, 2001. That does not mean the families and friends of those 3000 will form a posse and go after Al-Qaeda. Rather...If you attack a state, odds are you will receive the response befitting a state, and that mean the military, not the police.
 
.
Have you ever been to the ME ? :lol:

Osama bin Laden took it upon himself to attack US on behalf of the Muslims. Whether the Muslims agreed with him or not -- is not the point. We are not going to poll every single Muslim on the planet before we respond. Three thousand US citizens died on Sept 11, 2001. That does not mean the families and friends of those 3000 will form a posse and go after Al-Qaeda. Rather...If you attack a state, odds are you will receive the response befitting a state, and that mean the military, not the police.
USA is a shadow policeman, you've got to get yourself straight. You own God an explanation.
 
.
USA is a shadow policeman, you've got to get yourself straight. You own God an explanation.
I can tell a while ago that you are not a very smart guy, and I say that kindly.

Are you really that naive to believe that the world's countries, with all their varieties of ideologies, politics, and interests, can 'get along' like a bunch of Boy Scouts around a campfire ? Look at your own China, for example. How many of you Chinese here advocate that China is the 'rightful' leader of Asians and of Asia ? You guys believe that China is Asia's policeman. Who appointed China ? The Chinese people, of course. No surprise there. Out of one side of your collective mouth, you criticize US for being the world's policeman, but on the other side, you demand all Asians submit to China's supposedly 'natural' leadership role.

So make up your mind. Does the world need a policeman or not ? :lol:
 
.
yeah lil kids and women are often high profile terrorists,
youre gradually reaching a dead end.
try your luck somewhere else.
This is no luck...we are doing it arent we!....lets see when we reach a dead end...then we can talk..all I see is others reaching theirs...not us or US.

911 is a tragedy and the war after that was a bigger tragedy.
I agree on both the points...The US can only control what they can...which they are doing....NEVER AGAIN
 
.
I can tell a while ago that you are not a very smart guy, and I say that kindly.

Are you really that naive to believe that the world's countries, with all their varieties of ideologies, politics, and interests, can 'get along' like a bunch of Boy Scouts around a campfire ? Look at your own China, for example. How many of you Chinese here advocate that China is the 'rightful' leader of Asians and of Asia ? You guys believe that China is Asia's policeman. Who appointed China ? The Chinese people, of course. No surprise there. Out of one side of your collective mouth, you criticize US for being the world's policeman, but on the other side, you demand all Asians submit to China's supposedly 'natural' leadership role.

So make up your mind. Does the world need a policeman or not ? :lol:
you can't be the world policeman forever, things change. Definitely the Asian policeman is not satisfied with the World policeman. You stir up affairs in Hongkong and training thousands students there to make us trouble. You are bad cops. All USA want is a weak China, you don't give it a shit whether it is democracy or not.

1989 tiananmen square tragedy is also supported by USA agency and FBI. The naive CCp think USA won't be interested to overthrow them by getting closer with USA. Vietnam communist goverment also need to take caution that USA will overthrow you after they erode and penetrate you. I'm stuipid enough to see thourgh the American tricks.

American is always the American in the past, they never change coming along the years.
 
Last edited:
.
You do know that Obama administration developed a cold feet at the last moment despite making a statement after the chemical weapons were used.
As much as they help...they also spread terrorism and take over your resources.Its a 2 edged sword.

They developed cold feet because there was no support in the US for jumping into another war in the Middle East.

It's Official: The US is a Leading Terrorist State

An international poll 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, with no one else even close.

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.

It's Official: The US is a Leading Terrorist State | Opinion | teleSUR

So an opinion piece by Noam Chomsky is now considered as the definitive word in news?
 
Last edited:
.
you can't be the world policeman forever...
We will be the unofficial "world's policeman" for as long as enough countries in the world want US to be. And there are a lot of them want US to be in that role, despite what this stupid article/commentary may try to cast US. In the larger scheme of things, the opinions of news reporters, celebrities, and even politicians from powerful countries are helpless against the currents of global events that require a singular leadership and that leadership is US.

- It is not going to be China, at least not for another hundred yrs.

- It is not going to be Russia, at least not for another five hundred yrs.

- It is not going to be anyone from the EU.

- It is not going to be anyone from Central and South America.

- It is not going to be Canada, which is the 52nd US state anyway.

- It is not going to be anyone from the ME.

- It is not going to be anyone from Africa.

And finally...

- It is not going to be the corrupt and incompetent UN.

So who else is there ?
 
.
Britain doesn't support the mujahideen/Taliban anymore. That's the difference between us and Pakistan, which STILL supports them. Do you get it now?

The fact is your Britain along with her american master has the record of supporting terrorism on numerous occasions; it means Britain doesn't support terrorism when it doesn't suit her purpose but does it quite naturally when it suites her well! So get off your high horses!


There is nothing called HINDU INDIA..stop with this hinduphobia. We call them Kashmiri terrorists just like the way the "Bangladeshi freedom fighters " were called terrorists by your previous masters.

So, you're being like the Pakistanis, falsely calling the Kashmiris terrorists in order to cover up the indian state terrorism. As for your HINDU INDIA, your elected PM has openly declared it on many occasions. His disciples have gone so far as to calling for forceful conversion of all minorities, specially the Muslims, to Hinduism. So, it's high time that you stopped preaching your 'secular' tales! Read the following news and take your head out of the sand.


Hindu right rewriting Indian textbooks - Features - Al Jazeera English

 
Last edited:
.
All three countries consider you either an enemy or a threat to regional stability.

There are hundreds of countries that consider you master as the real threat, so go back to your kennel and be a nice poodle.
 
.
There are hundreds of countries that consider you master as the real threat, so go back to your kennel and be a nice poodle.
And what exactly is Bangladesh's independent foreign policy? You're most known around the world for floods and sweatshops.
 
Last edited:
.
The fact is your Britain along with her american master has the record of supporting terrorism on numerous occasions; it means Britain doesn't support terrorism when it doesn't suit her purpose but does it quite naturally when it suites her well! So get off your high horses!



So, you're being like the Pakistanis, falsely calling the Kashmiris terrorists in order to cover up the indian state terrorism. As for your HINDU INDIA, your elected PM has openly declared it on many occasions. His disciples have gone so far as to calling for forceful conversion of all minorities, specially the Muslims, to Hinduism. So, it's high time that you stopped preaching your 'secular' tales! Read the following news and take your head out of the sand.


Hindu right rewriting Indian textbooks - Features - Al Jazeera English
Show me the link or the place when he said that(The PM)...You need to stop reading or hearing what your Local Mullah's preach about India..go out and see the world...your perspective will change...I dont hate any body ..But what I hate are hypocrites.
 
.
Hey...Osama bin Laden and his supporters, inside and outside of Al-Qaeda, perceived all Americans as high profile terrorists as well. So what are you complaining about ?

and who was Osama, the man who once used to be a CIA operative which you used as a tissue paper?
you're getting the dose of your own medicine.

Hmmmm...Come to think of it...If I had not invade Kuwait for oil, may be I would be alive to control ISIS, oppress the Sunnis, and generally make a petty nuisance of myself in the ME. And by the way...My dear sons would still be alive to rape young girls.

what ISIS? there never was anything like it just like those imaginary WMDs.
and all i can say about the rest is well such comments only depict the mentality of you people acting like the liberators and ending up reeking havoc,
news flash most countries call you the threat to their existence.
 
.
and who was Osama, the man who once used to be a CIA operative which you used as a tissue paper?
Yeah...Sure...Osama bin Laden was a CIA 'operative'...

Robert Fisk Interviews, Usama bin Ladin
"Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help.
:lol:

you're getting the dose of your own medicine.
And you have been suckered by the lie that bin Laden somehow 'worked' for US.

what ISIS? there never was anything like it just like those imaginary WMDs.
and all i can say about the rest is well such comments only depict the mentality of you people acting like the liberators and ending up reeking havoc,
news flash most countries call you the threat to their existence.
Then I suggest you put out a news flash to tell people stop coming to the US. Start with your fellow Pakistanis.
 
.
The US supported the Mujahideen (not the Taliban who formed later) in the past. Pakistan supports the Taliban right now, in this day and age and shows no sign of stopping any time soon. That's the difference.
LOL man do you even know any thing about mujahideen and Talibans :D the only difference between them is we call the ones fighting the russians mujahideen and the ones fighting the NATO The talibans go read something please :P :rofl:
 
.
Pakistan created the Taliban and most of the Kashmiri terrorist groups and sheltered Osama Bin Laden. You're disrupting yourself.

Steve you are a typical dumb blonde. It's piety you don't know an iota about history, about intelligence lapses, don't know the defination of hiding, sheltring and a momentary lapse.

I guess you need to spend time on honing your skills on history, dictionary and geopolitics of south asia

Have you ever been to the ME ? :lol:

Osama bin Laden took it upon himself to attack US on behalf of the Muslims. Whether the Muslims agreed with him or not -- is not the point. We are not going to poll every single Muslim on the planet before we respond. Three thousand US citizens died on Sept 11, 2001. That does not mean the families and friends of those 3000 will form a posse and go after Al-Qaeda. Rather...If you attack a state, odds are you will receive the response befitting a state, and that mean the military, not the police.

And CIA was tracking those terrorists from Mid-2000, right?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom