State-sponsored terrorism defines US policy. Doublespeak duplicity conceals it. Doublethink manipulates public opinion to ignore inconvenient truths.
Howard Zinn once asked: “How can you make war on terrorism if war is terrorism?” Waging war on terrorism “gives government a perpetual war and a perpetual atmosphere of repression.”
“And it generates perpetual profits for corporations. But it’s going to make the world a far more unstable and dangerous place.”
“Terrorism replaced communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country, for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home.”
Since WW II, “there has not been a more warlike nation in the world than the United States.”
Zinn added that “(g)overnments are terrorists on an enormously large scale.” None in world history match America. Waging war on humanity is official policy.
(A) “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;”
(B) are intended to –
(i) “intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States….”
The US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37, 1984) called it “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature….through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.”
Merriam-Webster calls it “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”
The Oxford Dictionary calls it “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”
In his book Terrorism, Theirs and Ours, Eqbal Ahmad called state-sponsored terrorism most important of all. It includes “torture, burning of villages, destruction of entire peoples, (and) genocide” on a massive scale.
It’s called “self-defense,” protecting “national security,” and/or “promoting democracy.” Doing so conceals America’s dark side. War on humanity follows.
“Who will define the parameters of terrorism, or decide where terrorists lurk,” asked Ahmad? “Why none other than the United States, which can from the rooftops of the world set out its claim to be sheriff, judge and hangman, all at one and the same time.”
In his book The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda, Edward Herman discussed US-backed authoritarian states advancing a free-market “development model.” It’s done for corporate gain through state-sponsored terror on homegrown resistance.
Earlier it was about protecting the “free world” from communism. Always it involves manufactured threats, fear-mongering, and creating enemies when none exist. Terrorists are them, not us.
Martin Luther King called America “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” He did so for good reason. Today it’s more menacing than ever. Humanity’s survival is at stake.
In his book The Culture of Terrorism, Noam Chomsky cited the “Fifth Freedom.” He called it “the freedom to rob, to exploit and to dominate society, to undertake any course of action to insure that existing privilege is protected and advanced.”
Doing so entails manufacturing consent. Fear-mongering replaces truth. Patriotism and democratic values are highlighted. People are manipulated to support what harms their own self-interest.
Imperial aggression is called humanitarian intervention. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good. Patriotism means going along with state-sponsored lawlessness.
Myths substitute for truth. So do big lies. They’re weapons of mass deception. They’re key in advancing America’s imperium. Post-9/11 policies headed the nation toward full-blown tyranny. Last week’s Boston bombings perhaps advanced it closer.
People are manipulated to go along. Gore Vidal once said:
As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action.
You liberate a city by destroying it. Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.
Orwell envisioned a dark future. He called it “a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” America’s war on terror reflects it. The fullness of time will explain what’s next.
Michel Chossudovsky asked:
Do the Boston Bombings constitute a point of transition, a watershed which ultimately contributes to the gradual suspension of constitutional government?
This type threat is real. In 1933, Nazism replaced Weimar republican democracy. In 1973, Augusto Pinochet’s reign of terror followed Salvador Allende’s social democracy.
In his book Friendly Fascism, Bertram Gross described a slow, powerful “drift toward greater concentration of power and wealth in a repressive Big Business-Big Government,” Big Brother alliance.
Its friendly face conceals raw power heading America “toward a new and subtly manipulative form of corporatist serfdom.”
In his 1935 novel titled, It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis discussed a self-styled reformer/populist/demagogue exploiting human misery during hard times.
Candidate Merzelium “Buzz” Windrip promised prosperity. Doing so hid his dark side. In office he established militarism and unconstitutional governance.
He convened military tribunals for civilians. He called dissenters traitors. He institutionalized tyranny. He put political enemies in concentration camps. He created Minute Men paramilitaries. They terrorized public opposition.
He destroyed democracy, declared martial law, usurped dictatorial powers, and circumvented Congress. He made himself supreme ruler. Indeed it can happen here. Perhaps it’s closer than most people realize.
Events post-Boston Bombings demand close scrutiny. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were convicted in the court of public opinion.
Obama pronounced guilt asking “why did young men who grew up and studied here….resort to such violence? How did they plan and carry out these attacks, and did they receive any help?”
Mossad-connected DEBKAfile called both brothers “double agents.” They were “hired by US and Saudi intelligence to penetrate the Wahhabi jihadist networks which….spread across the restive Russian Caucasian.”
“Instead, the two former Chechens betrayed their mission and went secretly over to the radical Islamist networks. (They became) the first terrorist operatives to import al Qaeda terror to the United States through a winding route outside the Middle East – the Caucasus.”
The so-called Chechen connection and claims about both brothers having links to radical Islam don’t wash. They reflect media-manipulated deception. No evidence suggests it.
They were born in Kyrgyzstan. They moved to Dagestan. Over 10 years ago, they came to America with their family. They were too young to have ties back home.
A previous article said Senators Lindsey Graham (R. SC), John McCain (R. AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R. NH), as well as Rep. Peter King (R. NY) want Dzhokhar held as an “enemy combatant.” They want him denied fundamental rights.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruling said:
There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.
Earlier, Francis Boyle said the four Geneva Conventions superseded the “long-defunct World War II” designation. Bush administration officials targeted “unlawful enemy combatants.” Obama calls them “unprivileged enemy belligerents.” Language changed but not intent or lawlessness.
King also wants more surveillance. He claims “It keeps us ahead of the terrorists who are constantly trying to kill us.” Big lies repeated enough are believed.
Monday headlines claimed both brothers planned other attacks. No credible evidence suggests they planned any. None except for what’s fabricated. Doing so links them to Boston. Without cold, hard, verifiable facts, it doesn’t wash.
It doesn’t matter. They’re both pronounced guilty. Dzhokhar hasn’t a chance in court if he gets there. Jurors will be intimidated to convict.
On April 21, The New York Times headlined “Suspects Seemed Set for Attacks Beyond Boston,” saying:
Both brothers “were armed with a small arsenal of guns, ammunition and explosives when they first confronted the police early Friday, and were most likely planning more attacks, the authorities said Sunday.”
Planting incriminating evidence reflects longstanding police policy. Doing so conceals their own crimes. Anzoro Tsarnaev said both his sons had nothing to do with terrorism.
They had no training or knowledge of explosives or firearms, he said. They were set up. US “special services went after them because my sons are Muslims and don’t have anyone in America to protect them.”
Zubeidat Tsarnaev called her sons innocent. She said FBI operatives hounded Tamerlan for perhaps five years. They monitored his actions. They knew what Internet sites he accessed. Without justification, they called him an extremist leader. He was being set up for what followed.
What happened begs the question. How could both brothers plan a terrorist act without FBI operatives knowing?
Numerous times they entrapped Muslims. They did so illegally. Charges alleged they were planning what they never intended. Always the FBI and/or local authorities intervened in time to stop them. Why not Boston? Evidence suggests neither brother was involved. Previous articles explained.
If Dzhokhar survives, he’ll likely face life in prison or the death penalty. It won’t be the first time injustice substituted for judicial fairness. It’s longstanding US policy.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/