Where Are All These Terrorists Coming From?


 

As the gringa has posted about US involvement with covert operations and regime change around the world to protect US corporate profit interests, rather than actual security threats, most of the operations took place back in the 1970s. Is there any evidence of more recent operations? Is this still standard operating procedure for the US?


Well, first we have to consider that any real evidence would be classified information. Such a status only changes when public knowledge of the information poses no security threat to individuals or nations involved. That’s why the US public usually doesn’t find out the dirt until several decades later.


The most recent activity of US interference gone bad resulted in the creation of the Mujahideen which eventually morphed into the ISIS of today. The creation of this rebel group by US programs thus makes the US directly responsible for the radical Islamist terror problem in the world today. You see, Osama bin Laden was originally a US trained Mujahideen operative.

And bin Laden, like so many other tools crafted into existence by US dark ops, was done away with once he went rogue, acting in his own interests and the interests of his compatriots rather than in the interest of the US. And once bin Laden became powerful enough to have credibility, he also became a liability to expose the dark legacy of the US. So, bin Laden was destined to die at the hands of the US sooner or later. Once a tool serves its purpose, it is expendable. That’s pretty much the pattern time and time again with the actors the US uses to fulfill its dark operations.


To understand the emergence of bin Laden, once again, we have to go back to the 1950s. Despite the US reputation for being a nation founded on democracy and committed to spreading and preserving democracy to nations around the world, the opposite is actually true. 


The “love of democracy” spiel is propaganda. The actions of the US prove this to be true. Historically the US has consistently supported monarchies rather than democracies, where other countries are concerned. It is easier for the US to exploit the natural resources and engage in slave labor practices of the indigenous populations if these people do not have the right to voice their grievances and bring about change. Monarchies good for US investors, democracies bad.


In the 1960s the US coveted even more wealth. This meant they expanded the territorial reach of corporate investment into unpopular dictatorships. What’s a bit of bloody oppression compared to a few kazillion dollars, right? Besides, if they wanted to prevent Russia from gaining ground by making friends around the world, making it impossible for capitalist investor exploitation, the US was going to have to compromise its principles of liberty and freedom and make friends with despots.


By the time the 1970s rolled around, the US had become so ethically compromised for the sake of corporate interests that it decided adding terrorists to their friends’ list really didn’t make that much difference. The rationale was that, in order to get the biggest bad guy, the US often had to cooperate with lesser bad guys. Sounds reasonable, right? Um, yeah.


And the first terrorist group the CIA got in bed with was the Mujahideen in 1979. The reason why? Because they were resisting the Afghan government that was getting into bed with Moscow. Throughout the 1980s Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of the group Hezb-e-Islami was the CIA’s inside man.


Hezb-e-Islami means “Party of Islam”. So, basically Hekmatyar represented a religiously affiliated political organization. Throughout the 1970s it was involved in many conflicts. The group’s position in these conflicts reflected a virulent hatred and opposition to Western ideas. Hekmatyar authorized attacks against Coalition forces who were supporting the Afghan government, which he sought to overthrow. 


You want to know what the Hezb-e-Islami jihadists did with some of the money the US supplied them with? It didn’t all go for weapons and survival supplies. Much of it was spent on sophisticated propaganda to attract young, vulnerable Muslim men in the region to join their noble struggle by glamorizing regional religious war.

Yeah, thanks America for helping the jihadist recruiters of the 70s prepare the groundwork of the ISIS recruiters of today.


After Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah was removed from power in 1992, the nation erupted into civil war as different factions, including the Party of Islam, wrestled for control. Eventually the Party of Islam gained power with Hekmatyar becoming Prime Minister in 1993.  But his power was brief. By 1994 he was out of office, although he did return for a brief stint in 1996. One of his first acts of office was to order the public hanging of his rival, Mohammad Najibullah in the capital city of Kabul in 1996. The gringa wonders if Najibullah’s status as a communist is why the US didn’t decry his lynching as a brutal crime and human rights violation?


1996 was the year that the Taliban gained power in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar fled to the safety of Iran. The Taliban’s reign was also short-lived, falling in 2001 to Coalition forces. Afghanistan would now be led by US puppet Hamid Karzai. This was when Hekmatyar fled to self-imposed exile in Pakistan.


But even exile in Pakistan couldn’t stop this determined jihadist. When Coalition forces showed up in 2001 to challenge Taliban rule, Hekmatyar’s organization found resources and support among the people of Pakistan’s tribal areas. His persistence to resist the contaminating influence of Westernization that US led forces would bring to Afghanistan would inspire him to support the Taliban that had previously engaged in a power struggle with his own organization. This would pay-off, eventually bringing him back to favor. Last year he returned to the country of his birth.

But where’s the link in all of this to Osama bin Laden? How is the US responsible for the creation of this infamous terrorist through a connection with CIA sponsored terrorist warlord Hekmatyar? After all, bin Laden was a Saudi, not an Afghani? 


It was the strict religious ideology of Hekmatyar that made his leadership appealing to young bin Laden. Having the extensive training and weapons resources provided by the US was just the icing on the cake. Under Hekmatyar’s leadership, bin Laden got placed on the US terrorist payroll.


In 1979, bin Laden joined the Afghan resistance when Russia invaded the country. Guess what bin Laden left behind to become a freedom fighter for the Afghani people: the legacy of being the 7th child to a Saudi construction billionaire who was highly influential after projects like renovations on the holiest of Muslim sites, Al-Aqsa Mosque.


But bin Laden was actually raised by his mother and step-father. However, his upbringing was no less comfortable while living separate from his billionaire biological father. He attended the most prestigious schools and became recognized as an exceptional student. He would eventually be invited to study at prominent institutions of higher learning. While studying as a young adult, bin Laden memorized the entire Q’ran.


A few years before entering college, bin Laden joined a small group of pupils tutored by a teacher from the Islamist sect, “The Brotherhood”. The ideology was of pure Islam loyalty, even if it meant death for a loyal observer. After two years under this tutor’s instruction, bin Laden was a full-fledged activist. He finished his college education in 1981. 


Rather than use his public administration degree, he chose to become a freedom fighter in Afghanistan as a duty of his religious beliefs. When he arrived in Peshawar, Afghanistan, he joined a program led and funded by the US, the CIA’s Operation Cyclone, which was training other jihadist Mujahideens of Hezb-e-Islami, the group led by the CIA’s inside man, Hekmatyar. 

And thus the circle is complete. The very Muslim leader the US assigned blame to for 9/11 was actually a terrorist trained, bought and paid for by the United States. Is it any wonder, then, that bin Laden could not be allowed to live? It’s even likely that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. When one becomes acquainted with the M.O. of the US government to craft frame-up jobs to demonize someone they need to get rid of, it becomes within the realm of possibility to consider 9/11 as an inside job with bin Laden as the patsy. 


Is it too hard for the average American patriot to swallow that their government could murder thousands of its own citizens just to cover their ass? Well, the US government sure doesn’t mind murdering people abroad. Why should its own citizens be any exception? All that is necessary is an effective cover story to keep up the nation’s “good guy” appearance so that every American follows the story hook, line and sinker. Not only will a good, little American then pose zero risk for rabble-rousing, but they will also wholeheartedly support the murder of an innocent they have been conditioned to perceive as an evildoer. After all, what might happen should the American public realize that in order to truly end the war on terror, their own government would need to be overthrown and replaced?


Sources: Biography


Tracking Terrorism


National Counterterrorism Center


All That Is Interesting


Academia


Image Credit: University Hartford


Video Credit: DD News


Hezb Islami


Ali Sedarat


Audiopedia



Advertisements

Chile’s 9/11 Of US Sponsored Terror


If the gringa has sufficiently whetted the dear readers’ appetites on the sinister and very real nature of US sponsored dark operations and terrorism, you are in for another treat. Although every American knows the significance of 9/11, some Americans even believing this to be a US crafted dark op act of terror, this belief may be further strengthened when it is realized that the US crafted a 9/11 for Chile. But why did Chile matter so much to the US?


Chile’s 1970 democratic election offered the populace 5 presidential candidates. Chileans chose as their new leader Salvador Allende. Allende’s politics were considered center-left. As what was then known as a “developmentalist”, Allende’s favor rode the swelling tides of a populist platform. He promised to re-empower the people at the cost of dis-empowerment of foreign investors. Sound familiar? This is what is known as “going rogue” in US policy.


As a developmentalist, Allende promised to foster the growth and development of national companies. To keep foreign competition at bay, high tariffs would be imposed on imports. Sounds a lot like Trump, huh? Yeah, the US doesn’t mind a strong nationalized economy at home, where American companies benefit. But the US is not too fond of nationalized economies abroad where US corporations want a bigger slice of the capitalist pie. 


When a foreign nation with a consumer population the US desires to exploit begins these populist programs of nationalizing their economies, the US typically starts clanging the alarm bells of, wait for it….. COMMUNISM. And the US has invested great effort in conditioning Americans to have their hearts contract with disgust at the mention of that word. A good, little, patriotic American should have a reflexive response toward Communism as if one just happened upon a cockroach. You eradicate it. And if you peruse the CIA’s website about their activities in Chile during this period, you will see the word Communism as synonymous with Marxist, an equally detestable word to well-conditioned US “patriots”.

Especially during the 70s, at the very thick of the Cold War with Russia, did these particular words have even greater effect on the American people. Once Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saw what was going to happen under an Allende administration, he immediately began the Communism smear campaign. He gave this public statement:

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

In other words, Kissinger advocated for interference in the democratic process of a sovereign country simply because it was going to make a dent in American corporate profit interests vested there. But he would convince Americans action was needed to preserve and protect democracy because Chileans were too stupid to recognize “nationalism” as “Communism” in disguise. Because, after all, every good American knows that life under capitalism is ALWAYS better than the lifestyle any communist society offers, right?


Kissinger by-passed the CIA, crafting his own clever plot to do away with an administration elected by the people on a promise to be for the people of Chile. However, Kissinger would eventually get around to using the CIA to help carry out his coup. 


The key Chilean talent Kissinger tapped to be his inside man was Chile’s top military commander, General Rene Schneider Chereau. Chereau was no fan of Allende. The gringa supposed it didn’t take much for a smooth-talker like Kissinger to get him on board. The CIA introduced Kissinger’s scheme to Chereau expecting to easily gain his confidence. They were surprised that, despite his open dislike for Allende, he flat-out refused their proposal. What a surprise for such an arrogant nation! Of course, had the US understood the concepts of loyalty and duty, they would have been able to predict the noble response of Chereau.


So, the CIA picked another Chilean military mark, General Camilo Valenzuela. He quickly jumped on the dark op bandwagon, implementing a gun smuggling operation. He was to select key conspirators who would participate in a very public assassination of Chereau (that’s what you get for refusing to cooperate with the US. Ya get dead). Because it was widely known by the public that Chereau and Allende were anything but friends, it would be easy to convince the public that Allende supporters were responsible for the heinous crime.


Chilean General Robert Viaux was the money man, receiving $50,000. As a US hit man for hire, he turned around and hired a small group of mercenaries, arming them with automatic rifles and gas grenades. October 22, 1970, Viaux’ hit squad approached Chereau’s car, smashed the back window with a sledgehammer, then delivered several gunshot wounds to his abdomen. It took him 3 days to die. 


The CIA crafted a good cover story for their involvement when details came to light. They claimed that the original plan was only for a kidnapping of Chereau. The CIA absolved itself of any responsibility for a kidnap crew that went rogue and assassinated the General. They claimed that their financial culpability was actually only $35,000 which had been paid for humanitarian reasons to particular members of the crew. Because, remember, the US is always the “good guy”.

And now we get to the heart of the matter, September 11, 1973. The US had one more Chilean General up their sleeve. General Augusto Pinochet was their ace in the hole. During the civil unrest and outrage, believing Allende was responsible for Chereau’s assassination, the Chilean people were ripe for a military coup. Which is exactly what Pinochet delivered, ousting the thorn in US corporate interest’s side after they had managed to convince the Chilean people that their political savior was really the “bad guy”. 


And what kind of man had the US gotten in bed with? It seems just the kind of guy they like to train at their terrorist school at Fort Benning. Under Pinochet’s leadership it is estimated as many as 50,000 Chilean citizens were killed from 1974-1990.


But for greedy American corporations willing to overlook all of this bloodshed for the sake of more profit, they were only going to be disappointed by Pinochet. He may have delivered the removal of Allende who would have raised their tariffs, but he ended up plunging the nation into its greatest economic crisis since ancient times. So, apparently capitalism ain’t so great after all, huh? This capitalism inspired regime change experiment was a big, fat failure.

And what happened to the CIA and Kissinger for their part in a chain of events that caused thousands upon thousands of Chileans to lose their lives to brutality and inflicted untold suffering upon the survivors? Well, Kissinger is a household name in America, synonymous with diplomacy and statesmanship. The CIA? Although Americans despise a snoop, they still revere the snoops in the CIA. That’s how amazingly effective US propaganda is. 


What’s the take away of this? The US does not really give a hoot about preserving democracy, only profits. They were willing to overthrew a democratic country for the sake of protecting US corporate interests. The only reason democracy is so seemingly well protected within the borders of the US is because it keeps the populace easier to manage. However, should US citizens ever pose a problem for the nation’s corporate interests, we can all expect democracy and liberty to take a back seat to corporate interests.


Sources: All That Is Interesting


Biography


Britannica


CIA


Image Credit: Next Year Country News


Video Credit: Miguel Ferreira