US Capitalism Is The Cause Of War & Terror


(Originally posted 7/13/2017 on Read With The Gringa)

How important is it to really know and understand history? There is the common sense approach to history that knowing it empowers one to avoid making the same mistakes of the past. But ignorance of history can be disastrous and deadly. It can result in an endless cycle of war, chaos and suffering. And, quite often, a society can know nothing at all about certain historical events until decades later. That is because many things that a government does is done in secret.

It is not until enough time passes that it is safe to de-classify information, when agents are no longer operating in the field on a particular mission, that the public can discover critical history. Just because a person reads a history book in grade school, high school or college, one must not lapse into a false sense of security that they have a firm grasp on history. Because most of the devastating events occurring in the present are the fallout of an unknown past. These past catalysts, shrouded in mystery, must be discovered if the right solutions are to be found.

For example, a top secret US strategy that took place nearly 50 years ago is vital to understanding what is going on today in the world. Without an in-depth look at the responsibility of the US in Operation Condor, a person devoted to freedom might continue to mindlessly support America’s position in “spreading democracy”. Understanding Operation Condor means recognizing that endless wars and terrorism can be laid right at the feet of the US government.

Although Operation Condor was the brain-child of the governments of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, the US was also complicit and made the execution of operations possible. Without the technical and military support provided during the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan presidential administrations, the world would likely have not seen the mass terror it experienced then and is experiencing now. Perhaps thousands of Central and South Americans, and victims worldwide, might have survived rather than experienced horrific tortures and executions.

Facts gleaned from de-classified NSA documents concluded that a September 1976 car bombing in Washington DC was directly tied to Operation Condor. Follow the trail of events and come to understand the long-term implications:

–          -June 4, 1976, State Document 137156: In March 24, 1976 a military coup occurred in Argentina. Major leaders were exiled. Many of these exiles died by violent assassinations. This State Department document ordered “immediate action” in response to these events in order to stabilize neighboring nations.

–          -July 2, 1976, CIA Weekly Summary: Operation Condor reports 6 governments (Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil) coordinated efforts to raid a Buenos Aires human rights office in order to steal records about refugees so the governments could squash dissent. Leftist leader Edgardo Enriquez was consequently arrested, turned over to Chile and executed.

–          -July 17, 1976: CIA obtains documents revealing Operation Condor plans to execute Pinochet’s political rival. The CIA intercepted a document from Chile’s Chief of Intelligence Col. Manuel Contreras to Paraguay intelligence requesting assistance for Chile’s agents. Paraguay was to supply the Chilean spy/assassins with false Paraguay passports. This mission was leaked to the US Ambassador who consequently reported it to the CIA.

NOTE: The “leak” to the US Ambassador was the first step in US subversion to create plausible deniability. The US Ambassador was simply a patsy for a US plan to create circumstances to “save face” politically. The CIA already knew the assassination plot when informed by the Ambassador. In fact, it was the CIA who created the “leak” yet disguised the CIA as the source of information.

If the US had wanted to prevent the assassination of Letelier, they could have done so, yet they did not. The only thing they desired was plausible deniability of their involvement and complicity in the mission.

Why would the US support the assassination of Letelier? Could it be that his political position as a strong leftist socialist is not the kind of political leader that benefits the interests of the US, like exploitation of natural resources? Such a leader would do what was best for the people he represented rather than the corporations of a foreign power.

On the other hand, a far right extremist, like Pinochet, is interested only in amassing more power and the wealth that such power can accumulate. For a country like the US, where corporate interests come first, Pinochet was a devil the nation was willing to deal with.

–         – July 20, 1976, Uruguay/US Embassy Communication: Uruguay’s Ambassador Ernest Siracusa defends the actions as sovereign nations taking military action against domestic terrorism. Siracusa points out that the US has long urged southern neighbors to take internal security more seriously so why condemn their actions when they do? He explains that if these nations do not provide for the safety of their populations, they will be alienated by the rest of the world.

–          -July 30, 1976, CIA Report: Operation Condor gains more power. Expanding past intelligence gathering, spies are now authorized to locate and assassinate guerilla leaders. Executions were planned in Paris and London. The CIA officially became an international political assassination organization through Operation Condor by providing intelligence and military training to Operation Condor operatives.

–          -August 3, 1976 Bureau of Inter-American Affairs (State Dept ARA): US ARA Assistant Secretary for Latin America, Harry Shlaudeman drafts a memo to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. He summarizes that the 6 Latin American governments are engaging in, literally, World War 3 as a war on terrorism. They are using as their frontline assault force the CIA-trained assassins authorized by Operation Condor. And assassination plans are crafted based on CIA provided intelligence. Terrorist targets are defined as anyone who “opposes government policy”.

–          -August 18, 1976, State Document 209192: Secretary of State Henry Kissinger responds with instructions to US ambassadors of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay to express to the respective foreign governments they work with that the US warns of serious moral and political problems if Operation Condor continues as an organization of political assassination cooperating with the CIA. In other words, the State Department of the US government appears to not have the power to reign in who the CIA trains as assassins and provides intelligence to. The US can only appeal to foreign nations not to cooperate with CIA-trained assassins.

NOTE: Who really runs the US? Who really has oversight and authority of the CIA?

–          -August 24, 1976 US Ambassador To Chile’s Response: Ambassador David Popper met with CIA station chief and deputy chief. The CIA chiefs advised Popper not to follow Kissinger’s instructions to request Argentine leader Pinochet to stop cooperating with Operation Condor’s organized assassinations because Pinochet might feel “insulted”. The CIA chiefs instead advise Popper to have the discussion with Argentina’s chief of DINA (Argentina’s equivalent of the CIA).

NOTE: Does the CIA have the authority to override the instructions of the Secretary of State, instructions given directly to a US Ambassador? Again, who runs the US? Who oversees and has authority over the CIA? Whose interest does the CIA actually represent?

–          -August 27, 1976 ARA/CIA Meeting Memo: It is decided not to ask Pinochet to disengage from Operation Condor assassination plans. Other alternatives for dealing with Pinochet are discussed.

NOTE: Without authorization from his boss, Secretary of State Kissinger, the US Ambassador complies with the CIA’s direction.

–          -September 20, 1976 State Dept ARA Orders: US Ambassadors are instructed to take no action regarding Operation Condor and that US opposition to assassination plans under Operation Condor have become a matter of official record.

NOTE: The State Department now follows a policy aligning with CIA recommendations: inaction which allows Operation Condor to continue unleashed, yet creating an “official” public record of opposition to the operation which contradicts US practical position of being supportive and complicit. In other words, the US could say to Americans and the world, “We are the good guys.” while at the same time enabling and empowering terrorism. And this type of policy was established by the CIA, not the democratically elected presidential administration.

–          -September 21, 1976 US State Dept documents 6177 & 6276: US Ambassador to Argentina, Robert Hill, summarizes his meeting with Argentine military ruler General Videla: Hill does not mention US opposition to Operation Condor’s organized assassination plans. The pair discuss human rights. Hill criticizes the murder of a priest and mass killing of residents of a small town. Reminds Videla that the US views these actions as violations of human rights. Videla’s response was to point the finger at US support of such actions seen in Kissinger’s perspective that they were a form of getting “terrorism under control as quickly as possible”.

NOTE: Basically, Kissinger is engaging in double-speak. Officially, the US condemns assassinations and government’s murdering civilians en masse. Unofficially, the US encourages any measure taken by a government to control its population and stabilize the nation. In other words, no one can ever believe a word out of an American official’s mouth when they try to portray the US as the “good guys”.

–          -September 21, 1976: Orlando Letelier, political opponent of Augusto Pinochet, is assassinated with a car bomb while living in exile in the US, the assassination directly ordered by Pinochet.

The dear reader can follow the source links to further study the many de-classified documents. It is important to note that no politician is going to reveal motives in a document. Often, such documents contain double-speak as a means to have an official source that can be pointed to for plausible deniability and absolve guilt. But when a person reads critically and applies sound logic to how certain actions or words lead to specific results, it becomes clear that there are no accidents, ever, in government policy or diplomacy. Every word or action is carefully chosen and crafted in order to bring about a specific result.

And the take away from Operation Condor is that the US had a vital interest in having Pinochet, a murderous tyrant, at the helm of Chile’s government. And copper was at the heart of US interests in Chile during this era. Up until the mid-1960s, US business owned the greater part of the Chilean copper industry. And it was incredibly lucrative for American owned Anaconda Mining and Gran Mineria.

Once Chile’s political left gained power in the mid 1960s, the US quickly became disenchanted with Chile’s socialist president, Salvador Allende, and his right hand man, Letelier. The particular reason for this disenchantment was because Letelier was highly influential in Allende’s policy to nationalize Chile’s copper mines. The US justified overt and covert action to overthrow Allende with President Kennedy’s 1961 policy, “The Alliance for Progress”.

JFK’s policy had nothing to do with supporting the values of democracy as a part of “progress”. Rather, it was a policy to preserve capitalism by authorizing action to prevent the spread of socialism throughout the hemisphere. Basically, it was a political position of arrogance and aggression toward any continental neighbor whose population democratically elected a representative government committed to a socialist model that put the interests of the population above corporate wealth interests, hence exploitive US investors.

This policy is nothing more than a means for the US to continue to wage war as an open aggressor and covert de-stabilizer in the name of capitalism, not freedom. And it has led to the US being an originator and sponsor of terrorism for decades. If the world would really like to see terrorism end, then it will have to commit itself to first putting an end to capitalism.

Without the massive wealth corporate sponsors accumulate to power their war engines, US terror and war can no longer be staged. Without the consequential practical enslavement of masses of people exploited in the process of creating this wealth, corporate warfare can no longer victimize weakened and powerless populations. When a population is truly free, they can resist corporate warmongers and bring their terror to a grinding halt.
US strategy is to condition Americans to believe that they live in a nation whose primary interest is democracy. Free and open elections occur regularly to “prove” this point. First amendment protection is vigorously upheld to “prove” this point. Americans become conditioned to believe that their nation is noble and good and true. But a nation that truly believes in democracy would pursue this ideology everywhere else in the world. The US doesn’t.
Gross luxury and indulgence is marketed in the US as the key to happiness. Americans are conditioned to believe that the ability to afford luxury is what defines a person as success. Americans are conditioned, like good capitalists, to see the homeless person as a person who deserves their misery. American capitalists are conditioned to believe that socialists or communists are thieves who destroy creativity and work ethos. This conditioning creates an arrogant capitalist population incapable of true self-examination which requires overcoming the challenge of accepting inconvenient and painful truths. It creates a cold-hearted population who ignores the hypocrisy of calling itself a “Christian” nation while at them same time mocking and rejecting the Christian value of being its down-and-out brother’s keeper.
In America, the illusion of democracy and Christian values are only tools used by the US government to delude the American people. These political devices are wielded so expertly that most citizens are no match for the well-honed propaganda machine the US government works 24/7. It is a lie that America is the defender of democracy and Christian values.
You see, while the US government goes about building up American egos as the citizens of a capitalist democracy that is better and more honorable than any other country in the world, that same government is covertly, aggressively and violently pursuing, all around the world, its capitalist interests, eagerly partnering with brutal dictators and government leaders who are corrupt, willing to sell out their people and natural resources for a handful of gold.
And should a nation turn socialist or communist as a political maneuver to protect national resources and provide a better life for its people, shielding them from foreign exploitation, the US disregards every principal of democracy in order to purposely de-stabilize these nations.
They are then maneuvered into a civil war, so that the US can become the “good guys” who swoop in and set everything “right” again.
Americans, please stop falling for this crap. Want to end war? End capitalism in the US. End this government by the corporations, for the corporations. Do the entire world a favor. Wake up. Resist. Revolt.

Sources: NSA Archive

State Government History & Milestones

Villanova Law

Yale

Image Credit: IMG Arcade

Video Credit: CGTN America

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



Where The US Trains Terrorists & Assassins


In a few of the gringa’s recent blog posts, I’ve suggested that things don’t always seem to be as they appear with regard to US foreign policy. I used the term “hegemony” to describe the true philosophy behind US actions of interference with other countries. So what other kinds of sinister programs is the US responsible for? The next few posts will explore some of the nation’s dark operation history. This time, we’ll explore “The Assassin’s University”.


As the CIA and US government was riding high on the success of Operation Ajax, they threw this energy into the development of a plan to streamline implementing the same type of program worldwide. The goal was to respond to complaints of American and European companies invested in foreign nations. Although the US government publicly sells regime change as “restoring democracy”, it is actually preserving corporate profits for American companies and the companies of US allies. The typical scene usually goes down something like this:

  • A US or European ally has a company invested in a foreign nation.
  • The foreign nation has a corrupt government that favors the foreign corporate interest over the interest of their own people.
  • Eventually this corruption leads to the government falling out of favor with the local populace.
  • As the client government begins to lose power and influence over its population, political rivals arise who have the voter base to win a democratic election.
  • Usually a political rival becomes popular with a dissatisfied populace by promising nationalization of assets to favor the interests of the natives rather than foreign investors. 
  • Foreign investors complain to the US and a dark operation swings into action to save profits through varying degrees of violent resistance and action.

This should all sound very familiar to the dear reader. Throughout history this pattern has repeated itself a number of times in various places:

  • 1954 – Guatemala
  • 1955 – Cambodia
  • 1958, 1959, 1960 – Series of Laos governments
  • 1960-1963 – Ecuador
  • 1960 – Congo
  • 1962-1964 – Brazil, Dominican Republic, Bolivia & Indonesia

How was the US government so successful, year after year? By creating what was called within the CIA by the codename “KUBARK“. KUBARK was more than the name of the operation. It was also the title of a how-to manual on how to use terrorism to bring about regime change. Within the book’s 128 pages readers learned how to most effectively torture prisoners for the extraction of information among other means to terrorize and brutalize a people into submission. Yeah, this didn’t all start with Abu Ghraib. The US has been torturing people through an organized strategy for more than half a century. 

It seems impossible for most Americans to believe that their nation not only sponsors terrorism, but actively engages in it and trains others how to do it. After all, look at how free and protected American citizens are when they protest and rabble rouse. But that, too, is all part of the plan. The truth is, this secret warfare is not really so secret. And according to the guidelines of how this secret warfare is waged, it is also uncontrolled and unaccountable to the American public. 

Regime change throughout Central and South America was performed with great fervor, especially after the US government funded the CIA to set-up the School of the Americas, the official name of the “School of Assassins”. The purpose of the academy was not to instruct southern neighbors of the US how to better preserve democracy and build a strong capitalist economy. The School of the Americas was an advanced training academy to mold future revolutionaries and professional assassins who would become valuable US assets for maintaining control of countries and dishing out fierce retribution if they dared to go rogue, acting in their own interest rather than US corporate interest.

One would think such a school would be concealed in the remote, deep jungles of a South American country. Guess what? The US government was so secure in the blindness and disinterest of US citizens that the school was established in Fort Benning, Georgia. The US government knew that its own population was sufficiently busy earning a living and adequately distracted with all the freedoms and luxuries they enjoy that it would never occur to them to question their country’s activities around the world. Even if they did, the nation was also so skilled at crafting propaganda to condition Americans to believe that their nation was the “good guy”, protecting vulnerable people around the world, most Americans wouldn’t even believe the truth if they did manage to stumble upon it. 

So you would think that such a dark op program would mean limiting the agencies involved. Contrary to that logic, it wasn’t the CIA that was running the show at the School of Americas, training future terrorists. It was the Green Berets. Yeah, those special forces teams the US government and mass media always hail as heroes to be worshiped, adored and emulated? Yeah, they are responsible for some of the most heinous acts of terrorism our world has ever known. They either perpetrated it themselves or provided the knowledge and training for others to do it. If you don’t believe the gringa’s words, then believe the historical evidence produced by just two of the academy’s prize graduates: Manuel Noriega and Emilio Eduardo Massera. “Who were they?” the dear reader asks. 

Noriega was a military officer from Panama who, thanks to the US, became a famous military dictator in Panama. The most ironic twist in his dramatic tale is that after being carefully groomed by the US in the bloodiest and cruelest military tactics, his instructors turned on him. 

After graduating, he returned home and put his new skills to good use. He became one of the most feared men in his native county, even mounting an assassination of a political opponent. He achieved great power by partnering with drug cartels. 

Although powerful, he was unpopular. This led to him cancelling elections and ruling the nation through a puppet government. At least, until his old friends from the US invaded his country, captured him, then brought him back to America to stand trial for a host of crimes. He eventually served time in US prisons, then French prisons and, finally, returned to Panama to serve more time there. The moral of Noriega’s story is, “Don’t get too big for your britches and don’t ever think that the US is really your friend.”

Emilio Eduardo Massera was the commander of what is known in Argentina as the “dirty war”. Some of the tricks of the terror trade he learned from US Green Berets: 

  • Crafting propaganda using words like “duty”, “patriotism” and “sacrifice” to silence critics and control masses of what threaten to become unruly citizens
  • Creation of “capuchas” which were dark, underground cells for holding blindfolded prisoners, chained and shackled, concealed throughout the country making it easy to quickly take a dissident into custody and get them out of sight, never to be seen again.
  • The prisoners, called “paquetes”, were routinely tortured. One means was a disgusting twist on water-boarding (a term, thanks to Abu Ghraib Americans are finally familiar with). Paquetes would have their heads held under a stream of urine and feces until they thought that they would drown.
  • Perhaps the swiftest means of torture unto death was to receive the “desaparecer” treatment (to “disappear). Dissident citizens were kidnapped, drugged, put on a plane then tossed out, usually into the sea. It is estimated that US trained military terrorist Massera murdered about 10,000 Argentine citizens in this manner.

Now, considering that Massera and Noriega lost power in the 80s, one might think that the School of the Americas is old news. Should US citizens really be concerned about the School of Americas? 

The Democrat party made the closure of this US terror academy such a priority that the party included a mandate for closure as part of the party’s platform in 2016. Interesting that in all the hubbub of headlines created by Trump about defeating terrorism, the US media never elaborated on this mandate promised by Clinton’s party about ending the nation’s own role in global terrorism.

Would the dear reader like to know what actually happened with the School of the Americas? It’s still operational. However, most likely as a result of the Democratic party platform highlighting the nature of this US terror academy and many activist groups who have campaigned for its closure, the Republicans did a very peculiar thing this past January after Trump took office. They re-branded the terror organization’s image.

Many opponents of the School of Americas may have breathed a sigh of relief, believing that the School of Americas was finally closed down. Nope. It just changed its name as well as management. On January 17, the same facility re-opened under the name “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation”, managed by the Defense Department. But it is still the same school commonly called by CIA operatives “School of Assassins”. 

Who can a concerned citizen turn to about a US sponsored and run academy on US soil training terrorists? Concerned citizens can turn to the main activist group committed to putting an end to the US being the enabling and empowering shadow behind global terrorism. Representative Joe Moakley of Massachusetts was the main figure behind Congressional efforts to close this site. His passing in 2001 has passed the torch along to School of Americas Watch (SOAW) to continue these efforts and bring about the world’s greatest hope for peace, closure of this terror academy once and for all.  

If you contact the terror academy yourself, expect a load of crap propaganda to be delivered by a slick, smooth-talking Army official well-trained to convince you that, because of the academy’s efforts, human rights have improved throughout Latin America. They will claim it’s a COUNTER-terrorism academy. 

That’s when you can ask him about Noriega and Massera as well as these well known terrorists: Omar Torrijos of Panama, Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia, and Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina. Also ask about past graduates who assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador in 1980 and the slaughtered 900 peasants in the El Mozote massacre. And don’t forget to ask about the 6 Jesuit priests that were murdered by graduates from the School of the Americas in 1989.

If you despise war and terrorism, before you start pointing fingers at who your government tells you is the bad guy, stop and ask why so many terrorists hate the US. Ask why so many activists claim that the US sponsors terrorism. Ask where these terrorists who seem to have no formal government structure or geographical boundaries get their sophisticated American made weapons. Ask why the US gets involved in so many “regime changes” and invades other countries. Ask how Americans are really at risk from people thousands of miles away who would have to cross multiple border barriers to ever get here and cause us harm.

But why doesn’t the US mainstream media report on this and expose the ugly truth? Wouldn’t investigative reporting be the responsible thing to do? Wouldn’t that expose the root of terrorism and enable the nation to purge this from our national fabric? The mainstream media will never report on this because it would then expose the culpability of the corporations who own them. These same corporations that own large media networks are funded by corporate advertisers who have their own interests protected by the actions of this US terrorism school. So, dear readers, the average US citizen is on their own to discover the truth and act on behalf of humanity.

And don’t believe the tripe from Washington when supporters of the School of Assassins claim that the US can’t be held responsible for what their graduates do when they leave. The US is not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing and this school for training terrorists is all part of a plan. It is all part of how the nation practices its policy of hegemony which requires terror and violence to maintain the wealth gathered through natural resource exploitation and slave wages in foreign countries which, in turn, makes a globally dominant military possible, and enable the US to keep up the appearance of clean hands.

Sources: CIA

Image Credit: Press TV

Video Credit: teleSUR English

If You Can’t Trust The CIA, Who Can You Trust?


Conspiracy theories seem to be taking center stage in American politics these days. That being said, the current president seems to find conspiracies believable. Now, why do so many people believe conspiracy theories? When Trump makes an outrageous claim with no evidence to back it up, why are there so many people jumping on the bandwagon?

Maybe it’s because some of the institutions in our country that should be reliable have done things that have damaged their credibility. When agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) lose public trust, then it’s easier to turn to conspiracy theories as reliable information. So how bad have the “good guys” become?

The CIA was created in 1947. It’s job has been to collect and analyze information about foreign nationals, organizations, businesses and government officials on the down-low. No one is supposed to know they are being spied on. However, thanks to whistle-blowers and the viral nature of the worldwide web, many of their nasty, little secrets have been revealed. And now, the CIA may have to suffer the consequences of being damaged goods unworthy of public trust.

Now, the gringa understands that the spy business is a nasty business. No one likes a snoop, a snitch or a turncoat. But, the reality is, if a country wants to know what the enemy is up to, spies are necessary. We may despise a spook, but without them, we would all be much more vulnerable. But what do we do if our spy community takes advantage of secrecy to abuse their broad authority? What if that results in our “good guys” morphing into the “bad guys”? Well, then the whole world is in trouble. For anyone to be truly safe, it has to be clear who, exactly, the good guys are.

Operation Ajax: Many people today may not even think about a serious power struggle in Iran that took place more than half a century ago. In 1951, the current Shah, Reza Pahlavi, survived an attempt on his life. It’s possible this assassination plan was cooked up by none other than his Prime Minister who wanted to reduce the Shah’s power. The CIA took interest because of, what else, oil. Particularly a British oil company, AIOC.

The Shah’s opposition considered this foreign oil company’s presence just one step too close to invasive British imperialism. Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh demanded an audit which AIOC refused. What’s a Prime Minister to do when his authority is insulted? Seize the company and make it a national asset.

The 1950s was the height of the Cold War. Every European nation, including the great island of the UK, kept oil supplies ready and at hand, their military capabilities primed should Russia strike. With British oil supplies in Iran threatened, which, in turn, threatened the readiness of their military, who else does the UK turn to but their powerful cousin across the pond, the US.

The Eisenhower Administration was on board, eager to flex its muscles for all the world to see. Especially Russia. And Mossadegh’s aggressive takeover of a British company was interpreted by Americans in the throes of the Red Scare as one step toward Communism for Iran.

Of course, the US was then “obligated” to save the vulnerable Iranians from Communism and “preserve” democracy”. Yep, the same old recycled story of preserving democracy as a cover for interfering in the sovereignty of a country in order to control their valuable oil.

The funny thing is that Prime Minister Mossadegh was actually an advocate of democracy. He, himself, was a democratically-elected official. His political goal was to diminish the power of the station of Shah who was a hereditary monarch. See the conflict here? In the end, however, the CIA launched Operation Ajax.  This is how things went down:

  • Iranian officials and mafiosos were bribed.
  • Staged protests were bought and paid for in every major Iranian city.
  • CIA agents were boots on the ground, using radios to transmit coverage of protests to the US and other media around the world.
  • The media covered this news, effectively convincing their respective populations that Tehran was about to be overwhelmed by a populist army of rebels. (Is this beginning to sound familiar, you know, like Syria?)
  • Mossadegh saw the writing on the wall and resigned.
  • The new Prime Minister was a British/US puppet who restored oil monies to the British and the power of the throne to the Shah.
  • The Shah responded with a security crackdown: secret police, traitors prisons for suspects without hearing or trial, and a major propaganda campaign to practically deify the Shah in the eyes of all Iranians.

Considering the outcome of the operation, it’s pretty easy to see that the “preserve democracy” justification was a sham.  The West’s only interest was to get rid of Mossadegh because the only goal was to preserve British control of oil interests. So long as the Shah followed the program, the CIA was more than happy for this bloody tyrant to stay in power.
As it turns out, the CIA, British and Americans were no real friend to the Shah. They stood idly by while Communists and radical Islamists oranized secretly right under his watchful nose. It took more than a quarter of a century but, eventually, these rebels rioted and drove the Shah right off his throne. This was followed up with massacres of those who supported the Shah and any foreigners in Iran exploiting oil interests. Children were not spared.

What happened next is the installation of the Shah most of us are more familiar with, Ayatollah Khomeni. And he was incredibly ruthless, loyal to none. Once in power he turned right around and slaughtered the leftists who had led the rebellion that ousted his predecessor. What a reward for loyalty! Tens of thousands were imprisoned. This is when the famous hostage crisis at the American Embassy occurred during the Carter administration.

Neighboring Iraq took full advantage of the chaos. They invaded Iran on their western border. It is this key invasion event that created a ripple effect of events that are still unfolding today in all that is going on in the Middle East. Because, if not for the original interference of the CIA in 1953 that resulted in a political and monarchal coup in Iran, the de-stabilization and continued conflict for superior power present today would not have resulted. Iran had been, up until that time, a stabilizing seat of power in the Middle East.

By organizing a revolution the CIA set the stage for Islamic radicals and political rebels to flourish. Nw these rebels and radicals knew that there were powerful nations willing to arm and supply them if profit and oil interests would be in their favor by doing so. The precedence was set for the US and UK to exploit mercenary Middle Eastern rebels and radicals as a means to maintain Western control of Middle East oil reserves. They would use these assets to threaten a leader who stepped out of line or replace a leader who dared to go rogue.

The gringa knows that lots of people like to blame the war on terror on George W. or other contemporary political actors. The reality is that the seeds were planted much, much earlier in history for this poisonous tree that is bearing toxic fruit today.

Sources: ColdWar.org

The Latin Library

CIA

Video Credits: AICBroadcast