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



The Allure of Conspiracy Theories


The gringa loves real science and also a thrilling science-fiction tale. I don’t get the two confused. I love to debunk a curious space related conspiracy theory and I have to admit I have believed my share of crazy conspiracy theories in my lifetime. However, there is a difference, I believe, between a person who entertains a conspiracy theory as a possibility, explores it for its entertainment value or believes one with the joint purpose of proving or disproving, and the person who is a whole-hearted conspiracy theorist. Where exactly is the line in the sand between the two psyches? Why are conspiracy theories so alluring to otherwise sound, reasonable minds?

Take for example the true believers in a  YouTube video  that contains audio claimed to belong to a Soviet Union era cosmonaut, the first Soviet woman in space, who was killed upon re-entry when her space capsule failed to withstand the re-entry burn.  The video/audio was debunked as a hoax by former NASA mission control technician James Oberg. His career encompasses space journalist, historian, author and he is fluent in the Russian language, an expert in Russia’s space program.

The hoax award can probably be given to the Judica-Cordiglia brothers who perpetrated multiple space related hoaxes throughout the 1960s. These Italian brothers liked to while away the time underground in an old bunker filled with electronic equipment. Although they claimed the equipment was for detecting radio frequencies filled with covert signals that they decoded and revealed to the public, the truth is it was their own private hoax production studio.

They also claimed to have captured the dying words of Vladimir Komarov, a Soviet cosmonaut whose spaceship burned up in re-entry. Back then the public must not have known what we know now… there is a radio blackout during re-entry as radiation and intense heat interfere with the viability of radio signals.

Although the gringa is certain the hoax videos and audios were highly compelling, the truth is equally, if not more, interesting. While Komarov encircled the Earth in a faulty space capsule he had what he knew was his last conversation with a Soviet official who was safely aground on Earth. It is reported that Alexei Kosygin was in tears as the two talked, knowing his comrade was doomed to a torturous death by suffocation in extreme heat before the capsule ever disintegrated into a ball of flames. The United States had listening posts in Turkey where Cold War spies eavesdropped on the emotional exchange as  Komarov vacillated between rage and despair at his horrible fate.

To make the tale even more gripping is the fact that Komarov’s gruesome death could have been completely avoided. The original plan was to launch a second capsule the day after Komarov’s launch. The two space vehicles were to dock together and Komarov would swap places with one of the two cosmonauts in the second vehicle.  This was all scheduled to coincide with the Communist revolution’s 50 year anniversary and was Brezhnev’s victory plan to reveal to the world Soviet superiority.

Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was slated for the second space capsule. He made a tour of Soyuz 1 with a group of technicians and they recommended a postponement of launch due to hundreds of flaws in the vehicle. Forwarding the recommendation, inspection report and a ten page memo to Brezhnev through a KGB friend, the buck stopped with the KGB. No one dared defy Brezhnev’s dream of glory because the KGB agent, Venyamin Russayev, as well as every other agent who had knowledge of the communique, were summarily demoted and shipped off to remote areas within the Soviet Union for convenient, out of the way service.

Komarov knew he was on a suicide mission but he went anyway. He is a true hero. When Gagarin’s KGB friend suggested to Komarov to simply refuse the mission, he explained that if he didn’t go, the government would send the cosmonaut who was next in line, which was Gagarin. Gagarin had tried to save Komarov’s life by recommending the mission be scrapped. Komarov turned around and gave his own life that Gagarin’s might be saved. If that’s not a hero, I don’t know what is.

Soyuz I launched April 23, 1967 and almost immediately began experiencing problems and mechanical failures. Due to these problems the second capsule’s launch was scrubbed from the schedule. U.S. National Security Agency analysts (fancy words that basically mean spies) recorded and translated what they could of Komarov’s communications to ground control. They describe a cosmonaut who knew he was going to die. Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin cried as he told Komarov he was a hero. American records reveal that when the descent parachutes failed, Komarov raged as he entered his death plummet.

This tragic story is as fascinating as it is sad. Why would anyone feel the need to believe a titillating conspiracy theory rather than the tragic truth? And this is not the only case where outrageous conspiracy theories have often been eclipsed by an even more fantastic truth. Consider the following conspiracy theories and their fans:

  • Da Vinci disciples who believe the mysteries in the book “The Da Vinci Code” are real yet the mystery of Da Vinci’s art is even greater than conspiracy fiction.
  • 9/11 Truthers who believe that the U.S. government murdered thousands of U.S. citizens yet is eclipsed by the intricacies of an ideological war by a small group of terrorists that have managed to capture the entire world’s attention, keeping everyone riveted with fear despite their very small numbers compared to the numbers of allied militaries fighting against them.
  • Birthers who believe that President Obama was not born a U.S. citizen is really quite boring when compared to the fascinating, tragic yet triumphant tale of how a young boy became president of the United States of America despite the statistical odds stacked against him.
  • Amelia Earhart fans who believe that she was abducted by extra-terrestrials yet the biography of this amazing, adventurous woman and the impact she has had on the lives of women for decades is so much greater than chasing shadows.
  • Osama bin Laden – conspiracy theorists believe that he is not dead and that the story of his body being dumped into the sea from a helicopter is a cover story. However, the account of the assassination plan by military special forces is the stuff that best selling novels are made of.
  • Princess Diana – conspiracy theorists believe that she was assassinated by the British Royal family and would rather believe such outrageousness when the life of not only this amazing princess but the entire House of Windsor can keep a person riveted to history books for weeks on end.

The gringa would like to know what makes a diehard conspiracy theorist tick. Experts say that they are more than your average skeptic. To selectively doubt certain scenarios or details that are reported by official agencies is normal. But when a critical political view morphs into believing in the omnipotent power of an elite shadow government ruling the world, a real conspiracy theorist is born.

Conspiracy theorists are not necessarily mentally ill despite the fact that they may believe some things that seem outright crazy, unreasonable or illogical. It is becoming such a widespread perspective, psychologists are categorizing it with its own empirical field definition. They explain that distrust is the underlying condition but it is the wrong kind of distrust. It is a form of distrust that is disconnected from critical thinking skills.

Although everyone has trust issues with someone at some point in their life, not everyone becomes a conspiracy theorist. When a person is able to hold on to the general opinion that most people in society are decent people worthy of measured trust, that trust growing as a relationship grows, that is a person managing distrust in a healthy way. However, once a person becomes so cynical that they believe that no one can be trusted, that everyone is out to get something over on everyone else, they are primed and ready to believe that the entire world is at the mercy of global elite puppetmasters.

Conspiracy theorists believe a distortion of the real truth that governments, though corrupt to varying degrees, do have within them some officials who are puppets serving elite interests in order to line their own pockets yet at the same time there are also officials who genuinely want to serve their people. And working within these governments are programs honestly designed to make the nation, as well as the world, a better place while at the same time operating alongside programs designed to enhance and broaden the scope of power for individual elites as well as the nation. So, a conspiracy theorist neglects to believe the good that is very real and their perspective lacks balance because it lacks the entire truth.

You see, cynicism is like a cancer. Once a person gets into that negative mindset, cynicism grows. At first Frank believes that his coworker, Joe, who got a promotion, somehow conspired to sabotage Frank’s chances at the promotion by telling tales behind his back. Once Frank convinces himself of this truth, rather than the real, ugly truth that he’s just a lousy worker unworthy of the promotion, Frank then has to include his other co-workers in the conspiracy when they object to his accusations against Joe. As Frank continues to stew in his own angry juices he soon believes it all started at the top with a boss who must surely hate him. Eventually he either quits or his behavior is so affected he gets fired. Such an experience will most certainly shape his behavior as he continues on to his next job.

Rather than accept the uncomfortable truth that another person excelled his own capabilities and deserved the promotion, rather than believe the nasty truth about self, that he scapegoated a co-worker and then blamed his other co-workers and, ultimately, his boss, rather than accept that he is the problem, Frank continues in blaming others because that is more convenient than believing an uncomfortable truth about self. By perpetuating this scapegoat mindset Frank becomes unfit for any job. As he continues this self-destructive cycle blaming others rather than practicing self-accountability, Frank must then begin to believe in a united business conspiracy of a network of people who just want to keep him down. Eventually this unreasonable paranoia will affect Frank’s view of pretty much everything in his life.

Eventually, Frank is just a very nasty, negative fellow who believes that everyone is out to get him. He concludes if that’s true about society and work environments, it’s not a stretch to then believe that the federal government also conspires against the little people for their own gain. Mainstream and official sources of information are rejected as “tainted” and Frank only relies on fringe journalism because those are the folks who really know what’s going on and haven’t sold their souls to the “establishment”.  Eventually, by his own selective exposure to views that agree with his personal angry-at-the-world perspective, Frank is a full-fledged conspiracy theorist, brainwashed by himself.

So, when you get right down to it, psychologists are right. Conspiracy theorists are not really mentally ill. They are really just Negative Nellies and Nasty Nelsons. It’s perfectly fine to be a Curious Casper and entertain conspiracy theories for entertainment value or as alternative possibilities to an accepted truth that does not have the evidence to completely prove it to be the truth. But keep things in perspective. Don’t be like Frank.

Sources:

www.npr.org

www.yahoo.com/news

www.slate.com

www.scientificamerican.com

time.com

Image Credit: http://www.topsecretwriters.com