Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

James Morcan wrote: "J.M. wrote: "The difference is surely in the motive. Terrorists, as Nik has pointed out, go into a place and don't care how many people they kill, the more the better. While I dislike the term 'col..."

Crystal clear from where I'm sitting, mate.

James Morcan said: 'So the key point I'm making is both sides know they will be terrorizing innocents in large numbers.'

I don't agree with that specific point. There is a difference that stands out in the terminology used. Both sides know they will be causing terror in the civilian population but the terrorists do it deliberately, provocatively in a deliberate act of intimidating the local populations - as per the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As far as I'm concerned the Western forces do not set out to deliberately cause terror in civilian populations although they know that is likely to be the end result. What matters more than who is terrorising who, do they care? According to what you are saying in other posts, the likelihood is that the West or the US probably don't, much, other than how it appears in the Press. The terrorists, like the Taliban, definitely don't since they regard every innocent Muslim death-by-accident in their bombings as martyrdom.

In all this debate I haven't yet seen any mention of how many Muslims are killed by other Muslims, and I suspect that figure is very high too. The tribal hatred between Shia and Sunni is extremely strong, which is something the West did not factor into the scenario after the Iraq invasion in 2003. Long after the West (and Russians) leave they will still be killing each other. That is not an excuse for the undoubted atrocities the West sometimes carries out whether in small groups or by their own national policy.

I have to also say that although I have done a lot of research, using many different sources over the years, I have lapsed somewhat over the past year, having become thoroughly sick of reading depressing accounts of just how evil man can be to his fellow man.

James Morcan wrote: "Cool, Nik, we agree on much...
I think most want peace on all sides of conflicts.

According to my research, and the ex military and ex-intelligence agents I've spoken to about the way the world wo..."

These guys don't give aggregate figures, but suggest they may be higher, basing on local examples. In statement like "killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war", the key- word is "indirect". You can manipulate anything into it from old lady dying at the age of 92 to somebody drowning on the way to Europe, because he/she fled war in Syria. I haven't gone into statistics that much, but I believe the numbers are much lower by comparing figures from known wars' casualties. The fact is that this study is accessible to an audience already makes a huge difference. I couldn't imagine similar study published in Teheran and claiming how many more anglo-saxons they've killed than previously announced.

As of this:
“We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot.” -Ben Affleck
I think there is nothing to be shy about and it only stresses that the West has a technological edge, enabling in many cases not to endanger its personnel and still fight the terrorists. But every count can change momentarily, if terrorists put their hands on nukes for example. I think that in any conflict, the success is evaluated inter alia by the loss of your force v. that of the adversary.

James, thanks, I've checked most the threads above. Have to admit I didn't watch the entire John's interview, as it's 52 minutes, but thanks for timing it, I've watched the part referring to 9/11. John asks questions and points out some ambiguities and answers what hearsay is being discussed in intelligence community. Interesting, but nothing really conclusive.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not that naive believing that only Robin Hoods work for CIA or british MIs and I won't be surprised how dirty or corrupted or whatever motives or operations or plans were offered to undertake against civilians and that some actually were undertaken, but the times changed a bit. What was admissible or acceptable 30-50 years ago - not any more. Not so many years ago Michael Jackson wanted to be white and now there is a black president in US. Dynasties withdraw from London Golden Fix. People get rich in magically short spells not from traditional industries, but from Facebook, whatsapp, etc. Everything is traceable, discoverable and so on, so that no one can be sure to do something secretively.

In my books for example I offer an insight into Big bang of the USSR and consequesnt enrichment of few individuals, equally using flair for business and employing corruption and extortion.

There is for example a theory of Suvorov, former GRU officer who defected to the UK, who suggests that Hitler beat Stalin to it by 2 weeks attacking earlier. Interesting theory, based on facts and observations, but not mainstream.
We can wonder about many things until there is a conclusive proof. I believe facts, but I like to hear theories as well

Harry wrote: "Himbos."

Yes.
Or Ken Dolls?

"Tonight on the BBC World Service Ken and Barbie will read the news."

"...And report on the geopolitical changes that have occurred in recent weeks in the ongoing War on Terror...Over to you, Ken..."

J.M. wrote: "
I have to also say that although I have done a lot of research, using many different sources over the years, I have lapsed somewhat over the past year, having become thoroughly sick of reading depressing accounts of just how evil man can be to his fellow man. ..."

On that we can totally agree!
It does get depressing.
So maybe that's why Ken and Barbie reading the news is needed, to distract us from how depressing the whole world scene is.

I'm also not a journalist. Just someone who got into trouble for doing the research I did.

A list of countries invaded by the US, since its inception:

(1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966), (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992), (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986; 1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945), (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011), (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973), (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001), (66) Colombia (2002-), (67) Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013).

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya0...

Since the end of WWII, the US has killed 20-30 million people.

US occupation has caused over 1 million Iraqi deaths- 250,000 of which were civilian casualties.

It is because of such things that the word 'terrorism' needs to be redefined.

Nik wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Cool, Nik, we agree on much...
I think most want peace on all sides of conflicts.

According to my research, and the ex military and ex-intelligence agents I've spoken to about..."

Nik, I think what happened to the USSR is fascinating. Agree about the Big Bang of wealth that came during the Putin era, I assume you mean. Also think the CIA was quite active at the fall of communism in making sure all the little surrounding states (like Georgia possibly and all the other countries ending in "Stan") broke away into independent countries. So Russia ended up a lot smaller than the USSR and with less mineral resources. Although Russia seems to be making a comeback now.

When it comes to facts vs theories, I agree with what Julian Assange said: "There are conspiracies everywhere. Then there are crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse the two."

For example, Operation MockingBird which I brought up earlier in this thread is an absolute fact (declassified), likewise with the US-Govt's proposed terror campaign against Americans in Operation Northwoods, two name just two of these proofs of nefarious activities in the West. But unfortunately they remain a conspiracy theory for most who have never heard of them (including, would you believe many journalists and even some historians in this era).

I agree that on one level such intelligence agency crimes are more traceable due to technology, but I also think other technologies (perhaps of the classified variety) allow for even greater corruption at the elite levels. And by the way, I don't think the world is ruled by intel agencies or the military, that's simply the first layer, but it's an important layer. I think we as citizens need to keep our governments honest. We need to go back in history and put leaders on the stand for why they agreed to start the 2nd Iraq War, for example.

I personally think it's 20th Century-thinking or a residue of the Cold War mentality to be still seriously worrying about nukes. Not that them getting into the wrong hands wouldn't be a problem (were a certain group actually able to build all the infrastructure around a sophisticated and hide such a nuclear program) but it's a repeat of the BS fear that lead to the totally unnecessary war that was the 2nd Gulf War. We cannot let that kind of irrational and unsubstantiated fear lead to us supporting terrorizing even more Islamic nations and killing even more innocents.

Plus, the big Western intel agencies are all over these terrorist groups and have fully infiltrated them (and more and more ex-CIA ex-NSA ex-MI6 whistleblowers have stated they are also creating, financing and/or supporting these terrorist groups). So I cannot believe these isolated terrorist groups that are living in No Man's Land are going to outsmart the technologically advanced West and suddenly start firing nukes. Satellites are sooo sophisticated now, we know what they are doing.

I also don't believe for a second that Iran is going to nuke the whole world or their (supposed) enemies. Do not believe that Iran is a terrorist state. Does it have some nutjobs? Yes, but so do a million other countries.

Also, regarding the John Banks video, I never said or implied what he states amounts to a smoking gun. Smoking guns are very hard to find when you're dealing with Fifty Shades of Espionage Trickery. But as he was actively involved working for these various intelligence agencies, unlike most of the rest of us in this group who (I assume) are just researching these spy agencies, it is contributing evidence toward the sick games these agencies are playing on the world stage. Games like financing all sides, free world and terrorists, and playing the rest of us like fools.

As I said before, the evidence is starting to become overwhelming in the public's minds. And that explains things like the majority or a big percentage of the public now supporting Assange, Snowden & Co. This trend will not go away. Despite Western governments overriding the people, most citizens in the West do not want ANY of these wars. They've had enough. And I think the public at large are correct in their gut feeling that we are terrorizing more than being terrorized.

Re the death toll article, a lot of news outlets (including in the West) reported the 1.3M innocent Muslim civilians figure in about March of this year. However, I included that extra article which showed 4M+, just as an example of higher estimates (which included the indirect deaths) just to balance out the US Govt stats which probably say something like 23 innocent people have died ;)

Once you cut thru all this discussion, the bottom line is our uber-powerful regimes in the West who supposedly stand for freedom for all peoples and peace, are killing innocents by the truck load in an indefinable, incomprehensible "war on terror".

Unfortunately, that's not a reason history will accept.

Harry wrote: " list of countries invaded by the US, since its inception:

(1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966), (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992), (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986; 1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945), (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011), (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973), (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001), (66) Colombia (2002-), (67) Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013).
..."

Dayum, Harry - in one hit you just provided the ultimate stat to summarize this entire debate, I think. That's a shitload of invasions.

The other stat I heard was that the US Military has bases in 174 countries, with soldiers stationed in others.

Harry, That's a very good example of manipulation with information. It says US invaded Japan 1941-1945 - item 39. Really? That's the fair account of what happened in ww2?
Support of UNITA in Angola or contras in Nicaragua is far from being tantamount to invasion.
And these are just few examples. I'm sure there are many distortions there.
Good Alexander the Great is not American. There is half of the world he conquered-:)

Harry wrote: "It is because of such things that the word 'terrorism' needs to be redefined. ..."

It's already being redefined, mate. Right here. Now. In this very discussion thread.

In truth though, I believe it is more of "reclaiming" of the original definition of the word, as I seem to recall reading somewhere that the earliest usage of the word was in describing a militant French government in the 1700s.

Besides, definitions of words actually change over time. Like, maybe one day when the world has evolved from believing in fairy tales (like the belief that you can actually have a "war" on "terror") and maybe there is no more terrorism on any level, maybe those called terrorists will be stand-up comedians who take pot shots at famous people :)

Nik wrote: "Harry, That's a very good example of manipulation with information. It says US invaded Japan 1941-1945 - item 39. Really? That's the fair account of what happened in ww2?
Support of UNITA in Angola..."

Fair point, Japan invaded other nations and the US liberated in that instance. I didn't even see Japan mentioned as it's such a long list.
However, even if there's some misreporting in that list, I'm pretty sure the list of actual countries invaded is still massive.
Surely there must have been quite a bit of terror along the way also, especially for the citizens of certain countries invaded I'd imagine ;)

The other point is you could make an equally long list for countries and regions the British Empire invaded, and quite a few other former and current superpowers. It's the way of the world really, but generally the nations who win the big wars and control the media, are convincingly able to portray themselves as the good guys...

In truth, I think all countries and peoples are duality - we are all terrorists and liberators. And so for the future, it just depends what we want to be. A repeat of the violent past, or something new where all people can prosper and where we can learn to deal with minor world problems (like Islamic terrorism) maturely and patiently...

My two cents - off to bed guys, late here - it's been a fun debate!

Good night! It was a pleasure

Nik wrote: "Harry, That's a very good example of manipulation with information. It says US invaded Japan 1941-1945 - item 39. Really? That's the fair account of what happened in ww2?
Support of UNITA in Angola..."

I'd argue the mainstream statistics are the ones that are manipulated more, along with words like 'invasion'. I count the US/UK 'invasion' of Iraq to be so, whereas many wouldn't, for instance.

Similarly, many countries on that list would call it a US invasion, whereas the US and others wouldn't.

The Phoenix Program: America's Use of Terror in Vietnam



SYNOPSIS:

A shocking exposé of the covert CIA program of widespread torture, rape, and murder of civilians during America’s war in Vietnam, with a new introduction by the author

In the darkest days of the Vietnam War, America’s Central Intelligence Agency secretly initiated a sweeping program of kidnap, torture, and assassination devised to destabilize the infrastructure of the National Liberation Front (NLF) of South Vietnam, commonly known as the “Viet Cong.” The victims of the Phoenix Program were Vietnamese civilians, male and female, suspected of harboring information about the enemy—though many on the blacklist were targeted by corrupt South Vietnamese security personnel looking to extort money or remove a rival. Between 1965 and 1972, more than eighty thousand noncombatants were “neutralized,” as men and women alike were subjected to extended imprisonment without trial, horrific torture, brutal rape, and in many cases execution, all under the watchful eyes of US government agencies.

Based on extensive research and in-depth interviews with former participants and observers, Douglas Valentine’s startling exposé blows the lid off of what was possibly the bloodiest and most inhumane covert operation in the CIA’s history.

I know I'm appearing late in the conversation.

JM there were no Taliban fighters in the hospital. And any suspicions that there were say they were believed to have believed to have been patients. Which is why the doctors asked for an investigation against USA for war crimes from day 1.

Here in Australia recently as well there was a shooting. Where a 15 year old muslim shot a cop outside a police station. The media labelled it a terrorist attack before the investigation had even started. Had he not been muslim it would have been different. The only real suspicious things to even consider it a lone wolf attack is that his sister was flying to Syria and he called out Allah Akbar just before he shot the officer. But still what if it was someone of a different race and they referred to Satan? Would it be a terrorist attack to the media or just a shooting?

Good points Kelly.
Many of the events the media calls terrorism are unfounded, as per this latest event here in Australia.
Conversely, many of the events the media fails to refer to as terrorism (e.g. The aforementioned 1.3M innocent Muslim civilians killed by the West's "war on terror" aka military aggression) seems like terrorism to me...

Just as I'm concerned about the amount of anti-Semitism that still exists in the world, I also fear Islamaphobia may lead to excusing the slaughter of millions more innocent Muslims.

I remember I met a Holocaust survivor once who told me that for extreme crimes like the Holocaust to occur there can't just be two parties involved (i.e. perpetrators and victims) but rather there must be three parties: PERPETRATORS, VICTIMS and IMPARTIAL BYSTANDERS WHO DO NOTHING TO INTERVENE...

So taking that on board, I believe we common citizens outside the military in the West, or citizens of any region for that matter, have a duty to stand up against unnecessary acts of war/terror.

Kelly wrote: "I know I'm appearing late in the conversation.

JM there were no Taliban fighters in the hospital. And any suspicions that there were say they were believed to have believed to have been patients. ..."

Hi Kelly and welcome to the discussion,

Here's the definition from FBI site (I'm omitting only, as irrelevant, the distinction they give for international and domestic terrorism):
"-Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
-Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;"

I find the above definition pretty easy to implement to specific cases.

So in the instance that you describe, if the investigation would find out that the murderer killed a cop, because the cop has done something bad previously to him or his family or with intention to rob him for money or gun, then it would be categorised as an appropriate criminal offense: murder, manslaughter, etc.
But if he killed an innocent cop randomly to attract attention to whatever goals he had, then it's a clear act of terrorism.
As the murderer yelled "Allah Akbar", suspicion of terrorism would be high on my list and I wouldn't reprimand the media for their assumption-:). The investigation should give an answer whether the assumption is correct or wrong.
I don't think the above analysis should be any different because of somebody's nationality or religious belief. There were and probably there are non-muslim terrorist organisations. As it's popular here to provide links -:), here is the first one that popped up on google search:

http://www.wonderslist.com/10-non-isl...

I've no idea how accurate the above list is.

BUT, I don't think anyone would argue that many Muslim radical groups use terrorism as their modus operandi for achievement of different goals that they deem valid and in many cases against even their own countrymen. All those explosions in Pakistan and Iraq or ISIS executing other Muslims and many more. And it's because of that whenever a crime is commited by a muslim one of the suspicions is always "terrorism", which may later prove right or wrong.

James Morcan wrote: "Good points Kelly.
Many of the events the media calls terrorism are unfounded, as per this latest event here in Australia.
Conversely, many of the events the media fails to refer to as terrorism (e..."

Hi James,

I pretty much support your statement "we common citizens outside the military in the West, or citizens of any region for that matter, have a duty to stand up against unnecessary acts of war/terror".
I just think we cannot put the usual conduct of armed forces when performing their tasks in the same basket with terrorists. I'll use Kelly's example to explain.

Shall we stand up against Islamic terrorism? Of course, I think. Does your Australian government has the duty to protect Australians? Yes, it does. Theoretically: If in the example that Kelly gave, the investigation would unveil a cell that the murderer belonged to and this cell's plan is to kill police and civilians for the sake of free Baghdad, kangaroos or Indians in America or whatever, wouldn't you expect your authorities to deal with it, to round them up before more people are killed? And if the cell's headquarters are abroad, wouldn't you expect your spy agencies to intervene? I guess the answer is clear.
Now, let's extrapolate this example further. Let's say the cell is holed up in a residential building near Bondi beach in Sydney and when the special operation squad tries to apprehend the leader of the cell and his accomplices, they open fire. The cell is arrested, but one unengaged civilian is killed in the process. Is it a tragedy? Of course, it is, because the victim had nothing to do with it. But can you call a police assault squad "terrorists"? Definitely "no", because they did their job and had no intention to harm the bystander. But without doubt, in such a case there would be an internal investigation and if the conduct of any of the police officers would be found flawed and a connection between it and the occurence of the death of the civilian established, I'm sure that in such instance the police officer would be prosecuted.

In real life there are similar events. Beslan tragedy for example.

I think the above can largely apply to the war on terror and that there are casulaties in no way makes the armies or spy agencies terrorists.

And by the way, the cause that the terrorists try to achieve, even if it's totally divine, awsome or superb, does not justify terror as the means for its achievement

Kelly wrote: 'JM there were no Taliban fighters in the hospital. And any suspicions that there were say they were believed to have believed to have been patients. Which is why the doctors asked for an investigation against USA for war crimes from day 1.'

As I understand it the issue of fighters being present is not as clear-cut as that. See the BBC report below
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-...

Also as per the current situation in Afghanistan, it is nearly always the Afghan authorities who call in US air strikes to support their forces on the ground, although in this case of the Kunduz hospital attack there does appear to have been either a blatant disregard for the building being a hospital (and therefore it should not have been attacked) or human error came into it and the US forces did not pay sufficient attention as to what they were being asked to attack.

This is not the first time that Afghans have called in air strikes on dubious locations and the US has taken the brunt of the accusations afterwards. That's not excusing what they did, they should have double-checked the target attack requested and if as MSF said, they continued the attack for an hour afterwards, what happened to the chain of communication?

As for whether there were any Taliban there, fighters or patients, that is by no means clear. Once again it depends on who you believe. I think in this case there was error at some point - perhaps the Afghans knew there were only patients there but requested the air strike anyway. All that is theoretical since at this time each side is accusing the other and the truth of the matter is, as I say, unclear.

Regardless of whether or not fighters were in the hospital, international law is clear on that point - no hospital should come under attack. Period.

Perhaps we could all learn from the great Noam Chomsky: "The Obama administration is dedicated to increasing terrorism. In fact, it’s doing it all over the world. Obama is running the biggest terrorist operation that exists, maybe in history: the drone assassination campaigns, which are just part of it [...] All of these operations, they are terror operations."

And another telling quote by Noam Chomsky:

"People hate the country that’s just terrorizing them. That’s not a surprise. Just consider the way we react to acts of terror. That’s the way other people react to [American] acts of terror."

Chomsky, like myself, is not taking his definition of terrorism from heavily biased organizations like the CIA or FBI, but rather as a linguist and logician it's a pretty safe bet he's applying the correct meaning of the word...which as per the aforementioned dictionary definitions and historical contexts (which I won't bother repeating) includes government-sanctioned terrorism or terrorist governments.

Nik wrote: "John,

2014 elections are just a show, nothing else. Assad was ruling Syria long b4 these elections, while he was never elected. Whatever terminology u use and whatever sources you believe or liste..."

First of two posts.

Governments[edit]
Afghanistan – expressed hope that Syria will overcome all challenges "thanks to the wisdom of its leadership and the determination of the Syrian people". Afghanistan affirmed support to Syria in "combating terrorism and extremism", considering President al-Assad’s presidential elections win as “a new chapter that paves the way for ending the crisis in Syria".[41]
Algeria – President of Algeria Abdelaziz Bouteflika sent a cable of congratulations to President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, on the occasion of winning the presidential elections. President Bouteflika expressed, in his cable, best wishes for further progress and prosperity to the brotherly people of Syria.[42]
Armenia – hoped that Syria will manage to reestablish peace and stability through a national dialogue in the name of the well-being and prosperity of the Syrian people. I [Serzh Sargsyan] wish you [Bashar al-Assad] good health and successes and I wish the friendly Syrian people eternal peace.[43]
Belarus – expressed confidence that Syria will eliminate the current crisis and continue under the leadership of President al-Assad "the fight against terrorism and foreign interference in its internal affairs".[44]
Bolivia – reiterated its support to Syria under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad in its war against "terrorism and the imperialistic hegemony".[45]
Brunei – expressed wishes for Syria to continue its advancement and his [Hassan al-Bolkiah] desire to work with President al-Assad to develop cooperation and friendship ties between the two countries. It stressed that "the Syrians’ massive turnout to polls rendered futile all attempts to fracture Syria and tear the Syrians’ unity apart". The Syrian people, by their vigorous participation in the elections, have expressed "commitment to national firm principles and spoken out loud against terrorism that has plagued their country".[46]
Cuba – expressed hope that Syria will overcome all challenges "thanks to the wisdom of its leadership and the determination of the Syrian people". It stressed that "the victory of President al-Assad is a victory for all honest and free people who bravely supported Syria in face of the foreign conspiracies and war imposed on it".[41]
Guyana – President of Guyana Donald Ramotar said in his cable of congratulations to President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, that al-Assad's win in the presidential election is a great victory for Syria, expressing his wishes for continuing friendship relations between both countries and coordinating common positions on regional and international issues.[47]
Iran – Foreign Ministry published a statement: "All impartial foreign observers described this election as free and in a calm atmosphere. The Syrian people picked (Assad) with an overwhelming (88.7%) of votes. The Syrian people’s will overpowered America’s….This is the fruit of the Syrian people’s three years of resistance"[48]
Nicaragua – "We want to congratulate him on his resounding victory in the presidential election on Tuesday June 3. Their victory, brother President Bashar represents a reaffirmation of the commitment to peace and spirit of the Syrian people, has defended you with chivalry"[49]
North Korea – sent a congratulatory message to Bashar Al-Assad upon his re-election as president of Syria. The message extended warm congratulations to him upon his re-election as president of Syria thanks to the support and trust of the Syrian people.[50]
Palestine – said that electing President al-Assad means "preserving Syria’s unity and sovereignty and that it will help end the crisis and confront terrorism, wishing prosperity and safety to Syria".[51]
Russia – sees the vote as an important event that safeguards the continued functioning of state institutions in Syria. The election was "naturally not 100 percent democratic" due to the conflict in Syria, but that turnout, transparency and the findings of foreign monitors "give us no reason to question the legitimacy of the election". "Against this background, the ... politicised reaction to the election from some of our international partners cannot fail to cause disillusionment It is unacceptable to ignore the views of millions of Syrians."[52]
Somalia – congratulated the Syrian people on President Bashar al-Assad’s win of the presidential elections held on June 3 in Syria. It expressed Somalia’s keenness on bolstering the fraternal ties between Somalia and Syria in the interests of the two peoples. Somalia hopes that the Syrian people will restore security, stability, amity and civil peace.[53]
South Africa – congratulating Bashar al-Assad on winning the presidential elections. It voiced hope that the Syrian people and government will overcome the crisis affecting their country, affirming South Africa’s readiness to help in this regard.[54]
United Kingdom – British Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "Assad lacked legitimacy before this election, and he lacks it afterwards. This election bore no relation to genuine democracy. It was held in the midst of civil war." [55]
United States – U.S. condemns Syrian presidential election and it was described as a disgrace. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf at daily press briefing: "Today’s presidential election in Syria is a disgrace. Bashar al-Assad has no more credibility today than he did yesterday. In a country where there is not a free society, this selection process is a inconceivable situation, she said." [56][57]
Venezuela – reiterated its full support for the Syrian people in their struggle for peace and reiterates its strong condemnation of "the destabilizing actions that are still in Syria, with encouragement from members of NATO".

2nd/
Al-Assad was confirmed as president by an unopposed referendum in 2000. Immediately after Assad took office a reform movement made cautious advances during the Damascus Spring, which led to the shut down of Mezzeh prison and the declaration of a wide ranging amnesty releasing hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood affiliated political prisoners.[47] However, security crackdowns commenced again within the year.[48][49] The New York Times reported that soon after Assad assumed power, he "made Syria’s link with Hezbollah — and its patrons in Tehran — the central component of his security doctrine.[50]"

Maybe the 2nd post is why you/ Israel/USA and others dont like him, after all he is a good buddy of Hezbollah and Iran!!
Destabilization using smear tactics ar not going to work this time Nik!

He also won elections in 2000, 2007, 2012!

Syrian people love him, Syrian people now love Russia.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is one man in a two bedroom house in Coventry paid for by US$'s, like it or not, he spews forth absolute rubbish which is used by 80% of the main stream media.
A 2nd "intelliegnce" reporting service is Elliot Higgins, known as Bellingcat, paid by USAID, an umemployed ex office worker also in UK who knows nothing about weapons/war or politics and simply gleans his "intel" from the TV then corrupts and uses it, his greatest "coup" was MH17 photo's and photo's of rebels, taken from video's into stills showing very adverse pictures which when seen in the full video tell a different story!

So Nik, please moderate your so called facts, to THE FACTS!!!

The CIA/US Government had very very close relationships with Hafaz Assad and Rifat Assad, they also had close work relationships with Abu Nidal, Monzar al Kazar.
They used them for the Iran Contra affair, also for the movement of heroin from the Bekaa Valley, the CIA also negotiated via Hafez and Rifat for the relaese of the US hostages held in the Valley.
As for Nidal being number 1 on the terrorist list, he banked in London, travelled to DC and London regularly and was never bothered, Nidal was also implicated in the assassination of the London Representative of the PLO, Said Hammani in his offices in 52 Green Street London.
Said and i were good friends. Nidal still travelled freely around Europe and UK unti his "removal" in Bagdad.
Israel used Nidal, US used Nidal, UK used Nidal and many others used him so please Nik, do not get the holier than thou attitude!

Professor William Odom, formerly President Reagan's National Security Agency Director, wrote:

"As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation."

Professor Richard Falk holds that the US and other rich states, as well as mainstream mass media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of First World privilege. He has said that:

"If 'terrorism' as a term of moral and legal opprobrium is to be used at all, then it should apply to violence deliberately targeting civilians, whether committed by state actors or their non-state enemies."

As Wikipedia notes:

"Chomsky and Herman observed that terror was concentrated in the U.S. sphere of influence in the Third World, and documented terror carried out by U.S. client states in Latin America. They observed that of ten Latin American countries that had death squads, all were U.S. client states. They concluded that the global rise in state terror was a result of U.S. foreign policy."

As Wikipedia also notes:
"In 1991, a book edited by Alexander L. George [the Graham H. Stuart Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University] also argued that other Western powers sponsored terror in Third World countries. It concluded that the U.S. and its allies were the main supporters of terrorism throughout the world."

The Washington Post reported in 2010: "The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

The American military have intentionally tries to “out-terrorize the terrorists”: http://truth-out.org/archive/componen...

Torture – which the U.S. has liberally used during the last 10 years – has long been recognized as a form of terrorism. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/0...

As Wikipedia notes: "Worldwide, 74% of countries that used torture on an administrative basis were U.S. client states, receiving military and other support to retain power."

James Morcan wrote: "Professor William Odom, formerly President Reagan's National Security Agency Director, wrote:

"As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because ..."

James Morcan wrote: "Professor William Odom, formerly President Reagan's National Security Agency Director, wrote:

"As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because ..."

James Morcan wrote: "Professor William Odom, formerly President Reagan's National Security Agency Director, wrote:

"As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because ..."

Good post James, i just finished 3 that relate to this very subject!!!

United States and state terrorism (from Wikipedia):

Several scholars have accused the United States of conducting state terrorism. They have written about the liberal democracies' use of state terrorism, particularly in relation to the Cold War. According to them, state terrorism was used to protect the interest of capitalist elites, and the US organized a neo-colonial system of client states, co-operating with local elites to rule through terror. This work has proved controversial with mainstream scholars of both state and non-state terrorism.[1]

Notable works include Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's The political economy of human rights (1979), Herman's The real terror network (1985), Alexander L. George' Western state terrorism (1991), Frederick Gareau's State terrorism and the United States (2004) and Doug Stokes' America's other war (2005). Of these, Chomsky and Herman are considered the foremost writers on the United States and state terrorism.

-------------

Some Specific Examples of US terrorism and planned terrorism:

The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.

As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred).

As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

Nine months earlier, a false flag attack was discussed in order to justify an invasion of the Dominican Republic. Specifically, according to official State Department records, Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles wrote on June 3, 1961:


The Vice President [Lyndon Johnson], [Attorney General] Bob Kennedy, Secretary [of Defense Robert] McNamara, Dick Goodwin [who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs], [head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Lemnitzer, Wyn Coerr, and Ted Achilles were here. Bob McNamara and Lemnitzer stated that under the terms of the contingency paper, they were required to be prepared to move into the island on short order if required to do so, and this, in their opinion, called for substantially more troops that we had in the area. After some discussion we considered two more aircraft carriers, some destroyers, and 12,000 marines should be moved into a position some one hundred miles off the Dominican Republic shore…

The tone of the meeting was deeply disturbing. Bob Kennedy was clearly looking for an excuse to move in on the island. At one point he suggested, apparently seriously, that we might have to blow up the Consulate to provide the rationale.

His general approach, vigorously supported by Dick Goodwin, was that this was a bad government, that there was a strong chance that it might team up with Castro, and that it should be destroyed–with an excuse if possible, without one if necessary.

Rather to my surprise, Bob McNamara seemed to support this view …

The entire spirit of this meeting was profoundly distressing and worrisome, and I left at 8:00 p.m. with a feeling that this spirit which I had seen demonstrated on this occasion and others at the White House by those so close to the President constitutes a further danger of half-cocked action by people with almost no foreign policy experience, who are interested in action for action’s sake, and the devil take the highmost …

[At a subsequent meeting], Bob McNamara went along with their general view that our problem was not to prepare against an overt act by the Dominican Republic but rather to find an excuse for going into the country and upsetting it.

Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

As Chris Floyd and many others have noted, this plan has gone live.

United Press International reported in June 2005:


U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.


Notable works on US terrorism (from Wikipedia):

Beginning in the late 1970s, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman wrote a series of books on the United States' involvement with state terrorism. Their writings coincided with reports by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations of a new global "epidemic" of state torture and murder. Chomsky and Herman argued that terror was concentrated in the US sphere of influence in developing countries, and documented human rights abuses carried out by US client states in Latin America. They argued that of ten Latin American countries that had death squads, all were US client states. Worldwide they claimed that 74% of regimes that used torture on an administrative basis were U.S. client states, receiving military and other support from the US to retain power. They concluded that the global rise in state terror was a result of US foreign policy.[3]

In 1991, a book edited by Alexander L. George also argued that other Western powers sponsored terror in developing countries. It concluded that the US and its allies were the main supporters of terrorism throughout the world.[4] Gareau states that the number of deaths caused by non-state terrorism (3668 deaths between 1968 and 1980, as estimated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)) is "dwarfed" by those resulting from state terrorism in US-backed regimes such as Guatemala (150,000 killed, 50,000 missing during the Guatemalan Civil War - 93% of whom Gareau classifies as "victims of state terrorism").[5] In Worse Than War, Daniel Goldhagen argues that during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the Soviet Union.[6] According to Latin Americanist John Henry Coatsworth, the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the U.S.S.R. and its East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990.[7][8]

Chomsky concluded that all powers backed state terrorism in client states. At the top were the US and other powers, notably the United Kingdom and France, that provided financial, military and diplomatic support to Third World regimes kept in power through violence. These governments acted together with multinational corporations, particularly in the arms and security industries. In addition, other developing countries outside the Western sphere of influence carried out state terror supported by rival powers.[9]

The alleged involvement of major powers in state terrorism in developing countries has led scholars to study it as a global phenomenon, rather than study individual countries in isolation.

Lets not forget the US invasion of Grenada, a Commonwealth Nation!

http://www.channel4.com/news/how-the-...

The US reported a victory in a matter of weeks!!! It was a bit like the local cadet corps getting attacked by 45 Marine Commando and the Parachute Regiment, a couple of weeks?? What did they do have BBQ and Budweiser on the way in??

John wrote: "Good post James, i just finished 3 that relate to this very subject!!! ..."

Yeah, I saw that and if I'm reading it correctly the leader of almost every country on Earth congratulated Assad on his election win(s) apart from the US and UK?

I think you kind of hit the nail on the head with the "holier than thou" comment in that all sides of the fence do get a bit like that. The Americans think they can do no wrong and are incapable of terrorism, even with all the drone warfare and govt-sponsored terrorism. Likewise the Russians are definitely not innocent either, nor the Brits. And probably the (real) Islamic terrorists naively think they are just retaliating even when they blow innocents up.

My take is all sides are guilty of acts of terror and serious human rights violations...In the long-term there's just no sugar-coating the brutal truth or "spinning" it with Washington Public Relations specialists via the media. Kind of reminds me of a quote from Apocalypse Now about murderers in the Vietnam War: "Convicting someone of murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500." Perhaps one could replace murder with terrorism in this era...

Anyway, this discussion thread is starting to feel a bit "hot" and almost seems like a war between various intelligence agencies on different sides...So maybe it's time I begin my politically incorrect jokes about bimbo "journalists" again to lighten things up!

James Morcan wrote: "John wrote: "Good post James, i just finished 3 that relate to this very subject!!! ..."

Yeah, I saw that and if I'm reading it correctly the leader of almost every country on Earth congratulated ..."

Bimbo journalists, now that sounds good, NO OFFENCE to any of our lady compatriots on here who just happen to be on here and are journalists! You are all charming ladies!!!

CNN and FOX and the Whitehouse Press Room have enough to keep us all amused!

CNN

John wrote: "The US reported a victory in a matter of weeks!!! It was a bit like the local cadet corps getting attacked by 45 Marine Commando and the Parachute Regiment, a couple of weeks?? What did they do have BBQ and Budweiser on the way in??..."

Ha!

Well, maybe it was a bit like how they string out every other war so they can plunder the mineral riches, or drugs, of each nation before leaving.

Turned out there was tens of trillions of dollars in heroin and rare minerals in Afghanistan, so maybe they got a few billion from little old Grenada in the 1980s for all we know...

John wrote: "CNN and FOX and the Whitehouse Press Room ..."

I thought it was now official policy of CNN and FOX and the Whitehouse Press Room to only hire bimbos who never ask threatening questions to world leaders?

...and to be fair, let's not forget the "himbos" - the young handsome (and very inexperienced) male journalist counterparts to the bimbos...Together, the bimbos and himbos form quite a team and ask all the tough questions of Obama, for example "Mr President, what will the First Lady be planting in her garden this season?"

Such questions are usually asked at the perfect time. For example, just as a drone strike "accidentally" wipes out another school or hospital in a Muslim country...

OOOPS!!!

http://syriatimes.sy/index.php/news/w...

John wrote: "He also won elections in 2000, 2007, 2012!

Syrian people love him, Syrian people now love Russia.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is one man in a two bedroom house in Coventry paid for by..."

John wrote: "Nik wrote: "John,

2014 elections are just a show, nothing else. Assad was ruling Syria long b4 these elections, while he was never elected. Whatever terminology u use and whatever sources you beli..."

Hi John,

Nice to hear from you. I respect your serious approach and that you took your time to come up with some quotes from different governments to refute my statement.
I'm glad that you brought this list of countries, which, if correct, clearly shows who recognized the elections and which countries didn't. Of course, the league of non-elected presidents (some say - dictators) and rulers eagerly recognized these pnoney elections. Belarus? Cuba? North Korea? You really think these countries' rulers can corroborate democratic election? Come on now. I'm not at all surprised these guys support each other.
Now, I'm not saying Alexander, Raul or what's his name in N. Korea are bad guys, I just doubt their competence on democratic elections.

BTW, it would be interesting to find out what others think. Maybe James as a moderator can run a poll on who thinks assad junior is a democratically elected president

John wrote: "Nik wrote: "John,

2014 elections are just a show, nothing else. Assad was ruling Syria long b4 these elections, while he was never elected. Whatever terminology u use and whatever sources you beli..."

Ah, and I apologise if my comments destabilise anyone. Remain stable, guys, at least until a 3-d or 4-th drink -:)

John wrote: "He also won elections in 2000, 2007, 2012!

Syrian people love him, Syrian people now love Russia.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is one man in a two bedroom house in Coventry paid for by..."

John, I'm surprised you address this post to me. I've no idea what Syrian Observatory (sounds like a bunch of telescopes to me) is or who this Bellingcat is. I don't remember referring to any of them. You must be mistaking me for someone else.

John wrote: "The CIA/US Government had very very close relationships with Hafaz Assad and Rifat Assad, they also had close work relationships with Abu Nidal, Monzar al Kazar.
They used them for the Iran Contra ..."

John, I'm not holier -than -thou, moreover I suspect I'm not a saint -:) BTW, I enjoy the debate and I respect that we have such opposite views. I don't mean any personal insult to you and I hope you equally have no hard feelings.

There is one thing that I wanted to ask you though. James here wrote that you are an ex-British intelligence and in your interview there was something about working for CIA, if I'm not mistaken. If you are so averted from their methods, politics, attitudes, etc and became such a bitter opponent of your former employers, you must've waived in protest all benefits of armed forces veteran, I guess

Nik,
No offense intended, and no personal insult felt.
Good discussion certainly, political sparring should we say!
Yes i am ex British military, airborne and SF, then worked with a certain government agency, poached by the Americans, worked around the world for them, saw a lot of narcotics "smuggling" so defected from "agency" to DEA.
Then went to South Africa to the DSO formed by Nelson, there until 2009 but went back to finish an op there.
Now a bit battered and broken in places but still alive and looking back at the stupidity of our respective beloved governments and their duplicity!
Hopefully the general public of the world will one day stand up and say, "Screw you governments, no more war"!
Little bit more below on the duplicity of the US govt!!
Have a great night Nik.

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.

The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."

I regret to hear about the hardships that you currently experience and I sincerely hope the situ would improve for you. With such a rich and diversified career I also hope you don't end up feeling that you fought for a wrong cause most of the time...

And I certainly support your wish for no more war. At that, I somehow doubt that if the States, UK and the West in general would cease all their foreign activities, we won't see blood and belligerence around the world...
Good night, it's been a pleasure

Nik wrote: "I regret to hear about the hardships that you currently experience and I sincerely hope the situ would improve for you. With such a rich and diversified career I also hope you don't end up feeling ..."

Good night Nic, go in peace!

Nik wrote: "I somehow doubt that if the States, UK and the West in general would cease all their foreign activities, we won't see blood and belligerence around the world... ..."

Agreed, but it'd be a very good start, Nik!

Nik I pointed out those very few things because most things about the boys were not suspicious. The cops shot to kill instead of say shooting him in the arm or using a taser. So far they haven't found a motive the media has just presumed terrorism. He had no criminal record and he was not on their watch list or the federal watch list. Mental health, don't know yet but puberty affects everyone differently. They have already got a warrant for 5 people who they think supplied the gun. Unlike the Lindt café where the person had a long criminal record and it took a long time for police to do anything (so people suspect it was staged) this is different. At least it seems different. This seems more like a try hard looking for attention. But they still won't treat it that way.

Kelly wrote: "I know I'm appearing late in the conversation.

JM there were no Taliban fighters in the hospital. And any suspicions that there were say they were believed to have believed to have been patients. ..."

Excellent post Kelly!!!!

What has also come to light, not in this shooting but in most school shootings where the shooter is a youngster is that the shooter has been prescribed various psychotropic medications such as Ritalin, Rysperdahl, and others that have the tendency to cause violent tendencies and suicidal tendencies.
80% of veteran suicides are from vets suffering from PTSD and being on these medications as well.
But "Big Pharma" still earns per year $84B on Risprdal sales alone!

Call me stupid, but I'm confused by mainstream meida reports coming out of Syria like this one:

'US-backed Kurdish-Arab alliance launches first anti-Islamic State attack in Syria' -- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-01...

Especially as it mentions "A coalition of US-backed Kurdish militia and rebel groups has launched its first operation against territory controlled by the Islamic State jihadist group in north-east Syria, a spokesman has said."

In the musical chairs of international relations, I get confused who are the "good guys", who are the "bad guys", who are the "terrorists" and the "freedom fighters", who are the "good rebel groups" and who are the "bad rebel groups"...And also how these terms seem to change for certain groups, depending on the era...e.g. Taliban were called freedom fighters by the US Government and senior Taliban officials visited the White House when they fought the Soviets...Then years later they were sworn enemies of the US...Same seems to go for a thousand other groups around the world...

Russian Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov recently said, "if it looks like a terrorist, if it talks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it shoots a gun like a terrorist, then it is a terrorist"!

And maybe he's right, maybe there is no such thing as "moderate rebels" and the US arming and financing such groups seems a very dangerous game...

What's interesting is the YPG mentioned in that article is apparently designated as terrorist group by the US State Department and that designation is still in place. And yet they are being financed/armed by the US against ISIS. Go figure!

The YPG are also, to my knowledge, pro Syria and pro Assad and very anti Turkey which is a NATO member...So why is the US partnering with known enemies of a NATO member?

It's a similar situation, from what I can ascertain, with other rebel groups in Syria like the SDF and the PPK - both have been called terrorist groups as well, yet are being heavily supported by the US.

James Morcan wrote: "Call me stupid, but I'm confused by mainstream meida reports coming out of Syria like this one:

'US-backed Kurdish-Arab alliance launches first anti-Islamic State attack in Syria' -- http://www.ab..."
The meaning of the term "terrorism" changes with the different and differing parties. Unfortunately, "state-sponsored terrorism" is conveniently ignored almost always and in fact, even remains unknown to many. The accompanying question to "who gets to define terrorism?" is "who gets to designate a certain organization as "terrorist"?" & also labels to a certain people, group, activist(s) or leader(s). Hezbollah was once a terrorist organization, now it's not. There's no accountability for war crimes, massive human rights violations in the middle-east and elswhere, Bush-Blair always remained clear and clean. Media has been very selective and propagandist in its coverage and thanks to them the term "Islamist" is now synonymous with "terroristic". Also, to date Ahmad Shah Massoud is referred to as a "warlord" in Western media even though he was the defence minister of U.N backed government of Afghanistan and is the national hero of Afghanistan (Again, that was done by President Hamid Karzai who was U.S-backed). I may sound totally ridiculous and my usage of words questionable or senseless even, but it seems to me that U.S. doesn't try to export democracy, rather, it tries to establish a pro-U.S oligarchical democracy or say dictatorial democracy which is quite evident in its support of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi under whose regime massive human rights violations took place in Iran, its initial support to Taliban, etc. Also, governments or powers emerging through a Jihadist movement are sometimes considered legitimate and at others, remain unrecognized or recognized as "terrorist outfits" suiting the desires of the West.

I think you raise legitimate concerns, Sash.

James Morcan wrote: "I think you raise legitimate concerns, Sash."

Thanks, James.

Sash wrote: "There's no accountability for war crimes, massive human rights violations in the middle-east and elswhere, Bush-Blair always remained clear and clean..."

Agreed.
And perhaps one example of thousands of such human rights violations and war crimes was the US recent bombings of a civilian hospital in Afghanistan.
As Edward Snowden tweeted about this: "Even if an enemy is attacking from inside a hospital, you may not bomb w/o warning patients."

Unfortunately, this is not the first time the U.S. has purposefully bombed civilian targets, it's happened scores of times over the years (as confirmed by the likes of Amnesty International) as per this article:

America Has REPEATEDLY Committed War Crimes By Bombing Civilians -- http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/1...

I think it's also very important in these discussions to make the necessary distinction between the US Empire (which is basically the domain of the Military Industrial Complex) and the United States. The former has virtually nothing to do with Americans anymore and I believe is the single biggest enemy of Ammericans as this "empire of the global elite" is slowly bankrupting the US not to mention morally compromising it.