Why did the US so often raise their terrorists?

[gandalf]

The US several times in history nurtured as friends the same groups they declared later terrorists.
That is what Senator Max Cleland from Georgia told during the
3rd HEARING OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, July 9, 2003.
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing3/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-07-09.pdf)

Senator Cleland describes how the United States supported several times in recent history groups that were later declared terrorists.
First, US supported Ho Chi Minh during WWII, who became during the Vietnam war the enemy.
Later, US supported the mujaheddin: "We are supporting the guys that we now call the terrorists" (p. 27)
In the Iran-Iraq war "silently and tacitly" Saddam Hussein was supported, who now is an.

There are also discussions how US people supported Hitler, cf. the Nazi/Bush-thread here on DU.

What does that mean? Is that only a proof of a very bad judgment in choosing friends and allies? Or, even worse, does that mean that the distinction between friend and enemy does not follow constant standards, but is opportunistically made, depending on what is in the US "national interest" at that time? In this case, the US would lack every right to criticize other states, if they are constantly changing moral standards, at one time neglecting the violation of human rights, at the other time using it as an argument to remove a government.

Or, to propose a provocative theory: Sometimes terrorists fulfill a purpose. Without them, certain political aims (like Patriot Act, the Invasion of Iraq) could never have been achieved and “sold” to the American people.

Or what do you think? Just bad luck in choosing friends?

[ComerPerro]

1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend

Is a very Republican view. This is how we keep getting ourselves into such messes.

The thing that bothers me most is the fact that this administration has the audacity to pretend that the United States (the Reagan administration, I might add) was never allied with Iraq and never used terrorism to combat the Soviet Union in Afganistan.

[seventhson]

2. I call it: Playing both ends against the middle (WE are the middle)

I agree with the following statement:


Or, to propose a provocative theory: Sometimes terrorists fulfill a purpose. Without them, certain political aims (like Patriot Act, the Invasion of Iraq) could never have been achieved and “sold” to the American people.


Al Qaeda is probably operated with Carlyle/Halliburton and BFEE funds channeled through Pakistan's ISI (CIA equivalent set up by the CIA) and the Saudis.

Bush gave the Taliban $43 Million in 2001 before 9-11.

THAT is why I believe 9-11 was MIHOP.


BUT like the Reichstag Fire in Germany in 1993 which propelled Hitler into dictatorial power with the suspension of the German constitution to oppose the "communist" terrorists--- secret government operations and shadow governments (corporate fascist organizations) have always relied on infiltrating and actually funding the opposition to control them and use them for political sabotage and scapegoating.

This practice is very old. Remember the Trojan Horse?

You infiltrate with gifts and secret funding and free help (and agents).

Think COINTELPRO on a global basis: Infiltrate, cause death and mayhem, arouse public opinion against the perpetrators (which are actually government agents provoking others who might never have so acted without funding and encouragement and training) then this justifies the use of tax payer moneys to pay the politicians and military and intelligence guys *ad hence corporations) to STOP what was wrought and to justify excesses and suppression or elimination of fundamental liberties.

It is called fascism and it will use any means it can to steal our freedoms and to destroy our democracy.

[NNN0LHI]

3. School Of The Americas. Try that on Google and see what you get

Here are the results.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=School+Of+The+Americas&btnG=Google+Search

[Kat 333]

4. Recently read an interesting

article that brings up that point. It may be as simple as the author suggests. I did, however, have a bit of a problem with the source considering they lent total support to the first US attack on Iraq some years back by the evil daddy of the current boy with his finger on the button.

<snip>

Communication theorists tell us that language has a great deal to do with the way we think. They compel us to look carefully at the words we use and why we use them. Every word changes the view, the opinion, the attitude, the character of the person with whom we're dealing. The words we use describe our version of reality. Words not only enable us to see what's in front of us; they also delude us into assuming what is not. We color things and create things and hide things just by virtue of the words we use to talk about them. Like "the axis of evil," for instance. Or "the civilized world," for instance. Or "terrorism," perhaps.

Consider the public vocabulary now in vogue. We are fighting a "war" on "terrorism," we're told. But no one ever defines them. In our "war" we never engaged an army in the field. We simply drove massive amounts of military equipment onto foreign territory, largely uncontested, and declared victory. So did this meet any definition of "war" or was it an "invasion?"

Now, as a result of that "war," we are dealing with organized attacks by people who cannot muster an army to meet our own, face to face, regiment to regiment. They do not wear uniforms. They attack and then melt back into the masses. They do not live in barracks. Instead, their weapons are pickup trucks rather than tanks and, to get us out of their country, they take aim at "soft" targets -- public buildings rather than military installations -- to stiffen the resistance of the entire population. So, who are they? Are they "terrorists," as we call them. Or are they "Freedom Fighters," as Ronald Reagan called the non-military groups who, under our direction and with our money, engineered more than one "regime change" in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, for instance, by inciting the local riots that destabilized those countries.

Who gets to define those words? And on what criteria? Who decides what terrorism really is? When we do is it "covert action" but when they do it, is it "terrorism?" If a nation cannot afford an army, does that mean they have no right to defend themselves by whatever means possible? Are only armies certified to kill? And if so, why?

http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/fw082603.htm

[NNN0LHI]

5. "When we do is it "covert action" but when they do it, is it "terrorism?"

That is the real truth here. "Real Americans" (actually the idiots) will not or do not want to believe this can be true.

Don

[BeFree]

6. Thanks for this article, Kat

Not sure many will understand, but hey, you tried.