A List of US backed Terrorism

[GhostSoldier]

Iraq
2003-Present

Palestine
1948-Present

Iraq
1991-2003

Afghanistan
2001-Present

Colombia
1960s-Present

Yugoslavia
1992-Present

Congo/Zaire
1961-Present

Cuba
1959-Present

Guatemala
1953-Present

El Salvador
1980-Present

East Timor
1975-1999

Haiti
1987-1994

Somalia
1993

Afghanistan
1979-1992

Nicaragua
1981-1990

Panama
1989

Libya
1981-1989

Iran
1988

Grenada
1979-1984

Greece
1964-1974

Chile
1964-1973

Costa Rica
Mid-1950s, 1970-71

Dominican Republic
1963-1966

Vietnam
1945-1974

Cambodia
1955-1973

Laos
1957-1973

Thailand
1965-1973

Italy
1947-1970s

Indonesia
1965

Brazil
1961-1964

British Guiana/Guyana
1953-1964

Iraq
1963

Soviet Union
1940s-1960s

Western Europe
1950s-1960s

Haiti
1959

Indonesia
1957-1958

Middle East
1956-1958

Iran
1953

Germany, Italy, Europe
1950s

Eastern Europe
1948-1956

Albania
1949-1953

Korea
1945-1953

Philippines
1945-1953

Greece
1947-1949

Marshall Islands
1946-1958

Italy
1947-1948

France
1947

China
1945-1951

Hiroshima & Nagasaki
August 1945

Dresden, Germany
February 1945

Japan, Germany, France
1942-1945

Around the world
1800s-1930s

Philippines
1899-1902

America and Africa
1607-1890

[Totalitarian Militant]

You make me sick.

Learn the god damn definition of terrorism.

[Cal]

What the hell does this list mean, have you just picked countries that have been through turmoil where the US have been involved,

What a load of bollocks,

[LSD]

Soviet Union
1940s-1960s

America and Africa
1607-1890


Western Europe
1950s-1960s

Whaaaaaaaaa??

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 10:16 AM

Soviet Union
1940s-1960s

America and Africa
1607-1890


Western Europe
1950s-1960s


America 1609-1890!?

America as in the US didint exist until 1776, and even then it was only 13 states.

[Commie Rat]

there was a post on this a while ago,
with a much more complete set of all conficts that american troops and there reaching Hemogony

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:19 AM



America 1609-1890!?

America as in the US didint exist until 1776, and even then it was only 13 states. [/quote]
I think he is referring to the conflicts the settlers had against the native american population.
And by the way.... there is no definition of "terrorism" nowadays, it is just a loose word thrown about by the imperialists who describe anyone as terrorists just because they oppose them or their worldview.
However an impressive list. Only if some brief info was given alongwith the dates, that would have cleared up some of the confusion.

[Cal]

There was no confusion, just don't see the point of it.



there is no definition of "terrorism" nowadays, it is just a loose word thrown about by the imperialists who describe anyone as terrorists just because they oppose them or their worldview.


I don't think those commuters in Madrid can be called imperialists, or those civillians killed by car bombs in Iraq.

[SpeCtrE]

I don't get him altogether... what does he mean?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:02 PM


I don't think those commuters in Madrid can be called imperialists, or those civillians killed by car bombs in Iraq.
What about those killed in Afghanistan. one incident: a group of Taliban fighters numbering between 500-700 surrendered to general Dostum who was a warlord allied with the northern alliance. The Taliban prisoners were packed into trucks with no ventilation under the hot afghan sun. hours later they were all dead DUE TO SUFFOCATION. the U.S army who later arrived on the scene advised dOSTUM to get rid of the bodies before the press arrived. Those bodies then mysteriously vanished into thin air. this statement was given by several eyewitnesses who belonged to the northern alliance after the war. No trace of those bodies has yet been found and General Dostum is now the defence minister of Afghanistan.
The Chechen resistance who have battled Russian forces since almost a century for an independant Chechnya were viewed by Europe and the U.S as a legitimate freedom struggle. To gain support for the Afghan war and Iraq from Russia, the U.S suddenly changed it's stance and labelled the chechen resistance as terrorists even though Europe still supports them.
The Palestinian resistance has been labelled as terrorist.
The Iraqi resistance has been labelled as terrorist.
Sure the Madrid train attacks occured and sure the car bombs in Iraq killed civilians. but what about the hundreds of thousands killed by U.S bombings of just afghanistan and iraq, did u know that the U.S military bombed a wedding party in afghanistan? all those civilians killed and termed simply as "collaterral damage" by the U.S.All those homes destroyed?
.......SO FORGIVE ME IF I DON'T TRUST THE JUDGEMENT OF THE U.S AS TO WHO IS A TERRORIST AND WHO ISN'T!

[Cal]

Sure the Madrid train attacks occured and sure the car bombs in Iraq killed civilians. but what about the hundreds of thousands killed by U.S bombings of just afghanistan and iraq, did u know that the U.S military bombed a wedding party in afghanistan? all those civilians killed and termed simply as "collaterral damage" by the U.S.All those homes destroyed?
.......SO FORGIVE ME IF I DON'T TRUST THE JUDGEMENT OF THE U.S AS TO WHO IS A TERRORIST AND WHO ISN'T!


When did I ever give a US definition of terrorist to justify my comments? But whataction do you take in this instance, do the governments say to the terrorists (and by terrorists I mean incidents such as the Madrid bombings, 9/11 etc) do they say actually fellas you've got our attention now what are your grievances we'll try and work them through?

At the end of the day we've all got to make a judgement on the severity / legitimacy of the response to such events or on the causes of them in the first place, it's from this point that we can define terrorism, but this is where those who do commit these acts fall down as the average human response to being attacked is to hit back.

Do you think any US administration would have survived an election if there had been no action taken as an act of grievence? The people would have elected a government willing to go after the 'terrorists'

It's a case of where the line is drawn, all I picked up on was to label anyone who suffers from terrorism an imperialist lookng for a scapegoat, (and I know that is not what you meant)

With regards to the Chechen affair, I agree that the US has in fact changed it's stance however this is not a major issue on the ground in this particular encounter and it by no means justifies what happened in Beslan, my point is that there are those with legitimate grievances but history has taught us that acts of terrorism don't do anything to aid your cause, i understand that it is generally as a last resort of desperation, however it will never have the justified effect.

And just for the record I do not adhere to your 'so-called' US definition of terrorism.

[viva le revolution]

I think you mis-understood my post, i did not brand those who suffered from terrorism imperialist but the U.S government. Surely you must agree that the U.S government is usin the word "terrorism" rather loosely to describe those who oppose it. Even when U.S troops are killed in Iraq, the actions are described as terrorism. don't you think that's making the word lose meaning?

[Cal]

I see your point, don't get me wrong, but terrorism is really defined by the context that action is being used in,

By definition those insurgents in Iraq are terrorists as they are acting illegally outside the jurastiction of the government. However they (and probably your good self) believe they are acting within a moral law in order to remove what they believe is an occupying force.

As I say it is a tricky definition and depends entirely on the circumstances. I don't think the word is loosing meaning it is often being overplayed,

As mentioned with a 60% turnout and a new government formed in Iraq on the back of those elections any actions operated outside or against the wishes of the state can be described as terrorism but then it's up to the individual viewing those events to draw their own conclusion.

The major point I am making is that although the US were involved in a lot of the situations in the initial list to describe all of them as travesties/illegal actions is simply not right and some of them bear no relation to the word terrorism what so ever, Many would view the listed events as being wrong and illegal, but many also saw themselves as being liberators.

I know you didn't mean the Madrid victims were imperialists, their just seems to be a culture whereby anyone who is an opponent of the US government is seen as an ally rather than for what they really are,

Just becasue they are your enemies enemy does't make them your ally, and doesn't give them carte blanche to do what they want in the name of oppression.

[bushdog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:21 AM


By definition those insurgents in Iraq are terrorists as they are acting illegally outside the jurastiction of the government.

As mentioned with a 60% turnout and a new government formed in Iraq on the back of those elections any actions operated outside or against the wishes of the state can be described as terrorism but then it's up to the individual viewing those events to draw their own conclusion.


Do you know the definition of terrorism? according to your reasoning, anyone who breaks the law is a terrorist. you are contradicting your own point.

terrorism is

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." (JCS Pub 1-02)

Secondly the new government in iraq is the most illegitimate, corrupt, bunch of US lackeys ever assembled in the middle east. Those people who you label terrorists in iraq are legitimate rebels. i may not agree with thier means, but they are fighting the us government, and it's puppet government.

[Maynard]

If the definition of terrorism is ""The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." than the Iraq insurgents are terrorists. They are using unlawful force against people and property to coerce or intimidate governments to achieve their objectives. So, I think Cal is very much correct in what he/she said, however, just because it fits into this label shouldn't make any difference as to whether one supports their actions or not.


Secondly the new government in iraq is the most illegitimate, corrupt, bunch of US lackeys ever assembled in the middle east.
Illegitimate? Perhaps. But the most illegitimate in the Middle East, ever? More illegitimate than the Saudi government, for instance? More corrupt than the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein as well?


may not agree with thier means, but they are fighting the us government, and it's puppet government.
That doesn't make them worth supporting alone. Most of the insurgency, at least with current evidence, seems to be extremely reactionary, whose ultimate goal seems to be a theocracy. I don't support them, nor the occupation, at all.

[Cal]

My apologies for not being clear but I did mean the acts of insurgency against the new Iraqi security forces,



Secondly the new government in iraq is the most illegitimate, corrupt, bunch of US lackeys ever assembled in the middle east. Those people who you label terrorists in iraq are legitimate rebels. i may not agree with thier means, but they are fighting the us government, and it's puppet government.

I understand where you are coming from but if anything has come out of the Iraqi debacle than a 60% election turnout and a government which seems to be keen on sharing power with all the different religious/ethnic groups, that seems quite positive.

That's not a naive comment, I understand the issues at play but if 60% of the population are prepared to use the ballot box then as the majority they should hold the cards and should not have to put up with the constant threat of insurgency.

And before everybody comes on and says that they had to put up with the US bombardment and they didn't have a say in that, all I can say is that out of the threat of a war for elections or the continuance of Saddam and his regime I honestly don't know which I would pick.


Those people who you label terrorists in iraq are legitimate rebels

One more point on that comment, a lot of the insurgents from current knowledge are not even Iraqi but people whose drive is theocratical rather than for the liberation of Iraq. If that is a legitimate rebel than is there such a thing as an illegitimate rebel?

[Maynard]

all I can say is that out of the threat of a war for elections or the continuance of Saddam and his regime I honestly don't know which I would pick.

That is reflected in opinion polls before the war in Iraq, 50 %, at least in one poll I saw were for the war and 37 % against it. I don't know what the opinion would be now though. It really must have been a gut wrenching decision for them to make, I'm sure most would prefer neither.


people whose drive is theocratical rather than for the liberation of Iraq.
Also people who are very hostile to any sort of leftism or workers movements, as evidenced by the killing of Hadi Salih the International Officer of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions.

[Cal]

Thanks for the comments Maynard,

Completely agree with you, can't imagine having to make that decision.

Those who think that the ongoing conflict is between the US and brave Iraqi libertarians are kidding themselves, unfortunately this is the argument that most want to believe as it serves their anti-US agenda.

[viva le revolution]

I must point out that in my opinion i do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the new Iraqi government. Ahmed Chalabi, famous iraqi exile, convicted embezzler, and the person largely blamed for providing the CIA with the bogus information on the existence of Iraq's large WMD stockpiles, now holds a ministry in the new interim Iraqi government.
The projected 60% of voter turnout did not reflect the opinion of the majority of the sunni population in Iraq as the sunni's largely boycotted the elections.
The election of a Kurdish president in Iraq is totally bogus, for many reason's, first of all the vast majority of sunni's boycotted the elections, the vast majority of shias are loyal to al-sistani who represents the pro-iran faction.
The kurds have their own government in the north which Baghdad has little control over. They even have their own independant armed forces, the "peshmerga".
Last but not least, president Allawi is also a former dissident and close freind of Ahmed chalabi, the U.S government's most loyal iraqi dissident.Chalabi himself recommended Allawi be made president to the U.S even before the elections. Allaw suits Washington because he is a dovish figure.
As far as the Iraqi resistance goes i do not support them killing civilians but i do support attacks on U.S troops and the Iraqi government's forces because i can see why they view the new government as illegitimate.

[Maynard]

i do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the new Iraqi government
Fair enough, which governments do you consider legitimate though?


Ahmed Chalabi, famous iraqi exile, convicted embezzler, and the person largely blamed for providing the CIA with the bogus information on the existence of Iraq's large WMD stockpiles, now holds a ministry in the new interim Iraqi government.

He is Deputy Prime Minister, is he not? I know about Mister Chalabi though, he was once in consideration for the role of president but apparently, got on the wrong side of many US officials in Baghdad.


The projected 60% of voter turnout did not reflect the opinion of the majority of the sunni population in Iraq as the sunni's largely boycotted the elections
That's true enough but, in a lot of cases, not all, that was done by choice. Just as there is abstentions in elections in the United States, for instance.


The election of a Kurdish president in Iraq is totally bogus, for many reason's, first of all the vast majority of sunni's boycotted the elections, the vast majority of shias are loyal to al-sistani who represents the pro-iran faction.

I don't see it as bogus, really, a mans ethnic background shouldn't really matter and secondly, the Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, I believe was part of Al Sistanis political grouping, the United Iraqi Alliance.


The kurds have their own government in the north which Baghdad has little control over
Why is that a bad thing though?


Allaw suits Washington because he is a dovish figure Dovish figure? The man who ordered the destruction of Fallujah? Why would Washington want a dovish figure in the first place?


i can see why they view the new government as illegitimate
Yes but would the government, they want to install be any more legitimate?

[OleMarxco]

The current government is a regime, and legime at that, just 'cuze...everyone else who could've opposed by vote it is, well, technically, already dead, or out there fighting :D

[Cal]

The current government is a regime, and legime at that, just 'cuze...everyone else who could've opposed by vote it is, well, technically, already dead, or out there fighting


What?

How can you be technically dead?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:00 PM

Fair enough, which governments do you consider legitimate though?



He is Deputy Prime Minister, is he not? I know about Mister Chalabi though, he was once in consideration for the role of president but apparently, got on the wrong side of many US officials in Baghdad.

That's true enough but, in a lot of cases, not all, that was done by choice. Just as there is abstentions in elections in the United States, for instance.


I don't see it as bogus, really, a mans ethnic background shouldn't really matter and secondly, the Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, I believe was part of Al Sistanis political grouping, the United Iraqi Alliance.


The kurds have their own government in the north which Baghdad has little control over
Why is that a bad thing though?


Allaw suits Washington because he is a dovish figure Dovish figure? The man who ordered the destruction of Fallujah? Why would Washington want a dovish figure in the first place?


i can see why they view the new government as illegitimate
Yes but would the government, they want to install be any more legitimate? [/quote]
1 Any government in a capitalist country is illegitimate because it is composed of careerists out of the upper and middle class and is dependant upon the will and interests of these classes. The legitimacy of a government is founded, in my opinion when it recognizes that the working classes' interests are supreme and takes steps to better their situation for example, Venezuela.. Being appointed and suppressing resistance to occupation of your country does not improve a regime's credibility in my book.
2. my mistake, he is the deputy prime minister. The whole WMD fiasco tarnished his credibility in the U.S but it suited the neo-con agenda. His appointment is proof.
3. It was done by choice because of the ongoing resistance. The elections lost credibility, if it ever had any, because of this. The sunni's form the second largest group in Iraq and are in majority in a substantial region of Iraq. Imagine the entire african-american population in america boycotting the american elections, cause thats roughly the same proportion of the Iraqi population the sunni's consist of, ever having legitimacy. abstentions in U.S don't even compare at this proportionate level and not by an entire ethnic group. How can the new Iraqi government claim to represent the whole of Iraq?
4. It does not matter to us but it does to the Iraqis who were separated along ethnic lines thanks to Saddam's preferrential treatment of Sunnis over shias and kurds. An uprising against Saddam by shias occured during his regime but was put down by Saddam with the support of the Sunni's who formed a disproportionate number employed at top jobs and important posts.Such instances demonstrated the division of the ethnic groups who share loyalty to different groups. The Kurds have their own government and armed forces and are a significantally smaller ethnic group than the sunnis or shias. The shias are allied with the pro-iran faction of Al-Sistani and form the largest ethnic group. The sunnis are loyal to the resistance and pro-Syria.The Iraqi elections were ridiculous because on the ballot cards no names were given out of fear of the security for the candidates so the voters voted largely along ethnic lines. So how is it that a candidate from the smallest ethnic group has the top job?...The answer, because the U.S seeks to assimilate the independant Kurds into the new government and establish Baghdad's control over Iraq's north. The appointment of the new prime minster is just to keep the shias quiet and complacent. Otherwise how come a candidate out of the largest ethnic faction is politically subservient to another out of the smallest ethnic faction?
5. I never said that was a bad thing.
6. I'm sorry, i meant complacent towards the occupation and one of it's key supporters even before the invasion and elections.
7. That's exactly my point, no government that is installed under occupation is ever lagitimate.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 04:16 AM

Soviet Union
1940s-1960s

America and Africa
1607-1890


Western Europe
1950s-1960s

Whaaaaaaaaa??
Complete List with Links (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html)


Maybe this will be more clear!

[LSD]

Complete List with Links

Ah!

So that's where he got that list from... nice to know! :)

Although you still haven't answered my questions.

Firstly, how can you condemn as "US backed terorism" actions which occured before the US existed?

Secondly, how can you so broaden your definition of terrorism to include espionage activities in Western Europe?

Thirdly, what was the point of this thread given that all this information has been previously posted several times on this forum.

I think I summed all of that quite nicely with

Whaaaaaaaaa??

[Commie Rat]

LSD has a point


The current government is a regime, and legime at that, just 'cuze...everyone else who could've opposed by vote it is, well, technically, already dead, or out there fighting


and legime at that

What the Fuck is a Legime

[Domingo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:15 AM

Hiroshima & Nagasaki
August 1945

Dresden, Germany
February 1945

Japan, Germany, France
1942-1945


There is a huge difference between terror and war.

The Jap's pulled America into the war.

America had the choices of sacrificing 1000's of Americans lifes for what they could do x100 times easier.

War is like that: Tkae the easier way to save more lives.

And to top that, America helped repair Japan after the war.

Terrorism is when America supported Bolivia in capturing and murdering Che.

[LSD]

There is a huge difference between terror and war.

The Jap's pulled America into the war.

America had the choices of sacrificing 1000's of Americans lifes for what they could do x100 times easier.

Although I don't quite get the point of this thread, defending Hirshima and Nagasaki is dusgusting.

The US did not nuke Japan to "save lives". It did it to test its new weapon and to scare Stalin. Even the generals in the field, like Eisenhower, have since admitted that the bombing was unnescessary.

Japan was prepared to sue for virtually unconditional peace so long as they could keep the Emperor ....that was the deal that was ultimately made.

The US never would have even had to invade Japan, they could have signed a treaty in July.


And to top that, America helped repair Japan after the war.

Oh, how magnanimous of them. If by "repair", you mean make dependent on the US economically and militarily.

It wasn't until the late seventies that Japan was finally able to stand on its own, and even then it was still so closely tied in to the US glocal economy that it was, for all practical purposes, just another outpost of the US economic empire.

[bushdog]

Are you defending the use of nuclear weapons against civillian targets?
If i read that correctly you are, and if that is true you should get one shoved up you asshole.

[Domingo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:29 PM
Are you defending the use of nuclear weapons against civillian targets?
If i read that correctly you are, and if that is true you should get one shoved up you asshole.
No, I am showing the difference between war (maybe obsolete to you) and terrorism.

Quoted:

It wasn't until the late seventies that Japan was finally able to stand on its own, and even then it was still so closely tied in to the US glocal economy that it was, for all practical purposes, just another outpost of the US economic empire.

Look at them now. Isnt that all that should matter? They are a global economic power, greatness in the technological field.

Now look:

Generals and officers see things differnet than the enlisted man. The General sees a victory with "minimal losses" meaning atleast 10,000 for an invasion on Japan and the rest of the surrounding islands.

Nuclear stategy was just another means of winning a war. You can easily call the civilian deaths "collateral damage." They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. For earths sake, Japan was not even for the cause!

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:06 PM
America had the choices of sacrificing 1000's of Americans lifes for what they could do x100 times easier.


Yet General Eisenhower along with other top military leaders disaproved of using the atomic bomb because Japan was on the verge of collapse anyway. Their own generals didn't want to use it yet the politicians did.


For earths sake, Japan was not even for the cause!I assume you mean the communist cause correct?

Even if this is so, killing civilians cannot be justified.

[LSD]

Look at them now. Isnt that all that should matter? .

No.

The hundreds of thousands of civilians who needlessly died matter more!


Generals and officers see things differnet than the enlisted man. The General sees a victory with "minimal losses" meaning atleast 10,000 for an invasion on Japan and the rest of the surrounding islands.

I don't think you're paying attention.

No invasion was nescessary. Japan was prepared to surrender.

The nuclear bombings of open civilian cities was nothing more than political flexing to show up the Russians.


Nuclear stategy was just another means of winning a war. You can easily call the civilian deaths "collateral damage." They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Actually, they were in the right place!

Hiroshima was an open, non-military city with absolutely no strategic value in the war.

If you were a civilian, can you imagine an ostensibly safer place?

The US bombed a city that they knew had no military reason to be destroyed simply to test the "effectiveness" of their new toy and to scare the shits of the Ruskies.


No, I am showing the difference between war (maybe obsolete to you) and terrorism.

Of course there is a difference, but one can occur within the other.

The bombings of Dresden, of Tokyo, of Hiroshima, of Nagasaki were terrorist acts within a greater war.

[Domingo]

It all depends on how you view things.

For the people nthe ground, it was out of nowhere and without warning making it a terrorist attack on their eyes. It all depends on your views. I am viewing things from a standpoint of they were the enemys, silence them.

If Japan was really just going to surrender, why didnt they surrender after the 1st nuclear bomb?

If you have been here a while, you know I am usually against such acts by America.

[Anti-establishment]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 1 2005, 01:59 PM

I think he is referring to the conflicts the settlers had against the native american population.

I think his head's up his hole.

[LSD]

If Japan was really just going to surrender, why didnt they surrender after the 1st nuclear bomb?

They only had three days between the two attacks.

At first they really didn't even know what had happened, by the time they had analyzed the data, Nagasaki has been hit too.

Japan had only one condition, they wanted to retain the Emperor. And although the final surrender was ostensible unconditional, the US allowed Japan that courtesy anyways!

So, again, the bombing were entirely unnescessary.


For the people nthe ground, it was out of nowhere and without warning making it a terrorist attack on their eyes.

Clearly.


I am viewing things from a standpoint of they were the enemys, silence them.

"Silence them"?

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

That genocide and mass slaughter are acceptable becasue they happened "the enemy"?

What the fuck kind of leftist are you?!? :blink:


Hiroshima was a civilian city with no military targets. Its destruction was an act of mass murder.

It was unnescessary, bloodthirsty, genocidal, and according to both the soldiers on the ground and the Generals in command, it was needless.

So....needless.....unnescessary....genocide....but they were "the enemy" and ndeed "silencing", right?

Because your "government" arbitrarily told you to hate the Japanese, you're willing to support the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians. I guess it's clear where your loyalties lie! :angry:


If you have been here a while, you know I am usually against such acts by America.

I've been here four 4 times as long as you have, and I can honestly say I don't care how you "usualy" thing. The fact that you can support an atrocity like that, no matter who committed it, is disgusting.

[viva le revolution]

The nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the U.S's way of killing two birds with one stone.
1. To put an end to the japanese war effort and effectively secure american dominance across the pacific.

2. To prevent the spread of Stalinism. As everyone knows, when Germany was crushed in 1945, the capital city Berlin was divided between Russia and the west in the form of the berlin wall(which was erected much later than when the actual division took place). Although Japan was on the verge of surrender, it's troops were still scattered across south-east asia. Russia was anxious to expand it's theater of operations into south-east asia to spread stalinism there. However the U.S was able to dissuade the Russians from entering the pacific theater. The U.S was aware that if the U.S military sustained heavy casualties, the Russians would be encouraged to help out not only by the allies but also by it's own population. Therefore to effectively remove the danger of Russian influence in the pacific, the americans went for the easy way out that is the nuclear bombs.
The nuclear bombs were not only meant to save the lives of G.I's as the U.S says but the japanese civilians were killed in a game of realpolitik to prevent a Tokyo wall.

[red_che]

A good list. However, I suggest that the number of casualties and victims of these US Imperialist wars of aggression be included so that it would depict more the atrocities done by US in the history of mankind.

[Maynard]

Any government in a capitalist country is illegitimate because it is composed of careerists out of the upper and middle class and is dependant upon the will and interests of these classes
That is reasonable but if a government were installed by the insurgents, for instance, they may not be careerists, they may not even depend on the will of the upper class but they would never recognize working class interests in any significant way. If that is your definition of a legitimate government, which seems perfectly reasonable to me, wouldn't it make more sense to support the Workers Communist Party of Iraq? http://www.wpiraq.net/english/


It was done by choice because of the ongoing resistance. The elections lost credibility, if it ever had any, because of this
But even if the Sunnis voted in full numbers, it would still be illegitimate in your view, would it not?


The Kurds have their own government and armed forces and are a significantally smaller ethnic group than the sunnis or shias Kurds are Sunnis as well, though, at least the majority but your point is true, Iraqi, US and Turkish officials most likely feared that if there wasn't a significant amount of power handed out to Kurds, than they may demand independence. Which is unfortunate, because I believe there to be a really strong case for an independent Kurdistan.


I'm sorry, i meant complacent towards the occupation and one of it's key supporters even before the invasion and elections
One they could rely on to do their bidding, absolutely and that is probably why he failed to have too much of a significant impact in the elections.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 12:18 PM

Any government in a capitalist country is illegitimate because it is composed of careerists out of the upper and middle class and is dependant upon the will and interests of these classes
That is reasonable but if a government were installed by the insurgents, for instance, they may not be careerists, they may not even depend on the will of the upper class but they would never recognize working class interests in any significant way. If that is your definition of a legitimate government, which seems perfectly reasonable to me, wouldn't it make more sense to support the Workers Communist Party of Iraq? http://www.wpiraq.net/english/


It was done by choice because of the ongoing resistance. The elections lost credibility, if it ever had any, because of this
But even if the Sunnis voted in full numbers, it would still be illegitimate in your view, would it not?


That's exactly my point. Elections under occupation cannot be legitimate. First, due to U.S influence. second, the majority of people naturally will support the opposition, which is made up mostly of relgious-fundamentalists. Therefore letimacy for the elections is out of the question in my opinion.
.... Thanks for the links!

[red_che]

Firstly, how can you condemn as "US backed terorism" actions which occured before the US existed?

Secondly, how can you so broaden your definition of terrorism to include espionage activities in Western Europe?

Thirdly, what was the point of this thread given that all this information has been previously posted several times on this forum.


Maybe we should define terrorism first. I think terrorism can be defined as a malicious, intentional attack on the innocent, unarmed civilians to harm them and to advance a political cause or to pose a threat against your enemies. I can't find an exact definition yet, but I think, that is the most precise I can define.

Now, based on this definition, we can safely say that US Imperialism is the no.1 terrorist in the world because of its atrocities and malicious, intentional attacks on innocent, unarmed civilians to advance its Imperialist aims. Even before the entry of the 20th century, US Imperialism is already developing. Moreover, US Imperialism made more wars and killed more people than any country in the world had. In addition, we all knew that only the US used a nuclear bomb killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

But, this nuclear bombing is nothing compared to the destruction it has brought in the Philippines even before the WWI. The US government killed more or less 1 million Filipinos in their first war of aggression in the Philippines. Even when WWII was already nearing its end, US warlords and wardogs bombed Manila and destroyed this city, making it the second most destroyed city in the world after WWII, next only to Warsaw and greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki in terms of casualties and destroyed infrastructures.

Although there is a difference between war and terrorism, their distinction have been slowly disintegrating as the US is combining both to gain supremacy and weaken its enemies.

Well, I guess, if we are speaking of US actions, Terrorism and war go along as these junkies use them both.

[patria grande]

I guess the above list is related to U.S interventions around the world.
U.S carried out and supported terrorist actions in these countries, those actions are known as Terrorism of State.
I believe it's hard for some americans to face the lies U.S gov has been spreading for more than a century and a half.
U.S government constantly repeated the same things about supporting democracy, freedom, people's self-determination....
But what they are really doing is taking care of their own imperialistic interests. That's why they supported dictatorships or overthrew democratic elected governments.

I would like to share my own list (only Latin America).

FIRST PART

1823 "Monroe Doctrine" declares Latin America will be considered "sphere of influence" for the U.S.

1846 U.S undertook a war against Mexico. That country was finally forced to yield half of its own territory.

1855 The american mercenary William Walker, operating on behalf of the bankers Morgan and Garrison invaded Nicaragua and proclaimed himself "president".
During his 2 years of government he also invaded Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica. Walker REESTABLISHED SLAVERY in the territories under his occupation.

1898 U.S declared war to Spain at the precise moment Cuban Independentist Movement had almost defeated the colonial military forces. U.S forces occupied the island and not recognized the cuban Patriots. Spain was forced to yield Puerto Rico, Guam, Phillippines and Hawaii.

1901 U.S occupation forces included in the constitution of the new Republic
of Cuba the infamous Platt Amendment by which U.S gov had the right to
intervene in all cuban affairs whenever considered appropriate.
Cuba was also forced to the renting in perpetuity of a piece of its national territory:
Guantánamo Naval Base.

1903 U.S forced the segregation of Panama from Colombia (by that time Panama
was part of Colombia). Years later, president T. Roosevelt (the man behind this operation) said, "I took the Canal Zone, while the Congress debated".

1904 The Constitution of the Republic of Panama was promulgated. As in the cuban
case, a section contemplating U.S interventions whenever considered appropriate was included. The building of the Panama Canal began inmediately. More ahead, U.S filled the Canal Zone with military bases. In 1946, the infamous ESCUELA DE LAS AMERICAS was established. Almost all latin american dictators were indoctrinated in these classrooms.

1904 U.S Marines disembark in Dominican Republic to supress a rebelion against the U.S. A year later, regarding this intervention, president T. Roosevelt declared:
"U.S will be the gendarme of the Caribbean".

1906 Cuba. A rebelion against the puppet president Estrada Palma took place.
U.S intervene and designated William Taft as Inspector.

1907 U.S obtained from the gov of the Dominican Republic the collection of the customs income. This situation lasted for 33 years.

1908 U.S troops intervene in Panama. In the next decade there will be 4 more
interventions

[Fair_Female_Tribe]

What do you mean by terrorism during WWII and the war in X-Jugoslavien?
Europe INVITED USA to fight with them against Nazis, Hitler should everyone know. Hitler was the "terrorist" during WWII in Europe. Not USA. And i certainly do not hope you think Milosevic was a good man. I supported that war, Europe had to bring an end to the bloodsheed who had kept on for as long as i remembered, as a very young person. To bring down that facist and dictator who killed people to get a great-Serbia, was a good idea. One can demonize USA, easy, but don't bring in the old world wars, and the war in x-jugoslavien, that is pointless.

[Fair_Female_Tribe]

I am sure you are a nice guy.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:01 PM
Fair Female Tribe post on May 10, 2005
What do you mean by terrorism during WWII and the war in X-Jugoslavien?
Europe INVITED USA to fight with them against Nazis, Hitler should everyone know. Hitler was the "terrorist" during WWII in Europe. Not USA. And i certainly do not hope you think Milosevic was a good man. I supported that war, Europe had to bring an end to the bloodsheed who had kept on for as long as i remembered, as a very young person. To bring down that facist and dictator who killed people to get a great-Serbia, was a good idea. One can demonize USA, easy, but don't bring in the old world wars, and the war in x-jugoslavien, that is pointless.

During WWII, it is righteous to end the Nazi-Hitler fascism. Yeah, right. No question about that. That's why even Stalin called on all communists to join in stopping the rampage of the Axis powers. However, the US intentions during that war is not simply to destroy the rising power of Fascism and the Hitler-Mussolini-Japan axis. It is more on getting control of the world economy specially in Europe. And we must remeber that WWII is not just a war for conquest of the Nazis, it is an inter-Imperialist war aimed at getting more territories for the Imperialists.

If US really wanted to end Fascism and Terrorism being done by the Axis powers, why is it doing now? Even before WWII, the US had done so many terrorist activities, had terrorized millions of people in Asia and elsewhere. The US does not have good intentions in that war!

[Commie Rat]

i see this floating back to philosphy 'ends vs means and intent'

Although america had good/bad intentions (depending on your view point)

The end outcome was 'good' (circa) only becaue we arnt now all nazis thanks to the americans

And the means of war are never good, be it Agent orange, Concentration camps, Nuclear weapons and general bloodshed

[patria grande]

Here is the next part of my list:

SECOND PART:

1912 U.S Marines invaded Nicaragua. The occupation remained almost continuosly
until 1933.
That same year (1912) president Taft declared: "The day is not distant in which three stars and three stripes in equidistant points will delimit our territory: one in the North Pole, another in the Panama Canal, and the third one in the South Pole. The complete hemisphere will be in fact ours, due to our racial superiority, as it is ours morally."

1915 U.S Marines occupied Haiti "to recover the order". A protectorate was established, it lasted until 1934. The Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, when informing about the situation commented: " Imagine this: Negroes speaking French."

1916 U.S Marines occupied Dominican Republic. They remained there until 1924.

1918 U.S Marines occupied the Province of Chiriquí (Panama) "to maintain the public order".

1924 U.S Marines invaded Honduras "to mediate" in a civil confrontation. In those
days Honduras was the world's bigger producer of bananas, but all the profits went to the United Fruit Company (Chiquita Brand).

1925 U.S Army occupied Panama City to supress a strike and "maintain the order".

1926 The U.S decided to establish the National Guard in Nicaragua. Augusto César Sandino created a Popular Army to fight against the occupation forces.

1927 In Nicaragua, a captain of the Marines threatened Sandino expecting him to surrender, the rebel responded:"Yo quiero patria libre o morir" (I want the freedom of my motherland or my death). Then the U.S caried out the FIRST AIR BOMBARDMENT in Latin America. The Village of Ocotal was the target, 300 Nicaraguans died due to the bombs and the yankee machine guns.

1930 In Dominican Republic Trujillo's dictatorship began. A military man arisen from the National Guard, created, trained and supported by the U.S.

1933 U.S finally left from Nicaragua, leaving the control to Anastasio Somoza and the National Guard.

1934 Sandino was assassinated. The murder was ordered by Somoza with the support of the U.S Ambassador Arthur Blisslane.

[patria grande]

THIRD PART:

1941 Panama. Ricardo Adolfo de La Guardia led a military coup supported by U.S Ambassador against president Arias. War Secretary (now Defense Secretary) Henry Stimson said,"This is a relief for us, Arias has been very problematic".

1946 Panama. U.S opened the infamous Escuela de las Américas (School of the Americas). An academy for the indoctrination of Latin American military. The military dictators of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Central America and other countries were instructed there.

1952 Cuba. With the consent and the support of U.S, General Fulgencio Batista oust the gov of Carlos Prío Socarrás. A bloody dictatorship began.

1954 Guatemala. CIA orchestrated the overthrown of the democratic elected gov of Jacobo Arbenz. A Guatemalan poet described the Arbenz era: "years of spring in a country of eternal tyranny". Almost 40 years of violence and repression followed, more than 150.000 people were killed.

1956 Nicaragua. The poet Rigoberto López Pérez killed Anastasio Somoza, who had been in power for 20 years. His son Anastasio Somoza Debayle extended the tyrannical dynasty. Years before, president F. Roosevelt refering to Somoza said,"He's a son of a *****, but is our son of a *****".

1960 Cuba. President Eisenhower authorized under-cover actions to overthrew Fidel Castro. In January 1959 began a revolutuionary gov with an extraordinary popular support. Those under-cover actions included the assassination of the Cuban leader, the creation of counterrevolutionary bands and the sabotage of the main segments of the island's economy.

1961 Mercenary forces recruited, organized and financed by the U.S invaded Cuba
by Playa Girón (Bay of Pigs). In less than 72 hours the invation forces were defeated.

1964 Brazil. President Joao Goulart was overthrown by a military coup promoted and supported by the U.S. Goulart was planning to nationalize the oil and to carry out an agrarian reform.

1965 Dominican Republic. U.S sent thousands of soilders to supress a movement that was trying to reestablish the overthrown progressive gov of the democratic elected president Juan Bosch.

1966 Guatemala. U.S sent weapons, military consultants, and green berets to develop the counterinsurgent campaign. In a report, the Department of State recognized: "To eliminate a few hundreds of guerrillas it will be necessary to perhaps kill 10.000 Guatemalan farmers".

1967 Bolivia. A group of green berets were sent to help in the seach and in the assassination of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

1968 CIA organized a paramilitary force considered to be the origin of the sinister Death Squads.

[viva le revolution]

Thank you for that list! Really appreciate it.
As regards the debate on world war 2, there were no good guys or bad guys in that war. All parties were in it for their own personal interests. It was a war of empires! Germany was colonizing lands in Holland, Czeckoslovakia, North Africa etc. Japan colonized parts of China and south Korea along with major chunks of south-east asia. Italy had Libya and was focused on expanding it's holdings. Britain had India, Egypt alongwith vast holdings in other holdings. Russia colonized the Baltic region. France had Algeria alongwith other colonies. America claimed dominance over the entire of Latin America and supportive of brutal dictators there. The only reason, in my opinion, Britain ever gave the ultimatum to Germany over Poland was because annexation of Poland would give Germany direct sea access to Britain. This was not chivalry or concern but self-preservation.
Hitler himself modelled his conquests on the British empire, he seeked to turn the Baltic states into britain's america, to be used for re-settlement by Aryan peoples. He intended to use western Europe as britain's India, as a source of revenue, raw materials and labour.
It was the empires of the British and the French and their attitudes towards their colonized peoples that made racial segregation and suppression possible and acceptable in those times by the german people.
The concentration camp was a British invention.
The nuremberg trials brought forward only a few criminals but allowed the vast majority to escape. The americans smuggled the Japanese scientist Issito who was responsible for experimentation on allied POW's and Chinese for new toxins and nerve agents. The americans put the scientist at work in american laboritories instead of bringing him to justice.
Nazi German scientists were smuggled into america and it is rumoured that they helped create the atom bomb for the americans.
The victory in world war 2 has given an ethical blank check to the victorious allies painting them as crusading good guys branding anyone that opposed them as "hitler's" and engaging in wars indiscriminately.
The end of world war2 also led to the formation of the united nations that was designed to empower the victorious allies at the expense of the rest. Giving them undue influence over the other nations of the world as a "reward" much like the mandates handed out to the allies at the end of world war1.
SO, in my opinion , world war2 was just an inter-empire war with evil on both sides. Fascism on one hand and Imperialism on the other. As true communists siding with one band and blindly accepting it's legitimacy and propaganda is just wrong. You think if the Nazi's had won they wouldn't brand the allies as war criminal's over the bombing of Dresden? Or the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?History is written by the victors!
Both were just as bad and the war wasn't a crusade against evil, but actually a war fought for vested interests!
We should condemn them both! The moods and wishes of the rulers were translated into the deaths of millions of innocents!

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 15 2005, 08:34 PM
The only reason, in my opinion, Britain ever gave the ultimatum to Germany over Poland was because annexation of Poland would give Germany direct sea access to Britain. This was not chivalry or concern but self-preservation.

No offence, but i think you need to look at a map of Europe. Germany has a coastline, nearer to Britain than the Polish coastline.

[viva le revolution]

That was already well protected on that side by the british. The russian german deal to split Poland not only brought Nazi but Russian influence there and would have opened up a second naval front against Britain allowing Germany to flank the British navy that was probably the only thing standing against an all-out invasion of Britain.
Britain was no angel either. to add to my post: Britain not only invented concentration camps but also used them against in the Mau Mau uprising in africa against British rule.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

i suggest reading the following books by Noam Chomsky on the topic; Hegemy or Survival, and Turning the Tide. the first is about all US interventions basically, and the latter is about the South and Central American interventions, there are some pretty brutal descriptions of the things that we have supported

[red_che]

Viva Le Reolucion
As regards the debate on world war 2, there were no good guys or bad guys in that war. All parties were in it for their own personal interests.

Yeah, generally that war is an unjust war. It is an inter-Imperialist war meant to redivide the world for their (Imperialists) own economic and territorial gains. However, The USSR's (read: communists) participation into that war is somewhat justified as it is meant to defend the proletariat, which is being attacked in the guise of racial superiority ideology of Hitler and the fascists.


As true communists siding with one band and blindly accepting it's legitimacy and propaganda is just wrong. You think if the Nazi's had won they wouldn't brand the allies as war criminal's over the bombing of Dresden? Or the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?History is written by the victors!
Both were just as bad and the war wasn't a crusade against evil, but actually a war fought for vested interests!

Yeah, both the axis and the allied (US and UK) forces were evil. The USSR (under Stalin) did not blindly accepted the legitimacy of that war or of the allies, as I have said, it was for the defense of the proletariat and socialism which are being attacked by the Fascists. We must recognize that in that tactical period, the most immediate enemies were the Fascists. A united front with the US and UK during that time is necessary to eliminate the advancing Fascist agression. True communists must learn to recognize who the narrowest target are at a particular time and not just merely hitting all the enemies at the same time. And that's what Stalin, Mao and the communists did during WWII.

[patria grande]

FOURTH PART:

1973 Uruguay. Military took power supported by the U.S. The repression that followed was brutal.
Chile. A coup promoted and organized bu the U.S overthrew the democratic elected gov of president Salvador Allende. Pinochet took power. A long and brutal tyranny began.

1976 Argentina. Military took power. This dictatorship is responsible for the death of at least 30.000 people, mostly students and workers.
Recently, U.S Department of State declassified documents proving the close relationship between this tyranny and Washington highest authorities. The former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is accomplice of the crimes commited by the Argentinian dictatorship. Also, he was closely involved in the development of the "Plan Cóndor", a cooperation net designed to capture and to assassinate political enemies in Argentina, Chile, Brasil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia.

1980 El Salvador. U.S increased its massive military assistance. Death Squads proliferate. The Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated by right wing terrorists 35.000 civilians died between 1978 and 1981. The rape and assassination of 4 nuns by right wing mercenaries, made the U.S to stop its military assistance for a WHOLE MONTH.

1981 Nicaragua. Reagan administration started the "Contras" War to destroy the Sandinista gov. The CIA began by recruiting 60 former Somoza's Guard members. Four years later, almost 12.000 former Somoza's guards were part of the "Contras".
With the support of the IMF and WB the U.S began an economic war against Nicaragua.

1983 Grenada. 5.000 Marines invaded this tiny Caribbean island. The American troops enter to support the overthrown of Maurice Bishop, a progreesive, left wing leader.

1989 The U.S invaded Panama to capture its long time friend Manuel Noriega. This operation killed at least 3.000 civilians.

2000 As part of the so called "War Against Drugs" the U.S launched the "Plan Colombia". A program designed to give massive military assistance to a country with one of the worst human rights record of the whole hemisphere. This plan will cost U.S citizens at least 1.300 million dollars.

2002 Venezuela. The U.S supported and financed the failed coup against the democratic elected president Hugo Chávez.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:59 AM


Yeah, both the axis and the allied (US and UK) forces were evil. The USSR (under Stalin) did not blindly accepted the legitimacy of that war or of the allies, as I have said, it was for the defense of the proletariat and socialism which are being attacked by the Fascists. We must recognize that in that tactical period, the most immediate enemies were the Fascists. A united front with the US and UK during that time is necessary to eliminate the advancing Fascist agression. True communists must learn to recognize who the narrowest target are at a particular time and not just merely hitting all the enemies at the same time. And that's what Stalin, Mao and the communists did during WWII.
I agree with you. I was actually referring to the western allies. However Russian annexation of the Baltic states, the "revolution from without" is one i disagree with. However, we must note that the USSR did play a crucial part in the rise of Nazi Germany in the first place. After the defeat of Germany in world war 1, German troops were training the Red army in return for using soviet armaments to train their own troops on Soviet soil. in contravention of the versailles treaty.
Thus soviet russia in essence helped german troops to train even after the nazi's took over.
A nazi german mission(embassy) did exist in soviet russia with nazi senior officials in constant contact with the soviet leadership headed by Neidermayer.
The non-aggression pact signed by Hitler and Stalin and the division of Poland, this does not consistently support the arguement that the USSR was protecting the proletariat againsy Fasicsm, they only entered the war when Soviet soil was annexed and invaded by Germany. Truth be told, Mao and Tito's partisans were the real face of communism during world war2 Stalin was ready to settle on peace with the Fascists. So in my opinion, Russia was merely fighting a monster it helped create.
Many counter-arguements can be given in this regard however Stalin's pre-war actions do not show hostility to a system he so loudly denounced when he was involved.
Thus my original arguement that aside from real communism inherently hostile to Fasicsm as shown by Mao, Russia is a much more complex case. That the main actors in this murderous drama were just imperialists and that history preached by victors is not to be trusted at face value.