May 1982 http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.... Watch the full program: http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.com/2010/08/john-stockwell-and-louis-wolf-on-...
The United States government has been accused of having directly committed acts of state terrorism, as well as funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism.
Like the definition of terrorism and the definition of state-sponsored terrorism, the definition of state terrorism remains controversial. There is no international consensus on what terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, or state terrorism is. Professor Igor Primoratz of the University of Melbourne says that many scholars have been reluctant to assign the word "terrorism" to activities that could be construed as "legitimate state aims." Primoratz himself defines terrorism as "the deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people..." and writes that his definition can be applied to both state and non-state activities.
Arno Mayer, Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, has stated that "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of 'preemptive' state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled." Noam Chomsky also argues that "Washington is the center of global state terrorism and has been for years." Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the U.S. government and their proxies in their execution of U.S. foreign policy — in such countries as Nicaragua — as a form of terrorism and has also described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state."
After President George W. Bush began using the term "War on Terrorism", Chomsky stated in an interview: "The U.S. is officially committed to what is called 'low-intensity warfare'... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same."
Following the rise to power of the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Ronald Reagan administration ordered the CIA to organize and train the Contras, a right wing guerrilla group. On December 1, 1981, President Reagan signed an initial, one-paragraph "Finding" authorizing the CIA's paramilitary war against Nicaragua.
The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice which found that the United States had violated international law by direct acts of U.S. personnel and by the supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The US was not imputable for possible human rights violations done by the Contras. The Court found that this was a conflict involving military and para-military forces and did not make a finding of state terrorism.
Florida State University professor, Frederick H. Gareau, has written that the Contras "attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages and non-combatants." U.S. agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage facilities." In 1984 the U.S. Congress ordered this intervention to be stopped, however it was later shown that the CIA illegally continued. Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.
In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan Contras in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War."
Loading...
5:45
Florida Student Asks Obama about Israel's Human Rights Violations at Tampa Townhallby bediertv73,689 views
America is a free nation, I don't like listening to Bullshit
kkonstantinosss2 1 month ago
@bapyou I'm not even particularly conservative. It's just that I am not a moral coward who likes to condemn what I could't live without in order to proclaim how wonderful I am. If it's a terrorist nation leave, you coward. Pack up and go somewhere more righteous.
The Soviet's banished people? To Gulags. Otherwise they had to build walls to keep them in.
The real issue of our engagement is: Why are you so insecure that you need to glom onto hypocritical bullshit for a moral preening display?
jesseVenturanotaSeaI 9 months ago
@jesseVenturanotaSeaI "If you think the USA is a "terrorist nation" then you owe it to yourself (and evert American) to get out of it."
I've heard the exact same phrase from every asshole conservative I've ever encountered. The poltical term for such a sentiment is 'banishment.' They used to banish people who spoke out in the old Soviet Union, you know. Or don't you know?
The real issue in our exchange is: Why do you endorse banishment of those who speak out against their government?
bapyou 9 months ago 2
@TheTexanCanadian Saying that something is stupid isn't a rebuttal anymore then calling me a "doody head" for pointing out that there is an inherent hypocrisy to what you supposedly advocate & stand against.
Acts of war are not acts of terrorism, to conflate the 2, deliberately, in order to lamely say "see we do it too" when some asshole blows something up to claim his "72 black-eyed virgins and cool, clear water in paradise" is not only incorrect, it makes you an insufferable douche bag.
jesseVenturanotaSeaI 9 months ago
@jesseVenturanotaSeaI
I've never said the U.S. is a terrorist nation, only that the U.S. has committed acts that cannot be called anything but terrorism.
"passive aggressively condemning something to put on a big display of moral preening while you effectively endorse these "crimes" with your presence."
You're hopeless. I'm done with you.
TheTexanCanadian 9 months ago
@jesseVenturanotaSeaI
"You will have a point when, as a matter of policy, we are flying aircraft full of people into buildings full of people to achieve our political (or religious) ends."
That's so stupid an argument I'm not even going to bother explain why it's stupid.
"Until then you sound like a moral equivalency bot who is putting on a big display of masturbatory self righteous bullshit."
You must have misunderstood my argument at some point to say something this ignorant.
TheTexanCanadian 9 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian You will have a point when, as a matter of policy, we are flying aircraft full of people into buildings full of people to achieve our political (or religious) ends. Until then you sound like a moral equivalency bot who is putting on a big display of masturbatory self righteous bullshit.
jesseVenturanotaSeaI 9 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian I never wrote that ""You cowards who attack our country must hate it", again, another strawman. What I wrote is that if you think this is a "terrorist nation" as outlined in the video that we are supposedly discussing you owe it to yourself to leave. Otherwise you just look like an even bigger moral coward; passive aggressively condemning something to put on a big display of moral preening while you effectively endorse these "crimes" with your presence.
jesseVenturanotaSeaI 9 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian Fine, go apologize to Mexico. (lol) Live in sack-cloth and ashes if you wish. you are going to be regarded as an idiot who is ignorant of history by anyone with a triple digit IQ and taken advantage of until you get sick of it. Maybe you thrive on abuse? Whatever, I'm not a door mat and don't think theres anything morally superior about lying to yourself to be one.
jesseVenturanotaSeaI 9 months ago
@bapyou If you think the USA is a "terrorist nation" then you owe it to yourself (and evert American) to get out of it. Have the guts to live in a way that is congruent with your idiotic opinions.
And please, until you have the intellectual curiosity to actually google up the word "fascist", please don't just parrot the words that you have heard from someone else without any genuine understanding of what they mean.
jesseVenturanotaSeaI 9 months ago