RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "You're not supposed to know the U.S. kills civilians. You're not supposed to think of your own country as a state sponsor of terrorism."

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mi). (photo: Getty Images)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mi). (photo: Getty Images)


American Terrorists on Both Sides of War

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

14 February 14

 

Drone Rangers shoot first, ask questions later – maybe

he United States often and wrongly calls itself the "indispensable nation," as if just being a global empire meant the world couldn't possibly live without us. How about a universal plebiscite on that proposition? But there is one way in which the U.S. really and truly, honest-to-God, is undeniably the world's indispensable nation – that characterization is absolutely true when our drone strikes wipe out men, women, and children at weddings and funerals, or in their town meetings and gardens, or wherever sudden, painful death happens to catch them by surprise just because the president checked someone's name on a list.

You're not supposed to know the U.S. kills civilians. You're not supposed to think of your own country as a state sponsor of terrorism. Your government won't tell you about America's red, white, and out-of-the-blue murder policy. Accomplice governments won't talk about their unclean hands either. But word gets out. They can't persecute truth tellers fast enough. Not yet anyway.

On January 29, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London once again blew some the secrecy off American foreign homicidal policy. A leak from inside the Pakistani government documents 330 drone strikes in that country from 2006 through 2013, an average of 47 a year (although 2010 was a peak year). The official, secret document supports the accuracy of previous Bureau reports of 2,371 drone deaths during that period. The official document gives a total of 2,217 remote kills, but has no data for 2007.

The Bureau reported that: "The document is the fullest official record of drone strikes in Pakistan to have yet been published. It provides rare insight into what the government understands about the campaign. It also provides details about exactly when and where strikes took place, often including the names of homeowners…. But interestingly, the document stops recording civilian casualties after 2008, even omitting details of well-documented civilian deaths and those that have been acknowledged by the government."

Your job, fellow citizen, is to want not to know

That absence of information is the essence of any attempted cover-up. During the Watergate cover-up in 1972, an underling asked money-man Maurice Stans what a particularly unusual expenditure was for. Stans gave a response that is the essence of a cover-up: "I don't want to know, and you don't want to know." Stans was never convicted of being a knowing part of any of the crimes in which he took part.

Not knowing what criminal activity the government is up to makes you a good citizen (in the government's eyes), but you're an even better citizen if you don't even think about it. That's a value judgment Apple has tried to enforce in its role as a government surrogate in extending official thought control.

For his final thesis as a grad student at New York University, Josh Begley developed an app for the iPhone and then submitted it to Apple. He called the app Drones+ as he explained to Democracy Now:

"And the idea for it was really simple: It would send you a push notification or just ping your phone every time there was a U.S. drone strike. Right? So, even if we [had] access to the data about drone strikes, do we really want to be interrupted by it, right? Do we really want to be as connected to our foreign policy as we are to our smartphones? Our phones, which are these increasingly intimate devices, right, the places that we share pictures of our loved ones and communicate with our friends … do we really want these things to also be the site of how we experience remote war? Right? In an age when it's possible to sit in an air-conditioned room in New Mexico and control an airplane as it hovers over a village in what used to be India, is there a way to close that feedback loop a little bit and actually feel something, even if it's just my pocket vibrating when the missile hits the ceiling?"

Apple tries acting like a self-appointed censor

In the summer of 2012, Apple's answer to Begley's questions was to reject his Drone+ app because it was, as Apple termed it, "excessively crude or objectionable content" and "not useful or entertaining enough." Begley was persistent. He said Apple ended up rejecting the app three times. Bad enough to try to count crude American assassinations of Pakistanis, but to expose an Apple user to the danger of feeling something about these war crimes, anyone could see that was objectionable.

But now, surprise – Begley's app is available for your Apple iPhone, thanks to a political workaround: he changed the name to Metadata+ and submitted it as an empty app. After they accepted it in that form, he loaded the data.

Now it turns out, from the first issue of The Intercept, drone crimes are more than a CIA executive action, in cahoots with the chief executive. The National Security (NSA) is in on it too, secretly sifting mobile phone metadata to assess, kind of ouija-board-like, which unknown phone user might be "bad" for the United States.

In other words, if you happen to pick up the wrong cell phone, your innocence isn't enough to keep you from getting dismembered. And Americans don't even have to know about it. The government just adds your anonymity to the body count and waits for those hearts and minds to start rolling in. Maybe there's even an app for that.

World's most powerful man looking for help with law-breaking

And being American doesn't necessarily make you safe. Maybe you noticed the AP report on February 10 about how President Obama wants to take out an American citizen he says is a member of al-Qaeda and is planning to attack the United States, or so they say. The AP described the president's anguished position like this: "The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him."

The most powerful man in the world is not only hampered by not having a complete case on the suspect he wants to eliminate by executive action, the country the suspect is in doesn't allow U.S. drone strikes and, worse, the president's own new policy states that Americans in foreign countries can be killed only by the military, not the CIA. Talk about hoist by your own petard.

Of course if it were up to Congressman Mike Rogers and the other yahoos in Congress, the president could ignore all the niceties, including the U.S. Constitution (with its blather about due process and stuff), and just blow the suspect to kingdom come, along with anyone who happened to be within blast range. Rogers is a Michigan Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee who has indicated he doesn't care how many constitutional principles or civilians need to be shredded to protect the troops.

As the first president of the war on terror once said, "They hate us for our freedoms."

Well, we're getting rid of our freedoms, so why would they still hate us?

It couldn't have anything to do with drones or night raids or assassinations or any of the other special operations the government tries to keep secret from its citizens, even though they're no secret to their targets.

Looks like the "war on terror" is actually a typo.

It's a war of terror.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+41 # ReconFire 2014-02-14 13:26
The "they hate us for our freedoms" is directed towards us the US citizens by the Cabal we once called "our government". All because of that dam pesky document we call the Constitution.
 
 
+33 # reiverpacific 2014-02-14 14:08
Quoting ReconFire:
The "they hate us for our freedoms" is directed towards us the US citizens by the Cabal we once called "our government". All because of that dam pesky document we call the Constitution.


More like that double-pesky Dimwits-generat ed document "Homeland Security".
 
 
+32 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-02-14 15:53
And for all of those who think 9/11 was (not) an inside job, have I got a "Fairy dust" story for you.
 
 
-28 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-14 20:16
Conspiracy nonsense. No evidence 9/11 and Inside Job. It's one thing to have a 'beef' with the post 9/11 policies ... but as for real legitimate anything about that being a setup from inside the US Government i say to you .. Where's The (AS in Show Me) - The Beef!!!
 
 
+20 # reiverpacific 2014-02-15 13:04
Quoting BKnowswhitt:
Conspiracy nonsense. No evidence 9/11 and Inside Job. It's one thing to have a 'beef' with the post 9/11 policies ... but as for real legitimate anything about that being a setup from inside the US Government i say to you .. Where's The (AS in Show Me) - The Beef!!!


I'm a member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth, which is not seeking conspiracy but scientific truth in fact, based on mathematical and logistic likelihood, cause and effect and I can tell you there is plenty of evidence! Too much to set down here.
And part of what makes it more likely that 9-11 was engineered or at least allowed, especially Building Seven which wasn't even hit, is the utter stonewalling and obfuscation every step of the way from all internal "official" sources.
But I suppose that you believed the Warren Report and think you live in a democracy too, right?
Remember what "Izzy Stone" said; "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out". These bods -and the likes of you- must be blinded, deafened and stoned by all the scented dope, smoke and mirrors blown out by those we are forced to pay to lie to us and work against grassroots interest.
 
 
+14 # geraldom 2014-02-15 14:45
There's a lot of physical evidence that proves that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush admin.

The following photo shows the Pentagon shortly after it was hit by what was probably a missile:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/aerial1.html

The wall and the roof of the Pentagon held up for at least 30 min before collapsing. Tell me where the debris is from the alleged 757 that hit the bldg?

The following URL will take you to a subset of ground photos of the Pentagon:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/smoke.html

Once again, where is the debris of the 757 jetliner. It doesn't exist and it's not in the building as our govt would like us to believe.

The following URL will take you to the full list of photos taken of the Pentagon on 9/11. The above photos are are just a subset of these:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html

Let's use some statistics. Each floor of the twin towers was supported by 47 massive vertical steel columns from bottom to top. The odds of all 47 columns failing at the very same time and in the perfect order for each floor in both buildings, you'd have a better chance of winning the powerball. And, when you consider that Bldg 7 was a rectangle twice as wide as the twin towers and contain probably twice as many vertical steel support columns, and wasn't even hit by a plane, the odds of all of it support beams failing at the same time and in the perfect order, impossible.
 
 
+7 # John S. Browne 2014-02-15 19:08
#

Well, my fellow-9/11-Tru thers, welcome to the "club" of the sensible! Harold gave me an idea that he was a 9/11 Truther, but I had no idea that you were, "Reiver- Pacific"; although, I'm very glad that you are! I have been a complete 9/11 Truther for many years; because, not only is it obvious, if one goes back and looks at the video footage of the collapse of the buildings, that the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down by controlled demolition, but also because, the evidence of an inside job is so abundant and convincing.

Contrary to what some undoubtedly, and wrongly, think of me here because of my believing in Christianity, etc., I do NOT easily believe ANYTHING. But, after researching the 9/11 Truth evidence myself, I had little choice but to accept the evidence; or to, instead, convince myself that the facts of that evidence were suppos- edly not true because they're inconvenient truths, as so many do if they even give themselves the chance to fully examine the evidence.

(Continued)
 
 
+4 # John S. Browne 2014-02-15 19:08
#

On the other hand, the "evidence" of the so-called "debunkers" of 9/11 Truth's evidence, is so shot full of holes that one could drive a Mack truck through them; and, in truth, they haven't debunked ANYTHING. All they've done is carry out an extensive, rather obvious if one fully studies the 9/11 Truth evidence, cover-up of the truth; and it becomes very clear as one fully examines both sides of the story, that the "debunkers" have an extremely nefarious and insidious agenda, that of preventing the truth from becoming mainstream and most Americans becoming 9/11 Truthers.

If most Americans would fully examine the 9/11 Truth evidence, and stop believ- ing the "official conspiracy theory" lies, they would become 9/11 Truther as well. But, so far, the real conspiracy theorists, the pushers of the official 9-11 story and the so-called "debunkers" of 9/11 Truth, have been highly successful at brain- washing most Americans to believe, and to keep believing, the 9-11 official story's lies.

Millions of Americans have awakened, and more and more of them are awaken- ing, to 9/11 Truth; but, unfortunately, most Americans prefer to choose to remain in so-called "blissful ignorance" of the real truth concerning 9-11, and to continu- ed to, very conveniently, believe the official 9-11 lies.

#
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2014-02-16 15:58
Quoting John S. Browne:
#

On the other hand, the "evidence" of the so-called "debunkers" of 9/11 Truth's evidence, is so shot full of holes that one could drive a Mack truck through them; and, in truth, they haven't debunked ANYTHING. All they've done is carry out an extensive, rather obvious if one fully studies the 9/11 Truth evidence, cover-up of the truth; and it becomes very clear as one fully examines both sides of the story, that the "debunkers" have an extremely nefarious and insidious agenda, that of preventing the truth from becoming mainstream and most Americans becoming 9/11 Truthers.

If most Americans would fully examine the 9/11 Truth evidence, and stop believ- ing the "official conspiracy theory" lies, they would become 9/11 Truther as well. But, so far, the real conspiracy theorists, the pushers of the official 9-11 story and the so-called "debunkers" of 9/11 Truth, have been highly successful at brain- washing most Americans to believe, and to keep believing, the 9-11 official story's lies.

Millions of Americans have awakened, and more and more of them are awaken- ing, to 9/11 Truth; but, unfortunately, most Americans prefer to choose to remain in so-called "blissful ignorance" of the real truth concerning 9-11, and to continu- ed to, very conveniently, believe the official 9-11 lies.

#


I don't recall or care if you believe in Christianity -it's entirely your business. You contribute to this forum on your own terms; -fine wi' me.
 
 
+5 # Nick Reynolds 2014-02-15 19:23
Quoting BKnowswhitt:
Where's The (AS in Show Me) - The Beef!!!


You want evidence? Mayor Giuliani did a "great" job of getting rid of the evidence.

But, for starters, there's Bldg 7, which was a controlled demolition. All you have to do is watch it on YouTube and trust your eyes. YouTube (launched in 2006) is what the perpe-traitors didn't foresee. Plenty of evidence there, unlike anywhere in the MSM. For example, search YouTube for "High ranking general 9/11."
The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention WTC 7. And the NIST report didn't look for explosives.

The reason Bldg 7 had to come down was because it was the target of Flight 93 and was all wired to come down like the twin towers. That would have been discovered if it hadn't fallen. The passengers threw a monkey wrench into those plans by taking back control of the plane.
Second, the Pentagon and Flight 77. How could any big jet get through the air defenses around Washington DC? Not possible. Furthermore, there are cameras all around the Pentagon. All the government has to do to shut everybody up is just release the videos from that day.
So much of what has followed since 9/11/01 stems from that event as its justification. Since it's so important, you'd think people would question some of the government's conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs led by a man hiding in a cave.


However, the revolution that is going to pay these bastards back has already begun. It's called Bitcoin. They know.
 
 
+4 # ReconFire 2014-02-15 23:28
Quoting BKnowswhitt:
Conspiracy nonsense. No evidence 9/11 and Inside Job. It's one thing to have a 'beef' with the post 9/11 policies ... but as for real legitimate anything about that being a setup from inside the US Government i say to you .. Where's The (AS in Show Me) - The Beef!!!

Either open you're eyes or stick you're head back in the sand, but stop this BS about no proof!
 
 
+5 # ReconFire 2014-02-16 00:03
Never in the history of mankind has a aircraft been responsible for the complete collapse of a steal frame structure, nor has fire ever been responsible for the total collapse of a steel frame building (much less at free fall speed). And we're supposed to believe on 9/11 that 2 buildings came down by aircraft and 1 come down by fire? Are you feeling me yet? No, ok, What about the emergency tapes from Orange N.J. Fire Dept.(the one's the FBI forgot to collect when they collected FDNY's tapes), with many firefighters through-out the towers calling their command post about explosions around them? Mind you these are not smalltown USA firefighters, but inter-city, experienced high-rise firefighters. (btw Orange N.J. FD responded as mutual aid to the towers on 9/11.
 
 
+38 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-02-14 14:08
Vote these leeches out of government. All this is necessary to point out and STOP. Add, also, the fact that NSA spying can be used to blackmail politicians into voting the way people like J Edgar Hoover, Dick Cheney, Monsanto, Keystone XL, etc. wants. It HAS happened before.
Wake up America. This " I don't care if they spy on me, I haven't done anything wrong" misses the mark by a mile.
 
 
+4 # mjc 2014-02-15 12:21
Problem is other leeches will simply take their appointed place. The remark that they came for ethnic groups, political groups and finally came for me must be taken seriously. We are told to live in fear of terror, we are told only a strong military, intelligence agency or corporate structure can save us...and we believe them....
 
 
+34 # Inspired Citizen 2014-02-14 14:25
The war on terror is a war of terror. In terms of killing innocent civilians, the US is far worse than al Queda.

"Of course if it were up to Congressman Mike Rogers and the other yahoos in Congress, the president could ignore all the niceties, including the U.S. Constitution"

COULD? The killing of Anwar al Awlaki was not constitutional. Republicans and Dems alike put security over the Constitution. Otherwise, Obama would have been impeached my now.
 
 
+14 # Gooshlem 2014-02-14 14:36
Interesting! Where do you think the guy the US wants to target is living? In the EU? Does that mean we can't do drones in Germany, for example??
 
 
+40 # angelfish 2014-02-14 14:41
We have met the Enemy and....he is US!
 
 
+35 # Archie1954 2014-02-14 14:53
Talk about an oxymoron, Rogers and intelligence used in the same sentence. The US has been the ultimate supporter of terrorism in the World for many years and is itself a terrorist nation, using its drones to terrorize and kill innocent people in the Middle East and elsewhere. Hypocrisy thy name is America!
 
 
-61 # arquebus 2014-02-14 16:06
Has it occurred to the writer(s)that we don't intentionally target non-combatants. But if a non-combatant is standing next to a terrorist when Hellfire rains down...is it out fault for trying to kill someone trying to kill
Americans or is it the bystanders fault for hanging out with bad guys.

Imagine some hanger on to the Capone gang in the 20s and the Moran Gang decides to some payback and the "innocent" gets hit. The question should arise...why was the innocent hanging out with Capone's gangsters.

There is an old saying...sleep with dogs and come up with fleas. Hang out with murderous terrorists and accept the consequences.

Of course, we could just surrender,do nothing and let these people continue to make war on us without consequence--a position it seems many on RSN subscribe to.
 
 
+28 # tref 2014-02-14 17:07
@arquebus

“Has it occurred to the writer(s)that we don't intentionally target non-combatants.
One, ugly point of this article is that we, the United States, are targeting people in a country that has not declared war on us. There is no Constitutional justification for our government doing that.

“But if a non-combatant is standing next to a terrorist when Hellfire rains down...is it out [sic] fault for trying to kill someone trying to kill Americans or is it the bystanders fault for hanging out with bad guys.”
You DO realize that the people in the Middle East are “trying to kill Americans” who are invaders in THEIR country, right? Turned around, it would be like you calling the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11/2001 terrorists for trying seize control of that plane from the hijackers WHO WERE INVADERS TOO. People defending their country and families from invaders are not the terrorists. The INVADERS are the terrorists. The hijackers of 9/11 were invaders. The United States in the Middle East is the invader.

“Of course, we could just surrender, do nothing and let these people continue to make war on us without consequence”
“Continue?” There were four airplanes hijacked on one day in 2001 and two youths blowing up garbage cans in Boston. That’s it. NO other attacks on US soil. So, since when does two assaults separated by over 10 years qualify as continuing "to make war"? However, I can tell you who IS continuing to make war. The United States, that’s who!
 
 
-17 # arquebus 2014-02-14 19:28
Is that not enough?
 
 
+4 # geraldom 2014-02-16 11:53
tref, I agree with you on certain points. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. is the biggest terrorist nation in the world, and we have caused the deaths of many millions of innocent people in foreign countries we had no legal or moral right to be in.

What I find extremely ironic is the U.S. complaining to Karzai about the people that he's freeing from Afghan prisons because they were killing U.S. soldiers and therefore they are terrorists. As much as we didn't like the Afghan government before we illegally invaded and occupied Afghanistan, we had no legal right to invade the country which of course gets us into 9/11 which is another story.

If the situation were reversed and we, the United States, were invaded and occupied by a foreign force as reflected in the fiction film entitled "Red Dawn," the young men in the film who became guerrilla fighters, by definition, would be defined as militants and terrorists by us.

In Avatar, another fictional (but symbolic) film, the indigenous life on the planet were called terrorists by the humans when they started fighting back to get their planet back. The analogy of the film reflects real life where the humans were the U.S. and the indigenous people could be Afghans or Iraqis. This was a symbolic film on what the U.S. is really all about.

But, I do disagree with you about 9/11. Read my posting in this article where I give you actual physical evidence that the official story is bunk.

Continued
 
 
+4 # geraldom 2014-02-16 12:07
Continued

The problem with 9/11. Jeremy Scahill was one of the guests on the "Real Time With Bill Maher" program this week. Bill Maher is a devout believer in the official BS story put out by the Bush administration and absolutely has turned a blind eye to any real or physical evidence proving otherwise.

I know beyond the shadow of any doubt that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration and not perpetrated by al-Qaida or Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 was a false-flag event, one of the best false-flag events perpetrated by the U.S. in its history, to justify all of the evil that the U.S. has done since; the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq, perpetual wars going on in Somalia and Yemen and Syria and Ukraine and in other countries throughout the world, and the destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, all premised under the "War On Terror," and, much more specifically, the events surrounding 9/11.

Even Bill Maher in his program this week blurted out that we have to protect ourselves from another 9/11 when he was referring to Obama's declaration that he alone has the authority to murder people, even American citizens, anywhere in the world without trial or any due process, all justified by the events of 9/11.

This is why the official BS 9/11 story put out by Bush and Cheney need to be debunked if we ever want to stop this madness. If it can be proven that 9/11 was perpetrated by Bush and Cheney, then this BS war on terror will hopefully end.
 
 
+34 # reiverpacific 2014-02-14 17:18
Quoting arquebus:
Has it occurred to the writer(s)that we don't intentionally target non-combatants. But if a non-combatant is standing next to a terrorist when Hellfire rains down...is it out fault for trying to kill someone trying to kill
Americans or is it the bystanders fault for hanging out with bad guys.

Imagine some hanger on to the Capone gang in the 20s and the Moran Gang decides to some payback and the "innocent" gets hit. The question should arise...why was the innocent hanging out with Capone's gangsters.

There is an old saying...sleep with dogs and come up with fleas. Hang out with murderous terrorists and accept the consequences.

Of course, we could just surrender,do nothing and let these people continue to make war on us without consequence--a position it seems many on RSN subscribe to.


Has it ever occurred to you that if you quit fucking around in other countries' affairs, starting wars on false pretenses and downright lies for corporate profit, you'd have very little to worry about from outside?
Go back to Mossadeguh in 1953 and count the almost annual invasion, overthrow, arming and alliances with right-wing dictatorships around the world; -if you still don't get it, you must have your head up where the sun don' shine.
And that doesn't even include the cynically planned assassination of a US president, his brother and many political leaders and activists who simply wanted peace.
YOUR dogs AND fleas mix in the same toxic host!
 
 
-40 # arquebus 2014-02-14 18:03
The US didn't throw Mossadegh out...the then Shah did. All the US did is point out that the Shaw had the power.

You promptly lose all credibility when you float a JFK conspiracy. One shooter, easy shots, easy picking, no shot from the grassy knoll (unless someone was using a 19th century black powder rifle--modern ammo doesn't smoke). End of story..no grand conspiracy just as was the case for Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley...just nuts.
 
 
+29 # WBoardman 2014-02-14 19:22
Good lord, arquebus, the CIA plot to overthrow Mossadegh
and install the Shah has even been written about
by at least one of the perps -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt,_Jr.
 
 
-24 # arquebus 2014-02-14 19:31
I never said the CIA didn't have a hand in it...I said they didn't overthrow Mossadegh...the Shah did and the Iranian generals kept him under house arrest.
 
 
+19 # ReconFire 2014-02-14 20:26
Keep drinking the Kool-aid, and go back to Fox News.
 
 
+1 # geraldom 2014-02-18 15:41
Quoting arquebus:
The US didn't throw Mossadegh out...the then Shah did. All the US did is point out that the Shaw had the power.

.........


arquebus, before you open your mouth and speak nonsense and ignorant things like this, I suggest that you watch a documentary entitled "American Coup."

Begin by googling the following:

"American Coup" and Documentary

The film tells the whole story. There were two attempts within a short period of time to overthrow the Mossadegh regime in Iran. The first effort failed because Mossadegh was warned. The Shah, at the time, was in Iran, but after this first attempt failed, he immediately left the country for safer parts so-to-speak.

Kermit Roosevelt, Jr, who worked for the CIA out of the U.S. embassy didn't give up and made a second attempt to overthrow the Mossadegh regime and succeeded by using paid mobs to riot in the streets as the U.S. appears to be doing right now in the Ukraine to overthrow its government.

Mossadegh was forced out by gunpoint in a similar fashion as Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forced out of Haiti by gunpoint in the 2004 Haitian coup d'état.

Once the CIA gave the Shah the green light, he returned to Iran as the American puppet leader of the country.
 
 
+21 # WBoardman 2014-02-14 18:04
arqubus assumes that everyone killed by a drone is either an enemy or in the company of an enemy.

Clearly this is not true.

But arquebus deserves credit for a sense of humor,
comparing the US to just another murderous gang
in a gang war,

As for surrendering -- to whom?
The consequences of not terrorizing civilian populations
are unlikely to be so dire.
 
 
-29 # arquebus 2014-02-14 18:20
You have evidence of your statement about enemies? Much ado was made about a wedding party recently....tur ns out that two of the participants were well-known terrorists. Had they been shunned as terrorists they wouldn't have been targets at a wedding.
 
 
+16 # WBoardman 2014-02-14 19:31
Terror & weddings

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/02/risk-reporting-us-drone-strikes-2014212103345230764.html
 
 
+3 # ReconFire 2014-02-16 00:09
[quote name="arquebus" ]Has it occurred to the writer(s)that we don't intentionally target non-combatants. But if a non-combatant is standing next to a terrorist when Hellfire rains down...is it out fault for trying to kill someone trying to kill
Americans or is it the bystanders fault for hanging out with bad guys.

Has ever occurred to you the US Drone program is designed to keep the so called "War on Terrorism" going? WAKE UP!
 
 
-35 # whatdidimiss 2014-02-14 16:19
Let's keep our propaganda terms straight here: "Terrorism" is the use of military force against civilian targets; "collateral damage" is the unintended result of military force against military targets. Mr. Boardman seems to be railing against the latter, while labeling it the latter. Although the target is just as dead, "even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked."
 
 
+33 # WBoardman 2014-02-14 17:59
whatdidimiss --

terrorism is the use of violence to inflict terror,
whether used by military or non-military perps.
Big terrorism was bombing Hiroshima, smaller terrorism
is the random suicide bomber.

What makes the drone program terrorism is that
its targets are random, often unknown, and sometimes
purely civilian. The US is waging a campaign that
deliberately terrorizes civilian populations.
 
 
-10 # whatdidimiss 2014-02-14 21:54
Quoting WBoardman:
whatdidimiss --

terrorism is the use of violence to inflict terror,
whether used by military or non-military perps.
Big terrorism was bombing Hiroshima, smaller terrorism
is the random suicide bomber.

What makes the drone program terrorism is that
its targets are random, often unknown, and sometimes
purely civilian. The US is waging a campaign that
deliberately terrorizes civilian populations.


You apparently have access to information that most of us don't: The administration constantly assures us (but never verifies) that the targets are carefully selected, neither random nor unknown (except as to their names), and never purely civilian. I therefore dispute (or at least await evidence) that the US military efforts are deliberately targeting civilians (as in marketplaces, mosques, restaurants, hotels, etc.) and thus intended to inflict terror.
As for the Hiroshima analogy, I regard it as a "category error:" applying a standard to a class where it doesn't belong. In the nation-against- nation wars of the 20th century, destroying each other's cities was considered business as usual. Even today, Israel feels threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran, the U. S. and Japan fear a nuclear-armed North Korea, and both India and Pakistan fear each other on account of their nuclear arms. It's not because of the threats to their military capabilities, but rather to their civilian populations. Terrorism is state v non-state actors.
 
 
+23 # Polfrosch 2014-02-14 18:12
Quoting whatdidimiss:
Let's keep our propaganda terms straight here: "Terrorism" is the use of military force against civilian targets; "collateral damage" is the unintended result of military force against military targets.


Interesting. So what was the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima, which killed 90% women and children?

Please notice: Hiroshima was no military target and there were no worthwile military targets in Hiroshima.

Proof: It had not been bombed before the nuclear attack, because it wasn´t worth a bombing.

But Hiroshima was picked as a target for the atomic bomb because it was not destroyed.
Only an undamaged city with healthy humans would provide valid data on the destructive force of a nuclear bomb on humans and buildings.

So by your definition Hiroshima was nuclear terrorism? I agree.

Or was it rather a huge field experiment on women and children? Which would qualify as a crime against humanity.

Do you understand the combination of trigger-happine ss, a nonchalant attitude about the use of deadly force and double standards is not a promising method to win "hearts and minds"?

If you don´t understand it, just imagine an arab fighter would state US women and children should better avoid the company of US soldiers in front of a shopping mall, or they could become collateral damage - after igniting a bomb.

Does that sound somewhat cynical to you - suddenly?

It´s not really US "freedoms" which create distrust.
 
 
-14 # arquebus 2014-02-14 18:23
[quote name="Polfrosch "][quote name="whatdidimiss"]


Please notice: Hiroshima was no military target and there were no worthwile military targets in Hiroshima.

"During World War II, the 2nd General Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[" See Hiroshima history Wikipedia.

Sure looks like s military target to me.
 
 
+20 # Polfrosch 2014-02-14 18:42
Ah, the headquarters.

Offices qualify? If so, all settlements larger than a farm are legitimite military targets?

And these (headquarters) office buildings were staffed with 90% women and children? Or were they all collateral damage?

If offices and headquarters qualify, ok, then Washington is a military target times 1000? It´s citizens potential collateral damage?

And again: if these headquarters were so important, why were they not bombed before? The USAF was running out of targets and started to rebomb already destroyed targets. Nobody noticed there were these essential headquarters?

May I suggest to start facing reality?
 
 
-16 # arquebus 2014-02-14 19:37
The reality was either coming up with something that would encourage the Japanese to surrender or invade the home islands with a loss of millions of lives--American and Japanese. Until Hiroshima, Japan was not making any serious moves towards surrender. Instead they were preparing all the people..men, women and children...to fight when the Americans invaded.

After Nagasaki, they threw in the towel and surrendered. How's that for reality?

Oh, and of course Washington is a target...just as Berlin and London were targets om WWII.

I grew up next to a SAC base. Even in 6th grade we knew that should a war start,the base was a target and we probably wouldn't even see the flash before becoming ashes.
 
 
+15 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-14 20:07
"After Nagasaki and Hiroshima they threw in the towel. True. Truman pulled the trigger on it. However they did target civilians to create the 'Shock and Awe Some Power of the USA now only one with The Bomb. It still goes down as the biggest act of terrorism so far to date by 'Modern man' .. that is killing massive amounts of civilians to terrorize a population to yield to your angst. Sure it was a real deal the war and all ... but do you really think they could have achieved the very same dropping it on a military base first to let em know? I'm sure that would have resulted in the same result .. surrender ..
 
 
+7 # Polfrosch 2014-02-15 09:47
There were serious moves on the way, e.g. via the Vatican.

But the willingness of the Japanese military, tenno and the Japanese population to go on fighting is debated, ok.

The japanese military perspective was clear: they knew the war was over, when the USSR declared war. It meant a 2 front war and no chance for negotiations via the former neutral (!!!) USSR.

The japanese military did not care about dead civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as their death had no effect on the military capabilities.

But I think ending the war was a less important reason at that stage.

If ending was the goal, the US could have just dropped one bomb on a real military target and announce: "See? Now: capitulate or else!" = ethical.

It´s more reasonable to assume the actions were according to the goals. This was about "morale bombing"= state terrorism, not moral standards.

1. There were 2 completely different bomb designs and the military and government were eager to test the real effects of both on humans, hence Hiroshima AND Nagasaki.

2. The US had prepared and sent doctors (and film crews) afterwards to both cities. Not to help, just to examine and get data on effects. = Human experimentation.

3. The bombs were the biggest US investment ever, and the investors wanted a real bang for the buck.

4. They also wanted to show their new big stick to the USSR = We are the one and only godfather!

5. The war was nearly over, Germany gone= a last minute drop.
 
 
+5 # mjc 2014-02-15 12:34
Non-nuclear bombs could have taken care of the military aspect of Hiroshima as a target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because of the known terror such a bomb could deliver to a very large civilian population. We made Tokyo a living hell with regular bombs but Hiroshima delivered unknown future horrors for the Japanese, horrors that the Army and Air Corps KNEW were well beyond burning, destruction and death. The bombs were tested in Utah's deserts.
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2014-02-15 19:22
#

You mean, Nevada's deserts.

#
 
 
+1 # mjc 2014-02-16 15:05
Nope, Utah's. My father was a physician in the Air Force at the time and was one of those designated to observe the firings AND the effects. Utah had/has some very remote areas, deserts, where a great deal of the underground testing was done as well as that out in the open.
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2014-02-16 17:57
#

Well, if that's so, I wasn't aware of that and I stand corrected. Could you please provide some corroborating evidence of that, and of where in Utah (Utah's part of Four Corners?); because all I ever heard about was the above- and under- ground testing that took place in Nevada; as well as in the Pacific Islands, of course; at least that I recall. Perhaps I heard about such testing in Utah, but don't remember it. It's difficult to recall all of the crimes of the U.S. government, that we're aware of, if we were ever aware of them at all.

Also, are those places where it took place in Utah, open to the public; because I would imagine that those are still extremely radioactive places; and to the best of my knowledge the sites where it took place in Nevada are on U.S. government land that is closed off to the public? Am I again under a misconception, or not? As we know, we are deceived about a good many things by the U.S. government, and it has only gotten worse, with them now blatantly deceiving us about far more than we ever thought possible.

Thank you.

#
 
 
+1 # WBoardman 2014-02-16 20:05
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nucleartestingandthedownwinders.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-30/news/mn-41579_1_time-bomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site

Googling "Utah bomb test sites" and similar subjects produced no test sites in Utah, but plenty of downwind sites consistent with mjc's description of his father.
 
 
0 # mjc 2014-02-17 09:33
My dad was stationed in Salt Lake City but he would go to a location...in Utah, we were told...for six weeks or so at a time. I was about 11 years old and even if I asked...and I'm not sure I did...my father kept his cards close to his vest, AND it was not public knowledge I'm pretty sure. He did develop skin cancer, dating from that time, according my mom AFTER he died and pretty sure the "protections" were not really sufficient at that time
 
 
-1 # John S. Browne 2014-02-19 02:47
#

That doesn't prove that there was allegedly underground atomic bomb testing in Utah (is there even a military base, or military property, in southwestern Utah?), therefore you haven't answered my question. And Bill Boardman couldn't find any corroborating evidence for it online, either. Where's the proof, if you have, or can find, any? Please provide.

#
 
 
-1 # mjc 2014-02-19 08:42
Do you...or Bill Boardman...have any idea of the security that surrounded the development of atomic weapons at that time? As I stated, and you apparently ignored, he was "stationed" at Salt Lake City but the 8 months or so that we were there he went to a desert location...we were told...in Utah, for 6 or 7 weeks at a time. And I never said I had PROOF! Just knew what my father did in 1943-44. If you don't want to believe that, fine. No one is asking you to. Just trying to add to any discussion here.
 
 
-1 # John S. Browne 2014-02-19 20:01
#

You're missing the point. What you said, twice now, which I fully read, understood and "got" fully the first time, doesn't even say that there were underground nuclear test sites in Utah. As Bill Boardman alluded to, your dad could simply have worked in fallout areas in Utah caused by the tests in Nevada, and he could find no reference to there ever being underground test sites in Utah. I understand the level of secrecy that was involved, and I'm sure Bill Boardman does too, but it doesn't sound like your dad, or your mom, ever told you that there was underground testing in Utah. In other words, what you have told us does not even confirm by hearsay that underground tests took place in Utah.

#
 
 
-1 # mjc 2014-02-20 11:00
Apparently it is not possible for you to accept any information that isn't written down somewhere by someone. Your last sentence is completely the kind of tripe that someone like you prefers to just letting it stand as a possibility. And that is all that I was attempting to convey...failin g, of course, because it wasn't YOUR information or ???? Hope you aren't a teacher of any sort.
 
 
-1 # John S. Browne 2014-02-21 01:53
#

Is that all you've got, ad hominem attacker?

"...(A)ll that (you were) attempting to convey..."? Then you should have made that clear before now.

#
 
 
-24 # whatdidimiss 2014-02-14 16:20
Sorry, the second sentence should read, "Mr. Boardman seems to be railing against the latter, while labeling it the former."
 
 
-2 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-14 19:32
Too much radicalization of Obama. 9/11 created the paradym. It's a catch 22 though with if you're weak on the terror going on it could come back to bite the president and elected officials. So it's a bit like Marshall Law when a crisis is in place. Problem with this country they created several crises like 'The Cold War' to scare Americans and make big bucks as a result. Like those reviewing NSA found O et al did not violate our rights YET. But massive gathering of data could be gamed by another generation of elected officials or climate or whatever. So did USA policies in Afghanistan using Freedom Fighters come back to get our foreign policies of the past resulting Al Quida .. Yes! However the Rubix Cube of Foreign Policy now is a complicated matter. I don't blame Obama a bit. What comes next and who uses it for some other gain very possible ...
 
 
+15 # curmudgeon 2014-02-14 20:08
Too bad so many of you let the troll 'Arquebus' draw your attention and derail your conversation(s) ...let the (-) votes take care of his misguided attention.

Remember an 'Arquebus' is a weapon of yore expelling large amounts of hot gases along with its ammo. Aptly named I would say.
 
 
+4 # Polfrosch 2014-02-15 10:09
You are right, I know.

But: I think, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a turning point and need to be recognized, especially in the USA.

During WW2 aerial bombing was ruthlessly used by all states just according to their capabilities. Targeting civilians was becoming business as usual.

On the other hand: Bioweapons and chemical weapons were banned after WW1. They are - and have a bad name to this day. Rightly so.

But the combination of aerial bombing and tools of mass murder (nuclear bombs) even worse than chemical weapons become "ethical" after Hiroshima - Nuclear warheads are not in the same league like Sarin. Why? Because they were used by a power which became The Superpower. The bombing became a defining event for the USA. (Wich seems to make it so difficult to accept this was a huge war crime and crime against humanity.)

Because this crime was not put into perspective, it even became a founding myth for US power, we got used to nuclear hostage taking of whole populations = state terrorism.

It is a core issue, it is essential - and not recognized.
 
 
+11 # John S. Browne 2014-02-14 22:18
#

Thank you, Bill Boardman! Every once in a while an article by you that I can unequivocally say, "Completely right-on"! Not a single point that I would have to disagree with! Unbelievable! Good work, Boardman! (Now that I've said that, please don't turn around and write and publish some- thing that's a bunch of balderdash, and/or that has a few points that are false, okay? Always tell it completely, and nothing but, like it is, as in this article, and I'm with you one-hundred percent!)

#
 
 
+5 # mjc 2014-02-15 12:37
Congressman Mike Rogers is the face of American terrorism in some ways. Anything the NSA or the military do is just fine with him. Always will wonder what makes these killings so important to him...and others in Congress.
 
 
+5 # ReconFire 2014-02-16 00:17
Now you're getting it.
Don't forget Rogers is ex FBI.
 
 
+3 # Vardoz 2014-02-15 13:29
The entire approach seems idiototic to me. Killing supposedly one at a time, at a huge cost to them & us, & since their are probably millions more out there, another takes that persons place. If the military wants to justify endless war for profit this would be the perfect way to do it. The other way would be to kill every living soul in the middle east- then we would be safe- right? Or we could actually do some good- really help people- give them money, build homes & feed them while we are being deliberately impoverished here! So where are all the tens of billions going?
And what about all the weekly mass killings that take place here in our schools, cities and streets? That doesn't seem to mean squat to those who are so concerned. Not even one new gun reg has been passed. You would think if "They" were so interested in protecting us they would want to make sure we were also safe from our own NRA. Not even onelaw for background checks or any restrictions on the types of arms sold has been passed- The way our military is handling this whole thing appears to be to intentionally create conflict - endless war for profit must be a financial boon for our arms manufactures. And now the military can order a drone strike just based on info from sim cards. After all human life means nothing to them and Afghanistan has a lot of Lithium. I hear very valueable these dates. Clear the way and kill em off so the mining of the ore can begin.
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2014-02-16 16:20
Quoting arquebus:
The US didn't throw Mossadegh out...the then Shah did. All the US did is point out that the Shaw had the power.

You promptly lose all credibility when you float a JFK conspiracy. One shooter, easy shots, easy picking, no shot from the grassy knoll (unless someone was using a 19th century black powder rifle--modern ammo doesn't smoke). End of story..no grand conspiracy just as was the case for Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley...just nuts.


Wrong again and YOUR credibility is utterly shot! The UK (Churchill and Eden) instigated the US coup which Truman rejected but Eisenhower went for, using the CIA led by Kermit Roosevelt Jr. (The former president's grandson). It was all done in the name of BP, known then as the "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" just as the overthrow of Jacopo Arbenz in Guatemala was engineered by Allen Dulles the following year for United Fruit (Chiquita).
The Shah was a coward, fleeing the country, advising Roosevelt to do the same and not returning until the dirty work had been done for him and a military government under General Fazlollah Zahedi formed, which allowed Pahlavi to rule as an absolute monarch using his murderous SAVAK death squads and secret police to enforce his rule. In other words, a CIA plant.
Re JFK, you reactionary conformists believe anything the government tells you. Even LBJ expressed serious doubts about the Warren Report!
Your ilk really use history as fantasy tales for your own feel-good comfort!
 
 
+2 # rndunn 2014-02-16 16:46
In reply to Vardoz: "Endless war for profit must be a financial boon to arms manufacturers." True AND a huge boon to the international banksters who fund both sides in these wars. A great source for how these parasites operated throughout history is found at -- www.monetary.org To Reiverpacific, I love your posts and learned something about you today that I very much have in common with you. Awesome!!
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2014-02-16 17:40
Quoting arquebus:
I never said the CIA didn't have a hand in it...I said they didn't overthrow Mossadegh...the Shah did and the Iranian generals kept him under house arrest.


"The US didn't throw Mossadegh out...the then Shah did. All the US did is point out that the Shaw (sic) had the power" (QV your post).
Now then dear chappie; -if you just reach y'r li'l ol' hand out and grab the nearest dictionary (or Wikipedia), even you will be able to look up the difference between "Overthrow" and "Have a hand in".
But like all reactionaries, you have history bent to what you want to believe and what makes you feel better about the buried truth in your kinked perspective of the real history of your beloved rouge nation and it's almost continual line of usurpations, arming of and interference with other nations.
The only part you got right is that Mossadegu was kept under house arrest by Pahlavi for the rest of his life -AFTER the real dirty work had been done for him.
I rest my case by referring you to the excellent, detailed and truthful chronicle of the whole affair "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer.
But I fear, again like all reactionaries I've dealt with, that you'll find a way to bend even that to y'r ever stretched and weakening elastic band of what passes for a discussion and manipulation of well-chronicled facts.
I look forward with some anticipation to your version # umpteen -but I'm done with you.
'Nuff said.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN