Is The US Government The Biggest Terrorist In The World

 


Definition of terrorism

Does the actions of the US government make it a terrorist state? Lets look at the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence, especially against civilians, the pursuit of political aims. Now lets look at some of the actions of the US government that fits this definition.

Has the US government used nuclear weapons against civilians?

Two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in 1945 during World War 2 . This fits the definition of terrorism. The US government used violence and specifically targeted civilians to achieve their political aim of defeating Japan during WW2.

Common counter arguments to this are that nuclear bombs prevented further deaths as it ended WW2. Also that Japan deserved this for their horrific crimes during WW2. Both are true. However it still does not change the fact that it was terrorism. Civilians were targeted and there was a political aim.

The US did not have to target civilians in Japan. The US could have used the nuclear bombs on Japanese army bases or on the Japanese government. It was an act of terrorism.

August, 1945 : Nagasaki, Japan – Aerial photo of before and after of atomic bombing of Nagasaki during the Pacific campaigns of World War II. 

Has the US government used chemical weapons against civilians?

During the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971, Agent Orange is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military. Agent Orange was a mixture of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D.

Nearly 20 million U.S. gallons of chemical herbicides and defoliants were sprayed by US. As well as Vietnam they were also sprated in eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. 

The government of Vietnam has said that 4 million of its citizens were exposed to Agent Orange. As many as 3 million have suffered illnesses because of it; these figures include the children of people who were exposed to Agent Orange. Agent Orange caused deformation among Vietnamese babies.

US planes spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam

Has the US government supported dictators?

After the US backed Shah of Iran was ousted by Islamic revolution in Iran. The US government supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq war to topple the Iranian government. Support included several billion dollars’ worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.

Over 500,000 Iraqis and Iranians were killed as a result of the Iraq-Iran war.

Former US sectrary of defense Donald Rumsfield
meeting former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

Has the US government started illegal invasions of countries based on lies?

We now know that the 2003 Iraq war was based on lies. Over a million Iraqis, 4491 US soldiers, and wounded 33000 US soldiers were killed because of a war the US government started.

The US government has killed more Americans than the number of Americans killed on 9/11. 

The media will not be label the actions of the US government as terrorism. The word terrorist was created by people in power to generalise Muslims. Similar to how the n-word is a label created for black people. 

They are projecting the message that you can use violence as much as you want against civilians to achieve your political aims. It is not terrorism unless you are a Muslim.


Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

The West’s Hypocrisy On Chemical Weapons


Western governments using chemical weapons to achieve their political aims

Iraq

Western governments have been using chemically developed weapons to help achieve their political aims in recent years. The first example of this was to help get rid of the dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq in 2003. 

Western governments wanted to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam for other reasons. However since Saddam used chemical weapons against his people over 20 years ago, the West used it as one of the excuses to invade Iraq in 2003.

Libya

Chemical Weapons were again used as a reason to get rid of the Libyan dictator Gaddafi in 2011. Again this was many years after Gaddafi had used chemical weapons, it was merely an excuse to invade Libya. 

Syria

The chemical weapons excuse tactic was also used to try and get rid of the dictator Assad from Syria. When there were reports of chemical weapons being used in Syria, all Western media groups blamed it on Assad without any investigation being carried out.

It was later found that the chemical attacks were carried out by the Free Syrian Army rebels that had joined ISIS, who were being supported by Western governments.

Iran

Chemical weapons was not used as an excuse to get rid of and to put pressure on the Iranian government. Instead Nuclear weapons was used as a scare mongering tactic to sanction Iran’s government.

This is despite Iran stating thousands of times that it is enriching Uranium for Nuclear energy. Meanwhile the US government keeps quiet on North Korea who actually have Nuclear weapons and has actually threatened the US.

Example of a Western government using chemical weapons

Agent Orange on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia

Agent Orange is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

The United States military sprayed nearly 20 million U.S. gallons of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. 

US planes spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam

It seems very hypocritical of Western governments using chemical weapons as a reason to bomb third world countries or to support extremist groups to destabilize their countries. Particularly since Western governments are guilty of using chemical weapons themselves.


Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Industries And Groups That Benefit From Terrorism


Terrorism benefiting the Arms industry

One of the industries that benefits from terrorism is the Arms industry. The saying goes, money is the root of all evil. The more you look into the root cause of a problem you will eventually find it is caused by money and greed.

The Arms industry benefiting from terrorism is a no-brainer. Terrorism leads to conflict, which leads to wars, which leads to a demand for weapons, which leads to billions of dollars for arms manufacturers.

The media 

The second industry that benefits from terrorism is the media. It is important to realise that the different media organisations are businesses which want to make money through selling papers, magazines, advertisements and promoting agendas for the people that own them; such as starting wars.

There are very few impartial news organisations. News outlets try to create exaggerated and controversial headlines to sell papers and increase their profits. Terrorism gives them that opportunity.

Governments

The final group that benefits from terrorism are governments. After all, the main purpose of terrorism is to achieve political aims. It is the perfect method for governments to get rid of leaders they do not like.

How do you get rid of Gaddafi in Libya, you pay extremists to topple his government. How do you get rid of Assad in Syria, you pay extremists to topple his government. Unless there is country like Russia with political interests in Syria as well causing the plan to fail.

These three groups, Arms manufacturers, the media and governments work together to benefit each other. Governments start conflicts to create a demand for weapons to benefit the weapons industry. The media uses propaganda to convince the public to make it easier for the government to start conflicts. An example being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The reason these three groups work together is because they are controlled by the same group of elite and powerful people.


Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Was Every Reason For The 2003 Iraq War A Lie


Reasons used for the 2003 Iraq war

There were many reasons used for the Iraq War in 2003 by the US and the UK. The main reasons used were:

  • Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
  • 9/11 and “War on terror.”
  • Making Iraq a democratic country.
  • To get rid of Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein because he used chemical weapons on his people.

These are four very different reasons. It seems like they tried to use as many reasons as they could think of, to try and justify the Iraq war. Maybe they did this so when one of the reasons was proven as a lie they could backtrack and use the other reason.

They did not give one clear purpose for the Iraq war. Lets dissect each of the reasons used to prove why each one was not the true reason for the Iraq war.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

The WMD reason is very easy to disprove. We now know that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The secret services were wrong. How could the secret services claim there was evidence for something that did not exist in Iraq?

Should we look into the “mistake” to find out who made up the lie? I mean it did lead to the death of more than one millions Iraqis, the destruction of Iraq and has traumatised millions of Iraqi children for life. No lets brush it under the carpet, the secret services got it wrong, ask no questions.

9/11 and the war on terror

This reason again is easy disprove in light of the facts. The mastermind of the 9/11 attack was Osama Bin Laden. He was from Saudi Arabia and not from Iraq. He was not even residing in Iraq, he was in the mountainous regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time.

There were no suicide bombings in Iraq and absolutely no terrorism in Iraq. However they used 9/11 as a reason for the Iraq war, 9/11 was the perfect excuse if you did want to invade any country. The invasion of Iraq brought terrorism to Iraq.

Making Iraq a democratic country

The problem with this reason was the timing of wanting to make Iraq a democracy. Iraq was a dictatorship under Saddam from 1979 up until 2003. If this was the reason for the Iraq war, why did the West wait 24 years to make Iraq a democratic country?

As of 2017 there are 49 countries with a dictatorship. Was the name of the country being made a democracy drawn out of the hat? Why was Iraq chosen, perhaps it had something to do with Iraq’s oil reserves.

To get rid of Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein because he used chemical weapons on his people

Again the problem with this reason for the Iraq war is the timing. Why wait 24 years to get rid of Saddam? Many years after Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and Iran in 1980s, again why wait 23 years and then use this as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq. It is like the US waiting 23 years after the 9/11 attacks and then going after Bin Laden. Furthermore CIA files showed that the US helped Saddam use chemical weapons. On top of this, the US supported Saddam’s invasion of Iran.

Donald Rumsfeld, President Reagan’s Middle East
special envoy meeting Saddam in 1983, after Saddam
used chemical weapons.

We can only speculate on the real reason for the Iraq war. However what is certain is that reasons used by the US and UK governments were lies.

The fact of matter is that Iraq had no WMDs, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism, the West was happy for Saddam to be the dictator of Iraq for 24 years until Saddam did something that the West did not like and they wanted him gone.

The British government had a public inquiry into the Iraq War known as the Chilcot report. The report was published a few days after Britain’s vote to leave Europe, in order to avoid as much attention as possible.


Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Paper Money Is The Biggest Scam In History


History of paper money and commodity currencies

To understand national debt we need to start with the history of paper money. The first known use of paper money was in China in the 7th century. Around a thousand years later paper money was started being used in the West in the 16th century. Paper money was very similar to a receipt when you buy items.

People who had physical valuable materials such as gold, silver and copper coins would deposit them at a bank and in return they would receive an exchange bill. They could then use this bill to withdraw their gold coins from the bank, or they could trade the bills for other items and the new owner of the bill would now own the gold coins in the bank. 

Some of the advantages for this system were that your wealth was safe as you did not have to carry it around with you. Also it was more convenient to complete larger transactions as many bags of coins were not needed. 

This was the perfect system as the paper currency was backed by physical goods that had actual value. This type of currency is known as commodity currency.

The bank could only print notes if it had the equivalent amount in actual wealth such as gold. This is important because if people no longer believed the paper money had any value then every single person could exchange their bank notes into gold which will always have value as there is a limited amount on Earth.

End of commodity currencies and the start of fiat currencies

The US Dollar used to be backed by gold and Silver. In 1971 US president Nixon ended this. Now that the US Dollar is not backed by gold or silver it is no longer a commodity currency and it is now a fiat currency. Fiat currencies have no intrinsic value that is deemed to be money by the law of the government. Other countries followed this path soon after.

The only reason fiat currencies like the US Dollar, the Euro and the British Pound has any value is because people think it has value. There is approximately 13.5 trillion US dollars in circulation as of 2017. If all of the US dollars in circulation is traded for gold at the current rate of $39,850 per kg then 338,770 tons of gold would be needed.

Only 182,000 tons of gold has been mined in all of human history. There is currently not enough gold to back up the amount of US dollars in circulation, let alone the other Fiat currencies.

Problem with fiat currencies 

  • Bond – is a piece of paper issued by a country’s government, promising to repay borrowed money and a fixed rate of interest at a specified time to whoever owns the bond.
  • Central Banks are the types of banks owned by governments which can print currency. They distribute the printed currency to commercial banks. The name for the US central Bank is the Federal reserve.

The problem with fiat currencies is that they can be printed out of thin air with no actual value to them. They can be used to fund wars, get the country out of a recession, and to bail out the banks.

In order to print currency the government creates bonds and sells the bonds to the commercial banks. The commercial banks sells the bonds the central bank for printed currency including interest. The commercial banks hands the printed currency to the government and also lends it out to people.

Who is the national debt owed to

The national debt will never be paid in full by any country. When the currency is first made, you cannot print £1000 and then promise to pay £1000 plus interest, because there is only £1000 in existence.

To pay the interest the cycle has to repeated, more bonds need to be created to pay for the old bonds and their interest. The debt and interest will exponentially increase. Austerity and cutting spending can only reduce the amount the government needs to borrow by creating bonds, it cannot completely eliminate the debt.

Therefore the national debts are owed to the people who own bonds, foreign governments, central banks, investors, to summarise it up, basically the rich. Tax payers are the people who are paying for the bonds and the interest. The debt created by governments will have to be paid by future generations of tax payers.

The system has not failed yet because not enough people know about it. The governments keep printing more currency to paper over the cracks in our economic system.


Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Conflict Caused By Borders Created By The West


How borders are causing conflicts

Most of the conflict in the different regions of the world seem to be caused by border disputes. Whether it is between Israel and Palestine, Pakistan and India, or African countries.

Middle East

When the Ottoman Empire was defeated at the end of World War One in 1914, the UK, France and Russia secretly divided the land in the Middle East between themselves.  

The splitting up of the Middle East was known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement which was named after the British and French statesmen, Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot. Britain had actually promised the Arabs their own land if they fought the Ottoman Empire for the British during WW1.

Britain betrayed the Arabs and took over and formed Mandatory Palestine in 1920 and Mandatory Iraq in 1921. The French took northern Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria. They created borders between ethnic groups such as Kurds which has caused conflicts.

Middle East controlled by Britain, France and Russia.

Britain betrayed the Arabs further by creating Israel after WW2 in 1948, a state just for Jewish people. Muslims, Christian and Jews lived in Palestine peacefully before the creation of Israel which has caused a never ending conflict in the region.

Map of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians

Africa 

Map of the different African ethnic groups

There are many different ethnic groups in Africa. European colonialists created borders to divide African land among themselves. Again they created borders without considering the different ethnic groups which has lead to many conflicts. Most modern day African countries had their borders carved out by Europe colonialists.

South Asia 

In South Asia, Britain split India into two separate countries in 1947. Pakistan and East Pakistan (now known as Bangladesh) was formed as a state for Muslims. This was done to reduce the conflict between Muslims and Hindus.

However it started the conflict over Kashmir between Pakistan and India. Instead of uniting Muslims and Hindus as Indians they created two groups of people with different identities to create conflict in the region. 

Britain also created the Durand line, a border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Durand line split the ethnic group Pashtuns in half and has created the political conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Were these borders created to intentionally create conflicts?

We cannot say for certain whether the borders drawn out by Western countries were intentionally created to cause conflicts, or if they were created out of ignorance.

However there needs to be conflicts and wars in order for Arms manufacturers to make money. The largest weapon suppliers in the world do happen to mostly be in Western countries.

In summary, there is no denying that borders created where it was not needed has created many conflicts around the world. It has divided people and given them new identities to fight one another. Israeli vs Palestinian and Pakistani vs Indian and the list goes on.


Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Politicians Lying; Does Democracy Need Reform


Politicians can lie without any consequences

The first issue which everyone will be familiar with is that politicians lie to win elections. They also lie to start illegal wars that benefit the politicians or the lobbyists supporting the politicians. Some examples of their lies being:

  • Reducing the UK deficit and running a budget surplus by 2017.
  • Reducing UK net migration to below 100,000 per year.
  • An extra 350mil a week for the NHS if Britain leaves the EU.
  • Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction leading to the 2003 Iraq war.
  • US president Trump promising a US-Mexico border wall and that Mexico would pay for it (of course they would).

It is understandable that not every promise can be fulfilled. However with the current system, politicians can make promises no matter how unrealistic they are in order to win elections. They could promise a free house, car and winning the lottery for every person.

Reform is needed to help prevent politicians lying. One suggestion could be that if the winner of an election breaks three or more of the policies they promised during their election campaign, then they would have to resign and another election must be held.

All politicians would have to create realistic deadline dates for each of their policies during their election campaign. This would help politicians think twice before lying about their policies.

You need financial backing to win elections

The second problem is that millions or in the case of the US billions are needed to have any chance of winning an election. Although politicians are relatively wealthy, the overwhelming majority cannot finance their own election campaign. 

This then leads to politicians looking for financial backing from wealthy individuals who own large corporations. However no one is willing to give out their money for free to politicians. The only thing that politicians can offer that no one else can, are policies that benefit the rich individuals and their corporations who are backing them, which is known as lobbying. This leads to policies not benefiting the general population but just rich individuals.

One solution to this is to reduce election campaign costs and to introduce a cap. This will help to make the election more fair for all candidates. It will ensure that no one has the advantage of having more money to advertise themselves more than the other candidates. Another obvious solution is to make lobbying illegal so that governments introduce policies that benefit everyone instead of the just lobbyists. 

Lack of diversity 

Another problem are the candidates who you can vote for during an election. The overwhelming majority of candidates were privately educated and come from elite families who are selected as leaders of their political parties by other people who were also privately educated and are from other elite families. People are given the free choice for which pre-selected candidate to vote for. A common state educated person has very little chance of being elected.

If you search for the list of political families in UK you will notice the amount of people who became politicians because their parent was also a politician. The next priminister of the UK will probably be from one of those families. They are chosen by elite families as an option for you to vote for.


Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Free Speech Hypocrisy By Most People


Are most people hypocritical when it comes to free speech

Most people are hypocritical when it comes to free speech. People are happy to advocate free speech until it crosses their line for when free speech is taken too far. Every person has at least something that they will find offensive.

Many people would say that free speech is permitted so long as it is complies with the law. However there are examples when this is not the case.

If a football manager states his opinion and criticises the referee at the end of a football match they will be fined for it. Even though it is not against the law to criticise the referee.

The president of the US Donald Trump and other US government officials became offended when an NBA player kneeled during the US national anthem. It is also not against the law to kneel during the national anthem.

Many people would say Charlie Hebdo drawing pictures of prophet Muhammad should be allowed as it is free speech. However they became outraged when Charlie Hebdo drew pictures of Nazis drowning due to Hurricane Harvey flooding Houston Texas, suggesting that everyone killed by the hurricane were Nazis. 

Purpose of free speech

However people have seem to forgotten the purpose of free speech. Free speech is not something that should be used as an excuse to offend people.

If a 6 year old child at school drew a picture of a fat woman and they said, ‘this is your mum,’ to another child. Would the teacher tell the kid there is nothing wrong with that because the kid has the right for freedom of speech? 

This is the exact analogy of Charlie Hebdo drawing pictures that Muslims find offensive. Now obviously no one should be killed or violently attacked no matter how offensive something is to them.

However it seems that the society we live in, lacks respect and it changes us as we become adults. A child knows they should not draw things that insults other peoples’ parents. When Muslims regard prophet Muhammad higher than their parents, why do grown adults not know this as well?

The whole purpose of freedom of speech is to debate, share ideas and knowledge to help humanity develop and progress. If you do not agree with something then challenge it in a respectful manner. 

Some people do become offended very easily. However it is all about intention, free speech should not be used with the sole intention to offend. It brings no benefit and just divides people that leads to no progress. 


Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on: