Footer Pages

terrorists US2

Who Are The Real Terrorists?

TerrorismThe US Code defines terrorism as a crime that appears to be intended to (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

None of the crimes committed by the 9/11 attackers fall within the “intent” definition of the US code.  They were hijackers and mass murderers, but not terrorists.

George W. Bush declared a war against terrorists. Under that guise, the US threatened the Taliban in Afghanistan with military action unless they surrendered Osama bin Laden.

When the Taliban insisted on evidence supporting the US position that bin Laden was the culprit behind the 9/11 hijackings and mass murders, the US remained silent.

Instead, they bombed Afghanistan, violating their own code.  They attempted to intimidate and coerce the civilian population of Afghanistan, they attempted to influence policy of the Afghan government through coercion and intimidation, and they attempted to affect the conduct of the Afghan government by assassination and kidnapping.

terrorists US2

In retribution for a criminal act, the US defiled its own code by terrorising Afghans on all three counts.

As Noam Chomsky observed in his book 9/11, if Western powers ever abided by the Code’s definition of terrorism, it “would at once reveal that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients.”

The US Immigration and Nationality Act defines “terrorism” differently.  It has expanded the definition to include any unlawful act which involves “(I) the hijacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).”

By this definition, the hijackers of 9/11 were certainly terrorists. However, the Immigration and Nationality Act is not in line with the US Code, as it excludes any consideration of intent.  That consideration alone distinguishes a crime from its aim.

What would the 9/11 mass murderers be tried for if they still lived?  Terrorism or Hijacking and Mass Murder?  If they were tried for terrorism, their case would be thrown out of court unless their intent could be proven to fit within the definition in the US Code.  Nothing has been produced to suggest that the authorities have any evidence to support a prosecutor’s argument about intent fitting the US Code.

On the other hand, item (V) of the Immigration and Nationality Act defines terrorism as “The use of any (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain, with intent to endanger directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.”

Under section (VI) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, terrorism is defined as “A threat, attempt or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.”

By this definition, the US government is certainly guilty of terrorism.  The use of chemical agents in the Viet Nam war and the use of nuclear weapons in World War II qualify the US as terrorists.  Plentiful evidence exists to establish intent under the US Code’s definition as well.

Undoubtedly the US government is guilty of terrorism in Afghanistan by its own definition under section (b).

Certainly the threats made toward Iran, the sanctions which are acts of war and refusal to seriously negotiate Iran’s nuclear development qualify America as terrorists under all of its own definitions.

The US, however, is not satisfied with being terrorists.  They’re actively engaged in eliciting support for their terrorist activity in an effort to deceive themselves into believing that they are above their own laws.

, , , , , , , ,

20 Responses to Who Are The Real Terrorists?

  1. Ariadna Theokopoulos January 14, 2013 at 10:42 pm #

    Missed Chomksy book, 9/11. Guess if I had read it and if I had been convinced by it this post would have made sense.
    I like the illustration at the top of the post though: makes the mass murderers who only give orders or push buttons while sitting in their armchairs thousands of miles away look like tough and macho guerilleros. Nice muscle definition on Bush

    • Roy Bard January 15, 2013 at 7:51 am #

      AT: “Missed Chomksy book, 9/11. Guess if I had read it and if I had been convinced by it”

      Chomsky argues that the US government has done exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted it to do.

      Christopher Bartlo

      The Zionist Lobby is just a Lobby like any other Lobby. It is Bin Laden and his ilk who dictate American Foreign Policy……. ie the tail that wags the dog

      • Roy Bard January 15, 2013 at 12:57 pm #

        Most of the original book – which I have, consists of reprints of Chomsky being interviewed – here is the interview which serves as Chapter 1:

        This bit is indicative:

        Could you say something about connivance and the role of American secret service?

        I don’t quite understand the question. This attack was surely an enormous shock and surprise to the intelligence services of the West, including those of the United States. The CIA did have a role, a major one in fact, but that was in the 1980s, when it joined Pakistani intelligence and others (Saudi Arabia, Britain, etc.) in recruiting, training, and arming the most extreme Islamic fundamentalists it could find to fight a “Holy War” against the Russian invaders of Afghanistan.

        The First edition can be read here

        • Jay Knott January 15, 2013 at 4:34 pm #

          Chomsky is right for once. In the early days of the 9/11 truth movement, it was argued that al Qaeda was an American creation, that training men to fight Russian soldiers in Afghanistan somehow made the CIA responsible when some of those men decided to attack American civilians:

          Michael Mooron tries to imply something similar in the movie ‘Fahrenheit 911’. It’s is a kneejerk liberal reaction, trying to deter Americans from hate and war by making the US government responsible for everything. A later version blames Israel instead.

          • Blake January 15, 2013 at 11:23 pm #

            A CIA transcript, the last verified words of Bin Laden from a decade ago:
            ■“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.”
            ■“Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. . Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”

          • Roy Bard January 16, 2013 at 9:33 am #

            ■“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.”

            The senior CIA analyst responsible for tracking Osama bin Laden from 1996, Michael Scheuer, wrote shortly after that “bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. [He] is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world,” and largely succeeded: “U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden’s only indispensable ally.” And arguably remains so, even after his death.


            Why does Noam ignore the precision of Bin Laden’s denial?

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos January 15, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

          “This attack was surely an enormous shock and surprise to the intelligence services of the West, including those of the United States.”

          Chomsky is right.
          There had been counter-terrorism exercises scheduled for that very same day simulating plane-‘jacking’ and attack of skyscrapers by islamofascists.
          I cannot even begin to imagine the surprise and shock of the intel services when the terrorists did exactly that on that same day. No wonder Chenney himself got confused and ordered a stand down.
          They must have been stunned.

          • fool me once... January 15, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

            Michael Nosferatu Chertoff fails to mention “the surprise and shock of the intel services” and manages to put to bed any doubts concerning the official story of 911.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos January 16, 2013 at 12:23 am #

            Nosferatu is a perfect name for him. I liked the first question best and the fact he so blatantly avoided answering it and blabbered instead about something entirely different

          • Jay Knott January 16, 2013 at 3:43 am #

            Blake: “Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people”. So does Christianity.

          • Jay Knott January 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm #

            “When the terrorists did exactly that”. Ariadna has written on numerous occasions that Islamic terrorists were not involved in 9/11, and anyone who claims to think they almost certainly were, and who is not an idiot, is an agent. Does this mean she’s changed her mind? Or does she mean that these ‘terrorists’ weren’t Islamic ones, but some other kind? I’m not holding my breath for a coherent answer.

          • fool me once... January 16, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

            “and anyone who claims to think they almost certainly were,”
            Your reasoning is almost disingenuous, the way you insert words strategically, such as “almost and “if”, in the belief they can, at a later date, be used as some kind of get out clause, when you’re on the ropes.

          • Jay Knott January 17, 2013 at 3:12 am #

            Fool me: the words ‘almost’ and ‘if’ are used by careful people who understand logic and the scientific method.

            In contrast, the adherents of cults project their own dishonesty, claiming that caution about making definite statements is a ‘get out clause’.

            Scientists aren’t even sure of the truth of Einstein’s theories of relativity. I’ve never said I’m sure of the official story of 9/11, despite numerous attempts by dishonest cultists to say I have.

  2. pgg804 January 15, 2013 at 3:59 am #

    Dam – Who’s The Terrorist? (Meen Erhabi?) Lyrics Video (HD) ! دام مين إرهابي

    Palestinian Hiphop. Very good.

  3. David Holden January 15, 2013 at 11:40 pm #

    “What would the 9/11 mass murderers be tried for if they still lived?”

    i am puzzled by Dr Balles’ use of the phrase in bold type. it seems to pre-empt any legal process whilst expressing a view that the perpetraitors of 911 are no longer with us. it would be interesting to know the evidential basis for this odd conflation.

    i am likewise puzzled by the phrase:

    the hijackers of 9/11

    in seeking to identify the agency responsible for 911 we can probably rule out accident and Acts of God. so there were, in all likelihood, perpetraitors, facilitators, collaborators, and, given the outcome of their carefully planned demolition, it is reasonable to refer to such perpetraitors as murderers.

    but who were they? how do we know they are not in the land of the living?

    i cannot take seriously the high-minded hand-wringing over definitions of “terrorism” when i am expected to subscribe to an egregious pack of lies in order to enter the discussion.

    as Yorkshire kids used to say:

    pull the other leg, it’s got bells on

    • fool me once... January 16, 2013 at 12:17 am #

      “pull the other leg, it’s got bells on” 😀

      • Blake January 16, 2013 at 1:27 am #

        Merci. Never heard that version before. Thanks.

        • Jay Knott January 16, 2013 at 3:27 am #

          Yorkshire: for 300 years it’s been a post-industrial pit of self-righteous whining, victimology, and conspiracy-mongering. It’s all everyone else’s fault, especially people from the more habitable south of the UK.

  4. Ariadna Theokopoulos January 16, 2013 at 12:13 am #

    Dr Balles engages in a bit of legalistic dancing on the head of a pin that the perpetrators are mass murderers but not terrorists by the US Code (which requires proof of intent), but otherwise he’s correct, as always. Boring but worth wading through because the rest is all solid and true.

    The perpetrators are all dead, starting with the Mastermind, OBL.
    The reason OBL denied his responsibility for 9/11 was nothing but SHAME.
    Let’s not forget this man was a proud mujaheddin. He was also a polymath: a physicist, a materials resistance engineer, a computer specialist and a unique organizer.

    He put together the momentous event now known as 9/11 using all his skills as well as the stupendous amount of top-top secret info about the US intel agencies data, NORAD, the Pentagon, etc. It should have been a grand and flawless operation.
    Yet it was a horrible mess-up, all because of miserable executants.
    “Atta” left behind in the trunk of his car a list of the 19 names and a terrorism manual. They used at least 4 WRONG fake passport so it soon transpired that the ordinary people who were the rightful owners of the passports were alive and well. They drank booze and partied with hookers (this saddened OBL) before flying to their mission. They even uttered the wrong “last prayer of a muslim” according to the recordings.

    OBL was mortified so he denied he had anything to do with 9/11.
    In fact the shame ate away at his pancreas, it just gobbled up his Langerhans cells until he had wasted away to a tiny, pathetic bag of skin and bones. Obama ordered a mercy killing. After they shot him there was nothing left of him so they just threw his clothes into the ocean.

    • fool me once... January 16, 2013 at 1:19 am #

      “In fact the shame ate away at his pancreas”
      Ah, I see it now. They’re going to be creating a new modern day biblical interpretation of an old classic and calling him Bad Samson. After taking the piss, they realized the old Samson riddle fitted perfectly – “out of the strong came forth sweetness”. Coupled with OBL’s blindness (in one eye) and pushing down the two supporting pillars of the temple of capitalism, as they say, it’s a wrap.
      The adventures of BS, in the Gospel according to Bush, chapter:9 verse:11