American and Other Terrorists

TNI

Noviembre 2005

American and Other Terrorists
From September 11th 1973 to September 11th 2001
Alex Veldhof
Translation of "Terrorists versus Terrorists", Parool, 15 March 2003

'Political assassination has always played an important role in American foreign policy', writes Alex Veldhof. Veldhof has been engaged by international terrorism, at among other places, The Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., since the seventies. According to him, the United States does not behave in accordance with the rules of its own code of conduct.

Most people,when thinking of September 11th, think about the attack on the World Trade Center's Twin Towers. They have never heard of another September 11th. An effective one - sided spread of information has made sure that September 11th, 1973 has been tucked away and forgotten in a cover-up. Why? It is because the terrorists of that September 11th were not in far-away Afghanistan, Pakistan or some other Islamic country. They were in fact close - by, in the White House, in Washington, where the then - American Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger gave the order to overthrow the government of Chile and assassinate its president, Salvadore Allende.

Assassination has unfortunately always played a large role in American politics. However, we in the West purposely define terrorism and international terrorism in such a way that our aggression and terror fall outside that definition. In this manner we are never guilty of terrorism. We reserve that term for those who oppose us.

Allende's murder is not the only example of American terrorism. On April 15, 1986, American bombers killed three hundred people in air attacks on two Libyan cities, Tripoli and Benghasi, on orders from the then -President, Ronald Reagan. Moreover, Reagan gave orders to exterminate Moeamar Kadhafi and his family.

Of course, this terror - attack on Libya has never been stamped as terrorism in the Western media. Nor were the Cruise Missal attacks of George Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, who ordered attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan on August 20, 1998. In the Netherlands, Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen, offered complete acquiescence to this terror in the name of the 'purple coalition' government. In the meantime, as a result of the attack on the pharmaceutical plant, El - Shifa, ten thousand people have already died because of a lack of medicine, according to the German ambassador in Sudan. However, these consequences are apparently acceptable to Van Aartsen, as they are to Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, who said about the death of a half -million children in Iraq as a result of sanctions: 'We think the price is worth it'.

In a TV interview in December, Van Aartsen appeared to be extremely concerned about terrorism. In answer to a question about whether we should take threats seriously, he said, 'Yes, very seriously. The danger threatens Europe too'. A person who rejects one sort of terrorism and heartily supports another form can hardly be taken seriously himself.

The same government in Washington that bombed training camps in Afghanistan maintains training camps in Fort Benning, Georgia, where the CIA has trained 10,000 South American soldiers in terrorist activities such as murder and torture. This has led to the death of 150, 000 Guatemalans and Hondurans - a sad record that will never be broken by the Taliban.

Therefore, our 'battle against terrorism' is horribly hypocritical. My old friend Edward Herman, an expert on terrorism, reminded me that he and Noam Chomsky had called the United States 'the biggest terrorist country in the world', more than 20 years ago. Chomsky regularly speaks about the 'gangsters in the White House' who find the liquidation of heads of foreign governments and habitual offensives against other countries acceptable practices.

If George W.Bush, Jan Pieter Balkenende and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer are to talk about terrorism, they would be advised to learn what the American Congress determined in its Code of Conduct in 1984. It reads, a 'terrorist act' is, among other things, an activity that is meant to influence the policies of a government through intimidation or force; or to influence the conduct of a government by murder or kidnapping.

Dennis Halliday, who was assistant secretary - general of the UN and co-ordinator of humanitarian assistance to Iraq, quit in 1998 after 30 years of service because of the criminal embargo - politics. To a somewhat surprised BBC journalist, he said that Saddam Hussein would look like an amateur if his acts were compared to the crime and terror of the West.

When I worked for the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, which I still regularly visit, I spent days at the Library of Congress studying the most recently released documents. From them one can clearly see where the real terrorists in this world are.

In a voluminous report on 'alleged assassination plots involving foreign leaders' by a special committee of the American Senate, it was stated that they had 'received evidence that ranking government officials discussed and may have authorized, the establishment within the CIA of a generalized assassination capacity'.

The 'leaders of the free world' regard it as normal, it would appear from the report, to speak of providing their intelligence service with 'generalized assassination capability'. Briefly and clearly: murder must be possible.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one, who in fact, gave the order to assassinate Patrice Lamumba in Katanga, Belgium Congo. Kissinger took care of Chile, and Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, knew all about attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. The committee wanted to start an investigation, but Senator Barry Goldwater, in a personal epilogue, wrote that he advised against it because the 'Presidential involvement was a certainty'. 'Moreover, I was very concerned that harm would come to the office of the Presidency giving comfort to our Naton's detractors and enemies'. Goldwater apparently found it more important that his President could proclaim to be unblemished than to be concerned with the deaths that that same President had on his conscience.

Most of the American Presidents are war criminals, Chomsky has already written. Regarding Iraq: Bush unashamedly called for the assassination of Saddam Hussein. Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld also does not shy away from assassination. In an interview he let it be known that it would be best if Osama Bin Laden were murdered, although it was not 'politically correct'.

Dutch governments have never had major objections about being closely aligned with a regime that does not shy away from either aggression or assassination. It is a regime, about which Chomsky wrote, ' The United States is a terrorist state by right. That is unchallengeable doctrine.' Countless Americans are happily less short -sighted than the Dutch government. Michael Tigar, a lawyer and professor of law at American University in Washington, is preparing a criminal procedure against Kissinger, whom he holds responsible for Allende's assassination and the terror against the Chilean people. His idea of anti -terrorism is, 'State - paid terrorists should be deprived of their impunity and brought to trial; Pinochet and, yes, Kissinger.'

Chomsky stated it succinctly: 'the best way to combat terrorism is not to take part in it'.