The Boston killings are just one of so many examples over the past 10 years since 9/11 of terrorist activities on Western soil which have pre-existing strong links to “intelligence” services. Actually the term ‘Intelligence Services’ is rather an oxymoron, given that those intelligence officers are the ones who want to play James Bond without any normal civilizational rules for the good of the “homeland ” or some other jingoist identity…
And a passing reference to Glen Greenwald as to why mass killers using guns in the US are not terrorists, but two brothers who apparently put together, and exploded two ? (now supposedly eight ) bombs, are terrorists.
But before you leap away muttering about paranoia and conspiracy theories, consider the following historical examples of false flag operations…
The Gulf of Mexico US battleship Maine’s explosion in Havana Harbour in 1898 , likely through an accidental bunker fire igniting munitions, was later used as a pretext for war with Spain; “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain ‘ was the cry.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, in which the USS destroyer Maddox opened fire on two North Vietnamese torpedo boats and was then fired upon by the two small boats. The Maddox was approaching Hòn Mê Island, three to four miles (6 km) inside the twelve-mile (19 km) limit claimed by North Vietnam. This territorial limit was not recognized by the United States. The captain of the Maddox radioed to say the Vietnamese were attacking the US warship and US warplanes were used to attack the retreating patrol boats. The incident was subsequently used by President Johnson to escalate the war against North Vietnamese.
And today, intelligence services in the Western world have a wealth of opportunities to exploit opportunities for violence using angry young men ( and increasingly women) who have been marginalized in the society they currently live in, and see their cultures of origin destroyed and maligned by Western governments. Intelligence operatives are therefore in a unique position to justify their own jobs and the weapons manufacturers who “subsidise” such intelligence communities, by facilitating “terrorists” (really just violent criminals ); in many cases providing the information on bomb-making, funding, communications, physical resources etc to people who are simply angry and naive and , were it not for the intervention of these government agencies, would remain simply angry and frustrated.
See Michael German’s Manufacturing Terrorists article where he reviews journalist Trevor Aaronson’s The Terror Factory, which documents over 171 instances of the FBI creating faux terrorists using sting operations since 9/11.
To complicate matters, over the past 20 years there has also been an unprecedented rise in the creation of predominantly US based private armies funded by both state governments and the independently rich and powerful eg…G4S (the second largest employer in the world after Walmart), Blackwater, The Craft etc, along with a rise in the private armies of drug-runners and institutionalized mafia type organisations as can be seen in the War on Drugs drug-running activities by CIA operatives (whether independent of the CIA or as part of fund-raising initiatives) in Central America.
The clear identification of terrorism culprits has therefore been made much harder when a state entity can deny all knowledge of the violence committed through the entrapment of foolish radicals into violent acts by private but government contracted security forces. It is thus disturbing and revealing when clearly psychopathic personalities like Chris Kyle (“famed” sniper and ex- US Navy SEAL shot and killed in an ironic twist of fate by another war traumatised ex-SEAL) of The Craft (US mercenary trainers and deliverers of security, and apparently providers of contracted security to the Boston Marathon), have as their motto “Despite what your momma told you…. violence does solve problems”. Only in the United States could such an organization be permitted to exist with such puerile and overtly violent traits and be contracted to provide security.
While the paranoid culture of the United States on both the “left” and right wings have in a few days developed an amazing range of conspiracy theories explaining the reasons for the massacre, it is clear that in the case of the Boston bombings, some of the linkages with State and security agencies are unusual-not least the fact that the US appears to be a keen supporter of Chechen fighters in Russia. (Note that the two suspected Boston bombers are/were Chechen).
However it seems apparent that on the whole, governments and intelligence services exploit existing weaknesses or violent tendencies of others for their own political and economic purposes, rather than creating a terrorism threat from nothing.
That said, the linkages can be tenuous, as in the current Canadian case of two young men who it would appear, indulged in some foolish conversations about how they might like to blow up trains. However the intelligence of the security forces obviously came under a little strain when they made the implausible accusatory link (now retracted) between Al Qaeda and Iran -both of whose Islamic roots are violently anathema to each other. The fact that the clam was initially made at all by Canadian security forces is a wonderful example of both the intellectual capacity and the political motivations of those security agencies.
What is therefore very clear is that state agencies, their intelligence arms and the private mercenary armies operating in the world often at their behest, are absolutely clueless as to the impacts and likely blowbacks from their actions. They are quite literally, playing with fire.
For a more detailed look at the CIA/Chechen connection read here
http://thecraft.com/ “Despite what your momma told you.. violence does solve problems”
A recent article in McClatchy papers entitled, Obama’s drone war kills ‘others,’ not just Al Qaida leaders clarifies the recent lies by the Obama administration that only senior Al Qiadia leaders are targeted by drones. Unremarkedly many of those “non-civilians” killed are not Al Qaida connected, are not senior members of anything, and are often the product of mafia-type turf wars, clan-based feuds or even neighbourhood spats in the various countries where the US likes to kill people with drones.
It is therefore important to note that these are not “drone wars” these are drone murders. There is no officially announced US war going on between the US and Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia.
Jordan Paust in a labyrinthine legal argument entitled ‘Self-defense targetings of non-state actors and permissibility of U.S. use of drones in Pakistan” attempts to argue that the US is permitted to kill anyone it thinks could be considered a threat in the future ( i.e a perversion of the term “imminent threat”) on foreign soil under the rules of international engagement. This argument subverts international law to a remarkable degree; implying that anyone can murder anyone else if they just might possibly fit the pattern of someone who might in the future decide they might do something nasty to another’s nation. My guess is that means probably 50% of the world’s population should be exterminated right now using that logic. However it is the type of tortuous logic that US federal lawyers are using to defend the morally and legally indefensible . It should also be noted that the US logic in killing Taleban leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan by drone is based upon the premise that the Taleban are a lethal threat to US troops; which of course they are while the US continues to occupy their homeland. However the Taleban (unlike Al Qaida) are not, and never will be, any threat to the US homeland.
Drone apologists will also argue that the use of drones is a humanitarian approach to removing problems for the US because the killings are ‘targeted’; but again that pre-supposes that the brave little men behind the computer screens firing the rockets from drones know for real who they are killing.
They don’t: hearsay, patterns of behaviour that infer that a person who is behaving suspiciously is a terrorist, confused information feeds, or simply deliberate mis-information all play a significant part in creating one error of judgement after another. The McClatchy article says that ” drone operators weren’t always certain who they were killing despite the administration’s guarantees of the accuracy of the CIA’s targeting intelligence and its assertions that civilian casualties have been “exceedingly rare.” In addition the US government’s and CIA process of using ‘Signature Strikes” ensures that many more innocent people will be killed.
A “signature strike” is a killing of someone believed to be a militant whose identity isn’t necessarily known. Such strikes are reportedly based on a “pattern of life” analysis – intelligence on their behavior suggesting that an individual is a militant. The policy, reportedly begun by Bush in Pakistan in 2008, is now allowed in Yemen, under stricter criteria.- from Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes. Often the signature is simply a group of young men who happen to be in the ‘wrong’ place at the ‘wrong’ time. Anonymous State Dept officials tongue in cheek (but realistically) describe the process as identifying 3 young men doing jumping jacks in a field as being terrorists.
A Stanford and New York University law schools study estimates that there are, on average, 49 civilian deaths for every one known terrorist killed. In my view this also is likely to be a vast under-estimation of the “collateral damage”. Weapons manufacturers love to sell the virtues of their weaponry, and none of its vices.
Policy Mic notes that ‘The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, drone strikes killed between 2,562 and 3,325 people in Pakistan, including 176 children.
Drone apologists will say that it is “hearsay” that the drone murders cause anger and fear and and a consequential increase in the number of new “terrorists” who hate the US. The Stanford study is sufficient in itself to explain why that viewpoint is a nonsense. Death from a cloudless sky that kills your innocent brother, sister grandparents or children is enough to arouse life-long hatred and anger in any human being. Or, as in many reported cases, civilians are attacked by drones when they go to help those injured in a previous drone attack; a clear violation of international law. But of course all that hatred helps to fuel demand for even more weapons…
The logic of using drones is that they can kill where having boots on the ground would be risky or problematic (ie no collateral damage in the US media of “our boys” being killed) . Thus when the US State Department makes assertions about who it is killing and limited civilian collateral damage, it simply is making it up; it doesn’t have a clue who it is really killing , unless it is confirmed at some later date by other events and information; and civilian deaths for the most part, don’t get reported.
In addition the ever-present fear of imminent annihilation from out of the blue creates absolute terror among children and others who are less mobile and vulnerable . Policy mic again states “the interviewee described the constant surveillance of the drones as “a wave of terror,” adding that “children, grown-up people, women, they are terrified. . . . They scream in terror.” Another described the drones as “like a mosquito. Even when you don’t see them, you can hear them, you know they are there.” Many of the drones are capable of hovering almost invisibly at high altitude for hours on end before firing at their targets.
Thus it is absolutely clear that the United States not only violates human decency and morality but also violates internationally binding agreements on the rules of war, in its use of drones. The drone murders must stop.
A great article by Faisal Moghul on the The Orwellian Paradigm or, Killing you, for your own safety explores the irrational (or perhaps quite rational) language and ethics of the War on Terror
William Pfaff: “Of Drones and Dishonor”
Iran has a proud heritage as an independent nation for much of its long history. The Achaemenid Empire, Saleucid period, the Parthian and Sassanid Empires all reference a proud history, with the Median empire dating back to at least 728 BCE.
The long history of human civilisation in Persia has resulted in a very varied ethnic composition to the country. The Shi-ite branch of the Muslim faith forms the vast majority of religious views, with 75-80% of the country speaking a variety of forms of Iranian (known as Farsi). The ethnic composition currently is Persians 61%, Azeris 16%, Kurds 10%, Lurs 6%, Arabs 2% Baloch 2%, Turkmen and Turkic tribes 2%,
Iran with its unique cultural and ethnic identity, has therefore always strongly resisted foreign occupation forces, ranging from the Turkish Ottomans to the Russians, British, and finally the Americans by proxy.
Since the Revolution in 1979, which saw the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty, (a hereditary dictatorship installed by the British and Americans to manage oil distribution), Iran has become both a democracy and theocracy. Voters are able to vote for an “approved” list of candidates in each election whose appropriateness is vetted by the Supreme Council of mullahs. Thus the range of candidates in Iran is circumscribed by the candidates’ apparent moral and religious rectitude, rather than, as in the US, and increasingly other Western countries, by the size of the bank balance backing the candidate. While levels of imprisonment, torture, and arbitrary execution remain high, they appear to be significantly lower than in the heyday of the revolution, and proportionally less than the Saudis across the Gulf. There is solid evidence from surveys undertaken in Iran by independent surveyors that the current Iranian system of government has the support of significant majority of the population; perhaps particularly so because it is a unique and indigenous product of Iranian culture and community, and not one imposed by other foreign cultures and governments.
Since the Pahlavi Shah was deposed and the American Embassy occupied by Iranian student revolutionaries, the US and its allies have imposed tighter and tighter levels of sanctions on Iran; supposedly for its development of nuclear weapons, but undoubtedly because the current government does not share the commercial and power block interests of the US, UK, Israel and its Saudi anti-Shi-ite backers. These sanctions have both created opportunities for considerable Iranian scientific and industrial innovation, but also restricted sales of its petrochemicals and other exports via Western banking systems (predominantly the Swift electronic transfer process). These commercial trading blockages have also resulted in a very high inflation rate and lack of access to some essential goods like pharmaceuticals; particularly radio-isotope anti-cancer drugs.
New systems of both banking transfer and use of non US dollars are however now being developed by the BRIC nations to circumvent the monopoly on international commercial transactions by US allies. These alternative international transactions method are naturally a cause of significant anxiety to the US and UK who have traditionally monopolized the methods and systems of monetary transfer across the world-a source of both great wealth and power to both countries state and commercial financial entities. How drastic the response by the US, UK and the EU and its ‘international’ institution, the IMF, to attempt to stop these new systems developing further is unknown at this point.
Despite much Western hype about the so-called “green revolution” at Iran’s last national elections, support for the current system of government remains high, and a sense of national Iranian pride and solidarity in its unique culture and independence is strong. Iran appears increasingly supported by both the BRIC countries and the non-aligned nations in its struggle to remain outside Western commercial and cultural domination.
Aside from Iraq’s fragile national entity and the tottering predominantly Alawite Syrian regime, Iran remains the one substantial Shi-ite state in the Middle East; something that is anathema to the extremist Salafist Sunni hereditary dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Qatar across the Persian Gulf.
Given the advanced state of Iranian scientific research and its industrial capabilities, it would be extraordinary for Iran to have taken 54 years to develop its nuclear weapon capabilities; with the initial technology being supplied by the Americans to the Shah in 1959 . Israel and the US media have been crying “wolf’ about an Iranian nuclear programme since the Iranian revolution, despite all declarations from Iran that it has no intention of producing nuclear weapons. That declaration is in sharp contrast to Israel, which has stockpiled a massive nuclear weapon arsenal but continues to deny its existence and refuses to sign international nuclear protocols (with the full support of the United States).
Iran’s position on Israel has always been quite clear; Iran will not attack Israel unless it is attacked first, but believes that the Israeli state is an anathema to the region as a rascist and apartheid-like entity, and an oppressor of the Palestinian people who who have been forced from their lands and homes.. Iranian President Ahmadinejad (branded ‘crazy’ in the Western media -as all anti Western leaders are), never did say (as often quoted in the media) that Iran would wipe Israel off the map; he stated that the state of Israel had no future and would cease to exist in time. Iran has not attacked any other foreign country in the past 100 years, despite continued illegal threats and harrassment from Israel , the United States, the UK, and Saudi Arabia . It has however certainly used its proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah, and to an unknown degree, its informal military, the Revolutionary Guards, in the region to de-stabilise what it sees as anti-Shi-ite and reactionary forces and to support anti-Israeli occupation forces in Lebanon.
The Iranian “Supreme Leader” has repeatedly stated and issued fatwas to the effect that it would be morally wrong for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. Such statements make it virtually impossible for Shi-ite Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon; to defy a fatwa by the Supreme Leader would be suicide.
Even the US “intelligence” community as late as 2011 reluctantly confirmed that Iran has no nuclear weapon development programme, but has continued to insist on its legal right (under international law) to develop nuclear fission capability for peaceful purposes. Iran is under no illusions that the continuing ongoing threats and sanctions by the Western community are about stopping a non-existent weapons programme: they are about regime-change.
Therefore US Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent statements in Jerusalem (8-4-13) (or El Quds as it is know in Moslem countries), warning Iran that his country would not hesitate to take military action if the diplomatic process failed to prevent Tehran from continuing its drive for nuclear weapons, is thus one more threat from the world’s superpower to a country that insists on its independence. The threats are of course entirely illegal and sanctionable under international law: but who would dare (yet) to prosecute the US?
However it should by now be self-evident to even the most dupe-able politician in the US or Europe; that the only way the Iranian population would accept a Western installed regime; as in the Gulf states, would be through massive all-out war and occupation.
While it is clear that US, Israeli and Saudi forces combined would annihilate most Iranian conventional military forces within days or weeks, causing millions of civilian deaths in its wake , the ongoing unconventional and “assymetric’ war would continue for years and likely decades, disrupting oil transit through the Gulf, eventually result in the overthrow of the Saudi regime, the disintegration of the Israeli apartheid state, and the collapse of other US client states in the region like Jordan. In the short to medium term, a victory against Iran by the mediaeval mysoginist Sunni Salafists running Saudi Arabia would also likely result in incalculable suffering to the millions of Shi-ites in the region.
But, despite all facts to the contrary, US Secretary of State John Kerry once again has supported Israel’s war rhetoric against Iran at a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) on Monday.
“No option is off the table. No option will be taken off the table. And I confirmed you Mr. President that we will continue to seek a diplomatic solution, but our eyes are open, and we understand that the clock is moving,” Kerry stated.
While it is undoubtedly true to most Western observers that the Iranian state is an autocratic, religious based entity that uses executions and torture to control its adversaries, the same can of course be said for its US adversary, the Israeli state against its Palestinian population, and the Saudi hereditary dictatorship. Additionally, Iran’s democratic institutions are, from a Western cultural perspective, far in ‘advance’ of anything in the Western backed Gulf states across the Gulf. Women’s rights are also largely guaranteed in Iran, in contrast to the misogynist laws and values across the Gulf.
The only reason therefore why the West continues to threaten Iran, is that it represents an alternative, independent, third way of international power and relations in a region where Western predominance is vital to maintain the flow of oil to the West (despite the hype about shale oil) , and a potential threat to the continued existence of a “western” Israeli entity artificially planted in a sea of Arab and Persian nationalism.
Two former officials of the US National Security State become the most vocal critics of US policy toward Tehran…
Or read the Leverett’s take on the issues directly here at Consortium News
Note their attendance at a student seminar with Noam Chomsky at MIT on Tuesday May 14th here
by Jeff Cohen
I spent years as a political pundit on mainstream TV – at CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. I was outnumbered, outshouted, red-baited and finally terminated. Inside mainstream media, I saw that major issues were not only dodged, but sometimes not even acknowledged to exist.
A ‘restrained” news article by Ian Cobain in the Guardian entitled “Camp Nama: British personnel reveal horrors of secret US base in Baghdad” explores in a little detail, what was known to every “allied’ soldier during the invasion and demolition of Iraq; that systematic brutal torture was ( and in Afghanistan -’is’) being used by the invaders to attempt to extract information from Saddam sympathisers , and subsequently Sunni/Salafist insurgents.
What is surprising is not that it occurred, but that now, somehow, British soldiers are now willing and able to confess their supposedly limited involvement in this brutality. The report makes clear that there was an ongoing method at a senior military and political level in the British to firstly, avoid any legal implications of breaching the Geneva Convention, and secondly to threaten or cajole those who attempted to speak out.
Perhaps there is some misguided belief by those in power in the US and UK that enough time has passed for these abuses to appear as some historical anomaly. The reality is that both UK and US soldiers are well trained in viciousness, brutality and torture to those who they see as “other”- whether its the “commies’ in Korea, “charlie’ in Vietnam, “gooks” or “towel-heads”; the language is all the same- to de-humanise and legitimise inhuman behavior.
What might be hoped for now is that British police will now immediately round up those military officers and politicians who would likely have been party to this abuse, and put them before a court of law to be tried as innocent before being proven guilty for complicity in murder and torture. Is it going to happen?…..yeah right…
France and the UK are pressing the EU for approval to directly arm the Syrian rebels, and for now, are being rebuffed by fellow EU members. The reality is that France (ex-coloniser of Syria and Lebanon) and the UK have been arming and supporting the rebels since the war’s inception via their “intelligence” departments; either directly via “discreet” arms shipments into Turkey and Jordan by air , or indirectly, via weapons bought and shipped through the hereditary (Sunni) dictatorships in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the CIA also mounting extensive weapons distribution and training programmes inside Turkey and now Jordan.
Why then the EU request for direct military assistance of the rebels?. By committing the formal military networks that the various EU countries possess, into the war, Britain and France will be able to seamlessly pull in the other European countries into an ongoing military occupation of Syria/Lebanon to combat the extremist risks they have done so much to create. This will create yet another combat zone where civilians will have to subsist in a land without the necessary infrastructure of adequate food water and sewage systems to survive-another Palestine, Libya or Afghanistan in other words. By doing so, it will deprive the Iranians of one more of their state allies in the region and one less supporter of a Palestinian state. This will however also inevitably lead the two Shi-ite governments of Iraq and Iran into closer alliance.
Israel, with its rascist government in some dissaray, is wavering in its support of the rebels; havering between the risks of having Salafists on its borders and having an opportunity to remove one more of its arch-enemies who dares to block its advance into, and occupation of, “Greater Israel”.
On the other side, Russia is carefully supporting the Assad regime with “top-up” armaments and training, and giving moral and tactical support through its Mediterranean naval exercises out of the Russian Tartus naval base on the Syrian coast. Similarly Iran appears to be using its informal military network ; the Iran Revolutionary Guard or ‘Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution’ (IRGC), with the likely support of Hezbollah, to supply and train the paramilitary and Shi-ite/Alawite units supporting Assad. For now, China appears to be offering moral, but not much else, support to the Assad regime. This is unlikely to change.
Iraq’s Shi-ite government is also very keen to ensure that the Salafist groups (affiliated or not to Al Qaeda) supported by Qatar and Saudia Arabia, (and rather more directly by the Western powers than they would care to admit), do not gain a long-term foothold in Syria with unimpeded transport lines to the Arabian peninsula and Turkey from the Mediterranean and the Muslim entities of the former Soviet Union; thereby significantly improving their strategic position in Iraq.
As always, the Western powers are attempting a divide and rule approach; using their long term hereditary dictatorship Sunni allies of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Qatar to offset the growing influence and power of the Iranians, and the Shi-ite disaster they created for themselves in Iraq. The risks of blowback this time however are even more enormous. The growing salafist influence in the Turkish border region and beyond, the growing power of the Kurds straddling so many different ‘middle east’ countries, the potential for a massive upswing in Sunni versus Shite violence in Iraq, let alone the potential overthrow of the current Iranian theo-demo-cracy with something unknown and likely more radical, has the potential to lead to the establishment of a real Salafist caliphate in the region; with all its violent, expansionist medieval and misogynist cultural impacts, and a real “clash of civilizations” with the West.
Such would be the delight of the neo-conservatives!
And just to make things slightly more complex!- it would appear the power balance is swinging-as the current desperate gas shortage in freezing temperatures in the UK demonstrates. The oil/gas-rich Sunni dictatorships are acquiring considerably more leverage in cash-strapped Western states then ever before, even while their own societies implode.
Read Moon of Alabama’s current relatively considered take on the Syrian situation here
Or Tony Cartalucci’s more radical view of the weapons shipments issues here calledCONFIRMED: US Shipping Weapons to Syria – Al Nusra’s “Mystery” Sponsors Revealed
Or Henry Precht at Lobe Log’s “Syrias civil war and its unintended consequences”
Peter van Buren of the Huffington Post reviews Nick Turse’s latest book Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam
Sadly, van Buren’s parting lines are not about the millions of tortured, raped, and murdered civilians of that trail of “dark skinned’ countries the US has invaded over the past 50 years; it is commiseration for those few hundred thousand US soldiers who have been put in “impossible” environments by those in the “highest seats of power”.
As van Buren notes: The issue is not so much how/when/should we assign blame and punishment to an individual soldier, but to raise the stakes and ask: why have we not assigned blame and demanded punishment for the leaders who put those 19-year-old soldiers into the impossible situations they faced? Before we throw away the life of a kid who shot when he should not have done so, why don’t we demand justice for those in the highest seats of power for creating wars that create such fertile ground for atrocity? The chain of responsibility for the legacy left behind in our wars runs high.
Every one of those soldiers had the opportunity to refuse to fight; every one of those soldiers had the opportunity to refuse to commit atrocities- but failed to do so. The responsibilities for murder and massacre run at all levels of our white-skinned colonial societies. The assumptions of superiority, of “rightness” and ultimately simply pure racism, are endemic at every level of Western society. They are our sins which cannot be absolved, and for which we are likely to pay dearly once the tables are turned in another decade or two, when western economies will no longer rule the world and determine the ‘game’.
Even now, almost forty years after the end of the Vietnam war, the US government and most of it’s citizens, refuse to acknowledge the massive war crimes of at least a million Vietnamese deaths carried out by the US in the name of rolling back a fictional red tide of asian dominos, through carpet bombing, chemical warfare and systemic atrocity after atrocity.
It is time for all countries to acknowledge that for us all to live peaceful fulfilled lives on a sustainable planet, that we have no rights to control other human beings to behave in the way we think they “should” behave through force-nor indeed any rights of force over any other species on this planet.
40 years on, Laotians tell of US war legacy By MATTHEW PENNINGTON | Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Forty years after the secret U.S. bombing that devastated Laos, heirs to the war’s deadly legacy of undetonated explosives are touring America to prod the conscience of the world’s most powerful nation for more help to clear up the mess.
Note the casual throwaway line ” The U.S. dropped 2 million tons of bombs on Laos over a nine-year period up to 1973 — more than on Germany and Japan during World War II.”
Executive Branch leaders have killed, wounded and made homeless well over 20 million human beings in the last 50 years, mostly civilians.
June 26, 2013 |
America has a secret. It is not discussed in polite company or at the dinner tables of the powerful, rich and famous.