By Servando Gonzalez
Copyright © 2011. All
When I use a word, it means just what I choose
it to mean — neither more nor less.
Since the fateful 9/11 events, the subject of terrorism has been
ever present both in the mouths of the politicians and the mainstream
press. Strong words come almost every day from the White House
and the Hill condemning terrorist attacks all around the world
and the killing of innocent civilians.
Nevertheless, like in most things related to politics, there is
more than meets the eye in the terrorism fad. First of all, everybody
is talking about terrorism, but nobody seems to know, or even
care about what terrorism is. Apparently, the definition most
members of the U.S. government and the mainstream media have in
mind is that terrorism is the result of acts committed by terrorists,
and terrorists are the ones who commit terrorist acts —
a typical circular definition.
Moreover, it seems that the current definition of the term used
by the American government, and repeated over and over by the
sycophantic mainstream press, is that terrorism is any attack
against the globalist Mafia that controls the U.S. government,
while any attack by the same Mafia in defense of its interests
is, by principle, not terrorism.
The use for such a cynical definition of the term “terrorism”
may seem justified to some people, first, because we are good,
and any attack against us has to be by force an action by the
bad guys, and therefore it must be a terrorist attack. The corollary
of such reasoning is that, for the same reason that we are good
and our enemies are bad, any action against them is morally right,
and cannot be termed terrorism.
In Alice’s Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty's words mean what he
want them to mean. However, despite what Alice and Bill Clinton
(it depends on what the meaning of the word is is!) may
think, in the real world words must have precise meanings we cannot
arbitrarily twist to satisfy the ideological or political needs
of the moment.
A practical consideration against the use of a relativist definition
of terrorism is that the other guys, the ones we consider bad,
most likely consider themselves the good guys, so, if they use
the same definition of the term as the one we use, there will
never be a common ground for reaching, if not a peaceful agreement,
at least civilized rules of engagement.
Even more dangerous is the fact that, once we leave in the hands
of our government the definition of who is a terrorist and who
is not, one day the very same CFR Mafia that controls the U.S.
government is going to include us into that definition. Actually,
they already are doing just that. Proof of this is the Senate
Bill 3081, also called the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention,
and Prosecution Act of 2010, introduced by Senators John McCain
and Joe Lieberman, both of them secret agents of the dreaded Council
on Foreign Relations.
According to this law, any American citizen the U.S. government
declared an enemy belligerent or a terrorist threat (what in totalitarian
countries is called “enemy of the state”), can be
indefinitely detained, interrogated, and prosecuted by the U.S.
military. And this can apply to any U.S. citizen, "without
being charged with a crime, without being read a Miranda warning,
without trial, without access to their 5th and 6th Amendment rights
and without their rights under Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution,”
but just based on suspected terrorist activity.
Who, after being declared an enemy belligerent, will be indefinitely
detained, interrogated, and prosecuted? Whoever the government,
without any supporting proof, will declare an enemy belligerent.
That may include you and me. Consequently, a clear definition
of the term “terrorism” is very important for our
What Can Properly Be Termed Terrorism?
The current literature on the subject shows several definitions
of terrorism, but the most widely accepted definition of the term
runs like this: Terrorism: A premeditated attack on civilians
aimed at terrorizing them with the purpose of pressuring them
into asking their government to take measures that ultimately
would benefit the terrorists.
Conveniently missing in the literature of terrorism, however,
is a new meaning of the term: A premeditated attack on civilians,
carried out by their own government, usually in the form of a
false flag operation, in order to, out of fear, persuade them
to accept measures that would be otherwise unacceptable.
Nevertheless, a key point in both definitions is that terrorism
is an attack on civilians, that is, non-combatants. Therefore,
by definition, an attack on combatants should never be called
terrorism properly. That definition of terrorism leaves out of
the picture, i.e., the attack on the U.S. Marines barracks in
Lebanon in 1983. Why? Because when people join the armed forces,
they know that they will always be fair game for their country’s
enemies. As the saying goes, that comes with the territory.
One of the purposes of sudden, unexpected violent attacks in war
is to terrorize the opposing army into surrendering without a
fight. That was the main purpose of the Nazis’ blitzkrieg
or lightning war. Normally, however, you cannot terrorize an army,
because a terrorized army is nothing but a poorly trained army.
Proof of this is that when the Wermacht invaded Poland, a unit
of the Polish cavalry charged with their sabers raised against
the Panzer tanks. As expected, they died in their attempt, but
they died as heroes, not as terrorized rabbits.
History shows that, contrary to civilians, well-trained armies
are not easily terrorized. Even when faced with a strong enemy
attack by superior forces and, after taking heavy casualties,
they are forced to retire to fall back positions, they do it in
a calm, orderly fashion, just to regroup their forces for a counterattack.
Consequently, calling terrorism any attack against military personnel
cannot be properly termed terrorism.
A clear example of what has been wrongly termed terrorist action
was the attack in 2000 on the USS Cole, a destroyer protected
by heavy-caliber cannons, missiles and machine guns. You may call
it an action of asymmetric warfare, or the result of the enormous
incompetence of its captain, but not terrorism. In other times,
the least that could have happened to the captain of the ship
is that he would have been court martialed, stripped out of his
rank, and kicked out of the Navy. Of course, this did not happen
because he had specific orders from the high command to keep his
ship unprotected by disarming the sailors standing guard. Why?
You may reach your own conclusions.
On the other hand, if we accept the above definition of terrorism
as actions whose goal is to terrorize the civilian population,
we can very easily reach the conclusion that the United States
as a nation has systematically engaged in terrorism. The military
assault on civilians in Waco, Texas in 1993 is a recent example,
but Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman terrorizing the South during
the War Between the States is probably one of the best examples
of terrorism in American history.
The destruction by firebombs of Dresden, Hamburg, Bremen, Rostock
and other German cities during WWII, actions planned in cold blood
at the Tavistock Institute in London, were typical terrorist actions
whose goal was to terrorize the civilian population. In addition,
the firebombing of Tokyo and the dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki were clear acts of terrorism. Nagasaki, where
no military installation was located, was the site of the largest
Christian community in Japan.
I am not condemning the use of the bombings per se. What I am
saying is that the bombs were dropped on open cities, with mostly
civilian, non-combatant population, with the only intent of terrorizing
them in order to create pressure on their government to surrender.
In contrast, the huge factories of the I.G. Farben, closely linked
to the interests of the Wall Street bankers and oil magnates that
were doing business with the Nazis, were left untouched, despite
of the fact that they were vital to the German war industry.
Of course, in the case of the atomic bombs, there is a valid argument
that the bombs were necessary because, by helping to convince
the Japanese government to surrender, they saved innumerable American
lives — and even some Japanese ones. Nevertheless, apart
from the fact that the Japanese had already decided to surrender
before the bombs were dropped, there is an ethical problem with
accepting this argument, because it implicitly accepts that sometimes
terrorism is justified — specifically when you are the terrorist.
History shows that terrorism, usually in its low-tech form, is
the weapon of choice of the underdog. Americans forget that the
patriots who forged this country, at some time in their struggle
for freedom were called terrorists by the British. Big nations,
the ones that usually condemn low-tech terrorism, usually practice
high-tech terrorism — just remember the U.S. attack on Qadaffi
some years ago —, while small nations or political groups
practice low-tech terrorism while condemning high-tech terrorism.
It is therefore unfair to consider terrorism just the actions
carried out with low-teach means, like car-bombs, suicide-bombers,
The whole event we call the Cold War was nothing but an act of
global terrorism, with both the United States and the Soviet Union
keeping the civilian population of their opponents under the threat
of nuclear annihilation. Nobody, however, ever called Robert McNamara,
one of the architects of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)
policy, a terrorist.
Moreover, something rings false in the U.S. government’s
statements against terrorism since the strange events of September
11, 2001. Contrary to all claims to the contrary, the United States
has never issued a public statement not only condemning terrorism
after giving a definition of it, but also asserting in clear terms
that the United States will never engage, for any reason whatsoever,
in acts of terrorism.
Even more disturbing is the fact that in late 2002 it became known
that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mentioned his plan for
the creation of an organization called Proactive, Preemptive Operations
Group (P2OG). The P2OG’s main purpose is to prod indecisive
or reluctant terrorists into committing terrorist actions —
even if these actions cost American lives.
In these perilous times when there is a wide gap between what
politicians say and what they do, I suspend my judgment.
Who Are the Terrorists?
Currently, American citizens are under a concerted terrorist attack
by their own government.
Paradoxically, the organizations carrying out these terrorist
actions are the very same allegedly created to protect us from
terrorism: the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation
Security Administration. What is the main goal of the government
terrorists carrying out these terrorist attacks? To terrorize
the American people into accepting the losing of freedoms protected
by the Constitution as a previous step to the full implementation
of the totalitarian communo-fascist nightmare the Council on Foreign
Relations conspirators call the New World Order.
Even more dangerous is the act that, as evidenced in official
documents produced by the DHS, the U.S. government is fully convinced
that we the people are the terrorists. Just recently, Vice President
Joe Biden (CFR) and Representative Mike Doyle accused Tea Party
members of being terrorists. Evidently, the definition of terrorist
they have in mind is anybody who opposes the action of the CFR
conspirators who control the U.S. government.
Further proof of this is a Department of Homeland Security video
that not only creates the terrorizing impression that terrorists
are everywhere, but that those portrayed as terrorists are stereotypical
American whites while the antiterrorist 'patriots' who report
them to DHS are from other races or ethnic groups. This openly
racist video is a central part of a brainwashing campaign, “See
Something, Say Something,” encouraging dark-skinned citizens
to spy on their white neighbors and report any “suspicious
This is a carbon copy of the Nazi blockwarts and Castro’s
Committees to Defend the Revolution: city block informers reporting
imagined anti-government activities which, according to the video,
could be as diverse as using a video camera, complaining about
government surveillance, wearing hoodies, driving vans, talking
to police officers, using a cell phone recording application,
or making notes on a piece of paper.
However, we would make a big mistake if we blame the Obama administration
for this assault on our freedom. Actually, the effort to paint
average middle class, white Americans as terrorists began during
the Bush administration.
A Department of Homeland Security Report titled “Right-wing
Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence
in Radicalization and Recruitment,” dated April 7 2009 worried
some Americans. Though the Report was never classified as secret,
it is obvious that it was not intended for public consumption.
The Report warned members of the DHS against the possibility of
violence by “right-wing extremists,” who were identified
as people concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal
power, restrictions on firearms, abortion rights, and the loss
of U.S. sovereignty. Moreover, it singled out returning war veterans,
that is, people who have risked their lives under the belief that
they were defending their country, as particular threats to their
According to the Report, worsening economic woes, potential new
legislative restrictions on firearms and
… the return of military veterans facing
significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or
lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks..
This Homeland Security Report was actually a
sort of follow up on a previous Report by the Missouri Information
Analysis Center. It linked conservative groups, such as followers
of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr,
the so-called patriot movement, and people who oppose the North
American Union and the New World Order, to domestic terrorism.
It is not a coincidence that the Missouri IAC Report was compiled
with the assistance of the Department of Homeland Security.
The evidence indicates that we Americans are living under a terrorist
state that sees us as terrorists.
This is a very dangerous. History shows that when this has happened
in other countries the next step has been sending the “terrorists”
to concentration camps — which, by the way, already exist
and are ready to be populated.
 President Truman (not a CFR member), gave the order to drop
the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki following advice from
Secretary of State Edward Stettinius (CFR), Secretary of War Henry
Stimson (CFR) and General George Marshall (CFR).
 See, Chris Floyd, “The Pentagon Plan
to Provoke Terrorist Attacks,” Counterpunch.com,
November 1, 2002.
 See, Jonathan Allen & John Bresnahan, “‘They
have acted like terrorists,' Biden said, according to several
sources in the room,” Politico.com, 8/1/11, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html
 US Department of Homeland Security, Office
of Intelligence and Analysis, Assessment, “Right-wing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization
and Recruitment,” April 7, 2009. You may download a .pdf
copy at www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf. However, encoding
information in the .pdf document revealed that it was created
in 2008, when George W. Bush, not Obama, was the puppet residing
in the White House.
 See, Kurt Nimmo, “Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul,
Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists,” Infowars.com,
March 11, 2009, http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/.
Servando Gonzalez is a Cuban-born American writer, semiologist
and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles
on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics.
Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución
fidelista, The Secret Fidel Castro, The Nuclear Deception
and La madre de todas las conspiraciones, all available
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council
on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro
Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro,
California, both available at the author's site at http://www.servandogonzalez.org.
His latest book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order:
The Secret War Against the American People just appeared
and is available at Amazon.com.
Or download a
.pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer or i-Pad.
Servando's new book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet
and His Masters, is already available at Amazon.com.