Governments can and have hidden themselves behind patsies and provocateurs to carry out terror attacks that justify the killing of millions. Furthermore, State-sponsored terrorism is now used to limit or completely erase civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Most terrorism is State-sponsored.
When this fact is discovered, the State has two options:
One, it fabricates non-existent threats to justify its version of terrorism which includes invading and bombing people.
Two, activates its propaganda wing, the mainstream media, to portray its version of terrorism as humanitarian action.
State-sponsored terror is always based on Hegelian Dialect: Problem, Reaction, Solution.
The State creates a problem, most of the time a false-flag attack, waits for the public to react, and then offers a solution.
In most cases, this so-called solution involves the murder of thousands or millions of innocents and the loss of sovereignty, constitutional rights and freedom at home and abroad.
Perhaps the most abhorrent form of terrorism is that which justifies the killing of millions as a solution to save others from non-existent threats, because it means that a whole population has bought into the idea that a non-existent imminent threat is worth ending the lives of people they have never met for reason they do not understand.
What is at play in this situation is FEAR. States use fear as their card to encourage support for their diabolical plans and an unsuspecting population will always subdue their rights and freedoms to have an artificial feeling of security.
State-sponsored terrorism with a human face is the most common of all, and it has been used throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to justify the invasion and murder of people who held different religious beliefs, political affiliations or social preferences.
The goal of those who kill through State-sponsored terrorism is to have humanity follow one single political ideology, religious faith and to uphold a specific set of social skills whose end is unequivocal obedience.
Recent history has seen many cases of “compassionate murder” carried out by the most powerful armies against the most inoffensive populations of the world.
These compassionate murder campaigns begin much earlier than when the world sees the first shot fired, and involve many tactics and techniques that have been used by the powers that be for centuries.
One of these tactics is the creation of conflict through the brainwashing of a population.
This is done to promote conflict between different social groups within a nation, or between populations in neighboring countries.
The creation of conflict is usually based on religious, political or social differences, pointing the finger to the people across the street as the culprits of the problem.
Once the seed of conflict has been planted, due time is given for the harvest to occur.
Meanwhile, States that seek to balkanize other States usually help accelerate the growth of conflict by financing and training different social groups which ultimately will be used to fight their own neighbors, friends and relatives for a cause that does not exist.
In poor, less sophisticated countries, State-sponsored terrorism is aided by the creation of militarized groups in the hope that they will cause balkanization on their own. But sometimes the State trains their own military forces to carry out small attacks against their own people.
The Culprits of States-sponsored Terrorism
Let us review a few recent examples of how States instigate social unrest to destabilize a nation to the point of collapse.
In 2004, the United States began the recruitment of men to form dead squads in Iraq.
This plan was started under the supervision of American Ambassador, John Negroponte, who was sent to the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, to oversee the formation of these groups.
Negroponte had served American interests in Central America back in the early 1980s when the US got involved in supporting the Nicaraguan Contras.
Mr. Negroponte was also responsible for supervising the actions of Honduran death squads.
The Iraqi and Central American examples later worked for the destabilization of other nations in Northern Africa and Central America.
The reason why the Central American and Iraqi examples are important is because the model was later adopted as the model to be followed everywhere else when the United States or any other G7 nation had any interest in creating political and social unrest and to use such unrest as a justification to “compassionately” invade and murder other countries.
For example, it is estimated that thousands of people disappeared in El Salvador, as a result of the actions of US sponsored death squads, which also acted in Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama during the 1980s and 1990s.
It is not necessary to say that for invaders to carry out this type of crime, they need to have either the support or complacency of local political leaders.
In most cases, politicians are bribed or bought and paid for by those who seek to destabilize the country.
The Free Syrian Army is another example of State-sponsored terror at the local level.
The FSA played an important role in the attempt to destabilize Syria in the last couple of years.
The FSA was trained and funded by the United States and its actions were also supported by mercenaries flown in from neighboring countries as well as paid private contractors of the likes of Blackwater.
The FSA is an example of how the West brought together different terrorist groups into one single umbrella to fight the Assad government as the United States and the rest of the G7 nations sought to remove Bashar al-Assad from power.
Another example of State-sponsored terrorism is the case of The Al Nusra Front.
Although it was first presented as an enemy of the West; more specifically, of the United States and its interests in the Middle East, Al Nusra’s bombings and attacks “bear the fingerprints of US paramilitary training, terror tactics and weapons systems,” explains historian Michel Chossudovsky.
“The atrocities committed against civilians by Al Nusra – funded covertly by US-NATO- are similar to those undertaken by the US sponsored death squads in Iraq,” he explains.
A final example before moving on to why the creation of unrest serves those who want to invade a nation and murder its people, is the case of using private security companies to do the work that cannot be performed by local armies or opposition groups.
As history shows, every oppressive government has its own secret mercenary force, which many times is composed of military or former military men and women.
When this mercenary force is not enough to carry out attacks and terrorize a nation, there are always ally nations or private paramilitary groups that are ready to sell themselves to the best offer.
According to Chossudovsky, so-called private security companies work for NATO and the United States Department of Defense to train military and paramilitary forces in all kinds of attacks; even in the use of chemical weapons.
Governments in countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel also provide troops, funding and equipment to train terrorist groups or carry out the attacks themselves.
“Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman was in contact with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, and Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim.
He was also in charge of a Doha-based office for “special security coordination” pertaining to Syria, which included representatives from Western and GCC intelligence agencies well as a representative from Libya.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan. A prominent and controversial member of Saudi intelligence was part of this group,” reported Press TV back in 2012.
The type of State-sponsored terrorism carried out in most cases by G7 nations is supported by organizations that are supposed to condemn it and help stop it in the first place.
Among those organizations that have always condoned State-sponsored terrorism is the United Nations Human Rights Council, which supports false humanitarian interventions under the excuse that G7 nations have a responsibility to protect populations that are victims of their own governments.
This concern is only shared by the UN and its agencies when the government in question is an obstacle to the interests of the West.
Numerous atrocities committed by Western sponsored terrorist groups are then blamed on non-aligned governments, which in turn becomes the “reason” to invade nations like Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and others.
This is the reason why it is necessary to create unrest in poor or developing nations, which in all cases ends up with the permanent occupation by invader military forces. “Washington’s “unspeakable objective” consists in breaking up a sovereign nation –along ethnic and religious lines– into several separate and “independent” political entities,” says Chossudovsky.
Think of Washington as a large digestive system serving the interests of a large organism that uses the “divide and conquer” strategy to acquire whatever land, resource or loyalty it needs to further its goals.
Just as a body needs to break down food to absorb its nutrients, the United States acts as a powerful digestive system that breaks down nation-states for the purposes of controlling how these nations can serve the larger organism.
How many times have we heard that radical right wing or left wing groups are now the most dangerous threat to our way of life and that those groups can be identified because of their opposition to government secrecy, policies and actions?
Fortunately, a significant majority of the world’s population no longer buys this idea, so State-sponsored terrorism was forced out in the open.
In the United States, for example, State-sponsored terrorism is not carried out by Libertarians or members of the Tea Party.
No matter how radical the mainstream media says it is to oppose government and its oppressing policies, no matter how much the mainstream media blames false-flag terror attacks — such as the Boston Bombing — on Libertarian leaning men and women.
The truth is that the sleekest producer and promoter of homegrown terror is government itself.
If you don’t want to take my word for it, please look into the latest report issued by The National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF) and Project Salam.
Titled The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution, the report identifies the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the main producer of home terrorism since the 9/11 attacks.
According to the research published by the NCPCF, upwards of 95 percent of all alleged attempts to carry out a terrorist attack on US soil have been cases of FBI entrapment.
As new and revolutionary as this report may seem, homegrown State-sponsored terrorism in the United States or elsewhere is not new at all. The use of agent provocateurs or informants by agencies like the FBI or the CIA is an old strategy of the State Terrorism Factory.
Under this strategy, people are invited to work as informants for government agencies in a supposed effort to discover and stop terror threats, but in reality, many of the informants are turned into terror provocateurs that are later used as patsies and scapegoats in false-flag terror events.
As the report points out, FBI recruits — mainly people of Muslim origin — were encouraged to carry out terror attacks with the sponsorship of the FBI itself.
In the cases studied and revealed in the report, the FBI not only encouraged recruits to participate in terror attacks, but also provided the training, equipment and “fake” bombs to do their dirty work.
FBI informants attempted to convince people to participate in terror plots.
Unsurprisingly, the US government does not see these attempts to carry out false-flag attacks against its own people as a problem. Government officials say that the reasoning behind attempting to set up Muslims stems from the idea that people who are likely to commit crimes do not qualify as those who can be entrapped.
Under this premise, the US government, or any other government, could attempt to set up anyone who it believes is likely to commit a crime, even though there is no proof or likelihood of a crime is going to happen.
It seems that all that a person needs to do to be framed by the government is to be part of a certain social or religious group in order to be the target of his or her government.
What is worse is that governments can and have hidden themselves behind patsies to actually carry out real terror attacks which then serve as pretext to invade countries, kill millions, or worse, limit or completely erase civil liberties and constitutional rights.
While operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States rounded up and held thousands of men, women and children who it considered to be a threat also under the premise that they were likely to commit crimes because of the color of their skin or religious beliefs.
In the case of the FBI, the United States calls the set up of innocent people as “preemptive prosecution”, that is, instigating someone to commit a crime because authorities believe that this person may commit a crime in the future.
Since the government does not know if and when someone might commit a crime, it goes out to force the commission of that crime so it can round up people as a preemptive action.
This thinking is the type of strategy followed by law enforcement in the film Minority Report, where a Pre-crime Police Unit monitors people’s actions to anticipate the commission of an action that is deemed illegal.
The difference between Minority Report and government-sponsored terrorism is that the government itself is actually orchestrating the commission of the crime.
The question that must be asked is what is stopping government, any government, from framing members of other groups according to their religious, political or ideological beliefs?
The unfortunate answer is nothing.
The idea that law enforcement agencies can force people to commit crimes to justify the existence of an all-mighty Surveillance Security State or to target people who belong to a certain social group because their thoughts are a threat to the State, is simply a mind-blowing reality.
It is not surprising that more people see the State as the biggest threat to their survival.