>

            In fact of all the books I have read on the subject as it relates to our people, only one definition came close to the exact one by including state terrorism even though it did not specifically mention STATE TERRORISM which would include the United States and Israel. America sponsored terrorists organizations around the World in the past and presently sponsors terrorism when it suits itself, in fact America has been terrorizing  massive Arab and Muslim populations with aerial bombings and use of depleted uranium and other fatal hazardous chemicals. The same kinds of Weapons of Mass destruction they claim to be looking for indeed. According to the book, TERRORISM OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS by Bender, Leone and Szumski, on page 18, Terrorism is defined as: TERRORISM  IS A TACTIC, WHETHER USED BY AN ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT, A REVOLUTIONARY GROUP, OR AN INDIVIDUAL. THE CHARACTERIZATION OF AN ACTION AS TERRORISM DEPENDS ON WHAT IS DONE, NOT ON WHO DOES IT. TERRORISM INCLUDES THREATS OR ACTS OF VIOLENCE, RANGING FROM DEPRIVATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, TO PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, TORTURE AND MURDER. TERRORIST ACTS ARE CONSCIOUSLY CHOSEN AND COMMITTED FOR PURPOSES THAT GO BEYOND THE VIOLENCE ITSELF. TERRORIST ACTS ARE USUALLY UNDERTAKEN FOR AN INDENTIFIABLE POLITICAL GOAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CRIMES COMMITTED FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR PRIVATE VENGEANCE OR BECAUSE OF MENTAL DERANGEMENT. THE POLITICAL GOALS MIGHT BE TO PUNISH OR RETALIATE AGAINST AN ENEMY OR DISSIDENT ELEMENTS OR TO DESTABLIZE AN OPPOSING GOVERNMENT OR ORGANIZATION (cited by the Authors from FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION, Washington Newsletter, May 1986). However, interestingly enough not a single mention was made of the US as a state sponsor of terrorism despite all the facts from Reagans sponsor of the CONTRAS of which I once covered a story about how cruel the Americans were in sponsoring a terrorist organization that carried out rapes, murder, theft and blew up innocent civilians to discredit a government of Daniel Ortega when I was an Editor. The US did not like Mr. Ortega even though he was elected by his people unanimously in a massive voter turnout. Their dislike of him was because of one fact: he refused to allow them to terrorize his people and steal resources from Nicaragua as the US had done before in Central and South America for more than a Century without punishment from any other nations or military-judicial bodies.

             In Citing the right to defend a peoples nation and from oppression, Charles William Maynes in the same book mentioned above on page 22 cites the right to defend oneself and ones nation-this is what the Holy Quran tells us too. He also gave examples of when the Republican President Ronald Reagan became: 꾿 participant in a civil war (in Lebanon) by using the guns of the U.S. battleship New Jersey to support the Christian minority against the Muslim majority. The Muslim response was the devastating car-bomb attack on the Marine barracks, another on the American Embassy and several kidnappings of U.S. civilians. While the US denounces all types of terrorism, Maynes argues that, THE CAR BOMBING OF THE MARINE BARRACKS WAS MORE IN THE NATURE OF A MILITARY COUNTERATTACK. EVEN THE BOMBING OF THE EMBASSY WAS NOT CLEARLY AN ACT OF TERRORISM, SINCE THE U.S. DIPLOMATS IN LEBANON WERE OFFICIAL AGENTS OF A GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATING IN A CIVIL WAR AGAINST THE SHIAS. THE SEIZURE OF THE INNOCENT HOSTAGES CERTAINLY WAS AN ACT OF TERRORISM BECAUSE THE AMERICAN CITICIZENS IN QUESTION HAD ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION WITH U.S POLICY. (What he fails to realize here is that whether they have anything to do with US policy or not, they are a direct result of their governments criminality in those parts of the world and would obviously be seen as legitimate targets unfortunately). ONE REASON THE UNITED STATES ENJOYS SO LITTLE INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR ITS APPROACH TO TERRORISM IS THAT IT DEFINES THE PROBLEM IN WAYS THAT FORCE OTHERS TO TAKE SIDES IN WHAT ARE IN EFFECT CIVIL WARS: ALL ACTS OF VIOLENCE, INCLUDING THOSE AGAINST MILITARY TARGETS, BECOME, IN AMERICAN EYES, TERRORIST ACTIONS. THERE IS, ONE MAMMOTH EXCEPTION: ATTACKS AGAINST CIVILIANS IN AFGHANISTAN, ANGOLA, CAMBODIA OR NICARAGUA ARE TOLERATED (by the American people and US government generally speaking) ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE FIGHT INVOLVES FREEDOM FROM COMMUNIST RULE. (It unfortunate because it is the same thing that they are doing today with their so-called war on terror by targeting Muslim civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and it is angering even the most moderate of Arabs and Muslims-for such reasons terrorism against the US will no doubt grow unless Washington changes its terrorist acts-since that is unlikely to happen, American cities in the future will see Nuclear attacks as the oppressed are challenged in the words of BUSH to BRING IT ON and challenged by leaving no other alternative than surface to air missiles with Nuclear warheads as a form of retaliation for constant, persistent and inhumane US aggressions, occupation, bombings, murder and stealing of resources as oil for the American Empire will result in for innocent Americans unfortunately). I am NOT advocating Nuclear attacks against myself, my family or US cities or the City of New York in which I live in. However, let us face it, in not only Islamic but Biblical Prophecies, New York City will face Missiles with Nuclear War heads and the US government knows this as they anger Terrorists across the World, leave them no other alternative to attack the City but by Nuclear Missiles and they do not address the reasons why Terrorism is created or promoted in the first place! Just remember the US puppet UN is located here, so it is a natural target for Terrorists to strike at the US and the World simultaneously. Indeed, without a UN, there will be World disorder instead of the New World Order of American hegemony presently in place and an ideology of War on Terror which uses terror upon the Worlds Arabs and Muslims.

            What is most disgusting is the fact that Americans have a short memory when it comes to their own history. According to the same book on page 176, in an article entitled BOTH SUPERPOWERS ENCOURAGE TERRORISM by Henry Steele Commager said: AMERICANS, TOO, MUST CONFESS THEIR OWN HISTORY OF TERRORISM AGAINST THOSE THEY FEARED OR HATED OR REGARDED AS lesser breeds. THUS THE EXTERMINATION OF THE PEQUOT INDIANS AS EARLY AS 1637; THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE OF SOME 500 CHEYENNE WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN 1864-AND THIS AFTER THE TRIBE HAD SURRENDED; THE LURID ATROCITIES AGAINST FILIPINOS STRUGGLING FOR INDEPENDENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CENTURY; LIEUT. WILLIAM L. CALLEYS MASSACRE OF 450 VIETNAMESE WOMEN, CHILDREN AND OLD MEN AT MYLAI IN 1969. Now my question since we know this, imagine what the US soldiers are doing today in Afghanistan and Iraq where many have already admitted to having slaughtered hundreds of women, children and men they claimed were TERRORISTS? How an Afghan woman or child who can barely use a gun or a baby can be a terrorist is beyond me but these are the excuses American soldiers are using to kill Arabs and Muslims in hundreds of thousand and then they ask a stupid question: Why they hate us? Then they ponder on why terrorists would rise from such oppression to take up the challenge to strike back at the enemy in kind as well. It for this same reason why OSama, CIA trained and a University educated man has had more  support since the Afghani and Iraqi invasions and occupations of these two Muslim and Arab-Muslim countries than ever seen before  and many young warriors are enlisting at a chance to strike at the GREAT SATAN by any means necessary including with Nuclear Missiles.

..

.

                Perhaps the best piece of the book came when Commager cites Bilal AL-Hasan of AL YAWM AL SABI, January 6^th, 1986 who said: IF WE ARE CONDEMNING TERRORISM ON THE LEVEL OF INDIVIDUALS OR SECRET GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS, THEN WE MUST CONDEMN WITH EVEN GREATER SEVERITY THE STANCES OF THE SUPERPOWERS WHO BLESS TERRORISM WHEN IT SUITS THEM AND CONDEMN IT WHEN IT DOES NOT, AS IS THE CASE WITH THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF RONALD REAGAN (sic, BUSH of 2004 too). AND IF WE CONDEMN TERRORISM AND BELIEVE THAT IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, THEN WE MUST CONDEMN EVEN MORE SEVERELY THE ATTEMPTS EXERTED IN THE WEST TO LINK TERRORISM WITH A PEOPLES RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION, RESORT AGAINST IMPERIALISM, OUTSIDE AGGRESSION AND OCCASIONALLY AGAINST DICTATORIAL REGIMES. The day Americans do that, they will truly begin to win the war on terror; anything short of that and the current US policies, they will only make the world unsafe for real terrorist acts directed mainly at them and their allies who do the same as Russias oppression of the chechnian people struggle to be independent and free of Russian hegemony and oppression. The result today is that RUSSIANS are as unsafe as AMERICANS due to the evil actions of their respective Governments who bombs massively , Muslim villages and Mosques while Russians and Americans eat in comfort in their homes.         

            Arabs and Muslims are waking up but slowly, in the book KNIGHTS UNDER THE PROPHETS BANNER by Dr. Ayman Zawahri, page 118, he says: THE ALGERIAN EXPERIENCE HAS PROVIDED A HARSH LESSONê¿ŒT PROVED TO MUSLIMS THAT THE WEST IS NOT ONLY AN INFIDEL BUT ALSO A HYPOCRITE AND A LIAR. THE PRINCIPLES THAT IT BRAGS ABOUT ARE EXCLUSIVE TO, AND THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF, ITS PEOPLE (Americans) ALONE. THEY ARE NOT TO BE SHARED BY THE PEOPLE OF ISLAM, AT LEAST NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT A MASTER LEAVES HIS SLAVE IN TERMS OF FOOD CRUMBS.  Now these are powerful words going throughout the Middle East and people will look to juxtapose what he says with the reality on the ground based on the crimes and failed promises of the US in the region and as a result attacks against the US will grow even more than before 9/11. So, Bush did not make the World safer than at or before 9/11; he has made the World very vulnerable to Nuclear War now and certainly Nuclear strikes against his own cities due to the arrogance, demeaning and bullying nature of the US government and its state terrorist arms-the CIA, FBI, NSA, US Army, US navy and US Air force are all seen as agents of terrorism in the World because their actions are no different from what so-called Terrorists do.

                In the Iraq situation that Bush has carried the American nation into, we see not only lies but the true objectives of the devils in Washington as explained by our Wali in Iran. He is clear when he says, (Addressing Iraqi Muslims in Arabic in the second khutbah (sermon) of Friday-prayers on 11 April, 2003, Ayatollah Khamenei) said, The American and British claim that they are giving freedom to the Iraqi people is a travesty. In reality, they are acting to secure control of Iraq, its oil and the Middle East and they are trying to suppress the Palestinian intifada. They are also trying to bury the Islamic revival. The appointment of a foreign ruler in Iraq is a humiliation for freedom and popular sovereignty in Iraq. They are scheming to obliterate Iraqs Islamic identity and nationalism and to turn it into a springboard for American domination of all the Middle East and its valuable human and material resources?After the fall of the Ottoman government, the British put a non-Iraqi family in charge and that family was supposed to be the royal family. They had three kings over a number of years. The first one died. The second one was killed in a mysterious accident. The third one was chopped into pieces by the people. They were appointed by the British. Then government after government came to power, after staging coups. These governments lasted almost a decade, from 1337 [1958] until 1347 [1968] when the Baathist government came to power, in which Saddam was the second man, and the first was Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr. They ruled for 10 years - three rulers resulting from military coups. The first was killed, the second was murdered in suspicious circumstances, and the third was removed from power. From 1347 onwards - the Baathists have been ruling for some 30-odd years. One should consider these 37 years as Iraqs hardest period, particularly the period of Saddam's independent rule. ?The Americans themselves have claimed that from the very start of Saddams rule Americas CIA had played a part in the coup staged by the Baathists in Iraq in 1347 [1968]? They supported him and they even put pressure on the UN and compelled it to support Saddam in various ways. We tolerated that war for eight years and Saddam served their interests. Because Saddam acted to further American interests, he kept the Islamic Revolution busy for eight years, and he kept it focused on an internal bloody affair, namely, the war. Later on, in 1369 [1990] Saddam attacked Kuwait. That was when their interests became incompatible. They saw that, no, this man was so ambitious that he was endangering American interests in the region. That is because attacking Kuwait was tantamount to attacking American interests. If they had not stopped Saddam, he might have attacked Saudi Arabia as well. Indeed, he used to say these things as well. He said: When I take Kuwait, I will go forward as far as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar and I will go as far as possible. I mean that was Saddam's intention. Well, their interests became incompatible. From then on, the UN started to put pressure on Saddam and there was a propaganda campaign against him as well. Saddam was not a person who could put up resistance against America. He was prepared to make concessions or make a deal. However, the Americans could not do that. They faced a complex problem. If they had made a deal with him, they would have lost their friends in the Persian Gulf. The rulers of the Persian Gulf could not bear to see America strengthening Saddam as it had done before. That was because they were scared. If America wanted to exert maximum pressure on Saddam, then, well, it would have had to forego its interests in Iraq.
Therefore, America faced a paradox. Iraq is a country that has vast oil and other resources. It has a population of approximately 20 million people. It was really attractive to America in this important part of the Middle East. It wanted to stay there. It wanted to maintain its presence there and pursue its activities. It wanted to plunder its resources, but it could not do that. That was because if it made a deal with Saddam, it would have faced problems elsewhere. If it did not make a deal, it would have had to forego its interests. That is when the contradiction between America and Saddam's regime became more serious. They started thinking about the situation. They wanted to eliminate Saddam and pave the way for themselves in Iraq and make things easier for themselves. These things happened later on. Therefore, when the Americans or the British claim that they went there to remove Saddam to help the Iraqi people, they are telling a blatant lie. They did not do this for the Iraqi people at all.

                Our beloved Wali, Ayatulloh Sayyed Ali Khameni(May God extend his life) continues by saying: (Criticizing bombings in Iraq) said, The second thing that happened was the atrocities committed towards the people of Iraq during that period. These are not things that will be forgotten. You see, 27 years have passed since the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War came to an end in 1354 [1975]. Now, 27 years have passed since the end of the Vietnam War. Many things about the Vietnam War have been forgotten. However, the atrocities that the Americans committed towards the people during that war will not be forgotten. Just look at how many films have been produced and how many stories are being told. The people of the world remember those things and the conscience of the people of the world will always keep them alive.That was an attack on the people. The most important right of human beings is the right to live and exist. Those gentlemen claimed that they were defending human rights and they denied the peoples of those cities the right to live by bombing them. More than 1,000 Cruise missiles were fired. Unfortunately, I do not have the accurate statistics handy. Thousands of super heavy bombs were dropped. There were innumerable rounds of artillery fire. They repeatedly dropped those things on those cities in various ways. The cities of Basra, Al-Nasiriyah, Diwaniyah, Al-Hillah and Baghdad, as well as other cities, were affected. People, lived in those cities. We know the meaning of being bombed. We were bombed ourselves? Missiles fell on us in Tehran, Dezful and other cities. The same was true of other cities. We know what that means. Tens or hundreds of missiles were fired on a particular city over the course of only one hour. Is that a joke? They claim that they wanted to destroy military targets. How many military targets were there in Iraq that they had to be attacked with more than 1,000 Cruise missiles and more than thousands of bombs? Those things exterminated the people. They created a reign of terror for the people. The peoples children were frightened. The peoples children were killed. The peoples children went hungry.Only those people who have infants in need of milk, but they do not have any milk to feed them, and mothers who do not have any food and drinkable water to give their children can understand? Then they have insulted the people. They have entered their homes. Such scenes are really heart-rending. Really heart-rending. They enter peoples homes and handcuff a man in front of his family. They cover his head, blindfold him, and handcuff him. Then they insult and threaten him just because someone may have accused him of something or because they may have had unfounded suspicions about him. Are these things not important enough? They handcuffed Arab men from behind, they wrapped their heads with their kaffiyah and made them lie down on the floor, and they were standing over them with their rifles. Foreign troops were there. Are these things not serious calamities? Can one make amends for such things? That is a really, important event.American troops frisked veiled Arab women. Arab women who were wearing veils, cloaks and long coats and they were covered from top to toe. Then a young American that no one knows who he really is starts frisking them to make sure that they are not carrying bombs. Is that the meaning of human rights? Is that the meaning of showing respect for human beings? Is that the meaning of respecting human liberty, which those liars claim they are doing? Such things cannot be resolved by apologizing. They have hit them and they are saying that they are sorry and they made mistakes. That is just what they did in Afghanistan.The same thing has happened in Afghanistan. This sort of thing has happened many times since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Only a few days ago there was another such case. They bombed an entire crowd and then they say that they were sorry and that they had made a mistake. Can one erase the impact of one's crimes by saying sorry, we made a mistake?
That was the second thing. We sympathize with the Iraqi people. We condemn the aggressor. If the aggressor claims that it is defending human rights, then we say that the aggressor is a liar?

                On the future American plans for the region and in Iraq, our Wali says: The ruler should be neither a foreigner nor a Zionist. The Iraqi people want a ruler who has been elected by themselves and without the support of the aggressive powers.Of course, the Americans think that they have everything planned. They think that they will install him [Jay Garner] and then take control of the state of affairs and give some help to the Iraqi people and, at the same time, change the people's culture by controlling the education system.They think that they can do the same in Afghanistan. The Americans have published tons of Farsi and Pashto primary school textbooks in an Asian country so that they can distribute them in Afghan schools. Thus, through the lessons, the Afghan children's culture, religion and historic outlook changes completely and America's image is not tarnished in their eyes. This is what they think they can do in Iraq.Such a thing will most certainly not happen. The hatred of the Iraqi teachers and people towards their Americans and British atrocities is so deep-rooted that, without a doubt, it will be transferred to the next and later Iraqi generations.At any rate, this is their American and British plan?o:p>

...
Http://al-islam.org/faq/

...
Http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2004/4/4-30-18.htm