The USA Wantonly Kills Innocent Muslims

How can any American complain about Anwar Al-Awlaki or any other rabid terrorist when the USA willingly, actually, consciously, maliciously, killing innocent people and the American people do not care.

Blowback (intelligence)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering it, the blowback typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.[1] Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant, violent consequences—reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation. Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequence—the attacked victims’ revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible politico-military leaders are invulnerable.

Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the unintended, harmful consequences—to friendly populations and military forces—when a given weapon is carelessly used. Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries who sell drugs to their sponsor’s civil populace; and banana republicjuntas who kill American reporters.

The American people and the World must realize that these radical terrorists who seem to threaten the safety and security of the American people are a direct result of American policies that cause death and destruction of other people.


It’s a CIA term.

Blowback does not mean the unintended consequences of foreign operations.

It means the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public.  So that when the retaliation comes, the American public is not able to put it in context.  Not able to put ’cause’ and ‘effect’ together.  So they come up with questions like “Why  do they hate us?”.

Our government does not wish to explain to the people why such hatred is directed towards the American people, but instead wantS to intoxicate the public with terms like “evil doers”, “terrorists”, Islamists.

This propaganda, in turn, reinforces American prejudices against their perceived enemies, whether Mexicans (destroying the economy) or Muslims (attacking their safety).  The increase in xenophobic crimes against these perceived enemies is purposely whipped up by the powers-that-be to maintain a fearful public.

Terrorists do not walk around in turbans and long beards, but they wear suits and ties.
Innocents are primarily killed by foreign policies which command bombs dropped from jet planes, tanks, and naval vessels.
NOT from “suicide bombings”.

People who fight against this naked aggression are called terrorists. People who purport this evil upon mankind are called heroes.
Stop being a victim of your own ignorance.


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Raafi  On 2010/11/13 at 18:50

  • AbuMubarak  On 2010/12/20 at 22:53

  • أبومبارك  On 2011/08/30 at 20:54

    How the war is spun: Mass killings mean ‘progress,’ military says

    By Kevin Baron

    August 17, 2011 “Stars and Stripes” — WASHINGTON – We’ve written for years how Pentagon officials often spin mass casualty terrorist bombing attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan into signs of progress. After multiple bombings killed more than 80 people across the warzones Sunday and Monday, here’s an example of how the war is spun.

    One standard Defense Department talking point reads something like this: It is a clear sign that the counterinsurgency is working when insurgents don’t engage in head-to-head fighting against Western troops (who are armed to the teeth like sci-fi warriors) and instead launch suicide attacks against local security forces, political leaders and civilians. The bad guys are “desperate.”

    Politico’s Morning Defense shared an email Monday that is pure military public affairs gold. How do you interpret a suicide bombing assassination attempt north of Kabul that killed at least 20 people into an obvious sign the war was going as planned?

    An International Security Assistance Force spokesman emailed MD’s Chuck Hoskinson a response claiming the attack was “a resounding failure” because: 1) the target, a provincial governor survived, 2) the Afghan security forces reacted “autonomously” and 3) the attack did not target U.S. forces.

    The ISAF spokesman explained those points are important to make because they are “crucial to undermining the Taliban’s attempt to obtain a propaganda victory from their failed attack.”

    Judge for yourself who won the victory, propaganda or otherwise. According to The Washington Post, the attack occurred in a relatively secure Parwan province, north of Kabul. A car bomb blew up an entrance to the governor’s compound, five insurgents breached the facility and a two-hour gunfight commenced where five explosions “shook the building.” ISAF reported at least six IEDs in addition to the car bomb were detonated.

    In far worse carnage, bombings in at least 17 Iraqi cities on Monday killed more than 60 people in “bloodbath” scenes of scattered human flesh.

    Stars and Stripes’ Erik Slavin, in Iraq, reports U.S. servicemembers were not attacked and Iraqi forces had to call for American assistance just once.

    U.S. Forces Iraq spokesman Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, in the Pentagon Monday, said the attacks show Iraq remains dangerous but do not threaten the government and the insurgency remains an unpopular shadow of its former self.

    “It is something that is obviously concerning,” said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, in Monday’s press gaggle. Then he noted the attacks were “not necessarily” targeting U.S. forces and, repeating an oft-heard DOD talking point, that U.S. leaders had anticipated “for some time” terrorist attacks would spike as Americans headed for the exits.

    You can probably anticipate you’ll hear that line again, for some time.

    © 2011 Stars and Stripes


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: