Showing posts with label South America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South America. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 July 2021

The CIA - 70 years of coups, assassinations and false flag operations

Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations

By Dark Politricks

This is from a French site so if you are going to view it there, you may want to translate it to your language to make it readable if you don't speak French. Sorry if this is badly translated but it is worth it. The full article link is here to the original source material > www.les-crises.fr

The targets of Washington's bullets were the leaders who attempted to assert their nation's economic sovereignty, writes Jeremy Kuzmarov in this review of a new book by Vijay Prashad.

70 years of CIA coups, assassinations, "false flags".

Review of Vijay Prashad's book, Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations, with a preface by Evo Morales (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2020).




Washington bullets targets. Top left: Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba; top right, Cuban leader Fidel Castro; Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, bottom left, and bottom right, South Vietnamese Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem (boingboing.net)

At his induction hearing in February, the most recent CIA Director, William J. Burns, continued the Agency's long tradition of highlighting the threat posed by Russia and China, as well as North Korea, and said Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

Vijay Prashad's new book, Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations, details how fabricated foreign threats have historically been used by the Agency to wage a war against the Third World - to expand the dominance of American companies.

In his preface, Evo Morales Ayma, the former president of Bolivia who was deposed in a U.S.-backed coup in 2019, writes that Prashad's book is devoted to "the bullets that assassinated democratic processes, which have assassinated revolutions and which have assassinated hope."


Jacobo Arbenz (Gobierno de Guatemala, Fotos antiguas de Guatemala. Public domain.)

Prashad is a leading political analyst, author of major studies on imperial interventions, corporate capitalism, and political movements in the Third World.

His latest book synthesizes the wealth of his knowledge. It contains personal revelations from former CIA agents, such as the late Charles Cogan, head of the Near East and South Asia division within the CIA's directorate of operations (1979-1984), who told Prashad that in Afghanistan, the CIA had "from the start funded the worst guys, long before the Iranian revolution and long before the Soviet invasion."

Washington Bullets begins in Guatemala with the 1954 coup that overthrew Jacobo Arbenz, whose moderate program of land reform threatened the interests of the United Fruit Company.

The law firm of US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Sullivan & Cromwell, had represented United Fruit, and Dulles and his brother, Allen, the head of the CIA (1953-1961), were large shareholders.

Former CIA Director Walter Bedell Smith became President of United Fruit following Arbenz's impeachment, and President Dwight Eisenhower's personal secretary Ann Whitman was the wife of United Fruit's advertising director, Edmund Whitman.

After the coup, Arbenz's successor Castillo Armas said that “if it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetery in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so."

The CIA contributed to this bloodbath by providing Armas with lists of Communists and by giving him his assassination protocol.

This protocol was then applied in operations directed against third world nationalists such as Patrice Lumumba in Congo (1961), Mehdi Ben Barka in Morocco (1965), Che Guevara (1967) and Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso (1987) .

Sankara was killed as part of a conspiracy carried out in close coordination between a CIA agent at the United States Embassy in Burkina Faso and the French secret service, the SDECE.

According to Prashad, while “many of the assassins' bullets were fired by people with their own steeples, paltry rivalries, and insignificant gains, more often than not they were signed Washington bullets."

Their main objective, he said, was "to stop the tidal wave that had been sweeping since the October Revolution of 1917 and the many waves that have swept the world to form the anti-colonial movement."

Prashad, as these comments indicate, roots the crimes of the CIA in the larger history of colonialism and the hostility of the world's capitalist elites to the emancipation of the working class brought about by the Russian Revolution.

Imperialism, he reminds us, is the attempt to "subdue people to maximize the theft of resources, labour and wealth."

The targets of Washington's bullets, in turn, have been those who, like Sankara and many others, have tried to assert their nation's economic sovereignty.

The CIA's pattern of behaviour was established in the aftermath of World War II, when it supported political factions in Europe that had collaborated with the Nazis against the Communists, who in turn led the resistance against Nazism.

The agency's work, as Prashad writes, has helped "bring back to life the corpse of the reactionary European political bloc." 

In Japan, this meant the creation of a new party (the Liberal Democratic Party - LDP) to defeat the socialists, a party that absorbed old fascists (Ichiro Hatoyama and Nobusuke Kishi) and developed lasting ties with big business and organized crime (Yoshio Kodama).

In 1953, the CIA succeeded in overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, who had set out to nationalize the country's oil industry.

From 1960 to 1965, the agency attempted to assassinate Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on at least eight occasions by sending out mafia gangsters who attempted to use poison pills, poisoned pens, a poisoned cigar, a spacesuit containing tuberculosis, botulinum toxin and other deadly bacterial powders. In total, there were 638 assassination attempts - all of them were unsuccessful.

The CIA also orchestrated a coup d'état in South Vietnam in 1963 against the Diem brothers when they sought to draw closer to the National Liberation Front (FLN), a leftist party.



April 1959: Security Bureau (SY) Special Agent Leo Crampsey, left, escorts new Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro (center) on a visit to Washington, DC, shortly after the January Revolution in Cuba (US Department of State).

Another coup was carried out against the Indonesian socialist government of Achmed Sukarno, whose ouster in 1965 sparked an anti-Communist bloodbath.

The Indonesian coup of 1965 - like its predecessors in Guatemala and Iran and the one that followed it in Chile - followed a modus operandi with nine different stages:
  • put pressure on public opinion
  • appoint the suitable man in the field
  •  make sure the generals are ready
  • make the economy scream [reference to the order given by Nixon to the CIA concerning Chile “Make the economy scream” meaning “do everything in our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to the greatest destitution
  • and poverty. ", Editor's note]
  • diplomatically isolate
  • organize mass demonstrations
  • give green light
  • murder
  • deny everything
  • Destroy economic sovereignty
Perfected and refined over the years, almost all of these steps were most recently implemented in Maidan's 2014 coup in Ukraine, and the right-wing coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia in 2019.


The memorandum which describes the organization by the CIA of the deposition of President Jacobo Árbenz in June 1954 by the paramilitaries. (US Central Intelligence Agency Public domain).

Regarding the economy, Prashad unearthed a CIA study from the early 1950s on how to jeopardize the coffee industry in Guatemala in order to undermine the Arbenz government.

It was a precursor to the Nixon administration's better-known campaign to "make Chile's economy roar" after Chileans had the audacity to elect a socialist, Salvador Allende, who nationalized the copper industry (this industry was controlled by two American companies, Kennecott and Anaconda, which lobbied for a coup).

The chief of the CIA station at the time of the 1973 coup in Chile, which brought fascist General Augusto Pinochet to power, was Henry Hecksher.

He had worked undercover as a coffee buyer in Guatemala at the time of the Arbenz coup and had bribed Colonel Hernán Monzon Aguirre who became the head of the junta that replaced Arbenz.

After being promoted, Hecksher went on to lead CIA subversion operations in Laos and Indonesia in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before leading a project against the Cuban revolution in Mexico.

Hecksher was the counterpart of sinister figures such as Lincoln Gordon - a ruthless anti-Communist who helped orchestrate the 1964 coup in Brazil - Marshall Green, who helped spark the 1965 coup in Indonesia, as well as as CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt and State Department agent Loy Henderson, who helped bring the coup against Mossadegh to fruition.

The United States Embassy played such a direct role in the coups d'état in so many countries that a popular Cold War joke was heard: "Why is there never a coup d'etat in the United States? Because there is no American embassy there."

One of the tricks of the trade was to recruit union activists capable of flushing out the Communists to get rid of them and of organizing strikes against leftist governments in order to facilitate their downfall.

“Anything was acceptable,” writes Prashad, “to undermine the class struggle, both in Europe and in the states that were breaking free from colonial rule. "

Prashad's attention to class divisions offers a refreshing antidote to liberal CIA stories - like Tim Weiner's book, Legacy of Ashes - which present good information but fail to analyse what motivated the activity. misguided agency.

Read the full article (In French) at > www.les-crises.fr

By Dark Politricks

© 2021 Dark Politricks

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

The death of Hugo Chavez - did a cancer inducing weapon kill him?

The death of Hugo Chavez - did a cancer inducing weapon kill him?

By Dark Politricks

Hugo Chavez has just died and rumours run around that the CIA killed him using a cancer weapon.

This doesn't sound as mad as it seems. Viruses and inflammation are the cause of most serious illnesses including heart attacks and cancer. The CIA and it's allies in other agencies like the Mossad have a long history of trying to kill their enemies in exotic means.

Who can forget the famous story of the exploding cigar that was supposed to kill Fidel Castro as well as all the other failures including poisoned wetsuits and milkshakes.

We also have many reports from the battlefields of Iraq of new secret weaponry being used on the "enemy" that included microwaving people from the inside out.

In fact these new "energy weapons" that use electromagnetic waves to cause depression and other illnesses have been used frequently in the war as this snippet from http://rense.com shows.

Microwaving Iraq

The Gulf War veteran observes that occupied Iraq has become a "saturation environment" of electromagnetic radiation. Potentially lethal electromagnetic smog from high-power US military electronics and experimental beam weapons is placing already hard-hit local populations-particularly children -- at even higher risk of experiencing serious illness, suicidal depression, impaired cognitive ability, even death.
Therefore if these are weapons that we know of just imagine what weapons the USA and their allies have that we haven't a clue about.

Here is a report from PrisonPlanet.com TV about the plots concerning Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and include the two leaders discussing the possibility of the CIA killing each of them with injections and even cancer spreading poisons.


So the possibility exists that the Americans do posses a weapon on such lines and it is an odd occurrence that 6 leaders of South American countries who all stood in alliance against US hegemony developed cancer within recent years.

Who can forget the killing of ex FSB and KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko by the Russians with a cancer causing radioactive element  polonium-210 not long back. Therefore these types of weapons do exist and the possibility cannot be ruled out however wild you might thing the conspiracy theory is,

However despite any theory or proof to the otherwise I want to pay my own respects to Hugo Chavez for his "balls" and nothing else.

He may have given his people free health care paid for from the countries energy exports and he may have done many other good things for his people that some may find "socialist" and despise purely for that reason alone.

However I respected him for standing up to the US wanting to dominate the world and not caring who knew about his feelings.

Whether you loved or hated him he was a dominant figure in South American politics and when he offered aid to the victims of Katrina when George W Bush was too busy to visit and delivered cheap oil to the Bronx during their cold winter he gained my respect at the detriment of the US president.

However despite his death I am reluctant to take Hugo Chavez off my "Good Guys" list and for that reason alone I am re-showing one of his famous rants against America, US dominance and the fact he dared call the leader of the USA a donkey and a drunk!

 




Read the original article "The death of Hugo Chavez - a cancer inducing weapon is not so far fetched after all" at the main www.darkpolitricks.com website.

Monday, 20 August 2012

Is Julian Assange just a criminal on the run or a hero?

Is Julian Assange a hero or a rapist trying to avoid justice

By Dark Politricks

After the much awaited speech given from the balcony of the very unluxurious Ecuadorian embassy by Julian Assange the other day the whole world is debating the question - "Is Julian Assange a hero or a rapist trying to avoid justice".

The text of the speech in full is at the bottom of the page but it has led commentators all around the world to denounce Julian Assange as just a sex offender trying to avoid justice whilst totally ignoring the rest of the relevant pieces surrounding his case.

Quotes about the speech:
"what was much more serious - the elephant in the room, so to speak - was Assange's wilful failure to say anything about the actual reason that the Swedish police want to question him." - Andy McSmith - The Independent.
"Odious Julian Assange loved every second of his pompous balcony rant. His speech was long on egotistical claptrap, but oddly failed to mention what this extradition case is actually about — the rape of one woman and sexual molestation of another." - The Sun
"Not since the Argentines invaded the Falklands has Britain had its tail so humiliatingly tweaked by a Latin American dictatorship. Suddenly, Ecuador is on the lips of people who previously would have struggled to find it on a map. All this merry mayhem is, of course, being orchestrated by Assange, who continues to play the British governing class for suckers." - Melanie Phillips - Daily Mail
"He's not going anywhere"' Metropolitan police officer.

In fact you would be hard pressed to find many mainstream media commentators giving a good word to Julian who is facing sexual assault charges - charges that the Ecuadorian President said the other day do not even exist on his countries law books - like many others.

Charges that relate to two WikiLeak "groupies" who had sex with Assange on consecutive nights and allowed him to have sex without a condom. They may have protested about that last bit once they found out about each other but not before and it seems a strange law to charge someone on in the first place. If we were arresting every man in the world who didn't like wearing a condom when having sex there would be very few men left.

However it seems these constitute crimes in Sweden and many people ask why Julian doesn't just go and face his accusers.

The answer is simple.

He is very, very afraid that the Swedes will pass him along to the the American's who are literally frothing at the mouth at the damage he has done to their national security. First by realising tapes of their pilots cheering as they massacred a crowd of reporters and men without guns in Iraq and then the WikiLeaks release of the #Cablegate stash of US embassy emails which have made many a Middle Eastern nation look like two faced liars who say one thing in public and another to their neighbours in private.

More worryingly for Assange is the way that the presumed source of the information a Private Bradley Manning has been treated by the US military. He has been stripped naked, held in a cell for many months without anything to do and basically treated in the most horrible way possible - some even claim this constitutes torture.

He is now facing a charge of possible death or life imprisonment (if prosecutors keep their word)  for communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source and aiding the enemy. His chances do not look good.

Therefore as the UK does not extradite to countries where there is  the possibility of the death penalty and a multitude of US commentators and government employees have stated that he deserves two in the head. It is no wonder Julian is afraid of going to Sweden as he honestly believes it is a ruse to get him sent to the USA.

As no charges have actually been laid out against Assange and the Swedish police only want to "question him" it seems far fetched that in this day and age a compromise could not be made out which allowed for this questioning.

Over a hundred years ago there was this amazing invention called the telephone that allowed people at far distance from each other to communicate by voice.

In the last twenty years we have had Skype, Video Conferencing, Messenger and other tools that would allow for a full face to face interview that could be recorded, analysed and allow the Swedish police to ask their questions without any expensive plane travel.

But why should Julian Assange get special treatment you might ask.

Well he shouldn't and the the same rules should apply to all European citizens.

The European Arrest Warrant is a joke that allows Brits to be dragged from their beds and sent of to Eastern European jails on the say so of a Polish or Greek police commander.

Just like the unfair and unbalanced UK to USA extradition treaty. Which can see British people carted off to spend long time in orange jumpsuits without any evidence being examined in a UK court first as a US citizen has the right to before extradition here. Both of these extradition treaties should be abolished ASAP.

Therefore I don't say that Julian is just trying to avoid spurious charges that only emerged after each woman found out about the other but I say that he is blatantly scared shitless of being sent to the USA.

Also as I predicted in my last article the whole of South America is now standing in unison behind Ecuador after the British threat to storm their embassy which has only increased tension with a region that we are already having difficulty with.

From the  BBC news website.
The Union of South American Nations said it backed Ecuador after Mr Assange publicly thanked it and other South American countries for their support.

A document agreed at the Union of South American Nations meeting said it supported the country "in the face of the threat" to its London embassy.

.. in the context of the UK's perceived heavy-handed approach to the recent question of Argentina's renewed claim over the Falkland Islands - the British government's reputation in South America was undoubtedly being affected by this stand-off.


As I predicted - the fact that a country with a far from clean human rights history is making supposed western liberal and free countries look like despotic dangers to world civility is a stain on our own moral standing across the world. Plus it has swelled the chest of Latin and South America to extreme proportions.

If the Brits storm the embassy they will look like criminals in the eyes of many countries - fairly or not and if they let Julian hop onto a plane to Ecuador they will look like sops in the eyes of the USA and a million Daily Mail readers eyes.

The best thing would be to come to a compromise as suggested by Ecuador's President Rafael Correa who suggested Mr Assange could co-operate with Sweden but only if assurances were given that there would be no extradition to a third country. Any breaking of such an agreement would make the USA look like the "great Satan" Iran always claims they are and it would allow Julian to fulfill his obligations to face Swedish police questions and possible charges.

Whatever happens it looks like a farce from both sides of the argument.

Here is the full text of Julian Assange's speech:


I am here today because I cannot be there with you today, but thank you for coming. Thank you for your resolve, your generosity and spirit.

On Wednesday night, after a threat was sent to this embassy, and police descended on this building, you came out in the middle of the night to watch over it, and you brought the world’s eyes with you.

Inside the embassy, after dark, I could hear teams of police swarming up into the building through the internal fire escape. But I knew that there would be witnesses and that is because of you.

If the UK did not throw away the Vienna Conventions the other night, it is because the world was watching and the world was watching because you were watching.

The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights we hold dear, remind them of your vigil in the dark before the embassy of Ecuador. Remind them how in the morning the sun came up on a different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice.

And so, to those brave people, I thank President Correa for the courage he has shown in considering and in granting me political asylum. And I also thank the government, and the particular Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patino, who have upheld the Ecuadorian Constitution and its notion of universal citizenship in their consideration of my asylum


And to the Ecuadorian people for supporting and defending this Constitution. And I also have a debt of gratitude to the staff of the embassy, whose families live in London, and who have been showing me hospitality and kindness despite the threats we’ve all received.

This Friday there will be an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of Latin America in Washington, DC, to address this very situation. And so I am grateful to those people and governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Venezuela and to all other Latin American countries who have come out to defend the right to asylum.

To the people of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia, who have supported me in strength, even when their governments have not. And to those wiser heads in government who are still fighting for justice. Your day will come.

To the staff, supporters and sources of WikiLeaks, whose courage and commitment and loyalty has seen no equal.

To my family and to my children, who have been denied their father. Forgive me. We will be reunited soon.

As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression, and the health of our societies. We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America.

Will it return to and reaffirm the revolutionary values it was founded on? Or will it lurch off the precipice, dragging us all into a dangerous and oppressive world, in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecution and citizens must whisper in the dark?

I say it must turn back.

I ask President Obama to do the right thing.

The United States must renounce its witch-hunt against WikiLeaks.

The United States must dissolve its FBI investigation.

The United States must vow that it will not seek to prosecute our staff or our supporters.

The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.

There must be no more foolish talk about prosecuting any media organization, be it WikiLeaks or be it the New York Times.

The US administration’s war on whistleblowers must end.

Thomas Drake, and William Binney, and John Kiriakou and the other heroic US whistleblowers must — they must be pardoned and compensated for the hardships they’ve endured as servants of the public record.

And the Army Private who remains in a military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, who was found by the United Nations to have endured months of torturous detention in Quantico, Virginia, and who has yet — after two years in prison — to see a trial—He must be released. Bradley Manning must be released. If Bradley Manning did as he accused, he is a hero and an example to all of us and one of the world’s foremost political prisoners. Bradley Manning must be released.

On Wednesday, Bradley Manning spent his 815th day of detention without trial. The legal maximum is 120 days.

On Thursday, my friend, Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Human Rights Center, was sentenced to 3 years for a tweet.

On Friday, a Russian band [Pussy Riot] was sentenced to 2 years in jail for a political performance.

There is unity in the oppression.

There must be absolute unity and determination in the response.

Thank you.