A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 30 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Catalan_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Francais_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkurkish_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours

Links to indexes of first few lines of all posts of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017 | of 2018 | of 2019 | of 2020 | of 2021 | of 2022 | of 2023 | of 2024 | of 2025

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) Italy, UCADI, #198 - State Terrorists (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Date Sat, 9 Aug 2025 07:35:10 +0300


The terrorist state par excellence, the state that commits acts of piracy by capturing ships in international waters, the state that attacks embassies in foreign states, the state that illegally occupies territories for decades, the state that has built a hundred atomic bombs without the fact being recognized and therefore without having to be subjected to controls, the state that practices the genocide of the Palestinian population not only continues its criminal policy, supported by Western "democracies", but has allowed itself to take a leap forward, attacking Iran, the only nation in the Middle East (along with Yemen) that supports the Palestinians.
How is this possible? In the Western world, involvement in a war requires the development of an appropriate narrative that makes one's population digest the war itself, that makes it seem fair (it is no coincidence that since 2021 NATO has created an additional department dedicated to cognitive warfare): the narrative is almost more important than direct military action.
In the case of the war against Iraq, the invented existence of weapons of mass destruction played the game. It is irrelevant that years later it was "discovered" that it had been a gigantic lie ("fake news" in modern parlance). It is enough that propaganda works at the time; in hindsight, everything can be admitted under the assumption that the world has improved in the meantime.
In the case of Ukraine, however, the narrative works the other way around; non-existent facts are not invented, but NATO's multiple provocations are hidden in order to accuse Russia of unjustified aggression.
And now, with Iran? The indiscriminate support of the terrorist state was starting to show some cracks (let no governments ever criticize) due to the demonstrations in some Western countries against the continued murder of Palestinian civilians (yes, civilians, because with a few exceptions, Hamas's military is still able to act, and state terrorists are careful not to militarily occupy Gaza). It was becoming necessary to update the narrative and here is the dusting off of the risk that Iran is building the atomic bomb. It does not matter that Tulsi Gabbard, the American head of security, a few months ago officially stated that the Iranians have suspended the process of enriching uranium for military purposes for years. When all the press and media are lying down like never before, these "details" can easily be forgotten. It is good to clarify that the nuclear risk is NOT and cannot be the real reason for the terrorist attack: for the umpteenth time we are faced with the need to hypnotize Western populations. The enrichment of uranium is NOT the real reason, not only because it simply does not exist, but also because the terrorists know well that the most advanced nuclear research laboratories are located far underground, protected by hundreds of meters of concrete and rock, certainly not attackable by the missiles launched so far. We are faced with a macabre theater: the missiles launched towards Tehran kill almost exclusively civilians in civilian homes. Their function is to frighten the population, hoping that they will turn their anger on the Ayatollahs' government, and knowing that the press is always ready to sell the abominations as side effects that save the free world from future nuclear attacks.
But even the idea that the Iranian people would blame the Ayatollahs and try to overthrow the government seems shortsighted to say the least. It is true that Iranian society is much more secular than the theocratic regime that the Ayatollahs would like to impose, and probably, if left to its own devices, the nation would more or less slowly veer toward a different structure. But to think that an attack by a foreign terrorist power would stimulate an uprising is an idea that only a fool could come up with. A nation under attack will rally around its leadership, as is happening in Russia with Putin, who has enormous percentages of popular support.
So it's the same old story: in a few years, an article will appear in the New York Times informing readers that the Iranians were not building any bombs. The same New York Times that a couple of months ago informed us in detail about how the Americans have set up an operations center in Wiesbaden, Germany to manage the operations of the Ukrainian army since 2014, with specific tasks and information on the targets to hit. Now that Trump is changing strategy, this information can be provided and one can pretend to be a journalist - not before. But let's get back to the state terrorists who are obviously not capable of invading Iran with ground troops (the Americans failed in Afghanistan). As good terrorists, they kill civilians, hoping that Iran will respond heavily, killing some of them (better if civilians) and get two birds with one stone. On the one hand, it allows the terrorists themselves to return to playing their favorite role, that of victims and to be able to cry "genocide, genocide" for some dead Jews. On the other hand, because, it offers a pretext to the Americans to justify their intervention in defense of their poor allies. The Americans have bases everywhere in the area to be able to intervene, better than going to the supermarket: Turkey, Iraq (a non-state never abandoned by the Americans who still manage the oil trade), Qatar, Bahrain and so on (not to mention Jordan whose airspace is more open to Americans and allied terrorists than the legs of a peripatetic in the exercise of its functions.
Someone will argue that the Americans are not so bad: they were negotiating. Ever heard of "plausible deniability"? A concept that applies in the event of war and essentially means: excuse to pretend not to be involved. In other words, a decoy. Do we want to refresh our memory on how the USA and their terrorist ally are one and the same?

The "Liberty case"

These days mark the 58th anniversary (June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War), of an event that could not be more didactic. At the time, the terrorist state tried - at the shelter from prying eyes - to sink an American reconnaissance ship (the USS Liberty), which was operating in the Mediterranean off the coast of Egypt, but in international waters. The purpose of the operation was twofold: to accuse the Egyptians of the sinking in order to make the US enter the war (remember a Mossad motto: "wars are made through deception"). The other reason was to keep the Americans themselves in the dark about the war crimes committed by Moshe Dayan who was killing Egyptian prisoners of war (the USS Liberty was in fact equipped with multiple antennas and transceivers on many frequencies).
The military operation was conducted following the war crimes manual: using planes without livery to fire thousands of rounds on the deck of the ship and the napalm bombs; launching three torpedoes (this is not a war crime if you are at war, but the ship was not military); and, the icing on the cake, shooting at the lifeboats that had been put into the sea.
Unfortunately for the terrorists, "only" about thirty American sailors died because the USS Liberty did not sink. But the best part of the story is yet to come: one of the sailors managed to get an antenna working again and the USS Liberty was able to send out an SOS, which was picked up by the American Sixth Fleet stationed in the Mediterranean. The admiral of the aircraft carrier Saratoga scrambled about ten Phantoms to go and save the ship, but was immediately forced to recall the planes due to an order from the then Secretary of State Robert McNamara. Since the Secretary of State does NOT have such power, the admiral asked for confirmation that came directly from President Lyndon Johnson who justified the order by stating that we cannot embarrass our allies. The ship was eventually towed to some port and all the sailors were instructed to NEVER speak about what happened, under penalty of court martial (it's only been a few years since someone had the courage to speak out also because some documents were declassified). At the time, the state terrorists justified themselves by saying they did not understand it was an American ship (which was later widely denied by recorded communications).
Let's also add some more recent information to refresh our memory on the type of actors we are dealing with. Prime Minister Benjamin Malikovsky (this is Netanyahu's real name, who changed it, as many other politicians of the terrorist state did to hide the colonial nature of the state itself) is heavily involved in matters of smuggling (read theft) of nuclear material and secrets from the USA, in cahoots with Arnon Milchan: a businessman who began his career as a spy for the terrorist state. Some will think that both characters are being chased by arrest warrants. Milchan is not wanted either: in fact, he was the (co)producer of many successful American films (among others, Once Upon a Time in America, Pretty Woman, Brazil, but others are easily found).
Returning to real-time narrative, the only important narrative that should be countered: nothing is overlooked by the directors. If the most significant laboratories for uranium enrichment are likely safe, we cannot exclude that some plant was significantly affected with consequent losses of radioactive material. In a very vaguely decent world, shouldn't this fact, alone, be a valid reason to condemn the action perpetrated by state terrorists?
No way, the head of the agency for the control of nuclear energy (IAEA) refused to condemn the terrorists. Not only that, the same IAEA a few days ago released a communication regarding implosion tests carried out by Iran. These tests are indirectly linked to the development of atomic weapons (indirectly because they are tests with traditional explosives) but the most significant fact is that these tests had been carried out in 2003 (22 years ago); but the news was released only a few days ago.
Finally, some other considerations. The major and almost sole supporters of Middle Eastern terrorists are Western democratic states, but we must also remember that 30% of Israeli arms exports go to India, and that South Africa, the state that had the merit of bringing Israel before the international tribunal for war crimes, is also a state that supplies energy to Israel in the form of coal.
When and who will be able to rein in these bandits?

Antonio Politi

https://www.ucadi.org/2025/06/22/terroristi-di-stato/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center