Headley, others gave U.S. reputation of terror exporter: CIA

[SHASH2K2]

The Central Intelligence Agency harboured deep concerns over the possibility that America might be viewed as an exporter of terrorism, and the case of David Headley, prime accused in the Mumbai terror attacks, only substantiated such fears, according to a confidential memo released by the Wikileaks whistleblower website.

The latest in a string of controversial government documents revealed on the Wikileaks website was a paper titled "What If Foreigners See the United States as an 'Exporter of Terrorism'?", reportedly authored by the CIA's 'Red Cell.' According to reports the Red Cell was a think tank set up after the 9/11 attacks by then-CIA Director George Tenet, to provide "out-of-the-box" analyses on "a full range of analytic issues."

In the report the CIA argued that the actions of Pakistani-American Headley, among others, might indeed have led to the view that the U.S. was a "terrorism exporter". Headley, who was linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba terror group, pled guilty to undertaking surveillance prior to the 2008 attacks and is currently in U.S. custody.

The CIA further remarked, in the paper, that even other terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda must have been aware of how easily operatives such as Headley moved in and out of the U.S, Pakistan and India.

Reacting to the release of the paper CIA spokesperson Marie Harf however downplayed the significance of the paper. "These sorts of analytic products – clearly identified as coming from the Agency's 'Red Cell' – are designed simply to provoke thought and present different points of view," she was quoted as saying.

Yet the Red Cell paper clearly noted that even as counterterrorism experts focused on threats to the homeland, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups "may be increasingly looking for Americans to operate overseas."

In this context, the CIA expressed concern that "If the U.S. were seen as an exporter of terrorism, foreign partners may be less willing to cooperate with the United States on extrajudicial activities... including detention, transfer, and interrogation of suspects in third party countries."

However the paper also acknowledged a wider context of American citizens' involvement in terror-related activities abroad, arguing that such involvement was neither a recent nor rare phenomenon.

The report said, for example, that "Baruch Goldstein, an American Jewish doctor, killed 29 Palestinians praying at a mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994." It noted that that incident triggered a wave of bus bombings by the extremist Palestinian Hamas group, in 1995.

Further, U.S. citizens also provided "financial and material support" for armed groups in Northern Ireland and a significant amount of funding for the Irish Republican Army came from Irish-Americans.

In a candid admission the CIA's paper concluded that the American export of terrorism or terrorists was not associated "only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin."
The Hindu : News / International : Headley, others gave U.S. reputation of terror exporter: CIA

 

[LETHALFORCE]

was Headley acting alone?? doubtful.

 

[SHASH2K2]

when Headley has entire CIA in his pocket does he need partners?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

when Headley has entire CIA in his pocket does he need partners?

I will rephrase was Headley acting independently??

 

[SHASH2K2]

If he had any accomplices in USA they should be Behind bars or at hell and if they are in Pakistan no one can touch them. Sorry for the confusion. :emot100:

 

[LETHALFORCE]

If he had any accomplices in USA they should be Behind bars or at hell and if they are in Pakistan no one can touch them. Sorry for the confusion. :emot100:

If he was acting independently then why was there a problem with his extradition??

 

[Godless-Kafir]

I dont know about US but Britian should definitely be declared as terror capital of the west! There is something in english culture that is deeply offensive to non-whites that all these Asian boys become radical regardless of religion, only the muslim kids end up as terrorists.

Couple of times i have been called a ****** and i felt like turning into a terrorist too. They dont even know the difference between black and indian. Since that time i hate all whites, dont even care if he is a pot someking liberal.

 

[SHASH2K2]

If he was acting independently then why was there a problem with his extradition??

Million dollar question is that who will bell the cat . I mean uncle SAM . We dont have balls to ask USA for extradition.

 

[Energon]

I dont know about US but Britian should definitely be declared as terror capital of the west! There is something in english culture that is deeply offensive to non-whites that all these Asian boys become radical regardless of religion, only the muslim kids end up as terrorists.

Couple of times i have been called a ****** and i felt like turning into a terrorist too. They dont even know the difference between black and indian. Since that time i hate all whites, dont even care if he is a pot someking liberal.

You can't successfully fight ignorance with more ignorance. In the civilized world Newton's third law is not transferable in this regard. Nobody likes to be targeted in any which way; and a global history of colonization etc makes this an especially sensitive matter to some.

However harboring these insecurities and unleashing them in the form of "retributive hate" is a pointless endeavor. Mostly because it then leads to irreconcilable contradictions. You may hate all white people, but without them India's economic fortunes wouldn't have changed in recent times, nor would you have most of the amenities you enjoy today or reap the general benefits of what we call modernity. Despite all the nationalistic jingoism Indians love to migrate to the developed world and enjoy all its benefits which in turn has a pipette effect.

So it seems like you have more reasons to like white people today than not.

Europe has done a very poor job of integrating its citizens compared to the US. Granted the US has the benefit of being far more selective in its immigration policy. However with new media of communication like the internet, dissemination of radicalism through the arousal of anger has become a lot easier for people with violent agendas. And while disenfranchised young males are still the most susceptible, their well placed otherwise "modern" counterparts are no longer immune.

Radicalization and indoctrination of young minds can no longer be limited or defined by national borders.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

You may hate all white people, but without them India's economic fortunes wouldn't have changed in recent times, nor would you have most of the amenities you enjoy today or reap the general benefits of what we call modernity. Despite all the nationalistic jingoism Indians love to migrate to the developed world and enjoy all its benefits which in turn has a pipette effect.

So it seems like you have more reasons to like white people today than not.

Europe has done a very poor job of integrating its citizens compared to the US. Granted the US has the benefit of being far more selective in its immigration policy. However with new media of communication like the internet, dissemination of radicalism through the arousal of anger has become a lot easier for people with violent agendas. And while disenfranchised young males are still the most susceptible, their well placed otherwise "modern" counterparts are no longer immune.

Radicalization and indoctrination of young minds can no longer be limited or defined by national borders.

I must be thankful for the amenities i got curtsy to the white people?!! I have never heard of an more ridiculous statement in my entire life, every cell in my body rejects such a disgusting submission of the intellect at the alter of reward, why because you where rewarded a laptop or a car you give up questioning about whats wrong and how it came there?

Nature has provided me with life and nature has provided such bounty. They divide what belongs to everyone a starving man had an option of takeing food from the forest now the tree either belongs to someone or the government. All these hi-tech stuff only benefit an small population in the world. It seems even without these technologies we can feed 12billion people, when nature has provided us with such bounty why is that the majority of the world(80%) are in poverty and more than half the worlds population lives in less than 2.5$ a day, 40% of the global population live on 5% of the world income! If that was not enough all the amenities you so proudly claim to enjoy are born out of WAR be it jet engines,Atomic energy,x-ray, medicines, Radio,Radar,Satellite and your internet are all proud accomplishments of war. They wont exist if this war economy collapses and the competitive nature of trying to be the best comes to an end.

The Amenities that keep us awake till mid night while making you worry about tomorrow and the hell i have to do to keep my money and earn the pittance thats thrown my way. Everyone is kept in a knifes edge.

You think i am someone who is thankful for the vaccines or modern medicine? Do you know because of these vaccines we have over population in this world? The order of Natural selection which ensures the fittest survive is replaced by medicines which stick up even an ugly 8-legged girl or a baby born with its heart outside! Why? Because some doctor can get his name in the paper and make more money? All defective retards are stuck up, stitched up and sent on the assembly line of society to make cars,radios or condoms or simply to starve and pass those defective genes to other generation so more money can be made by selling stitching kits and medicines.

I should be thankful for all the stress in my life because of this pleasure seeking greedy life style. All we are made to seek is more pleasure through "More" money, more power,more education,more recognition, friends,more sex,more love,more cars,bigger house or whatever. There is no happiness at all there is only pleasure. The side effect is all the wars,oil,toxic waste,global warming,over population,starvation,pollution,greed,killing machines and if all this accounts as growth then its just blind. Today USA is the largest polluter in the world and you want the rest of the world to follow that? What will happen if we consume like the USA? May be your very happy looking at the shiny glass building and clean toilets but i am not carried away by the facade.

White Christians are responsible more for this agony than anyone else. Because they use it for war and the whole thing is run because of war. I frankly would not have minded if i lived a hearty tribal life and died by the age of 40. I am not thankful to anyone least of all some greedy pig which has squandered off more than its share because it has to spread the Lords message.

If there was no christian missionary-ism there wont be all this so called development, the need to spread the message is the reason they used all these tools for war and to expand their religion. Thats why Islam and Christianity have taken more than they should. More people have died in the name of "love thy neighbor" than all the modern wars put together and its heading for complete melt down.

 

[ajtr]

USA has always used terrorists and mercenaries to achieve its goals.David headly is just one of the example usa has been using terrorists to destabilize govts.I even doubt that the last year flare up in Xinjiang was orchestrated by USA.

 

[ajtr]

Yes, America Is Exporting Terrorism
Why the latest WikiLeaks revelations matter.​

Partly because the deadliest attack in the history of modern international terrorism was against the United States, Americans tend to see their own country as the center of the counterterrorist universe. It was a U.S. president who declared a "war on terror," led by the United States. Although U.S. officials have said a lot about international cooperation, the cooperation they have had in mind has been mostly a matter of the United States leading, pushing, or insisting, and other countries conforming or complying. The same U.S. president summarized his standard for other countries' counterterrorist performance with the phrase "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" -- the "us" of course being the United States -- and the United States has shown a tendency to lord that standard over its foreign counterterrorist partners. The transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama has softened these hard edges, but Americans still take a very U.S.-centric approach to the subject.Some of the American exceptionalism on counterterrorism began even before the attacks of September 11, 2001. Legislation in the 1980s claimed extraterritorial jurisdiction for U.S. courts and U.S. law enforcement agencies regarding any terrorist act in which U.S. persons or interests were victims. Clearly, if every other state made a similar claim, the result would be legal chaos. Think about what the U.S. reaction would be if, say, France claimed jurisdiction over a terrorist crime that a U.S. citizen committed on American soil, in which a visiting Frenchman happened to be one of the casualties.

Because the overwhelming U.S. concern understandably has been with terrorism within the United States and above all terrorist acts -- like 9/11 -- perpetrated within the United States by foreigners, terrorism by U.S. citizens has been a jarring note that has not fit into most of the tunes Americans have been playing about fighting terrorism -- many of which, having to do with such things as no-fly lists for international flights, have focused specifically on keeping foreign terrorists out of the United States. Especially ill-fitting have been several cases over the last couple of years involving Americans traveling abroad to commit terrorism in other countries such as Pakistan and India, including terrorism against non-American targets. A noteworthy example is the surveillance that Pakistani-American David Headley performed in support of the gruesome attack by Lashkar-e-Taiba in Mumbai in November 2008, which killed at least 160 people.

The U.S. export of terrorism calls into question the high -- perhaps sometimes impossibly high -- standard to which Washington holds other governments in controlling what emanates from their territories. U.S. officials might not say "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" anymore, but it still is considered not enough for governments to refrain from sponsoring or supporting terrorism. They are expected to do whatever it takes to prevent their citizens from committing terrorist acts abroad, with little American patience for excuses about how difficult it is to control borders or the activities of private individuals. To the extent this is the U.S. standard, the United States itself has failed it.This and other apparent U.S. double standards in counterterrorism, looked at through the eyes of foreign governments, raise several problems that are nicely summarized in a document in the latest WikiLeaks disclosure: an assessment by the CIA's Red Cell, a unit with a license to perform "out-of-the-box" analysis about problems and trends that would not normally be the focus of the agency's everyday analytical work. The assessment points out that the export of terrorism from the United States might make foreign partners more inclined to push back -- and would give them a stronger case in pushing back -- on counterterrorist matters on which they find the asymmetrical U.S. approach most irritating. For example, a foreign government might insist on obtaining confidential information on U.S. citizens it suspects of supporting terrorism, or even call for the rendition of a U.S. citizen. If the United States were to balk, the foreign government could refuse to cooperate in the other direction the next time the United States called for information on, or rendition of, anyone in the foreign country. Who could blame the foreign government, given that international terrorists have now shown that they can come from the United States, and not just to it?

The Red Cell assessment notes that some pushing back already has occurred, probably spurred by annoyance over the asymmetry in how the United States handles renditions and information sharing. It cites the example of Italy issuing criminal warrants in 2005 for the arrest of U.S. officials involved in the abduction and rendering to Egypt of an Egyptian cleric. Again, think of the roles being reversed: It would be a subject of great outrage, to put it mildly, in the United States if Italian officers were found to have secretly abducted someone from U.S. soil and flown him out to be locked up in someone else's prison. The assessment correctly observes that the price of contretemps arising from such disagreements includes damage to bilateral relations as well as more specific damage to counterterrorist cooperation.

Obviously the first thing the United States should do to reduce the chance of such problems is to try hard to curb the export of terrorists and terrorism from its own territory. Chiefly this means focusing at least as much attention on detecting homegrown terrorists (regardless of whether any such terrorists seem likely to commit their lethal deeds in the United States or abroad) as the heavy attention now focused on keeping foreign terrorists out of the United States. There is no single technique involved -- just a lot of hard domestic intelligence work mostly by the FBI and its partners in local and state law enforcement agencies. The United States also could be more forthcoming in making two-way some of its border protection procedures (such as passport checks and provision of extensive passenger information) that tend to be one-way now.

Because stopping the export of terrorism probably will be as difficult for the United States to achieve completely as it is for other countries, the next thing it can do is to be a little more understanding when other countries, despite good-faith efforts, come up short too. More generally, it can try to view everything it does in the name of counterterrorism through its foreign partners' eyes and get rid of the double standards. And more generally still, it should understand that the United States is not really the center of the counterterrorist universe, that counterterrorism did not begin with 9/11, and that some foreign partners -- who had been confronting serious terrorist threats long before terrorism became a top security issue in the United States -- have at least as much to teach the United States on the subject as the other way around.

 

[White Clouds]

I dont know about US but Britian should definitely be declared as terror capital of the west! There is something in english culture that is deeply offensive to non-whites that all these Asian boys become radical regardless of religion, only the muslim kids end up as terrorists.

Couple of times i have been called a ****** and i felt like turning into a terrorist too. They dont even know the difference between black and indian. Since that time i hate all whites, dont even care if he is a pot someking liberal.

Hello sir, look at it this way in India also we have many cases where many Indians calls white foreigners "gora" or "firangi", or people from Nigeria or other parts of Africa "kallu" (you know that is true), does that mean these victims should also take the terror route or blame all Indians for it? No it does not work that way, racism exists in every part of the world..it is ignorance that breeds racism, hatred etc. You should just ignore people who say such things...that's when you can claim to be a better person.