September 14th, 2011 by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
September 14th, 2011 by Carlito Pablo
Ex–vice president Dick Cheney may receive a rude welcome in Vancouver.
Dick Cheney is coming to town on September 26 to promote his book In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir. But Vancouver lawyer Gail Davidson has other plans for one of the most controversial figures of the modern era, a powerful man who publicly admitted having allowed torture.
The cofounder of the international group Lawyers Against the War wants the government of Canada either to bar the former U.S. vice president from entering the country or, if he’s allowed in, to arrest and prosecute him for torture, war offences, and crimes against humanity. And if Canada isn’t keen on punishing the ex–vice president to former president George W. Bush, Davidson argues, then it should extradite Cheney to a country that is willing and able to prosecute him.
One of the most vocal defenders of U.S. foreign policy, specifically the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Cheney is the first featured speaker in the 2011–12 series of Vancouver’s Bon Mot Book Club.
“It’s a bit chilling that they would invite a mass murderer as their guest to Canada,” Davidson told the Georgia Straight by phone, “when any one of them would know full well that because of the founded accusations made against Mr. Cheney, that he’s persona non grata in Canada, being accused of international crimes, torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”
Organizer Leah Costello explained that the Bon Mot Book Club is an “intimate and exclusive high-end dinner series”, wherein her company Curious Mind Productions Inc. brings in world leaders and other high-profile speakers. Cheney will speak at a dinner event at the Vancouver Club.
“I haven’t heard anything yet,” Costello told the Straight by phone, when asked if she expects protests to greet Cheney. “But I have heard that he’s a controversial figure. That’s for sure.”
In a recent NBC interview, Cheney declared that he had “no regrets” that the American government used torture against terrorism suspects.
Asked if the U.S. should still use widely condemned techniques like waterboarding, Cheney responded: “I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk.”
According to Davidson, the government is obliged under local and international laws—such as the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—to deny safe haven and prosecute persons accused of crimes like torture. Davidson is writing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and key cabinet ministers to outline evidence against the Bush administration and its senior officials.
“The role of Mr. Cheney is that he authorized, directed, ordered, supervised, and failed to prevent the commission of a wide range of crimes against humanity and war crimes,” Davidson said.
She has previously written to the government, suggesting steps similar to those regarding Cheney be taken when Bush visits Surrey on October 20. The ex-president has been invited by Mayor Diane Watts to the Surrey Regional Economic Summit.
In her letter dated August 25 regarding Bush’s visit, Davidson cited a transcript of a U.S. interview with Cheney in May 2009, in which Cheney stated that Bush authorized torture. He said: “I mean it was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it.”
Speaking to the Straight, Davidson said that the evidence against the Bush administration is well known and part of the public record. The documentation contained in Davidson’s August 25 letter includes a statement from now retired U.S. army Maj.-Gen. Antonio Taguba, who looked into abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. Taguba stated that “the Commander-in-Chief [Bush] and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture”.
The Vancouver lawyer also cited a 2004 report by the International Committee of the Red Cross that the American military used interrogation techniques amounting to torture on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. naval base in Cuba. She likewise mentioned a 2007 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly report that spoke about a “whole series of illegal acts in Europe” by the CIA through “extraordinary rendition”, a practice in which individuals are abducted from one country and sent to another, to be detained and tortured for information in secret locations.
Davidson stressed that when Canada ratified the international convention against torture, it accepted a duty not just to Canadians but to everyone. And that is to “take effective measures to prevent and punish torture wherever it occurs, whatever the nationality of the victims are, and whatever the nationality of the perpetrators”.
September 14th, 2011 by Global Research
-At the same time, the US tells us to address NATO, while the alliance sends us to Washington again. The negotiations with Russia are being delayed, while the US is making steps to implement third and fourth stages of its European missile shield, which will certainly affect the Russian strategic potential. And this is the scenario what we are trying to avoid but which will be implemented within 5-8 years.
On September 14th the US and Romania signed an agreement to house a missile defense shield in southern Romania. The document was signed in Washington by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Romania`s Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi. Also on Tuesday the US President Barack Obama had an unplanned meeting with his Romanian counterpart Traian Băsescu. A statement released by the White House says Obama congratulated Băsescu on signing a missile defense agreement with the US. Both countries insist that the agreement is not aimed to undermine the Russian security.
Mr. Konstantin Kosachev, Head of the Russian Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, commented on the issue in an interview with the VoR.
The US-Romanian missile defense agreement should be viewed from both military and political angles. In military terms, this agreement allows placing a missile defense shield, which will ensure protection against medium-range missiles, which Russia simply does not have.
This shield cannot protect against ICBMs. So, I`d like to stress that this shield won`t upset the strategic balance. However, we know that Russia, the US and NATO have been discussing the prospects for joint anti-missile cooperation. And in view of this, any unilateral steps, which are obviously aimed to undermine the strategic balance, impede the Russia-US talks on this sensitive issue and thus put the earlier achieved strategic arms reduction treaty at risk. Before ratifying the new START treaty, Russia said that it might quit the treaty in case Washington`s plans to deploy its missile elements in Europe would pose a threat to Russia`s security. I think this is exactly the case with Romania.
What was the reaction of our European partners? Do you think that plans to set up an autonomous missile defense shield in Europe prevent Russia and NATO from productive cooperation on security?
We still have not received a more or less clear explanation from our partners on the future of the European missile defense. We are aware of the US plans but who can tell how they will affect Europe, or whether they will be transformed into some NATO-run projects.
I think that NATO is not aware of it, too, which makes the situation even more complicated. So, we have to negotiate the issue with both Washington and Brussels. At the same time, the US tells us to address NATO, while the alliance sends us to Washington again. The negotiations with Russia are being delayed, while the US is making steps to implement third and fourth stages of its European missile shield, which will certainly affect the Russian strategic potential. And this is the scenario what we are trying to avoid but which will be implemented within 5-8 years.
Unfortunately, time is wasted as long as our American partners are not ready to take Russia`s concerns seriously.
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
Stop NATO website and articles:
September 14th, 2011 by Bob Chapman
In the case for gold and silver, it has been go long and stay long for 11 years. During that period great gains have been made during what was the formidable first phase of the gold and silver bull market. Gold was $260.00 and silver was $3.50. Some stocks rose from $4.00 to $86.00, some from $0.80 to $42.00. This performance in spite of gold and silver suppression by the US government. In their desire to keep gold and silver subdued all the government really accomplished was to offer an opportunity for buyers to buy at lower prices than they normally would have been able too. In that process buyers have been able to stay ahead of inflation and many have made large profits.
We have convinced almost all not to try to trade these markets, because they have not been professionally trained to do so. That concept has worked quite well and will continue to do so. The problem with novice trading is that if you get out you may never get back in. You must outsmart the market ignoring the gyrations and stick to the long-term objective. This bull market in gold and silver, now almost 11-1/2 years old will probably last another 5 to 10 years even if the system collapses. In the end our formula has worked well and avoided commission costs, something we are acutely aware of having been in the brokerage business for almost 30 years.
Each phase of the bull market is somewhat different. It wasn’t all that long ago that we predicted swings in gold prices of $20 to $30 to $100 a day in gold, than $0.50 to $2.00 in silver swings that we have just experienced. Next it will be $100 to $200 to $400 swings daily. Long-term investors may not like volatility, but traders sure do, and that draws more players into the game. A good example is the past few weeks where we saw $200 swings in gold and $5.00 swings in silver. The gold and silver shares, having languished for three years have started to come to life.
They have been victims of shorting and naked shorting by the PPT and hedge funds, which appears to be lessening. We also see more institutions as buyers of these issues. Brokerage firms have advised their brokers to use the ETFs, GLD and SLV, as vehicles to play the gold market, when they do not have the physical gold and silver they say they have. They are an accident waiting to happen. The unexpected downdraft mining shares experience three years ago was caused by institutional de-leveraging of positions that were 100 to 300 to one. Even banks got up to 70 to one. That has changed with leverage at 10 to 30 to one and almost all of these participants are either out of the sector or short. The scenario today is totally different and explosive.
The bumps in the road have changed. They are more numerous and larger. None ever said this was going to be smooth and easy. Before it is over your senses will be jarred and it will take all your intestinal fortitude to hold on. The detractors will be many and, of course, the major media will be your constant enemy. The major media is totally controlled by the elitists from behind the scene to feed you disinformation and propaganda.
Gold and silver prices are headed considerably higher as we have said they would be for the past 11 years. The world financial system is being deliberately destroyed and the only safe havens are gold and silver. We have observed over the years many problems, but today’s atmosphere is different. The events are more damaging. There is no lack of world financial and economic problems and citizens worldwide have lost confidence in the monetary system. Remember in investment the trend is your friend. In the case of gold and silver we have an 11 year trend that has a very long way yet to go. Besides where else can you safely invest in such manipulated markets. The way we look at it you simply have no choice. Just look at the stock market and the problems the economy faces. They are worse than in the early 1930s when the Dow fell 90% and most everything else followed except gold, silver and their shares. This time the devaluations and default will be far worse. Today, England is a basket case and Europe doesn’t know whether they’ll have a euro 6 months or a year from now. Asset bubbles like that in the bond market cannot continue forever – a market 100 times bigger than the stock markets.
There is no question gold and silver have been great performers and they will continue to be. Gold, by our calculations, over the past 3 years has replaced the US dollar as the world reserve currency. Presently few realized this, but they will catch on when our next reserve currency is named and the contingent element in those currencies backing is gold. Then there is the inflation factor. The government says it is 3.6%, but real inflation is 11.2% and it may be 14% by the end of the year. What we have seen over the past three years is the bailout of the financial sectors in NYC, London and Frankfurt and the US Treasury to the tune of more than $20 trillion. Lying beneath nothing has been attended to or fixed. It is the same old rusting economy with higher unemployment, as we continue to see good paying jobs move offshore. Major corporations buy labor saving equipment and continue layoffs. Small and medium sized companies either cannot get loans or do not want them, because they see no help coming from Washington in getting the American economy moving again; 60% of companies have lost faith in Washington’s ability to reinvigorate the economy. They look at markets and see gyrations. They see gold and silver have performed the best by far and they question the future of the economic situation. They also have to be disturbed at government’s interference in all markets. They face regulation after new regulations. They look around and see nothing but a sea of debt, and at the same time they also see gold trying to break out over $2,000, and silver ready to again test $50.00. As bad as the system is panic is a ways off. Do not rush it, you will see it soon enough. The system has been under pressure since the 1960s thus; it is not going to collapse in a day or two. The public is in the process of realizing that corporate America, the financial sector and government are a criminal enterprise where fraud and criminality goes unprosecuted. Where the Constitution is considered a wrinkled piece of paper – useless in today’s world of professional criminality. It reminds us of the Yeltsin years following the break-up of the Soviet Union, particularly in the financial sector.
Then there is the endless creation of money and credit creating inflation, which robs every American of their purchasing power. The stimulus is a fraud because it creates more debt with inadequate temporary results. In the meantime in reaction to this debt creation, which creates insipient inflation is gold and that in addition to reflection of inflation exposes further dollar dissipation. Of course, the Illuminists do not want gold moving higher in price, nor do they want a gold standard because it stops them from the uncontrolled creation of money and credit. The strength in gold and silver not only reflect the problems in the US and the dollar, but it is also affected by problems in England and Europe as well. We have just seen the American president present another impossible scheme to create jobs and fix the economy, which we will get into later. It is not a serious plan. You have the super-congress cutting $1 trillion mostly in Social Security and Medicare and at the same time moving those cuts over to cover the loses created by the jobs program. There was no attempt to stop the massive loss of jobs over the last 11 years caused by free trade, globalization, offshoring and outsourcing. The never is any discussion of the re-imposition of tariffs on goods and services. Nothing serious is going on. It is all politics and smoke and mirrors. There is no change in the budget deficit of $1.7 trillion for fiscal 2011. Europe has the same problem, plus six insolvent countries and trillions hidden by the Fed, which was given to these countries and banks to bail them out. It is not surprising Germans have rejected further bailout funding, which is really to save the euro zone and the EU and the dream of world government. As this transpires governments and central banks attempt to suppress gold and silver prices, which are reflecting all of this monetary chaos and inflation.
September 14th, 2011 by Washington's Blog
Governments Underreported Severity of Fukushima
As I’ve noted for 6 months, the Japanese and U.S. governments have continually under-reported the severity of the nuclear crisis at Fukushima.
The Wall Street Journal points out:
The Japanese government initially underestimated radiation releases from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, in part because of untimely rain, and so exposed people unnecessarily, a report released this week by a government research institute says.
The amount of radiation released during the Fukushima nuclear disaster was so great that the level of atmospheric radioactive aerosols in Washington state was 10,000 to 100,000 times greater than normal levels in the week following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that triggered the disaster.
[A] study [by University of Texas engineering professor Steven Biegalski and researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory] reports that more radioxenon was released from the Fukushima facilities than in the 1979 meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania and in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Ukraine.
Biegalski said the reason for the large release in Fukushima, when compared to the others, is that there were three nuclear reactors at the Japan facilities rather than just one.
Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen notes:
New TEPCO data measured on August 19 & 20 shows severe damage to the spent fuel in Fukushima Daiichi Units 1, 2, and 3…. This TEPCO data clearly contradicts and refutes the July assertion by the NRC the Fukushima Daiichi spent fuel pools were not damaged in this tragic accident.
There are also several unconfirmed reports that the Japanese government is trying to keep people from buying geiger counters to measure radiation.
New, Large Radiation Releases Are Possible
Mainichi Dailly News notes:
As a radiation meteorology and nuclear safety expert at Kyoto University’s Research Reactor Institute, Hiroaki Koide [says]:
The nuclear disaster is ongoing.
At present, I believe that there is a possibility that massive amounts of radioactive materials will be released into the environment again.
At the No. 1 reactor, there’s a chance that melted fuel has burned through the bottom of the pressure vessel, the containment vessel and the floor of the reactor building, and has sunk into the ground. From there, radioactive materials may be seeping into the ocean and groundwater.
The government and plant operator TEPCO are trumpeting the operation of the circulation cooling system, as if it marks a successful resolution to the disaster. However, radiation continues to leak from the reactors. The longer the circulation cooling system keeps running, the more radioactive waste it will accumulate. It isn’t really leading us in the direction we need to go.
It’s doubtful that there’s even a need to keep pouring water into the No.1 reactor, where nuclear fuel is suspected to have burned through the pressure vessel. Meanwhile, it is necessary to keep cooling the No. 2 and 3 reactors, which are believed to still contain some fuel, but the cooling system itself is unstable. If the fuel were to become overheated again and melt, coming into contact with water and trigger a steam explosion, more radioactive materials will be released.
We are now head to head with a situation that mankind has never faced before.
Mainichi also reports:
The Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) and residents of the zone between 20 and 30 kilometers from the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant held an emergency evacuation drill on Sept. 12 … in preparation for any further large-scale emission of radioactive materials from the plant.
The scenario for the drill presupposed further meltdown of the Fukushima plant’s No. 3 reactor core, and a local accumulation of radioactive materials emitting 20 millisieverts of radiation within the next four days. …
And nuclear expert Paul Gunter says that we face a “China Syndrome”, where the fuel from the reactor cores at Fukushima have melted through the container vessels, into the ground, and are hitting groundwater and creating highly-radioactive steam:
September 14th, 2011 by Dr. Christof Lehmann
Former Lebanese P.M. and Multi Billionaire
The captured Syrian Insurgent Hayel Hasan al Hammoud, who was arrested in relations to arms trade, murder of police and military personnel, and the shooting of peaceful protesters, to stir up violence against the Libyan Government, implicates former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri in financing and arming the NATO lead insurgency in Syria. Hariri´s involvement follows a scandal earlier this year, where a secretly recorded video provided evidence that he fabricated a fake testimony which accused Syria for the assassination of his father, Rafiq Hariri.
The involvement of the Saudi-Lebanese billionaire and former P.M. Saad Hariri, who lost his post to Hezbollah in January 12 – 2011, can hardly be surprising for Middle East experts. Saad Hariri accuses Hezollah and Syria for the assassination of his father, and former Lebanese P.M. Rafiq Hariri along with at least 21 other persons, in Beirut, on February 14. -2005.
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) at The Hague, probing into the Rafiq Hariri assassination has recently released the text of the indictment against four accused for participating in the assassination. Mustafa Amine Badreddine, was allegedly the overall controller of the attack; Salim Jamil Ayyash, allegedly the coordinator of the assassination team; Hussein Hassan Oneissi and Assad Hassan Sabra, who allegedly prepared and delivered the false claim of responsibility video; are according to Saad Hariri and the STL all related to overlapping teams involving Hezbollah and Syrian intelligence services.
The Hague Tribunals are recognized for being Pro-American, and an instrument of political pressure on anyone resisting NATO, as in the case with former Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic, who died in custody before his show trial could develope into a PR-Disaster for NATO. The case against then Israeli Minister of Defence, Ariel Sharon, for his role in the September 1982 Sabra and Shatila Massacre in Lebanon was dismissed on political pressure form the USA.
Special Prosecutor for the Hariri case, Daniel Belmare began the STL-Report by highlighting paragraph 3 of the preamble, that “the case against the accused is built in large part on circumstantial evidence“. Also the use of circumstantial, or fabricated evidence, as evident in the Milosevic Trial, is not surprising the legal and political observer of Special Tribunals at The Haag.
January 2011 a secretly recorded video tape of Saad Hariri where he is taking part in fabricating evidence and false witness statements would have blown the case wide open, had the western corporate media not been uttely silent about it. nsnbc will bring you the secretly recorded video and a transcript below.
TRANSCRIPT OF EXERPTS FROM HARIRI TAPE
[1:25] Hariri: (addressing Siddiq) Neither I nor you, nor Murad, nor Gerald, nor Andy, nor anyone in Lebanon or Syria doubts that they did it.
Siddiq: No one doubts?
Hariri: …That they did it. Now, we’re working with countries — Arab countries. If you can’t bring them clear evidence that the Syrian regime using X, Y, and Z, with evidence A, B, and C was involved, then we have a problem.
Siddiq: … If you want to speak like this, then you need to begin to respond to them with [??] That’s the first thing, in respect to the Arab countries, apart from the foreign [i.e. non-Arab] countries.
(The tape cut off abruptly)
[2:30] Siddiq: I take responsibility for what I’m saying, Wissam. Because there’s going to be a confrontation, and I’m going to confront people myself.
[2:40] Siddiq: I don’t want to say something, for him to ask me: “When is that going to happen?”
Hariri: When are you going to bring 1, 2, 3?
Siddiq: Those who are carrying out the explosions in Lebanon: I get them.I get them all. That’s my job. That’s what I do. I’m the one who gets them.
[2:57] Siddiq: The telephone call in which I told you that they would send 20 people. The telephone call in which I told you that the explosions would begin. Didn’t it happen? You’re seeing it. I called you the night before last, do you remember? Did you see the call?
Siddiq: I called you the night before last.
Siddiq: You didn’t answer. I called a second time and you didn’t answer. I said maybe he went to sleep and he’ll call me in the morning. [I was calling] to tell you that there was a bomb going to the LBC. It ended up being for May [Chidiac]. May was lost.
(Note that Siddiq did not actually communicate this to Hariri prior to the bombing. He’s claiming to have had advance knowledge but he didn’t actually warn Hariri ahead of time, because he allegedly couldn’t reach him on the phone.)
Hariri: Usually, when you want to speak to me you send me an SMS.
Siddiq: At a time of urgency?! An SMS?! …
(Discussion of Nabih Berri’s visit to Spain and then Syria to meet with Bashar al-Assad and Hassan Nasrallah)
[4:27] Siddiq: Go confirm this information.
Hassan: Zuhair, let’s go back to the scene of the crime.
Siddiq: The scene of the crime, ya habibi, I’m going to tell you about it. What I want to tell you is this: if the report is going to come out without any confusion whatsoever, it needs to have the names of nine people: four Lebanese and nine Syrians. That’s what the report should say. Nine Syrians and four Lebanese.
[4:51] Siddiq: Tell him [i.e. Lehmann] something for me. Tell him that Zuhair will not let you become a spectacle [nazra?] in front of the world, no. Tell him that I have the truth and that all of it will come out, God permitting…
More information about the Hariri Video can be found by following the this link: “LINK”
The NATO insurgency in Syria is one more link in the chain of US-backed, anti Syrian covert operations by the Hariri Family and their “Movement of the Future ” party, which have the potential for serious global consequences. Hariri, probably confident that the financing of the NATO backed insurgency in Syria also will bring about political change in Lebanon, is writing on his homepage, that his Movement of the Future Party is confident that they will succeed in toppling Lebanons government before the next elections.
The human cost of Hariri´s of NATO´s ambitions are hundreds of murdered Syrian Police and Military Officers, thousands of peaceful demonstrators who are caught up in the “agent provocateur” shootings of NATO insurgents, and not least, the very reform process that many Syrians as well as President Bashar al Assad would like to implement.
While Obama, Cameron, and colleagues are performing their political grand standing, stating that President Assad must step down, because he has lost his legitimacy, Syrian citizens fall victim to NATO war crimes. A Special Presecutor for NATO War Crimes at The Haag however is unlikely.
The Hariri involvement in the NATO insurgency in Syria is but one element in a covert war, that could develop into a conflict with global consequences. With Romania deploying NATO Anti Ballistic Missiles, ex Blackwater XE contractors and NATO special operations teams operating from Turkey and inside Syria, preparing NATO for an invasion of Syria, Iran and the Greater Middle East, with a potential of conflict with Russia, involving Pakistan and China, the world has never been as close to a global conflict as today.
Dr. Christof Lehmann
September 14th, 2011 by Global Research
MOSCOW: Russia sees no need for military troops’ presence in the Arctic region, a high-ranked official said here Wednesday.
Russia’s ambassador-at-large for Arctic issues Anton Vasiliev told a news conference ahead of the Second International Arctic Forum that Moscow sees no unresolvable problems in the region that require use of military forces.
“We have an effective international judicial base to resolve all potential problems,” Vasiliev said.
He said Moscow has not seen any practical follow-up proposals to create a “mini-NATO” comprised of circumpolar countries. The idea of a “mini-NATO” was voiced out during a summit of Northern European countries in London in January 2011.
The forum entitled “Arctic the territory of dialogue” is to start on Sept. 22 in the northern Russian city of Arkhangelsk.
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
Stop NATO website and articles:
September 14th, 2011 by Prof. Michael Chesson
The image New England residents have of the early Puritans as a stern people who dressed all in black and were ruled by intolerant and authoritarian ministers appears to be inaccurate, new historical research suggests. While historians have long known that the Puritans had a fun-loving side, the textbook image of them as stern and serious persists in the minds of many Americans.
Clothing for both sexes was every color of the rainbow and by using vegetable dyes, rather than chemicals, the shades were soft and muted. Men might have a colored hatband as a decoration in their best hats.
Dress codes existed that were linked to status but as the colonies’ population grew they became impossible to enforce. Plymouth did not have such a formal, legal dress code, but social sanctions initially worked to the same effect. Overall, colorful clothing was often seen.
Social sanctions were also effective in holding down the crime rate. There was surprisingly little crime in 17th Century New England. Legal records show the total number of felonies and serious crimes don’t add up to much given the growing size of the population in the colonies. Family members and a town’s residents were constrained by a net of social sanctions, often personal and informal, but effective and real in their impact.
The Puritans knew how to have a good time , too, and often did. Drinking in moderation was allowed and the Puritans often indulged in physical love both before marriage and outside of marriage. Some young women in Concord, Mass., got pregnant to sway parents to allow them to marry. It was much the same in early Plymouth. Babies would come 6 to 7 months after the wedding to couples like the Delanoy’s, the ancestors of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
As for the power of the church, ministers did not run for, nor could they hold political office, in the Puritan colonies of New England. Ministers usually had a great deal of influence and high social status but Puritan New England was not a theocracy and church and state were separated, unlike what the Puritans had fled from in England. Men did not have to be church members to vote in Plymouth colony, either.
Far from being subjugated, Puritan women had financial rights guaranteed by law, were protected from brutality, and, on occasion, even allowed to divorce. Divorce almost never happened but was allowed in rare cases for willful desertion or bigamy. A formal separation, but not a divorce, also was allowed for habitual, extreme cruelty, impotence by the husband, or violence or abuse so bad that the courts were unable to control or prevent it.
Women were respected and had significant rights by law. Husbands and fathers could not apprentice minor children to another household, nor buy or sell land, without the free voluntary consent of their wives. The wife would be examined separately, apart from her husband, and magistrates took pains to ensure that her consent was free and voluntary.
Women were so important that a husband might lose his liquor license for his inn or tavern when his wife died, courts ruling that he could not keep a decent establishment without a wife on the premises. By contrast, widows were frequently allowed to sell liquor, partly because they supported themselves with the profits and were less likely to become a burden on the town.
By law, a woman with the reputation of a dutiful wife and mother had to be left her widow’s thirds in her husband’s will or oral bequest. The courts broke wills that left women less than one-third of the real estate and full title to one-third of the personal property.
New views of the first New England settlers are emerging from David Hall’s new “A Reforming People: Puritanism and the Transformation of Public Life in New England”(Knopf). Hall, a distinguished scholar of colonial America at the Harvard Divinity School, rejects the grim view of life among the New England settlers in favor of a more balanced approach that sees the Puritans for what they were. Hall says the picture is wrong of Puritans as theocratic ogres—repressive, cruel and intolerant. Yet, neither were they precursors to Jacksonian democracy, much less like Americans of the early 19th century, let alone the 21st century.
Early New England residents were seeking, or trying to create, utopias, and to a considerable extent, though only for a relatively brief time in the 1640s to 1670s, they succeeded.
Historian Michael Chesson, formerly a Captain in the U.S. Navy, is Founding Professor and Dean at the American College of History and Legal Studies, Salem, N.H.
September 14th, 2011 by Felicity Arbuthnot
“Since 1990 upper estimates are of three million Iraqi deaths between sanctions, bombings and invasion, under four US Administrations. One thousand 9/11s.” Malcom Lagauche.*
I once worked for a man whose inconsistencies and delusions stretched the mind to a realm beyond confusion. Having laid down specific edicts as to aims and how they should be achieved, the following day he would yell at staff for following them – and deny all knowledge of his instructions.
One day an exasperated colleague hung a placard on the wall above his desk before he arrived. It read: “You are never alone with schizophrenia.”
Combing through Tony Blair’s statements over the years, this week of the tenth anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers, I had a feeling of deja vu.
The former Prime Minister is, however, totally consistent in one thing: his inconsistency.
On 9th September, the man under whose premiership the fantasy of Iraq being able to attack the West “within 45 minutes”, instrumental in the justification for invasion, was dreamed up – yet apparently so frightened, that he was smuggled in to the Chilcot Inquiry on Iraq, via a back door in January last year – called for regime change in Syria and Iran.
As parts of Afghanistan and Iraq still smolder, daily, since Britain’s enthusiastic endorsement of “liberation”, Blair, who qualified as a barrister, sworn to uphold the law, told The (London) Times: “Regime change in Iran would make me significantly more optimistic about the whole of the region.”
The West should be prepared to use force, he suggested, if Iran continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions. Iran has repeatedly denied having a weapons programme, with the country’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei saying they will not develop nuclear weapons, unequivocally condemning them as un-Islamic.
The IAEA Inspectors have said repeatedly that they have been allowed unfettered access to installations, without prior notice. However, as the political pressure builds, they appear slightly wobbly. It has to be hoped they are not again incorporating in their teams, those with other interests, as was the case with Iraq.
President Assad of Syria, Blair further opined, has shown he: “… is not capable of reform. His position is untenable.There is no process of change that leaves him intact.”
Yet on 13th November 2006, in a keynote speech at London’s Guildhall, the then Prime Minister announced an “evolution” in the British government’s Iraq strategy, based on greater cooperation with Syria and Iran.
The following week, he was to give evidence by video-link, to the Iraq Survey Group, headed by former US Secretary of State James Baker. Blair would urge the US Administration to open up talks with Syria and Iran, seemingly believing that he could influence Washington and change the course of the Iraq “impasse” (most would say unspeakable tragedy.) George W. Bush, he believed, was “genuinely” open to a change of strategy, after the mid-term election reverses, according to a UK government spokesman. (Guardian, 11the November 2006.) Another day, another delusion.
James Baker, incidentally, watched the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, from the Ritz Carlton Hotel, in Washington DC, where he was attending the annual Conference of the Carlyle Group, for whom he was Senior Counselor.(i) Also attending were representatives of Osama bin Laden’s family, which, with the Bush family, were amongst its major investors.(ii)
Blair’s busy media round on 9th September, included an interesting interview with the BBC’s “Today” programme’s John Humphreys, who suggested that his hand in the planning of involvement in Afghanistan and the Iraq invasion, had been: “An historic failure of judgement.” Two decimated countries, in response to: “a small group of people who committed a terrible act.”
It was instructive that Blair agreed that they: “ …might have been an isolated bunch of terrorists”, but then:”Saddam was undoubtedly a threat … the aim was regime change.” Ah, the truth finally slithered out..
Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed no threat to the West, Humphreys persued, yet: “ … we caused terrorism in Iraq, there was none before we went there.”
Blair, whether blinded by bloodlust, ignorance or denial, was adamant: “The war on terror has not led to the difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan … Iran meddling from the outside”, was the problem.
“As a result of what we did”, concluded Humphreys.
“Iran is a growing threat”, it was not to do with Saddam Hussein having gone, but to their interference in Iraq. If necessary, Blair reiterated again, “force must anyway be used to stop their nuclear programme – if they continue to produce nuclear weapons.” Threats are now: “exemplified by Iran.” Another day, another country, another unproven accusation of weapons of mass destruction.
(In context, it is worth revisiting an excerpt from Blair’s introduction to: “Assessment of the British Government” on Iraq’s weapons (24th September 2002.)
“I want to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest.” (“National interest”, eh?)
“In recent months, I have been increasingly alarmed by the evidence from inside Iraq, that despite sanctions, despite the damage done to his capability in the past, despite the UN Security Council Resolutions expressly outlawing it, and despite his denials, Saddam Hussein is continuing to develop WMD, and with them the ability to inflict real damage upon the region, and the stability of the world …
“What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.”)
However, if “God loves a trier”, Humphreys will have a special place in Heaven.The pathetic, broken, battered face of Baha Moussa, a hotel receptionist, beaten to death by British troops in Basra, who died of 93 injuries, fronted every paper that day, at the end of a three year Inquiry, driven by the tireless Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers, which concluded there had been: “serious, gratuitous” and “systematic violence” by UK forces. Humphreys tackled alleged collusion in both torture and rendition, “enabled under your watch.”
Blair knew nothing. Was more or less astonished at the question, but then, he said, one can’t know everything. Astonishing. Apart from allegations of British Army excesses, first alleged in 2003, Craig Murray, Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002-2004, wrote to Blair and Bush, outlining the horrendous practices in that country’s alliance in the “war on terror” – and was ultimately fired for the alert. (iv)
Murray’s subsequent mammoth battle with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which moved every legal mountain to stop publication of his book, (v) under Blair’s Premiership, with massive accompanying publicity, documentaries, plays, can hardly have passed Blair by.
By April 2006, 185 CIA rendition flights via Britain had been tracked by Amnesty, who demanded a government Inquiry. Airports used had been London’s Stanstead, Gatwick, and Luton, Glasgow International, Glasgow Prestwick and Edinburgh.(v)
Humphreys concluded the interview by pointing out that: “The consequence of the war on terror is damaging to the world and to all of us.”
Of course not, said the Middle East Peace Envoy, the culprit was: “ … perversion of religion … radical Islamism.” He “totally disagreed” his actions might have led to some being “radicalized.”
“When we defeat the ideology, war ends.” This may not be for another generation or more, he warns.
The introductory blurb on his Faith Foundation’s website states: “The Tony Blair Faith Foundation avoids commentary of the internal affairs of individual faith communities.”
The man who said of his relationship with Bush: “We pray together”, also notes that: “Religious faith can also be used to divide … we still see how it can be distorted to fan the flames of hatred .” Presumably enjoining a “Crusade”, and decimating only Muslim countries, does not count in flame fanning..
Allied soldiers routinely desecrating Qu’rans and Mosques and sneeringly calling victims of their invasions “hajjis”, “ragheads” and “sand niggers”, might also do a bit of fanning.
In January 2009: Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, Blair’s former Head of Policy, described the “war on terror” approach as “misleading and mistaken”.
“Historians will judge whether it has done more harm than good,” he said, adding that, in his opinion, the whole strategy had been dangerously counterproductive, helping otherwise disparate groups find common cause against the West.” Better late than never?
It seems a long time since Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, QC., on taking office as Prime Minister, assured the country he was: “A pretty straight sort of guy.”
* Author: “The Mother of all Battles: The Endless US-Iraq War.” http://www.malcomlagauche.com/
Part Two follows : Anomalies at the Chilcot Inquiry.
September 14th, 2011 by Prince Akyeampong
After what recently happened in Libya, one is apt to wonder what democracy really stands for. If democracy is the keyword used to justify the destruction of human lives and property, then God help us all!
Yes, the NATO-aided NTC rebels have apparently managed to do away with Muammar Gaddafi, and Ghana, among other African countries has, after a little hesitation, decided to do obeisance to the western powers by recognizing these anti-Gaddafi miscreants. The question now remains: does a post-Gaddafi Libya hope to become a land of milk and honey? Believe me, that would be a very tall order because actually, whether you like Gaddafi or not, Libya, by all appreciable standards, had the highest standard of living in Africa, under Gaddafi. If western-style democracy was a yardstick for determining developmental success, Ghana, Nigeria and other countries in Africa would not be in their present predicaments. Let’s take a look at some of the comforts and benefits Libyans enjoyed under Gaddafi and draw our own conclusions.
When Gaddafi took over, Libyans had an average annual income of about $60. His government brought Libya from poverty and debt to prosperity and debt-free status education from the kindergarten stage through college was free. Health care was free as well. Under Gaddafi’s oil-revenue-sharing program, each Libyan had $500 (five hundred US dollars) deposited into his or her bank account each month. After marriage, each couple was given as much as $60,000 (sixty thousand US dollars) to spend. Libya gave free land and seeds to anyone who wanted to take up farming as an occupation.
Water and electricity were free in Libya. Petrol/fuel was sold at 75 cents a gallon under Gaddafi. There was virtually no homelessness as everyone was given a home. Undernourishment in Libya under Gaddafi was as low as 2% – a figure lower than that of the world center of “democracy,” the USA. For any medical care or health treatments that were unavailable in Libya, the Libyan citizen’s full expenses for travel, treatment and accommodation to wherever was required for treatment were borne by the Libyan government. Before Gaddafi, literacy in Libya was only 10%. Under Gaddafi’s leadership, literacy has risen to over 80%. Unlike some Arab states, women in Libya under Gaddafi had equal rights; not only as a philosophy, but in practice.
Libyans had a direct participatory democracy based on people’s conferences. The Gaddafi regime invested billions to bring fresh water from southern Libya’s desert to coastal areas like Tripoli and Benghazi. This man-made river is a worldwide acclaimed achievement that stands as a testimony to Gaddafi’s huge contribution to the economic development of Libya. Folks, note that this project which cost Libya about $35 billion (US dollars) was exclusively financed by Libya’s Central Bank without borrowing a cent from abroad.
So, if these eye-popping achievements are not enough, then what exactly is the NATO agenda? What are they bringing to Libya that is better than what Gaddafi achieved? I sympathize with Libyans – and why not? In the name of western-style “democracy,” a hitherto affluent African nation has decided to take a dangerous u-turn and thus join the large group of third world countries in Africa.
The western propaganda machine is so deadly that they pick and choose what to report to the outside world with regards to the situation in Libya. Whatever event goes against their interests and machinations is not reported. How can NATO bomb roads, ports, buildings and oil fields’ equipment and yet claim to be assisting in a just cause? It’s about democracy, they contend; and some of us have ignorantly bought into that nonsense! If this maze of confusion and corruption in Ghana is what democracy is about, I’d rather take a Gaddafi-type system any day. Ultimately, life is about the search for the best means of achieving improved and quality lifestyles. Did Gaddafi fail Libyans in that regard?
For NATO, it’s been a job “well executed.” They have managed once again to bring a strong and thriving economy to its knees. Even as these ignorant rebels chant and wave flags, they are yet to come to grips with reality; they do not realize that they are now in the full clutches of the west – they have now become YES-MEN; and would listen to and obey their NATO masters. As Ghanaians and Africans, we must honestly ask ourselves whether our so-called leaders have what it takes to stand up to the west when it comes to issues that are not in our interest. The usual “Uncle Tom” attitude exhibited by our leaders does not bode well for the African continent. What is the essence of the AU if our leaders cannot take an emphatic stand and come to the aid of one of their own in times of need? A bunch of “Uncle Toms,” that’s what they are!
Ghanaian and African leaders had better wake up and get their act together! If the Libyan situation has not served as an eye-opener to our recalcitrant and NATO-serving leaders, I don’t know what will. God bless mother Ghana!
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
Stop NATO website and articles:
September 14th, 2011 by Peter Phillips
911’s Footprint on America ten years later – September 11, 2011 at 4:00pm
KPFA – hour two of debate – moderator Mickey Huff on The Science around the Twin Towers collapse.
Browse other online episodes of this show
More information about this show
911’s Footprint on America ten years later – September 11, 2011 at 3:00pm
KPFA – hour one of debate – moderator Peter Phillips 911 Commission Report
Browse other online episodes of this show
More information about this show
September 13th, 2011 by Manlio Dinucci
«Gli Stati uniti si sono defilati, non bombardano più, hanno addirittura ritirato i loro mezzi più potenti», scriveva Vittorio Feltri in aprile a proposito della guerra di Libia. Convinzione diffusasi anche nella sinistra e tra i pacifisti: quella che Obama fosse stato trascinato nella guerra contro la propria volontà (non a caso è Premio Nobel per la pace), ma se ne fosse rapidamente tirato fuori, lasciando la guida dell’operazione ai bellicosi Sarkozy e Cameron. Tutto sbagliato. «Sono gli Stati uniti che hanno diretto questa operazione», chiarisce ora l’ambasciatore Ivo Daalder, rappresentante Usa presso la Na-to. Esplicita quindi ciò che già avrebbe dovuto essere chiaro: il fatto che la direzione è passata, il 27 marzo, dal Comando Africa degli Stati uniti alla Nato comandata dagli Stati uniti. Sono loro, sottolinea Daalder, che hanno diretto l’iniziativa per ottenere dal Consiglio di sicurezza il mandato e far decidere la Nato a eseguirlo. Un vero e proprio record: perché la Nato si decidesse a intervenire in Bosnia, egli ricorda, ci vollero tre anni e un anno per intervenire in Kosovo, mentre per decidere l’intervento in Libia ci sono voluti appena dieci giorni. Sono sempre gli Stati uniti che hanno diretto la piani-ficazione ed esecuzione dell’operazione militare. Sono loro che all’inizio hanno neutralizzato la difesa aerea libica e continuato a sopprimere le difese per tutto il corso del conflitto impiegando Predator armati. Sono loro che hanno fornito il grosso dell’intelligence, permettendo di individuare gli obiettivi da colpire, e hanno rifornito in volo i cacciabombardieri alleati. Ciascuno di questi elementi, sottolinea Daalder, è stato decisivo per il successo dell’operazione, con la quale la Nato ha distrutto oltre 5mila obiettivi senza subire alcuna perdita. Dall’operazione aerea in Kosovo, ricorda, abbiamo imparato quanto sia importante avere munizioni a guida di precisione per provocare il massimo danno minimizzando gli effetti collaterali, e che tutti i paesi le posseggano. Diplomaticamente l’ambasciatore non dice che sono stati gli Usa a fornirle in gran parte agli alleati, i quali dopo 11 settimane avevano quasi esaurito le loro bombe, come hanno dichiarato il portavoce del Pentagono Dave Lapan e il segretario alla difesa Robert Gates. Né dice quanto minimizzati siano stati gli effetti collaterali degli oltre 8mila attacchi aerei, in cui si stima siano state sganciate oltre 30mila bombe. Gli Stati uniti, tiene a far sapere Daalder, hanno effettuato più raid aerei di qualsiasi altro paese, il 26% dei circa 22mila. Francia e Gran Bretagna, insieme, ne hanno effettuato un terzo e attaccato il 40% degli obiettivi. Un «lavoro straordinario», riconosce il rappresente Usa presso la Nato, ma mette in chiaro che esso è stato reso possibile dal fatto che «gli Stati uniti hanno diretto questa operazione in modo tale che altri potessero seguire e contribuirvi». Loda quindi gli altri alleati, anche non appartenenti alla Nato: Giordania, Qatar, Emirati arabi uniti. Nessuna parola invece sull’Italia, che invece ha fatto tanto, mettendo a disposizione basi e forze aeronavali. Qui ne va dell’orgoglio nazionale dell’Italia. Che il presidente Napolitano scriva subito al presidente Obama, perché riconosca che c’è anche l’Italia sotto comando Usa.
September 13th, 2011 by Manlio Dinucci
Al termine del G8 di Marsiglia, la neodirettrice del Fmi, la francese Christine Lagarde, ha fatto un solenne annuncio: «Il Fondo monetario internazionale riconosce il consiglio di transizione quale governo della Libia ed è pronto, inviando appena possibile il proprio staff sul campo, a fornirgli assistenza tecnica, consiglio politico e sostegno finanziario per ricostruire l’economia e iniziare le riforme».
Nessun dubbio, in base alla consolidata esperienza del Fmi, che le riforme significheranno spalancare le porte alle multinazionali, privatizzare le proprietà pubbliche e indebitare l’economia. A iniziare dal settore petrolifero, in cui l’Fmi aiuterà il nuovo governo a «ripristinare la produzione per generare reddito e ristabilire un sistema di pagamenti». Le riserve petrolifere libiche – le maggiori dell’Africa, preziose per l’alta qualità e il basso costo di estrazione – e quelle di gas naturale sono già al centro di un’aspra competizione tra gli «amici della Libia» L’Eni ha firmato il 29 agosto un me-morandum con il Cnt di Bengasi, al fine di restare il primo operatore internazionale di idrocarburi in Libia. Ma il suo primato è insidiato dalla Francia: il Cnt si è impegnato il 3 aprile a concederle il 35% del petrolio libico. E in gara ci sono anche Stati uniti, Gran Bretagna, Germania e altri. Le loro multinazionali otterranno le licenze di sfruttamento a condi-zioni molto più favorevoli di quelle finora praticate, che lasciavano fino al 90% del greggio estratto alla compagnia statale libica. E non è escluso che anche questa finisca nelle loro mani, attraverso una privatizzazione imposta dal Fmi.
Oltre che all’oro nero le multinazionali europee e statunitensi mirano all’oro bianco libico: l’immensa riserva di acqua fossile della falda nubiana (stimata in 150mila km3), che si estende sotto Libia, Egitto, Sudan e Ciad. Quali possibilità di sviluppo essa offra lo ha dimostrato la Libia, che ha costruito una rete di acquedotti lunga 4mila km (costata 25 miliardi di dollari) per trasportare l’acqua, estratta in profondità da 1.300 pozzi nel deserto, fino alle città costiere (Bengasi è stata tra le prime) e all’oasi al Khufrah, rendendo fertili terre desertiche. Non a caso, in luglio, la Nato ha colpito l’acquedotto e distrutto la fabbrica presso Brega che produceva i tubi necessari alle riparazioni. Su queste riserve idriche, in prospettiva più preziose di quelle petrolifere, vogliono mettere le mani – attraverso le privatizzazioni promosse dal Fmi¬ – le multinazionali dell’acqua, soprattutto quelle francesi (Suez, Veolia e altre) che controllano quasi la metà del mercato mondiale dell’acqua privatizzata. A riparare l’acquedotto e altre infrastrutture ci penseranno le multinazionali statunitensi, come la Kellogg Brown & Root, specializzate a ricostruire ciò che le bombe Usa/Nato distruggono: in Iraq e Afghanistan hanno ricevuto in due anni contratti per circa 10 miliardi di dollari.
A rifornire le nuove forze armate libiche di armamenti, dopo che la Nato ha distrutto la maggior parte di quelli esistenti, ci penseranno soprattutto le industrie belliche statunitensi, bri-tanniche, francesi e italiane. Gli affari vanno a gonfie vele: le esportazioni britanniche di armi in Nordafrica e Medioriente sono aumentate del 30% nei primi mesi dell’anno, data l’accresciuta domanda da parte di regimi come quelli del Bahrain e dell’Arabia saudita impegnati a reprimere i movimenti popolari.
L’intera «ricostruzione», sotto la regia del Fmi, sarà pagata con i fondi sovrani libici (circa 70 miliardi di dollari più altri investimenti esteri per un totale di 150), una volta «scongelati», e con i nuovi ricavati dall’export petrolifero (circa 30 miliardi annui prima della guerra). Verranno gestiti dalla nuova «Central Bank of Libya», che con l’aiuto del Fmi sarà trasformata in una filiale della Hsbc (Londra), della Goldman Sachs (New York) e di altre banche multinazionali di investimento. Esse potranno in tal modo penetrare ancor più in Africa, dove tali fondi sono investiti in oltre 25 paesi, e minare gli organismi finanziari indipendenti dell’Unione africana – la Banca centrale, la Banca di investimento e il Fondo monetario – nati soprattutto grazie agli investimenti libici. La «sana gestione finanziaria pubblica», che l’Fmi si impegna a realizzare, sarà garantita dal nuovo ministro delle finanze e del petrolio Ali Tarhouni, già docente della Business School dell’Università di Washington, di fatto nominato dalla Casa bianca.
September 13th, 2011 by Tony Cartalucci
Desperate to declare NATO’s mission in Libya a victory ahead of the September 19, 2011 deadline on their contrived UN Security Council resolution, already violated in every conceivable manner possible, NATO planes in tandem with NATO special forces obliterated Tripoli ahead of swarms of Libyan rebel troops led by notorious Al Qaeda thug Abdulhakim Hasadi (aka Balhaj.) Three weeks later, NATO’s proxy Libyan representative, long-time globalist and servant of the West Mahmoud Gibril Elwarfally, touched down at Tripoli’s airport, one of the few enclaves held by rebels in the city, to give the impression that his “National Transitional Council” (NTC) actually controls the capital and therefore the country.
In reality, Gibril (also spelled Jabril) is in control of nothing, apparently not even his own rebel forces, and stunts such as landing in Tripoli are desperate ploys to portray a sense of strength and resolve to garner continued “international support” as NATO’s deadline quickly approaches. Libya’s rebellion, despite the corporate-media’s disingenuous presentation, is divided along tribal and ethnic lines, with most of Libya’s rebels being motivated, not by aspirations for liberal-democracy, but rather by ideological extremism cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi. As NATO enables these violent ideologues to expand their control over the country, they are systematically committing war crimes including large-scale theft and looting, exiling entire civilian populations from cities, and wholesale genocide. They are also reportedly turning their weapons on one another.
To compound Gibril’s precarious situation, the few fighters he has that are following orders are stretched thin between attempting to hold parts of Tripoli, holding other towns and cities beyond their Benghazi stronghold, and attempting to siege entire cities still standing defiantly against NATO and rebel conquest. The cities of Bani Walid and Sirte, both claimed by rebels as ripe to fall “within hours” have now entirely balked rebel advances, causing many forces to flee with reports that fighters coming back from the front lines are overwhelmed and demoralized.
Despite heavy, and quite obviously indiscriminate bombing by NATO for the better part of two weeks, resistance in these two cities is still fierce enough to keep the rebels well at bay. It is quite apparent that initial reports by Gabril’s “NTC” that only 60-150 Qaddafi fighters remained in Bani Walid, were yet another lie and that the entire city’s civilian population is putting up resistance. The number of “resisters” has gone up piecemeal as the rebel operation drags on, with the number of “Qaddafi soldiers” fighting in Bani Walid well past 1,000 now.
Bani Walid is predominately made of members of Libya’s one-million strong Warfalla tribe, and is decidedly not interested in NATO’s sponsored “Benghazi liberation.” In the wake of NATO’s bombing campaign and special forces entering Tripoli and their setting the stage for looting, torture, and genocide, and after months of reporting on the Libyan rebels’ penchant for war crimes, the London Telegraph has finally admitted in short that the rebels are in fact genocidal racists. In the Telegraph’s article “Gaddafi’s ghost town after the loyalists retreat,” it is reported that rebels have taken the city of Tawarga, where the entire civilian population was either killed, rounded up, or exiled.
The article notes “racist undercurrents” within the Libyan rebellion, a factor independent analysts have been warning about since NATO intervened in March. The report also quotes rebel leaders as saying in regards to the vast amount of property left behind by the exiled population, “the military council will decide what will happen to the buildings. But over our dead bodies will the Tawargas return.” Another rebel commender concluded, “Tawarga no longer exists.” Of course, exiling an entire civilian population from their homes and arbitrarily seizing their property is a grievous war crime, and in this particular case, a war crime done under NATO cover, with US and British diplomatic recognition of the war criminals remaining steadfast, and even many of the arms and the training used to carry out such war crimes courtesy of NATO.
With the fate of Tawarga befalling an increasingly larger number of cities and towns amidst NATO’s campaign of “liberation,” increasingly fierce resistance throughout Libya, including by the entire populations of both Sirte and Bani Walid, is not unexpected. They indeed face NATO sanctioned door-to-door genocide, exile, theft, looting, torture, and in essence everything in reality that NATO falsely accused Qaddafi of doing to justify their military intervention in the first place.
Libya is turning out to be a NATO-led Hitlerian campaign of conquest, complete with collective punishment and ground troops carrying out appalling atrocities. The rebels are literally led by a US State Department and UK Home Office listed terror organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), who’s commander Abdulhakim Hasadi has openly admitted to fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan. What’s worse is that these facts are not revelations, but well-known inconvenient truths NATO, with the help of the corporate-media, has tried to bury, spin, or otherwise obfuscate until the point of no return in their Libyan intervention had been reached.
As NATO races to dress up their failed operation in Libya as a success so that they can escape an upcoming September 19 vote on continuing the UN mandate under which this crime against humanity is being committed, the lies will become more acute and the atrocities infinitely more brutal and widespread. Now more than ever do Libyan’s require a robust alternative media to cover the truth, “read between the lies” of the corporate-news networks, and ensure that this nation of 7 million is not buried by NATO in deception or the stark silence of public apathy.
September 13th, 2011 by Tom Burghardt
Secret Diplomatic Cables Reveal Microsoft’s ‘Win-Win’ Deal with Tunisian Police State
Following revelations by Bloomberg Markets Magazine that a unit of German electronics giant Siemens, Trovicor, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Perusa Partners Fund 1 LP, an investment firm headquartered in Guernsey, had sold surveillance gear to Bahrain deployed against the pro-democracy movement, it has since emerged that Microsoft established an IT training program for Ministry of Justice and Interior officials in Tunisia.
A secret State Department cable published by the whistleblowing web site WikiLeaks, 06TUNIS2424, “Microsoft Inks Agreement with GOT,” 22 September 2006, noted that “during the Microsoft Government Leaders Forum in South Africa July 11-12, the GOT and the Microsoft Corporation signed a partnership agreement that provides for Microsoft investment in training, research, and development, but also commits the GOT to using licensed Microsoft software.”
The export of high-tech products, included software suites employed for spying on political dissidents, are said to be closely regulated under U.S. law to prevent abuse by repressive governments.
However, as Amnesty International disclosed nearly a decade ago, “There are almost no legal or regulatory requirements amongst the G8 states for the inclusion of international human rights or humanitarian law content in the various military, security, and police force training services that they provide to states in all world regions.”
According to investigators, “Even where human rights criteria are referred to in laws governing arms export and foreign military and security aid, they are often loosely interpreted.”
“Instead,” analysts averred, “it is short term profit making and political advantage that guide the bulk of the international arms trade,” and as noted above in the Bahraini example, the transfer of dual-use surveillance kit figured prominently in the suppression of of pro-democracy protests. (emphasis added)
Not much has changed since 2003 when that report was issued. Indeed, sweetheart deals which hand over source code in exclusive arrangements with human rights abusers are the norm, not the exception, especially where it concerns America’s “War on Terror” allies.
To read the complete article, click here
September 13th, 2011 by Michael Hudson
September 13th, 2011 by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach
The streets of Tel Aviv are overflowing with demonstrators, who are waving the Palestinian flag, its insignia dominating a blurred sea of other flags, including some with the star of David. At the culmination of months of mass protests here as well as in other Israeli cities and across the Gaza Strip and the formerly occupied West Bank, Israelis, both Arab and Jewish, join hands with Palestinian refugees released from the camps, to celebrate the birth of new Palestine.
All inhabitants of historic Palestine are preparing for a popular referendum, in which they will cast their votes either for a single state guaranteeing equal rights of citizenship to all, regardless of religion or ethnic background, or two separate and equal states. A provisional government, composed of leading peace activists, human rights organizers and Palestinian political figures including the freed Marwan Barghouti, has assumed responsibility for organizing the referendum, while a commission of legal experts has begun studying the parameters of a Constitution — either for the one-state solution or the new Palestinian state – a Constitution which is something the state of Israel never had. The martial law which had been in force off and on since 1948 has been lifted, and the check-points and other barriers which had chopped up the land into Bantustans are being removed. The first bulldozers have started smashing the hated wall, the border to Gaza has been opened on both sides, to Egypt and to the rest of Palestine. A Truth Commission is being constituted, on the model of the South African experience, to lay the basis for reconciliation between Israelis and Arabs. The Commission has two departments, one which will examine all records pertaining to the expulsion of the Palestinians in the Nakba, and the second which will review violations of human rights from that time to the present.
Former leaders of the ancient regime have left the country, many, like former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, returning to their native land, the United States. Others, like Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak, Avigdor Lieberman, and Shimon Peres, have gone underground, i.e. made off to safer havens, to avoid being slapped with international arrest warrants. Numerous Israeli ambassadors abroad have tendered their resignations, also in pursuit of political refuge somewhere, somehow.
How It Happened
It all began with the Arab rebellion which swept North Africa beginning in December 2010 in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and beyond.
From the onset, it was the issue of social justice which sparked the upheavals. Mohammad Bouazizi’s self-immolation in Tunisia was an act of protest against the social and economic injustice he and his family had been subjected to. Following the ungracious flight of dictator Bin Ali and his hated wife Leila Trabelsi to Saudi Arabia, the spark of revolution passed like the Olympic torch to Egypt. Over one million Egyptians demonstrating in Tahrir Square and throughout the country forced Hosni Mubarak out, and later brought him before a court of law to answer for the deaths of over 800 demonstrators. In Yemen, strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh resisted the pressure of the street as well as generous mediation bids from the GCC until finally forced, by ailing health and political pressure, to bow out. Muammar Qaddafi’s ruthless repression of civilians provided the pretext for a UN resolution of dubious legality, which in turn was exploited to launch a NATO war against the country. Only after months of prolonged bloodletting and massive destruction of Tripoli through aerial bombardments was a compromise struck, allowing the Libyan leader an exit. In Syria, the Assad regime struck out with utmost brutality against its people, killing above 2,000, and resisted all attempts from abroad to mediate, until a pragmatic faction inside the Alawite minority, exploiting the isolation that an EU oil embargo had imposed on Syria, moved against the Assad clan, and deposed it, thus creating the conditions for a transition to some form of representative government.
And the wave of Arab rebellion did not stop there. Demonstrators in Bahrain staged unprecedented protests. Miscast in the international media as a purely sectarian challenge mounted by the repressed Shi’ite majority against the Sunni ruling minority, they called for wide-ranging economic, political, and social reforms. Some opposition forces pursued a constitutional monarchy, others called for the abolition of the monarchy tout court. The politically and militarily outnumbered Bahraini royal family had to call in reinforcements from neighboring Gulf Cooperation Council states which arrived on March 14. In a grotesque parody of “Arab unity,” soldiers from Saudi Arabia and the UAE moved in to protect strategic sites, freeing up Bahraini police to confront demonstrators. The Saudi dynasty preempted social upheaval at home by announcing it would dish out $100 billion to raise living standards.
Oman and Kuwait were not immune to the radical protest wave, nor were the United Arab Emirates. In the cases of the Gulf sheikhdoms, it was representatives of disenfranchised ethnic and religious communities demanding an end to discrimination and adequate political representation in new state institutions which should replace the archaic, oligarchical structures through which the oil-rich sheikhs had governed their fiefdoms, in total disregard for the most basic human rights. Given the immense economic assets at stake in the several small but immensely rich oil emirates and sheikhdoms, there was no hesitation on the part of their Western allies and oil consumers to come to their aid. But the social, psychological, and political dynamic that had been unleashed would not surrender to traditional measures of repression. Civil war conditions threatened many of the sheikhdoms, leading to forced changes in the political status quo: profound reforms redefined some of the absolute monarchies into constitutional entities along the Spanish or Scandinavian models. Although far from perfect, the changes forced through by the power of the street succeeded in replacing some of the antiquated medieval aristocratic structures with half way decent pseudo-democracies, where the people could begin to think of themselves no longer as subjects but as citizens.
The younger and more modern-thinking monarchs in Jordan and Morocco succeeded in staving off open social conflict by introducing reforms which reduced the power of the monarchy and gradually expanded the prerogatives of parliament. Though far from constituting fundamental political change, the cosmetic measures helped maintain social control.
Panic in Tel Aviv
It was in Israel that the most panicked responses to the Arab Spring emerged. The Israeli establishment was caught utterly off guard by the Egyptian revolution. The formidable intelligence agencies, starting with Mossad, had failed to foresee the revolutionary upsurge, not because they were ignorant of developing opposition trends over the past ten years, but because of their ideological belief that Egyptians (they are only Arabs after all) would never, could never mount a credible challenge to Mubarak’s rule. Buttressing their prejudices was their political commitment to the Mubarak regime which had provided Israel with a reliable Arab partner in the fight against the Palestinian cause, be it through political pressures on Fatah or outright repressive measures against Hamas. According to Wikileaks, Mubarak not only passively tolerated Israel’s 2008 war against Gaza, but solicited it.
Now Mubarak, the pillar of stability for Israel in the Arab world, had been toppled. And it did not end there. Israel feared that if Egypt backed out of its 1978-79 Camp David peace agreement, Jordan could follow suit, abrogating its 1994 peace deal with Israel. And this was not paranoia. As the Egyptian revolution prevailed and protestors in Libya challenged the rule of Muammar Qaddafi, demonstrators filled the streets of Amman demanding a new government and the introduction of real reforms, beyond the token changes that King Abdallah II had proposed.
The Israeli elite was thunderstruck. Initial statements issuing from the government echoed those of the dethroned Arabs, conjuring up the image of extremist Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalists poised to seize power. Otherwise Tel Aviv pleaded for clemency: that the new Egyptian government, whatever it might be, please not break previous treaties with Israel, and above all, not enter into an adversary relationship. The prompt statements by a rational and mature leadership in the Egyptian High Military Council from Cairo, assuring that all international obligations would be respected, provided relief to nervous politicos in Tel Aviv. And assurances that natural gas deliveries, that had been temporarily suspended, would be resumed, also allayed fears in Israel. But then in February, for the first time in 30 years, Egypt allowed Iran to send two naval ships through the Suez Canal, a move that ignited paranoid fears in Tel Aviv that the new regime in Cairo might ally with Israel’s arch-enemy Iran. More generally, Israelis were terrified that the Egyptians might abandon Mubarak’s commitment to the unwritten clauses in Camp David regarding security in Gaza. Above all, they feared the new Egyptian leadership would place relations with the Fatah faction and Hamas on an equal footing, and open the border to Gaza. Israeli leaders feared that, were they to launch a new war against the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank, Egypt this time would not sit back on the sidelines and watch.
The Revolt Comes to Israel-Palestine
While Israeli politicians were biting their nails over such terrible eventualities, none of them entertained the possibility that such a development as was sweeping the Arab world might also engulf Israel. Just as the reputedly all-knowing Israeli intelligence service Mossad had been taken utterly by surprise by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, so too had they underestimated or ignored the growing signs of a similar process brewing in Israel/Palestine itself.
In all the thousands of press commentaries about the Arab revolution, there were precious few journalists who even contemplated the possibility that the process might sweep Palestine. This derives from the unspoken assumption among not only press but also ordinary citizens in the region, that Israel is Israel, i.e. a Jewish state, and therefore, anything that called itself an Arab revolution would have no place here. But, in point of fact, Israel/Palestine is Arab…
The first significant move towards the revolution in Israel-Palestine came when representatives of Palestinian youth from Gaza and the West Bank met in Cairo on March 3, with the intention of urging leaders of Fatah and Hamas to overcome their hostilities and, in the interest of organizing Palestinians for the establishment of a sovereign state, join ranks. Following the Cairo meetings, Palestinian youth organized a demonstration of 1,000 for unity on February 24 in Ramallah, all sporting the Palestinian flag. On March 15, their counterparts in Gaza mounted a similar protest, demanding that Fatah and Hamas leaders to rise above their petty differences and map out a serious strategy for Palestinian statehood. Estimated tens of thousands marched through the strip with signs saying “End the Split.”
In April, Hamas leader Haniya issued an invitation to Abbas to visit Gaza for talks. In their discussions, the Hamas and Fatah leaders read the writing on the wall: either they would overcome political differences and forge a united Palestinian front for statehood, or they, as Hamas in Gaza and Fatah on the West Bank, would be challenged by Palestinian masses, and, like Bin Ali, Mubarak, Saleh, etc., would be forced to relinquish power. In fact, after the fall of Mubarak, there had been many smaller demos on the West Bank, sporting slogans like, “Mubarak today, Abbas tomorrow.” In Gaza, a poll in mid-March showed that 2/3 of those asked supported demonstrations for regime change.
The Palestinian demonstrations on the West Bank and in Gaza were crucial in waking up the split Palestinian leadership to the fact that, in the current revolutionary juncture, it could not afford to sit back and wait it out. By the end of April they had struck an accord comprising 5 points which included an interim unity government, elections within a year, combining security forces, and freeing prisoners. Abbas appeared to take the bull by the horns on July 18 when he announced that he would present the bid for Palestinian statehood to the UN Security Council, and, in the likely event of a US veto, transfer the matter to the General Assembly. The plan was to unleash “Palestine 194” demonstrations calling for it to become the 194th state beginning at the time of the UNGA meeting. And in fact, promptly on September 20 demonstrations broke out throughout the Occupied Territories – and also inside Israel.
The Israeli protest movement, which had started in July, began as a movement for affordable housing, better living conditions, — in sum, “social justice” – and its leaders explicitly avoided linking that process to political support for Palestinian statehood. Many among the Israeli youth had feared that broadening the protest to embrace Palestinian statehood, would alienate more conservative participants. But they had to awaken to the fact that any call for “social justice” would be a mockery if the issue of Palestine were not included. As the demos grew, and tent cities populated the entire country, growing numbers of Arab Israelis joined. The calls for social justice had given way to demand for regime change in Israel at the end of July, as protestors sported posters saying, “Bibi go home” and “Leave!” (in Arabic) — all directed at Benjamin Netanyahu. On July 30 well over a dozen cities mobilized, including Nazareth, where Jews and Arabs marched together. In early August a quarter of a million turned out. Despite the “security crisis” orchestrated by the Netanyahu government following the August 18 killing of 8 Israelis near Eilat and Israel’s retaliatory bombings of Gaza, the Israeli protests did not cease. In mid-August thousands marched in Tel Aviv to protest the high cost of living. Significantly, here too, Jewish-Arab solidarity was a theme: “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies,” chanted the marchers. No amount of promises from Netanyahu that his “commission” would review the social issues could stem the protests, and they expanded culminating on September 3 in demonstrations that brought nearly a half a million into the streets. In a country of 7.7 million this represented a whopping majority. These were the largest demonstrations ever held in Israel. Demonstrators spoke of the event as a “second day of independence.”
By the time the issue of Palestinian statehood came before the UNGA, the two processes had become one. The Israelis’ protest against cuts in housing, health, and other social infrastructure were indirect attacks against Netanyahu’s settlement expansionist policy. The rightwing extremist settlers were enjoying subsidies and modern housing facilities, while students in Tel Aviv could not find places to live. Meanwhile the government was continuing to authorize new housing on Palestinian land including in East Jerusalem. The two issues could no longer be kept apart. As planned by the Palestinian leadership, demonstrations in favor of the UN vote started on September 20 throughout the West Bank and Gaza, and dovetailed with the continuing protest demonstrations in Israel.
So, although the Security Council vote was as expected sabotaged by a U.S. veto – a gesture which was to strip President Obama of his last shreds of credibility — the UNGA delivered a whopping majority vote for Palestinian statehood. Meanwhile, the demonstrators in Israel-Palestine were establishing facts on the ground. It was the “diplomatic tsunami” which Barak had feared. On March 13 he had warned that as the September 20 date approached, “we stand to face a diplomatic tsunami that the majority of the public is unaware of,” referring to the “international movement that may recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.” Barak had joined other Israeli leaders and their American counterparts in a major diplomatic campaign to arm-twist UN members not to vote for a Palestinian state, but to no avail. The U.S. had gone so far as to issue a diplomatic demarche in late August to over 70 countries, demanding that they oppose the Palestinian bid for statehood, on grounds that it would destabilize the region and hinder progress in the (long since defunct) “peace process.”
The Israeli establishment was helpless in the face of such a phenomenon. It was not the UN vote per se that made the difference – since its value was largely symbolic, though morally powerful – but the convergence of the social upheaval inside Israel and the Palestinian demos throughout the Occupied Territories. The IDF might have no qualms about opening fire on Palestinians as in the past, but could not do the same to Israeli citizens. Even facing a Palestinian revolt as a thing in itself would have presented problems. Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told a Knesset committee in early August that “there is potential for confrontation in September,” adding that the military would not allow demonstrators to move towards settlements. And Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry’s Political Department had admitted, “We’re not good at dealing with Gandhi.”
Now what they faced was more than that: a general uprising of Israeli citizens alongside Palestinians, demanding justice for all.
Israeli Myths and Press Blindness
The revolution in Israel-Palestine caught many analysts and journalists by surprise, largely because they had ignored the social, political, and economic reality of the country, while swallowing the prevailing assumptions about living conditions in Israel. They had overlooked the common characteristics between life in Israel and life in those Arab nations being rocked by revolt. One such mistaken assumption held as universal had been that Israel was a democracy, indeed the only democracy in the region. The comments by the prime minister’s spokesman Mark Regev after the massive July 30 protests were laughable: he said he didn’t think the protestors were “calling for democratic reforms, because they know we live in a democratic society.” What democratic society? Few had raised the question: how can you have a democracy when you have no Constitution? It surely takes more than periodic elections, conducted among a collection of parties which may have superficial differences but all accept the status quo. Another question not raised earlier was: how can you have a democracy when martial law is in effect?
Not a democracy, but an oligarchy, ruled Israel, as the protestors gradually came to realize. Examining the structure of economic and financial power in the country, they denounced the existence of a small elite, of about ten powerful families, who controlled the wealth of the nation.
Another social factor that Israel had in common with the Arab dictatorships was the existence of an ageing and corrupt ruling elite. Although not represented by one dynasty, the Israeli elite presented a collective dynasty led by figures like Shimon Peres and Ariel Sharon (though incapacitated), who had been in power for decades. And corruption had been rife: whether sex scandals like those that hit former President Katsav, who was jailed for rape, or financial corruption as in the case of Ehud Olmert or President Ezer Weizman, not to mention the dirty dealings of Ariel Sharon and his sons, the Israeli elite had not differed much from its counterparts in Egypt or Tunisia. Not to mention continuing accusations of abuse meted out by Netanyahu’s wife Sara against domestic servants.
Thus, the revolution in Israel-Palestine should have surprised no one. It was only ideological blinders that prevented world public opinion from seeing what was developing in Israel-Palestine, as part of the process of the Arab Spring.
Fantasy or Reality?
I have long argued the case that, for there to be any progress in Arab-Israeli relations, a fundamental crisis must erupt in Israel, a crisis of moral, political, and existential dimensions, which forces the elite and the general population to rethink all their basic assumptions, – about how Israel came into being, what its relationship to the Palestinian people has been since 1948, what its raison d’etre should be as a nation if it is to have any legitimacy. That crisis is now at hand, and it should be welcomed as a most healthy phenomenon – no matter what ultimately emerges from it.
September 13th, 2011 by Charlie Skelton
On the day of September 11, Charlie Skelton attends a symposium of critical thinkers in New York
The heavy syllables of the victims’ names boomed out along the streets around Ground Zero. The public were patted down, then allowed up a cramped side road to peer at a distant video screen of the memorial. They filmed the video screen on their mobile phones, filmed each other filming, and film crews filmed them filming.
It was hardly fertile ground for grief, you’d think. And yet, the weird detachment of the moment was severed by the chanting of the names and the brief tributes of the readers. It was the daughter who said her father’s friends tell her that she reminds them of him that did it for me. That, and the list of victims called Jones. Jones after Jones after Jones. Too many Joneses. I took my sniffles back up the street to Starbucks.
And from Starbucks, I went down the rabbit hole. I found myself at a conference on Walker Street called ‘How The World Changed After 9/11′. It was packed, but I managed to slide in at the back, to hear a guy called Webster Tarpley chant his own list of names. The names of the 46 military exercises and hijack drills (called things like ‘Vigilant Guardian’) that were actually taking place on the morning of September 11. “The greatest density of drills in US military history,” Tarpley said.
Fake radar blips, dummy hijacks, dummy attacks, fighter jets sent off to Turkey, the skies left unprotected, with the FBI’s top anti-terror experts stuck on a training exercise in California. The drills, said Tarpley, were important, because not only did they weaken and confuse US air defence, but there was also a military drill for each major component of the 9/11 attacks. The drills were cover, and the dummy threats were made real.
September 11, he argues, was a coup carried out by a rogue network within the US military and government. A cabal of fascists, working with (and for) a banking oligarchy, “the old boys of Wall Street”.
“You want to blame Saudi Arabia, or Israel, or Pakistan? You can’t. There isn’t the evidence.” The evidence, Tarpley says, points towards 9/11 as a false flag attack, carried out by a high level clique, that forced a shocked and awestruck US public into a vast and still ongoing war. It was America’s very own Reichstag fire. And the official version of the event? “A racist, militaristic, and fascist myth that we must reject.”
What I heard, from speaker after speaker, was a heartfelt desire to turn away from the path of destruction, militarism and lies that America has been set upon after 9/11. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, mourned for Iraq: “One million dead, 4m displaced, and that’s a victory?” He sees the failure of Americans to comprehend the scale of the destruction wrought under their flag as nothing less than racist. “In America, we are very good at segregating our tears. Racism is our original sin.”
McGovern quoted from Martin Luther King’s letter from Birmingham jail: “Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up, but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.” And 9/11, for McGovern, is a “big boil” that needs lancing.
He drew attention to an extraordinary story, barely touched by the mainstream press, that Richard Clarke, who was the White House counter-terrorism czar at the time of the attacks, has recently accused the CIA of deliberately suppressing information before 9/11, information that might have prevented the attacks. Clarke claimed: “There was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information.” And who made this decision? “I would think it would have been made by the director”.
So that would be George Tenet. Director of the CIA from 1997-2004, now a managing director of an investment bank. The former CIA man, McGovern, ends his speech by saying: “Of all the people who should be put in prison, he’d be top of my list.”
Another speaker, Mike Rivero, addressed the outrage, which he often felt when the “false flag” analysis of 9/11 is presented. The idea that “we would never do such a thing” or “it’s not the sort of thing governments do.” He gave a whistlestop tour of state-sponsored attacks and hoodwinkings: the Lusitania, the Maine, the Dodgy Dossier, Saddam’s nuclear weapons, the staged burning of the Reichstag, and the notorious Gleiwitz incident in which the Nazis faked an attack on a German radio station to justify the invasion of Poland. His point being that 9/11 was “not unique”. There’s a historical context.
History, documentation, facts. A respect for life, and a respect for truth. This is what I heard, over and over again, at this remarkable conference. Wayne Madsen – a former naval officer and NSA operative – spoke of the atmosphere of “hype and fear” that still grips America, 10 years after 9/11. A fear that’s pumped into us, relentlessly, through our flatscreen HD Orwellian “telescreens”.
Madsen called for the release of the commission findings that Ludkowski told me about last night: “Let’s get those documents out of the National Archives!” But he noted that the man whose job it is to decide what gets released, the administrator of the White House office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is one Cass Sunstein. The same Cass Sunstein that in 2008 urged the government to “cognitively infiltrate” alternative groups like the 9/11 Truth Movement. So releasing those documents probably isn’t top of his to-do list.
He’s also the same Cass Sunstein that wrote the first op-ed about Julian Assange – the CIA asset and “child of MK Ultra”, as Tarpley dubs him. But that’s a whole other can of worms …
I found myself blinking back tears for the second time when McGovern read out a poem – in his polished CIA Russian – about a mother mourning the loss of her child. This thread of grieving ran throughout the conference. Wayne Madsen grieved for the loss of “shoeleather journalism”, McGovern mourned the death of the fourth estate, while Tarpley spoke of the hollow memorial at Ground Zero – the two “abysses”: the reflecting pools, or “voids”, as they’re often called. He sees these memorials as an appropriately empty vision of “nothingness. Nihil. No ideals, nothing.” A nothingness at the heart of America. “But we have to do something.”
We have to do something. Even if that something is simply to Google ‘Cass Sunstein’ and start from there.
Begin your own cognitive infiltration. Google ‘Vigilant Guardian’ or ‘Able Danger’. Crosscheck ‘Abdel Hakim Belhadj’ and ‘Al-Qaida’. Begin digging. Begin thinking. And stop believing.
September 13th, 2011 by Shamus Cooke
When governments fall deaf to social reality, it’s up to working people to get loud. Obama’s jobs speech proved that the Democrats — like the Republicans — suffer from massive hearing loss, unable to listen to the millions of people suffering from the intractable jobs depression.
After mounting pressure from labor and community groups, Obama promised a paltry $447 billion for his American Jobs Act, much of it going to corporations as tax giveaways while the program is to be paid for, in part, by “deficit reduction” — cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other social programs. Such an insulting “solution” to the deepening recession must be shouted down in the streets, but labor and community groups don’t seem up for the challenge.
With so many millions of unemployed and a labor movement under assault, rage can be easily channeled into massive, pro-worker demonstrations, assuming that inspiring solutions are put forward as demands. Unfortunately, the far-right Tea Party has taken much of the initiative, using the bait of fake-populist rhetoric while switching to pro-corporate solutions.
Sadly, labor’s complete lack of action to organize their constituents and wider community is directly responsible for much of the Tea Party’s success, with big corporate money being the other prop. This dynamic will become more volatile as the jobs depression lurches on; more working people will be lured by anti-immigrant and anti-Islam and anti-union “solutions” to the recession unless an alternative is put forward.
So what’s holding labor back? Predictably, it’s the old ball and chain Democrats that continues to crush any initiative from organized labor. As long as labor leaders hold the delusional belief that they are a listened to and a respected “partner” of the Democrats– a party controlled by the rich and the big corporations– they will continue to give inflammatory speeches against corporations and Republicans, while attaching themselves to any pathetic jobs program proposed by the President.
Before Obama’s so-called big job speech, the AFL-CIO was demanding — as part of their America Wants to Work Action Plan — a job program that would put to work the “…25 million people in America who need full-time work…” This was to be done by investing “…at least $2.2 trillion in repairing our crumbling 20th century infrastructure and another $2 trillion building a modern clean energy infrastructure for the 21st century.” These numbers accurately reflect the needs of millions of working people while taking into consideration the gigantic shift in our economy necessary to help prevent future environmental disasters.
By comparison, Obama’s jobs program is laughable, were not the situation so serious. Economists have estimated that Obama’s program will create, at most, 2 million jobs; of course the program will not receive even the small sums Obama is proposing, if it’s even passed at all.
Labor’s response to Obama’s jobs farce was unparalleled praise; as if their above-cited Action Plan never existed; as if the economy could be jump-started by such weak investments. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka remarked:
“The President took an important and necessary step tonight: he started a serious national conversation about how to solve our jobs crisis. He showed working people that he is willing to go to the mat to create new jobs on a substantial scale.”
Shamefully, the AFL-CIO website also quoted numerous labor leaders responding favorably to Obama’s plan, some gushing with admiration. However, all of them kept silent about the elephant in the room.
The two critical parts of Obama’s job program that demand immediate condemnation are; 1) employer payroll tax cut (which is used to fund Social Security and Medicare); 2) funding the Jobs Program by taking away from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and other programs– through Obama’s deficit reduction “super congress.” As these social programs become depleted, the jobs attached to them — in the health care field — will also go away, increasing unemployment through the backdoor.
The inability of labor leaders to come out publicly against this anti-worker agenda may be a historic low for organized labor. For labor leaders to praise Obama as he takes from Medicare to give tax breaks to corporations is simply a disgrace; it’s also unsustainable.
Labor leaders are respected by the rank and file so long as they appear to be effective in fighting for the interests of working people. Pathetically clinging to the Democrats’ policies has proven ineffective for years, though lately it has become criminal. For workers experiencing historic concessions and soaring unemployment, the sight of labor leaders back-patting the Democrats can only bring disgust. New leaders will inevitably emerge to give voice to this increasingly popular feeling.
What will the new crop of serious labor and community leaders advocate? Simply a return to the past; a return to what worked. Since pandering to politicians is a proven failure, organizing independently to challenge the political status-quo is the obvious answer. In fact, the AFL-CIO was traveling down this path when they announced demonstrations for jobs in October; however, it seems likely that Obama’s jobs program will deflate these demonstrations, since many labor leaders seem to think the problem is solved (there is no mention of the protests on the AFL-CIO website or blog).
Sadly, such demonstrations are exactly what working people need at this time. Not a single demonstration, nor a small, symbolic one, but a sustained campaign of huge mass demonstrations that demand a real jobs program that will employ the 25 million people who need full-time jobs, while re-building the country’s infrastructure to cope with the looming environmental disasters.
Mass demonstrations are especially important at this time because they prove to working people that the plight of each is shared by many others and that if all were organized together, they could become a powerful force of change. People are exposed to new ideas and given hope that there exists a power to remedy their situation as they meet like-minded individuals and groups that are working towards similar goals.
One such goal that should be immediately adopted by working class organizations is to drastically increase taxes on the rich and corporations. Shockingly, the jobs speech that labor leaders liked so much also included a bit about lowering the corporate tax rate. The inequality in wealth is perhaps the most important social phenomenon in the United States over the last 30 years, representing a gigantic transfer of wealth from working people to the very rich. Tax rates for the country’s richest have fallen from 90 percent to 35 percent, creating multi-billionaires who are able to buy politicians that eagerly serve their benefactors, including Democrats and President Obama.
Without substantially raising taxes on the rich — not simply eliminating the Bush tax cuts – enough jobs cannot be created for all who need them. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cannot be salvaged either, without raising taxes on the rich, not to mention dealing with the federal, state and local budget deficits. Massive demonstrations must be organized to demand these actions; pleading with Democrats has failed miserably and consequently has weakened the labor movement at a time when there is no time to waste. The only way to bypass the “bi-partisan bickering” in Washington, D.C. is to hit the streets with solid demands; politicians will either follow suit or be trampled on.
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org)
September 13th, 2011 by Tom Secker
September 13th, 2011 by Global Research
September 13th, 2011 by Prof. Johan Galtung
According to NATO, the final chapter of Gaddafi’s Libya is being written now. The scenario is very similar to the final chapter for Yugoslavia -Milosevic- for Afghanistan -Mullah Omar- Iraq -Saddam Hussein- and for the “War on Terror” -bin Laden: eliminate The Bad Guy. In the future chapters of this neo-crusade, orthodox Christians will also be targeted, just as they were in the crusades from 1095-1291.
Although we don’t know exactly how this “final chapter” will read, past experience serves as a handy guide -a trivial but effective approach. Remember Santayana: those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
After destroying the symbols of Gaddafi, there will be a ceremony celebrating the NATO victory. Everyone knows who will have brought him down. Will there be an aircraft carrier with Sarkozy, Cameron, Berlusconi, Obama (the Bankrupt Big Brother, BBB) and various bombardiers-in-chief declaring “Mission Accomplished” and lining up for promised oil contracts?
Hardly. Instead, the ceremony will be more European-style, like the meeting of top representatives from over 60 countries in Paris on 2 September, pledging to release frozen Libyan assets to the National Transition Council. Other meetings, like Petersburg I for Afghanistan, will draft a new constitution and set dates for free elections. Then, if he is captured alive, there will be the West’s International Criminal Court routine for Gaddafi.
Before that, however, there will be a massive burning of Libyan uniforms by “loyalists” dressed up as civilians, preparing for the long-term. Then, after a month, a year, or maybe ten years, the roadside bombs will begin, along with the sabotage of pipelines and refineries. The Benghazi clan and its adherents will be unable to counter the Syrte clan and its adherents. The drift toward NATO occupation with ground forces, “to train the new Libyan army”, of course, will begin. In short, the usual.
Let two basic points emerge from the fog of history -fog, we should note, only for those with impaired vision.
First, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya are artificial constructs by global architects obsessed with colouring in “nation- states” on world maps. They believe that the citizens of states with one colour constitute a “nation”. When will they learn that these nations do not exist and that the blood of clans-tribes-ethnicities-races in highly heterogeneous we-cultures is thicker than the water of party ideology in homogeneous I-cultures. When will they see that one person-one vote, free and fair elections work well in homogeneous I-cultures like Norway, Germany, Italy, and Japan, but not in heterogenous we-cultures, where the people will vote exclusively for their own clan-tribe-ethnicity-race. If you want to keep an artificial state in one piece, you must pay the price: heavy repression by a local dictator or a foreign occupier to contain centrifugal forces.
The second point: what is imposed by violence tends to lead to violence and repression, not democracy. Some will object: Wasn’t democracy successfully imposed on Germany, Italy, and Japan after the Second World War. But there were important factors involved: all three were homogeneous, and two were I-cultures. All three had a tradition of electoral democracy and majority rule. And in all three, dictatorship and militarism did not emerge to keep disparate ethnic groups in check but for other reasons. The war restored what was previously there.
Is it a lost cause, then, this war against Gaddafi?
If the goal is “stable secular democracy”, the answer is yes: war will only mobilise Islamists and clans and tribes and spark violence and endless bickering.
But if the key goal is a private, not state, central bank -already achieved by the Benghazi clan- then the cause is not lost. And if the goal was to kill an African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, an African Monetary Fund in Nigeria, an African federation, and an African currency in gold dinars, there is cause for celebration. To this end the Obama administration has already confiscated Libya’s USD 30 billion of deposits in the US. And if the goal was to prevent Libya from emerging as the first African country to succeed in fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals, then start the fireworks.
In the meantime the Arab spring matures and has spread to Israel where there are massive protests against inequality. Rockets and attacks from Gaza under de facto occupation are deplorable but predictable. The late summer harvest has arrived: a changed Egypt as 30 years of truce with Israel are evaporating. There will be more.
But will the current US-Israel empire just be replaced by another one. As I wrote in 2009 in “The Fall of the US Empire”, the Europeans-NATO will be the likely successors.
Will they do the job until the US recovers and resumes its position as the world’s sheriff, capturing The Bad Guys, dead or alive?
Probably not. This fourth imperial scourge on the Middle East and North Africa (after the Ottoman Empire, then the West/Italy- England-France, then US-Israel) will probably be short. They are now saying, “Libya is not Iraq” just as they said “Iraq is not Vietnam”, and there are differences, though there are also overwhelming similarities.
So what would come next? Maybe a decentralised Libya, promoting African unity, focusing more on its 500 sub-states than it 54 states, with rule by consensus for the many parts rather than the Western “winner takes all” model. That would be a much better solution.
Johan Galtung, Rector of the TRANSCEND Peace University, is author of “The Fall of the US Empire–And Then What?” ( www.transcend.org/tup).
September 13th, 2011 by Murray Dobbin
When the U.S. invaded Iraq riding a pack of lies and monstrous manipulation, the entire U.S. elite, including major news services, academics, and politicians from both “sides” of the spectrum, lined up to cheerlead and off they went to war. It was one of the most shameful chapters in the long history of shameful acts of U.S. imperial foreign policy.
But it actually didn’t take too long for dissenting voices to come out of the woodwork. The lies were exposed, the liars identified, the manipulation denounced.
Watching the sorry spectacle of media coverage of the tragic farce unfolding in Libya , one has to wonder if anyone will ever expose the lies and hubris that have run throughout this faux Arab spring.
To be sure, as more journalists, aid workers and human rights representatives arrive in the country the more some of the obvious facts trickle out. The “freedom fighters” — more like soccer hooligans with guns — have looted dozens of arms depots of the Libyan military. According to Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch, “Every time a city falls, they end up being looted. . . Every facility we go to where there were surface-to-air missiles, they’re gone.”
Just what will these lovers of democracy do with these weapons? The U.S. and E.U. might just start to worry that no matter who buys them on the black market, they will eventually end up in the hands of al Qaeda or other militant groups. As NATO knows full well, some of the so-called rebels have ties to al Qaeda. Or perhaps the missiles will end up in the hands of the Taliban where they will be used to shoot down U.S. helicopters. Talk about blowback. Too bad the Americans have never quite grasped the meaning of irony.
The photos of the revolutionaries give any thoughtful observer pause. Virtually every photo of the victorious rebels show aggressive, undisciplined, young men armed to the teeth holding their guns high in the air (often firing randomly). I haven’t seen a single photo or video clip with even one woman portrayed — and hardly any men over
And while the western media repeatedly imply that the Nation Transitional Council is in control of these dangerous thugs and thieves the truth lies elsewhere. Several rebel groups have denounced the NTC and said they don’t recognize its authority. So not only does the council not represent anyone, it doesn’t even control its own “army.” The NTC is little more than a group of greedy opportunists salivating at the thought of getting its hands on the billions in state funds that NATO is now handing over to them. Only with the constant disciplinary efforts of its NATO handlers does the council manage to maintain a semblance of decorum and credibility.
No one in the media mentions that Gadhafi didn’t have billions of dollars stashed in vaults around the world for his personal use as others such as Mubarak did. To be sure, Gadhafi and his family and closest associates lived in luxury. But the tens of billions illegally seized by Western countries was money belonging to the Libyan state and its national bank. NATO has effectively destroyed the Libyan government — not just Gadhafi’s regime. Tens of thousands of foreign workers have left the country, many of whom were critical to the running of the country. Rebels have been accused of randomly executing blacks, many of them students and workers. The contributions of these foreign workers are likely gone forever.
But none of this bothers the Canadian political elite and its intellectual hired guns. One of the most shameful examples — there are countless — is Lloyd Axworthy, the “highly respected” former foreign affairs minister under Jean Chretien. He penned an op-ed for the Globe and Mail which could have been written on contract for the cabal now in power in Tripoli . A more simplistic and deliberately obfuscating piece is hard to imagine. Axworthy’s article waxes on romantically about how the NATO bombing of Libya is a huge advance for the principle of Responsibility to Protect. This principle is NATO’s ideological weapon that permits it to do whatever it likes. Axworthy was a key figure in getting it established at the United Nations in 1999-2000.
According to Axworthy, “We are seriously engaged in a resetting of the international order toward a more humane, just world.” I predict that NATO’s grotesque manipulation of the UN mandate to impose a “no fly” zone to protect “civilians” (a violation Axworthy doesn’t even mention) will in fact do more damage to the responsibility to protect principle than any similar action to date. It will tarnish the UN, too, which has allowed its mandate to be used for imperial gain. The unseemly rush by France , Britain and Italy in particular, to get their hands on Libyan oil will soon be too obvious to cover up. The revolutionaries are no doubt busy signing deals handing over that previously nationalized resource to the neo-colonialists who put them in power — robbing the real civilians of their birthright.
Who will take the “responsibility to protect” Libyans from this new gang? Who will protect the people of Libya so that they continue to enjoy a literacy rate above 90 per cent, the lowest infant mortality rate and highest life expectancy of all of Africa , free medicare and education and the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent? Do the boys firing their guns in the air even have a clue that their living standards — subsidized by nationalized oil — were among the highest in Africa ? Who will they blame when medical care disappears and their kids have to pay to go to school? Western, free-market democracy will come to Libya at a very high price when designed and delivered by the neo-colonial powers.
It’s hard to know if the brain trust at NATO actually believed this whole thing would be over in a few weeks, but what they did know, and what the Canadian media refuses to tell us, is that Libya was the biggest obstacle to the continued super-exploitation of Africa and its vast resources. On a whole number of fronts, Libya was using its oil wealth to gradually close the doors to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the economic domination of Africa .
If you want to paint a picture of the back rooms of NATO before the genuine Arab spring burst forth, imagine the power brokers sitting around oak tables trying to figure out a way to stop Gadhafi from ruining their decades long — centuries, actually — bonanza. Then imagine the surprise arrival of the Arab spring. What a gift and delivered just in time.
Africa’s role as a giant pool of cheap resources was being threatened just as the U.S. and E.U. faced economic catastrophe because of their own financial deregulation policies. China is investing billions in Africa — and not just in resource extraction. It is helping African countries industrialize, the surest way to economic independence.
There’s nothing NATO can do about China . But the other side of the independence coin was Gadhafi’s determination to sever Africa ’s oppressive ties with Western financial institutions. Gadhafi was not only in the process of creating the African Investment Bank (providing interest-free loans) and the African Monetary Fund (to be centred in Cameroon) eliminating the role of the IMF, it was also in the planning stages of creating a new, gold-backed African currency that would seriously weaken the U.S. by undermining the dollar. All the Libyan funds set aside for these Pan-African projects were frozen by NATO and will now be handed over — carefully, no doubt — to the neo-colonial puppets installed in Tripoli .
Gadhafi was also instrumental in killing AFRICOM, a new U.S. military command and control base intended to add military intimidation to American economic domination. Look for that initiative to be revived.
The implications of the conflict in Libya are thus just beginning to unfold. NATO will be mired in Libya for years to come to ensure its oil objectives are met and to manipulate “democratic elections” so its friends on the NTC can maintain control. While there has been a muted response so far from African countries and the African Union it will come sooner or later. They cannot fail to recognize that regime change in Libya was all about sabotaging pan-African unity.
September 13th, 2011 by John C.K. Daly
On 7 October 2001, the opening phase of “Operation Enduring Freedom” U.S. military campaign began, which quickly drove the Taliban and its al-Qaida affiliates from Kabul on 12 November.
Since then, 1,760 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan along with 942 International Security Assistance Force soldiers, a total of 2,702 foreign military dead, with no end in sight.
In a March 2008 article Richard Holbrooke, then a foreign policy adviser in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, coined the term “Af-Pak” in an article to describe the broader regional context of military operations in Afghanistan, acknowledging that in order to win in Afghanistan, Pakistan to the east must be pacified as well.
Holbrooke’s neologism was a belated acknowledgement that U.S. military operations had in fact begun across the Durand Line, the Afghan-Pakistan border in 2004, which Pashtuns on both side of the border have regarded as an artificial construct since its unilateral declaration by British authorities in India in 1893. In 2004 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s Special Activities Division undertook the attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drones, primarily in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along northwest Pakistan’s Afghan border.
Carried out with the connivance of Pakistani President Asif Zadari, the UAV attacks have intensified, greatly increasing anger throughout FATA.
Now however, there are faint glimmers of new thinking in Washington that two new weapons for the “hearts and minds” of Pakistanis may have appeared – the light bulb, and potable water.
If all goes well, then the U.S. government is to sign off on providing Islamabad with $1 billion to complete its Diamer-Bhasha dam, with the offer reportedly being finalized during the upcoming Pakistan-U.S. strategic dialogue on energy later this month. If approved, the project will be the U.S. government’s largest foreign aid project to Pakistan.
The Diamer-Bhasha dam straddles the Indus River in Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan region of occupied Kashmir. The Diamer-Bhasha dam when complete would both produce 4,500 megawatts of electricity as well as store 8.5 million acre feet of water that Pakistan could use for irrigation and drinking.
What is most extraordinary about Washington’s purported efforts is not only that it is willing to delve into the Pakistani energy cesspool, but it is willing to do so in an area that has been contested by Pakistan and India since 1947, the major source of Muslim guerrilla insurgency for the last 64 years.
Apparently there are elements in Washington’s bureaucracy realizing that Pakistan’s population’s increased access to reliable electricity and water sources are in fact useful corollaries to UAV strikes in wining “hearts and minds.”
It is not as if Pakistan’s energy woes are new – since 2006 Pakistani energy analysts have warned of an impending energy crisis. Pakistan’s government has implemented rolling blackouts across the country and earlier this year government officials announced that it will take at least seven years to build up electrical generation capacity to support the entire country. The black outs have taken a huge economic toll on Pakistan’s textile industry and have resulted in plant shutdowns and layoffs.
Any U.S. aid will doubtless have a fair percentage of its money “diverted” – President Zadari, when merely Prime Minister Bennazir Bhutto’s husband, was known as “Mr. Ten Percent’ for his alleged take on foreign projects.
That said, the issue remains one of “hearts and minds,” as the U.S., according to Holbrooke’s comments, now increasingly view the “Ak-Pak” theater of military operations as a unified one.
So, what can Islamabad offer its disaffected population to support the central authorities?
Electricity and access to water could go a long way towards convincing incipient jihadis that their government does indeed care, and that supporting it as opposed to tacking it could produce further benefits.
Consider – the Obama administration for fiscal year 2012 is requesting $120 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, a figure which pales into insignificance alongside the modest $1 billion allocated to complete Pakistan’s Diamer-Bhasha dam.
While doubtless a significant amount of this aid will disappear down Pakistani corruption ratholes (surprise), it would still seem on balance a bargain in every sense of the word, as jihadis could stay at home, read to their children after dark and cook their dinners, and electricity and water would seem to be more amenable elements in winning Pakistani “hearts and minds” than further Predator UAV strikes.
Something to think about.
September 13th, 2011 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
The short answer to the question in the title is no.
The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.
Let’s examine the case against “the truthers” presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.
But first let’s define who “the truthers” are.
The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of “9/11 conspiracy theorists”.
Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.
Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.
9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.
For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.
The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.
The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.
It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.
It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.
It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.
The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.
When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.
When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.
When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel–and their testimony is backed up with photographs–in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.
When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.
When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.
It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.
That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.
What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29113.htm
Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?
Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.
Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here. http://barnhardt.biz/
Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”
Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.
Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.
Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.
Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges.”
Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”
Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.
Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon–they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both–stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”
If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.
I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.
Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.
Cockburn’s willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.
Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.
Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?
They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.
Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.
There is no 9/11 debate.
On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.
The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.
Further reading at:
THE 9/11 “BIG LIE”. WHEN FICTION BECOMES FACT
- by Global Research – 2011-09-11
Articles and documentation on 9/11 from Global Research
September 13th, 2011 by Lawyers Against the War (LAW)
Bush in Toronto on September 20, 2011. Bush to make promotional appearance in Toronto for Christian college “The former U.S. president has a stopover in Toronto next week that will include a Sept. 20 breakfast gathering on behalf of Tyndale for an invited audience of 150 at the Hilton Toronto Hotel. Bush is expected to address the subject of Christian higher education.”
September 13th, 2011 by Global Research
An explosion at the southern French nuclear plant of Marcoule, located in the Gard department in Languedoc-Roussillon region, has killed one and injured four others.
The powerful explosion struck the area at 11:45 local time (09:45 GMT) on Monday, Associated Press reported.
French officials say the explosion was caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site.
“According to initial information, the explosion happened in an oven used to melt radioactive metallic waste of little and very little radioactivity,” the French Nuclear Safety Authority said in a statement.
The agency further warned of the possibility of a radiation leak threat of an oven at the nuclear site.
The Marcoule plant is one of France’s oldest nuclear plants still operating and is located in the Gard department in Languedoc-Roussillon region.
The plant is a nuclear waste management facility that does not include any reactors. The site is partly used to produce MOX fuel that recycles plutonium from nuclear weapons.
Nuclear energy provides nearly 70 percent of France’s nuclear energy needs. France is the world’s most nuclear-reliant country with 58 nuclear reactors.
September 13th, 2011 by Community
“The commission had to subpoena the F.A.A. for documents, had to subpoena NORAD for documents and they will never get the full story. That is one of the tragedies. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.”  -Max Cleland, 9/11 Commission member
Today is the 10 year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 tragedy. Regarding the events of that fateful day, we can be certain of one thing: we have not been told the truth. Many of the 9/11 Commission members, who authored the official 9/11 Commission Report , have admitted as much. In addition to the above statement by Max Cleland about a White House cover up, commission members have revealed that they “were setup to fail,”   the “CIA obstructed our investigation,”  the statements made by NORAD officials “was just so far from the truth,”  that they were “extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,”  and they “don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right.” 
This report provides compelling and incontrovertible evidence showing that the events on September 11, 2001 did not occur as documented in the 9/11 Commission Report  and in the World Trade Center Disaster Study . Furthermore, we will show that both reports were falsified to cover up the real truth: the attacks on the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon were orchestrated by factions within the government of the United States. In addition, we provide documented evidence of motive for the attacks, why you should care, and suggestions for what you can do to help prevent another 9/11 from happening.
Blind Belief in Authority
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” — Albert Einstein
For many, doubts still remain about the accuracy of the official reports of 9/11 regarding what happened and who was responsible. In a recent poll, nearly half (48%) of New Yorkers support a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 . Another recent poll indicated that 15% of Americans believe that the U.S. government staged the attacks .
Yet for many others, the suggestion that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks is both ridiculous and repugnant, which is understandable. What is not understandable is that so many people blindly believe the official 9/11 reports and refuse to entertain that possibility that they have been lied to. Instead, they turn a deaf ear to (and often ridicule) the many thousands of highly intelligent people who have been trying for years to wake them up to the truth – people like Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Military, Intelligence and Government Patriots, and many other highly credible people. 
This report is for those of you who either believe the official story, aren’t sure what you believe, or think it doesn’t matter what you believe.
Why You Should Care about 9/11
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” – George Santayana
The false flag strategy (attacking your own people and blaming it on someone else) has been used numerous times throughout history to justify war and the murder of innocent people.  In this report, we will provide compelling evidence that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 were a false flag operation. Please take time to review the evidence carefully. It is of the utmost importance that you do so, not only for yourself, but for your family, friends, and future generations.
Only weeks after 9/11, plans were in place to “take over” Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran
Within weeks after 9/11and after bombing had begun in Afghanistan, plans to “take over” seven countries in five years (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran) were shown to 4-Star General Wesley Clark. Watch Clark describe how he got this information in the video below:
George W Bush used the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie  to invade Iraq in 2003. (We will provide substantial evidence in the motive section below to show that the invasion of Iraq was the top priority of George W Bush from day one of his administration.) Until recently, none of the other countries mentioned by Wesley Clark have been attacked. However, Libya has been bombed in recent months (based upon lies that were used to justify the bombing) . And, just last week, there was a call for NATO intervention in Syria. 
What if the plans that Clark saw in 2001 are still in the works? Recent events would suggest that at least some version of those plans is still being implemented. How many more times are we going to fall for the lies and allow the U.S. and NATO to continue murdering people in the name of justice? How many more lives have to be lost before we wake up and take action to stop the killing of innocent people?
Would you save the life of an innocent child if given the chance?
What if you were presented the opportunity to save the life of an innocent child? Wouldn’t you do everything that you could to save that child?
What if you could save the lives of 1,000 children? Would that be enough to motivate you to take action?
In the Iraq war alone, it is currently estimated that 1.46 million Iraqis have died due to the U.S. invasion.  Certainly, many of those deaths have been innocent men, women, and children.
Of course, let us never forget the many thousands of U.S. military that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the 3,000 innocent people who died on 9/11 and the hundreds of first responders that have died since.
Protect others to protect yourself
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
History will continue to repeat itself until we do something to stop it. There is a line in the movie The Seven Samurai that seems appropriate: “You have to protect others to protect yourself.” By taking action to prevent another 9/11, another Afghanistan, another Iraq, and another Libya, the lives that you will be helping to save might just include your own.
Please see the “What You Can Do” section at the end of this report.
The Evidence that Shows 9/11 Was an Inside Job
“Based on my 11 year experience as an FAA air traffic controller, I knew within hours of the attacks, it was an inside job.” – Robert Hordon, former FAA Air Traffic Controller, Boston
The evidence provided herein consists mostly of video clips (so that you can see and judge for yourself) and includes testimony from leading experts in their fields, eyewitnesses, and high-ranking officials including President George W Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, Senator John Kerry, 4-Star General Wesley Clark, Major General Albert Stubblebine III (former head of US Army Intelligence), Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo, and architect Richard Gage.
The evidence is divided into and presented in four sections:
(1) Evidence that Explosives Brought Down WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7
(2) Evidence that No Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11
(3) Evidence that Flight 93 Was Shot Down
(4) Motive for 9/11
If you are pressed for time, we suggest that you start with the following two videos:
- AE911Truth’s Blueprint for Truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3zBGL40orc
- Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0R8b3MuFxk
Evidence that Explosives Brought Down WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7
The Blueprint for Truth
In February of this year, we reported that Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, changed the opinions of 24 out of 25 (96%) of the individuals in the audience that previously believed the official story: that the impact of the planes plus the ensuing fires caused the collapse of the twin towers and WTC building 7. 
The 33-minute video below, titled AE911Truth’s Blueprint for Truth contains, to a large extent, the exact same info that was presented at the expo. Watch as Richard Gage provides a crystal clear explanation of how the three World Trade Center buildings were brought down. Gage takes you through scientific forensic evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the destruction of the three WTC buildings was accomplished with explosives and could not have possibly been a result of fire:
For even more evidence and background information, see the extended 2 hour Research Edition:
Recap of the above video, from ae911.org website: 
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise that was not hit by an airplane, exhibited all of the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
- Rapid onset of collapse
- Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building’s destruction
- Symmetrical “structural failure” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
- Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
- Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
- Foreknowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
In the aftermath of WTC7′s destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:
- FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
- Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
- Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
- Slow onset with large visible deformations
- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
- Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.
The Twin Towers’ destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
- Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
- Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
- Extremely rapid onset of destruction
- Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
- Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
- Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
- Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
- 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no “pancaked” floors found
- Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
- Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
- Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
- Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
- Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
The Twin Towers exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
- Slow onset with large visible deformations
- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
- Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.
Larry Silverstein, lease-holder of the WTC complex, admits WTC7 was pulled down (via control demolition)
Larry Silverstein was the lease-holder of the WTC complex who made over 7 billion dollars on insurance claims due to the destruction of the WTC buildings.  During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of Building 7 on 9/11:
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.‘ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
Note that the word ‘pull’ is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives. Here’s the video clip of Silverstein making the above statement:
A Parable about Larry Silverstein and his Insurance Policy on the WTC Complex
“To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.” 
Senator John Kerry: Building 7 Was Brought Down in a Controlled Fashion
Senator John Kerry was questioned about Silverstein saying WTC 7 was “pulled” by members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now at an event in Austin Texas. Kerry responded:
“I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion.”
Watch Kerry admit that WTC 7 was brought down via a controlled demolition in the video below:
The NIST conclusion that WTC 7 was brought down by fire is a lie
The NIST report on the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 and titled Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 concluded that: “the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC7.” 
However, as we’ve seen above, WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, and instead exhibited all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. In addition, both Larry Silverstein and John Kerry confirmed that Building 7 was “pulled” down in a “controlled fashion.”
For an analysis of the NIST investigation and report, watch the video below titled NIST Report on WTC7 is Unscientific and False:
Why Would NIST Lie About WTC 7?
It likely would have taken several months to rig the 47-story WTC 7 for controlled demolition. Most certainly, WTC 7 could not have been rigged in a few hours on the day of September 11, 2001. That means that the destruction of Building 7 was planned months in advance.
If NIST admitted that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives, many people would conclude that explosives were also used to bring down the twin towers and therefore must have also been planned and installed in advance. In other words, if NIST told the truth about WTC 7, people would realize that 3,000 people were murdered in a false flag operation to justify killing tens of thousands, if not millions more.
The BBC Reports Collapse of WTC 7 (Solomon Building) Fifteen Minutes Before it Happens
If you have any doubts about the destruction of Building 7 being pre-planned, then watch the BBC’s Jane Standley report the collapse of WTC7 (Solomon Building) fifteen minutes before it occurred, while it appears standing behind her in this news clip:
How could have the WTC buildings been rigged with explosives?
Obviously, al-Qaeda terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for the enormous number of hours it would have taken to plant the explosives. But, it turns out that there is a very simple explanation: Marvin Bush (the brother of George W Bush) and Wirt Walker III (Bush’s cousin) were the principals of the company in charge of security for the WTC.  If the president was involved (which we will establish below), then it’s not a stretch to believe that he had some influence on his brother and cousin.
Evidence that No Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11
“With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.” – Col. George Nelson, Aircraft accident investigator, U.S. Air Force
CNN Reporter: “There is NO Evidence of a Plane Having Crashed Anywhere Near the Pentagon”
Jamie Mcintyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent at the time, was at the Pentagon shortly after it was hit. Here’s what he reported:
“From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately, it wasn’t until almost about forty-five minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”
Watch Mcintyre’s CNN report:
USAF Witness: There was “a strange lack of visible debris…moments after impact”
In case you are thinking that Mcintyre arrived on the scene after the massive amount of Boeing 757 debris had been removed, Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (retired) wrote that there was a lack of debris moments after impact. Kwiatkowski, who was an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon on 9/11, was a contributor to a book titled 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, in which she wrote that there was “a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.” 
9/11 Commission “failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary”
In the book 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, Kwiatkowski also wrote:
“I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research.”
You Can’t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 Feet Wide
Watch this 10-minute segment of the outstanding Italian documentary titled Zero: An Investigation into 9/11, which addresses many of the serious problems with the official account of what happened at the Pentagon:
The discrepancies that are addressed in the above video include the following:
- There is no airplane debris visible anywhere in front of the Pentagon. Examples of what you would expect to see at a plane crash site are shown. Captain Russ Whittemberg, a pilot with over 30 years in military and civil aviation, said: “I have been at some accident investigation sites in the Air Force. And I have never come across any accident scene where there is no tell-tale evidence of the plane that crashed.”
- There is no evidence that either the airplane engines or the wings impacted the building. Instead, we are supposed to believe that the 38 meter (125 feet) wide Boeing 757 fit into a hole that is only 5 meters (16 feet) wide. We are supposed to believe that the wings folded up like those of a dragon fly and squeeze into the 5 meter wide hole.
- Major General Albert Stubblebine: “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
- One theory is that the Boeing 757 was vaporized due to the speed and the force of the crash. The engines are made of a titanium steel alloy that would not vaporize unless they hit a temperature of 3,286 degrees Centigrade. That did not happen. Plus, the engines would have caused significant damage upon impact. Yet, there is no indication that the engines impacted the Pentagon.
- After a period of time, various photos of airplane debris began to appear in newspapers and on the web did not appear in any photos shown in the days following the event.
- The Pentagon had numerous cameras that had complete and separate recordings of the incident. The FBI was immediately on the scene and confiscated many video tapes from the Pentagon and nearby buildings. Yet only four videos were released after 2006 when FOIA requests compelled them to release them. Only two showed any useful information. But most experts believe the white image in the videos is too small to be a 757.
- The story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon is absurd, making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour.
It’s aerodynamically impossible to fly a Boeing 757 at 20 feet above the ground for half a mile
Please continue watching the next segment of the documentary Zero: An Investigation into 9/11:
- According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. Hanjour was known as “a terrible pilot,”  who could not even fly a small airplane.
- An experienced pilot with thousands of hours would probably require 10-20 attempts to pull off the maneuver that was performed with the Boeing 757 on its way to the Pentagon. “You just can’t do that with one of those big airplanes.” –Robin Hordon, flight controller and flight instructor
- AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.” 
- The official report of the final half mile of Flight 77 before it allegedly hit the Pentagon is aerodynamically impossible. “I challenge any pilot, any pilot anywhere: give him a Boeing 757 and tell him to do 400 knots 20 feet above the ground for half a mile. CAN’T Do. It’s aerodynamically impossible.” – Nila Sagadevan, pilot and aeronautical engineer.
- The alleged hijackers had difficulty flying small aircraft, which means that there is a zero possibility that they could pull off an impossible maneuver on the first try.
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11
A video titled Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon, by the Citizen Investigation Team, proves that no plane hit the Pentagon and that the low-flying plane seen approaching the building merely flew past the Pentagon and took off immediately after explosions were heard. Furthermore, it proves that the five downed light poles near the Pentagon could not have been caused by Flight 77, was pre-planned, and staged.
We know from the above videos and the testimony of air traffic controller Danielle O’Brien that Flight 77 disappeared from the radar for over 30 minutes and that the plane that showed up on the radar was not a Boeing 757. We also know that there is absolutely no evidence that a 757 or any or any other plane actually hit the Pentagon.
In 2006, members of the Citizen Investigation Team travelled to Arlington, VA to speak with eyewitnesses who had a good view of the final seconds of the plane in flight before it allegedly impacted the building. The purpose of their investigation was to establish the true flight path of Flight 77. If the plane did not fly where the physical damage to the Pentagon and the government-supplied data says it did, then it did not hit the building.
Multiple witnesses confirm flight path of plane seen approaching the Pentagon was not as described in the “official” reports
Information provided by multiple, credible witnesses from five different vantage points near the Pentagon proves that the actual flight path of the plane seen approaching the Pentagon was significantly different from the “official” path described by the 9/11 commission and the alleged “black box” data released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2006 (nearly five years after the event).
The “official” flight path described by 9/11 commission report and the alleged black box data is necessary to explain the physical damage to the Pentagon and the alleged knocking over of a five light poles by Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. However, the testimony by the witnesses contradicts the “official” flight path.
Multiple witnesses saw the low-flying plane fly past the Pentagon
In addition, multiple witnesses reported seeing a commercial plane fly past the Pentagon at an extremely low altitude, immediately after the explosion, and then fly away.
The light poles that were allegedly knocked over by Flight 77 were STAGED
Finally, the video proves that the light pole that allegedly went through the windshield of a taxi (after allegedly being knocked over by Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon) was both staged and pre-planned, which was admitted by the taxi driver himself.
The video is broken into eight 10-minute segments for airing on YouTube. You can download the full video (for free) from the Citizen Investigation Team website:
Analysis of data from the alleged Flight Data Recorder shows that the plane was flying too high to have hit the Pentagon
Although not mentioned in the video, it is worth noting that Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, obtained a data file from the NTSB via the Freedom of Information Act that is allegedly derived from Flight 77′s Flight Data Recorder (FDR). Scientific analysis of that data by Pilots for 9/11 Truth determined that the data contradicted the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways :
- The altitude of the aircraft would have been at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
- The altitude of the aircraft would have been at least 100 feet too high to have struck the Pentagon.
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 1 of 8:
Part 1 of the video contains a review of some of the reasons for questioning the official story of Flight 77:
- Lack of debris, plus what a crash site should look like
- No damage to foundation
- Aeronautically impossible
- No evidence that a plane actually hit the Pentagon
Next, the official version of the Flight 77 flight path (as specified by the 9/11 commission and the alleged “black box” data released by the NTSB in 2006) is established as being south of the Navy Annex and south of the former CITGO gas station. This is key information that has to be true in order to explain the angle of entry that caused the physical damage to the Pentagon.
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 2 of 8:
An animation of the Flight 77’s alleged south side approach to the Pentagon
In part 2, we are shown images and animation of the path that the plane must have taken in order to knock over five light poles and damage the Pentagon in the manner that it did, which is the official story. The location of the downed light poles is important because it establishes the required location and trajectory of the plane down to the foot.
Multiple witnesses provide evidence of a north side approach to the Pentagon
Part 2 also contains interviews with the first two witnesses (Edward Paik and Terry Morin), who were positioned on the south side of the Navy Annex (vantage point #1) as the plane flew over. Both Edward and Terry saw the plane fly directly over the Navy annex to the north of the “official” path. Of particular significance is the interview with Morin, an aviator and a program manager for SPARTA Inc at the Navy Annex. Initially, Morin was between the wings of the Navy annex, so he could only see the plane as it “flew over the top of me.” Morin than ran over to get a better view and watched the plane for 13-18 seconds. Morin, as an aviator, disputed the official report that the plane was flying 460 knots. Instead, Morin says that the plane was only flying at a speed of around 350 knots.
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 3 of 8:
Part 3 contains interviews with three witnesses who were at the CITGO gas station (vantage point #2) on 9/11 when a low-flying plane flew by.
Robert Turcios, CITGO station employee, saw the plane on the north side of the station and initially thought the plane was going to crash onto the street between the station and the Pentagon, but saw the plane “lift and go up a little bit.” He did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.
In addition, Pentagon Police officers Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse each confirm that the low-flying plane flew by on the north side of the CITGO station.
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 4 of 8:
Morin and Lagasse independently draw a nearly identical, flight path lines showing an approach to the north of the CITGO station.
Next, an interview with a witness who was located on the north side of the Navy Annex (vantage point # 3) on 9/11 is shown. William Middleton Sr., an Arlington Cemetery employee, said that he plane was coming straight down Southgate road on the north side of the Navy annex. Middleton also said that he could see the plane dropping in altitude and that it came so close to where he was standing that he could feel the heat from the plane. In addition, Middleton said that the plane was travelling at a “slow” rate of speed, corroborating what Terry Morin had said.
After the interview with Middleton, interviews with Arlington Cemetery employees Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather, who were positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings (vantage point # 4) on 9/11 are shown. Both said that a plane was coming directly at them and that after barely clearing the Navy Annex building, the plane continued descending and at the same time was banking to the right. The banking of the plane to the right is irreconcilable with NTSB data, physical damage to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon security video.
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 5 of 8:
This video segment starts with an interview of another Arlington Cemetery employee, Donald Carter, who was also positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings (vantage point # 4) on 9/11. Carter’s testimony is similar to that of his co-workers, Stafford and Prather.
Next, an interview with Sean Boger is shown. Boger, a heliport air traffic controller, was in the Pentagon heliport tower that is located directly in front of the Pentagon (vantage point # 5) on 9/11. Boger said: “I just happened to be looking out the window. And, as I was looking out the window, I could see a plane… The plane was coming directly at us… You know I fell to the ground and I covered my head.”
Boger stated that he saw a plane come over the Navy Annex and bank right toward the Pentagon. Based on the amount of time he watched the plane after he first saw it, the plane was travelling significantly slower than 460 knots.
From five vantage points, 13 eyewitnesses independently and unanimously confirm a north side approach. A drawing is shown depicting the paths drawn by the witnesses. The eyewitness testimony contradicts the official reports that are required to make the official story plausible.
All of the eyewitnesses have worked in the area for many years and are therefore very familiar with the topology and landmarks. Since the release of their interviews in the public domain, all have been made aware of the implications yet stand by their stories as reported. None have claimed that their accounts have been misrepresented.
Most of the witnesses could not see the alleged impact point due to the complex topography and landscape, and admit to running, dropping, or flinching for cover. This explains why they did not see the plane fly away and assumed that it had hit the Pentagon because of the explosion.
The independent and unanimous placement of the plane on the north side and banking to the right amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did fly away without hitting the building because the damage to the Pentagon required a south side approach.
Although the witnesses presented so far did not see the plane fly away, some did (and are documented in the next video segment).
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, part 6 of 8:
Witnesses see plane fly past Pentagon and then fly away
Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw the plane fly away immediately after the explosion. He was at the Pentagon south parking lot loading dock, only a few steps inside the building during the explosion. After hearing an explosion, he ran outside, looked up, and saw a plane flying around the south parking lot. Roosevelt describes seeing a commercial jet that was banking and flying away at less than 100 feet above the ground within 10 seconds after the explosion.
Roosevelt could have only seen the same banking plane that all of the other witness reported seeing on the north side flight path.
There is additional evidence that more people saw the plane continue past the Pentagon. Arlington National Cemetery employee Erik Dihle was officially recorded by the Center for Military History on December 13, 2001. Although he personally did not see the plane, he said the first thing that other people reported was that a bomb went off and that a jet flew by and kept on going:
“A number of us were working building 123 right after the explosion… We got up and ran outside… Some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going.”
The five downed light poles were preplanned and staged
Multiple witnesses have testified to seeing a banking, low-flying plane approach the Pentagon from the north side of the former CITGO gas station. This means that the damaged light poles, of which one allegedly went through the windshield of a taxicab, had to have been staged. Although there are photos of a bent pole laying on the ground and a broken windshield, not a single photograph exists showing the 40 foot, 247 pound pole inside the cab.
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, Part 7 of 8:
Taxi cab driver, Lloyde England, initially claimed that a silent stranger helped him remove the light pole from his car. A 247 pound light pole knocked over by a 90 ton Boeing 757 traveling 530 miles per hour certainly would have caused massive damage had it hit Lloyde’s taxi. However, the only visible damage to the taxi is the broken front windshield. Otherwise, the taxi was unscratched. This makes absolutely no sense.
However, don’t forget that testimony from multiple witnesses has proven that none of the downed light poles could have been knocked over by the incoming plane. Therefore, the lack of damage to the taxi does make sense.
After Lloyde was confronted with the information provided by the witnesses indicating a north side approach (and that therefore the downed light poles must have been staged), he had a very strange reaction. Lloyde then changed his story and refused to admit that his taxi was on the bridge next to the downed light pole, where it appears that photos of both Lloyde and the taxi were taken.
Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11, Part 8 of 8:
Lloyde goes on to explain that history has nothing to do with the truth and that he was used by people who have money. He then essentially admitted that the staging of the light pole was pre-planned. But, he was cautious not to outright confess. He distanced himself from the planners while admitting that the staging was planned.
Conclusion: The Pentagon was hit by a MISSILE not hit by a plane
The lack of any evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, eyewitness testimony of a banking, north side approach, eyewitnesses who saw a low-flying “jet” fly past the Pentagon that “kept on going,” plus Lloyde’s confession that the downed light pole was preplanned and staged all provide ample evidence proving that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but instead a smaller “jet” merely flew past the Pentagon seconds after it was hit by a missile in order to appear as though a plane did the damage.
How can we be sure that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon?
Both Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) and Timothy Roemer (9/11 Commission member) said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile (see below). Plus, there was an abnormally high radiation reading near the Pentagon and there were eyewitness accounts.
Donald Rumsfeld said that a MISSILE was used to damage the Pentagon
If no plane hit the Pentagon, then what did? In an interview with Parade Magazine in October 2001 (of which a transcript was posted on the U.S. Department of Defense website, defense.gov), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked “How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?” Rumsfeld replied:
“There were lots of warnings… It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.” 
Note that Rumsfeld indicated that both a plane and a missile were used on the Pentagon, which matches up perfectly with evidence presented the above video, Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Timothy Roemer, Former 9/11 Commission Member, said that the Pentagon was “pried open by a MISSILE”
In an interview in September 2006 with CNN’s Miles O’Brien, former 9/11 Commissioner member, Timothy Roemer, says that a missile caused the damage to the Pentagon and then quickly corrects himself to line up with the official story.
O’Brien: “At any point during this day were you just, in a very base way, afraid?”
Roemer: “There was — there were many times, Miles, that you were afraid. You were — you were worried, especially when I was standing in front of the Pentagon that night, seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile, an airplane, thinking about the number of people that probably died on the plane and on the ground…”
Click on the link below to see the above exchange between O’Brien and Roemer:
Expert claims that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicates that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”
The missile hypothesis is supported by physical evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman, a well-respected radiation expert, used a Geiger counter to measure radiation levels from about 12 miles downwind of the Pentagon shortly after the attack on 9/11. Sherman reported that the Geiger counter reading was extremely high, 8-10 times greater than normal. 
Although Sherman’s findings are not conclusive, Dr. Leuren Moret, formerly a scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory, stated:
“I’m not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used.” 
The missile theory was echoed by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert:
“When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile’s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” 
Pentagon Witness: I was convinced it was a missile.
Lon Rains, who was an Editor for Space News at the time, happened to be driving his car near the Pentagon when it was hit by a missile on 9/11. In an article titled Eyewitness: The Pentagon, published on June 30, 2005, Rains wrote:
“That morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” 
Analysis of Pentagon video indicates that it was faked
While we are not 100% convinced that this analysis of the Pentagon footage is irrefutable, it is worth watching. Below is an analysis of the video footage that allegedly shows Flight 77 exploding as it impacts the Pentagon. The frame-by-frame analysis shows the fuselage is still in view when the explosion occurs. Watch it here:
FBI: Alleged Phone calls from Flight 77 on 9/11 by Barbara Olson to Ted Olson did NOT happen
The FBI has confirmed that the calls that Ted Olson allegedly received from his wife, Barbara Olson, from the hijacked Flight 77 were a fabrication. The alleged call from Barbara Olson was the only source of information that mentions terrorists with box cutters. Late on 9/11, Olson reported to CNN that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from AA Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.” 
Ted Olson’s report was critical because it provided the only evidence that AA Flight 77 was still airborne after it had disappeared from FAA radar shortly before 9:00 am.
Barbara Olson was a well-known commentator on CNN. The reports of her death in a plane that was hijacked by Arab Muslims and subsequently crashed into the Pentagon were a key factor in gaining support for Bush’s “war on terror.”
Ted Olson’s story was shown to be a lie in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker. In the FBI report on phone call from American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” lasting “0 seconds.” Therefore, according to the FBI, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife from either a cell phone or a phone onboard the plane. 
9/11 Commission Omits Testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Alters Timeline to Protect Vice President Dick Cheney, Who Allowed the Attack on the Pentagon and Failed to Issue an Order to Evacuate the Pentagon
AA Flight 77 allegedly struck the Pentagon at 9:37 am (we know that it was actually a missile and that another plane merely flew past the Pentagon to appear as though it had crashed). Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that he was in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) and he personally witnessed Vice President Dick Cheney do absolutely nothing while a plane was tracked for over 50 miles as it headed towards the Pentagon. Cheney didn’t even try to alert the Pentagon about the impending attack so that people could have evacuated.
Mineta’s important testimony was omitted from the official 9/11 Commission Report. Even more incredulous is that the Commission lied about the time that Cheney entered the PEOC to make it appear as though Cheney did not enter the PEOC until 20 minutes after the Pentagon was hit. The 9/11 Commission Report claimed that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.” 
Watch Mineta testify under oath as he is questioned by Lee Hamilton, who was co-chair of the 9/11 Commission:
Here’s what Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, said, under oath:
“During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ‘The plane is 50 miles out.’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to ‘the plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the Vice President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President . . . said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’”
Mineta’s testimony contradicts the official story regarding why the Pentagon was not evacuated. In explaining why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was struck, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s spokesman claimed that “the Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.” 
Mineta’s testimony proves that Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft and that there would have been at least 12 minutes for the Pentagon to be evacuated.
The omission of Mineta’s testimony and obvious falsification of Cheney’s arrival time at the PEOC provides reason to suspect that the 9/11 Commission lied about Cheney’s activities to protect him from being found negligent and possibly even complicit in the attack on Pentagon and the resulting deaths.
So, why didn’t Cheney call for an evacuation of the Pentagon? One logical reason is that he did not want to have hundreds of people witness the missile strike and see the low-flying decoy plane fly past the Pentagon.
Evidence that Flight 93 Was Shot Down
Rumsfeld said that the 9-11 plane was ‘shot down’ over Pennsylvania
The official story regarding United Airlines Flight 93 has been that passengers on the plane rushed the hijackers to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target. However, during a surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq in December 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight as being shot down . Here is what Rumsfeld said:
“I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples’ heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word ‘terrorized’ is just that.”
Here’s a video of Rumsfeld’s making the above statement:
Investigators find no debris from Flight 93 larger than a phone book and debris is spread over many miles
The video clip below includes several reports of Flight 93 including a female reporter, near the end of the clip, who stated:
“The debris here is spread over a 3 to 4 mile radius which has now been completely sealed off, and is being treated according to the FBI as a crime scene. This is one of those cases where the pictures really do tell the story . . . one of the most horrifying aspects of this is how little debris is visible . . . that’s all you see, just a large crater in the ground, and just tiny, tiny bits of debris . . . the investigators out there, and there are hundreds of them, have found nothing larger than a phone book.”
See the reporter plus more about Flight 93 including reports of debris 6.9 miles from the crash:
Motive for 9/11
“It’s been painfully obvious the administration not only fought the creation of the commission but that their objective was the war in Iraq, and one of the notions that was built on was there was a direct connection between al Qaida and 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was not. So therefore they didn’t want the 9/11 commission to get going. What you have is the fear from the White House that the commission would uncover pretty quickly the fact that one of four legs that the war stood on was nonexistent.”– Max Cleland, former member of the 9/11 Commission 
Motive 1: The Establishment of a Military Presence in Central Asia to Maintain American Primacy
In Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, Brzezinski stated that the establishment of military bases in Central Asia would be critically important for “America primacy”, partly due to the large oil reserves near the Caspian Sea.
Knowing that the American public “supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,” Brzezinski suggested that Americans today would support military operations in Central Asia only “in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” 
For an interesting analysis of some the key ideas presented in Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard, watch this video with Michael Ruppert titled Playing The Pawns On The Grand Chessboard: The Deception Of Geopolitics:
Motive 2: Afghan Oil Pipeline
In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski also describes a “pipleline war” as part of the motivation to invade Afghanistan. President George W Bush and Vice-president Dick Cheney backed UNOCAL’s Afghan pipeline plans. However, the Taliban was an obstacle to achieving that goal. At a meeting in Berlin in July of 2001, representatives of the Bush administration gave the Taliban an ultimatum: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” 
Since the Taliban did not go along with the plan, the U.S. needed an excuse to attack Afghanistan. 9/11 gave them the excuse that they needed. On the evening of 9/11, President George W. Bush addressed the nation regarding the terrorist hijackings, and the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon:
“Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts…. Today our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature… The search is under way for those who are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law-enforcement communities to find those responsible, and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them.” 
Does Bush REALLY want justice for “those who are behind these evil acts”?
Within three weeks after 9/11, Bush ordered the bombing of Afghanistan because they were allegedly harboring Osama bin Laden. But, one has to wonder how serious Bush was about finding those who were “behind these evil acts” and bringing them to justice. Bush waited a full 441 days to reluctantly establish the 9/11 Commission and then made sure that it was virtually impossible for the Commission to perform a thorough investigation. In fact, the first chapter of a book written by the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, is titled “Set Up to Fail,”  in which they explain why they believe that was the case:
- The late establishment and start of the commission itself. It took 441 days after the attacks and a Congressional mandate to force the Bush administration into a formal investigation.
- There were numerous complications in obtaining security clearances for Commissioners and staff.
- There was a short deadline for completion that did not allow for enough time to fulfill their mandate.
- The commission was severely underfunded. Only $3 million dollars was initially allocated, though two months later the Bush Administration reluctantly increased the total to $12 million.
- The commission had restricted access to important documents and witnesses. According to Hamilton, “… we were fighting the question of access right up to the end of the Commission’s work.”
- False testimony was given by NORAD officials, and
- The commission encountered obstruction by the CIA, and possibly the White House, over access to prisoners accused of having a role in the 9/11 plot.
Motive 3: The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative think tank that had numerous key members that were also part of the Bush administration including, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The PNAC advocated a war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, build a military presence, and “control the oil.”
The December 1, 1997 issue of the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, headlined its cover with the directive: Saddam Must Go: A How-to Guide. Two of the articles were written by Bush administration officials Paul D. Wolfowitz and Zalmay M. Khalilzad, who wrote: “We will have to confront him [Saddam Hussein] sooner or later—and sooner would be better.” 
Wolfowitz and Libby contributed to the PNAC’s report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century released in September 2000, which reiterated the idea of a permanent military presence in the Gulf region. In that report, the PNAC suggested that the road to rebuild American defenses “will likely be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.” 
On the night of 9/11, Bush noted in his daily diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.” Also, Bush characterized 9/11 as “a great opportunity.” 
Donald Rumsfeld added that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” 
This idea of 9/11 providing “opportunities” then showed up in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002:
“The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities.” 
Only three days after 9/11, “Congress approved $40 billion to help mend and avenge the victims of Tuesday’s terrorist attacks.” 
Motive 4: Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq from Day 1 of His Administration
In Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, which aired in early January, 2004, O’Neill revealed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Bush’s main focus from the very beginning of his administration. See the transcript below and the video link below that.
Stahl: “And what happened in President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.”
O’Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.”
Stahl: “He said that going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.”
Ron Suskind (author of the book “The Price of Loyalty” in which O’Neill was a significant contributor. O’Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents): “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime”
Stahl: “Now everybody else thought that grew out of 9/11.”
Stahl: “But this book says it was day one of this administration.”
Suskind: “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
Stahl: “As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as ‘Why Saddam?’ and ‘Why now?’ were never asked.”
Stahl (quoting O’Neill from the book): “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
O’Neill: “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
Stahl: “And that came up at this first meeting?”
O’Neill: “It did.”
Stahl: “O’Neill told us that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet.” (Note: the cover sheet is shown in the video below)
Suskind: “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.’” (Note: the memo is shown in the video below)
Stahl: “Nation Building?”
Stahl: “So, they discussed an occupation of Iraq?”
Suskind: “In January and February of 2001.”
Stahl: “Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.”
Stahl: “Suskind obtained this Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ It includes a map of potential areas for exploration.” (Note: the document is shown in the video below)
Note: for much more information regarding Maps and Charts of the Iraqi oil fields, visit the link below:
Suskind: “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions…”
Stahl: “On oil.”
Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”
Six months before 9/11, there were already plans for how the Iraqi oil fields would be divided up, and which contractors would do the work.
Here’s the link to the 60 Minutes interview with O’Neill:
Bush Makes a Big Joke about WMDs Never Being Found
In addition to the 9/11 lies, we also know that the Bush administration lied about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.  At a White House Correspondents Dinner in 2004, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, President George W Bush made a big joke about the fact that no WMDs were ever found:
Question: Who are Bush and his audience laughing at here?
Answer: The joke is on us. They are laughing at us. And, they will continue laughing as long as we allow them to stage false flag events and use their lies in order to dictate foreign and domestic policy.
What You Can Do
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please take some positive action to raise awareness. Here are some suggestions.
- Copy and distribute this report. You have our permission and are encouraged to copy and email this report to friends and family, and post on other sites. We have intentionally refrained from embedding images and videos to make it easy to copy as it contains only text and links.
- Show either the short or long version of the video AE911Truth’s Blueprint for Truth to friends and family. Also, try to get the long version of the video aired on your local cable stations. The AE911truth.com website contains a list of other strategies: http://ae911truth.org/en/take-action.html
- Similarly show the video Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 to friends and family and try to get the video aired on your local cable stations. You can also download the video from the citizeninvestigationteam.com website, make copies, and distribute the video. The citizeninvestigationteam.com website also contains a list of strategies: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/strategy.html
- Become a Quantum Activist: http://consciouslifenews.com/become-quantum-activist/115832/
We wish to acknowledge and thank all of the patriots and truthers who produced the videos and documents referenced in this report. We also acknowledge the many thousands of others worldwide who have spent countless hours in the pursuit of 9/11 truth. We have included only a small fraction of the evidence that has been collected over the years. But, we do believe that the artifacts that we have assembled, and the logical fashion in which they are presented, will convince any reasonable person that the official accounts (the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST study) are complete fabrications to cover up the truth.
Featured image source: cliff1066™’s photostream
 “The White House Has Played Cover-Up”–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
 9/11 Commission Report
 911 Commission Co-Chair Explains Need for New Investigation
 Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission
 Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission), Stonewalled by the C.I.A.
 Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission
 9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony, CNN, August 2, 2006
 Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission
 9/11 Commission Report
 World Trade Center Disaster Study
 New Poll of New Yorkers Finds Lingering Doubts about Official Explanation of 9/11 Attacks, Including Third Tower’s Collapse
 1 in 7 believe US government staged the 9/11 attacks
 Establishment Prepares 9/11 Official Story Onslaught (scroll down to section titled Highly Credible People Question 9/11)
 Factual History of False Flag Events
 CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs
 Andrew Gavin Marshall, Lies, War, and Empire: NATO’s “Humanitarian Imperialism” in Libya
 Calls in Syria for weapons, NATO intervention, The Washington Post, August 28, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/calls-in-syria-for-weapons-nato-intervention/2011/08/26/gIQA3WAslJ_story.html
 Iraq deaths
 Statement of Robin Hordon
 Greg Scott, Panel Demolishes Official 9/11 Story While Proposing State Initiatives for Justice, February 17, 2011
 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website (in the right-hand column on the home page)
 Controlling Interests: Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center
 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST, August 2008
 Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 31-32.
 George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.), Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle
 Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, USAF (ret), 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, Edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 2006
 The 9/11 commission Report (pages 225-226, 242)
 Air Traffic Controllers Recall September 11
 Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Outlining Anomalies Found in NTSB Data
 Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine, News Transcript, October 12, 2001
 Greg Szymanski, Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used; High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon, Not Commercial Airliner, August 18, 2004
 Lon Rains, Eyewitness: The Pentagon, Space News, June 30, 2005
 The Account of Box Cutters as Weapons, Jan 2005
 FBI: 9/11 cell phone calls from jets did not happen
 The 9/11 Commission Report, page 40
 Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates Weaknesses, Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001
 Rumsfeld says 9-11 Plane was ‘shot down’ in Pennsylvania, Dec. 27, 2004
 Eric Boehlert, The president ought to be ashamed, Nov 21, 2003
 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, published Sep. 18, 1998, pages 24-25, 35-36, 212
 Julio Godoy, U.S. Taliban Policy Influenced by Oil, Inter Press Service, Nov. 16, 2001.
 President George Bush:‘Today our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature’, September 11, 2001
 Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, published August 15, 2006
 Glenn Kessler, U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past: Opponents of War Wonder When, How Policy Was Set, Washington Post, January 12, 2003
 A Report of the Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century, page 51, September 2000
 Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, America’s Chaotic Road to War: Bush’s Global Strategy Began to Take Shape in First Frantic Hours After Attack, Washington Post, January 27, 2002
 Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with the New York Times, October 1, 2001
 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, pg. 28, September 2002
 The Dallas Morning News, Bush OKs calling up reservists; Congress approves $40 billion fund.
 CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs
THE 9/11 “BIG LIE”. WHEN FICTION BECOMES FACT
- by Global Research – 2011-09-11
Articles and documentation on 9/11 from Global Research
September 13th, 2011 by Barbara Nimri Aziz
I leave home 200 km beyond New York City for the three-hour drive into Manhattan. I make my way out of the quiet hills where I live, to drive into the metropolis to host my two weekly radio programs. This Tuesday, I would not reach work.
At 9:30 am, just an hour north of the city, I turn on my car radio.
A panicked broadcaster’s voice is reporting the catastrophic event underway in the city.
I pull off the road to listen more carefully. It takes but a moment for me, to register the magnitude of this news.
I find myself weeping uncontrollably over the wheel of my car. Cars slide pass me. Do those drivers know? Have they too heard? Do they also disbelieve the calamity we have entered? Are they rushing to sit with a friend, to turn on a TV to have real evidence? Newscasters repeat: “All bridges and tunnels into Manhattan are closed”.
I decide to continue southwards in the direction of New York City. Sapphire’s house is along this New Jersey route; so is Kay and Salah’s. I will stop at Paulette’s since her home is the first along my route. Before restarting the car, I open my cell phone and call my office, the radio station. Silence.
All lines are cut. The building from which we broadcast is barely 500 meters from the World Trade Center. Somehow I do not expect it is in danger. I need to join my colleagues at work doing what journalists must at such a time. I switch my car radio to 99.5 fm. Ahhh. We are sending out signals.
I hear the voices of colleagues: Jose, Sally, Burnard and Deepa.
They are calm, trying to make sense of the terror in the streets below them. I wish I were there. Not for the news scoop; there is no scoop on this. Our experienced announcers will use their voice to help our stunned public through this. I want to be with my colleagues to capture the immediacy of this calamity.
That’s one job of a journalist, especially broadcasters, in a moment of crisis. At 20 kilometers from Manhattan I reach the top of the hill, “Mountain View”. From here, one can make out the far-off skyline of Manhattan. I always find it a breathtaking spectacle; seeing the peaks of identifiable city buildings is reassuring somehow.
On this unhappy clear morning, reaching this crest on the road, I slow the car, and I gasp. Something is missing. No sign of the two highest towers, those at the southern tip of Manhattan Island. All I can distinguish in that vicinity is an enormous cloud of smoke seeping skyward. I begin to weep again.
It is clear I cannot proceed across the George Washington Bridge so I abandon any idea of reaching the radio station. I exit highway 4 and within a few moments, pull into Paulette’s drive.
On her television I witness the catastrophe. All channels–news, food, drama, marketing, sports, history– replay clips of the plane crashing into those buildings, then the softly, dropping towers, crumbling, sinking to the pavement. I pull out my phone again. Still no connection with the station. I try the home of a colleague living in lower Manhattan. Nothing. I manage to reach my family in a far away city; next I call the guests scheduled for tonight’s broadcasts. The shows will be cancelled. Of course. I return to the TV. Paulette and her son and I hardly speak. As I watch the spectacular images (a spectacle indeed) of the impacting planes and the collapsing buildings, I feel sick, weak, stunned. Inside that inferno and among the fuming rubble are thousands of women and men are being incinerated, pulverized. The replays go on. And on. Each cycle takes but a few moments. But this rumble begins to deepen, to build a story and a fear and anger.
I know it will last a generation. I glare at the TV screen, wanting this to be just a film I can shut off. Every week, when I arrive in the city, I park my car uptown, then take the subway train to our downtown office, passing through the World Trade Center. Along with millions of commuters I exit the subway train that terminates under that maze of towers.
I pass through the busy mezzanine and out to the street to walk to the east end of Wall Street. This subway station is now a mass tomb. Those two towers are–were–so colossal; I have always been aware of their immensity. They dwarf everything around, even the 19-story building where I work. That was yesterday. Today, the day after, our lead radio station is not broadcasting. Neither are other communications centers in the neighborhood. Was our transmitter damaged, the electricity cut? Were we forced to evacuate?
My thoughts shift from the dead and dying to the future, not a distant future, but to the coming weeks and months.
Already newscasters are speculating that the perpetrators are Arab. This catastrophe is bound to affect Arab and Muslim Americans. It is going to bear down on every one of us, wherever we are in the USA. Not because of more terror attacks here. But because the authorities will launch a hunt. Expansion of intelligence activity across the country is inevitable.
But I could not imagine the universal ramifications that would ensue. After earlier, less horrific incidents, The US Congress had hastily passed an anti-terrorism law; the negative effect of on our civil rights is already apparent. Most Americans were unaware of this because the immediate target of those laws was one community—US Muslims and Arabs. New regulations were in place, here and abroad.
Congress had already granted greatly expanded power to our intelligence agencies and the civil liberties of our people had already suffered. Thirty hours have passed since that morning. Tuesday night I drove home, mournfully, slowly, silently. Any neighbors I meet volunteer child-like threats: “we’ll get them”; “wipe them all out”. They are afraid. All of us are afraid for our future, the future of this disneyland of democracy and all the stuff we strive to possess, stuff that we take so for granted, for ourselves. I think; suddenly we all feel vulnerable in this invincible land. I know Americans will answer with revenge, not reflection. This frightens me most.
Barbara Nimri Aziz is a prominent author and radio broadcaster based in New York City.
THE 9/11 “BIG LIE”. WHEN FICTION BECOMES FACT
- by Global Research – 2011-09-11
Articles and documentation on 9/11 from Global Research
Americans United in Their Alarm about the Destructive Consequences of our Country’s Runaway Militarism
September 12th, 2011 by Global Research
Please Sign The Letter Below
Dear President Obama and Members of Congress:
The wars in which the United States is currently engaged–in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Libya–are harming U.S. national and economic security, degrading the standing of the United States in the world community, fueling hatred abroad for Americans and undermining the rule of law. These unconstitutional wars have been justified on false premises, and most recently in the case of Libya there was not even the pretense of a congressional declaration of war, making it an impeachable offense. We urge you to end the current illegal wars and start a national dialogue about shifting U.S. foreign policy away from dominance through military might, and toward being a member of the community of nations.
It is time to end all of these wars. It is time to initiate a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy away from domination of others through military strength and damaging sanctions. As a first step we urge a major withdrawal of soldiers from Afghanistan–as candidate Obama promised in 2008. This withdrawal should be at least as large as the 63,000 troop escalation the President put in place early in his presidency. This withdrawal should be defined as a clear first step to a complete withdrawal of all soldiers and private contractors from Afghanistan by the end of 2011. It is time to return to our Founders’ declared conception of the United States as a democratic Republic and not an Empire.
The people signing this letter come from all segments of the political spectrum. We are conservatives and progressives, liberals and libertarians, from the right, left and center. We are Democrats, Republicans and independents. We represent a healthy and still vital American tradition, indicated by the fact that the majority of Americans want the United States to bring the soldiers home from these counterproductive and avoidable wars.
The U.S. needs to normalize relationships with countries around the world, especially in the Middle East. We recognize that there are important natural resources in these areas. But we can achieve a sustainable economy in more effective ways than war and empire. The United States clearly has the wealth and knowledge to make this transition, and showing how it can be done would be an unparalleled service to our people and the world.
This is the time for a profound shift in foreign policy. A perfect storm has demonstrated the urgent need to reconsider militarism and promiscuous interventionism:
- The U.S. economy can no longer sustain a bloated military that spends as much on weapons and war as the rest of the world combined.
- The U.S. economy is in dangerous straits with mass debt fueled in large part by military spending that makes up 55% of federal discretionary spending.
- In war after war the US military has found that it cannot defeat people who seek to protect their countries and reject foreign domination, the very lesson of our own American Revolution.
- Documents published by Wikileaks have added fresh evidence discrediting the idea of the U.S. being the “good cop of the world.” Instead the world increasingly sees the U.S. government as one that dominates through threats, violence, bribery, spying and illegal actions, and is all too willing to use military force to achieve its ends. That is not the polity which the majority of Americans wish.
- The rule of law has been undermined by ignoring Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which specifically states that Congress has the authority to declare war, not the president. Tactics used in recent wars, including torture and widespread abuse of prisoners, further undermine the rule of law.
- Even with the raid on the Osama bin Laden refuge, the growth of stateless terrorism will not abate as long as the United States continues waging wars which commonly feature torture, midnight raids on families and the killing of innocent civilians.
- War brings suffering on a massive scale and unnecessary war brings pointless suffering. Reliable reports indicate more than one million war dead in Iraq and millions more becoming refugees. There are constant reports of civilian deaths in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Libya.
Mr. President and members of Congress, you have a historic opportunity to redirect U.S. foreign policy down the pathways of peace, liberty, justice, respect for community, obedience to the rule of law and fiscal responsibility. George Washington urged Americans to “cultivate peace and harmony with all” and to “avoid overgrown military establishments,” which are “hostile to republican liberty.” It is time for Americans to reject fear and militarism and embrace the highest, noblest aspirations of our heritage. It is time to come home, America.
[Please add your signature and hometown in the comment section below or write to akeaton at antiwar.com with "Please Add Me" in the subject line.]
Elliot Adams, President, Veterans for Peace
I. Dean Ahmad, President, Minaret of Freedom Institute; President. Islamic-American Zakat Foundation
Lisa Albrecht, Professor, Social Justice, University of Minnesota
Larisa Alexandrovna, Editor-at-Large, Raw Story
Maria Allwine, Fund Our Communities, Steering Committee, October2011.org
James Babb, Co-founder, We Won’t Fly
Jim Babka, President, DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee 2004
Margo Baldwin, President & Publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing
Jack Balkwill, Editor, LUV (Liberty Underground of Virginia) News
Doug Bandow, Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan
Paul Barrow, Director of Policy and Communications, United Progressives
Rosalyn Baxandall, Distinguished American Studies Prof., Chair SUNY Old Westbury
Jonathan Bean, Research Fellow, The Independent Institute
William O. Beeman, Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota
David Beito, Professor of History at the University of Alabama
Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK, co-founder
Phyllis Bennis, Director, New Internationalism Project, Institute for Policy Studies
Bruce L. Benson, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, Florida State University, Vietnam War combat veteran
Walter E. Block, Professor of Economics, Loyola University
Leah Bolger, CDR, USN (Ret), National Vice-President, Veterans For Peace
Scott Bonn, Author and Assistant Professor of Sociology, Drew University
Samuel Bostaph, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Dallas
Elaine Brower, anti-war military mom, National Steering committee, World Can’t Wait
Paul Buchheit, PayUpNow.org and UsAgainstGreed.org
Paul Buhle, Emeritus Senior Lecturer, Brown University
Tim Carpenter, Director, Progressive Democrats of America
Kevin A. Carson, Research Associate, Center for a Stateless Society
Gary Chartier, Associate Prof. of Law and Business Ethics at La Sierra University
David Cobb, Green Party 2004 Presidential Nominee
Jeff Cohen, Author, media critic, journalism professor, co-founder, RootsAction.org
Catarina Correia, Coordinating Committee, National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance
Robert Dickson Crane, Richard Nixon’s principal foreign policy adviser, 1963-68, Deputy Director for Planning, National Security Council, 1969
Doug Craig, Libertarian National Committee, US Navy, Gulf War vet
Ellen Davidson, Steering Committee, October2011.org
Nicolas J. S. Davies, Author of Blood On Our Hands & Local Coordinator, PDA Miami
Joseph Dobrian, writer, Libertarian Party candidate for Mayor of New York City, 2009
Karen Dolan, Fellow, Cities for Peace, Institute for Policy Studies
Jim Douglass, Author, JFK and the Unspeakable
Jake Diliberto, Co-founder, Veterans For Rethinking Afghanistan
Gus diZerega, Founding Editor, Studies in Emergent Order, author
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, professor emerita, California State University
Sibel Edmonds, Founder & Director, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Carolyn Rusti Eisenberg, Professor US Foreign Policy, Hofstra University
Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow, The Independent Institute
Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower
Lucas M. Engelhardt, Assistant Professor of Economics Kent State University
Jodie Evans, CODE PINK, co-founder
John Feffer, Co-director, Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies
Joy First, Convener National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance
Margaret Flowers, MD, Single Payer Health Care Advocate
Glen Ford, Executive Editor, Black Agenda Report
Four Arrows, aka Don Trent Jacobs, Prof. of Education, Fielding Graduate University,co-founder Veterans for Peace Northern Arizona chapter and American Indian author
Russell Arben Fox, Associate Professor of Political Science, Friends University
Bart Frazier, Program Director, The Future of Freedom Foundation
Eric Garris, Antiwar.com
Dave Garthoff, Department of Economics, The University of Akron
Alan Gilbert, Professor, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, Univ. of Denver
Philip Giraldi, Former CIA Operations Officer
Paul Glover, social entrepreneur and consultant
Nate Goldshlag, National Treasurer, Veterans For Peace
Charles Goyette, Author, The Dollar Meltdown
Anthony Gregory, Research Editor, The Independent Institute
Marc Guttman, MD, Editor, Why Liberty-Personal Journeys Toward Peace and Freedom
Jane Hamsher, Founder and Publisher, FireDogLake.com
Roger D. Harris, Vice President, Task Force on the Americas
Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government
Cole Harrson, Co-coordinator, UFPJ Afghanistan Working Group
Holly Hart, Secretary, on behalf of the Green party of the U.S.
Howie Hawkins, Co-Chair, Green Party of New York State
David R. Henderson, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution
Mark W.A. Hinkle, Chairman, Libertarian Party
Connie Hogarth, Dir. Center for Social Action, Manhattanville College, Purchase, NY
Sage Holben Metropolitan State University, St. Paul
Will Hopkins, Board, Veterans for Peace, Executive Director NH Peace Action
Jacob Hornberger, President, The Future of Freedom Foundation
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Associate Professor of Economics, San Jose State University
Lou Jasikoff, Chair Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
Rob Kall, Publisher, OpEdNews.com
Tarak Kauff, Veterans for Peace
Bill Kauffman, Author, Ain’t My America
Angela Keaton, Former member, Libertarian National Committee
Nada Khader, Executive Director, WESPAC Foundation
The Rev Michael Kinnamon, Ph. d General Secretary, National Council of Churches
Stephan Kinsella, Senior Fellow, Ludwig von Mises Institute
Adam Kokesh, Executive Producer and host of ADAM VS THE MAN, Iraq Veteran
Karen U. Kwiatkowski, Lt Col, USAF (ret.)
Judith LeBlanc, Field Director, Peace Action
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor, Tikkun Magazine, Chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives
William S. Lind, co-author (with Paul Weyrich), The Next Conservatism
Carroll Long, UN, World Bank (ret.)
Roderick T. Long, Professor of Philosophy, Auburn University; President, Molinari Institute
Bartley Madden, Professor of Economics at Mercatus, George Mason University
Tom Maertens, Former Director, National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush
Ben Manski, Liberty Tree, Executive Director
Daniel McCarthy, Editor, American Conservative
Robert W. McChesney, Gutgsell Endowed Prof., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Raymond L. McGovern, CIA Analyst (ret.)
David McReynolds, Socialist Party presidential candidate, 1980, 2000
Jeffrey Miron, Department of Economics, Harvard University, Senor Fellow, The Cato Institute
Robert P. Murphy, Lecturer, Ludwig von Mises Institute
Nancy Murray, Human Rights Activist, Boston, MA
Ralph Nader, Consumer advocate
Robert Naiman, Policy Director, Just Foreign Policy
Anthony Noel, Facilitator, New Progressive Alliance
Jeff Norman, Director, U.S. Tour of Duty
Jim O’Brien, co-chair, Historians Against the War
George O’Neill, Jr., Come Home America
James Oaksun, National Chair Outright Libertarians
Michael D. Ostrolenk, National Security Consultant
Charles V. Peña, Senior Fellow, The Independent Institute; Foreign Policy Advisor, Ron Paul for President 2008
James Peron, President, The Moorfield Storey Institute
Jeff Paterson, Project Director, Courage to Resist
Dan Perkins, political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow
George Phillies, Editor, Liberty for America
Larry Pinkney, Editorial Board Member & Columnist, The Black Commentator
Udi Pladott, Steering Committee, October2011.org
Murray Polner, Editor and Writer
Margaret Power, Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology
Vijay Prashad, author, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World
Sharon Presley Ph.D., Executive Director, Resources for Independent Thinking, author
Mike Prokosch, New Priorities Network
Justin Raimondo, Editorial Director, Antiwar.com, author
Ted Rall, author and political cartoonist
William Redpath, Treasurer & Immediate Past Chairman, Libertarian National Committee
Ward Reilly, Steering Committee, October2011.org
Sheldon Richman, Free Association Blog
Mik Robertson, Past-Chair, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
Marakay Rogers, Esq, Libertarian Nominee, Governor of Pennsylvania
Matthew Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive
Coleen Rowley, Former FBI Agent and one of TIME’s 2002 Persons of the Year
Thaddeus Russell, Historian and author of A Renegade History of the United States
Linda Schade, Founder, VotersForPeace
Lisa Schirch, Director, 3P/Partners Advancing Human Security
Joseph E. Schwartzberg, Distinguished International Emeritus Professor, University of Minnesota
Kim Scipes, former Sgt, USMC (1969-73), member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Butler Shaffer, Professor, Southwestern University School of Law
Daniel Shea, Board of Directors, Veterans for Peace
Cindy Sheehan, National Director of Peace of the Action
Robert Shetterly, artist, Americans Who Tell the Truth
William F. Shughart II, Senior Fellow, The Independent Institute; J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice, Utah State University
Lisa Simeone, Steering Committee October2011.org
Sam Smith, Editor, Progressive Review
Brad Spangler, Director, Center for a Stateless Society
David Swanson, Author, War Is A Lie
Alexander Tabarrok, Research Director, The Independent Institute;
Bartley J. Madden Professor of Economics at Mercatus, George Mason University
Jeff Taylor, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Jacksonville State University
Dennis Trainor, Jr., October 2011 Steering Committee
Rachel Treichler, Green Party (NY)
Laurence M. Vance, Francis Wayland Institute
Dave Wagner, Tempe, Arizona
Jesse Walker, Managing Editor, Reason
John V. Walsh, MD, Professor, Univ. of Mass. Medical School; Come Home America
Bernard J. Way, Associate Professor, Political Science and Economics Department, Christendom College
C. T. Weber, State Chairperson , Peace and Freedom Party of California
Linda Wiener, Steering Committee, October2001.org
James Matthew Wilson, Assistant Professor of Literature, Villanova University
Darren Wolfe, Founder, Focus On Peace
Emira Woods, Co-Director, Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies
Tom Woods, Senior Fellow, Ludwig von Mises Institute
Steven Woskow, Ph d,Consultant
Ann Wright, US Army Colonel (ret.) and former US diplomat
R. Lee Wrights, Editor and publisher of Liberty For All, US Air Force Veteran
Kevin B. Zeese, Come Home America
To Sign Letter click http://www.comehomeamerica.us/
September 12th, 2011 by Joel S. Hirschhorn
By every one of countless measures the US is in a death spiral. Its political system, government and economy are hopelessly broken. No wonder that the vast majority of Americans express severe dissatisfaction with Congress, both major parties, and increasingly with President Obama. And only the wealthy elites have any reason to be positive about corporate powers, Wall Street and the whole banking and finance sector. They not only own the nation, they run it.
Only the truly delusional still speak about the US being the leading and best nation. About a third of the population is suffering from one or more of these epidemics: unemployment, underemployment, hunger, homelessness, home foreclosure, no useful health insurance, income so stagnated that keeping up with rising living costs is next to impossible, and slippage from the middle class into the working poor class. What is to save the nation?
Once you acknowledge the profound and insidious corruption plaguing the political system which is nothing more than a dysfunctional two-party plutocracy or oligarchy serving the rich and corporate interests, then you must also see that elections will not deliver salvation. Nor can you depend on the media to rise above corporate ownership to help fix the nation.
It matters little whether you vote for and support Republicans or Democrats. All those politicians are corrupt and unable to exercise bold, creative solutions for the good of the nation, not those special interests that get them elected, on the left and right.
Once mighty nations and superpowers have fallen before. History speaks truth, unlike just about everything spoken by today’s politicians.
There are two paths that have the power to bring about the major, radical reforms needed. Everything else you hear is pure garbage designed to maintain the status quo.
First, there is what brought about the birth of the US and so many other democracies: violent revolution. Not rebellion against some foreign power, but rather against domestic tyrannical forces. There is a limit to what many millions of Americans will endure, especially as they see the rich Upper Class enjoy every conceivable type of luxury. True, it is hard to understand how even now we have not seen millions of angry, suffering Americans protesting violently in the streets of all major cities, as we see happen in so many European countries. Americans seem to have been drugged into a distracted, delusional state of mind, still buying the scam that they can depend on elections. Eventually, however, as government is financially unable to provide various kinds of assistance because of the broken economy, those most struggling to survive will inevitably resort to violence. History speaks truth.
Second, is the peaceful route to dramatic, necessary reforms that the Founders had the wisdom to put into the US Constitution: an Article V convention of state delegates with the constitutional power to propose constitutional amendments. At this time there are more diverse groups seriously examining and, increasingly, demanding the first Article V convention. Why? Because it has become crystal clear to more and more people that only through constitutional amendments that Congress will never propose is it possible to rid the political system of the corruption and dysfunction permeating it. Get private money out of politics. Remove the fiction of corporate personhood. Compel Congress to balance the budget. Worthy ideas are everywhere.
At other times attempts to get the first Article V convention met stiff opposition from the right and left. But times have changed. It is clearer than ever that the political and government system is so broken and corrupt that the basic rules must be amended, just as the Founders believed would become necessary.
A major upcoming conference at Harvard, using the tag line “Democracy in America is Stalled,” will surely help focus both support and opposition to using the convention route.
There are now many websites providing solid information and analysis about the convention option, particularly one by the national, nonpartisan Friends of the Article V convention that does not advocate for specific amendments.
Every time you hear some argument against using the convention option ask yourself whether the risk of sticking with the current system outweighs any conceivable risk of a convention that can only propose amendments, which still must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. If you are not in the top levels of the economy, but rather are in the majority suffering and losing ground, then the answer rings as clear as the liberty bell.
Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.
Dangerous Crossroads: Russian Military Chief: Prepare For “Worst-Case Scenarios” In Unravelling World
September 12th, 2011 by Global Research
Russia’s chief of general staff has said that the country’s military must be ready to the worst possible scenarios as the political situation in the world is taking complicated and unexpected turns.
Speaking at a Monday press conference in Moscow, Army General Nikolay Makarov said that Russian military organizations must be ready for the worst possible developments. “The situation in the world is complicated and it is constantly changing, especially in North Africa and the Middle East. What happened in these regions was difficult to predict and the events developed at a tremendous speed,” the general said. “No one can tell now what will happen there. However, this is a signal for all states. We, the military, must be ready for the worst scenarios.”
The top Russian military official also said that the countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) would soon develop a joint approach to the use of national military forces.
“We want to develop a single approach within the CSTO framework to the use of military force,” the Russian general said while speaking about the Center-2011 joint military exercise of the military forces of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
“Apart from the military, all other power structures of the CSTO countries that are included in the state military structure will take part in these exercises. As far as Russia is concerned, we want to check the military organization of the country as a whole, to launch a complex of mobilization moves, including the industry,” Makarov said. “Today we start a separate plan to deploy a number of mobilized military units,” the general said.
The mentioned military exercise will start in late September with participation of over 12,000 servicemen, 70 aircraft, 1,000 combat vehicles and the Caspian Flotilla in full force.
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
Stop NATO website and articles:
September 12th, 2011 by Global Research
• Reflections of Fidel
A brilliant and valiant statement
ATTENDING to other matters currently priorities momentarily took me away from the frequency with which I wrote Reflections during 2010; however, the proclamation by the revolutionary leader Hugo Chávez last Thursday, June 30, obliges me to write these lines.
• REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
The empire’s untenable position
NO one can be sure that, in its agony, the empire might not drag humanity into a catastrophe.
As is known, as long as human life exists, everyone has the sacred responsibility to be optimistic. Ethically, any other type of behavior would be inadmissible. I remember well a day, almost 20 years ago, when I said that one species was in danger of extinction: the human race.
• The lies and unknowns in the death of Bin Laden
THE men who executed bin Laden did not act on their own account: they were fulfilling orders from the government of the United States. They had been carefully selected and trained for special missions. It is known that the President of the United States can even communicate with a soldier in combat.
• The murder of Osama Bin Laden
THOSE who pay attention to these issues know that, on September 11, 2001, our people expressed solidarity with the United States and offered the modest support we could provide in the area of emergency care for the victims of t
• A fire which could burn everyone
ONE can be in agreement or not with Gaddafi’s political ideas, but nobody has the right to question the existence of Libya as an independent state and a member of the United Nations.
• The restless and brutal North
I was reading a large amount of material and books to keep my promise and continue my Reflection of April 14th about the Bay of Pigs when I took a look at yesterday’s latest news items, which were abundant, as they are everyday. Mountains can pile up every week, ranging from the earthquake in Japan, Ollanta Humala victory in Peru over Keiko, daughter of former president Alberto Fujimori.
• My absence on the Central Committee
I was familiar with the content of compañero Raúl’s report to the 6th Congress of the Party. He had shown it to me a few days previously on his own initiative, as he has done on many other occasions without me asking him to because, as I already explained, I had delegated all my responsibilities within the Party and the state in the proclamation of July 2006.
• The Congress Debates
THIS morning at 10:00am I listened to the delegates’ debates at the 6th Congress of the Party.
• The 50th anniversary parade
TODAY I had the privilege of appreciating the impressive parade with which our people commemorated the 50th anniversary of the socialist nature of the Revolution and the Bay of Pigs victory.
• Better and more intelligent
YESTERDAY, for reasons of space and time, I didn’t say one word about the speech on the Libyan War given by Barack Obama on Monday the 28th. I had a copy of the official version, supplied to the press by the U.S. government. I had underlined some of the things that he asserted. I reviewed it again and came to the conclusion that it wasn’t worth wasting too much paper on the matter.
• Reflections of Fidel
The disaster in Japan and a friend’s visit
TODAY I had the pleasure of greeting Jimmy Carter, who was President of the United States between 1977 and 1981 and the only one, in my opinion, with enough equanimity and courage to address the issue of his country’s relations with Cuba.
• Reflections of Fidel
NATO’s Fascist War
I didn’t have to be a fortune teller to divine what I foresaw with rigorous precision in three Reflections which I published on the CubaDebate website between February 21 and March 3: “NATO’s plan is to occupy Libya,” “Cynicism’s danse macabre,” and “NATO’s inevitable war.”
• Reflections of Fidel
Between emigration and crime
LATIN Americans are not innate criminals and neither did they invent drugs.
The Aztecs, Mayas and other pre-Columbian peoples of Mexico and Central America, for example, were excellent agriculturalists and knew nothing about coca cultivation.
• Reflections of Fidel
The real intentions of the “Alliance of Equals”
YESTERDAY was a long day. From midday I paid attention to Obama’s vicissitudes in Chile, as I had done the day before with his adventures in the city of Rio de Janeiro.
• Reflections of Fidel
My shoes pinch
WHILE the damaged reactors are emitting radioactive smoke in Japan and monstrous looking aircraft and nuclear submarines are launching lethal guided missiles over Libya, a North African Third World country with barely six million inhabitants, Barack Obama was telling Chileans a story similar to the ones I heard when I was four years old: “My little shoes are pinching me, my stockings are hot; but the little kiss you gave me, I carry in my heart.
• Reflections of Fidel
Certificate of good behavior
DURING these bitter days we have seen footage of a 9.0 earthquake on the Richter scale, with hundreds of powerful aftershocks, and a tsunami 10 meters in height, which with waves of dark water swept tens of thousands of people between automobiles and trucks, over 3-4 story houses and buildings.
• Reflections of Fidel
An Alliance of Equals
ON the evening of Saturday the 19th, after a sumptuous banquet, NATO leaders ordered the attack on Libya.
Of course, nothing could happen without the United States reclaiming its obligatory role as supreme leader. From this institution’s command post in Europe, a high-level official announced that Odyssey Dawn was being initiated.
• Reflections of Fidel
The disasters threatening the world
IF the speed of light didn’t exist, if the closest star to our sun weren’t four light years away from Earth, the only inhabited planet in our solar system, if UFOs truly existed, imaginary visitors to the planet would continue their journey without understanding much of anything about our long-suffering human race.
• Reflections of Fidel
A powerful 8.9 magnitude earthquake shook Japan today. Of greatest concern is that the first news items report thousands dead or missing, figures truly extraordinary in a developed country where everything is built to withstand earthquakes.
• Reflections of Fidel
NATO, war, lies and business
AS some people know, in September of 1969, Muammar al-Gaddafi, a Bedouin Arab soldier of unusual character and inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, promoted within the heart of the Armed Forces a movement which overthrew King Idris I of Libya, almost a desert country in its totality, with a sparse population, located to the north of Africa between Tunisia and Egypt.
• Reflections of Fidel
NATO’s inevitable war (Part II)
WHEN Gaddafi, aged just 28 and a colonel in the Libyan army, inspired by his Egyptian colleague Abdel Nasser, overthrew King Idris I in 1969, he implemented important revolutionary measures such as agrarian reform and the nationalization of oil.
• Reflections of Fidel
NATO’s inevitable war
AS opposed to the situation in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya occupies first place in the Human Development Index within Africa and has the highest life expectancy rate on the continent. Education and health receive special state attention.
• Reflections of Fidel
Cynicism’s danse macabre
THE politics of plunder imposed by the United States and its NATO allies in the Middle East is in crisis. This was inevitably unleashed with the high cost of grain, the effects of which are being felt with more force in the Arab nations where, despite their enormous oil resources, the shortage of water, arid areas and generalized poverty of the people contrast with the vast resources derived from oil possessed by the privileged sectors.
• Reflections of Fidel
NATO’s plan is to occupy Libya
OIL became the principal wealth in the hands of the large yankee transnationals; with that source of energy, they had at their disposal an instrument that considerably increased their political power in the world. It was their principal weapon when they decided to simply liquidate the Cuban Revolution as soon as the first, just and sovereign laws were enacted in our homeland: by depriving it of oil.
• Reflections of Fidel
The Revolutionary Rebellion in Egypt
I said several days ago that the die was cast for Mubarak and that not even Obama could save him.
The world knows what is taking place in the Middle East. The news is circulating at incredible speed. Politicians barely have time to read the cables coming in by the hour. Everyone is aware of the importance of what is occurring there.
• Reflections of Fidel
The die is cast for Mubarak
THE die is cast for Mubarak and not even the support of the United States can save his government. An intelligent people, with a glorious history which left its mark on human civilization, live in Egypt. “From the height of these pyramids 40 centuries contemplate you,” Bonaparte exclaimed, it is said, in a moment of passion when the encyclopedists’ revolution took him to that extraordinary crossroad of civilizations.
• Reflections of Fidel
The grave food crisis
JUST 11 days ago, January 19, under the title “Now is the time to do something,” I wrote:
“The worst is that, to a large degree, their solutions will depend on the richest and most developed countries, which will reach a situation that they really are not in a position to confront, unless the world which they have been trying to mold… collapses around them.”
• Reflections of Fidel
The State of the Union
THE President’s speech about the topic has been anxiously awaited, after his words at the University of Tucson, in Arizona, on January 12, about the killings which had taken place in that city four days earlier.
• Reflections of Fidel
Now is the time to do something
I shall recount a little bit of history.
When the Spaniards “discovered us” five centuries ago, the estimated figure for the population of the island did not exceed 200,000 inhabitants, who lived in harmony with nature.
• Reflections of Fidel
Obama’s speech in Arizona
I listened to it yesterday when he spoke at the University of Tucson during a tribute to the six people murdered and the 14 injured in the Arizona massacre, and in particular to the Democratic Congresswoman for that state, seriously wounded by a shot to the head.
• Reflections of Fidel
The crime against the Democratic Congresswoman
AS is known, the state of Arizona, a territory that was snatched from Mexico by the United States together with many other expanses of land, has been the scene of painful events for the hundreds of Latin Americans who die trying to immigrate to the United States in search of work or to join parents, spouses or other close family members who are there.
• Reflections of Fidel
Another Tea Party star
NONE other than Ileana Ros, the woman who held the child Elián kidnapped in Miami, the promoter of coups d’état, crimes like those of Posada Carriles and other misdeeds, is to travel to neighboring Haiti, where the…
• Reflections of Fidel
Without violence, without drugs
YESTERDAY I analyzed the atrocious act of violence against U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, in which 18 people were shot, six died and another 12 were wounded, several seriously, among them the Congresswoman with a shot to the head, leaving the medical team with no alternative other than to try to save her life and minimize, as much as possible, the consequences of the criminal act.
• Reflections of Fidel
An atrocious act
A sad news item was circulated this afternoon from the United States: Democratic Congresswoman for Arizona, Gabrielle Giffords, was the victim of a criminal attack while taking part in a political event in her electoral district of Tucson.
• Reflections of Fidel
What would Einstein say?
IN a Reflection published on August 25, 2010, under the title “The opinion of an expert,” I mentioned a totally unprecedented activity on the part of the United States and its allies which, in my view, underlined the risk of a conflict of a nuclear nature with Iran.
September 12th, 2011 by Wayne Madsen
President Bush’s chief counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke has revealed that the CIA under George Tenet attempted to recruit some of the 9/11 “Al Qaeda” terrorists prior to the attack of September 11, 2001, but that after the attempt failed, Tenet and his senior CIA staff covered up the botched recruitment effort.
The revelation is yet one more nail in the coffin of what has become the most discredited U.S. government report since the infamous Warren Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. In fact, the Warren Report received another blow after it was revealed that First Lady Jacqueline revealed in 1964 to historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. that she believed that Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the assassination of her husband in Dallas. The revelations by Mrs. Kennedy and Clarke show that the United States government cannot be trusted to investigate misdeeds carried out with the full knowledge and support of senior officials of the CIA and the White House. The 9/11 attack represents one such high-level government cover-up.
Clarke’s recent revelations about CIA knowledge of Al Qaeda 9/11 cells prior to the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington merely takes one to the shallowest of depths of the rabbit hole of the intelligence world, highly-compartmented cells of which carefully planned the attacks and how the mass media would cover the unfolding events.
The one individual who stands tall among those intelligence and law enforcement officers who was aggressively pursuing the criminal network that would carry out 9/11 was FBI counter-terrorism top man John O’Neill. Ever since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, O’Neill’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda had been dogged. After further terrorist attacks at the Khobar Towers barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia; the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the USS Cole in Aden harbor, O’Neill’s biggest problem was not Al Qaeda, it was resistance from top officials inside the U.S. government.
The biggest conspiracy theory of them all, the official 9/11 Commission Reportthat concluded that nineteen, mostly Saudi, hijackers, armed with box cutters, were able to defeat a multi-trillion dollar U.S. defense and intelligence system in a matter if mere hours one Tuesday morning in September 2001, has even been partly debunked by the two co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean and former Indiana Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton. Both have said that their committee was lied to by government officials and that important information was covered up and not released to committee investigators…
Kean’s and Hamilton’s ire would be best suited at being vented against Philip Zelikow, the one-time aide to Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who stated under oath that no one ever expected that passenger planes would be used as weapons. Zelikow was appointed as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission and he had the task of avoiding any investigations that would look at the roles of the CIA, Mossad, the Saudis, and Wall Street interests in crafting the ingredients that permitted the 9/11 attacks to be be carried out without a hitch. Zelikow has a storied career at debunking any theory that does not comport with government doctrine, including his many years of attacking anyone who disbelieves the Warren Commission’s myths about the assassination of President Kennedy.
Unfortunately, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center was not the first time the U.S. government engaged in a massive cover-up of an attack on the buildings. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the FBI and Justice Department sat on volumes of translations of Arabic telephone intercepts gathered before the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center from U.S.- and Sudan-based Muslim militants who once worked for U.S. intelligence in the mujaheddin war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The critical intelligence, which demonstrated a link between the CIA and “Afghan Arab” muhajeddin forces, including those loyal to Osama bin Laden, was never introduced into the trial of the Brooklyn- and Jersey City-based cell that included the blind Egyptian cleric Shaikh Omar Abdul Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Eyad Ismail. The New York and New Jersey cell also included Ali Mohammed, a graduate of the U.S. Army’s Special Forces School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, who, while an active duty member of the Special Forces, secretly traveled to Afghanistan to train Bin Laden’s forces and provided him with special intelligence on U.S. “soft targets” for terrorist attacks, and Wadih el-Hage, Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary, who was also a resident of the United States.
Ironically, the two men responsible for the failure to present the surveillance intelligence on the 1993 World Trade Center bombers to the juries and grand juries hearing the charges — the main federal prosecutors for New York City and New Jersey in the bombing case — were Patrick J. Fitzgerald and Michael Chertoff, respectively. Fitzgerald went on to become the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and cut his teeth indicting and having convicted two successive Illinois governors for corruption, Republican George Ryan and Democrat Rod Blagojevich. Both cases were politically-tainted show trials.
Adding to the outrages committed by the U.S. government was the fact that, according to an FBI source, the chief FBI investigator against Al Qaeda in the 1990s, the late John O’Neill, was upset that the much of the telephone surveillance of the 1993 bombers was never introduced as evidence and remained un-translated and classified.
Other CIA connections to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that are too numerous to describe. However, one jumps out because it involves a key player in the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks. A CIA source involved with the Bosnia Defense Fund, used to collect donations from Arab and Muslim countries for the Bosnian war against Serbia and Croatia, revealed that the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) was concerned that money transferred by Riggs Bank to the Bosnian Defense Fund’s account at the Central Bank in Sarajevo, was “bleeding” to terrorist elements believed to be linked to Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda.” Riggs was the major bank serving Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar and his wife Princess Haifa and it was a bank with family ties to George H.W. and George W. Bush.
When the CIA source complained about Bosnia Defense Fund cash falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, including people linked to bin Laden, he was told by one of the major Bosnia Defense Fund principals to “just make it f*****g happen!”
The Bosnia link to “Al Qaeda” was important. In fact, bin Laden had reportedly not only visited Bosnia, but carried at least one Bosnian diplomatic passport and had interfaced with Bosnian diplomats in Vienna, Austria.
And Mossad’s link to 9/11 cannot be ignored. Two internal U.S. government documents revealed that among the 120 Israeli “art students” who attempted to penetrate the security of dozens of Federal office buildings and who visited the homes of scores of U.S. law enforcement personnel during 2000 and 2001 were some who used addresses and mail drops in southern Florida and Texas near those used by a number of the 9/11 hijackers. The information came from a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Report drafted in June 2001 on the activities of the art students and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) list of the hijackers and other terrorist suspects, including a known Mossad agent, Dominick Suter, who ran an Israeli moving company in Weehawken, New Jersey. The FBI list was accidentally released in early October 2001 on a Finnish government web site.
Five Israelis working for Suter’s Urban Moving Systems were arrested by police and FBI agents during the later afternoon of 9/11, driving a suspicious van near Giant Stadium in Secaucus, New Jersey. The five Israelis were the only suspects arrested on September 11, 2001 on suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks. All five were deported to Israel without ever having been formally charged. The DEA memo specifically stated that the Israelis casing federal offices and employees’ homes may have had ties to an “Islamic fundamentalist group.”
Even ten years later, the U.S. government and the governments of New York and New York City are dismissing those 9/11 attack veterans who, unlike O’Neill, were fortunate enough to survive the catastrophic attack. Survivors or the World Trade Center collapse and first responders with the New York Police Department, New York-New Jersey Port Authority Police, New York Fire Department, and others were not invited to the tenth anniversary ceremonies at “Ground Zero” on September 11, 2011.
For ten years, the 9/11 attacks, along with those in London, Madrid, Bali, and other locations, have been used by the corporate media to hype government-directed campaigns against civil liberties, human rights, privacy protection, wars of liberation by aspirant ethnic groups and political parties, freedom of expression, and freedom of information. Americans of all ages and backgrounds are now subjected to intrusive body searches at airports that would have been seen as outrageous abuses of government authority fifteen years ago.
As we now reflect back on 9/11, we are told that Bin Laden was killed in a Special Operations assault in Abbotabad, Pakistan. There was little forensic evidence to prove Bin Laden was killed. In any case, most of the members of US Navy SEAL Team 6, which carried out the attack on Bin Laden, were killed recently in an attack on their helicopter in Afghanistan.
As with the assassination of President Kennedy and the Iran-Contra scandal twenty years later, 9/11 will be relegated to the history books as an event shrouded in mystery and short on actual evidence, most of it destroyed or remaining highly-classified, to identify the actual perpetrators.
September 12th, 2011 by Global Research
The overcommercialization, exploitation, lies of 9/11 are repulsive, at best!
The foolish cannot, or will not, think deeply enough to see that many more people here and all across our planet have died, lost their way of life, lost their cultures and had their cities, towns and villages made uninhabitable, all because of the actions of those who created the 9/11 approach to “ruling” humanity.
If it weren’t for honesty and accuracy in reporting, from people like you, the rest of us, who prefer to think for ourselves by reading between the lines in our search for truth, may never find it!
To the humane and caring people, whether they are in Bahrain, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, America and everywhere else, I support you and all you do to put the humane back into humanity! You are the true heroes on our world!
Thanks again for your pursuit of the truth, it is invaluable!
September 12th, 2011 by Washington's Blog
September 12th, 2011 by James Corbett
September 12th, 2011 by Mark Vorpahl
Anyone who still believes that U.S. workers and the labor movement are incapable of mounting a struggle against the conditions that the economic crisis is forcing on us has not been paying attention. Evidence to the contrary was vividly provided on the morning of September 8th, when 500 International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 21 members and their supporters took over the Port of Longview in the state of Washington. Railroad cars were damaged and the grain they carried was dumped in an effort by these workers to defend their jobs by resorting to the only tactic they had left, that is, using work site action to hurt the employers bottom line.
To do so they had to use their strength in numbers to overpower the police and security guards. Though the police attempted to make arrests, the workers pushed back and managed to release their brothers and sisters. The standoff that developed was explosively tense. As the hours rolled on the police began to bring out an arsenal of “non-lethal” guns and tear gas, demonstrating that they were prepared to inflict heavy casualties in order to secure the port and defend the bosses’ property and profits. The workers withdrew, for the time being, after having made their point by inflicting costs on the port bosses dearly. It is a credit to their unity that there were no successful arrests or injuries.
This action was accompanied by wildcat strikes (that is, strikes not sanctioned by the union) in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington. This shows how big the stakes are at the Port of Longview. For workers to sacrifice their wages and make such extraordinary efforts, the cost of such actions have to greatly outweigh the costs of not taking them.
In this case the corporation compelling the ILWU to take such dramatic actions is the multi-national consortium EGT Development. Last year alone they made $2.5 billion. In spite of these deep pockets, they want to bust the ILWU at the $200 million grain terminal in Longview. If they succeed, this will encourage other longshore employers to do the same.
Promising jobs, EGT got a state tax exemption and a sweetheart lease deal to build the grain terminal. However, rather than providing local construction jobs in a county with an August unemployment rate of 11.7 percent, they initially imported non-union lower paid workers. If anyone was expecting some gratitude towards the community from EGT for the breaks the company received, that illusion quickly evaporated.
Then EGT’s greedy behavior got even worse. For 70 years the Port of Longview has employed the members of ILWU Local 21. In May of 2010, EGT had stated that they would continue the practice. This appears to have been a stalling tactic, however. In following negotiations EGT made unreasonable demands, such as asking ILWU members to work 12 hour shifts without overtime pay in addition to an exemption from recognizing maintenance, repair, and master consul jurisdiction. After not getting their way, EGT refused to meet with the ILWU, which is, most likely, what they wanted to do all along.
ILWU Push Back
The ILWU began to hold rallies and picket EGT in an attempt to pressure them back to the negotiating table. EGT refused to budge. This arrogant stubbornness resulted in a protest on July 11 where ILWU members tore down a chain-link gate and stormed the EGT terminal. 100 union workers and leaders were cited for arrest.
On July 14th union workers successfully blocked a train from delivering grain to the EGT terminal. As a result, the train company suspended its shipments for safety reasons.
EGT was feeling the heat, but they weren’t burned yet. They had another cynical maneuver up their sleeve. They signed an agreement with the Federal Way-based General Construction Company to operate the terminal with union members from the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 701. Now they hoped they could portray the conflict as union against union rather than union against EGT.
However, because the members of IUOE 701 are employed by a general contractor, they can be replaced by non-union workers the moment EGT decides to take over the job itself. Seeing through this ruse, both the Oregon and Washington State AFL-CIOs have condemned the leadership of IUOE 701for their actions in assisting EGT’s attempts to divide the union movement.
In all of this, it is important to note, the role of the police and legal system. While there have been many arrests of union members and leaders with stiff sentences for charges as trivial as not moving quickly enough when asked, those acting against the union have consistently gotten off scot-free. For instance, one person drove his car through a picket line so carelessly that a picketer was sent to the hospital. Rather than arresting the driver, the police arrested a protester for allegedly denting the car with his knee. With this twisted logic, if the driver had gotten out of his vehicle and struck a protester in the mouth with his fist, the police would have arrested the protester for assaulting the driver’s hand with his face.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was established in the 1930s ostensibly to protect union rights, has also been lining up with the employer. This board filed a temporary injunction against the ILWU, prohibiting union members from all traditional forms of protest. This moved ILWU International President Robert McEllrath to observe:
“The NLRB complaint and the motion seeking a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) and injunction were expected by the Coast Committee. The complaint itself has no legal significance unless sustained after a full trial and currently represents nothing more than mere allegations that are based on incorrect facts and bogus legal conclusions. This, unfortunately, is typical of the NLRB ever since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 transformed its mission to restrict the union and civil rights of union members. The NLRB exists for one reason and that is to protect commerce at the expense of workers, and we are not surprised that EGT is employing the NLRB to put down a legitimate labor dispute.”
Fortunately, the ILWU defied this injunction on September 7, when they again clogged the railroad tracks to prevent grain from being delivered to the EGT terminal, and again on the morning of September 8 when they took over the terminal. Had they played by the rules of a game rigged in favor of the bosses, EGT would have no reason to settle the dispute. Consequently, the police and courts would have greater incentive to trample on the ILWU members’ rights.
On September 8th, a United States District Court Judge denied the NLRB’s motion to ban picketing at the EGT facility. It is more than likely that part of the motivation behind this was that such restrictions were not muzzling the ILWU membership, but emboldening them. If an unjust law is followed, it remains. If it is resisted and defied through mass collective action, there is a better chance of doing away with it.
The role of the corporate press should also be noted. Few, if any, articles have made a genuine attempt to give the union side in this conflict, though the ILWU has strong community support in Longview. The initial reports in the corporate websites and papers even claimed that security guards were held hostage by those who stormed the EGT terminal. Since these accounts came out, even the police have said they were false. Nevertheless, these claims still turn up uncorrected in the corporate media. This should surprise no one. The corporate media have more economic interests in discrediting labor and any actions that effectively hurt corporate profits than they do in providing the truth.
Even with the press, the legal system, as well as the political establishment lined up against us, labor can win. A new mood is rising from the ranks as a result of the attacks against all workers and the insatiable greed and power of those tiny few at the very top economic rung. This mood is turning into a mass force. We have already witnessed it in Madison, Wisconsin which, though not resulting in an immediate victory, showed that the political climate opposed to workers’ struggles can be turned around. The 45,000 member-strong strike at Verizon alone equaled all the unionists out on strike in 2010. Now the ILWU in Longview has introduced a new boldness in overcoming legal restrictions and hitting the employers where they are most vulnerable: their profits.
When ILWU International President Robert McEllrath urged members to end their standoff at the EGT Terminal take over, he stated:
“If we leave here, it doesn’t mean we gave up and quit. It means we’re coming back.”
And when they do come back, they need to do so with the active support of Longshore workers across the west coast. They also need to mobilize their community supporters in the streets. If this is done, the ILWU could again provide a watershed moment for Labor like they did in the 1934 San Francisco General Strike.
Mark Vorpahl is a union steward as well as an anti-war and Latin American Solidarity activist. He can be reached at [email protected].
September 12th, 2011 by Stephen Henighan
In June, 2002, I was walking down Knyaz Aleksandar I, a pedestrianized shopping street in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, with a Bulgarian friend. Home appliances and racks of designer clothes filled the display windows of the stores. In a patronizing Western way, I commented approvingly on Bulgaria’s commercial vitality. My friend, a hard-rock musician with two university degrees, politely corrected my impression. Almost no one in Plovdiv, he said, could afford this merchandise: The stores, which rarely made a sale, existed to launder money for Bulgarian criminals who earned huge profits by smuggling people from Russia to the West.
Until reading reporter Victor Malarek’s angry book about the trafficking of women from Eastern Europe, I grasped neither the scale nor the implications of the activities that financed those Plovdiv boutiques. According to Malarek, formerly an investigative reporter at The Globe and Mail, now at W-FIVE, during the last decade, hundreds of thousands of women from Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Romania have been sold into slavery as prostitutes.
Crime syndicates use a variety of methods to capture young women. A girl walking down a road in Moldova is forced into a car. An overflowing Romanian orphanage receives a visit from “social workers” offering “apprentice programs” for adolescent girls. A young Ukrainian woman desperate to help her starving parents responds to a newspaper advertisement for au pairs to work in Germany. An ambitious young graduate signs up with what appears to be a legitimate foreign corporation at a job fair at a Russian university.
These women are transported westward to be “broken” by being raped and beaten. In cities such as Belgrade, Yugoslavia, stunned women stand naked in secluded apartments waiting to be bought by pimps. A woman can sell for as little as $500 or as much as $10,000. After being sold, she will be locked in a room, fed one meal a day, tortured with cigarette burns to destroy her self-esteem, and forced to have sex with up to a dozen men a day, seven days a week, until exhaustion or disease wipe out her market value. The pimp makes back his investment in less than a week.
The scale of this traffic is mind-numbing. In Germany, up to half a million Eastern European women work as prostitutes. The streets of Italy are lined with Romanian and Moldovan teenagers. Other serious offenders include Greece, Turkey and South Korea, while some of the “Natashas” end up in Toronto, Chicago or Los Angeles. Among Malarek’s most shocking claims is that on a per capita basis the two countries with the most voracious appetites for Eastern European women are Bosnia and Israel.
Prostitution in Bosnia sprang up to serve the United Nations troops and international aid workers who flooded into the country at the end of the war in former Yugoslavia. Malarek slams home the irony of these supposed emissaries of civilization feeding a barbaric industry with descriptions of 60-year-old U.S. military officers showing up at social events with their 14-year-old sex slaves. UN police demand “freebies” in return for curtailing raids on brothels packed with UN soldiers. Malarek documents how attempts to clean up the Bosnian cesspool have been blocked by UN brass and the U.S. private security firm contracted to stock the UN police. He discovers similar conditions on a visit to Kosovo.
In Israel, it is common to blame rampant prostitution on foreign guest workers. But Malarek argues that these men lack the money to buy sex. The Israeli “Natashas,” smuggled in via Egypt, service an estimated one million men a month. Many of the johns are Orthodox Jews. Malarek quotes Israeli anti-prostitution campaigner Nissan Ben-Ami: “You see a lot of . . . very, very religious men — because these men need sex but the women in their society cannot give it to them when they want it. They also cannot masturbate because they cannot waste their sperm. . . . These men also do not use condoms, therefore they must pay the pimps more.” In every country where women are trafficked, the police are involved. Enforcement is cosmetic and judges refuse to believe a “foreign whore” over a local businessman. International plans to crack down on trafficking collapsed earlier this year when the United States backed out to avoid imposing economic sanctions on Israel, Russia, South Korea and Greece.
This is a depressing book, crammed with ugly case histories. Malarek’s tabloid-style prose does not always do justice to his diligent research. When every pimp is “scum,” every enforcer is “thuggish” and the rare honest cops are all “strapping six-footers,” a cartoonish aura threatens the book’s seriousness. The passages written in the first person, where Malarek narrates his experiences in Kosovo or on the notorious highway E-55 between Dresden and Prague, brim with authenticity yet leave nagging questions.
Malarek’s own Ukrainian-Canadian roots appear to fuel his anger at the way women from different countries are stripped of their cultural identities by the derisive term “Natashas.” He reveals just enough of his myriad motives for pursuing this story that we want to know more. Similarly, he tells us how these women are exploited, but little about where they come from. Many readers, I suspect, would have appreciated a fuller introduction to the poverty, corruption and fatal idealism about the West that afflict the women’s homelands. It may be hard to believe, but for many Eastern European young people anything seems preferable to life at home — until they discover what can be meant by “anything.”
Stephen Henighan is the author of Lost Province: Adventures in a Moldovan Family. He teaches at the University of Guelph, Ontario.
No doubt one of the most appalling aspects of the trade is the targeting of orphans throughout Eastern Europe. In March, 2003, for example, the U.S. State Department reported a “pattern of trafficking” involving orphans in Moldova. According to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the girls at risk are those who “must leave orphanages when they graduate,” usually at sixteen or seventeen. Most have no source of funds for living expenses or any education or training to get a job. Traffickers often know precisely when these girls are to be turned out of the institutions (“some orphanage directors sold information . . . to traffickers”) and are waiting for them, job offers in hand. The State Department also notes that throughout Russia, there are “reports of children being kidnapped or purchased from . . . orphanages for sexual abuse and child pornography” and that child prostitution is “widespread” in orphanages in Ukraine. And in Romania, “many orphanages are complicit in letting girls fall victim to trafficking networks.”
Vast armies of Russian children who have run away from brutal orphanages wander the streets of Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Excerpt from The Natashas.
September 12th, 2011 by The National Security Archive
Table of contents:
New Documents Detail America’s Strategic Response to 9/11
New Documents Detail America’s Strategic Response to 9/11 (09/11)
From: National Security Archive <[email protected]>
- New Documents Detail America’s Strategic Response to 9/11 (09/11)
Browse the NSARCHIVE online archives. National Security Archive Update, September 11, 2011
Secret U.S. Message to Mullah Omar: “Every Pillar of the Taliban Regime Will Be Destroyed”
New Documents Detail America’s Strategic Response to 9/11
Bush White House Resistant to Rebuilding Afghanistan
Rumsfeld’s War Aim: “Significantly Change the World’s Political Map”
For more information contact:
Barbara Elias – 202/994-7000
Washington, D.C., September 11, 2011 – In October 2001 the U.S. sent a private message to Taliban leader Mullah Omar warning that “every pillar of the Taliban regime will be destroyed,” according to previously secret U.S. documents posted today by the National Security Archive at www.nsarchive.org. The document collection includes high-level strategic planning memos that shed light on the U.S. response to the attacks and the Bush administration’s reluctance to become involved in post-Taliban reconstruction in Afghanistan. As an October 2001 National Security Council strategy paper noted, “The U.S. should not commit to any post-Taliban military involvement since the U.S. will be heavily engaged in the anti-terrorism effort worldwide.”
Materials posted today also include memos from officials lamenting the American strategy of destroying al-Qaeda and the Taliban without substantially investing in Afghan infrastructure and economic well-being. In 2006, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald R. Neumann asserted that recommendations to “minimize economic assistance and leave out infrastructure plays into the Taliban strategy, not to ours.” The ambassador was concerned that U.S. inattention to Afghan reconstruction was causing the U.S. and its Afghan allies to lose support. The Taliban believed they were winning, he said, a perception that “scares the hell out of Afghans.” Taliban leaders were capitalizing on America’s commitment, he said, and had sent a concise, but ominous, message to U.S. forces: “You have all the clocks but we have all the time.”
The documents published here describe multiple important post-9/11 strategic decisions. One relates to the dominant operational role played by the CIA in U.S. activities in Afghanistan. Another is the Bush administration’s expansive post-9/11 strategic focus, as expressed in Donald Rumsfeld’s remark to the president: “If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the U.S. will not achieve its aim/ There is value in being clear on the order of magnitude of the necessary change.” Yet another takes the form of U.S. communications with Pakistani intelligence officials insisting that Islamabad choose between the United States or the Taliban: “this was a black-and-white choice, with no grey.”
* A memo from Secretary Rumsfeld to General Franks expressing the Secretary’s frustration that the CIA had become the lead government agency for U.S. operations in Afghanistan, “Given the nature of our world, isn’t it conceivable that the Department [of Defense] ought not to be in a position of near total dependence on CIA in situations such as this?”
* A detailed timeline of the activities of Vice President Richard Cheney and his family from September 11-27, 2001.
* The National Security Council’s October 16, 2001 strategic outline of White House objectives to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda while avoiding excessive nation-building or reconstruction efforts. “The U.S. should not commit to any post-Taliban military involvement since the U.S. will be heavily engaged in the anti-terrorism effort worldwide.” The document also notes the importance of “CIA teams and special forces in country operational detachments (A teams)” for anti-Taliban operations.
* U.S. Ambassador Neumann expresses concern in 2006 that the American failure to fully embrace reconstruction activities has harmed the American mission. “The supplemental decision recommendation to minimize economic assistance and leave out infrastructure plays into the Taliban strategy, not to ours.” A resurgent Taliban leadership summarized the emerging strategic match-up by saying, “You have all the clocks but we have all the time.”
* A memo on U.S. strategy from Donald Rumsfeld to President Bush dated September 30, 2001, saying, “If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the U.S. will not achieve its aim/ There is value in being clear on the order of magnitude of the necessary change. The USG [U.S. Government] should envision a goal along these lines: New regimes in Afghanistan and another key State (or two) that supports terrorism.”
* A transcript of Washington’s October 7, 2001 direct message to the Taliban: “Every pillar of the Taliban regime will be destroyed.” [Document 16]
* The day after 9/11, Deputy Secretary Armitage presents a “stark choice” to Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) Chief Mahmoud Ahmed, “Pakistan must either stand with the United States in its fight against terrorism or stand against us. There was no maneuvering room.”
* In talking points prepared for a September 14, 2001 National Security Council meeting. Secretary of State Colin Powell notes, “My sense is that moderate Arabs are starting to see terrorism in a whole new light. This is the key to the coalition, we are working them hard.”
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals.
September 12th, 2011 by Global Research
A recent cable released by WikiLeaks reveals that the managing director of the al-Jazeera network has had relations with the US government officials.
According to the cable released on August 30, the US government has previously had a say in what content to appear on the al-Jazeera website.
The cable documents a meeting in 2005 between al-Jazeera’s Managing Director Wadah Khanfar and the US government officials, referred to only as PAO.
PAO met with Khanfar to discuss a report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) on al-Jazeera and its “disturbing website content,” according to a section of the cable.
The cable also revealed the response by the network’s chief to the 2005 meeting.
“Khanfar is preparing a written response to the DIA points from July, August and September which should be available during the coming week. Khanfar said the most recent website piece of concern to the USG has been toned down and that he would have it removed over the subsequent two or three days,” read the cable.
In a recent development, al-Jazeera’s offices in Cairo were stormed by the Egyptian security forces on Sunday, according to its staff. The incident happened after the Qatar-based network aired live footage of the clashes between police and protesters at the Israeli embassy in Egypt on Friday.
September 12th, 2011 by Danny Schechter
When the whole media system is presenting an official narrative, as most were this past weekend in reporting on the official commemorations of the tenth anniversary of the tragic events of 911, it is almost impossible for alternative perspectives and critical ideas to be seen and heard.
The shear weight of the events seemed to have mandated media memorialization and mourning to honor the dead and allow their families to feel the love and solidarity of the American people.
While this may be reassuring and reinforcing to those in pain, a predictable ceremonial approach and tribute keeps the society of deeper reflections and lessons that might help us avoid more attacks.
That an estimated 80 members of the US military came under attack in Afghanistan was a strong signal that the forces and wars set in motion after 911 are not over by a long shot. The Americans who grieved this weekend did not shed any tears for the victims of the drones and bombs that have taken so many lives in many countries—not just the ones we invaded.
Underreported, if barely noticed in the media this past weekend, were three events that I covered that offered oppositional voices.
To its credit, Pacifica Radio devoted hours of programming on Sunday night to a consideration of various conspiracy theories and dissenting views. The shows did not take sides; they featured debates about the details of claims of government complicity and suppressed information. There were actually serious discussions and rebuttals, the first such measured and calm presentation that I have heard to date in progressive media.
On Friday night, the survivors of the Attica prison Rebellion of September 9-13 1971 marked their 40 anniversary with survivors retelling their story of the uprising and the fight for justice for millions of Americans behind bars, many serving long sentences in oppressive environments. They packed the Riverside Church where Martin Luther King gave his famous speech condemning the War in Vietnam, a year and a day before he died.
Their September struggle raised important questions about the persistence of racism and the reality of human rights in America as well as charges of state terrorism against minorities and the poor under police state conditions.
TV anchor Amy Goodman reminded the audiences of other 911s that have been all but forgotten including the US backed coup against Allende on September ll, 1973, as well as the fatal beating of South African liberation leader Steve Biko who was tortured on September 11th 1977 by the US backed apartheid regime. He died on September 12th.
On Saturday night, I dropped in a Libertarian event called Liberty Fest at the Club Amnesia. It was crowed with supporters of Ron Paul. I was struck by speakers who angrily denounced the wars and spoke movingly of their opposition to the atrocities committed in our names.
These self-styled patriot-conservatives sounded like anti-war activists on the left, and offered a real counterpoint to the flag waving at Ground Zero.
On Sunday, while the cameras were all pointed at the President and the politicians at Ground Zero, up at the Library at Lincoln Center, an organization called Civ World sponsored a forum and event called Interdependence 2011: New York.
Led by Political philosopher and Demos Fellow Benjamin Barber they were crafting a 911-coujter narrative preaching the importance of cooperation, solidarity and interaction with the rest of the world as opposed to the Bush Doctrine stressing unilateralism and US exceptionally,
“The choice between terrorism and violence and anti-terrorism and violence is a false choice,“ declared Barber in his opening remarks. “You will never deliver peace with war.”
I have covered and participated in several interdependence events in the past, in Paris, Rome and Morocco. All featured a high level of discourse by prominent public intellectuals, scholars and journalists. While many were covered in other countries, they were mostly ignored in the nation they most wanted to influence.
That was also true of Sundays panels that featured prominent speakers including Former Maryland Lt Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, David Steiner former New York State Commissioner of Education, Howard Dean, Former Governor and Democratic Party official, Princeton Professor Cornell West, Khalil Gibran Muhammad, the new head off Harlem’s Library for Black Culture, TV personality Laura Flanders and TV host Tavis Smiley. Smiley recorded a live panel discussion at the event for NPR and interviewed Barber last week for his TV show.
The ideas were provocative and the analysis was deep calling for news ways of thinking, a new approach to foreign policy, bottom-up organizing in America and the pros and cons of Barack Obama’s leadership and lack of it.
Many of these were the ideas and issues that a more democratic media would highlight. If we lived in Europe, these events would have been covered. But here in the US of A, it was media business as usual—genuflecting the view of the powerful, sympathizing with the victims, but never debating how things might be different. Events like these were considered a sideshow unworthy of attention.
What these events stressed is that real change has to become the business of citizens and people’s organizations, not official bodies and antiseptic media.
If you are interested in taking part, there is another day of panel and events Monday at the 3LD Art and Technology Center at 80 Greenwich Street (Rector Street on the #1 train) near Ground Zero,
There will be artists, informal discussions and panels with Tavis Smiley, Josh Fox, the newly Emmy Award Winning Director of Gasland, James Early and representatives from youth movements around the world.
For more information, visit, http;//www.interdependenceMovement.org.
If you are as tired of the exploitation of 911 as I am, consider checking out this emerging interdependence movement online or in person. The future is still ours to shape, we must always hope.
As everyone knows action speaks louder than words, and I say that as professional wordsmith. Word!
News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs at NewsDissector.com. He is the director of Plunder, The Crime of Our Time (PlunderTheCrimeofourtime,com) He also hosts news Dissector Radio on The Progressive Radio Network.com. Comments to [email protected]
September 12th, 2011 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
In the US on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, politicians and their presstitute media presented Americans with “A Day of Remembrance,” a propaganda exercise that hardened the 9/11 lies into dogma. Meanwhile, in Toronto, Canada, at Ryerson University the four-day International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, came to a close at 5pm.
During the four days of hearings, distinguished scientists and scholars and professional architects and engineers presented the results of years of their independent research into all aspects of 9/11 to a distinguished panel consisting of the honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court who was an investigative judge who presided over terrorism cases and three distinguished scholars of high renown and judgment. The distinguished panel’s task is to produce a report with their judgment of the evidence presented by the expert witnesses.
The Toronto Hearings were streamed live over the Internet. I was able to watch many of the presentations over the four days. I was impressed that the extremely high level of intelligence and scientific competence of the witnesses was matched by a high level of integrity, a quality rare in US politics and totally absent in the American media.
As I stressed in my recent interview about 9/11 with James Corbett and Global Research, I am a reporter, not an independent researcher into 9/11. I pay attention when the fact-based community finds problems with the official propaganda. Perhaps this reflects my age. My generation was raised to believe in evidence and the scientific method. George Orwell and other writers warned us of the consequence of succumbing to government propaganda as a result of disinterest in the truth or government manipulation of one’s patriotism.
My ability to serve as a reporter of scientific evidence is enhanced by my having a Bachelor of Science from Georgia Tech, a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, and post-graduate education at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University, where my professor was the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. In the 1960s, I was appointed Visiting Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, in order to provide together with Polanyi to the science students at Berkeley a course in Polanyi’s unique contributions to knowledge. Polanyi’s illness prevented the course from happening and condemned me to being a mere economist.
This does not mean that I am infallible or that my reporting is correct. If my reporting stimulates you, go to the presentations, which I believe will continue to be available online, and if not, some edited CD will be available. Try http://www.ustream.tv/channel/thetorontohearings
As one whose own contributions to economics, now belatedly recognized, are “outside the box,” I am responsive to those who can escape peer pressure in order to advance truth. Here are some of the important things I learned from the Toronto Hearings.
The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency) reports on the twin towers and building 7 are fraudulent. Witnesses at the Toronto Hearings proved that building 7 was a standard controlled demolition and that incendiaries and explosives brought down the twin towers. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Anyone who declares the contrary has no scientific basis upon which to stand. Those who defend the official story believe in miracles that defy the laws of physics.
A nano-chemist from the University of Copenhagen, who together with a scientific team spent 18 months investigating the chemical and physical properties of dust from the towers, found evidence of nano-termite in the dust and quantities of particles not naturally formed by office or normal building fires that indicate another explosive was also present.
These findings explain the extreme high temperatures that produced the molten steel for which indisputable evidence exists. In the orchestrated cover-up, NIST denies that molten steel is present as its presence is inconsistent with the low temperatures that NIST acknowledges building fires can produce.
Physicist David Chandler proved beyond all doubt that building 7 fell over its visible part (other buildings obscure the bottom floors) at free fall speed, an unambiguous indication that explosives had removed all supporting columns simultaneously.There is no possibility whatsoever according to the laws of physics that building 7 fell for the reasons NIST provides. The NIST account is a total denial of known laws of physics.
Many other powerful points were made at the conference that I will not report, at least not at this time, because the revelation of malevolence is so powerful that most readers will find it a challenge to their emotional and mental strength.
Psychologists explained that there are two kinds of authority to which people submit. One is to the authority of people in high positions in the government. The belief that “our government wouldn’t lie to us” is pervasive, especially among patriots. The other source of authority is experts. However, to believe experts a person has to be educated and open-minded and to trust scientific, professional, and scholarly integrity.
In recent years in America, scientific and scholarly authority has come into disrepute among Christian evangelicals who object to evolution and among anti-intellectual Tea Party adherents who object to “elitists,” that is, objection to knowledge-based persons whose knowledge does not support Tea Party emotions.
In other words, qualified, knowledgeable people who tell people what they do not want to hear are dismissed as “the enemy.” Much of the American population is set up to believe government propaganda. Without an independent media, which the US no longer has, people are taught that only “conspiracy kooks” challenge the government’s story. Even on the Internet, this is a main theme on Antiwar.com and on CounterPunch.org, two sites that protest America’s wars but accept the 9/11 propaganda that justifies the wars.
This is the reason that I think that the US is moving into an era where the emotional needs of the population produced by government propaganda overwhelms science, evidence, and facts. It means the abolition of accountable government and the rule of law, because protection from terrorists is more important.
The fact-based world in which “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is being displaced by dogma. Anyone who doubts “our government” is an anti-American, Muslim-loving, pinko-liberal commie, who should be arrested and waterboarded until the culprit confesses that he is a terrorist.
The event of 9/11 is now outside the realm of fact, science, and evidence. It is a dogma that justifies the Bush/Cheney/Obama war crimes against Muslims and their countries.
Obama regime appointee Cass Sunstein, a Chicago and Harvard Law School professor, thinks the 9/11 movement, for challenging the official “truth”, should be infiltrated by US intelligence agents in order to shut down the fact-based doubters of government propaganda.
When a law professor at our two most prestigious law schools wants to suppress scientific evidence that challenges government veracity, we know that in America respect for truth is dead.
The notion that a country in which truth is dead is a “light unto the world” is an absurdity.
THE 9/11 “BIG LIE”. WHEN FICTION BECOMES FACT
- by Global Research – 2011-09-11
Articles and documentation on 9/11 from Global Research
September 12th, 2011 by Global Research
Speaking to reporters in Moscow on Monday, General Nikolai Makarov, Russia’s military chief of staff, said that he does not exclude a repeat of the Libyan or Syrian scenario in Central Asian countries.
“It was impossible to foresee processes currently under way in Northern Africa and the Middle East, something that should become an alarm signal for other countries”, Makarov said.
“We should brace ourselves for any situation, which is why we conduct war games”, he added, referring to the Combat Commonwealth-2011 drill that wrapped up at the Ashuluk firing range in Russia’s Astrakhan region on Monday .
The drill brought together more than 2,000 servicemen from Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
Stop NATO website and articles:
September 12th, 2011 by Igor Levkov
-”It’s discouraging that the United States continues to perceive stability as a unipolar world in which it holds the domineering position. If you feel a leader, there will always be someone who you think is challenging you…”
The BRICS countries, which include Brazil, Russia, India and China, have been listed among those posing a threat to the US national security along with terrorism, cyber attacks, and the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta urged Washington to protect the planet against these countries’ attempts to ruin global stability.
The US development plan, approved last year, said nothing about any threats coming from Russia or China. At the end of August this year, the Pentagon cautioned Congress that in nine years China could have an army as strong as that of the US. China’s hefty investment in its military-industrial complex will enable it to build a military potential that could break the balance of strength in the region, reports from the Pentagon said. As for Russia, the Pentagon did not have to specify why it posed a threat because Russia is the world’s only country whose strategic nuclear potential is comparable to that of the US.
The recent data reveal, however, that the US tops the list of countries with high military expenditures. The Pentagon’s injections in the military-industrial complex accounted for 40 percent of the total defense spending of other countries last year. Russia is second on the list, and China is third. Since investment in new weapons requires funding, the American concern can also be attributed to the economic might of the BRIC group, which is now BRICS, after it was joined by South Africa. BRICS countries demonstrated rapid economic growth in the heat of the financial crisis.
But for the fact that Leon Panetta is not the only top US official to have recently made this kind of statement, his report could be seen as yet another move from Washington’s “hawks”. The more so since the US and Russian relations have been characterized as a reset and the two countries have moved away from Cold War rhetoric. However, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said a few days ago that the US is the leader and other countries are followers. Its for this very reason that Washington often sees a threat where there is none, Director of the Social and Political Research Center Vlaimdir Yevseev said in an interview with a Voice of Russia correspondent.
“It’s discouraging that the United States continues to perceive stability as a unipolar world in which it holds the domineering position. If you feel a leader, there will always be someone who you think is challenging you. In the meantime, there is a large number of real threats which need to be addressed by joint effort.”
The reality is that the world has entered a ‘post-American’ era and Washington will have to come to terms with it. Andrei Volodin, Director of the Oriental Research Center at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy, comments.
“In this new era, the US will play a far less significant role than it has before. Washington will no longer enjoy the right to set the rules of the game in the financial, military and political areas. Russia and a number of other European countries are gradually getting out of US control.”
Politicians in the US have been making all sorts of statements ahead of the forthcoming presidential elections. President Obama’s opponents, of which there are quite a few, have been using every opportunity to express their views.
In the days of the British Empire, colonizers pursued the so-called civilizing mission. Later on, this mission was renamed ‘democratization’. But as it happens, there are a variety of civilizations across the globe and they supplement each other fairly well, if not disturbed.
Stop NATO website and articles:
September 12th, 2011 by جمال لعبيد
كان يجب توقعه: الاستيلاء على طرابلس زاد من شهوات الحلف الأطلسي في بلدان عربية أخرى. وفي البلدان العربية بالذات، أعطى هذا الحدث قوة جديدة لأنصار التدخل الغربي. فبعد أن خشوا توحل الأطلسي في ليبيا ها هم يبتهجون بالاستيلاء على طرابلس وينظرون إليه كتأكيد لسلامة تصوراتهم عن “صواب هذا التدخل ما دام يخلص ليبيا من مستبد”…
لكن كيف الابتهاج. كيف نتجاهل دخول المنتفضين طرابلس وهي تقصف من الحلف الأطلسي، فهو لا يشبه دخول ثورة شعبية منتصرة في شيء. كيف نغض الطرف عن كون الذين يصفقون لتدخل الأطلسي يصفقون للقوات العسكرية لنفس البلدان التي تقصف وتذبح في أفغانستان والعراق، تحمي الاستعمار الإسرائيلي وكانت قبل أشهر فقط تؤيد الدكتاتوريات العربية. كيف نصمت ولا نقول أن هذا الابتهاج يتسم بالقبح لأن المبتهجين يتقاسمونه مع شخصية معادية للإسلام وللعروبة كبرنار هنري ليفي الذي هلل لقصف ليبيا كما هلل لقصف غزة ولبنان. سيأتي اليوم الذي يتوجب فيه على هؤلاء تفسير هذه التناقضات، بعد أن تكون قد تطورت حتما. سوف يتوجب عليهم أن يذكروا لنا الفرق بين التدخل العسكري في ليبيا والتدخل العسكري في العراق أو في أفغانستان حيث قدم نفس التبرير، ألا وهو الكفاح ضد الاستبداد ومن أجل الديمقراطية، ولماذا لن يؤدي، بصورة أو أخرى، إلى نفس النتيجة، ألا وهي نظام كارزايي، فاسد وفي خدمة أسياده.
إن الأحزاب والشخصيات التي تتبادل، في الجزائر والبلدان العربية الأخرى، التهاني ب”انتصار” المنتفضين ولا تقول كلمة عن الانتصار الفعلي للحلف الأطلسي واقعة في حرج بين وإن كان السكوت علامة على الرضا.
ومع ذلك لنعترف بأن المسألة ليست بسيطة. فالوقوع في مثل هذا الفصام أو الانقياد إلى الصمت عن هذا المشهد من الواقع الليبي، عن حدث ضخم بحجم هذا التدخل العسكري الأجنبي الأول في شمالي أفريقا منذ نصف قرن، هو بحد ذاته دليل على تعقيد الوضع وخطورة الأزمة التي فجرها التدخل الغربي في الصفوف الديمقراطية العربية.
حظيت الثورتان التونسية والمصرية بتوافق واسع واتسمت المرحلة التي أطلقتاها بنوع من الرومانسية المميزة لبدايات الحركات التاريخية الكبرى. وهما ثورتان “نظيفتان”، بمعنى أن الأخيار والأشرار فيهما معروفون بوضوح ويبدو المجتمع فيهما موحدا، باستثناء قلة، فكان العرس الديمقراطي. وفاجأ حدوثهما القوى الغربية لكن سرعان ما غيرت هذه القوى توجهها جذريا وأعلنت تأييدها ل”الربيع العربي”. كان ذلك ضروريا للانخراط فيه والتأثير عليه وتبرير التدخل.
إن التدخل الأجنبي يدشن إذن مرحلة ثانية من تاريخ الجاري للديمقراطية العربية، بدأت بالأزمة الليبية وهي تتطور حاليا عبر الوضع في سوريا وستشهد تطورات أخرى بكل تأكيد. وبلغ خداع السياسة الغربية الحالية وفسادها حدا جعلها تحصر الموضوع، لاسيما بواسطة حملة دعائية عنيفة للغاية، في الخيار الزائف التالي: إما حق التدخل وبالتالي ديمقراطية تحت الحماية الغربية أو الدكتاتورية والتسلط. وقد سقطت في هذا الفخ عناصر كثيرة تنتمي للنخب السياسية العربية. فإلى جانب أولئك الذين يرتبطون تقليديا بالغرب، توجد أصداء تلك الدعاية لدى قوى سياسية واجتماعية أوسع، سواء منها تلك القليلة النفوذ والأنصار في المجتمع – والتي لا ترى بالنتيجة أي حل آخر للتخلص من الدكتاتورية سوى “التحالف حتى مع الشيطان”، – أو تلك العديمة الصبر أو القوى التي أعياها طول المعارضة.
الآن ينقسم المجتمع حول مسألة الديمقراطية لأنه جرى إحلال مسألة أخرى محلها، مسألة الموقف من التدخل الأجنبي، ووقع خلط للأوراق بحيث أننا في الوقت الذي نعتقد فيه أن الحديث يدور حول الديمقراطية تبرز المسألة الوطنية، ومعها مسألة استقلال البلاد ومسألة الوحدة الوطنية. إن القوى الاستعمارية السابقة تعود لعرض حمايتها للطموحات الديمقراطية العربية، فتعيد الحماية الاستعمارية. هذا يفسر في نفس الوقت انتعاش نقاشات كانت تعد مجوزة وسبق لها أن مزقت مختلف الاتجاهات في الحركة الوطنية الجزائرية إلى غاية حرب الاستقلال: عام 1936، وهم التحرر على أيدي الجبهة الشعبية لليسار الفرنسي؛ 1942-43، آمال فرحات عباس في الميثاق الأطلسي… وبصورة أعم موقف التيار الاندماجي المبني على انتظار التقدم والحضارة من فرنسا.
شيء لا يصدق !
الأوراق مشوشة إلى حد يجعلنا نشاهد تحالفات أو التقاءات مدهشة: “علمانيين” في نفس الموقف بشأن التدخل الأجنبي في ليبيا مع ملكيات الخليج والملكيين الليبيين في لندن؛ تيارات ذات مرجعية إسلامية في تحالف مع قوى غربية، أي بلدان غير إسلامية، لمحاربة… مسلمين آخرين، أو في الصلاة وسط بنغازي تحت أعلام فرنسية وأمريكية ضخمة؛ مناضلون إسلاميون جزائريون شاركوا في أسطول فك الحصار عن غزة ومع ذلك يتبنى حزبهم حول الوضع في ليبيا ذات الرأي الذي يتبناه… برنار هنري ليفي صاحب وصف ذاك الأسطول ب”الملحمة البائسة” (جريدة ليبراسيون الفرنسية، 7 جوان 2010). شيء لا يصدق !
بالرغم من ذلك ينبغي تفادي التعميم، كما أن صدمات الواقع ستتكفل بالفرز الضروري على مستوى كافة التيارات السياسية، إذ يمكن أن نتوقع بسهولة بروزا سريعا للتناقضات بين السيطرة الأجنبية والقوى الشعبية الليبية، الوطنية، الإسلامية وغيرها. عندئذ سيظهر الديمقراطيون الحقيقيون والديمقراطيون المزورون، الوطنيون الحقيقيون والوطنيون المزورون، لكن من رحم الآلام الليبية كما في العراق وأفغانستان، الخ.
ويبقى التساؤل حول ما إذا كانت هذه الالتقاءات المتنافرة لا تشترك في نقطة محددة: فكرة عنيدة بقدر ما يسكت عنها اللسان وتطفو على السطح من حين لآخر لأن عهد الاستقلال وتناقضاته لم يزله، ومفادها أن للسيطرة الغربية، للاستعمار محتوى تمديني. هذه الفكرة هي التي تختبئ في أعماق أنصار التدخل الأجنبي لأنهم يعتبرون السيطرة الغربية “أرحم” من الدكتاتورية العربية وأكثرها تحضرا. وجهة النظر هذه تزدهر حاليا على غرار ازدهار النداءات من أجل “تطبيع” العلاقات مع إسرائيل، في جرائد جزائرية وعربية مختلفة، عندما كان العالم العربي يجتاز مرحلة صعبة جدا وكانت سيطرة الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية تبدو ساحقة. كان أصحاب وجهة النظر تلك يرددون وقتها “لا يمكن أن ندافع عن فلسطين ومصر أكثر من الفلسطينيين والمصريين أنفسهم”. وقبل أيام معدودة، قرأنا مقالا جاء فيه بخصوص مسألة السيادة الوطنية أن لا فرق بين العيش في بلاد خاضعة للسيطرة الأجنبية أو خاضعة “لدكتاتور كما في ليبيا”. في الحقيقة يقر كاتب المقال بما يفضله عندما يهنئ نفسه بإسقاط الحلف الأطلسي سلطة معمر القذافي. من جديد تطفو على السطح أطروحة “إيجابيات الاستعمار”. نفس الإشكالية وإن اختلف الظرف.
وها هو رئيس المجلس الوطني الانتقالي يعلن من بنغازي عن جائزة لمن يأتي بالقذافي حيا أو ميتا وكأننا في الفار وست! أخلاق محزنة. لو جاء العرض من القذافي في بدء الأحداث وكان خاصا بأعضاء المجلس لسمعنا من الوسائط الغربية الكثير. هكذا تتكرر فظاعة نهاية صدام في العراق. روما الجديدة بلا رحمة وتريد دما وقربانا من بشر، فيفشي هذا “الونتد” منذ الآن سر السيطرة الأجنبية على ليبيا وأسلوبها.
في شوارع المدن الليبية الخالية من المواطنين تجري التصفيات والمذابح، لكن هؤلاء ضحايا المدنيين لا يهم أمرهم السيد جوبي والسيدة كلنتون.
صدر المقال في جريدة “الجزائر نيوز” في 2011.09.10
September 12th, 2011 by Konstantin Bogdanov
-If there’s anything that the ten years of the “war on terror” have demonstrated, it’s that the world leader is incredibly isolated. America is stubbornly and methodically trying to impose its own designs on a desperately recalcitrant world.
For a few days in September 2001, the whole world was watching the CNN video footage of the falling twin towers, accompanied by a general mood that resonated with the mobilizing headline, “America under Attack.” Later, President George W. Bush began what came to be known as “the war on terror.”
In its fight against the evil of al-Qaeda, America launched two genuine wars, several permanent combat operations (“initiatives”) and endless actions against the leaders of the international terrorist underground.
The world is growing accustomed to fighting with no front line, a situation whereby the next strike could come at any time and from anywhere, whether from terrorists or from fighters that are against them. A new world order is taking shape before our eyes, but the vision of its architects remains unclear.
Throw them out the door, and they’ll come back in through the window
A decade after 9/11, al-Qaeda has not been defeated but strong pressure on its top has gradually weakened their vertical links and has led to the formation of a number of independent regional affiliates.
While the Americans were closely watching every careless step by Osama bin-Laden, and Russia was engaged in stubborn fighting against the extremists that had become all too active in the North Caucasus in the late 1990s, the Yemeni terrorist clan grew considerably in strength. Now that President Hosni Mubarak has been overthrown, Egyptian terrorists can also breathe a sign of relief.
Al-Qaeda is becoming increasingly active in the Maghreb countries, as well as the former Algerian Salafi Group for Preaching and Combat – an armed wing of Algerian Islamists that operates in Sahel and is disturbing North African rulers.
Al-Qaeda, which is built on the principles of maximum dispersion of terrorist networks, is working to completely eliminate hierarchical rule and to move on to an “umbrella brand.” The brainchild of bin Laden intends to outlive its founder by many years. It has already nearly become a heap of disparate groups that are practically independent of the conditional center, but profess basically the same values.
The dismal wave raised by religious extremists is meeting with an unpleasant response from Washington. The format of responding to the challenges of “the terrorist international” is more or less clear, but even the Americans have not yet decided what to do about the world’s growing discontent with their arbitrary actions.
Drawing fire upon itself
America’s intense struggle against terrorism has been followed by a long tail of scandals that concern the most diverse aspects of the world order. This includes general categories, such as interference in internal affairs and the invasion undertaken to eliminate non-existent weapons of mass destruction, as well as specific episodes such as torture in the Abu Ghraib prison or crimes by Blackwater contractors.
At first, America’s unceremonious conduct evoked venomous humor about its random strikes at unidentified terrorists. When it became clear that this was a long-term policy, these jokes gave way to dull irritation, which led to justifiable apprehensions on the part of countries that were not protected by the U.S. umbrella and were unable to defend themselves against outside interference. Washington seemed to be exposing itself to threats by attracting the attention of its enemies from around the world.
Then, the second echelon of criticism came forward. When the crimes of private law-enforcement agencies started to be revealed, when the world learned of the events in Guantanamo and the CIA’s secret prisons in Eastern Europe, the chorus of opponents was joined by domestic human rights advocates and simply a skeptical press and public. The more obvious it became how many sacrifices had been made in the fight against terrorism, the more pressure was brought to bear on Washington.
Now the whole pack is following the alpha male’s pattern of behavior. France and Britain have ostentatiously created their own Iraq in Libya and are now starting to come face to face with developments that may compel them to establish a “multilateral security force” in the former Jamahiriya, thereby drawing more criticism, mainly at home.
The “war on terror” as a source of profit
In early September the public learned about a report by the bipartisan Congressional Wartime Contracting Commission, which found that overall spending on contracts and grants to support U.S. operations, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to exceed $206 billion by the end of the 2011 budget year. The commission estimated that at least $30 billion and possibly as much as $60 billion has been squandered there over the past decade as a result of incompetence, poor planning and corruption.
The report touched upon one of the White House’s most sensitive issues of the last decade: the active involvement of private military corporations in “outsourcing” some of the functions that were traditionally carried out by government law-enforcement agencies. The commission focused on finances alone: isn’t it too extravagant to maintain one contractor per one government employee (in all, there are 260,000 private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan)?
But there is also a different dimension to this issue, which has led to heated debates (including discussions in UN profile working groups) on the boundaries of legitimacy and the responsibilities of this private military business. These debates also tried to address the difference between private contractors and ordinary mercenaries, which were strictly banned after their escapades in Africa in the 1960s and 70s.
Countries that are leading active operations in the Third World are unlikely to give up their contractors – for one, they lack sufficient manpower for all their operations, and further, it’s not always appropriate to run into certain adventures waving a national flag. It is possible to fight against private military business as much as they want, but it was the “war on terror” that uncovered the demand of government agencies for these services.
Of course, the golden age of these contractors has come to an end. In Iraq, even rank-and-file soldiers easily raked in up to $1,000-$1,500 per day, whereas far from all of their colleagues in the U.S. army received that much for even a week of immaculate service in combat zones.
The economic crisis continues, and more manpower has become available (in part because of the many army servicemen that are fleeing to private business). As a result, prices will go down but business will stay on…
In the 1990s every publication was writing about the crises of the Yalta system, and later on of the Westfall system. Criticism, reflections and lamentations accompanied every U.S. operation in the post-bipolar world.
But it was this “war on terror” that has become the first truly stable and functional military-political technology that is close to putting an end to the sacred inviolability of national sovereignty that has been ingrained in the minds of statesmen and common people for centuries.
It has already taken root and offers a convenient excuse for launching all kinds of undertakings that in the former lexicon of international relations would be unequivocally interpreted as interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries.
The permanence of the “war on terror” is a consequence of the vague criteria for victory against a background of seemingly obvious motivations. Slogans about “a mounting terrorist threat” sound almost as familiar as the old theses about the “further intensification of class struggle.” It is not quite clear why this threat is mounting and when it will be eliminated, but it is obvious that we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario.
In effect, this is a kind of a tug boat that is pulling against the inertia of the tremendous mass of international law, away from its familiar harbor, out in the stormy open seas, forced to navigate without a clear destination.
In this sense, America has exposed itself for a third time by acting not only as an opponent of international extremism but also by infringing upon human rights and freedoms, in their Euro-Atlantic understanding, and by encroaching on the foundations of the world order, the formation of which it had once largely contributed to.
If there’s anything that the ten years of the “war on terror” have demonstrated, it’s that the world leader is incredibly isolated. America is stubbornly and methodically trying to impose its own designs on a desperately recalcitrant world.
Stop NATO website and articles:
September 11th, 2011 by James Corbett
James Corbett is a Video and Film Director and GRTV Producer based in Okayama, Japan.
September 11th, 2011 by Michael Parenti
September 11th, 2011 by Lesley Docksey
‘Strike him so that he may feel that he is dying.’ Caligula, Emperor of Rome
How many times does a practice have to be publicly outlawed before people stop pretending they didn’t know it was wrong? Suppose someone in a position of authority was being tried for murder. Would any court accept the excuse that he didn’t know it was illegal to kill someone? Yet this is precisely what has happened in the case of the British armed forces using illegal interrogation techniques.
The techniques (hooding, stress positions, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation and food and drink deprivation) were banned under the Geneva conventions; by the UK parliament in 1972; again by the UK signing the Convention Against Torture (1987), and yet again when the Human Rights Act became part of UK domestic law (1998). Evidence at the Baha Mousa Inquiry showed the techniques were still being taught to troops in the 1980s and in 2002. Attempts to stop the practice of hooding were countermanded by directives from ‘higher up the chain of command’. In April 2003 hooding and other practices were banned by Lt General Brims, seen to be still in use in July 2003, clearly in use in September 2003 when Baha Mousa died, banned again by Lt Gen Sir John Reith in October 2003, and in May 2004 the order banning hooding was extended to other theatres in which UK forces were operating.
Sir William Gage’s report, published on 8 September, on the Baha Mousa Inquiry said ‘there was widespread ignorance of what was permitted in handling prisoners of war’. But with all this very public banning going on, how ignorant can you be? One has to ask, was the ignorance genuine, wilful or a pretence to cover what far too many serving personnel knew was going on – the training of illegal techniques and, once the troops were in Iraq, the use of those techniques. Indeed, it was not just being encouraged, but demanded of the troops that they should act this way. Time and again, when brave officers like Col. Nick Mercer attempted to stop the abuse, they were overridden by orders from London. Who were these people who sat in Whitehall authorising abuse and torture?
Gage’s report said that he deplored the absence of any “proper MoD doctrine on interrogation”. The doctrine certainly wasn’t ‘proper’, but there was a doctrine none the less, a hidden doctrine that was only publicly changed in June 2010, when the Coalition government published a new set of rules for the security services and armed forces when interrogating prisoners. In October 2010 advised interrogation techniques in various training manuals, some of them produced after April 2008, were revealed by the Guardian. Although the manuals say torture is forbidden, all the listed suggestions – humiliation, forced nakedness, threats, blindfolds, disrupted sleep – are banned by the Geneva conventions. The current advice is not perfect but it is better than this. Whether it will be or even now is being ignored we will not know – until someone turns over a stone and the next scandalous death hits the headlines.
And when will someone reveal any abuse that has taken place in Afghanistan? Don’t forget – UK forces have been actively engaged there for some years, and the training manuals allowing continued abuse of prisoners were only withdrawn in June 2010. They have been operating under very much the same system as that in Iraq. The only thing that might have changed is a moratorium on any information getting out to the public. They may have added an order or two to the ones authorising ‘harsh interrogation’ techniques. ‘No filming on your mobile phones’ for starters.
It is right that all those who physically abused (and may still be abusing) prisoners should be tried and punished. Under the principle established in the Nuremberg Trials, they cannot plead that they were only following orders. The decision to use cruel, inhumane practices is always a personal one. But those who gave the orders are just as culpable, just as guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, if not more so. For, to the abuse and torture of prisoners they have added an appalling abuse of their authority.
They must not be allowed to plead ‘special circumstances’, although it does seem at times as though the whole point of fighting the ‘war on terror’ was to allow for as many special circumstances as our wickedly immoral leaders wanted to invent. Nor can they plead ignorance because they are paid by us to be informed and fully aware of what is legal and what is not. And the fact that these shadowy people did not seek the legal advice that was available to them and fought long and hard to prevent the publication of the interrogation training manuals shows all too clearly they knew what they were ordering the security services and armed forces interrogators to do was quite definitely illegal.
But government and Whitehall complicity in torture doesn’t just involve what happened in Iraq (and by implication, Afghanistan). It involves our country’s complicity in rendition, the end object of which is torture. We have known for sometime how the UK helped the US in its rendition flights; how our security personnel were present at interviews of such people as Binyam Mohamed when it was clear they were being tortured; of our complicity in aiding the US to fill up that legal black hole known as Guantanamo.
On the BBC Today programme, being interrogated in his turn by an angry John Humphrys, former Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted he was totally ‘ignorant’ about the rendition flights. But he was the Prime Minister, protested Humphrys. “Well, look, the PM doesn’t know everything that’s going on,” was the jaw-dropping defence. But it was his job to know, particularly as he was so very closely involved in the ‘war on terror, preferred to keep a lot of his ministers out of the loop and indeed had been responsible for dragging the UK into that ‘war’, a war that he wants to keep on fighting
He would also have been fully informed, as Prime Minister, about any Nato agreements, including this one: on 4 October 2001, NATO countries agreed to:
- Provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States ’ and other Allies’ aircraft for military flights related to operations against terrorism
- Provide access to ports and airfields on NATO territory, including for refuelling, for United States and other Allies for operations against terrorism
It has now been revealed that the UK had its own rendition programme that involved Libya, something that, according to the Guardian, Whitehall sources defended by saying they were following ‘ministerially authorised government policy’. Ministerially authorised. Not only that, the case the Guardian was reporting on, involving a family being rendered from Hong Kong to Libya, took place very shortly before Blair made his first visit to Libya and the embrace of Col. Gadaffi. Convenient or what?
Military spokesmen have all tried to downplay the extent of the abuse. They’ve stopped the ‘few rotten apples’ approach, but still deny it is endemic in the culture of the armed forces. How they can square that with evidence of widespread bullying and abuse during the basic training of recruits as well as happily training soldiers how to hood their prisoners, is rather stretching belief. Considering Whitehall’s approach to the problem – denial, lying and refusal to publish the advice contained in the training manuals – one has to conclude that in some sections of Whitehall the problem is indeed endemic.
Certainly all those who were physically responsible for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners should be prosecuted, and we can rely on lawyer Phil Shiner and his very able team to help make that happen. But all the promised inquiries into the UK’s complicity in torture must end in the prosecution of those unnamed secretive individuals who not only countenanced but ordered this abuse. And because I don’t want to be writing this article again in five years time, we must insist on the prosecution of the man at the top of their very nasty little tree – Tony Blair.
September 11th, 2011 by Iftekhar A Khan
-If each strike delivered four bombs or missiles per run, more than 30,000 bombs would have levelled buildings, killed and maimed innocent Libyan men, women and children.
-Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Libya have introduced a new trend of embedded journalism. All reports by the embedded journalists are carefully vetted before going public.
-Qaddafi was held in higher esteem than, say, the Khalifa of Bahrain and its hated prime minister of forty years. The genuine public uprising, mainly by Bahrain’s seventy percent Shiites, was ruthlessly crushed while the rebellion in Libya was not only encouraged but actively supported by Nato air power.
The pulling down of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad in 2003 and Muammar Qaddafi’s in Tripoli in 2011 have a striking similarity: it was “angry people” who carried out the destruction in both cases. When imperial powers want to change regimes, they find a large number of “angry” people willing to cooperate with them against their own governments.
The invaders, however, have an excuse for invasion so that they can satisfy the people of their own countries. Afghanistan was invaded to “save America from terrorism and to protect American values and freedoms” abhorred by the Taliban. Iraq had to be occupied for the neutralisation of its alleged weapons of mass destructions. In Libya, the grounds for invasion are equally moral and humanitarian, not strategic or materialistic. It is not that the oil giants, Britain’s Shell and France’s Total, had been drooling over Libyan oil: it just happens that the country’s oil region is now effectively under the control of British and French troops.
Chris Cork’s piece “A country awakes” (Sept 6) has further elucidated how the Libyan people have won their freedom from a tyrant. He asserted that “Libyans fought the ground war themselves (albeit with some sturdy support from the coalition of the willing) and want to keep the soldiering a local enterprise.” Yes, the insurrection is a local venture, though it’s another matter that the MI6 boys had penetrated deep inside Libya to foment the uprising. It’s also another matter that foreign mercenaries were brought in to fight government forces.
In reality, Qaddafi’s government couldn’t have been brought down without the Nato bombing campaign led mainly by American, British and French air forces. About 20,000 sorties, with more than 7,500 strikes so far, have gone against ground targets in Libya, as reported by veteran Canadian journalist Patrick Martin in a recent despatch. If each strike delivered four bombs or missiles per run, more than 30,000 bombs would have levelled buildings, killed and maimed innocent Libyan men, women and children. This is what Chris Cork calls “some sturdy support from the coalition of the willing.”
It’s in place to quote an analysis by Britain’s Second Line of Defence (SLD) in its report about Operation Ellamy in Libya that confirms that “the UK’s pace of operations has been averaging £3-5 million per day on a gross basis. It brings running operational costs for weekly air operations to £20-35 million, and monthly to £80-140 million, bringing the cost of operations since March 19 to £300-525 million”– to mention only Britain. Some “local enterprise,” this.
The irony is that imperial powers never allow independent journalists to report from the war front. Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Libya have introduced a new trend of embedded journalism. All reports by the embedded journalists are carefully vetted before going public. Therefore, people in the US and Europe can only read what is intended for them. That is one reason why, according to a poll, almost thirty percent of Americans prefer to glean news and commentaries from alternative forums on the Internet than to depend on their mainstream media.
Among the countries that have contributed towards the Nato operations in Libya by providing aircraft and troops are Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and the UAE. Should the king of Jordan and the emirs of Qatar and the UAE not have questioned themselves what type of dictator they were trying to topple in Libya and how he was different from them? Qaddafi was held in higher esteem than, say, the Khalifa of Bahrain and its hated prime minister of forty years. The genuine public uprising, mainly by Bahrain’s seventy percent Shiites, was ruthlessly crushed while the rebellion in Libya was not only encouraged but actively supported by Nato air power.
Tailpiece: Mr Cork, how do you discriminate between Tony Blair’s claim about Saddam’s WMDs and David Cameron’s about Qaddafi killing his own people? Is it not intriguing that both Iraq and Libya overflow with high-quality oil?
The writer is a freelance columnist based in Lahore.
Stop NATO website and articles:
September 11th, 2011 by Bob Chapman
Many people believe the Jackson Hole was a non-event, a failure and it was. QE 3 was not announced, as we predicted. We believe that was being saved for mid-September when the $300 billion rollover in Treasury securities is completed. Mr. Bernanke has failed in a number of respects, the most glaring being zero interest rates for 2-years and no housing recovery.
Even purchasing $1.3 trillion in toxic mortgages has only helped the banks. We still do not know what the Fed paid and what these bonds are worth. No matter what happens the Fed has to again purchase about $900 billion more Treasuries this new upcoming fiscal year. There is no way to avoid that and if they have to buy Agencies and more toxic bonds the figures will be higher. Auction failures cannot be tolerated. This will, of course, increase inflation in 2013 and 2014. Sales to consumers and profits will fall as a result.
Not so fast, the Fed still has more monetary ammunition most people haven’t thought about and it lying on its books. It is the funds that belong to member banks, some $2 trillion that banks have been refusing to put to work. We mentioned the beginning of the movement of these funds from the Fed to the banks just recently. Will this persist? We do not know, but we think it will.
It is a natural answer to the funding problem, they perhaps had been deliberately held in abeyance. We believe this could in part solve the liquidity problem over the next year or more. The Fed has sent the word out to the banks. It is time to employ our secret weapon. As a result in July and August we saw what is tantamount to monetary stimulus, and do not forget this is monetization, money that has not as yet flowed into the system. That means its usage will be inflationary.
Heretofore, these funds were deliberately withheld from the system to be used at the perfect time. There were plenty of borrowers, but the banks did not lend, because they were told to wait for the right moment. The unleashing of these funds leveraged into the fractional banking system will cause damage and inflation, but they will provide temporary assistance to a failing economy. The Fed also needed some relief as their balance sheet grew close to 25%. The combination of Fed spending for treasuries, bank lending and perhaps some government spending, should reinvigorate the economy temporarily over the next year. Unemployment should decline slightly and consumption and personal debt should grow. We think Mr. Bernanke’s plan will fall far short, because like in the 1930s too much structural damage has taken place. Demand for goods and services will grow, but not as much as anticipated and as long as desired. This unfortunately leads to disruption within the system for no other reason than the previous systemic damage visited upon the economy. We are about to see a respite but not a permanent solution. America is headed for 2nd or 3rd world status and the Fed is trying to get us there as soon as possible.
September 11th, 2011 by Wally Myers
This play by Wally Myers will debut on September 16th in Charlottesville, Va., as part of a conference marking 50 years of the Military Industrial Complex. It can be performed by any group that finds it valuable.
Ladies and gentlemen, citizens and guests, welcome. Recent polls show that two out of three Americans think that our government is going in the wrong direction. Many of us feel confused and conflicted, not knowing what or who to believe. Surrounded by a fog of deceit we long for some beacon of clarity. We feel the storms of war thundering before us, blowing away our rights with the gale winds of fear, and burning down the edifice of our morality with the lightening fires of hate. Yet this human tragedy is as old as war itself; but fought now with weapons newly spawned in the laboratories of devastation.
America must come to realize that the fog of lies and the storms of war are our own creation – our creation of our own destruction. And they have a history. They have a direction. They have a conclusion. To find the clarity to guide us in a different direction we recall the past so as not to repeat its deadly conclusion. We evoke the past to foresee the future; ever mindful that it is we who choose the direction and bring it into being and nurture it.
Tonight we evoke three leaders who have shaped our history.
And now, please welcome Dwight David Eisenhower, the Commander of the Allied military forces in World War II Europe and the President who stopped the war in Korea.
Please welcome the sage of Monticello Thomas Jefferson the author of The Declaration of Independence, Governor of Virginia, Ambassador to France, founder of the University of Virginia, and our 3rd President.
Please welcome the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. the leader of the civil rights movement and the pioneer of nonviolent resistance in America.
Thank you gentlemen for coming in this our time of darkness. America appears to be going in the wrong direction and so we seek your counsel. We will follow the political debate format. So audience, please hold your applause to the very end. Gentlemen,we call on each of you to tell of the dangers for America that you faced. President Eisenhower, would you begin with the dangers posed by the Military Industrial Complex.
Thank you. “Until the latest of our world conflicts, (Before World War II) the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, and even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, and every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.” Farewell Speech
Thank you President Eisenhower. It appears that the danger of misplaced power has grown more grave. In our time the Military Industrial Complex is in charge – bribing statesmen, financing academic research, and perverting technological innovation by waging more and more wars for higher and higher profits.
President Jefferson, as one of the founding fathers, we are interested in your perspective on the dangers that faced America at its beginning.
Thank you all for being here tonight. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes, namely the aristocrats; and those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, namely the democrats. Letter to Henry Lee, 8/10/1824
What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the Sun is the generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate (within our own borders, or of our Federal Government.) Letter to Joseph Cabell 2/2/1816
(In my time) our country is now (was already) taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit (namely): by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. Letter to Nathaniel Macon, 1821
(To avoid that) I wish, therefore,to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of government with foreign concerns limited to the Federal Government and home concerns to the States. Never should we see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market. Letter to William Johnson, 6/19/1823
(Furthermore,) I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Letter to John Taylor, 5/23/1816
Host: Thank you President Jefferson. It appears that the race for the consolidation of power continues to tear apart the restraints of the Constitution. Even business has turned into a battlefield with powerful corporations devouring their competition. In the same manner our news has been consolidated to a point where our democratic institutions are in peril.
Jefferson:Newspapers, why “truth itself becomes suspicious (suspect) by being put into that polluted vehicle.” (I’m afraid that)” advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.” Letter to Nathaniel Macon, 1/12/1819
Host:Not any more, even advertizing is a source of mind control. Technology has now grown to a point where we can record and replay events. But even that advancement has failed to protect truth. Unfortunately the art of deceit has grown into the science of propaganda. And those who profit from deceit are free to use that dark science.
Rev. King, as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, we are interested in your thoughts about our involvement in so many wars.
Martin Luther King:
(I am honored to be here. I believe that) “every man lives in two realms, the internal and the external. The internal is that realm of spiritual ends expressed in art, literature, morals, and religion. The external is that complex of devices, techniques, mechanisms, and instrumentalities by means of which we live. Our problem today is that we have allowed the internal to become lost in the external. We have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live. So much of modern life can be summarized in that arresting dictum of the poet Thoreau: “Improved means to an unimproved end”. This is the serious predicament, the deep and haunting problem confronting modern man. If we are to survive today, our moral and spiritual “lag” must be eliminated. Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul. When the “without” of man’s nature subjugates the “within”, dark storm clouds begin to form in the world. Nobel Lecture, 12/ 11/1964
It will(To establish that balance within politics we must) look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, ‘This is not just.’ It will (We must) look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, ‘This is not just.’ The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, ‘This way of settling differences is not just.’ This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Brake Silence
Host:Thank you Rev. King. The storm clouds of war darken with the growing collusion between the government and corporations. In the name of security, aggression is called defense; and exploitation is called national interest while the cries for justice of an impoverished world remain silenced by corporate news.
Gentlemen, thank you all for your opening statements. Please enter into a conversation with each other.
Jefferson: General Eisenhower, you spoke of the necessity of vast arms industries conjoined with an immense military establishment. And you hope that statesmen can balance this with democracy and freedom. As I mentioned in my opening statement that I too “feared for our government due to the strength and defiance of corporations” and that was in 1816. I imagine that arms industries would be vastly more dangerous. As for an immense military establishment, even “a standing army endangers our lives and liberties.” Letter to John Taylor 5/28/1816
You say that we can no longer risk emergency improvisation for national defense; rather we require this Military Industrial Complex. I see that “our resources will be exhausted whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place (real needs.)” Sixth Annual Message to Congress,
Gentlemen, “liberty is dangerous.” We must be brave and confident that we can meet our security needs. Dr. Franklin said it well, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Eisenhower: The “technological revolution is largely responsible for the necessity for the Military Industrial Complex” within the present world structures. On the other hand,” I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.” Speech in Ottawa, 1/10/1946
And like President Jefferson, I recognize the futility and waste of war. “That every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” The Chance for Peace, 4/16/1953
King: (I have felt that connection.) “A few years ago there was a shining moment in the struggle against poverty. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor – both black and white – through the Poverty Program. Then came the build-up in Vietnam, and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political play thing of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.” Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, 4/1967
Jefferson: “All men know that war is a losing game to both parties. 1 It is the greatest scourge of mankind. 2 It not only robs the present but the future generations. If it were incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes, that would prevent one-half the wars of the world. 3 I predict future happiness for Americans if they (we) can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of (protecting) them.” 4
King: Gentlemen, “we will not build a peaceful world by following a negative path. It is not enough to say ‘We must not wage war.’ It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.” President Eisenhower, what is your peace plan? Nobel Lecture, 12/ 11/1964
Eisenhower:I think “there are a few clear precepts which govern the conduct of world affairs.
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
Second: No nation’s security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.
Third: Any nation’s right to form a government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
Fourth: Any nation’s attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
And fifth: A nation’s hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
I believe that these principles define a way toward true peace.” The Chance for Peace
King: I agree with those principles; but, did your administration live by them? Didn’t you treat the communist as enemies? Didn’t you try to isolate them? Did you allow Vietnam to choose its government or its economic system? Did you restrict the armaments race?
Eisenhower: I believe those principles would have lead to true peace; but, “the Soviet government held a vastly different vision of the future. In the world of its design, security was to be found, not in mutual trust and mutual aid but in force: huge armies, subversion, and rule of neighbor nations. The goal was power superiority at all costs. Security was to be sought by denying it to all others. The result has been tragic for the world and, for the Soviet Union, it has also been ironic.” The Chance for Peace
Host: Fifty tragic years later the irony falls on us, for now our government has taken the place of the Soviets – by our security at all costs with military expenditures almost as large as all other nations combined, by our superiority with over 700 military bases in over 120 countries around the world, by our dominance from economic coercion, and by our subversion with covert mercenaries. President Eisenhower, America has become the new Soviet Union. President Jefferson, America has become the new British Empire.
King: “Gentlemen, we cannot achieve peaceful ends by violent means. We need a new method to resolve our conflicts.”
Nonviolent resistance is a new political dynamic pioneered by Mohandas Gandhi to attain independence from Great Britain; and used in the Civil Rights movement here in America.
“In a real sense nonviolence seeks to redeem the spiritual and moral lag that I spoke of earlier as the chief dilemma of modern man. It seeks to secure moral ends through moral means. Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.
The nonviolent resisters can summarize their message in the following simple terms: we will take direct action against injustice despite the failure of governmental and other official agencies to act first. We will not obey unjust laws or submit to unjust practices. We will do this peacefully, openly, cheerfully because our aim is to persuade. We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself. We will try to persuade with our words, but if our words fail, we will try to persuade with our acts. We will always be willing to talk and seek fair compromise, but we are ready to suffer when necessary and even risk our lives to become witnesses to truth as we see it.
I believe in this method because I think it is the only way to reestablish a broken community. It is the method which seeks to implement the just law by appealing to the conscience of the great decent majority who through blindness, fear, pride, and irrationality have allowed their consciences to sleep.” Nobel Lecture, 12/ 11/1964
Jefferson: Reverend King, I’m shocked! Are you telling me that India broke free of Great Britain without a fight! That the American Colonies could have had independence without the Revolutionary War. With due respect, sir, I do not believe it.
Host: President Jefferson, a lot of progress has been made in the two hundred years since your presidency. As Rev. King said nonviolent resistance is a new political dynamic pioneered by Mohandas Gandhi beginning in South Africa in 1906. He later used it to attain Indian independence from Great Britain; and it was Rev. King who used it in the Civil Rights movement here in America, which lead to desegregation in the United States. These principles of peace have succeeded in so many contexts as to make war obsolete.
King: “Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation.” Farewell Statement for All India Radio, 3/9/1959
Jefferson: Rev. King, I have a dream. In my version of the Declaration of Independence, I deplored slavery as a “cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty”. That entire section was stricken from the Declaration. Draft of the Declaration of Independence
So now I am overjoyed thatwe can finally live by the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. But I am most intrigued by this method of nonviolent resistance for it points to a way of revolution without, as you say, wounding as well as reuniting a community broken by injustice.
(Gentlemen,) “Experience hath shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. When the Law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the Law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them. Letter to John Gassway, 2/17/1809
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” Declaration of Independence, 7/4/1776
King:(President Jefferson, in 1945 the country of Vietnam began their Declaration of Independence by quoting yours,) “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Our country ended up going to war with Vietnam. This shows that “our nation has taken the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin to shift from a ‘thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores.” Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Brake Silence
Eisenhower: (As for militarism) “if men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man’s intelligence and his comprehension… would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.
The hunger for peace is too great, the hour in history too late, for any government to mock men’s hopes with mere words and promises and gestures. The Chance for Peace
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days; governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.” Speech in Ottawa 1/10/1946
Host:Gentlemen, thank you all for your deep insights. It is now time that each of you give a closing statement. First President Jefferson, then Rev. King, and ending with President Eisenhower.
Jefferson: Rev. King points to a lag where moral and spiritual ends are overwhelmed by material and technological powers. I believe it was the consolidation of religious powers that caused that lag. “For it was but a short time that elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted them into an engine for enslaving mankind: that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves, that (when) rational men not being (were not) able to swallow their impious heresies, (the religious aristocracy) in order to force them (their heresies) down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while they themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.” (Thus the spiritual lag arises from moral intolerance enforced by the abuse of religious power.) Letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1/19/1810
King: “We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. This means that more and more our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. We must now give an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in our individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. Love is the key to the solution of the problems of the world.” Nobel Lecture, 12/ 11/1964
Eisenhower: “We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.” Farwell Address
Host:Thank you gentlemen. And so we, citizens of now, face their diagnosis of dangers for our country, our culture, even our character.
For Eisenhower the danger is the accumulation of power by the collusion between the military, industry and government to such a degree that war becomes suicide; his medicine – we the people, not the government, must free each other from that cross of iron that is war and restrain a government that makes war inevitable. But what if the government will not yield to the people’s hunger for peace? Eisenhower warns the government that it better get out of the way and let people have peace.
For Jefferson the danger is the accumulation of power in government and religion; his medicine – a revolution of institutions that keeps pace with our progress of knowledge and protects human rights for everyone, worldwide revolutions to share power and constrain its abuses.
For King the danger is that our consciences are deluded by fear, hate, and extreme materialism into believing that violence is the best way to settle conflicts. His medicine – to save the soul of America we need a revolution of values with a wisdom that we depend on each other, with a justice that rejects profits at the expense of human needs, and with an all embracing and unconditional love for humanity.
And so citizens of the world are we to be paralyzed by fear and let these festering dangers threaten the entire world or will we follow Rev. King’s lead and use the powerful force of nonviolence, “and recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility (resistance) to poverty, racism and militarism and boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores?”
It is our choice – the cross of iron that is war or peace guaranteed by the binding force of unconditional respect and love.
Thank you, gentlemen; and thank you audience.
September 11th, 2011 by Washington's Blog
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Scientist and writer Arthur C. Clarke
Airplanes have been flown by remote-control since 1917. As Wikipedia notes:
In 1917, Archibald Low as head of the RFC [Britain's Royal Flying Corps] Experimental Works, was the first person to use radio control successfully on an aircraft.
There were also [during the 1930s] remotely controlled cutters and experimental remotely controlled planes in the Red Army. In the 1930s Britain developed the radio controlled Queen Bee, a remotely controlled unmanned Tiger Moth aircraft for a fleet’s gunnery firing practice. The Queen Bee was superseded by the similarly named Queen Wasp, a later, purpose built, target aircraft of higher performance.
As the Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum notes, President John F. Kennedy’s older brother flew a secret mission involving the remote-control flying of a bomb-laden airplane to attack Nazi targets inside France:
On the 31st July 1944 a U.S.N. special air unit, codenamed Project Anvil, moved to Fersfield from Dunkeswell in Devon. The mission was to involve the use of explosive-laden PB4Y-1 Liberator bombers under radio control. The crew of two, Lt Joe Kennedy (pilot), and Lt. Wilford John Willy (radio control technician/co-pilot), were to take off with 21,150 lbs of Torpex in 347 boxes and establish radio control of the Liberator by a Ventura mother-ship. Once full control was established and tested, at a pre-determined point the crew would parachute from the aircraft through the nose wheel bay emergency exit and the bomber would continue the rest of its mission under radio control, finally crashing onto the target.
NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program know as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them.
As Wikipedia explains:
The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) was an automated control system for tracking and intercepting enemy bomber aircraft used by NORAD from the late 1950s into the 1980s. In later versions, the system could automatically direct aircraft to an interception by sending instructions directly to the aircraft’s autopilot.
In normal operation, communications between the SAGE centers and the interceptor aircraft was relayed via radio equipment at the radar sites, which were more widely spread out than the SAGE centers themselves. A properly equipped aircraft, like the F-106 Delta Dart, could feed the SAGE directions into the autopilot and fly “hands off” to the interception.
NASA and the FAA flew a plane by remote control in 1984:
In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire.
On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glide slope.
Indeed, prior to 9/11, remote-controlled planes could fly up to 8,600 miles (from the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain’s International Television News).
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
Some have speculated that remote control played a part in 9/11:
And some allege that the use of remote control could explain some of the strange behavior by the 9/11 planes.
Indeed, more than 40 years ago, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested shooting down a military drone airplane, pretending it was a real airplane, and then blaming the attack on the Cubans as a way to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
Interestingly, NORAD – which is the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland – had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft“.
And coincidentally, Fox TV aired a fictional drama 6 months before 9/11, in which the U.S. government intended to fly a plane into the World Trade Center via remote control and blame it on terrorists.
Note: While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?
September 11th, 2011 by Global Research
- Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere said…that the use of German soldiers in NATO operations is standard practice and does not require parliamentary approval.
More than 100 German soldiers have taken part in NATO’s Libya operation, 10 times more than previously thought, the government has admitted.
The German Defence Ministry made the admission on Friday in its reply to a request for information from Green parliamentarian Hans-Christian Ströbele. Up to now it had been assumed that only 11 German soldiers were involved in the NATO operation.
The ministry said that 103 German soldiers had taken part in the selection of bombing targets against the army of Libya…as well as issuing orders to AWACS, NATO’s airborne warning and control system aircraft.
Ströbele has argued that the German parliament should have been asked for permission to allow the soldiers to participate. The Green Party is now considering filing a constitutional complaint against the government.
The previous admission that 11 German soldiers were involved in the mission came in August in response to a request from Ströbele. Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere said at the time that the use of German soldiers in NATO operations is standard practice and does not require parliamentary approval.
Ströbele accused the Berlin government of inconsistency.
“This practice contradicts every public declaration by the government of not wanting to be involved militarily in NATO’s Libya mission,” he said.
[A] representative for US President Barack Obama said earlier this month that the US was pleased with Germany’s current attitude toward helping Libya’s reconstruction.
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com
September 11th, 2011 by Mahboob A. Khawaja
“Looking back, we may see things that we do not want to revisit just yet, controversies that we wish to leave behind. For us to learn as a nation, however, for us to hand down to future generations what they need to know, we must be clear about what happened. We were attacked by a handful of people from a relatively small organization of fanatics who had tapped into the frustrations of a sizable minority of those who shared their ethnicity and religion. Our nation was stunned and wanted to unify in response. That desire for unity kept too many voices silent when they should have been contributing to a public debate about how to react. Wretched excesses were proposed and barely opposed. We invaded a country, Iraq that had nothing to do with the attack on us, but had everything to do with the preconceived plans of a cabal in and out of our government.”
Richard A. Clark (Former US National Security Chief: “the Lessons of 9/11”: the Daily Beast, 9/7/2011)
The “War on Terrorism” and the individualistic issue – who is terrorist is not only ambiguous but continues to be controversial and terribly deceptive in proposition. Its mass media portrayal could be a matter of opinion, not established facts of human life to determine what constitutes “terrorism’? The on going global irony involved in the “war on terrorism” enlists cruel combination of probabilities, often self-defeating purposes and inhuman tragedies as plausible definitions and explanations – liberal democracy, freedom, human rights and war for social justice.
The American led “war on terrorism” exposes this bewildering and cynical framework of greed and tyranny being imposed on others. “Either you are with us or against us”, proclaimed former President Bush, the draconian slogan shortly after the September 11 attacks in the US.
The alleged Al-Qaida link to 9/11 attacks and Osma bin Laden – the accused mastermind and now reported dead second or third time by the US intelligence networks, were not the stranger to the US pursuit of global political hegemony but part of the American global engagement history. Arundhati Roy said it well (the Infinite Algebra of Mercy): Bush and Osama are both extremists and unacceptable choices to the rest of the world…Osama bin Laden was created by the CIA and is wanted by FBI.
Financed by the corporate interest, the Western mass media is building vigorously the public psyche and perception to see the Muslims as the culprits waging war against the Christian West. The alleged myth that Islamic faith and Muslim culture are the breeding ground of terrorism remains a racially manufactured assumption and highly questionable theory in the real world affairs. The Project for the New American Century – PNAC, was formed in 1997 (long before the 9/11 crisis), with the participatory blessings of the American oil and gas cartel, better known as neo-conservatives including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz and many other leading agents of influence – official functionaries at the time in Strategic Policy Planning and the Defense portfolios within the American political echelon. All were committed to dominate the global economy and the political powerhouse for America to become unrivaled superpower in the New World Order. 9/11 provided that much-needed conflict making opportunity to the PNAC visionary goals, strategic priorities and George Bush’s continued 2nd term legal Presidency.
In 1984, the Union Carbide gassed more than 16, 000 people in Bhopal, India and millions more were affected to suffer for generations to come, but India did not invoke any military action against the American giant. In 1981, two to three thousands Palestinian civilians were massacred at Sabra and Chatila camps in Lebanon by Israeli General Aeriel Sharon troops. Lebanon or the Arabs collectively had neither armed forces nor courage to fight for a humanitarian cause. In 1994, four millions or so Rwandans were killed in planned ethnic violence but the world watched it from a corner, and the UN did nothing to safeguard the humanity. It was not the defense of the American values that President Bush went to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. John Chapman (“the real reasons Bush went to war”: 06.2004), the British Senior Civil Servant cites two major factors to invade Iraq: “control over oil and the preservation of the dollar as the world reserve currency.” Earlier, President Bush had included Iraq and Iran in the ‘axis of evil’ as both had changed the currency of oil trade from US dollar to euro and others. Iraq is known to have 60% of the world known oil reserves and only second to Saudi Arabia in its oil production capacity.
How does the oil cartel greed for excessive profit is terrorizing the humanity? The American and British oil cartels paid standard $18-20 a barrel years ago and now selling the same at the gas pump at $80-90 a barrel to the consumers while the Iraq war is going-on and after hurricane Katrina hit the American gulf coast states. The oil companies paid 7-10 cent a liter after the processing, but the consumer are forced to pay $1.30 to $1.50. a liter at gas station. Would they admit being the economic extremists and market exploiters? But they are resourceful to fight for their cause even if it means the whole world should be put to flame.
The Arabs and Iran collectively produce and supply approximately 60-70 % oil consumption of the Western industrialized world- ready-made recipe for business influence and friendship. To balance the trade, they invest heavily in the Western economy and buy all foods and military hardware. Thousands and thousands of American and British nationals work in oil, military, education and other spheres of life across the Arab and Muslim world. Tax-free salaries they draw, no body can imagine nor compare them in the Western world. America and Britain dominate the trade but wanted to squeeze the Arabs to become more obedient and forthcoming in oil supply and the use of the dollar. The American and British politicians used the 9/11 background to intimidate and force the Arab rulers to go to their knees before the Masters, both Bush and Blair, with possible extension of the then Canadian PM as a service manager on duty – as and when needed.
The ‘War on Terror’ is a self-contradictory phenomenon that represents the grand delusion of the 21st century proponent of the oil led American corporate leadership. Its sole aim is global monopoly of politics and economy by dehumanizing the rest of the living humanity. Geared towards the frenzy of World War Three, the American neocons leadership was increasingly politically isolated, militarily belligerent and morally and financially bankrupt and defeated, more so, on the day photos of Abu Ghraib prison were made known to the morally conscientious humanity. Their unilateral military engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have continued to produce disastrous human consequences for the people all over the globe. Millions of human beings have been killed and destroyed, their habitats poisoned with the aftermath of dangerous weapons and chemicals. Richard A. Clark (Former US National Security Chief- “ the Lessons of 9/11”: the Daily Beast , 9/7/2011)) puts the facts into proper context:
“Looking back, we may see things that we do not want to revisit just yet, controversies that we wish to leave behind. For us to learn as a nation, however, for us to hand down to future generations what they need to know, we must be clear about what happened. We were attacked by a handful of people from a relatively small organization of fanatics who had tapped into the frustrations of a sizable minority of those who shared their ethnicity and religion. Our nation was stunned and wanted to unify in response. That desire for unity kept too many voices silent when they should have been contributing to a public debate about how to react. Wretched excesses were proposed and barely opposed. We invaded a country, Iraq that had nothing to do with the attack on us, but had everything to do with the preconceived plans of a cabal in and out of our government.”
It is reported that during the 2009-2010, the US drone attacks have killed 12,900 people in Pakistani tribal belts. The bogus war on terrorism continues unabated and its unthinkable consequences for ages to come. The alliance of the few US-British mindless rulers have turned the clock back to draconian age and are trying their best to reshape the living mankind to animalistic thinking and behaviors suitable for economic exploitation and governance. The American administration seems to have ignored the lessons of political and moral failure of the British Empire and colonialism.
In a September 2005, interview with the CBC, American Congress Woman Eleanor Norton made a thought provoking observation when asked about the administration role and help to the people in New Orleans after the hurricane Katrina: “Americans are not used to being embarrassed and ashamed at the same time.” What happened in Louisiana and other gulf states after the storm, offers a glimpse of the overburdened and failing mind setting of the American leadership with no consideration for its people and their miserable plight. They prepared America on a war footing, not for a legitimate cause but to control the oil industries and maintain the dollar market value. Iraq and Afghanistan were seen as a necessary requisite to deceive the American public that Arabs and Muslims are the extremists and pose threats to American political hegemony.
Whereas, today, more than 80% of the Muslim countries and rulers are maintained by the West and are under the direct political and economic control of the US and British Governments. One wonders, how could the subservient people and the rulers dare to challenge the colonial masters? Is it not the ruling America and British colonial elite actively engaged in terrorizing the Muslims all over the globe? Are they fearful of the new educated generations of Muslims and their democratic indoctrination that could undo their inherited lordship in the former colonies? After all, Muslims were considered just as ‘subjects’ of the Empire, not citizens with rights and entitlement to human ‘freedom.’ Is that not a page out of the living history? Or is it news to the former colonial bandmasters? Was the colonialism a choice of the liberal democracy?
Wars do not grow anything consumable but destroy human lives and habitats. Whereas the corporate interests and markets have no human social values, nor do they have moral accountability. It is increasingly action-reaction game masked and staged at the global theatre of absurdity starring Bush, Blair, Militarism, the mass media, former General Musharaf and the new creed of complacent Pakistani Generals (earning cash paper dollars) as an added attraction to ensure smooth services of trilateral businesses across the globe. Exsorbent profits looted by the oil companies are not going to be reimbursed to the public at gas stations.
Would the American neocons rebuild the lost lives and human habitats in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan? After carpet bombing of the Afghan graveyards and major Iraqi towns, could they bring to life what was deliberately destroyed under the PNAC planned “war on terrorism”? Their goal was ‘regime change’ but they alleged WMD which could not be found throughout the international search in Iraq. It was a lie, a false pretext acclaimed tactfully to deceive the mankind. Could Bush, Blair and the neocons be held responsible under the international Geneva protocols of crimes against the humanity?
Human beings have faces, bodies and souls but the modern warfare knows neither body nor face when it comes to killing. Hitler and Mussolini were the by- products of the European nationalism but after ages, the European once again failed to impart real world knowledge and experience of the Two World Wars to safeguard the future generations from the scourge of national wars and colonialism.
The American administration appears active and persistent to wage traditional and innovative new wars against the newly created and targeted enemy – Islam and Muslims. They do need conflicts and wars for economic and political survival and control of the global resources. PNAC philosophy embedded in American unilaterism sees war as a positive necessity for development and domination.
Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath and now continued flooding and fires in Texas and California are not taken seriously as the first installments of Godly reminders to the American leadership for causing deaths and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan. The American masses are reasonably conscientious of being dragged into the Iraq-Afghan wars, the majority disapproves and they protest and demonstrate against the bogus “war on terror.”.
Cindy Sheehan and her movement offered a peaceful role model for political activism across the United States. But the controlling interest of the ‘war on terror’ rests with previous ruling lord of the politics- the instigator neocons and now continued under Obama administration, wherein the American masses appear helpless spectator, not active participants in the making and running of the liberal democracy, more of a forged democracy of the few. In 1990, Dick Cheney, the then Secretary to Senior Bush wrote: “whoever controls the flow of the Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well.”
The obsession of that stranglehold rested with Bush, Cheney and Blair onward to Obama– all actively have supported and facilitated the crusade against Islam and Muslims. It is the humanity that suffers, not the affluent leaders. There are serious dangers to enflame the ethnic and religious wars across the globe. Robert Fisk, the British journalist recently noted: “Before the (Iraq) war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us, the threats that do exist.”
The American led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have made the global system of states redundant and the United Nations in particular, an impotent body – an onlooker meant just for discussions and ineffective role play in peace making or sustainable system of the working of the member states according to its mandate. The UN has failed to stop American and British encroachment in the Middle East, ethnically charged “war on terror”, the global village and the ideals of the safety and security of the world. The ideals of international peace and harmony have been dashed away by the few – be it Bush or Blair, Musharaf or Obama, none of them could be acceptable choices to the civilized humanity. They pursued self-motivated greed complementing ignorance – the driving force to manipulate the world, overwhelmed with action-reaction strategies of the past, dull, dead and irrelevant history.
For their self-centered survival, they appear devoid of the reason, human spirit and intellectual foresight to face the realities of living history. Most of the humanity is acutely aware of the fallacy of the terrorism myth, for it is not Islam, Christianity or Judaism but those few who act and react to stranglehold the humanity for oil resources and monetary controls.
Have the mindless warmongers ever thought of how the history will portray them – the time span in which they lived and acted, consequential impacts on the people, the outlook of culture of the so called civilized people pursuing animalistic ambitions and killings of fellow human beings? Richard Clark (“the Lessons of 9/11’) offers a rational perspective:
“Knowing what our core values are and cleaving to them, even in times of testing, must be a lesson when we see the results of situational ethics and temporary, expedient treatment of basic rights. America should not again panic and overreact to terrorist attacks against this country…….the cost of 9/11 has been billions of dollars spent, an unneeded war, and thousands of lives lost.”
Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including: “Muslims and the West: Quest for Change and Conflict Resolution”, University Press of America; How America Lost the War in Iraq and Afghanistan and Mujahideen Won; To America and Canada with Reason, VDM Publishers, 2009; “President Obama – War is War, Not Peace”, 2009; and “Is President Obama Remaking America?” “President Obama and the US Generals in search of Navigational Change.” Comments are welcome at: [email protected].
September 11th, 2011 by Sherwood Ross
Was President George W. Bush complicit in the 9/11 attacks? That’s a question that will not go away on this 10th anniversary of those terrible events.
If many people continue to wonder about it, perhaps it’s because the Bush regime did not call for a prompt investigation into 9/11 and subsequently obstructed its work. There is a fresh report that some information turned up by the FBI in Florida was held back on direct orders from Mr. Bush.
To begin with, as Philip Shenon reported in The New York Times of July 9, 2003, “The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of the executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.”
He wrote the panel’s chair and vice-chair released a statement “declaring that they had received only a small part of the millions of sensitive government documents they had requested from the executive branch.”
What’s more, Shenon pointed out, the Administration would not allow its officials to be interviewed “without the presence of government colleagues” so that the panel’s chairman suggested the situation amounted to “intimidation” of the witnesses. Why?
There’s ample evidence President Bush didn’t want a panel convened in the first place. As David Firestone reported in the Times of Nov. 15, 2002, the White House only yielded “to intense pressure from families of Sept. 11 victims” to create the panel. Firestone wrote that Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, “had fought zealously for the commission for months, leveling bitter criticism at the White House for stalling it…”
Of course, Bush’s opposition to the panel is zero proof that he was involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way. He may have only wished to cover up the incompetence of his government’s response to them. Writing in The Times on Feb. 4, 2008, Evan Thomas pointed out, “The official ineptitude uncovered by the commission is shocking.”
Questions about Bush’s appointments to the 9/11 panel are more than troubling. Bush initially named former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger chairman of the 9/11 probe—a man whose consulting firm it turned out had done work for the bin Laden family! What a coincidence, right?
When Kissinger hurriedly resigned, Bush named former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean in his place. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research pointed out that Kean “sits on the board of directors of a company which has business dealings with financier Khalid bin Mahfouz.” Kean, it turns out, was a director of Amerada Hess Corp., involved in a joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia, an outfit owned in part by Mahfouz—a man whose sister is married to Osama bin Laden! Another coincidence, of course.
Chossudovsky writes, “Carefully documented by (Washington reporter) Wayne Madsen, George W. Bush also had dealings with Osama’s brother-in-law (bin Mahfouz,) when he was in the Texas oil business” and both Bush and bin-Mahfouz were implicated in the Bank of Commerce International scandal.”
Americans are right to be skeptical of Bush’s motives when the two chairmen he names to the 9/11 panel are linked to the bin Laden family. They are also right to be skeptical of the 9/11 Commission Report. As David Ray Griffin noted in his “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”(Olive Branch Press), a Zogby poll taken in May, 2006, indicated that 42% of the American people believed that “the U.S. government and its 9/11 Commission concealed…critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks.” And a Scripps/Ohio University poll in August, 2006, showed 36% of the public believes “federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”
A new report in the Miami Herald of September 8, states that “The final 28-page of the (official) Inquiry’s report, which deals with “sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers,” was entirely blanked out. It was kept secret from the public on the orders of former President George W. Bush and is still withheld to this day, (former U.S. Senator Bob) Graham (D-Fla.)said. This new information was provided by Anthony Summers, co-author of “The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 & Osama bin Laden” and Don Christensen, editor of the online “Broward Bulldog.”
Kept from the public until now is information that a Saudi family who abruptly vacated their Sarasota, Fla., home two weeks before 9/11, “were visited by vehicles used by the hijackers” and who were in telephone communication with those “who carried out the death flights—including leader Mohamed Atta.” The information was unearthed by the FBI. Graham stated further that FBI information unearthed in California linking Saudis to 9/11 was never turned over to the 9/11 Commission , either, until Congressional investigators found it on their own.
If President Bush was honored for his probity and integrity, one might argue there is no reason today to inquire into suspicions that he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks or concealed vital information about them. Yet, as subsequent events revealed, the man lied the nation into destructive wars that killed more than a million people, and who confided in a friendly journalist before entering the White House that he planned as president to make war on Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—and who later used 9/11 as the excuse to do it.
Was George W. Bush complicit in the 9/11 attacks? That’s a question that deserves further investigation.
Sherwood Ross formerly worked as a reporter for major dailies and as a columnist for wire services. Today he directs the Anti-War News Service as well as a global-reach public relations firm “for good causes.” Contact him at [email protected]
September 11th, 2011 by Felicity Arbuthnot
“You love your country
as the nearest, most precious thing to you.
But one day, for example,
they may endorse it over to America,
and you, too, with your great freedom –
you have the freedom to become an air-base.”
From: “A Sad Kind Of Freedom”, by Nazim Hickmet (1902-1963) courtesy Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO*
It is instructive to look at the plethora of 9/11, tenth anniversary pullouts in newspapers, to note the commemorative programmes, interviews, memories. The heartbreak, broken and lost lives: the ten year old, now twenty, who realized, horror struck, that her father was in the building she watched flaming and falling, on television.
There are spreads of other ten years olds, children unborn when their pregnant mother was widowed, by a terrible atrocity, on a sunlit day, in a city turned dark by smoke and ash. Pregnant survivors, say “experts”, passed their trauma to their children, we learn.
“Share your memories of 9/11 ten years on”, invite newspapers
Photographers have recalled: “the day of horror.”
Yet, with the all comes the realization that seemingly, this tragedy of enormity – 2,751 lost souls, in an event, which exceeded the deaths of Pearl Harbour, according to the 9/11 Commission Report – is unique.
Carnage across the world, has been wrought in subsequent US-driven bloodshed. One assessment to August 2010, using a more conservative death toll than some, is of the equivalent of three hundred and three 9/11s in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, in the ongoing post-September 2001 assaults. (i)
This toll, however, is, seemingly, inconsequential. The lives of others, in numbers beyond comprehension, are not tragedy, searing loss, unimaginable grief, but: “collateral damage.”
The acres of coverage of the “orphans of 9/11”, are poignant; heart-rending.
In Afghanistan, that first post 9/11 onslaught victim, there are two million orphans, of which over 600,000 sleep on the streets. Over 400,000 are maimed from land mines – and over a million children suffer from post- traumatic stress disorder.
One in ten Afghan children are severely malnourished, more than half suffer from stunted growth, and one in every four children dies before age five – the fourth highest level in the world (UNICEF).
Fifty percent of the Afghan population is less than eighteen years of age, with almost no education. (ii)
Iraq’s figures since the 2003 invasion, again, lest ever forgotten, dwarf even Afghanistan’s appalling plight. Five million orphans, one million widows, nearly five million exiled.
By April 2011, just six weeks in to the “humanitarian” bombardment of Libya, the death toll was already being estimated as high as 30,000. If correct, an average of over two “9/11s”, in human toll, a week. (iii)
On 7th July, the Jordan Times recorded eight hundred deaths in just one graveyard in Misrata.
The paper also noted: ‘There is no trace of hatred or resentment on the part of the gravediggers in charge of burying their enemies:
“It’s a tragedy. They are our brothers. We did not want all this to happen. I’m sorry for all this,” murmurs Jetlawi.
Colleague Derateia too is sad.
“I wish God saved the lives of everyone. We are used to this, to see the dead, but we are appalled to see Muslims killing each other. It’s pathetic,” he adds.’
What a contrast to the encapsulation of what seems to be the Western, political and military concept of the peoples and cultures we are decimating.
On BBC Radio 5, (9th September.) David Buik, an executive with Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost over six hundred employees in the Twin Towers, told listeners of his understandable fury, yet with little concept that others bleed, suffer, grieve in tragedy.
The dominant emotion still, he said, was: “The abuse of life – to us in the West, so precious and to terrorists and religious fanatics so cheap.” Does he not reflect how what is being done in George W. Bush’s declared “Crusade”, in the name of this sacred West, is being viewed across the world? On a scale equaling some of history’s greatest atrocities,
Libya, another painstakingly developed country, is fast becoming another Iraq, in every way, from factional, to ethnic cleansing, especially of those with a darker skin, to factions brought in to ensure there will never be reconciliation – and historical and archeological treasures and heritage looted, bombed, destroyed.
In Bani Walid, with its university campus and population of just over 46,000 the NATO backed National Transitional Council’s “rebels”, have deliberately cut off water and electricity supplies. An indisputable war crime.
But as bodies mount, buildings fall and dreams die, make no mistake, Libya is another looming occupation.With its oil, frozen overseas financial assets possibly as high as $150 Billion – with NATO countries estimated holding possibly $99 Billion (v) – near inestimable water wealth and a strategic geographic location to dream of, for invaders with eyes on others regional assets and natural resources, the “liberators” will not be planning on leaving any time soon.
Further, by 1st March, there were already reports of the US, Britain and France having established bases in Benghazi and Tobruk.(vi) Ironically, Tobruk was site of the WW11, 240-day siege of allied forces by Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel.The pinned down troops were finally rescued by the (UK) 8th Army, in the Muslim country, in “Operation Crusader.
Tripoli, of course was the site of the vast US Air Force base, appropriated in 1943, when Libya was ruled by the British backed King Idris. The then US Ambassador to Libya had called it: “A little America on the sparkling shores of the shores of the Mediterranean.”
The base, renamed “Wheelus”, remained American until Quaddafi overthrew Idris’s regime in 1969 and closed all foreign bases.
The base became Tripoli international Airport, now bombed.The liberators will surely award themselves the rebuilding contracts and planning for the re-opening of the base is, equally surely, underway.
The US had, of course, under the project of AFRICOM, offered African governments money to “host” American bases. Quaddafi, reportedly, offered them twice as much not to, resulting in a formal rejection of AFRICOM by the African Union, in 2008.
It was a prescient Tripoli taxi driver, who told the LA Times: “I have a fear that one day we will be like Iraq, wishing for the days of Muammar Quaddafi.”
Afghanistan, bombed and invaded less than a month after 9/11 to free it from a “repressive” and “tyrannical” regime, now has 400 US and “coalition” bases. (vii) Iraq, also freed from the “Butcher of Baghdad” by US-led largesse, based on a pack of lies about as ridiculous as the pack of “Most Wanted” playing cards, now has 14 city sized bases and a list of others, near inexhaustible. (viii) The “coalition” are there to stay.
In an interview this week, “Middle East Peace Envoy”, former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, still not in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, in spite of the best efforts of some towering legal minds, made it clear that Syria and Iran were next, firmly in US/UK sights.
General Wesley Clarke, of course, told “Democracy Now” (2nd March 2007) that in 2001, after 9/11, he was told by a Pentagon official that the US planned to attack seven countries in five years. They were: “Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.” Bombing Afghanistan was already underway.(iv)
And the contractors are already queuing to re-arm that which they sold Libya, now destroyed, and to rebuild. Britain, now under Prime Minister “this will be a Libyan led transformation, we have learned from Iraq” Cameron. “Libya – The Future” is a not to be missed Conference, to be held in London, 26th and 27th September:
“The race is on for countries and businesses to create strategic alliances with the Libyan National Transitional Council regime. Government body, UK Trade and Investment, plans an invitation only Conference, Tuesday 27th September.
“You really need to be at ‘Libya – The Future’, at the prestigious QE11 Conference Centre, in the heart of Westminster.” At up to £3,000 a delegate. (x)
On this tenth anniversary of 9/11, Abdul Hakim Belhadji, allegedly formerly on US and UK terrorist lists, moved to Tripoli to be Libya’s new leader, backed by the same US and UK. This as his “rebel forces” are reported to have entirely ethnically cleansed, Tawarga, a town of 10,000 people, which now lies entirely empty. (xi)
After 9/11: “The US enjoyed an outpouring of global sympathy. Within a couple of years, that sympathy had been squandered”, wrote Rupert Cornwell, in the Independent this week.
A friend who has spent every waking hour since the Iraq invasion of 2003, trying to put back the lives of Iraqi refugees who fled the invasion, perhaps said it all for invasions since, and planned:
“Dear USA, Your 9/11 is our 24/7.”
iii. http://www.federaljack.com/?page_id=37933 (Warning: very disturbing images.)
September 11th, 2011 by Devon DB
While today Americans at home and around the world pay their respects and remember the tragic events of 9/11, there has been no examination of 9/11 and how what America is currently doing around the world actually doesn’t honor the victims of 9/11.
Almost immediately after 9/11, the United States declared war on Afghanistan, stating that Al Qaeda had planned the attack and that the Taliban regime had sheltered them, with absolutely no evidence. The invasion of Afghanistan was based on vengeance, yet, how is killing innocent children, snatching people in the middle of the night from their homes, never to be seen again, and propping up a corrupt government honor those who were killed on 9/11? It doesn’t as it betrays the very ideals about America that the victims loved so deeply.
In 2003, the US invaded Iraq, basing the entire war on lies and deceit. So far, this has resulted in the deaths of 4, 744 American soldiers and the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. How does this honor the victims of 9/11? How does torturing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib honor the victims of 9/11?
Overall, the US has had a deep moral decline on the world stage due to its actions abroad. However, there have also been problems at home. 9/11 has led to the rise of a security state in America, all in the name of “combating terrorism,” yet we find ourselves no safer than were before. We are still vulnerable to attack How have launching drone strikes all around the world help Americans sleep safer at night? It doesn’t. Launching drone strikes only helps to create more anger, more rage at the US and radicalize people, aiding their turn to terrorism.
To use 9/11 as an excuse to wage aggressive imperialist wars against nations in order to get at their oil resources dishonors the victims of that tragic day. In doing that, one is only perpetuating violence and ensuring that another 9/11 is in the making. In order to truly honor the victims, we should work in creating a world where another 9/11 would not be possible. However, in order to do that, we must come to terms with the fact that what the government is doing does not honor the victims of that calamitous day
September 11th, 2011 by Finian Cunningham
Whether 9/11 was an inside job or an amazing terrorist success, the fact is that either way the atrocity is intimately linked with US state terrorism.
The attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001 were a seminal event that paved the way for permanent wars of aggression by the US and its puppet allies – wars that have made a travesty of international law, taking state criminality to new heights and resulting in mass murder of innocents. That is state terrorism, by any definition, that is out of control, which no alleged original crime can justify.
In the unlikely second scenario where a bunch of incompetent Al Qaeda pilots managed to pull off an amazing feat of flying maneuvers than even seasoned professionals could not (see for example www.pilotsfor9/11truth.org), the fact is that the alleged jihadi plotters were the product of US state terrorism.
It is well documented that Al Qaeda/Mujahideen/Jihadis – whatever they are labeled – are the Frankenstein creation of US and British military intelligence to fight the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
The 9/11 tragedy – if we see it as such – is thus a form of blowback where the terrorist dogs of dirty war come back to bite the hand that feeds them.
Amply documented. however, there is no blowback, whereby the Al Qaeda “Intelligence Asset” goes against its sponsors. This patron/client relationship between the US, Britain and so-called Islamic extremists still endures as can be seen in the unholy alliance of NATO with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) to overthrow the Gaddafi government.
The US, Britain and their dictator clients in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Gulf are up to their necks in shadowy Jihadi terror groups, whether it is in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, or more covertly in trying to destabilise Syria and Iran.
So even if we believe that the US/British/NATO “war on terror” is genuine – albeit crassly misguided – the fact is that it would not be occurring if it were not for the state terrorism that emanates from Washington and London in pursuit of imperialist intrigues.
Sadly, many Americans on this 10th anniversary of 9/11 will see the event as an unwarranted atrocity against their people and way of life. Unbearable to watch is the mainstream media’s mawkish mourning and solemnity for victims.
Inexplicable and perplexing to many Americans, from such vacuous media misinformation, is the diabolical hatred that others appear to harbour. Where can such deranged hatred come from? Why attack us when our country is so committed to democratic freedom and human rights?
Leaving aside that 9/11 may have been an inside job to facilitate strategic permanent war, even if the official narrative were true, it still gets down to the US and British playing with fire. These governments create terrorists, fund terrorists, train terrorists, use terrorists. Either way, the facts emerge: the US and its ally puppets have absolutely no regard for democratic freedom, international law or human rights.
Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, a mass hunger strike has begun in Bahrain. The date is just a coincidence and superficially has nothing to do with what happened in New York and Washington 10 years ago. But at a more profound level, the hunger strike by Bahraini pro-democracy supporters resonates significantly.
For the past six months, the US/British backed Bahraini dictatorship has been murdering, maiming, imprisoning and torturing civilians who have dared to rise up and demand their democratic rights. In its barbarism, the Bahraini regime has been supported by Saudi Arabia and the other Western-backed Gulf dictatorships – the same regimes that are facilitating the NATO carve up of Libya. Washington and London are actively supporting this state terrorism in Bahrain, politically and militarily to the tune of $20 million a year.
The US/British-backed state terrorism in Bahrain has seen, among other violations, the incarceration and torture of medics who had treated the injured and the illegal detention of students who simply expressed their political opinions. Among the imprisoned and tortured are human rights activists Abdulhadi Al Khawaja and Abdul Jalil Al Singace who were sentenced to life imprisonment by a military show trial court. The two men are in their second week of hunger strike. On Sunday, the 11th of September, they have now been joined in their starvation protest by students and civilians across Bahrain.
This is the state of affairs in a US-backed regime that serves as a base for the American Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Citizens who have peacefully demanded democratic rights, such as an elected government and respect for human rights, have been slaughtered and are now, in extreme, forced to go on a hungerstrike to protest against heinous violations by the US-backed regimes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia – the same regimes that co-sponsor Islamic extremists along with their Western patrons.
Bahrain shows the reality underneath the rhetoric; that the US and its Western/Arab clients stand for lawlessness and state terrorism. The footprint of that reality is not just Ground Zero in New York. It can be clearly seen in Bahrain and many other countries where people are struggling simply for democracy. On the 9/11 anniversary, Americans would do well to turn their attention away from the mawkish nonsense spouted by their politicians and mainstream media and take a look at what is really going on in the world under the boot of the Washington regime in places like Bahrain. Understanding that would be a far more fitting tribute to the victims of 9/11 and to the many more innocent victims that have followed since that date.
Finian Cunningham is a Global Research Correspondent based in Belfast, Ireland. He was expelled from Bahrain on 18 June over his critical journalism covering human rights violations by the Al Khalifa regime. [email protected]