You are Here:
Sorry Guest, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
Host Name Bans (EG)
This ban is not set to expire.
Pentagon Has Awarded Contracts To Al-Qaeda In Afghanistan

Author (Read 15570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pentagon Has Awarded Contracts To Al-Qaeda In Afghanistan
« on: May 23, 2014, 08:07:46 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Will the scores of MSNBC-watching Democrats and FOX-watching Republicans who've invested all of their ego and emotion into the presumed truthfulness of the official story on 9/11 -- and consequently into the presumed legitimacy of the so-called "War on Terror" -- ever wake up and smell the ruling-class Kool-Aid they've been drinking all these years? Or would they rather "save face" than save their own children from having to grow up as forcibly impoverished peasants in a Nazi-style police state?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pentagon-has-awarded-contracts-to-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan.html

Pentagon Has Awarded Contracts To Al-Qaeda In Afghanistan

Obama is the global head of terrorist network

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Aug 1, 2013

A new independent report reveals that lucrative U.S. military contracts have been granted to militant groups in Afghanistan with direct connections to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

The report, submitted to Congress by the U.S. Army Suspension and Debarment Office, states that American officials are citing “due process rights” as a reason not to cancel the agreements with the extremists.

A Bloomberg article quotes John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, who notes:

“I am deeply troubled that the U.S. military can pursue, attack, and even kill terrorists and their supporters, but that some in the U.S. government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract,”

The report continues:

    An audit showed that after 16 months, none of the agency’s essential program objectives have been reached and the money spent has mostly financed workshops and training sessions. The project is aimed at bolstering Afghanistan’s government before troop withdrawals planned for next year.

    “It’s troubling that after 16 months, this program has not issued its first community grant,” Sopko said. “Rather, it has spent almost $50 million, about a quarter of the total program budget, on conferences, overhead and workshops.”

    Regarding the 43 cases of contractors with militant connections, Sopko said the Army should “enforce the rule of common sense” in its suspension and debarment program.

    “They may be enemies of the United States but that is not enough to keep them from getting government contracts,” according to the agency’s report.

So there you have it, while the Obama administration is funding, equipping, and training al Qaeda extremists in Syria to overthrow the Assad government, it is also awarding contracts to al Qaeda after a decade plus long war against “the terrorists” in Afghanistan.

Obama truly is the global head of Al Qaeda – bankrolling, arming and equipping terrorists around the world in order to achieve his administration’s geopolitical objectives – while simultaneously invoking the threat of terrorists domestically to destroy the bill of rights.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Your Tax Dollars at Work in Afghanistan Supporting al-Qaeda
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2014, 08:08:36 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/your-tax-dollars-at-work-in-afghanistan-supporting-al-qaeda.html

Your Tax Dollars at Work in Afghanistan Supporting al-Qaeda

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 1, 2013

The next time Obama and the federal government tell you about the noble cause of our brave soldiers fighting on the side of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, remember this: you’re not only paying for military action against terrorists (under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed by Congress), but you’re also doling out money to the terrorists, viz al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO87DRevyzE (Inside Story - Funding the Afghan Taliban)



Earlier this week, John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, complained about it. “I am deeply troubled that the U.S. military can pursue, attack, and even kill terrorists and their supporters, but that some in the U.S. government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract,” Sopko said in a letter accompanying a quarterly report to Congress.

“There appears to be a growing gap between the policy objectives of Washington and the reality of achieving them in Afghanistan, especially when the government must hire and oversee contractors to perform its mission,” Sopko added.

If we look at the history of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, we realize this “gap” is nothing of the sort. The phony war on terror is designed to go on indefinitely, or at least for a few generations, as Dick Cheney proclaimed back in 2004.

In March, the installed manager of occupied Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, voiced his frustration over the United States collaborating with the Taliban. Back in the day, when the equally phony Cold War was winding down, Ronald Reagan equated the Taliban with America’s founding fathers.

“These (Taliban) gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s Founding Fathers,” said the former actor said in 1985 as he introduced Mujahideen leaders on the White House lawn.

In 2011, a “year-long military-led investigation… concluded that U.S. taxpayer money has been indirectly funneled to the Taliban under a $2.16 billion transportation contract that the United States has funded in part to promote Afghan businesses,” the Washington Post reported.

“Senior Bush Administration officials had displayed a complete lack of interest in the Afghan opium problem ever since 9/11,” James Risen writes in State of War. “In fact, the White House and Pentagon went out of their way to avoid taking on the Afghan drug lords from the very outset of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.”

In addition, the corrupt Karzai family teamed up with the CIA to work the opium fields while U.S. soldiers protected opium cultivation, a fact underscored by a Fox News segment:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj-b3pB6M7s (U.S. Soldiers Grow Opium/Heroin Poppy in Afganistan)



In addition to the CIA and the Pentagon providing sophisticated armaments to the Taliban during the engineered war against the Soviets in Afghanistan – shoulder-fired Stinger antiaircraft missiles, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets, military intelligence, and a “ceaseless stream” of arms (see Phil Gasper, Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban) – the group later known as al-Qaeda recruited, with the assistance of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, tens of thousands of “Afghan-Arab” fighters. Many of them would eventually end up in Guantánamo or on the receiving end of drone delivered Hellfire missiles.

This forbidden history is never mentioned by the corporate media when it “reports” on the “war on terror” and the tenacious presence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, perennial enemies that will go on fighting (with U.S. taxpayer largess) for the indeterminable future.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-govt-in-turmoil-over-big-new-al-qaeda-plot-while-obama-funds-them.html

US Govt In Turmoil Over ‘Big New Al-Qaeda Plot’ While Obama Funds Them

Anthony Gucciardi
Prison Planet.com
August 5, 2013

The mainstream media is reporting on the latest ‘big terror’ threat from al-Qaeda that is apparently the ‘most significant’ threat in years, yet they simultaneously fail to mention that the Obama administration is all the while funding al-Qaeda through arming and financing Syrian rebels that have major ties to the group.

Surely this essential point is at least worth mentioning when you consider the fact that Obama even initiated the large-scale arming of the al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels through a ‘secret order’, which was reported by mainstream news outlet Reuters back in 2012.

It was this ‘secret order’ that began the steady stream of arms and resources towards the Syrian rebels group that even the mainstream media admits goes around killing all Christians and innocents who fail to submit to their cause via public beheadings.

These barbaric rebels are truly a respectable group that Obama has chosen to fund with taxpayer dollars, equip with assault weapons (which he meanwhile attempts to ban in the United States), and is now pushing for yet another year of full-fledged funding despite the reports of beheadings and boundless bloodlust exhibited by the rebels.

But none of that matters to the mainstream media now, which is absolutely flailing around yelling about this new ‘big threat’ from al-Qaeda that apparently has around two dozen United States embassies closed within the Middle East and North Africa. Senator Saxy Chambliss, who actually was the first major politician to reveal key points regarding the Boston bombing intel, says the new threat is the ‘most serious’ he has seen ‘in years’. ABC News is now even reporting that it is a planned attack that is one of the biggest ever caught on record.

The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, told ABC News:

    “We received information that high level people from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are talking about a major attack… And these are people at a high level.”

It’s all coming from al-Qaeda, the same group Obama is funding through the Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad via chaos and bloodshed. So which is it, are al-Qaeda members the good guys or the bad guys? Well, it seems the mainstream media will flip and flop all day on this issue whenever convenient. Because just looking back at recent news, the argument wasn’t even about whether or not we should be funding the al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels, but whether or not we were giving them ‘enough‘ funding.

Watch as this story develops, and watch as they ignore this key factor I am addressing to you. Instead of discussing it, watch as al-Qaeda transitions to the bad guy once again in order to escalate ‘security’ measures within the United States for law-abiding citizens. Checkout this video I recorded exposing how Obama funds the Syrian rebels who kill Christians and other innocents who do not convert to their cause for a full breakdown, and be sure to share this information to combat the media madness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC5PB-90k7Y (Obama Funded Syrian Rebels Mauling Christians, Using Child Soldiers)

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/is-the-government-exaggerating-the-threat-of-terror-for-political-reasons.html

Is the Government Exaggerating the Threat of Terror for Political Reasons?

Washington’s Blog
August 5, 2013

The congressmen who take the most money from the military-industrial complex – I mean uber-hawks – like Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss say that the new terror warning shows that NSA spying is needed, after all.

On the other hand, a variety of people – including former CIA agent Barry Eisler, and Guardian columnists Michael Cohen and Glenn Greenwald – say that the terror alerts are political theater to try to distract attention from the embarrassing leaks about out-of-control mass surveillance on Americans.
Who’s right?

Initially, it doesn’t matter whether or not there is a real new terror threat because the government’s mass spying doesn’t keep us safe. In fact, it distracts energy and resources away from actual counter-terror measures which would actually help to protect us … and thus makes us more vulnerable to terror attacks.

Indeed, if the risk of terror is increasing again, it’s because the government has squandered its intelligence resources on political shenanigans – and on counter-productive anti-terror strategies – instead of focusing on keeping us safe.

(It may also have something to do with the fact that the U.S. government is directly supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Syria and many other countries.)

Of course, terror warnings have long been used for political purposes.  For example, FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, a top constitutional and military law expert, Time magazine, the Washington Post and others have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”.  Indeed, the former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge admitted that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-obama-regimes-fabricated-terror-conspiracy-in-defense-of-the-police-state/5345808

The Obama Regime’s Fabricated “Terror Conspiracy” in Defense of the Police State

By Prof. James Petras
Global Research
August 14, 2013



Introduction

Representative democracies and autocratic dictatorships respond to profound internal crises in very distinctive ways:  the former attempts to reason with citizens, explaining the causes, consequences and alternatives; dictatorships attempt to terrorize, intimidate and distract the public by evoking bogus external threats, to perpetuate and justify rule by police state methods and avoid facing up to the self-inflicted crises.

Such a bogus fabrication is evident in the Obama regime’s current announcements of an imminent global “terrorist threat”[1] in the face of multiple crises, policy failures and defeats throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Southwest Asia .

Internet ‘Chatter’ Evokes a Global Conspiracy and Revives the Global War on Terror

The entire terror conspiracy propaganda blitz, launched by the Obama regime and propagated by the mass media, is based on the flimsiest sources imaginable, the most laughable pretext.  According to White House sources, the National Security Agency, the CIA and other spy agencies claimed to have monitored and intercepted unspecified Al-Qaeda threats, conversations by two Al Qaeda figures including Ayman al Zawahiri[2].

Most damaging, the Obama regime’s claim of a global threat by al-Qaeda, necessitating the shutdown of 19 embassies and consuls and a world-wide travelers alert, flies in the face of repeated public assertions over the past five years that Washington has dealt ‘mortal blows’ to the terrorist organization crippling its operative capacity[3] and citing the US “military successes” in Afghanistan and Iraq, its assassination of Bin Laden, the drone attacks in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and the US-backed invasion of Libya.  Either the Obama regime was lying in the past or its current terror alert is a fabrication.  If, as Obama and the NSA currently claim, Al Qaeda has re-emerged as a global terrorist threat, then twelve years of warfare in Afghanistan and eleven years of war in Iraq, the spending of $1.46 trillion dollars, the loss of over seven thousand US soldiers[4] and the physical and psychological maiming of over a hundred thousand US combatants has been a total and unmitigated disaster and the so-called war on terror is a failure.

The claim of a global terror threat, based on NSA surveillance of two Yemen-based Al Qaeda leaders, is as shallow as it is implausible.  Every day throughout cyberspace one or another Islamist terrorist group or individual discuss terror plots, fantasies and plans of no great consequence.

The Obama regime fails to explain why, out of thousands of daily internet ‘conversations’, this particular one, at this particular moment, represents an ongoing viable terrorist operation.  One does not need a million spies to pick up jihadist chatter about “attacking Satan”.

For over a decade, Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen have been engaging in a proxy war with Washington-backed regimes and over the same time the Obama regime has been engaged in drone and Special Forces assassination mission against Yemeni militants and opposition figures[5].   In other words, the Obama regime has magnified commonplace events, related to an ongoing conflict known to the public, into a new global terrorist threat as revealed by his spymasters because of their high powered espionage prowess!

It is more than obvious that the Obama regime is engaged in a global fabrication designed to distract world public opinion and, in particular, the majority of US citizens, from police state spying and violations of basic constitutional freedoms.

By evoking a phony “terrorist threat” and its detection by the NSA, Obama hopes to re-legitimate his discredited police state apparatus.

More important, by raising the specter of a global terrorist threat, the Obama regime seeks to cover-up the most disreputable policies, despicable “show trials” and harsh imprisonment of government whistle blowers and political, diplomatic and military defeats and failures which have befallen the empire in the present period.

The Timing of the Fabrication of the Global Terror Threat

In recent years the US public has grown weary of the cost and inconclusive nature of the ‘global war on terror’, or GWOT.  Public opinion polls support the withdrawal of troops from overseas wars and back domestic social programs over military spending and new invasions.  Yet the Obama regime, aided and abetted by the pro-Israel power configuration, in and out of the government, engages in constant pursuit of war policies aimed at Iran, Syria, Lebanon and any other Moslem country opposed to Israel’s erasure of Arab Palestine.  The “brilliant” pro-war strategists and advisers in the Obama regime have pursued military and diplomatic policies which have led to political disasters, monstrous human rights violations and the gutting of US constitutional protections guaranteed to its citizens.  To continue the pursuit of repeated failed policies, a gargantuan police state has been erected to spy, control and represses US citizens and overseas countries, allies and adversaries.

The “terror threat” fabrication occurs at a time and in response to the deepening international crisis and the political impasse facing the Obama regime – a time of deepening disenchantment among domestic and overseas public opinion and increasing pressure from the Israel Firsters to continue to press forward with the military agenda.

The single most devastating blow to the police state buildup are the documents made public by the NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, which revealed the vast worldwide network of NSA spying in violation of US constitutional freedoms and the sovereignty of countries.  The revelations have discredited the Obama regime, provoked conflicts within and between allies, and strengthened the position of adversaries and critics of the US Empire.

Leading regional organizations, like MERCOSUR in Latin America , have attacked ‘cyber-imperialism’; the EU countries have questioned the notion of ‘intelligence cooperation’.  Even dozens of US Congress people have called for reform and cutbacks in NSA funding.

The “terror threats” are timed by Obama to neutralize the Snowden revelations and justify the spy agency and its vast operations.

The Bradley Manning “show trial”, in which a soldier is tortured, often with forced nudity, in solitary confinement for almost a year, imprisoned for three years before his trial and publicly prejudged by President Obama, numerous legislators and mass media (precluding any semblance of ‘fairness’), for revealing US war crimes against Iraqi and Afghan civilians, evoked mass protests the world over.  Obama’s “terror threat” is trotted out to coincide with the pre-determined conviction of Manning in this discredited judicial farce and to buttress the argument that his exposure of gross US war crimes “served the enemy” (rather than the American public who Manning repeatedly has said deserve to know about the atrocities committed in its name).  By re-launching the “war on terror” and intimidating the US public, the Obama regime is trying to discredit Bradley Manning’s heroic revelations of documented US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan by focusing on nebulous Al Qaeda terror threats over the internet!

In the international political arena, Obama has suffered a series of repeated political and diplomatic defeats with far-reaching implications for his fanatical empire building project.  The Obama-backed and Al Qaeda-led Islamist mercenary invasion of the sovereign nation of Syria has suffered a series of military defeats and his proxy jihadist ‘freedom-fighters’ have been denounced by most prestigious human rights groups for their massacres and ethnic cleansing of civilian populations in Syria (especially Christians, Kurds, Alevis and secular Syrians).

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Flashback: Yahoo Uncovered Syria Chemical Weapon False Flag in January
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2014, 08:13:24 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/flashback-yahoo-uncovered-syria-chemical-weapon-false-flag-in-january.html

Flashback: Yahoo Uncovered Syria Chemical Weapon False Flag in January

Anthony Gucciardi
Prison Planet.com
August 24, 2013

Bypassing all claims of ‘conspiracy theory’, it was actually Yahoo News that published an eerily psychic piece that warned of moves by the Obama administration to launch a chemical attack in Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime.

Laying out what is now history in clear text, the mainstream Yahoo report sourcing ANI reads (I have archived a screenshot of the page in case it is removed):

“The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown. As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to usechemical weapons,’ the Daily Mail reports.”

But maybe AIN and Yahoo News are conspiracy news organizations? After all, the very notion of a false flag is now considered treason in the mind of Obama drones. It is not politically correct to talk about how the Syrian rebels, who may have carried this out under Obama, are barbaric minions of Hell who revel in beheading all Christian families.

PREDICTED MONTHS BEFORE

There has much been talk of the recent chemical attack in Syria, yet there appears to be virtually no mention of this piece in the mainstream news. Instead, we look to the alternative news, which actually lit the proverbial pilot light behind this bombshell to begin with. Powerhouse journalists like Paul Joseph Watson have been covering the reality of a staged chemical attack for months, shouting from the rooftops that Assad will be blamed in order to begin a hot conflict.

Yet it seems the media is now blatantly corrupt and irrelevant enough to ignore this, and instead call for immediate actions against Assad. But what can they say when Yahoo, now the #1 largest website in the entire nation and the epitome of mainstream news, goes on record and warns about it being a false flag? Better yet, the piece even references Infowars in the text. But you ask, why would they do that? Why would they reference an alternative news site like that?

The simple answer is that the mainstream news is out of real content. They can only push sensational lies over the Trayvon Martin case and other shootings for so long before they literally have zero audience, and we already know their trust rankings are virtually dead. That’s why we see many mega media outlets actually starting to act as if they are on a crusade against the banksters and want justice. Think of it as a basic fight for survival on their end. They know that unless they somehow make themselves relevant, they will burn out very quickly in the face of alternative news.

Here is a video report on the Obama-funded Syrian rebels who likely carried out these attacks:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC5PB-90k7Y

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-with-a-human-face-the-history-of-americas-death-squads/5317564

Terrorism with a “Human Face”: The History of America’s Death Squads

Death Squads in Iraq and Syria. The Historical Roots of US-NATO's Covert War on Syria

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, August 26, 2013
4 January 2013



Image: El Salvador Death squads

The recruitment of death squads is part of a well established US military-intelligence agenda. There is a long and gruesome US history of covert funding and support of  terror brigades and targeted assassinations going back to the Vietnam war.

As government forces continue to confront the self-proclaimed “Free Syrian Army” (FSA),  the historical roots of  the West’s covert war on Syria –which has resulted in countless atrocities– must be fully revealed.

From the outset in March 2011, the US and its allies have supported the formation of death squads and the incursion of  terrorist brigades in a carefully planned undertaking.

The recruitment and training of terror brigades in both Iraq and Syria was modeled on the “Salvador Option”,  a “terrorist model” of mass killings by US sponsored death squads in Central America. It was first applied in  El Salvador, in the heyday of resistance against the military dictatorship, resulting in an estimated 75,000 deaths.

The formation of death squads in Syria builds upon the history and experience of US  sponsored terror brigades in Iraq, under the Pentagon’s “counterinsurgency” program.


The Establishment of Death Squads in Iraq

US sponsored death squads were recruited in Iraq starting in 2004-2005 in an initiative launched under the helm of the US Ambassador John Negroponte, [image: below] who was dispatched to Baghdad by the US State Department in June 2004.



Negroponte was the “man for the job”. As US Ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. Negroponte played a key role in supporting and supervising the Nicaraguan Contras based in Honduras as well as overseeing the activities of the Honduran military death squads.

    “Under the rule of General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, Honduras’s military government was both a close ally of the Reagan administration and was “disappearing” dozens of political opponents in classic death squad fashion.”

In January 2005, the Pentagon, confirmed that it was considering:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: Pentagon Has Awarded Contracts To Al-Qaeda In Afghanistan
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2014, 08:17:33 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/justifying-the-unjustifiable-us-uses-past-crimes-to-legalize-future-ones.html

Justifying the Unjustifiable: US Uses Past Crimes to Legalize Future Ones

Diana Johnstone
Ron Paul Institute
August 26, 2013

The liberal warhawks are groping around for a pretext they can call “legal” for waging war against Syria, and have come up with the 1999 “Kosovo war”.

This is not surprising insofar as a primary purpose of that US/NATO 78-day bombing spree was always to set a precedent for more such wars.  The pretext of “saving the Kosovars” from an imaginary “genocide” was as false as the “weapons of mass destruction” pretext for war against Iraq, but the fakery has been much more successful with the general public.  Therefore Kosovo retains its usefulness in the propaganda arsenal.

On August 24, the New York Times reported that President Obama’s national security aides are “studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.” (By the way, the “air war” was not “in Kosovo”, but struck the whole of what was then Yugoslavia, mostly destroying Serbia’s civilian infrastructure and also spreading destruction in Montenegro.)

On Friday, Obama admitted that going in and attacking another country “without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence” raised questions in terms of international law.

According to the New York Times, “Kosovo is an obvious precedent for Mr. Obama because, as in Syria, civilians were killed and Russia had longstanding ties to the government authorities accused of the abuses. In 1999, President Bill Clinton used the endorsement of NATO and the rationale of protecting a vulnerable population to justify 78 days of airstrikes.”

“It’s a step too far to say we’re drawing up legal justifications for an action, given that the president hasn’t made a decision,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations.  “But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar.”

Ivo H. Daalder, a former United States ambassador to NATO, suggests that the administration could argue that the use of chemical weapons in Syria amounts to a grave humanitarian emergency, just as the Clinton administration argued in 1999 that “a grave humanitarian emergency” presented the “international community” with “the responsibility to act”.

This amounts to creative legality worthy of the planet’s number one Rogue State.

An Illegal War as Precedent for More War

The US/NATO war against Yugoslavia, which used unilateral force to break up a sovereign state, detaching the historic Serbian province of Kosovo and transforming it into a US satellite, was clearly in violation of international law.

In May 2000, the distinguished British authority on international law, Sir Ian Brownlie (1936-2010), presented a 16,000-word Memorandum, evaluating the war’s legal status for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of the British Parliament.

Brownlie recalled that key provisions of the United Nations Charter state quite clearly that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Brownlie added that the alleged right to use force for humanitarian purposes was not compatible with the UN Charter.

During the past decade, the Western powers have invented and promoted a theoretical “right to protect” (R2P) in an effort to get around the UN Charter in order to clear the way for wars whose final purpose is regime change. The use of R2P to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya gave the game away, ensuring Russian and Chinese opposition for any further such manoeuvre in the UN Security Council.

Concerning the Kosovo war, in his Memorandum Professor Brownlie reached the following major conclusions:

- The primary justification for the bombing of Yugoslavia was always the imposition of the NATO plans for the future of Kosovo. It was in this context that the bombing campaign was planned in August 1998.

-The threats of massive air strikes were made in the same context and were first made public in October 1998. Neither the purpose of the planned air strikes nor their implementation related to events on the ground in Kosovo in March 1999.

-  The cause of the air strikes was quite simple: given that Yugoslavia had not given in to threats, the threats had to be carried out.

-  The legal basis of the action, as presented by the United Kingdom and other NATO States, was at no stage adequately articulated.

-  Humanitarian intervention, the justification belatedly advanced by the NATO States, has no place either in the United Nations Charter or in customary international law.

- If the view had been held that the Permanent Members of the Security Council would recognise the need for humanitarian action, then no doubt a resolution would have been sought.

- The intentions of the United States and the United Kingdom included the removal of the Government of Yugoslavia. It is impossible to reconcile such purposes with humanitarian intervention.

- The claim to be acting on humanitarian grounds appears difficult to reconcile with the disproportionate amount of violence involved in the use of heavy ordnance and missiles. The weapons had extensive blast effects and the missiles had an incendiary element. A high proportion of targets were in towns and cities. Many of the victims were women and children. After seven weeks of the bombing at least 1,200 civilians had been killed and 4,500 injured.

-  In spite of the references to the need for a peaceful solution to be found in Security Council Resolutions, the public statements of Mrs Albright, Mr Cook, Mr Holbrooke, and others, and the reiterated threats of massive air strikes, make it very clear that no ordinary diplomacy was envisaged.

The “Kosovo treatment”

As a final synopsis, Brownlie wrote a prophetic note on future use of “the Kosovo treatment”:

    The writer has contacts with a great number of diplomats and lawyers of different nationalities. The reaction to the NATO bombing campaign outside Europe and North America has been generally hostile. Most States have problems of separatism and could, on a selective basis, be the objects of Western ‘crisis management’. The selection of crises for the ‘Kosovo’ treatment will depend upon the geopolitical and collateral agenda. It is on this basis, and not a humanitarian agenda, that Yugoslavia is marked out for fragmentation on a racial basis, whilst Russia and Indonesia are not.

He added: “Forcible intervention to serve humanitarian objectives is a claim which is only open to powerful States to make against the less powerful. The fate of Yugoslavia will have caused considerable damage to the cause of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

The Brownlie Memorandum to the British Parliament is the most thorough assessment of the legal status of the Kosovo War.  It is quite remarkable that the liberal warhawks around Obama talk of using that war as a “legal precedent” for a new war against Syria.

This amounts to saying that a crime committed once becomes a “precedent” to justify the crime being committed the next time.

How Many Times Can You Fool Most of the People?

If understood correctly, the Kosovo war was indeed a precedent that should act as a warning signal.

How many times can the United States use a false alarm to start an aggressive war?  Non-existent “genocide” in Kosovo and Libya, non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and now what looks to much of the world like a “false flag” chemical weapons attack in Syria.

The United States habitually announces the presence of a desired casus belli, dismissing demands for concrete evidence.

In Kosovo, the United States obtained withdrawal of international observers who could have testified whether or not there was evidence of “genocide” of Kosovars.  The accusations escalated during the war, and when, afterwards, no evidence of such mass murder was found, the matter was forgotten.
In Iraq, there was never any proof of WMD, but the US went ahead and invaded.

In Libya, the pretext for war was a misquoted statement of Gaddafi threatening a “massacre of civilians” in Benghazi.  This was exposed as a fake, but again, NATO bombed, the regime was toppled, and the pretext falls into oblivion.

Sunday, just as the Syrian government announced readiness to allow international inspectors to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use, the White House responded, “too late!”

A senior Obama administration official demanding anonymity (one can reasonably guess the official was Obama’s hawkish National Security Advisor Susan Rice) issued a statement claiming that there was “very little doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians and that a promise to allow United Nations inspectors access to the site was “too late to be credible.”

In the world beyond the beltway, there is a great deal of doubt – especially about the credibility of the United States government when it comes to finding pretexts to go to war.  Moreover, setting “chemical weapons” as a “red line” obliging the US to go to war is totally arbitrary.  There are many ways of killing people in a civil war.  Selecting one as a trigger for US intervention serves primarily to give rebels an excellent reason to carry out a “false flag” operation that will bring NATO into the war they are losing.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Sec. State Kerry Prepares WMD Pretext Ahead of Syria Attack
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2014, 08:18:39 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/sec-state-kerry-prepares-wmd-pretext-ahead-of-syria-attack.html

Sec. State Kerry Prepares WMD Pretext Ahead of Syria Attack

Obama and his partners in crime set stage of another murderous attack

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
August 26, 2013

During his remarks today at the State Department, Secretary Kerry exploited the shock value of the chemical attack last week in Syria but did not provide a shred of verifiable evidence that the attack was the work of Bashar al-Assad and his military. Kerry said Syria destroyed any evidence by shelling the Jobar neighborhood outside of Damascus where the attack allegedly occurred. He failed to mention, however, that the government of Syria is involved in ongoing hostilities with so-called “rebels” who are CIA mercenaries consisting primarily of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda terrorists and shelling enemy positions is normal activity during war.

Kerry’s remarks on Monday are a precursor to a WMD rationale. It will be reminiscent of the Bush administration’s WMD pretext prior to the invasion of Iraq. Despite then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s ludicrous theatrics at the United Nations when he famously wagged a model vial of anthrax and presented other fabricated evidence like mobile biological weapon labs, it was clearly determined before and after the invasion that Iraq did not possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV5Ggfn9PYM



A House committee in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.” According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also found the Bush administration and its coterie of neocons had lied to the American people.

Prior to the first Iraq invasion perpetuated by the Bush senior administration, a fraudulent story surfaced during a congressional hearing held on October 10, 1990, claiming that Iraqi soldiers had thrown babies from incubators after invading Kuwait. Following the invasion of Iraq it was learned that the girl who testified before Congress about the incident was in fact the 15-year old daughter of a Kuwaiti emir. She had been coached by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton to provide false testimony and thus provide valuable pre-war propaganda.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y



Over the next few days the Obama administration, collaborating closely with its international partners in crime, will exploit the unsubstantiated and highly dubious claim that the government of al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. This will serve as a pretext to commence a bombing campaign in Syria. Similar to previous bombing campaigns in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, the latest effort will not merely concentrate on al-Assad’s military capability, but the country’s civilian infrastructure as well.

The idea is not to stop a brutal dictator from abusing his own people as the government and the establishment media claim. It is designed to destroy Syria and reduce it to a failed state like Iraq and Afghanistan. The “New Middle East” did not begin with the so-called Arab Spring, but with the Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” drawn up to balkanize the region and foment instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and beyond.

Secretary of State Kerry’s remarks follow:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

History Repeats: CIA Docs Reveal US Aided Saddam’s Chemical Attacks
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2014, 08:19:24 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/history-repeats-cia-docs-reveal-us-aided-saddams-chemical-attacks.html

History Repeats: CIA Docs Reveal US Aided Saddam’s Chemical Attacks

Anthony Gucciardi
Storyleak
August 26, 2013

As Obama continues to shove the blame on Syria’s Assad over the chemical attacks that were admitted by mainstream media months ago to be planned by the Obama administration to initiate military activity in Syria, declassified CIA files reveal that the US government has a history of assisting and facilitating chemical attacks against innocents.



Specifically, the declassified files expose the deeply nefarious relationship between the Reagan-led United States government and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. And just as Obama decries the chemical attacks within Syria that were actually launched by his administration as a pretext to military action, it is now revealed that Reagan played the same card back in 1988.

In both scenarios, we see that the administrations had no problem gassing women and children if it meant furthering their agenda.

For Obama, it means turning Syria into another Libya scenario, requiring the chemical attack in order to unleash the full military force of the United States in a ‘humane’ way through the response to the attacks. For Reagan back in 1988, it was essential to secure an Iraq victory first and foremost. And if it meant chemical attacks on Iran, then so be it. After all, the US government would simply deny it.

As Air Force Col. Rick Francona put it when speaking to Foreign Policy on the declassified documents,

     “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew.

You see at this time, when the attacks started in 1983, Iran could not properly pinpoint Saddam’s Iraq in the attacks. Ultimately, it came down to the United States protecting Saddam despite knowledge of the entire event. This is history repeating once more as well, since we now see the Obama-backed Syrian rebels actually carrying out the attacks for Obama as the US government plays ignorant.

Take a look at the description within the Foreign Policy report on the play of events:

    “In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.”

Sound familiar? As we now see the world call for attacks on Syria over the recent chemical attacks, it’s essential to look back at history. Even with Yahoo News reporting on the January 2013 plan for Obama to launch chemical attacks on Syria in order to launch a war campaign, it’s not enough for some people. History, however, tells us what’s truly going on today.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?409319-Book-Review-Spider-s-Web-The-Secret-History-of-How-the-White-House-Illegally-Armed-Iraq


Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq
Alan Friedman, 1993

The New American
February 21, 1994

Three days before President George Bush left office, he ordered a cruise missile attack against an Iraqi industrial complex in response to Baghdad's resistance to UN weapons inspections. The former head inspector of a UN arms team that had visited that complex on several occasions told author Alan Friedman that when he heard about that barrage he and his colleagues joked that "this was the ultimate cover-up -- to bomb the place." The inspectors knew that the technology at the plant -- used to make components for Saddam Hussein's nuclear enrichment program -- came from a company that had operated in both the U.S. and Britain and had deliberately sent military equipment to Iraq.

Inspector David Kay described the seeming paradox this way: "Western technology going to destroy Western technology. You had to use very advanced cruise missiles to destroy equally advanced Western products." Yet, more tragic than wry, some of the advanced war materiel sent to Saddam was also used against U.S. and allied soldiers. It is little wonder that those implicated deemed it necessary to try to conceal such dealings.

A Protracted Endeavor

Building a more vigorous Iraq was a project at which Washington worked assiduously for almost a decade. The author recounts that this involved such conduits as agriculture credits and Eximbank loans, and included the transfer of sophisticated weapons and technology to Saddam. Sometimes the methods were covert, and sometimes they were more open, but the result was to create a stronger enemy.

Author Alan Friedman, a correspondent for the Financial Times, has painstakingly investigated this tawdry record. If his in-depth treatment at times seems narrow or one-sided, generally that is because few are willing to go on the record defending past policy toward Iraq. Friedman's documentation is wide-ranging and his sources are varied; he has also done an abundance of independent delving.

Gary Mihollin, an expert on Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities, provides an apt summation to one aspect of the assistance. "The U.S. granted scores of licenses," he comments. "The government knew very well that Saddam was running a big missile and nuclear program and that the exports were almost certainly going to help both. But the State, Commerce and Energy departments acted like the three little monkeys: 'See no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.'"

The plotting and devious actions eventually unraveled. There came the exposure, for example, of government-backed loans to Iraq through the Agriculture Department's Commodities Credit Corporation (CCC) and Eximbank (in the latter case, some of the loans were granted after personal arm-twisting by Vice President George Bush). And those funds turned out to be financing Saddam's military ventures. Friedman demonstrates, as did the investigations by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry Gonzalez (D-TX), that the web of those aiding Iraq was extremely widespread.

Nonetheless, the U.S. and Italian governments were among those that tried to pin the bulk of the blame on one Christopher Drogoul, the former manager of the Atlanta branch of the Italian government-owned Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL). Certainly Drogoul was complicit, and he admitted as much, but he was far from being the only guilty party. As summarized by Friedman:

    As the size of the CCC program grew, so did the Atlanta branch's loans. By the end of the 1980s, Washington had approved a total of $5 billion of the loan guarantees for Iraq, making Saddam one of the biggest recipients of official U.S. largesse. BNL Atlanta financed some $1.89 billion of these loans, many of them in secret. Drogoul was thus providing more than a third of the entire lending for farm exports to Baghdad that was covered by U.S. government guarantees. Moreover, to those in the U.S. government who needed to know, Drogoul's Iraqi loans were not really a secret. In fact, the details of the Iraqi financing that he provided went straight to Washington, since the exporters informed government officials of each deal BNL Atlanta reported, filed, and stored at the Department of Agriculture.

Nor is it possible that BNL's main office in Rome, tied closely to the Italian government, knew nothing of the dealings. Rome and Baghdad were also working hand in glove, and when investigators later tried to untangle the mess, the Italian government's main efforts were directed toward lobbying Washington so indictments wouldn't point to Rome.

Multi-Faceted Aid

Although vital to Saddam, taxpayer-guaranteed loans to Iraq were but one part of the U.S. build-up of Saddam's regime. Friedman goes into detail on how:

• Cluster bombs were sent to Iraq via a Chilean arms manufacturer with the assistance of U.S. government officials.
• A transportation company in Glasgow helped get U.S.-designed munitions, ostensibly bound for Saudi Arabia, into Iraqi hands.
• An illegal arms financier who had worked with Bobby Ray Inman at the National Security Agency (and on whose board Inman later served) was involved in covert activities that helped to arm Baghdad.
• A Miami-based CIA contractor also became one of Iraq's largest suppliers.

There are many more examples that could be cited in this vein.

Politicians and officials also gave their stamp of approval, from Whitehall to Foggy Bottom. Friedman's volume, with extensive appendices, is replete with copies of formerly classified government documents, private telexes, and the like revealing exactly what was known and by whom. These documents include: the actual "talking points" prepared for Vice President Bush to lobby the Eximbank chairman for more credits for Saddam in 1987; a telex directing BNL Atlanta to finance more than $5 million in "yarn" and "wool" for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission in 1989; and a 1990 communication from Secretary of State James Baker to Ambassador April Glaspie noting that Iraqi officials had been in contact with the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist group.

Governments can cause things to happen in many ways. Having "plausible deniability" is a favorite device of intelligence agencies, which use contractors to carry out their dirty work so that -if they're caught -- they can repudiate any knowledge of the operation. Several of the cases in Spider's Web are of this kind, but it takes someone who is willingly blind not to see the active hand of Washington in arming Saddam.

On the other hand, Friedman makes less distinction than he might have in pointing out that a case could be made for the U.S. government's tilt away from Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, it is artless for the author, even in marshalling his evidence, not to accent Britain's long-standing penchant for balance-of-power politics. Margaret Thatcher's government, it seems apparent, was tilting toward Baghdad before the Reagan Administration did so. Still, some actions in the first part of the 1980s did have more plausibility than in the latter.

Bush, Baker, Saddam

The cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq war came in August 1988. Subsequently, the Bush Administration decided, in the words of a Baker State Department official, "to embrace Saddam in a cocoon of moderation." It was after that (on October 2, 1989) when George Bush signed NSD-26, directing "economic and political incentives for Iraq" to moderate its behavior. This for a dictator who had used poison gas on his own citizens, who was constantly improving his chemical warfare capability, and who was rushing to perfect a nuclear strike force. Aside from morality or geopolitics, even the Treasury Department was vocal (internally) in warning that the ongoing government-backed financing of Saddam constituted a "Ponzi-like" scheme.

Friedman remarks on what the Bush Administration knew while it was secretly formulating its pro-Iraqi foreign policy. For instance, the CIA knew of the links between BNL and the Iraqi arms procurement operation, and there were classified Agency reports sent to James Baker and others in September 1989 pinpointing Iraq's worldwide efforts to obtain the technology for nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, according to the author, on September 21, 1989 "the U.S. Customs Service reported its suspicion that BNL Atlanta had provided loans to American companies for the illegal export to Iraq of missile technology for the nuclear-capable Condor II project. The Pentagon, Federal Reserve, and prosecutors in Atlanta were also communicating their fears about the suspected use of BNL funds for the Condor II project at the same time. Indeed, Baker had been reminded, six months earlier, in explicit terms, of how hard Iraq was working to develop its missiles and chemical and biological weapons -and both he and Bush were well aware that the Iraqi arsenal was growing fast."

Authoritative reports about the trans-shipment and diversion of commodities, the use of CCC funds for arms, and widespread kickback practices all indicated violations that made further extension of government-guaranteed funds not just foolish, but a violation of the law. Congress, in fact, imposed a prohibition on more Eximbank loans because of the unceasing human rights violations in Iraq. But in January 1990 President Bush determined that such a prohibition was "not in the national interest of the United States" and signed a waiver that put Saddam in line for even more hundreds of millions of dollars in loans.

Aftermath

During the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. found itself bombing its own technology. But apparently even then the arms merchants and covert operators did not rest. One of those who became involved in the secret arming of Iraq was Fred Haobsh, who worked on behalf of the CIA. His story, which involves dealing with Iraqis even during the war itself, is cold-blooded even by spook standards. Traveling with another agent to Tunis, Haobsh recalled: "Here we were in the middle of Operation Desert Storm, with the TV on twenty-four hours a day, watching the war. And we were offering to sell Saddam's procurement officer a bunch of SAM missiles. I just didn't understand it, and I became frightened." Haobsh's tale of how his life was later ruined is harrowing, mirroring those of other operatives who dropped out of the game and were hung out to dry.

The cover-up began, says the author, within hours of the end of the war. Indeed, when indictments started to be proposed, in the case involving BNL Atlanta, the State Department formally objected to indicting the conniving Central Bank of Iraq, although it had $1.5 billion of assets in the U.S. As one aide to Secretary of State Baker put it, referring to the time frame just before the President ordered a cease-fire with Baghdad: "As for the Central Bank of Iraq, we thought that would cause trouble because we might have to work with them after the war."

BNL Rome also agreed to keep sending funds to Baghdad, since Saddam threatened to stop paying interest on the debt BNL had taken on from the Atlanta financing. Indeed, after Italy was largely let off the hook in criminal investigations in the U.S., the Rome office of the BNL sued in federal court demanding that, because Iraq had not paid off its U.S.-backed loans made through BNL Atlanta, the U.S. government needed to make good on the CCC loans.

This matter has largely disappeared from the U.S. radar screen, although there remains some legal interest in the Iraqi arms sale issue in Britain. As we write, Prime Minister John Major has been called to testify, but he has pleaded ignorance of any decision to ease arms restrictions to Saddam. As an opposition member of parliament put it, "His alibi is that he did not know what was going on in the department for which he was responsible."

As the lawyer for Christopher Drogoul put it, after detailing in court how his client had been operating with the knowledge of both his Rome bosses and with the support of the U.S. government: "This case is the mother of all cover-ups." His client is now in a federal penitentiary in Atlanta.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Friendly Dictators
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2014, 08:23:55 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2844.htm

Friendly Dictators

Written in 1995

U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:

Our real task... is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military- economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization... we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better. George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning. U.S. State Department. 1948

Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America.

Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.

They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals.

They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

The Terrorist in the Mirror
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2014, 08:25:42 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/01/24/the-terrorist-in-the-mirror/

The Terrorist in the Mirror

Grievances and Consequences

by Noam Chomsky
CounterPunch
January 24, 2006

"Terror" is a term that rightly arouses strong emotions and deep concerns. The primary concern should, naturally, be to take measures to alleviate the threat, which has been severe in the past, and will be even more so in the future. To proceed in a serious way, we have to establish some guidelines. Here are a few simple ones:

    (1) Facts matter, even if we do not like them.

    (2) Elementary moral principles matter, even if they have consequences that we would prefer not to face.

    (3) Relative clarity matters. It is pointless to seek a truly precise definition of "terror," or of any other concept outside of the hard sciences and mathematics, often even there. But we should seek enough clarity at least to distinguish terror from two notions that lie uneasily at its borders: aggression and legitimate resistance.

If we accept these guidelines, there are quite constructive ways to deal with the problems of terrorism, which are quite severe. It’s commonly claimed that critics of ongoing policies do not present solutions. Check the record, and I think you will find that there is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don’t like them."

Suppose, then, that we accept these simple guidelines. Let’s turn to the "War on Terror." Since facts matter, it matters that the War was not declared by George W. Bush on 9/11, but by the Reagan administration 20 years earlier.

They came into office declaring that their foreign policy would confront what the President called "the evil scourge of terrorism," a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself" in "a return to barbarism in the modern age" (Secretary of State George Shultz). The campaign was directed to a particularly virulent form of the plague: state-directed international terrorism. The main focus was Central America and the Middle East, but it reached to southern Africa and Southeast Asia and beyond.

A second fact is that the war was declared and implemented by pretty much the same people who are conducting the re-declared war on terrorism. The civilian component of the re-declared War on Terror is led by John Negroponte, appointed last year to supervise all counterterror operations. As Ambassador in Honduras, he was the hands-on director of the major operation of the first War on Terror, the contra war against Nicaragua launched mainly from US bases in Honduras. I’ll return to some of his tasks. The military component of the re-declared War led by Donald Rumsfeld. During the first phase of the War on Terror, Rumsfeld was Reagan’s special representative to the Middle East. There, his main task was to establish close relations with Saddam Hussein so that the US could provide him with large-scale aid, including means to develop WMD, continuing long after the huge atrocities against the Kurds and the end of the war with Iran. The official purpose, not concealed, was Washington’s responsibility to aid American exporters and "the strikingly unanimous view" of Washington and its allies Britain and Saudi Arabia that "whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country’s stability than did those who have suffered his repression" — New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell, describing Washington’s judgment as George Bush I authorized Saddam to crush the Shi’ite rebellion in 1991, which probably would have overthrown the tyrant.

Saddam is at last on trial for his crimes. The first trial, now underway, is for crimes he committed in 1982. 1982 happens to be an important year in US-Iraq relations. It was in 1982 that Reagan removed Iraq from the list of states supporting terror so that aid could flow to his friend in Baghdad. Rumsfeld then visited Baghdad to confirm the arrangements. Judging by reports and commentary, it would be impolite to mention any of these facts, let alone to suggest that some others might be standing alongside Saddam before the bar of justice. Removing Saddam from the list of states supporting terrorism left a gap. It was at once filled by Cuba, perhaps in recognition of the fact that the US terrorist wars against Cuba from 1961 had just peaked, including events that would be on the front pages right now in societies that valued their freedom, to which I’ll briefly return. Again, that tells us something about the real elite attitudes towards the plague of the modern age.

Since the first War on Terror was waged by those now carrying out the redeclared war, or their immediate mentors, it follows that anyone seriously interested in the re-declared War on Terror should ask at once how it was carried out in the 1980s. The topic, however, is under a virtual ban. That becomes understandable as soon as we investigate the facts: the first War on Terror quickly became a murderous and brutal terrorist war, in every corner of the world where it reached, leaving traumatized societies that may never recover. What happened is hardly obscure, but doctrinally unacceptable, therefore protected from inspection. Unearthing the record is an enlightening exercise, with enormous implications for the future.

These are a few of the relevant facts, and they definitely do matter. Let’s turn to the second of the guidelines: elementary moral principles. The most elementary is a virtual truism: decent people apply to themselves the same standards that they apply to others, if not more stringent ones. Adherence to this principle of universality would have many useful consequences. For one thing, it would save a lot of trees. The principle would radically reduce published reporting and commentary on social and political affairs. It would virtually eliminate the newly fashionable discipline of Just War theory. And it would wipe the slate almost clean with regard to the War on Terror. The reason is the same in all cases: the principle of universality is rejected, for the most part tacitly, though sometimes explicitly. Those are very sweeping statements. I purposely put them in a stark form to invite you to challenge them, and I hope you do. You will find, I think, that although the statements are somewhat overdrawn–purposely — they nevertheless are uncomfortably close to accurate, and in fact very fully documented. But try for yourselves and see.

This most elementary of moral truisms is sometimes upheld at least in words. One example, of critical importance today, is the Nuremberg Tribunal. In sentencing Nazi war criminals to death, Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, spoke eloquently, and memorably, on the principle of universality. "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes," he said, "they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us….We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

That is a clear and honorable statement of the principle of universality. But the judgment at Nuremberg itself crucially violated this principle. The Tribunal had to define "war crime" and "crimes against humanity." It crafted these definition very carefully so that crimes are criminal only if they were not committed by the allies. Urban bombing of civilian concentrations was excluded, because the allies carried it out more barbarically than the Nazis. And Nazi war criminals, like Admiral Doenitz, were able to plead successfully that their British and US counterparts had carried out the same practices. The reasoning was outlined by Telford Taylor, a distinguished international lawyer who was Jackson’s Chief Counsel for War Crimes. He explained that "to punish the foe–especially the vanquished foe–for conduct in which the enforcing nation has engaged, would be so grossly inequitable as to discredit the laws themselves." That is correct, but the operative definition of "crime" also discredits the laws themselves. Subsequent Tribunals are discredited by the same moral flaw, but the self-exemption of the powerful from international law and elementary moral principle goes far beyond this illustration, and reaches to just about every aspect of the two phases of the War on Terror.

Let’s turn to the third background issue: defining "terror" and distinguishing it from aggression and legitimate resistance. I have been writing about terror for 25 years, ever since the Reagan administration declared its War on Terror. I’ve been using definitions that seem to be doubly appropriate: first, they make sense; and second, they are the official definitions of those waging the war. To take one of these official definitions, terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature…through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear," typically targeting civilians. The British government’s definition is about the same: "Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause." These definitions seem fairly clear and close to ordinary usage. There also seems to be general agreement that they are appropriate when discussing the terrorism of enemies.

But a problem at once arises. These definitions yield an entirely unacceptable consequence: it follows that the US is a leading terrorist state, dramatically so during the Reaganite war on terror. Merely to take the most uncontroversial case, Reagan’s state-directed terrorist war against Nicaragua was condemned by the World Court, backed by two Security Council resolutions (vetoed by the US, with Britain politely abstaining). Another completely clear case is Cuba, where the record by now is voluminous, and not controversial. And there is a long list beyond them.

We may ask, however, whether such crimes as the state-directed attack against Nicaragua are really terrorism, or whether they rise to the level of the much higher crime of aggression. The concept of aggression was defined clearly enough by Justice Jackson at Nuremberg in terms that were basically reiterated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An "aggressor," Jackson proposed to the Tribunal, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as "Invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State," or "Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection." The first provision unambiguously applies to the US-UK invasion of Iraq. The second, just as clearly, applies to the US war against Nicaragua. However, we might give the current incumbents in Washington and their mentors the benefit of the doubt, considering them guilty only of the lesser crime of international terrorism, on a huge and unprecedented scale.

It may also be recalled the aggression was defined at Nuremberg as "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"–all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example, and in Nicaragua too, if the charge is not reduced to international terrorism. And in Lebanon, and all too many other victims who are easily dismissed on grounds of wrong agency–right to the present. A week ago (January 13), a CIA predator drone attacked a village in Pakistan, murdering dozens of civilians, entire families, who just happened to live in a suspected al-Qaeda hideout. Such routine actions elicit little notice, a legacy of the poisoning of the moral culture by centuries of imperial thuggery.

The World Court did not take up the charge of aggression in the Nicaragua case. The reasons are instructive, and of quite considerable contemporary relevance. Nicaragua’s case was presented by the distinguished Harvard University law professor Abram Chayes, former legal adviser to the State Department. The Court rejected a large part of his case on the grounds that in accepting World Court jurisdiction in 1946, the US had entered a reservation excluding itself from prosecution under multilateral treaties, including the UN Charter. The Court therefore restricted its deliberations to customary international law and a bilateral US-Nicaragua treaty, so that the more serious charges were excluded. Even on these very narrow grounds, the Court charged Washington with "unlawful use of force"–in lay language, international terrorism–and ordered it to terminate the crimes and pay substantial reparations. The Reaganites reacted by escalating the war, also officially endorsing attacks by their terrorist forces against "soft targets," undefended civilian targets. The terrorist war left the country in ruins, with a death toll equivalent to 2.25 million in US per capita terms, more than the total of all wartime casualties in US history combined. After the shattered country fell back under US control, it declined to further misery. It is now the second poorest country in Latin America after Haiti–and by accident, also second after Haiti in intensity of US intervention in the past century. The standard way to lament these tragedies is to say that Haiti and Nicaragua are "battered by storms of their own making," to quote the Boston Globe, at the liberal extreme of American journalism. Guatemala ranks third both in misery and intervention, more storms of their own making.

In the Western canon, none of this exists. All is excluded not only from general history and commentary, but also quite tellingly from the huge literature on the War on Terror re-declared in 2001, though its relevance can hardly be in doubt.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: Pentagon Has Awarded Contracts To Al-Qaeda In Afghanistan
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2014, 08:27:05 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cheney-neocons-considered-killing-americans-in-pretext-to-attack-iran.html

Cheney, Neocons Considered Killing Americans in Pretext to Attack Iran

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
July 31, 2008

In the video here, taped at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, the Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh reveals how the neocons convened around Dick Cheney and brainstormed ways to kick off World War IV, as they fondly call their pet project to take out the Muslims and foment a contrived “clash of civilizations.”

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZM7ppkVCT8

According to Hersh, this meeting occurred after the neocons failed miserably to stage a rehashed version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Strait of Hormuz, mostly because it is no longer 1964 and such Big Lies — thanks to the internet and bloggers — are far more difficult to float. “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there,” quipped LBJ about the imaginary act of North Vietnamese boats supposedly attacking U.S. ships, leading to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and undeclared war in Southeast Asia, ultimately resulting in the death of nearly 60,000 Americans and around 3 million Southeast Asians.

In an exclusive Think Progress story, we learn the meeting took place in Cheney’s office and the subject on the table was “how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” part of an ongoing effort to provide an excuse to attack Iran. “There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war,” Hersh explains. “The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.”

Hersh would have us believe this scenario did not play out because “you can’t have Americans killing Americans,” an absurd explanation considering the fact the attacks of September 11 were just that — “Americans killing Americans,” a calculated and cold-blooded act of mass murder carried out by elements in the U.S. government as a “new Pearl Harbor,” a cynical pretext to launch the “war on terror,” now grinding into its seventh year.

Ominously, these “ideas” hark back to Operation Northwoods, the JSC plan to stage a false flag terror event — or a number of events — designed to provide a pretext to invade Cuba and take out Fidel Castro. Such “ideas” included “friendly Cubans” attacking the U.S. base at Guantanamo, shooting down a drone disguised as a chartered civil airliner and blaming it on Cuba, inciting riots and staging terror attacks in Miami, and other terrorist acts. Fortunately, then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, put a kibosh to this insane plan.

More recently, in January, 2003, in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion George Bush and Tony Blair discussed painting planes in United Nations colors “in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach” and thus set in motion an invasion, according to Philippe Sands, a leading British human rights lawyer (see Revealed: Bush and Blair discussed using American Spyplane in UN colors to lure Saddam into war, Channel Four News).

[Continued...]


http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag

False Flag Terrorism

"False flag terrorism" occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

    False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy's flag was hung instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, it was called a "false flag" attack.

There are many examples of false flag attacks through history. For example, it is widely known that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. And it has now been persuasively argued — as shown, for example, in this History Channel video — that Nazis set fire to their own parliament, the Reichstag, and blamed that fire on others. The Reichstag fire was the watershed event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties.

And in the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers). Israel's Defense Minister was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government. Click here for verification.

The Russian KGB apparently conducted a wave of bombings in Russia in order to justify war against Chechnya and put Vladimir Putin into power (see also this essay and this report [.pdf]). And the Turkish government has been caught bombing its own and blaming it on a rebel group in order to justify a crackdown on that group. Muslim governments also play this game. For example, the well-respected former Indonesian president claimed that their government had a role in the Bali bombings.

This sounds nuts, right? You've never heard of this "false flag terrorism," where a government attacks its own people then blames others in order to justify its goals, right? And you are skeptical of the statements discussed above? Please take a look at these historical quotes:

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- U.S. President James Madison

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

What about the U.S.?

Is it logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so? Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Moreover, recently declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. The operation was not carried out only because the Kennedy administration refused to implement these Pentagon plans.

For lots more on the astonishing Operation Northwoods, see the ABC news report; the official declassified documents; and watch this interview with James Bamford, the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. One quote from the Northwoods documents states: "A 'Remember the Maine' incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

What about Al-Qaeda?

You might think Al-Qaeda is different. It is very powerful, organized, and out to get us, right? Consider this Los Angeles Times article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled The Power of Nightmares, which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). And former National Security Adviser [.pdf] Zbigniew Brzezinski testified to the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative."

And did you know that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but had – at the last minute – cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake powder for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes? See also this TV news report.

Have you heard that the CIA is alleged to have met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11? Did you know that years after 9/11 the FBI first stated that it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11? The agency apparently still does not have any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime (see also this partial confirmation by the Washington Post). And did you see the statement by the CIA commander in charge of the capture that the U.S. let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan?

Have you heard that the anthrax attacks – which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists – used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility? Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong." For more on this, see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert (and this one).

It is also interesting that the only Congress-members mailed anthrax letters were key Democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing PATRIOT Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of Congress into passing that act without even reading it. And though it may be a coincidence, White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred.

Even General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism, yet in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation" (the audio is here).

Why Does This Matter?

Please read what the following highly respected people are saying:

Former prominent Republican U.S. Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that elements in government are using fear to try to bring this about. Republican U.S. congressman Ron Paul stated that the government "is determined to have martial law." He also said a contrived "Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran." Former National Security Adviser Brzezinski told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

The former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, Paul Craig Roberts, who is called the "Father of Reaganomics" and is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, and Scripps Howard News Service, has said:

    "Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging 'terrorist' attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda? ... If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the 'unitary executive' at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of 'national emergency' and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance."

General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government." Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, I believe the president will get what he wants. And what he wants is a new Patriot Act, one that will make the current Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights."

Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government. And British Parliament Member George Galloway stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: Pentagon Has Awarded Contracts To Al-Qaeda In Afghanistan
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2014, 08:27:43 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
"America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based." -- Paul Craig Roberts

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making
« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2014, 08:30:28 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/syria-another-western-war-crime-in-the-making.html

Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making

Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
August 27, 2013

Update:

The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand. However, as with Iraq, Washington’s decision to commit aggression against Syria is not based on any facts. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-un-war-investigation-006/

The US and UK governments have revealed none of the “conclusive evidence” they claim to have that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Listening to their voices, observing their body language, and looking into their eyes, it is completely obvious that John Kerry and his British and German puppets are lying through their teeth. This is a far more shameful situation than the massive lies that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell claims that he was deceived by the White House and did not know that he was lying. Kerry and the British, French, and German puppets know full well that they are lying.

The face that the West presents to the world is the brazen face of a liar.


Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government.

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-un-weapons-inspectors-attacked-as-they-try-to-enter-poison-gas-attack-site-8784435.html

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/obama-administration-accepts-rebels-account-on-syria-prepares-for-war/ See also: http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/syria-accepts-un-inspectors-us-spurns-call-as-too-late/

In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection.http://rt.com/news/un-chemical-oservers-shot-000/

The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.” http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.” http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/ It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/ The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.”

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality.

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism?

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.”

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes.

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government.

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria – There is no Evidence
« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2014, 08:31:09 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/confirmed-us-claims-against-syria-there-is-no-evidence.html

CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria – There is no Evidence

Tony Cartalucci
Prison Planet.com
August 28, 2013

The Wall Street Journal has confirmed what many suspected, that the West’s so-called “evidence” of the latest alleged “chemical attacks” in Syria, pinned on the Syrian government, are fabrications spun up from the West’s own dubious intelligence agencies.

The Wall Street Journal reveals that the US is citing claims from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency fed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a repeat of the fabrications that led up to the Iraq War, the Libyan War, and have been used now for 3 years to justify continued support of extremists operating within and along Syria’s borders.

Wall Street Journal’s article, “U.S., Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts,” states:

    One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the Central Intelligence Agency with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said. The intelligence, which the CIA was able to verify, showed that certain types of chemical weapons were moved in advance to the same Damascus suburbs where the attack allegedly took place a week ago, Arab diplomats said.

Both Mossad and the CIA are clearly compromised in terms of objectivity and legitimacy. Neither exists nor is expected to provide impartial evidence, but rather to facilitate by all means necessary the self-serving agendas, interests, and objectives of their respective governments.

That both Israel and the United States, as far back as 2007 have openly conspired together to overthrow the government of Syria through a carefully engineered sectarian bloodbath, discredits entirely their respective intelligence agencies. This is precisely why an impartial, objective third-party investigation has been called for by the international community and agreed upon by the Syrian government – a third-party investigation the US has now urged to be canceled ahead of its planned military strikes.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

    In an email on Sunday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and other top officials that the U.N. mission was pointless because the chemical weapons evidence already was conclusive, officials said. The U.S. privately urged the U.N. to pull the inspectors out, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to possibly move forward with a military response, officials said.

The US then, not Syria, is attempting a coverup, with fabrications in place from discredited, compromised intelligence sources and the threat of impending military strikes that would endanger the UN inspection team’s safety should they fail to end their investigation and withdraw.

The Wall Street Journal also reiterated that the US is planning to fully sidestep the UN Security Council and proceed with its partners unilaterally:

    …if the U.S. chose to strike, it would do so with allies and without the U.N., in order to sidestep an expected Russian veto.

The US proceeds now with absolute disregard for international law, all but declaring it has no intention of providing credible evidence of its accusations against the Syrian government. It is a rush to war with all the hallmarks of dangerous desperation as the West’s proxy forces collapse before the Syrian military. Western military leaders must consider the strategic tenants and historical examples regarding the dangers and folly of haste and imprudence in war – especially war fought to protect special interests and political agendas rather than to defend territory.

The US proceeds now with absolute disregard for international law, all but declaring it has no intention of providing credible evidence of its accusations against the Syrian government. It is a rush to war with all the hallmarks of dangerous desperation as the West’s proxy forces collapse before the Syrian military. Western military leaders must consider the strategic tenants and historical examples regarding the dangers and folly of haste and imprudence in war – especially war fought to protect special interests and political agendas rather than to defend territory.

The populations of the West must likewise consider what benefits they have garnered from the last decade of military conquest their leaders have indulged in. Crumbling economies gutted to feed the preservation of special interests and the growing domestic security apparatuses to keep these interests safe from both domestic and foreign dissent are problems that will only grow more acute.

Outside of the West, in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, leaders must consider a future where Western special interests can invade with impunity, without public support, or even the tenuous semblance of justification being necessary.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack
« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2014, 08:32:45 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/intelligence-suggests-assad-not-behind-chemical-weapons-attack.html

Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack

Intercepted phone calls indicate Syrian government did not order attack

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
August 28, 2013

Intercepted phone calls that will be presented by the Obama administration as proof that Bashar Al-Assad was behind last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria actually suggest that the attack was not ordered by the Syrian government.

Phone calls by the Syrian Ministry of Defense intercepted by Mossad and passed to the US reveal that Syrian government officials, “exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people,” in the hours after last week’s attack.

Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be making panicked phone calls “demanding answers” about the attack if they had ordered it?

The fact that the highest levels of the Syrian government apparently had no knowledge of the attack strongly suggests that they did not order it, with the worst case scenario being that the attack was “the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds,” writes Foreign Policy’s Noah Shachtman.

“We don’t know exactly why it happened,” a US intelligence official told Foreign Policy. “We just know it was pretty f**king stupid.”

So despite not knowing exactly what happened, why it happened, or who ordered it, while sabotaging the UN’s investigation of the incident, the US is about to launch cruise missile attacks and potentially enflame the entire region based on evidence that actually suggests the Syrian government had no idea who was behind the chemical weapons attack.

Meanwhile, previous evidence that suggests the US-backed rebels prepared and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions has been completely forgotten in the rush to war.

The last time the United Nations investigated evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, inspectors concluded that it was likely the rebels and not Assad’s forces who were behind the attacks.

In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer.

There are also multiple other examples of video footage which shows US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons.

The notion that Washington has any credibility when it comes to laying blame about weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous.

The last time the world believed the United States’ claims about Iraq’s non-existent WMD, hundreds of thousands of innocent people died as a result.

The Obama administration is about to launch the United States headlong into a conflict that could spark a new war in the Middle East, yet the very justification for the assault is being blithely accepted by the mainstream media, who have learned nothing from how their obsequious and unquestioning behavior prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq helped grease the skids for a decade of bloodshed and disaster.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack
« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2014, 08:35:44 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack.html

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack

Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
August 30, 2013

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR).

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Bombshell: Kerry Caught Using Fake Photos to Fuel Syrian War
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2014, 08:36:38 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/john-kerry-negotiations-to-continue-in-syrian-chemical-attack.html

Bombshell: Kerry Caught Using Fake Photos to Fuel Syrian War

“Many friends stand ready to respond”

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013



Secretary of State John Kerry opened his speech Friday by describing the horrors victims of the chemical weapon attack suffered, including twitching, spasms and difficulty breathing.

Attempting to drive the point home, Kerry referenced a photograph used by the BBC illustrating a child jumping over hundreds of dead bodies covered in white shrouds. The photo was meant to depict victims who allegedly succumbed to the effects of chemical weapons via Assad’s regime.

However, it was later exposed the photograph used had been taken in 2003 in Iraq. It was not related to Syrian deaths whatsoever and was later retracted.

The Secretary of State announced the US will continue “negotiations” with Congress and the American people.

The decision came after UK Parliament voted no to military action against Syria Thursday evening, refusing to accompany the US in a missile strike against the Middle Eastern nation.

Germany also voiced their opposition to Syria military intervention saying they have “not considered it” and “will not be considering it.”

France, however, released statements saying they intend to act alongside the US in an attempt to “punish” Syria for the alleged chemical weapons attack.

Despite numerous allies’ refusal to get involved, Kerry argued “Many friends stand ready to respond.”

Kerry alleged that not just one, but several chemical weapon attacks have occurred. The attack last week in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children. However, Infowars reveals that the “international aid group Doctors Without Borders reported 355 people were killed in the attack last week, not the wildly exaggerated figure cited by Kerry.”

The Secretary of State said the US government has “high confidence” Assad carried out the attack, affirming military intervention would be “common sense.”

He referred to the attack as an “indiscriminate, inconceivable and horrific act,” claiming a Syrian senior regime official admitted responsibility. However, he offered no hard evidence backing this claim.

While Kerry blamed Syria for blocking and delaying the UN chemical weapons investigation, an Infowars report revealed the “Obama administration told UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that ‘there wasn’t adequate security for the U.N. inspectors to visit the affected areas to conduct their mission,’ a clear warning (or a blatant threat) that inspectors should pull out entirely.”

“Even when Syria allowed UN inspectors to enter the affected region, the Obama administration responded that it was ‘too late,’ and that the evidence could have been destroyed,” reported Infowars.
Unsurprisingly, Kerry failed to mention US’s true position of funding the Syrian rebels, leaving the uninformed public incompetent to form an accurate opinion.

The good news is for the first time in over two hundred years a “British Prime Minister lost a vote on war since 1782, when Parliament effectively conceded American independence by voting against further fighting to crush the colony’s rebellion,” reported Reuters.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Point-By-Point Rebuttal of U.S. Case for War In Syria
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2014, 08:37:57 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/point-by-point-rebuttal-of-u-s-case-for-war-in-syria.html

Point-By-Point Rebuttal of U.S. Case for War In Syria

Washington’s Blog
September 3, 2013

The White House released a 4-page document setting forth its case for use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

But as shown below, the case is extremely weak (government’s claim in quotes, followed by rebuttal evidence).

    “A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.“

But McClatchy notes:

    Neither Kerry’s remarks nor the unclassified version of the U.S. intelligence he referenced explained how the U.S. reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children. The only attribution was “a preliminary government assessment.

    Anthony Cordesman, a former senior defense official who’s now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, took aim at the death toll discrepancies in an essay published Sunday.

    He criticized Kerry as being “sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number” of 1,429, and noted that the number didn’t agree with either the British assessment of “at least 350 fatalities” or other Syrian opposition sources, namely the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has confirmed 502 dead, including about 100 children and “tens” of rebel fighters, and has demanded that Kerry provide the names of the victims included in the U.S. tally.

    “President Obama was then forced to round off the number at ‘well over 1,000 people’ – creating a mix of contradictions over the most basic facts,” Cordesman wrote. He added that the blunder was reminiscent of “the mistakes the U.S. made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell’s speech to the U.N. on Iraq in 2003.”

    An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities, though it more broadly agreed with the United States that the regime had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack.

Next, the government says:

    “In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations.”

Reports on the ground are contradictory, with some claiming that the rebels used the chemical weapons. See this and this.  Indeed, government officials have admitted that they’re not sure who used chemical weapons.

More importantly the U.S. government claimed it had unimpeachable sources regarding Iraq’s WMDs … and that turned out to be wholly fabricated.

    “We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin.”

Chemical weapons experts are still skeptical.  The chain of custody is suspect, given that the U.S. hasn’t revealed where the samples came from, and who delivered them to the U.S.  McClatchy reports:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

The High Cost Of Saving Face For Obama
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2014, 08:39:10 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-high-cost-of-saving-face-for-obama.html

The High Cost Of Saving Face For Obama

Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
September 4, 2013

As I observed in previous columns, obama was pushed out onto the end of the limb by Israel and the neoconservatives. The UN, NATO, the British Parliament, and the rest of the world left the White House Fool there, out on the limb where Israel put him, to make war on Syria all alone.

This proved to be beyond the Fool’s ability, but instead of crawling back off the limb and finding an excuse to get down, obama decided to buy the Congress and to tell more lies.

The White House and its presstitute media are telling Congress that it is too humiliating for the President of “the world’s only superpower” to have to crawl back along the limb and get down just because he told a lie. Congress must ”save face” for the liar who is “America’s first black president,” or the prestige and credibility of the US will be lost.

What this really means, of course, is that the credibility of the Israel Lobby and the neoconservatives will be lost unless America again commits a war crime and destroys the life and prospects of many more people in the Middle East.

Heaven forbid that Washington lose prestige! So money, lots of it, is speaking in Washington and in European capitals. We know that the despicable Cameron will do all in his power to prostitute the British government for Washington.

What has the “socialist” Hollande been promised that makes him so willing to demonstrate that France is obama’s whore?

What larger share of NATO’s military budget is Washington promising to underwrite in exchange for NATO’s support for another American war crime?

Will bags of money enable Washington to gather support for its latest crime against humanity?

But first Congress has to be brought around.

Congress will be pressured “to show a common front” with the White House in order to maintain America’s credibility. Members of the House and Senate will be told that now that America has been abandoned by its allies, Congress cannot leave the President of the United States hanging out to dry. Congress must rush to the rescue of America’s prestige or Washington will lose its clout and Congress will lose its campaign contributions from the Israel Lobby and the military/security complex.

This argument can even be effective with the strongest opponents to the attack on Syria. Americans have a long tradition of jingoism, and the prospect of lost prestige rankles. But before Congress is pushed into wrapping itself in the flag and giving its OK to another war crime, Congress needs to consider whether endorsing obama’s attack on Syria helps US prestige or hurts it.

It is clear that the American people overwhelming oppose an attack on Syria. Whether Americans have caught on over the years to Washington’s endless war lies or whether they simply see no point to the wars and no gain to America from 12 years of costly war, I cannot say. At a time when a large percentage of Americans are having difficulty paying their mortgages, car payments, and putting food on the table, Washington’s wars seem an expensive luxury.

It is not only the civilian populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria who have suffered. Tens of thousands of America’s young have either been killed, maimed for life, or are suffering permanent post-traumatic stress. Washington’s wars have caused thousands of divorces, alcoholism, drug addiction, and homelessness for veterans who were deceived and had their humanity abused by the criminals that rule in Washington.

For Congress, allegedly the representatives of the American people, not the backstop for the executive branch’s undeclared agenda, to ignore the people’s will and to endorse a war that the American people do not support would be another decisive blow against democracy. If Congress endorses obama’s war, it will prove that American democracy is a hoax.

If the White House were to succeed in using Congress’ OK to a military attack on Syria to convince the British Parliament and NATO to go along, despite the strong opposition of the British and European peoples, Western Democracy would everywhere be discredited. Where is the democracy when a few elites at the top can do whatever they want, commit any crime, despite the majority opposition of citizens?

If Congress endorses obama’s transparent lies, American democracy will never recover. If Congress makes itself the handmaiden of the executive branch, Congress will never again have an independent voice. Congress might as well close down. It will have rendered itself superfluous and powerless.

If European governments endorse obama’s lies, it means the end of the West’s democratic prestige and will strip away the cloak behind which the West has hidden its crimes against humanity. The voice of the West will never again carry any moral authority.

The loss of Western credibility is a huge price to pay in order to rescue a discredited president whom no one believes, not even his supporters. Essentially obama is a cipher whose term of office is complete. The obama regime epitomizes the degeneration of the American state.

Instead of voting on whether to allow obama to attack Syria, Congress should be voting to impeach obama and kerry. Their blatant lies, dictatorial claims, and arrogant inhumanity are powerful arguments for removing them from office.

The lies told by the obama regime are so transparent that it makes one wonder just how stupid the regime thinks the American people are. Little doubt the white house is relying on its Ministry of Propaganda, a.k.a., the presstitute media, to undermine Americans’ confidence in their common sense and to make them accept the latest fiction. The tactic is to use the peer pressure of the prostitute media to silence Americans’ conscience.

Media insouciance is everywhere. Yesterday NPR calmly reported the lies about Assad that the obama regime has concocted to cover another act of naked aggression. In the same breath, NPR voiced “the world’s outrage” over the rape and murder of one woman in India.

I, of course, do not agree with the raping and killing of anyone, but just imagine the raping and killing that will occur when obama unleashes the dogs of war on Syria.

NPR is no longer an alternative voice. Yesterday NPR was beating the drums for war. NPR provided a forum for the head of one of the main neoconservative lobbies for war, and in the next hour had Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders repeating all of obama and kerry’s lies about how America’s prestige cannot tolerate allowing Assad to use “chemical weapons against his own people.” No one listening to NPR heard the voice of those demanding peace and truth. NPR was too busy lying for Obama to care about truth and certainly gave truth no voice on the program.

The presstitute media and the House and Senate “leaders” who report to the military/security complex and to the Israel Lobby keep talking about Assad’s “own people,” but Assad’s own people support him. Polls of Syrians show that Assad has more support from the Syrian people than every head of every Western country has from their citizens. Cameron’s, Hollande’s, Merkel’s and obama’s poll numbers are dismal compared to the Syrian peoples’ support for Assad. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

Just as there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction,” but the facts did not stop the Bush regime from telling its lies that resulted in massive deaths and destruction of Iraqis, deaths and destruction that continue as I write, Assad has not used chemical weapons “against his own people.” All of the evidence points to a false flag event that obama could seize upon to launch America’s 7th war in 12 years.

Moreover, al-Nusra fighters are not Assad’s “own people.” The al-Nusra front are Islamist extremists recruited from outside Syria and sent in by Washington and Saudi Arabia to overthrow an elected Syrian government, just as Washington used the Egyptian military to overthrow the first elected Egyptian government in history and to shoot down in the streets hundreds of Egyptians who were protesting the military’s overthrow of the government that they had elected.

Whether or not Assad used chemical weapons against Washington-supported al-Nusra jihadists, and US Intelligence says that there is “no conclusive evidence,” it is nevertheless a war crime for Washington to attack a country that has not attacked, or threatened to attack, the US. Under the Nuremberg standard established by the United States, naked aggression is a war crime regardless of the character of the country attacked or the weapons it uses against forces that attack it.

If Washington succeeds in enabling the al-Nusra terrorists to overthrow the secular Syrian government, how will Washington get Syria away from al-Nusra? In Iraq the death and destruction continues today at the same pace as under the attempted US military occupation. The criminal Bush regime did not bring “freedom and democracy” to Iraq. The Bush regime brought death and destruction that continues long after Washington’s exit. In Iraq today, as many people are blown apart and murdered as during the height of Bush’s war of aggression.

The chaos in which Washington left Iraq is a far cry from “freedom and democracy.” The obama war criminal did the same to Libya. In Afghanistan Washington added 12 years of war on top of the 10 years of war that Afghans fought with the Red Army. The purpose of Washington’s war in Afghanistan has never been stated. No one knows what the war is about or why it continues.

According to the Bush regime, Afghanistan was attacked because the Taliban would not hand over Osama bin Laden without proof that he was responsible for 911. So why does the war continue 12 years after bin Laden died of renal failure and other diseases in December 2001 and then died again in May, 2011, two years and four months ago when obama claims to have had him killed by Navy SEALs, whose unit was mysteriously wiped out shortly thereafter in Afghanistan. If the purpose of the Afghan war was to get bin Laden, why does the war continue when the man has twice died?

The lies being told by obama and kerry are so transparent that it makes one wonder if their strategy is to make such a poor case for war that the control Israel and the neocons have over US foreign policy will be broken. What else is one to make of such absurd statements as john kerry’s claim that “this is our Munich moment!” There is no comparison between Assad’s defensive effort to prevent the overthrow of the Syrian government by foreign jihadists supported by Washington and Hitler’s aggressive stance toward Czechoslovakia.

The Syrian government has initiated no war and has threatened no one.

America as my generation knew it no longer exists. Criminals have taken over and now rule. Financial policy is in the hands of a small handful of banksters who control the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the financial regulatory agencies and who run the world for their own greed and profit. Foreign policy is the preserve of the Israel Lobby and the neoconservatives, every one of which is tightly tied to Israel. Americans have no voice, and no representation. Whatever America is, the government is not influenced by the voices of the American people.

Whatever America is, it most certainly is not a democracy in which government is accountable to the people.

America is a country where a tiny elite has all power and does as it wishes.

If Congress rallies to obama’s war, Congress will have pushed the world closer to nuclear war. Russia and China see that the UN is powerless to prevent aggression and that Washington’s aggression is aimed at them. As Russia and China build their nuclear forces, they will draw a starker line at Iran. Iran is Russia’s underbelly, and Iran is 20 percent of China’s oil supply.

From what I have been able to discern, both the Russian and Chinese governments have lost all confidence in Washington. Neither government believes any of Washington’s lies and both countries are aware of Washington’s attempt to isolate them diplomatically and to surround them with military bases. Both countries know that they can expect the same demonization from the presstitute western media as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Assad have received. They understand that western demonization is the prelude to destabilization and to military attack.

With the hubris, arrogance, and insanity of Washington an established fact, Russia and China perceive an enemy that intends their destruction. As neither country is going to accept their demise, Congress’ acquiescence to obama’s lies in order to save “america’s prestige” sets the stage for nuclear war.

However, if Congress refuses to be committed to a war crime based on a lie, rejects obama’s bribes and intimidation, and vetoes the war criminal’s attack on Syria, it means, the end of the influence of the Israeli Lobby, the bloodthirsty neoconservatives, and war mongers John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

Without Washington’s neoconservative belligerence, the governments of the world might, despite powerful and selfish private interests, be able to come together to sustain life on earth by protecting an increasingly vulnerable ecology from the predations of private capitalism.

If Congress fails to restrain the war that obama seeks, the world doesn’t have long to exist before the life-destroying bombs drop.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Video: Syrian Rebel Admits Using Chemical Weapons
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2014, 08:40:25 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-syrian-rebel-admits-using-chemical-weapons.html

Video: Syrian Rebel Admits Using Chemical Weapons

“We’ll kill their women and children like Osama Bin Laden said”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
September 5, 2013

A video has emerged of an opposition rebel militant in Syria apparently confessing to using chemical weapons in order to follow Osama Bin Laden’s mantra of killing women and children.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5kda1KhqlU



The individual in the clip, Nadeem Baloosh, is a member an insurgent group called Riyadh Al Abdeen, which is active in the Latakia area of Syria.

Baloosh speaks of “chemicals which produce lethal and deadly gases that I possess,” before going on to state, “We decided to harm them through their women and kids.”

Baloosh ponders if it is acceptable to harm women and children before quoting the Koran, “Fight them as they fight you. ” He goes on to quote Osama Bin Laden (whom other rebel groups have openly praised).

“We’ll kill their women and children like Sheikh Osama Bin Laden said – “until they cease killing our women and kids,” he states.

Baloosh goes on to talk about the Syrian Army approaching the area where his rebel group were located, before stating, “So we had the idea that this weapon was very powerful and effective to repel them, we announced if they approached one meter, everything is permitted.”

“We will strike them in their homes, we will turn their day into night and their night into day,” adds Baloosh.

The footage adds to the increasing weight of evidence that suggests US-backed rebels possess and have used chemical weapons on more than one occasion, although such reports have been habitually downplayed by the mainstream media.

Earlier today Russia announced that it had compiled a 100 page report proving opposition rebels “were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.”

Carla Del Ponte, the leading member of the UN inquiry into the attack, which happened in March, told Swiss TV that there existed “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that rebels were responsible for the atrocity.

As we highlighted last week, Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to a reporter that they were responsible for last month’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Despite the fact that the report was written by credible Associated Press and BBC correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has received virtually zero mainstream attention.

In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer. Footage was also leaked showing opposition militants testing what appeared to be nerve agents on laboratory rabbits.

There are also multiple other videos which apparently shows US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-us-government-stands-revealed-to-the-world-as-a-collection-of-war-criminals-and-liars.html

The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars

Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
September 6, 2013

Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”?

The Obama regime’s lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36117.htm

When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal Bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.

The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and Obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the Bush war criminals did in Iraq.

How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not Obama and John Kerry impeached? The Obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the Obama regime is worse. The Obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The Obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.

Whether the criminal Obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.

As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36116.htm

The Obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.

If the Obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister David Cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, Cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington’s puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister’s unsubstantiated belief.

Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?

Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to Obama that if he defies the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.

If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Too Many Years Of Lies: From Mossadeq to 9/11
« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2014, 08:41:53 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1113
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/too-many-years-of-lies-from-mossadeq-to-911.html

Too Many Years Of Lies: From Mossadeq to 9/11

Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
September 10, 2013

Washington has been at war for 12 years. According to experts such as Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, these wars have cost Americans approximately $6 trillion, enough to keep Social Security and Medicare sound for years. All there is to show for 12 years of war is fat bank balances for the armament industries and a list of destroyed countries with millions of dead and dislocated people who never lifted a hand against the United States.

The cost paid by American troops and taxpayers is extreme. Secretary of Veteran Affairs Erik Shinseki reported in November 2009 that “more veterans have committed suicide since 2001 than we have lost on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.” Many thousands of our troops have suffered amputations and traumatic brain injuries. At the Marine Corps War College Jim Lacey calculated that the annual cost of the Afghan war was $1.5 billion for each al-Qaeda member in Afghanistan. Many US and coalition troops paid with their lives for every one al-Qaeda member killed. On no basis has the war ever made sense.

Washington’s wars have destroyed the favorable image of the United States created over the decades of the cold war. No longer the hope of mankind, the US today is viewed as a threat whose government cannot be trusted.

The wars that have left America’s reputation in tatters are the consequence of 9/11. The neoconservatives who advocate America’s hegemony over the world called for “a new Pearl Harbor” that would allow them to launch wars of conquest. Their plan for conquering the Middle East as their starting point was set out in the neoconservative “Project for the New American Century.” It was stated clearly by Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz and also by many neoconservatives.

The neocon argument boils down to a claim that history has chosen “democratic capitalism” and not Karl Marx as the future. To comply with history’s choice, the US must beef up its military and impose the American Way on the entire world.

In other words, as Claes Ryn wrote, the American neoconservatives are the “new Jacobins,” a reference to the French Revolution of 1789 that intended to overthrow aristocratic Europe and replace it with “Liberty, equality, fraternity,” but instead gave Europe a quarter century of war, death, and destruction.

Ideologies are dangerous, because they are immune to facts. Now that the United States is no longer governed by the US Constitution, but by a crazed ideology that has given rise to a domestic police state more complete than that of Communist East Germany and to a warfare state that attacks sovereign countries based on nothing but manufactured lies, we are left with the irony that Russia and China are viewed as constraints on Washington’s ability to inflict evil, death, and destruction on the world.

The two pariah states of the 20th century have become the hope of mankind in the 21st century!

As Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick prove in their book, The Untold History of the United States, the American government has never deserved its white hat reputation. Washington has been very successful in dressing up its crimes in moralistic language and hiding them in secrecy. It is only decades after events that the truth comes out.

For example, on August 19, 1953, the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown by a coup instigated by the US government. Sixty years after the event declassified CIA documents detail how the secret CIA operation overthrew a democratic government and imposed Washington’s puppet on the people of Iran.

The declassified documents could not have spelled it out any clearer: “The military coup that overthrew Mossadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.” http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/politics/cia-iran-1953-coup

In the 21st century Washington is attempting to repeat its 1953 feat of overthrowing the Iranian government, this time using the faux “green revolution” financed by Washington. When that fails, Washington will rely on military action.

If 60 years is the time that must pass before Washington’s crimes can be acknowledged, the US government will admit the truth about September 11, 2001 on September 11, 2061. In 2013, on this 12th anniversary of 9/11, we only have 48 years to go before Washington admits the truth. Alas, the members of the 9/11 truth movement will not still be alive to receive their vindication.

But just as it has been known for decades that Washington overthrew Mossadeq, we already know that the official story of 9/11 is hogwash.

No evidence exists that supports the government’s 9/11 story. The 9/11 Commission was a political gathering run by a neoconservative White House operative. The Commission members sat and listened to the government’s story and wrote it down. No investigation of any kind was made. One member of the Commission resigned, saying that the fix was in. After the report was published, both co-chairmen of the Commission and the legal counsel wrote books disassociating themselves from the report. The 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” they wrote.

NIST’s account of the structural failure of the twin towers is a computer simulation based on assumptions chosen to produce the result. NIST refuses to release its make-believe explanation for expert scrutiny. The reason is obvious. NIST’s explanation of the structural failure of the towers cannot survive scrutiny.

There are many 9/11 Truth organizations whose members are high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemists and nano-chemists, military and civilian airline pilots, firemen and first responders, former prominent government officials, and 9/11 families. The evidence they have amassed overwhelms the feeble official account.

It has been proven conclusively that World Trade Center Building 7 fell at free fall which can only be achieved by controlled demolition that removes all resistance below to debris falling from above so that no time is lost in overcoming resistance from intact structures. NIST has acknowledged this fact, but has not changed its story.

In other words, still in America today official denial takes precedence over science and known undisputed facts.

On this 12th anniversary of a false flag event, it is unnecessary for me to report the voluminous evidence that conclusively proves that the official story is a lie. You can read it for yourself. It is available online. You can read what the architects and engineers have to say. You can read the scientists’ reports. You can hear from the first responders who were in the WTC towers. You can read the pilots who say that the maneuvers associated with the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon are beyond their skills and most certainly were not performed by inexperienced pilots.

You can read David Griffin’s many books. You can watch the film produced by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. You can read the 9/11 Toronto Report, International Hearings on 9/11.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Powered by EzPortal