Global Research

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Introduction

Despite having the biggest military budget in the world, five times larger than the next six countries, the largest number of military bases – over 180 – in the world and the most expensive military industrial complex, the US has failed to win a single war in the 21^st century.

In this paper we will enumerate the wars and proceed to analyze why, despite the powerful material basis for wars, it has led to failures.

The Lost Wars

The US has been engaged in multiple wars and coups since the beginning of the 21^st century.  These include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, Venezuela and the Ukraine. Besides Washington’s secret intelligence agencies have financed five surrogate terrorist groups in Pakistan, China, Russia, Serbia and Nicaragua.

The US has invaded countries, declared victories and subsequently faced resistance and prolonged warfare which required a large US military presence to merely protect garrison outposts.

The US has suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties – dead, maimed and deranged soldiers. The more the Pentagon spends, the greater the losses and subsequent retreats.

The more numerous the vassal regimes, the greater the corruption and incompetence flourishes.

Every regime subject to US tutelage has failed to accomplish the objectives designed by its US military advisers.

The more spent on recruiting mercenary armies the greater the rate of defection and the transfer of arms to US adversaries.

Success in Starting Wars and Failures in Finishing Them

The US invaded Afghanistan, captured the capital (Kabul) defeated the standing army …and then spent the next two decades engaged in losing  irregular  warfare.

The initial victories laid the groundwork for future defeats. Bombings drove millions of peasants and farmers, shopkeepers and artisans into the local militia. The invaders were defeated by the forces of nationalism and religion linked to families and communities.  The indigenous insurgents overcame arms and dollars in many of the villages, towns and provinces.

Similar outcomes were repeated in Iraq and Libya. The US invaded, defeated the standing armies, occupied the capital and imposed its clients—- which set the terrain for long-term, large-scale warfare by local insurgent armies.

The more frequent the western bombings, the greater the opposition forcing the  retreat of the proxy army.

Somalia has been bombed frequently. Special Forces have recruited, trained, and armed the  local puppet soldiers, sustained by mercenary African armies but they have remained holed up in the capital city, Mogadishu, surrounded and attacked by poorly armed but highly motivated and disciplined Islamic insurgents.

Syria is targeted by a US financed and armed mercenary army.  In the beginning they advanced, uprooted millions, destroyed cities and homes and seized territory.  All of which impressed their US – EU warlords.  Once the Syrian army united the populace, with their Russian, Lebanese (Hezbollah) and Iranian allies, Damascus routed the mercenaries.

After the better part of a decade the separatist Kurds, alongside the Islamic terrorists and other western surrogates retreated, and made a last stand along the northern borders–the remaining bastions of   Western surrogates.

The Ukraine coup of 2014 was financed and directed by the US and EU. They seized the capital (Kiev) but failed to conquer the Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.  Corruption among the US ruling kleptocrats devastated the country – over three million fled abroad to Poland, Russia and elsewhere in search of a livelihood.  The war continues, the corrupt US clients are discredited and will suffer electoral defeat unless they rig the vote .

Surrogate uprisings in Venezuela and Nicaragua were bankrolled by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They ruined economies but lost the street wars.

Conclusion

Wars are not won by arms alone.  In fact, heavy bombing and extended military occupations ensure prolonged popular resistance, ultimate retreats and defeats.

The US major and minor wars of the 21^st century have failed to incorporate targeted countries into the empire.

Imperial occupations are not military victories.  They merely change the nature of the war, the protagonists of resistance, the scope and depth of the national struggle.

The US has been successful in defeating standing armies as was the case in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Ukraine.  However, the conquest was limited in time and space.  New armed resistance movements led by former officers, religious activists and grass roots activists took charge… 

The imperial wars slaughtered millions, savaged traditional family, workplace and neighborhood relations and set in motion a new constellation of anti-imperialist leaders and militia fighters.

The imperial forces beheaded established leaders and decimated their followers.  They raided and pillaged ancient treasures.  The resistance followed by recruiting thousands of uprooted volunteers who served as human bombs, challenging missiles and drones.

The US imperial forces lack the ties to the occupied land and people. They are ‘aliens’ serving time; they seek to survive, secure promotions and exit with a bonus and an honorable discharge.

In contrast, the resistance fighters are there for the duration.   As they advance, they target and demolish the imperial surrogates and mercenaries.  They expose the corrupt client rulers who deny the subject people the elementary conditions of existence – employment, potable water, electricity etc.

The imperial vassals are not present at weddings, sacred holidays or funerals, unlike the resistance fighters.  The presence of the latter signals a pledge of loyalty unto death.  The resistance circulates freely in cities, towns and villages with the protection of the local people; and by night they rule   enemy terrain, under cover of their own people, who share intelligence and logistics.

Inspiration, solidarity and light arms are more than a match for the drones, missiles and helicopter gunships.

Even the mercenary soldiers, trained by the Special Forces, defect from and betray their imperial masters.  Temporary imperial advances serve only to allow the resistance forces to regroup and counter-attack.  They view surrender as a betrayal of their traditional way of life, submission to the boot of western occupation forces and their corrupt officials.

Afghanistan is a prime example of an imperial ‘lost war’.  After two decades of warfare and one trillion dollars in military spending, tens of thousands of casualties, the Taliban controls most of the countryside and towns; enters and takes over provincial capitals and bombs Kabul.  They will take full control the day after the US departs.

The US military defeats are products of a fatal flaw:  imperial planners cannot successfully replace indigenous people with colonial rulers and their local look-alikes.

Wars are not won by high tech weapons directed by absentee officials divorced from the people: they do not share their sense of peace and justice.

Exploited people informed by a spirit of communal resistance and self-sacrifice have demonstrated greater cohesion then rotating soldiers eager to return home and  mercenary soldiers with dollar signs in their eyes.

The lessons of lost wars have not been learned by those who preach the power of the military–industrial complex, which makes, sells and profits from weapons but lack the mass of humanity with lesser arms but with great conviction who have demonstrated their capacity to defeat imperial armies.

The Stars and Stripes fly in Washington but remain folded in Embassy offices in Kabul, Tripoli, Damascus and in other lost battlegrounds.

*

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Prisoners in many states in the U.S. began a coordinated National Strike on August 21, the anniversary of the killing of Black Panther member and prison activist George Jackson by guards in an escape attempt, in 1971, at San Quentin prison in the San Francisco Bay Area. In the context of the times, a mass radicalization led by Blacks and youth, the incident became a cause celebre.

The strike was set to end on September 9, the anniversary of the great prison uprising at the Attica prison in New York, also in 1971. The rebellion was crushed in blood, in a massive attack ordered by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, billionaire scion of the oil industry family. This too deepened the mass radicalization by exposing the horrors of U.S. prisons.

The central demand of the current actions – which range from work stoppages, hunger strikes and sit-downs to boycotts of prison stores – is an end to prison slave labour.

Most Americans and people around the world do not know that slavery is allowed in prisons by the U.S. Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment, which ratified the abolition of chattel slavery of African Americans won in the Second American Revolution (Civil War), contained a fatal flaw. It allowed slavery of people convicted of a crime, i.e. prisoners, although not of ownership of them (chattel slavery).

Jim Crow in the South

Almost immediately, states, especially in the former Confederacy, began passing vagrancy laws to round up ex-slaves and sell their labour. This was curtailed in the period of Radical Reconstruction, but emerged full-blown in the counter-revolution to the Civil War that established Jim Crow in the South. White rule created a huge economic sector based upon unfree Black labour, as in the prison chain gangs at institutions as the notorious Parchman Farm in Mississippi, as well as in contract labour, where private capitalist firms worked Black prisoners into the grave.

Prison slave labour was also implemented in the rest of the country, although not as violently as in the Jim Crow South.

While the Black movement in the 1960s and ‘70s overthrew the Jim Crow system, prison slave labour has continued throughout the country.

The current action by prisoners must be seen as a part of the labour movement, as a movement of part of the working class, whose employment as slaves lowers the wages and conditions of the whole working class.

While white prisoners are also employed as slaves in work inside the prisons as well as in contract work for outside firms, 60 per cent of prisoners are African American or Latino, with 38 per cent Blacks. Given the whole history of unfree Black labour from chattel slavery up to the present, it isn’t surprising that reports reaching support organizations on the outside say that Blacks have taken the lead in these multiracial actions.

Much work by prisoners in many institutions isn’t paid for at all, direct slavery. In other prisons, the slavery is barely covered up by pitiful ‘wages’.

Here are what some prisoners report:

Anthony Forest: “Because I know how to strip floors, wax them, take the gum up off floor, I started doing that. At 16 cents an hour.”

Darryl Aikens: “I started out as a line server, serving food for breakfast and dinner. Then I became a dishwasher and maintenance in the kitchen. It paid 13 cents an hour. I worked and made $20 a month, and they [prison authorities] took 55 per cent of that for restitution [for food etc.]”

Cole Dorsey: “It’s kind of like a modern-day plantation situation, specifically targeting poor people, and most especially, the most marginalized communities, black and brown…”

For some prisoners, the ‘pay’ is more, even up to $2 an hour, but some of that is taken back for ‘restitution’.

The Demands

There are nine other demands prisoners are raising in addition to an end to slave labour, centering on prison conditions and prisoner rights. One of these is the right to vote. Only two states, Vermont and Maine allow prisoners to vote. In the remaining 48 they cannot. Given that there are some 2.8 million prisoners, that’s a large number who are disenfranchised. This is in contrast to Canada and 14 European countries where prisoners can vote and 16 more where some can vote.

Four states – Iowa, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia – permanently deny felons the vote for the rest of their lives after being released from prison. Six others do the same for some felons. Others deny parolees the franchise.

Given that the majority of prisoners are African American or Latinos, the denial of their right to vote is part and parcel of racist laws in a majority of states progressively whittling down voting rights for racial minorities won in the radicalization of The Sixties.

Part of the background is the sheer size of the prison population in the USA. The statistics are well known. With five per cent of the world’s population, the U.S. has twenty-five per cent of the world’s prisoners. This is the result of a deliberate policy of the ruling capitalist class, carried out by both parties of big business. From 1970 to 2005, the prison population rose 700 per cent, and remains high today.

A major tool the government has used is the phony War on Drugs. While begun by Republicans, it was sharply intensified under the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, which saw an acceleration of the rate of arrests and convictions for drug offenses, including for simple possession and other non-violent ‘crimes’.

The Clintons were part of the fear of “Black crime” whipped up in the 1990s. Hillary Clinton coined the phrase “super predators” – young Black men devoid of humanity, preying on white people. Under her husband, the president, a law was passed restricting the rights of prisoners to seek relief from their mistreatment through the courts. One of the demands in the current strike is to repeal that law.

In the 2016 election, candidate Hillary Clinton defended the “super predators” phrase, as did her husband while campaigning for her, against vocal Black Lives Matter protestors.

Given the highly disproportionate number of Blacks who were swept up, a key element of all this is “The New Jim Crow,” a new form of the national oppression of African Americans, a new caste system, explained by Michelle Alexander in her book of that title.

This goes well beyond the time Blacks are locked up. Once released, the onus of being an ex-felon coupled with institutionalized racism means that it is difficult for Black ex-prisoners to find meaningful employment, and other results of their being imprisoned. So there is a large number of Blacks who are still caught up in the system long after they have done their time.

It is difficult to obtain the full information about the strike, as the authorities just deny that anything is happening in in their prisons, or punish leaders in ways that make it hard to communicate with the outside.

Amani Sawari, an African American woman, is a spokesperson for Jailhouse Lawyers Speak, a network of prisoners who have studied the law while inside, helping to organize the strike. She is now on the outside, and reports on the retaliation against the strikers. Two leaders she mentions are Jason Walker and Comrade Malik, both in solitary confinement.

“Comrade Malik hasn’t been allowed to take showers. They are hunger-striking. Jason Walker hasn’t been allowed to have toilet paper, towels or have access to taking a shower or having clean clothes, in retaliation to his organizing of the strike in Texas.”

She explains that Comrade Malik was sent into solitary confinement, itself an internationally recognized form of torture, in a preemptive move on August 15. “He’s in a concrete cell that’s over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Texas…. He’s only escorted out in handcuffs. He’s not allowed to have easy communications with the outside.”

Jason Walker wrote an article about the conditions in Texas prisons. “After that article was written, he was moved to solitary confinement. But even in groups, like in South Carolina, prisoners in McCormick [prison] have been having daily strip searches done on them since August 20, the day before the strike began.

“Also, David Easley and James Ward, they are in Ohio [state prison], Toledo’s correctional facility, are not allowed to have contact with the outside. They’re also in solitary confinement.

“So we can see that retaliation is happening against individual organizers in the beginning. And now we’re seeing when inmates are standing up and choosing to strike, they are moved to solitary to try to keep prisoners from joining. But this is spreading the fire. Prisoners know that this is a climate where they can actually stand up and feel supported. There have been solidarity marches and rallies in at least 21 cities across the country.”

These brave men and women taking action in the face of being retaliated against not only deserve our support. We must begin to educate the labour movement and all workers that prisoners are part of the working class, and it is in the interests of all workers to come to their defense.

*

[Quotations are abridged from interviews on Democracy Now. The historical part on the Thirteenth Amendment and its results is paraphrased, with additions by me, from an op-ed in the New York Times by Erik Loomis, history professor at Rhode Island University – BS.]

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Outside view of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington, US on 10 September 2018 [Yasin Öztürk/Anadolu Agency]

The US on Monday announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) Washington diplomatic mission as the Donald Trump administration prepares to roll out its Middle East peace plan, Anadolu reports.

The State Department announced the decision, saying “the PLO office in Washington will close at this point.” The office had served as Palestine’s de facto embassy in Washington.

The department said “the PLO has not taken steps to advance the start of direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel,” and pointed to Palestinian calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate Israel as reasons for its decision.

“We have permitted the PLO office to conduct operations that support the objective of achieving a lasting, comprehensive peace between Israelis and the Palestinians since the expiration of a previous waiver in November 2017,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement.

“However, the PLO has not taken steps to advance the start of direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel. To the contrary, PLO leadership has condemned a US peace plan they have not yet seen and refused to engage with the US government with respect to peace efforts and otherwise,” she added.

Image on the right: Outside view of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington, US on 10 September 2018 [Yasin Öztürk/Anadolu Agency]

Another State Department spokeswoman later said the mission was ordered to vacate its office no later than Oct. 10.

Mark Perry, a former unofficial advisor to late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, ripped Washington’s announcement, saying

“the US has always been Israel’s lawyer.”

“Ironically, the announcement is actually good news — as it ends the pretence that the US actually cares about peace in the Middle East,” Perry told Anadolu Agency.

“The US is now perfectly aligned with the Israeli national project. Israel does not now, and never has, believed in the peace process or sought reconciliation with the Palestinians,” he said. “Rather, its goal is the destruction of the Palestinian national project. What changed today is that the US has now joined that effort.”

National Security Advisor John Bolton later Monday said Washington would act if the ICC decides to prosecute Israel, the US or any of its other allies.

Those actions include potential sanctions of ICC funds residing in the US, as well as a ban on ICC prosecutors and judges from entering the US

“We will take note if any countries cooperate with ICC investigations of the United States and its allies, and we will remember that cooperation when setting US foreign assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing levels,” Bolton said.

We will let the ICC die on its own, after all, for all intents and purposes the ICC is already dead to us he added.

The comments come as the Trump administration prepares to roll out its plan to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel, a deal that Trump has framed as the “deal of the century.”

Palestinian officials continue to deny any role for the US in peace talks with Israel after Trump unilaterally declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital last year, upending long-held underpinnings of peace talks which had maintained the issue was to be determined as part of final status negotiations.

The decision provoked worldwide condemnation.

Husam Zomlot, the PLO’s US ambassador, strongly condemned the decision to shutter the organisation’s offices as a “reckless act” that ultimately confirms that the US “is blindly executing Israel’s ‘wish list,’ which starts with shutting down Palestinian diplomatic representation in the US.”

Image below: Outside view of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington, US on 10 September 2018 [Yasin Öztürk/Anadolu Agency]

Zomlot insisted the US action would not deter Palestine in its mission “to hold Israel accountable by referring it to the International Criminal Court,” or force Ramallah to return to US-brokered negotiations.

“We stand firm in our decision not to cooperate in this ongoing campaign to liquidate our rights and cause. Our rights are not for sale, and we will block any attempts at bullying and blackmailing us to forgo our legitimate and internationally endorsed rights,” he said in a statement.

“While today is a dark day for peace in the Middle East, for multilateralism, and the integrity of the international political and legal system, we will continue our struggle to pursue all possible legal and political means to achieve peace, independence, and our internationally enshrined rights,” he added.

Before the formal announcement of the mission’s closure, Palestinian officials described the move as “an escalation that will have serious political consequences by sabotaging the entire international system to protect the Israeli occupation and its crimes.”

“This is another blow by the Trump administration against peace and justice,” said PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat.

The decision to close the Palestinian mission is the latest effort to ramp up pressure on Ramallah. The US has already halted all funding to the UN’s Palestine refugee agency and cut more than $200 million in aid to the Palestinians.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

India is increasingly finding itself caught between competing alliances.

On one hand, ties between Washington and New Delhi have improved in recent years in large part to what both sides perceive as increased threats from China both militarily and economically in the South China Sea and overall Indo-Pacific region.

On the other, New Delhi has also experienced improved bilateral relations with Tehran. This improvement in relations, in large part, comes from the two countries’ own oil related interests. Iran, since earlier sanctions against its energy sector were removed in 2016, has been eager to recapture lost market share both in India and the overall Asia-Pacific region as it quickly ramped up oil production post sanctions.

India, as the world’s third largest oil importer after China and the U.S., needs Iranian oil for its expanding refinery sector and also the diversity of supply extra Iranian oil imports would provide. Iran has also been offering India generous discounts on its oil imports this year. As recently as late July, with the first phase of new U.S. sanctions impending, Iran upped the ante ever more by offering to ensure oil cargoes to India after some local insurers stopped providing the service. Currently, India is Iran’s second largest buyer of crude oil after China.

Now, recent data shows that India has been trimming its purchases of Iranian crude due to increased pressure from Washington. Earlier this week, preliminary tanker arrival data indicated that India had imported 532,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian oil in August, a 32 percent plunge from just one month earlier. Despite the marked decrease, the August figure is still 56 percent higher than the same period last year as Indian refiners continue to take advantage of Iranian discounts.

Another problem for India is the fact that annual import plans from its refiners were already in place before President Trump’s decision in May to reimpose sanctions against Iran over its nuclear development plans. In April, industry sources told media outlets that Indian refiners had planned to double its import of Iranian crude in 2018/19, mostly due to advantageous pricing and discounts offered by Iran. The development at the time marked a pivot in Indian-Iranian bilateral relations and a win-win scenario for the energy sectors in both countries.

Though India trimmed its Iranian oil procurement last month, the question going forward is whether or not this trend will last. New Delhi, for its part, has been waffling over that very question. At times, the country appears to offer a conciliatory tone to Washington to trim Iranian oil imports, while at other times it seems poised to push back against that pressure.

Examining India’s oil imports just from the last three months may help provide a possible future trajectory. India cut its Iranian oil imports in June (just a month after Washington stated it would reimpose sanctions against Iran) by 16 percent from the previous month. In July, however, India’s state refiners actually increased its oil imports from Iran by 30 percent over the previous month, a record high bump to 768,999 bpd. India’s oil imports from Iran in July represented an 85 percent spike from the 415,000 bpd shipped in July 2017. Notably, the marked increase in July’s figures came as Indian state-owned refiners increased Iranian oil procurement in anticipation of uncertainty over upcoming sanctions.

Given the mixed signals over compliance with Washington’s desire for India to cut Iranian oil and with Iran offering even more advantageous procurement incentives to Indian refiners, it appears that India will continue to buy Iranian oil above 2017 levels.

India also bring its own pressure to bear on the U.S. since Washington is becoming increasingly reliant on New Delhi as a deterrent to Chinese hegemony in the region. This week high level Indian and U.S. officials are meeting in New Delhi over several key issues.

Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman are holding the first high-level talks with their U.S. counterparts, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Part of the agenda includes the goal of boosting cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region and finalizing a pact on encrypted defense technologies.

Though not officially on the agenda, India could also pressure Pompeo for a waiver over its Iranian oil procurement. In July, lower level Indian officials, including those with the ministries of external affairs, home and finance, met with a U.S. delegation led by Marshall Billingslea, the American assistant secretary for Terrorist Financing in the Department of the Treasury to discuss Iranian sanctions, marking what Indian media outlet the Hindustan Times called at the time, “a strong pitch to the US for leniency in complying with sanctions on Iran, citing their likely impact on its oil imports and investment in the Chabahar port.” However, nothing concrete materialized from the meeting.

Pompeo said on Tuesday that the issues of Russian arms sales to India and Iranian oil “will certainly come up [during this week’s meeting in New Delhi], but I don’t think they will be the primary focus of what it is we are trying to accomplish here.”

*

Tim Daiss is an oil markets analyst, journalist and author that has been working out of the Asia-Pacific region for 12 years. He has  covered oil, energy markets and geopolitics for Forbes, Platts, Interfax, NewsBase, Rigzone, and the UK-based Independent (newspaper) as well as providing energy markets analysis for subscription newsletters. He has also authored geopolitical reports and analysis for Singapore-based consultancy Enerdata.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Should it matter this much?  A wealthy, successful individual expressed fury at the most popular object of vitriol in any sport. The umpire or referee is only ever neutral in the eyes of a falsely contrived standard: that someone must be objective, neutral and mindful of enforcing the rules of the game.  In the eyes of the player, the figure who judges and assesses the course of a match can become an enemy, a monster of burden.  In the US Open Women’s Tennis Final, that beast was umpire Carlos Ramos. 

It all began with coach Patrick Mouratoglou, who seemed to be signalling to Serena Williams during the match, thereby committing a violation in attempting to steer the game.  Williams lost one point as a result.  Calls of “liar” and “thief” followed, resulting in another violation.  Matters escalated, and Williams was held to have committed another code violation in demolishing her racquet.  Her call of fury: “Sexism!”

Williams was truculent, justifiably at first instance for not necessarily noticing her coach and being punished as a result.  But a person who has won 23 times at the highest level is bound to feel slighted by certain decisions, notably those that throw her off her stroke. The blood, and mind, has adjusted to glory.  It did not take time for the machine of social media and commentary to boil down the details and decide that a strict reading of the rules by Ramos entitled him to be pilloried.  He was all establishment, all power, and poor discretion.  A woman, accused former world number one Billy Jean King, is deemed hysterical if she disagrees with an umpire’s ruling; a man, she suggested, is considered outspoken and forthright, the bad boy to be celebrated.

King went so far as to see the entire spectacle in terms of archaic laws and an “abuse of power”, a small step towards throwing the entire rule book out, along with its musty ridden representatives. She fantasised about the injustice of the whole thing, and proceeded to strain the scene of every single implication of identity: “The ceiling that women of colour face on their path to leadership never felt more impenetrable than it did on at the women’s US Open final on Saturday.”

Commentators focused on the denial of Williams’ entitlement for a suitable comeback “just one year after having a baby and fighting for her own life after childbirth.” Destiny had been confounded.  Shaded into obscurity was Williams’ victorious Japanese opponent Naomi Osaka, herself of colour and her country’s first Grand Slam title winner, and of a state not exactly renowned for splashing out on hand clapping ceremonies of racial tolerance and cuddly harmoniousness.

Image on the right: Carlos Ramos

As is rarely the case in such suppositions, a closer examination of the Ramos record to men and women would have been instructive, including those super stars who feel they are above reproach from the person in the chair.  Many less robust umpires prefer to let the hotheads be; we live in an age of extreme trigger warning laced sensitivity.

Ramos, for his part as a firm, if pedantic umpire, has stared down players of all sorts, merits and vintages.  The men should know.  Novak Djokovic received a fault for time violations during the 2017 French Open; the inevitable loud retort landed him a code violation.  Andy Murray received a rap over the knuckles for uttering “stupid umpiring” during the 2016 Olympics.  Ditto the perennially volatile infant-in-a-man’s body Nick Krygios, whose abuse of a towel boy earned him a violation that same year.

The issue of gender never featured during this particular final, bar an anguished cry from Williams suggesting it might have.  For Ramos to have not issued code violations could just as well have led to arguments of sexism in reverse.  Attempts to read it otherwise return to the traditional hostility (archaic or otherwise) shown towards a figure touted as neutral when he is deemed sporting kind’s appointed enemy.  This was a more traditional spat between sports performer and the ruling figure, one imposed upon the players by authority and regulation.  Williams bucked it and was duly punished.  Her opponent could only watch and feel embarrassed.

Mouratoglou, who has bleached himself of blame, added further grist to that troubled mill in the match’s aftermath, suggesting that all coaches breached the code during matches.  He, however, had not been caught doing it – at least till now.  “All coaches are coaching throughout the match.  But check the record. I’ve never been called for a coaching violation in my career.” It’s not a violation if you’re not caught.

He also found time to dash off other locker-room opinions, showing an urgent need to sing for his supper:

“The star of the show has been once again the chair umpire.  Second time in this US Open and third time for Serena in a US Open Final.  Should they be allowed to have an influence on the result of a match?  When do we decide that this should never happen again?”

The umpire will always have an influence on the outcome of a match because decisions change the course of proceedings.  Perhaps a ceremonial and deterrent lynching might be in order?  (King makes a more modest recommendation: permit coaches latitude to be involved during the match.)

Gender codes and socially stretched theories have a habit of denying the individual free will.  Forget it, banish it; the spectator, commentator and agonisingly opinionated will foist one upon you.  Agency is banished, subordinated to a superstructure.  Williams is not treated as a grand slam champion and athletic phenomenon (her track record heavenly screams it), but a creature crushed by the “male” perception that looms large, or some other impediment that does wonders to distract from her brattish appeal. (During the 2009 US Open, the brat was in full flight when Williams threatened to deposit a tennis ball down an unfortunate lineswoman’s throat.)

This was a battle of wills, and Williams lost it.  We return to the old story: the umpire did it, and thank the confused deities above he did.  He has always been responsible for the Great Flood, syphilis and famine.  He might be cruel to children, perhaps even eat them.  He will always be and coming out in defence of the umpire in any sport is much like siding with Colonel William Bligh against the mutineers.  We all need our anointed alibis to justify defeat and loss.

*

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Email: [email protected]

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

“A concerted effort to preserve our heritage is a vital link to our cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, and economic legacies – all of the things that quite literally make us who we are.” – Steve Berry

Over the centuries, militant groups and radical regimes have targeted not just innocent lives but also historic and cultural artifacts preserved and revered by their victims.

And yet, for a lack of political will, or worse still, cultural ethnocentric blindness, we have mostly allowed for our world cultural heritage to sit at the mercy of tomb-raiders, and intolerant fundamentalists, caring little for the depletion of our intellectual wealth.

There is great tragedy in the losses of our cultural memory as every stone, every written line, and every expression of one’s beliefs remain a consecrated declaration of our humanity. To abandon our memories to the fires of intolerance is to normalise ignorance as an enactment of political power.

It boggles the mind to think that having come so far in the assertion of our rights we still fail to grasp how intrinsically essential our rights to our collective religious and cultural history are, and how much they stand a testimony to our intellectual evolution.

Again … to disappear but a fragment of our history is an affront to humanity as a whole. 

But since stones and relics do not so easily upset our sensitivities as they fall before the ire of zealots, idleness has emboldened cultural tyrants to the sum of a veritable cultural genocide.

Thomas Campbell, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City put it perfectly when as he decried radicals’ cultural ransacking in Iraq:

“This mindless attack on great art, on history, and on human understanding constitutes a tragic assault not only on the Mosul Museum, but on our universal commitment to use art to unite people and promote human understanding.”

None more than Saudi Arabia have contributed to the systematic obliteration, redacting, and negation of such wealthy legacy. By the virtue of geography, and political reach the kingdom sits over the cradle of civilisation and monotheism … axe at the ready should cultural pluralism upset its taste for intellectual uniformity.

The very country who fretted only but a little over the death of school children by its warplanes in Yemen earlier this August, has had decades and centuries of practice in the sentencing of our past. 

To argue ignorance or disinterest can no longer stand a reasonable argument if we consider that religious radicalism – in its most violent expression, seeks first to assert itself by disappearing that which stands in opposition to its vindictive truth. 

I would like to think that our streets have witnessed too much of such fundamentalism for any of us NOT to look beyond the infection to seek the rotten core.

The first expression of Terror is in one’s rejection of others’ history, others’ beliefs, others’ cultural markers, and others’ traditions. We are who we are because others were before us. 

I realise that before our current political reality and more to the point nations’ needs to form alliances to assert influence and economic continuity pragmatism has demanded that we all be made to look away before cultural barbarism, but how long before History becomes an endangered species … so to speak?

How much more of the Middle East must we see swallowed, and communities’ cultural identities levelled before our voices rise in defense of the innocent? Because truly, no people deserve to witness the fall of their culture and traditions.

Saudi Arabia’s propensity to waste that which opposes its reactionary and intransigeant interpretations of the Scriptures was first deplored by Alois Musil, a 19th century Czech-Austrian academic, explorer and author. 

In his book: Al Saud, Musil recalls a frightful event, that for reason we have yet to come to terms with failed to rise but an eyebrow among nations – least of all Muslim nations: the destruction of Islam’s sacrosanct Blackstone.

The Blackstone which is believed by some to have been brought down from the Heavens by Angel Gabriel, is centrestage to the Hajj pilgrimage, as every pilgrim must begin circumambulating the Kaaba, from its exact location.

Today only fragments remain of a relic cherished by over a billion men and women across the world. 

This is not the only affront Al Saud carried out against the very faith it says to hold custodianship over, and Islam only sits one victim among many of such broad intolerance.

From the ransacking of the Prophet Muhammad‘s last resting place, to the destruction of Al Baqee cemetery in Madina, to the destruction of temples, churches, holy relics predating Islam, the once colourful and buoyant history of the Hijaz (now known as Saudi Arabia), and to a greater extent the Middle East, has been reduced to a dying flicker.

If not for the efforts of the Al Baqee organization in the United States, which task has been to tiressly call for the protection of our world religious heritage, I doubt any voice would have risen in opposition to such terrible crimes, nevermind speaking them to the public. 

Religious and cultural pluralism are on death row … now would be a good time to call for accountability. That is of course we are serious about our human rights.

Below, we’ll show that 9/11 could NOT have been an inside job …

I. The 9/11 Commission and Congressional Investigation Into 9/11 All Disproved Any Conspiracy

9/11 was thoroughly and exhaustively investigated by the 9/11 Commission, Congress and U.S. scientific agencies.

This horse has already been beat to death, and anyone who raises questions is a nutjob.

True, the 9/11 Commission didn’t believe that the government told the truth about 9/11,  and said the government obstructed their investigation.

 For example:

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was “set up to fail”

• The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”;“This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.  When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: “There should be about fifteen 9/11 commissions”

• The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said“At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

Some examples of obstruction of justice into the 9/11 investigation include:

• An FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

• The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this)

• The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements

• The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

• As reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

The CIA also videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

The chief lawyer for Guantanamo litigation – Vijay Padmanabhan – said that torture of 9/11 suspects was widespread.

And Susan J. Crawford – the senior Pentagon official overseeing the military commissions at Guantánamo told Bob Woodward:

We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.

Indeed, some of the main sources of information were tortured right up to the point of death.

Moreover, the type of torture used by the U.S. on the Guantanamo suspects is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creatingfalse confessions. (and see this, this, this and this).

And according to NBC News:

• Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured

• At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”

• One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

• The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

Indeed, the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 (Bob Graham)  and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a NEW 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

But hey … nothing’s perfect.  We should just let bygones be bygones.

II. No One Could Have Foreseen 9/11

No one could have foreseen the diabolical 9/11 plan.    After all, America has not been directly attacked for centuries.

And crashing planes into buildings?  No one could have imagined such an out-of-the-blue attack.

True, overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable.  And Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable. (even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable).

And a top NSA whistleblower says that the NSA had all of the information it needed prior to 9/11 to stop the attacks. The only reason NSA didn’t share that information with other agencies is because of corruption … in an effort to consolidate power. And widespread spying by the U.S. government onAmericans began before 9/11 (confirmed here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). And the government tapped the 9/11 hijackers’ phones, and heard the 9/11 hijackers’ plans from their own mouths.

But our government officials were busy at the time … and maybe they just took their eyes of the ball.

Anyway, knowing it could happen doesn’t mean that they let it happen on purpose.

III. They Didn’t Have Time to Stop It

Even when government officials realized what was happening, they didn’t have time to react and stop it.

After all, the hijacked planes were being flown hundreds of miles an hour.  And by the time our government and military men knew what was happening, it was all over.

True, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) – responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S. – has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes only a few minutes.

NORAD regularly and successfully scrambled fighter jets in response to suspicious or unidentified aircraft flying in US airspace in the years preceding 9/11.  See this report from the General Accounting Office andthis article from AP.  To do this, NORAD keeps a pair of fighters on “alert” at sites around the U.S. These fighters are fueled, armed, and ready to take off within minutes of receiving a scramble order. See these reports from American Defender, Air Force Magazine, Bergen Record, 12/5/2003 and The First 600 Days of Combat (page 14).

For example, NORAD scrambled:

• Between 1990 and 1994, NORAD scrambled 1,518 fighter jets (page 4)

• Between 1996 and 1998, NORAD’s Western Air Defense Sector scrambled fighters 129 times to identify unknown aircraft that might be a threat, and 42 times against potential and actual drug smugglers

• In 1997, NORAD’s Southeast Air Defense Sector tracked 427 unidentified aircraft, and fighters intercepted these “unknowns” 36 times. The same year, NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector handled 65 unidentified tracks and the Western Air Defense Sector handles 104 unidentified tracks

• In 1998, the Southeast Air Defense Sector logged more than 400 fighter scrambles

• In 1999, NORAD’s fighters at a single base – Homestead Air Reserve Base in Florida – scrambled 75times per year, on average

• In 2000, NORAD’s fighters fly 147 intercept missions

• And between September 2000 and June 2001, NORAD flew 67 intercepts

Yet, on September 11th, they failed to do their job 4 times in a single day:

• NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases

• Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds

• Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them

You might think that the military couldn’t find the hijacked planes because the hijackers turned off the transponders. However, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew “like the back of my hand” and who handled two actual hijackings says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

The Director of the American U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) said:

If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

There is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control … Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State.’

NORAD’s actions on 9/11 were so odd that it was forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version has been exposed as false. When someone repeatedly changes his testimony after being caught in lies, how believable is he?  The falsity of NORAD’s explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

But hey, they probably just had an off day.

IV. No One Could Keep Such a Big Conspiracy Secret … Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans

If Americans were somehow involved in letting 9/11 occur, someone would have talked.

Some jerk would have had too much to drink, and bragged about his dastardly deed at a bar.

True, military analyst and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said: “Secrets … can be kept reliably … for decades … even though they are known to THOUSANDS of insiders.”

And many other huge projects involving many thousands of people were kept secret for many years.

But that can’t be true for 9/11  (even though government officials say that 9/11 was state -sponsored terrorism).

V. Our Government Wouldn’t DO Something Like That

Third, there’s no way government officials, military or intelligence personnel – who are sworn to protect and defend America – would do something like that!

True, the U.S. government officials have admitted that they’ve repeatedly carried out false flag attacks.

But 9/11 was obviously different.

VI. But the Whole Controlled Demolition Thing Is Bulls**t

Whatever you else you may think, the whole “bombs took down the Twin Towers” thing is bulls**t.

True, the collapse of the third World Trade Center skyscraper on 9/11 – one that was never hit with a plane – makes no sense. But that building, World Trade Center 7, is not one of the Twin Towers.

And admittedly, thousands of  engineers and architects and scientists (and see this) think that the Twin Towers themselves may well have been brought down with high-tech explosives.

But they’re obviously all high on drugs.

VII  You Don’t Want to Be Labeled As Crazy (Or Worse) … Do You?

If – after reading the 7  facts above – you still question 9/11, then you might need a friendly warning …

If you don’t knock it off, you might be labeled crazy … or a terrorist.

VIII  We Have to Censor the Conspiracy Theorists

After all, we’ve got to censor those darn conspiracy theories.

We hope that the above-described essay disproves – once and for all – all of the crazy theories going around the Intertubes, and that everyone will shut up once and for all about 9/11.

Richard Gage  is founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth.

AE911 Truth is a non-profit organization of architects, engineers, and affiliates dedicated to investigating the events of September 11, 2001.

This GRTV video interview, recorded for the 17th anniversary of 9/11, features Richard Gage addressing:

• questions about the bottom line flaws in the official story of this ‘terrorist event’.
• how different audiences are receiving the message, moving from awareness to practical action for justice,
• and why 9/11 Truth matters almost two decades into the so-called ‘Global War on Terrorism.’

Richard Gage also mentions a 9/11 Justice for All Rally on Capitol Hill on the afternoon of September 11, 2018.

The event will be live-streamed and archived at the following link

 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

For some time I have pointed out the paradox of the American liberal/progressive/left being allied with the CIA, FBI, military/security complex and deep state. 

Now leftist Ann Garrison has noticed the paradox of this alliance. She concludes that the left has lost its mind. 

Indeed, it has.

Out of its hatred of Trump the “left” [largely the Left Democrats]  has united with the forces of  war that are leading to conflict with Russia. 

To read the complete article on Paul Craig Roberts website click here 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met Eritrea’s Foreign Minister Osman Saleh, August 31, 2018, Sochi, Russia

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov lauded his country’s relationship with Eritrea and informed the world about Moscow’s plans to build a logistics center there.

He was speaking alongside his Eritrean counterpart at a press conference in Sochi after their bilateral meeting, which he also noted included discussions about building regional transport corridors, pipelines, and opening up a Russian language department in one of Asmara’s universities. Lavrov also said that the UNSC sanctions against Eritrea that were imposed in 2009 after reports that the country was aiding Somalia’s Al-Shaabab should be lifted, and he praised Eritrea for all that it’s done in the name of regional peace over the past few months in view of its rapidly moving rapprochement with Ethiopia that completely transformed the geopolitical situation in the Horn of Africa.

In terms of the bigger picture, it appears as though Russia is keen to use Eritrea as a gateway to regional giant Ethiopia, which is the second-most-populous country in Africa and its fastest-growing economy. The Eritrean-Ethiopian rapprochement will see Addis Ababa diversify its access to the rest of the world from its erstwhile mono-dependence on Djibouti, which will expectedly see Eritrea’s connectivity role growing in importance as well. Moreover, Russia’s intended investments in Eritrea signal that it’s serious about its so-called “Pivot to Africa” and eager to establish a strategic presence in the Red Sea-Horn of Africa region after being reportedly offered a naval base in neighboring Sudan and amidst unconfirmed reports that it was earlier considering one in the breakaway region of Somaliland.

Another point to bear in mind is that the UAE is Eritrea’s top international partner and is responsible for not only breaking the country’s international isolation after building a base there for assisting in the War on Yemen,  but is also considered to be one of the key facilitators of the Eritrean-Ethiopian rapprochement. Abu Dhabi is therefore a rising transregional power that’s also simultaneously cultivating much stronger ties with Moscow than ever before, with both parties signing an official Declaration of Strategic Partnership in early June after Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed travelled to the Russian capital to meet with President Putin. Accordingly, Russian-Emirati ties will converge in Eritrea, and possibly soon thereafter, even in Ethiopia as well.

Unbeknownst to many, the Russian-Emirati Strategic Partnership is already surprisingly robust as it is even without any overlapping interests in the Horn of Africa. The two sides inked a nearly $2 billion defense deal in February 2017 and have vowed to cooperate in the cybersecurity and energy spheres.  In addition, the oil-rich collection of emirates wants to purchase Russia’s electric cars and motorcycles, as well as the Aurus brand of luxury sedans that President Putin recently popularized. In fact, the sky’s not even the limit to Russian-Emirati cooperation, literally, because Moscow is preparing to send one of its partner’s cosmonauts to the International Space Station in the near future.

Altogether, the grand strategic importance of Russian-Eritrean relations rests in their potential to not only facilitate Moscow’s “Pivot to Africa” in the Horn of Africa and especially in Ethiopia, but also in their ability to strengthen the already solid and fast-moving partnership between Russia and the UAE via the third-party country in which they evidently have many shared interests. Furthermore, successfully proving the concept that Russian-Emirati cooperation can bring tangibly positive dividends in other countries such as Eritrea might also open up the door for Abu Dhabi to invite Moscow into South Yemen where it previously exerted influence during the Soviet era, thereby possibly allowing it to contribute to the reconstruction of that war-torn society and solidify its strategic presence in the Red Sea-Gulf of Aden region.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This is the 17th anniversary of 9/11.  During the years that have passed large numbers of experts have established conclusively that the official government account of the event is false. Every year fewer people believe the unbelievable conspiracy theory that a handful of Saudi Arabians outwitted the entirety of the US National Security State and attacked with hijacked airliners the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Nevertheless, the official story still stands, just as the official story of President Kennedy’s assassination still stands despite majority disbelief, just like the official story of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty still stands despite all evidence to the contrary.  In the US the government never corrects its proven lies.

People all over the world are amazed that Americans could witness videos of the two towers blowing up floor by floor and the obvious controlled demolition of Building 7 and conclude that they were witnessing buildings collapsing from asymetrical structural damage and limited, short-lived office fires.  

The 9/11 fabrication and the Osama bin Laden myth were used by the Cheney/Bush regime to destroy the civil liberty protections in the US Constitution and to elevate the executive branch above both domestic and international law.  This has culminated in yesterday’s declaration of US lawlessness by President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who stated that the US government will use any and all means to protect US and Israeli war criminals from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. (See this)  

The cost of 9/11 far exceeds the WTC buildings and the lives that were lost.

The real cost is the US Constitution, the separation of powers, civil liberty, and the rule of law.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tensions are growing in Syria as Turkey is reportedly increasing its troops stationed at the Syrian border, and the United States is responding to accusations that it used illegal chemical weapons over the weekend. RT’s Rachel Blevins reports.

In the video below (starting at 2:25), Mark Taliano, Canadian independent journalist and analyst on the Syrian crisis comments on Western support of Al Qaeda terrorists
and the the issue of the expected upcoming false flag in Idlib.

*

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Perhaps they had a chance back during the Obama days when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed her amusing “Reset” in USA-Russia relations to the new Medvedev Presidency following Putin’s rotation to the seat of Prime Minister in March 2009. Had Washington been a bit more perceptive and offered serious alternatives, it is conceivable that Washington would today have a geopolitical isolation of their second major problem on the Eurasian Continent, namely, the Peoples’ Republic of China. Recently the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, Wess Mitchell, testified to the Senate where he candidly revealed the true reasons for current Washington and London campaigns and sanctions against Russia. It has nothing to do with faked allegations of US election interference; it has nothing to do with poorly-staged false flag poisoning of the Russian Skripals. It’s far more fundamental and takes us back to the era before the First World War more than a century ago.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 21 August, Wess Mitchell, the successor to Victoria Nuland, gave an extraordinarily honest statement of real US geopolitical strategy towards Russia. It revealed a bit more honesty apparently than the US State Department wanted, because they quickly sanitized their published version on the department website.

Censored!…

In his opening remarks to the Senate committee members Mitchell stated:

“The starting point of the National Security Strategy is the recognition that America has entered a period of big-power competition, and that past US policies have neither sufficiently grasped the scope of this emerging trend nor adequately equipped our nation to succeed in it.

Then he continues with the following extraordinary admission:

“Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power.”

In the State Department’s later sanitized version, the original text,

“It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers.”

And the sentence,

“The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power,” mysteriously were deleted. Because it was formal testimony presented to the Senate, however, the Senate version remains true to his original text, at least of 7 September, 2018. The State Department has been caught in a huge blunder.

If we pause to reflect on the meaning behind the words of Wess Mitchell, it’s pretty crude and wholly illegal in terms of the UN Charter, though Washington today seems to have forgotten that solemn document. Mitchell says US national security priority is to, “…prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers.” He clearly means powers hostile to efforts of Washington and NATO to dominate Eurasia, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than a quarter century ago.

But, wait. Mitchell earlier cites the two dominant powers who combined, he says, are the current prime foe of US global control. Mitchell states explicitly, “Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership.” But US control of Eurasia then means US control of Russia, China and environs. Eurasia is their land space. The Wess Mitchell Senate declaration is a kind of obscene global rollout of the 19^th Century USA Monroe Doctrine: Eurasia is ours and “hostile powers” such as China or Russia who try to interfere in their own sovereign space, become de facto “enemy.” Then the formulation “building up the material and ideological wherewithal…” What’s that supposed to mean as justification for Washington policy to prepare a military response? Both nations are energetically moving, despite repeated Western economic warfare, to build their economic infrastructure independent of NATO control. That is understandable. But Mitchell admits it is for Washington Casus Belli.

To realize what a strategic blunder the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs made with that one careless sentence and why the State Department rushed to delete his remarks, a brief excursion into basic Anglo-American geopolitical doctrine is useful. Here, discussion of the worldview of the godfather of geopolitics, British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder is essential. In 1904 in a speech before the Royal Geographical Society in London, Mackinder, a firm advocate of Empire, presented what is arguably one of the most influential documents in world foreign policy of the past two hundred years since the Battle of Waterloo. His short speech was titled “The Geographical Pivot of History.”

Russia and Eurasian Pivot

Mackinder divided the world into two primary geographical powers: Sea power versus Land power. On the dominant side was what he termed the “ring of bases” linking sea powers Britain, USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and Japan in domination of the world seas and of commerce power. This ring of dominant sea-powers was inaccessible to any threat from land powers of Eurasia or Euro-Asia as he termed the vast continent. Mackinder further noted that were the Russian Empire able to expand over the lands of Euro-Asia and gain access to the vast resources there to build a naval fleet, “the empire of the world might then be in sight.” Mackinder added, “This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia.”

Mackinder noted the enormous geopolitical implications of the then-new Russian Trans-Siberian Railway linking the vast territory of Russia from in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Vokzal, across all Russia some 6,000 miles to Vladivostock on the Pacific. He warned his select British audience, “the century will not be old before all Asia is covered with railways,” creating a vast land area inaccessible to the naval fleets of the British and later, Americans.

What the world has experienced since that prophetic 1904 London speech of Mackinder is two world wars, primarily aimed at breaking the German nation and its geopolitical threat to Anglo-American global domination, and to destroy the prospect of a peaceful emergence of a German-Russian Eurasia that, as Mackinder and British geopolitical strategists saw it, would put the “empire of the world” in sight.

Those two world wars in effect sabotaged the “covering of all Eurasia with railways.” Until, that is, in 2013 when China first proposed covering all Eurasia with a network of high-speed railways and infrastructure including energy pipelines and deep-water ports and Russia agreed to join the effort.

The Washington-orchestrated coup d’etat in Ukraine in February, 2014 was explicitly aimed at driving a bloody and deep wedge between Russia and Germany. At the time, Ukraine was the prime energy pipeline link feeding the German industry with Russian gas. German exports of everything from machine tools to cars to high-speed locomotives to build the rapidly-recovering Russian economy was transforming the geopolitical balance of power in favor of an emerging German-Russian-centered Eurasia to the detriment of Washington.

In an interview in January, 2015 following what he called “the most blatant coup in history”, the USA coup in Ukraine, Stratfor founder George Friedman, a student of Mackinder, stated,

“…the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.”

Desperate Measures

At this point Washington is becoming more than a little desperate to bring the genie back in the bottle that their clumsy 2014 Coup d’etat in Ukraine caused to get out. That coup forced Russia to take more seriously its potential strategic alliances in Eurasia and catalyzed present Russia-China cooperation as well as the Russian engagement with key Eurasian neighbor states in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Wess Mitchell’s predecessor, Victoria Nuland, with her cocky hubris in Ukraine, when she was caught telling her Kiev Ambassador, “F**k the EU,” was noted across Eurasia. She gave the Washington game away. It’s not about principled diplomatic partnership. It’s about power and empire.

Now Wess Mitchell’s admission that the US strategic policy is to “prevent domination of Eurasia by hostile powers” tells Russia and tells China, had they had any doubts, that the war is about a fundamental geopolitical contest to the end over who will dominate Eurasia—it’s legitimate inhabitants, centered around China and Russia, or an imperial Anglo-American axis that has been behind two world wars in the past century. Because Washington mismanaged the Russian “Reset” that was meant to draw Russia into the NATO web, Washington today is forced to wage a war on two fronts—China and Russia—war it is not prepared to win.

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

This article was first published by the New Eastern Outlook

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The operation of the Syrian Arab Army in the province of Idlib represents the last step of the central government of Damascus in the liberation of the country from the scourge of Islamist terrorism. With the defeat of Daesh and the removal of the remaining pockets of resistance, Assad’s soldiers have accomplished an extraordinary task. Meanwhile, the United States continues its illegal presence in Syria, through its support of the SDF in the north of the country for the purposes of sustaining the destabilizing potential of terrorist networks in the region and beyond. In light of this unfavorable situation for the Americans, it is easy to explain the transfer of commanders and high terrorist spheres from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan, as confirmed by several official Russian, Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi sources.

The logic behind such a move has everything to do with the ongoing process of Eurasian integration. Progress in this regard has been multifaceted in recent months and years. It ranges from the most important event, namely the entry of Pakistan and India into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), to other less known events, such as the signing of the Caspian Sea treaty by Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan. The United States is committed to stopping this integration. Staying true to Brzezinski’s grand strategy, based on the concepts of Heartland and Rimland, it has not been difficult for policy makers and advisors of the current US administration to understand the importance of Afghanistan in helping the process of Eurasian integration by fomenting terrorism. Afghanistan plays an important double role as a hinge between both Eurasia and the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

The central geographical position of the Afghan state gives it an important geopolitical role, especially from 2001, when it was illegally invaded under false pretenses and without justifying proof (as recently documented by The Corbett Report). The complicated relations between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan derive essentially from the destabilizing role played by Pakistan (especially its military and intelligence wings) in Afghanistan from the 1980s to today, courtesy of financial support received from Saudi Arabia and the political, and military and intelligence support from the US. Islamabad has for decades made itself available as a launching pad for more or less official operations since the times of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen, supported by Reagan and declared “Freedom Fighters”, are none other than the forebears of today’s Al Qaeda terrorists, which has mutated into other appellations in Syria like Al Nusra and Daesh. The formula has changed little over the last 30 years, the ingredients being Saudi money, Pakistani support, and American weaponry and intelligence.

Eurasian integration has accelerated considerably in recent years thanks to the influence of Russia and China in the region. Over a short time, Beijing has proposed the construction of various infrastructure projects (the most famous being the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC) in Pakistan to improve the transport network as well as the delivery of goods and trade. Pakistan was one of the first countries to adhere politically and economically to the Chinese initiative known as One Belt One Road (renamed the Belt Road Initiative, or BRI). Thanks to Moscow’s skilful diplomatic and political work, New Delhi’s pronounced distrust of the new alliance between China and Pakistan has decreased. Putin and Xi Jinping have literally accompanied over months, if not years, the process of rapprochement between Pakistan, India, Russia and China, with the aim of laying the foundations for an entry of the two countries into the SCO. The idea of ​​Xi and Putin is based on a strategic parity between New Delhi and Islamabad, well balanced thanks to two friendly countries like Russia and China.

The entry into the SCO was already broached in 2015 as a revolutionary act for the region, with the clear objective of working together to pacify Afghanistan and to advance the commercial and social integration of the Eurasian continent. Terrorism is a monumental challenge in this context and one of the main threats to the Chinese BRI project. Both Moscow and Beijing need to protect their commercial and financial projects in the region by preventing the use of terrorism as a means of sabotaging future rail, road and energy-development projects. The intention to use the SCO as an international framework to bring the five key players of the region (Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, China and Russia) to the same table is a master stroke for which Xi Jinping and Putin will be remembered.

Putin and Xi Jinping have a lot to offer in almost all the proposals made, from military defense guaranteed by alliances or arms sales, to economic benefits stemming from Beijing’s financial power. Moscow and Beijing offer both military sovereignty and economic cover to countries that have always been easy targets for terrorism, corruption and malfeasance as a result of the attention they attract from Beijing and Moscow’s political opponents, mainly Washington. Afghanistan is an example, but the agreement signed concerning the Caspian Sea is also a clear example of Eurasian integration prevailing over every external attempt to influence events in Washington’s favor. The agreement signed in Aktau, between Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan, forever seals any military expansionist aims of the United States or its allies. In the Caspian Sea, no foreign military presence will ever be allowed, not even temporarily.

The agreement on the Caspian Sea is a great victory for Moscow, together with the tripartite discussions between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, which allow for Russia to strengthen its southern borders, expand new trade alliances, and actively combat terrorism in all its forms (including the Taliban in Afghanistan). For Beijing, these tripartite talks advance two key factors influencing the development of the BRI. Firstly, it mitigates, and if necessary combats, the danger of terrorism, often used as an instrument against the BRI’s infrastructure by China’s adversaries, typically the US. Secondly, it deepens talks with the Indian counterpart and opens more channels of communication between Beijing and New Delhi as well as between Modi and Xi Jinping. Although both countries are members of the BRICS, India has an intense relationship with Washington allies Australia and Japan. New Delhi tries to present itself as a balancing actor that offers an alternative to minor countries in Southeast Asia. Washington would like to use Indian influence to play these countries against China, but New Delhi and Beijing are working to prevent this in favor of broader Eurasian integration.

In spite of what Washington may hope for and encourage, New Delhi’s role does not necessarily come into conflict with Beijing’s policies in the region. To overcome existing tensions, especially after the clashes on their common border more than a year ago, it was crucial to create a framework suitable to eliminate distrust between the two countries and increase mutual confidence. In this sense, India’s entry into the SCO represents a great incentive for a constant improvement in relations between the two countries. It should be remembered that trade between Beijing and New Delhi is constantly increasing and personal relations between Modi and Xi Jinping have repeatedly shown themselves to be at important levels. The entry of Pakistan and Afghanistan into the equation makes the picture more complicated, but certainly not impossible. Such forums for negotiations as the SCO provides allows for the ironing out of differences.

Meanwhile, Washington is not standing idly by watching this Eurasian integration proceed unopposed, and has begun to create the ideal conditions for further chaos in Afghanistan. The Taliban, having remained undefeated over the last 18 years of war, have started new offensives in the country, even expanding into areas they have never controlled since the Americans arrived. They could end up controlling more territory than before the War on Terror began. Washington struggles to impose stable control over the territory. But it also has every interest in ensuring that Afghanistan remains a source of instability in the region, also involving Pakistan in this process, exacerbating the frictions between New Delhi and Islamabad and possibly involving Beijing as well.

Persistent and credible reports continue to indicate the relocation from Syria of a large number of local leaders and commanders of terrorist groups supported by Washington. In addition to saving them from sure defeat at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army, the United States has begun to relocate numerous extremist Salafists loyal to the ISIS to the Eurasian country for more than a year. It is therefore not surprising that the increasing presence of ISIS in Afghanistan has led to clashes with the Taliban, engaging in a power struggle over money and drug-trade routes.

As the contrasting examples of Syria and Libya showed, alliances between countries is what make a genuine struggle against international terrorism effective. In Afghanistan the situation is complicated by the presence and interference of the United States. But after 18 years, the White House’s excuse of being there to fight terrorism is wearing thin. Not coincidentally, Afghanistan is an observer member of the SCO, holding increasingly frequent talks with all the parties involved, specifically with China, Russia, India and Pakistan. The direction is decidedly towards an alliance that has as its ultimate objective the elimination of Daesh in the country and a political dialogue with the Taliban, even if this second objective is only currently a vague possibility.

The United States is committing the same mistake in Afghanistan that it committed in Iraq following the war in 2003 and and in Libya following the killing of Gaddafi in 2011. These countries, which were not openly hostile to the United States (especially Saddam Hussein, who was strongly anti-Iranian), today find themselves in chaos (Libya), with Washington and Italy playing a weak hand in supporting the Fayez al-Sarraj government while that of General Haftar controls more than half of the country with Russian and French support. In Iraq, the government is openly pro-Shia, maintaining privileged, direct relations with Iran and allowing Russia to use its airspace to target US-backed terrorists.

Washington, using tactics of destruction and chaos, has forced several countries to seek protection from the likes of Russia and Iran. Afghanistan is moving in the same direction, even though the country currently has tens of thousands of foreign troops who will eventually have to end their war mission under the the NATO banner, finally freeing the region from the negative influence of Washington and her allies.

Washington’s recent choices certainly do not help advance American interests in the region. Trump has blocked some funding for the Pakistani armed forces as well as several joint training courses between the Pakistani and American intelligence services. Washington is also blocking 300 million dollars of aid on the basis of Islamabad not acting sufficiently to combat militants.

Russia in the north, China in the east and Iran in the South are ready to integrate the strategic triangle between their borders (the Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India), into the Eurasian plan of development and progress. Despite Washington’s attempts at sabotage, whether economically or militarily, covertly or overtly, the path towards a new Eurasian century seems linked to events like the treaty on the Caspian Sea, the ending of the war in Syria, and the deterioration of security conditions in Afghanistan. These are all events that mark the end of American hegemony in the region.

Piece by piece, China, Russia and Iran are snatching historic allies such as Turkey and Pakistan away from Washington, with the ultimate goal of pushing American influence out of the region. Without these key allies, Washington’s capacity to destabilize the region is reduced considerably. The agreement on the Caspian Sea, like the SCO in Central Asia, therefore serves the purpose of preventing external interference, especially by the United States.

In the name of effectively fighting terrorism and stabilizing key countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria, China and Russia are advancing the project of Eurasian integration for the benefit of the whole region and beyond. Washington will have little capacity to throw a spanner in the works and attempt to sabotage the whole project as it finds itself progressively pushed out of the region.

*

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The Dutch government has supported an armed group in Syria, who by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service has been classified as a terrorist organisation. According to research presented today by Dutch newspaper Trouw and television program Nieuwsuur.

In October a trial will start against a Dutch citizen that joined Jabhat al-Shamiya and actively participated in actions this group carried out in Syria. This group has previously been classified as a terrorist organisation by the Dutch government.

Trouw and Nieuwsuur, in the past months, have interviewed hundreds of rebels and others involved in the NLA (Non Lethal Assistance) program, a secret government program. Using this program, the Dutch government (from 2015 till early 2018) delivered ‘non-lethal goods’ to 22 rebel groups in Syria. Even though Dutch parliament members have repeatedly requested more information on the NLA program, the Dutch government has thus far not released the names of the rebel groups it has been supporting.

Rebel leaders and others involved have confirmed that the Dutch government in 2017 provided Jabhat al-Shamiya (‘Levant Front’) uniforms and pick-up trucks. Jabhat al-Shamiya has been classified as a salafist and jihadist organisation by the same government that supported them. In a law suit last year, the public prosecutor’s office stated that this organisation was striving for the creation of a caliphate and can’t be classified any other than a ‘criminal organisation with terrorist aims’. Trouw and Nieuwsuur have identified at least 6 specific brigades in this organisation that have received support from the Dutch government.

The program costs several millions

The Dutch government told the parliament in 2015 that it would only support moderate groups in Syria. And that the ‘moderately armed groups’ would be judged by strict criteria before they would receive support. For example, the Dutch government would check if said groups would be following the ‘humane rules of war’. On top of that, these groups ‘would be continuously monitored’. The Dutch government, at the time, has said that supporting ‘moderate’ groups is necessary because it would allow these groups to have more power at the future negotiation table with the Syrian government. The rebels are primarily fighting Assad, initially ISIS too, but some rebel groups have merged with ISIS too.

Trouw and Nieuwsuur’s research has shown that besides uniforms and pick-up trucks, such as the Toyota Hilux and Isuzu D-max, the Dutch government has also provided rebel groups with satellite phones, laptops, mattresses, backpacks and cameras. The rebels told Trouw and Nieuwsuur that they are “very happy with the Dutch support and that they’re actively using the goods in their battles”. Videos have shown that these rebel groups were indeed using the pick-up trucks said to have been provided by the Dutch government and were seen mounting machine guns on top to target military targets. In these videos it was impossible to see where the vehicles came from, because these vehicles have been stripped of number plates or any other form of identification.

Public information on the NLA program is difficult to obtain, requests by Nieuwsuur and Trouw, using the Act on public access to government information, have been repeatedly denied. In a response to the articles released today, the Dutch government has promised that they stopped the program: “From our own monitoring we concluded that the risks were simply too great and due to the politically changed situation in Syria, we don’t think it was necessary anymore to continue our support. Reports from Nieuwsuur and Trouw have proven that our own assessment was correct and that we did the right thing to discontinue support”.

The program, supporting terrorist rebels in Syria, costed the Dutch tax payer 25 million Euros.

*

Author’s note: This article will be expanded upon when more information is released.

All images in this article are from Defend Europa.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history,  a decisive watershed, a breaking point.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.

9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.

In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property on 9/11,  from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11”.

The latter build  upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed “in the name of  9/11” involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries.

The 9/11 event in itself– which becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the repeal of civil liberties.

Today we commemorate the tragic events of 9/11 with evidence, detailed analysis and a sense of history. Below is a selection of articles on different dimensions of the ongoing debate on 9/11.

Michel Chossudovsky, September 11, 2018

*     *     *

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2018

“Going after bin Laden” has served  to sustain the legend of the “world’s most wanted terrorist”, who  “haunts Americans and millions of others around the world.”

Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly claimed that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remain unknown:  “It is like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

Triggering War. A Manufactured “Catalytic Event” Which Will Initiate An All Out War? Are We Going to Let this Happen Again?

By Prof. Graeme McQueen, September 08, 2018

One of the purposes of the September 11, 2001 operation, in my view, was precisely to change that situation – to arouse intense feelings of unity, aggression and support for government in order to banish once and for all the Vietnam Syndrome and to launch with great energy the new global conflict formation (the “War on Terror”) so that the 21st century, with the military leading the way, would become another American Century.

9/11 Unmasked

By Professor Piers Robinson, September 11, 2018

It is against this backdrop that 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth now emerges. The book is the culmination of seven years work by the 9/11 Consensus Panel which includes 23 experts from fields including physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, piloting, airplane crash investigation, medicine, journalism, psychology, and religion.

Why I Don’t Speak of the Fake News of “9/11” Anymore

By Edward Curtin, September 09, 2018

I kept thinking of the ongoing language and logic used to describe what had happened that terrible day in 2001 and in the weeks to follow.  It all seemed so clichéd and surreal, as if set phrases had it been extracted from some secret manual, phrases that rung with an historical resonance that cast a spell on the public, as if mass hypnosis were involved.  People seemed mesmerized as they spoke of the events in the official language that had been presented to them.

9/11 Truth: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

By David Ray Griffin, September 05, 2018

At 5:21 in the afternoon of 9/11, almost seven hours after the Twin Towers had come down, Building 7 of the World Trade Center also came down. The collapse of this building was from the beginning considered a mystery. The same should have been true, to be sure, of the collapse of the Twin Towers. But they had been hit by planes, which had ignited big fires in them, and many people assumed this combination of causes to be sufficient to explain why they came down.

Osamagate

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2018

The US Administration claims that Osama bin Laden is behind the tragic events of the 11th of September. A major war supposedly “against international terrorism” has been launched [October 2001], yet the evidence amply confirms that agencies of the US government have since the Cold War harbored the “Islamic Militant Network” as part of Washington’s foreign policy agenda. In a bitter irony, the US Air Force is targeting the training camps established in the 1980s by the CIA.

Video: The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw

By Barrie Zwicker and Michael Welch, September 09, 2018

In January 2002, only four months after the terrorist attacks blamed on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, a seasoned journalist, media critic and critical thinker by the name of Barrie Zwicker became the first broadcaster in the world to challenge the official 9/11 narrative on national television with his seven part series, The Great Deception.

Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 07, 2018

One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to “fabricate an enemy”. The “outside enemy” personified by Osama bin Laden is “threatening America”. Pre-emptive war directed against “Islamic terrorists” is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down. America is under attack.

The Fakest Fake News: The U.S. Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

By Edward Curtin, September 11, 2018

With the publication of 9/11  Unmasked: An Review Panel Investigation, they now have a brilliant source book to use to turn their suspicions into certitudes.  And for those who have never doubted the official account (or accounts would be more accurate), reading this book should shock them into reality, because it is not based on speculation, but on carefully documented and corroborated facts, exacting logic, and the scientific method.

The Invasion of Afghanistan, October 7, 2001: Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

By David Ray Griffin, September 05, 2018

There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam.”1 This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.

What Happened on the Planes on September 11, 2001? The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls. The 9/11 Commission “Script” Was Fabricated

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 04, 2018

In the absence of surviving passengers, this “corroborating evidence”, was based on passengers’ cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. According to the Report, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was only recovered in the case of one of the flights (UAL 93).

Federal Grand Jury Petition Filed for New 9/11 Investigation

By Bruce G. Morgan, September 10, 2018

On April 10th of this year, the non-profit Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Manhattan, formally requesting that he present to a grand jury, as a U.S. Attorney, extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11/2001. The petition cites broad and conclusive evidence, providing proof of explosives and incendiaries employed at ground zero to bring down the twin towers and WTC Building 7.

9/11 Attacks: Thousands of 9/11 First Responders Have Cancer

By Derrick Broze, September 05, 2018

As Americans prepare for the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, nearly 10,000 first responders and New York City residents have reported 9/11-related cancers. The numbers were released by the federally funded World Trade Center Health Program.

***

For seventeen years, Global Research, together with partner independent media organizations, has sought Truth in Media with a view to eventually “disarming” the corporate media’s disinformation crusade.

To reverse the tide, we call upon our readers to participate in an important endeavor.

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

Our objective is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. 

 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The US-led propaganda campaign against the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance has reached a new level as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is openly preparing to kick of a ground assault on terrorist groups in northwestern Syria.

During a September 7 UN Security Council briefing, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley stated that

“when Russia and the Assad regime say they want to counter terrorism, they actually mean they want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes. They want to punish the civilians who had the courage to rise up against Assad.” She further stated that “the Assad regime” must halt an offensive in Idlib because it will undermine “peace talks”.

“We consider any assault on Idlib to be a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Syria. If Assad, Russia, and Iran continue, the consequences will be dire,” Haley said.

On the same day, CNN released another fabulous report based on anonymous US defense officials. According to the report, Russia warmed the US-led coalition twice that its forces and the Syrian military are prepared to attack terrorists in the 55-km zone claimed by the US-led coalition around its military garrison at al-Tanf. CNN speculated that this attack may endanger US troops deployed there, but did not elaborate how it is possible if US personnel are not embedded with terrorists.

Following the report, the coalition kicked off a military exercise involving 100 US servicemen in the al-Tanf area.

“Our forces will demonstrate the capability to deploy rapidly, assault a target with integrated air and ground forces, and conduct a rapid exfiltration anywhere in the OIR combined joint operations area … Exercises like this bolster our defeat-ISIS capabilities and ensure we are ready to respond to any threat to our forces,” CENTCOM spokesman Navy Captain Bill Urban stated.

On September 8, clashes erupted between a unit of the Syrian Military Intelligence and security forces of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the city of al-Qamishli. Kurdish sources claimed that clashes erupted after government troops had entered the SDF-controlled area without a permission. Pro-government sources say that the SDF attack had been pre-planned. 12 government servicemen and 7 SDF personnel were killed in the incident.

On September 9, the SDF’s political wing, the Syrian Democratic Council, released a statement claiming that it regrets the incident.

“The coincidence of this incident with the summit in Tehran is questionable,” the SDC added in the same statement de-facto accusing Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey of the escalation.

Meanwhile, multiple reports have been released by pro-militant media activists and mainstream media outlets on alleged civilian casualties and damage to the civilian infrastructure as a result of the airstrikes of the Syrian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces. The reports came when Syrian and Russian forces expanded their airstrikes on targets belonging to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and the Turkistan Islamic Party in northern Lattakia and southern and southwestern Idlib.

A source in the 4^th Armoured Division of the Syrian Arab Army told SouthFront that these strikes are preparations for a ground phase of the offensive in the area. However, no details when it’s set to be started were provided.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

It’s official. The Syrian Army assisted by Russian air support is closing in on the last major pocket of terrorists remaining in the country in the province of Idlib near Aleppo. The United States, which has trained and armed some of the trapped gunmen and even as recently as a year ago described the province as “al-Qaeda’s largest safe haven since 9/11,” has perhaps predictably warned Syria off. The White House initially threatened a harsh reaction if the Bashar al-Assad government were to employ any chemical weapons in its final attack, setting the stage for the terrorists themselves to carry out a false flag operation blamed on Damascus that would bring with it a brutal response against the regime and its armed forces by the U.S., Britain and France.

In support of the claims relating to chemical weapons use, the Trump Administration, which is itself illegally occupying part of Syria, is as usual creating a bogus casus belli. U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said in a news conference that

“This is a tragic situation, and if they [Russia and Iran] want to continue to go the route of taking over Syria, they can do that. But they cannot do it with chemical weapons. They can’t do it assaulting their people and we’re not going to fall for it. If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who’s going to use them.”

As with all Haley commentary, the appropriate response should be expressing wonderment at her ability to predict who will do something before it occurs followed by “Not quite Nikki.” She should familiarize herself with her own State Department’s travel warning on Syria which states explicitly that “tactics of ISIS, [al-Qaeda affiliate in Idlib] Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other violent extremist groups include the use of…chemical weapons.”

Setting the stage for a false flag provoked attack on a country that does not threaten the United States was bad enough, but now Washington has apparently hardened its line, indicating that any use of the Syrian Army to clear the province of rebels will “…not be tolerated. Period.” Haley again spoke out at the United Nations, saying “…an offensive against Idlib would be a reckless escalation. The regime and its backers must stop their military campaign in all its forms.” In support of its inflexible stance, the White House has been citing the presence of a large civilian population also trapped in the pocket even though there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone in Washington actually cares about Syrian civilian casualties.

And there is always Iran just waiting to get kicked around, when all else fails. Haley, always blissfully ignorant but never quiet, commented while preparing to take over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council last Friday, that Russia and Syria “want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes” before launching into a tirade about Iran, saying that

“President Trump is very adamant that we have to start making sure that Iran is falling in line with international order. If you continue to look at the spread Iran has had in supporting terrorism, if you continue to look at the ballistic missile testing that they are doing, if you continue to look at the sales of weapons we see with the Huthis in Yemen — these are all violations of security council resolution. These are all threats to the region, and these are all things that the international community needs to talk about.”

And there is the usual hypocrisy over long term objectives. President Donald Trump said in April that “it’s time” to bring American troops home from Syria -once the jihadists of Islamic State have been definitively defeated. But now that that objective is in sight, there has to be some question about who is actually determining the policies that come out of the White House, which is reported to be in more than usual disarray due to the appearance last week of the New York Times anonymous op-ed describing a “resistance” movement within the West Wing that has been deliberately undermining and sometimes ignoring the president to further Establishment/Deep State friendly policies. The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House, which has a similar tale to tell and came out on Amazon today.

The book and op-ed mesh nicely in describing how Donald Trump is a walking disaster who is deliberately circumvented by his staff. One section of the op-ed is particularly telling and suggestive of neocon foreign policy, describing how the White House staff has succeeded in “[calling out] countries like Russia…for meddling and [having them] punished accordingly” in spite of the president’s desire for détente. It then goes on to elaborate on Russia and Trump, describing how “…the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But the national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken to hold Moscow accountable.”

If the op-ed and Woodward book are in any way accurate, one has to ask “Whose policy? An elected president or a cabal of disgruntled staffers who might well identify as neoconservatives?” Be that as it may, the White House is desperately pushing back while at the same time searching for the traitor, which suggests to many in Washington that it will right the sinking ship prior to November elections by the time honored and approved method used by politicians worldwide, which means starting a war to rally the nation behind the government.

As North Korea is nuclear armed, the obvious targets for a new or upgraded war would be Iran and Syria. As Iran might actually fight back effectively and the Pentagon always prefers an enemy that is easy to defeat, one suspects that some kind of expansion of the current effort in Syria would be preferable. It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with Russia, which would be unpredictable, but an attack on Syrian government forces that would produce a quick result which could plausibly be described as a victory would certainly be worth considering.

By all appearances, the preparation of the public for an attack on Syria is already well underway. The mainstream media has been deluged with descriptions of tyrant Bashar al-Assad, who allegedly has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The rhetoric coming out of the usual government sources is remarkable for its truculence, particularly when one considers that Damascus is trying to regain control over what is indisputably its own sovereign territory from groups that everyone agrees are at least in large part terrorists.

Last week, the Trump White House approved the new U.S. plan for Syria, which, unlike the old plan of withdrawal, envisions something like a permanent presence in the country. It includes a continued occupation of the country’s northeast, which is the Kurdish region; forcing Iran plus its proxies including Hezbollah to leave the country completely; and continued pressure on Damascus to bring about regime change.

Washington has also shifted its perception of who is trapped in Idlib, with newly appointed U.S. Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey arguing that “. . . they’re not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator.” Jeffrey, it should be noted, was pulled out of retirement where he was a fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spin off. On his recent trip to the Middle East he stopped off in Israel nine days ago to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The change in policy, which is totally in line with Israeli demands, would suggest that Jeffrey received his instructions during the visit.

Israel is indeed upping its involvement in Syria. It has bombed the country 200 times in the past 18 months and is now threatening to extend the war by attacking Iranians in neighboring Iraq. It has also been providing arms to the terrorist groups operating inside Syria.

And Netanyahu also appears to be preparing his followers for a bit of bloodshed. In a recent ceremony, he boasted that “the weak are slaughtered” while “the strong” survive — “for good or ill.” Commentators in Israel noted that the words were very close to those used by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf in a chapter describing the historical inevitability of domination by the Aryan race. They also observed that Netanyahu, like Trump, also needs a war to free himself from his legal problems.

Taking the president, the U.N. Ambassador, the Israeli Prime Minister and the U.S. Special Representative for Syria at their words, it would appear that the Washington Establishment and its Israeli manipulators have narrowed the options for dealing with Syria and its regional supporter Iran to either war or war. Add to that the closing time window for doing something to ameliorate the Trump Administration’s panic over the impending midterm election, and it would seem that there is a certain inevitability regarding the process whereby the United States military will again be on the march in the Middle East.

*

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

Featured image is from the author.

Seventeen years have passed since the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001, and there are still many unanswered questions surrounding that fateful day.

In 2011, experts and scientists from around the world gathered in Toronto, Canada to present new and established evidence that questions the official story of 9/11. This evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a 4-day period.

Through their analysis and scientific investigations, they hope to spark a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001.

This video features the full presentation by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, Canada.

Press For Truth and The International Center for 9/11 Studies Present:

“The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception”

Produced by: Steven Davies, Dan Dicks, Bryan Law

An over 5-hour DVD, with comprehensive coverage of the 4 day Toronto Hearings from September 2011.

---

by Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 9780973714715

List Price: $24.95

click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Due to persecution, violence and wars often waged or funded by Western governments, almost 70 million people have been forced from their homes in recent years. This is a record total surpassing the 60 million uprooted during the Second World War, easily the most bloody conflict in human history. During the early summer of 1940, as the German invasion of France was reaching a remarkably swift end, 12 million refugees were on the roads of northern France bound for goodness knows where.

About three generations later, more than 16 million were displaced worldwide in 2017, and the annual trend remains on an upward curve. Tellingly, Afghanistan and Iraq have among the largest numbers of displaced people, with millions fleeing both countries throughout this century. The exoduses can be linked directly to massive blows inflicted upon Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States Armed Forces, the most powerful military of all time.

Refugee influxes into wealthy European states have sparked a seemingly great “crisis”. In Europe, Germany has accepted easily the largest number of migrants, with more than a million people arriving since 2015 – yet even this figure constitutes just over 1% of the existing German population.

Jordan, with just under 10 million inhabitants, took in during the same period about 1.3 million Syrian refugees, while tiny Lebanon (population now six million) absorbed up to 1.5 million migrants. Since 2014, about 600,000 asylum seekers arrived in Italy from Africa, risking their lives crossing the treacherous Mediterranean Sea in unsuitable craft. In recent months, however, the far-right Italian government is refusing to receive further migrants, including people fleeing countries that Benito Mussolini attacked before and during World War II, like Ethiopia, Egypt and Tunisia.

It is not regarded as a calamity by Western elites when poor Middle East nations like Jordan and Lebanon accept massive migrant numbers, placing further strain on their creaking infrastructure and shrinking resources. Many of these refugees fled a Syria in which “rebel opposition groups” were heavily supported by the West, comprising mainly of terrorists linked to organizations like Al-Qaeda.

Yet a much larger catastrophe than the above is quickly and silently approaching: Great movements of people can be anticipated as a result of unchecked climate change caused by human activity. The recent migrant numbers are a fraction of what can be expected in years to come. A little more than a generation from now, in 2050, up to a billion people are expected to have departed countries decimated by climate change. When the 21st century reaches its end, anywhere up to two billion people could be forced from their homelands.

The pace of climate change has shocked even experienced climate experts, while mounting evidence whittles down the ever-dwindling band of skeptics. Climate analyst Katrin Meissner, of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia, said in July that the speed of warming is, “much faster than anything encountered in Earth’s history. In terms of rate of change, we are in uncharted waters”.

The reality is that our planet is very delicately balanced, and any slight disruption to its methodologies – caused by humans for example – can have major, long-lasting consequences. Meissner’s co-author, scientist Alan Mix of Oregon State University, warns

“We can expect that sea level rise could become unstoppable for millenia, impacting much of the world’s population, infrastructure and economic activity”.

This is particularly worrying as most of the world’s largest cities are built on coastlines, such as New York City, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Mumbai, Shanghai, etc. In recent decades, tens of millions across the world have been leaving rural inland areas and flocking to urban coastal heartlands. Today, about 40% of all humans live within 100 kilometers of a coastline.

However, global sea levels have been rising continuously over the past century and more, linked to greater burning of fossil fuels by industrial nations. With the increasing melt of both Arctic and Antarctica at either ends of the globe, rates of sea level rise have shot up during the previous 20 years. Over the past generation, oceans have been rising twice as fast as before.

Altogether, our water levels have now climbed about 20 centimeters globally since 1850. Come the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), anything up to a further 98 centimeter sea level rise (over three feet) can be expected – driven by a melt of the massive Greenland ice sheet, which is 1,500 miles long. The Greenland ice sheet is disappearing at a quicker rate than predicted, melting almost twice faster than it was during the late 19th century, mainly due to significantly increased summer temperatures.

Meanwhile, the greatest number of people living by coastlines are those residing in China and India, the world’s most inhabited countries comprising more than a third of the entire human population. Remarkably, about half of China’s 1.3 billion citizens live alongside the country’s industrialized coastlines. Over the past five decades, many millions of Chinese have moved from the country’s inland regions towards the seas in search of greater commerce and rich marine pickings.

As the oceans continue their inexorable rise, where are all these coastal dwellers going to go? Erik Solheim, the UN environment chief, said recently that “we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future”. Those living in Africa, the Middle East and much of Asia are enduring increasingly intolerable temperatures, droughts, floods, and so on.

Climate change is already biting hard in China, easily the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter over the past decade. Coastal cities like Guangzhou (14.5 million population) in southern China are particularly vulnerable, and last summer it was drenched under record flooding as a result of major storms, another classic symptom of climate change. Places like Guangzhou, whose population has exploded, will be hugely affected in years to come, inevitably leading to mass exoduses.

The deadly phenomenon of worsening weather events has been repeated elsewhere in China. Shanghai, on China’s east coast with a population of over 24 million, was declared in 2012 as the most vulnerable big city in the world to flooding by British and Dutch scientists. If carbon emissions continue along their upward trajectory, Shanghai could be largely immersed under the Pacific Ocean by the year 2100. Yet, currently, China burns coal at a far greater level than any other country while it is also the world’s largest oil importer, policies which are having serious consequences.

In a few years, China’s population will be overtaken by neighboring India. Though India is a poor country with severe internal problems, its carbon emissions continue to rapidly grow at this pivotal period. India is among the biggest coal and oil consumers, now ranking as the third largest greenhouse gas producer in the world, having long since left Russia behind in fourth place. India’s carbon emissions have increased by almost 10% in the past two years alone, and at this rate it will eventually overtake America in second – though in per capita terms (per person) the US is still clear of even China.

Situated along India’s coastal areas are about 450 million of the nation’s 1.3 billion inhabitants. Disconcertingly, the Indian Ocean is rising almost twice as fast as the global mean average. This is mainly due to the excessive heat and wind the Indian Ocean is absorbing in this region, as water expands considerably when trapping heat. The rising ocean will have serious repercussions for coastal places like Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India’s most populous city with over 12 million people residing in the inner urban areas, spreading to over 20 million on its metropolitan outreaches. Within the next century, it is expected that about 40% of Mumbai will be swallowed by the rising ocean, leading to further mass departures.

This is a scenario that may well be seen time and again across the world’s major cities. In the US, there are a number of low-lying urban centers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts such as Boston, New York City, Miami, New Orleans, etc. In New York City for instance, America’s most populous town (8.5 million), average sea levels have risen by over a foot since 1900. That is about twice the overall planetary rate of sea level rise during the same period.

By 2050, water levels in the New York area are expected to rise by at least another 28 centimeters (almost a foot), but perhaps approaching closer to two feet. Come 2100, anything up to a six foot sea rise may be expected. With alarming climate reports building up, it is hardly surprising New York City planners are outlining major proposals to protect the metropolis from these unprecedented crises looming on the horizon.

*

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

It looks like Trump will plunge us into war, either in Iran or Syria, and possibly both with the truly frightening prospect of Russia and the US going up against each other. 

I remember Bush the Elder’s first war in Iraq. I recall my coworkers all of a sudden morphing into little war zealots overnight, demanding I show the flag and support for “our” troops. 

During the second rape of Iraq it was simply remarkable watching the televised talking heads condemning those of us opposed to that illegal and criminal war. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News told us to shut up. All of a sudden practicing the First Amendment was considered traitorous behavior (unless you worked for Fox News). Supporting the troops was mandatory. There were waving flags and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS billboards and bumperstickers everywhere. Yellow ribbons tied around old oaks trees. Endless super-hysterical news broadcasts spreading easily debunked lies. 

Later, it was discovered Bush and his coterie of mentally-disturbed neocons had lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But this didn’t matter, not to the president and his advisers or, for that matter, millions of Americans who were convinced—thanks primarily to non-stop war propaganda—Saddam wanted to kill every last American with nukes and nerve agents. A couple years later George W. Bush responded to the criticism by staging a comedy routine about not finding WMDs under his desk. 

If Trump decides to bomb Syria and Iran, the same demands will be made. Support our troops. Show your support with a flag or lapel pin. Anti-war protests—rare events these days, although they do happen on occasion—and criticism of the government will be considered giving comfort to the enemy and seriously unAmerican. 

Corporate polls report Americans believe Iran is America’s gravest and most portent threat. China and North Korea follow Iran. Thanks to ceaseless propaganda churned out by the corporate script-reading media, Americans also consider Syria, Afghanistan, and the Islamic State as enemies. 

The internet-based alternative media—now under attack as Russian fueled useful idiots—is far more prevalent and influential than it was in 2003 when Bush invaded Iraq. If a serious confrontation occurs in Syria between US and Russian troops, there will be close to zero tolerance for criticism. Ditto an incident in the South China Sea or on Russia’s border where NATO is piling up troops and staging live fire exercises. 

If war comes, the state will move to—as that great libertarian Bill O’Reilly said—force you to shut up and support the troops, which is code for supporting mass murder, war crimes, and turning largely defenseless countries into failed states unable to resist occupation and dismemberment. 

The destruction of Alex Jones and his Infowars is only the beginning. He was taken out because he is the loudest and most abrasive critic (although this criticism generally doesn’t extend to Trump and his cronies). But make no mistake—the deplatforming of Jones is a template for the ultimate destruction of all dissenting voices, including those over on the easily compromised left who are not on foundation payrolls or taking cash from George Soros. 

War brings out the true nature of the state. Its violence and murder is not confined to foreign enemies who “hate us for our freedom.” It extends to all critics, especially those with reach like Alex Jones.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire. 

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

We, the undersigned group of scholars and teachers, deplore the autocratic and arbitrary reduction of ward representation for Toronto city council contained in Bill 5 being rushed through the Ontario Legislature by the just-elected Doug Ford-led Conservative provincial government.

There are numerous problems with this initiative – both in terms of policy and process – that cannot be squared with democratic values or procedures.

As policy, reducing the number of city councilors will not make for better representation or government or cost reductions for the city, as the Ford government claims. Indeed, as we saw with a similar cynical reduction of MPPs by a previous Conservative government, reducing the number of politicians did not lead to any cost savings, but merely shifted where money was spent in a poor and half-hearted attempt to respond to constituent demands, and had the effect of weakening local influence and centralizing more power at Queen’s Park and the Premier’s Office.

As policy, reducing the number of city councilors will weaken the democratic representation and advocacy roles so crucial to local government. Fewer wards mean that many more people will be trying to get the attention of fewer politicians. Far from increasing accountability, this will have the effect of insulating politicians from public pressure as bigger wards mean increased costs to run for office and politicians that will be indebted to those who can fund their campaigns. Meanwhile, local citizens will find it much harder to organize a grassroots campaign in these larger wards.

As policy, reducing the number of city councilors will make it harder to have a council that truly reflects the economic and social diversity of the city, as all research on representation shows that winner take all voting systems combined with large riding sizes tend to benefit the most established and powerful groups in society (i.e. wealthy white males) and fail to reflect the class, gender, ethnic and racial diversity of the community.

As process, it is conventional to signal the desirability of such reforms in the campaign period for provincial office, rather than announcing it after the election when voters now have no ability to consider it in casting their vote.

As process, it is conventional to take input on such proposed changes from the institutional representatives and voters that will be affected by the changes and develop an interactive policy approach that operates on realistic timelines to gain, respond, and act on such input, rather than ram through arbitrary changes just months before they need to be put into practice.

As process, it is conventional for governments elected under the first-past-the-post electoral system, particularly those that have gained a majority of seats but only a minority of the popular vote, to act with caution in taking up divisive policy issues, especially when such issues touch on the democratic rules of the game themselves. To radically alter the representational structure of another level of government, without warning and without input from said government or its electorate, is clearly an abuse of the power that the first-past-the-post voting system grants to legislative majority governments.

At this point, it would be fruitless to demand that the Ford Conservative government reverse its actions on this issue as the government has made it clear by its actions and stated public rationales that its ‘reforms’ are, like their ‘austerity’ agenda, ideological in nature, scope and objectives and, as such, not subject to reasoned, informed, evidence-based discussion or deliberation or non-partisan considerations of the public good or fair play. As with conservative movements across western countries, the point of such efforts is to weaken the already shallow substance of democratic representation, deliberation and accountability in favour of strengthening the power of those with substantial wealth.

However, armed with evidence-based insights about these attacks on democracy at both the procedural and institutional levels, we can recommend specific political reforms to help reverse and prevent such undemocratic initiatives in the future. As such we call on citizens, organized groups in civil society, and the key Ontario opposition parties to support the introduction of the following reforms:

1. The immediate introduction of a proportional voting system for provincial elections. The results of the 2018 Ontario provincial election and the subsequent actions by the Ford Conservative government demonstrate clearly why the first-past-the-post voting system is a danger to the survival of democracy itself. Conservative governments are increasingly demonstrating their willingness to abuse the democratic trust that is required for FPTP to operate. With just 40% of the popular vote, the Ford Conservatives are pushing through a host of policies that a majority of Ontarians clearly oppose, and they are doing so in a manner that prevents that opposition from organizing and bringing pressure to bear on the government. The opposition parties in Ontario should declare their commitment now to introduce PR after the next election, if they are elected.

2. The establishment of a legitimate public consultative process to determine the proper levels of representation for the city of Toronto, as well as other reforms of governance (like the introduction of a proportional voting system for the city), with a commitment by the provincial government to act on them.

3. A removal of the ban on political parties or slates running for municipal office in Toronto. As research clearly demonstrates that an absence of organized groups at the local level is the key barrier to people running for and participating in local politics, this politically-motivated restriction should be repealed.

4. Establish a Citizens’ Assembly to rethink the role and purpose of local government, including ways to rebalance the influence between the provincial and local levels, and between property developers, ratepayers and tenants. •

Endorsed by:

• Nadia Abu-Zahra, Associate Professor International Development University of Ottawa
• Christo Aivalis, SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of History, University of Toronto
• Patricia Albanese, Professor, Dept of Sociology, Ryerson University
• Ahmed Allahwala, Associate Professor, Teaching Stream, Department of Human Geography, UTSC
• Sabah Alnaseri, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Miriam Anderson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Caroline Andrew, Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa
• Sedef Arat-Koc, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Hugh Armstrong, Professor Emeritus, Carleton University
• Ian Balfour, Professor, Dept. of English, York University
• Rachel Barken, SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Sociology, York University
• Deborah Barndt, Professor Emerita, York University
• Tim Bartkiw, Associate Professor, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University
• Ranu Basu, Associate Professor, Geography, York University
• Shyon Baumann, University of Toronto
• Ray Bazowski, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• William Bedford, PhD Candidate, FES, York University
• Andrew Biro, Professor, Department of Politics, Acadia University
• Simon Black, Assistant Professor of Labour Studies, Brock University
• Niko Block, author and Graduate Studies, Department of Politics, York University
• Nicholas Blomley, Professor of Geography, Simon Fraser University
• Larry S. Bourne FRSC FCIP, Professor emeritus, University of Toronto
• Susan Braedley, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Carleton
• Linda Briskin, Professor Emeritus, Social Science Department York University
• Deborah Brock, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University
• Susannah Bunce, Associate Professor, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Bill Burns Adjunct Faculty Graduate Studies, York University
• Nergis Canefe, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and the School of Public Policy, York
• John Carlaw, Graduate Research Fellow, Centre for Refugee Studies, York University
• Jenny Carson, Associate Professor, Department of History, Ryerson University
• Jon Caulfield, Senior Scholar, Urban Studies Program, York University
• Chris Chapman, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, York University
• Soma Chatterjee, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, York University
• Cara Chellew, Research Administrator, Major Collaborative Research Project Global Suburbanisms, York University
• Sheila Colla, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York
• George Comninel, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Creighton Connolly, Postdoctoral fellow, National University of Singapore
• Rosemary J. Coombe, Senior Canada Research Chair in Law, Communication and Culture, York University
• Matt Corbeil PhD Candidate York University
• Deborah Cowen, Professor, Department of Geography & Planning, University of Toronto
• Cathy Crowe, Distinguished Visiting Practitioner, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Simon Dalby, Professor, School of International Policy and Governance, Wilfrid Laurier University
• David B. Dewitt, Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Don Dippo, Professor, Faculty of Education, York University
• Stephan Dobson, Contract Faculty, Dept. of Social Science, York University
• Daniel Drache, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Lisa Drummond, Associate Professor, Urban Studies, Dept of Social Science, York University
• Robert J. Drummond, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Geneviève A. Dumas, Professor Emerita, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen’s University
• Michael Ekers, Assistant Professor, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto, Scarborough
• Theresa Enright, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto
• Lorna Erwin, Associate Professor, Sociology, York University
• Fay Faraday, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York
• Steven Farber, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Scarborough
• Dena Farsad, PhD Candidate, York University
• Leesa Fawcett, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Jennifer Foster, Associate Professor, York University
• Liette Gilbert, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Sam Gindin Graduate Faculty York University
• Jill Glessing, Continuing Education, Ryerson University
• Luin Goldring, Professor, Sociology, York University
• Kanishka Goonewardena, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• John Greyson, video/filmmaker, Toronto
• Sean Grisdale, PhD Student in the Geography Department at the University of Toronto
• Shubhra Gururani, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, York University
• Oded Haas, PhD Candidate, York University
• Ratiba Hadj-Moussa, Professor, Department of Sociology, York University
• Laam Hae, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Paul A. Hamel, Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
• Pierre Hamel, Sociology, University of Montreal
• Rebecca Hall, Assistant Professor, Development Studies, Queen’s University
• Bob Hanke Adjunct Faculty Department of Communication Studies York University
• Judy Hellman, Professor Emerita, Departments of Social Science and Politics, York
• Stephen Hellman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Jordan House, Phd Candidate, Department of Politics, York University
• Johanna Householder, Professor, Faculty of Art, OCAD University
• Jennifer Hyndman, Professor and Director, Centre for Refugees Studies, York University
• Susan Ingram, Associate Professor, Dept of Humanities, York University
• Adrian Ivakhiv, Steven Rubenstein Professor of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont
• Les Jacobs, Professor, Department of Social Science, York
• William Jenkins, Associate Professor, Geography, York University
• Josee Johnston, University of Toronto
• Ilan Kapoor, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Ali Kazimi, Associate Professor, Department of Cinema & Media Arts, York University
• Matthew Kellway, PhD candidate, Department of Politics, York University
• Ryan Kelpin, PhD candidate, Department of Politics, York University
• Azam Khatam, PhD., Instructor at York University, Disaster and Emergency Management program
• Loren King, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University
• Stefan Kipfer, Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Margaret Kohn, University of Toronto
• Abidin Kusno, Professor, Environmental Studies, York University
• Hannes Lacher, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Danielle Landry Lecturer, School of Disability Studies, Ryerson University
• Robert Latham, Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Nicole Latulippe, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Ute Lehrer, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Nina Levitt, Associate Professor, Department of Visual Art & Art History
• Steven Logan, University of Toronto Mississauga
• Brenda Longfellow, Associate Professor, Department of Cinema and Media Arts, York University
• Stephen Longstaff, Professor Emeritus, Sociology, York University
• Meg Luxton, Professor, Women’s Studies, York University
• Lucy Lynch, Project Coordinator, MCRI Global Suburbanisms, York University
• Margaret MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, York University
• Sara Macdonald, Phd candidate, Utrecht University
• Heather MacRae, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Rianne Mahon, CIGI Chair and Professor, Balsillie School of International Affairs and Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University
• Stephen Mak, Architect, Toronto
• Loren March, PhD Candidate, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Judith Marshall, Research Associate, CERLAC, York University
• Carlota McAllister, Associate Professor, Anthropology, York University
• Eleanor MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen’s University
• Kenneth Iain MacDonald, Dept of Geography and Program in Planning, Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies, University of Toronto
• Jc Elijah Madayag-Bawuah, Graduate Student, Department of Social Science, York University
• Terry Maley, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Raul Mangrau, PhD candidate, Department of Politics, York University
• Susan McGrath C.M., Professor Emerita, York University
• Wendy McKeen, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, York University
• Paul Christopher Gray, Assistant Professor, Department of Labour Studies, Brock University
• Tanner Mirrlees, Associate Professor, UOIT
• Radhika Mongia, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University
• Colin Mooers, professor, Dept of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Esteve Morera, Associate Professor, Departments of Philosophy and Politics, York
• Allan Moscovitch, Professor Emeritus, Carleton University
• Alex Murray, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Karen Murray, Associate Professor and Democratic Administration Program Coordinator, Department of Politics, York University
• Lisa Myers, Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Natasha Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, York University
• Judith Nagata, Professor Emerita of Anthropology and Asian Studies, York University
• Nicole Neverson, Associate Professor, Sociology Ryerson University
• Glen Norcliffe, Professor Emeritus, Geography, York University
• Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Hadley Obodiac, Filmmaker, Toronto
• Kris Olds, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Umut Ozsu, Associate Professor, Department of Law, Carleton University
• Laurence Packer, FRES, Distinguished Research Professor, York University
• Simon Parker, Co-Director, Centre for Urban Research, University of York, UK.
• Leo Panitch, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Melanie Panitch, Associate Professor, School of Child and Youth Care, Ryerson
• Daniel J. Paré, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa
• Jessica Parish, Visiting Scholar, City Institute York University & Research Associate, Lancaster House Publishing
• Justin Paulson, Associate Professor, Department Sociology and Anthropology and Institute of Political Economy, Carleton
• Linda Peake, Director, The City Institute at York University
• Peter Penz, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Ellie Perkins, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Camilla Perrone, Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florence, Italy
• Frederick Peters, City Institute at York University
• Jay Pitter, Author, Placemaker, Lecturer
• Scott Prudham, Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, School of the Environment, University of Toronto
• John Radford, Emeritus Professor, Department of Geography, York University
• Tracey Raney, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Katharine N Rankin, Professor, Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Veronika Reichert, Teaching Assistant, PhD Student, Department of Politics York University
• Markus Reisenleitner, Professor, Department of Humanities, York University
• Mahmud Rezaei, Assistant Professor, Architect & Urban Designer, Visiting Scholar, the City Institute at York University
• Richard Roman, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
• Herman Rosenfeld Retiree Education Department UNIFOR
• Stephanie Ross, Associate Professor, School of Labour Studies, York
• E. Natalie Rothman, Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Historical and Cultural Studies, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Sue Ruddick, Professor, Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Parastou Saberi, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Geography, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
• Lake Sagaris, Investigador y Profesor Asociado Adjunto, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
• Anders Sandberg, Professor, Environmental Studies, York University
• Richard Saunders, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Rebecca Schein, Human Rights/Interdisciplinary Studies, Carleton University
• Dayna Nadine Scott, York Research Chair in Environmental Law & Justice in the Green Economy
• Jo Sharma; Associate Professor, University of Toronto Scarborough
• John Shields, Professor Dept. of Politics and Public Administration Ryerson University
• Tyler Shipley, Professor of Culture, Society and Commerce, Department of Liberal Studies, Humber College
• Joel Shore, Professor of Biology, York University.
• Myer Siemiatycki, Professor, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University
• Brian C.J. Singer, Dept. of Sociology, Glendon, York University
• David Skinner, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies, York University
• Charles Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, University Saskatchewan
• André Sorensen, Professor, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Luisa Sotomayor, PhD, Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• Elaine Stavro, Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Trent
• Arne S. Steinforth, Department of Anthropology, York
• Lindsay Stephens, Course Instructor, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto, Scarborough
• Andrew Stevens, Associate Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina
• Donald Swartz, Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton
• Richard Swift Author and Educator Canadian Dimension
• Zack Taylor, Director, Centre for Urban Policy and Local Governance, University of Western Ontario
• Roza Tchoukaleyska, Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies, Memorial University of Newfoundland
• Sam Tecle, PhD candidate, Sociology, York University
• Mark Thomas, Associate Professor, Sociology, York University
• Neil Thomlinson, Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson
• Stefan Treffers, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, York University
• Eric Tucker, Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York
• Steven Tufts, Associate Professor, Geography, York University
• Ethel Tungohan, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, York
• Murat Ucoglu, Phd candidate, FES, York University
• Peter Vandergeest, Professor, Geography, York University
• Krys Verrall Adjunct Faculty Department of Humanities York University
• Peter A. Victor Emeritus Professor, York University
• Ron Vogel, Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration. Ryerson University
• David Wachsmuth, Canada Research Chair in Urban Governance, McGill University
• Sarah Wakefield, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Alan Walks, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Toronto – Mississauga
• John Warkentin, Professor Emeritus, Geography, York University
• Traci Warkentin, Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
• James Watson, PhD candidate, Department of Sociology, McMaster
• Elizabeth Watters, Lecturer, School of Social Work, York University
• Christopher Webb, PhD Candidate, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• Reg Whitaker, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, York
• Daphne Winland, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, York University
• Patricia Wood, Professor, Department of Geography, York University
• Jenny Wüstenberg, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, York
• B.H. Yael, Professor, Integrate Media, Faculty of Art, OCAD University
• Douglas Young, Associate Professor, Dept of Social Science, York University
• Kathy L. Young, Professor, Geography, York U
• Anna Zalik, Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University

*

L’8 agosto ha fatto scalo nel porto di Livorno la Liberty Passion (Passione per la Libertà) e il 2 settembre la Liberty Promise (Promessa di Libertà), che saranno seguite il 9 ottobre dalla Liberty Pride (Orgoglio di Libertà).

Le tre navi ritorneranno quindi a Livorno, in successione, il 10 novembre, il 15 dicembre e il 12 gennaio.

Sono enormi navi Ro/Ro, lunghe 200 metri e con 12 ponti, capaci ciascuna di trasportare 6.500 automobili. Non trasportano però automobili, ma carrarmati.

Fanno parte di una flotta statunitense di 63 navi appartenenti a compagnie private che, per conto del Pentagono, trasportano in continuazione armi in un circuito mondiale tra i porti statunitensi, mediterranei, mediorientali e asiatici.

Il principale scalo mediterraneo è Livorno, perché il suo porto è collegato alla limitrofa base statunitense di Camp Darby.

Quale sia l’importanza della base lo ha ricordato il colonnello Erik Berdy, comandante della guarnigione in Italia dello Us Army, in una recente visita al quotidiano «La Nazione» di Firenze.

La base logistica, situata tra Pisa e Livorno, costituisce il più grande arsenale Usa fuori dalla madrepatria. Il colonnello non ha specificato quale sia il contenuto dei 125 bunker di Camp Darby.

Esso può essere stimato in oltre un milione di proiettili di artiglieria, bombe per aerei e missili, cui si aggiungono migliaia di carrarmati, veicoli e altri materiali militari.

Non si può escludere che nella base vi siano state, vi siano o possano esservi in futuro anche bombe nucleari.

Camp Darby – ha sottolineato il colonnello – svolge un ruolo chiave, rifornendo le forze terrestri e aree statunitensi in tempi molto più brevi di quanto occorrerebbe se venissero rifornite direttamente dagli Usa.

La base ha fornito la maggior parte delle armi per le guerre contro l’Iraq, la Jugoslavia, la Libia e l’Afghanistan.

Dal marzo 2017, con le grandi navi che mensilmente fanno scalo a Livorno, le armi di Camp Darby vengono trasportate in continuazione nei porti di Aqaba in Giordania, Gedda in Arabia Saudita e altri scali mediorientali per essere usate dalle forze statunitesi e alleate nelle guerre in Siria, Iraq e Yemen.

Nel suo viaggio inaugurale la Liberty Passion ha sbarcato ad Aqaba, nell’aprile 2017, 250 veicoli militari e altri materiali. Tra le armi che ogni mese vengono trasportate via mare da Camp Darby a Gedda, vi sono certamente anche bombe Usa per aereo che l’aviazione saudita impiega (come risulta da prove fotografiche) per fare strage di civili nello Yemen.

Vi sono inoltre seri indizi che, nel collegamento mensile tra Livorno e Gedda, le grandi navi trasportino anche bombe per aereo fornite dalla Rwm Italia di Domusnovas (Sardegna) all’Arabia Saudita per la guerra nello Yemen.

In seguito all’accresciuto transito di armi da Camp Darby, non basta più il collegamento via canale e via strada della base col porto di Livorno e l’aeroporto di Pisa. È stata quindi decisa una massiccia riorganizzazione delle infrastrutture (confermata dal colonnello Berdy), comprendente una nuova ferrovia.

Il piano comporta l’abbattimento di 1.000 alberi in un’area protetta, ma è già stato approvato dalle autorità italiane.

Tutto questo non basta.

Il presidente del Consiglio regionale toscano Giani (Pd), ricevendo il colonnello Berdy, si è impegnato a promuovere «l’integrazione tra la base militare Usa di Camp Darby e la comunità circostante».

Posizione sostanzialmente condivisa dal sindaco di Pisa Conti (Lega) e da quello di Livorno Nogarin (M5S). Quest’ultimo, ricevendo il colonnello Berdy e poi l’ambasciatore Usa Eisenberg, ha issato sul Comune la bandiera a stelle e strisce.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO PANDORATV :

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Andy Steele (AS): Dr. Leroy Hulsey got a BS in civil engineering I 1965 from the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy and an MS in civil engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla in 1966. He did post-graduate work at the University of Illinois at the Ph.D. level from 1968 to 1971, and in 1976 he got his Ph.D. in structural engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla. He has owned and run three high-tech engineering research corporations and has extensive teaching and research experience. Currently he’s the chair of the civil engineering and environmental engineering department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

We’re going to be talking about the World Trade Center 7 Study, giving an important update to our audience. He’s here to do that. First, Dr. Hulsey, I just want to welcome you back to 9/11 Free Fall.

Leroy Hulsey (LH): Thank you. I appreciate that.

AS: Before we get started, for newcomers, people who may not be aware of who you are and what the study is about, briefly tell us more about yourself and why you decided to undertake this study.

LH: One of the members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth contacted me. He is originally from the East Coast and is now located in Anchorage. He was looking for a person who could actually conduct research. So he made contact with me. That was several years ago. I turned the opportunity down to do the research work. The approach was made again and I turned it down again. The approach was made again, and I put together an estimate of what I thought it would cost to do it. The dialogue began. At that point I decided I was old enough to not worry about whether there would be any consequences to this, so I went ahead and said, “Okay, I’ll do it.”

At the end of the day, I began the study for the sole purpose of bringing the truth to what had been done previously and try to explain how this building may have come down, or may not have—I may not be able to fully explain it, but we can certainly tell you what didn’t happen. That’s what my goals have been from the very beginning—to at least establish that pattern. Right now we’re close to having everything completed.

AS: Please tell us what the study is, and also tell us what a finite element analysis is, exactly, for the layman.

LH: Okay, so as a forensic engineer, I would typically like to take a building that has come down and try to explain every little detail of what may have happened, what may have transpired. And typically you would have the broken elements of the building there to sort your way through, to have metallurgical tests done on the samples. You’d do all kinds of investigations on various parts and pieces in the laboratory. And then through that process that’s the experimental process.

And then from there you would develop basically a computer model to simulate what that building truly was in the real world.

That is what we often call a finite element model, meaning that we take the system in its entirety and break it up in discrete little pieces and then put it all back together, so it looks like the real structure.

A jigsaw puzzle is an example of taking a beautiful picture and cutting it up in all these little pieces and if put back together right, it looks the original picture.

That’s what this does, except mathematically, we can then begin to look at the stress throughout each one of those little pieces and how they connect to each other and how they respond and work together. That’s what we ended up doing—using two finite element computer programs for the whole purpose of being able to understand, as the result of certain effects, how that building might respond to those conditions.

And then we also used the two computer programs for the purpose of correlating the results to see if the two models with two different programs were giving us comparable, if not the same, results.

I also had two Ph.D. working for me—one of those is still with me, the other graduated. They did, individually, evaluations of the same stuff, so that we could correlate their thinking with each other.

And also, as a third quality control standard, I then reviewed their work. So the process was checked and checked and rechecked to ensure that what we were doing was accurate and that our interpretations of the results were the same.

Now keep in mind, when I said that initially, as a forensic engineer, I would start experimentally, we didn’t have that option here. We did not have the option of having parts and pieces and crumbled debris to be able to evaluate the materials. That just wasn’t an option for us. However, what we did use was the erection drawings: Take those erection drawings, which is what the building was built by, and from that create our computer models. But we were not able to correlate against experimental damages that were out there in the field. That was all hauled away before we ever had access to it, unfortunately.

And so, though that is an issue that concerned me. But we feel like what we’ve done is quite accurate and quite understandable and very beneficial to help you understand what may have actually happened here.

What you haven’t seen anything about—I made a presentation on September 6^th last year. I haven’t said anything since. Since September 6^th we’ve been working on progressive collapse and those issues.

At that time, I said very clearly and emphatically that fire did not bring this building down. Since then, we’ve been looking at various aspects of what the building collapse might look like. Right now I can tell you, without anybody seeing it yet, that if you take our building and put it in a video beside the real building coming down, the two side by side, they look almost identical, which is quite different than what you’ve seen previously by the analysis that was done by NIST. Their building looks quite different in the way it comes down versus the way the true building came down.

So at this point in time, we are effectively about two weeks from having all of the analysis done on the progressive collapse. We’re basically just going through and refining it. Then we will have a report by the end of the year. The idea there is to try to have sufficient people reviewing our work to provide a peer review of our effort. That would be in the structural area, perhaps the materials side, perhaps the architectural side, so that we have truly a quality review by the peers.

So that’s where we are. We’re close to being done. We intend to have everything written by somewhere before the end of the year.

AS: Right. And it’s impressive work. I know a lot of effort has been put into it by yourself, by the graduate students. And this is a very important study that is coming out here. I mean, it’s probably one of the most important ones in our century currently. And I’m not overstating it, because this is a very controversial issue. A lot of engineers are not satisfied with the story that we’ve gotten from NIST. A lot of family members are not satisfied. And this is actually doing what NIST should have done.

I want to go back to what you said about how your model looks more like the building as it comes down as opposed to NIST’s, which, from my own layman point of view, looks like one of those novelty soda cans crinkling in the Spencer shops—you know, that twists around.

I just want you to analyze that a little bit. What do you think you did differently from NIST to achieve that outcome?

LH: Well, it’s not completely clear everything they did for progressive collapse, but here’s a couple things that they did do which effects their results. When they modeled the building, they only modeled the connections over part of the floor system. The other part they approximated by what’s called pins and joints—fixed joints and so forth. It turns out that the stiffness within those two areas are quite different by making that decision to try to simplify computer time, if that’s what they were doing.

They actually affected the behavior of the structure. And so if you take that idea and you progress it all the way to the 47 stories and begin to look at what happened if you take out some floors and take out some columns and the building starts coming down, you’ll notice that part of that building is quite different in looks than the other part of the building. That’s where the stiffness values are changing.

What we’ve done is model the building with connections. We simulated those connections accurately and put in springs to save computer time. But those springs act like the true connections in the building. When you do that, you actually want to get a representation that is highly accurate of what that building would be subjected to if you put a load on it.

So that’s at least one of the differences.

AS: It’s just interesting that you can do this—recreate the building, throw it through all these different scenarios. We’re going to talk about the different scenarios you’ve tried. But first, for the audience, please describe NIST’s collapse scenario—what they said happened inside the building to make it look like a controlled demolition and how you went about trying to simulate it. You’ve touched on this already, but what steps did you do to try to get that entire internal structure to go down and leave that exterior standing?

LH: Well, I don’t know that I’m prepared today to give you all the details of what NIST did. I can tell you how they were looking at column 79 coming down and affecting the floors down below, and the number of floors that were affected. The vertical supporting lateral restraint on the north side only was from floor 8 to floor 13, and they had lateral support buckling initiated over nine floors. That was their argument of what may have actually happened during the collapse. We attempted to do that same simulation and we could not get anywhere close to the answers that they were talking about—using two different computer programs, two different individuals trying to accomplish that same task. There’s just no way that that could’ve occurred, according to our results and our studies.

We’ve taken a look at things quite differently than NIST did. Their argument was that the floor was not compositely connected to the girders and didn’t have shear connectors on the beams, and so all of that would affect the behavior. Actually, we found that they did have shear connectors on their girders. We studied it with shear connectors and without shear connectors and found that there was sufficient friction to enable that thing to behave—particularly since there were shear connectors on the beams, and there’s no argument about that.

So, consequently, the floor stiffness was quite a bit significantly better than they thought it was. And so when you take a look at that massive concrete resistance, with the floor systems and the beams and the girders all working together as a unit, it’s going to take a tremendous effort to get that to start acting like they were suggesting it had to do.

Furthermore, what we determined is that they treated the exterior walls as fixed. That simply was not the case. So we actually applied the connections that actually were installed in the building as springs and simulated the behavior around the exterior of the building as well as the interior of the building to get the performance. So when it begins to move, there is some resistance to rotation, but not a lot.

Furthermore, it’s pretty interesting to make sure that if we looked at the concrete floor, it should be connected to the girders and the beams but not necessarily to the columns. So that we looked at as well to evaluate the potential influence of the floor and the beam-girder system and the column system and how that all interacted.

The other thing we did which was quite a bit different in terms of the behavior is we actually attempted to get an understanding of the aggregate that was actually used at the job site. Those aggregates have a certain behavioral characteristic both thermally as well as mechanically.

AS: Before you continue, what is an aggregate, for our audience?

LH: Broken rocks and sand.

AS: Okay.

LH: They put it into cement and water and they stir it up and they take it out to the job site and they pour it—they place it in a set of form and it hardens. And then they use floats to actually float it down. If it’s a trowel finish they trowel it, and then you get a smooth floor system out of it. Once it’s hardened, then it carries load as well.

Okay, so then we begin to look at the potential ways that this building could come down. Now keep in mind, we should not forget that we have video of some of building as it comes down. There’s just no doubt about that. The top 26 stories we can see everything that’s going on, at least on one side or two.

So if you take our building and you put it there and you subject it to some condition, what happens to your building? What is it going to take to make that building act like the true building? At that point in time, we began to look at alternate things that might have occurred.

Lots and lots and lots of people argue that, okay, the interior columns came out first, they went down, and they dragged the exterior columns in, and they buckled and it folded down upon itself.

Well, if you look at the video, that couldn’t have happened.

And if you look at the video, in another sense there’s an exterior surface on that wall system and that exterior surface is not very structural. So if there’s any movement relative to one column to another, one member to another, you’re going to see it on the surface of that sheathing. And you just don’t see much.

Therefore, that tells you automatically, if it’s not bending with respect to its neighbor, not moving with respect to its neighbor, then the two neighbors are going down together. And if that’s the case, there’s no relative displacement between the edges, which means that there’s no warping and there’s no bending and there’s no rippling and there’s no—any of that stuff on that surface.

That being said, that’s telling you that it’s a free fall condition. So that’s what we’re finding right now.

AS: One thing about this whole issue that I think makes it very difficult is the disagreement over certain facts. And I’ll use one example. In NIST’s report, they claim there is raging fires under the beams that pushed the girder off its seat, but when you look at the actual pictures of an hour before, the fires are out in the area of collapse initiation. So now this takes it into a realm where it’s not just a math problem you give to high school students—you know, 5 plus 7, this is the answer, and one guy does it right and one guy does it wrong—but it’s taking in different evidence points. And NIST, in my view, was selectively making the evidence—fitting it with the results that they wanted to come to. How much did that affect your research into this study?

LH: What we did is, we said: “Okay, we’re not going to argue with you about the fires. We’ll just take those fires and use them, which is a worse scenario than is truly out there. And if we can’t determine the same thing you did with that, then obviously one of us is wrong.”

So that’s what we did. And we determined a number of things through that process. First of all, we put the fires there. We let it move. And the first thing we discovered is their movement of five and a half inches—when they first said that it moved off and shoved off the support and that enabled column 79 to not be braced and it came buckling down. Well, guess what: They forgot the fact that there was a stiffener plate there that prevented it from being able to be shoved off.

Secondly, there were a number of factors associated with that whole scenario. They also were looking at the expansion of the girder and on the floor system. And if you really stop and take a look at that, when you heat up a floor, it’s going to start moving with respect to the stiffest point. And what NIST did is that they fixed the exterior walls, and when they did that, the floor system moved away from the exterior wall system. And therefore it shoved it. They claimed it shoved it five and a half inches—they later said, I think, it was around six inches—off of that seat. But, again, there was a stiffener there, and it couldn’t have happened.

But in our analysis, we did not lock in that exterior wall. We put the connections that were actually built into the building there—as well as the rest of it—and let that thing move. And when it moved, it did not move from the exterior wall inward towards column 79, it moved just the opposite. So we were getting horizontal movements in the neighborhood of one point two (1.2) inches, maybe two inches, not five and a half or six inches. So there was just no way it was going to move off of anything.

That automatically says, okay, what they’re saying is not one of those things that could’ve happened.

Now, the next question to is ask yourself, “Okay, so were these fires. Really? Where did the combustibles come from?” We’re talking about fires on floors much of which were conditions of business or secure information. Don’t you think that that stuff would’ve been locked up in files and cases, and not out on the desk? And even if was out on the desks, are there enough combustibles to keep that fire raging for that many hours? I just don’t think so.

So there are just so many issues with respect to what they were coming up with in terms of a solution, and it was not consistent with what was actually built there.

Furthermore, what I did, which was a lot different than they, I attempted to get the actual aggregate for the floor, dolomite. I looked at the thermal expansion and—I wrote a paper about this some years ago, about what it takes to expand the concrete with different aggregates and how that correlates with the steel expansion; they are different.

I saw no evidence where they actually considered the floor system expanding at a different rate than the girders and the beams. So all of that also impacted the end result.

We looked at all those issues very carefully and looked at the possibility of whether the building could actually have come down as they said it would. And I see no—nothing in our analysis shows that could’ve even remotely been possible.

AS: Now you talk about “remotely possible”: The scenario of this girder getting pushed off its seat and all these internal failures happening to cause the inside come down and leave the exterior standing as a shell for a few moments before it comes down—and that’s why it lookslike a controlled demolition, according to them—can the exterior columns ever still stand if the core columns have failed?

LH: Well, I don’t know. I can tell you that we were not able to get that to happen. Our analysis does not show that that’s a possibility. We tried to simulate whether they actually buckled inward, as many people argue. We tried to simulate all those conditions, and we used more than one computer program. We even took simpler models to examine the theory behind that whole phenomenon, and it became very clear that that was not going to happen.

So, that means something else is happening—right?—to get the conditions they saw.

AS: Let’s get into something else there. First I want to ask: What other scenarios were plugged into the finite element analysis besides what they were claiming happened?

LH: You mean by them or by us?

AS: By NIST, with the official story, obviously you want to check that scenario. But what other scenarios? Because there are people who come out of the woodwork and say, “Well, maybe NIST got it wrong, but I don’t believe it’s controlled demolition. Maybe this or that happened instead.” They’ll throw out theories. What other ideas were looked into?

LH: I don’t know that I can be prepared to talk about every little detail that NIST did in that regard today, but I can tell you that we looked at every aspect of what we thought could happen in that scenario. And you’ve got to remember something: This building is not symmetrical. Because it’s not symmetrical, if something happens some place within the building, it’s not going to come straight down. It’s going to come down at an angle or rotate or any number of things, because the centroid of that building is not in the middle. It’s just not. And so if there are things that are going on that cause it to come straight down, then there’s got to be influences to make that happen. And I didn’t see a lot of evidence where they were doing a big study about that thought.

We have extensively studied that carefully. I’m not going to tell you that it’s controlled demolition. I’m going to tell you that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure we have ended up with a result that looks very, very comparable to what the building actually went through when it came down.

AS: Now in terms of those modes of failure that look like the way the building came down, could you get into that with our audience?

LH: I can tell you that we looked at several floor levels, taking out the interior columns. The core columns. And then we delayed the coming down of the exterior columns and we determined that wasn’t what really happened because the behavior was totally different. The columns, if they were going to fold inward, didn’t happen. We tried everything. We looked at the individual column-buckling behavior from the bottom of the substation all the way to the top. We looked at various aspects of every single column to try to understand what it would take to do what many people think it did. We couldn’t ever get it to do those things.

So then we started looking at severing the exterior columns as well. And when we began to do that, then the behavior of the system begins to look a lot like the—and I’m talking about after or just simultaneously to the interior columns—then you’re getting a behavior that’s very, very similar to what you see in the video.

AS: What could cause those columns to sever in those moments? What natural phenomenon do you think could cause that many core columns to just break at the same time to give us what we saw that day?

LH: I don’t believe there is a natural phenomenon that’s going to do that.

AS: Well, I will let our audience draw their own conclusions from that statement. Obviously, the report is going to be coming out very soon—by the end of the year. They can look into this in more detail when it does come out. What’s next? I mean, you touched on this before, but when you’re all completed, all the work is done, you said it’s going to be published as a paper. Please describe that process for our audience so they can know what to expect.

LH: I don’t believe it’s going to be one paper. I think it’s going to be several papers.

Before I get there, let me talk about something else that’s really kind of an important idea here. If it truly was fire, as NIST believes it is, or say they believe it to be, then there had to be a professional responsibility to change the codes so that we as structural engineers of record can prevent a failure like this in the future. Yet nothing like that was done, to my knowledge.

Secondly, if it was not fire and was something else, then there’s a responsibility to make people aware of what really did truly happen. And I don’t see that evidence either.

So if there was a fire issue, then there had to be a responsibility to change and update the codes to protect against future fire damages.

But if you go back and you look at history, take a look at the number of buildings that have come down because of fire—ha, there aren’t any.

So, at the end of the day, that gives you some indication of the fact that this building—there are more questions than there are answers.

Now, coming back to the question you asked: We will probably submit several papers for publication. And right now my Ph.D. student is working on about four papers in his Ph.D. Three of those are not related to World Trade Center 7 but they are related to fires and to fire testing and to fire codes and to fire responsive behavior. And the last paper is on the progressive collapse of this building.

I expect there to be at least four papers come of out this study—and I’m talking about in respected journals around the country. I’m not overly optimistic that they will be published in this country. I’m probably going to submit them in Europe or some place like that where people are more receptive to reviewing them scientifically, and maybe there won’t be as much politics involved in what may or may not have happened here.

AS: Yeah, to me, from what I’ve experienced, it’s not even a question of science, it’s a question of politics—and psychology, too. Because a lot of what holds people back from doing a fair analysis is preconceived notions that they won’t let go of. But I do want to see this out around the world. I know the difficulties we face her in the United States in getting information about this building out. What kind of challenges do you expect to find when the paper is published? What do you anticipate are the criticisms or problems that people are going to try to find with the work?

LH: You know, I don’t even know. I don’t know that there could be too many challenges if it’s published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, because those are supposed to be scientists that review it and agree that the science is correct.

If people start criticizing that work, then I guess an approach is to say, “Okay, show me where there are problems. Show me why yours is better. Show me what you can do to prove that something is different than what we said it is.”

AS: That is how science works. That is how we come to truth. And I think that is the best answer that I could’ve heard. You’re a teacher, and you have to deal with students throughout the year, and you talk to them about the profession that they want to take on—a very important profession. Every time we step into a building, we see the good work of people like Dr. Hulsey here, as the building doesn’t come down. They’re very sturdy and last for years and that requires a lot of education. What particular ramifications, for the engineering community, and your students going into their careers, will this study and this issue have, in your view?

LH: Well, I think somewhere along the way we’ve got to come to a realization that it was either a fire or it wasn’t. If it’s a fire then the code needs to change—if it was a fire failure then the code needs to change. If it was not, then say that, and get on with the business at hand, and we move and we fire-protect the buildings just like we have always. Or maybe do a little better job, but at least realize that it’s going to take a lot to have a problem.

AS: Dr. Hulsey, I think that is a very good update. You gave us your time frame. You told us some about what your findings were. I just want to know now, do you have any final thoughts or anything that you want to get out there to the audience that I didn’t think to ask you today?

LH: Well, I don’t know how well we’re going to be able to do this, but it’s my intention right now to show the building video as it’s coming down and beside it, our anticipated failure type, with our building coming down in the same framework of the video, so you could see it coming down, and the time it takes for it come down, and the way it comes down, comparison one by one, those two side by side. That’s what I want to show. If this is really very, very good—and I anticipate it to be really good—then the layman can see, without having to worry about the science, here’s what our analysis shows, here’s what the building did.

AS: Well, that is going to be available for everybody to see. I know there’s going to be a lot of interest in this. So, when we have the video, we’ll direct everybody to it. Dr. Hulsey, I know it’s been a long time you’ve been at this. Believe me, I know what it’s like to be on a projects for a number of years and be coming towards the completion of it. I’m working on one right now. So I appreciate all the hard work that you and your students have put into this. Looking forward to the results. And thank you so much for coming on 9/11 Free Fall.

LH: You betcha. You have a good evening and a good day.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ethiopia is a landlocked country, bordering on Somalia which is dominating the Horn of Africa. Due to several border conflicts during the past decades with Somalia, many of them supportive of Ethiopia by the US military, the border between the two countries has become porous and ill-defined. Ethiopia is also bordering on Djibouti, where the United States has a Naval Base, Camp Lemonnier, next to Djibouti’s international airport. The base is under AFRICOM, the Pentagon’s African Command. AFRICOM has its boots in Ethiopia, as it does in many other African countries.

Ethiopia’s new Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, has already demonstrated that he is poised to hand over his country to western interests, vultures, such as the World Bank, IMF and eventually the globalized Wall Street banking clan. In fact, it looks like these institutions were instrumental in manipulating parliamentary maneuvers, with arm-twisting of the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) to make Mr. Abyi the new Prime Minister, succeeding Mr. Hailemariam Desalegn, who rather suddenly was forced to resign in February 2018, amidst endless foreign induced protests and violent street demonstrations. With EPRDF Ethiopia is a de facto one-party state. EPRDF is a coalition of different regional representations.

Read also Ethiopia – Breaking the Dam for Western Debt Slavery. 

Proud Ethiopia, has never been colonized by western powers per se, except for a brief Italian military occupation (1935 – 1939) by Mussolini. And now, in the space of a few months, since Mr. Abiy’s ascent to power, the country is being enslaved by the new western colonial instruments, the so-called international development institutions, the World Bank, IMF – and others will follow. 

Mr. Abiy is an Oromo leader; Oromia being a disputed area between Ethiopia and Somalia. The latter is effectively controlling the Horn of Africa, overseeing the Gulf of Aden (Yemen) and the entire Iran controlled Persian Gulf area. Control over the Horn of Africa is on Washington’s strategic wish list and may have become an attainable target, with the Oromo leader and new PM, Abiy Ahmed.

Think about it – Yemen, another ultra-strategic location, being bombed to ashes by the Saudis on behalf of the western powers, primarily the US and the UK, being subdued for domination by the west wanting to control the Gulf area, foremost Iran and her riches. On the other hand, Ethiopia, a prime location as an assault basis for drones, war planes and ships.

Curiously, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, a former rebel leader, elected in 1991 and in power for 21 years, died suddenly at age 57 in August 2012, while actually recovering from an undisclosed illness in a hospital abroad, allegedly from an infection – according to official Ethiopian state television. He was succeeded by Mr. Hailemariam, who last February had to resign. 

In the same vein of strange events – events to reflect on – PM Zenawi, about 18 months before he died, signed on 31 March 2011 a no-bid contract for US$ 4.8 billion with ‘Salini Costruttori’, alias Salini Impregilo. The Italian company, well established in Ethiopia since 1957, is responsible for the construction of the controversial “Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam”, formerly the Millennium Dam on the Nile. When finished, it will be African’s largest artificial water reservoir with a capacity of 74 billion m3. 

Under construction since 2011, this gravity dam on the Blue Nile River in Ethiopia’s Benishangul-Gumuz Region, about 15 km from the Sudanese border, is expected to produce 6.45 gigawatts which will make it the largest hydroelectric power plant in Africa and the 7^th largest in the world. The works are about two thirds completed, and the dam will take from 5 to 15 years to fill up.

The project was fiercely contested by Egypt which claimed that the dam would reduce the agreed amount of Nile water flowing into Egypt. However, Prime Minister Zenawi argued that the dam would not reduce the downstream flow, and – in addition to generating hydropower and making Ethiopia Africa’s largest electricity exporter, would help regulate irrigation, thus, helping to avert Ethiopia’s notorious droughts and famines that kill regularly tens of thousands of people. Indications are that this dam project could become an economic “power house” for Ethiopia, a country otherwise known as impoverished and destitute. 

This water flow conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt was discussed in numerous meetings and conferences of the World Bank sponsored Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), encompassing ten riparian countries (Burundi, D.R. Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda); and about 350 – 400 million people. It is not clear whether the dispute was ever satisfactorily settled.

Mr. Zenawi’s successor, PM Hailemariam Desalegn, continued with the project unchallenged and unchanged until his sudden resignation earlier this year. At the end of August 2018, in a surprise move, the new PM, Abiy Ahmed, ousted the dam project’s subcontractor, METEC, under the pretext of numerous work delays. METEC is a state enterprise run by the Ethiopian military. According to several insider accounts, there were never any complaints about project delays, caused by METEC. The new sub-contract was to be awarded to a foreign private company.

Simultaneously, in another alarming occurrence, on 26 August 2018, Mr. Simegnew Bekele, the chief engineer and project manager of the controversial dam, was found murdered, shot to death, in his Landcruiser in an Addis Ababa parking lot.

The series of events, starting from the signing of the dam project in 2011, to the sudden death of then PM Zenawi a year later, the resignation of his successor, Mr. Hailemariam, earlier this year, the hasty appointment of the neoliberal PM Abiy Ahmed in February 2018, the assassination of the dam’s project manager in August 2018 – all this looks like well-orchestrated, with a few hick-ups in between that were rapidly ironed out – to pave the way for a neoliberal, corporate and maybe foreign military take-over of this once proudly independent country, an African nation with a potentially prosperous future.

*

This leads to the other side of the same coin, the west is interested in.

With a population of about 104 million (2018 est.), Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Sub-Saharan Africa and one of the most densely populated ones, with an annual population growth rate of about 2.5%. Ethiopia is known for endemic poverty and her periodic droughts. Ethiopia is also the world’s second fastest growing non-oil economy (after Bhutan), having increased her GDP more than ten-fold since 2000, from US$ 8 billion to US$ 80.6 billion in 2017, however with a nominal GDP of only US$850, or US$2,100 PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). 

Agriculture contributes about 36% to GDP, indicating a considerable growth potential with regulated irrigation expected to emanate from the Renaissance Dam project. Economic expansion amounted to more than 10% in 2017 and is projected at close to 9% per year through 2019. 

This economic profile, plus the potential increase in output from the Grand Renaissance Dam, offer more than fertile grounds for corporate exploitation through debt enslavement and privatization of public, civil and social services. This has already started. Ethiopia’s current debt is a modest 33.5% of GDP – but is predicted to grow to at least 70% by 2022. – Why?

In November 2017 the World Bank has committed US$ 4.7 billion over the coming 5 years, roughly a billion per year – which may be called blank checks. These funds are destined for structural adjustment type activities, for loosely defined and little controlled budget support measures, much of which, as worldwide experience shows, is likely to ‘disappear’ unproductively, leaving behind public debt – and what’s much worse, a plethora of austerity conditions, from cutting public employment, to privatization of water, electricity and other public services, as well as ‘land-grabbing’ type agricultural concessions to foreign agricultural enterprises. 

The latter will be especially attractive, thanks to the new regulated irrigation potential, making Ethiopia’s desert fertile – but leaving hardly any additional food at affordable prices for the impoverished population in the country. Frequently such land concessions come with long-term GMO contracts attached. Bayer-Monsanto may already be a player in Ethiopia’s future agricultural sector. If so, the country may not only be enslaved by debt, but also by endless, oppressive, land-destructive GMO contracts that bear high risks for human health.

Such a WB commitment will usually be followed by an IMF intervention, both of which will serve as leverage for further debt from private banking and corporate investors. The modest 2017 debt ratio of about one third to GDP may explode and skyrocket in the near future, making Ethiopia to the Greece of Africa, shamelessly exploited and “milked” to the bones by western corporate and financial interests.

Fortunately, there are other economic interests alive in Africa and especially in Ethiopia. There is, for example, China, for whom Ethiopia is a key partner and a linchpin for President Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive China-initiated infrastructure development plan, spanning the globe from east to west, via different routes, one of them via Africa. Although China has become cautious over the past years with direct investments in Ethiopia, mainly due to the lasting unrests, said to be over ‘territorial issues’, Ethiopia remains an important partner, because of its strategic location next to the tiny port of Djibouti, where China has a naval base. Ethiopia is also attractive for manufacturing with low-cost labor and because of her transport links to other African countries, and a potentially large consumer market.

Chinese, Russian and other eastern investments are usually based on mutual benefits, in contrast to the western one-sided exploitation method. Hopefully, Chinese, Russian and other eastern investments may continue as a strong counter-balance to the west, and help bringing a more equitable development model not only to Ethiopia, but to the African Continent in general. In fact, recent statements by the leaders of South Africa, Ghana and Rwanda have praised Chinese investments over the western abusive ‘carrot and stick approach’. With the help of China, Russia and other eastern investors, Ethiopia might prevent western vultures from devouring the poverty struck nation and from falling into the trap of neoliberal, everything-goes “free market ideology” – to the detriment of the Ethiopian population. 

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21^st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Tankers at Strait of Malacca (Source: author)

Indonesia (RI), the 4^th most populous nation on Earth and the country with the largest Muslim population is, and since the 1965 US-orchestrated anti-Communist coup has been, the most radically pro-Western and anti-socialist place in Asia.

This is where you could end up in prison for publicly declaring that you are a Communist, or just an atheist. And this is where Western pop music, junk food and brutally meaningless Hollywood blockbusters are rubbing shoulders with the Saudi-style interpretation of Islam; with Wahhabism, that has been spread with the direct involvement of the US, UK and other Western countries.

The more intolerant Indonesia gets, the more ‘tolerant’ it is called by its ally and patron – the West. The most miserable and unprotected the Indonesian masses get, the more their country defined is as a ‘democracy’. 

Indonesian racism against the Chinese people (and in fact everything Chinese) has been legendary, and always welcomed and encouraged by Washington, London and Canberra.

After 1965, for several decades until the Presidency of Abdurrahman Wahid (the progressive Muslim cleric who had been deposed during a constitutional coup in 2001), everything Chinese was banned in Indonesia, including Chinese characters, language, publications, films, and even red lamps, cakes and dragons. The same went for things Soviet, or Russian, although that was never directly specified.

The West scored a great victory in Indonesia. It ‘lost’ Vietnam and Laos, but it gained an entire archipelago overflowing with natural resources; the place that it has been plundering brutally and consistently, from 1965 until now. It helped to shape a country hopelessly corrupt, ruled by servile elites who have been interested exclusively in their own profits, while in the process sacrificing the greatly impoverished majority of badly educated and religiously and ideologically (by the West and by the extreme capitalist dogmas) indoctrinated people.  

*

Indonesia ‘absorbed’ a substantial number of Chinese post-revolution religious ‘exiles’, particularly right-wing Christian priests and preachers, who settled down in the cities like Surabaya, and who, while relying on Western support and funding, continue spreading anti-PRC and anti-Communist propaganda.

It is very little wonder that after continuous right-wing political indoctrination and religious ‘bombardment’, collaboration with the West has been accepted by the great majority of Indonesian citizens without any soul searching or second thought. Jakarta ‘cooperates’ openly and proudly with the US, UK, Australia and other Western countries (as well as with Japan) especially when it comes to politics, diplomacy, but also the economy and even military.

This fact is often overlooked by left-wing analysts, while it is being taken for granted by the West. But the aggressive/servile position of the country has been ruining tens of millions of lives in Indonesia itself, as well as abroad (the genocide committed by the Indonesian troops in East Timor killed approximately 30% of human beings there, while further hundreds of thousands have been murdered in an ongoing genocide in occupied part of Papua).

*

It is worth noting the toadying language of the ‘official’ English-language pro-Western anti-left daily newspaper of Indonesia, “The Jakarta Post”, which on August 31, 2018, ran the front-page story titled “RI Joins in US-led Exercise”:

“Indonesia together with several South and Southeast Asian states, are participating in a United States-led exercise to strengthen cooperation and training in tackling maritime security challenges, which also promoting US foreign policy goals in the region.”

Appalling grammar is not the only problem. The Jakarta Post actually proudly describes the exercises that are expected to run until September 7:

“While the exercise is aimed at increasing information sharing among regional partners against transnational crime, the US also said in was one of the avenues to promote its free and open Indo-Pacific strategy”.

In short: to keep antagonizing and provoking China.

Then comes a piece of useful information:

“Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson said the US believed the exercises were “critical in achieving our US foreign policy goals and strengthening our relationship with our partners in the Indo-Pacific region…” Defense cooperation between the US and Indonesia had never been stronger, Thompson said, noting the US$2.3 billion of combined defense trade between direct commercial sales and foreign military sales.”

Of course, Indonesia is not the only country in the region which is participating in these exercises. Other staunch allies of the West are ‘on board’ as well, among them Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore.

But Indonesia is a colossus, at least in terms of the population, its natural resources and geographical location. And it is sitting right at the strategic waterway – Strait of Malacca. 

Of course, it is poor, isolated and thoroughly indoctrinated, precisely as the West likes its ‘client’ states to be.

It exports jihadi cadres wherever the West needs them (from Afghanistan where they fought against the Soviet Union, to Syria and Sothern Philippines during the last years), it supports ‘free trade’ and unbridled capitalism, and it robs its own people on behalf of the foreign powers. Only those cynical and ruthless ‘elites’ of Indonesia have been benefiting from the situation. With great zeal, they used to serve Dutch colonizers, then Japanese. Now they are selling themselves and their country to the West in general, while ruling over their unfortunate people with an iron fist.

Indonesia buys weapons using money it gets from plundering its natural resources. And it strongly dislikes China and ferociously attacks everything left of the center. The West is, naturally, giving it standing ovations.

As the world is once again getting polarized, between the imperialist West (plus its dependencies), and countries that are ready to defend their freedom, Indonesia is expected to play an increasingly important role on the global stage. 

This role will be, unfortunately, extremely negative, at least from the point of view of those brave nations that are ready to confront the West and its lethal imperialism.

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Only with context can we gain insight and perspective into the horrible, barbaric 9/11 attack.

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

Scores of government officials throughout the world have admitted (either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos) to carrying out – or seriously proposing – false flag attacks:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this, this and this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked several attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. The staged attacks included:

• The German radio station at Gleiwitz [details below]

• The strategic railway at Jabłonków Pass, located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia

• The German customs station at Hochlinden

• The forest service station in Pitschen

• The communications station at Neubersteich

• The railroad station in Alt-Eiche

• A woman and her companion in Katowice

The details of the Gleiwitz radio station incident include:

On the night of 31 August 1939, a small group of German operatives dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Naujocks seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German message in Polish (sources vary on the content of the message). The Germans’ goal was to make the attack and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs.

To make the attack seem more convincing, the Germans used human corpses to pass them off as Polish attackers. They murdered Franciszek Honiok, a 43-year-old unmarried German Silesian Catholic farmer known for sympathizing with the Poles. He had been arrested the previous day by the Gestapo. He was dressed to look like a saboteur, then killed by lethal injection, given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene so that he appeared to have been killed while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently presented to the police and press as proof of the attack.

(3) The minutes of the high command of the Italian government – subsequently approved by Mussolini himself – admitted that violence on the Greek-Albanian border was carried out by Italians and falsely blamed on the Greeks, as an excuse for Italy’s 1940 invasion of Greece.

(4) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

Location of Mainila on the Karelian Isthmus shown in relation to the pre-war Finnish-Soviet border. (Source: CC BY-SA 3.0)

(5) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(6) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.

(7) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews who were Holocaust survivors attempting to flee to safety in Palestine right after World War II, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).

(8) Israel admits that in 1954, 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, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

The U.S. Army does not believe this is an isolated incident. For example, the U.S. Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies said of Mossad (Israel’s intelligence service):

“Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

And former Israeli Prime Moshe Minister admitted in his diary:

I have been meditating on the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and on the many clashes we have provoked which cost us so much blood ….

(9) An official CIA history admits (and here) that  in 1954, CIA contractors flew planes painted with Guatemalan air force insignia, and then bombed targets in Guatemala. In addition, radio messages about troop movements had been pre-recorded at a CIA base in Florida. This led to the overthrow of the Guatemalan government.

(10) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(11) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

The Economist notes:

Starting in the 1950s Turkey’s deep state sponsored killings, engineered riots, colluded with drug traffickers, staged “false flag” attacks and organised massacres of trade unionists. Thousands died in the chaos it fomented.

(12) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(13) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s through the 1980s and blamed the 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” … so that “a state of emergency could be declared, so people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

The CIA also stressed to the head of the Italian program that Italy needed to use the program to control internal uprisings.

False flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include – by way of example only:

• The murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960)

• Bombings in Portugal (1966)

• The Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969)

• Terror attacks in Turkey (1971)

• The Peteano bombing in Italy (1972)

• Shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974)

• Shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977)

• The Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977)

• The abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978) (and see this)

• The bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980)

• Shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985)

(14) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]”.

(15) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(16) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan 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. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. This plan was subsequently admitted again in other declassified government documents.

Provocations considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff included:

Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims ….

***

3. A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

***

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

***

8. it is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban-aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba, The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraftand would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-national distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attackby Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to “tell” the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft-will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MiGs.

b. On One such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been Jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart.

U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff – also discussed:

The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft …. There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.

And see this.

(17) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(18) The U.S. Department of Defense also suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

A North Vietnamese P-4 engaging USS Maddox (Source: Public Domain)

(19) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war. NSA historian Robert J Hanyok writes that “the overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack had happened. So a conscious effort ensued to demonstrate that an attack occurred.”

(20) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(21) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.

(22) A declassified 1973 CIA document reveals a program to train foreign police and troops on how to make booby traps, pretending that they were training them on how to investigate terrorist acts:

The Agency maintains liaison in varying degrees with foreign police/security organizations through its field stations ….

[CIA provides training sessions as follows:]

a. Providing trainees with basic knowledge in the uses of commercial and military demolitions and incendiaries as they may be applied in terrorism and industrial sabotage operations.

b. Introducing the trainees to commercially available materials and home laboratory techniques, likely to he used in the manufacture of explosives and incendiaries by terrorists or saboteurs.

c. Familiarizing the trainees with the concept of target analysis and operational planning that a saboteur or terrorist must employ.

d. Introducing the trainees to booby trapping devices and techniques giving practical experience with both manufactured and improvised devices through actual fabrication.

***

The program provides the trainees with ample opportunity to develop basic familiarity and use proficiently through handling, preparing and applying the various explosive charges, incendiary agents, terrorist devices and sabotage techniques.

(23) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(24) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(25) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(26) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and see Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

(27) In 1993, a bomb in Northern Ireland killed 9 civilians. Official documents from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (i.e. the British government) show that the mastermind of the bombing was a British agent, and that the bombing was designed to inflame sectarian tensions. And see this and this.

(28) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this and this.

(29) Similarly, a CIA “psychological operations” manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a “martyr” for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

(30) Official German intelligence service documents admitted (original German) that, in 1994, the German intelligence services planted plutonium on an airplane coming from Russia, as a way to frameRussia for exporting dangerous radioactive materials which could end up in the hands of terrorists and criminals. This frame-up job was so successful at whipping up fear that it got German Chancellor Kohl re-elected, and the U.S. used it as an excuse to “help” secure Russia’s nuclear facilities, as a way to get access to Russian nuclear secrets.

(31) A Rwandan government inquiry admitted that the 1994 shootdown and murder of the Rwandan president, who was from the Hutu tribe – a murder blamed by the Hutus on the rival Tutsi tribe, and which led to the massacre of more than 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus – was committed by Hutu soldiers and falsely blamed on the Tutis.

(32) The Saudi government blamed Iran for the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers housing complex for American military personnel in Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi Interior Minister subsequently admitted that the attack “was executed by Saudi hands. No foreign party had any role in it”.

(33) An Indonesian government fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

Image on the right: A picture of one of 1999 Russian apartment bombings. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

(34) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(35) CIA agents and documents admit that the agency gave Iran plans for building nuclear weapons … so the U.S. could frame Iran for trying to build the bomb.

(36) As reported by the New York Times, BBC and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that in 2001, the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”. They lured foreign migrants into the country, executed them in a staged gun battle, and then claimed they were a unit backed by Al Qaeda intent on attacking Western embassies”. Specifically, Macedonian authorities had lured the immigrants into the country, and then – after killing them – posed the victims with planted evidence – “bags of uniforms and semiautomatic weapons at their side” – to show Western diplomats.

(37) At the July 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, black-clad thugs were videotaped getting out of police cars, and were seen by an Italian MP carrying “iron bars inside the police station”. Subsequently, senior police officials in Genoa admitted that police planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer at the G8 Summit, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(38) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war.

The U.S. government was so desperate to pin 9/11 on Iraq that it implemented a special type of torture on the Guantanamo suspects.   The chief lawyer for Guantanamo litigation – Vijay Padmanabhan – said that torture of 9/11 suspects was widespread.

The entire torture program was geared towards obtaining false confessions linking Iraq and 9/11.  Senator Levin revealed that the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating falseconfessions. (and see this, this, this and this).

According to NBC News:

• Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured

• At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”

• One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

• The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

(Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind also reported that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 … and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And see this and this.)

Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.

A 9/11 Commissioner and the Co-Chair of Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 both say in sworn declarations that the Saudi government is linked to the 9/11 attacks.   Top American intelligence officials admit that the CIA and Saudi Arabia conspired to keep the real details of 9/11 secret. Indeed, the U.S. went to extreme measures to destroy evidence regarding what really happened on 9/11.

Subsequently, the same judge who has shielded the Saudis from liability for funding 9/11 has awarded a default judgment against Iran for $10.5 billion for carrying out 9/11 … even though no one seriously believes that Iran had any part in 9/11.

(Many U.S. officials have also alleged that 9/11 was actually facilitated by rogue elements in the U.S. government.)

(39) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country. And see this.

(40) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(41) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(42) Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmed planting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester.

(43) In 2003, the U.S. Secretary of Defense admitted that interrogators were authorized to use the following method:

False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him.

While not a traditional false flag attack, this deception could lead to former detainees – many of whom were tortured – attacking the country falsely blamed for the interrogation and torture.

(44) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(45) Similarly, in 2005, Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School – a renowned US defense analyst credited with developing the concept of ‘netwar’ – called for western intelligence services to create new “pseudo gang” terrorist groups, as a way of undermining “real” terror networks. According to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, Arquilla’s ‘pseudo-gang’ strategy was, Hersh reported, already being implemented by the Pentagon:

“Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, US military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists…

The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls ‘action teams’ in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. ‘Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?’ the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. ‘We founded them and we financed them,’ he said. ‘The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.’ A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, ‘We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.’”

(46) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(47) In 2005, British soldiers dressed as Arabs were caught by Iraqi police after a shootout against the police. The British soldiers shot two Iraqi policemen, killing one. The soldiers apparently possessed explosives, and were accused of attempting to set off bombs. While none of the soldiers admitted that they were carrying out attacks, British soldiers and a column of 10 British tanks stormed the jail they were held in, broke down a wall of the jail, and busted them out. The extreme measures used to free the soldiers – rather than have them face questions and potentially stand trial – could be considered an admission.

(48) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(49) A very high-level French counterterrorism official, Paul Barril, admits that French, US and UK intelligence services worked together to poison Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium in 2006 in order to frame and discredit Russia. And see this.

(50) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(51) A 2008 US Army special operations field manual recommends that the U.S. military use surrogate non-state groups such as “paramilitary forces, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistant or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political ‘undesirables.’” The manual specifically acknowledged that U.S. special operations can involve both counterterrorism and “Terrorism” (as well as “transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms-dealing, and illegal financial transactions.”)

(52) The former Italian Prime Minister, President, and head of Secret Services (Francesco Cossiga) advised the 2008 minister in charge of the police, on how to deal with protests from teachers and students:

He should do what I did when I was Minister of the Interior … infiltrate the movement with agents provocateurs inclined to do anything …. And after that, with the strength of the gained population consent, … beat them for blood and beat for blood also those teachers that incite them. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly, of course, but the girl teachers yes.

(53) An undercover officer admitted that he infiltrated environmental, leftwing and anti-fascist groups in 22 countries. Germany’s federal police chief admitted that – while the undercover officer worked for the German police – he acted illegally during a G8 protest in Germany in 2007 and committed arson by setting fire during a subsequent demonstration in Berlin. The undercover officer spent many years living with violent “Black Bloc” anarchists.

(54) Denver police admitted that uniformed officers deployed in 2008 to an area where alleged “anarchists” had planned to wreak havoc outside the Democratic National Convention ended up getting into a melee with two undercover policemen. The uniformed officers didn’t know the undercover officers were cops.

(55) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(56) The oversight agency for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police admitted that – at the G20 protests in Toronto in 2010 – undercover police officers were arrested with a group of protesters. Videos and photos (see this and this, for example) show that violent protesters wore very similar boots and other gear as the police, and carried police batons. The Globe and Mail reports that the undercover officers planned the targets for violent attack, and the police failed to stop the attacks.

(57) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(58) Austin police admit that 3 officers infiltrated the Occupy protests in that city. Prosecutors admit that one of the undercover officers purchased and constructed illegal “lock boxes” which ended up getting many protesters arrested.

(59) In 2011, a Colombian colonel admitted that he and his soldiers had lured 57 innocent civilians and killed them – after dressing many of them in uniforms – as part of a scheme to claim that Columbia was eradicating left-wing terrorists. And see this.

(60) Rioters who discredited the peaceful protests against the swearing in of the Mexican president in 2012 admitted that they were paid 300 pesos each to destroy everything in their path. According to Wikipedia, photos also show the vandals waiting in groups behind police lines prior to the violence.

(61) On November 20, 2014, Mexican agent provocateurs were transported by army vehicles to participate in the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping protests, as was shown by videos and pictures distributed via social networks.

(62) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(63) Two members of the Turkish parliament, high-level American sources and others admitted that the Turkish government – a NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks in Syria and falsely blamed them on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(64) The former Director of the NSA and other American government officials admit said that the U.S. is a huge supporter of terrorism. Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. The U.S. and its allies have been supporting Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups for many decades, and providing them arms, money and logistical support in Libya, Syria, Mali, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries. U.S. allies are also directly responsible for creating and supplying ISIS.

It’s gotten so ridiculous that a U.S. Senator has introduced a “Stop Arming Terrorists Act”, and U.S. Congresswoman – who introduced a similar bill in the House – says: “For years, the U.S. government has been supporting armed militant groups working directly with and often under the command of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”

(65) Government officials on both sides of the conflict, as well as the snipers who actually pulled the trigger, all admit that shots were fired on both sides – killing both government officials and anti-government protesters in Ukraine – to create maximum chaos and destabilization.

(66) Speaking of snipers, in a secret recording, Venezuelan generals admit that they will deploy snipers to shoot protesters, but keep the marksmen well-hidden from demonstrator and the reporters covering the events so others would be blamed for the deaths.

(67) Burmese government officials admitted that Burma (renamed Myanmar) used false flag attacks against Muslim and Buddhist groups within the country to stir up hatred between the two groups, to prevent democracy from spreading.

(68) Israeli police were again filmed in 2015 dressing up as Arabs and throwing stones, then turning over Palestinian protesters to Israeli soldiers.

(69) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

(70) The CIA has admitted that it uses viruses and malware from Russia and other countries to carry out cyberattacks and blame other countries.

(71) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants.

(72) German prosecutors admit that a German soldier disguised himself as a Syrian refugee and planned to shoot people so that the attack would be blamed on asylum seekers.

(73) Police frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:

In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.

Newsweek reported in 1999:

Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot themduring a stakeout.

Wikipedia notes:

As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.

(As a side note – and while not technically false flag attacks – police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)

(74) A former U.S. intelligence officer alleged:

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

He has himself admitted to carrying out a false flag attack.

(75) A former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer admits that the CIA carried out false flag operations.

(76) The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by the CIA and FBI as false flags.

(77) The Director of Analytics at the interagency Global Engagement Center housed at the U.S. Department of State, also an adjunct professor at George Mason University, where he teaches the graduate course National Security Challenges in the Department of Information Sciences and Technology, a former branch chief in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and an intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Homeland Security (J.D. Maddox) notes:

Provocation is one of the most basic, but confounding, aspects of warfare. Despite its sometimes obvious use, it has succeeded consistently against audiences around the world, for millennia, to compel war. A well-constructed provocation narrative mutes even the most vocal opposition.

***

The culmination of a strategic provocation operation invariably reflects a narrative of victimhood: we are the victims of the enemy’s unforgivable atrocities.

***

In the case of strategic provocation the deaths of an aggressor’s own personnel are a core tactic of the provocation.

***

The persistent use of strategic provocation over centuries – and its apparent importance to war planners – begs the question of its likely use by the US and other states in the near term.

(78) False flags are so common that there are official rules of engagement prohibiting false flags in naval, air and land warfare.  Long-standing rules of customary international law also prohibit false flags.  Such rules wouldn’t be necessary unless false flags were common.

(79) Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the “benefits” of false flags to justify their political agenda:

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“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.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

Postscript: It is not just “modern” nations which have launched false flag attacks. For example, a Native American from one tribe (Pomunkey) murdered a white Englishwoman living in Virginia in 1697 and then falsely blamed it on second tribe (Piscataway). But he later admitted in court that he was not really Piscataway, and that he had been paid by a provocateur from a third tribe (Iroquois) to kill the woman as a way to start a war between the English and the Piscataway, thus protecting the profitable Iroquois monopoly in trade with the English.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Last week, I urged the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to stop protecting al-Qaeda in Syria by demanding that the Syrian government leave Idlib under al-Qaeda control. While it may seem hard to believe that the US government is helping al-Qaeda in Syria, it’s not as strange as it may seem: our interventionist foreign policy increasingly requires Washington to partner up with “bad guys” in pursuit of its dangerous and aggressive foreign policy goals.

Does the Trump Administration actually support al-Qaeda and ISIS? Of course not. But the “experts” who run Trump’s foreign policy have determined that a de facto alliance with these two extremist groups is for the time being necessary to facilitate the more long-term goals in the Middle East. And what are those goals? Regime change for Iran.

Let’s have a look at the areas where the US is turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda and ISIS.

First, Idlib. As I mentioned last week, President Trump’s own Special Envoy to fight ISIS said just last year that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” So why do so many US officials – including President Trump himself – keep warning the Syrian government not to re-take its own territory from al-Qaeda control? Wouldn’t they be doing us a favor by ridding the area of al-Qaeda? Well, if Idlib is re-taken by Assad, it all but ends the neocon (and Saudi and Israeli) dream of “regime change” for Syria and a black eye to Syria’s ally, Iran.

Second, one of the last groups of ISIS fighters in Syria are around the Al-Tanf US military base which has operated illegally in northeastern Syria for the past two years. Last week, according to press reports, the Russians warned the US military in the region that it was about to launch an assault on ISIS fighters around the US base. The US responded by sending in 100 more US Marines and conducting a live-fire exercise as a warning. President Trump recently reversed himself (again) and announced that the US would remain at Al-Tanf “indefinitely.” Why? It is considered a strategic point from which to attack Iran. The US means to stay there even if it means turning a blind eye to ISIS in the neighborhood.

Finally, in Yemen, the US/Saudi coalition fighting the Houthis has been found by AP and other mainstream media outlets to be directly benefiting al-Qaeda. Why help al-Qaeda in Yemen? Because the real US goal is regime change in Iran, and Yemen is considered one of the fronts in the battle against Iranian influence in the Middle East. So we are aiding al-Qaeda, which did attack us, because we want to “regime change” Iran, which hasn’t attacked us. How does that make sense?

We all remember the old saying, attributed to Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack, that “if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.” The “experts” would like us to think they are pursuing a brilliant foreign policy that will provide a great victory for America at the end of the day. But as usual, the “experts” have got it wrong. It’s really not that complicated: when “winning” means you’re allied with al-Qaeda and ISIS, you’re doing something wrong. Let’s start doing foreign policy right: let’s leave the rest of the world alone!

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Update: Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton indicated during a speech on Monday that the United States, Britain, and France have agreed that another use of chemical weapons by Syria would be taken “very seriously” and will require a much “stronger” and harsher response. 

Trump’s NSC head John Bolton warns Syria that US, France and Britain will hit Assad harder than last two times if he uses chemical weapons in looming battle for last major rebel stronghold in Idlib.

— Dion Nissenbaum (@DionNissenbaum) September 10, 2018

His remarks came during what’s being described as his first major speech since joining the Trump administration at an event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society at a Washington, D.C., hotel.

Meanwhile Turkey has also weighed in regarding the ongoing Russian and Syrian allied assault on Al Qaeda-held Idlib, which began days ago when Russia initiated a bombing campaign ahead of an imminent and massive Syrian Army ground offensive.

Turkey’s defense minister has called for all air and ground attacks on Idlib to stop immediately, calling for an urgent ceasefire to be established, according to Turkish state media.

Bolton’s warning of a “third chemical attack” today comes on the heels of a Sunday Wall Street Journal story citing unnamed U.S. officials who claim to have intelligence showing Assad “approved the use of chlorine gas in an offensive against the country’s last major rebel stronghold.”

It appears the Trump White House is now signalling that an American attack on Syrian government forces and locations is all but inevitable.

But this time the stakes are higher as Russia has built up an unprecedented number of warships in the Mediterranean Sea along the Syrian coast in response to prior reports that the U.S., France, and Great Britain could be preparing an attack.

* * *

Earlier:

At this point there’s not even so much as feigning surprise or suspense in the now sadly all-too-familiar Syria script out of Washington.

The Wall Street Journal has just published a bombshell on Sunday evening as Russian and Syrian warplanes continue bombing raids over al-Qaeda held Idlib, citing unnamed US officials who claim “President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has approved the use of chlorine gas in an offensive against the country’s last major rebel stronghold.”

And perhaps more alarming is that the report details that Trump is undecided over whether new retaliatory strikes could entail expanding the attack to hit Assad allies Russia and Iran this time around.

That’s right, unnamed US officials are now claiming to be in possession of intelligence which they say shows Assad has already given the order in an absolutely unprecedented level of “pre-crime” telegraphing of events on the battlefield.

And supposedly these officials have even identified the type of chemical weapon to be used: chlorine gas.

The anonymous officials told the WSJ of “new U.S. intelligence” in what appears an eerily familiar repeat of precisely how the 2003 invasion of Iraq was sold to the American public (namely, “anonymous officials” and vague assurances of unseen intelligence) — albeit posturing over Idlib is now unfolding at an intensely more rapid pace:

Fears of a massacre have been fueled by new U.S. intelligence indicating Mr. Assad has cleared the way for the military to use chlorine gas in any offensive, U.S. officials said. It wasn’t clear from the latest intelligence if Mr. Assad also had given the military permission to use sarin gas, the deadly nerve agent used several times in previous regime attacks on rebel-held areas. It is banned under international law.

It appears Washington is now saying an American attack on Syrian government forces and locations is all but inevitable.

And according to the report, President Trump may actually give the order to attack even if there’s no claim of a chemical attack, per the WSJ:

In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists.

And further:

The Pentagon is crafting military options, but Mr. Trump hasn’t decided what exactly would trigger a military response or whether the U.S. would target Russian or Iranian military forces aiding Mr. Assad in Syria, U.S. officials said.

Crucially, this is the first such indication of the possibility that White House and defense officials are mulling over hitting “Russian or Iranian military forces” in what would be a monumental escalation that would take the world to the brink of World War 3.

"Lots of evidence"
Trump regime not even trying, they're just phoning this disinformation campaign in pic.twitter.com/YD9MtXK97c

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) September 7, 2018

The WSJ report cites White House discussions of a third strike — in reference to US attacks on Syria during the last two Aprils after chemical allegations were made against Damascus —  while indicating it would “likely would be more expansive than the first two” and could include targeting Russia and Iran.

The incredibly alarming report continues:

During the debate this year over how to respond to the second attack, Mr. Trump’s national-security team weighed the idea of hitting Russian or Iranian targets in Syria, people familiar with the discussions said. But the Pentagon pushed for a more measured response, U.S. officials said, and the idea was eventually rejected as too risky.

A third U.S. strike likely would be more expansive than the first two, and Mr. Trump would again have to consider whether or not to hit targets like Russian air defenses in an effort to deliver a more punishing blow to Mr. Assad’s military.

Last week the French ambassador, whose country also vowed to strike Syria if what it deems credible chemical allegations emerge, said during a U.N. Security Council meeting on Idlib: “Syria is once again at the edge of an abyss.”

With Russia and Iran now in the West’s cross hairs over Idlib, indeed the entire world is again at the edge of the abyss.

developing…

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Although not a topic for polite conversation, nor a widely recognized ‘acceptable’ issue for mainstream academics and journalists, the issue of 9/11 and the multiple questions that persist with respect to this transformative event continue to bubble under the surface. 9/11 ushered in the global ‘war on terror’, shaping the geo-political agenda of Western governments for almost two decades now and having a deleterious impact on civil liberties across Western liberal democratic states. Torture has been used as part of official policy and there is bulk data collection and surveillance of entire populations.

In recent years, further information has come into the public domain, via the UK Chilcot report regarding the formative stages of the post 9/11 ‘war on terror’: Within days of 9/11 having occurred a British embassy cable reported that ‘the “regime-change hawks” in Washington are arguing that a coalition put together for one purpose (against international terrorism) could be used to clear up other problems in the region’; Chilcot also published a Bush-Blair communication from the aftermath of 9/11 which discussed phase two of the ‘war on terror’ and indicated debate over when to ‘hit’ countries unconnected with Al Qaeda, such as Iraq, Syria and Iran.

Broadly speaking, Chilcot corroborated former Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark’s claim that he was informed, immediately after 9/11, that seven countries, including Syria, were to be ‘taken out’ in five years.

It is against this backdrop that 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth now emerges. The book is the culmination of seven years work by the 9/11 Consensus Panel which includes 23 experts from fields including physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, piloting, airplane crash investigation, medicine, journalism, psychology, and religion. It’s honorary members include the late Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary Pres. of the Italian Supreme Court, and others listed here, including Lynn Margulis (also late). The panel has examined and reviewed a wide variety of evidence which brings into question the official narrative regarding 9/11 and employed a standard ‘best-evidence consensus model’ commonly used in science and medicine in which each ‘consensus point’ was only accepted after three rounds of review and a vote of at least 85 percent.

The results, detailed and fully referenced, are presented in this book and cover remarkably wide and disparate areas in which the official narrative, as sanctioned by the official 9/11 Commission Report, are questioned. These areas include questions regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers and the third building, WTC7, which collapsed much later in the day, the attack on the Pentagon, the hijacked flights, US military exercises on and before 9/11, the activities of key military and political leaders, the relationship between the alleged hijackers and Osama bin Laden and evidence concerning insider trading.

The question now, both for the academy and for journalists, is whether this accumulation of substantial questions can be ignored any longer, especially given the evidence we now have that the so-called ‘war on terror’ was exploited, right from the start, in order to engage in a series of regime-change wars. We already have had the notable establishment figures Senator Bob Graham and CIA’s Bob Baer publicly raising questions regarding, for example, alleged Saudi involvement in 9/11 whilst a very recent book by Duffy and Nowosielski also raises questions with regard to the actions of the CIA in relation to 9/11.

In addition, there is currently an abundance of activity that has emerged from professional-based organisations: the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry has recently filed a Grand Jury petition with the U.S Attorney in Manhatten, the Bobby Mcilvaine Act is being promoted to congress persons by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the WTC7 collapse is due to report shortly.

The diligent and painstaking work by Griffin and Woodworth and the 9/11 Consensus Panel lays down a serious challenge for mainstream academics and journalists to start to ask substantial questions about 9/11 and to examine the event in a way that enables there to be a full, accurate and truthful rendering of the events in question. If they are true to the ideals of their respective professions, journalists and academics will address these difficult questions, search for the facts, and speak truth to power. Failure to do so will, in the final analysis, render much of these professions defunct and irrelevant.

*

This article was first published on OffGuardian.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

If you want to fathom today’s world, absolutely nothing is more important than to understand the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the definitive book on the subject.

For seventeen years we have been subjected to an onslaught of U.S. government and corporate media propaganda about 9/11 that has been used to support the “war on terror” that has resulted in millions of deaths around the world.  It has been used as a pretext to attack nations throughout the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

It has led to a great increase in Islamophobia since Muslims were accused of being responsible for the attacks. It has led to a crackdown on civil liberties in the United States, the exponential growth of a vast and costly national security apparatus, the spreading of fear and anxiety on a great scale, and a state of permanent war that is pushing the world toward a nuclear confrontation.  And much, much more.

The authors of this essential book, David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, and all their colleagues who have contributed to this volume, have long been at the front lines trying to wake people up to the real news about 9/11.  They have battled against three U.S. presidents, a vast propaganda machine “strangely” allied with well-known leftists, and a corporate mass media intent on serving deep-state interests, all of whom have used illogic, lies, and pseudo-science to conceal the terrible truth.  Yet despite the establishment’s disinformation and deceptions, very many people have come to suspect that the official story of the September 11, 2001 attacks is not true.

With the publication of 9/11  Unmasked: An Review Panel Investigation, they now have a brilliant source book to use to turn their suspicions into certitudes.  And for those who have never doubted the official account (or accounts would be more accurate), reading this book should shock them into reality, because it is not based on speculation, but on carefully documented and corroborated facts, exacting logic, and the scientific method.

The book is based on the establishment in 2011 of a scientific review project comprising 23 experts with a broad spectrum of expertise, including people from the fields of chemistry, structural engineering, physics, aeronautical engineering, airline crash investigation, piloting, etc. Their job was to apply systematic and disciplined analyses to the verifiable evidence about the 9/11 attacks.  They used a model called the Delphi Method as a way to achieve best-evidence consensus.

This best-evidence consensus model is used in science and medicine, and the 9/11 Consensus Panel used it to examine the key claims of the official account(s). Each “Official Account” was reviewed and compared to “The Best Evidence” to reach conclusions. The authors explain it thus:

The examination of each claim received three rounds of review and feedback.  According to the panel’s investigative model, members submitted their votes to the two of us moderators while remaining blind to one another.  Proposed points had to receive a vote of at least 85 percent to be accepted…This model carries so much authority in medicine that medical consensus statements derived from it are often reported in the news.

They represent the highest standard of medical research and practice and may result in malpractice lawsuits if not followed.

This research process went on for many years, with the findings reported in this book.  The Consensus 9/11 Panel provides evidence against the official claims in nine categories:

1. The Destruction of the Twin Towers
2. The Destruction of WTC 7
3. The Attack on the Pentagon
4. The 9/11 Flights
5. US Military Exercises on and before 9/11
6. Claims about Military and Political Leaders
7. Osama bin Laden and the Hijackers
8. Phone Calls from the 9/11 Flights
9. Insider Trading

Each category is introduced and then broken down into sub-sections called points, which are examined in turn.  For example, the destruction of the Twin Towers has points that include, “The Claim That No One Reported Explosions in the Twin Towers,” “The Claim That the Twin Towers Were Destroyed by Airplane Impacts, Jet Fuel, and Fire,” “The Claim That There Were Widespread Infernos in the South Tower,” etc.  Each point is introduced with background, the official account is presented, then the best evidence, followed by a conclusion. Within the nine categories there are 51 points examined, each meticulously documented through quotations, references, etc., all connected to 875 endnotes that the reader can follow.  It is scrupulously laid out and logical, and the reader can follow it sequentially or pick out an aspect that particularly interests them.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel members describe their goal and purpose as follows:

The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11.

The goal of the Consensus Panel is to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution.

As a sociologist who teaches research methods and does much research, I find the Consensus Panel’s method exemplary and their findings accurate. They have unmasked a monstrous lie.  It is so ironic that such serious scholars, who question and research 9/11, have been portrayed as irrational and ignorant “conspiracy theorists” by people whose thinking is magical, illogical, and pseudo-scientific in the extreme.

A review is no place to go into all the details of this book, but I will give a few examples of the acumen of the Panel’s findings.

As a grandson of a Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department (343 firefighters died on 9/11), I find it particularly despicable that the government agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that was charged with investigating the collapse of the Towers and Building 7, would claim that no one gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers, when it is documented by the fastidious researcher Graeme MacQueen, a member of The 9/11 Consensus Panel, that over 100 firefighters who were at the scene reported hearing explosions in the towers.  One may follow endnote 22 to MacQueen’s research and his sources that are indisputable. There are recordings.

On a connected note, the official account claims that there were widespread infernos in the South Tower that prevented firefighters from ascending to the 78th floor.  Such a claim would support the notion that the building could have collapsed as a result of fires caused by the plane crashing into the building.  But as 9/11 Unmasked makes clear, radio tapes of firefighters ascending to the 78th floor and saying this was not so, prove that “there is incontrovertible evidence that the firefighter teams were communicating clearly with one another as they ascended WTC” and that there were no infernos to stop them, as they are recorded saying.  They professionally went about their jobs trying to save people.

Then the South Tower collapsed and so many died.  But it couldn’t have collapsed from “infernos” that didn’t exist.  Only explosives could have brought it down.

A reader can thus pick up this book, check out that section, and use common sense and elementary logic to reach the same conclusion.  And by reaching that conclusion and going no further in the book, the entire official story of 9/11 falls apart.

Or one can delve further, let’s say by dipping into the official claim that a domestic airline attack on the Pentagon was not expected. Opening to page 78, the reader can learn that “NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski was warned of the Pentagon attack by an intelligence officer,” who specified the illogical spot where the attack would happen shortly before it did.

In Miklaszewski’s words,

“And then he got very close to me, and, almost silent for a few seconds, he leaned in and said, ‘This attack was so well coordinated that if I were you, I would stay off the E Ring – where our NBC office was – the outer ring of the Pentagon for the rest of the day, because we’re next.’”

The authors say correctly,

“The intelligence officer’s apparent foreknowledge was unaccountably specific.”

For if a terrorist were going to fly a plane into Pentagon, the most likely spot would be to dive into the roof where many people might be killed, including top brass and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. To make an impossibly acrobatic maneuver to fly low into an outside wall would make no sense.  And for the government to claim that this impossible maneuver was executed by the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour, a man who according to documentation couldn’t even pilot a small plane, is absurd. But the intelligence officer knew what would happen, and the reader can learn this, and marvel.

Or the reader can start from the beginning and read straight through the book.  They will learn in detail that the official version of the attacks of 9/11 is fake news at its worst.  It is a story told for dunces.

Griffin and Woodworth and their colleagues simply and clearly in the most logical manner show that the emperor has no clothes, not even a mask.

Since knowing the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001 is indispensable for understanding what is happening in today’s world, everyone should purchase and read Unmasking 9/11: An International Review Panel Investigation.  Keep it next to your dictionary, and when you read or hear the latest propaganda about the 9/11 attacks, take it out and consult the work of the real experts.  Their words will clarify your mind.

It is the definitive book on the defining event of the 21st century.

*

This article was first published on OffGuardian.

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The next blow in Boris Johnson’s chapter of political suicide has been made: a piece in the Mail on Sunday which supplied him ample room to take yet another shot at the ghostly British prime minister, Theresa May.  There was nothing new in it; everybody knew what Johnson’s views were, and the position he had taken since hyperventilating over July’s Chequers statement on Brexit was simply reiterated with the usual reckless prose. 

May’s Brexit deal, scribbled Johnson with an almost boorish predictability, was tantamount to wrapping “a suicide vest around the British constitution” and handing “the detonator to (EU chief negotiator) Michel Barnier”. (He failed to mention that he has been as indispensable as anybody else in adding to that wrapping.)

While the EU had played the role of playground bully, the UK had been unacceptably “feeble” in response, a truly pathetic counterpart.  May might have sought a “generous free trade deal” with the EU in the aftermath of the divorce; instead, Britain was effectively saying to those in Brussels, “yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir”.  “We look like a seven-stone weakling being comically bent out of shape by a 500lb gorilla.”

Johnson’s very public falling out with his fellow Tories after resigning as Foreign Secretary continues to play out the ailing nature of the May government in very public fashion.  Cabinet ministers have had to take very public stances to back the prime minister.  Current Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt sounded trench bound in waiting for the barrage, calling on colleagues to keep firm behind May “in the face of intense pressure”.

Former army officer and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Tom Tugendhat found himself falling for the old trick that such provocation requires stern correction.

“A suicide bomber murdered many in the courtyard of my office in Helmand.  The carnage was disgusting, limbs and flesh hanging from trees and bushes.  Brave men who stopped him killing me and others died in horrific pain.  Some need to grow up.  Comparing the PM to that isn’t funny.”

Brexit, and in a sense, the broader miasmic effect of the Trump presidency on political language, has supplied a release of military metaphors, spells of doom, and imminent calamity.  Decorum has come to be seen as the enemy of honesty; opponents are just stopping short of lynching each other.  For Alistair Burt of the Foreign Office, the language used by Johnson was not merely “outrageous, inappropriate and hurtful”.

“If we don’t stop this extraordinary use of language over Brexit, our country might never heal.  Again, I say, enough.”

The issue with Johnson has certain similarities to another Westminster country thousands of miles away, and one still insisting on retaining the same British monarch as head of state.  Australia resumes parliament with a new prime minister after a needless bloodbath initiated by party functionaries hypnotised by pollsters and number crunchers.  The plotters there were also claiming that the governing party had gone vanilla and soft on the hard political decisions.  Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had been all too centrist when he could have done with a few lashings of decent, hard right ideology. The result: Australia’s first Pentecostal leader.

Johnson’s overall popularity in Britain is on par with May, a statement of true depression and deflation.  But where he has traction is in the ideological, stark-raving mad stakes, a point that May’s aides know all too well, given their efforts to compile a 4,000 word “war book” on the man’s sexual proclivities in 2016.  Unlike other European states, sexual prowess, evenly spread inside and out of marriage, is seen as an impediment to high office.

Johnson certainly has his own cheer squad within the Tories.  Tory Brexiteer Andrew Bridgen acclaimed Johnson’s appeal and how he “speaks truth unto power”; Tory MP Nadine Dorries suggested that his detractors were merely “terrified by his popular appeal”.  Were he to become leader of the Tories, and prime minister, “he’ll deliver a clean and prosperous #Brexit.”

Others are playing the middling game.  Home Secretary Sajid Javid merely called for more “measured language” to be used, because that was evidently “what the public want to see.”  On the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Javid was making sure about booking a seat in any future cabinet that might have a new prime minister.

“I think there are much better ways to articulate your differences.”

Johnson is a spluttering John Bull, foolhardy and all, and his supporters like that.  Irresponsible, destructive, a true political malefactor and dressed up public school boy charlatan, he is genetically programmed to disrupt rather than succeed, to undermine rather than govern.  His world is not that of figures and sober appraisals, the desk job assessment, the compiler of facts.  Those are best left to the hard working empirical types of industry and a hard day’s work.

Even his personal life has not been immune from the all-consuming circus that is the Boris show.  His announcement last week that he and his wife of 25 years, Marina Wheeler, would be divorcing, was seen as a political calculation, timed to eliminate any prospect of scandal in the event of a leadership challenge to May.

His opponents, however, have an eternal hope that he will self-destruct, stumbling into a back-end swamp where he will perish as quietly as possible.  Johnson’s barbed comments, came foreign office minister Alan Duncan, marked “one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics”.  Making them spelled “the political end of Boris Johnson”.  Unlikely; should Johnson conclude his political career anytime soon, he is bound to be as destructive as the vest he claims May has wrapped Britain in.

*

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Email: [email protected]

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

This article was originally published by Global Research on January 28, 2013.

“If a mandarinate ruled America, the recruiting committee on September 11 would have had to find someone like Cheney.” Washington Post author Barton Gellman in his book “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency”

Terrorism. Emergency plans. Political careers. The history of 9/11 can be written from many angles.

But whatever point of view is chosen, Dick Cheney is a central figure. “Principle is okay up to a certain point”, he once said, “but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination”. He´s surely an elusive character. Not less than Donald Rumsfeld, his close companion. Both of their lifes are inseperably bound with a dark side of recent American history. The core of the following story was originally told by the authors James Mann and Peter Dale Scott whose thorough research is deeply appreciated. Yet a lot of background information was added. Thus a bigger picture slowly took shape, showing a plan and its actors …

Cheney and Rumsfeld were an old team. Major parts of their careers they had spent together. Both had no privileged family background. Cheney´s father worked as an employee for the department of agriculture, Rumsfeld´s father had a job in a real estate company. The families´ living conditions were modest. Both sons could go to university only with the backing of scholarships.

Rumsfeld, born 1932, chose political science. He was a rather small and sturdy person, but with energetic charisma. While at university he engaged in sport and was known as a succesful ringer. Later Rumsfeld went to the Navy to become a pilot. The Navy hat paid a part of his scholarship. At the end of the 1950s he eventually started his career in politics as assistant of a congressman. Meanwhile father of a young family, and following a short intermezzo at an investment bank, Rumsfeld himself ran for Congress, at the age of 29 only.

Getting backing

The prospects in his Chicago home district were unfavorable. He was inexperienced and almost without any voter base, compared to the other candidates. But the dynamic and ambitious Rumsfeld impressed some of Chicago´s business leaders, such as the boss of pharma heavyweight Searle. They paid for his campaign. With this economic power in his back also one of Chicago´s newspapers supported him. Rumsfeld won the election in 1962 and went to Washington as a republican representative.

At the beginning of the 1960s he visited lectures at the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman was teaching, one of the most influential economists of his time. Friedman was one of the founding fathers of neoliberalism. He called for less influence of the state and praised the self regulation of the markets. In 1962 his bestseller Capitalism and Freedom was published. Rumsfeld was impressed by these thoughts. In a speech honoring Friedman 40 years later he remembered: “Government, he has told us, has three primary functions: It should provide for the military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. And it should protect citizens against crimes against themselves or their property.” (1) This self-imposed restriction of politics was also the core of Rumsfeld´s belief while he served in Congress in the 1960s.

An apprentice in politics

Cheney, 9 years younger than Rumsfeld, meanwhile studied political science as well. First at Yale, where he left soon because of poor grades, then at a less prestigious university in the Midwest. Contrary to the forceful Rumsfeld he appeared rather defensive, quiet and cautious. His imminent recruiting to the Vietnam war he avoided by getting deferred from military service because of his study at the university and the pregnancy of his wife, until he couldn´t be recruited because of his age in 1967.

At the age of 27 Cheney was looking for a job in Washington. He applied for an internship at Rumsfeld´s office. But Rumsfeld rejected him. The failed interview was embarrassing for Cheney who in later times liked to tell the story of this flop as an anecdote. But soon both men found together.

Under president Nixon, Rumsfeld had switched in 1969 from Congress to government. First he ran the Office of Economic Opportunity. There he administered federal social programs – not exactly one of his major concerns, but still one step forward in career. Rumsfeld was looking for new staffers to pass on work. By recommendation of a befriended representative he employed Cheney as his assistant. Cheney was a diligent worker and quickly made himself indispensable. Whoever wanted something from Rumsfeld, learned soon to try it via Cheney.

Rumsfeld´s career developed. People started becoming aware of him nationwide. He looked good, was energetic and had a catching smile. His intelligence was outstanding. But he also liked to exaggerate and escalate conflicts and often was unnecessarily blunt to others. Soon he became president Nixon´s advisor (who would praise him as a “ruthless little bastard”). Three years later he went to europe becoming NATO´s ambassador there – escaping from Washington shortly before the Watergate affair would kill the careers of many of Nixon´s advisors.

Tasting power

In the mid of the 1970s politics in America went through a time of upheaval. The economy was in crisis. With the lost war in Vietnam, nationwide student protests and Watergate the leadership of the superpower showed internal signs of decay, culminating in Nixon´s resignation in 1974. Successor Gerald Ford appointed Rumsfeld to become chief of staff with Cheney shadowing him closely as his deputy.

Now both men had arrived in the centre of power. The position of chief of staff was seen as highly influential in the White House. He was the closest advisor to the president, controlled his schedule and also decided who would meet him. After Nixon, Watergate and the extensively publicly discussed CIA scandals the new administration had to fight with a damaged reputation. This difficult situation, with a relatively weak president, increased the importance of the chief of staff.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were partners now and had great influence on president Ford. When he reshuffled his cabinet abruptly in 1975 in the so-called “Halloween massacre”, firing among others the CIA director and the secretary of defense, many suspected Rumsfeld being the wirepuller. Fact was at least that he and Cheney were profiteering.

Rumsfeld now took over the command at the Pentagon. There he started expensive and prolonged defense projects like the Abrams tank and the B-1 bomber, building economic impact for decades. At the same time the 34 years old Cheney moved up to become chief of staff in the White House. Now he was no longer only assistant but an authority with relevant beliefs. One of his rules went: “Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination.” (2)

Revolving doors

However soon just that happened. After the defeat of the Republicans in 1976 both men dropped out of government. Together with their families they spent holidays with each other in the Caribbean. Rumsfeld remembers the relaxing break with pleasure: “We played Tennis, boated, and spent time in the sun talking about life. Cheney grilled steaks and made chili.” (3)

Back home Cheney started capitalizing his Washington insider knowledge by working for a consulting company, helping wealthy clients with their investment decisions. But soon he returned to politics. At the end of the 1970s he went as elected Congressman to the House of Representatives. Yet the stress and pressure had their effect on the cautious and restrained Cheney – at age 37 he suffered his first heart attack.

Rumsfeld on the other hand found his new place for a longer time in private business. Dan Searle, the Chicago pharma magnate who had financed his first election campaign 15 years before, now entrusted him his whole company, appointing him to Searle´s CEO. Financially Rumsfeld climbed to new heights with that job. As CEO he got 250.000 Dollars a year, about four times more than as secretary of defense. (4) And also in his new job he made no half measures. Within short time Rumsfeld fired more than half of the employees, generating a huge increase in corporate profit. The business newspapers praised him as an outstanding manager.

In the 1980s the Republicans came back to power with Ronald Reagan. The new president conjured up the threatening picture of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and increased military spending. The Cold War gained new momentum.

Continuity in Government (COG)

At this time the White House also developed a secret emergency plan, put in action however only at September 11th, 2001 for the first time. Initially it should guarantee that the government could continue its operations even after a Soviet nuclear strike. The plan was called COG (Continuity of Government) and called for a very special emergency measure: when disaster struck, three teams should be sent to different places in the country, replacing the government. Each team would have an own “president” as well as other people standing in for the different departments and government agencies. If one team would be killed, the next one could be activated. So the planners hoped to keep control over the military and the most important parts of the administration, after an atomic bomb or another disaster had wiped out the government in Washington. (5)

These worries about a possible “decapitation” of the national leadership were deemed very seriously because exactly this course of action was also part of the U.S. war strategy towards the Soviets. (6)

The COG plan existed not only on paper. It was exercised in reality regularly in the 1980s. Once a year the teams, each consisting of a “president”, a “chief of staff” and about 50 staffers, were secretly flown from Washington to a closed military base or a bunker somewhere in the United States. There they played the emergency scenario for several days. Not even their closest relatives knew about the location or purpose of the exercise. (7)

Richard Clarke, later anti-terror coordinator under presidents Clinton and Bush junior, recalls one of the maneuvers at that time:

 “I remember one occasion where we got the call. We had to go to Andrews Air Force Base and get on a plane and fly across the country. And then get off and run into a smaller plane. And that plane flew off into a desert location. And when the doors opened on the smaller plane, we were in the middle of a desert. Trucks eventually came and found us and drove us to a tent city. You know, this was in the early days of the program. A tent city in the middle of the desert — I had no idea where we were. I didn’t know what state we were in. We spent a week there in tents, pretending that the United States government had been blown up. And we were it. It’s as though you were living in a play. You play-act. Everyone there play-acts that it’s really happened. You can’t go outside because of the radioactivity. You can’t use the phones because they’re not connected to anything.” (8)

Part of every team was one authentic secretary, leading a government department also in real life. He had to play the president. Yet his real life portfolio didn´t matter – at one point even the secretary of agriculture played the president. In the end the secretary taking part in the exercise was usually just the one being dispensable. Apparently more important was the role of the chief of staff. This part was routinely played only by a person who had been White House chief of staff also in real life. (9)

Therefore Rumsfeld and Cheney were regular participants of the secret annual COG exercises. Other attendants described them as being involved in shaping the program. (10) So at a time when the two men had no position whatsoever in government (Rumsfeld, as mentioned, was boss of a pharma company, Cheney was congressman), both of them disapeared every year for a few days to practice the take-over of the government after a disaster.

Above the law

The plan was secret also because it bypassed the constitution. Since the presidential succession was already explicitly fixed by law: if the president died, the vice president took over, then followed by the speaker of the house, after him the longest serving senator, then the secretaries of state, treasury, defense and so forth. However the COG plan simply ignored this well balanced constitutional arrangement. In an emergency it called instead for a president who was not democratically legitimized at all.

The plan was authorized with a secret directive by president Reagan. According to his security adviser Robert McFarlane Reagan personally decided who would lead the individual teams. The COG liaison officer in charge inside the National Security Council was Oliver North, who later became known as the key person in the center of the Iran-Contra scandal. (11)

Only incidentally, in connection with that scandal, the first details of the secret plan came to light in 1987. Under president Reagan Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North had coordinated a series of steps building in effect a shadow government, Congress didn´t know about, let alone having approved it. The Miami Herald wrote about this in 1987:

“Oliver North helped draw up a controversial plan to suspend the Constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad. (…) From 1982 to 1984, North assisted FEMA, the U.S. government’s chief national crisis-management unit, in revising contingency plans for dealing with nuclear war, insurrection or massive military mobilization.” (12)

That the COG plan, suspending the constitution, could indeed not only be activated in case of a nuclear war, was laid out in a further directive authorized by Reagan in the last days of his presidency in November 1988. According to this directive the plan should be executed in a “national security emergency”, defined rather vague as a “natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States”. (13) In effect this meant a massive undermining of democratic principles. The COG plan, executed unter the circumstances mentioned, could also be used as cover for a coup d’état.

Meanwhile Cheney and Rumsfeld went on secretly exercising the take-over of the government during their annually running maneuvers. Belonging to this inner circle of potential state leaders had to be an uplifting feeling for both men. In case of a huge disaster the fate of the nation would lie in their hands.

Reach for the presidency

At the end of the 1980s Cheney moreover had climbed to the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, the elite network connecting business leaders and politicians, well known for its huge influence on American foreign policy. In the meantime Rumsfeld had become a multimillionaire through the sale of the pharma company he had led. He planned running for the presidency in 1988. But his campaign didn´t succeed. From the outset Reagan´s vice president Bush senior had been the republican frontrunner – and finally also won the election.

But now Cheney got his chance. He became secretary of defense in the new administration, the same position Rumsfeld had already held 12 years before. Cheney successfully managed the first Iraq war in 1991, which led – parallel to the decline of the Soviet Union – to a permanent deployment of U.S. troops in the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The control over Iraq was now in reach.

After the defeat of the Republicans in 1992 Cheney also considered his own presidential campaign. Yet soon he had to realize that he lacked support. Instead he moved to the private sector, becoming CEO of Halliburton, one of the world´s biggest oil supply companies. As secretary of defense he already had build connections to the firm, leading later to multi-billion-dollar contracts with the Pentagon. The new job now also filled Cheney´s pockets, making him a multimillionaire as well.

Meanwhile Rumsfeld had established himself as a highly effective and ambitious business executive. In the 1990s he first led a telecommunications company, then a pharma corporation.

The COG plan still existed, however with other presumptions. After the fall of the Soviet Union it no longer focused on the Russian nuclear threat, but on terrorism. Though it was reported in the mid 1990s that president Clinton wanted the program to phase out, it later became clear that this announcement only applied to the portion of the plan relating to a nuclear attack. (14) Then anti-terror coordinator Richard Clarke later disclosed that he had updated the COG plan in 1998. (15) The corresponding presidential directive (PDD-67) was secret. Its precise content was never made public. (16)

Cold War reloaded

At the same time a circle of neoconservatives around Rumsfeld and Cheney prepared for return to power. At the end of the 1990s they founded an organisation called “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC). Their self declared desire: “increase defense spending significantly” and “challenge regimes hostile to our interests”. (17)

In parallel Rumsfeld headed a congressional commission assessing the threat of foreign long range missiles. Already in the 1980s Ronald Reagan had started plans for a national missile defense, which burdened the national budget over the years with about 50 billion dollars. Yet in the 1990s even the own intelligence agencies saw no longer a real threat. Because who should fire missiles on Washington in the near future? Yeltsin´s Russia? Or China, that became economically more and more interdependent with the United States? However the so-called “Rumsfeld Commission” revised the assessment of the intelligence agencies. In its 1998 published report new possible aggressors were named: North Korea, Iran and Iraq. (18)

The same year Rumsfeld and his PNAC associates had already written an open letter to president Clinton, urging him to be tougher on Iraq. Saddam Hussein´s regime should be “removed”, the letter demanded. (19)

Finally, in September 2000, two months before the presidential election, PNAC published a lengthy strategy paper, giving policy guidance to the next administration. “Rebuilding America´s Defenses” was its programmatic title and it analysed principles and objections of a new defense policy.

Basically the paper called for a massive increase in defense spending and a transformation of the armed forces into a dominant but mobile, rapidly deployable power factor.

The aim was enduring military supremacy, which according to PNAC would urgently require new weapons systems like the missile defense.

Yet the paper made also clear that the process of implementing these demands would be a long one and provoke resistance, “absent” – quote – “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” (20)

A question of energy

After George W. Bush´s inauguration in January 2001 the members of this circle secured important posts in the new administration. Cheney turned into the leading figure. This had become apparent well before the election. As early as April 2000 Bush had asked him to handle the selection of his vice presidential running mate. In the end Cheney had all but proposed himself for the job. (21) Meanwhile the workaholic had survived three heart attacks. One of his first recommendations to Bush was the appointment of Rumsfeld, almost 70, as secretary of defense. Deputy of his old associate became Paul Wolfowitz, a hardliner who had already worked for Cheney as chief strategist in the Pentagon at the beginning of the 1990s. Compared to these men president Bush himself was a newcomer in Washington. Though he was blessed with political instinct and a very practical intuition, he could hardly hold a candle to these old hands intellectually.

One of the first steps of the new administration was the creation of a “National Energy Policy Development Group”. It was headed directly by Cheney. Its final report, issued in May 2001, described the situation quite openly:

“America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. (…) A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation´s en­ergy crisis. (…) This imbalance, if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living, and our national security. (…) Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent, natural gas consumption by well over 50 percent, and demand for elec­tricity will rise by 45 percent. If America´s energy production grows at the same rate as it did in the 1990s we will face an ever-in­creasing gap. (…) By 2020, Gulf oil producers are projected to supply between 54 and 67 percent of the world´s oil. Thus, the global economy will almost certainly continue to depend on the supply of oil from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members, particularly in the Gulf. This region will remain vital to U.S. interests.” (22)

Later it was disclosed that Cheney´s energy task force had also secretly examined a map of the Iraqi oil fields, pipelines and refineries along with charts detailing foreign suitors for il-field contracts there. Again, the date was March 2001.

Anticipating the unthinkable

Concurrently to its effort in energy policy the new administration created an “Office of National Preparedness”. It was tasked with the development of plans responding to a possible terror attack and became assigned to the “Federal Emergency Management Agency” (FEMA). (23) FEMA was already responsible for the COG plan since the 1980s. To call it back to mind: “From 1982 to 1984, Oliver North assisted FEMA in revising contingency plans for dealing with nuclear war, insurrection or massive military mobilization.” (24)

Back then Cheney had played a role in shaping these plans. Now he could continue the work – because Bush appointed him to head the new program. (25) Director of FEMA on the other hand became Joe Allbaugh, who had little professional expertise, but could offer other qualities. Allbaugh was Bush´s campaign manager, a man for tough and rather rude matters and also one of the president´s closest confidants. Back in 1994 he had managed Bush´s campaign to become governor of Texas and at the end of 2000 he had helped stopping the recount of votes in Florida. (26) That an expert for political tricks was appointed to head FEMA indicates that the administration had political plans with the emergency management agency from the outset.

Till today it´s undisclosed how the COG plan was refined in detail under Cheney´s direction in 2001.  However the following is apparent: in the months leading to 9/11 Cheney linked anti-terror and emergency management measures with national energy policy. Commissions working on both issues were handled by him simultaneously. This connection anticipated the policy after 9/11, which could be summarized as using a terror attack as rationale for extending the power of the executive and waging war to seize control of world regions important for energy supply.

The emergency plans Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved with since the 1980s culminated in autumn 2001. On the morning of September 11th the secret COG program was implemented for the first time. (27) Shortly before 10:00 a.m., after the impact of the third plane into the Pentagon, Cheney gave the order to execute it. (28)

The shadow government

Almost nothing is known about the content of the plan and the specific effects of its activation. The secrecy in this respect appears grotesque. Even the simple fact of the plan´s implementation on 9/11 was concealed for months. After sporadic hints in the press the Washington Post finally disclosed some details in March 2002. In an article titled “Shadow government is at work in secret” it reported that about 100 high-ranking officials of different departments were working outside Washington as part of the emergency plan since 9/11:

“Officials who are activated for what some of them call ‘bunker duty’ live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families. As it settles in for the long haul, the shadow government has sent home most of the first wave of deployed personnel, replacing them most commonly at 90-day intervals. (…) Known internally as the COG, for ‘continuity of government’, the administration-in-waiting is an unannounced complement to the acknowledged absence of Vice President Cheney from Washington for much of the past five months. Cheney’s survival ensures constitutional succession, one official said, but ‘he can´t run the country by himself.’ With a core group of federal managers alongside him, Cheney – or President Bush, if available – has the means to give effect to his orders.” (29)

But what orders gave Cheney to his strange “shadow government” while his stays at the bunker? And what justified extending this emergency measure for seemingly infinite time? For the White House clearly hadn´t been wiped out by bombs. The president lived and his administration was able to act. Who needed a permanent second secret government?

After the first disclosure of these facts in spring 2002 leading politicians of the legislative immediately started expressing their astonishment. Soon it became clear that neither Senate nor House of Representatives knew anything about the activation of COG and the work of the “shadow government” in secret. The parliament had simply been ignored. (30) Later the 9/11 Commission experienced similar executive secrecy. Though it mentioned in its final report the implementation of the plan on 9/11, it also admitted not having investigated the issue in depth. Instead the Commission had only been briefed “on the general nature” of the plan. (31)

Patriots under pressure

An immediate response to 9/11 was the Patriot Act, passed only one month later, and allowing a broad range of highly controversial measures, from domestic wiretapping to warrantless detention of foreign terror suspects. The latter legalized the forthcoming procedures at Guantánamo, leading to secret U.S. prisons all over the world.

Two influential opponents of these legal changes were Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader, and Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both received letters with spores of deadly anthrax. The source was never traced with certainty. After that Daschle and Leahy gave up their resistance against the new legislation and approved the Patriot Act. (32)

In their radical nature the hastily passed changes bore resemblance to decrees while a state of emergency. And indeed were they similarly already part of the COG plan in the 1980s. (33)

Government officials familiar with COG indicated after 9/11 that the plan could really have resulted in martial law – if additionally to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon also large numbers of congressmen and executive branch leaders had been killed on that day. (34)

Is it in this context a coincidence only that the fourth hijacked plane on 9/11 was heading towards Washington to hit the Capitol or the White House? (35)

Killers from Sudan?

There is also circumstantial [unconfirmed] evidence for an assassination attempt on president Bush in Florida that morning. The Secret Service had received a related warning the night before at 4:08 a.m., according to a TV report by a local ABC affiliate. (36) A few hours later Secret Service agents searched an apartment in Sarasota and arrested four men from Sudan, apparently belonging to the south sudanese liberation army SPLA, a paramilitary force secretly supported by the United States. (37) Also AP reported these arrests mentioning that the suspects had been released soon again because they had “no connection” to 9/11. The whole issue just would have been a “coincidence”. (38)

President Bush spent the night before 9/11 at a resort on Longboat Key, an island right next to Sarasota where he planned to visit an elementary school on the next morning. Longboat Key Fire Marshall Carroll Mooneyhan was a further witness of the possible assassination attempt. He said that at about 6 a.m. on September 11th a van with self-proclaimed reporters of middle eastern descent had pulled up at Bush´s resort, stating they had a “poolside” interview with the president. The men asked for a special Secret Service agent by name but where turned away by the guards. (39)

Were these “reporters” identical with the Sudanese temporarily arrested by the Secret Service later that morning in Sarasota? The incident resembled at least the successful assassination of Taliban foe Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before on September 9th in Afghanistan. The suicide attackers there were also a fake TV team using a bomb hidden in a camera, as the New York Times reported on September 10th. (40)

Additionally three witnesses remembered seeing Mohammed Atta and a companion at Longboat Key´s Holiday Inn on September 7th, three days before Bush would spend the night on that same small island. (41) September 7th was also the day the White House first publicly announced Bush´s schedule to travel to Sarasota. (42) In this context it is surely worth to consider if Atta scouted out the place for an assassination plot.

Completing the plot

The question arises: Did a circle around Cheney, Rumsfeld and some associates use 9/11 for a disguised coup d’état, partly failed in its execution?

Regardless of the answer to that question – 9/11 in fact allowed the implementation of emergency measures, the weakening of the legislative, the start of several wars and a massive increase in defense spending. The amounts in question easily exceed the imagination of observers.

While in the second half of the 1990s the average national defense budget totaled about 270 billion dollars a year, that number nearly doubled in the decade after 9/11, when the average annual budget went up to over 500 billion. (43) For the Pentagon´s private contractors that meant a sales increase of inconceivable 2.300 billion dollars between 2001 and 2010.

A national economy under arms

If one looks at the development of defense spending in the United States since 1940, some far-reaching conclusions arise. (44) It seems as if the attack on Pearl Harbor and the following involvement in World War II led to a structural change of the American economy. The budgetary value of the military was never reduced to a “normal” level after that. On the contrary it increased decade by decade. Thus the whole economy got into a fatal dependency on the defense business.

This ongoing development came to a halt only with the fall of the Soviet Union. Ten years later then 9/11 became the catalyzing event to kick-start the military buildup again – with all its broad economic effects on the country.

Cheney and Rumsfeld don´t seem to be driving forces in this “game”, but merely two talented managers, risen to the top in the stream of events. Author James Mann, who had disclosed their involvement in the COG plan first in 2004, described their political role this way:

“Their participation in the extra-constitutional continuity-of-government exercises, remarkable in its own right, also demonstrates a broad, underlying truth about these two men. For three decades, from the Ford Administration onward, even when they were out of the executive branch of government, they were never far away. They stayed in touch with defense, military, and intelligence officials, who regularly called upon them. They were, in a sense, a part of the permanent hidden national-security apparatus of the United States, inhabitants of a world in which Presidents come and go, but America keeps on fighting.” (45)

 Notes

 (1)  US Department of Defense, 09.05.02, “Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld speaking at Tribute to Milton Friedman”

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=216

 (2)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 73

 (3)  Donald Rumsfeld, “Known and Unknown. A Memoir”, New York 2011, p. 240

 (4)  Ibid., p. 245

 (5)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, pp. 138-145

(6)  Ibid., p. 139

(7)  Ibid., p. 138

(8)  ABC, 25.04.04, “Worst Case Scenario – Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11”

http://web.archive.org/web/20040429063810/

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/armageddon_plan_040425.html

(9)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 140

(10)  Ibid., p. 138;

Washington Post, 07.04.04, “‘Armageddon’ Plan Was Put Into Action on 9/11, Clarke Says”, Howard Kurtz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55877-2004Apr6

(11)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 142

(12)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(13)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 185;

Executive Order 12656 – “Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities”, 18.11.88

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html

(14)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 186

(15)  Richard Clarke, “Against All Enemies. Inside America ́s War on Terror”, New York 2004, p. 167

(16)  PDD-NSC-67 – “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations”, 21.10.98

www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm

(17)  Project for the New American Century, 03.06.97, “Statement of Principles”

http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

(18)  New York Times, 16.07.98, “Panel Says U.S. Faces Risk Of a Surprise Missile Attack”, Eric Schmitt

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/16/us/panel-says-us-faces-risk-of-a-surprise-missile-attack.html

(19)  Project for the New American Century, 26.01.98, “Iraq Clinton Letter”

www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

(20)  Project for the New American Century, September 2000, “Rebuilding America´s Defenses”, p. 51

(21)  Barton Gellman, “Angler. The Cheney Vice Presidency”, New York 2008, Chapter 1

(22)  “National Energy Policy – Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group”, 16.05.01

(23)  White House press release, 08.05.01, “Cheney to Oversee Domestic Counterterrorism Efforts”

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_05/alia/a1050801.htm

(24)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(25)  White House press release, 08.05.01, “Cheney to Oversee Domestic Counterterrorism Efforts”

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_05/alia/a1050801.htm

(26)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 210

(27) 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(28) “Brief Timeline of Day of 9/11 Events, drafted by White House”

www.scribd.com/doc/12992821/Brief-Timeline-of-Day-of-911-Events-drafted-by-White-House

Washington Post, 27.01.02, “America’s Chaotic Road to War”, Dan Balz and Bob Woodward

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801175_pf.html

(29)  Washington Post, 01.03.02, “Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret”, Barton Gellman and Susan Schmidt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900891.html

(30)  Washington Post, 02.03.02, “Congress Not Advised Of Shadow Government”, Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26212-2002Mar1

(31)  9/11 Commission Report, p. 555

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(32)  Salon, 21.11.01, “Why Daschle and Leahy?”, Anthony York

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2001/11/21/anthrax/index.html

(33)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(34)  ABC, 25.04.04, “Worst Case Scenario – Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11”

http://web.archive.org/web/20040429063810/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/armageddon_plan_040425.html

(35)  9/11 Commission Report, p. 14

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(36)  Daniel Hopsicker, “Welcome to Terrorland”, 2004, p. 42

(37)  Ibid., p. 44

(38)  Ibid., p. 45

(39)  Longboat Observer, 26.09.01, „Possible Longboat terrorist incident – Is it a clue or is it a coincidence?“, Shay Sullivan

http://web.archive.org/web/20030220064542/http://www.longboatobserver.com/showarticle.asp?ai=1874

(40)  New York Times, 10.09.01, „Taliban Foe Hurt and Aide Killed by Bomb“

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/world/taliban-foe-hurt-and-aide-killed-by-bomb.html

(41)  Longboat Observer, 21.11.01, „Two hijackers on Longboat?“, Shay Sullivan

http://web.archive.org/web/20021209013255/

http://www.longboatobserver.com/showarticle.asp?ai=2172

(42)  White House, 07.09.01, „Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer“

http://web.archive.org/web/20010913052601/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010907-1.html#week

(43)  US Office of Management and Budget, “Table 3.1 – Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2016”

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

(44)  Ibid.

(45)  The Atlantic, March 2004, “The Armageddon Plan”, James Mann

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-14.htm

James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 145

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

This article was originally published by Global Research on October 9, 2001, two days after the onslaught of the US-NATO led invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

Excerpts: 

“Now the Taliban will pay a price” vowed President George W. Bush, as American and British fighter planes unleashed missile attacks against major cities in Afghanistan. The US Administration claims that Osama bin Laden is behind the tragic events of the 11th of September. A major war supposedly “against international terrorism” has been launched [October 2001], yet the evidence amply confirms that agencies of the US government have since the Cold War harbored the “Islamic Militant Network” as part of Washington’s foreign policy agenda. In a bitter irony, the US Air Force is targeting the training camps established in the 1980s by the CIA.

This decision to mislead the American people was taken barely a few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Without supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the “prime suspect.” Two days later on Thursday the 13th of September –while the FBI investigations had barely commenced– President Bush pledged to “lead the world to victory”. The Administration confirmed its intention to embark on “a sustained military campaign rather than a single dramatic action” directed against Osama bin Laden. 19 In addition to Afghanistan, a number of countries in the Middle East were mentioned as possible targets including Iraq, Iran, Libya and the Sudan. And several prominent US political figures and media pundits have demanded that the air strikes be extended to other countries “which harbour international terrorism.” According to intelligence sources, Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda has operations in some 50 to 60 countries providing ample pretext to intervene in several “rogue states” in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Moreover, the entire US Legislature –with only one honest and courageous dissenting voice in the House of Representatives– has tacitly endorsed the Administration’s decision to go war. Members of the House and the Senate have access through the various committees to official confidential reports and intelligence documents which prove beyond doubt that agencies of the US government have ties to international terrorism. They cannot say “we did not know”. In fact, most of this evidence is in the public domain.

The main justification for waging this war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future.” 

And the American people continue to be misled regarding the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2018

*

Confronted with mounting evidence, the US Administration can no longer deny its links to Osama. While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an “intelligence asset” during the Cold War, the relationship is said to “go way back”. Most news reports consider that these Osama-CIA links belong to the “bygone era” of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as “irrelevant” to an understanding of present events. Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA in supporting and developing international terrorist organisations during the Cold war and its aftermath is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.

Yes, We did support Him, but “He Went Against Us”

A blatant example of media distortion is the so-called “blowback” thesis: “intelligence assets” are said to “have gone against their sponsors”; “what we’ve created blows back in our face.”1 In a twisted logic, the US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims:

The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US – and Britain – are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback’, whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. 2

Image on the right: Osama bin Laden with Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski 

The US media, nonetheless, concedes that “the Taliban’s coming to power [in 1995] is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen, the radical Islamic group, in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union”.3 But it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes in chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It’s like “a son going against his father”.

The “blowback” thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the “Islamic Militant Network”. Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have in become increasingly sophisticated.

New undercover initiatives financed by the Golden Crescent drug trade were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus (controlled by the CIA) essentially “served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia.” 4

Replicating the Iran Contragate Pattern

Remember Ollie North and the Nicaraguan Contras under the Reagan Administration when weapons financed by the drug trade were channeled to “freedom fighters” in Washington’s covert war against the Sandinista government. The same pattern was used in the Balkans to arm and equip the Mujahideen fighting in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim army against the Armed Forces of the Yugoslav Federation.

Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between — to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report of the London based International Media Corporation:

“Reliable sources report that the United States is now [1994] actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been providing weapons made in … China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran. The sources indicated that … Iran, with the knowledge and agreement of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers … made in Iran. … It was [also] reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe.

During September and October [1994], there has been a stream of “Afghan” Mujahedin … covertly landed in Ploce, Croatia (South-West of Mostar) from where they have traveled with false papers … before deploying with the Bosnian Muslim forces in the Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka areas. These forces have recently [late 1994] experienced a significant degree of military success. They have, according to sources in Sarajevo, been aided by the UNPROFOR Bangladesh battalion, which took over from a French battalion early in September [1994].

The Mujahedin landing at Ploce are reported to have been accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment, … The sources said that the mission of the US troops was to establish a command, control, communications and intelligence network to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives — in concert with Mujahideen and Bosnian Croat forces — in Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka. Some offensives have recently been conducted from within the UN-established safe-havens in the Zenica and Banja Luka regions.

(…)

The US Administration has not restricted its involvement to the clandestine contravention of the UN arms embargo on the region … It [also] committed three high-ranking delegations over the past two years [prior to 1994] in failed attempts to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US policy. Yugoslavia is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce to US pressure.5

“From the Horse’s Mouth”

Ironically, the US Administration’s undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia have been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997, largely confirms the International Media Corporation report quoted above. The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having “helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base” leading to the recruitment through the so-called “Militant Islamic Network,” of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:

Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission – and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia – is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), “played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.

(…)

Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin (“holy warriors”) from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based “humanitarian organization,” called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration’s “hands-on” involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials… the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization … has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. … TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96] 6

Complicity of the Clinton Administration

In other words, the Republican Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the Clinton Administration with several Islamic fundamentalist organisations including Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

The Republicans wanted at the time to undermine the Clinton Administration. However, at a time when the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Republicans no doubt chose not to trigger an untimely “Iran-Bosniagate” affair, which might have unduly diverted public attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill Clinton “for having lied to the American People” regarding his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more substantive “foreign policy lies” regarding drug running and covert operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans agreed in unison, no doubt pressured by the Pentagon and the CIA not to “spill the beans”.

From Bosnia to Kosovo

The “Bosnian pattern” described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated in Kosovo. With the complicity of NATO and the US State Department. Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO’s war effort.

Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with “former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain’s 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private security companies”.7

The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training programme for the KLA, said a senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.’ While these covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit’s D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the bombing campaign in March. 8

While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan financed by the “Islamic jihad” were collaborating in training the KLA in guerilla and diversion tactics.9:

Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, … Bin Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994 … Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamentalists. 10

Congressional Testimonies on KLA-Osama links

According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organised Crime Program, in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:

What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the “Balkan Route” that links the “Golden Crescent” of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for Europe. 11

According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence division also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:

The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden” . Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. 12

Madeleine Albright Covets the KLA

These KLA links to international terrorism and organised crime documented by the US Congress were totally ignored by the Clinton Administration. In fact, in the months preceding the bombing of Yugoslavia, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was busy building a “political legitimacy” for the KLA.

Albright and KLA leader Hashim Thaci (1998)

The paramilitary army had –from one day to the next– been elevated to the status of a bona fide “democratic” force in Kosovo. In turn, Madeleine Albright has forced the pace of international diplomacy: the KLA had been spearheaded into playing a central role in the failed “peace negotiations” at Rambouiillet in early 1999.

The Senate and the House tacitly endorse State Terrorism

While the various Congressional reports confirmed that the US government had been working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the Clinton and later the Bush Administration from arming and equipping the KLA. The Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the House knew the relationship of the Administration to international terrorism. To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee: “We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden…” 13

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in unison have given their full support to the President to “wage war on Osama”.

In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman had stated authoritatively that “Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.” In the hours following the October 7 missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for punitive air strikes against Iraq: “We’re in a war against terrorism… We can’t stop with bin Laden and the Taliban.” Yet Senator Jo Lieberman, as member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate had access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to “KLA-Osama” links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that that agencies of the US government as well as NATO were supporting international terrorism.

The War in Macedonia

In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the terrorist activities of the KLA were extended into Southern Serbia and Macedonia. Meanwhile, the KLA –renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)– was elevated to United Nations status, implying the granting of “legitimate” sources of funding through United Nations as well as through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid.

And barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under UN auspices (September 1999), KPC-KLA commanders – using UN resources and equipment – were already preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as a logical follow-up to their terrorist activities in Kosovo. According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC had established a “sixth operation zone” in Southern Serbia and Macedonia:

Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the Kosovo protection brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have [March 2000] already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They are being prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as well, and their members have defined codes. 14

According to the BBC, “Western special forces were still training the guerrillas” meaning that they were assisting the KLA in opening up “a sixth operation zone” in Southern Serbia and Macedonia. 15

“The Islamic Militant Network” and NATO join hands in Macedonia

Among the foreign mercenaries now fighting in Macedonia (October 2001) in the ranks of self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), are Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the KLA’s proxy force in Macedonia are senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon as well as “soldiers of fortune” from Britain, Holland and Germany. Some of these Western mercenaries had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian Muslim Army. 16

Extensively documented by the Macedonian press and statements of the Macedonian authorities, the US government and the “Islamic Militant Network” are working hand in glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn the KLA and the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen.

In a bitter twist, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the “Islamic Militant Network” –also using Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) as the CIA’s go-between– still constitutes an integral part of Washington’s covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.

The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from US military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget as well as by several Islamic organisations including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the US government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia is implemented through various Islamic groups.

US military advisers mingle with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force, Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a “blowback” where so-called “intelligence assets” have gone against their sponsors!

But this did not happen during the Cold war! It is happening right now in Macedonia. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian New Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington’s envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists. 17 In other words, the so-called “intelligence assets” are still serving the interests of their US sponsors.

Pardew’s background is revealing in this regard. He started his Balkans career in 1993 as a senior intelligence officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff responsible for channeling US aid to the Bosnian Muslim Army. Coronel Pardew had been put in charge of arranging the “air-drops” of supplies to Bosnian forces. At the time, these “air drops” were tagged as “civilian aid”. It later transpired –confirmed by the RPC Congressional report– that the US had violated the arms embargo. And James Pardew played an important role as part of the team of intelligence officials working closely with the Chairman of the National Security Council Anthony Lake.

Pardew was later involved in the Dayton negotiations (1995) on behalf of the US Defence Department. In 1999, prior to the bombing of Yugoslavia, he was appointed “Special Representative for Military Stabilisation and Kosovo Implementation” by President Clinton. One of his tasks was to channel support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which at the time was also being supported by Osama bin Laden. Pardew was in this regard instrumental in replicating the “Bosnian pattern” in Kosovo and subsequently in Macedonia…

Justification for Waging War

The Bush Administration has stated that it has proof that Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. In the words of British Prime Minister Tony Blair: “I have seen absolutely powerful and incontrovertible evidence of his [Osama] link to the events of the 11th of September.” 18 What Tony Blair fails to mention is that agencies of the US government including the CIA continue to “harbor” Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.

A major war supposedly “against international terrorism” has been launched by a government which is harboring international terrorism as part of its foreign policy agenda. [And that also characterizes the Trump administration’s support of Al Qaeda mercenaries in Syria, M.Ch. Sept 2018] In other words, the main justification for waging war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future.

This decision to mislead the American people was taken barely a few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Without supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the “prime suspect.” Two days later on Thursday the 13th of September –while the FBI investigations had barely commenced– President Bush pledged to “lead the world to victory”. The Administration confirmed its intention to embark on “a sustained military campaign rather than a single dramatic action” directed against Osama bin Laden. 19 In addition to Afghanistan, a number of countries in the Middle East were mentioned as possible targets including Iraq, Iran, Libya and the Sudan. And several prominent US political figures and media pundits have demanded that the air strikes be extended to other countries “which harbour international terrorism.” According to intelligence sources, Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda has operations in some 50 to 60 countries providing ample pretext to intervene in several “rogue states” in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Moreover, the entire US Legislature –with only one honest and courageous dissenting voice in the House of Representatives– has tacitly endorsed the Administration’s decision to go war. Members of the House and the Senate have access through the various committees to official confidential reports and intelligence documents which prove beyond doubt that agencies of the US government have ties to international terrorism. They cannot say “we did not know”. In fact, most of this evidence is in the public domain.

Under the historical resolution of the US Congress adopted by both the House and the Senate on the 14th of September:

The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Whereas there is no evidence that agencies of the US government “aided the terrorist attacks” on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, there is ample and detailed evidence that agencies of the US government as well as NATO, have since the end of the Cold War continued to “harbor such organizations”.

Patriotism cannot be based on a falsehood, particularly when it constitutes a pretext for waging war and killing innocent civilians.

Ironically, the text of the Congressional resolution also constitutes a “blowback” against the US sponsors of international terrorism. The resolution does not exclude the conduct of an “Osamagate” inquiry, as well as appropriate actions against agencies and/or individuals of the US government, who may have collaborated with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. And the evidence indelibly points directly to the Bush Administration.

*

Notes

1. United Press International (UPI), 15 September 2001.
2. The Guardian, London, 15 September 2001.
3. UPI, op cit,
4. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Centre for Research on Globalisation, 12 September 2001, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html. 
5. International Media Corporation Defense and Strategy Policy, US Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia, London, 31 October 1994.
6. Congressional Press Release, Republican Party Committee (RPC), US Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, 16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html. The original document is on the website of the US Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm)
7. The Scotsman, Glasgow, 29 August 1999.
8. Ibid.
9. Truth in Media, Kosovo in Crisis, Phoenix, Arizona, 2 April 1999
10. Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998.
11. US Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo , Deputy Director, Global Organized Crime, Program director to the House Judiciary Committee, 13 December 2000.
12. US Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial Committee, 13 December 2000.
13. US Congress, Transcripts of the House Armed Services Committee, 5 October 1999,
14. Macedonian Information Centre Newsletter, Skopje, 21 March 2000, published by BBC Summary of World Broadcast, 24 March 2000.
15. BBC, 29 January 2001, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1142000/1142478.stm)
16. Scotland on Sunday, Glasgow, 15 June 2001 at http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/text_only.cfm?id=SS01025960, see also UPI, 9 July 2001. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Washington behind Terrorist Assaults in Macedonia, Centre for Research on Globalisation, August 2001, at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO108B.html.)
17. Macedonian Information Agency (MIA), 26 September 2001, available at the Centre for Research on Globalisation at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MNA110A.html
18. Quoted in The Daily Telegraph, London, 1 October 2001.
19. Statement by official following the speech by President George Bush on 14 September 2001 quoted in the International Herald Tribune, Paris, 14 September 2001.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Good news has finally come along for the many people who know office fires cannot bring down modern steel framed skyscrapers, and it’s good news for the rest of the world as well. On April 10th of this year, the non-profit Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Manhattan, formally requesting that he present to a grand jury, as a U.S. Attorney, extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11/2001. The petition cites broad and conclusive evidence, providing proof of explosives and incendiaries employed at ground zero to bring down the twin towers and WTC Building 7.(1)

Incredibly, America’s government waged war around the world to retaliate for 9-11, but never thoroughly investigated the collapse of these three WTC skyscrapers. This petition with the Department of Justice, for the first time, brings forward into a court of law the cavalcade of credible evidence disproving the official story which blames fire alone for the collapse of these buildings. The 52 page petition, with 57 exhibits, also points out that this crime of bombing a public building was not committed by a single person acting alone, and asks the jurors to inquire into the crimes of aiding and abetting and conspiracy.

The First Amended Petition

On 30 July 2018, an amended petition, The First Amended Petition, was delivered to U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in Manhattan, NY. This First Amended Petition references all of the same evidence presented in their original petition, but also has added three additional federal crimes that the Lawyers Committee allege the submitted evidence shows were committed related to the tragic events of 9/11.

The three new federal crimes are;

• Federal Law Criminalizes Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries
• Federal Law Criminalizes Providing Material Support to Terrorists
• Federal Law Criminalizes the Killing of a Federal Government Agent or Employee

It is important to raise awareness of this petition among the citizenry, because although federal law mandates that this evidence be presented to a grand jury for investigation, the DOJ will likely not do so without oversight from the public. In anticipation of this, the Lawyers Committee is now preparing a writ of mandamus to file with the court on September 10th, which in effect will sue the DOJ to compel them to carry out their obligations under the law.

World Trade Center Building 7

An honest investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center is long overdue. For example, the 9/11 Commission completely ignored the third skyscraper to fall on 9/11, the 47 story WTC Building 7, which was not hit by an airplane. When the final report on Building 7 was finally produced in 2008 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the investigating authorities blamed normal office fires for it’s collapse.

Figure 1: Initiation of Free Fall

However, Building 7 achieved the speed of free-fall acceleration while falling symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint(2), which has been acknowledged and verified by the NIST authorities themselves as shown in ‘Stage 2’ of Figure 2. NIST then obfuscated this fact in their report by averaging in the time associated with ‘Stage 1’ and ‘Stage 3’ to get average acceleration. However, Stage 2 is nothing less than proof of the use of demolitions to accomplish this otherwise unobtainable feat of physics known as free-fall acceleration.

Figure 2: NIST Diagram Documenting Free Fall

The proof behind this statement is the fact that in order for a falling object to achieve free-fall acceleration, all available energy must be put into motion, with none of it being diverted to the removal of resistance. With 47 floors which were bolted and welded together, Building 7 provided multiple layers of solid resistance to be overcome by any falling mass, rendering the achievement of symmetrical free-fall acceleration impossible without numerous explosive devices perfectly synchronized to simultaneously remove the resistance which the floors provided.

Evaporated Steel

That this crucial evidence of free-fall speed collapse was omitted from consideration in NIST’s final official report on Building 7 is, in itself, evidence of falsification. Yet this is only one of many examples of proof beyond a reasonable doubt which points to what was an inadequate investigation by government authorities. While debate on the internet raged for years over whether fires from jet fuel could burn hot enough to ‘melt’ steel columns, the evidence indicates that in small localized places the steel in the World Trade Center towers didn’t just melt, but it actually boiled and evaporated.

This claim of extremely high temperatures, much hotter than can be achieved by office fires or the kerosene which was stored in the bottom of Building 7, can be attributed to numerous sources. One comes from professor Jonathan Barnett of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who analyzed a section of steel from WTC 7 and said that fire would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.(3)

Figure 3: Eroded Steel Flange – Evidence of Extreme Temperatures

Another source can be attributed to civil engineering professor Abolhassan Astanch-Asl, with the University of California at Berkeley. He spent two weeks at ground zero studying steel from the buildings, one of which was a horizontal I-beam from WTC 7. Professor Astanch-Asl reported that “[p]arts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.”(4) This phenomenon would require temperatures of 5,182 degrees Fahrenheit.(5)

Figure 4: Cross Section Inspection of Eroded Steel Sample

Temperatures required to melt steel occur around 2,500 degrees F. Jet fuel, which is primarily kerosene, cannot burn much hotter than around 1,500 degrees F. Normal office fires are known to be capable of reaching temperatures of around 1,100 degrees F.(Google) Key to understanding how office fires could not have contributed to the collapse of Building 7, is the fact that steel has a terrific capacity as a heat sink. Heat applied to one section will travel and disperse that heat to whatever other steel it is attached to, necessitating many, many hours to achieve temperatures hot enough to even begin to bend steel, let alone melt it. Never in the history of modern architecture, before or after 9/11, has a steel framed skyscraper collapsed due to fire alone. Moreover, video evidence shows only a few small fires still burning at the time of Building 7’s collapse around 5:20 pm on the afternoon of 9/11.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: #WeRiseForClimate protest in San Francisco, September 8, 2018 from 350.org flickr.

The Global #RiseForClimate actions are just one example of many that the climate justice movement is building the power needed to transform the economy and put in place policies to confront climate change.  The ingredients exist for the climate justice movement to rapidly succeed. A challenge is not knowing how much time we have. Scientists have been conservative in their estimates, and feedback loops could rapidly increase the impacts of climate change.

The costs of not acting are high. The benefits of investing in a clean energy economy would be widespread. We need to keep building the movement.

Source: New Climate Economy

The Climate Crisis Is Already Devastating

The urgency of the climate crisis is obvious and cannot be reasonably denied. ABC News reported about the horrific California wildfires, saying there is an “undeniable link to climate change.” They wrote,

“Experts have said that rising temperatures linked to climate change are making the fires larger, more dangerous and more expensive to fight.”

This year’s fires broke records set by last year’s fires, leading Governor Jerry Brown to describe them as the “new normal” caused by years of drought and rising temperatures.

Researchers at Columbia University and the University of Idaho reported in 2017 that human-caused warming was drying out forests, causing peak fire seasons across the West to expand every year by an average of nine days since 2000. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the 2017 fire season cost more than $2 billion, making it the most expensive fire season on record.

Extreme heat is becoming more common because of climate change. Since 2001, 17 of the 18 warmest years on record have occurred. Records were broken all over the world this year. Record heat is also contributing to more ferocious storms. Storms with heavy rain and high winds are increasing, as the Union of Concerned Scientists warns.

Michael Mann, an atmospheric science professor at Penn State University, clarifies the science:

“What we can conclude with a great deal of confidence now is that climate change is making these events more extreme. And its not rocket science, you warm the atmosphere it’s going to hold more moisture, you get larger flooding events, you get more rainfall. You warm the planet, you’re going to get more frequent and intense heat waves. You warm the soils, you dry them out, you get worse drought. You bring all that together and those are all the ingredients for unprecedented wildfires.”

Our Lives Matter from #RiseOnClimate Flickr.

Economic Cost of Climate Impacts Is Rising

Global warming will hit the US economy hard, particularly in the South. The Richmond branch of the Federal Reserve Bank cites a study that finds refusing to combat climate change could utterly devastate the South’s entire economy. The Fed notes, “higher summer temperatures could reduce overall U.S. economic growth by as much as one-third over the next century, with Southern states accounting for a disproportionate share of that potential reduction.”

There is a correlation between higher temperatures and lower factory production, lower worker productivity and lower economic growth. An August 2018 report found:

“The occurrence of six or more days with temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit reduces the weekly production of U.S. automobile manufacturing plants by an average of 8 percent.”

Ironically, the oil and gas industry, which is accused of undermining climate science, is now asking government to protect it from the impacts of climate change. When Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, swamping Houston, it caused an immediate 28 cents per gallon increase in the price of oil. After Harvey a Texas commission report sought $61 billion from Congress to protect Texas from future storms. Joel N. Myers, of AccuWeather, predicted in 2017 that the total losses from Harvey “would reach $190 billion or one percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.” The cost of a 60 mile seawall along the Texas coast is initially projected to be $12 billion.

Harvey broke the record set by Hurricane Katrina, which cost $160 billion.  The 10 most destructive hurricanes caused an estimated $442 billion in losses. Out of 27 extreme weather events in 2016, researchers for the American Meteorological Society have correlated 21 of them to human-caused climate change.

A 2018 Climate Change Assessment report for  California estimated climate change:

“could soon cost us $200 million a year in increased energy bills to keep homes air conditioned, $3 billion from the effects of a long drought and $18 billion to replace buildings inundated by rising seas, just to cite a few projections. Not to mention the loss of life from killer heat waves, which could add more than 11,000 heat-related deaths a year by 2050 in California, and carry an estimated $50 billion annual price tag.”

Impacts are seen throughout the United States. A report found that “since 2005, Virginia has lost $280 million in home values because of sea-level rise.” A 2018 study found coastal properties in five Southeastern states have lost $7.4 billion in potential value since 2005. The 2017 Hawaii Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report estimates the lost value of flooded structures and land at over $19 billion. Additionally, Hawaii’s roadways, bridges and infrastructure will cost $15 billion to repair and replace. The National Flood Insurance Program is losing $1.4 billion annually largely due to claims in 284 coastal counties. The Congressional Budget Office  finds the program is already $20.5 billion in the red even after the government forgave $16 billion in debt last fall.

These are just some of the many costs — food, agriculture, fishing, oceans, storms, fires, droughts, heat, flooding and more are going to worsen significantly.

Climate change could be the cause of the next economic collapse due to the cost of climate damage, an insurance industry crisis, or stranded assets, as over-investing in carbon energy has caused a fragile carbon bubble.

Equity, Justice, #WeRiseForClimate from Flickr

The US Can Transform To A Climate Justice Economy Now

While there has been progress on clean energy, it is inadequate and sporadic compared to the urgent needs. We need dramatic escalation with clear goals — keep fossil fuels in the ground, use agriculture and wetlands to sequester carbon, deploy renewable energy, build climate justice infrastructure and transition to a new economy based on sustainability, democracy and equity.

This week, the world’s largest wind farm opened. It can power 590,000 homes in the UK. Another planned wind farm could provide the power for 2 million homes. The world is only scratching the surface of the potential of wind and solar.

We can no longer afford the old carbon energy economy. A new climate economy would add $26 trillion to the global economy by 2030, a conservative estimate. It will create 65 million new jobs and prevent 700,000 premature deaths. This transformation provides an opportunity to create the future we want based on economic, racial and environmental justice.

Just as we are underestimating the high costs of climate change, we have also “grossly underestimated the benefits and opportunities unlocked by smart, connected, distributed energy technologies,” David Roberts writes in Vox. We will look back after the transition and wonder why we waited as we will see “the benefit of quieter, safer, more livable cities and better respiratory health, we’ll wonder why we ever put up with anything else — why we nickel-and-dimed the transition to electric buses, long-haul trucks, and passenger vehicles; why we fought over every bike lane and rail line.” We can also implement Solutionary Rail – a network of electrified railroads that also serves as an energy grid serving rural areas and relieving roads of trucks.

The 2018 New Climate Economy Report reports time is running out; extreme damage from climate change is being locked in. We need a sustainable trajectory by 2030. The developing world needs infrastructure and much of the developed world’s infrastructure is failing. The report finds, “The world is expected to spend about US$90 trillion on infrastructure in the period up to 2030, more than the entire current stock today. Much of this investment will be programmed in the next few years.” We need to spend this on creating a new sustainable economy.

Adele Peters quotes Helen Mountford, lead author of the Global Commission project,

“If we get that infrastructure right, we’re going to put ourselves on the right path. If we get it wrong, we’ll be very much stuck on that wrong pathway.”

The report examined five areas: cities, energy, food and land use, water, and industry. Building sustainable, efficient, clean energy infrastructure will reduce health costs, and increase productivity and innovation. This requires policy based on equity, cutting fossil fuel subsidies while increasing the price of carbon, and investing in sustainable infrastructure.

The good news is we have the ability and technology to make the transition. We know what works. We lack the leadership, but this leadership void can be filled by the people. When we lead, the leaders will follow.

As the crisis hits and national consensus solidifies, people will need to demand a new economy based on equity, fairness, democratized energy and serving the necessities of the people and planet. This new democratized economy could include a federal buyout of the top US-based, publicly-traded fossil fuel companies. It could include the reversal of disastrous privatization with nationalization of key industries and public ownership of energy utilities to serve the public interest, rather than private interests.

Polling on risks of climate change. Yale Program on Climate Communication, 2018.

National Consensus Is Solidifying For Climate Action

Despite mis-leadership by power holders and lack of commercial media coverage, people know climate change is having major negative impacts and want to action taken to confront it. Yale reports that polls show 83% want research funded on alternative energy, 77% want CO2 regulated as a pollutant, 70% want strict limits on CO2 from coal-fired power plants, and 68% even favor a carbon tax on polluters.

Obama’s policies on climate were inadequate, and he led massive building of oil and gas infrastructure. The current administration denies climate change exists, hides research on climate, is reversing Obama’s positive steps and opposes the national consensus. This is going to lead to a climate justice boomerang. More storms and the cost of climate change will cause people to rebel and demand the transformation political elites have refused.

There is an impressive mobilized movement; not just the Global #RiseForClimate, but people putting their bodies on the line and risking arrestto stop carbon infrastructure. Activists are successfully delaying the approval of pipelines, often with Indigenous leadership as their rights are crucial for climate justice. Activists are arguing their resistance against polluters is being done out of climate necessity and are sometimes succeeding.

Oil companies are being sued for hiding the truth about climate change – former scientists are exposing them – and are now being forced to disclose climate change risks to shareholders. Activists are confronting investors of carbon infrastructure and insurance companies on coal. Workers are confronting unions on the issue. Youth are suing for a livable climate future.

The movement is building power. The path needed is clear, but escalation is urgent.

*

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, co-directors of Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Samir Amin, the Egyptian-born social scientist and activist, died in a Paris hospital on August 12, 2018 at the age of 86.

He was a prodigious researcher and publisher issuing over 40 books, hundreds of articles and papers dealing with the relationship between the colonial, semi-colonial and neo-colonial territories and the imperialist states. 

Amin was a leading proponent of dependency analysis and world systems theory which gained prominence during the 1970s among left organizations, insurgent academics and public intellectuals. It was Andre Gunder Frank, the German-American professor who spent time as a consultant during the administration of Salvador Allende in Chile; Walter Rodney, the African-Guyanese historian and co-founder of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), and Amin who were the most well-known advocates for expanding the Marxist paradigm to encompass in specific terms the inherently exploitative nexus between the underdeveloped and developed regions of the planet. 

As an initiator of the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA), Amin was able to influence many successive waves of academics seeking to explain the post-colonial crisis in African development. In the 1970s, the newly-independent African states were overwhelmed by national debt to the institutions of international finance capital. 

Although in many countries the national liberation struggles led by workers, farmers, youth, women, intellectuals and professionals made tremendous gains against what appeared to be overwhelming obstacles, the ongoing realities of dependence by the emergent states related to the need for credit, technology transfers, the building of internal industrial projects and attempted diplomatic isolation by the West, placed these governments at a disadvantageous position well into the 1970s and 1980s.

Samir Amin with African colleagues.

The 1980s were marked by the advent of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank engineered Economic Recovery Programs (ERPs) and Structural Adjustment Program (SAPs), ostensibly designed to balance current account deficits and to facilitate the repayment of loans. Nonetheless, the actual impact of these policies served further to arrest the genuine development of African societies placing them in perpetual subservience to the leading capitalist economies. 

In 1974, Amin’s work on placing these phenomena within a schematic framework was released under the title “Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment.” In this book he described the imperialist-led approach to investments in their former colonies and contemporary neo-colonies as “peripheral capitalism.” 

The author described the situation in these terms:

“The process of development of peripheral capitalism goes forward within a framework of competition (in the broader sense of the world) from the center, which is responsible for the distinctive structure assumed by the periphery, as something complementary and dominated. It is this competition that determines three types of distortion in the development of peripheral capitalism as compared with capitalism at the center.” (p. 170)

This center is the industrialized capitalist states in Western Europe and North America where economic priorities are established for the world system of capitalism. Investments in the nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America are aimed at maximizing the profitability of multi-national corporations and banks.

Amin spells out these three pillars upon which imperialism is built saying they are:

“(1) a crucial distortion toward export activities, which absorb the major part of the capital arriving from the center; (2) a distortion toward tertiary activities, which arises from both the special contradictions of peripheral capitalism and the original structures of the peripheral formations; and (3) a distortion in the choice of branches of industry, toward light branches, and also , to a lesser degree, toward light techniques.” (p. 170)

Such a structural system of economic relations enhances the power and authority of the leading capitalist states at the expense of the neo-colonial outposts. Such a situation disarticulates national policy within the neo-colonial dominated states hampering their capacity for genuine growth and development.

African Resistance to the World System

Of course the African popular classes and intellectual strata have not been complacent in such a scenario. From the period of the onset of slavery and colonialism, the people have revolted, fought for self-determination and worked to build alternative structures which address the needs of their societies and social classes.

From the armed and mass efforts in Algeria and Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s in the north of the continent to the emphatic pan-African program of party-building in the West African states of Ghana, Guinea, Mali, etc., in the same time period extending to the military, peasant and working class driven approaches in Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia, et.al, in the 1970s through the early 1990s, Africans have made tremendous contributions to the theoretical and practical aspects of national liberation and socialist construction.

Beyond the spontaneous rebellions, protest activity and work stoppages, African and Asians have given credence to the notions of Marxism as being a living science. Applying scientific socialism to the peripheral territories has enriched the emancipatory vision of the potential for the elimination of poverty and all other forms of underdevelopment. 

In his book “Delinking: Toward a Polycentric World”, published in French in 1985 and English in 1990, Amin emphasizes that:

“Marxism has already become a decisive force for social transformation in Asia and Africa. It is on these two continents perhaps that it can be seen most closely associated with social transformations. It could not be said to have such effect in Europe and North America. But Marxism, according to Marx, is not a philosophy satisfied with interpreting history. It seeks to change it. Doubtless in Asia and Africa the character of the transition in which it shares is open to question (socialist transition or capitalist expansion?). But it is undeniable that it plays a genuine role in the life of the peoples.” (p. 147)

Despite the collapse of the socialist project in Eastern Europe and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the late 1980s and 1990s, the People’s Republic of China, Democratic Vietnam, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Cuba still pose viable models of development in opposition to world imperialism. Although there have been road block and setbacks, the liberation movements turned political parties in Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Zimbabwe remain in power playing a progressive role within the political and ideological struggle against Western hegemony. Witness the emergence of the Brazil, Russia India, China and South Africa (BRICS) Summits. Also the Forum on China Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has been in existence for nearly two decades charting a course for inter-state relations in an attempt to break out of the distortions imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. 

Amin in Delinking discusses the “Relevance of Maoism” where the China model of socialist construction is upheld as representing a consistent path from the Marxism of Marx to the application of the theory to Asia and Africa. Socialism in China has outlived that of the USSR, Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia. Today China’s role in Africa has drawn the ire of imperialism which continues to covet its previous unhindered access to the underdeveloped and emerging markets. Most African leaders push back by pointing to the distinction of capitalist investment and the Chinese joint partnerships focusing on infrastructural and technological development. 

The section on Maoism observes:

“From this point of view these fundamental problems of the transition have so far been handled fairly correctly during China’s evolution. Obviously not every orientation and political initiative has been correct at all times, but in the narrower sense that the mistakes have never led to an irreversible situation. In this sense Maoism represents an advance on Leninism. It remains to be seen if the ‘new course’ will follow this logic of continuity, or on the contrary initiate a break with it. The reforms envisaged may in our opinion provide a deepening of socialist development and thereby provoke new negative aspects that could in principle be corrected.” (p. 135)

Toward a New International: Amin’s Last Will and Testament

Just weeks prior to his death, Amin wrote an open letter to the revolutionary forces of the world calling for the founding of a new international alliance of progressive and socialist forces. Amin saw this as a priority in the present period based upon the entrenched nature of imperialism and the lack of a forum for alternative voices from the working masses and radical intellectuals to provide a systematic critique and program to challenge Western orthodoxy.

Amin views the idea of “Globalization” as a modern form of imperialism. The oppressive and exploitative system cannot be fought strictly on a national level and therefore the struggle must renew the political thrust of internationalism based upon the interest of the majority of the world’s population. 

In this letter Amin acknowledges that:

“The idea of building a new organization similar to the International of Workers and Peoples has been in the air for a few years. We need a structured organization that will set objectives to our struggles and build concrete solidarity between our movements. Workers from every continent will have to be represented in the International so that unity in diversity is our major guideline. The question of popular sovereignty should not be evaded in our reflection on how to build the alliance of solidarities. It is in this context that we propose a meeting of reflection for the creation of new International Alliance of Workers and Peoples. This meeting could be held in Tunisia or any other Southern country accessible to delegates from around the world. The meeting will bring together activists representing movements, parties, unions, networks from all continents and regions. The following will be defined as regions: Latin America, Africa, North Africa and the Mediterranean, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, the United States and the Anglo-Saxon world.”

At present with the transition of Amin it is up to those remaining to figure out the logistics and ideological perimeters of such a gathering. Questions surrounding the character of discussion and the structural aspects of the organization will have to be debated and resolved.

Nevertheless, the appeal from Amin is a viable one. The majority must be organized and united in order for the dangers facing humanity to be eliminated.  

*

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images (except the featured) in this article are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The military-political landscape in Europe and the Mediterranean is changing. NATO is not as unified as it once was, and Turkey’s membership has become more of a formality than a real thing. A pro-US group consisting of Great Britain, Poland, and the Baltic States has emerged as part of a North Atlantic Alliance that is divided by differences and the open rift over the 2% financial contribution, a decree that is largely ignored, along with the other divisions that are weakening the bloc. Other groups are arising that also have common security interests. A new pact, an Arab NATO allied with the United States, will soon materialize in the Middle East.  Changes are coming, but they are hard to predict as everything is currently in a state of flux.

“The United States is interested in increasing its use of military bases and ports in Greece,” said General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), on Sept. 4 during his visit to Athens.  “If you look at geography, and you look at current operations in Libya, and you look at current operations in Syria, you look at potential other operations in the eastern Mediterranean, the geography of Greece and the opportunities here are pretty significant,” he added.

According to the Military Times,

“[N]o specific bases have been identified, but that Supreme Allied Commander Europe Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti is evaluating several options for increased US flight training, port calls to do forward-based ship repairs and additional multilateral exercises.”

US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross came to Greece right after the CJCS’s visit to take part in the annual Thessaloniki International Trade Fair.

Washington’s relations with Ankara continue to deteriorate. The idea of expelling Turkey from NATO is being discussed in the most prestigious American media outlets. The view that Ankara is more of an adversary than an ally is commonly held among American pundits.  General Dunford pointedly did not include Turkey on his itinerary, as top US military officials would normally do in order to maintain balance in their relationship with Athens and Ankara. This is a clear message to Turkey.

It was reported in May that the US military had started to operate MQ-9 aerial vehicles out of Greece’s Larissa military base.  That same month, the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier was one of the American ships making a port call. Greece’s Souda Bay naval base is being used to support US operations in Syria. US Ambassador to Greece Geoffrey Pyatt has often cited the strategic significance of the ports of Alexandroupolis and Thessaloniki.

Washington is interested in helping the Greek military conduct more effective operations in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Greece is a crucial element in dealing with the challenges of the Eastern Med, the Maghreb, the Balkans, and the Black Sea region.

There can be no doubt that Ankara’s dispute with Cyprus and Israel over drilling rights in the Mediterranean was also on the agenda of the talks during Gen. Dunford’s visit, although no comments were made to the media in regard to this issue. Greece wants to transform Alexandroupoli into a hub for the gas being exported from Israel and Cyprus to Europe. The pipeline’s approximate length is between 1,300 to 2,000 kilometers, and it will begin in Israel and cross through the territories of Cyprus, Crete and Greece to eventually end in Italy. The hub will also have a rail link to Bulgaria. A floating LNG reception, storage, and regasification unit will be part of this project, to make it possible to bring in US LNG supplies.

The planned route of the EastMed pipeline, a project supported by the EU, will bypass Turkey, despite the increased cost. Ankara will hardly sit idly by and watch this turn of events. Turkey claims that part of the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus is under Turkish jurisdiction.  According to Turkey’s President Erdogan, the “Eastern Mediterranean faces a security threat should Cyprus continue its unilateral operations of offshore oil and gas exploration in the region.” The countries involved in the project may need US protection and help in order for this to come to fruition.

For the US, strengthening its relations with Greece means expanding support for the emerging Greece-Israel-Cyprus Eastern Mediterranean Alliance (EMA) that has been driven by the discovery of hydrocarbons in Israeli and Cypriot waters and by opposition to Turkey. As Ambassador Pyatt put it, “Americans are back in a really big way.”

A year ago the US opened its first permanent military base in Israel run by the US military’s European Command (EUCOM). Officially, the primary mission of the air-defense facility located inside the Israeli Air Force’s Mashabim air base, west of the towns of Dimona and Yerucham, is to detect and warn of a possible ballistic missile attack from Iran. This is part of a broader process as a new military alliance with its own infrastructure emerges.

In 2015, Greece and Israel signed a military cooperation agreement. Bilateral and trilateral military drills, such as Nobel Dina, a multinational joint air and sea exercise conducted under the partnership of Greece, Israel, and the United States, have become routine. In March 2014, Israel opened a new military attaché office in Greece to signify this ever-closer relationship.

Israel has a strong defense and military relationship with Cyprus. The three nations are pledging deeper military ties, in keeping with the declaration they issued at the first-ever trilateral defense summit last year.  Both Greece and Cyprus are EU members and Israel needs allies within the bloc. Greece opposed the EU’s decision to label products from Israel’s settlements. In May, the leaders of the three allied Eastern Mediterranean nations paid a joint visit to Washington.

Albania, Greece’s neighbor, has recently offered to establish a US military base on its soil. Albania‘s defense minister, Olta Xhacka, made the proposal in April during her visit to Washington.

Of all the members of the emerging alliance, only Israel is not a NATO member, but it’s an enhanced partner and a member of the Mediterranean Dialogue. What we actually have is a new alliance within the alliance, which was unofficially established to counter Turkey, a full-fledged NATO member.  Under the circumstances, it would only be natural for Ankara to distance itself from NATO to move toward Russia, Iran, China, the SCO, and, perhaps, the Eurasian Union.

The alliance of the US and the three Eastern Mediterranean states has emerged as a political and military “petite entente,” a force to be reckoned with at a time when NATO is facing serious challenges to its unity and the EU’s future is in question.

The two large entities that bring together nations sharing the same “values,” or the desire to counter China or Russia, are giving way to smaller groups of countries pursuing shared regional interests, thus undermining the very concept of what is known as the United West.

*

Peter Korzun is an expert on wars and conflicts.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The US ambassador to Tel Aviv says Israel checks all settlement expansion plans in the occupied Palestinian territories with the United States which never challenges them.

In an interview published in Israel Hayom daily, David Friedman said Israel “shouldn’t have to ask permission from the US” to build settlements in the occupied West Bank.

According to Friedman, Israel is entitled to the possibility even though the Trump administration has never challenged an Israeli construction plan in the West Bank.

US newspapers have said Friedman is unfit to be ambassador to Israel, arguing that he has politicized his diplomatic office and misrepresented US policy on the conflict with Palestinians.

“In David Friedman, President Trump has nominated someone who lacks the necessary temperament to serve in such a crucial position,” the San Francisco Chronicle wrote last March.

Under the Trump administration, Israel has increasingly become emboldened in its settlement expansion and repressive policies against Palestinians and Friedman is viewed more of an Israeli ambassador.

Earlier this month, Palestinian media reported that Israel plans to build more than 4,700 settler units in the village of al-Walaja, west of the city of Bethlehem.

In August, the Israeli regime approved plans for the construction of over 1,000 settler units in the occupied West Bank.

Friedman said contrary to the former US administration under Barack Obama, President Donald Trump does not examine every settler unit built in the occupied West Bank,

“We receive an encompassing overview and have an understanding of what the overall strategy for development would be,” he said. “We conduct talks … We never tell them [Israeli officials] ‘this you have to take out of the list.’”

Israel, the US envoy said, presents its construction plans to the Trump administration and if the latter has an issue with something, it replies with notes such as,

“Do we really need to go that far? Can you build close to the existing settlement?’”

He further reiterated that Washington does not view Israeli settlements as an obstacle to resolve the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We don’t tell Israel what to do and what not to do,” Friedman said. “But we do have an open relationship and a good faith relationship, we talk about these plans and we do so from the perspective that the president expressed early on in his presidency – that settlements are not an obstacle to peace but if unrestrained settlement expansion continues, mathematically speaking, there will be much greater limits on territory that could be given to Palestinians.”

Friedman had previously been a donor to the Israeli settlement of Beit El, situated near the West bank city of Ramallah.

About 600,000 Israelis live in over 230 settlements built illegally since the 1967 occupation of the Palestinian lands.

Elsewhere in his interview, Friedman played down the chances that a future US president could reverse Washington’s decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem al-Quds and recognize the occupied city as the “capital” of Israel.

“In order for an administration to reverse this, they would have to conclude that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and Tel Aviv is. I think that would be a far more controversial thing to do than what the president did,” he said.

Trump recognized Jerusalem al-Quds as the “capital” of Israel last December and relocated the American embassy to the occupied city in May.

Israel lays claim to the whole Jerusalem al-Quds, but the international community views the city’s eastern sector as occupied territory and Palestinians consider it as the capital of their future state.

*

Featured image is from YemenPress.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Sandinista Nicaraguans march for Peace and Justice for their dead, wounded, and disappeared. Managua, September 8, 2018.

On its September 7 article, the once progressive newspaper reports that Nicaragua was brought to a standstill by a general strike called by the Civic Alliance, one of the main opposition coalitions behind the attempted soft-coup, citing how banks and upscale shopping malls in Managua are all closed in support of the strike. What The Guardian fails to mention is that those upscale businesses only represent a small portion within the Nicaraguan sector, which is mostly driven by micro, small, and mid-size businesses that are part of the country’s popular market economy, which in turn employs about 90 percent of the country’s workers. In truth, commerce was business as usual throughout Nicaragua, as these images show.

Roberto Huembes Market, Managua, September 7, 2018

Market in Matagalpa, September 7, 2018

Market in Granada, September 7, 2018

The paper then quotes Ana Margarita Vigil, calling her the ‘national director of the outlawed Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS).” What they omit is that the MRS was not arbitrarily “outlawed,” it simply lacks the legal status of a political party because its leaders have not been able to obtain more than 1.3 percent of the popular vote, which isn’t enough to qualify them to run in elections.

“With 200 political prisoners and [new] murders every day,” Vigil is quoted, “this strike is just one more sign that nothing is normal here in Nicaragua.”

Here, again, The Guardian leaves out vital information. First, since the roadblocks were removed, the only people who have died as a result of political turmoil have been Sandinistas, including Lenin Mendiola, who died as a result of gunshots fired directly  from an opposition march in Matagalpa on August 11 of this year.

Another Sandinista, Bismarck Martinez Sanchez, is presumed dead after video evidence of his capture and torture was found on the cell phones of opposition operatives; he was kidnapped at a tranque (or roadblock) on June 29 of this year. Several of the perpetrators of these crimes have been arrested. They are the kind of criminals being called “political prisoners,” by people in the opposition, such as Vigil.

“Last week, Ortega expelled a UN human rights mission after it published a report denouncing government repression and describing a “climate of fear” in the Central American country,” continues the article, giving the impression the Nicaraguan government punished the UN for publishing its report.

In reality, it was the Nicaraguan government that invited the UN mission, at a time when political violence still prevailed in many parts of the country, but that violence has largely ended, and since the UN already conducted its investigation and issued its report, there was no longer a need for their continued presence. The team was not ‘expelled’ from Nicaragua, as was the case in Guatemala, where President Jimmy Morales, with police and military leaders in tow, asked the UN mission to initiate its transfer out of the country.

The paper portrays the opposition as a strong and unified movement that represents the sentiment and interest of the Nicaraguan people against a repressive dictatorship, but the reality is almost the exact opposite. For starters, the opposition not only lacks a well-defined and unified leadership, but the different actors within it are constantly at odds with one another. On the day the Civic Alliance issued its call for a national strike, a leader from the so-called Azul y Blanco Movement asked its members not to follow the Alliance on social media, and continued to promote a change.org petition asking the Alliance to become more belligerent.

Conflict between opposition members “Movimiento Azul y Blanco” and Alianza Civica.

Differences also exist between pro-choice civil society organizations and the fervidly pro-life, homophobic, and deeply misogynist Catholic Church, which has perhaps been the strongest pillar in the anti-Sandinista charge, a role the church has played historically.

Other differences exist between student groups that have openly advocated for a prolonged general strike, and wealthy business groups who would lose a lot of money from such a measure. Lastly, there are those within the opposition who consider themselves leftists, and those who have traveled to the US, where they have met with extreme right wing republicans who are co-sponsors of the NICA Act in the US Congress, a measure that would effectively amount to an economic embargo. In the case of Vigil and other MRS leaders, they have met with Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is trying to re-arm the contras.

Nicaraguan students meet with right-wing Republican lawmakers Marco Rubio and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to seek their help.

In contrast to everything The Guardian would have its readers believe, and with the disarticulation in leadership of the right-wing opposition, the Sandinista government and its base are stronger than ever.

Despite western media claims that protests have continued, the only significant marches taking place in Nicaragua are led by pro-government people, clamoring for justice for those who were wounded, tortured, disappeared, killed, burned, and for those who are still being persecuted and hunted, for the simple crime of being Sandinista.

*

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The US political commentator Michael Parenti once observed that:

‘Bias in favor of the orthodox is frequently mistaken for “objectivity”. Departures from this ideological orthodoxy are themselves dismissed as ideological.’

Once you understand the truth of that remark, seeing the daily biases and distortions of the corporate media becomes obvious. Thus, there is plenty of space on the BBC News website, and plenty of time on the BBC’s airwaves, to discuss the Venezuela migrant crisis, hyper-inflation and food shortages. Rob Young, a BBC News business correspondent, wrote:

‘Venezuela, now in its fourth year of recession, has joined a sad list of other countries whose economies imploded as hyperinflation tore through them.’

Young quoted a senior official of the International Monetary Fund:

‘The situation in Venezuela is similar to that in Germany in 1923 or Zimbabwe in the late 2000s.’

A BBC News clip headlined, ‘Begging for food in Venezuela’, emphasised:

‘Food has become so scarce in Venezuela after the economy collapsed that people are getting desperate.’

Likewise, there has been ample heart-wrenching coverage of Venezuelans fleeing to other countries. But you will struggle to find any substantive analysis of the severe US sanctions and long-standing threats to bring about a US-friendly government in Caracas, including an attempted coup in 2002 to remove Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s then president.

On August 19, BBC South America correspondent Katy Watson reported for BBC News at Ten:

‘President Nicolas Maduro is doing little to stop his country’s economic freefall. Last week, he announced plans to devalue the country’s currency; an attempt to rein in inflation that the International Monetary Fund says could hit one million per cent by the end of the year.’

But there was next to no context. BBC viewers were led to believe that the blame for the crisis in Venezuela lay squarely at Maduro’s door.

By contrast, consider the analysis of Gabriel Hetland, an expert academic on Latin America. He stated that the Venezuelan government’s actions – and inactions – have made the crisis ‘far worse’. But crucially:

‘the government has not acted in a vacuum, but in a hostile domestic and international environment. The opposition has openly and repeatedly pushed for regime change by any means necessary.’

On August 4, there was even an attempt to assassinate President Maduro, with responsibility claimed by a clandestine opposition group made up of members of the Venezuelan military.

Hetland continued:

‘The US government has not only cheered, and funded, these anti-democratic actions. By absurdly declaring that Venezuela is an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security and pressuring investors and bankers to steer clear of the Maduro administration, the White House has prevented Venezuela from obtaining much-needed foreign financing and investment.’

The Morning Star’s Tim Young pointed out that:

‘Sanctions now form a key part of what is a strategic plan by the US to ruin the Venezuelan economy.’

These US sanctions have even impacted Venezuela’s health programme, with the country’s vaccination schemes disrupted, dialysis supplies blocked and cancer drugs refused. Young added:

‘It is clear that the US sanctions — illegal under international law — are part of an overall strategy to bring about what the US calls “regime change.”

‘Its aim is to undermine and topple the elected government of President Nicolas Maduro and secure control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and other natural resources and wealth.’

In a news report in the Independent last year, Andrew Buncombe quoted remarks by Mike Pompeo, then head of the CIA, suggesting that:

‘the agency is working to change the elected government of Venezuela and is collaborating with two countries [Mexico and Colombia] in the region to do so.’

As Buncombe observed:

‘The US has a long and bloody history of meddling in Latin America’s affairs.’

That is an accurate and truthful headline you are very unlikely to see on BBC News.

To realise how incomplete and distorted is BBC News coverage, you only have to listen to the superb independent journalist Abby Martin, who has risked her life to report what the corporate media is not telling you about Venezuela. It is little wonder that, as she discusses, her important news programme, ‘Empire Files’, is currently off-air as a result of US sanctions against left-leaning TeleSUR, the Venezuela-based television network.

A report by media analyst Gregory Shupak for US-based media watchdog FAIR, notes the repeated usage of the word ‘regime’ to describe Venezuela by the US corporate media. As Shupak observes, a ‘regime’ is, by definition, a government that opposes the US empire. He goes on:

‘Interestingly, the US itself meets many of the criteria for being a “regime”: It can be seen as an oligarchy rather than a democracy, imprisons people at a higher rate than any other country, has grotesque levels of inequality and bombs another country every 12 minutes. Yet there’s no widespread tendency for the corporate media to describe the US state as a “regime.”‘

In short, if you rely on the corporate media, not least the BBC, for what’s going on in Venezuela, you will get the US-friendly version of events, downplaying or simply ignoring the crippling effects of US sanctions and threats.

On Venezuela, as with so many other issues, BBC News regularly violates its own stated ‘Editorial Values’:

‘Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth.’

The notion that BBC News journalists perform a balancing act, sifting through ‘facts and information’ to present ‘the truth’ to the public is simply pure fiction, as the ample evidence presented in our forthcoming book, ‘Propaganda Blitz’, makes clear.

‘A Human Landmark; An American Hero’

Consider coverage of the recent death of US politician John McCain. McCain was the Republican nominee in the 2008 US presidential election which he lost to Barack Obama. In 1967, during the Vietnam War, he was shot down while on a bombing mission over Hanoi and was seriously injured. Captured by the North Vietnamese, he was tortured during his incarceration, before being released in 1973. In later years, the media would call him a ‘war hero’ and depict him as a political ‘maverick’ in not always supporting Republican Party policy on certain issues.

Theresa May declared:

‘John McCain was a great statesman, who embodied the idea of service over self. It was an honour to call him a friend of the UK.’

Con Coughlin, the Telegraph’s defence editor and chief foreign affairs columnist, echoed the mantra that McCain was a ‘war hero’.

In similar vein, ‘neutral’ and ‘impartial’ Nick Bryant, the BBC’s New York correspondent, intoned loftily on BBC News at Ten on August 27:

‘Washington without John McCain is a lesser place. He was a human landmark; an American hero whose broken body personified the Land of the Brave.’

Senior reporters from Channel 4 News and ITV News added their own eulogies to warmonger McCain, dubbed ‘McNasty’ by people who had observed his ‘inexplicable angry outbursts’. C4 News political correspondent Michael Crick said via Twitter:

‘I’ll always be grateful to John McCain. When I was #C4News Washington Correspondent in the late ’80s, he was one of the few senators happy to do interviews with us, and always very friendly & accommodating.’

Robert Moore, ITV News Washington Correspondent responded:

‘Agreed. And that continued almost until the end – for the foreign press, McCain was the single most accessible political figure in Washington. He always had time for an interview, and a joke – including teasing me for my choice of ties.’

Other Twitter users put things in stark perspective:

‘My thoughts are entirely with his victims and their families.’

And:

‘How hard did you grill him about the decisions he made that killed innocent civilians in hundreds of thousands?’

It would be hard to find an exchange on Twitter that better exemplifies the divide between sycophantic journalists fawning before power, and members of the public refusing to whitewash a politician’s ugly record.

Patrick Martin, writing for the World Socialist Website, makes a vital point:

‘The overriding feature of McCain’s career […] was his reflexive hawkishness on foreign policy. He supported war after war, intervention after intervention, always promoting the use of force as the primary feature of American foreign policy, and always advocating the maximum allocation of resources to fuel the Pentagon.’

Peace activist Medea Benjamin told Amy Goodman in a Democracy Now! interview:

‘We had constantly been lobbying John McCain to not support all these wars. Amy, I think it’s so horrible to be calling somebody a war hero because he participated in the bombing of Vietnam. I just spent the last weekend with Veterans for Peace, people who are atoning for their sins in Vietnam by trying to stop new wars. John McCain hasn’t done that. With his life, what he did was support wars from not only Iraq, but also Libya.’

Benjamin founded Code Pink: Women for Peace, a grassroots peace and justice movement that McCain once disparaged as ‘low-life scum’.

She continued:

‘He called John Kerry delusional for trying to make a nuclear deal with Iran, and threw his lot in with the MEK, the extremist group in Iran. He also was a good friend of Mohammad bin Salman and the Saudis. There was a gala for the Saudis in May when the crown prince was visiting, and they had a special award for John McCain. He supported the Saudi bombing in Yemen that has been so catastrophic. And I think we have to think that those who have participated in war are really heroes if they spend the rest of their lives trying to stop war, not like John McCain, who spent the rest of his life supporting war.’

Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, made clear his empathy for McCain for having suffered through brain cancer. But he castigated the corporate media phenomenon of ‘obit omit—obituaries that are flagrantly in conflict with the real historical record.’

He told Goodman:

‘we really have to fault the mass media of the United States, not just for the last few days, but the last decades, pretending that somehow, by implication, almost that John McCain was doing the people of North Vietnam a favor as he flew over them and dropped bombs. You would think, in the hagiography that we’ve been getting about his role in a squadron flying over North Vietnam, that he was dropping, you know, flowers or marshmallows or something. He was shot down during his 23rd mission dropping bombs on massive numbers of human beings, in a totally illegal and immoral war.’

As Branko Marcetic noted in an accurate assessment of McCain’s political legacy:

‘John McCain’s greatest achievement was convincing the world through charming banter and occasional opposition to his party’s agenda that he was anything other than a reactionary, bloodthirsty war hawk.’

In a recent article, Joe Emersberger, an insightful writer on foreign affairs, notes that corporate media coverage of both Venezuela and John McCain illustrates two main features:

1. The uniformity of empire-friendly reporting across the corporate media.

2. The complicity of major human rights groups in this empire-friendly ‘journalism’.

As an example:

‘Amnesty International has refused to oppose US economic sanctions on Venezuela, and has also refused to denounce flagrant efforts by US officials to incite a military coup.’

Emersberger also points to a statement on John McCain’s death from Human Rights Watch:

‘Senator McCain was for decades a compassionate voice for US foreign and national security policy.’

For anyone able to think critically and speak openly, such statements are risible. Brutal imperialism will continue for as long as empire-friendly journalism and tame public opposition exist.

*

Featured image is from Media Lens.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Despite his having expressed his desire to get U.S. troops out of Syria only months ago, a report published Friday in The Washington Post claims that President Donald Trump is allegedly “on board” with a new “indefinite military and diplomatic effort in Syria.” That effort claims to seek the “establishment of a stable, non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community,” a government that would not have current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as its leader.

The reason given for the dramatic change in policy was the administration’s recent decision to “redefine” its goals in the Syrian conflict, resulting in the emergence of “the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria” as the administration’s top priority, effectively overshadowing the U.S.’ long-stated goal of rooting out terror groups like Daesh (ISIS). The shift is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to target Iranian influence in the region while simultaneously attempting to provoke regime change in Iran through the use of aggressive sanctions and other covert means.

Trump seems to have officially embraced regime change in Syria at the behest of his now-closest advisors, National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In July, Bolton had foreshadowed the shift of the administration’s Syria policy when he stated during an interview on ABC’s Next Week with George Stephanopoulos that the U.S. troops would remain in Syria indefinitely “as long as the Iranian menace continues throughout the Middle East.”

Pompeo’s fingerprints are also on the new official policy, as the Post’s main source for details on the policy changes were James Jeffrey, a retired U.S. diplomat who was named Pompeo’s “representative for Syria engagement” last month. Jeffrey told the Post that “the new policy is we’re no longer pulling out [U.S. troops] by the end of the year” and that the plan would also include a “major diplomatic initiative” to install a new government in Syria.

Though Jeffrey claimed that “Assad must go” was no longer U.S. policy, he stated that “Assad has no future” while claiming that it was not the U.S.’ “job to get rid of him.” He further elaborated that Assad did not “meet the requirements of not just us, but the international community” for a leader of a new, post-conflict Syrian government, as those requirements included not “threatening his neighbors” — an apparent reference to Israel, which has long sought Assad’s overthrow — and not providing “a platform for Iran.”

Jeffrey, also a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, went on to state that rebels in the Idlib province, where the Syrian army is expected to launch a major offensive in the coming weeks, were “not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator.” However, the Postarticle itself admits that 14,000 fighters in Idlib are linked to al-Qaeda, though the figure is likely much higher.

Furthermore, just last year, Brett McGurk – the U.S. government’s Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL (Daesh, ISIS) –called Syria’s Idlib province “the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11, tied directly to Ayman al-Zawahiri [current leader of Al Qaeda].” Since McGurk made that claim, the presence of Al Qaeda in the Idlib province has only grown.

The plan detailed by the Post is remarkably similar to a plan Jeffrey himself helped develop earlier this year. That plan, published by the Washington Institute in July, called for the Trump administration to pursue “a no-fly/no-drive zone and a small residual ground presence in the northeast with intensified sanctions against the Assad regime’s Iranian patron,” in order to “stabilize the area, encourage Gulf partners [Saudi Arabia, UAE] to ‘put skin in the game,’ drive a wedge between Moscow and Tehran, and help Israel avoid all-out war.”

Notably, in the past, Jeffery has promoted U.S. military intervention in other conflicts provoked by U.S. regime-change efforts, such as his advocacy for sending U.S. troops into Ukraine in order “to send [Russian President Vladimir] Putin a tough message.”

However, Trump has yet to make a public statement regarding this new policy shift and it is unclear whether Trump has actually thrown his weight behind it, given that the Post quoted Jeffrey as saying only, “I am confident the president is on board with this.” Yet, given Trump’s willingness to place “maximum pressure” on Iran and his recent warning against the upcoming Syria offensive in Idlib, it seems likely that he would support the plan, especially as it is backed by his closest advisors, Bolton and Pompeo.

*

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

A recent investigation by the Associated Press found that militias in Yemen backed by the Saudi-led coalition, of which the US and UK are a de facto part, have been recruiting hundreds of al-Qaeda militants to fight Houthi forces to reinstate the ousted government of Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.

The coalition has been cutting secret deals with these al-Qaeda fighters, paying some to leave key towns with weapons and looted cash worth up to $100m. This, and similar stories that have emerged in the three years of Yemen’s war, begs a key question: Given their arming of Saudi Arabia, are Washington and London also arming and empowering al-Qaeda militants in Yemen?

The coalition and al-Qaeda militants have been described by the International Crisis Group as having a “tacit alliance” in Yemen. Ansar al-Sharia, a militant group created by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) as its local insurgent arm – has regularly fought alongside coalition forces against Houthis in Aden and other parts of the south, including the cultural capital of Taiz, indirectly obtaining weapons from the coalition.

Wide range of weaponry

On the ground in Yemen, coalition forces comprise a mix of anti-Houthi militias, factions and tribal warlords, in which AQAP militants are often intertwined and present in all the frontlines. AQAP is benefiting from the tremendous amount of light and heavy weaponry that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are sending to Yemen to arm the militias – everything from assault rifles to anti-tank guided missiles.

According to the International Crisis Group,

AQAP “has acquired a wide range of new weaponry, including heavy weapons from Yemeni military camps or acquired indirectly from the Saudi-led coalition”.

Middle East Eye revealed last year that the largest Salafi militant force in Taiz received arms and money from the coalition: It was commanded by Abu al-Abbas, who was subsequently designated an al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS) supporter by the Saudis and the US. One fighter with the battalion said that Abu al-Abbas held monthly meetings with the coalition leadership in Aden.

These arms supplies are longstanding and are contributing to the growth of AQAP. Joke Buringa, a Dutch foreign ministry adviser on Yemen, noted nearly three years ago that

“Saudi Arabia has been delivering arms to al-Qaeda, (which) is expanding its sphere of influence”.

Washington and London try to demonise Iran for supplying arms to the Houthis and posit the Yemen conflict as a Saudi-Iranian one, rather than a war for Riyadh’s control of the whole of Arabia.

Yet, as noted by Michael Horton, a Yemen expert at the Jamestown Foundation, a US analysis group that tracks terrorism,

“AQAP – far more than the Houthis – has benefited from the influx of weapons to Yemen” while “currently, Iran has little influence with the Houthis, who are distinctly Yemeni and deeply rooted in a very Yemeni socio-cultural context”.

US and British arms

If arms from Saudi Arabia and the UAE are reaching al-Qaeda militants in Yemen, could these be the same kinds of weapons that Washington and London are supplying to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi?

The UK, for example, has licensed more than £4.6 billion ($5.9bn) worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since the bombing began in March 2015. These weapons include not only items for the Saudi air force, such as warplanes and missiles, but also arms that are ideal for insurgent groups, such as grenades, bombs and guns.

The British government freely admits that it does not monitor the use of its arms exports after sale and has said:

“We do not have a full picture of which specific items have been used in Yemen.”

Neither do there appear to be any restrictions on how the Saudis might use the British arms they receive.

Thus, the UK government cannot categorically state that its weapons are not ending up in the hands of al-Qaeda, a risk that will continue as long as London keeps the arms flowing to Riyadh.

The UK government is not only complicit in Saudi war crimes, evidenced in its direct role in the war (supplying arms, storing and issuing weapons used in bombing and maintaining the Saudi warplanes), but it is also contributing to the rise of AQAP.

In July, Foreign Minister Alistair Burt told parliament:

“The conflict in Yemen has allowed terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda and Daesh [IS] to establish themselves and spread their message of violence and extremism.”

Indeed, Jane’s Intelligence Weekly has reported that AQAP is in the process of asserting itself as the dominant actor across much of southern Yemen.

AQAP’s strength – estimated by US officials at 6,000 to 8,000 members – is increasing, while the war is providing the group with a host of opportunities to refine its tactics. Horton makes a further critical point:

“If coalition-backed forces are able to force the Houthis to retreat, AQAP will move to fill some of the voids left by the Houthis and their allies – at least over the short-term.”

Fighting terrorism?

The US claims to be fighting terrorism in Yemen, and its drone strikes against AQAP targets have increased since Trump took office. But its larger mission is to win the civil war against the Houthis, and in that conflict, al-Qaeda militants are effectively on the same side as the coalition.

By positioning itself as a disciplined Sunni force capable of countering the Houthi insurgents, AQAP has established itself as a de facto coalition partner.

This is further illustrated in the current battle for the strategic port of Hodeidah, through which much of Yemen’s food and humanitarian supplies pass. Two of the four main coalition-backed commanders along the Red Sea coast are allies of al-Qaeda, as reported by the Associated Press. Another Yemeni commander put on the US terrorism list for al-Qaeda ties last year continues to receive money from the UAE to run his militia.

Once again, Washington and London find themselves – as in Syria, Libya and many other conflicts – regarding terrorist militias as proxy forces to achieve broad foreign policy aims. AQAP, formed in 2009 through a union of the Saudi and Yemeni branches of al-Qaeda, has attacked US and British targets in the region, attempted to bomb a US-bound airliner and claimed responsibility for the January 2015 attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris that killed 12 people.

To reverse the growth of AQAP and IS – and end a calamitous war – will require a political settlement in Yemen that is inclusive and addresses demands for local autonomy and security, while operating under the umbrella of a transformed state.

We should fear for Yemen, since AQAP, far from melting away, is likely to grow still stronger the more the war continues. We should also fear for the West, since our governments’ foreign policy priorities remain far removed from promoting the public interest in their choice of wars and allies.

*

Mark Curtis is a historian and analyst of UK foreign policy and international development and the author of six books, the latest being an updated edition of Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The US Air forces ” Two US F-15 jets ” on September 8 carried out strikes using banned phosphorus bombs in Deir ez-Zor province, the Russian Center for Syrian Reconciliation said in a statement.

“In Deir ez-Zor province on September 8, 2018, two F-15 aircraft of the US Air Forces carried out strikes on the settlement of Hadjin with the use of phosphorus incendiary munitions. As a result of the strikes, major fires were observed. Information on victims and injured are being clarified,” Major-General Vladimir Savchenko stated, stressing that the use of weapons with white phosphorus is prohibited by an additional protocol to the 1949 Geneva Convention.

The US-led coalition, consisting of more than 70 countries, is conducting military operations against Daesh in Syria and Iraq without UN or Syrian permission.

In August, former Commander of Syria’s Deir ez-Zor Military Assembly Fayez Esmer reportedly stated that the Pentagon was preparing to set up a missile defense shield in Syria’s northeastern cities of Al Hasakah and Rmelan.

In April, media reported that Daesh had succeeded in seizing the oil fields in the province of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria, which was its former key stronghold, with the group using the oil fields to raise funds for its terror state.

*

Featured image is from Muraselon.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

First published in September 2007.

GR Editor’s Note

We bring to the attention of our readers this carefully researched analysis.

“Given the warnings of incipient terrorist attacks that had been repeatedly received by the Administration and the FBI, why would anyone coordinate two major annual air training exercises at this time, and divert key resources to the North Pole on an outdated mission? Who was in a position to do this?”

The 911 Commission carefully overlooked these considerations.

“It ignored the issue of the drills and continuously pointed to FAA incompetence.  Thus the the mock live hijackings which were apparently in progress on the morning of September 11th should be investigated as a plausible explanation for why the national defense was such an abysmal failure.”

***

Information regarding military exercises is classified and difficult to research. Though there was unusually high and confusing drill activity on 9/11, this strange coincidence has not gained much public notice. This essay quotes military officials from their own magazines, and compares their statements to what the 9/11 Commission wrote about the so-called surprise factor, and also to the Commission’s position that the drills aided the response.

Though both the 9/11 Commission Report and members of the Bush Administration repeatedly stated that the use of planes as weapons could not have been predicted, other official sources indicate that military exercises had been underway to counteract this very possibility.

1. Was it a Surprise that Hijacked Planes Were Used as Weapons on 9/11?

The element of surprise has been widely given (and quoted) as the reason why the 9/11 attacks were so successful against the world’s greatest military power.

Before proceeding to the statements on both sides of the issue, the context for these attacks should be understood in light of three defense procedures which were unusually and significantly changed in the months preceding 9/11:

1. A May 8th 2001 Statement by the President gave responsibility for coordinating, training and planning all national defense programs related to weapons of mass destruction to Vice President Cheney, whose office was not part of the National Command Authority. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that he was present and observed Dick Cheney in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center tracking the position of Flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon.1 “Based on Norm Minetta’s testimony and other information, it appears that the military have regarded Cheney as a ‘Deputy Commander-in-Chief’. They also understand that he is the real power behind the throne…It appears that Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of all the many air defense exercises that took place on the morning of September 11, 2001.”2
2. The 1997 hijacking scramble protocol CJCSI 3610, which distinguished emergent situations (requiring immediate action between the FAA and the military) from non-emergent situations (requiring decision input from the highest levels of the DoD) was rewritten June 1, 2001, as ordered by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.3 As a result, the number of fighter-interceptor scrambles fell from the usual average of 7-8 per month before the rewrite, to zero during the 3.3 months before September 11th, and to zero on September 11th itself.4
3. Changes in the dates of annual and semi-annual military air defense exercises resulted in an unprecedented concentration of air drills on September 11th, and included hijackings and drills in which planes hit buildings. These will be explored later.

The transfer of two line defense roles to senior members of the Bush-Cheney Administration, paired with the concentration of air drills on the day itself, raise serious questions regarding the success of the attacks.

Early expressions of surprise over the attacks: In response to the seemingly inexplicable success of the 9/11 attacks, a chorus of astonishment issued from the White House, the military, and the FBI. Tim Ruppert asked Donald Rumsfeld on September 30, 2001 whether he had ever imagined that the Pentagon would be attacked by a terrorist using an American commercial airline. “Oh goodness no! “Never would have crossed anyone’s mind.”5 His Commander-in-Chief had earlier said that “al Qaeda “struck in a way that was unimaginable.”6

General Richard Myer, acting air defense commander, told the military press in late October: “You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this.”7 FBI Director Robert Mueller declared a week after the attacks, “There were no warning signs that I’m aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country.”8

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer fell into step. “Until the attack took place, I think it is fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”9

However, on May 17, 2002, CBC News revealed that a 1999 report, “Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?” “…warned the executive branch that bin Laden’s terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.”10

On May 19th, the London Observer quoted a New York newspaper report that “angry citizens are asking why they have suddenly learned what George W. Bush knew all along: that weeks before the event, the CIA had warned the President and other top officials of an active plot to seize civilian aircraft.”11

Later that day, Bob Woodward and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post covered the hijack briefing in more detail:

“The top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.’. . . .The President’s Daily Briefing underscored that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to ‘bring the fight to America.’. . .The August 6th memo. . .suggested that bin Laden’s followers might be planning to hijack U.S. airliners.”12

The story had, several days earlier, prompted a press conference from White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, saying: “Never did we imagine what would take place on September 11th, where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons.” His statement was echoed later in the day by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as quoted below in a Baltimore Sun article.13

A 2003 Joint Inquiry into the Intelligence Community tells a different story.

The denials continued into 2004, when Donald Rumsfeld told the 9/11 Commission, “I knew of no intelligence during the six-plus months leading up to September 11 to indicate terrorists would hijack commercial airlines, use them as missiles to fly into the Pentagon or the World Trade Center towers.”14

But a Congressional Joint Inquiry report, released July 24th, 2003,15 suggested that the government had failed to act on warnings of a terrorist attack within the country, involving aircraft as missiles. The New York Times published excerpts:

“Shortly after…May 1998…the community began to acquire intelligence that bin Laden’s network intended to strike within the United States. Many of these reports were disseminated throughout the community and to senior U.S. policy makers…the totality of the information…clearly reiterated a consistent and critically important theme: bin Laden’s intent to launch terrorist attacks within the United States…In the spring of 1999, the [intelligence] community obtained information about a planned bin Laden attack on a government facility in Washington, D.C…In September 1999, the community obtained information that bin Laden and others were planning a terrorist act in the United States, possibly against specific landmarks in California and New York City…In March 2000, the community obtained information regarding the type of targets…The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports and nuclear power plants…In April 2001, the community obtained information…that bin Laden was interested in commercial pilots as potential terrorists. The source warned that the United States should not focus only on embassy bombings, that terrorists sought “spectacular and traumatic” attacks and that the first World Trade Center bombing would be appealing.” 16

Four days later, the Baltimore Sun published the following:

“President Bush’s adviser [Condoleezza Rice] told the public in May 2002 that a pre-Sept. 11 intelligence briefing for the president on terrorism contained only a general warning of threats and largely historical information, not specific plots, the report said.

But the authors of the congressional report, released last week, stated the briefing given to the president a month before the suicide hijackings included recent intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives to the United States to carry out an attack using high explosives.

At the same May 2002 press briefing, Rice also said that “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”

But the congressional report states that “from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons.”17

The contradiction could not be more evident.

Contradictions Within the 9/11 Commission Report:

The Commission reported early in its pages:

“NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet.”18

But the Report later documented, in reference to the use of planes as weapons, that such a “possibility was imaginable, and imagined.” It cited intelligence from the August 1999 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Civil Aviation Security that warned about the possibility of a Bin Ladin “suicide hijacking operation,” and that NORAD had “imagined the possible use of aircraft as weapons, too, and developed exercises to counter such a threat—from planes coming to the United States from overseas.”19

The Commission further reported that on August 24, 2001, the CIA had described “subjects involved in suspicious 747 flight training,” and Zacarias Moussaoui as a possible “suicide hijacker;”20 also that the week before the attacks a Minneapolis FBI agent had told the FAA that Moussaoui, was “an Islamic extremist preparing for some future act in furtherance of radical fundamentalist goals.”21 The Commission further noted that on August 23, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet “was briefed about the Moussaoui case in a briefing entitled ‘Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly.’”22

And Louis Freeh, FBI Director from 1993 to June 2001, told the 9/11 Commission that in 2000 and 2001, the subject of “planes as weapons” was always considered in the planning of National Special Security Events (NSSE’s), in which the FBI and FEMA participated, and that “resources were actually designated to deal with that particular threat.” He confirmed that “the use of airplanes, either packed with explosives or otherwise, in suicide missions” was “part of the planning” for NSSE’s.23

A Summary of the Contradictions:

There are thus stark contradictions: 1) between White House spokespersons and each of: The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities of July 2003; the August 6, 2001 Presidential Briefing Memo; many press reports detailing the two foregoing documents; and the testimony of FBI Director Louis Freeh; 2) between the 9/11 Commission’s findings and all of the above; and 3) within the 9/11 Commission Report itself.

How did the 9/11 Commission deal with these contradictions? It did not: it simply left out the findings of the Joint Inquiry report and the Louis Freeh testimony, and though it copied the August 6th Presidential Briefing Memo into its Report,24 it did not include the memo in its entirety as quoted by CNN on April 10, 2004.25 And further to that Memo, the Commission referred to Condoleezza Rice’s April 8th Hearing testimony, but did not include it. In it she had said, “I was concerned about possible threats inside the United States.”26

As the foregoing summary shows the element of surprise to have been very much in doubt, a new investigation should question how a non-surprise attack could have been so successful.

2. What did the Military Training Drills Reveal about US Expectations?

The military exercises of 9/11 will be examined in relation to two of the things that the Commission blamed for the critical element of surprise:

1. the unheard of concept of using hijacked planes as weapons—a departure from predictable, traditional hijackings, and
2. the fact that the attacks originated, unpredictably, from within the country, and not from outside it.

Two 9/11 Commission Report quotations below document these perceptions:

“In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that. . .the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.”27

“America’s homeland defenders faced outward. NORAD itself was barely able to retain any alert bases. Its planning scenarios occasionally considered the danger of hijacked aircraft being guided to American targets, but only aircraft that were coming from overseas.”28

The Pre 9/11 Military Training Drills:  Though neither the White House nor the FBI had envisaged planes as weapons, the military, supposedly adrift from its government and bereft of communication –no small feat with a 2001 budget of over $400 billion — had.

According to Professor John Arquilla, a Special Operations expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, “The idea of such an attack (like 9-11) was well known. It had been wargamed as a possibility in exercises before Sept. 11, 2001.”29

The following exercises demonstrate that many military minds were concerned with the express idea of planes hitting buildings.

In October 2000, a military exercise created a scenario of a simulated passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon. The exercise was coordinated by the Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon’s Command Emergency Response Team.30

US Medicine reports that two health clinics housed within the Pentagon trained for a hijacked airplane to hit the Pentagon in May 2001. “Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May.”31

The Department of Transportation in Washington held an exercise on August 31, 1001, which was described by a participant, Ellen Engleman:

      “Ironically, fortuitously, take your choice, 12 days prior to the incident on September 11th, we were going though a tabletop exercise. It was actually much more than a tabletop…in preparation for the Olympic…which was a full intermodal exercise…Part of the scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially highjacked plane and someone calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very strange when twelve days later, as you know, we had the actual event.”32

According to USA Today:

      “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties…One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center…NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred…‘Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft,’ the statement said…The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country…But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were “hijacked… Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons.”33

The New Yorker reported:

      “A former top F.B.I. official said that the bureau had been concerned about an attack in New York City ever since…associates of Osama bin Laden…were convicted in federal court in connection with the 1998 bombing of American embassies in Africa. …During the last several years, the government regularly planned for and simulated terrorist attacks, including scenarios that involved multiple-plane hijackings.”34

One such multiple hijacking drill using planes from inside the United States was Amalgam Virgo 2002, planned for 1500 people in July 2001 and scheduled for operation in June 2002. In the Second 9/11 Commission Hearing, Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste was foiled in several attempts to extract information from General McKinley and Colonel Scott regarding this drill:

MR. BEN-VENISTE: …My question is: The concept of terrorists using airplanes as weapons was not something which was unknown to the U.S. intelligence community on September 10th, 2001, isn’t that fair to say?

GEN. MCKINLEY: I’d like the intelligence community to address that. I would find it hard to believe that they hadn’t speculated against that. But it was unavailable to us at the time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, let’s start, for example, with September 12th, 1994, a Cessna 150L crashed into the South Lawn of the White House, barely missing the building, and killing the pilot. Similarly, in December of 1994, an Algerian armed Islamic group of terrorists hijacked an Air France flight in Algiers and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. In October of 1996, the intelligence community obtained information regarding an Iranian plot to hijack a Japanese plane over Israel and crash it into Tel Aviv. In August of 1988, the intelligence community obtained information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. The information was passed on to the FBI and the FAA.

In September of 1998, the intelligence community obtained information that Osama bin Laden’s next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport and detonating it. In August 2001, the intelligence community obtained information regarding a plot to either bomb the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi from an airplane, or crash an airplane into it. In addition, in the Atlanta Olympics, the United States government and the Department of Justice and my colleague Jamie Gorelick were involved in planning against possible terrorist attacks at the Olympics, which included the potential of an aircraft flying into the stadium. In July 2001, the G-8 summit in Genoa, attended by our president, among the measures that were taken were positioning surface-to-air missile ringing Genoa, closing the Genoa airport and restricting all airspace over Genoa.

Was not this information, sir, available to NORAD as of September 11th, 2001?

GEN. MCKINLEY: … we had not postured prior to September 11th, 2001, for the scenario that took place that day.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, obviously it would be hard to imagine posturing for the exact scenario. But isn’t it a fact, sir, that prior to September 11th, 2001, NORAD had already in the works plans to simulate in an exercise a simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States?

This question was followed by a wall of obfuscation from General McKinley and Colonel Scott, and Ben-Veniste never did get an answer.35 Nor was the matter included in the Commission Report.

Ben-Veniste also questioned the officers on the “vestigial” nature of planning primarily for Cold War attacks from Russia and other nations beyond US borders.36 (And on this point, Major Arias had told the News Herald in June 2001 that “The Cold War is over”.)

These two points raise disturbing questions as to why Vigilant Guardian diverted much of the US defense fleet to the North Pole that day; who made the decision that this should occur; and why NORAD and the Commission were so silent about the hijacking drills.

Air Training Drills the Morning of September 11th:

On the morning of September 11th, two nationwide annual air defense drills were in full stride.

NORAD was in the midst of one of its four major annual exercises, the week-long “Vigilant Guardian”, which the Commission described as “postulat[ing] a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union.”37

A second annual global readiness exercise, Global Guardian, which had traditionally been held in October or November, and which, according to NBC News military analyst William Arkin, had been scheduled for October 22-31, 2001,38 was also underway. The Space Observer, a military newspaper, reported on March 23rd 2001 that this exercise was scheduled for October 2001,39 which meant that sometime after March 23rd, Global Guardian was rescheduled for early September.

Third, Richard Clarke, in his book “Against All Enemies”, noted that acting Joint Chiefs of Staff (JSC) Chairman Richard Myers told him in a videoconference on 9/11, “Not a pretty picture, Dick…We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise.”40

Information about military drills is classified and difficult to research. There have been suggestions that Richard Clarke confused this drill with Vigilant Guardian (the North Pole drill) but Vigilant Guardian is a NORAD exercise, apparently without JSC involvement. It has also been reported41 that the “Warrior” designation equates to JSC involvement and includes “live-flies”. A NORAD press release, reported in USA Today in 2004, stated that, “These ‘mock hijacked aircraft,’ otherwise called ‘live-flies,’ are used sometimes in air-based war games involving hijacking scenarios. They are actual planes of a variety of makes, in the air (manned or under remote control), pretending to be hijacked for the benefit of effective training.”42

Thus the evidence suggests that mock hijacks were in progress on September 11th, which would explain the reports of military officers in the next section.

There were more “planes into buildings” scenarios going on that morning. “In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings… The National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise…in which a small corporate jet would crash into…the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. …The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.”43

Finally, USA Today reported that “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” was on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Thus, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still hadn’t found a way to fly back to Washington.”44 Furthermore, the FBI had deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” While the attacks were in progress, then, “the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes was being AWOL.”45

A Summary of the Contradictions:

There is a strong and clear contradiction between the White House and 9/11 Commission claims of wildly unpredictable surprise attacks, and the training exercises which were running to counter such attacks. In short, these training exercises reflected an expectation that multiple, simultaneous, internal hijackings using planes as weapons were very imaginable indeed.

How did the Commission deal with this problem? With the exception of one footnote mentioning Northern Vigilance, it simply failed to mention the drills at all. By repeatedly claiming that no one had expected such attacks to have originated from within the United States, it diverted attention away from the drills, and away from warnings that there were Muslim operatives within the country who were learning to fly commercial airliners.

Were these diversions merely cowardly flights from a failed responsibility, or were they more ominous indications of foreknowledge? This crucial question should be the subject of a new impartial investigation.

If, as the evidence suggests, the White House and the Commission were not surprised by such attacks (whereas in fact they were aware of such events)46 the new investigation should ask why they said they were.

1. Did the 9/11 Military Training Drills Help or Harm the Response?

As mentioned above, the only reference made by the 9/11 Commission to the September 11th training exercises was to Vigilant Guardian, in footnote 116 from Chapter 1 of the Report:

“On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004).”47

Unfortunately for the Commission, this conclusion has been contradicted by many military participants that day.

Remember, all of NORAD was participating in Vigilant Guardian that morning. Other exercises were also running. As one research organization noted, “NORAD is thus fully staffed and alert, and senior officers are manning stations throughout the US. The entire chain of command is in place and ready when the first hijacking is reported.”48

Almost immediately, however, confusion and bewilderment set in:

At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane.

“It must be part of the exercise,” Deskins thought.
At first, everybody did. Then Deskins saw the glowing direct phone line to the Federal Aviation Administration.
On the phone she heard the voice of a military liaison for the FAA’s Boston Center.
“I have a hijacked aircraft,” he told her.

Six minutes later, at 8:46, the exercises were still causing confusion: “Deskins ran to a nearby office and phoned 1st Air Force Chief Public Affairs Officer Major Don Arias in Florida. She said NEADS had a hijacked plane, no, not the simulation likely heading for JFK.

ABC News quoted NORAD Commander Major General Arnold, from a command center at the Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. “First thing that went through my mind was, ‘Is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?'”49

NEADS Major Nasypany later recalled:

“When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was ‘Somebody started the exercise early,'” Nasypany later told me. The day’s exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a “traditional” simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. “I actually said out loud, ‘The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.'”50

Later yet, at 9:09 AM, Richard Clarke reports that FAA Command Center Head Jane Garvey told him by videoconference, “We have reports of eleven aircraft off course or out of communications.”51 This was verified in an aviation report, “…the FAA command center then reported 11 aircraft either not in communication with FAA facilities, or flying unexpected routes.”52

Major-General Larry Arnold recalled,

“As I walked out of a video teleconference with NORAD, someone came up and told me that the Northeast Air Defense sector had a possible hijacking. My first thought was the hijacking was part of the exercise…Then we began getting calls of other potential hijackings. Not all the calls were true. These hijacking reports added to the confusion… We were receiving many reports of hijacked aircraft. When we received those calls, we might not know from where the aircraft had departed. We also didn’t know the location of the airplane…By the end of the day, we had twenty-one aircraft identified as possible hijackings.”53

In a 2006 interview with Vanity Fair, Arnold went further: “I’ll be the first to admit that immediately after—-in fact, for a long time after—-we were very confused with who was what and where, what reports were coming in.”54

Robert Marr, head of NEADS on 9/11, says, “At one time I was told that across the nation there were some 29 different reports of hijackings.”55

General Richard Meyers at the Pentagon confirmed that “conflicting reports throughout the morning led to confusion in the Command Center.”56 The Commission itself documented, “During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft in the system.”57

Thus it would appear that simultaneous air defense drills were fogging the defense data streams and that personnel were chasing 4 real hijacked airplanes among 29 unidentified blips.

And so there is a profound contradiction between the Commission’s position that the drills enhanced the defense response, and the reports by officers on duty that day.

Summary of the Contradictions:

Why, when only 4 planes were hijacked, were there so many reports of other hijacked planes? And why were the military personnel so ready to interpret these hijacking reports as being part of the exercises, when no one had ever “imagined” such a thing?

Given the warnings of incipient terrorist attacks that had been repeatedly received by the Administration and the FBI, why would anyone coordinate two major annual air training exercises at this time, and divert key resources to the North Pole on an outdated mission? Who was in a position to do this?

Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste resolved to pursue these questions “very very diligently”, and made determined efforts to do so.

But what did the Commission do about his unanswered questions? It ignored the issue of the drills and continuously pointed to FAA incompetence.58 However, blaming the FAA lacked credibility, because the failures of duty were not followed up and no one was disciplined.

Thus the the mock live hijackings which were apparently in progress on the morning of September 11th should be investigated as a plausible explanation for why the national defense was such an abysmal failure.

If the drills impeded the response, a new investigation should question why the two strange departures from longstanding air defense protocols were made in the months before 9/11.

And if the drills enhanced the response, a new investigation should ask how the attacks could have succeeded on a day when the country was especially prepared to handle them.

Either way, the situation cries out for clarification.

NOTES

1 9/11 Commission Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta Testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=norman+mineta

2 Colonel Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force(ret.)

Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. Email, September 26, 2007.

3 The flight base commanders were required by the June 1st “Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction” to seek approval from the Secretary of Defense before responding to hijackings, whereas before the rewrite they could have responded routinely. Robin Hordon, retired pilot and FAA officer, has ”emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed.” http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36598&st=90

4 Guns and Butter. Interview with Robin Hordon, former FAA ATC, Boston Center. KPFA Radio, April 18, 2007.)
 (http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=19792)

The original and the rewritten documents are available at
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf (7/31/1997: CJCSI 3610.10 and

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf (6/01/2001: CJCSI 3610.10A)

5 “Text: Rumsfeld on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’”, September 30, 2001.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext_093001.html)

6 White House News Release. “President Meets with Muslim Leaders,” Sept. 26, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-8.html

7 American Free Press Service, Oct. 23rd, 2001.
 (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44621)

8 Text: Justice Department Briefing, Washington Post, Monday, Sept. 17, 2001. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/justice091701.html  

9 What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11,” Washington, May 17, 2002
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml )

10 Ibid.

11 Ed Vulliamy. “A Bad Call?” Observer, May 19, 2002 (citing Joe Conason of the New York Observer.)

12 Bob Woodward and Dan Eggen. “Aug. Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S.” Washington Post, May 19, 2002. 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35744-2002May17&notFound=true).

A transcript of this presidential briefing was later published by CNN: “Transcript: Bin Laden detrmined to strike in US,” April 10, 2004.
(http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html)

13 The White House. “Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer,” May 16, 2002. 
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-4.html) 

Rice’s statement is at (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html)

14 “Bush, Clinton figures defend terrorism policies,” CNN Report, March 24, 2004.
 http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/911.commission/index.html

15 “9/11 Report: Joint Congressional Inquiry. Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 – by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Comminttee on Intelligence. 858 p. Published 2002 and publicly released on July 24, 2003. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911rpt/ 

16 “Excerpts From Report on Intelligence Actions and the Sept. 11 Attacks,” NYT, July 25, 2003. Available for purchase at (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/national/25TTEX.html?ex=1189569600&en=87b62bfc380ea076&ei=5070 
See also, “9/11: Threats about airplanes as weapons prior to 9/11,” Dr. Matthew Robinson, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Appalachian State University, http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html, and see, “US Received Warnings of “Airplanes As Weapons,” By Dana Priest, Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2002. http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0918warn.htm

(article has disappeared from the WP website and the Lexis Nexis database) See also: Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, “The Secrets of September 11. The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it?” Newsweek, April 30, 2003. The quoted material, printed in December 2002, became available to the public on July 24, 2003, at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf, and is found on pp. 124-5.

17 “9/11 report, Rice remarks in conflict: Investigators say Bush got specific data on threats,” Associated Press, July 29, 2003

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/nationworld/bal-te.rice29jul29,0,2620591.story?coll=bal-business-headlines

18 9/11CR, p. 45.

19 9/11CR, pp. 345-6.

20 9/11CR, p. 274.

21 9/11CR, p. 273.

22 Ibid., p. 275.

23 Public hearings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 10th, April 13, 2004, p. 28.
 http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/index.htm

24 9/11CR, pp.261-2.

25 CNN Report. “Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, Saturday, April 10, 2004. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html) This transcript includes a sentence left out by the 9/11 Commission Report: “An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told – – service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.”

26 Public hearings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9th, April 8, 2004, p. 8.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/index.htm

27 9/11CR, p. 18.

28 9/11CR, p. 352.

29 Kevin Howe. “Expert Stresses Need for Intelligence.” Monterey County Herald, July 18, 2002. (http://web.archive.org/web/20021128002557/http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/3686928.htm)

30 Dennis Ryan. “Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies,” Nov. 3, 2000.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/content/anmviewer.asp?a=290

31 Matt Mientka.”Pentagon Medics Trained For Strike,” U.S .Medicine, October 2001. (http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=272&issueID=31)  

32 National Transportation Security Summit. Washington, DC, Oct. 30, 2001. “MTI Report S-01-02,” Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University,2001. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/terrorism/Terrorism%20Symposium%202001.htm

33 Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri. “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons,” USA Today, April 18, 2004,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

34 “September 11, 2001,” The New Yorker, September 24, 2001.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20020215175752/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?010924fa_FACT)

35 Public hearings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2nd, Day 2, May 23, 2003.
 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm)
This lack of cooperation with Commissioner Ben-Veniste is underscored by the fact that the 10-member Commission panel was forced to issue subpoenas to both NORAD and the FAA, and encountered “serious delays” in obtaining information from the Defense Department. “We are especially dismayed by problems in the production of records of activities of NORAD and certain Air Force commonds on Sept. 11th,” the panel reported.(In the Commission’s November 7 Press Release,
see http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/11/911-110703.pdf)

A second subpoena served on the Pentagon was similarly unsuccessful in obtaining records. (Philip Shenon. 9/11 Panel Issues Subpoena to Pentagon. Washington Post, Nov. 8, 2003.
 http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/0311nn/031108nn.htm#501)  

36 Ibid.

37 9/11CR, p. 458.

38 Arkin, William M. “Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World”, Steerforth, 2005, p. 379.

39 “21st Space Wing Priorities,” Space Observer, March 23, 2001, p. 2.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030320100542/http:/www.peterson.af.mil/21sw/observer/23mar01.pdf

40 Richard A. Clarke. “Against all Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror”, Free Press, 2004, pp. 4-5.

41 “Wargame IV: Vigilant Warrior.”
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2007/01/wargame-iv-vigilant-warrior.html 

42 Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri. “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons,” USA Today, April 18, 2004,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

43 John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press. “Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building,” August 21, 2002. 
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm  

44 Bill Nichols, Homeland defense needs now ‘grim reality,’ Sept. 11, 2001.
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/security.htm)

45 .” U.S. Devastated by Terrorist Attacks: Bush Faces Defining Moment, As Others Scramble For Advantage.” USA Today, Sept. 11, 2001. http://web.archive.org/web/20030312214742/http://www.evote.com/features/2001-09/091101attack.asp

46 See Commissioner Ben-Veniste’s long list of prior incidents, cited above.

47 9/11CR, p. 458.

48 Cooperative Research. “Complete 9/11 Timeline. Military Exercises up to 9/11.”
 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises)

49 “Moments of Crisis, Part 1: Terror Hits the Towers: How Government Officials Reacted to Sept. 11 Attacks.” ABC News, September 14, 2002. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/abcnews091402.html

50 Michael Bronner. “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes.” Vanity Fair, August 2006, p. 2.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=10

51 Richard A. Clarke. “Against all Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror”, Free Press, 2004, pp. 4-5.

52 William B. Scott. “Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks, Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002. http://web.archive.org/web/20020917072642/http://www.awstonline.com/ or
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm

53 “Conversation With Major General Larry Arnold, Commander, 1st Air Force, Tyndall AFB, Florida.” Code One, An Airpower Projection Magazine, 1st Quarter, 2002. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2002/articles/jan_02/defense/

54 Michael Bronner. “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes.” Vanity Fair, August 2006, p. 10.

55 Robert A. Baker. “Commander of 9/11 Air Defenses Retires.” Newhouse News Service, March 31, 2005. (http://web.archive.org/web/20050519084002/http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/baker033105.html 

56 Kathleen Rehm, “Myers and Sept. 11: ‘We Hadn’t Thought About This,’” American Forces Press Service, Oct. 23, 2001.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44621

57 9/11CR, p. 28.

58 9/11CR. The first 30 pages of the Commission Report alone contain statements criticizing the FAA for delays and false assumptions on pages 11, 26, 27, 29, and 30. 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

As Syrian forces back by Russian launch the final showdown in Syria against jihadist extremists, the potential for a U.S.-Russia confrontation has never been greater, as VIPS warns in this memo to the president. September 9, 2018

*

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: Moscow Has Upped the Ante in Syria

Mr. President:

We are concerned that you may not have been adequately briefed on the upsurge of hostilities in northwestern Syria, where Syrian armed forces with Russian support have launched a full-out campaign to take back the al-Nusra/al-Qaeda/ISIS-infested province of Idlib.  The Syrians will almost certainly succeed, as they did in late 2016 in Aleppo.  As in Aleppo, it will mean unspeakable carnage, unless someone finally tells the insurgents theirs is a lost cause.

That someone is you. The Israelis, Saudis, and others who want unrest to endure are egging on the insurgents, assuring them that you, Mr. President, will use US forces to protect the insurgents in Idlib, and perhaps also rain hell down on Damascus.  We believe that your senior advisers are encouraging the insurgents to think in those terms, and that your most senior aides are taking credit for your recent policy shift from troop withdrawal from Syria to indefinite war.

Big Difference This Time 

Russian missile-armed naval and air units are now deployed in unprecedented numbers to engage those tempted to interfere with Syrian and Russian forces trying to clean out the terrorists from Idlib. We assume you have been briefed on that — at least to some extent. More important, we know that your advisers tend to be dangerously dismissive of Russian capabilities and intentions.

We do not want you to be surprised when the Russians start firing their missiles.  The prospect of direct Russian-U.S. hostilities in Syria is at an all-time high.  We are not sure you realize that.

The situation is even more volatile because Kremlin leaders are not sure who is calling the shots in Washington.  This is not the first time that President Putin has encountered such uncertainty (see brief Appendix below).  This is, however, the first time that Russian forces have deployed in such numbers into the area, ready to do battle.  The stakes are very high.

We hope that John Bolton has given you an accurate description of his acerbic talks with his Russian counterpart in Geneva a few weeks ago. In our view, it is a safe bet that the Kremlin is uncertain whether Bolton faithfully speaks in your stead, or speaks INSTEAD of you.

The best way to assure Mr. Putin that you are in control of U.S. policy toward Syria would be for you to seek an early opportunity to speak out publicly, spelling out your intentions.  If you wish wider war, Bolton has put you on the right path.

If you wish to cool things down, you may wish to consider what might be called a pre-emptive ceasefire. By that we mean a public commitment by the Presidents of the U.S. and Russia to strengthen procedures to preclude an open clash between U.S. and Russian armed forces.  We believe that, in present circumstances, this kind of extraordinary step is now required to head off wider war.

For the VIPS Steering Group, signed:

Philip Giraldi, CIA Operations Officer (retired)

James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate Republican leadership (Associate VIPS)

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, U.S. Air Force, Intelligence Officer, and former Master SERE Instructor (retired)

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and Former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

Ray McGovern, Army/Infantry Intelligence Officer and CIA Presidential Briefer (retired)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council (retired)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

*

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington’s justifications for launching a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived threats promoted for largely political reasons.

Appendix: 

Sept 12, 2016:  The limited ceasefire goes into effect; provisions include separating the “moderate” rebels from the others. Secretary John Kerry had earlier claimed that he had “refined” ways to accomplish the separation, but it did not happen; provisions also included safe access for relief for Aleppo.

Sept 17, 2016: U.S. Air Force bombs fixed Syrian Army positions killing between 64 and 84 Syrian army troops; about 100 others wounded — evidence enough to convince the Russians that the Pentagon was intent on scuttling meaningful cooperation with Russia.

Sept 26, 2016:  We can assume that what Lavrov has told his boss in private is close to his uncharacteristically blunt words on Russian NTV on Sept. 26. (In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days earlier had showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (a key provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin).   Here’s what Lavrov said on Sept 26:

“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the US Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia (he confirmed that during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin), apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”

Lavrov’s went beyond mere rhetoric. He also specifically criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia, “after the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama stipulated that they would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”

Oct 27, 2016:  Putin speaks at the Valdai International Discussion Club
At Valdai Russian President Putin spoke of the “feverish” state of international relations and lamented: “My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results.” He complained about “people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice” and, referring to Syria, decried the lack of a “common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

A typical example was on NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday,” on September 8th, when the program-host Scott Simon interviewed the Obama Administration’s diplomat Robert Malley, in a segment titled “What’s Next In The Syrian War: Idlib”.

Simon’s introduction said:

“After this weekend, the last contested region of Syria may come under ferocious attack. After more than seven years of fighting, the end of the Syrian war may come down to Idlib province. … It holds more than 3 million people, many of whom have been displaced. It’s been essentially a kind of dumping ground for those opposed to Bashar al-Assad’s regime and ISIS.”

Actually, there’s a factual problem with Simon’s lead-in there. Though I have seen official estimates of the population of Idlib ranging from 1.5 million to 3 million, I haven’t seen any of “more than 3 million people.” Mr. Simon is always happy to please his CIA minders, and might simply have gotten carried away in this interview.

Furthermore, Simon’s lumping “Bashar al-Assad‘s regime and ISIS” together was striking, because ISIS has actually been one of the major forces in Syria working to overthrow “Assad’s regime”; and, “Assad’s regime” was elected in 2014 and has been shown by repeated polling done since then by the British firm of Orb International to retain more support amongst the Syrian public than does anyone else to serve as that nation’s leader. Polls taken in the U.S. today show that more of the public wish that Bernie Sanders were our President than that Donald Trump is; and, so, if Syria is a “regime” instead of a “government,” then the U.S. is even more of a regime than is Syria. (And the scientific evidence is consistent that the U.S. is more of a “regime” than a “democracy.”) Yet, Simon has never referred to the U.S. as a “regime,” even though he’s obviously a Democrat who thinks that Trump is a dictator who must be replaced by Mike Pence, and who wants that to happen so that America will be more of a ‘democracy’ than if the legally installed (and the elected) U.S. President remains President.

Image on the right: Robert Malley

That opening by Simon was followed by this:

SIMON: From what you can tell, what’s happening on the ground there in Idlib?

MALLEY: Well, what’s been happening now for some time has been some attacks by the Syrian regime and now more recently by Russian aviation.

Malley pretends that the aggressor is “Assad’s regime” instead of the tens-of-thousands of foreign imported jihadists whom the U.S. and its allies have been arming and training to overthrow that “regime.” In 2012, under President Obama, the U.S. regime (then including Malley) selected Al Qaeda in Syria to lead and train America’s proxy forces-on-the-ground in Syria to overthrow President Assad and to replace him with someone who would be selected by the royal family who own and control Saudi Arabia, the Saud family. The polling by Orb International found that 82% of Syrians blame this war on the U.S. In Syrians’ eyes, the aggressor is the U.S., not “the Assad regime.”

SIMON: And the humanitarian consequences would be grave, wouldn’t they?

Malley was implicitly condemning there the deal that “the Assad regime” had been offering to defeated jihadists throughout Syria: either to be shot dead when and where they were, or else the Government would bus the given jihadist into the province of Idlib, where over 90% of the residents (as shown by Orb’s 2015 poll — and no other province displayed such a high percentage of supporters of jihadists as did Idlib) already support jihadists and jihadism. Some chose escape to Idlib instead of immediate death. President Assad wanted to minimize the jihadists’ using the local population where they were, as human shields, and so he gave them this option, which would enable the Government and its allies (mainly Russia) to exterminate them all in that hellish province and avoid any unnecessary slaughter of innocents throughout the rest of Syria (as human shields) so that the Government could conquer the jihadists with minimum damage to the rest of the population.

Malley was clearly sympathetic there to “the hardcore jihadists who were not prepared to settle for some of the forced agreements that took place, the forced surrenders that took place elsewhere.” He was sympathetic to “the tragedy that they face.” However, forcing a defeated warrior to choose between immediate death versus being bused to a place whose the residents are like-minded persons, is far less harsh than what the U.S. Government does.

Then, there was this:

SIMON: Mr. Malley, with respect, I heard you say, I believe, referring to the administration of which you were a part, we failed. After so many years, it seems as if Bashar al-Assad, who has attacked his own people — so often mercilessly — is going to remain in power. Did the world fail Syria?

Malley there was egging-on Obama’s successor, Trump, to go to war against Russia, in Syria, so as to finish the job that he, and the rest of the Obama Administration, were trying to complete, but couldn’t, yet: the conquest of Syria and hand-over of it to the Sauds. George W. Bush conquered Iraq; Barack Obama conquered Libya; and, now, NPR’s masters want Donald Trump to conquer Russia — and Malley was a very cooperative program-guest for that, which is why he got national air-time for this propaganda.

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Stephen Voss.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On September 7, 2018, speaking at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, President Obama said that Democrats are running on “good new ideas like Medicare for All…”

This indicates a significant shift in support of National Improved Medicare for All (NIMA). President Obama is campaigning for Democrats in the mid-terms and his public support for NIMA right at the start shows how far we have come and that we have a real opportunity to win in the next few years.

Eight years ago when President Obama was pushing through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) he asked in his State of the Union whether anyone had “a better idea.” The next day I attempted to deliver a letter to the president describing a “better idea” – National Improved Medicare for All. They refused to accept the letter so when he came to Baltimore, Carol Paris, MD and I stood outside the meeting holding a sign saying “A Better Idea: Medicare for All” and attempted to deliver the letter to Obama again. We were arrested. See the letter and the video of our attempts to deliver it below.

We have come a long way, and we appreciate Obama’s support. His support for National Improved Medicare for All is a turning point moment — it is no longer about defending the ACA, it is about putting in place the real solution to the US health crisis.

It is also significant that Democrats, including President Obama, are not campaigning on fixing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was their message over the past two years. When Democrats said, “Fix the ACA,” the grassroots response was, “We want Medicare for All.” We are being heard.

Polls are also reflecting majority support for Medicare for All, with 85% of Democrats in support and a majority of Republicans, 52%, in support. Opponents of Medicare for All are the minority. This popular support gives candidates more comfort in publicly advocating for Medicare for All and indicates that we are making progress.

We need to continue to educate the public about National Improved Medicare for All and keep mobilizing in support of NIMA. To win, we need to change the political environment so that NIMA is the only viable solution. We are on our way to victory.

Here is a recap of how I was received in 2009-10 as an advocate for NIMA. I am glad to see the progress that single payer supporters have made over the past eight years, and I am confident that if we keep building the movement of movements for single payer heath care, we will prevail.

During Obama’s terms as President, advocates for NIMA were not welcome. In fact, we were largely excluded from the process and arrested for trying to be included. My first arrest was at the Senate Finance Committee hearing on health care when they refused to allow a proponent of single payer health care to testify.

In his 2010 State of the Union Speech, President Obama said that if anyone had a better idea for health reform, they should let him know.

“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.”

I was watching the State of the Union address and I immediately wrote the open letter below and went to the White House the next day to deliver it to him along with more information about national improved Medicare for all.

The White House security sent me away, but the next day, by luck, President Obama was coming to Baltimore Maryland, my city, to meet with Republican members of Congress. Dr. Carol Paris and I decided to try to get the message to him there.

We were arrested and questioned by the Secret Service.

We didn’t give up, and today the movement for National Improved Medicare for All. Let’s take a moment to celebrate this shift, and then get back to work of winning National Improved Medicare for All.

Here is the letter I tried to deliver to the President in January, 2010.

Dear President Obama,

I was overjoyed to hear you say in your State of the Union address last night:

“But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

My colleagues, fellow health advocates and I have been trying to meet with you for over a year now because we have an approach which will meet all of your goals and more.

I am a pediatrician who, like many of my primary care colleagues, left practice because it is nearly impossible to deliver high quality health care in this environment. I have been volunteering for Physicians for a National Health Program ever since. For over a year now, I have been working with the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care/ National Single Payer Alliance. This alliance represents over 20 million people nationwide from doctors to nurses to labor, faith and community groups who advocate on behalf of the majority of Americans, including doctors, who favor a national Medicare for All health system.

I felt very optimistic when Congress took up health care reform last January because I remember when you spoke to the Illinois AFL-CIO in June, 2003 and said:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see.”

But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

And that is why I was so surprised when the voices of those who support a national single payer plan/Medicare for All were excluded in place of the voices of the very health insurance and pharmaceutical industries which profit off the current health care situation.

There was an opportunity this past year to create universal and financially-sustainable health care reform rather than expensive health insurance reform.

As you well know, the United States spends the most per capita on health care in the world yet leaves millions of people out and receives poor return on those health care dollars in terms of health outcomes and efficiency. This poor value for our health care dollar is due to the waste of having so many insurance companies. At least a third of our health care dollars go towards activities that have nothing to do with health care such as marketing, administration and high executive salaries and bonuses. This represents over $400 billion per year which could be used to pay for health care for all of those Americans who are suffering and dying from preventable causes.

The good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way. You said that you wanted to “keep what works” and that would be Medicare. Medicare is an American legacy of which we can feel proud. It has guaranteed health security to all who have it. Medicare has lifted senior citizens out of poverty. Health disparities, which are rising in this nation, begin to disappear as soon as patients reach 65 years of age. And patients and doctors prefer Medicare to private insurance. Why, our Medicare has even been used as a model by other nations which have developed and implemented universal health systems.

Mr. President, we wanted to meet with you because we have the solution to health care reform. The United States has enough money already and we have the resources, including esteemed experts in public health, health policy and health financing. Our very own Dr. William Hsiao at Harvard has designed health systems in five other countries.

I am asking you to meet with me because the solution is simple. Remove all of the industries who profit off of the American health care catastrophe from the table. Replace them with those who are knowledgeable in designing health systems and who are without ties to the for-profit medical industries. And then allow them to design an improved Medicare for All national health system. We can implement it within a year of designing such a system.

What are the benefits of doing this?

• It will save tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of American lives each year, not to mention the prevention of unnecessary suffering.

• It will relieve families of medical debt, which is the number one cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure despite the fact that most of those who experienced bankruptcy had health insurance.

• It will relieve businesses of the growing burden of skyrocketing health insurance premiums so that they can invest in innovation, hiring, increased wages and other benefits and so they can compete in the global market. For example, it is estimated to provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages.

• It will control health care costs in a rational way through global budgeting and negotiation for fair prices for pharmaceuticals and services.

• It will allow patients the freedom to choose wherever they want to go for health care and will allow patients and their caregivers to determine which care is best without denials by insurance administrators.

• It will restore the physician-patient relationship and bring satisfaction back to the practice of medicine so that more doctors will stay in or return to practice.

• It will allow our people in our nation to be healthy and productive and able to support themselves and their families.

• It will create a legacy for your administration that may someday elevate you to the same hero status as Tommy Douglas has in Canada.

Mr. President, there are more benefits, but I believe you get the point. I look forward to meeting with you and am so pleased that you are open to our ideas. The Medicare for All campaign is growing rapidly and is ready to support you as we move forward on health care reform that will provide America with one of the best health systems in the world. And that is something of which all Americans can be proud.

With great anticipation and deep respect,

Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Maryland chapter, Physicians for a National Health Program
[email protected]

*

This article was originally published on Health Over Profit.

Margaret Flowers is a pediatrician who is National Coordinator of Health Over Profit for Everyone and co-director of Popular Resistance.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

US President Donald Trump ordered that $25m earmarked for the medical care of Palestinians in East Jerusalem hospitals be directed elsewhere as part of a review of aid, a State Department official said on Saturday.

Trump called for a review of US assistance to the Palestinians earlier this year to ensure that the funds were being spent in accordance with national interests and were providing value to taxpayers, Reuters reported.

“As a result of that review, at the direction of the President, we will be redirecting approximately $25 million originally planned for the East Jerusalem Hospital Network,” the State Department official said. “Those funds will go to high-priority projects elsewhere.”

U.S. to cut $25M in aid for East Jerusalem hospitals, redirecting money toward 'high-priority projects elsewhere.' Follows August announcement that U.S. is pulling more than $200M in funding for Palestinian refugees. Background: https://t.co/QVu4yroj4c

— CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) September 8, 2018

The aid cut is the latest in a number of actions by the Trump administration that have alienated Palestinians, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

“This is not a formula of peace-building, this is a complete inhuman and immoral action that adopts the Israeli right-wing narrative to target and punish Palestinian citizens to compromise their rights to independence,” AFP cited Ahmad Shami, a spokesman for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, as saying.

“Such an act of political blackmail goes against the norms of human decency and morality,” added Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee.

That move reversed longtime US policy and led Palestinian leadership to boycott Washington peace efforts led by Jared Kushner, Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law.

Last month, the Trump administration said it would redirect $200m in Palestinian economic support funds for programmes in the West Bank and Gaza.

PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi on the US decision to cut $20 million from occupied East Jerusalem hospitals: "Such an act of political blackmail goes against the norms of human decency and morality." || Read the statement: https://t.co/zswLGtqguD #Palestine pic.twitter.com/xSzKN5yZUP

— Palestine PLO-DPDP (@PLO_DPDP) September 8, 2018

At the end of August, Trump halted all funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), a decision that further heightened tensions with the Palestinian leadership.

Palestinian refugees have reacted with dismay to the funding cuts, warning they would lead to more poverty, anger and instability in the Middle East.

A statement from the Palestinian Foreign Ministry said the latest aid cut was part of a US attempt “to liquidate the Palestinian cause” and added that it would threaten the lives of thousands of Palestinians and the livelihoods of thousands of hospital employees.

“This dangerous and unjustified American escalation has crossed all red lines and is considered a direct aggression against the Palestinian people,” it said.

At the gates of two of the East Jerusalem hospitals affected, medical staff were aware of the decision but declined to comment.

One of the centres, Al Makassed Islamic Charitable Society Hospital, said in statement the US aid cuts come as the “hospital is going through a suffocating crisis as a result of the lack of flow of financial aid, and the piling up of debts and funds held back by the Palestinian government”.

It treats patients from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

In the past, the US funds made it possible for many Palestinians to seek specialized treatment – such as cardiac surgery, neonatal intensive care or children’s dialysis – unavailable in the West Bank and Gaza, according to the World Health Organization.

In the statement hospital CEO Dr Bassam Abu Libdeh “questioned the justification behind mixing political issues with medical and humanitarian issues.”

Still, Trump had made it clear on Thursday that he was trying to force the Palestinians to negotiate.

“You’ll get money, but we’re not paying you until we make a deal,” he said in Washington. “If we don’t make a deal, we’re not paying.”

Instead, Palestinians say his position has weakened moderates and encouraged radicals across the Middle East.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

The Trump presidency has proven to be a set of publicity driven punctuations and blows, riddled by distractions contrived and accidental.  Controversy and accusation characterise the next revelation, the next announcement that might throw journalists off the scent, confounded enemies off the trail.  The presidency as spectacle, the White House as erratic film studio, is the means by which this particular president survives.  Assaults and accusations are missiles seeking to find their mark, missing at the last moment, and the publicity vultures do the rest.  Distraction is everything.

The latest of such distractions comes in the form of the anonymously authored piece for the New York Times (by a certain “senior White House official”), one outlining the dysfunctions of a “two-track presidency”.  It was banal on one level, stating the obvious, advancing the grounds that were already there: Trump has his opponents within the administration keen to foul the nest.

Striking in the account is its resounding note of subversion, a mutiny within designed to frustrate the designs of the chief executive officer of the United States; valiant agents keen to keep Trump from realising his designs.  “I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”  While not being of the “left” resistance against Trump, the author explained that “many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”  The governing concern?  Amorality – Trump’s distinct absence of “any discernible first principles that guide his decision-making.”

Such antics will be lauded by Trump’s critics, who suggest that he is little more than unhinged, hedonistic orange beast in need of containment.  To frustrate the realisation of his inner child, in other words, is to achieve a high standing of nobility for the republic.

The article from the Times adds to a growing body of work speculating over the mental disposition of that man in the White House.  It all constitutes yet another obstacle to discussions of policy, a point that Trump has encouraged since he became a serious political candidate: discuss the man in totality, flaws and all.  The substance of governance can be left to others.  This says as much about the subject as the investigators.

The overall portrait of dysfunction has received heavy daubs from a range of sources of late.  Bob Woodward ventures into familiar territory with his quotidian Fear: Trump in the White House (an account of the “nervous breakdown of Trump’s presidency”). He quotes former chief of staff Reince Priebus on the decision making process that takes place in this particular administration: “When you put a snake and a rat and a falcon and a rabbit and a shark and a seal in a zoo without walls, things start getting nasty and bloody.  That’s what happens.”

Mental health experts, not wishing to be left out of this feast of commentary, sought to peer into Trump’s mind with The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, an account amusing for its evident compromise (the authors’ own words) of professional neutrality in favour of a vaunted “civic duty to warn”.

That work is instructive in how Trump has managed to pull the carpet from underneath the very individuals who describe him as hostile to rules and conventions.  To understand this repellent force, one must become a breaker of rules.  The Goldwater rule, as it is termed, requires mental health professionals to, as Brandy X. Lee describes it, “refrain from diagnosing without a personal examination and without authorisation.” This was no pressing encumbrance to Lee, who felt it necessary to observe that pressing social “responsibility to protect public health and safety”.

The anonymous article has presented Trump with another opportunity to generate column space and news cycle energy.  This is what an administration of insurrection subsists upon: furious activity signifying nothing.  Whatever mental complex professionals of mind and pen might attribute to him, Trump can claim to be under siege and persecuted; he can find enemies because his enemies will be more than willing to take up positions in the gallery.

On a flight from Billings, Mont. To Fargo, N.D., he outlined the next steps of retaliation against the unnamed White House official.  “We’re going to take a look at what he had, what he gave, and what he’s talking about, also where he is right now.”  A person with such security clearances would not be permitted to attend meetings “concerning China or Russia or North Korea or something.”

Trump has also urged Attorney-General Jeff Sessions to take up the case as the op-ed, in his view, was egregious enough to be a matter of “national security”.  The Department of Justice has been less than willing to clarify what any prosecution might entail, covering all necessary contingencies:

“The department does not confirm, deny or otherwise acknowledge the existence or non-existence of investigations.”

Other props of speculation are also being placed in full view of the press: an acceleration of the trade war with China, Trump’s claimed possession of a letter from Kim Jong Un that will yield promising gold.  The show must go on, substance or not.  The insurrection must continue.

*

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Email: [email protected]

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

According to State Department officials, President Trump has recently abandoned his desire to “get out” of Syria and bring US troops home.  He has signed a new strategy, which includes new military goals, and eliminates all timelines for removing troops from Syria.

US troops are in several parts of Syria, mostly in the Kurdish-held northeast. An estimated 2,200 US troops are in Syria, though official numbers are being withheld from the public. Special Envoy James Jeffrey said the old plan was to leave Syria by year’s end, but now the troops are committed to an “indefinitely extended” stay.

The new goals are substantial as well, with the US now focusing on forcing Iran out of Syria and “enduring defeat” for ISIS. Jeffrey says the US is “not in a hurry” and that Trump is now on board with this idea.

Pentagon officials have long presented the operation in Syria as more or less permanent, and have resisted all talk of pullout, including from President Trump. This mirrors their policy in Iraq, where US troops are similarly positioned in unknown numbers on a more or less permanent basis.

Trump, interestingly, has not commented on this fairly dramatic change in his position on US troops in Syria. It is unclear why Trump hasn’t spoken on the matter, but there is no sign such comments are coming in the near future.

*

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Back in the 1950s, the US intelligence community coined a term: “blowback”. It referred to the unintended consequences of a covert operation that ended up damaging one’s own cause.

There are mounting indications that the intensifying campaign by the Israel lobby in the UK against Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the parliamentary opposition, is starting to have precisely such self-harming repercussions.

A campaign of smears

In the three years since he was elected to lead the Labour party, Corbyn has faced non-stop accusations that his party has an endemic “anti-Semitism problem“, despite all evidence to the contrary. Of late, Corbyn himself has become the chief target of such allegations.

Last week the Daily Mail led a media mauling of Corbyn over disparaging comments he made in 2013 about a small group of pro-Israel zealots who had come to disrupt a Palestinian solidarity meeting. His reference to them as “Zionists”, it was claimed, served as code for “Jews” and was therefore anti-Semitic.

Mounting evidence in both the UK and the US, where there has been a similar escalation of attacks on pro-Palestinian activists, often related to the international boycott movement (BDS), suggests that the Israeli government is taking a significant, if covert, role in coordinating and directing such efforts to sully the reputation of prominent critics.

Corbyn’s supporters have argued instead that he is being subjected to a campaign of smears to oust him from the leadership because of his very public championing over many decades of the Palestinian cause.

Israel lobbyists

Al-Jazeera has produced two separate undercover documentary series on Israel lobbyists’ efforts in the UK and US to interfere in each country’s politics – probably in violation of local laws. Only the UK series has been aired so far.

It showed an Israeli embassy official, Shai Masot, both plotting to “take down” a Conservative government minister seen as too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and helping to create an anti-Corbyn front organisation in the Labour party.

Masot worked closely with two key pro-Israel groups in Labour, the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel. The latter includes some 80 Labour MPs.

Under apparent pressure from the Israel lobby in the US, the series on the US lobby was suppressed.

This week Alain Gresh, the former editor of Le Monde diplomatique, published significant quotes from that censored documentary after viewing it secretly in Dubai. The US lobby’s aims and practices, as reported by Gresh, closely echo what has happened in the UK to Corbyn, as he has faced relentless allegations of anti-Semitism.

The US documentary reportedly shows that Israel’s strategic affairs ministry has taken a leading role in directing the US lobby’s efforts. According to Gresh, senior members of the lobby are caught on camera admitting that they have built up a network of spies to gather information on prominent critics of Israel.

In Gresh’s transcripted excerpts, Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, a group of organisations fighting BDS, states:

“When I got here a few years ago, the budget was $3,000. Today it’s like a million and a half [dollars], or more. … It’s a massive budget.”

“It’s psychological warfare,” he adds, noting how the smears damage the targeted groups: “They either shut down, or they spend time investigating [the accusations against them] instead of attacking Israel. It’s extremely effective.”

David Hazony, a senior member of another lobby group, The Israel Project, explains that a pressing aim is to curb political speech critical of Israel:

“What’s a bigger problem is the Democratic Party, the Bernie Sanders people, bringing all the anti-Israel people into the Democratic Party. Then being pro-Israel becomes less a bipartisan issue, and then every time the White House changes, the policies towards Israel change. That becomes a dangerous thing for Israel.”

No discussion

These reported quotes confirm much of what was already suspected. More than a decade ago scholars John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt wrote a book examining the composition and role of the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US.

But until the broadcasting of the Al-Jazeera documentary last year no comparable effort had been made to shine a light on the situation in the UK. In fact, there was almost no discussion or even acknowledgment of the role of an Israel lobby in British public and political life.

That is changing rapidly. Through its constant attacks on Corbyn, British activists are looking less like disparate individuals sympathetic to Israel and more recognisably like a US-style lobby – highly organised, on-message and all too ready to throw their weight around.

The lobby was always there, of course. And, as in the US, it embraces a much wider body of support than right-wing Jewish leadership organisations like the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council, or hardline lobbyists such as the Community Security Trust and BICOM.

The earliest Zionists

That should not surprise us. The earliest Zionists were not Jews but fundamentalist Christians. In the US, the largest group of Zionists by far are Christian evangelicals who believe that the return of Jews to the Promised Land is the key to unlocking the second coming of the Messiah and an apocalyptic end-times. Though embraced by Israel, many of these Christian fundamentalists hold anti-Semitic views.

In Britain, there is an unacknowledged legacy of anti-Semitic Christian support for Zionism. Lord Balfour, a devout Christian who regularly voiced bigotry towards Jews, was also the man who committed the British government in 1917 to create a home for Jews in Palestine. That set in motion today’s conflict between Israel and the native Palestinian population.

In addition, many British gentiles, like other Europeans, live with understandable guilt about the Holocaust.

One of the largest and most effective groups in Corbyn’s parliamentary party is Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), most of whose members are not Jewish. LFI takes some of the party’s most senior politicians on all-expenses-paid trips to Israel to wine and dine them as they are subjected to Israeli propaganda.

Dozens of Labour MPs have remained loyal to LFI even as the organisation has repeatedly refused to criticise Israel over undeniable war crimes.

When Israeli snipers executed dozens of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza in May, the LFI took to Twitter to blame Hamas for the deaths, not Israel. After facing a massive backlash, the LFI simply deleted the tweet.

A double whamy

Historically the Israel lobby could remain relatively low-profile in the UK because it faced few challenges. Its role was chiefly to enforce a political orthodoxy about Israel in line with Britain’s role as Washington’s foreign policy junior partner. No British leader looked likely to step far from the Washington consensus.

Until Corbyn.

The Israel lobby in the UK now faces a double whammy.

First, since Donald Trump entered the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dropped any pretence that Israel is willing to concede a Palestinian state, whatever the Palestinians do. Instead, Israel has isolated the Palestinian leadership diplomatically while seeking to terrorise the Palestinian population into absolute submission.

That was all too clear over the summer when those Israeli snipers picked off demonstrators each week in Gaza. As a result, the Israel lobby stands more exposed than ever. It can no longer buy time for Israeli expansionism by credibly claiming, as it once did, that Israel seeks peace.

Second, Israel’s partisans in the UK were caught off-guard by the unexpected rise of Corbyn to a place that puts him in sight of being the next prime minister. The use of social media by his supporters, meanwhile, has provided a counter-weight to the vilification campaign being amplified by the British media.

The media have been only too willing to assist in the smearing of the Labour leader because they have their own separate interests in seeing Corbyn gone. He is a threat to the corporate business interests they represent.

But not only has the messenger – the Israel lobby – now come under proper scrutiny for the first time, so has its message.

English Irony

The success of the lobby had depended not only on it remaining largely out of view. It also expected to shore up a largely pro-Israel environment without drawing attention to what was being advocated, beyond unquestioned soundbites. In doing so, it was able to entirely ignore those who had paid the price for Israel’s diplomatic impunity – the Palestinians.

The campaign against Corbyn has not only forced the lobby to come out into the open, but the backlash to its campaign has forced the lobby to articulate for the first time what exactly it believes and what is at stake.

The latest furore over Corbyn concerns a Youtube video of him speaking at a pro-Palestinian meeting in 2013, two years before he became Labour leader. He has been widely denounced in the media for making disparaging remarks about a small group of hardline pro-Israel partisans well-known for disrupting such meetings.

He referred to them as “Zionists” and suggested that the reaction of this particular hardline group to a speech by the Palestinian ambassador had betrayed their lack of appreciation of “English irony”.

"I gave Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on antisemitism. I can’t any more" – powerful piece from @shattenstone who, like me, has defended Corbyn up until now but, like me, struggles to defend his 'Zionist' remarks that have emerged from 2013.https://t.co/vHms7zKlcS

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) August 24, 2018

Israel’s lobby, echoed by many liberal journalists, has suggested that Corbyn was using “Zionist” as code word for “Jew”, and that he had implied that all Jews – not the handful of pro-Israel zealots in attendance – lacked traits of Englishness.

This, they say, was yet further evidence of his anti-semitism.

Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s former chief rabbi, told the New Statesman this week that Corbyn’s comment was “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”. In that notorious speech, the right-wing politician sought to incite race hatred of immigrants.

Calling Corbyn an “anti-Semite”, Sacks added:

“It undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”

Treacherous words

In a now familiar pattern to lobby claims, Sacks relied on the false premise that all Jews are Zionists. He conflated a religious or ethnic category with a political ideology. The Labour leader has held his ground on this occasion, pointing out that he was using the term “in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people”.

Others have pointed out that his accusers – many of them senior journalists – are the ones lacking a sense of irony. Corbyn was not “otherising” Jews, he was pointing out a paradox not confirming a prejudice: that a small group of Britons were so immersed in their partisan cause, Israel, that it had blinded them to the “English irony” employed by a foreigner, the Palestinian ambassador.

However, the terms “anti-Semitism” and “Zionism” are likely to prove more treacherous to weaponise against Corbyn than the lobby thinks. As the anti-Semitism controversy is constantly reignited, a much clearer picture of the lobby’s implied logic is emerging, as illustrated by the hyperbolic, verging on delusional, language of Rabbi Sacks.

The argument goes something like this: Israel is the only safe haven for Jews in times of trouble – and the only thing that stands between them and a future Holocaust. The movement that created Israel was the Zionist movement. Today most Jews are Zionists and believe Israel is at the core of their identity. Therefore, if you are too critical of Israel or Zionism, you must wish bad things for the Jewish people. That makes you an anti-Semite.

Problematic premises

It probably doesn’t require a logician to understand that there are several highly problematic premises propping up this argument. Let’s concentrate on two. The first is that it depends on a worldview in which the non-Jew is assumed to be anti-Semite until proven otherwise. For that reason Jews need to be eternally vigilant and distrustful of those outside their “tribe”.

If that sounds improbable, it shouldn’t. That is exactly the lesson of the Holocaust taught to children in Israel from kindergarten onwards.

Israel derives no universal message from the Holocaust. Its schools do not teach that we must avoid stigmatising others, and discourage sectarian and tribal indentifications that fuel prejudice and bigotry. How could it? After all, Israel’s core ideology, political Zionism, is premised on the idea of tribal and sectarian exclusivity – the “ingathering of exiles” to create a Jewish state.

In Israel, the Holocaust supplies a different lesson. It teaches that Jews are under permanent threat from non-Jews, and that their only defence is to seek collective protection in a highly militarised state, armed with nuclear weapons.

This idea was encapsulated in the famous saying by the late Israeli general Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be seen as a mad dog; too dangerous to bother.”

A ‘globalised virus’

Israel’s ugly, self-serving tribal reading of history has been slowly spreading to Jews in Europe and the US.

Fifteen years ago, a US scholar, Daniel J Goldhagen, published an influential essay in the Jewish weekly Forward titled “The Globalisation of anti-Semitism”. In it, he argued that anti-Semitism was a virus that could lie dormant for periods but would always find new ways to reinfect its hosts.

“Globalized anti-Semitism has become part of the substructure of prejudice in the world,” he wrote. “It is relentlessly international in its focus on Israel at the center of the most conflict-ridden region today.”

This theory is also known as the “new anti-Semitism”, a form of Jew hatred much harder to identify than the right-wing anti-Semitism of old. Through mutation, the new anti-Semitism had concealed its hatred of Jews by appearing to focus on Israel and dressing itself up in left-wing garb.

Perhaps not surprisingly, given his latest comments about Corbyn, that is also an approximation of the argument made by Rabbi Sacks in a 2016 essay in which he writes: “Anti-Semitism is a virus that survives by mutating.”

In a sign of how this kind of paranoia is becoming slowly normalised in Europe too, the Guardian published a commentary by a British journalist this month explaining her decision, Israel-style, to teach her three-year-old daughter about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. That, she hoped, would prepare her child for eventualities such as Corbyn becoming prime minister.

But the increasing adoption of Israel’s tribalist doctrine among sections of the British Jewish community – and the related weaponisation of anti-Semitism – is likely to shed further light on what kind of a state hardline Zionists uphold as at the core of their identity.

Paradoxically, the new anti-Semitism turns the tables by legitimising – in fact, necessitating – Jewish racism towards gentiles. Rather than Corbyn stigmatising Jews – except in some feverish imaginations – it is the pro-Israel lobby stigmatising non-Jews, by claiming that they are all tainted by Jew hatred, whether they know it or not.

The more the lobby kicks up a hysteria about Corbyn’s supposed anti-Semitism, the clearer it becomes that the lobby regards much of the non-Jewish public as suspect too.

Palestinians made invisible

The other obvious lacuna in the lobby’s logic is that it only works if we completely remove the Palestinians from the story of Zionism and Israel. The idea of a harm-free Zionism might have been credible had it been possible to establish a Jewish state on an empty piece of land, as the early Zionists claimed Palestine to be. In reality there was a large native population who had to be displaced first.

Pro-Palestine demonstrators march down a street in central London (MEE/Areeb Ullah)

Israel’s creation as a Jewish state in 1948 was possible only if the Zionist movement undertook two steps that violate modern conceptions of human rights and liberal democratic practice. First, Israel had to carry out large-scale ethnic cleansing, forcing more than 80 per cent of the native Palestinian population outside the new borders of the Jewish state it created on the Palestinians’ homeland.

Then, it needed to deny the small surviving community of Palestinians inside Israel the same rights as Israeli Jews, to ghettoise them and stop them from bringing their expelled relatives back to their homes.

These weren’t poor choices by flawed Israeli politicians. They were absolutely essential to the success of a Zionist project to create and maintain a Jewish state. The ethnic cleansing of 1948 and the structural racism of the Jewish state were unmentionable topics in “legitimate” public debates about Israel until very recently.

That has been changing, in part because it has become much harder to conceal what kind of state Israel is. Its self-harming behaviour includes its recent decision to make explicit the state’s institutionalised racism with the passage last month of the Nation-State Basic Law. That law gives constitutional weight to the denial of equal rights to a fifth of Israel’s population, those who are Palestinian.

The backlash against Corbyn and other Palestinian solidarity activists is evidence of the lobby’s fears that they can no longer hold the line against a growing realisation by western publics that there was a cost to Zionism’s success.

That price was paid by Palestinians, and there has yet been no historical reckoning over their suffering. By veiling the historical record, Israel and the Zionist movement have avoided the kind of truth and reconciliation process that led to the ending of apartheid in South Africa. The lobby prefers that Israel’s version of apartheid continues.

Loss of moral compass

If there is one individual who personifies the loss of a moral compass in the weaponisation of anti-Semitism against Corbyn and Israel’s critics, it is Rabbi Sacks.

Asked by the New Statesman what he thinks of the new Nation-State Basic Law, the normally erudite Sacks suddenly becomes lost for words. He asks a friend, or in his case his brother, for the answer:

 “I’m not an expert on this. My brother is, I’m not. He’s a lawyer in Jerusalem. He tells me that there’s absolutely nothing apartheid about this, it’s just correcting a lacuna… As far as I understand, it’s a technical process that has none of the implications that have been levelled at it.”

Sacks, it seems, cannot identify apartheid when it is staring him the face, as long as it is disguised as “Jewish”. Similarly, he is blind to the history of Zionism and the mass dispossession of Palestinians in the 1948 Nakba.

He tells the New Statesman:

“Jews did not wish to come back to their land [Palestine] to make any other people [Palestinians] suffer, and that goes very deep in the Jewish heart.”

Not so deep, it seems, that Sacks can even identify who had to suffer to make possible that Jewish “return”.

In a critique of Sacks’ lengthy 2016 essay on anti-Semitism, a liberal Jewish commentator Peter Beinart noted that the rabbi had mentioned the “Palestinians” by name only once.

He berated Sacks for equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism:

“By denying that [Palestinians] might have any reason besides bigotry to dislike Zionism, it denies their historical experience and turns them into mere vessels for Jew-hatred. Thus, it does to Palestinians what anti-Semitism does to Jews. It dehumanizes them.”

Topsy-turvy world

In a world that was not topsy-turvy, it would be Sacks and the Israel lobby that were being publicly upbraided for their racism. Instead Corbyn is being vilified by a wide spectrum of supposedly informed opinion in the UK – Jewish and non-Jewish alike – for standing in solidarity with Palestinians.

That is, remember, the Palestinian people who have been the victims of more than a century of collusion between European colonialism and Zionism, and today are still being oppressed by an anachronistic ethnic state, Israel, determined to privilege its Jewishness at all costs.

The lobby and its supporters are not just seeking to silence Corbyn. They also intend to silence the Palestinians and the growing ranks of people who choose to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians. But while the lobby may be winning on its own limited terms in harming Corbyn in mainstream discourse, deeper processes are exposing and weakening the lobby. It is overplaying its hand.

A strong lobby is one that is largely invisible, one that – like the financial and arms industries – has no need to flex its muscles. In making so much noise to damage Corbyn, the Israel lobby is also for the first time being forced to bring out into the open the racist premises that always underpinned its arguments.

Over time, that exposure is going to harm, not benefit, the apologists for Israel.

*

Jonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth since 2001, is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a past winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at: www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

The latest announcement by British authorities of two named Russian suspects in connection with the alleged poison assassination of a former Russian spy and his daughter is more absurd drama in a long-running tawdry saga.

No verifiable evidence is ever presented, just more lurid innuendo and more refusal by the British authorities to abide by any due process and international norms of diplomacy. It is all scurrilous sound and fury aimed at smearing Russia.

This week, Britain’s Metropolitan Police released video shots of two alleged Russian men purporting to show them arriving at London’s Gatwick airport on March 2. Other video shots purport to show the same men walking the streets of Salisbury on March 3, the day before former Russian Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were apparently stricken with a powerful nerve agent. The two would-be assassins then allegedly flew back to Moscow from London late on March 4.

One preposterous claim, among several by the British authorities, is that traces of the putative nerve poison Novichok were found in the London hotel room where the alleged Kremlin agents stayed. The incompetence of the two supposed super assassins beggars belief. More realistically clumsy, however, is the attempt by the British to lay an incriminating trail.

The day after the Met police announcement implicating the two Russian culprits, Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May stood up in front of her parliament and claimed that the two individuals were members of Russian military intelligence, the GRU. Another British minister, Ben Wallace, accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of having personal responsibility for ordering the alleged assassination plot.

Then on Thursday Britain summoned the United Nations Security Council to hash over the lurid claims against Russia without providing any further substantiating details to back up the sensational accusations.

This is nothing other than more trial-by-media, a process of railroading allegations against Russia, not on any basis of legal due process, but simply by bluster and prejudice. The credulous British news media play a dutiful secondary role in giving the claims a semblance of credibility, instead of asking the gaping questions that are warranted.

As Vasily Nebenzia, Russia’s envoy to the UN, remarked, the whole aim of the British claims is to whip up more international anti-Russia frenzy and hysteria. No sooner had Britain unleashed its latest allegations, a joint statement was released by the United States, Canada, Germany and France supporting the British claims.

Britain is now calling for more punitive sanctions against Moscow just as it had triggered earlier this year when the Skripals apparently fell ill on a park bench in the southern English town of Salisbury. Some 28 countries have expelled Russian diplomats over those earlier and as-yet unfounded claims. More expulsions can thus be expected, with the intended effect of framing Russia as a pariah state.

The timing of this week’s twist in the Skripal saga seems pertinent. The US, Britain and France are threatening to launch military strikes on Syria just as the Syrian army and its Russian ally move to defeat the last-remaining stronghold of NATO-backed terror groups in that country, potentially bringing an end to the Western-backed criminal war for regime change against the Assad government in Damascus.

Last month, too, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel held a productive, cordial summit with President Putin near Berlin, where the two leaders appeared to solidify a rapprochement over a crucial energy project between Russia the European Union.

The British government is also teetering on political implosion from the Brexit debacle and growing public contempt.

As Russia’s UN envoy Nebenzia further pointed out, how is it possible that the British prime minister can make the categorical claim that the two alleged Russian men in the video shots released this week are members of the GRU? Typically, she made the claim without providing any substantiating information.

This was the same kind of plucking from thin air that Theresa May performed only days after the Skripals were apparently poisoned in Salisbury on March 4. Again, back then, May stood in front of parliament and dramatically accused Russia of a state-sponsored assassination attempt. The British authorities have cast, and continue to cast, a verdict without any legal case. That verdict relies entirely on Russophobia and prejudice of Russian malfeasance.

Former British ambassador Craig Murray and other astute observers have noted that the latest video shots released by Britain’s counter-terrorism police are highly questionable. The images could have been easily fabricated with modern digital methods. They are not evidence of anything. Yet, suspiciously, the British authorities are in unseemly haste to make their sensational charges of Russian state culpability.

Moscow has condemned the reprehensible rhetoric used by the British prime minister and senior members of her cabinet in throwing grave allegations against the Russian leadership. Britain’s trashing of diplomatic norms is deplorable, befitting a rogue state that is itching for conflict.

The fact is that the British have spurned any normal legal attempt by Russia to access the supposed investigation in order to ascertain the nature of the alleged information incriminating Moscow. If Britain had a case, then why doesn’t it permit an independent assessment? Russia is being denigrated with foul accusations, and yet Moscow is denied the right to defend itself by being able to ascertain the information. The British technique is that of an inquisition making a mockery of legal standards.

Another salient fact is that the whereabouts of the Skripals is not known – six months after the alleged poisoning incident. Russia has been repeatedly denied consular contact with one of its citizens, Yulia Skripal, whose bizarre one-off appearance in a video, released by the British authorities three months ago, conveyed her wish to return to her homeland of Russia. Britain is violating the legal principle of habeas corpus.

Far from any evidence implicating Russia in a crime, the evidence so far points to the British authorities illegally detaining the Skripals for propaganda purpose. That nefarious purpose is clear: to demonize and delegitimize Russia as a sovereign state.

The Skripal saga and official British clowning around would be laughable if the consequences for international relations were not so dire.

The British authorities should be the ones in the dock, not Russia, to answer a case of forced abduction and incitement of international conflict.

*

Featured image is from SCF.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was a non-teaching day for me.  I was home when the phone rang at 9 A.M.  It was my daughter, who was on a week’s vacation with her future husband.  “Turn on the TV,” she said.  “Why?” I asked.  “Haven’t you heard?  A plane hit the World Trade Tower.”

I turned the TV on and watched a plane crash into the Tower.  I said, “They just showed a replay.”  She quickly corrected me, “No, that’s another plane.”  And we talked as we watched in horror, learning that it was the South Tower this time.  Sitting next to my daughter was my future son-in-law; he had not had a day off from work in a year.  He had finally taken a week’s vacation so they could go to Cape Cod.  He worked on the 100^th floor of the South Tower.  By chance, he had escaped the death that claimed 176 of his co-workers.

That was my introduction to the attacks.  Seventeen years have disappeared behind us, yet it seems like yesterday.  And yet again, it seems like long, long ago.

Over the next few days, as the government and the media accused Osama bin Laden and 19 Arabs of being responsible for the attacks, I told a friend that what I was hearing wasn’t believable; the official story was full of holes. I am a born and bred New Yorker with a long family history rooted in the NYC Fire and Police Departments, one grandfather having been the Deputy Chief of the Fire Department, the highest ranking uniformed firefighter, and the other a NYPD cop; a niece and her husband were NYPD detectives deeply involved in the response to that day’s attacks. Hearing the absurd official explanations and the deaths of so many innocent people, including many hundreds of firefighters, cops, and emergency workers, I felt a suspicious rage. It was a reaction that I couldn’t fully explain, but it set me on a search for the truth.  I proceeded in fits and starts, but by the fall of 2004, with the help of the extraordinary work of David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, and other early skeptics, I could articulate the reasons for my initial intuition.  I set about creating and teaching a college course on what had come to be called 9/11.

But I no longer refer to the events of that day by those numbers.  Let me explain why.

By 2004 I had enough solid evidence to convince me that the U.S. government’s claims (and The 9/11 Commission Report) were fictitious.  They seemed so blatantly false that I concluded the attacks were a deep-state intelligence operation whose purpose was to initiate a national state of emergency to justify wars of aggression, known euphemistically as “the war on terror.”  The sophistication of the attacks, and the lack of any proffered evidence for the government’s claims, suggested that a great deal of planning had been involved.

Yet I was chagrined and amazed by so many people’s insouciant lack of interest in questioning and researching the most important world event since the assassination of President Kennedy.  I understood the various psychological dimensions of this denial, the fear, cognitive dissonance, etc., but I sensed something else as well.  For so many people their minds seemed to have been “made up” from the start.  I found that many young people were the exceptions, while most of their elders dared not question the official narrative.  These included many prominent leftist critics of American foreign policy, such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Alexander Cockburn, and others, whose defenses of the official government and media explanations (when they even made such defenses; often they just trashed skeptics as “9/11 conspiracy nuts,” to quote Cockburn) totally lacked any scientific or logical rigor or even knowledge of the facts.  Now that seventeen years have elapsed, this seems truer than ever.  There is a long list of leftists who refuse to examine matter to this very day.  And most interestingly, they also do the same with the assassination of JFK, the other key seminal event of recent American history.

I kept thinking of the ongoing language and logic used to describe what had happened that terrible day in 2001 and in the weeks to follow.  It all seemed so clichéd and surreal, as if set phrases had it been extracted from some secret manual, phrases that rung with an historical resonance that cast a spell on the public, as if mass hypnosis were involved.  People seemed mesmerized as they spoke of the events in the official language that had been presented to them.

So with the promptings of people like Graeme MacQueen, Lance deHaven-Smith, T.H. Meyer, et al., and much study and research, I have concluded that my initial intuitive skepticism was correct and that a process of linguistic mind-control was in place before, during, and after the attacks.  As with all good propaganda, the language had to be insinuated over time and introduced through intermediaries.  It had to seem “natural” and to flow out of events, not to precede them.  And it had to be repeated over and over again.

In summary form, I will list the language I believe “made up the minds” of those who have refused to examine the government’s claims about the September 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks.

1. Pearl Harbor.  As pointed out by David Ray Griffin and others, this term was used in September 2000 in The Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (p.51).  Its neo-con authors argued that the U.S. wouldn’t be able to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. “absent some catastrophic event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”  Then on January 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s “Space Commission” warned that the U.S. could face a “space Pearl Harbor” if it weren’t careful and didn’t increase space security.  Rumsfeld urged support for the proposed U.S. national missile defense system opposed by Russia and China and massive funding for the increased weaponization of space.  At the same time he went around handing out and recommending Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (1962) by Roberta Wohlstetter, who had spent almost two decades working for The Rand Corporation and who claimed that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack that shocked U.S. leaders. Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor – those words and images dominated public consciousness for many months before 11 September 2001, and of course after.  The film Pearl Harbor, made with Pentagon assistance and a massive budget, was released on May 25, 2001 and was a box office hit.   It was in the theatres throughout the summer.  The thought of the attack on Pearl Harbor (not a surprise to the U.S. government, but presented as such) was in the news all summer despite the fact that the 60^th anniversary of that attack was not until December 7, 2001, a more likely release date. So why was it released so early?  Once the September 11 attacks occurred, the Pearl Harbor analogy was “plucked out” of the social atmosphere and used constantly, beginning immediately. Another “Day of Infamy,” another surprise attack blared the media and government officials.  A New Pearl Harbor!  George W.  Bush was widely reported to have had the time that night, after a busy day of flying hither and yon to avoid the terrorists who for some reason had forgotten he was in a classroom in Florida, to allegedly use it in his diary, writing that “the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century took place today.  We think it is Osama bin Laden.”  Shortly after the 50^th anniversary of Pearl Harbor on December 7^th, Bush then formerly announced, referencing the attacks of September 11, that the U. S. would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The examples of this Pearl Harbor/ September 11 analogy are manifold, but I am summarizing, so I will skip giving them.  Any casual researcher can confirm this.
2. Homeland.  This strange un-American term, another WW II word associated with another enemy – Nazi Germany – was also used many times by the neo-con authors of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”  I doubt any average American referred to this country by that term before.  Of course it became the moniker for The Department of Homeland Security, marrying home with security to form a comforting name that simultaneously and unconsciously suggests a defense against Hitler-like evil coming from the outside.  Not coincidentally, Hitler introduced it into the Nazi propaganda vernacular at the 1934 Nuremberg rally. Both usages conjured up images of a home besieged by alien forces intent on its destruction; thus preemptive action was in order.  Now the Department of Homeland Security with its massive budget is lodged permanently in popular consciousness.  
3. Ground Zero. This is a third WWII (“the Good War”) term first used at 11:55 A.M. on September 11 by Mark Walsh (aka “the Harley Guy” because he was wearing a Harley-Davidson tee shirt) in an interview on the street by a Fox News reporter, Rick Leventhal. Identified as a Fox free-lancer, Walsh also explained the Twin Towers collapse in a precise, well-rehearsed manner that would be the same illogical and anti-scientific explanation later given by the government: “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense.”  Ground zero – a nuclear bomb term first used by U.S. scientists to refer to the spot where they exploded the first nuclear bomb in New Mexico in 1945 – became another meme adopted by the media that suggested a nuclear attack had occurred or might in the future if the U.S. didn’t act. The nuclear scare was raised again and again by George W. Bush and U.S. officials in the days and months following the attacks, although nuclear weapons were beside the point in terms of the 11 September attacks, but surely not as a scare tactic and as part of the plan to withdraw from the ABM treaty that would be announced in December.  But the conjoining of “nuclear” with “ground zero” served to raise the fear factor dramatically.  Ironically, the project to develop the nuclear bomb was called the Manhattan Project and was headquartered at 270 Broadway, NYC, a few short blocks north of the World Trade Center.
4. The Unthinkable.  This is another nuclear term whose usage as linguistic mind control and propaganda is brilliantly analyzed by Graeme MacQueen in the penultimate chapter of his very important book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception.  He notes the patterned use of this term before and after September 11, while saying “the pattern may not signify a grand plan …. It deserves investigation and contemplation.”  He then presents a convincing case that the use of this term couldn’t be accidental.  He notes how George W. Bush, in a major foreign policy speech on May 1, 2001, “gave informal public notice that the United States intended to withdraw unilaterally from the ABM Treaty”; Bush said the U.S. must be willing to “rethink the unthinkable.”  This was necessary because of terrorism and rogue states with “weapons of mass destruction.”  PNAC also argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty.  A signatory to the treaty could only withdraw after giving six months notice and because of “extraordinary events” that “jeopardized its supreme interests.” Once the September 11 attacks occurred, Bush rethought the unthinkable and officially gave formal notice on December 13 to withdraw the U.S. from the ABM Treaty, as previously noted.  MacQueen specifies the many times different media used the term “unthinkable” in October 2001 in reference to the anthrax attacks.  He explicates its usage in one of the anthrax letters – “The Unthinkabel” [sic].  He explains how the media that used the term so often were at the time unaware of its usage in the anthrax letter since that letter’s content had not yet been revealed, and how the letter writer had mailed the letter before the media started using the word.  He makes a rock solid case showing the U.S. government’s complicity in the anthrax attacks and therefore in the Sept 11 attacks.  While calling the use of the term “unthinkable” in all its iterations “problematic,” he writes, “The truth is that the employment of ‘the unthinkable’ in this letter, when weight is given both to the meaning of this term in U.S. strategic circles and to the other relevant uses of the term in 2001, points us in the direction of the U.S. military and intelligence communities.”  I am reminded of Orwell’s point in 1984: “a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words.”  Thus the government and media’s use of “unthinkable” becomes a classic case of “doublethink.”  The unthinkable is unthinkable.
5. 9/11. This is the key usage that has reverberated down the years around which the others revolve. It is an anomalous numerical designation applied to an historical event, and obviously also the emergency telephone number.  Try to think of another numerical appellation for an important event in American history.  It’s impossible.  But if you have a good historical sense, you will remember that the cornerstone for the Pentagon was lain on September 11, 1941, three months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the CIA engineered a coup against the Allende government in Chile on Sept 11, 1973.  Just strange coincidences?  The future editor of The New York Times and Iraq war promoter, Bill Keller, introduced the emergency phone connection on the morning of September 12th in a NY Times op-ed piece, “America’s Emergency Line: 911.”  The linkage of the attacks to a permanent national emergency was thus subliminally introduced, as Keller mentioned Israel nine times and seven times compared the U.S. situation to that of Israel as a target for terrorists.  His first sentence reads: “An Israeli response to America’s aptly dated wake-up call might well be, ‘Now you know.’”  By referring to September 11 as 9/11, an endless national emergency fear became wedded to an endless war on terror aimed at preventing Hitler-like terrorists from obliterating us with nuclear weapons that could create another ground zero or holocaust.  Mentioning Israel (“America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world,” George W. Bush would tell the Israeli Knesset) so many times, Keller was not very subtly performing an act of legerdemain with multiple meanings.  By comparing the victims of the 11 September attacks to Israeli “victims,” he was implying, among other things, that the Israelis are innocent victims who are not involved in terrorism, but are terrorized by Palestinians, as Americans are terrorized by fanatical Muslims.  Palestinians/Al-Qaeda.  Israel/U.S.  Explicit and implicit parallels of the guilty and the innocent.  Keller tells us who the real killers are.  His use of the term 9/11 is a term that pushes all the right buttons, evoking unending social fear and anxiety.  It is language as sorcery. It is propaganda at its best. Even well-respected critics of the U.S. government’s explanation use the term that has become a fixture of public consciousness through endless repetition.   As George W. Bush would later put it, as he connected Saddam Hussein to “9/11” and pushed for the Iraq war, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”  All the ingredients for a linguistic mind-control smoothie had been blended.

I have concluded – and this is impossible to prove definitively because of the nature of such propagandistic techniques – that the use of all these words/numbers is part of a highly sophisticated linguistic mind-control campaign waged to create a narrative that has lodged in the minds of hundreds of millions of people and is very hard to dislodge.  

It is why I don’t speak of “9/11” any more. I refer to those events as the attacks of September 11, 2001, which is a mouth-full and not easily digested in the age of Twitter and texting.  But I am not sure how to be more succinct or how to undo the damage, except by writing what I have written here.

Lance deHaven-Smith puts it well in Conspiracy Theory in America.  

The rapidity with which the new language of the war on terror appeared and took hold; the synergy between terms and their mutual connections to WW II nomenclatures; and above all the connections between many terms and the emergency motif of “9/11” and “9-1-1” – any one of these factors alone, but certainly all of them together – raise the possibility that work on this linguistic construct began long before 9/11….It turns out that elite political crime, even treason, may actually be official policy.

Needless to say, his use of the words “possibility” and “may” are in order when one sticks to strict empiricism.  However, when one reads his full text, it is apparent to me that he considers these “coincidences” part of a conspiracy.  I have also reached that conclusion.  As Thoreau put in his underappreciated humorous way, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”  

The evidence for linguistic mind control, while the subject of this essay, does not stand alone, of course.  It underpins the actual attacks of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks that are linked.  The official explanations for these events by themselves do not stand up to elementary logic and are patently false, as proven by thousands of well-respected professional researchers from all walks of life – i.e. engineers, pilots, scientists, architects, and scholars from many disciplines (see the upcoming 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, to be released September 11, 2018).  To paraphrase the prescient Vince Salandria, who said it long ago concerning the government’s assassination of President Kennedy, the attacks of 2001 are “a false mystery concealing state crimes.”  If one objectively studies the 2001 attacks together with the language adopted to explain and preserve them in social memory, the “mystery” emerges from the realm of the unthinkable and becomes utterable. “There is no mystery.” The truth becomes obvious. 

How to communicate this when the corporate mainstream media serve the function of the government’s mockingbird (as in Operation Mockingbird), repeating and repeating and repeating the same narrative in the same language; that is the difficult task we are faced with, but there are signs today that breakthroughs are occurring, as growing numbers of international academic scholars are pushing to incorporate the analysis of the official propaganda surrounding 11 September 2001 into their work within the academy, a turnabout from years of general silence.  And more and more people are coming to realize that the official lies about 11 September are the biggest example of fake news in this century.  Fake news used to justify endless wars and the slaughter of so many innocents around the world.

Words have a power to enchant and mesmerize.  Linguistic mind-control, especially when linked to traumatic events such as the September 11 and the anthrax attacks, can strike people dumb and blind.  It often makes some subjects “unthinkable” and “unspeakable” (to quote Jim Douglass quoting Thomas Merton in JFK and the Unspeakable: the unspeakable “is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said.”).

We need a new vocabulary to speak of these terrible things.  Let us learn, as Chief Joseph said, to speak with a straight tongue, and in language that doesn’t do the enemies work of mind control, but snaps the world awake to the truth of the mass murders of September 11, 2001 that have been used to massacre millions across the world.

*

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Tony Blair’s relationship with Saudi Arabia has come under scrutiny following the revelation that the non-government organisation set up under his name has received millions of pounds from Riyadh.

Accounts published yesterday by the Tony Blair Institute confirmed earlier reports that Blair had received donations of up to $12 million from the Kingdom.

The Saudi donation, according to the Financial Times, comes from an organisation called Media Investment Limited (MIL), which is a subsidiary of Saudi Research & Marketing Group, registered in Guernsey.

Publication of the accounts confirmed July reports that Tony Blair Institute had made an agreement with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, effective ruler of Saudi Arabia, earlier this year to help with a programme of modernisation for the Kingdom.

The agreement was said to be the first major deal to have emerged involving the Tony Blair Institute, which Blair established in 2016 after winding down his commercial operations.

The report in the Telegraph prompted the institute to defend its dealing with the Saudi Kingdom saying that the former prime minister did not receive any payment from Riyadh and profits are not generated from its consultancy work. They insisted that their mission was to promote stability and reform in the Middle East – with staff based in the UAE, a key ally of Saudi Arabia.

Following the revelation, questions were raised over some of the institute’s decision, including Blair himself, who supported UK intervention in Syria; a policy that would have primarily benefited the Saudi-backed opposition groups.

Blair’s institute also wrote flattering articles about Bin Salman during the crown prince’s visit to the UK early year.

“Britain should learn from Saudi Arabia and how it has demonstrated a clear commitment to tackling the politicisation of Islam to inform policymaking,” one article read.

It also endorsed Bin Salman’s vision.

“As part of his broad, sweeping and ambitious plans to revolutionise Saudi Arabia, economically, socially and religiously, the crown prince has demonstrated a level of conviction, clarity and coherence in identifying and understanding the nature of Islamist extremism that Western policymakers should seek to learn from.”

Despite the glowing endorsement, a key plank of Bin Salman’s vision has come off the rail. In August King Salman stepped in and shelved his son’s plans to float a five per cent stake in the country’s national oil company. Furthermore Riyadh has seen some of the wort repression in the country under the current ruler, as progressive imams and female campaigners face capital punishment for their criticism of the ruling monarchy.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The US military suspended $300 million in aid to Pakistan.

Technically speaking, the US didn’t cut off actual “military aid” in the physical sense that it’s widely perceived to have done but blocked money that “was part of reimbursement for the loss of lives and financial losses that Pakistan suffered while leading the fight against terrorism”, according to a clarification by Pakistan’s new Foreign Minister. In any case, this hostile move is being done in order to advance several interconnected American objectives, the most public being to scapegoat Pakistan for the US’ failures in Afghanistan while the highest-level strategic one is to continue the US’ policy recalibration towards India as its preferred partner in South Asia.

The supposed pretext of Pakistan not doing enough to crack down on terrorist groups is disingenuous because the country doesn’t harbor such forces and has actually been victimized by them over the decades to the tune of over 60,000 martyrs. Nevertheless, the US attempts to weave a semi-“believable” narrative in this regard by pointing to the active cross-border Pashtun community on both sides of the Durand Line, implying that Taliban members simply cross over into Pakistan from Afghanistan in order to seek reprieve from American airstrikes. That’s also not necessarily the case either, and the situation is more complex than such a simplistic storyline would suggest.

No armed militants enter Pakistan through official border crossings, which are among the most secure in the world, though Islamabad can’t realistically screen each and every unarmed person arriving from Afghanistan for Taliban sympathies. As for those that might try to sneak into the country illegally, they’ve found that to be pretty difficult in recent years and it’ll eventually become impossible once the border fence with Afghanistan is completed. Therefore, the whole case that the US is trying to make about Pakistan supposedly “harboring terrorist groups” and “actively aiding” them is false from the get-go and designed to damage the country’s international reputation.

It’s not just for the sake of trying to harm Pakistan’s standing in the world and “virtue signaling” to its new Indian strategic partner that Washington is nastily disengaging from its erstwhile close relationship with Islamabad, but also because it may be preparing the narrative ground for sanctioning its former South Asian ally on supposed “terrorist” grounds that really have everything to do with obstructing CPEC. The US is building the perception that Pakistan is a “terrorist-infested” country in order to “legitimize” what might be a forthcoming comprehensive sanctions campaign against it similar to the one that it’s currently waging against Iran and which it recently began against Turkey.

Expanding the US’ existing economic warfare battlefield in the region to Pakistan would encompass the South Eurasian Rimland portion of the so-called “Greater Middle East” that forms the southern half of the Golden Ring of multipolar Great Powers, which would put severe pressure on this very promising 21^st-century geopolitical construction, particularly as it relates to the possibility of imposing “secondary sanctions” against companies that use the Pakistani-transiting CPEC. The whole point is to decrease the economic appeal of this game-changing Silk Road corridor as part of the US’ “containment” strategy against Pakistan and China, though it might unintentionally catalyze the same transregional integrational processes that it’s trying to sabotage.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.