|
If
you overheard someone advocating the need for
a terror strike on
America to launch a global war, would you report them to the
authorities? What if they were the
authorities?
You've heard that
"liberals" and
"antiwar activists" "want
America to lose"?
Did you know ...
Top US
Foreign Policy
elites explicitly STATED in 1996-2001 how GREAT and LUCKY it would be
if a "CATASTROPHIC
EVENT" of hit America? They stated that we needed to be attacked!In order to jump-start their war, they needed to 'engineer' Americans into the mood to kill and die. Part of the plan was to frame it as a "moral cause" of good vs. evil, as a psychological trick. At least seven well-known interrelated groups were represented:
This amounts to a rough total of a few thousand people, over 150 in PNAC alone. Not meant to imply that every member of these groups were on board with these statements, but one can assume they were 'official group statements' or they would not have been published. These propagandists are "inside" or political functionaries to the Pentagon. They do not work in remote mountain caves, if you get my drift. They discussed (in scholarly journals and books) how necessary it was for a bloodbath on US soil to occur, for their ambitious military plans to unfold. The quotes are lengthy and above 8th grade reading level, but EACH wants: War for USA or Western or G-20 hegemony, imperial mobilization, intimidation. Each blames public disinterest as the main obstacle to war. Solutions include: stunning events from outside like Pearl Harbor catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like Pearl Harbor shock effect of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a clear and present danger a threat to American security conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat That's three Pearl Harbors mentioned, a picture of a bloodbath, an orgy of death. Interesting, to say the least, that our top tier leaders were cheerleaders for Sept 11, yet zero media interest. Cops and courts
would need far less to issue indictments.
Secret Service harasses 14-year old girl over My Space threats http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6e3l-yPXc If they think a 14-year-old girl is a threat, what about officials INSIDE the Pentagon threatening terrorism? Why aren't these guys being tortured until they tell what they know? ;-) None of this coincidence proves they were involved. On the other hand, sometimes the absence of evidence IS the evidence, to paraphrase Rumsfeld. Why has the media not even mentioned it EVER?!! Not scandalous enough??  
 A few fringe neo-Nazi types also cheered on blogs on 9-11 because "Jew York City" got hit, but you'd expect that from them. Some Israeli spies were apparently also cheering and filming in NY that day, per Fox News. Israelis also lived across the street from or next door to various of the alleged hijackers. The real question is why Fox, an avid cheerleader for Israel, would be the one to slam Israel. I also do not believe that Israel was the primary actor. Anything's possible, but many facts contradict that view, including plans and actions of this nature preceding Israeli influence by many decades. Ever heard of the Baghdad Pact a.k.a. CENTO in the 1950s? Here's
some of the key pro-terror spokesmen:
See the numerous front groups
they represent, how they seem
to be stating the same points. Secondly, recognize them as
a single unified voice,
because they
are
often beneficiaries of the same grants from private tax-free
Foundations. These
shocking ideas and quotes are just the tip of a very dirty iceberg.James M. Lindsay (bio below) - fmr Council on Foreign Relations, fmr Brookings Institute, now professor at U of Texas Michael Ledeen (below, longer bio, page) - Heritage Foundation, "adjunct Scholar" at American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Richard Perle, William Kristol, and other members of the Project for a New American Century (below) others related to them, a political-military-corporate elite that rides on corporate foundation grants, most with less visibility. Zbignew Brzezinski (bio below, page) - Tri-Lateral Commission (membership), Council on Foreign Relations, fmr Nat Security Advisor, wrote book Grand Chessboard commissioned by "Foreign Affairs" magazine of the CFR. Fox News, Jon Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, and others who might say their words were 'misconstrued'. Here's a couple clips of Fox News talking all "patriotic" about a helpful attack on America. I mean isn't that GROTESQUELY UNPATRIOTIC to openly say you want to see thousands or millions of fellow Americans burn, shredded, killed, just to achieve a political orgasm of unity? Which city should be sacrificed? Al-Qaeda is our enemy -- except in Bosnia-Kosovo-Macedonia, according to the Republican Senate. Except when Bushco and CIA is still using Al-Qaeda groups as a proxy force, Seymour Hersh reporting on "The Redirection". Seymour Hersh on US support for Al-Qaeda AGAIN. YouTube. Hersh on US Support for Terror groups in Lebanon - CNN (local) (wmv) One thing he's wrong about: The USA actually backed the Muj in 1979 not late 80's, to 'encourage' the Soviets to invade. Hersh: US is funding Al-Qaeda to counter Iran - DemoNow! (local) (wmv) In 2000, PNAC (Bush advisors) wrote their Agenda, In
particular, we need to:
List of 156 PNAC
Signatories and Contributing Writers • fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars Read that. This was not a case that "we should be able to win, if a war becomes inevitable." It was "we need to go get in a war." Here's a sample of quotes by various persons in POWER in the USA, if not officially "in office". These statements sound like offhand intellectual musings but at least one was attached to a specific Defense Policy statement of objectives, which the Bush admin later adopted almost verbatim. These were HUGE plans, Trillions of Dollars in spending, and Trillions in new contracts for themselves and/or colleagues. The most important and larger goal was for ongoing US hegemony, even in the face of some short-term sacrifice. They lamented that their pre-planned war strategies were on [Pause] until some "MAJOR CATASTROPHIC EVENT" would permit them to press [Play], to release the funding and kick-start the action. Statements
before 9-11
Michael
Ledeen of American Enterprise (AEI)
and Heritage, 1999: “…of
course, we can always get LUCKY. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the
enterprise from its growing torpor (laziness),
and demonstrate the need
for reversal (from
peace), as the devastating
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from
its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.” Translation: The future
9-11 would be "lucky" and "a blessing from God" "a miracle".
Lucky? Was Pearl Harbor a "lucky day" for America? Everyone
"knows" that Osama Bin Laden issued a
"fatwa"
calling for an attack on the United States, echoed by his cronies, like
Zawahiri.
Few people know that Michael "Bin" Ledeen issued a similar "fatwa" echoed by many of his cronies. Nor do people realize that Heritage Foundation, which is the sister org of Ledeen's American Enterprise Institute (same office building, AEI was source of Kagan's "surge" theory for Iraq), also housed three Lobby groups for the Afghani Islamic mujahideen operation, run by Gullbidin Hekmatyar and Osama Bin Laden. In short, Ledeen's people were promoting Al-Qaeda a few decades ago, though it was technically not called Al-Qaeda. While it was under Carter that the CIA gave birth to the Islamic muj project, as part of a Cold War strategy, the Reagan-Bush admin raised the Islamic radical guerillas to the level of AMERICAN HEROES, even giving the a national holiday of recognition, dedicating the space shuttle to them, and other honors. Michael Ledeen has aptly described the principles of AEI as 'universal fascism': a revival, in principle, of the goals of the Nazi Waffen-SS. "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically." (we do?) "Peace increases our peril ... Peace . . . is a dream . . . and would undermine the power of the state." (So small govt is bad. Fascism means everything for the State, individuals must sacrifice for the State.) "Lying is central to the survival of nations..." (it is?? lying to whom??) James M. Lindsay formerly of CFR and Brookings, 2000: "But how to raise the political stakes in foreign policy? A renewed threat to American security would clearly do the trick." (do the trick?) "Absent a clear and present danger, the temptation to dismiss foreign policy as a trifle will remain powerful." (echoes the neo-cons' Cold War "Committee on the Present Danger") WaPo, James Fallows, 1991: "I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to "invent a security threat" and turn the job over to the military." (He wants let the military take over America and have an 'efficient' military police state, like fascist Italy or Germany, Fallows also worked for Nader's Public Citizen and was Carter's speechwriter.) PNAC, 2000: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long (unfavorable) one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." ('process of transformation' refers to over 70 pages of detailed planning for massive military expansion, spending, and pre-planned wars, and four or five years of documents and articles pressuring Clinton to invade Iraq) Brzezinski, 1997 and earlier: The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. ... that America is too democratic ... limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation ... we may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (so this was a positive event ...?) ... aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason." ... to return to a measure of "passivity and defeatism". (public sense of defeat is good for illegitimate authority - this is their vision of democracy) Brzezinski
acknowledges the fact
(echoed
in "On
Killing" by Col. Dave Grossman) that most normal people don't like to
die or be injured nor to sacrifice their well-being, but most also have a strong innate
aversion to killing other humans
or
to even tolerate murder
(except real sociopaths), but people can
be manipulated
into doing those
things, under certain circumstances,
including fear, rage, self-defense, and through high-tech training methods that Grossman
developed. Throughout history, rulers have always called their wars
'defense' against a threat.
Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter: "This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept." "All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." -- David Rockefeller, speaking at the United Nations (This is an NWO of "security" for corporate rule.) Samuel Huntington recommended that democracy and economic development be discarded as outdated ideas. "We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy." "A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary." (or unnecessary sacrifices?) William Casey, CIA Director,1981: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe
Sharatt’s
personal diaries, there is an
excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe
Dayan as follows: “[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not
the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain
its moral tension. Toward
this end it may, no — it must — invent
dangers, and to do this it must adopt the
method of provocation-and-revenge...And
above all — let
us hope for a new war
with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our
troubles and acquire our space.”
Another of Sharett’s Diary entries for June 1955: ‘Ben Gurion himself said it would be worthwhile to pay an Arab a million pounds to start a war. What a slip of the tongue!’ So were these comments preceding Sept 11 coincidence? Luck? Premonition? Parasitic Opportunitism? Disaster Capitalism? Serendipity: The faculty of making fortunate discoveries of things you were not looking for. Or evidence of Pre-Planned staged events? This is certainly interesting enough to warrant a discussion in our media. Here's the real question: Why is there ZERO discussion? After 9-11
Ruth
Wedgwood, PNAC: "9/11 attacks were an unfortunate but necessary
event
to awaken the United States to the need for more
intrusive law enforcement."Gen. Tommy Franks was obliquely alluding to a "Second 9/11" terrorist attack, which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of a military government and police state. Let bin Laden stay free, says ex-No. 3 CIA man (A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard) (copy - Firefox needs MHTML add-on) Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism" - Global Research   a NEW 9-11?:
Stu Bykofsky
| To save America, we need another 9/11
Jon Gibson, Fox News: "I think it's gonna take a lot of dead people to wake America up." "We NEED another 9-11." more + video below Rumsfeld says a new 9-11 would help the Republican Party and their goals. Global Research. Rumsfeld's Mind Rummy also says that Iraq could use a Syngman Rhee-type dictator (because that's what democracy smells like!). For those who don't know, Syngman Rhee was about 10x worse than Saddam. Newt Gingrich recently said: "the better they've done at making sure there isn't an attack, the easier it is to say, 'Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.' And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."The head of the Arkansas Republican party said: "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]" so people appreciate Bush.Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago." And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline. It's All Hot Air, Isn't It? Catastrophic Emergency http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070624&articleId=6134 "Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006) "Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response: We must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to them." (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007) The sheer absurdity that Al Qaeda might have advanced capabilities to wage a nuclear attack on America is, nonetheless, pervasive in US media reports. Moreover, numerous drills and exercises, simulating a terrorist attack using nuclear devices, have been conducted in recent years, creating the illusion that "the threat is real": "What we do know is that our enemies want to inflict massive casualties and that terrorists have the expertise to invent a wide range of attacks, including those involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons. ... [E]xploding a small nuclear weapon in a major city could do incalculable harm to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to businesses and the economy,...(US Congress, House Financial Services Committee, June 21, 2007). History Consistently since 911, the Bush administration has reminded Americans of the danger of a "Second 9/11": Pitching_For_More_Dead_Americans_A_Neo-Con_Fetish.html It's now the Height of Patriotism to DEMAND a BLOODBATH, the mass murder of innocent Americans. Most statements were published openly, but in books and journals that "nobody" reads. More clarification below. The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said: "Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?"He goes on to say: If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance. A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel. Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard? yet: Secret Service harasses 14-year old girl over My Space threats http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6e3l-yPXc California 14-year-old girl quizzed over threats to Bush she posted on MySpace page texting back her mom: “Are you serious!?!? omg. Am I in a lot of trouble?” “I wasn’t dangerous. I mean, look at what’s (stenciled) on my backpack — it’s a heart. I’m a very peace-loving person,” said Wilson, an honor student who describes herself as politically passionate. “I’m against the war in Iraq. I’m not going to kill the president.” ‘They yelled a lot’ Moments later, Kirstie Wilson received another text message from her daughter saying agents had pulled her out of class. Julia Wilson said the agents threatened her by saying she could be sent to juvenile hall for making the threat. “They yelled at me a lot,” she said. “They were unnecessarily mean.” The point is, if they think a 14-year-old girl is a threat, what about officials INSIDE the Pentagon threatening terrorism? What does this tell you about our media that this "odd coincidence" is not even mentioned, let alone a scandal that everyone knows about? Why has no Congressman or Senator or even "The Decider" mentioned this? (Well, most of these people are part of Bush's war team, and anyhow positioning the public mind for the Iraq War started way back in 1991, with plans to seize Middle East oil going back decades. Bush Sr. authorized the CIA to hire the Rendon Group for $360k per month to begin anti-Iraq propaganda in 1991. Rendon Group launched the Iraqi National Congress headed by Chalabi.) September 11 was NOT a Secret Conspiracy
September
11 was
a conspiracy -- even if you believe Al-Qaeda attacked us, Al-Qaeda
did conspire ... there were 19 of them, plus others.However, even if seen as an "inside job", Sept 11 should not really be called a secret conspiracy, per se, because the plans for it were published fairly openly, prior to the event. Staging Sept 11 was a component of National Policy decided amongst the Ruling Class, particularly the Neo-Conservative faction. Neo-Conservatives had a blueprint for urgent and imperative War in the Middle East and the overthrow of Saddam, as quickly as possible. Many people now know that this National Policy was the written into Bush policy, long before Iraq was given a chance to prove they had disarmed (afterdowningstreet.com), long before Sept 11, it was official policy on the day Bush took office, solidified before Bush was elected, germinating since 1996 when PNAC was formed and started badgering Clinton on Iraq, even going back to 1991 when Bush Sr. enlisted the CIA in creating an "oust Saddam" propaganda in London via the Rendon Group and Chalabi, or even going back to the contrived Gulf War (April Glaspie, Santa Fe Drilling sold to Kuwait), or even back to the "Seizing Arab Oil" article in Harper's in 1975 (that plan favored hitting the Saudis), or even back to George Kennan circa 1945 "The Middle East is one of the greatest material prizes in world history". The moment Bush was picked as the leading Republican candidate and the "liberal" media started fawning over him and complaining about Gore's suits and Gore's lying, the PNAC policy was fully operative. Anyone bothering to read the PNAC blueprint (now on www.archive.org under www.newamericancentury.org) would know that PNAC members published hundreds of articles pressing for war on Iraq in the form of letters to Clinton and editorials in top newspapers. Sept 11 was every bit as much a part of the core National Policy as the "War on Terror", because an attack on America was claimed by them to be a necessary pre-cursor event for the rest of National Policy (wars) to commence. They said they needed one for the other. I'd would concede that there has been a conscious conspiracy on the part of the media to avoid reporting this. The Iraq opposition party
was created by an 'ad agency', like Ronald McDonald.
May 1991: President Bush Authorizes CIA to Create Conditions for Removal of Saddam Hussein President George H. W. Bush signs a covert “lethal finding” authorizing the CIA to spend a hundred million dollars to “create the conditions for removal of Saddam Hussein from power". The CIA forms the Iraqi Opposition Group within its Directorate of Operations to implement this policy. Awash in cash, the agency hires the Rendon Group to influence global political opinion on matters related to Iraq. According to Francis Brooke, an employee of the company who’s paid $22,000 per month, the Rendon Group’s contract with the CIA provides it with a ten percent “management fee” on top of whatever money it spends. “We tried to burn through $40 million a year,” Brooke will tell the New Yorker. “It was a very nice job.” The work involves planting false stories in the foreign press. The company begins supplying British journalists with misinformation which then shows up in the London press. In some cases, these stories are later picked up by the American press, in violation of laws prohibiting domestic propaganda. “It was amazing how well it worked. It was like magic,” Brooke later recalls. Another one of the company’s tasks is to help the CIA create a viable and unified opposition movement against Saddam Hussein (see June 1992). This brings the Rendon Group and Francis Brooke into contact with Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi. (Later, Brooks and his family moves into a Georgetown townhouse with Chalabi for free, and Brooks advocates removing Saddam "even if it means killing every Iraqi", because his Christian beliefs tell him that Saddam is "evil".) 2001 Judith Miller, same crap. Here's what
they said, in a nutshell:
Goals:
military intimidation, imperial mobilization, global REVOLUTION
... for
corporations & military
Problem: squirming mass of creatures (mostly) opposed to war, murder, death, sacrifice, waste, a.k.a. 200 million+ human Americans (and allies). Our disgusting ideology of Democracy and Self-Rule, independence, compassion, a desire for nice and easy and prosperous "vulgar" lives. (See what Straussians really believe about us.) Solution: a horrible BLOODBATH, plus clever propaganda, ongoing hysteria, "passivity and defeatism", feeding dependency on the State for security. War. Forever. Yee-hah. Since the mid-90's, and earlier, real power elites and foreign policy experts have been writing that they WANTED Americans to experience a severe and terrifying attack/crisis, which could and would be used to drive the public to support twin policies of war and domestic repression. Support for Radical Islam, both military and financial, had been an explicit policy of successive administrations of both major parties. This continues, as radical violence in Islamic nations is financed/provoked/pruned, as needed. Both 'liberal' Trilateralists like Brzezinski, and neo-con groups like PNAC and AEI, all cited the need for a "LUCKY" security disaster. Rumsfeld even predicted it that morning. Of course, none of that proves anything. So: "Al-Qaeda" is not the only group that says terrorism is a good political tool. Don't forget that Al-Qaeda began as a
clandestine/covert
US intell asset, beginning before the Soviet
invasion. Chossudovsky
cites evidence this continued throughout the 90's under Clinton, and
into Bush's term, including July and even October 2001.) Also note, this is a
global
phenomenon, not just Bush, not just America. All major and minor
countries are on the
same page, with their pre-planned "domestic security"
measures. It's a global
"war on terror", much bigger than Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney.
Even the Pat Buchanan-linked Antiwar.com says: Today there is ample evidence that, when it comes to the freedom of women, education levels, governmental services, relations among different ethnic groups, and quality of life – all were infinitely better under the Afghan communists than under the Taliban or the present government of President Hamid Karzai, which evidently controls little beyond the country's capital, Kabul. [...] Simply put, "Charlie Wilson's War" is imperialist propaganda, and the tragedy is that four-and-a-half years after we invaded Iraq and destroyed it, such dangerously misleading nonsense is still being offered to a gullible public. [...] "Charlie Wilson's War isn't just bad history; it feels even more malign, like a conscious attempt to induce amnesia." Forgotten Coverage of Afghan "Freedom Fighters" Villains of today's news were heroes in the '80s If you pulled names out of Rolodex of Neo-Cons, PNAC, Bush, Clinton, CIA, etc, *ALL* were at least 6 billion times more integral to aiding Al-Qaeda than John Lyndh and taxi drivers in Guantanimo. Why are we not torturing THOSE CULPRITS to tell us Osama's location? (A sarcastic question.) These experts and others wrote of their long-standing agenda to reverse "Vietnam Syndrome" (a social "sickness" characterized by distrust of authority, aversion to war, death, murder, maiming), to repress democratic institutions and reduce prosperity, to create economic crises, to sideline actual democracy locally and globally in gradual steps, to build more internal "security" and militarization, to implement a more effective Class War (gap btw wealth and poverty expected to widen dramatically, chaos and drugs going epidemic), and to roll out Imperial Global Warfare. In other words, to turn the world into more of a global prison labor camp like much of the Third World, under corp state-capitalist control. (Selectively dehumanizing of "the enemy" - including domestic populations - is a key propaganda tactic.) But a democratic
society would never willingly accept such sacrifices -- so wrote
Brzezinski -- at least not
without
plausible justification and
distraction.
They NEEDED some TOOLS to
overcome social/political barriers, to accelerate their too-slow
timetable,
and
to
render the public
and Congress more malleable to these aggressive plans.The innocent slain at Ground Zero were described in terms of sacrificial "props" for selling govt-corporate war policies -- long before the event. Before that 9-11 surprise attack happened, they were publicly in favor of one happening ... by surprise. Pimpin' for Terrorism. Zbig Brz had bragged in 1998 about setting up "Al-Qaeda" back in 1979, before the Soviet invasion. Rumsfeld suffered from prophetic warnings on Sept 11 morn. What if some house-liberal like Michael Moore had a pro-terrorism movie or quote? What if Cindy Sheehan, God Bless her, really promoted Al-Qaeda? Would you hear about it? Some current Republicans stated that a terror attack in 2006 would help them win votes. Even Rumsfeld cited a new attack, to turn the public around. RUMSFELD ON TAPE: TERROR ATTACK COULD RESTORE NEO-CON AGENDA Top Dems are 'with' them: Dem House Officials Lied and Broke Rules by Recruiting Wealthy Conservatives to crush popular Antiwar Candidates. Close your eyes and imagine 2000 and early 2001: a restless, surly "Mob" of retired Corporate-Military Executives and Lobbyists waving fat 'defense' contracts. Military Officials,  Intell experts,
President, Cabinet, and Congressmen all on retainer, ready to unleash
TRILLIONS of tax dollars, new
careers, fame, accomplishment ... everyone waiting
for the starter gun.THREE (at least) of these respected and influential experts plus one entire "think tank" (PR propaganda pressure group) (few "household names") wrote that a reluctant, even apathetic, America needed to get hit by a "new security threat", to kick us in the teeth, to scare us into supporting "imperial mobilization", a more "interventionist" foreign policy, "faster, please" military aggression, a "casus belli" ("cause for belligerence", justification for war) ... and domestic submission to authority, nay, a clamoring for more authority and security measures. They want us to demand that our own open-air prison system be built, and quickly, for security!! They also want the option to preemptively destroy China and Russia with our nuclear 'primacy'. Thomas Barnett stated that China was in their gunsights before Sept 11. Now it's more a matter of playing chess with China over oil. This is the ruthless Straussian-Neocon agenda, and Tri-Lateralist-CIA agenda of global business. popup-> Hermann Goering once stated it this clearly. Brzezinski, Ledeen, Lindsay, and the PNAC
group each
made
these assertions. Many later pretended shock
and outrage at the "surprise attack" which was their "dream-come-true". also here here here here here here here here
Why
is nobody upset, concerned, or even aware of this
"coincidence" of a convergence of experts on the need for terrorism on
US
soil? Why has the MEDIA NEVER
reported this oddity? How
could they not
know about all these
statements?!! These are not classified documents
like the Pentagon Papers. These are published openly. These
persons-of-interest
often appear on the news as "experts".
It took me years to discover the bits and pieces, but I'm Nobody. Washington policies and players was not my specialty. The CIA-controlled military-industrial-intelligence-security-entertainment-corporate-finance complex media certainly knows. If I know, key Media personalities must also know. It's just nunna your bizness. One might argue that these people are merely guilty of 'tasteless' musings. That would be bad enough. Please understand: These advisors do more than merely 'advise'. They collectively design, craft, and sculpt policy -- and publish plans on "how to manage the herd". They are DO-ers, executives who execute, who occupy big offices, who control big money, and who MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. They don't passively wait for "luck". (George
Carlin on ruling class.)These pro-terrorism anti-terrorism experts were aggressive in the push for a Middle East War since the mid 1990's and before, and they are architects of our foreign policy now. Neo-Con policy proposals were copied-and-pasted into U.S. National Security Doctrine. How lucky could they get? "Winners" create their own luck --- that's the aphorism or "saying". (They had been heavily hyping the "Islamic threat" since the mid '70's and 80's, the need to create a bogeyman in the Middle East. Movies and TV helped this process.) This was not mysterious or hidden, except by obscurity. Firstly, WHO is really anti-American? People with left-liberal political antiwar views?? Or people who STATED that a bloodbath in America would be GREAT? Secondly, consider that these American pro-terrorists do not reside in a remote mountain cave or secret camp, unless it's one designed by FEMA (which was discussed during Iran-Contra hearings by Sen. Jack Brooks .. almost). Oliver North Questioned - Rex 84 Exposed During Iran Contra Ollie North covering War in Iraq Thirdly, consider what it could possibly mean that the deepest dreams of these 'thinkers' and policy makers just happened to dovetail perfectly with those of Osama bin Laden, former CIA-Military Cold War asset. Bush filled his cabinet positions with genuine terrorist sympathizers and supporters, by his own definition. Nobody could write that into a Kerry speech in 2004? Maybe there's a perfectly Reason-able explanation why the media has not mentioned this serendipity. Some right-wing pundits took off the mask in 2007, stating that America NEEDS a NEW 9-11. Of course this statement is despicable and outrageous, to DEMAND a BLOODBATH on Americans and then to accuse DECENT people of "hating America". Fox News Corporation authorized or even advised their 'journalist' to say that, twice. What's even more frightning, Fox News in general, and Jon Gibson in particular, are a mouthpiece for the Military and for the Republican Party, which now holds all Power. In light of this, these people are literally making terrorist threats on TV, like Al-Qaeda broadcasts, not only against innocent civilians worldwide, but against random American civilians as well. In months following Sept 11, Cheney and others around him promised new terrorist attacks if ALL their legislative demands were not met. One congresswoman complained "they won't take 'yes' for an answer", i.e., they want more power. (They even threatened more attacks with Anthrax, which scientists said came from inside the USA. Operation Artichoke.) They've been holding ALL of us hostage, at gunpoint, complacent Democrats and our general population. Is this a valid viewpoint? Wasn't Cheney and team merely stating warnings? Wishful thinking? That's in the eye of the beholder, but I'll clarify what I see as AMPLE evidence that we were all threatened and terrorized by the WH and Intelligence. Nowadays, Patriotism means it's OK to openly promote a terrorist attack against Americans, for political reasons. This is sickening enough, and brutally honest. The antiwar movement is partly crippled, because too many Americans still accept the major September 11 premise about Al-Qaeda and Osama and 19 hijackers at face value. If you accept this paradigm, the military answer is at least reasonable, except maybe to pacifists and 'nitwit liberals'. On a positive note, these ruthless serial killers have completely exposed who they really are, and can no longer hide their rottenness behind piety and patriotism. Coincidentally, Sept 11, 1973 was the
date the CIA, Kissinger, Nixon, and Pinochet
violently
destroyed democracy in Chile, to impose "free trade" policies.
Before the coup, right wing fascists were intimidating progressive
Chileans, "Watch
out, Jakarta is coming!". Jakarta, Indonesia, was where the
CIA helped a Whabbi Muslim dictatorship stage a coup, killing between 1
to 3 million Leftists, in a few months. Smell the
freedom.
Stu Bykofsky | To save America, we need another 9/11 2007 Bykofsky says his editor wrote that title. Here's what he wrote: (local copy) "One
month from The Anniversary, I'm
thinking another 9/11 would help
America.
(OMG, another "New
Pearl Harbor" quote, just like PNAC and Ledeen below, now in a
mainstream
paper.)Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41." (I thought 12/7 was a terrible day for America! I guess I was wrong.) (Of course, by "united", he means "united in war-hysteria", not "united in sanity and peace".) Gibson brings on Stu Bykofsky to defend column, Jon Gibson pines for another 9/11 Gibson - "I think it's gonna take a lot of dead people to wake America up." http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Gibson+Bykofsky+9-11 Gibson disses Jon Stewart - (last 10 seconds) "We NEED another 9-11." http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Gibson+stewart+9-11 Gibson_Stu_Bykofsky_New_911.avi Gibson_Stu_Bykofsky_New_911.wmv Fox_and_Friends_We_Need_Another_9-11.avi Fox_and_Friends_We_Need_Another_9-11.wmv Gibson_Fox_mocks_Jon_Stewart_911.avi (last 10 seconds) "We NEED another 9-11." Gibson_Fox_mocks_Jon_Stewart_911.wmv Gibson and Bykofsky plus dissing Jon Stewart.avi (last 10 seconds) "We NEED another 9-11." Both Fox News and Osama Bin Laden helped Republicans immensely. If Bin Laden didn't exist, they would have had to create him. Wait a minute ... they DID create him!! Republicans like Reagan and Bush funded Al-Qaeda! (Dems first secretly funded the Mujahideen in 1978, it goes both ways, soft cop, hard cop, like on tv shows.) re: Freedom's Watch: Justin Raimondo of the popular, libertarian website AntiWar.com wrote: "In a disgusting display of mendacity not seen since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, a pro-war advertising campaign spearheaded by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer is buying $15 million worth of 30-second television spots that repeat the lies linking 9/11 to Iraq—and explicitly threatening another terrorist attack in the United States if we 'surrender.' It's the first storm in a season of fear." Nothing new, by the way. People like this were planning to instigate a "winnable" nuclear war with the USSR in the 1960's, even if it took staged terrorist attacks. Millions of Americans would die and many U.S. cities would be destroyed, but we would be 'victorious'. The details about Katrina, FEMA pointing guns at bootstrapping volunteer doctors and rescuers to make them stop helping, as well as short-changing needed repairs beforehand, shows this disaster to have been intentional too. Likewise, the "debacle" in Iraq closely matches an Israeli plan formed with Neo-Con consultants called "Clean Break". This term refered to making a clean break from diplomacy, to total war. The plan included expectations of civil war in Iraq, the desire to break up Middle East countries, confirmed by Cheney's assistant David Wurmser. If they did not plan it this way, this must the stupidest bunch of multi-millionaire war profiteers and corporate criminals in world history. They managed to run up a $2T tab for themselves and their friends, and stick us with the bill. How dumb they are!
Did you know Al-Qaeda had office space at Heritage
Foundation? see below
Regarding Iran and Amadinejad: I will offer a source I consider reliable -- former Mossad Agt named Ari Ben Menashe -- who was exonerated in US Federal Court for selling weapons to Iran, during the Hostage Crisis. He was able to provide documentation proving he was working in official capacity for Mossad when he sold those weapons, though by then they had dumped him and denied knowing who he was. In his book, Profits of War, he describes taking a suitcase filled with $56 million of the CIA's money, from the Saudi Ambassador in Guatemala, to a Swiss bank, for Iranians to buy weapons. Current Defense Secretary Robert Gates (former Deputy Dir CIA under Bush Sr.) met him at the Miami Airport. This was one of MANY similar operations he ran to procure overpriced used weapons for Iran, from Poland, North Korea, Uganda, and other locations. The Mossad plan was to use Iranian soldiers in place of Jewish soldiers, as a proxy response to Iraq, at the same time as the US was arming Iraq and goading them to attack Iran. The profits were used for a Mossad "slush fund". (So in one sense, Israel was secretly working against the US, and when Carter was tipped off, he was reportedly outraged with Begin. On the other hand, Israel was cooperating with Republicans. Kissinger suggested that it be best that both Iran and Iraq "bleed each other white", making each country weaker due to millions of deaths. That's some real ruthless realpolitik.) Ben Menashe also describes personally watching Casey and Bush Senior exit different elevators in a European Hotel, walk into a conference room with the Iranian Mullahs, and shut the door. This closing act occurred after a long dragged-out delay in concluding pending weapons deals, a short time before Reagan was inaugurated. (Obviously, this was LONG before Iran-Contra. Ollie North got exposed in the press trying to open up his own "back-channel" for selling overpriced weapons to Iran, years before the Hasenfus plane crashed in Nicaragua, officially blowing the operation. Why is North held in esteem as a patriot, if Amadinejad is damned? North was committing treason, not Iranians.) During the repeated delays, Ben Menashe's moderate Iranian counterpart expressed extreme frustration at being forced to KEEP the hostages beyond their sell date. They wanted weapons, not humans, not hungry and needy prisoners which they needed to at least feed and watch. The prisoners had become a burden, but the Republicans were offering them a better deal. And these Iranian colleagues understood American politics well enough to grasp WHY the delays from Bush and company. Robert Parry in the US covered the same info on Consortium News, and he uncovered documents about the coverup of arming Iran during the Hostage Crisis, but the Democrats and Liberal Media squashed him in defense of the Republicans. Feeling insufficiently patriotic
lately? Defensive?
There's been a lot of talk about the "Blame America First" crowd. But were you aware that "blame America first" is a reverse-pun on the original 'patriotic' "America First Committee" which had strong crossover with the pro-Hitler movement in America and with the American Nazi Party and "Christian" right? The American Liberty League really wanted America to LOSE ... and thereby win ... by becoming a military dictatorship, run by a hero like Hitler. ('Heroes' is a big PR theme, especially World War 2 heroes, even though a wing of the Ruling Class supported the Nazis before, during, and even after the War. When Germans were killing US soldiers, American elites were funding their progress.) ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH (PBS): Qadi met Osama bin Laden in Jeddha in the 1980s, and then again in Afghanistan. YASIN QADI: My uncle took me, at that time, for so-called... To help the warlords to get together. So I was young; he took me with me... with him, and I think I saw Osama at one meeting in that. But that's... You know, how many American officials saw Osama?How many people from Europe saw Osama? How many politicians saw Osama? SITE Institute, host of the 2007 Bin Laden tape, was formed by Rita Katz, who previously worked to expose alleged terror financers in the US linked to Islamic Middle East groups. Ironically, she and her investigators were tailed and harassed by CIA or FBI, and blocked by members of the Bush DoJ like Michael Chertoff, while one of their targets Ptech got private meetings with Robert Mueller at FBI. I cannot reconcile what this means, because Katz seems to be too much of a team player to be harrassed by the US govt, but it sure stinks. Senator John McCain lauded Pat Tillman: "I don't think there will be any doubts about [Private Tillman's] capabilities as a soldier, but also as a recruiting tool." "He'll motivate other young Americans to serve as well." (Thanks to idealistic chaps like Tillman, America can continue to pick up its warriors on the cheap.) Not anymore, McCain. Sorry to Tillman's mom and bro and fam and friends, no disrespect intended. And what's this about? Army doctors say it looks like Tillman was assassinated. Because he openly opposed the Iraq war and was planning to meet with antiwar activists like Chomsky? That would have been a PR disaster for the Pgon. Homeland Security Michael Chertoff: Another 911 coming, unless REAL ID is accepted Chertoff tries scare tactics on Congress Chertoff's real role in the War on Terror (my local compilation) Cheney plays politics with Terrorism Rove admits GOP will play politics with 'war on terror' political advisors pray for a new terrorist attack to justify the paranoia Rudy Giuliani 12
Step Program
Add Samuel Huntington to this list. Also SAIC officials, like David Kay who apologized for being 'wrong' about WMDs. Thomas P.M. Barnett of the Pentagon lectures at the Army War College promoting a new "global multi-national Army", with allusions to Karl Marx's vision of Global Communism - but for corporations, not for any 'proletariat' workers. Here's an article from the Christian Patriot website Liberty Gun Rights about Executive Order 13286 and the global military transformation. Ruth Wedgwood (of PNAC) argued that the 9/11 attacks were an unfortunate but necessary event to awaken the United States to the need for more intrusive law enforcement. Wedgwood served on UN Human Rights Council. With irony?)  Orange
County Weekly - Rogue Statesman - Dana RohrabacherIn fact, Rohrabacher's post-Sept. 11 finger-pointing was a fraud designed to distract attention from his own ongoing meddling in the foreign-policy nightmare. Federal documents reviewed by the Weekly show that Rohrabacher maintained a cordial, behind-the-scenes relationship with Osama bin Laden's associates in the Middle East—even while he mouthed his most severe anti-Taliban comments at public forums across the U.S. There's worse: despite the federal Logan Act ban on unauthorized individual attempts to conduct American foreign policy, the congressman dangerously acted as a self-appointed secretary of state, constructing what foreign-affairs experts call a "dual tract" policy with the Taliban. (oil deals) What they won't mention is that Rohrabacher also once lobbied shamelessly for the Taliban. Evidence of Rohrabacher's attempts to conduct his own foreign policy became public on April 10, 2001, not in the U.S., but in the Middle East. On that day, ignoring his own lack of official authority, Rohrabacher opened negotiations with the Taliban at the Sheraton Hotel in Doha, Qatar, ostensibly for a "Free Markets and Democracy" conference. There, Rohrabacher secretly met with Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, an advisor to Mullah Omar. Diplomatic sources claim Muttawakil sought the congressman's assistance in increasing U.S. aid—already more than $100 million annually—to Afghanistan and indicated that the Taliban would not hand over bin Laden, wanted by the Clinton administration for the fatal bombings of two American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. For his part, Rohrabacher handed Muttawakil his unsolicited plans for war-torn Afghanistan. "We examined a peace plan," he laconically told reporters in Qatar. Rohrabacher's statement to the House Julie Sirrs: I guess I would disagree with that not only because just the fact that it happened indicates that it was a failure, unless it was something that we wanted, which I certainly don't believe. (Julie "hints" at inside job, while denying it.) (Julie Sirrs was fired from DIA for exposing Osama links to the Taliban before Sept 11.) "if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured" - Leo Strauss, neocon philospher Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), the Cold War-era anti-communist group was revived in 2004. Advocate of nuclear superiority, the CPD helped to create the myth of U.S. nuclear inferiority and the concept of "windows of vulnerability." The goal? More military spending, eliminate any possible rivals or independence. John
Bolton even threatened Great
Britain to tow the line, or else become a future enemy.
These "pragmatists" think of "America" and "terrorism" in the most abstract, political, utilitarian, and "symbolic" terms. To them, 3000-7000+ actual dead American human beings and their loved ones are mere PROPS and symbols (and a MILLION dead Iraqis and Afghanis are completely inconsequent.) The dead and maimed Soldiers are mere mascots for marketing corporate/media/intelligence and the military-industrial-security complex. Their bottom line "Security" is a euphemism for "social control", and that's in their own words, particularly Brzezinski's words. (Brzezinski has since publicly 'rebelled IS the bottom line, cash-money. ' against Bush Doctrine. American 'dupes' are beginning to wise up. Maybe that's too risky.) James
Fallows of the Washington Post (a CIA
front, exposed in 1975) was REALLY
thinking ahead. He spoke of this in 1991, saying
maybe we need to "invent a security
threat" so
the Military can take
over America. "Military Efficiency," Atlantic, Aug
1991
(from an Army War College "future retrospective" on the Origins
of the
coup of 2012)
"According to our economic and political theories, most agencies of the government have no special standing to speak about the general national welfare. Each represents a certain constituency; the interest groups fight it out. The military, strangely (?), is the one government institution that has been assigned legitimacy to act on its notion of the collective good. "National defense" can make us do things--train engineers, build highways--that long-term good of the nation or common sense cannot." "I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to invent a security threat and turn the job over to the military." "National Defense" was how Eisenhower sold the national highway system, a free gift to automakers and oil companies. The Internet was created for National Defense. Anything America spends money on must have a military angle. Militarised Technology. As confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. It was called the Strategy of Tension. 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." FORMER ITALIAN PRESIDENT SAYS 9-11 INSIDE JOB, AND ALL GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE KNOWS IT. Jonah
Goldberg of the
far right National Review also wrote an article about paraphrased "Dems
need to
win in '08 so they can get slapped with their own 9-11." Inherit
the Wind: What if it takes a Democrat?
In other words, just maybe, thousands of Americans NEED
to be murdered to convince the rest of us to SHUT
UP and obey the foreign
policy dictates of our rulers. That,
my friends, is a terrorist threat.
Goldberg says terrorist attacks are necessary to dissuade liberals from focusing on bothersome issues like jobs and poverty and a possible economic crash tied to housing. This is from the Third Reich SS how-to manual. By the way, if the past is any consideration, when future attacks are blamed on Shiite groups, who will Washington hire and arm and train to counter them? Right, Al-Qaeda-related Sunni groups. According to Seymour Hersh and his ex-CIA contacts, hiring Sunni terrorists IS the current U.S. policy in Shiite locations. Hersh on US Support for Terror groups in Lebanon - CNN (local) (wmv) One thing he's wrong about: The USA actually backed the Muj in 1979 not late 80's, to 'encourage' the Soviets to invade, according to the guy responsible for that, Brzezinski. Hersh took a long car ride while blindfolded to meet with Nasrallah of Hezbollah. Ballsy old man. Hersh: US is funding Al-Qaeda to counter Iran - DemoNow! (local) (wmv) Osama
& Al 'Qaeda's Afghanistan escape
local AVI,
lo-fi WMV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_BS83BmTIQ Seymour Hersh's recent report that Iran-Contra veterans working out of Dick Cheney's office are using stolen funds from Iraq to arm al Qaeda-linked groups and foment a larger Sunni-Shia war --- this is a very big deal. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. The Mahdi Army may be openly hostile to American interests, but other Shiite militias are counted as U.S. allies. Both Moqtada al-Sadr and the White House back Maliki. “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis” Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Eliot Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”. According to ace Neocon
Max
Boot, it's good policy to hire the terroristic Stalinist political
cult MEK
in the War on
Terror. We
need to work with terrorists MORE! Quit worrying about
namby-pamby ethical concerns!
This is a
recipe for Endless
War, lasting 100 or more years. Bush and Cheney do LIE, but not about that plan!
see
below: Guns and Butter - Ground
Zero 911, Blueprint
For Terror
interview with a JP Morgan software security architect about Ptech links to Sept. 11 at the highest levels of govt. FoxNews once showed how Israelis -- like Saudi-owned Ptech -- had "infiltrated" FBI, CIA, and DEA, but I don't take Fox's exposé at face value, because Fox is neo-con central. Must be some other agenda going on.
See below
LOOTING
In the immediate wake of the
invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various national security procedures
were put in place which focused on the eventuality of a "Second 911".
These initiatives in the area of Homeland Security outlined the precise
circumstances under which martial law could be declared in the case of
a second major terrorist attack on America.
Under martial law, the military would take over several functions of civilian government including justice and law enforcement. [...] Gen. Tommy Franks was obliquely alluding to a "Second 9/11" terrorist attack, which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of a military government and police state. It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on the role of a "massive casuality producing event". This concept is part of the tools of US intelligence, implemented through covert operations. Franks' statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, on the concept and application of a "massive casualty producing event" as well as onhow events might unfold in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency". 
 Exhibit #A - Here's the original full
article in the web archive.
My copy of this full article. Magazine:
Foreign Affairs (CFR)
Issue: September/October 2000 (Volume 79, Number 5) Title: The New Apathy: How an Uninterested Public Is Reshaping Foreign Policy Author: James M. Lindsay excerpt:
This should not be TOO much of a
surprise ...
Exhibit #B -
Four Bushes profiting from wars, four Bushes arming both sides.
|
){kind=link}
| see
more: on Economic Ties to 9-11 Guns and Butter -
Ground Zero 911, Blueprint For Terror
- interview with a software architect
about tech and finance ties to Sept 11 at the highest level.
She sure ain't no slouch. indira_singh_bio.pdf LOCAL COPY Indira is an IT professional who started First Boston's Information Technology Group in 1970 and had worked on Wall Street up until 2002. She has been an IT consultant for Bank Trust, the U.N., JP Morgan, and American Express. In 1988 she started TibetNet, a derivative of the Defense Advanced Research Project (DARPA) Internet, the service on which you are likely reading this report at the moment. Article "Ptech had all the markings," said Indira Singh. All the markings of a CIA front company. "What I do know, what the money trails do show, is that the Saudi's are complicit. In other words, the ones that are extremely fundamentalist, the ones that promote Wahabiism - I'm not saying it's all of them, but parts of them--are working hand-in-hand, lock step with elements within American intelligence whether it's official or unofficial. There's proof of that." (LOCAL COPY) FBI’s role in 9/11
investigation needs investigation as reported in the Boston Globe
• There's something different about the FBI's Boston office. • What does the Ptech story have to do with a two-year inquiry of the House Government Reform Committee? • Hint: the committee’s final report said this about the Boston FBI: “Their conduct must be considered one of the greatest failures in the history of federal law enforcement." • Dark hints about why the Boston FBI’s seeming “incompetence” may have been intentional. PTECH, 9/11, and USA-SAUDI TERROR - from the wilderness FTW: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings, you mentioned - it's on page 139 of transcript - that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency. Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that. July 20th, 2005 excerpt: www.Takeoverworld.info/mp3/indira_singh_excerpt.mp3
About this program:
Ground Zero 911, Blueprint For Terror, Part Two PART 2 is the "meat" but you might want to start with Part 1 below for consistency and to get a feel for who she is, her background, work qualifications, experience central to security issues. If you have time, listen to Part One below first. Indira Singh worked on Wall Street from 1975 Until June 28th, 2002 when she was summarily terminated due to her investigation into a computer software company, Ptech. (Investigating possible risks of security breaches was the whole point of her job.) PRIOR BACKGROUND (below):
Listening Options: In Part One, She described her harrowing experience as a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician at Ground Zero, and she began to describe her professional work for JPMorgan Chase (as Risk Technology Architect) and her first client meeting with software engineer, Ptech. (Her responsibility was computer security, yet she was terminated for exposing a breach in security.) Streaming part 2: http://aud1.kpfa.org:80//data/20050720Wed1400.mp3
April 27th, 2005
Ground Zero
911: Blueprint For Terror, Part One
With 911 whistleblower, Risk Technology Architect and Ground Zero Emergency Medical Technician, Indira Singh. Listening Options: Website for Streaming part 1: www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=7814 Download part 1: www.Takeoverworld.info/mp3/gnb_20050427-Indira_Singh.mp3 Here is a letter to FBI/Customs re: Greenquest and a company called Ptech which handles our highest level security installations incl. DOE (nuclear), NATO, etc. owned by a Saudi named Qassin al-Kadi, who possibly tied to Al-Qaeda financing (as our leaders are). No answers.  Makhtab al-Khidimat (MAK), 1985-1989: Precursor to Al-Qaeda Puts Down US Roots Ali Mohamed here the "mastermind" |
Scholarly journals and books.
For one example, The American Journal of Medicine is a scholarly publication, and the name of a group which compiles it. The average person does not read the American Journal of Medicine. The fact that it's not widely read by the public, and that it's filled with dense technical jargon and info, does not mean the AJM does not exist, nor that AJM is a "conspiracy theory".
There are dozens of elite scholarly organizations dealing with foreign and domestic policy, often interlinked, as if each org is a separate "project" or "front". Most publish reports and articles, and some arrange TV appearances. They get massive corporate or private funding, and they have addresses and phone numbers and websites. Some hire 'experts' and 'scientists' as TV spokespersons.
There are many (rightwing) conspiracy theories about the Council on Foreign Relations as a communist New World Order scheme. In a definition of "communism" which means favoritism to private money and multi -national corporations, maybe this is a plausible view. CFR will not be leading a proletariat uprising anytime soon (though they could engineer a fake prole uprising, I suppose).
CFR was founded by wealthy and powerful elites in the early 1900's to "advise" the US govt. CFR is an international "Chamber of Commerce". It has ties to British elites, etc. hence "one world government". (One of it's founders named, Col. House, wrote a book about world domination, with himself as the leader. Col. House was Pres. Wilson's top advisor and alter-ego, like a Karl Rove.)
David Rockefeller, the oil and banking billionaire, later served as president. You can go to the CFR website or phone them up and order a subscription to their pub, Foreign Affairs. (see below)
Poli-Sci students and professors have doubtlessly studied some of CFR's reports and know of them.
Most US Presidents and many Cabinet members and CIA directors are also CFR members. CFR is one more of many public relations and political arms of Wall Street, finance, and industry, probably the biggest. A lot of this is like "One Degree of Separation", not six.
Despite CFR having so much apparent power and influence, it is nearly anonymous to the gen. public, hidden in plain view. It's meetings are not totally secret, it's conclusions are not secret, but much of the who's who and what they discuss IS very secret, like a private company, even though they are nearly an office of govt. Major media personalities are also members.
The first rule of Fight Club is "you don't talk about Fight Club". Kinda true for CFR too. Ever heard Tom Brokaw talk about being on CFR's Board of Dir? Or Dan Rather, or Brinkley, or Diane Sawyer, or Jim Lehrer talk about their membership?
A CFR spinoff, founded by Rockefeller and Brzezinski in 1973, is the Tri-Lateral Commission. That's not a conspiracy theory. TLC has a website, street address, phone, and publishes many reports and studies on how the world should be run. TLC involves the interests of the wealthy in three economic regions, Asia (Japan), North America, and Europe (the EU). Most US Presidents are also members of the TLC. Reagan was not, but his cabinet was. Jimmy Carter 'studied' a few years with Brzezinski, and became the first "TLC-groomed President" in 1976.
Not "secret" but also low profile, esp for a group with SO much influence. There are estimated 300 TLC core members, 1200 CFR members.
Fake "Christian" leaders also stated that "America" deserved terrorist attacks (mass murder, collective punishment) for being "sinful". Well, Falwell and Robertson are just fringe whackos ... or are they?
Jonah Goldberg Democrats should win 2008. The reason is that so "if" there are also published an article in 2007 which suggests that new (hoped for) terrorist attacks on America, then "liberal" Dems will be "punished" by that crisis, and such a disaster will vindicate the neo-Conservative agenda ... and Bush supporters. These are top national experts, highly respected in their circles, reporting on Fox and CNN.
What if a "liberal" hate symbol like Michael Moore or Pelosi or John Kerry ruthlessly suggested that a new successful Al-Qaeda attackwelcome event, because it would demonstrate Republicans' incompetence and help Dems win? Would you hear about that?
Of course the DLC, the Hegelian "loyal opposition", is just as dishonest about the "War on Terror", and not truly against the main Bush agendas. They just are re-defining it based on their own nuanced script, to signal political turnover without any actual change.
The allegation that this is a key tenet of the wealthy elites who truly own Washington comes from right wing conspiracy theories at least partly makes sense. I think it's obviously true, regardless who else is promoting it for whatever agenda.
For one example, The American Journal of Medicine is a scholarly publication, and the name of a group which compiles it. The average person does not read the American Journal of Medicine. The fact that it's not widely read by the public, and that it's filled with dense technical jargon and info, does not mean the AJM does not exist, nor that AJM is a "conspiracy theory".
There are dozens of elite scholarly organizations dealing with foreign and domestic policy, often interlinked, as if each org is a separate "project" or "front". Most publish reports and articles, and some arrange TV appearances. They get massive corporate or private funding, and they have addresses and phone numbers and websites. Some hire 'experts' and 'scientists' as TV spokespersons.
There are many (rightwing) conspiracy theories about the Council on Foreign Relations as a communist New World Order scheme. In a definition of "communism" which means favoritism to private money and multi -national corporations, maybe this is a plausible view. CFR will not be leading a proletariat uprising anytime soon (though they could engineer a fake prole uprising, I suppose).
CFR was founded by wealthy and powerful elites in the early 1900's to "advise" the US govt. CFR is an international "Chamber of Commerce". It has ties to British elites, etc. hence "one world government". (One of it's founders named, Col. House, wrote a book about world domination, with himself as the leader. Col. House was Pres. Wilson's top advisor and alter-ego, like a Karl Rove.)
David Rockefeller, the oil and banking billionaire, later served as president. You can go to the CFR website or phone them up and order a subscription to their pub, Foreign Affairs. (see below)
Poli-Sci students and professors have doubtlessly studied some of CFR's reports and know of them.
Most US Presidents and many Cabinet members and CIA directors are also CFR members. CFR is one more of many public relations and political arms of Wall Street, finance, and industry, probably the biggest. A lot of this is like "One Degree of Separation", not six.
Despite CFR having so much apparent power and influence, it is nearly anonymous to the gen. public, hidden in plain view. It's meetings are not totally secret, it's conclusions are not secret, but much of the who's who and what they discuss IS very secret, like a private company, even though they are nearly an office of govt. Major media personalities are also members.
The first rule of Fight Club is "you don't talk about Fight Club". Kinda true for CFR too. Ever heard Tom Brokaw talk about being on CFR's Board of Dir? Or Dan Rather, or Brinkley, or Diane Sawyer, or Jim Lehrer talk about their membership?
A CFR spinoff, founded by Rockefeller and Brzezinski in 1973, is the Tri-Lateral Commission. That's not a conspiracy theory. TLC has a website, street address, phone, and publishes many reports and studies on how the world should be run. TLC involves the interests of the wealthy in three economic regions, Asia (Japan), North America, and Europe (the EU). Most US Presidents are also members of the TLC. Reagan was not, but his cabinet was. Jimmy Carter 'studied' a few years with Brzezinski, and became the first "TLC-groomed President" in 1976.
Not "secret" but also low profile, esp for a group with SO much influence. There are estimated 300 TLC core members, 1200 CFR members.
Fake "Christian" leaders also stated that "America" deserved terrorist attacks (mass murder, collective punishment) for being "sinful". Well, Falwell and Robertson are just fringe whackos ... or are they?
Jonah Goldberg Democrats should win 2008. The reason is that so "if" there are also published an article in 2007 which suggests that new (hoped for) terrorist attacks on America, then "liberal" Dems will be "punished" by that crisis, and such a disaster will vindicate the neo-Conservative agenda ... and Bush supporters. These are top national experts, highly respected in their circles, reporting on Fox and CNN.
What if a "liberal" hate symbol like Michael Moore or Pelosi or John Kerry ruthlessly suggested that a new successful Al-Qaeda attackwelcome event, because it would demonstrate Republicans' incompetence and help Dems win? Would you hear about that?
Of course the DLC, the Hegelian "loyal opposition", is just as dishonest about the "War on Terror", and not truly against the main Bush agendas. They just are re-defining it based on their own nuanced script, to signal political turnover without any actual change.
){kind=link}
The allegation that this is a key tenet of the wealthy elites who truly own Washington comes from right wing conspiracy theories at least partly makes sense. I think it's obviously true, regardless who else is promoting it for whatever agenda.
The
Secret Government MUST SEE 22 min (longer
movie BELOW is worth it)
It aired on PBS
in 1987 and is as good as
anything on the tape (must see). Moyers is a very
respected TV journalist who also worked for Lyndon B. Johnson and has a
very professional approach. He interviews many different people
involved with the CIA and other government agencies. His documentary
gives quite an overview of what has actually happened in the
last 50 years regarding the CIA and the cold war (including
Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Viet Nam and Chile). He features such people as Ralph
McGeehee and Phil Retinger (both former CIA agents), Rear
Admiral Gene La Rocque (Ret. U.S.N.), Theodore Bissell
(active in the CIA at the time), Sen. Frank Church
and many others. - this segment is edited by Frank Dorrel to 20 minutes.
For anyone who just does not realize how criminal the US govt can be, this is a mainstream report, Bill Moyers is establishment, he used to work under Kennedy and Johnson, and maybe Nixon too, so everything he's saying, it's probably actually much worse than that.
quoting Moyers: ANYTHING can come back to haunt us. Mentions the sale of arms to terrorist groups.Notice John Kerry talking like a real leader in 1986, unlike in 2004.
The Secret Government MUST
SEE full 90 min: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill
Moyers
This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of
the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive ... all Branch of
the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly
contrary to the wishes and values of the American people. The ability
to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National
Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the
Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the
streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of
the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it
was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have
committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have
declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The
ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the
PATRIOT act which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights
justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing.