WAR? WHY NOT? Wheee can win! Sooner or later. If you define "win" as
|Examples of prior fake attacks, staged
attacks, false-flag attacks, etc.
Spanish-American War (Hearst news hyped
attack, with no proof)
Mexican War (Lincoln
demanded proof we were attacked)
World War 1 (Lusitania
instigated and allowed)
World War 2 (Pearl
Harbor instigated and allowed)
Cold War (fantastic
fearmongering over decrepit Third World country struggling to prosper)
Korean troops and Japanese soldiers under US/UN control actually
Operation Northwoods (serious plans to
stage terrorist attacks on America, blocked by Kennedy)
of Tonkin Incident never
and they KNEW it)
Grenada, Nicaragua (a threat?!!!!)
Iraq, Gulf War (staged behind the
scenes by US Diplomats: Scowcroft, Joe Wilson, April Glaspie)
.. dozens of other examples
(most below on this page or here False Flag Operations
PEOPLE ARE NOT BORN with a
FOR WAR OR VIOLENCE. (rare exceptions excepted) Most
people's survival instinct tells them to avoid deadly combat, unless
there is no choice, and an instinct of humanity that prohibits hurting
others. Of course we also have aggressive instincts.
by subtle and overt propaganda and fear-mongering, creates a WAR
MENTALITY, or QUIET OBEDIENCE. If
that was not true, they would not spend so much time and money creating
and disseminating that perfect
combination of fear and hate, developed by behavioral
psychologists on Fed grant money.
"Any one who disagrees with this President
should just SHUT UP!!" --
training. Yellow alerts. Orange
alerts. RED alert?
Fed-funded PR surveys ask: "What's your hot
button?" Suitcase nukes?
has developed deadly cancer viruses for use in war.) Swarthy
gooks? Spics? Narco-terrorists? "Clean" terrorists? Feminazis? OR IF
YOU SEE YOURSELF AS A LIBERAL, how about your humanitarian desire to
"stop a genocide" launched by the CIA, or "spread
democracy"? Take your pick, or we can make up new
Cold War HYSTERIA
mostly ended during Vietnam, called "Vietnamization" of America (war aversion). There was still enough
to tolerate U.S. "anti-commie" slaughter missions so long as they did not include
Kind of a "don't ask, don't tell" for
warmongers. After all, Grenada was
a threat, right? Nicaragua,
the size of Rhode Island? They were
threatening America with "communism" like land reforms (redistribution)
and doctors and schools for
BUT FOR REAL WARS,
full-scale invasions? The Mighty Wurlitzer needs
to be cranked way up. People need strong reasons to justify
wars. Fortunately, they are gullible and easily fall prey to
suggestion of strong reasons, especially when they feel they have
little at stake to lose, and after our moral and ethical compass (naturally horrified
at brutality) has been erased. (This includes
"christians" with no moral compass.) Sept 11 did a great job at neutralizing
what remained of an ethical compass, for many of us.
That's why a "new Pearl Harbor" was so desireable to PNAC,
a "catalyzing event" for their grand schemes.
IMO, this is THE #1
REASON a Federal
Dept of Peace is doomed
to fail, to be a nothing more
than a sick joke. Are we
going to educate the
Pentagon on "Peace"? THEY HATE
PEACE. THEY DESPISE
PEACE. ADVOCATING PEACE
IS BEING RE-CONSIDERED AS A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE OF SEDITION, subject
to arrest and prosecution. Rockefeller-funded peace
studies won't help this, but it will eat up a lot of activist energy
Would the Dept. of Peace have a Bureau
of Harmony and Understanding, Office of Sympathy and Trust Abounding?
Most "folks" don't need peace
studies, esp. from the Feds, and the ones who do, won't be helped by
it. The Elites know
they must spend LOTS of money to promote
state violence and to militarize
society. They must terrorize
and patriot-ize. (Heck, the stated
purpose of PNAC is to create a peaceful world ---
through war.) They also promote
sectarian divisions within society, enemies, people to
blame. It keeps the spotlight off them. (Every now and then, for entertainment,
in-fighting squabbles, they throw one of their own to the wolves of
public exposure -- usually with a slap on the wrist.)
The Feds don't need
peace studies. Peace
takes very little effort, though changing one's ideology takes effort
the Founding Fathers spelled it out: No Foreign Entanglements, Honest
Foreign Relations. I
have an ANTIWAR quote by James Madison
in my Ledeen section, Conquest page
-- paraphrased: War
makes America weak and leads to Tyranny. Ledeen says war make man
strong, and that Pearl Harbor (and by extn 9-11) were LUCKY events.
there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
Thus pacifism is
trafficking with the enemy
. It is bad because life is permanent
can't quite figure out is how to assist the Elites who own them to
commit total robbery and mass slavery
in other countries, without resorting
to expensive military violence for
They know how to commit mass
robbery and fractional slavery on Americans ... they give us a "choice"
robbers. We can vote for
the perceived lesser-evil,
get a sense of "managing" the outcome. We can have have TV,
entertainment, bread and
circuses. Most of us
will remain docile off the myth of the voting and elections charade.
That's what they are trying in Iraq:
"Democracy", i.e. meaningless
Apparently, many people elsewhere are less gullible, less "trained"
than "federally-educated" Americans. When it's clearly outsiders setting up the hard
rules for them, and when the robbery
and slavery is
more extreme, the reject "voting". Many people in other nations
accept robbery anyhow,
knowing full well what it is, when they are powerless to fight
it. After all, "we" run their Army and "we" elect
And if they don't "Shut up", we'll inflict real
well as economic pain.
But when it comes to survival, or
sometimes even pride and a love of liberty is enough, some common people will do anything.
Even become "insurgents".
there really a need to "re-invent the wheel" of PEACE?
can we borrow from old commonsense Libertarian-Conservative Tradition
and expose the same old rehashed (and
new) scams to
a new generation?
Until a short time ago, I did not
know there was an old tradition
of Peace and Liberty on the opposite side of the spectrum from
stereotypical "liberal peace groups". Conservative,
small-govt. types demanded US isolationism.
thought Peace was the domain
of the stereotypical "leftwing peace activists" of the Vietnam
I did not know that many Conservative
Republicans were peace advocates and that it
under Woodrow Wilson who pushed America into World War I and began the
theme of "making the world safe
for democracy" via violence and warfare. (The internal
goal was to "seize markets for
capitalists", "democracy" was the catchphrase.)
Remembering With Astonishment: Woodrow Wilson’s Reign of
Terror in Defense of "Freedom"
21st century, many are personal friends, and I support their interests
and ideals. This above criticism is necessary to help ALL of us
see past labels to substance.
policy - Seizing
"need to create a Pretext"
READING: this audio is a good summary: takingaim_pretexts_excerpt.mp3
- The Issue of American Intervention" in Commentary, by Robert Tucker
in January 1975,
a CIA analyst
for the military establishment. Writing
about the need
create a pretext to use
military force to invade the Middle
East and seize Arab oil.
Tucker discusses seizing "a convenient area"
of the shoreline of Saudi Arabia between Kuwait and Qatar (just south
of Iraq) "that will satisfy our
requirements", how rich it is, 40% of OPEC
production, 50% of reserves, "a new El
Dorado awaiting it's conquistadors", as a move
necessary to prop up western capitalism and prevent a replay of the
1930's economic crash, i.e. to keep the bankers happy.
Vietnam still actually winding down in 1975, with the CIA
still engaged in Southeast Asia, with Americans outraged and relieved
that that war was finally over, Tucker was
planning a NEW WAR to seize this
400-mile bare strip of shoreline without trees or people (no
substantial centers of population), as much
more feasible than Vietnam.
Arab Oil" in Harper's, by "Miles
Ignotus" in 1975 (a pseudonym for the
Luttwak - some
thought H. Kissinger), "a
professor and defense
consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policymakers" -- a Pentagon-CIA
operative -- about how the 'cruel' Saudi/OPEC
poor helpless Indian farmers who need kerosene (as if he really
cared), and hurts poor Americans who want to go
to "Yellowstone" in their 8-cyl cars.
Or do you think Luttwak
concerned about OPEC impacting the profit
margins of the Ruling
Elite bankers and Wall Street corporate directors to whom the Pentagon
and CIA owes it's allegiance?
Luttwak published this detailed plan for seizing Saudi Arabia in
- a blueprint for invading and seizing Iraq.
Mosher Pentagon analyst
the need for a pretext to go to
a plan for use of "the U.S. 100,000 Quick Strike Force, which consists
of three divisions rapidly deployable anywhere by air. "... but one needs
a 'real bogeyman' to come in and
have to be stopped ...".
By the mid-80's, the focus had changed from Saudi Arabia to
Iraq as a
first target. Brent
Scowcroft who once served as National Security Advisor to
President George H.W. Bush (41),
expands upon this, adding that pressing the United
inititate "an effective
no-notice intrusive inspection regime
for Iraq" "anytime, anywhere, no permission required" ---
refuses any such requests or escalating demands,
this "might create the persuasive
the public and the world to buy in.
casus belli -
an event used to start a war)
of State under Bush 41) later repeats what
Scowcroft says in more detail.
23, 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker testified before a
congressional committee that the United States sought a "permanent
military presence" in the Gulf, but we were rebuffed by Arab residents.
It was James
Baker who pushed Saddam to invade Kuwait, via his
April Glaspie and
her assistant Joseph
"We have no
opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker
has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in
the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" - April
Glaspie as taped
.. goading Saddam with remarks about Saudi "wimps
who don't want to defend themselves."
Wilson's wife Valerie
currently the focus of the Patrick Fitzgerald
Scooter Libby, Cheney's adviser, characterized as "A
Falling-Out Amongst Theives" by
those who know.)
Brent Scowcroft was encouraging
Kuwait to take liberties
with Iraqi borders (seizing 90km of Iraqi land) and oil fields near Rumaila (using equipment
from Scowcroft's company Santa Fe Drilling), while
Wilson (along with his counterpart April Glaspie) was encouraging Iraq
to rectify the border problem created by Kuwait --- a Kissingerian
playing of both sides against each other.
Wilson was sitting in
on high-level meetings with Tariq Aziz
of Iraq, encouraging
him to invade Kuwait.
and take back the 900 sq kilometers Kuwait stole
while Saddam's forces were busy helping the US destroy Iran.
a.k.a. America -- was simultaneously
funding Iran, secretly from Saddam.)
Just prior to this, Brent
Kuwait to seize Iraqi land and steal Iraqi oil
, and Kuwait
bought the Santa Fe Drilling Company, owned by Gen. Scowcroft
and pals, for $2.3 billion
, to start slant-drilling
$14 billion worth of Iraqi Oil
"Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot
Texas, and it's certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast." - liberal Mother Jones article
This means the
purpose US-UN weapons inspections of Iraq was never
meant to legitimately
locate and dispose of the WMDs which the US
Germany had sold Saddam in the first place --- though we spent untold
millions on that "make-work project" ---
were designed as a ruse to justify later invasion.
very brief ARTICLE on IRAQ-US
HISTORY in LYING for Empire
THE GEORGE H BUSH FORMULA
FOR THE WAR WITH IRAQ: PREVENT NEGOTIATIONS AT ALL COST
President G.H.W. Bush lied on many occasions to achieve
America’s military and foreign policy initiatives. He rejected all of Iraq's efforts to
negotiate with counterfeit rationales and he lied about Iraq's
military strength and intentions.
and Han von Sponeck
quit the Iraq - Oil-for-Food
program during the Clinton
administration, saying they refused to administer a genocide.
finally revealed his
objective bluntly. He argued shamelessly that it was necessary to find an enemy for America to save it
from disintegration. He added that only
through identifying enemies, America can define itself and keep
its identity from breaking down! (Ahh, so it's our
'identity' that's at stake.)
EARLIER: In 1961, Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Qassim spoke out very
the return of Kuwait ... the Baghdad
CIA station chief
gave the order to kill
to an aggressive young hustler named Saddam
Hussein. Saddam did the job very well, killed and tortured other
radicals and trade unionists and began his rise to power in the Baath
Party with our
key in early CIA plot
USA and Western Allies MADE Saddam into their petro-errand boy.
United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S.
diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to
piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on
While many have
thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence
agencies at the start of the
September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S.
officials date back to 1959,
when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with
assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.
Of course, the allies all got in their fair share, the UK/FRA/GER
Emporium Made Saddam a Most Well Armed Nutjob. And as long as he was
doing our killing, we were happy.
Now who gave Saddam Hussein the technology to kill? Companies like
Matrix Churchill and Industrias Cardoen Limitada. How do I know this?
U.S. Rep. Henry Gozalez, Tom Lantos and other members of my government
– and even Spiro Agnew’s speechwriter – told me so.
How the U.S. Armed Iraq
BY WILLIAM SAFIRE
George Bush's decision, after the Iran-Iraq war ended, to entrust
regional security to Saddam Hussein.
What is not yet widely understood is how that benighted policy led to
the Bush Administration's fraudulent
use of public funds, its sustained
deception of Congress and its obstruction
As the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar, was urging Mr. Bush and Mr.
Baker to buy the friendship of the Iraqi dictator in August 1989, the
F.B.I. uncovered a huge scam at the Atlanta branch of the Lavoro Bank
to finance the buildup of Iraq's war machine by diverting
U.S.-guaranteed grain loans.
Instead of pressing the investigation or curbing the appeasement, the
President turned a blind eye to lawbreaking and directed another
billion dollars to Iraq. Our State and Agriculture Department's
complicity in Iraq's duplicity transformed what could have been dealt
with as `Saddam's Lavoro scandal' into George Bush's Iraqgate.
The first element of corruption
is the wrongful application of U.S.
credit guarantees. Neither the Commodity Credit Corporation nor
the Export-Import Bank runs a foreign-aid
program; their purpose is to stimulate
U.S. exports. High-risk loan guarantees to achieve
foreign-policy goals unlawful endanger that purpose.
Yet we now know that George Bush personally leaned on Ex-Im to subvert
its charter--not to promote our exports but to promote relations with
the dictator. And we have evidence that James Baker overrode worries in
Agriculture and O.M.B. that the law was being perverted: Mr. Baker's
closest aid, Robert Kimmett, wrote triumphantly, `your call to . . .
Yeutter . . . paid off.' Former Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter
is now under White House protection.
Second element of corruption is the misleading
of Congress. When the charge was made two years ago in this
space that State was improperly intervening in this case, Mr. Baker's
top Middle East aide denied it to Senate Foreign Relations; meanwhile, Yeutter aides deceived Senator Leahy's
Agriculture Committee about the real foreign-policy purpose of
the C.C.C. guarantees. To carry out Mr. Bush's infamous National
Security Directive 26, lawful oversight was systematically blinded.
Third area of Iraqgate corruption is the obstruction of justice.
Atlanta's assistant U.S. Attorney Gail McKenzie, long blamed here for
foot-dragging, would not withhold from a grand jury what she has
already told friends: that indictment
of Lavoro officials was held up for nearly a year by the Bush Criminal
Division. The long delay in
prosecution enabled James Baker to shake credits for Saddam out
of malfeasant Agriculture appointees.
In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission (more details)
The roots of
the covert policies go back to November 4, 1979, after the fall of the
Shah, when the seizure of hostages at the United States Embassy in
Teheran destroyed America's relations with Iran, formerly its surrogate
in the region. When Iraq invaded Iran, on September 22, 1980, the
United States and Israel found themselves in a bizarre and perplexing
three-dimensional chess game. Iran
was even more important to Israel than it was to the United States: the
Israelis bought oil from and sold arms to Iran. More
significant, Iran had provided a counterweight to Saddam Hussein's
Iraq, which had long been fiercely anti-Israel, and which if it won,
could confront the Israelis with a potentially lethal threat. Officially the United States was neutral in
the Iran-Iraq War. But from the onset two factions within the Reagan
Administration struggled over which country posed the greater
threat to United States interest. That struggle became the most
acrimonious intra-Administration foreign conflict of the entire
Reagan-Bush era, with each faction
funneling substantial amounts of arms to one side or the other.
One bloc, which included the national-security adviser, Robert C.
McFarlane, and two members of his national Security Council staff,
Howard Teicher and Oliver North, argued in favor of arming Iran, for two reasons: to
enhance Israel's security and to facilitate better relations with an
ascendant military, economic, and strategic power in the looming
post-Khomeini era. Indeed, as early as 1979 Teicher had written a
highly classified study endorsing Israel's view that Saddam's Iraq, not
Khomeini's Iran, would ultimately pose the greater threat to the
security of the Gulf region.
The pro-Iraq faction,
led by Secretary of Defense Weinberger, of State George Shultz, and
Assistant Secretary Richard Murphy, raised the specter of Iran's
Islamic fundamentalism spreading throughout the Persian Gulf and
endangering the moderate governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and
thus the West's oil supplies. "Many of
us thought it would be better if Iraq won," Weinberger has told
the Los Angeles Times in an interview.
When, in early 1980, the Israeli Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon, had proposed that Israel
covertly sell United States arms to Iran, Carter angrily said
no. But Israeli intelligence continued to cultivate contacts with Iran.
... in late 1980, without authorization from the Carter Administration,
Israel began covert sales
to Iran of American arms from its own stockpiles.
Reagan's first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, spelled out the
policy: "Let me state categorically
today there will be no military equipment provided to the government of
Iran." The American people, George Bush would say in a speech
years later, regarded the Ayatollah's Iran with "an understandable
animosity, a hatred, really,"
Between December, 1981, and March, 1982, Satterfield said, it became
apparent that Israel was not submitting lists for approval and was
providing United States arms that went beyond F-4 spare parts. He said
he had firsthand knowledge of at least fifty-three
million dollars' worth of United States supplies sent to Iran by
Israel. In an article in the New York Times last December, Seymour
Hersh reported that "Israeli and American intelligence officials
acknowledged that weapons, ammunition and spare parts worth several billion dollars flowed to
Iran each year during the early 1980's."
The arms transfers appear to violate
the Arms Export Control Act, a federal law that prohibits a
recipient country from transferring "United States-origin" munitions to
a third country without written permission from the United States. When
such transfers are made, the same law requires that the President immediately notify Congress.
Reports that Iran might win revived fears that the Islamic revolution
would threaten America's oil interests in the region. As a report by
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later put it, the choice was
"between permitting Iran to dominate the West's oil supply in the
Persian Gulf and direct U.S. military intervention." Congress, of
course, was unaware of the irony
behind the new dilemma: Iran's
chances of victory were high partly because the Administration had
allowed it to buy United States arms.
Weinberger was one of the most vehement opponents of covert arms sales
to Iran. "It was insanity," he told us. "How could you send arms to the
Ayatollah when he was sworn to destroy us?" Iraqgate, however,
discomforts Weinberger. When
he was asked about Defense Department proposals to send arms to Iraq,
he said, "The little that I know was
that it was all handled by the C.I.A." On being pressed, he
admitted, "There might have been a role by some people in the Pentagon.
But I didn't keep a hand in that." Finally, he was shown two highly classified memos sent directly
to him in 1982 and 1983 outlining Defense Department proposals to arm
Saddam Hussein. He then refused
to discuss the matter any further on the record, citing
other ways of arming Iraq. One such way - transferring arms through
third countries - was outlined in a classified memo written by William
L. Eagleton, the chief of the United States-interests section in
Baghdad, in October, 1983. "We can selectively lift restrictions on
third party transfers of U.S.- licensed military equipment to Iraq," he
wrote. Even though the stated United States policy toward the Iran-Iraq
War remained one of neutrality, and Congress
would never have approved such arms transfers, that year the Reagan Administration began secretly
allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United
States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs, to
Iraq. These shipments may very well have violated the Arms
Export Control Act.
....the photos that I turned over to the Israelis were of a number of
Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing plants which the government did
not want to admit existed. Why? ....What
the administration was really concerned about was being placed in a
position where it would have to admit that it had tacitly condoned the
creation of an Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing capability.
ABC Radio Interview with Esther Pollard
Esther Pollard, wife of the controversially imprisoned Jonathan
Pollard. Interviewed by John Batchelor and Aaron Klein. Interview
centers on Israeli Army Radio announcement of a proposed deal whereby
the U.S. would free Jonathan Pollard in return for Israeli's freeing of
jailed terrorist leader and convicted murderer Marwan Barghouti.
* Click here to
Al-Qaida is the "invisible
enemy", like the Communist Red Menace bogeyman of the Cold War, the
casus belli of the Vietnam War and Korea and fifty to sixty-some other US actions
I think Howard Zinn (and his ilk)
provides a naïve
viewpoint on war, an honest but relatively weak emotional appeal
against war --- which should appeal
to broad sectors of society, but is ineffective against strong
pro-war propaganda ---possibly his role is intentional, or at
least the funding that promotes him knows he's a manageable threat.
Maybe softness and naïveté just Howard's style,
OR maybe he's part of the neutered
co-opted Left keeping the grants flowing from tax-free foundations tied
to the CIA and War Production. www.leftgatekeepers.com
I have no
idea about Zinn's relationship with grant money or publishing
but he seems to avoid serious strong analysis and simplification
about WHY we go
to war, which the American Public needs
to grasp, and which Peace Activists could readily use for
I've never heard
Zinn talk about the old anti-Interventionist Conservative trend, which pre-dated
the 60's and was not confined to
Quakers or Pacifists or Socialists.
these out later, please
he revealed Operation Northwoods
memo in Body of Secrets about the NSA (below)
-- an extreme
Machiavellian interventionist plan that involved covertly
killing Americans to launch World War III
--- not the
first time for sacrificing Americans to justify war (Phillipines)
The Old Cause of non-interventionism from
an old conservative viewpoint
Empire - What makes (Uncle) Sammy run?
(one viewpoint going back to McKinley in the
late 1800's, who was opposed by the conservative non-interventionist,
and the anti-Imperialist league) (ironically it was Democrats who
became the "tax and spend" imperialist warmongers, who old
conservatives say "bought off" the public with federal aid programs,
while they expanded govt with buy-in from privileged corporate and
of the specifically American context of the American
empire ... For
all their talk of "free trade," US leaders pursued something very
different. The classic Manchester School doctrine held
that free trade simply involves trading with people.
The freer world trade becomes, the more likely it is that there will be
peace, as nations become economically interdependent. Richard Cobden,
John Bright, and their school never suggested that you first
create an international new world order presided over by One Good Power
in order then to have free trade. The
neo-mercantilist strategy favored in the US State and Defense (War)
departments amounts to what the late Murray Rothbard referred
to as "inverted" or "right-wing" Leninism,
which accepts the Leninist analysis of the relation between politics
and economics but draws the conclusion that imperial shaping
of economic life is necessary and good.
places they joke about how when the the military was used strictly for
defense it was called the War Dept, but when it got
hijacked to launch imperialist wars, it was renamed the Defense
headline: Bush says Iran "a threat"
So many remotely “possible
attacks” have been adduced to justify US annexations
and preemptive interventions that it takes Weinberg nearly a
whole page to list them (see pp. 406-407). The
mind-boggling result “resembles almost a progressive madness, and
certainly has all the multiplicity of a crazy quilt” (p. 406).
Such “a hysterical apprehensiveness” (p. 406) and
“extremism” derive “from the assumption that since the dangers
of international life are not always calculable by reason, defense
should err on the side of madness rather than reasonableness.
To put it bluntly: Communism (they mean
Totalitarianism) will not be imported from Moscow; it will come
out of Wall Street and Main Street" – if business itself failed to make
the proper distinction between state and market.
Trickery and Treachery - pretexts for other wars
is boring, after it's been sanitized of intrigue. I've been
studying real history -- not taught in state schools -- about the
occasions Americans (and other people) have been tricked into Wars and
Systems based on excuses, platitudes, and contrived Shock-and-Awe
Bernays' work on mass
propaganda plus High-tech media makes it formulaic to yank the
rabble around with emotionally-potent simplifications, subliminal
messages, false realities, and staged crises. The Church Committee
heard real testimony on Operation
which was influence and infiltration of domestic media, up to 3000 paid
writers. Your gut must tell you, Mockingbird hasn't gone away,
but expanded globally.
dark wits call 9-11 "the Zapruder
Film Festival". Sadly, it fits
-- more than you know. A live psy-op with real dead people.
But it's not the first time.
crises include sinking
of the Maine (Spanish-American War), sinking of the Lusitania (WWI), sinking the Kearny plus Pearl
Harbor (WWII), ostensibly the engineered fleecing of the the Great Depression, conflict in North Korea (varying reports on
which side invaded to launch this UN war), Cold War
paranoia to match Stalin's, Gulf
of Tonkin (Vietnam), events around the Iran
hostage crisis (Iran-Iraq proxy war, with US and Israel funding
opposite sides), Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait (Desert Storm), War on
campaign for false reasons), Operation
"Iraqi Freedom", the misuse of US troops and/or
Clandestine Services for proxy conflicts in over sixty locations,
threats to "National Interests"
--- bloodshed, maimed and dead, scarred
souls, grief, moral decay, murdered innocents, destruction, Trillions
stolen -- EACH hinged on pretexts and
To highlight these
I"m going to borrow terms publicized around 9-11 controversy, LIHOP
it happen on purpose" and MIHOP
it happen on purpose".
the way, these are 100% identical in terms of govt complicity. If
they "let it happen on purpose", they're guilty
In some sense, perhaps LIHOP is slightly
less evil than MIHOP, but tell that to the jury.
and MIHOP diverge on the theory and question of actual
enemies, and the hypothetical question of where do WE go from
here. That is to say, if we were
attacked by a real Al-Qaeda network, then we still have to address that
IF Bush did know.
(Well chill out, we DO need to fix America's foreign policy of harming
innocent people and plunder, but not because Al-CIA-Duh is waging war
Northwoods memo, declassified and growing in fame, was a plan
signed off by the Joint Chiefs in 1962, described in the book Body of
Secrets by Bamford. The military effort was to provoke Cuba
to attack US forces -- LIHOP.
The Clandestine fallback plan was to stage elaborate attacks on
American military and on civilians in Miami and DC, to lay blame on
Cuba. Clearly a MIHOP plan,
with fictional enemies, or total LIE-HOP.
Edward Griffin, a staid classic conservative
libertarian, describes the tactics American leaders used
to get into
World War I and
World War II:
with official USG documentation
by far right co-founder of the John Birch Society, G. Edward Griffin
the John Birch Society has been tied to the CFR and CIA, the very
organizations they claim to oppose, so the "spin" is that THIS is
facilitate insulate .
- Aggravate the intended
into attacking you.
- Facilitate his attack to
it easy with no oppostion.
- Insulate the victims from
knowledge which would let them escape their fate.
part of NATIONAL POLICY found in
Archives written by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum October
denounces collectivism -- a central philosophy
he describes Fascism, Communism, and Fabianism, all
disagree, but I concede his perspective.)
(Griffin was actually one of the founding members of the John Birch Society. Here's his
how JBS was demonized in the press.)
Totalitarian collectivism is the NEO-CONSERVATIVE philosophy.
Changing the world through murder, ostensibly for the greater good of
all, except the dead.
to any Leftist friends who believe in a Socialism which is grassroots
reveals how Sinking the Lusitania, driving the USS
Kearny in between fighting German and British forces, and Pearl Harbor
itself, were all LIHOP events.
Internal Govt Memos revealed how
the Lusitania was "unfortunately" sunk. Newspaper warnings from the
Germans were suppressed by the State Dept, but one popped up in the Des
Moines Register. The ship was loaded with ammunition (illegal,
confirmed) and sent to sea with 2000 passengers as "human shields" or
actually targets. Then as it entered
hostile seas near England, 1 of 4 engines were ordered cut, and it's
destroyer escort was taken away. So you see, "unfortunately it just
had no protection" and "unfortunately the passengers died", and
"unfortunately joined in on World War 1", on which JP Morgan had a huge
war bond investment. See Silverbear or FFI links for more.
The sinking of the USS Maine and Gulf of Tonkin were clearly LIE-HOP. Captain Sigsbee did
not believe his friendly Spanish hosts sank his ship, but Hearst newspapers insisted they
did. The Gulf of
Tonkin attack never happened at all.
Yes, even World War II. Wall Street investors and US
industrialists (mostly in New York) had funded the Hitler campaign
since the mid 1930's. They helped Nazi industry like IG Farben before,
and even during and after WW2. (Prescott Bush had
Nazi dealings thru 1951, according to Hoover and Congress.)
Saddam, Al-Qaeda, and various Death Squads were trained and funded for
ulterior motives --- similar to the Nazis, killing Leftists and
destablizing liberal democratic govts or movements --- on our dime and
with our blood, and our loss of Liberty.
Operation Mongoose has also been declassified. The
point of that plan was to aggravate
Cuba into attacking America --- OR
if that didn't work, then Operation
was the plan to stage elaborate FAKE terrorist attacks on
America, and blame them on Cuba.
McNamara and Kennedy had not said "No",
the Joint Chiefs would have
done that Shock and Awe in 1962, murdering Americans to fight
communism, as they turned us into a "communist" dictatorship in the
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was LIHOP. On one end, we had Gen.
Scowcroft of National Security, selling his Santa Fe Drilling Co. to
Kuwaitis, so they could steal Iraqi Oil. On the other end,
agents of the State Dept., including April Glaspie and Valerie Plame's
husband Joe Wilson, encouraged Saddam to "rectify his borders".
The big fake scandal of Iraqi abuse
of Incubator babies was complete LIE-HOP, as were news videos made by
PR firms and fake grassroots groups.
skeptics comprise a range of people, from those who use caution and
accuracy, to those who seem to be intentionally whacky, who
mix-and-match 95% fact with 5% fiction, or stretch fact and mix it with
unpalatable "poison pill" issues, like UFO's, overt Jew-bashing, or
extreme rightist religion. Considering the growing sophistication
of propaganda since 1963, it is likely that some of these
"truth-seekers" are either dupes or agents of the CIA. This is
what N.E.D. does for a living, creates fake Leftist groups, controls
unions, and invades grassroots Leftist movements to 'help' them
implode, as well as passing on membership lists to their enemies.
Who said "Let Osama go free?"
The past Exec Dir. of the CIA. Our President basically
agreed. Who fought and won "diplomatic immunity" for Saudi
royalty, against legal query into it's accounts? The Baker-Botts
law firm, our President's attorney, fmr Sec-State James A. Baker.
Who created Al-Qaeda in the first place? The National Security
Council appointee Brzezinski, and CIA. When did we last use
them? Officially, in the 90s in Bosnia, per the Republican Party
(quietly). The existence of an NGO in Chechnya called ACPC seems
to mean we're still involved with Islamic Jihadists, under the pretext
of peace. Well, Al-Qaeda is right wing .. it's to be expected.
the Global Forever War on Terror,
ongoing entanglements with
Israel. Hermann Goering said, "All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, denounce the pacifists for their lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger." It's like
watching re-runs. The official
reports on Iraq are re-runs of our success in
government, news and entertainment, even "alternative", many major
industries and finance, most have been infected, subverted, and
compromised by Tax-Free Foundations, leftgatekeepers, and PR
firms. Pervasive fear, even hysteria -- real or
imaginary -- is scripted and mixed with banal gossip. Decent
folks driven into chaos, collectivist Totalitarianism, a.k.a. Globalist
New Freedom. "It's for our security." Bull. Tyranny
is the plan, not a side-effect.
Madison wrote that war
is an enemy leading to domination and loss of freedom. Marine
Gen. Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket". We must wise up,
resist the clever puppetmasters, wake up other open-minded people
across political lines, and preserve our precious Liberty and Peace
while we can still remember these were traditional values.
Plot to Overthrow FDR (Smedley D. Butler) Video Cassette
version of my LETTER TO COMMONDREAMS- END
War for Open Markets
and Capital Flows
In the 1800's,
openly-discussed reasons for intervention (war) were to "open
markets by force" to "help American capitalism grow and
stay afloat". Old Conservatives argue that "capitalism" was
better off without military help, but the
Eastern capitalists might have to 'suffer' market forces and
competition just like everyone else.
Nowadays, Thomas P. Barnett
openly argues that the purpose
of the Pentagon is to protect
global capital flows for Wall Street. He's
not a dissenter, he's an uber-analyst, a military think-tanker
who does Powerpoint presentations on "new Rule Sets" for the Pentagon
on WHY and WHERE to go to war.
Barnett has a cute,
compelling article in Esquire "Dear Mr. President" and several books
out. He wants peace with Iran, for Iran to help "stabilize" Iraq,
and peace with China --- both with strings attached --- and he wants
threats-possibly-leading-to-war with North Korea, with options of exiling
or killing Kim il-Jong. All in
the name of Future Peace and Prosperity for his children.
He paints a pretty
picture of the Pentagon at times, using euphemisms for war and
prosperity, talks like a teenager about "cool exploits". He says
the military does great things -- like protecting Wall Street and
creating global wealth by joining with allies in the Core, making
allies out of potential military rivals in the young Core (China), and
by waging war and 'peacekeeping' against "enemies" in the Gap -- the
poor --- forcing them to "shape up" and join
Globalization with the prospect of Western prosperity. Like El
Salvador and Bolivia. Like Africa.
"Gap" countries do
include some 'primitive' cultures which are
partly ruled by feudal religions (Afghanistan).
Barnett doesn't discuss how we
helped to put the
warlords in power over others
Left" --- how the IMF
and World Bank blackmail intentionally
engineered poverty in "the Gap" to make them ripe
for exploitation via cheap labor and free
resources. Resistance to such repression and thievery is
often the only thing that labels these "Gap" countries "terrorist".
Barnett supports a vision of "benign global prosperity" brought about
by forces John Perkins
describes as Economic Hitmen,
backed by freelance "jackals" - assassins
- who have CIA support, and if all else fails,
the US military.
this stunning interview later
intrigue reads like a spy novel…."
threats and bribes, Perkins has
produced an unflinching and forceful insider’s look at how the U.S.
government, multinational ‘aid’ organizations and
corporations are following a dangerous path in
their pursuit of oil and other resources.”
Former “Economic Hit
Man” John Perkins on “The
First Truly Global Empire” and its Impact on Latin America
former work going into various countries to create a secret
empire through economics after being recruited by the
National Security Agency.
WILLING TO GO TO WAR FOR WALL STREET
INTERESTS and the "global prosperity by force", which
Barnett makes his entire career engineering?
OF COURSE NOT. Masses of people are not so stupid to risk their
lives, leisure, and liberty for some bankers or bureaucrats.
IF WE WERE, THEY
WOULD HAVE NO NEED FOR WAR PROPAGANDA, embarrasing lies about 'evil
tyrants' and "hitler" and Islamo-phobic threats and non-existent WMDs,
grand theories about clashes of cultures, etc.
sociopaths will sign up just for a license to kill, but that's a small
minority and considered too psycho to be reliable except for certain
kinds of military ruthlessness. Some will sign up for the gung-ho
macho feeling or fun video game action, or for other personal reasons
like the poverty/bribery factor. But most
Americans have to be convinced to support war along the lines of
base instincts of FEAR, REVENGE, and
to some degree National Honor.
So that's how they market war -- threats.
For other idealistic people they use the Wilsonian religion of
spreading (or smearing) "democracy", which turns out to have an
entirely different "inside" meaning different from that which most
Americans learn in school. Open your Markets. Or else.
It seems like
they just market all the ideas simultaneously,
and people unconsciously latch onto whichever sales pitch appeals to
their own insecurity --- personal, economic, emotional or
self-image. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in one of those
psy-ops and think tank groups.
Does Howard Zinn talk
directly about any of this?
I don't think so, not much, maybe a few
I think if someone brought it up in a lecture, he'd change the subject,
but not that many "Leftie"
Peace Activists seem to understand it to bring it up. Many act as
if war for economic expansion is a "conspiracy theory". "No, it's
just Bush's bumbling."
Conservatives do understand -- that is real old school conservatives --
just like real Leftists.
(I don't mean ME - I mean people I've read or learned from.)
Zinn mostly sticks to
antiwar sentiment and love,
and shies away from analysis. Nice, but ineffective against
sophisticated propaganda tools which need more Truth and Accuracy to
combat them. That's why I think Zinn may be a tool,
because that's his main topic,
and yet there's much richer information out there which he is not
To the best of my knowledge, Zinn
does not delve too much
into PRETEXTS for war.
Emperor Nero staged terrorist attacks
and blamed it on Christians, as a PRETEXT so he could murder them or imprison them.
It is widely believed that the Reichstag Fire which
shut down "Congress" in Germany was
staged by Hitler's closest Nazi SS
officers using a retarded "communist" to create a PRETEXT
for a Martial Law crackdown.
Vietnam War. It's widely known now that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fabrication. Even Sec. of
Defense Robert S. McNamara, architect of the Vietnam War admitted as
much in the movie Fog of War.
Our Navy boats were patrolling near the North Vietnam shore, hoping to
draw fire, per some military memos, but when that didn't happen, LBJ
grabbed a reported sonar false alarm and called it a torpedo
attack on our ships, as a PRETEXT to go to all
out ground war.
Think how many lives would have been saved if someone had exposed
President Johnson's "little white lie". 58,000 Americans,
officially, plus many more maimed, suicided, imprisoned, cancer,
etc. plus at least 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians,
many still suffering from birth defects today.
McGovern has clearly stated that Tonkin was a LIE, but a
"lie of convenience". It popped up, LBJ needed a pretext, so he
just ran with it.
On the other
Bush's lies are pre-meditated and made up wholecloth.
McGovern is now a "peace activist" leading a Public
Inquiry for Bush and Co. on War Crimes. He's retired
CIA, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He's
probably a decent Christian man as he describes his background and
activities with religion and bringing good to the world..
and Ruling Elites really fear -- besides the CIA being
sidelined by the neocons' own intelligence outfit -- is the
economic cost of full-out war, ugly war disasters, and especially a new Vietnam syndrome,
a widespread revulsion
to war and evaporation of
passive trust for government within the mainstream American public, a mental
inoculation against very expensive war
propaganda. They hate being exposed as a bunch of
goddamn lying imperialist trash killers.
helping to bring about their worst fears in ways that Kerry
could never have done. Kerry would have soothed us to
sleep. Many "peace activists" also work with Democrats to lull
the populace to sleep.
I first saw McGovern
pop up in a film called Uncovered
with all kinds of spooky Pentagon and
CIA hitmen, like Rand Beers, Robert Baer, Stansfield Turner,
and Joseph Wilson. You have to listen to one of the talks on www.takingaimradio.com
Killers of the CIA, or the Libby-Plame-Fitzgerald
affair to really get a full grasp of who these 'peace-mongers'
are. They seem friendly but are not our friends, even though
they oppose Bush.
They actually SET Bush and Cheney UP for a massive failure and scandal
with fake intelligence, because of their opposition to a 'cowboy'
neocon military -- but in favor of a ruthless CIA world empire of
economics and assassination and terrorism.
from Daniel Ellsberg's "Secrets", pp 419:
to Kissinger: "The only place
where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You're so
godammed concerned about the civilians and I dont give a damn. I don't
Kissinger responded: "I'm
concerned about the civilians because I don't want the world to be
mobilized against you as a butcher."
ROBERT KAPLAN: Well, first of
all, realism has a specific definition in foreign affairs.
Here are a few parts of the definition. Realism in foreign affairs assumes
that domestic politics operates within the confines of law. Foreign
policy, though, operates in a lawless realm.
The kind of morality we apply overseas in dealing with our adversaries
is a more limited, sadder morality than we apply at
home. Realism also means that all moral
questions of human rights, democracy, etc. are ultimately questions of
power. Realism assumes that sometimes you
have to perpetrate a certain amount of evil
in order to do a greater amount of good. These
aspects of realism in foreign affairs.
I think the United States, right now, under President Bush, is what I would call
a classically realist foreign policy.
blogger's comment: Kaplan's style of pompous bootlicking
and childish notions of realpolitick never go out of style.
Nazi statement -- which is part of US policy and public thinking --
means that discussions of Morality cannot "assume" morality as a
pre-existing argument or human value. These guys are proud of being
AMORAL and inhuman, and many take pleasure in ruthlessness. This
sideways plays into the Bohemian Grove thing where world leaders
participate in a "Cremation of Care" ritual involving simulated human
personal argument is, I WOULD KILL someone who attacked me --- and
worry about mushy morality later --- but not wage war over some vague
"threat" or manufacture a PRETEXT
for murder. I've never killed anyone
they "dissed" me or because I "felt threatened".
McGovern does not exactly say he's for 'peace'.
He says he's for 'sanity'.
But so did Shinseki and others fired by Rummy, who said we needed a
draft and 500,000 men to take down Iraq -- or nothing. It's more
strategic differences. They'd much rather have milked their
little oil puppet Saddam with another decade or more of sanctions
and UN 'peacekeeping' control combined with daily bombings.
They engineered that scam 27 years ago. Why fix what's not
with "pacification", whereas we all know that peace is gentle whereas
"pacification" is wrought through terror, the eupehmism first brought
up during Vietnam, "pacification of the Vietnamese people".
"Winning Hearts and Minds" was mostly a euphemism for terror.
Their 'peace' includes what UN directors of Oil-for-Food Halliday
and Von Sponeck called "genocide" when they quit in protest. When
people die of dysentery, typhoid, cholera, starvation, radiation
poisoning etc. they die quietly and
relatively peacefully compared
to 2000 lb bombs, but they are just as dead.
the co-opted branch of the
wants to limit discussion to "Bring Troops Home Now" --- which is
woefully inadequate. It's a catchy slogan, but when most of the
troops come home -- which is what the CIA and Brzezinski and Kissinger
types want anyhow -- you're out of business, and the real problems are
nowhere near being solved or even addressed. The public is kept
stupidified and passified.
So, is Ray McGovern
seriously for peace and justice and liberty? Or just
against crazy Neo-Cons? I think the latter.
Spanish-American War. It's also now widely
known that when the USS Maine blew up
and sank in 1898, the Captain said it might have been an oven or
burner, but he was overruled by the
White House and the Press -- Hearst Newspapers -- and they used
that accident as a PRETEXT
to launch a war against Spain to seize Cuba and the Phillipines.
(Captain Sigsbee got along fine with Spanish officers.)
Journalistic giants, such as Hearst and Joseph
Pulitzer of the World, viciously competed for the reader's
attention. They were determined to reach a daily circulation of a
million people, and they didn't mind fabricating stories in order to
reach their goal.
The Spanish had confined many Cubans to
concentration camps. The press called them "death camps." Wild stories
with screaming headlines
-- Spanish Cannibalism, Inhuman Torture, Amazon
Warriors Fight For Rebels -- flooded the newsstands. (sound
In the months following the
Spanish-American War, the winds of expansionism
blew strongly across the United States. There was a lot
of talk about "Manifest Destiny,"
and many people suggested that America should assume its role as a world power.
In Congress, legislators called for the annexation of all Spanish
territories. Some newspapers even suggested the annexation of Spain itself.
Expansionists such as Roosevelt, former President Harrison, and Captain
Mahan argued for creating an American
empire. Others, including Grover
Cleveland, Andrew Carnegie, and Mark Twain, opposed these ideas. An anti-imperialist essay by Andrew Carnegie
Andrew Carnegie wrote to a leading expansionist. "You seem to have
about finished your work of civilizing the Filipinos. It is thought
that about eight thousand of them have been completely civilized and
sent to heaven. I hope you like it."
John D. Rockefeller was a protégé of Carnegie, yet he was
quite ruthless, in business and in world governance. I think that
shows the split btw. the Tri-Lateral Commission types seeking economic
domination and clandestine ops, vs. the more overt military types.
War 1. The Lusitania was definitely sent out
in 1915 loaded with arms for Britain against Germany. Over 1,198
people were killed in that German sub attack,
The Allies denied the ship was
carrying munitions, though British documents later showed it was.
Many factors including actions of US and
British leaders indicated they planned the incident to be used as a PRETEXT
to enter World War 1. Wilson had been itching and planning to go,
once he reversed public opinion.
Some accounts say it was apparently sent out
as a decoy to be sunk, or else the passengers were used as "human
shields" and the passenger ship a "cover" for contraband.
The Lusitania was heavily
armed: it carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells, 4,927 boxes of
cartridges (1,000 rounds in each box), and 2,000 more cases of
small-arms ammunition. Her manifests were falsified to hide this fact,
and the British and American governments lied about the cargo.
G. Edward Griffin said: "The
German embassy tried to place ads to warn passengers, but the State
Dept ordered newspapers not to run the ads. Only the Des Moines
Register ran the ad," --- though apparently the NY Times ran some
generic warnings too.
the voyage, a secret warning, given to the ship's wealthiest
passengers, reported that U-boat activity was to be expected and
advised not to travel. (However, several prominent people
including a Vanderbilt died.)
(One of the skeptic points
said that Churchill would have had to have planned everything
precisely. I don't get that. If it made it to land safely,
the Brits got their ammo and nobody died. If not, then they got
their casus belli.)
War 2. Now Hitler was a real threat,
by most rational indications, but in the years prior to him coming
to power, when the Nazi party was still getting a small minority of
votes, they were getting massive support from the US power-broker
elites, the NY banking, investment, and industrial class, until Hitler
finally wormed his way into power.
After he came
to power, the German industry like I.G. Farben and Nazi govt got
financial support and gold and weapons and trucks and chemicals etc.
from Rockefeller's Standard Oil, DuPont, ALCOA Aluminum, IBM computers
used for "human tracking", General Motors, General Electric, Ford Motor
Company. These were the biggest names, surely there were many
smaller investors and supporters, sympathetic members of the American
Legion. Hearst took $400,000 in a pre-arranged meeting with
Hitler and then ordered his news staff to STOP reporting anything bad
about Nazis. Instead Goebbels wrote glowing editorials in the US media.
a statement on June 26, 1941, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes
blamed ALCOA as the biggest traitor. This wasn't so much a PRETEXT
as the power players
idolized the Nazi style of government -- so much so that they had tried
to finance a military coup in America in 1934.
investors and lawyers like Allen Dulles --- who later founded the CIA
--- and Prescott Bush, who was prosecuted and convicted by J. Edgar
Hoover, continued to fund the Nazis after Pearl
However the Pearl Harbor
attack included elements of PRETEXT. Publicly
available documents and memos show that there was planning on the part
of the Pentagon to "get Japan to hit us hard", and to not make known
intercepted transmissions -- like the untranslated intelligence reports
prior to 9-11, months of direct and dire warnings which were not
heeded, except by a few top officials. Reports of Japanese subs
in Hawaiian bays were suppressed.
The 1991 Gulf War
propaganda emanated out of a $20 million dollar PR campaign in the US
media and Congress, orchestrated by some top US Public Relations firms,
paid for by Kuwaiti Emirs. This included "video news releases"
created in PR studios, played like news reports on TV.
More Details on Pretexts
for War in the M.E.,
Iraq, Saudi Arabia - on home page
In addition to Hill
& Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm, Kuwait also
hired other public relations firms such as the Rendon Group
(George W. Bush used them to gain acceptance for the 2001 Afghanistan
invasion and Iraq) for a retainer of $100,000 per month for media work.
They also used Neill & Company which was paid $50,000 a month for
lobbying Congress. Millions to be used for advertising, lobbying and
pro-war rallies were funneled through two front groups: The
Coalition for Americans at Risk and the Freedom Task
thrown out of incubators on the cold floor to die" story told by a
tearful sobbing 15-year-old Nayirah, was completely fabricated.
Nayirah was the daugher of a Kuwait ambassador, who was going to school
in the US.
Even the whole
fact of Iraq invading Kuwait in the first place was orchestrated by
players within the US govt. Brent
Scowcroft was telling Kuwait to seize Iraqi land and steal
their oil --- and they bought a drilling company which he was a
principle owner for $2.3 billion. April
Glaspie and Joe Wilson in the meantime were following
instructions from Sec.
State James Baker by telling Saddam and his officers to
go "recify his borders" with Kuwait. By this method, they had
created a PRETEXT to attack Iraq --- to restore democracy
to Kuwait --- which never had it in the first place.
|Operation Iraqi Liberation
: Everyone knows
about the MANY OFFICIAL
of this Iraq War, the absent Weapons of Mass Destruction which
Intelligence knew did not exist. They knew this had been
years earlier, with a 92% documenation rate -- far better than the
Pentagon's own tracking. It was easily knowable that there could
serious bio-weapons threat, nor nuclear threat.
Everyone in power KNEW or could have easily learned that there was much
conventional wisdom at the highest levels that Iraq posed zero credible
threat to the US. Heck, both Colin Powell and Condi Rice had
stated that a few months before Sept. 11. The intelligence didn't
change over night. The PRETEXT
changed, when Rummy read a memo to his assistant to "go wide, sweep it
all, related or not".
Everyone in power had the ability to know that the connection btw
Saddam and OBL was non-existent, but it made a darn scary argument.
Plus Saddam made wide open offers to bring in CIA or FBI to comb his
country, look for violations, etc. He was willing to shoulder the
burden of proof that neither he nor his country was a threat. I
read somewhere that this surrender was privately
" in the Pentagon, I think by Powell, because it
led to peace instead of war. Goodbye Casus Belli (reason for war,
cause for belligerence).
Bamford's talk on the Iraq War, on a conservative
The covert Contra
terrorist proxy war on Nicaragua was because the
Sandinista government --- which had thrown out the last brutal dictator
in a coup --- then got re-elected by a vast majority, but the PRETEXT was manufactured that they
were "not democratic". The real reason is they were socialist and
The invasion of
Panama, which killed
over 2000, was run on the PRETEXT of arresting drug dealer
Noriega, who had been just fine when he was a Bush business-crime
partner a few years earlier. He did however close down the
notorious School of Americas in Panama and attempt to become a
'popular' corrupt military ruler.
was attacked on the PRETEXT of rescuing
"medical students" who didn't need rescuing.
On Iran and Chile,
we just denied involvement in those covert operations, but info has
surfaced. The overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran,
the first CIA coup, carried out by Kermit Roosevelt and $10,000, where
we installed the Shah and his Israeli-trained SAVAK death squads.
The covert war
where we backed Pinochet in the overthrow and asssassination of
Allende, a poet, on Sept 11, 1973., leading to a
bloodbath with mass executions and a 40-year fascist dicatorship.
US backing for coups and govt. death squads in El Salvador, Columbia, Honduras, Venezuela,
Brazil, Argentina, Dominica, Haiti, Cuba, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and
more. Often all the military needed was covert action, backing "enemies" to
attack them. But if a full assault or long term "pressure" was
needed, then we had to fabricate a PRETEXT.
EVERY SINGLE MILITARY ACTION --- there were
over four dozen more smaller wars, limited actions, coups, support for
dictators, and covert actions --- EACH HAD SOME STRONG
ELEMENT OF DECEIT IN IT.
MOST AMERICANS WON'T MARCH OFF TO KILL or DIE
WILLINGLY, UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED or DECEIVED INTO IT.
|But here's a real red flag
: James Bamford, investigative reporter wrote Body of Secrets -- Anatomy of
Ultra-Secret National Security Agency.
Bamford uncovered in our declassified
--- an extreme
Machiavellian interventionist plan that involved covertly bombing US
targets and killing Americans to launch World War III.
This memo called for staging terrorist
attacks on US cities, blowing up airplanes, even
attacking US troops while dressed as foreign soldiers
as a PRETEXT
to invade Cuba
JFK, though he was an avid Cold Warrior,
nixed the Northwoods plan. (He was murdered less than a year
later. He couldn't "fire" Gen Lemnitzer of course, but he fired the
head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, who later led the inquiry.)
Both Sec. of Defense Robert S. McNamara and
Chomsky talked about how two out of three Soviet Sub Commanders agreed
to launch nukes on the US, but one
Russian sub commander vetoed pushing the button.
How many millions of
people would have died in THAT "winnable
nuclear war"? Based on a fabricated PRETEXT.
Now, about SEPTEMBER 11,
possible PRETEXT for a PERMANENT
NEOCON WAR ON TERRORISM, slated to last 100 years or not end in
Project for a New
Two years ago I was a neocon
... combined with planned "security" and "conflict
resolution" on the American public by the Pentagon and
Northcom's domestic operations
MILITARY CIVIL DISTURBANCE
PLANNING: THE WAR AT HOME
by Frank Morales
CREATED TERROR PRETEXTS FOR US POLICE STATE -- LOTSA JUICY
DETAILS, GREAT ARTICLE!
According to tapes played at
the trial, the FBI and US Attorneys clearly were shown to have intentionally used
Salem as a provocateur.
Testimony by two of Salem’s FBI agent handlers, Mr. Anticev, and Mrs.
Nancy Floyd, confirmed that their FBI supervisors
intentionally refused the
agents and Salem’s pleas to render the WTC bomb
evidence implicates Chertoff in intentionally
helping create and provoke these terrorist acts and terror funding in order to provide
for much of the controversial police state provisions in
laws which Chertoff has helped write into the USA PATRIOT Act.
The same cast of
characters known by Chertoff and the FBI, including FBI informants,
Special Forces, and CIA recruits, were also involved in the Oklahoma
City Bombing and the 1998 Tanzanian and Kenyan embassy bombings.
think the USS Cole too.
Lays Plans for Martial Law
(called CONPLAN 2002) is over 1,000 pages of plans and orders. The
second (called CONPLAN 0500) envisions 15 different scenarios where
these plans could go into operation.
developing plans for dispatching troops to several different parts of
the country at once and take over from civilian government.
On paper, all
this is described as preparations against "terrorist attacks,"
Northcom does not assume that its troops will only act after
some event. Its plans and preparation include
"preventive" actions taken without any specific disturbance actually
taking place ...
A number of the "scenarios" described in
Northcom plans include so-called "high-end" incidents like the release
of biological agents. (And it is worth noting that the only known
release of biological war agents within the United States--which
happened in the fall of 2001--was then traced back to the U.S. military's own
RED ALERT MEANS MARTIAL LAW
By Mike Whitney
“If we go red…it basically
shuts down the country.” — Homeland Security Chief, Tom Ridge
The primary function of the “color-coded” alert system is to prepare the nation for martial law.
Whether the threat level will be raised to red is unknown, but the
system that has been put in place is designed to activate those
that sound like Pavlov's dog
-- just change the color and the fear-reflex kicks in.)
When the system was
first announced it was greeted with widespread derision. Criticism came
from all corners including political pundits and the media. Since then,
however, the Dept of Homeland Security has issued five “orange alerts” (just below the
highest “red” alert) at least two of which
Administration has found no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to
attack US financial buildings, a White House source said.”
The colored alerts
are implemented as a form of psychological
warfare to acclimate the public to the idea of seeing
military personnel deployed to their city streets. Cultivating
fear is not an overnight project. It requires a policy
of gradual saturation; of surprise announcements and increasing threat levels. The
ultimate objective is to create a compliant public who will submit to
the radical agenda of their leaders. The survival of the current
administration depends entirely on this cynical assessment of
In such a scenario,
the military would be able to eschew the Posse Comitatus act of 1878
and carry out “police and judicial” functions. Sound farfetched?
according to General Tommy Franks who said in an
interview with Cigar Aficionado magazine: A “massive, casualty
producing event” might cause “our population to question our own
Constitution and begin to militarize our country.”
Martial law in the
US would be applied with the utmost
attention to public sensibilities and perceptions,
avoiding the garish display of force we see in Iraq.
It would be a “kinder and gentler” martial law with a limited number of
military personnel on the streets (just enough to remind us that things
have changed) and an emphasis on “preemptive” policing
operations. (Rolling up potential threats to the state) It
would probably unfold as a carefully
crafted public relations ploy with a predictably whimsical moniker,
such as, “The Security Enhancement and Homeland Fortification Act”.
The possibilities are limitless.
“All told, more than 3,000 suspected
terrorists have been arrested in many countries, and many
others have met a different fate…Let's put it this way. They
are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends
Bush is clearly boasting
that the US has deployed global
assassination squads to illegally kill or detain terror
suspects. Comments like these reveal a great deal about the character
of the people presently steering the ship of state. It's fair to notice
that they operate by a more “flexible”
moral standard than most citizens.
... Rumsfeld's plan
to create “a super-Intelligence Support Activity” that will “bring together CIA and military covert
action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception.”
a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense
Science Board, the new organization — the “Proactive,
Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)” — will carry out
secret missions designed to “stimulate reactions”
among terrorist groups, provoking them into
committing violent acts which would then expose them to “counterattack”
by U.S. forces.” Floyd sees this new organization as a sign that “the United States government is planning to
use “cover and deception” and secret military operations to provoke
murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people.”
His interpretation is “dead on"
WHITNEY WAS WRONG
about the Nov. 2004 deadline for Martial Law, but their plans have not
disappeared. THEY ARE BEING QUIETLY INSTALLED and RAMPED UP.
501 (Expatriation of
Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant"
definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated
any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act.
(Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the
definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a
violation of any Federal or State law.") Section 501 of the
second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act.
The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section
802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a
new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.
501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed
off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again.
The Justice Department states that they can do this because the
person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen.
Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any
violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant"
SECTION 102 states clearly that any information
gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are
illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities
for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.
allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered
a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop
anyone investigating Haliburton.
provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses
that spy on their customers for Homeland Security, violating their
privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are all preventative
measures - has anyone seen Minority Report? This is the access hub for
the Total Information Awareness Network.
403 expands the definition of weapons
destruction to include any
activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.
creates "lifetime parole"
(basically, slavery) for a whole host of crimes.
expands crimes that are punishable by
death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act
and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result
in the death penalty.
American people were shocked by the
despotic nature of the first Patriot Act. The second Patriot Act dwarfs all police
state legislation in modern world history.
OTHER THAN WAR (at home) (mil sites)
and spreading "democracy"
thoughout the world
Dr. Thomas P. Barnett
Explore how globalization
and the rise of the New Economy are generating new rule sets
with regard to how nation-states and national economies interact with
Determine how these new
rule sets alter the basic "rules of the road" in the international
Link these changes in
the international security environment to the U.S. Navy's current quest
for a "transformation strategy," with special reference to how these
changes may redefine the U.S. Navy's historic role as
"security enabler" of America's commercial network ties with
Translate these changes
in the international security environment into conceptual paradigms of
use to strategic planners in the international financial
deepen the cross-cultural understanding both sides--the
Pentagon and Wall Street--bring to the table during periods of
overlapping geo-strategic and geo-economic instability
Rationalizations for Imperialism and
Stromberg writing again
Weinberg has one chapter per US rationalization;
a list of his chapter titles will give some notion of the scope of his
Destined Use of
Extension of the Area
of Freedom [the late Soviet Union used this one, too]
various times, US
politicians have claimed such things as a “natural right” to the
Mississippi River, a right to Cuba by way of geographical imperatives,
a mission to convert the heathen to Protestantism and make them give up
alcohol and tobacco, or a “right” to world leadership in tandem with
Britain on the basis of a Teutonic gift for good government.