Showing posts with label False Flag. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False Flag. Show all posts

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Interview 570 – New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato


Good to hear that we can look forward to continued broadcasts of "New World Next Week" through 2013





Friday, December 28, 2012

The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information


Global Research
Prof. James F. Tracy

Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre.

school“[My staff] and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” –Connecticut Medical Examiner D. Wayne Carver II, MD, December 15, 2012

Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre. The public’s general acceptance of the event’s validity and faith in its resolution suggests a deepened credulousness borne from a world where almost all news and information is electronically mediated and controlled. The condition is reinforced through the corporate media’s unwillingness to push hard questions vis-à-vis Connecticut and federal authorities who together bottlenecked information while invoking prior restraint through threats of prosecutorial action against journalists and the broader citizenry seeking to interpret the event on social media.

Along these lines on December 19 the Connecticut State Police assigned individual personnel to each of the 26 families who lost a loved one at Sandy Hook Elementary. “The families have requested no press interviews,” State Police assert on their behalf, “and we are asking that this request be honored.[1] The de facto gag order will be in effect until the investigation concludes—now forecast to be “several months away” even though lone gunman Adam Lanza has been confirmed as the sole culprit.[2]

With the exception of an unusual and apparently contrived appearance by Emilie Parker’s alleged father, victims’ family members have been almost wholly absent from public scrutiny.[3] What can be gleaned from this and similar coverage raises many more questions and glaring inconsistencies than answers. While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.

The Accidental Medical Examiner

An especially important yet greatly underreported feature of the Sandy Hook affair is the wholly bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II at a December 15 press conference. Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably amateurish and out of character.

H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured, almost swaggering presence in Connecticut state administration. In early 2012 Carver threatened to vacate his position because of state budget cuts and streamlining measures that threatened his professional autonomy over the projects and personnel he oversaw.

Along these lines the pathologist has gone to excessive lengths to demonstrate his findings and expert opinion in court proceedings. For example, in a famous criminal case Carver “put a euthanized pig through a wood chipper so jurors could match striations on the bone fragments with the few ounces of evidence that prosecutors said were on the remains of the victim.”[4] One would therefore expect Carver to be in his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise.

Yet the H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the December 15 press conference is an almost entirely different man, appearing apprehensive and uncertain, as if he is at a significant remove from the postmortem operation he had overseen. The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he is either under coercion or an imposter. While the latter sounds untenable it would go a long way in explaining his sub-pedestrian grasp of medical procedures and terminology.




With this in mind extended excerpts from this exchange are worthy of recounting here in print. Carver is accompanied by Connecticut State Police Lieutenant H. Paul Vance and additional Connecticut State Police personnel. The reporters are off-screen and thus unidentified so I have assigned them simple numerical identification based on what can be discerned of their voices.
Reporter #1: So the rifle was the primary weapon?
H. Wayne Carver: Yes.

Monday, December 17, 2012

The Horror of the Connecticut Shooting and the Tragedy of Unresolved Massacres


The Daily Bell

These are the innocents of America's Dunblane — each smiling face a heartbreaking plea for the nation to give up its guns. President Barack Obama has declared he will use "whatever power" he has to prevent shootings like Friday's rampage by Adam Lanza happening again. In a powerful speech last night at an evening vigil in Newtown, Connecticut, he suggested he is considering a radical move to ditch America's historic right to bear arms in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. Obama said: "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" – UK Sun

Dominant Social Theme: Precious children are horrifyingly dead. So let the right to carry arms in the US expire as well.

Free-Market Analysis: It is almost impossible to write about the horrible shooting in Sandy Hook because of the age of the little ones who were shot. One wants to weep looking at so many innocent faces of now-dead children.

But what if the narrative is a false one? What if there is more to the story than what we've been told?

The shooting in Columbine, Colorado so many years ago marked the seeming beginning of a new kind of massacre. And massacres there have been since Columbine.
But when one looks at the Columbine massacre, one finds surprisingly that questions still linger.

Just query Columbine and "massacre questions" or "Columbine mystery" ... or some such.
You'll find lists of statements by eyewitnesses swearing there were more shooters than the two young men who were finally killed.

You will find statements that law enforcement officers were at the scene and acting in odd ways that actually ended up enhancing the mayhem. And why are the bodies of the shooters still on display on the Internet? Who makes these decisions?

There are even videos of the shooters killing themselves but like the mutilated body of Osama bin Laden, these appear to be fake. One is apparently an independent movie that was made about the killing. But people are confused into believing that a film is actual footage.

The intensity of the kinds of massacres has increased. And cries to regulate guns in the US have gone up commensurately. Here's some more from the article excerpted above:
The President has come under pressure to bring in strict gun control laws after Lanza murdered 20 children and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 

Obama said: "No laws can eliminate evil from the world — but that can't be an excuse for inaction. 

"Surely we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take then we have an obligation to try. 

"In the coming weeks I will use whatever power this office holds in an effort to prevent more tragedies like this." 

His emotional speech set up a battle with the pro-gun lobby in the nation as he prepared to fight for new laws. 

The President added: "This is our first job — caring for our children. That's how as a society we will be judged. 

"Are we really doing enough to keep our children safe from harm? 

"If we are honest with ourselves the answer is 'No, we are not doing enough'. And we will have to change." ...

Horrified anti-gun campaigners said America's citizens MUST now abandon their centuries-old right to bear arms in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. 

They begged President Obama to bring in strict gun control laws immediately to stop maniacs like Lanza having such easy access to weapons. 

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was scathing about Obama's pledge for "meaningful action" on gun control. 

He said: "Calling for meaningful action is not enough. We need immediate action. We've heard rhetoric before." 

The killers are always almost all the same: Young white men who are pleasant but bland loners. In this case the shooter is said to have had obvious emotional problems.

The idea of some is that such crazies should be stopped via gun control. If they cannot get guns they cannot hurt people with them.

Of course, in Britain where guns are virtually banned there has been a subsequent increase in knife crime and battery. And in China there have been reports of numerous horrifying knife attacks on children in schools. People will hurt each other if they are motivated to do so.

But these massacres are something else. Who picks up a rifle and shoots little children? And why?

And why are there always questions lingering after "official" investigations?

Like 9/11 itself, we would urge that the authorities or other interested parties reopen the Columbine investigation to answer lingering questions about that tragedy. There are literally hundreds of individuals who registered their conviction as eyewitnesses that more than two shooters – youngsters – were involved.

The debate in the US is usually constrained. The rhetoric quickly resolves itself into a debate over gun control.

Conclusion: But maybe people are asking the wrong questions and coming to the wrong conclusions ....

Monday, December 3, 2012

Patrick Henningsen: Syrian Internet Shutdown Could Have Been American-Influenced




Gruesome footage has emerged apparently showing Syrian rebels executing loyalists while their victims pleaded for their lives. One of the gunmen is heard referencing an al-Qaeda-linked group behind several terrorist attacks in Syria.

News analyst Patrick Henningsen says the nationwide internet shutdown, that's now ended, could have been American-influenced.

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Syrian government not to use chemical weapons


Times of India

DAMASCUS: The Syrian government on Monday said it would never use chemical weapons "even if they existed" against its people under any circumstance, Xinhua reported.
 
The Syrian foreign ministry's statement came in response to recent remarks made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who Monday warned President Bashar al-Assad against using chemical weapons and said the Washington was prepared to act if he ignored the warning.

"Syria has repeatedly stressed to the American side directly, or through the Russian friends, that it will not use such weapons, even if they existed, against its people under any circumstance," the ministry said.

The ministry said the US was known for fabricating such issues as it did in Iraq before the 2003 invasion.

Clinton, earlier in the day, said the use of chemical weapons " is a red line for the US," adding that "I am not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad administration has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people.

"But suffice it to say we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Insurance companies for American and United Airlines notified about controlled demolition evidence


9/11 Blogger
Mark Graham

(Sacramento, CA)  9/11 Truth activist Mark Graham sent a letter to the 12 insurance companies for the airline defendants sued by Larry Silverstein informing them about evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 and offering to put them in touch with building experts who could provide expert testimony.

In 2004 Larry Silverstein, who owned Building 7 and had signed a 99 year lease on the Twin Towers just six weeks before 9/11, sued United and American Airlines 1 and companies providing security at the airports (the "airline defendants").  Silverstein claimed that the airline defendants 2 had been negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack the planes and fly them into the Twin Towers.  He claimed that the plane crashes and fires "proximately caused the total destruction" of the Twin Towers, Building 7 and the other buildings in the World Trade Center.  (Complaint in Case 1:08-cv-03722-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/17/08, page 2)  3

No mention has been made of the fact that it would have been impossible for those plane crashes and fires to have destroyed the buildings or the abundant evidence of controlled demolition.  The defense attorneys could make an affirmative defense of this argument and exculpatory evidence.

Graham sent his letter via certified mail to the heads of 12 insurance companies who insured the airline defendants including Lloyd’s of America, Travelers Cos, Swiss Re, Zurich American, Global Aerospace and U.S. Aircraft Insurance Group and to their attorneys.
As Graham’s letter pointed out, Silverstein’s theory that the plane crashes and fires destroyed these buildings, which also happens to be the U.S. government’s theory, has not been tested in court via expert testimony, scientific facts and evidence.  Nor has Silverstein’s theory been proven in the official building reports.  It has been proven to be fraudulent by 9/11 Truth activists yet it has been assumed true by the parties and the Court. 5 6

Silverstein has already recovered $4 billion from his own insurance companies.  He is seeking $8.4 billion from the airline defendants for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings and lost business income.

On September 5 Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that there will be a trial in these lawsuits.
On November 21 Judge Hellerstein ruled that United Airlines, whose flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, was not responsible for the destruction of Building 7.  That opinion followed a simple principle:  a defendant should not be held legally and financially liable for damage that he did not cause.  (“Judge Rules United Not Liable for 9/11 Collapse”, by Reuters, published in the New York Times)  Similarly, the airline defendants should not beheld legally and financially liable for damage that they did not cause.
Graham’s letter framed the issue like this:

There is exculpatory scientific evidence, including expert testimony, proving two separate claims.  Potential settlements 4 should take these claims and supporting evidence into account.  The defense attorneys should make an affirmative defense based on these claims and this evidence.  The claims are:

#1)  That it was impossible for the impact of the hijacked airplanes and the resulting fires to destroy the Twin Towers and / or Building 7 of the World Trade Center.  This would have been against the laws of physics.  It could not have occurred and did not occur.

#2)  That the cause of the building collapses was the detonation of explosive demolition charges in a timed sequence placed in the buildings that destroyed the steel columns supporting the buildings.  This is known as “controlled demolition” and it is an organized, systematic process for deliberately for taking down steel framed skyscrapers.

It follows that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the airline defendants were negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack Flight 11 and Flight 175 and fly them into the Twin Towers starting fires in the Twin Towers those plane impacts and fires did not cause or even contribute to the total destruction of the Twin Towers.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence that would absolve of liability, exonerate, or clear of blame, as in a defendant in a lawsuit. 
Those of us in the 9/11 Truth movement are familiar with the evidence that controlled demolition using explosives caused the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7.  The letter named some of this evidence and referred to the NIST final report on Building 7 and the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.

Assuming that American Airlines Flight 11 caused or contributed to the destruction of floors 93 through 110, or 18 floors of the North Tower and that controlled demolition caused the destruction of floors 1 through 92, American Airlines should be held liable for no more than 18 / 110 or about 16.4 per cent of the value of the property damage to the North Tower.

Assuming that United Airlines Flight 175 caused or contributed to the destruction of floors 77 through 110, or 34 floors of the South Tower, and that controlled demolition caused the destruction of floors 1 through 76, United Airlines should be held liable for no more than 34 / 110 or about 31 per cent of the value of the property damage to the South Tower. 
As Graham wrote, “Legal and financial liability for the damage to the floors below should be properly assigned to those who planned and carried out the controlled demolitions.  I do not know who those individuals are.  They are as yet publicly unidentified terrorists.”
If the airline defendants make the affirmative defense that they were not responsible for the total destruction of these buildings because controlled demolition took them down it would surely surprise a lot of people and call into question the official conspiracy theory of the government and mass media that blames Arab hijackers for all of the damage.

                                                            ###


Niloufer Bhagwat presents to the 9/11 Revisited conference in Kuala Lumpur


Corbett Report


 Niloufer Bhagwat, Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at University of Mumbai, presents to the “9/11 Revisted: Seeking the Truth” conference in Kuala Lumpur on November 19, 2012.

 

Thursday, November 29, 2012

WH: Obama 'Is Not Particularly Concerned' Whether Susan Rice Misled the American People


Weekly Standard
Daniel Halper

In response to a question from reporter Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration's mishandling of Benghazi raises "core questions of basic competency," press secretary Jay Carney revealed that Barack Obama "is not particularly concerned" about whether Susan Rice misled the American people:



"What the president is worried about, Major, is what happened and why in Benghazi. He is not particularly concerned about whether the ambassador or I went out and talked about the fact that we believed extremists might have been responsible. And whether we named them as al Qaeda or not does not--no, it certainly doesn't have any bearing on what happened and who was responsible as that investigation was continuing on Benghazi."

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Osama bin Laden Myth


Daily Bell


Paul Craig Roberts

The interview below with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Karachi, Pakistan, daily newspaper, Ummat, and published on September 28, 2001, 17 days after the alleged, but unsubstantiated, al Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon. The interview was sensational. The alleged "mastermind" of 9/11 said that he and al Qaeda had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. The British Broadcasting Corporation's World Monitoring Service had the interview translated into English and made public on September 29, 2001.

Osama bin Laden's sensational denial was not reported by the US print and TV media. It was not investigated by the executive branch. No one in the US Congress called attention to bin Laden's refusal of responsibility for the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on a superpower.

To check my memory of the lack of coverage, I googled "Osama bin Laden's interview denying responsibility for 9/11." Some Internet sites reproduced the interview, but the only mainstream news source that I found was a 1 minute YouTube video from CNN in which the anchor, after quoting an al Jazeera report of bin Laden's denial, concludes that "we can all weigh that in the scale of credibility and come to our own conclusions." In other words, bin Laden had already been demonized, and his denial was not credible.
The sensational news was unfit for US citizens and was withheld from them by the american "free press," a press free to lie for the government but not to tell the truth.

Obviously, if bin Laden had outwitted not only the National Security Agency, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of Washington's NATO puppet states, Israel's Mossad and in addition the National Security Council, NORAD, US air traffic control and airport security four times on the same morning, it would be the greatest feat in world history, a movement-building feat that would have made al Qaeda the most successful anti-imperialist organization in human history, an extraordinary victory over "the great satan" that would have brought millions of new recruits into al Qaeda's ranks. Yet the alleged "mastermind" denied all responsibility.

I remember decades ago when a terrorist attack occurred in Europe, whether real or an Operation Gladio false-flag attack, innumerable organizations would claim credit. Perhaps this was the CIA's way of diverting attention from itself but it illustrates that every intelligence service understands the value to an organization of claiming credit for a successful attack. Although bin Laden denied responsibility, in 2011 some al Qaeda leaders, realizing the prestige value of the 9/11 attack, claimed credit for the attack and criticized Iranian President Ahmadinejad for questioning the official US story.

Although only a few Americans are aware of the September 28, 2001 interview in which bin Laden states his non-involvement with the 9/11 attacks, many Americans have seen post-2001 videos in which a person alleged to be bin Laden takes credit for the attacks. There are two problems with these videos. Experts have examined them and found them to be fakes, and all of the videos appeared after bin Laden was reported by the Pakistan Observer, the Egyptian press and Fox News to have died in mid-December, 2001, from lung disease.

Bin Laden also suffered from kidney disease. According to a CBS news report on January 28, 2002, Osama bin Laden was hospitalized for dialysis treatment in the Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11


Obviously, a man suffering from terminal lung and kidney disease did not survive for another decade to be murdered by a US Navy SEAL team in Abbottabad. A Pakistani TV interview with the neighbor of the alleged "bin Laden compound" exposed the assassination hoax. This sensational interview also went unreported by america's "free press." I had the interview translated, and it is available here. See also this video from the BBC.

Shortly after the alleged assassination 30 members of the SEAL unit died in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan, and now we learn that not a single one of the thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, witnessed bin Laden's alleged burial at sea from that ship. The press reports with a straight face that for unexplained reasons it was kept secret from the ship's sailors. This is supposed to be the explanation of the sailors' emails reporting to family and friends that they witnessed no burial at sea. Some speculate that the SEALs were bumped off before their questions to one another, "Were you on that raid?", reached outside the unit. Apparently, it doesn't strike the media or the public as strange that the US government captured and killed the terror mastermind without interrogating him and without keeping any evidence or presenting any witnesses to support the assassination claim.

Adolf Hitler claimed that communists burned down the Reichstag and that Polish troops had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. With 9/11, Americans experienced Washington's version of these grand lies. An omniscient bin Laden dying from terminal illnesses in distant Afghanistan defeated the American National Security State and drove his attack through the walls of the Pentagon itself, requiring for our defense a "war on terror" that destroyed US civil liberties and financially ruined the country in order to prevent the triumph of a man who died of natural causes in December 2001.

On May 9, 2011, Professor Michel Chossudovsky republished the September 28, 2001, Osama bin Laden interview in Global Research.


Interview with Osama bin Laden. Osama Denies his Involvement in 9/11

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Staged Terror, Fukushima Crime Syndicate, Conspiracy Reality


9/11 Blogger







On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin talks to NYU professor and author of 'Fooled Again', Mark Crispin Miller about voting fraud, 911 and how the term 'Conspiracy Theory' shuts down objective debates. Abby then speaks with Kurt Haskell, Congressional Candidate for Michigan's 7th District, about his experience on the flight with the Christmas day Underwear Bomber that completely contradicts the government's narrative. BTS wraps up the show with a look at the intertwined relationship between the Japanese Yakuza crime syndicate and the nuclear energy industry in Japan.

LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet

FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Fall 1941: Pearl Harbor and The Wars of Corporate America


Global Research
Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels


Myth: The US was forced to declare war on Japan after a totally unexpected Japanese attack on the American naval base in Hawaii on December 7, 1941. On account of Japan’s alliance with Nazi Germany, this aggression automatically brought the US into the war against Germany.

Reality: The Roosevelt administration had been eager for some time to wage war against Japan and sought to unleash such a war by means of the institution of an oil embargo and other provocations. Having deciphered Japanese codes, Washington knew a Japanese fleet was on its way to Pearl Harbor, but welcomed the attack since a Japanese aggression would make it possible to “sell” the war to the overwhelmingly anti-war American public.

An attack by Japan, as opposed to an American attack on Japan, was also supposed to avoid a declaration of war by Japan’s ally, Germany, which was treaty-bound to help only if Japan was attacked. However, for reasons which have nothing to do with Japan or the US but everything with the failure of Germany’s “lightning war” against the Soviet Union, Hitler himself declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, on December 11, 1941.

Fall 1941. The US, then as now, was ruled by a “Power Elite” of industrialists, owners and managers of the country’s leading corporations and banks, constituting only a tiny fraction of its population. Then as now, these industrialists and financiers – “Corporate America” – had close connections with the highest ranks of the army, “the warlords,” as Columbia University sociologist C. Wright Mills, who coined the term “power elite,”[1] has called them, and for whom a few years later a big HQ, known as the Pentagon, would be erected on the banks of the Potomac River.

Indeed, the “military-industrial complex” had already existed for many decades when, at the end of his career as President, and having served it most assiduously, Eisenhower gave it that name. Talking about presidents: in the 1930s and 1940s, again then as now, the Power Elite kindly allowed the American people every four years to choose between two of the elite’s own members – one labelled “Republican,” the other “Democrat,” but few people know the difference – to reside in the White House in order to formulate and administer national and international policies. These policies invariably served – and still serve – the Power Elite’s interests, in other words, they consistently aimed to promote “business” – a code word for the maximization of profits by the big corporations and banks that are members of the Power Elite.

As President Calvin Coolidge candidly put it on one occasion during the 1920s, “the business of America [meaning of the American government] is business.” In 1941, then, the tenant of the White House was a bona fide member of the Power Elite, a scion of a rich, privileged, and powerful family: Franklin D. Roosevelt, often referred to as “FDR”. (Incidentally, the Roosevelt family’s wealth had been built at least partly in the opium trade with China; as Balzac once wrote, “behind every great fortune there lurks a crime.”)

Roosevelt appears to have served the Power Elite rather well, for he already managed to be nominated (difficult!) and elected (relatively easy!) in 1932, 1936, and again in 1940. That was a remarkable achievement, since the “dirty thirties” were hard times, marked by the “Great Depression” as well as great international tensions, leading to the eruption of war in Europe in 1939. Roosevelt’s job – serving the interests of the Power Elite – was far from easy, because within the ranks of that elite opinions differed about how corporate interests could best be served by the President. With respect to the economic crisis, some industrialists and bankers were pretty happy with the President’s Keynesian approach, known as the “New Deal” and involving much state intervention in the economy, while others were vehemently opposed to it and loudly demanded a return to laissez-faire orthodoxy. The Power Elite was also divided with respect to the handling of foreign affairs.

The owners and top managers of many American corporations – including Ford, General Motors, IBM, ITT, and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey, now known as Exxon – liked Hitler a lot; one of them – William Knudsen of General Motors – even glorified the German Führer as “the miracle of the 20th century.”[2] The reason: in preparation for war, the Führer had been arming Germany to the teeth, and the numerous German branch plants of US corporations had profited handsomely from that country’s “armament boom” by producing trucks, tanks and planes in sites such as GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim and Ford’s big plant in Cologne, the Ford-Werke; and the likes of Exxon and Texaco had been making plenty of money by supplying the fuel Hitler’s panzers would need to roll all the way to Warsaw in 1939, to Paris in 1940, and (almost) to Moscow in 1941. No wonder the managers and owners of these corporations helped to celebrate Germany’s victories against Poland and France at a big party in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York on June 26, 1940!

American “captains of industry” like Henry Ford also liked the way Hitler had shut down the German unions, outlawed all labour parties, and thrown the communists and many socialists into concentration camps; they wished Roosevelt would mete out the same kind of treatment to America’s own pesky union leaders and “reds,” the latter still numerous in the 1930s and early 1940s. The last thing those men wanted, was for Roosevelt to involve the US in the war on the side of Germany’s enemies, they were “isolationists” (or “non-interventionists”) and so, in the summer of 1940, was the majority of the American public: a Gallup Poll, taken in September 1940, showed that 88 percent of Americans wanted to stay out of the war that was raging in Europe.[3] Not surprisingly, then, there was no sign whatsoever that Roosevelt might want to restrict trade with Germany, let alone embark on an anti-Hitler crusade. In fact, during the presidential election campaign in the fall 1940, he solemnly promised that “[our] boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”[4]

That Hitler has crushed France and other democratic countries, was of no concern to the US corporate types who did business with Hitler, in fact, they felt that Europe’s future belonged to fascism, especially Germany’s variety of fascism, Nazism, rather than to democracy. (Typically, the chairman of General Motors, Alfred P. Sloan, declared at that time that it was a good thing that in Europe the democracies were giving way “to an alternative [i.e. fascist] system with strong, intelligent, and aggressive leaders who made the people work longer and harder and who had the instinct of gangsters – all of them good qualities”!)[5] And, since they certainly did not want Europe’s future to belong to socialism in its evolutionary, let alone revolutionary (i.e. communist) variety, the US industrialists would be particularly happy when, about one year later, Hitler would finally do what they have long hoped he would do, namely, to attack the Soviet Union in order to destroy the homeland of communism and source of inspiration and support of “reds” all over the world, also in the US.

While many big corporations were engaged in profitable business with Nazi Germany, others now happened to be making plenty of money by doing business with Great Britain. That country – in addition to Canada and other member countries of the British Empire, of course – was Germany’s only remaining enemy from the fall of 1940 until June 1941, when Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union caused Britain and the Soviet Union to become allies. Britain was desperately in need of all sorts of equipment to continue its struggle against Nazi Germany, wanted to purchase much of it in the US, but was unable to make the cash payments required by America’s existing “Cash-and-Carry” legislation. However, Roosevelt made it possible for US corporations to take advantage of this enormous “window of opportunity” when, on March 11, 1941, he introduced his famous Lend-Lease program, providing Britain with virtually unlimited credit to purchase trucks, planes, and other martial hardware in the US. The Lend-Lease exports to Britain were to generate windfall profits, not only on account of the huge volume of business involved but also because these exports featured inflated prices and fraudulent practices such as double billing.

A segment of Corporate America thus began to sympathize with Great Britain, a less “natural” phenomenon than we would now tend to believe. (Indeed, after American independence the ex-motherland had long remained Uncle Sam’s archenemy; and as late the 1930s, the US military still had plans for war against Britain and an invasion of the Canadian Dominion, the latter including plans for the bombing of cities and the use of poison gas.)[6] Some mouthpieces of this corporate constituency, though not very many, even started to favour a US entry into the war on the side of the British; they became known as the “interventionists.” Of course, many if not most big American corporations made money through business with both Nazi Germany and Britain and, as the Roosevelt administration itself was henceforth preparing for possible war, multiplying military expenditures and ordering all sorts of equipment, they also started to make more and more money by supplying America’s own armed forces with all sorts of martial material.[7]

Monday, October 22, 2012

Lebanon Bombing: Impetus for US-NATO Planned Sectarian War


Global Research
Tony Catalucci

It was, starting at least in 2007, the goal of the US, Saudis, and Israelis to trigger a region wide sectarian war with which to overrun the governments of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. This was documented in detail in Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection” which was covered in depth in, “Syrian War: The Prequel.

A recent bombing in Beirut, Lebanon left high ranking security chief Brigadier General Wissam al-Hassan dead. Al-Hassan is described as “anti-Syrian.” Before Al-Hassan’s death was announced, and literally as bodies were still being pulled from the wreckage caused by the bombing, politicians from Saad Hariri’s faction began immediately blaming Syria for the attacks. Hariri himself also laid the blame on Syria, offering no other details or supporting evidence.

Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran have all condemned the bombing and cite it as a provocation to start a greater sectarian war, from which none will benefit. Each in turn suspect Israel and the West, as greater sectarian tension is expected to result, playing into long documented attempts by US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to trigger a sectarian war they hope will be the downfall of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.

Suspicious op-eds in pro-Western “Lebanon Now” insist that Syria is responsible, and again without evidence, concludes that blaming Israel is inappropriate, and that the Wall Street-London militant beachhead is by far a lesser threat to Lebanon than what it calls “the most deadly virus” of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria.

The blast has given impetus to Hariri’s mobs to flood into the streets, who will no doubt portray themselves to be as “spontaneous” and “independent” as US-engineered mobs were throughout the equally premeditated “Arab Spring.”

Hariri in 2007 was, according to US journalist Seymour Hersh, building an armed militant front in northern Lebanon, across the boarder from Homs, Syria. Many of these militants admittedly had direct ties to Al Qaeda, and with US, Israeli, and Saudi support, they were continuously armed, funded, and prepared for the sectarian bloodbath now unfolding. Homs to this day remains as one of the strongholds for terrorist militants operating in Syria.

While the Western media claims it is a shocking revelation that Al Qaeda is “amongst” the fighters attempting to overthrow the Syrian government, it is well documented that it was Al Qaeda from the very beginning who began armed operations against Syria, using Lebanon and Turkey as a base of operations, with explicit support from the West. The operations were carried out under the tenuous cover of “pro-democracy” protests and with a constant torrent of disinformation provided by the Western media.

While the current story in Lebanon develops, it will be useful to understand the role Hariri has so far played. The republished article below, originally posted in May, 2012, is by no means an exhaustive expose of Hariri and his role in executing the foreign agenda driven by Wall Street, London, Tel Aviv, Doha, and Riyadh, which starts well before 2007.

....
Originally posted May 21, 2012 -The United Nations has been inexplicably silent over revelations that the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf states, are arming militants in Syria in direct violation of a UN brokered ceasefire. Additionally, the US has openly threatened to arm Kurd militants in Syria to “rise up” against the government. While in reality this constitutes a greater threat to neighboring Turkey, and perhaps an attempt to motivate Ankara to take a more aggressive stance against Syria, the threat of purposefully inciting more violence in a conflict that has allegedly claimed “10,000? lives, seems not only grossly irresponsible, but a violation of international peace.


Image: A bomb detonates in Syria, May 19, 2012, killing and maiming scores. This is the latest manifestation of overt US and Gulf State military support for terrorists attempting to destabilize and overthrow the Syrian government. The West has planned and prepared years in advance for implementing bloody regime change in Syria and Iran.

....
The West’s meddling in Syria does not end there. Recently, clashes have broken out in Lebanon, revealing a large base of operations supporting the destabilization in neighboring Syria, located along the Lebanese-Syrian border. The significance of this discovery, and extremist groups in Lebanon being directly involved, highlights the veracity of a 2007 New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh titled, “The Redirection,” which exposed a joint US-Israeli-Saudi operation to create a violent extremist front and direct it at Hezbollah in Lebanon, President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and at the Iranian government.

In the article, the fact that these extremist forces had direct ties to Al Qaeda was noted, including the fact that many of these militants either participated in fighting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or were affiliated with groups that did:

“In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.”

According to the Crisis Group report, Saad Hariri later used his parliamentary majority to obtain amnesty for twenty-two of the Dinniyeh Islamists, as well as for seven militants suspected of plotting to bomb the Italian and Ukrainian embassies in Beirut, the previous year. (He also arranged a pardon for Samir Geagea, a Maronite Christian militia leader, who had been convicted of four political murders, including the assassination, in 1987, of Prime Minister Rashid Karami.) Hariri described his actions to reporters as humanitarian.

In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.”" -”The Redirection,” Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker 2007

The report also made mention of extensive US funding behind Hariri’s faction, led then by Fouad Siniora, augmenting the creation of this militant force:

“The United States has also given clandestine support to the Siniora government, according to the former senior intelligence official and the U.S. government consultant. “We are in a program to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shiite influence, and we’re spreading the money around as much as we can,” the former senior intelligence official said. The problem was that such money “always gets in more pockets than you think it will,” he said. “In this process, we’re financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don’t have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don’t like. It’s a very high-risk venture.”

American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.” -”The Redirection,” Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker 2007

It becomes clear then that Lebanon’s recent unrest is a result of a greater gambit targeting not just Syria, but the Hezbollah-Syrian-Iranian sphere of power, following the US-engineered “Arab Spring” installing proxy leaders across the Arab World to specifically support this last leg of geopolitical reordering. Such support has manifested itself as political support from US-proxy president Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia, and similar support from US-installed Libyan Prime Minister Abdurrahim el-Keib, who’s nation has also committed not only arms and cash to Syrian terrorists, but fighters as well.


Image: Saad Hariri, former prime minister of Lebanon, is admittedly a co-conspirator in US-Israeli-Saudi designs to destabilize with militant extremists and violently overthrow the Syrian government. While Hariri feigns anti-Israeli sentiment and makes public calls for Lebanese to refrain from sectarian violence, he is the primary facilitator of both extremists crossing over into Syria, and their creating of chaos in the streets of Lebanon. A 2010 Fortune 500-funded International Crisis Group report describes in detail Hariri’s deep ties, and indeed dependence, on the West.

....
Now, it is reported that “anti-Assad clerics” have been shot by Lebanese soldiers – and just as was seen during the assassination of Rafic Hariri, demagogues are attempting to draw Sunni Muslims into a conflict with Shi’ias. A strategy of tension is being used to divide the Lebanese people into a deadly conflict mirroring the sectarian, not “democracy,” driven unrest ravaging Syria. With Saad Hariri, the US, and Saudi Arabia overtly working to undermine Syrian stability, it appears that all of the characters described by Hersh in 2007 are now openly implementing their plans.

The purposefully nebulous coverage by the Western media over violence in Lebanon so far, and a disingenuous depiction of it being “spill over” from Syria is meant to portray a general sense of chaos consuming the region. In reality, it is a premeditated destabilization dependent on fostering violence between Sunni and Shi’ia Muslims, just as was purposefully done in Iraq to balk an effective Sunni-Shi’ia alliance that achieved initial success fighting a foreign occupation led by the US starting in 2003.

While exposing the premeditated nature of the destabilization consuming Lebanon and Syria is essential, as well as calling for international condemnation of the US for openly attempting to escalate violence in the middle of a mediated ceasefire, calling on people across the Islamic World to refrain from falling into this sectarian trap, and being used as tools of their own division and subjugation by the West is equally important.

Saad Hariri portends that his alliance with the US, Israel, and the Saudis is simply an attempt to protect “Sunnis” from a “Shi’ia threat.” In reality, as empires have done all throughout history, Hariri’s invitation to the West to meddle in his own nation’s affairs will open the door to the destruction and dismemberment of not only his enemies, but inevitably his own movement as well. A faction too weak to fight its rivals is certainly too weak to fight an invited foreign imperial power that decides to overstay its welcome. A strategy of tension is at play in the Islamic World, the trap set, hatred for Israel and rival ideologies the bait. Time will answer the question, “have the people of the world learned enough collectively to avoid it?”

Saturday, October 20, 2012

False Flag Prediction: U.S.S. Enterprise




From comments by Mike Rivero from www.whatreallyhappened.com

Now this is more prevalent than when it was first made 9 months ago. In just one week, the United States will have three aircraft carriers facing Iran, the number usually regarded as sufficient for a state of war.

In response to this build-up, along with exercises involving the US, UK and Middle Eastern countries focused around clearing mines in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has launched a Tareq-901 submarine and a Sahand destroyer into the Gulf from the port of Bandar Abbas.

It seems abundantly clear that if there is to be an "October surprise" which will decide the US presidential election one way or the other, it will involve Iran and it will happen within the next two weeks.

Last month, lobbyist Patrick Clawson stoked controversy when he urged the United States to stage or provoke an attack in order to create a manufactured casus belli for striking Iran. Please re-distribute this vid as much as you can.


Wednesday, October 17, 2012

FALSE FLAG PREDICTION: WHITE HOUSE INSIDER – BIN LADEN VERSION 2

The Ulsterman Report
This just came from Insider:
Have a heads up for you.  This comes directly from the Old Man.  Military intelligence may have tracked location of a guy called “Khattalah” who apparently organized the Benghazi attack.  Check media reports for name.  Obama to order drone strikes or possible all out bombing operation.  Says it appears imminent.  Obama will then make claim “perpetrators brought to justice” to squash Benghazi questions and play part of hero.  “Bin Laden Version 2 “  If accurate, this scenario would fit with the earlier rescue operation scenario you had sent me earlier.  That went to sh-t so now they are recalibrating the same general idea with an updated version of it.
I have not heard anything resembling something this specific.  Doing double time trying to confirm.  Nobody in Romney camp aware of this.  Or if they are, not tipping their hand.
This has me worried.  Old Man attempting to get in front of it be he’s got his hands full with other critical Europe related issues.  Says he has source in Libya but has been unable to locate. ?????  Tone of his message suggests more worried than me.  And I’m pretty panicked about this.
Any ideas?
-INSIDER
_______________________
NOTE:  
If this scenario is in fact true, and given Insider’s track record I have no reason to believe something along these lines is not being attempted (and the fact it comes from WSI – and likely then  MI, makes that assertion even more so) hopefully enough figures in D.C. can be made aware who will then, as Insider put it, “get out in front of it”.
I certainly understand Insider’s concern here – this kind of scenario, if successful, would likely diminish much if not all the current questions surrounding the administration regarding the Benghazi Massacre – at least until after the election.  Therefore, it would all but halt the entire build up to make Barack Obama accountable for not only the tragedy in Libya, but the subsequent attempted cover-up form his administration that followed.   In the meantime, Obama would be allowed to play the part of Commander in Chief, once again having “made the call” and brought America’s enemies to justice – this time just before Election Day.
Those around Barack Obama would once again have successfully created a political victory out of deception.
-UM