Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.


Category: 911 Cover-up

By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
July 28, 2015

Last week, Retired General Wesley Clark, who was NATO commander during the US bombing of Serbia, proposed that “disloyal Americans” be sent to internment camps for the “duration of the conflict.” Discussing the recent military base shootings in Chattanooga, TN, in which five US service members were killed, Clark recalled the internment of American citizens during World War II who were merely suspected of having Nazi sympathies. He said: “back then we didn’t say ‘that was freedom of speech,’ we put him in a camp.”

He called for the government to identify people most likely to be radicalized so we can “cut this off at the beginning.” That sounds like “pre-crime”!

Gen. Clark ran for president in 2004 and it’s probably a good thing he didn’t win considering what seems to be his disregard for the Constitution. Unfortunately in the current presidential race Donald Trump even one-upped Clark, stating recently that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is a traitor and should be treated like one, implying that the government should kill him.

These statements and others like them most likely reflect the frustration felt in Washington over a 15 year war on terror where there has been no victory and where we actually seem worse off than when we started. The real problem is they will argue and bicker over changing tactics but their interventionist strategy remains the same.

Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, who was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, told al-Jazeera this week that US drones create more terrorists than they kill. He said: “The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just … fuels the conflict.”

Still Washington pursues the same strategy while expecting different results.

It is probably almost inevitable that the warhawks will turn their anger inward, toward Americans who are sick of the endless and costly wars. The US loss of the Vietnam war is still blamed by many on the protesters at home rather than on the foolishness of the war based on a lie in the first place.

Let’s hope these threats from Clark and Trump are not a trial balloon leading to a clampdown on our liberties. There are a few reasons we should be concerned. Last week the US House passed a bill that would allow the Secretary of State to unilaterally cancel an American citizen’s passport if he determines that person has “aided” or “abetted” a terrorist organization. And as of this writing, the Senate is debating a highway funding bill that would allow the Secretary of State to cancel the passport of any American who owes too much money to the IRS.

Read more

by Matthew Harwood
July 24, 2015
The Future of Freedom Foundation

Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World
by Tom Engelhardt (Haymarket Books 2014), 200 pages.

“A shadow government has conquered twenty-first-century Washington. We have the makings of a thug state of the first order.”
No two sentences more clearly and disturbingly summarize what Tom Engelhardt’s Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World is about: a Leviathan national-security state rampaging around the world in pursuit of perfect security and creating chaos wherever it puts its grotesque girth down.

The editor of, which he launched in November 2001, Engelhardt has spent the last 13 years trying to understand our post–9/11 world, where al-Qaeda’s atrocities in lower Manhattan, Northern Virginia, and a field in Pennsylvania led the United States to shed any pretense of being a democracy and embrace its imperial ambitions without reservation. (Full disclosure: I’m a regular contributor to The book itself is a collection of TomDispatch pieces originally published between 2011 and 2014, modestly revised and updated, and woven into book form. Whether it’s torture, kidnapping, weaponized drones strikes, special forces’ raids, or the rise of the surveillance state, Engelhardt has been there to document the corruption and savage violence that has seeped into our nation’s policymakers and warriors, who obey no restrictions — whether legal or moral — to their ambitions of total global domination.

And have no doubt: This is a book about corruption.

There’s no other word that better describes how in little more than a decade, the Pentagon and the intelligence community and their legions of contractors have mutated into a shadow government that is the antithesis of what the United States is supposed to stand for: an open, democratic nation that understands there are limits to the power it wields at home and overseas. But these wolves don’t dress themselves up as sheep, but as shepherds protecting the American people from the predators that would devour them if their vigilance ever faltered.

Our new state religion

Engelhardt sees this national-security state — this Deep State so often shrouded in secrecy — led by proselytizers of a warrior religion. “The leaders of this faith-based system are, not surprisingly, fundamentalist true believers,” he observes.

Read more

Officials Said Pollard Likely to Be Released by the End of 2015

by Jason Ditz
July 24, 2015

In a move which officials are “strongly denying” is related to the ongoing Israeli fury about the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama Administration is said to be preparing for the release of Jonathan Pollard, who has been in a federal prison for decades after being convicted of spying on behalf of Israel. Officials have further denied that any decision was actually finalized on the release.

The Texas-born Pollard was a civilian employee of the US Navy and was caught handing large amounts of classified documents to Israeli agents. He and his wife later insisted that they felt they had a “moral obligation” as Jews to spy on behalf of the Israeli government. He was sentenced to life in prison in 1987.

Israel granted Pollard citizenship retroactively in 1995, while in prison, and Israeli governments have repeatedly sought his release. The Netanyahu government has picked up the pace on this, trying to “trade” concessions on the stalled peace process with the Palestinians for Pollard, something the US has repeatedly spurned.

Despite official denials, there is a clear link between US efforts to buy off the Israeli government to get them to stop railing daily about the Iran nuclear deal. The US is also expected to offer a one-time bonus of extra military equipment in the realm of $4 billion as part of the “reparations” for the deal.

US intelligence officials are said to strongly oppose Pollard’s release, particularly if it is done as part of a diplomatic exchange instead of a tit-for-tat trade of spies, the preferred method of settling long-standing detention of spies.

Read more

By John W. Whitehead
April 27, 2015
The Rutherford Institute

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the American people of any vestige of freedom. How can there be any semblance of freedom when there are tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, Blackhawk helicopters and armed drones patrolling overhead?

It was for this reason that those who established America vested control of the military in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. They did not want a military government, ruled by force. Rather, they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, with the Constitution under constant attack, the military’s power, influence and authority have grown dramatically. Even the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force, has been weakened by both Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who ushered in exemptions allowing troops to deploy domestically and arrest civilians in the wake of alleged terrorist acts.

Now we find ourselves struggling to retain some semblance of freedom in the face of police and law enforcement agencies that look and act like the military and have just as little regard for the Fourth Amendment, laws such as the NDAA that allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, and military drills that acclimate the American people to the sight of armored tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and combat aircraft patrolling overhead.

Making matters worse, we find out that the military plans to use southwestern states as staging grounds for guerilla warfare drills in which highly-trained military troops equipped with all manner of weapons turn American towns and cities in quasi-battlefields. Why? As they tell us, it’s so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory.

They’ve even got a name for the exercise: Jade Helm 15.

Read more

Pro-Israel group to fly hundreds of supporters into Washington next week to sway Congress to shoot down nuclear deal

By Ron Kampeas
July 23, 2015
The Times of Israel

Hundreds of pro-Israel activists from across the country will descend on Capitol Hill next week to press members of Congress to reject the nuclear deal with Iran.

The July 28-29 fly-in, which will bring to this city some of the most dedicated of the 100,000-strong membership of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is part of a multi-pronged effort by the pro-Israel lobby aimed at killing the agreement reached between Iran and the world powers on July 14.

The campaign, according to top pro-Israel officials who briefed reporters on Wednesday, will also include TV ads by a new AIPAC-backed nonprofit dedicated to killing the deal, calls and emails by activists to their congressional representatives, and attendance at town hall meetings lawmakers are expected to convene during the August congressional recess.

Congress has two months to consider the deal, and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and Senate has indicated there will be a vote. If the lawmakers vote to disapprove, President Barack Obama has said he will veto their action. If congressional opponents can manage to muster the two-thirds majority in both chambers necessary to override a veto, it will kill the deal.

Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, the AIPAC-backed nonprofit, has raised nearly $30 million to run ads in 40 states, said one of the pro-Israel officials who had been briefed on the group.

Read more

Daniel McAdams
July 21, 2015

Revolutions most often become horrific parodies as they inevitably turn inward on their own people. The former subjects of Louis XVI soon understood liberté, égalité, fraternité to in fact mean the guillotine. In the name of fighting one’s enemies, the regime takes to cannibalizing its own citizens, as the motion of the action requires the “enemies” list to orient ever more inwardly.

Which brings us to the matter of HR 237, a bill to “[t]o authorize the revocation or denial of passports and passport cards to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, and for other purposes,” coming to the Floor of the US House today on, of all things, the “suspension calendar.” This “suspension calendar” accommodates bills that are traditionally considered uncontroversial in nature and thus not requiring the full daylight of a thorough Congressional debate.

Think: renaming post offices.

Under the “suspension of the rules,” bills can be brought to the Floor without going through the rules process and thus not be eligible for any amendment or substantive debate. Forty minutes of mostly praise and usually a voice-vote of approval and the “suspension” is on its way to becoming the law of the land.

As my old colleague Norman Singleton brings to light, HR 237 is hardly uncontroversial. It gives the US Secretary of State the power to revoke the passport of any American he determines has “aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”

This means the Secretary of State can, unilaterally, with no due process and no oversight, deprive an American citizen the privileges of citizenship, thus relegating him to internal exile inside the United States — a practice most recently perfected in the Soviet Union.

What does the word “aided” mean? No one knows. Is there any wiggle room for inadvertency? No one knows. And what about the very political nature of the US “terror” list in the first place? What if I seemed to have winked approvingly at an MeK demonstration on September 27, 2012, the day before the US Secretary of State unilaterally decided that this Marxist-jihadist terror cult, which has murdered American citizens, should no longer be on the US terror list? Would that one day’s lapse cost me my ability to leave the US?

Read more

Gen. Wesley Clark exposes the rotten soul of modern American liberalism

by Justin Raimondo
July 20, 2015

Wesley Clark, the retired general who almost started World War III with Russia, has a bright idea: why not set up internment camps for “radicalized” Americans in order to stanch the threat of domestic terrorism?

Yes, he actually said this, and, what’s more, MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts didn’t even raise a well-manicured eyebrow. The interview took place in the context of MSNBC’s reporting on the Chattanooga shooting, and Roberts asked him what could be done to prevent such incidents. Here is Clark’s answer:

“We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don’t get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn’t feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.

“But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.

“So, if these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.”

Read more

July 17, 2015
Interview of Paul Craig Roberts

The crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 has been used to enforce sanctions against Russia and is fundamental to Washington’s efforts to break the Russia-Europe relationship, Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the US Treasury, tells RT.

RT: It’s been a year since the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine, which claimed the lives of all 298 people onboard. Eastern Ukraine was a war zone at the time – yet the Ukrainian authorities haven’t closed the airspace, allowing civil flights over the area. What was behind their inaction?

Paul Craig Roberts: I think they intended for the airliner to be shot down. The latest evidence is that it was shot down by air, by a Ukrainian jet fighter using a missile. This is the best evidence we have at this time. What is suspicious about this is that the instant that the airliner was reported to have been shot down, the entirety of the Western media was already programmed to blame Russia. Before there was any evidence, before there was any explanation, we had all of the Western media blaming Russia – even the BBC, which used to be a respectable news organization. So this suggests the whole thing was preplanned.

And if you look at the development of this we see that Ukraine has not released any information about its contacts with the airliner. And we see that Washington, which had a spy satellite directly over the area at the time, refuses to release its information. So the only information we have comes from the Russians, and the Russians say that if this had happened on a ground-to-air missile, this Buk system, that their radar in Rostov would have picked it up and yet it shows no such happening.

So I think the reason that we can’t get to the bottom of this is that it’s been used against Russia by Washington in order to break off Russia’s relationships with Europe. It’s the foundation of the sanctions and it’s part of Washington trying to break up the political and economic relationships between Russia and Europe. In my opinion, all the evidence we have, as of this time, supports no other conclusion.

RT: A year on after the tragedy, there is still no conclusive proof as to what brought down the plane. However the US continues to point the finger at anti-government forces. Why is that?

PCR: The US is based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine, and this doctrine says that with the collapse of the Soviet Union there are no longer any constraints on Washington’s ability to act unilaterally anywhere in the world. And yet Putin has brought Russia back as a formidable country, a country with economic and military power and so Russia can now be an obstacle to – for example – Obama’s planned invasion of Syria, or Washington’s planned attack on Iran over alleged nuclear weapon that doesn’t exist. And it was Russia’s ability to prevent war from Washington to Syria, to Iran that caused Washington to say “Hey look, we’ve got to do something about the Russians” and moreover “Look, for heaven’s sake, Europe is now dependent on Russian energy, the Russian gas. We are going to lose our vassal states and if we lose our vassal states in Europe we lose NATO and we lose the ability to bring conflict to Russia and we can’t have Russia rising as a power, so what can we do? Oh, we’ll overthrow Ukraine! And if we overthrow Ukraine we can use this in many ways to cause problems for Russia; it can cause problems with Russian national security, with Russia’s relations to Europe, and so on.”

Read more

911 Blogger

A number of senior officials in the United States government and military gave warnings in the week before September 11, 2001, or early on the morning of September 11, that seem to have predicted the 9/11 attacks with chilling accuracy.

These men–as is described below–voiced concerns that Osama bin Laden would carry out an attack in the U.S. in the near future; warned that an al-Qaeda attack that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Americans could happen “at any time”; expressed concern that terrorists would attack the World Trade Center; warned about a “seminal event” occurring in the U.S. in which “hundreds, if not thousands” of Americans would be killed; said that “someone [is] going to attack us in a fashion we did not anticipate”; warned that “something big” was about to happen; and suggested the possibility of an attack taking place that would be equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, in which over 2,400 Americans died.

The six officials who issued these warnings were Charles Nemfakos, deputy under secretary of the Navy; Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command; John O’Neill, head of security at the World Trade Center who had previously been a senior FBI agent; Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief; Kirk Lippold, commander of the USS Cole when it was attacked by terrorists in October 2000; and Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense.

The accuracy of these men’s warnings and the fact that the warnings were given so soon before 9/11 certainly appears suspicious. We need to consider, therefore, if the content and timing of the warnings, in relation to the 9/11 attacks, was just a coincidence or the result of something more sinister. Were the men who gave the warnings perhaps just very perceptive? Or did at least some of them know that a major attack was about to take place?

If any of these officials knew in advance that a terrorist attack was going to take place in the U.S. on September 11, the imminent catastrophe would surely have been on their minds in the days leading up to it. They may therefore have been inclined to–perhaps inadvertently–make indirect references to what they knew was about to happen and this could be why they gave warnings that appear to have been prescient of the 9/11 attacks.


The day before 9/11, Charles Nemfakos, deputy under secretary of the Navy, said that before it addressed the weaknesses in its defense policy, the United States would need to suffer an attack equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in 1941 that led America to enter World War II.

On September 10, 2001, Nemfakos–the “number three official in the Navy,” according to Defense Week magazine–gave a briefing to a group of civilian employees of the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) in Crane, Indiana. The NSWC employees had come to Washington, DC, to interact with some of the Navy’s top officials and complete a program for a certificate in public management.

During the briefing, one of the NSWC employees has recalled, someone asked Nemfakos “what it would take for America’s defense policy to be clear and concise in the 21st century.” In response, Nemfakos said that “he felt an event equivalent to Pearl Harbor, either terrorist or military, would be the only event that would awaken the United States from the complacency and security they have had since the end of the Vietnam [War] era.” [1]

The fact that Nemfakos made this comment on September 10 is quite chilling, since the attack on the U.S. the following day was immediately likened to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were, for example, described as “another Pearl Harbor,” “the second Pearl Harbor,” “the Pearl Harbor of American terrorism,” and an event that “rivals if not exceeds the attack on Pearl Harbor.” [2] An Internet search by the San Francisco Chronicle two days after 9/11 found “747 stories in newspapers and other publications mentioning both the World Trade Center and Pearl Harbor.” [3] Among the similarities between the two events, the death tolls were relatively close. In the attack on Pearl Harbor, 2,403 Americans and 64 Japanese died. [4] In the 9/11 attacks, 2,996 people died. [5]


Nemfakos was a powerful man. He “exerted more day-to-day influence than anyone else in the Navy during the latter half of the 1990s,” Defense Week reported. Betty Welch, then-deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for civilian personnel and equal employment opportunity, said in 2000, “It’s Charlie Nemfakos who controls the Navy probably more than anybody else.” [6]

Interestingly, in the 12 months before September 11, Nemfakos attended some “high-powered war games” that took place at the World Trade Center and seem to have helped prepare the American financial and national security communities for the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The war games were part of an initiative called the “New Rule Sets Project.”

The New Rule Sets Project was a research partnership between Wall Street bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald and the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. [7] It brought together “divergent groups of experts” in order to “assess global issues that will affect U.S. national security in coming decades,” Defense News reported. [8] Thomas Barnett, the project’s director, said it “explored the future of globalization and what could threaten globalization, and what would be new definitions of international instability and crisis.”

The project involved the running of a number of sophisticated war game workshops. Three of these were held at Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 107th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. [9] Each workshop was attended by about 30 participants, including “Wall Street CEOs, subject matter experts from academia and think tanks, and national security heavyweights from the White House and from the Pentagon,” according to Barnett. Nemfakos was listed as a participant at the second and third of the workshops at Windows on the World, held in October 2000 and June 2001 respectively. [10]

The New Rule Sets Project apparently served as good preparation for the challenges of the post-9/11 world. Barnett has commented that the shock of the 9/11 attacks effectively told the U.S. political system and national security community, “Hey, here’s a new way of thinking about crisis and instability and threats in the world, and we have got to have new rules for dealing with this.” [11] He said that after 9/11, his research with the New Rule Sets Project “immediately shifted from grand theory to grand strategy.” [12]


Three days before Charles Nemfakos talked about the need for “an event equivalent to Pearl Harbor,” Army General Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), made equally prophetic remarks. Specifically, he said his biggest fear was that there would be a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center.

On September 7, 2001, Franks talked to his intelligence staff at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, about what he considered to be the major threats facing America throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. After he finished his presentation, a young sergeant asked him, “General, what keeps you up at night?”

Franks replied, “The thought of one tower of the World Trade Center collapsing into the other tower, killing thousands of people,” according to Computerworld magazine. In his memoir, Franks described giving a slightly different answer. He wrote that he replied, “A terrorist attack against the World Trade Center in New York.” [13] As Canada’s Globe and Mail noted, “Four days later, that’s exactly what happened.” [14]

What is more, Franks had made other remarks that were apparently prescient of 9/11 a few months earlier. In a speech to the Operations Security Professionals Society in late June 2001, he warned, “The asymmetric threat is serious, and deserves our focused thought and preparation.” (“Asymmetric warfare threats,” according to the Washington Times, “include efforts by weaker powers to defeat stronger ones using attacks that can include weapons of mass destruction, the use of computer-based information warfare, and terrorism.”) Franks continued, “The point is to avoid another Pearl Harbor-like event by recognizing the threat and preparing to meet this growing challenge.” [15]

Less than three months after Franks made these comments, the U.S. suffered an attack that, according to the official account, was an example of “asymmetric warfare” and was immediately compared to the attack on Pearl Harbor. On the evening of September 11, according to his own recollections, Franks actually thought to himself, “Today is like Pearl Harbor.” [16]

After 9/11, Franks became “one of three men running the Bush administration’s military campaign against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization,” ABC News reported. [17] He led the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. [18]


One man, John O’Neill, gave two separate warnings on the day before 9/11 that were chillingly prophetic of what happened on September 11.

O’Neill had, since August 23, 2001, been director of security at the World Trade Center. Prior to that, he spent 25 years as an FBI agent and, from January 1997, had been special agent in charge of the national security division of the FBI’s New York office. While at the FBI, according to the New Yorker, he “became the bureau’s most committed tracker of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists.” He was at the World Trade Center on September 11 and, unfortunately, was killed when the Twin Towers collapsed. [19]

On the morning of September 10, 2001, O’Neill met Raymond Powers, the director of security at the Rockefeller Center, to discuss various security issues. The two men’s conversation eventually turned to the subject of Osama bin Laden. According to journalist and author Murray Weiss, O’Neill told Powers that “he was sure bin Laden would attack on American soil and expected him to target the Twin Towers again.” “It’s going to happen,” he said. “And it looks like something big is brewing.” [20]

O’Neill again expressed his fear of an imminent al-Qaeda attack that evening, when he went out with a couple of his friends: Robert Tucker, a security company executive, and Jerome Hauer, the former director of New York’s Office of Emergency Management.

At one point in the evening, the three men talked about bin Laden. According to Hauer, O’Neill said: “We’re due. And we’re due for something big.” He added: “Some things have happened in Afghanistan. I don’t like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.” He then said, “I sense a shift and I think things are going to happen.” Asked when they would happen, he replied, “I don’t know, but soon.” [21]

O’Neill had made similar predictions on earlier occasions. In October 2000, for example, while he was in Yemen, he talked several times with FBI agent Pat Patterson about what bin Laden’s next target might be. He said he believed the World Trade Center–which was bombed by terrorists in 1993–would be attacked again. “John was convinced of it,” Patterson has recalled. He’d said, “They definitely want to bring that building down.” [22]

O’Neill voiced his concerns again around August 2001, when he talked with his friend Chris Isham. When O’Neill said he had just got the job as head of security at the World Trade Center, Isham joked: “That will be an easy job. They’re not going to bomb that place again.” But O’Neill retorted: “Actually, they’ve always wanted to finish that job. I think they’re going to try again.” [23]


Strangely, despite his apparent concern about al-Qaeda carrying out an attack in the United States, O’Neill told Congressional staffers there was no threat to aviation. Cathal Flynn recalled that at some unstated time between 1993 and 2000, when he was head of security for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FAA, the FBI, and the director of central intelligence about threats to civil aviation. O’Neill went to the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, to respond on behalf of the FBI. But when Senate Intelligence Committee staffers asked, “What are the threats to aviation?” according to Flynn, “John O’Neill said there are none.”

Flynn was surprised at O’Neill’s answer, because there had been a “few indications the FBI had received,” such as information about a suspicious individual who had tried to get “a job with airport access” at Los Angeles International Airport. Flynn wrote O’Neill a note asking about this incident. But, Flynn recalled, O’Neill “looked at the note” and “still didn’t say anything, didn’t change what he had said.” As the two men left the meeting, Flynn again asked O’Neill about the incident and O’Neill told him there was “nothing to it.” [24]

Bruce Butterworth, the FAA’s director of civil aviation security operations from 1995 to 2000, has described the same event. He said he remembered O’Neill’s “testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee wherein he was unwilling to corroborate FAA claims about credible threats to civil aviation.” [25]

Read more

13 July, 2015
By Pepe Escobar

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin (L) and President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping (RIA Novosti / Maksim Blinov) / RIA Novosti

As austerity-ravaged Europe watches its undemocratic “institutions” grapple with the Greek tragedy, and the US backtracks on a fair nuclear deal with Iran, geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting in the Urals.

Can you feel an inchoate multipolar world? Well, just look right here at the BRICS 2015 Ufa declaration. The EU is hardly featured in the BRICS declaration and not by accident.

Forget about the dead on arrival G7. This – the joint BRICS/SCO summit – is the real deal in 2015. Russia’s diplomatic masterstroke was to merge two summits – BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – with a third, informal meeting of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).

After all, some nations with leaders present in Ufa are members of at least one of these organizations. But the absolute key point is that getting BRICS, SCO and EEU leaders in one place packs a graphic punch about the emergence of a coordinated, Eurasia-wide, and in some aspects worldwide drive towards a more equitable world order not dictated by exceptionalists.

And then there’s Iran. President Rouhani met President Putin in Ufa to discuss a formidable range of topics. Not least the coming acceptance of Iran as a member of the SCO, assuming there is a deal in Vienna and after UN sanctions are lifted.

Right on cue, and also not by accident, US President Barack Obama issued marching orders to Secretary of State John Kerry to backtrack from some positions the entire Iran/P5+1 diplomatic corps was already taking for granted – as a top Iranian negotiator confirmed to me in Vienna.

So here’s the not-so-veiled message to Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif: Iran will be “punished” for getting too close to Moscow.

Have strategy, will travel

Only Russia is a member of all three organizations – BRICS, SCO and EEU. Russia and China are key members of two – BRICS and SCO. The Russia-driven EEU is slowly but surely merging with the China-driven New Silk Roads. The key structural framework is the ever-solidifying Russia-China strategic partnership.

As the Pentagon remains self-absorbed in its 2002-concocted Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine, Russia and China counterpunch with full spectrum cooperation on politics, economics, finance, diplomacy and defense.

The endgame – which will be the apex of the current New Great Game in Eurasia – is a new global geopolitical structure anchored on Eurasian integration. Thus the importance of Iran: no matter what happens in Vienna, Iran is the vital hub/node in Eurasia.

The road has been long for the SCO. I remember when Euro-bureaucrats only a few years ago dismissed it as a mere talk shop. What started as a security forum to integrate the Central Asian “stans” so they would not be ravaged by terrorism and extremism evolved into a serious economic/political organization.

So now the SCO is starting to add to, and draw upon, the BRICS’s ever expanding economic cooperation, which features two essential pillars: the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS’s New Development Bank (NDB). As for the EEU, it is also indirectly linked to China, as part of the Russia-China strategic partnership.

This will all translate in the next few years into a complex maze of economic and trade/commerce networks traversing Eurasia. Call it the road map of the myriad New Silk Road(s).

Read more

Better Tag Cloud