Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Category: General

Muammar Qaddafi learned the hard way how the U.S. reneges on deals.

By Robert W. Merry
October 10, 2017
The American Conservative


Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan chief of state, attends the 12th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Feb. 2, 2009. He was killed during the 2011 U.S.-led military intervention in Libya. (Credit: U.S. Navy)

Word is out that President Trump this week will “decertify” the nuclear deal with Iran, also known as JCPOA, for Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This is the deal struck with Tehran not only by the United States but also by France, Germany, Russia, China, the UK, and the European Union. It’s a nifty word, “decertify.” It hides the real meaning of Trump’s planned action. The correct word is “renege.”

That’s a loaded word in polite society. It characterizes a person or organization or nation that doesn’t care about his or its character sufficiently to live up to his or its commitments and promises. To say someone has reneged on an agreement is to call into question that person’s honesty, self-respect, and sense of honor.

Trump is called upon every 90 days, based on the Iran Nuclear Review Act, to certify whether Iran is living up to the JCPOA deal, which suspended economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic in exchange for Tehran freezing, for 15 years, whatever nuclear weapons development it may have been engaged in. Trump hates the deal, as he has made clear since the beginning of the 2016 election cycle, and he doesn’t want to go on record saying Iran is living up to it.

But it is. That’s the judgment of all the other signatories to the agreement, as well as the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, which has issued eight separate certifications of compliance since the deal was struck in 2015. According to news reports, when Trump previously certified Iranian compliance, he did so reluctantly and only under pressure from his three top foreign policy and national security staffers—Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Defense Secretary James Mattis. This time around, apparently, he doesn’t plan to listen to those officials.

But what are the consequences when a nation reneges on a solemn agreement with not just another nation but six other nations and a union of many more—with the entire world watching? How do other nations deal with a country that blithely casts aside the commitments it accepted through what were assumed to be good-faith negotiations?

Read more

by Stephen Lendman
Oct. 9, 2017

Most important is loyalty to monied interests, war-profiteers, and the imperial state – serving as their press agents, abandoning fundamental journalistic principles, learning how to lie well, along with leaving honesty and integrity at home when heading for work.

Julian Assange offered his own recommended strategy for success. It’s simple, he said. Blame Russia for everything.

“You can do it” – without really trying.

“1) Pick random globally newsworthy event.

Russian press will also be reporting it by definition.

2) Write story: Russian state secretly behind globally newsworthy event as proved by their press reporting it.

3) Profit!”

Bashing Russia works, the bandwagon effect when everybody does it, following the same script.

Saying it makes it so. Repeating it ad nauseam works best. Lying is simpler than truth-telling – no evidence needed, no sources required.

Citing the usual unnamed ones works fine. Who’ll check? Lying pays well in America and other Western countries, truth-tellers shunted, contradicting the official narrative not tolerated.

Western major media are deplorable, truth-telling a lost art in their publications and broadcasts. The fourth estate, dominated by corporate giants, feature disinformation, fake news and advocacy instead of what legitimate journalism is supposed to be.

Read more

October 8, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

According to this report, YouTube has shut down all independent media coverage of the Las Vegas shooting in a desperate maneuver to protect the official narrative. https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-06-youtube-moves-to-shut-down-all-independent-media-coverage-of-las-vegas-shooting-desperate-maneuver-to-protect-the-official-narrative.html

I cannot attest to the truth of this report. However, it has been brought to my attention that the video made from inside the hospital, which I provided in a link in my article http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/07/las-vegas-final-comment/ , of what appears to be crisis actors carrying pretend wounded into the hospital has been taken down by YouTube. Clearly, if there are real wounded carried to the hospital, why at the same time have crisis actors acting the part? It seems obvious to me that the video was taken down, because those being carried are clearly not wounded and are not being handled in a professional way.

I am aware of books by former insiders that describe the CIA’s alliance with members of the media. When I was a member of the congressional staff, I was warned of the Washington Post’s collaboration with the CIA. And we have the case of Udo Ulfkotte, whose book, “Purchased Journalism,” was a best seller in Germany, but the English translation was yanked from the market. Ulfkotte, an editor with one of Germany’s main newspapers, wrote that he and most European journalists post articles handed to them by the CIA.

The way that the One Percent rules is by controlling the explanations. They do that through official statements endlessly parroted by the presstitutes who have sold their souls.

Remember, the presstitutes sold to the public the false story of “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” the false story of “Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” the false story of “Iranian nukes,” the false stories about Gaddafi, about “Russian invasion of Ukraine,” about Afghanistan, and on and on. When the presstitutes are willing to lie at the expense of the destruction of millions of peoples, the infrastructures of the countries, and millions of refugees inflicted upon Europe, how can we believe the presstitutes about Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc., especially when contradictions in the official stories are never cleared up and in place of hard evidence we are given only assertions and photoshopped photos?

Senator Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said two days ago that the committee’s investigation of Russiagate uncovered “quite a few” news outlets that ran stories that were not factual about Russiagate. He said “we will use the findings of our report to let the American people hold every news organization accountable for what they portrayed as fact.” http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/06/russiagate-ciamedia-invention/

Government in the United States and the media whores that service government agendas have an immense credibility problem. We cannot rely on the veracity of any government or media statement. Like the boy who cried “wolf,” Washington and the presstitutes have made it impossible to know when they are telling the truth.


It’s part and parcel of the “Russia-gate” hoax

by Justin Raimondo
October 05, 2017
Antiwar.com

The latest “news” about Russia-gate is the contention that “Russian-linked” ad buyers purchased $100,000 worth of targeted Facebook ads during the 2016 presidential election. For the most part these ads didn’t urge support for any particular candidate, but, we’re told, they were “divisive,” “controversial,” and definitely Not Very Nice. So what did the ads say? Oh, that’s a secret that’s being closely guarded by all involved. Facebook is refusing to release the ads, and the congressional committee that’s investigating them – yes, our solons are on the case! – also refuses to say what the ads actually said: we’re just supposed to take their word for it that the ads were part of a Sinister Russian Conspiracy to Destroy Our Democracy.

So who were these mysterious Russians who were buying “divisive” Facebook ads that, we’re told, may have handed the election to Donald J. Trump for a measly $100,000 – and where’s the evidence they were Russians? Well, that’s also a secret. The many articles detailing this dark plot only tell us that the ads were “Russian-linked,” or, at best, “bought by Russians.” Which Russians? Do these people have names? Well, apparently not, but the name of an alleged organization does keep coming up: the “Internet Research Agency.”

We are told this Agency “has many names,” according to conspiracy theorist Adrian Chen. Writing in the New York Times, Chen claims that mysterious Russian oligarchs fund the elusive organization, which keeps moving its headquarters so as to remain undetected by the inquisitive Russian media. (Hey, I thought the Russian media was entirely under the control of Vladimir Putin!) Chen’s narrative is that the evil Russkies run gigantic “troll farms” that spend their time and energy pushing “fake news” – such as the story that there was a huge explosion at a chemical plant in Louisiana. Chen writes:

“Around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 11 last year, Duval Arthur, director of the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness for St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, got a call from a resident who had just received a disturbing text message. ‘Toxic fume hazard warning in this area until 1:30 PM,’ the message read. ‘Take Shelter. Check Local Media and columbiachemical.com.’”

It turned out to be a prank, dismissed as such by Mr. Arthur, but according to Chen it was all part of a Russian plot to do – what? It’s not at all clear. Chen claims that a whole panoply of internet phenomena – blog posts, YouTube videos, Twitter postings, etc. – were created in order to make it look like a real disaster was in the making in Louisiana. Chen describes two other hoaxes: one claiming that Ebola had broken out in Atlanta, and another that pushed a fake story about an unarmed African-American woman who had supposedly been shot by police (Chen doesn’t specify the alleged location.) “Who was behind all of this?” asks Chen:

“When I stumbled on it last fall, I had an idea. I was already investigating a shadowy organization in St. Petersburg, Russia, that spreads false information on the internet. It has gone by a few names, but I will refer to it by its best known: the Internet Research Agency.”

Does Chen show an actual connection to the Internet Research Agency? Not at all. He simply asserts it. Which is actually a pretty trollish thing to do….

Read more

October 6, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

The Israel Lobby has shown its power over Americans’ perceptions and ability to exercise free speech via its influence in media, entertainment and ability to block university tenure appointments, such as those of Norman Finkelstein and Steven Salaita. Indeed, the power of the Israel Lobby is today so widely recognized and feared that editors, producers, and tenure committees anticipate the lobby’s objections in advance and avoid writers, subjects, and professors judged unacceptable to the lobby.

The latest example is The American Conservative’s firing of former CIA officer Philip Giraldi. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47942.htm Giraldi wrote an article for the Unz Review about Israel’s influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East. http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/ The article didn’t say anything that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz hadn’t said already. The editor of The American Conservative, where Giraldi had been a contributor for a decade and a half, was terrified that the magazine was associated with a critic of Israel and quickly terminated the relationship. Such abject cowardice as the editor of The American Conservative showed is a true measure of the power of the Israel Lobby.

Meny seasoned experts believe that without the influence of the Israel Lobby, particularly as exerted by the Jewish Neoconservatives, the United States would not have been at war in the Middle East and North Africa for the last 16 years. These wars have done nothing for the US but harm, and they have cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and caused extensive death and destruction in seven countries and a massive refugee flow into Europe.

For a superpower such as the United States not to be in control of its own foreign policy is a serious matter. Giraldi is correct and patriotic to raise this concern. Giraldi makes sensible recommendations for correcting Washington’s lack of control over its own policy. But instead of analysis and debate of Giraldi’s proposals, the result is Giraldi’s punishment by an editor of a conservative publication anticipating the Israel Lobby’s wishes.

Americans should think about the fact that Israel is the only country on earth that it is impermissible to criticize. Anyone who criticizes Israeli policy, especially toward the Palestinians, or remarks on Israel’s influence, is branded an “anti-semite.” Even mild critics who are trying to steer Israel away from making mistakes, such as former President Jimmy Carter, are branded “anti-semites.”

Read more

On October 1, 2017
Catherine Austin Fitts
USA Watchdog.com

Read more

October 3, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don’t think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.

Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington’s plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.

Russia bashing became more intense when Washington’s coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.

Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia’s borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.

Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.

These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.

Ryan Devereaux
September 28 2017
Antiwar.com

AS PART OF HIS ongoing crusade targeting black athletes, President Donald Trump shared a tweet Monday morning from one of his supporters. It included an image of Pat Tillman, the former NFL safety-turned-U.S. Army Ranger who was killed in Afghanistan in the spring of 2004. “NFLplayer PatTillman joined U.S. Army in 2002. He was killed in action 2004. He fought 4our country/freedom. #StandForOurAnthem #BoycottNFL,” wrote @jayMAGA45.

The intent of the president’s retweet was clear: Trump was co-signing a suggestion that Tillman was a true patriot, unlike those who have chosen to kneel during the national anthem, and that those protests dishonor his legacy.

Just seven days after Pat Tillman’s death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Photography Plus via Williamson Stealth Media Solutions, FILE) Cpl. Pat Tillman in a 2003 photo. Photo: Photography Plus via Williamson Stealth Media Solutions/APIt’s easy to understand why Tillman would make an attractive figure to Trump and his base. His Army photo reflects an image of a certain type of all-American hero: chiseled jaw, broad shoulders, white skin. But simply looking at Tillman’s photo and the superficial facts of his tale is to miss everything important about his life, his death, and what came after. Tillman’s is indeed an all-American story, it’s just not the kind that Trump and his supporters want it to be.

Few episodes of the post-9/11 era have called down more disgrace upon the military than its handling of Tillman’s death and its treatment of his family in their search for answers. The most comprehensive documentation of those events can be found in three accounts: two books, “Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman,” written by Tillman’s mother, Mary, and “Where Men Win Glory,” by Jon Krakauer; as well as a 2006 story by Gary Smith for Sports Illustrated. Together, they offer an invaluable corrective to the simplistic depictions of Tillman, revealing a complex person and charting the ways in which officials at the highest levels of U.S. government sought to capitalize off his life and death.

Tillman was 25 years old when he joined the Army, placing him on the older side of military enlistees but on the decidedly younger side of life. His decision was born out of the conclusion that his comfortable existence in the U.S. made little sense in the months after 9/11; he wanted meaning, he wanted to do something that mattered, and he wanted to continue a lifelong project of placing himself in challenging situations. Along with his brother Kevin, Tillman chose to enlist. It was the same decision thousands of other young people of his generation made in the aftermath of 9/11. Both of the Tillman boys were, by all accounts, independent-minded free thinkers who enjoyed good books and good debates — chest-pounding jocks they were not. And, like many others who chose to come to the nation’s defense following 9/11, their worldview would evolve as they saw George W. Bush’s Global War on Terrorism up close.

Read more

October 1, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

Stephen Lendman sums up the success of Russian and Syrian militaries against Washington-supported ISIS. Washington claims to be fighting ISIS, but doesn’t. Remember, U.S. General Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, revealed on television that it was the “willful decision” of the Obama regime to use ISIS to overthrow the Assad government. General Flynn said the decision was made over his objection. https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/

News agencies and writers should stop referring to ISIS and any of the other groups as “terrorists.” The term “terrorists” connotes an independence that the “terrorists” do not have. These so-called “terrorists” are organized, financed, and armed by Washington and Washington’s vassals. Washington uses “terrorists” as a foreign policy tool. This has been going on for decades. Yes, sometimes the “terrorists” escape Washington’s control. Washington supported Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to help organize the Mujahideen to fight against the Soviet occupying force. Everyone knows this, or, perhaps I should say, fomerly knew it prior to the presstitutes helping Washington bury all the facts and replace them with fake news.

The CIA has long used presstitutes to rewrite history. But not all facts have yet been thrown down the Memory Hole. Here is former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook: “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the ’80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.” Here is Prince Bander bin Sultan on CNN’s Larry King program (October 1, 2001): “This is ironic. In the mid-’80s, if you remember, we and the United – Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn’t it ironic?” See also: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340101/t/bin-laden-comes-home-roost/#.WdDYarGZPFR

Russia Effectively Smashing US-Supported Terrorists in Syria

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)

Russia’s military intervention in Syria at the request of its government began two years ago today – September 30.

It dramatically changed the dynamic on the ground, turning sure defeat into eventual triumph.

Thousands of square miles of Syrian territory were liberated from the scourge of US-supported terrorists, defeating Washington’s imperial aims, wanting regime change, the country transformed into another vassal state.

Tass reviewed Russian operations over the past two years, saying “victory over terrorism is near.” Its efforts transformed armed opposition conflicting groups into “a common front in the struggle against terrorists.”

Read more

September 29, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

Do the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page editors read their own newspaper?

The frontpage headline story for the Labor Day weekend was “Low Wage Growth Challenges Fed.” Despite an alleged 4.4% unemployment rate, which is full employment, there is no real growth in wages. The front page story pointed out correctly that an economy alleged to be expanding at full employment, but absent any wage growth or inflation, is “a puzzle that complicates Federal Reserve policy decisions.”

On the editorial page itself, under “letters to the editor,” Professor Tony Lima of California State University points out what I have stressed for years: “The labor-force participation rate remains at historic lows. Much of the decrease is in the 18-34 age group, while participation rates have increased for those 55 and older.” Professor Lima points out that more evidence that the American worker is not in good shape comes from the rising number of Americans who can only find part-time work, which leaves them with truncated incomes and no fringe benefits, such as health care.

Positioned right next to this factual letter is the lead editorial written by someone who read neither the front page story or the professor’s letter. The lead editorial declares: “The biggest labor story this Labor Day is the trouble that employers are having finding workers across the country.” The Journal’s editorial page editors believe the solution to the alleged labor shortage is Senator Ron Johnson’s (R.Wis.) bill to permit the states to give 500,000 work visas to foreigners.

In my day as a Wall Street Journal editor and columnist, questions would have been asked that would have nixed the editorial. For example, how is there a labor shortage when there is no upward pressure on wages? In tight labor markets wages are bid up as employers compete for workers. For example, how is the labor market tight when the labor force participation rate is at historical lows. When jobs are available, the participation rate rises as people enter the work force to take the jobs.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud