Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Category: New World Order

We’ve gone from “America first” to “Trump first”

by Justin Raimondo
April 12, 2017
Antiwar.com

Trump came into office touting his “America First agenda,” disdaining NATO, and asking “Why is it a bad thing to get along with Russia?” He told us he abjured “regime change” and held up Libya as an example of bad policy. Now he’s turned on a dime, bombing Syria, and welcoming tiny (and troubled) Montenegro into NATO. His intelligence agencies are even accusing Russia of having advance knowledge of the alleged chemical attack in Syria (although the White House disputed that after it got out). And all this in the first one hundred days!

How did this happen? It’s easy to explain, once you understand that there is no such thing as foreign policy: all policy is domestic.

That’s the core principle at the heart of what I call “libertarian realism,” the overarching theory – if such a grandiose term can be applied to what is simply common sense – that explains what is happening on the world stage at any particular moment. And there is no better confirmation of this principle than the recent statement by Eric Trump, the President’s son, who said: “If there was anything that Syria [strike] did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie.”

Oh yes, and Ivanka was “heartbroken” – and so it was incumbent upon the President to change course, break a major campaign promise, and declare via his Secretary of State that “Assad must go.”

Got it.

Trump’s Syrian turnabout is clearly a response to the coordinated attack launched on his presidency by the combined efforts of the Deep State, the media, the Democrats, and the McCain-Graham-neocon wing of the GOP – a campaign that still might destroy him, despite his capitulation to the War Party.

Read more

April 6, 2017
Pepe Escobar
Sputnik News.com

“These heinous acts by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated.” Thus spoke the President of the United States.

Instant translation; Donald Trump – and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no detailed investigation – are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying.

Using Chemical Weapons Against Civilians? Assad ‘Would Never Make Such a Crazy Move’

That’s a pretty serious charge. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing “fully objective and verified” information, identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a “moderate rebel” warehouse east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas.

Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by “rebels” in Aleppo late last year, according to samples collected by Russian military experts.

Still, Trump felt compelled to telegraph what is now his own red line in Syria; “Militarily, I don’t like to say when I’m going and what I’m doing. I’m not saying I won’t do anything one way or another, but I certainly won’t be telling you [the media].”

By his side at the White House lawn, the pathetic King Playstation of Jordan praised Trump’s “realistic approach to the challenges in the region.”

This might pass as a Monty Python sketch. Unfortunately, it’s reality.

What’s at stake in Idlib

Washington ‘Knows Damascus Has No Chemical Weapons’, But Still Blames Assad

Hysteria unleashed – once again —, Western public opinion conveniently forgot that declared chemical weapons held by Damascus had been destroyed way back in 2014 on board of a US maritime vessel, no less, under UN supervision.

And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama’s theoretically trespassed red line on chemical weapons, a secret US intelligence report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity.

Not to mention that the Obama administration and its allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar had made a secret pact in 2012 to set up a sarin gas attack and blame Damascus, setting the scene for a Shock and Awe replay. Funding for the project came from the NATO-GCC connection coupled with a CIA-MI6 connection, a.k.a. rat line, of transferring all manner of weapons from Libya to Salafi-jihadis in Syria.

So those toxic weapons that “disappeared” – en masse — from Gaddafi’s arsenals in 2011 ended up upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely described across the Beltway as “moderate rebels”.

Read more

Exclusive: President Trump earned neocon applause for his hasty decision to attack Syria and kill about a dozen Syrians, but his rash act has all the earmarks of a “wag the dog” moment.

By Robert Parry
April 7, 2017
Consortium News.com

Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime’s guilt and launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.

Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal advisers since the days after his surprise victory on Nov. 8.

There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a “high degree of confidence” that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Porter conducts strike operations while in the Mediterranean Sea, April 7, 2017. (Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Ford Williams)

But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid.

One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government would no longer seek “regime change” in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.

The source said the Trump national security team split between the President’s close personal advisers, such as nationalist firebrand Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner, on one side and old-line neocons who have regrouped under National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army general who was a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus.

White House Infighting

In this telling, the earlier ouster of retired Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and this week’s removal of Bannon from the National Security Council were key steps in the reassertion of neocon influence inside the Trump presidency. The strange personalities and ideological extremism of Flynn and Bannon made their ousters easier, but they were obstacles that the neocons wanted removed.

Though Bannon and Kushner are often presented as rivals, the source said, they shared the belief that Trump should tell the truth about Syria, revealing the Obama administration’s CIA analysis that a fatal sarin gas attack in 2013 was a “false-flag” operation intended to sucker President Obama into fully joining the Syrian war on the side of the rebels — and the intelligence analysts’ similar beliefs about Tuesday’s incident.

Read more

Glenn Greenwald
April 7 2017
The Intercept

In every type of government, nothing unites people behind the leader more quickly, reflexively or reliably than war. Donald Trump now sees how true that is, as the same establishment leaders in U.S. politics and media who have spent months denouncing him as a mentally unstable and inept authoritarian and unprecedented threat to democracy are standing and applauding him as he launches bombs at Syrian government targets.

Trump, on Thursday night, ordered an attack that the Pentagon said included the launching of 59 Tomahawk missiles which “targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars.” The governor of Homs, the Syrian province where the attack occurred, said early this morning that the bombs killed seven civilians and wounded nine.

The Pentagon’s statement said the attack was “in retaliation for the regime of Bashar Assad using nerve agents to attack his own people.” Both Syria and Russia vehemently deny that the Syrian military used chemical weapons.

When asked about this yesterday by the Globe and Mail’s Joanna Slater, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged an investigation to determine what actually happened before any action was contemplated, citing what he called “continuing questions about who is responsible”:

But U.S. war fever waits for nothing. Once the tidal wave of American war frenzy is unleashed, questioning the casus belli is impermissible. Wanting conclusive evidence before bombing commences is vilified as sympathy with and support for the foreign villain (the same way that asking for evidence of claims against Russia instantly converts one into a “Kremlin agent” or “stooge”).

Read more

The 2017 WTC 7 Resolution

AIA-Resolution-Upcoming

For the third year in a row, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has rallied members of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to submit a resolution that calls upon the AIA to officially support a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001.

The resolution, which can be found on page 34 of the Delegate Information Booklet, will be debated and voted on by hundreds of delegates at the AIA’s annual business meeting — before the start of the Orlando convention — on Wednesday, April 26.
Why Support a New WTC 7 Investigation?

As the largest association of architects in the world — with some 90,000 members — the AIA is a respected voice on matters concerning the built environment and on larger issues such as social equity and human rights. The AIA routinely weighs in on the challenges facing our society, and the message it sends matters a great deal to our political leaders and to millions of Americans.

When it comes to understanding what happened on September 11, 2001 — a day that reshaped our world — architects are uniquely qualified to contribute to the ongoing debate.

At 5:20 PM, the 47-story WTC 7 fell completely and symmetrically into its own footprint in the manner of a textbook controlled demolition. Seven years later, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that the collapse was due to normal office fires (which had never before brought down a steel-frame high-rise). But today thousands of architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation.

For more on why the AIA should support a new investigation, we invite you to read lead sponsor Daniel Barnum’s letter to the AIA membership.

Read more

April 7, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

Washington’s military attack on Syria is unambigiously a war crime. It occurred without any UN authorization or even the fake cover of a “coalition of the willing.” Washington’s attack on Syria occurred in advance of an investigation of the alleged event that Washington is trying to use as its justification. Indeed, Washington’s story of Syrian use of chemical weapons is totally implausible. All chemical weapons were removed from Syria by Russia and turned over to the US and its European allies. Syria has no such weapons and has no reason to use them and every reason not to. Moreover, it is none of Washington’s business whatsoever what weapons Syria uses against terrorist forces seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Governments in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan have not condemned this war crime. Indeed, the UK Foreign Minister has declared the UK’s support. Thus does the West reveal once again its hypocrisy.

As Russia has made clear, the alleged chemical weapons attack has every hallmark of a Washington orchestrated event in order to launch a US military attack on Syria. As the Russian Defense Ministry explained, the US air attack had to have been planned in advance of the alleged chemical weapon event. The US air strike on Syria requires advanced planning, but followed immediately the event used as the excuse: http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12117678%40egNews

In other words, it was an orchestrated event.

Gilbert Doctorow says that the idiot Americans drowning in their own hubris have now crossed a Russian red line with consquences to follow. http://russia-insider.com/en/us-missile-strikes-syria-have-crossed-russian-red-lines-and-risk-serious-escalation/ri19479

Insane Washington is driving the world to thermo-nuclear war. And where are the protests?

By Daniel Larison
April 6, 2017
The American Conservative

The destruction of Syria: made in America? (Volodymyr Borodin / Shutterstock.com)

The case for attacking the Syrian government remains as weak and unpersuasive as ever, and the reasons not to do it make much more sense. Regardless, Trump appears to be seriously considering launching an illegal attack on the Syrian government on the dubious grounds that “something should happen.” I have talked about the potential dangers of such an attack for years, so regular readers will already be very familiar with what I’m going to say, but I will offer a quick summary of why the attack shouldn’t happen.

The U.S. has no authority or right to strike at the Syrian government without U.N. authorization, and that authorization won’t be forthcoming. Despite the conceit that the U.S. is the world’s “policeman,” our government has no right to launch a war against another government because of its alleged war crimes. Possible strikes are being described as a punitive measure, but our government is not the world’s appointed executioner and our military should not be used for that purpose. Put simply, attacking the Syrian government would be illegal, which would be all the more ridiculous when the attack is being carried out ostensibly in the name of upholding international order.

The U.S. cannot pretend that it is enforcing any U.N. resolutions, and it is not acting in self-defense or the defense of a treaty ally. An attack on the Syrian government would also be difficult to justify in other terms. There is little likelihood that an attack would deter further use of chemical weapons, and it is more likely to help drag out and intensify the current conflict rather than hasten its end. If the ultimate goal is or becomes regime change, that will produce even greater evils than the ones the attack is supposed to prevent. Even if regime change is not the goal, it is difficult to see how killing more Syrians makes anything better. Joining in the carnage in Syria will not help the civilian population, but will most likely subject them to additional suffering. Insofar as an attack significantly weakens the regime, it would benefit only jihadists and their allies, and doing that makes no sense.

Read more

USAWatchdog.com
March 5, 2017

Read more

by Patrick J. Buchanan
April 04, 2017
Antiwar.com

“If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.”

So President Donald Trump warns, amid reports North Korea, in its zeal to build an intercontinental ballistic missile to hit our West Coast, may test another atom bomb.

China shares a border with North Korea. We do not.

Why then is this our problem to “solve”? And why is North Korea building a rocket that can cross the Pacific and strike Seattle or Los Angeles?

Is Kim Jong Un mad?

No. He is targeting us because we have 28,500 troops on his border. If U.S. air, naval, missile and ground forces were not in and around Korea, and if we were not treaty-bound to fight alongside South Korea, there would be no reason for Kim to build rockets to threaten a distant superpower that could reduce his hermit kingdom to ashes.

While immensely beneficial to Seoul, is this U.S. guarantee to fight Korean War II, 64 years after the first wise? Russia, China and Japan retain the freedom to decide whether and how to react, should war break out. Why do we not?

Would it not be better for us if we, too, retained full freedom of action to decide how to respond, should the North attack?

During the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, despite John McCain’s channeling Patrick Henry – “We are all Georgians now!” – George W. Bush decided to take a pass on war. When a mob in Kiev overthrew the pro-Russian government, Vladimir Putin secured his Sebastopol naval base by annexing Crimea.

Read more

Trump Giving Commanders Increasing Autonomy to Conduct Operations

by Jason Ditz
April 02, 2017
Antiwar.com

While most of the talk about the Pentagon’s proposals for various wars to President Trump has focused on requests for more troops in more countries, a much less publicized effort has also been getting rubber stamped, one giving commanders in those wars increasing autonomy on operations.

Buried in the details of almost every proposal from Iraq and Syria to smaller operations like US troops in Yemen and Somalia, there is always a mention of commanders wanting to be able to conduct strikes at will, both airstrikes and ground raids.

This has been a change that the Pentagon has been quite eager to seek, after years of complaining about President Obama “micromanaging” the various US wars, but it appears they may be trying to get a much broader collection of grants of autonomy than they’ve ever been granted before.

While President Trump is eager to make such moves early on to show that he is “listening to the generals,” granting so much autonomy to the military to fight its own wars without political oversight is risky business, since the president will ultimately be held responsible for what the military does.

The long term ramifications could be even more dangerous, as it further distances America’s direct foreign interventions from politicians, and by extension from the voters, turning the details of major military operations into little more than bureaucratic details for career military brass.

These major changes are happening in almost complete silence, as while there have been mentions of the Pentagon seeking these new authorities, always as an afterthought to getting more troops, there is little to no interest in debating the question.
Last 5

Better Tag Cloud