Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Tag: 911 demolition

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

by Jacob G. Hornberger
March 30, 2017
Antiwar.com

On March 21 — 9 days ago — I published an article entitled “Prepare Now for Blowback,” in which I pointed out what would seem to be obvious to any reasonable person after some 27 continuous years of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East and 16 continuous years of interventionism in Afghanistan: that some people who sympathize with the people who the U.S. government is killing, bombing, and destroying are going to retaliate with terrorist attacks. It’s just a fact of interventionist life.

I suggested that people should ponder the blowback from U.S foreign policy now, when things are relatively calm, because when another big retaliatory terrorist attack occurs here in the United States, rational thinking is going to be in short supply. That’s when U.S. officials will be exclaiming about how the terrorists (or the Muslims) hate us for our freedom and values and will be completely ignoring the role that U.S. interventionism plays in producing the deep anger and hatred that motivates acts of anti-American revenge.

Back on December 1, 2016, I published an article entitled, “OSU’s Foreign Policy Blowback,” in which I commented on how large crowds of people on sidewalks in Las Vegas were an inviting target for a terrorist vehicle attack. I wrote: “There was nothing local authorities in Las Vegas could do to prevent a car going at top speed from plowing into the throng of people on some sidewalk on the strip.”

A couple of weeks later, on December 19, 2016, a terrorist intentionally drove a giant truck into a crowded market in Berlin with the intent to kill as many people as possible. He succeeded in killing 12.

Then, last week, two days after I published my March 21 article, a terrorist struck in London by intentionally driving a sport utility vehicle into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, killing four and injuring dozens more.

No, I am not some sort of Nostradamus or psychic who is able to predict the future. It’s just a matter of logic and common sense. When a government goes abroad and kills, maims, bombs, assassinates, and destroys individuals, wedding parties, families and homes, businesses, and properties, there are likely to be some people who get angry about that.

Of course, from the standpoint of the U.S. government, the ideal is that foreign citizens passively and submissively accept their death and and destruction as simply their plight in life.

But that ideal is not reality. The fact is that people tend to get angry when a foreign regime invades their lands and kills, maims, bombs, and destroys people, businesses, and country, and some of them inevitably decide to retaliate.

Read more

Administrator’s Note: The Rockefellers were very much part of the 9/11 conspiracy as detailed by Aaron Russo in an interview shortly before his death. See the second video below.

March 28, 2017
The Corbett Report

Source and Notes

The U.S. doesn’t have enough troops to run a successful counterinsurgency campaign there.

By Charles V. Peña
March 22, 2017
The American Conservative

According to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the situation in Afghanistan is a “stalemate” that “will require additional U.S. and coalition forces.” The senators cite testimony by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, to the Senate Armed Services Committee in which he said he needed several thousand more troops. There are currently about 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus another 6,300 troops from other countries. So will a few thousand more soldiers—presumably American—make a difference?

The clear answer is no.

The rule of thumb for successful counterinsurgency—largely practiced by the British—is a requirement of 20 troops per 1,000 civilians, which is the standard set in the U.S. Army’s counterinsurgency manual. With a population of about 32 million, that means a force of 640,000 troops would be needed in Afghanistan. (For a sense of scale, consider that the total U.S. Army active duty force is less than 500,000 soldiers). Indeed, you would probably have to combine the whole of the U.S. Army with the entire Afghan army of 183,000 soldiers to meet the requirement. Adding a couple thousand troops to some 15,000 U.S. and coalition forces already in Afghanistan is hardly enough.

To be fair to Senators McCain and Graham, it’s not all of Afghanistan that requires counterinsurgency operations. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, out of the country’s 407 districts, 133 are contested and another 41 are either under insurgent control or influence. These represent a population of almost 12 million people, which would require 240,000 troops. Even this would be a bridge too far for U.S. and coalition forces. If the entire Afghan army—a little less than 200,000 soldiers—shouldered the bulk of responsibility, it would still require another 25,000 U.S. and coalition troops beyond those currently deployed in Afghanistan.

But counterinsurgency is more than just troop levels. Successful counterinsurgency requires the use of harsh—even brutal—and indiscriminate military force to impose security and order. Again, the British example is a good one, such as when their forces put down the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s. The problem with such tactics is that while such action may kill the enemy, it also all too often results in killing innocent civilians, no matter how hard we try to avoid collateral damage. Last year, air strikes caused 590 civilian casualties, including 250 deaths, nearly double the number in 2015 and the highest since 2009. More recently, air strikes in the Helmand province are believed to have killed more than a dozen civilians, mostly women and children.

The inevitable result of this collateral damage is alienation of the civilian population, which makes them more sympathetic to the insurgents. Indeed, this is one of the most important lessons of the last decade and a half.

Most importantly, the threat in Afghanistan doesn’t warrant a continued U.S. military presence.

Read more

March 28, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

Adam Schiff is a traitor to the United States. Indeed, to all of humanity. Yes, he is a Jew, but America has many loyal Jews. What makes Schiff a traitor is not that he is a Jew. He is a traitor, because he is undermining American democracy and the forces for peace.

The Clintons and the Democratic Leadership Council sold out the Democratic constituency, that is, the working class and peace, because they were convinced that they could get more money from Wall Street, the global corporations, and the military/security complex than they could from the labor unions.

The labor unions were going to be destroyed by jobs offshoring and the relocation of US manufacturing abroad. This relocation of American manufacturing would destroy the budgets of the state and local governments in America’s manufacturing regions and result in fierce pressure on the public sector unions, which are being destroyed in turn.

In short, Democratic Party funding was evaporating, and Democrats needed to compete against Republicans for funding from the One Percent. George Soros helped the Clinton Democrats in this transition, and soon there was no one representing the working class.

Consequently, since Clinton the real median family income of the working class has been falling, and in the 21st century the working class has been buried in unemployment and debt.

Read more

March 21, 2017
Via Miami Herald
By Carol Rosenberg


GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba

The man serving life in a federal penitentiary as the “20th hijacker” in the Sept. 11 attacks wants to testify at the 9/11 trial and has written the military judge offering his services.

“I am willing to fully testify on the 9/11 case,” Zacarias Moussaoui wrote in broken English in January, “even if I was charge on the death penalty case as it incriminate me.” It is handwritten and signed “Slave of Allah.”

He also signs it “Enemy Combatant,” which he is not. Moussaoui, 48, is a convict serving life at the SuperMax prison in Florence, Colorado. He pleaded guilty in 2005 in a federal court in Virginia to six conspiracy charges related to the 9/11 attacks.

“My take is he would like to be in the spotlight and is bored in solitary,” former Moussaoui defense attorney Edward MacMahon said after reviewing a filing for the Miami Herald. “ ‘Slave of Allah’ is how he signs all of his filings.”

A review of filings on the Pentagon’s war-court website shows Moussaoui has at least three times written Army Col. James L. Pohl, the judge in the Sept. 11 mass-murder case with no trial date.

The first docketed letter arrived at war-court judiciary headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, on Nov. 12, 2015 in an envelope from the U.S. penitentiary. It had a Purple Heart postage stamp.

Read more

Pepe Escobar
March 24, 2017
Sputnik News.com


Iraqi, US and Spanish soldiers participate in a training mission outside Baghdad, Iraq © AP Photo/ Khalid Mohammed

James Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Emerging Threats at NATO – now that’s a lovely title – recently gave a talk at a private club in London on the Islamic State/Daesh. Shea, as many will remember, made his name as NATO’s spokesman during the NATO war on Yugoslavia in 1999.

After his talk Shea engaged in a debate with a source I very much treasure. The source later gave me the lowdown.

According to Saudi intelligence, Daesh was invented by the US government – in Camp Bacca, near the Kuwait border, as many will remember — to essentially finish off the Shiite-majority Nouri al-Maliki government in Baghdad.

Military Training in Iraq Fails, Militants Stronger, US Officials Say
It didn’t happen this way, of course. Then, years later, in the summer of 2014, Daesh routed the Iraqi Army on its way to conquer Mosul. The Iraqi Army fled. Daesh operatives then annexed ultra-modern weapons that took US instructors from six to twelve months to train the Iraqis in and…surprise! Daesh incorporated the weapons in their arsenals in 24 hours.

In the end, Shea frankly admitted to the source that Gen David Petraeus, conductor of the much-lauded 2007 surge, had trained these Sunnis now part of Daesh in Anbar province in Iraq.

Saudi intelligence still maintains that these Iraqi Sunnis were not US-trained – as Shea confirmed – because the Shiites in power in Baghdad didn’t allow it. Not true. The fact is the Daesh core – most of them former commanders and soldiers in Saddam Hussein’s army — is indeed a US-trained militia.

True to form, at the end of the debate, Shea went on to blame Russia for absolutely everything that’s happening today – including Daesh terror.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud