Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Tag: Phony war on terror

November 26, 2014
Paul Craig Roberts Website

On November 22 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow that Washington treats Russia as “subhumans” and has forced Russia into a “game of chicken” in order to determine whether Russia will blink or defend its national interests. As Russia will not blink, Washington is driving the world to war.

Read Lavrov’s address:

Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the XXII Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, 22 November 2014

I’m happy to be at this annual Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy (Russian abbreviation SVOP). It is always a great pleasure for me to meet people and feel the intellectual potential, which enables the Council, its leaders and representatives to respond to global developments and analyse them. Their analysis is always free from any hysteria, and its members offer well-grounded and solid arguments, taking a step back, since those caught in the midst of events can hardly adopt an unbiased perspective. We are inevitably influenced by the developments, which makes your observations, analysis, discourse and suggestions even more valuable to us.

As far as I know, this year’s Assembly will focus on prospects for accelerating domestic growth in Russia. There is no doubt that concerted efforts by our society as a whole to bring about comprehensive economic, social and spiritual development are a prerequisite for making Russia’s future sustainable. That said, by virtue of my professional duties, I have to focus on foreign policy issues, which are still relevant for the Assembly’s agenda, since in this interconnected, globalised world, isolating internal development from the outside world is impossible.

Read more

by Trevor Timm
Nov. 24, 2014
The Guardian


Afghanistan, Syria, wherever Isis goes: it’s clear that Obama wants to slot in someone who’s a lot more gung-ho about war. Photo illustration: DonkeyHotey / Flickr via Creative Commons

Chuck Hagel resigned as US defense secretary on Monday morning, and the Obama administration must be ecstatic that the Washington press is agrip with the perennial Beltway question: “Was he fired or did he quit?!”

After yet another weekend of news that the administration is expanding its war footing in the Middle East in secret, the White House yet again is exercising its power to avoid talking about what should be on the tip of the tongue of everyone: How are more troops going to solve a problem that 13 years of war have only made worse?

With Hagel’s resignation, hardly anyone is talking about the alarming story published Friday night by the New York Times, reporting that President Obama has ordered – in secret – that troops continue the Afghanistan War at least through 2015 … after announcing to the public months ago that combat operations would stop at the end of this year. Obama made his “This year we will bring America’s longest war to a responsible end” statement in the White House Rose Garden, on television, six months ago. The extension of the Afghan war was reportedly executed by a classified order.

Meanwhile, Obama was up there smiling next to Hagel on Monday, talking about how “reluctant” he is to see him go. The American president, like the one before him, is apparently reluctant to be upfront with the public about war.

On Sunday, the New York Times also reported that the new Afghan president quietly lifted the ban on so-called “night raids,” clearing the way for them to once again be conducted in conjunction with American special forces. (Continuing its penchant for News Speak, the US military has reportedly renamed them “night operations” in light of how much they are hated by Afghans.)

While Hagel’s departure has already been framed around the Obama administration needing a “change” after the midterm elections, or as a scapegoat for the administration’s response to the Islamic State (Isis), but that just raises more questions than answers: Why does the Obama administration think removing the only Republican from its cabinet will satisfy an electorate that just voted in more Republicans? And how is firing Chuck Hagel supposed to be a magic wand for a faltering campaign to destroy Isis?

Read more

Nov 21, ’14
By Pepe Escobar
Asia Times Online.com

These are bleak times. I’ve been in serious conversation with some deep sources and interlocutors – those who know but don’t need to show off, privileging discretion. They are all deeply worried. This is what one of them, a New York strategic planner, sent me:

The propaganda attack against Putin equating him with Hitler is so extreme that you have to think that the Russians cannot believe their ears and cannot trust the United States anymore under any circumstances.

I cannot believe how we could have gotten ourselves into this situation to protect the looters in the Ukraine that Putin would have rid the Ukraine of, and even had the gall to place in a leadership role one of the worst of the thieves. But that is history. What is certain is that MAD [mutually assured destruction] is not a deterrent today when both sides believe the other will use nuclear weapons once they have the advantage and that the side that gains a decisive advantage will use them. MAD is now over.

That may sound somewhat extreme – but it’s a perfectly logical extension, further on down the road, of what the Russian president intimated in his already legendary interview with Germany’s ARD in Vladivostok last week: the West is provoking Russia into a new Cold War. [1]

Read more

November 23, 2014
Paul Craig Roberts

According to news reports, Washington has decided to arm Ukraine for renewed military assault on Russian ethnics in Donetsk and Luhansk.

A Russian foreign ministry official condemned Washington’s reckless decision to supply weapons to Kiev as a violation of agreements that would make a political resolution of the conflict less likely. This statement is perplexing. It implies that the Russian government has not yet figured out that Washington has no interest in resolving the conflict. Washington’s purpose is to use the hapless Ukrainians against Russia. The worse the conflict becomes, the happier Washington is.

The Russian government made a bet that Europe would come to its senses and the conflict would be peacefully resolved. The Russian government has lost that bet and must immediately move to preempt a worsening crisis by uniting the separatists provinces with Russia or by reading the riot act to Europe.

It would be a costly humiliation for the Russian government to abandon the ethnic Russians to a military assault. If Russia stands aside while Donetsk and Luhansk are destroyed, the next attack will be on Crimea. By the time Russia is forced to fight Russia will face a better armed, better prepared, and more formidable foe.

By its inaction the Russian government is aiding and abetting Washington’s onslaught against Russia. The Russian government could tell Europe to call this off or go without natural gas. The Russian government could declare a no-fly zone over the separatist provinces and deliver an ultimatum to Kiev. The Russian government could accept the requests from Donetsk and Luhansk for unification or reunification with Russia. Any one of these actions would suffice to resolve the conflict before it spins out of control and opens the gates to World War III.

The American people are clueless that Washington is on the brink of starting a dangerous war. Even informed commentators become sidetracked in refuting propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine and is supplying weapons to the separatists. These commentators are mistaken if they think establishing the facts will do any good.

Washington intends to remove Russia as a constraint on Washington’s power. Washington’s arrogance is forcing a stark choice on Russia: vassalage or war.

Join Ray McGovern in New York on Saturday, November 22!

FOIA Request Made for 28 Redacted Pages

Dear Supporter,

Several impressive developments over the last 18 months have lifted the 9/11 truth message into the mainstream news and public awareness. These developments include the Rethink911 campaign, CNN’s coverage of the alternative 9/11 Museum Guide and outreach effort, Richard Gage’s interview on C-SPAN, the debut of The Anatomy of a Great Deception, and the huge video billboard in Times Square depicting the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Now there’s a new opportunity that holds great promise.

Join Ray McGovern, Ramsey Clark, and 9/11 family member Terry Strada in New York City on Saturday, November 22, in their call to:

End America’s Blindness . . . Restore Its Vision . . . Open the 28 Pages

The reference to 28 pages relates to congressional bill H.R. 428, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). It calls for the release of 28 pages that were redacted (actually, excised) from the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001. The Joint Inquiry report dates back to 2002. Shortly after Rep. Jones’ bill was introduced last December, a group of 46 U.S. senators wrote to President Bush requesting that the 28 pages be declassified and made public. Ever since, former U.S. Sen. Robert Graham (D-FL), who chaired the Joint Inquiry committee, has continued to demand the release of these pages and even made a FOIA request to the Obama administration.

On September 9, Rep. Jones and several congressional cosponsors, along with 9/11 family members, held a press conference at the National Press Club to promote H.R. 428’s passage. Currently the legislation has 20 co-sponsors and growing support from 9/11 families. In addition, some members of the 9/11 Commission are on record calling for the pages’ release.

The bill’s cosponsors say their views on the 9/11 attacks changed after reading the 28 pages. Rep. Jones, for example, declared that “[the 28-redacted pages do] not deal with national security per se” but are “more about relationships. The information is critical to our foreign policy moving forward and should thus be available to the American people. If the 9/11 hijackers had outside help — particularly from one or more foreign governments — the press and the public have a right to know what our government has or has not done to bring justice to the perpetrators.”

This bill is a serious call to action for the 9/11 Truth Movement. It should motivate each of us to pressure our own legislators to:

read the 28 pages
cosponsor the resolution
promise to vote in favor of its passage

The release of the 28 pages will bring new attention to the events and consequences of 9/11, including the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers, which is AE911Truth’s focus.

The issue also has the potential to bring to the fore the truth behind the current violence in Iraq and Syria. The entire global war on terror could be seen for what it is — part of an ulterior motive far different from what the public has been told. Many of us AE911Truth supporters have spent years studying the alternative research on 9/11. Now, with just a few hours of reading and simple actions, we can each make a impact.

For more information, see this website with its comprehensive overview of this issue online. It contains an explanation of the significance of H.R. 428 as well as detailed steps that seekers of 9/11 truth and justice can take. Our ongoing political actions will help ensure passage of the resolution. See the “Take Action” section of HR428.org for instructions, sample letters, and an automated function that delivers your letters directly to your member of Congress. Please review this material today, then do whatever you can to take this issue viral through your social networks and your personal and organizational contacts.

Come to New York if you can and help spread the word!

Saturday, November 22, 2014
2:00 PM to 5:00 PM
All Souls Church
1157 Lexington Avenue (at 80th St.), New York City

End America’s Blindness . . . Restore Its Vision . . . Open the 28 Pages
(Dedicated to President John F. Kennedy and the victims and families of 9/11)

Speakers and topics include:

Ray McGovern, retired CIA analyst; co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity. Topic: “The Surveillance Pseudo-State — Release the 28 Pages”
Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General (1967-69); founder, International Action Center. Topic: “Global War is Over — If You Want It”
Jeffrey Steinberg, senior editor, Executive Intelligence Review. Topic: “The Erinyes Principal: The BRICS Nations Revive JFK’s New Frontier”
Terry Strada, 9/11 family member, speaker at press conference at the National Press Club hosted by Walter Jones on Sept. 9, 2014

The crises in the world today require that nations move forward by returning to the outlook of peace through scientific and technological progress and through a willingness to engage in international cooperation, as embodied in the John F. Kennedy presidency. This challenge is now being renewed by over half of humanity, led by the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) nations and their allies.

Let us, the American people, join this renewal process — by getting at the truth about 9/11. There is no better way to honor the memory of John F. Kennedy and the victims and family members of 9/11.

Join us on Saturday, November 22, for this important event.

Sponsored by Schiller Institute
Suggested donation: $10

​Please spread the word!

By John W. Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute
November 20, 2014

Back in the heyday of the old Soviet Union, a phrase evolved to describe gullible western intellectuals who came to visit Russia and failed to notice the human and other costs of building a communist utopia. The phrase was “useful idiots” and it applied to a good many people who should have known better. I now propose a new, analogous term more appropriate for the age in which we live: useful hypocrites. That’s you and me, folks, and it’s how the masters of the digital universe see us. And they have pretty good reasons for seeing us that way. They hear us whingeing about privacy, security, surveillance, etc., but notice that despite our complaints and suspicions, we appear to do nothing about it. In other words, we say one thing and do another, which is as good a working definition of hypocrisy as one could hope for.—John Naughton, The Guardian

“Who needs direct repression,” asked philosopher Slavoj Zizek, “when one can convince the chicken to walk freely into the slaughterhouse?”

In an Orwellian age where war equals peace, surveillance equals safety, and tolerance equals intolerance of uncomfortable truths and politically incorrect ideas, “we the people” have gotten very good at walking freely into the slaughterhouse, all the while convincing ourselves that the prison walls enclosing us within the American police state are there for our protection.

Call it doublespeak, call it hypocrisy, call it delusion, call it whatever you like, but the fact remains that while we claim to value freedom, privacy, individuality, equality, diversity, accountability, and government transparency, our actions and those of our government overseers contradict these much-vaunted principles at every turn.

For instance, we disdain the jaded mindset of the Washington elite, and yet we continue to re-elect politicians who lie, cheat and steal. We disapprove of the endless wars that drain our resources and spread thin our military, and yet we repeatedly buy into the idea that patriotism equals supporting the military. We chafe at taxpayer-funded pork barrel legislation for roads to nowhere, documentaries on food fights, and studies of mountain lions running on treadmills, and yet we pay our taxes meekly and without raising a fuss of any kind. We object to the militarization of our local police forces and their increasingly battlefield mindset, and yet we do little more than shrug our shoulders over SWAT team raids and police shootings of unarmed citizens.

Read more

By resisting release of Senate report and speaking in legalese, White House disappoints international community

November 19, 2014
by Faiza Patel

Anti torture activists dressed in the or

This year President Barack Obama rejected two excellent opportunities to close the door on the shameful use of torture and cruelty by the United States. First, his administration has resisted attempts by Senate investigators to release a coherent version of their report on torture by the Central Intelligence Agency. Such refusals have led to speculation that they have sought to delay matters so that Republicans can block its release after they take control of the chamber in January. Second, the Obama State Department said last week that the Convention Against Torture requires it to prevent torture only in places that the U.S. “controls as a governmental authority.”

The media made much of the U.S. declaration that “torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment are forbidden in all places, at all times, with no exceptions.” But this statement of principle is not new. Starting with President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. has taken the position that torture and cruel treatment are banned. President George W. Bush departed from this principle — although even he paid lip service to the ideal.

More strikingly, the U.S. didn’t explain whether it believed that torture and cruel treatment was forbidden worldwide under domestic law or under the torture treaty. This distinction is important. The brutal tactics employed by the U.S. after 9/11 have led many observers to question its commitment to postwar human rights treaties. Both allied and hostile nations were watching to see if Obama acknowledged that the U.S. was bound by global torture standards. His answer did not reassure them.

The goal of the torture treaty is twofold: to reiterate the absolute ban on torture and to effect the ban by requiring countries to take practical measures to prevent and punish torture, no matter where it takes place.

Read more

Nov. 17, 2014
Doug Bandow
Forbes

In 2009 President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize before doing much of anything. Since then he has initiated two wars, first in Libya and now in Iraq and Syria, and escalated another, in Afghanistan. Alas, he has demonstrated that it is bad to start wars unnecessarily, but even worse to wage wars foolishly.

The administration appears to have lost its collective mind. The president has added ground forces to the battle in Iraq and the military has suggested introducing thousands more. His officials reportedly have decided to focus on overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the name of fighting the Islamic State.

It is hard to know which of these ideas is worse.

The U.S. has been back at war in the Middle East for more than two months. The results have not been pretty.

The administration claims to have created a vast coalition of 60 nations, roughly 30 percent of the world’s countries. Alas, as in the past the celebrated gaggle assembled by Washington turned out to be mostly a PR stunt. The U.S. accounts for about 770 of the roughly 900 strikes on Iraq and Syria. The Arab states have done little in the air and nothing afoot. Only Iran, which Washington fears almost as much as ISIL, has put boots on the ground.

Most flagrantly AWOL is Turkey, which has tolerated radical fighters transiting through and even operating on its territory. Many of the Islamic State’s combatants came from Turkey and ISIL has targeted Turkish territory for its caliphate. Yet Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan only cares about the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, once a close friend. And Erdogan expects the U.S. do the job for him.

Nor has the administration’s scattershot bombing campaign had much effect. Iraq’s Baghdad has not fallen. That was never likely, however. Kurdistan’s Irbil remains in danger. Syria’s Kobani is unconquered but in ruins, and thousands of its residents have fled.

The Islamic State quickly adjusted its tactics to minimize the vulnerability of its forces. By one count U.S. strikes have killed 464 Islamic State personnel and 57 fighters for Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate. However, the estimated number of ISIL fighters trebled to as many as 30,000 just a couple weeks into Obama’s war.

Read more

by Patrick J. Buchanan
November 18, 2014

“How do you like the Journal’s war?”

So boasted the headline of William Randolph Hearst’s New York flagship that week in 1898 that the United States declared war on Spain.

While Hearst’s Journal, in a circulation battle with Joe Pulitzer’s World, was a warmongering sheet, it did not start the war.

Yet the headline comes to mind reading the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages seem to have concluded that on Nov. 4 America voted for new wars in the Middle East, and beyond.

On Nov. 13, the Journal’s op-ed page was given over to Mark Dubowitz and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assuming nuclear talks with Iran conclude unsuccessfully by the Nov. 24 deadline, they write, we have four options.

Two involve continued or tougher sanctions. The other two are a preemptive war featuring U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or a U.S. attack to bring down Bashar Assad’s regime.

“Taking Mr. Assad down would let Tehran know that America’s withdrawal from the Middle East and President Obama’s dreams of an entente with Iran are over.”

It would surely do that.

Read more

November 16, 2014
Paul Craig Roberts

Glenn Greenwald has revealed that Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate of the banksters and warmongers. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/14/despite-cynicism-genuine-excitement-hillary-clinton-candidacy/ Pam and Russ Martens note that Elizabeth Warren is the populist alternative. http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/10/hillary-clintons-continuity-government-versus-elizabeth-warrens-voice-for-change/ I doubt that a politician who represents the people can acquire the campaign funds needed to run a campaign. If Warren becomes a threat, the Establishment will frame her with bogus charges and move her aside.

Hillary as president would mean war with Russia. With neocon nazis such as Robert Kagan and Max Boot running her war policy and with Hillary’s comparison of Russia’s president Putin to Adolf Hitler, war would be a certainty. As Michel Chossudovsky and Noam Chomsky have written, the war would be nuclear.

If Hillary is elected president, the financial gangsters and profiteering war criminals would complete their takeover of the country. It would be forever or until armageddon.

To understand what we would be getting with Hillary, recall the Clinton presidency. The Clinton presidency was transformative in ways not generally recognized. Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party with “free trade” agreements, deregulated the financial system, launched Washington’s ongoing policy of “regime change” with illegal military attacks on Yugoslavia and Iraq, and his regime used deadly force without cause against American civilians and covered up the murders with fake investigations. These were four big changes that set the country on its downward spiral into a militarized police state with massive income and wealth inequality.

One can understand why Republicans wanted the North American Free Trade Agreement, but it was Bill Clinton who signed it into law. “Free trade” agreements are devices used by US corporations to offshore their production of goods and services sold in American markets. By moving production abroad, labor cost savings increase corporate profits and share prices, bringing capital gains to shareholders and multi-million dollar performance bonuses to executives. The rewards to capital are large, but the rewards come at the expense of US manufacturing workers and the tax base of cities and states.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud