January 08, 2010
by Paul Craig Roberts
What are we to make of the failed Underwear Bomber plot, the Toothpaste, Shampoo, and Bottled Water Bomber plot, and the Shoe Bomber plot? These blundering and implausible plots to bring down an airliner seem far removed from al-Qaida’s expertise in pulling off 9/11.
If we are to believe the U.S. government, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged al-Qaida “mastermind” behind 9/11, outwitted the CIA, the NSA, indeed all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies as well as those of all U.S. allies including Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, Air Traffic Control, Airport Security four times on one morning, and Dick Cheney, and with untrained and inexperienced pilots pulled off skilled piloting feats of crashing hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, where a battery of state of the art air defenses somehow failed to function.
After such amazing success, al-Qaida would have attracted the best minds in the business, but, instead, it has been reduced to amateur stunts.
The Underwear Bomb plot is being played to the hilt on the TV media and especially on Fox “news.” After reading recently that The Washington Post allowed a lobbyist to write a news story that preached the lobbyist’s interest, I wondered if the manufacturers of full body scanners were behind the heavy coverage of the Underwear Bomber, if not behind the plot itself. In America, everything is for sale. Integrity is gone with the wind.
Recently I read a column by an author who has a “convenience theory” about the Underwear Bomber being a Nigerian allegedly trained by al-Qaida in Yemen.…Continue reading
January 6, 2010
In an extended interview, award-winning journalist and activist Allan Nairn looks back over the Obama administration’s foreign policy and national security decisions over the last twelve months. “I think Obama should be remembered as a great man because of the blow he struck against white racism,” Nairn says. “But once he became president…Obama became a murderer and a terrorist, because the US has a machine that spans the globe, that has the capacity to kill, and Obama has kept it set on kill. He could have flipped the switch and turned it off…but he chose not to do so.” He continues, “In fact, as far as one can tell, Obama seems to have killed more civilians during his first year than Bush did in his first year, and maybe even than Bush killed in his final year.”
Guest: Allan Nairn, award-winning journalist and activist.
Website: News and Comment (www.allannairn.com)
ANJALI KAMAT: On Tuesday, President Obama made another statement on the failure of intelligence agencies to intercept the Christmas Day plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight. He said the US government had the necessary information to stop the twenty-three-year-old Nigerian suspect from boarding the Detroit-bound flight, but he excoriated the intelligence community for failing to connect the dots in time.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I will accept that intelligence, by its nature, is imperfect. But it is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed… Continue reading
By Philip Giraldi
November 4, 2009
Campaign for Liberty
Most Americans believe that we are in a terrible dilemma. An increasing number are uncomfortable with the continuing carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan and fearful of the consequences of yet another Middle East war, this time against Iran, but most also believe that our country is threatened by dark forces that seek to destroy us and that extreme measures are justified. Few realize that fear alone is bringing about our transformation into a country driven by constant warfare to the detriment of our constitutional liberties.
Those who believe that a change of course is essential if we are to survive as a nation quite rightly demand the disengagement of the United States from two wars and the avoidance of further conflicts. They understand that the United States has acted unwisely and illegally in its interference in the affairs of others and also that the presence of American military forces all over the world has not made us safer and has in fact served as a catalyst for escalating violence. But those who see the state of the world with such clarity must first convince a majority of their fellow citizens that disengagement is not another word for national suicide. In short, the American people must come to understand that their safety is best assured when our government does not go around the world looking for dragons to slay. A key element in being able to reassure the American people could be… Continue reading
France 2 backs away from real debate, censors Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent
Posted on October 24, 2009 by JF Ranger
This is an update of our previous article
Historic 9/11 Debate with Bigard, Laurent, Kassovitz and Harrit on French TV
State-owned television channel France 2 just decided to cancel the historic French debate which was announced earlier this week by Jean-Marie Bigard and reported on World911Truth.org, ReOpen911.info, Infowars.com, 911Blogger.com, and many others. This has been confirmed by Mathieu Kassovitz on Friday.
France 2 supposedly cannot find four credible people that want to debate 9/11 against Bigard, Kassovitz, Laurent and Harrit. Surprised? Maybe we have judged Barack Obama too quickly. Maybe he is right when he says that 9/11 is not debatable. Even one of the most important television channel in France cannot find credible people to support the official story.
Nevertheless, the TV channel will air the October 28 show but with Bigard and Kassovitz only. This has also been confirmed by Mathieu Kassovitz a few hours after announcing the show was totally cancelled. But there will be no real debate.
What we can clearly see here is that France 2 decided to censor Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent, the two 9/11 specialists, by keeping them away from a real and fair debate. This is very disappointing because once again Niels Harrit is censored by a mainstream media.
Isn’t the role of a public television to inform people and not to censor them? The information that both Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent have to tell the public is critical.…Continue reading
October 14, 2009
RELATED: Interviews by Fred Mann, of Schallundrauch.com:
Annie Machon – http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/10/interview-mit-annie-machon.html
Prof. Niels Harrit – http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/10/interview-mit-professor-niels-harrit.html
Giuletto Chiesa – http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/10/interview-mit-giulietto-chiesa.html
Cynthia McKinney: http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/10/interview-mit-cynthia-mckinney.html
Last weekend, from October 9 to 11, Debora Blake and Annie Machon organized “Vers La Vérité” in Paris, France. The event was sponsored in part by ReOpen911 France. “Vers La Vérité” was a mix of public and private events where each sub-event was designed to facilitate communication between people who share common concerns on important issues, including 9/11. It was not a 100% 9/11 Truth conference. The goal was to position 9/11 in the broader context of related and equally disturbing issues such as illegal wars and reduction of civil liberties.
They kicked off the event with a press conference on Friday morning attended by a journalist from a mainstream newspaper, France Soir and the independent TéléLibre. The mayor of Paris’s second district introduced Cynthia who made a brief statement and took some questions. Annie Machon also spoke briefly.
On Friday night, in one of Paris’s notorious all-night hang-outs, the Café Etincelle, activists from around the globe met up and began sharing ideas. This was also an opportunity to reach out to the general public and allow them the chance to talk with “the specialists”.
As the activists were having a drink together, just across the Seine river, at the restaurant Le Procope, Cynthia McKinney was having dinner in the company of the activist-sponsors who made generous donations in order to have a seat at the table (and defray the costs of organizing Vers La Vérité).…Continue reading
September 5, 2009
Breaking Down the Under-Oath Disclosures of the Formerly-Gagged Sibel Edmonds…
It has now been over a week since the video tape and transcript from the remarkable 8/8/09 deposition of former FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds was publicly released. Previously, the Bush Administration invoked the so-called “state secrets privilege” in order to gag Edmonds, in attempting to keep such information from becoming public.
The under-oath, detailed allegations include bribery, blackmail, espionage and infiltration of the U.S. government of, and by current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials and agents of the government of Turkey. The broad criminal conspiracy is said to have resulted in, among other things, the sale of nuclear weapons technology to black market interests including Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Libya and others.
Even as many of these allegations had been previously corroborated to varying extents, by a number of official government reports, documents and independent media outlets (largely overseas), not a single major mainstream media outlet in the U.S. has picked up on Edmonds’ startling claims since her deposition has been made fully available.
Granted, last week was a busy news week, with the death of Ted Kennedy, the release of the CIA Inspector General’s report on torture, and the announcement that Michael Jackson’s death was ruled a homicide. And, it’s true, a 4-hour deposition and/or 241-page transcript [PDF] is a lot of material to review, particularly given the wide scope of the charges being… Continue reading
Joe Trento discusses our history with Iran — from the Mossadeq Era to the recent twitter campaign, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s foreign policy strategy and objectives in the region, and he talks about Israel, Saudi Arabia’s backing of Pakistan’s pursuit of the nuclear bomb and AQ Khan, the terrible state of US Media, the prospect of ‘real change,’ and more.
Here is our guest Joe Trento unplugged!
For those who want to subscribe to the show in “itunes”, here is the subscription URL: http://boilingfrogs.justacitizen.com/xml.php?feed_id=1071
Joe Trento has spent more than 40 years as an investigative journalist, working with both print and broadcast outlets and writing extensively. Before joining the National Security News Service in 1991, Trento worked for CNN’s Special Assignment Unit, The Wilmington News Journal, and prominent journalist Jack Anderson. Trento has received numerous reporting awards and is the author of seven books, including America and The Islamic Bomb , Unsafe At Any Altitude, Prelude To Terror , The Secret History of the CIA , Widows , Prescription for Disaster: From the Glory of Apollo to the Betrayal of the Shuttle , and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration . For further reading visit Joe Trento’s site, http://dcbureau.org/ .
You can also listen to past interviews with Russ Tice, James Bamford, Philip Giraldi and Sandalio Gonzalez here : http://boilingfrogs.justacitizen.com/xml.php?feed_id=1071
Megrahi is to point the finger
By Ben Borland
AN AMERICAN citizen is to be named by the Lockerbie bomber as the man
who really carried out the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103.
Megrahi’s early release from prison on compassionate grounds.
Lawyers for the bomber were to argue that an “elusive” terrorist
codenamed Abu Elias planted the bomb in December 1988, causing the deaths of
270 innocent people.
Megrahi is now expected to identify the man behind this alias.
The Scottish Sunday Express tracked this man down to his home in the US, and
he strongly denied having anything to do with the atrocity.
However, we can reveal that he has connections to at least two international
terrorists and a Palestinian terror group, as well as links to the US intelligence
The man, who works as a schools engineer for the US government, was to become
the central figure in Megrahi’s aborted appeal.
‘Elias’, a commander in a Palestinian terror organisation, was
identified as the CIA’s primary Lockerbie suspect but was never caught.
Sources close to Megrahi believe he may actually have been a double agent working
for the FBI or the CIA.
Last night the man, who we have chosen not to name, said: “Sorry, I don’t
think that I can help in this case. It is a clear case of either mistaken identity
“I don’t wish my name to be mentioned in any capacity in the press.
I am… Continue reading
by Lisa Pease
August 21, 2009
In any kind of major transnational event, there is the historical truth, what actually happened, and the political truth, what must have happened for the nations involved to continue on as before.
Sometimes, these accounts match; other times, these “truths” are wildly divergent, which appears to be the case with the Lockerbie bombing.
On Thursday, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of planting a bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 which exploded over the hills over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988, was released. The Scottish authorities said they were letting al-Megrahi go free on “compassionate grounds” because he was terminally ill from cancer.
This decision caused an uproar in the United States. Obama administration officials lodged angry protests; family members of the victims decried the move, and TV pundits joined in the lamentations. But what do they really know about the Lockerbie bombing, beyond what they’ve read in the last few days?
The truth about what happened at Lockerbie appears quite a bit more complex than the cookie-cutter version presented by the mainstream media. Several longtime observers of the al-Megrahi case have concluded that it has always been weak, at best.
According to British journalist Hugh Miles in a 2007 article for London Review of Books, many “lawyers, politicians, diplomats and relatives of Lockerbie victims now believe that the former Libyan intelligence officer is innocent.”
Miles quoted Robert Black QC, an Edinburgh University professor emeritus of Scottish… Continue reading
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
” 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.” Dwight David Eisenhower, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech,” 1961, 1
” My observation is that the impact of national elections on the business climate for SAIC has been minimal. The emphasis on where federal spending occurs usually shifts, but total federal spending never decreases. SAIC has always continued to grow despite changes in the political leadership in Washington.” Former SAIC manager, quoted in Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, “Washington”s $8 Billion Shadow.” Vanity Fair, March 2007 2
“We make American military doctrine” Ed Soyster, MPRI 3
In The Road to 9/11 I summarized the dialectic of open societies: how from their energy they expand, leading to a higher level of more secretive corporations and agencies, which eventually weaken the home country through needless and crushing wars. 4 I am not alone in seeing America in the final stages of this… Continue reading
Note: The author is indebted to a few particularly useful sources of information and inspiration, including Russ Baker’s book “Family of Secrets”, the websites nndb.com, sourcewatch.org and secinfo.com, and Richard Gage.
On occasion, the public has been asked by George W. Bush to refrain from considering certain conspiracy theories. Bush has made such requests when people were looking into crimes in which he might be culpable. For example, when in 1994 Bush’s former company Harken Energy was linked to the fraudulent Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) through several investors, Bush’s spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, shut down the inquiry by telling the Associated Press — “We have no response to silly conspiracy theories.” On another occasion, Bush said in a televised speech — “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”
But paradoxically, we have also been asked to believe Bush’s own outrageous conspiracy theory about 9/11, one that has proven to be false in many ways. One important way to see the false nature of Bush’s conspiracy theory is to note the fact that the World Trade Center buildings could only have fallen as they did through the use of explosives. A number of independent scientific studies have pointed out this fact [1, 2, 3, 4], but it was Bush’s own scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), through their inability to provide a convincing defense of… Continue reading
Yesterday, something very interesting was reported on. However, before I tell you about it, I have a few things to say. Over the years, I have promoted information regarding the Pakistani ISI’s connection to “Al-Qaeda” and “terrorism.” I get a lot of flack for this, and am portrayed as someone who wants to see Pakistan and all Muslims killed. I am also portrayed as someone that doesn’t want to expose Israel’s alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. This is simply not true. Here’s an article I wrote about Ray McGovern and Israel on 5/7/2006. I added an introduction to address this issue. Another article I wrote addressed the “I want all Muslims killed” argument. In that I said, “you may have seen me say on occasion that 9/11 was not a Zionist crime, not a Muslim crime, not an American crime, etc… but a crime, and should be treated as such. A horrible crime took place on 9/11. 2,973 people were brutally murdered. When it first happened, our “leaders” told us it was an “act of war.” It wasn’t. It was a crime. Carried out by men. Those men may have been American. They may have been Saudi Arabian. They may have been Pakistani. They may have been Israeli. They may have been Muslim. They may have been Jewish. They may have been Episcopalian. It doesn’t matter. No nationality or religion committed the crimes of 9/11. Men did. Men who should be punished to the fullest extent… Continue reading
“War on Terror” advocates want civilians to die to justify “War on Terror”
The Corbett Report
6 July, 2009
CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s recent call for bin Laden to kill more Americans would be shocking if we hadn’t already heard it dozens of times before from other “War on Terror” advocates. “It’s an absurd situation,” Scheuer told FOX News personality Glenn Beck on his program last week. “Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.”
The comments have provoked much shock and outrage among pundits and websites like Jon Stewart and NewsHounds who may have considered him to be on their side. After all, he seemed to be a vociferous and effective critic of the neocons, having authored books like Imperial Hubris and having supported Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential debates by asserting that 9/11 was merely blowback for American interventionism in the Middle East. With his latest comments, Scheuer is now relegated to the ignoble company of neocon shills like Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who dreamed of another terrorist attack back in 2007 to rally people around the flag (and, presumably, George W. Bush) once again; Donald Rumsfeld, who complained in 2006 that the Bush regime was a victim of its own success in the “War on Terror” and that another terrorist attack was needed to remind people that the war was still necessary; and… Continue reading
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
June 10, 2009
In his remarkable speech at Cairo University on June 4, President Obama promised “a new beginning.” In the words of the Israeli commentator Uri Avnery, the speech offered “the map of a new world, a different world, whose values and laws he spelled out in simple and clear language — a mixture of idealism and practical politics, vision and pragmatism.”1
Much of what Obama had to say was new, and warmed the hearts of observers like myself, who had become increasingly concerned about the new president’s fidelity to the financial and military policies of the previous Bush-Cheney administration. But while Obama broke new ground on Israel-Palestine issues, he glossed over troubling issues pertaining to the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also glossed over one of the fundamental issues alienating the Muslim world: America’s relentless efforts to preserve its threatened financial status by moves to dominate the region’s oil resources. Here his careful ambiguity was ominously reminiscent of the Bush era.
The speech reaffirmed a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq by 2012, as the U.S. committed itself to do in a signed agreement last December. In addition Obama asserted that “we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan… We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan.”
But Obama’s remarks did not address the statement on May… Continue reading
by Jon Gold
On 1/8/2008, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that “a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia and key members of its royal family was put to a crucial test today as lawyers for victims of the 9/11 attacks urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the government of Saudi Arabia as a defendant.” The Cozen O’Connor law firm in Philadelphia “was the first to file suit against the government of Saudi Arabia in 2003, charging that the desert kingdom bears responsibility for the attacks because it permitted Islamic charities under its control to bankroll Osama bin Laden and his global terror movement.” The lawsuit “suffered a setback in 2005 when New York federal district court judge Richard Conway Casey ruled that the federal foreign sovereign immunity act barred lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family.”
On… Continue reading
June 9, 2009
By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Staff Writer
The Philadelphia Inquirer
At the moment the north tower of the World Trade Center collapsed at 10:28
a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Sharon Premoli was scrambling up an escalator from the
below-ground concourse toward the street with dozens of other office workers
in a desperate bid to escape.
She looked behind her and saw two things that are burned forever in her memory:
A human chain of evacuees riding the escalator and a boiling cloud of dust and
debris racing toward them.
The force of that swirling storm picked her up and threw her into nearby storefront.
After she awoke, she said, she soon realized she was lying on the lifeless body
of a man and that she was covered with his blood.
"I remember taking my nails and scraping my tongue to remove the debris
from my mouth," said Premoli, at the time a vice president for development
with a financial services software company based in the North Tower. "I
tried to get up and I realized I was lying on the body, and I am profoundly
haunted by that."
Strip away all the arcana and legal angels dancing on heads of pins, and Premoli
is the human face of litigation alleging Saudi Arabia financed the 9/11 hijackers.
She is one of 6,000 World Trade Center victims and their families who have
charged in lawsuits that the government of Saudi Arabia or its officials funded
Islamic charities that in turn… Continue reading
By Ray McGovern
What’s the difference between murder and massacre?
The answer is Terry Halbardier, whose bravery and ingenuity as a 23-year-old Navy seaman spelled the difference between the murder of 34 of the USS Liberty crew and the intended massacre of all 294.
The date was June 8, 1967; and for the families of the 34 murdered and for the Liberty’s survivors and their families, it is a “date which will live in infamy” — like the date of an earlier surprise attack on the U.S. Navy.
The infamy is two-fold: (1) the Liberty, a virtually defenseless intelligence collection platform prominently flying an American flag in international waters, came under deliberate attack by Israeli aircraft and three 60-ton Israeli torpedo boats off the coast of the Sinai on a cloudless June afternoon during the six-day Israeli-Arab war; and (2) President Lyndon Johnson called back carrier aircraft dispatched to defend the Liberty lest Israel be embarrassed — the start of an unconscionable cover-up, including top Navy brass, that persists to this day.
Given all they have been through, the Liberty survivors and other veterans — who joined Halbardier to celebrate his belated receipt of the Silver Star — can be forgiven for having doubted that this day would ever come.
In the award ceremony at the Visalia (California) office of Rep. Devin Nunes, the Republican congressman pinned the Silver Star next to the Purple Heart that Halbardier found in his home mailbox three years ago.
Nunes said, “The government… Continue reading
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
May 8, 2009
One of the most frustrating features of observing American foreign policy is to see the gap between the encapsulated thinking of the national security bureaucracy and the sensible unfettered observations of the experts outside. In the case of Afghanistan, outside commentators have called for terminating current specific American policies and tactics — many reminiscent of the US in Vietnam.
Observers decry the use of air strikes to decapitate the Taliban and al Qaeda, usually resulting in the death of other civilians. They counsel against is the insertion of more and more US and other foreign troops, in an effort to secure the safety and allegiance of the population. And they regret the on-going interference in the fragile Afghan political process, in order to secure outcomes desired in Washington.1
One root source for this gap between official and outside opinion will not be addressed soon — the conduct of crucial decision-making in secrecy, not by those who know the area, but by those skilled enough in bureaucratic politics to have earned the highest security clearances. However it may be more productive to criticize the mindset shared by the decision-makers, and to point out elements of the false consciousness which frames it, and which should be corrigible by common sense.
Why One Should Think of So-Called “Failed States” as “Ravaged States”
I have in mind the bureaucratically convenient concept of Afghanistan as a failed or failing state. This epithet has been… Continue reading