News Of Great Interest Page XIX
The USA and International Terrorism by Philip Agee
That Old "BLACK MAJIC" Doesn't Have Me in Its Spell --- How About You? By Richard Sauder, PhD
ANTHRAX VACCINE - WHAT REPORTS? WHAT WAR? By Jim Rarey
GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel [Posted 14 November 2001]
MR. CHENEY'S COVER STORY Part 1, Section 2 of 'GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS' by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel [Posted 20 November 2001]
The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
The USA and International Terrorism
by Philip Agee
http://www.counterpunch.org/agee1.html
The Cold War never really ended. It did so along the east-west axis. But the Cold War always had a north-south dimension-- the war against forces of liberation in Third World countries. That never ended, and it continues today. [Through my studies] I gradually came to the conclusion that what my CIA colleagues and I had been doing during the 1950s and '60s was nothing more than a continuation of nearly five hundred years of exploitation and political repression.
I would like to begin by citing a well-known observation of A. J. Liebling, a U.S. journalist and media critic who was active during the mid-1900s: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one," he said.
In a sense, this has always been true. News media in general, except for state-funded organizations, are part of the private sector. I know that, here in Sweden as in Britain, you have state television and state radio. But generally speaking, and certainly in the United States, the press has always been in the private sector.
The Power of the Word
The United States - that is, the political class of the United States - has known about the power of the word for a very, very long time. A personal experience may serve to illustrate how powerful the written word can be.
For legal reasons, I stayed away from the United States for about seventeen years-- from the time I started work on my first book, in the early 1970s, until my autobiography was ready for publication in 1987. The publisher of the latter was very eager for me to return to the States for the promotion of the book, but my lawyers all warned me not to take a chance. They suspected that there could be secret criminal indictment, as there could have been all those years, and argued that the risk was not worth it.
My wife and I decided that we would take that risk. We went back, and they didn't touch me. I did the promotion of the book, and that began ten years of frequent travel to the U.S. for lectures at universities and speeches at political rallies, civic centres, churches, even out in the street. Altogether, and must have spoken at more than 500 events in the United States.
One of my trips, around 1989 or 1990, was to the University of California at Santa Cruz. When the organizers told me that the event was scheduled to take place at a civic centre with room for about 3000 people, my reaction was: "Oh,my god! We are going to look like we're all alone in there. We will never attract more than a couple of hundred people." But they said, "Don't worry. You'll see."
Sure enough, on the night of the meeting the arena was packed. During the discussion period after my talk, which was about the war in Central America still going on at the time, a man stood up way in the back. He was a very large person, with a lot of long hair, a bushy beard, and a plaid lumberjack shirt. He paused for a moment, and then said my name in an enormous, booming voice: "Philip Agee!" He said, "Philip Agee, I want to thank you for saving my life!"
With that, the place became as quiet as you could imagine. You could have heard the proverbial pin drop. He went on to tell the story of how he was seriously wounded in Vietnam, and had to spend several years in a veterans' hospital in the United States. While in hospital, he became despondent: He thought there was no hope, and decided to commit suicide. But then someone gave him a copy of my first book.
He said: "When I read that book, it changed my life." He said that he decided then not to end his life, but to spend the rest of it helping Vietnam War veterans who had problems like his own. From that point in the mid-1970s until the time of this meeting some fifteen years later, he had made a career of social work among Vietnam War veterans suffering from mental problems because of the things that they had done and seen in Vietnam.
This is merely one personal story, but it indicates the strength of the written word. Possibly, one life was saved-- possibly.
Covert Action
The CIA, as you probably know, was founded in the years following World War II-- supposedly, to prevent another Pearl Harbor, the Japanese surprise attack which brought the United States into that war. In that sense, the events of September 11th represent a terrible failure on the part of the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence establishment.
There are at least twelve or thirteen different intelligence agencies in the United States, and they are spending on the order of thirty billion dollars per year-- the CIA being simply the foremost among them. Of course, the CIA was not only established to collect information and to anticipate attacks.
From the beginning of the CIA's existence, it was also used to intervene secretly in the internal affairs of other countries. Virtually no country on earth was exempt.
This secret intervention-- as opposed to the collection of information-- was called covert action, and it was used in a variety of ways to influence the institutions of other countries. Interventions in elections were very frequent. Every CIA station, that is the undercover CIA office inside a U.S. embassy, included agents who were involved in covert action. In addition to intervention to ensure the election of favoured candidates and the defeat of disfavoured candidates, the CIA also infiltrated the institutions of power in countries all over the world. I am sure that Sweden is no exception, and was not an exception during all the years of the Cold War.
There was electoral intervention, propaganda via the media, and also the penetration and manipulation of women's organizations, religious organizations, youth and student organizations, the trade-union movement-- very important-- but also the military and security services and, of course, political parties. All of these institutions were free game for penetration and manipulation by the CIA.
In short, the CIA influenced the civic life of countries all around the world. It did this due to a lack of faith in democracy in other countries.
There was a desire for control. The secret U.S. policy was to not leave things to "chance", that is to the will of the people in whatever country it might be. They had to be tutored, they had to be "guided" in such a way that they would be safe for U.S. control. Control was the key word. None of this was done for altruistic or idealistic reasons.
Three key factors
Where the media are concerned, there are three important factors involved: sources, selection and the slant. With regard to sources, it is my understanding that Swedish news media have very few of their own people working abroad. That means that they are dependent on what they get from other sources, for example the Associated Press, Reuters, BBC or CNN.
Those huge organizations which have people all over the world are, of course, selling their products here.
So you receive those products here, and an editor takes uses them in any way he chooses. What seems to be happening with globalization is that the treatment of news is becoming more and more homogeneous. Sweden, of course, is a unique society with a unique history, culture and language. You would surely have a unique way of viewing and interpreting world events-- a vision of the world that is Swedish, in contrast to that of the U.S., Germany or any other nationality.
But how do you maintain this cultural identity with regard to international news, if the media here are dependent on foreign sources? These sources are, of course, becoming fewer and fewer, as the process of monopolization continues. Consider the mergers that have occurred just during the past ten years or so-- for example, Time merging with Warner, then taking over CNN and now merging with AOL. Or General Electric, another giant corporation, taking control of NBC. This is a process that has been going on for a long time, resulting in fewer and fewer independent sources.
Selection may be the most important factor of the three, because what is most important in the news is what is left out. It is a form of censorship.
There is a lot of news out there; but editors determine what is news and what is not. Whatever is overlooked, not reported, says a lot about the media.
Invisible background
This has been very well illustrated during the past two weeks. I imagine that we have all seen the same reports over and over again, on what happened in New York and Washington, along with the demonization of Osama bin Ladin.
There has been some reporting, but not very much, about the fact that bin Ladin is a product of the United States. He is a creature of the CIA, having gone to work for it in Afghanistan. It was the largest operation ever carried out by the CIA, and its purpose was to bleed the Soviet Union.
Bin Ladin was one of thousands who volunteered to fight with the mujihadin against the Soviets. As I recall, there were seven different groups. All seven were basically fundamentalist Islamic forces, who felt that the Soviet invasion defiled an Islamic country. Bin Ladin was among those who did not stop fighting after the Soviets were expelled. In fact, he started laying plans for the future while the war against the Soviet Union was still going on. He was able to develop a world-wide network which today is operating in sixty countries or more.
Very little of this background on bin Ladin as a creation of the United States has been brought to public attention during the past two weeks. Most of what we have seen and heard is related to the "solution", which is war.
How much have we read or heard about those voices calling for alternative solutions to the problem of international terrorism? How much reporting have we seen on analyses of what has driven these people to such desperation that they carried out those attacks on September 11th?
I have not seen very much of that. This may be due to the fact that I am living in Cuba at present. But I do read the New York Times on the Internet every morning, for example, and have access to quite a lot of other news.
When it comes to alternative solutions to the problem, such as a re-examination of U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I don't think I have seen anything. The only thing we get is Bush saying "this is war, we are at war, this is the first war of the 21st century, this is a question of good versus evil, whoever is not with us is against us", and so on.
That is pretty much the attitude we had in the CIA during the 1950s. When we analysed the operational climate and all the political forces in any given country, we had our friends and we had our enemies. There was no one in between. The friends were centre and right-wing social democrats, conservatives, liberals, in some cases all the way over to neo-fascists.
The enemies were left-wing social democrats, socialists, communists, all the way to those advocating armed struggle.
This is the way we saw the world. It was a strictly dualistic view of the political climate in any given country where we were operating. It was very much like what we are hearing today from Washington.
The Uses of Journalists
The third important factor affecting the news is, of course, the slant or bias. It reflects the moral, social and political values of the person doing the writing, or at least the editor. This is where the CIA played a very fundamental role in years past, and I cannot imagine that it suddenly stopped when the Cold War came to an end.
In fact, like many others, I believe that the Cold War never really ended.
It did so along the east-west axis. But the Cold War always had a north-south dimension-- the war against forces of liberation in Third World countries. That never ended, and it continues today.
I also believe that the CIA's media operations have continued. They involve the recruitment and payment of editors and reporters who take the CIA's material and publish it as if it were their own. Taken all together-- the sources and selection of material, and the point of view or slant-- the result is essentially what is known as propaganda, but which passes for "unbiased news".
Journalists are also very important to the CIA for non-journalistic activities. They serve as very convenient agents of access for the Agency.
Particularly since they come from a country with a neutral tradition, Swedes in general have always been of great interest to the CIA. This is because they do not carry a lot of political baggage, as do people from most other countries. I am aware of the ongoing debate here concerning just how neutral Sweden has or has not been. But in the rest of the world, the neutrality of Sweden has created a special attraction for U.S. intelligence agencies, because Swedes have readier access to certain target individuals than, say, an American or a German would.
The fact is that journalists are used for non-journalistic purposes-- as collection agents for intelligence, and for making contacts, because a journalist can approach practically anyone and ask for an interview or develop some type of relationship. Of the hundreds of journalists who have come to me over the years, I have no idea how many have been sent by the CIA. I get some idea when I read what they write. But I learned to be cautious, early on.
Education in Injustice
The covert action operations to which I referred earlier were carried out all over the world, and certainly in Latin America where I was posted. I spent three years in Ecuador, then three more in Uruguay. In both cases, my cover was as a political attaché in the U.S. embassy.
I then returned to Washington, pretty disillusioned with the work. I was a product of the U.S. education system of the 1950s, which provided me with a very good liberal education, but no political education at all. I was simply brought up to believe that whatever the government did was good, and that it was doing these good things in the name of us all.
It was not until I got down to Latin America that I began to get a political education. Whatever my ideas when I went down there, I saw things around me every day that influenced me. I saw the terrible economic and social conditions, and the injustices that could not be ignored.
The two most fundamental, interrelated problems were the grossly unequal distribution of land and the unequal distribution of wealth. In the early years of the Kennedy administration-- I had gone down to Latin American toward the end of the Eisenhower period-- there was much talk about land reform as a way of dealing with those problems.
But with the success of the Cuban revolution, and its success in surviving U.S. attempts at invasion and other hostilities, land reform in the rest of Latin America was put aside. "Stability" was the order of the day. The view in Washington was that, if reform programmes were pushed, it could lead to instability and create openings for liberation forces all over Latin America that were inspired by the Cuban revolution.
So, the aim of our programmes was to support the status quo, to support the oligarchies of Latin America. These are the power structures that date back centuries, based on ownership of the land, of the financial resources, of the export-import system, and excluding the vast majority of the population.
With all of our programmes, we were supporting these traditional power structures. What first caused me to turn against these people were the corruption and the greed that they exhibited in all areas of society. My ideas and attitudes began to change, and eventually I decided to resign from the CIA.
It is widely believed that, once you have joined the CIA, it is likely being in the mafia, that you can never leave. But that is actually not the case.
The CIA does not want people working within the organization who are not happy and do not want to be there. They are security risks, for one thing.
So, people are coming and going all the time in that large organization of some 18,000 employees.
Maddening Diary
I decided to start a new career in teaching, and enrolled as a Ph.D. student in a programme of Latin American studies at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. In the course of those studies-- of the Spanish Conquest, the colonial period, and all the horrors that have occurred over the centuries in Latin America -- I gradually came to the conclusion that what my CIA colleagues and I had been doing during the 1950s and '60s was nothing more than a continuation of nearly five hundred years of exploitation and political repression.
It was then that an idea entered my mind which had previously been unthinkable -- to write a book that would show how all this works. The research required me to spend a year in Paris, and then another year in London where the British Library's newspaper archive proved to be invaluable. There, I was able to read all the news reports relating to the places that I had worked in Latin America, in many cases dating back to the 19th century.
When the book finally came out-- the title was Inside the Company: CIA Diary-- it was reviewed in the CIA's classified in-house journal, Studies in Intelligence. I managed to get a copy of the review, which speculated that I had kept copies of all the stuff I had worked on while I was in the CIA, because they could not believe that I was able to reconstruct all those thousands and thousands of details from memory. It drove them absolutely crazy. But, in fact, most of the maddening details were gleaned from the newspaper archive of the British Museum.
The book had a tremendous effect on the Agency's effectiveness, its ability to continue its standard operations. The most gratifying result was that many Latin Americans told me how important the book was for defending themselves and their organizations from destruction by the CIA. In the broadest sense, the purpose of the Agency's various activities was to prop up those forces that were considered to be friendly to U.S. interests, while penetrating, dividing, weakening and destroying those forces that were regarded as unfriendly to U.S. interests-- the forces of the political left that I mentioned earlier.
Thus, for Latin American revolutionaries to come to me and say how much they appreciated the book, with all its details on how the CIA works to subvert institutions in other countries, was extremely gratifying.
Suitable enemy
Since the events of two weeks ago, there has been much comment and speculation about the new era we may now be entering. Looking back, there was a long Cold War that had already begun during World War II. An important turning point occurred in 1950, when it was decided to start an arms race that would serve the dual purpose of forcing the Soviet Union into bankruptcy while stimulating the U.S. economy. Since the Soviet Union was still recovering from the devastation of World War II, it would never be able to catch up; but it would be compelled to make the effort, nevertheless. Meanwhile, military spending in the U.S. would keep going up and up, which in turn would stimulate the U.S. economy through a sort of "military Keynesianism". This continued through the Reagan administration of the 1980s.
But in the decade since the end of the Cold War until September 11th, the U.S. security establishment-- the political class, the CIA, the people who fought the Cold War-- had no real enemy to focus on. True, they had Saddam Hussein for awhile, and they might have had a minor enemy here, another one there. But there was no real world-wide threat similar to that of the Cold War. Well, now it seems that they have one again.
What this means is that the United States is going to be in this for quite some time. I have feeling that it is going to go on for ten or fifteen years, because they are not going to wipe out international terrorism or something like bin Ladin's group overnight. During this period, they are going to be doing the same things they did in the Cold War. We can already here it in such expression as, "Whoever is not with us is against us." They are going to be trying to use every bit of power they have to bring countries in line behind the United States.
It also means important changes within the United States, because the war on terrorism will serve as the justification for restraints on civil liberties.
They are building a huge crisis in the United States. They are building the psychological climate for broad-based acceptance of an ongoing war, for which there will be no quick resolution. There will be no great battles, either.
Little Room for Alternatives
During this period, there will be very little room for alternative views and alternative solutions in U.S. news media. What are the alternatives? Well, one is obviously to address the question of why these people are doing these things: What are the roots of international terrorism? How does U.S. foreign policy create this type of reaction? How does U.S. support of everything that Israel does, including the oppression of the Palestinian people, influence fundamentalist Islamic groups?
In other words, a feasible alternative would be a reconsideration of U.S. foreign policy, to see if it would not be possible to create a more just situation in the Middle East. But the United States is stuck. It is stuck with an authoritarian regime in Egypt, which is one of the really shaky countries at the moment. Algeria has gone through a horrible period, and the fundamentalist movement there has not died away at all. In Pakistan the government could fall; fundamentalists there could take over, and they would then have nuclear weapons in their hands. So, a lot of things can happen in the months and years ahead.
Unfortunately, I suspect that there will be greater self-censorship by U.S. media in order to line up behind the government, however its policy of war may turn out. There is already talk of a personal identification system of some kind for the entire country, together with large-scale surveillance of the population-- especially immigrants, and Muslim immigrants in particular.
There will be some opposition to this; but historically, the courts have usually gone along with the government, even though they are theoretically supposed to be the guarantors of civil liberties. For example, the courts went along with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
So, it will be possible to restrict, and even infringe upon, civil liberties and human rights in the U.S.
It is early days to draw any conclusions about how all this is going to develop, since it is still in the planning stage. But in my opinion, if they carry out this military solution-- with an attack or a series of attacks, or the establishment of military bases in Islamic countries-- they will be doing exactly what bin Ladin wants them to do. It would turn more and more people to fundamentalism and to his organization. They could kill him tomorrow, but the organization that he has established will live on, and it will be nearly impossible to penetrate.
My reading of the situation is that there have been a few defectors from bin Ladin's organization who have provided valuable information. But the U.S. has not been able to have anyone working in these clandestine groups around the world and reporting from the inside. It has had to make do with whatever it can learn from a few defectors. Certainly, the CIA and the other components of the U.S. intelligence apparatus will be using all available technical means to locate and attack these groups, wherever they may be.
They should certainly know where all the training bases are located, since they were established by the CIA, itself. But that will not be nearly enough.
[Philip Agee is a former CIA officer and author of "Inside the Company: A CIA Diary," and "On the Run." This is article is adapted from the text of a speech Agee gave at ABF House, in Stockholm on 24 September 2001.]
Reproduced gratefully from: http://www.counterpunch.org/agee1.html
4,000 isrealis had day off on 9-11
instant messages to isreal warned of attack
by far the most intense censorship of conspiracy 'theories' online have involved what is deemed anti-semitic, i.e. anti-israel [the equivalent of saying it is unamerican to question US foreign policy]
the MEDIA was quite in place for coverage
public sentiment was beginning to turn pro-palestinian and against israeli policy
since 9-11, the israelis have managed to pour into palestine and wreak havoc...and pull out just in time for the overcoming of kabul - with FAR less international press coverage than they were getting before the event, when the oppression was nought compared to the last two months
the mossad saying 'by deception shalt thou make war'
harari is called the fixer
harari enjoys the protection of london as an employee of the isreali embassy there even though norway wants his ass for masterminding dozens of political killings there
harari's connections to the bush enterprises are thorough...he was in charge of operation watchtower - the program of drugs to LA gangs for money for guns for nicaragua - read more below
Prosecutors in Norway have issued an international arrest warrant for a former Israeli intelligence agent, suspected of involvement in the mistaken killing of a Moroccan man nearly twenty-five years ago.
A spokesman said the retired agent, Michael Harari, was wanted for questioning about the shooting, in the Norwegian town of Lillehammer in 1973. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_119000/119404.stm
where is harari now? http://www.israel-embassy.org.uk/web/pages/polithm.htm
"Remember Col. Michael Harari, the Mossad officer who was the brains behind the drug crimes we blamed on Panama's former strongman Gen. Manuel Noriega?" asked Shelton. "After we invaded Panama, we grabbed Noriega and sent him to Miami, where he is still in prison. But Col. Harari and his men, who were as criminally guilty as Noriega—perhaps even more so—were quietly flown back to Israel in an un marked U.S. Air Force transport." http://www.spotlight.org/07_08_00/Columbia/columbia.html
The participation of Noriega advisor (and former Mossad agent) Michael Harari ensured that Israel got a piece of Ollie North's action. As early as December 1983 the Israelis were using a Panamanian CIA front company, IFMA Management Company, to funnel support to the Contras. Harari himself would later boast of his friendship with Donald Gregg, George Bush's national security advisor. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/castillo.htm
Michael Harari, a longtime top agent of Israeli foreign intelligence, the Mossad, who was a security adviser to Panamanian Defense Forces Gen. Manuel Noriega. As the Mossad station chief for Central and South America in the late 1970s and into the 1980s until the U.S. invasion of Panama, after which he returned to Israel, Harari coordinated the Mossad's gun-running and drug-trafficking operations in South America. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/30/071.html
"An Israeli reputed to be Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega's closest associate may have eluded capture on the night of the United States invasion because he was warned to flee nearly six hours before American troops swept into the capital, the deputy commander of Panama's new police force said today. 7he Noriega associate, Mike Harari, a former Israeli intelligence officer, was last seen at 7 p.m. on Dec. 19 leaving the home of General Noriega's wife, the commander, Eduardo Herrera Hassan, said. The invasion began shortly before I a.m. on Dec. 20. Mr. Harari, the commander said, was reportedly accompanied by two Israeli assistants who had come for him with a car. The location of Mr. Harari, who is said to have trained and equipped General Noriega's elite security forces, has been a mystery." http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0290/9002005.htm
Norway solves riddle of Mossad killing
According to the report, about nine others escaped from Norway, including the suspected leader, Michael Harari, a senior Mossad agent who has now retired. The commission said Norway did little to catch the suspects in the early 1970s. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,193475,00.html
EIR's investigation has determined that Alberto Prado Herreros is operating in close association with Harari to set up the covert weapons supply into Central Africa. Herreros, a longtime weapons- and drug-trafficker, has been part of the Harari network since the 1970s, and is often characterized as the Hispanic rendition of Harari; Herreros and Harari are, in fact, cousins. http://www.aboutsudan.com/dossiers/alberto_prado_herreros.htm
AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD P. CUTOLO The cargo flown from Colombia into Panama was cocaine.
<snip> Thee second individual I recognized from the three photographs I received, was listed as Michael Harari. I was informed that Michael Harari is listed as a senior Mossad agent. Harari was the un identified male Israeli national that met the aircraft which flew into Albrook Air Station during Operation Watch Tower. He was the one who gave Edwin Wilson two briefcases full of U.S. currency in various denominations. The briefcases were given to Edwin Wilson at the end of operations in March and Feb. 1976. It is my understanding from Pentagon contacts, that Harari's activities in Latin America are well known, including his drug trafficking endeavors. I was also informed from those same contacts that the Pentagon on the orders of several Washington VIPs have gone to great lengths to keep the activities of Harari a secret. I have begun preparations to meet with David Kimche or Michael Harari while in Europe on annual NATO exercises. I intend to verify that Harari was the individual who gave Edwin Wilson the briefcases while at Albrook Air Station during Operation Watch Tower. <snip> http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/cutolo.html
Michael Harari, the Israeli gun-runner who helped supply John Garang's Sudanese People's Liberation Army in a covert operation involving Roger Winter of the U.S. Committee on Refugees and Dan Eiffe of Norwegian Peoples Aid, is currently wanted for arrest by the government of Norway. The Norwegian warrant, issued through Interpol in June 1998, stems from Harari's coordination of assassination operations against leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization in revenge for the terrorist massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. On July 23, 1973, one of Harari's Mossad teams was dispatched to Norway, where it shot and killed Moroccan waiter Ahmed Bouchikhi. Harari had wrongly believed Bouchikhi to be PLO intelligence chief Hassan Salameh. http://www.aboutsudan.com/dossiers/michael_harari.htm
The Chief of Staff of the Ugandan Popular Defense Forces (UPDF), Brig. Gen. James Kazini, a nephew of Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni, is at the center of charges against the Ugandan army of wholesale looting in Uganda and southern Sudan. As EIR reported in its last issue (see pp. 58-65), Kazini was also caught in a covert caper to smuggle arms to the Sudanese People's Liberation Army of John Garang, operating in cahoots with Roger Winter of the U.S. Committee on Refugees, Daniel Eiffe of Norwegian Peoples Aid, and notorious gun-smugglers Michael Harari, formerly Israeli Mossad station chief for South America, and Alberto P. Herreros, formerly a prime contract for the illegal George Bush-Oliver North Contra supply operation of the 1980s. http://www.aboutsudan.com/opposition/uganda/museveni_in_sudan.htm
Now, what's happened, is that EIR investigators have uncovered operations which are extremely reminiscent of the covert supply of the Contras carried out during the Bush administration under George Bush, and involving the same cast of characters. The same seedy crowd, so to speak, or unsavory crowd.
And this involves Michael Harari, who was the Mossad station chief in South America and Central America during the 80s. He appears now to have moved over to Africa, and is now working with Roger Winter of the U.S. Committee of Refugees, Daniel Eiffe of the Norwegian People's Aid, which is an organization which has now been fired by the Norwegian government in its capacity of delivering aid to southern Sudan.
And these people are involved with Harari, and also Alberto P. Herraras, Harari's cousin, who has a Florida-based gun operation called Lomax International, and these people are supplying covert weapons to the Sudanese People's Liberation Army. http://www.aboutsudan.com/interviews/linda_de_hoyos.htm
Michael Harari, a longtime top agent of Israeli foreign intelligence, the Mossad, who was a security adviser to Panamanian Defense Forces Gen. Manuel Noriega. As the Mossad station chief for Central and South America in the late 1970s and into the 1980s until the U.S. invasion of Panama, after which he returned to Israel, Harari coordinated the Mossad's gun-running and drug-trafficking operations in South America. http://www.aboutsudan.com/dossiers/susan.htm
The NPA was founded by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions in 1939 and has been active in southern Sudan since 1986. Despite its "leftist" profile, it has been cooperating closely with "right-wing" Christian fundamentalist groups led by Baroness Caroline Cox's British-based Christian Solidarity International. The NPA's relationship with the group around Mossad agent Michael Harari could date back to its support for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas in their struggle against dictator Anastasio Somoza in the 1970s. http://www.aboutsudan.com/dossiers/daniel.htm
is there a connection between michael harari and osama bin laden [we have already demonstrated a connection between bin laden and bush - the carlyle group - and the connection between the US government and isreal is well known - AND harari works at the israeli embassy in london...sounds like an international effort] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agentsmiley/message/484
DRUG PROFITS ALLEGEDLY FUNDED FEMA An imprisoned former US Green Beret is suing the CIA, George Bush and others, to draw attention to their complicity in government-sanctioned drug-trafficking operations and cover-ups. Speculation about the mysterious origin and funding of the so-called US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has continued for decades. Most recently, the history of FEMA as an illegal, unconstitutional entity has been exposed in an unprecedented lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and its alleged drug-trafficking and money-laundering operations. McCoy, after all, was concerned that people just seemed to drop dead after they delved into the CIA cocaine operation at Mena, Arkansas. Among the dead were Stanley Huggins, Kevin Ives, Donald Henry, Keith McCaskell, Greg Collins, Jeff Rhodes and Richard Winters. Or they got "suicided" - like writer Danny Casolaro, attorney Paul Wilcher and NSA Colonel Vince Foster. "...in February and March 1976, a second and third Watchtower operation took place under the command of Colonel Edward Cutolo, and more cocaine was brought into Albrook Air Station, Panama. [Tyree], who was also involved in a non-volunteer capacity as Crew Chief on a US Army helicopter, saw CIA Officer Edwin Wilson, CIA Officer Frank Terpil, CIA Asset/Officer Colonel Albert V. Carone, and Israeli Colonel Michael Harari. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/beast1.html
On June 5, 1989, The SPOTLIGHT reported flatly, citing intelligence sources, that the infamous Medellin cartel of Colombia was, in reality, "an Israeli-directed organization which nets Israel billions of dollars every year in illegal drug profits."Cutolo specifically cited veteran Mossad clandestine services operative Mi chael Harari as a key figure in the operation, charging that then-former CIA director George Bush and other high-ranking U.S. government figures had "gone to great lengths to keep the activities of Michael Harari a secret." http://www.spotlight.org/05_28_00/CiaMos/ciamos.html
Allegations Regarding Vince Foster, the NSA, and Banking Transactions Spying BCCI became a important conduit for CIA intelligence, and also a ready target for the tenacles of the NSA. When Norman Bailey at the National Security Council urged NSA to "follow the money" as part of the "wars" on terrorism and drugs, the NSA had BCCI as one obvious banking target. The CIA was there also to assist in the monitoring of BCCI-related money flows of other intelligence and criminal enterprises. For BCCI had become a giant laundry machine, and the CIA made use of BCCI for their own covert money transfers.
One example involves Manuel Noriega, who was recruited by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency in 1959, who went on the CIA payroll in 1967, and who became head of Panamanian military intelligence in 1968, where he was in a strategic position to supply both information and drugs to the United States, and later on arms to the contras in an operation based in Panama, Mexico, and Mena, Arkansas. CIA money was paid to Noriega through the Panamanian branch of BCCI.
The CIA and U.S. Army only acknowledge paying Noreiga $322,226 between 1955 and 1986 (The New York Times, January 19, 1991). Be that as it may, Noriega deposited $33 million in his account (under the name of the Panamanian Defense Forces) at the Panamanian branch of BCCI. The head of this branch was the son of a former director of intelligence in Pakistan....the BCCI-Bush- Noriega-Mena connection to drug smuggling was matched by an similar Israeli connection to arms and drug dealing and money laundering. Anything went in the holy crusade to built the bomb and the associated missile delivery systems.
Just as the pension funds controlled by Robert Maxwell were looted to pay for Mossad operations in Europe (Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception, HarperCollins, 1994, p. 203), so were American S&Ls in effect looted (or burdened with debt) by the financial machinations of the "Committee of Thirty" to help generate the vast funds needed to maintain and expand Israel's defense industry. Some of these funds found their way into offshore accounts held by U.S. politicians and defense personnel as bribes, kickbacks, "campaign" contributions, and payment for stolen secrets.
That, for example, Noreiga was a Mossad, as well as CIA, asset follows from the fact his closest confidant and advisor was Michael Harari, formerly number three man in the Mossad, who specialized in assassination. Harari had fouled-up a case and had the wrong man killed, and was transferred to Mexico where he became station chief for Latin America. After allegedly retiring, Harari went to Panama as a security advisor to Noreiga, where he trained UESAT, Noriega's elite personnal bodyguards. During the U.S. invasion of Panama, the U.S. helped Harari escape back to Israel. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/part10.htm
Cross corroboration between testimony by CIA operatives Gunther Russbacher and Trenton Parker, for instance, indicates that the Colombia drug cartels were actually organized by the CIA. <snip> One of the most revealing incidents in the book is a conversation recorded by one of Stich's informants, Gene "Chip" Tatum, a helicopter pilot for the US Army and the CIA. Here's how Stich describes it: "During one flight to Tegucigalpa on March 15, 1985, Tatum met with William Barr, Michael Harari and Buddy Young, head of Governor Bill Clinton's security detail." (Incidentally Buddy Young is currently the Southwest Director of FEMA, appointed by his boss Bill Clinton.) http://www.conspiracydigest.com/bookdefrauding.html
for more on gunther russbacher, see: http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/octopus.html
paul wilcher tried to go to janet reno with the story of bush sr's trip to iran in 1980 designed to negotiate delayed release of the hostages...they were to wait until AFTER the election...gunther is the one that flew bush sr there...paul wilcher is dead - see: http://www.thepacc.org/Wilcher2.htm
wilcher ALSO was working on an expose of the fact that waco was supposed to be a psyop wherein the davidians were going to be domestic terrorists, under US government control...seeing a pattern? http://www.rumormillnews.com/wilcher.htm
On July 23, 1973, a member of Harari's Mossad team was dispatched to Norway, where he shot and killed Moroccan waiter Ahmed Bouchikhi. Harari had mistaken Bouchikhi for PLO intelligence chief Hassan Salameh. In June 1998, Oslo prosecutor Lasse Qvigstad issued an international arrest warrant, through Interpol, for Harari, whom he charged as an accessory to the Bouchikhi murder. The warrant's issuance extends the statute of limitation on the murder investigation for another 25 years. Gun-running operations always need the talents of a fixer, and Harari is the right man for covertly supplying arms to the SPLA, whose fight against the Sudan government is aiding Anglo-Israeli geopolitical schemes for East Africa. http://www.iviews.com/scripts/articles/stories/default.cfm?id=12149&category_id=39
still see a difference between demopublican and republicrat?
if clinton and bush were any closer they would be having babies!
the bush/clinton body count: http://alamo-girl.com/0364.htm
reading list: http://www.pir.org/books15.html
also see http://www.newsmakingnews.com/armitage11,1,00.htm
Thank You, "Agent Smiley," We, at the Gnostic Liberation Front, appreciate your research and integrity!
--- In agentsmiley@y..., Agent Smiley <smileyundaunted@y...> wrote:
http://www.aboutsudan.com/issues/terrorism/embassy_bombings_aimed_to_drive_us_out_of_africa.htm
Embassy bombings aimed to drive U.S. out of Africa Executive Intelligence Review, Aug. 21, 1998, pp. 40-42 Dean Andromidas and Joseph Brewda
A new page in the "strategy of tension" against the United States was written in blood on Aug. 7, with the simultaneous bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, which claimed more than 247 lives and injured another 5,000 people, predominantly Africans. The death toll from these attacks exceeded those against the Oklahoma City Federal building, which killed 168 people, and the bombing at the U.S. military base in Dharhan, Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 Americans. The international oligarchical enemies of the United States of John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and, potentially, Bill Clinton, have declared that they do not intend to allow the United States to trample on "colonial turf '-especially African colonial turf, rich in strategic raw materials.
One of the most cogent strategic assessments of the bomb attacks, appeared in an editorial by Ibrahim Nafei, editor-in-chief of the Egyptian government daily newspaper, Al-Ahram, who wrote, several days after the bombings: "Only a few weeks separate Clinton's visit to Africa in April and the double explosions at the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on Friday, August 7. During his visit, Clinton danced to African music, walked across the continent, took pictures as he played with children and mixed with Africans. The message has been understood that the continent is out of its traditional colonialist garb and is now under U.S. domination.... The U.S. Administration has viewed the road to Africa as strewn with roses. It has, accordingly, and wrongly, dismissed Europe's historical links to the continent."
Nafei, who in the past has repeatedly accused Great Britain of being behind so-called "Islamic Terrorism," went on to write: "it appears that those acts of terrorism seek to arrest America's progress in Africa. A reconsideration of matters is, thus, called for to avoid a double loss, where America's gains in the continent are undermined and where Africa is turned into a battleground in the fight against terrorism."
While it is certainly an exaggeration to claim that Africa is in any way under "U.S. domination," the basic thrust of the Al-Ahram assessment is consistent with EIR's own view, that British-led, European-centered imperial factions are hell-bent on denying the United States an opportunity to even attempt to build viable nation-states on the African continent.
A similar view was expressed by a former senior Pentagon official deeply involved in African policy, who emphasized to EIR on Aug. 11, that the twin bombings came at a moment when all of Africa has been thrown into chaos, "within just a few months of President Clinton's call for an African Renaissance." The South African currency, the rand, is under heavy attack; the death of Nigerian head of state Gen. Sani Abacha remains suspicious, and has added an element of political instability to the economic crisis in the largest African state; and the Great Lakes region is once again devolving into war, from Congo-Zaire to Uganda, as Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni pursues his goal of building a "Greater Tutsi Empire" on the corpses of millions of Africans.
The source emphasized that the issue behind the bombing attack is not the substance of U.S. Africa policy to date, which has been, and remains, a dismal failure, more often manipulated from London than manufactured in Washington. The mere threat of a shift in U.S. policy, back to the geometry of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's vision of a decolonized postwar world, sends the British and other European imperialists into a murderous frenzy.
There are two obvious questions that must be asked, in framing any competent investigation of such a sophisticated and deadly act of irregular warfare:
1. Cui bono? Who benefits from the assault against the American presence on the African continent?
2. Among those with motives for such an assault, who possesses the capability to plan and execute it?
While the British and Israeli press were quick to place a spotlight on such "usual suspects" as Iran, Iraq, and Sudan, the former Pentagon source was dismissive of these ploys. He noted that Sudan is in the process of pursuing improved relations with the United States, and attempting to peacefully settle the long-standing foreign-led destabilization in the south of the country. Similarly, Iran is seeking normalization with Washington.
Certain factions in Britain, on the other hand, particularly those associated with Royal Consort Prince Philip and his World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), are dead-set against the United States getting involved in African economic development or political stability. Any American involvement would be at cross purposes with their raw material grab and depopulation strategy, of sparking ethnic, tribal, and religious conflicts. As EIR first documented in its October 1994 Special Report, "The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor," the WWF has built up an extensive irregular warfare capability throughout sub-Saharan Africa, under the guise of game preserves and nature parks, often administered and staffed by WWF "wardens," drawn from the ranks of the British Special Air Services (SAS) and other special forces commands.
In recent years, these WWF-linked mercenary forces have been joined by a plethora of British private "security firms" that have emerged as primary sources of weapons trafficking and gun-for-hire operations all across the continent. Among these British firms are Sandline International and its affiliate, Executive Outcomes.
EIR is not alone in raising the issue of possible British "private" mercenary involvement in the twin bombings. On the day of the bombing, Tanzanian Prime Minister Frederick Tulway pointed in this direction, when he told the National Assembly, "We believe this is the work of foreign-hired mercenaries."
This same view was expressed by a researcher at a leading South African think-tank, who told EIR, "We discussed these bombings, and concluded that, once you ignore the Islamic terrorist line and ask, 'What groups in Africa could carry out these bombings?' we all came to the same conclusion: mercenary operations like Executive Outcomes."
As EIR has documented, there is no such thing as "Islamic" terrorism. Virtually every terrorist group in the world-including those falsely labeled as "Islamic" -is headquartered in London, enjoying the protection of the British Crown and British intelligence, fundraising there without restriction, and plotting terrorist acts abroad, with no fear of arrest or retaliation.
In recent years, more than a dozen governments have filed formal diplomatic protests with the British government, demanding that it end the protection racket for the new terrorist international. Among the most adamant critics of the British harboring of international terrorists have been Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and France.
Although there are sections of the U.S. government, led by officials of the State Department, who vigorously deny that London is the center of world terrorism, earlier this year the CIA issued a public report to a U.S. Senate committee, highlighting the London connections of leading world terrorists.
The most celebrated case of such a London-tied terror boss-and one that has been raised in the context of the Africa bombings-is Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy expatriate Saudi, who has residences in London and in Afghanistan, and who has been a pivotal figure in the "Afghansi" apparatus of former Afghanistan War anti-Soviet fighters, who have emerged as the labor pool for international terrorism. While Bin Laden is currently operating out of Afghanistan, it is from London that he recently issued a series of what he falsely claimed were 'fatwas"-Islamic religious rulings-targeting U.S. installations in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world for terrorist attack.
According to the Washington Post on Aug. 13, Bin Laden owns a construction company in Nairobi, which has access to explosives, and may have provided a cover for a terrorist attack. However, one U.S. intelligence source warned that Bin Laden's status as terrorist guru should not be overstated. He has been the subject of intensive U.S. tracking for the past year, and recently, U.S. and Albanian security services shut down a network of Afghansi controlled by him, in the Albanian capital city of Tirana.
In addition to British intelligence, Israeli intelligence has a massive presence throughout Africa, and has come under scrutiny from some surprising quarters, as being possibly complicit in the bombing of the two U.S. embassies. It is no secret that Israel's Netanyahu government has been in a state of something close to undeclared war with the United States for the past several years. Netanyahu-linked Mossad circles have been caught, on at least three occasions in the past 12 months, carrying out violent covert operations on ostensibly friendly foreign soil.
The Mossad has worked hand in glove with the British in the illegal gun, drug, and diamond trade. The current military adviser to President Museveni of Uganda is Israeli Maj. Gen. David Agmon, who in 1997 was the chief of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet. Agmon, through his company Russell Resources, has mining concessions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the region that his new boss, Museveni, hopes to conquer and absorb into his "Greater Tutsi Empire." Nairobi has been a longtime base of operations of Israeli hawk Gen. Ariel Sharon, the Minister for Infrastructure in the current Netanyahu war cabinet.
Israel transported its 200-man military emergency rescue team to Nairobi within 12 hours of the bombing. Although the medical team engaged in a very admirable humanitarian effort, Udo Ulfkotte, a correspondent for the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, said in an interview with German Radio on Aug. II, that the Israelis may have used this as a cover for not only intelligence gathering, but for the "planting of intelligence" to create an "Islamic trail," leading no doubt to Iran or Sudan. He pointed out that the bombing was "heaven sent' for Netanyahu.
Ha'aretz, the leading Israeli national daily, reported that, rather then being received with open arms by the Americans, the Israeli military medical team which showed up in Nairobi within hours of the bombing, complained that they were victims of "arrogant treatment" by the Americans on the scene. They reported that U.S. Marines forced them out of certain areas of the disaster scene at gunpoint.
Ha'aretz also reported, in its lead story on Aug. 11, that an informant linked to Israeli intelligence warned the United States that its embassy in Nairobi could be a target. But, when the United States asked the Israeli intelligence services whether the source was reliable, they were told to "take the report with a grain of salt."
Although the name of the informant has not been made public, EIR has been told that he is most likely a former Mossad agent by the name of Lyle Shunk. Shunk, far from being some sort of incompetent, was a leading member of the Mossad team led by super-spook Michael Harari, which operated out of Panama and played an important role in the 1980s George Bush-Oliver North "Iran-Contra" gun- and drug-running operations. After leaving Central America, Shunk moved on to Africa, where he continues to be active for Israeli security companies.
http://www.sauderzone.com/samizdat3.htm
That Old "BLACK MAJIC" Doesn't Have Me in Its Spell --- How About You?
By Richard Sauder, PhD
19 October 2001
(Copyright 2001 by Richard Sauder, PhD. Permission hereby granted to distribute far and wide, on condition that the article must be reprinted in its entirety without any alterations, deletions or additions. The following article contains several hyper-links to other articles and information on the WWW that may or may not be active in the future, but which all are active at the time of this article's publication.)
I have pondered deeply the events of 11 September 2001 and everything that has transpired since and I have a few more observations to make about the NEW WORLD ORDER that is trying to impose itself on us.
Perhaps my first observation would be that we are seeing a tremendous amount of garden variety lying. Yes, fibbing. The telling of prodigious whoppers with a straight face -- the better for the eager, fresh scrubbed talking heads on the network news programs to devour and regurgitate ad nauseam for unthinking consumption by a credulous, ill-informed populace.
Think I exaggerate? Check out this article from the "Washington Post" on 23 September 2001 in which a military officer involved in planning "America's New War" plainly says, "We're going to lie about things." (If necessary, copy and paste the following URL into your browser's address bar to go to the article.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13786-2001Sep23.html
Straight from the horse's mouth. So much for "us" being truthful and "them" being untruthful. We're dealing with massive deceit and politico-military illusion and delusion from the very beginning. On both sides.
I submit that what we are seeing is closely akin to magic. Shall we call it "BLACK MAJIC"? That is, we are simultaneously observing, and taking part in, and also being subjected to, a vast global power struggle, an attempt by the "New World Order" to place the entire planet under its totalitarian, imperial control. I say this is BLACK MAJIC, not because it has anything to do with Black people, per se, though there are certainly multitudes of Black people who are its victims, both in America and other parts of the world (as well as every other variety of human being). NO-- I say it is "BLACK" MAJIC because it is so darkly, hideously violent and grotesquely murderous and fratricidal and malevolent. I say it is BLACK "MAJIC" because it is done to our faces and so many of us either cannot or will not see it for what it is. I say it is "BLACK" MAJIC because the underlying geo-politics have so much to do with crude, oh-so-very BLACK petroleum. And like any other magic this BLACK MAJIC is done right in front of us-- we watch the whole thing and think we know what is happening, while in reality so many of us are fooled, bamboozled, hoodwinked and flummoxed by superficial glitz, glitter and the distractions of the stage craft, oops, make that "state craft" of the wily, slippery, lying BLACK MAJIC practitioners, until we don't know left from right, up from down, justice from injustice, or lies from truth.
There are so many elements of this BLACK MAJIC-- so many crosscurrents and undercurrents. And make no mistake about it-- it is definitely MAJIC and MAJIC of a very ancient and murderous sort. It stretches all the way back to the time of the medieval Crusades by the Knights Templar and beyond. In that regard, George Bush's prominent and very public use of the words "Crusade against terror" was surely no accident, nor was it perceived as such in the Arab and Muslim worlds. I suspect that George Bush's use of the word "Crusade" resonates at still a deeper level. As many people know, George Bush, and his father, as well, are both initiated members of the highly secretive "Skull and Bones" society at Yale University. As it happens, the "Skull and Bones" was also the battle insignia that decorated the flags of the Knights Templar when they went to war against the Muslim armies during the medieval Crusades in Palestine. Moreover, George Bush has also made prominent mention of the Red Cross in his public utterances. The other, prominent insignia of the Knights Templar Crusaders was -- what else?-- a vivid Red Cross. Are there ancient, ritual, coded, aspects of this conflict to which the public-at-large is utterly oblivious, but which people such as George Bush (both father and son) and people like Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and other Islamists understand every well?
Richard Hoagland has a very interesting article on possible ritualistic, MAJIC aspects of the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, DC that link the centuries-long struggle between secret power centers in the Muslim world and secret powerful groups in Europe and America to the attacks of 11 September 2001.
2) http://www.enterprisemission.com/tower2.htm
Hoagland suggests that powerful groups in both Muslim and Western societies are making use of an ancient, ritual system of magic. Hoagland offers a very interesting analysis. But he stops a little short of where I might carry the discussion. To wit, rather than seeing this simply as a possible one-sided attack by ancient, radical Muslim MAJIC against the soft underbelly of Masonic (Templar) America, I would go farther to postulate that what we are seeing may actually be a carefully orchestrated pas-à-deux (or pas-à-beaucoup) in which ritual MAJIC is used at a meta-level to play off two (or more) extremely violent antagonists, the one against the other, the better to further control, exploit and enslave the broad masses of planet Earth.
Just as in an ordinary magic show, that is staged in a theatre before an audience, here there are also magicians, assistants, sleight of hand, magical props, diversion of the audience's attention, carefully timed pauses for building tension and dramatic effect to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, as well as sudden tricks that are pulled seemingly out of thin air on a moment's notice, unexpectedly, to make the audience "ooh" and "aah" and manipulate their emotions. All of that goes into a good magic show. I suggest we are seeing all of that and more with the incredibly violent BLACK MAJIC show we are watching/being subjected to/participating in. Yes! I meant exactly what I said-- we are participating in a BLACK MAJIC show. Just as ordinary stage magicians involve their audiences in their illusions, so too do the perpetrators of this BLACK MAJIC cleverly involve their audience (which is to say "us"-- you and me, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic, Communist, Capitalist, Socialist, Male, Female, Black, White, Chinese, Latino, Arab, Native American, European, American, African, Oriental - every last person on this planet is being sucked into this thing and we need to understand that and deal with it).
And ALL sides are doing it. They are playing at cross-purposes, to their own audience and simultaneously to the other's audience-- and listen real closely -- they are all playing from the same ritualistic BLACK MAJIC playbook, the first rule in which playbook is DIVIDE AND CONQUER. As in, divide and conquer the human race. Split the planet asunder and have everyone at everyone else's throat, the better to slaughter, plunder, manipulate and control.
And just as a matador uses his masterful, fluttering cape to goad an enraged bull into charging madly around the bull ring, before suddenly plunging his razor sharp sword down between his shoulder blades and into his heart-- so too are today's masses goaded into a war fever, whipped into an enraged frenzy by fluttering the "Stars and Stripes" in front of them until they roar as one: "WAR! Nuke 'em! An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. Blood for blood!!" Not until they receive the casket containing the body of their son/daughter/father/mother/husband/wife draped with a flag will they begin to question the wisdom of the slaughter. Then the sight of the flag will cause them to weep bitterly, as if there is no tomorrow. Then, the rabid war cries of today will ring very hollow. War is never sterile. War is never bloodless. And when you slaughter others, their blood has a way of splashing all over you. And it stains your soul.
Right, you say. But which side does the NEW WORLD ORDER favor? And the answer is: both, either and neither. The NEW WORLD ORDER is a supremely violent and exploitive, global regime that owes allegiance to no one thing, person or group of persons, that I can see. Everyone is expendable. Everyone. It is a power unto itself and it has only one goal that I can divine: total, ruthless global control and 100% subjugation of the human race to its iron will, and on its own jackbooted terms. And it will use the Pentagon one day, bin Laden's Al-Qaeda the next, the Kremlin the day after that, and the People's Liberation Army on the next, and all of them together at the same time the day after that to achieve its goals, if need be. It will destroy a bin Laden one day, and raise up ten more just like him in his place the next day. It will tell one lie today, and ten more in its place tomorrow. Those lies can come from bin Laden or those lies can come from the Kremlin or the People's Liberation Army -- or also from the Pentagon. Please see above where the American military officer says, " We're going to lie about things."
WISE UP.
Don't believe me? Watch how this thing plays out-- as it violently destroys, kills, slaughters, bombs, starves and steals the freedom and human liberties from thousands and millions of people, here, there and everywhere. And you will watch the game played by the Pentagon, the CIA, the MOSSAD, The Kremlin, Her Majesty's Royal Navy, the People's Liberation Army, etc. -- and certainly by the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, bin Laden, etc. and a supporting cast of millions, here there and everywhere, all across the planet, armed with the most hideous weaponry that the demented military minds of humankind have ever wrought. Indeed, it has already started.
I want to mention a very interesting article by Carol Valentine.
http://www.eyesonamerica.org/200110/10110101.html
The article raises the question as to possible remote control of the airliners that were involved in the terroristic attacks of 11 September. As I understand the scenario, there would potentially be an extra level of deception in the attacks of 11 September. That is to say, yes, there really were hijackers. But they, along with the doomed crews and passengers of the airplanes involved, were equally taken hostage in their turn, by a yet more insidious level of the plot that unfurled only after the hijacking: to wit, the remote-control hijacking of the airliners by parties unknown and their subsequent remote-controlled plunge at high speed into the targeted structures. So the hijackers would represent plausible deniability for the actual perpetrators of the attacks, who would hide their hand behind real hijackings. But the hijackings may themselves been hijacked! High-tech remote controlled hijackings superseding low-tech radical Islamist hijackings. I am willing to give this idea a careful hearing. These are very strange and violent times and we need more information, more ideas, not less. Perhaps Carol Valentine is onto something important.
I know of only one agency in the world that presently has the demonstrated capability to remotely and precisely control the flight of an airplane: the Pentagon. In that regard, there was an article in the news this week, in the "Washington Post" of 17 October, that explicitly says the United States military is using remotely controlled airplanes over Afghanistan that are piloted by controllers sitting at consoles literally on the other side of the world. Read the story at the following link.
4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12129-2001Oct17.html
So, as to Carol's central premise-- is it possible to remotely pilot an airplane, even to fly it right into a tall building by remote control? The answer is: YES. The United States military is remotely piloting airplanes in Afghanistan-- and doing it from the United States on a daily basis as you read these words. The evidence is in the daily newspaper. I have heard it said: "Let those who have eyes to see, see. And those who have ears to hear, hear." Can you see? Can you hear? Can you think?
On a more prosaic, but still extremely violent level it strikes me that AMERICA's NEW WAR also has a certain "turf war" quality about it. It is a kind of personalized geo-political struggle-- somewhat in the same manner that Mafia Dons in New York or New Jersey engage in bloody battles and murderous reprisals to corner the drug market or the numbers racket or take control of union pension funds. Suppose a Mafia Don wants to take down a rival, and his rival is having supper with his friends in a very crowded restaurant. Does that stop the first Don from sending in his thugs to perform the "hit" with automatic weapons blazing? NO! They go in and take down their target and if the other diners happen to get in the way -- Hey! So what? Collateral damage, baby. One more day in the life and times of the "mob".
Well, we are dealing with a global "mob" here. The NEW WORLD ORDER. So what does a skyscraper full of people in their little "Dilbert" cubicles mean to the NEW WORLD ORDER? Or two skyscrapers full of people in their little "Dilbert" cubicles? Answer: nothing. Nothing at all. Just a little collateral damage.
So, who are two of the Mafia Dons in the current dust up? As it happens (to use a boxing metaphor), in the Western corner we have the Bush group, and in the Eastern corner we have the bin Laden and S. Hussein group. And wouldn't you know?-- the bin Laden, S. Hussein and Bush clans have had personal business dealings with one another in the past -- involving, you guessed it-- the huge petroleum reserves in southwest Asia. Only now it seems, the time has come to take care of really serious business.
Which brings me around to the two "-Ums" of Afghanistan-- petroleum and opium. Much has been written in recent weeks about the vast, almost untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the Caspian Sea region. Untold billions of dollars of oil and natural gas lie there, waiting to be piped and transported to the global market. As it happens, Afghanistan lies directly on one of the most profitable proposed routes for moving these commodities to market, via an as-yet-unbuilt pipeline network. If BIG OIL (SHELL, FINA, ELF, BP, MOBIL, EXXON, et al) can remove the Taliban regime from power and install a more pliable regime the pipeline can go through and oil and natural gas can begin to move in huge, industrial quantities and the BIG OIL interests that are lubricating the NEW WORLD ORDER's fast track to planetary domination will be satisfied. As it happens, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden have set themselves up in power in the hills of Central Asia and that poses a problem in the boardrooms where the NEW WORLD ORDER is hatching its plans. So they have to go.
Understand that I am simply analyzing the power dynamic here. The Taliban's and bin Laden's sexually, politically, socially and economically repressive and violent brand of medieval-style Islam is thoroughly reprehensible. But understand this: in that regard they are not appreciably different from the kind of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. The big difference is that the current Saudi regime cooperates with BIG OIL and its NEW WORLD ORDER agenda, whereas, bin Laden and the Taliban do not. Therefore, an incredibly violent onslaught has been unleashed in Afghanistan, while nothing of the sort has occurred against Saudi Arabia. If virulently violent Islam and ties to bin Laden were the real motivation for the attack against Afghanistan, then the Saudi kingdom would find itself under similar siege today. After all, bin Laden is of Saudi origin and his virulently violent religious politics have their roots there. And yet, one regime is under attack while the other continues as before, without drawing the Pentagon's fire. Think it through for yourself. The Pentagon and the British military are acting as a mercenary force for BIG OIL. Nothing more, nothing less.
And there is a second major factor here: OPIUM. Central Asia is a huge producer of poppy flowers from which opium and its derivative, heroin, are obtained. Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium for that reason. So this war is both an oil war and a drug war. A drug war in this sense: for decades the CIA has played a huge role in the international traffic of narcotics. It knows its way exceedingly well around the most violent opium and heroin networks and cocaine cartels on the planet.
Alfred McCoy has written a detailed book entitled: "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade". Order it from www.amazon.com , check it out of the library-- but read it. It sets out in great scholarly detail the CIA's ties to the worldwide drug traffic-- including the opium and heroin flowing out of Central Asia and Afghanistan. Why does the CIA get involved in the global narcotics traffic? Simple: narcotics provide a source of BLACK BUDGET funding. Vast amounts of untraceable cash with which the CIA can do its vile deeds around the world. And if you do not believe that the CIA is unspeakably treacherous and vile, then your naivete is so excessive as to stagger belief. But, you may say, where is the evidence that the CIA is treacherous and vile? And I reply: "Please see above. One Osama bin Laden. Like father, like son. Like CIA, like Frankenstein Monster."
And the CIA has cloned many, many others like him, here, there and everywhere all over the planet. With luck, we won't be hearing from many of the others, but don't hold your breath. (As an aside, when I did my first Master's degree I wrote a thesis on the civil war in Guatemala. Starting in 1954, the CIA installed a decades-long succession of ruthless, military dictators as its clients in Guatemala. Reading the human rights literature from Guatemala, seeing the details of what CIA-trained and sponsored thugs and goons do is not pleasant. Things like disemboweling pregnant women, decapitating people, slicing off women's breasts, castrating men, stuffing their genitals in their mouths and then stringing them up by their feet from trees with piano wire and leaving them to bleed to death. That's the sort of thing the CIA has sponsored around the world. Your tax dollars hard at work -- courtesy of CIA-sponsored thugs and goons straight out of the pits of hell. And in the aftermath of 11 September dumb-and-dumber America asks itself: "Huh? Why us? What did we ever do to anybody??")
And if bin Laden is today's international bad boy, just remember who first created this monster. Just remember who trained and armed him and his men way back when: the CIA. The CIA set him up as an "asset" back in the 1980s. Why? Because the Soviets were trying to conquer Afghanistan and enlist it as a client state in their empire. They ultimately failed, but now the United Sates is trying to do the same thing. So yesterday's CIA asset is today's number one "Most Wanted" man on the planet.
Here's the way I see it: bin Laden positioned himself for personal control of huge flows of two of the most lucrative commodities on the planet: opium and petroleum. We are now seeing a bare-knuckled, take-no-prisoners, planet-wide war for control of those commodities. Human life is not a primary concern in this struggle. No, the struggle is for pure POWER-- at virtually any cost.
And in its present Central Asia context, there are echoes of the NAZIs' ultimate geo-political objective: control of the heart of the Eurasian land mass. Whoever controls the heart of the Eurasian continent is in position to exert great influence on the global political and economic order. That was certainly a factor in the Soviet Union's emphasis on the region. It was certainly a factor in the NAZIs' long range, underlying geo-political calculus. And it is absolutely a huge factor in the very violent events that center on that region today.
Oh yes, this current war may be but prologue to another war that may follow, a war against China. If the Pentagon controls Afghanistan it would then have a Central Asian client state to use as an aircraft base and troop staging area to use to open a western front in a potential future shooting war with China. War without end. Only, I promise you, a war against China would be a good bit more dicey than war against Afghanistan. An adversary with nuclear missiles is an altogether different proposition. And by the way, because of all the help the Chinese nuclear missile program got from the United States Department of Energy during the 1990s and from such American military-industrial complex heavy hitters as Hughes and Loral, their nuclear missile force is now just about as deadly as cutting edge American military science could make it.
Yes, indeedy. Read on -- it gets even worse.
We are besieged daily now with stories of Anthrax. Anthrax at the U.S. Congress, at Gov. Pataki's office in New York, at NBC, at American Media in Florida…
Notice a pattern? The locations are centers of political power or media power. Whoever or whatever is behind these attacks is very organized. This is not the work of a ragamuffin band of yahoos. No-- they are going right after elements of the established political structure and its mass media organs. Why the offices of supermarket tabloids? Simple, millions of people read the lurid headlines of the tabloids as they wait in check-out lines at grocery stores across the country. What better way to spread panic and fear than by hitting the offices of those tabloids with an anthrax attack? Why infect Dan Rather? Who better than a prominent TV personality who is known to millions? The better to strike panic and fear into people's hearts and minds. Why hit the offices of the governor of New York and the U.S. Congress? Simple, by directly attacking prominent politicians and their staffs, they can be induced to introduce draconian limitations on human rights and civil liberties. They can be prompted into abolishing freedom, in order to preserve freedom. In other words, that is the modus operandi for a "hidden in plain sight" coup d'etat staged from the inside-- to the eventual detriment of the many, for the ultimate benefit of the very select few.
Yes, that is how you get an Orwellian, Red-White-and-Blue coup d'etat in the United States of America in the year 2001. The great super-duper patriotic coup d'etat, the mother of all coups d'etat, an All-American coup d'etat bedecked in ten million little plastic car antenna flags whipping insanely in the wind, the Great American People's Coup d'Etat that is gutting the United States Constitution in front of our eyes and greasing the skids for the NEW WORLD ORDER to descend with jackboots, at home and abroad.
By the way, I listened to George Bush's speech the other night. I freely admit to being genuinely touched when he mentioned the tremendous suffering that the children of Afghanistan are experiencing right now. Then he asked the children of America to pitch in and send money to the White House to aid the suffering children of Afghanistan. He said that the Red Cross would distribute the aid to the Afghan children. In that instant, I will be very honest with you, I said to myself, "Maybe I've read this guy wrong. Maybe he really does care. Maybe I should give him another chance. Maybe the Pentagon is not as duplicitous as I think." I really did think that, in that moment.
AND THEN-- two days later, the United States military very conspicuously bombed and set on fire the Red Cross warehouses in Kabul that are full of emergency supplies for Afghan war refugees. And in that instant I saw how cruel, how treacherous, how mendacious, how deceitful, how coldly calculating this operation really is. The Red Cross warehouses have large, prominent red crosses painted on their roofs and simply cannot be mistaken for anything but charitable facilities. So even humanitarian targets for war refugees are in the Pentagon's bombardiers' crosshairs. The shame. Oh, the ever-lasting shame of it.
Back to ANTHRAX.
Maybe you caught the story of the United States State Department missing a crop duster off the Florida coast. It popped up for about a day and a half and then disappeared totally from the news. Never mind why the United States State Department (a diplomatic agency) has crop dusters (curiouser and curiouser) -- it does, and one of them is missing en route to Florida.
5) http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGAQ3FC4BSC.html
It turns out that you can spray anthrax from a crop duster-- and wouldn't you know it, within days, the press reported an anthrax attack in-- guess where? -- Florida. Though it doesn't appear that the anthrax at the American Media offices was sprayed from a plane, it does seem a bit curious. And by the way, that official United States government "crop duster" is still AWOL. I wonder if it will ever turn up -- maybe spraying something on an American city, in an "un"-official capacity? Hmmm.
I pose the question because I am well aware of the widespread phenomenon of Chemtrails, which seem to have a direct tie to covert Pentagon operations against the American people, right here in North America. Moreover, I myself have personally observed the blatant, broad daylight spraying of a civilian population here in the United States. In the spring of 1995 I observed a large, four-engine, turbo-prop airplane make repeated, miles-long, low altitude passes over the Northeast suburbs of Albuquerque, New Mexico. From its wings, it emitted a fine, thick, easily visible, white mist that settled down onto the suburbs below. The clearly observable effect was similar in every way to what you see when you watch a crop duster dust a cotton field or a sugar cane field. Only the crop in this case was residential neighborhoods. The plane looked like a DC-4 to me. It was silver, bearing no markings that I could discern. Two days later, I was at Albuquerque International Airport. The airport is immediately contiguous to Kirtland Air Force Base. Lo and behold-- what did I see conspicuously parked on the apron at Kirtland Air Force Base? A plane that appeared identical to the one I saw spraying the neighborhoods of Albuquerque. I saw the plane at close range in both cases. It is a very distinctive looking, 1950s vintage aircraft. It seems the United States military engages in extra-curricular missions at home that it does not divulge to its targets: US, the American people. Remember this anecdote if you should happen to read of an airborne Anthrax attack on an American city. The Pentagon kills Afghans today. How do you know the Pentagon won't kill you tomorrow? I wonder what was being "practiced" in Albuquerque that perfect, spring day in 1995?
While we're on the subject of ANTHRAX I would further observe that we have been hearing a lot lately about that dastardly Saddam Hussein and his hideous anthrax stash. Where do you suppose this brutal tyrant obtained his deadly anthrax arsenal?
Right.
From the United States. And the Reagan and Bush administrations (the first Bush administration) granted export licenses for it. But wait a minute, you say, Ronald Reagan and George Bush authorized the shipment of deadly anthrax to a known, murderous, brutal, military dictatorship??!!??
Yes. That's precisely what happened. Please read the link.
6) http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm
To be precise: from 1985-1989 the American Type Culture Collection, in Rockville, Maryland sent 21 different strains of anthrax to Iraq under license from the United States Commerce Department. They also shipped E. Coli and Salmonella and other pathogens. If you do a little on-line research you will find plenty of information about the role of the American Type Culture Collection in building up Saddam Hussein's biological warfare program-- they shipped him LOTS of deadly bio-warfare agents-- with the full knowledge of, and export licenses from, the United States government. Do a little research using terms like Hussein, Iraq, CDC, American Type Culture Collection, anthrax, and Riegle-- for the Riegle Hearings in Congress into this very unpleasant affair. Bottom line: if Saddam Hussein attacks the United States with anthrax it will almost certainly be with stock grown from American anthrax exports that the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush (daddy) explicitly authorized. It was all very "legal". Talk about karmic boomerangs and chickens coming home to roost. First the United States sets these guys up and arms them and then it turns right around and screams to the world : "Hideous Monsters!! Run for your lives!!"
For much more on the convoluted details of modern day bio-warfare and the deceitful propaganda that accompanies it you absolutely should read Dr. Leonard Horowitz's book, "Death in the Air". Order it toll-free from 1 (888) 508-4787. You will be shocked to discover the lies and horrors that are being put over on the world.
Some people have asked me WHAT to do. I have a few ideas about that.
You have to find your voice and use it to speak up. Yes, YOU. You, the very person reading these words right now. And you must do it right NOW. Not ten years from now, because then the moment will have passed and it will be too late. If you disagree with any aspect of the NEW WORLD ORDER, if you have misgivings and objections about AMERICA'S NEW WAR and destruction of civil liberties then SAY SO, and do it now. Where? - to your friends, neighbors, family, letters-to-the-editor, call in radio shows, internet chat groups and bulletin boards, Congressional Representatives and Senators, and anywhere else you can think of. If you cannot or will not do that, then by your very silence you demonstrate your support for the totalitarian violence and repression that is clamping down on this planet like a vise. Under the law, there is the presumption that: "she/he who remains silent , gives his/her assent". The same principle applies here: "Freedom of Speech"-- use it or lose it! How many warnings do you think you will get? This is your wake up call. There may not ever be another one. SNAP OUT OF YOUR STUPOR AND LISTEN TO ME!! If you snooze you loose. It is your choice whether to remain blissfully, stupidly, ignorantly, profoundly unconscious like so many other sheeple -- or to wake up and face the situation for what it is.
Do not participate in the warfare. If you find yourself in the military, consider leaving as soon as practicable. There is very bad individual and group karma attached to the slaughter of innocent people- i.e., the Pentagon bombing of a warehouse full of humanitarian supplies for starving people is a supremely cowardly and vile act. The only way to avoid accumulating bad karma due to the slaughter of innocent people is to refuse to participate in it. Want to end the violence and warfare? SIMPLE -- refuse to slaughter other people. That is not a hard concept to grasp, and yet -- as we see on every hand, there are hundreds of millions of human beings on this planet who either cannot or will not wrap their minds around that elementary fact. And so we spiral violently downward towards Armageddon.
If you have older children, especially children of military service age, discuss with them the intricacies of foreign policy and the negative karmic implications of slaughtering innocent human beings. These are serious questions and any seriously conscious human on the planet today must grapple with them. (Of course, complex issues are not appropriate for, and are beyond the comprehension of, younger children.)
Support organizations that work for international peace and understanding. Here's one suggestion. Contact the American Friends Service Committee and ask how you can work for peace. They do a lot of good work. You might ask them to suggest other organizations that you can assist to work for world peace.
Put down that computer mouse clicker and read. What to read? Go to the library or a bookstore or to www.amazon.com and find the books I have cited above as a start. Use them as springboards to other authors, books and articles. If we are going to think "outside of the box" we need to stop looking at CNN, NBC, FOX News, the "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and expose our minds to alternative information, views and opinions. I highly recommend the work of NOAM CHOMSKY. He has written many books and articles and you can easily find them in bookstores, libraries or by searching the internet.
War is tremendously damaging to the Earth. Why not work for environmental preservation? There are many good environmental organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy.
Be a proponent of alternative energy. If you own your own house and have the financial means to do so, look into co-generating some of your own power by using solar panels on your roof, or a wind generator in your yard. So much geo-political violence and environmental degradation today are attributable directly, or indirectly, to petroleum that we simply have to move beyond this fossil fuel addiction. The NEW WORLD ORDER is a huge impediment to that, promulgated as it is by the likes of the Bush clan, Saudi royal family, the World Bank, and others of that ilk. They are arrogant, power-drunk, ignorant, cruel and petty people that slaughter at their whim, in order to prop up their oil-based empire for another century or two or three. So we need to simply act as if they don't matter at all (because in a certain sense they don't matter very much) and wean ourselves from their system-- establishing OUR system one person at a time, one house at a time. Question: how do we get from here to where we want to go? Answer: one solar panel at a time, one wind mill at a time, one conversation at a time, one letter to the editor at a time, one hydrogen fuel cell at a time- one personal refusal to kill at a time!
To find out more about some of the many liberating aspects of freedom, I recommend the following website.
10) http://www.buildfreedom.com
If the NEW WORLD ORDER tries to impose a universal identity document with biometric identification remember that you have the capacity as a uniquely free being to refuse it. You are under no obligation to volunteer for or cooperate with your own enslavement. Of course, such a card will be presented to you as a means of preserving your "freedom". But that is a big lie. Scroll to the beginning of this article and reflect on the words of the American military officer: "We're going to lie about things." That is what we are dealing with here. The BIG LIE.
If you are American call your United States Senators and complain loud, long and hard about the proposed anti-terrorist legislation. If it goes through it will gut the Constitution and slash civil liberties in the United States. It is a positively horrendous law in concept and practice and should never see the light of day.
Finally, please note that I, Richard Sauder, am the author of three books --
"Underground Bases and Tunnels: What is the Government Trying to Hide?" "Kundalini Tales" "Underwater and Underground Bases" -- which are available in bookstores and online at www.amazon.com or www.amazon.co.uk or by calling 1 (800) 718-4514 in the USA. If you buy my books you help support my research and writing.
MEDIUM RARE
By Jim Rarey
November 19, 2001
ANTHRAX VACCINE – WHAT REPORTS? WHAT WAR?
On October 23rd of this year Nancy Kingsbury from the General Accounting Office (GAO) testified on Anthrax Vaccine before the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans’ Affairs, and International Relations Committee on Government Reform. Her testimony has been released as report GAO-02-181T available on the GAO website at www.goa.gov.
The report is a scathing indictment of the handling of the anthrax vaccine issue by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Bioport company in Michigan and before that the Michigan State laboratory.
On November 11th (Veterans’ Day) a rally was held on the capitol steps in Lansing, Michigan by a group comprising, for the most part, veterans who were suffering from the effects of the vaccine or had been forced to resign from the service for refusing to take the vaccine.
In attendance at the rally was Michigan National Guard Public Affairs Officer Major James McCrone. In an interview with a TV reporter, he said he was there to see if "these people" had anything new to say. When he said he had heard nothing new, he was asked by one of the speakers at the rally if he had read the latest GAO report on the vaccine. His response was, "What report?"
Ignorance is just one of the problems associated with the vaccine. Sadly, there has been ten years of stonewalling, obfuscation and outright lies from "experts" and PR flacks both in and outside of government.
Here is a brief recap of information contained in earlier articles.
The vaccine was first licensed by the FDA for production by a Michigan state owned laboratory in 1970 based on vaccine produced and tested by Merck Sharp and Dohme (currently known as Merck and Co., Inc.) in 1962. Prior to 1970 vaccines were licensed by the National Institute of Health (NIH).
The vaccine was certified as effective against cutaneous (skin contact) anthrax and some studies with monkeys suggested some effectiveness against inhaled anthrax (the most dangerous).
Despite changes made in both the composition (recipe) of the vaccine and the method of production, no further testing has been done. The altered vaccine was administered to over 500,000 service men and women before and during the Gulf War. An unacceptable number have had their lives (and lives of their families) ruined by reactions to the vaccine
In 1998, Secretary of Defense William Cohen decided to vaccinate all service members and the program started. Over 400 members have left the service or been subject to discipline for refusing to take the vaccine.
In 1998 the FDA suspended the license for the vaccine shortly after a private company (Bioport) bought the facility and licensing rights from the State of Michigan. The privatization was engineered by Fuad El Hibri, a German citizen at the time and included several former state employees of the lab, Fuad’s wife and father and Admiral William Crowe (a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The facilities and the licensing rights were obtained for a sale price of $25 million, however a portion was financed with IOU’s to the state and promises of delivery of several other vaccines and royalties on Bioport’s sales. It was later admitted the licensing rights alone were worth at least $35 million.
Bioport has not been able to pass FDA inspections to date and no vaccine has been shipped since 1998. The DOD has virtually run out of vaccine acquired between 1990 and 1998 and has had to suspend its universal vaccination program.
In the mid-1980’s, El Hibri had also engineered a private buyout of Britain’s secret lab involved in production of vaccines and experimentation with chemical and biological weapons materials. The ownership was split among three El Hibri controlled entities; Porton Products, Porton Instruments and Porton International. The Porton laboratory was the sole source of anthrax vaccine used on British troops during the Gulf War.
Vaccinated British troops experienced much the same health problems, as did American troops. It was later disclosed that untested "adjuvants" had been added to the vaccines in both the U.K. and U.S. Both vaccines included toxins generated by anthrax bacteria which were expected to cause antibodies to be formed to fight the infection. The adjuvants increased the toxicity to speed up the body’s reaction.
In the U.K. public health authorities warned that the adjuvants would compound the already significant side effects of the vaccine. In. the U.S. the DOD questioned the Michigan lab about the increased toxicity and later (in October 1990) issued a report. However the FDA was not apprised of the change until ten years later by the GOA.
In early 1990 the military (in both the U.K. and U.S.) pressured their respective vaccine suppliers to greatly increase production in anticipation of hostilities in the Middle East. This was some six months before Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Both Britain and the U.S. had sold equipment/ and/or anthrax vaccine to Iraq during its war with Iran. It was feared that Iraq might use its anthrax capability in the coming war.
That the military was so certain of a war with Iraq lends credence to charges that the U.S. "suckered" Saddam Huessein into the invasion. Eight days before the invasion, according to a tape and transcript obtained by British journalists a month later, the American ambassador to Iraq, April Gilspie, met with Saddam Hussein and told him, " We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
A few days later, Gilspie said in a televised interview, "we have no treaty or other agreement that requires us to come to the aid of Kuwait.
Congress demanded access to diplomatic communications between the State Department and Ambassador Gilspie but was successfully stonewalled by Baker’s State Department.
During negotiations between 1996 and 1998 between the State of Michigan and El Hibri and his partners, a concern was expressed about El Hibri’s sale (from his British lab) of anthrax vaccine to Saudi Arabia after they had been turned down by the Pentagon. It was feared he might also have sold anthrax and/or the vaccine to Iraq. A British scientist had disclosed Iraq had made a specific request for the "Ames" strain of anthrax, although he said the request was denied.
American scientists have determined that the current anthrax attacks by mail are using the same strain (Ames) that was furnished to the British lab at Porton Down years ago by the U.S.
Rather than contact American intelligence, Michigan authorities asked the American Embassy in Germany about El Hibri. The embassy gave him a clean bill of health saying, "he’s one of the good guys." What the embassy didn’t tell them, or didn’t know, was that two scientists in El Hibri’s privatized lab were involved in South Africa as consultants to the infamous chemical and biological weapons program in that country.
The head of South Africa’s CBW program was Wouter Basson. Basson was charged with multiple counts of murder and fraud in trial that lasted almost a year. During the course of the trial (in which Basson earned the nickname Africa’s Dr. Mengele) a number of witnesses detailed the weapons the program had developed for mass murder as well as assassination of individuals with such things as anthrax laced cigarettes.
One of Basson’s lieutenants, Dr. Andre Immelman testified about the Porton Down involvement in the murder of the Reverend Frank Chikane, with an exotic toxin called Paraoxon. He discovered that, without his knowledge, one of his subordinates (Schalk van Rensburg) had hired two consultants from Porton Down on the project. He confronted van Rensburg and accused him of wanting to blow their cover. Van Rensburg responded that Porten Down had been privatised and the consultants were from the private sector.
The October GAO report was not the only one that provided evidence that the anthrax vaccine is the culprit in veterans’ health woes.
In April of this year the GAO submitted a report (GAO 01-13) that had been requested by subcommittee chairman Christopher Shays. He had asked the GAO to find out why French Gulf War veterans were reporting far fewer health problems than their British and American counterparts.
Amid a welter of charts and statistics, the obvious answer was found. British and American troops were inoculated with the anthrax vaccine, the French were not.
There was one other difference between the British and American programs. The British program required "informed consent" from soldiers before the vaccine was administered. The American program was, and still is mandatory.
The GAO surveyed a large group of American national guard and reserve forces who had taken the vaccine to determine how many experienced a reaction from the shots. They found that 85% had some kind of reaction and in 23.8% it was systemic (affecting the body’s systems).
The numbers still being advertised by Bioport and the FDA are 30% experiencing mild reactions, 4% having moderate reactions. They say only .2% or two out of a thousand suffer systemic problems! What they do not admit is their numbers are based on testing done more than thirty years ago on a different vaccine.
Last week, Bioport revealed that negotiations are being held with DOD to release some of the two million doses embargoed by the FDA to the public. One of the demands of the veterans assembled in Lansing was that those lots be destroyed before they cause further harm.
Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its entirety.
The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.
If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly, please contact us at jimrarey@provide.net.
Although not necessary, we would appreciate an indication of the city and/or state or country (If outside the USA) in which you are located to give us an idea as to where our articles are being received.
URL for this article: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm . Receive about one article/day.
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel [Posted 14 November 2001]
Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon.
On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city.
The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.
Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures:
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'" --'Newsday,' 23 September, 2001
Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will show that this is lie.
Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are common emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules.
The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made it clear the United States was faced with an extraordinary situation. This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air safety and defense systems.
The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:
" 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'" --'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (1)
'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next:
"'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'" --'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (2)
U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.
Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given he catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be involved. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and they themselves would be arrested.
The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.
In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn to protect.
The summary of evidence covers the following areas:
* Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;'
* The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not prepared;
* The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his positive legal and constitutional obligations and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;
* The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these hearings, the contents of which were reported accurately by one lone journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened 9-11 when he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered three mutually contradictory cover stories and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;
* The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th. Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes. But following Gen. Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version of 9-11. In the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the hijacked planes. This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been repeated uncritically by media and government officials alike. We will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and incriminating.
SECTION ONE: Why did no fighter jets 'scramble' to protect Washington D.C.?
LIE #1: 'NO COMBAT READY FIGHTERS WERE STATIONED NEAR THE PENTAGON'
As noted, Andrews Air Force base is 10 miles from the Pentagon. The media has mainly avoided talking about Andrews. An exception is 'USA Today,' the second-highest circulation newspaper in America. On one day it published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:
FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY:
"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed." --'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (3)
SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY:
"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." --'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (4)
Both stories are false.
Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune':
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.
"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..." --'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (5)
Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons:
* the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;
* the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped F/A-18 fighters.
These squadrons are served by hundreds of full-time personnel.
THE 121st FIGHTER SQUADRON, 113th FIGHTER WING
"as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Colombia. [They] are full partners with the active Air Force" --DC Military (6)
THE 321st MARINE FIGHTER ATTACK SQUADRON (VMFA-321)
"In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB.
"Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. " --DC Military (6)
So Andrews AFB had at least two 'combat-ready' squadrons.
The above quotes are from www.dcmilitary.com , a private Website authorized by the military to provide information for members of the armed forces. We discovered it 24 September. A month later we found that the address had been changed and the Andrews information posted in the smallest type size. Similarly, the official Andrews AFB Website has been 'down' since mid-September. Fortunately, it can be accessed by going to www.archive.org and entering www.andrews.af.mil .
On the Andrews main page, front and center there is a direct link to DC Military. The information on the Andrews Website confirms the information on DC military. We urge everyone to check these links and download the pages as soon as possible because they may be moved or removed yet again. For Andrews, go to www.archive.org and then enter www.andrews.af.mil
Our research has been carried out mainly by volunteers. Newspapers and TV news departments have full-time research staffs. The important media have bureaus in Washington DC, just a few miles from the Andrews airbase. Why haven't newspapers and TV news programs reported the truth: that Andrews job was to protect DC?
This failure is especially striking because some media did report that fighters scrambled from Andrews, but only after the Pentagon was hit. Thus they were aware that Andrews was supposed to defend D.C.:
For example:
" Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC." --'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 (7)
And:
"WASHINGTON - an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep and clearly visible through the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River. Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies
"A thick plume of smoke was climbing out of the hollow center of the Pentagon. Everyone on the train understood what had happened moments before." --'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 (8)
And:
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC." --NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (9)
The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit.
Besides fighters, tanker planes and AWACS were also readily available.(An AWACS is a flying communication center equipped with radar which can scan at least 250 miles. This is almost the full distance from the West-Virginia/Ohio/Kentucky border, where American Air Flight 77 turned around before flying back to DC.) Both General Myers and Vice President Cheney admit that these planes did not go into the air over Washington until after the Pentagon was hit.
Here is General Myers, testifying 13th September:
"When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked." --Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 (10)
And Richard Cheney on 'Meet the Press:
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.
"MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?'
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) 16 September 2001 (11)
As we shall see, Mr. Cheney's statement that "the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft" is a lie. Publicly available FAA documents prove that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances without requiring or asking for approval from the White House.
Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART II
FOOTNOTES:
(1) 'Daily News' (New York), 12 September 2001, Wednesday, NEWS SECTION; Pg. 24: 'THE TRAGIC TIMELINE The sad events of the day.' the full text is available at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dn912.htm
(2) 'DEFENSELINK News,' "It Was Business as Usual, Then 'Boom'" By Jim Garamone, 'American Forces Press Service,' Sept. 13, 2001
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09132001_200109132.html
Backup at http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/def.htm
(3) 'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001, Pg. 5A, "Military now a presence on home front," by Andrea Stone. Web version is at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm Backup at: http:/.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa-1.htm
(4) 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A, "Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, WASHINGTON Web version is at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm
Backup at http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa2.htm
(5) 'San Diego Union-Tribune,' 12 September 2001. Homepage at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/ Article at:
Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/sd.htm
(6) Current link is: http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.html :
Backup at : http://www.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmil.htm
(7) 'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001 Article at: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml
Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/tel16.htm
(8) 'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 To view this article on the Web, search for Article ID: 1075896 on: http://www.denverpost.com Or look at backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dp11.htm
(9) 'NBC Nightly News,' "Attack on America," (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001, "Tuesday President Bush returns to White House on Marine One," Anchor: Tom Brokaw, Jim Miklaszewski reporting. See transcript at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbc911cover.htm
(10) Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 Full text at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm This particular quotation was also reprinted by many mainstream media sources.
(11) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001.
Full transcript at: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1= 1 Backup transcript at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm
Emperor's Clothes can use your help.
You can donate using PayPal - at https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@aol.com&no_shipping=1
Or go to our secure server at http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)
Or call the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-1705.
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
MR. CHENEY'S COVER STORY Part 1, Section 2 of 'GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS'
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel
[Posted 20 November 2001]
Dedicated to the firemen of New York.
In Part 1, Section 1 we demonstrated that Andrews Air Force base, 10 miles from the Pentagon, had combat-ready fighter squadrons on September 11th. Why didn't jets scramble from Andrews until after the Pentagon was hit?
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
LIE # 2: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION WAS NEEDED TO SCRAMBLE JETS TO INTERCEPT FLIGHT 77
On Sunday, September 16th, Vice-President Richard Cheney was interviewed on NBC TV's 'MEET THE PRESS.' During that interview he made the claim that the military needed authorization from President George W. Bush before scrambling fighter jets to intercept American Airlines Flight 77.
Mr. Cheney did not present this lie in a straightforward manner. He did not say, "A commercial airliner can't be intercepted without presidential approval." Instead, he spoke as if the need for presidential authorization were a commonly accepted fact; and then, based on this false foundation, he emitted a fog of emotional misinformation to confuse the millions of Americans who had asked themselves: why didn't jet fighters intercept Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon? Doesn't the U.S. have radar and an Air Force anymore?
It is common for officials attempting to cover-up a capital crime to put the blame on a subordinate. However Mr. Cheney used a different approach on 'MEET THE PRESS.' Relying on his skills in public deception, Cheney tried to create the impression that nothing improper had occurred. But as soon as one sees through his lies, one realizes Mr. Cheney has placed the responsibility for the failure to intercept on George W. Bush.
Here is the excerpt from 'MEET THE PRESS' where Richard Cheney puts forward his intercept lie:
"MR. RUSSERT: What's the most important decision you think he made during the course of the day?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.
"MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time...
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate.
"MR. RUSSERT: So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?
"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1)
Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here.
First he said, "the toughest decision was...whether we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."
Later he said, "The president made the decision... that if the plane would not divert as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out..." that is, "shoot it down."
But "intercept": and "shoot it down" do not mean the same thing.
"in·ter·cept
"in·ter·cept (în´ter-sèpt¹) verb, transitive in·ter·cept·ed, in·ter·cept·ing, in·ter·cepts "1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of" (From 'American Heritage Dictionary' --AHD)
"shoot·down
"shoot·down (sh¡t¹doun´) noun
"Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire." (From 'American Heritage Dictionary' --AHD) Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people from asking: why weren't the hijacked jets intercepted?
Since "stopping, deflecting, or interrupting the progress or intended course of" a hijacked airplane does not necessarily involve violence, there could be no moral obstacle to scrambling fighter jets to intercept Flight 77. Therefore Mr. Cheney shifted quickly to the morally charged question of whether to shoot down "an airplane full of American citizens". By creating this emotional link between interception (not necessarily violent) and shooting down a commercial jet (very violent), Cheney hoped to create sympathy for a President forced to make this "horrendous" choice: to intercept or not to intercept.
Mr. Cheney attempted to smooth over his sleight of hand by inserting the following connecting sentence:
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
This is disinformation. Mr. Cheney was treating his viewers like fools.
First, as anyone with a computer and basic knowledge of the Internet can find out, Air Traffic Controllers request military jets to intercept commercial aircraft on a routine basis. Sometimes the purpose is to tell a commercial pilot that his plane has gone off course; other times the interceptor goes up in order to observe the situation directly - for instance, to see who is flying the plane. None of this requires presidential approval.
Second, military interceptors (or 'escorts') already have clear "instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in detailed manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense. The instructions cover everything from minor emergencies to hijackings. If a problem is serious, high-ranking military officers from the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon (NMCC) can take charge.
Let us consider the procedures used in intercepting commercial aircraft.
An Air Traffic Controller (ATC) may request military jets to intercept (or 'escort') a commercial aircraft in response to any serious problem which the Air Traffic Controller cannot solve through radio contact. Perhaps the most common problem is that a commercial jet has deviated from its authorized flight path.
Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff. (FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (2)
"Commercial flights fly according to predefined flight plans. These flight plans are intended to provide quick routes that take advantage of favorable winds while avoiding the routes traveled by other aircraft. The usual flight plan is a series of three connected routes: a standard instrument departure (SID) route, an en route path, and a standard instrument arrival (STAR). Each route consists of a sequence of geographic points, or fixes, which, when connected, form a trajectory from the point of departure to the point of arrival." --'Direct-To Requirements' by G. Dennis & E. Torlak (3)
If a plane deviates from its flight plan, or makes the wrong turn at one of its 'fixes,' an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) contacts the pilot. If the ATC cannot make contact, he or she will request an escort - that is, a military jet - to scramble and check out the situation. This is called 'interception.'
As you can see, interception is not necessarily an aggressive act. Usually it is requested because routine communication has become impossible.
For example, when the Lear jet chartered by Payne Stewart, the famous golf pro, went off course, and the pilot did not respond by radio, the FAA immediately contacted the military:
"Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)
The FAA online manual describes how an escort (i.e., a fighter jet) might communicate with a commercial airliner which fails to respond to radio contact. The FAA has a chart entitled:
"INTERCEPTING SIGNALS "Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."
According to the chart, which is available on-line, if a commercial jet is intercepted in daytime, the escort fighter jet may communicate by:
"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..."
This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.
The escort then makes a
"slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."
The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort. (FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (5)
When a commercial jet deviates from its approved flight path, it creates a potentially deadly hazard: it could collide with another jet. It is therefore reassuring that the FAA has an exacting standard for what constitutes an emergency:
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
And:
"EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS"
"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." --FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)
A high-ranking FAA official - called an Air Defense Liaison Officer (ADLO) - is stationed in the headquarters of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The purpose: to help the FAA and the military work together to handle emergencies as quickly as possible. (8) Escorts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia. But not always:
"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. " --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)
Thus when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:
"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota." --'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (10)
During a serious emergency, or if there is any possibility that a hijacking has occurred:
"The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." --FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)
A Defense Department manual makes the same point:
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." --CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001 (11)
Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident:
"...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center." --'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)
When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt aggressive behavior:
"Small Private Plane Ordered to Land in Vicinity of Bush Ranch
"A small private plane flying unauthorized in the vicinity of President Bush's ranch near Crawford was ordered by the military to land Thursday, a sheriff's deputy said....
"The Federal Aviation Administration declared that the plane was unauthorized and ordered its occupants detained, Plemons said. At that point military officials, flying in two jets beside the plane, got on the pilot's radio frequency and ordered the Cessna to land...
"The plane landed on a private landing strip near State Highway 6, about eight miles from the Bush ranch near Crawford....
"In [a second incident, in] Wood County, Sheriff's senior Dispatcher Rodney Mize said a private plane was forced down by two military pilots in A-10 Warthog jets about 11:30 a.m. The jets flew one above and one below until the private plane's pilot landed at Wisener Field near Mineola." --'AP,' 13 September 2001 (12)
The 'Boston Globe' reported that:
"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile." --'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 (13)
Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'MEET THE PRESS.'
As you will recall, he said:
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept pilots need 'instructions' from the President, when he knows perfectly well that clear instructions and a whole organizational network exist to handle intercept emergencies.
Moreover, Mr. Cheney's implicit argument - that there is no point in sending up an escort unless the pilot has clearance to shoot down a commercial jet - is absurd. Why would such a decision have to be made in advance of scrambling the escort? Even if an airliner has been taken over by a terrorist with a suicide mission, how could Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush or anyone else other than God Himself possibly predict how the hijacker would respond to an intercept by military jets? Even if a hijacker were ready to die for the glory of crashing into the Pentagon, does that mean he would also be ready to die for the glory of ignoring a military pilot's order to land?
So even if the military had no authority to shoot down Flight 77, why not send up escorts planes? Isn't that in fact how police and the military routinely handle hijack situations - by mobilizing a potentially overwhelming force in the hope of getting the hijacker to surrender?
Why, as Mr. Cheney claims, would there have been "no point" in trying this tactic in the case of Flight 77? Weren't many human lives at stake? Isn't that "a point"?
A DEFENSE THAT BACKFIRES
What about the rest of Mr. Cheney's remarks, his contention that only President Bush could authorize the military to actually shoot down a hijacked plane? In all probability this is true. But as we shall see in a later section, this comment, as well as other things Mr. Cheney said on 'MEET THE PRESS,' will prove damning to George W. Bush when he goes on trial for treason.
Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART 1, SECTION 3
FOOTNOTES:
For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force base to the Pentagon go to: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/andrewsmap.htm
(1) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001. Full transcript at: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1 Backup transcript at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm
(2) Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E 'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date: December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2. Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2
(3) For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and Air Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis and Emina Torlak at: http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm
(4) 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 "Pentagon never considered downing Stewart's Learjet," Web posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT) Full text posted at: http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/ Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/cnnlearjet.htm
(5) FAA 'Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 "Interception Signals" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4
(6) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5
(7) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1
(8) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO's)" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205
(9) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service" Full text posted at: http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2
(10) 'ABCNews,' 25 October 1999 "Runaway Plane Crashes in S.D.; Golfer, at Least Four Others Killed," by Geraldine Sealey Full text posted at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm
(11) 'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," 4.Policy (page 1) PDF available at: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf
(12) 'The Associated Press State & Local Wire' 13 September 2001, Thursday, BC cycle, "Small private plane ordered to land in vicinity of Bush ranch" Full text posted at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bushranch.htm
(13) 'The Boston Globe,' Saturday 15 September 2001 Third Edition Page A1, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt The Attacks" by Glen Johnson. Full text posted at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/bg915.htm
Reproduced gratefully from: www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration?
The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks
by Michel
Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
Centre for
Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted at globalresearch.ca
2 November 2001
Go
directly to the complete article
Summary
Pakistan's chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad "was in the US when the attacks occurred." He arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks. He had meetings at the State Department "after" the attacks on the WTC. But he also had "a regular visit of consultations" with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11.
What was the nature of these routine "pre-September 11 consultations"? Were they in any way related to the subsequent "post-September 11 consultations" pertaining to Pakistan's decision to cooperate with Washington. Was the planning of war being discussed between Pakistani and US officials?
On the 9th of September while General Ahmad was in the US, the leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was assassinated. The Northern Alliance had informed the Bush Administration that the ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination.
The Bush Administration consciously took the decision in "the post September 11 consultations" with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad to directly "cooperate" with Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Masood, which coincidentally occurred two days before the terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, senior Pentagon and State Department officials had been rushed to Islamabad to put the finishing touches on America's war plans. And on the Sunday prior to the onslaught of the bombing of major cities in Afghanistan (October 7th), Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was sacked from his position as head of the ISI in what was described as a routine "reshuffling."
In the days following General Ahmad's dismissal, a report published in the Times of India, revealed the links between Pakistan's Chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohamed Atta. The Times of India article was based on an official intelligence report of the Delhi government that had been transmitted through official channels to Washington. Quoting an Indian government source Agence France Press (AFP) confirms in this regard that: "The evidence we [the Government of India] have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism."
The revelation of the Times of India article has several implications. The Indian intelligence report not only points to the links between ISI Chief General Ahmad and terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta, it also indicates that other ISI officials might have had contacts with the terrorists. Moreover, it suggests that the September 11 attacks were not an act of "individual terrorism" organised by a separate Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of coordinated military-intelligence operation, emanating from Pakistan's ISI.
The Times of India report also sheds light on the nature of General Ahmad's "business activities" in the US during the week prior to September 11, raising the distinct possibility of ISI contacts with Mohamed Atta in the US "prior" to the attacks on the WTC, precisely at the time when General Mahmoud and his delegation were on a so-called "regular visit of consultations" with US officials.
In assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, it should be understood that Lt. General Ahmad as head of the ISI was a "US approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. Also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained throughout the entire post Cold War era until the present, the launch-pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans
The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record. The Bush Administration was fully cognizant of Lt. General Ahmad's role. In other words, rather than waging a campaign against international terrorism, the evidence would suggest that it is indirectly abetting international terrorism, using the Pakistani ISI as a "go-between".
The Bush Administration's links with Pakistan's ISI --including its "consultations" with General Ahmad in the week prior to September 11-- raise the issue of "complicity". While Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, ISI officials were allegedly also in contact with the September 11 terrorists.
In other words, according to the Indian government intelligence report, the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks had links to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn has links to agencies of the US government. What this suggests is that key individuals within the US military-intelligence establishment might have known about the ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist "ring-leader" Mohamed Atta and failed to act.
Whether this amounts to the complicity of the Bush Administration remains to be firmly established. The least one can expect at this stage is an inquiry. What is crystal clear, however, is that this war is not a "campaign against international terrorism". It is a war of conquest with devastating consequences for the future of humanity. And the American people have been consciously and deliberately misled by their government. Whether this amounts to the complicity of the Bush Administration remains to be firmly established.
And the American people have been consciously and deliberately misled by their government.
Ultimately the truth must prevail. The falsehoods behind America's war against the people of Afghanistan must be unveiled.
Complete Text
Two days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, a delegation led by the head of Pakistan's military intelligence agency (ISI) Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, was in Washington for high level talks at the State Department.1
Most US media conveyed the impression that Islamabad had put together a delegation at Washington's behest, and that the invitation to the meeting had been transmitted to the Pakistan government "after" the tragic events of September 11.
But this is not what happened!
Pakistan's chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad "was in the US when the attacks occurred." 2. According to the New York Times, "he happened to be here on a regular visit of consultations." 3
Not a word was mentioned regarding the nature of his "business" in the US in the week prior to the terrorist attacks. According to Newsweek, he was "on a visit to Washington at the time of the attack, and, like most other visitors, is still stuck there," unable to return home because of the freeze on international airline travel 4
General Ahmad had in fact arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks. 5 Bear in mind that the purpose of his meeting at the State Department on the 13th was only made public "after" the September 11 terrorist attacks, when the Bush Administration took the decision to formally seek the "cooperation" of Pakistan in its "campaign against international terrorism."
The press reports confirm that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad had two meetings with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, respectively on the 12th and 13th. 6 After September 11, he also met Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the powerful Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
Confirmed by several press reports, however, he also had "a regular visit of consultations" with US officials during the week prior to September 11, --i.e. meetings with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon. 7
What was the nature of these routine "consultations"? Were they in any way related to the subsequent "post-September 11 consultations" pertaining to Pakistan's decision to cooperate with Washington, held behind closed doors at the State Department on September 12 and 13? Was the planning of war being discussed between Pakistani and US officials?
"The ISI-Osama-Taliban Axis"
On the 9th of September, the leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was assassinated. The Northern Alliance had informed the Bush Administration that the ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination: The Northern Alliance had confirmed in an official statement that:
a `Pakistani ISI-Osama-Taliban axis' [was responsible] of plotting the assassination by two Arab suicide bombers.... `We believe that this is a triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence section of the Pakistani army, and the Taliban,' 8
More generally, the complicity of the ISI in the "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record, confirmed by congressional transcripts and numerous intelligence reports.9
The Bush Administration Cooperates with Pakistan's Military-Intelligence
The Bush Administration consciously took the decision in "the post September 11 consultations" at the State Department to directly "cooperate" with Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Masood, which coincidentally occurred two days before the terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, the Western media --in the face of mounting evidence-- had remained silent on the insidious role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence agency (ISI). The assassination of Masood was mentioned, but its political significance in relation to September 11 and the subsequent decision to go to war against Afghanistan, was barely touched upon.
Without discussion or debate, Pakistan had been heralded as a "friend" and ally of America.
In an utterly twisted logic, the US media had concluded in chorus that:
US officials had sought cooperation from Pakistan [precisely] because it is the original backer of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamic leadership of Afghanistan accused by Washington of harboring bin Laden. 10
From The Horse's Mouth
Nobody seemed to have noticed the obtrusive and unsubtle falsehoods behind the Administration's "campaign against international terrorism", with perhaps the exception of an inquisitive journalist who questioned Colin Powell at the outset of his State department briefing on Thursday September 13th:
[Does] the U.S. see Pakistan as an ally or, as the "Patterns of Global Terrorism" pointed out, a place where terrorist groups get training. Or is it a mixture?" 11
"Patterns of Global Terrorism" referred by the journalist (at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/) is a publication of the US State Department which confirms that the government of President Pervez Musharraf has links to international terrorism:
The United States remains concerned about reports of continued Pakistani support for the Taliban's military operations in Afghanistan. Credible reporting indicates that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance, and military advisers. Pakistan has not prevented large numbers of Pakistani nationals from moving into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. Islamabad also failed to take effective steps to curb the activities of certain madrassas, or religious schools, that serve as recruiting grounds for terrorism. 12
Behind Close Doors at the State Department
The Bush Administration had sought the "cooperation" of those, who were directly supporting and abetting the terrorists. Absurd, but at the same time consistent with Washington's broader strategic and economic objectives in Central Asia.
The meeting behind closed doors at the State Department on September 13 between Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was shrouded in secrecy. Remember President Bush was not even involved in these crucial negotiations:
"Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage handed over [to ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad] a list of specific steps Washington wanted Pakistan to take".13 "After a telephone conversation between [Secretary of State Colin] Powell and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Pakistan had promised to cooperate." 14 President George W. Bush later confirmed (also on the morning of September 13th) that the Pakistan government had accepted "to cooperate and to participate as we hunt down those people who committed this unbelievable, despicable act on America''. 15
Former Iran-Contragate Officials Call the Shots
Bear in mind that Richard Armitage had served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security under the Reagan Administration. "He worked closely with Oliver North and was involved in the Iran-contra arms smuggling scandal." 16
In many regards, the pattern of Bush Junior appointments replicate the Iran-Contragate team of the Reagan and Bush senior administrations:
The same kind of appointments are being made in foreign policy. Bush has been choosing people from the most dubious part of the Republican stable of the 1980s, those engaged in the Iran-Contra affair... Armitage served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Reagan years, but a 1989 appointment in the elder Bush administration was withdrawn before hearings because of controversy over Iran-Contra and other scandals. 17
Armitage was one of the main architects behind US covert support to the Mujahedin and the "militant Islamic base, both during the Afghan-Soviet war as well as in its aftermath. US covert support was financed by the Golden Crescent drug trade.
This pattern has not been fundamentally altered. It still constitutes an integral part of US foreign policy by the Bush Administration and the basis of CIA covert operations.
Pakistan's Chief Spy on Mission to Afghanistan
On September 13th, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf confirmed that he would send chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad to meet the Taliban and negotiate the extradition of Osama bin Laden. This decision was at Washington's behest, most probably agreed upon during the meeting between Dick Armitage and General Mahmoud at the State Department.
Pakistan's chief spy is rapidly whisked back from Washington to Islamabad:
At American urging, Ahmed traveled ... to Kandahar, Afghanistan. There he delivered the bluntest of demands. Turn over bin Laden without conditions, he told Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, or face certain war with the United States and its allies. 18
Mahmoud's meetings on two separate missions with the Taliban were reported as a "failure." Yet this "failure" to extradite Osama was part of Washington's design, providing a pretext for a military intervention which was already in the pipeline. If Osama had been extradited, the main justification for waging a war "against international terrorism" would no longer hold. And the evidence suggests that this war had been planned well in advance of September 11, in response to broad strategic and economic objectives.
Meanwhile, senior Pentagon and State Department officials had been rushed to Islamabad to put the finishing touches on America's war plans. And on Sunday prior to the onslaught of the bombing of major cities in Afghanistan by the US Air Force (October 7th), Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was sacked from his position as head of the ISI in what was described as a routine "reshuffling."
"The Missing Link"
In the days following Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad's dismissal, a report published in the Times of India, which went virtually unnoticed by the Western media, revealed the links between Pakistan's Chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohamed Atta. In many regards, the Times of India report constitutes "the missing link" to an understanding of who was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11:
While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmoud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday [8 October], the day the US started bombing Afghanistan], the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday [October 9], that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.
A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan's ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition. 19
According to FBI files, Mohamed Atta was "the lead hijacker of the first jet airliner to slam into the World Trade Center and, apparently, the lead conspirator" 20
The Times of India article was based on an official intelligence report of the Delhi government that had been transmitted through official channels to Washington. Agence France Press (AFP) confirms in this regard that:
A highly-placed government source told AFP that the "damning link" between the General and the transfer of funds to Atta was part of evidence which India has officially sent to the US. `The evidence we have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism,' the source said. 21
Pakistan's Military-Intelligence Agency behind September 11?
The revelation of the Times of India article has several implications. The report not only points to the links between ISI Chief General Ahmad and terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta, it also indicates that other ISI officials might have had contacts with the terrorists. Moreover, it suggests that the September 11 attacks were not an act of "individual terrorism" organised by a separate Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of coordinated military-intelligence operation, emanating from Pakistan's ISI.
The Times of India report also sheds light on the nature of General Ahmad's "business activities" in the US during the week prior to September 11, raising the distinct possibility of ISI contacts with Mohamed Atta in the US in the week "prior" to the attacks on the WTC, precisely at the time when General Mahmoud and his delegation were on a so-called "regular visit of consultations" with US officials. Remember, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in the US on the 4th of September.
US Approved Appointee
In assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, it should be understood that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad as head of the ISI was a "US approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. Also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained throughout the entire post Cold War era until the present, the launch pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans 22
In other words, General Mahmoud Ahmad as head of the ISI was serving US foreign policy interests. His dismissal on the orders of Washington was not the result of a fundamental political disagreement. Without US support channeled through the Pakistani ISI, the Taliban would not have been able to form a government in 1996. Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI," which in turn was supported by the US.23 Moreover, the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance General Ahmad Shah Masood --in which the ISI is alleged to have been implicated-- was not in contradiction with US foreign policy objectives. Since the late 1980s, the US had consistently sought to side-track and weaken Masood who was perceived as a nationalist reformer, by providing support to both to the Taliban and the Hezb-I-Islami group led by Gulbuddin Hektmayar against Masood .
Corroborated by Congressional Transcripts
Corroborated by the House of Representatives Internaitonal Relations Committee, US support funneled through the ISI to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden has been a consistent policy of the US Administration since the end of the Cold War:
...[T]he United States has been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along, and still is let me add... You have a military government [of President Musharraf] in Pakistan now that is arming the Taliban to the teeth....Let me note; that [US] aid has always gone to Taliban areas... We have been supporting the Taliban, because all our aid goes to the Taliban areas. And when people from the outside try to put aid into areas not controlled by the Taliban, they are thwarted by our own State Department... At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat, of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. 24
Cover-up and Complicity?
The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" is a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record.
Pakistan's ISI has been used by successive US adminstrations as "a go-between." Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus, constitutes the core institutional support to both Osama's Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Without this institutional support, there would be no Taliban government in Kabul. In turn, without the unbending support of the US government. there would be no powerful military-intelligence apparatus in Pakistan.
Senior officials in the State Department were fully cognizant of General Mahmoud Ahmad's role. In the wake of September 11, the Bush Administration consciously sought the "cooperation" of the ISI which had been supporting and abetting Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
In other words, the Bush Administration's relations with Pakistan's ISI --including its "consultations" with General Mahmoud Ahmad in the week prior to September 11-- raise the issue of "cover-up" as well as "complicity". While Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, the ISI allegedly had contacts with the September 11 terrorists.
According to the Indian government intelligence report (referred to in the Times of India), the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks had links to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn has links to agencies of the US government. What this suggests is that key individuals within the US military-intelligence establishment might have known about ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist "ring-leader" Mohamed Atta and failed to act.
Whether this amounts to the complicity of the Bush Administration remains to be firmly established. The least one can expect at this stage is an inquiry. What is crystal clear, however, is that this war is not a "campaign against international terrorism". It is a war of conquest with devastating consequences for the future of humanity. And the American people have been consciously and deliberately misled by their government.
Ultimately the truth must prevail. The falsehoods behind America's war against the people of Afghanistan must be unveiled.
Notes
- The Guardian, 15 September 2001.
- Reuters, 13 September 2001.
- The New York Times, 13 September 2001.
- Newsweek, 14 September 2001.
- The Daily Telegraph. London, 14 September 2001,
- The New York Times, September 13th 2001 confirms the meeting on the 12th .of September
- The New York Times, 13 September 2001.
- The Northern Alliance's statement was released on 14 September 2001, quoted in Reuters 15 September 2001.
- For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, "Osamagate", Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), at globalresearch.ca, October 2001.
- Reuters 13 September 2001.
- Journalist's question to Secretary of State Colin Powell, State Department Briefing, 13 September 2001.
- US State Department, "Patterns of Global Terrorism", State Department, http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/ , Washington 2000.
- Reuters, 13 September 2001
- Ibid.
- Presidential Papers, Remarks in a Telephone Conversation With New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and New York Governor George Pataki and an Exchange With Reporters, 13 September 2001.
- The Guardian, 15 September 2001.
- United Press International, Face-off: Bush's foreign policy warriors,by Peter Roff and James Chapin, UPI, 18 July 2001.
- The Washington Post, 23 September 2001.
- The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001, at http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=-2128936835&art_id=1454238160&sType=1)
- The Weekly Standard, Vol. 7, No 7, October 2001.
- AFP, 10 October 2001
- For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Centre for Research on Globalisation, 12 September 2001
- Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998.
- US House of Representatives: Statement by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, Hearing of The House International Relations Committee on "Global Terrorism And South Asia", Washington, July 12, 2000.
The URL of this
article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
Copyright, Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), November 2001. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the source and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) at editor@globalresearch.ca , fax 1-514-4256224.
Reproduced gratefully from: From The Wilderness Publications - www.copvcia.com
Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page I
Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page II
Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page III
Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page IV
Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page V
Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page VI
Pages With Articles On 9-11:
Cocaine, Money Laundering, Oil, Afghanistan And Bush Family Links Page
Page VI Page VII Page VIII Page IX Page X
Page XI Page XII Page XIII Page XIV Page XV Page XVI Page XVII Page XVIII Page XVIIII
Want to Know What The World Thinks? Sick of Our Corporate Press?
All International Newspaper Reports !!!