Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

~Herman Göring at the Nuremberg trials

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!

~Sir Walter Scott, Marmion. Canto vi. Stanza 17


An Overview Of The War On Terrorism
By Jim Marrs

Home Page

Site Meter

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

~Philosopher George Santayana

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

~President John F. Kennedy




The Hidden Face of Terrorism

Terrorism does not emerge by accident but is usually sponsored by the state to serve the demands of a powerful elite, as can be seen in the creation of Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida

Big Oil and the War on Drugs and Terrorism

The "Big Oil" chess game, aided and abetted by the so-called wars on drugs and terrorism, has made most of humanity its pawns and has expanded corporate control over our lives


According the the Wall Street Journal, the proposed Federal budget is roughly $1.5 trillion. The total cost of defeating the Axis powers in WWII was $4.5 trillion. Over 3 years, the US government will in peace time spend more than it cost to win WWII, to lose the wars on poverty, drugs, and crime.

World War I — "The war to end all wars" which then brought us ...

World War II — which continued to bring us ...

"The Cold War" and ...
The Korea War
The Vietnam War
The "War on Poverty"
The "War on Cancer"
The "War on Heart Disease"
The "War on Drugs" — punctuated by the fact that the Federal Government is paying for synthetic drug therapies in deference to proven natural therapies.  And now we have ...

"The War on Terrorism" — after our government help create and arm the terrorists.....

Americans are now beginning to pay the price for sleeping through history classes, ignoring important information in the alternative media and neglecting to participate in their own political process.


They find themselves in a new war --- the War on Terrorism. This is a war they never asked for and never envisioned, anaesthetized as we all are by the flickering tube of distraction. It is a war predicated on the premise that a sneak attack was made on the United States September 11, 2001.


Unlike previous wars, there is no Berlin or Tokyo to capture and hence, no victory to be won, except for those who profit from war. The real victims of this war will be the average American citizen, right along with the starving Afghan.


This new war might well be compared to the failed War on Drugs and the nearly forgotten War on Poverty. No clear victory has yet been achieved over the misuse of drugs or the ravages of poverty within our own nation. Our prisons are overflowing with drug offenders with no appreciable lessening of either demand or supply and our basic civil rights have been badly mauled.

War, Journalism, and Propaganda

Just like those failed campaigns, the War on Terrorism for the foreseeable future will set us all on a costly course of restrictions on individual freedom, ever more centralized authority and omnipresent fear.

And where are the voices of those who would argue the merits of this new war? The airwaves and newspapers only ratchet the fear factor upwards each day with little or no effort to hear the many thoughtful Americans who are asking themselves, "Do I really need to give up my freedoms in order to save them?"

So with flags flying on the antennae of our gas-guzzling vehicles and love of country pulsing in our hearts, we march off to yet another war for oil.

Wars For Oil


Yes, oil. Petroleum has been behind all recent wars, beginning in the early 1940's, when a mostly rural and isolationist America was suddenly thrown into a world war as a reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans mourned the loss of some 3,000 soldiers and civilians in Hawaii and, in righteous indignation, allowed their country to be turned into a giant military camp.


The federal government, which had consolidated so much power unto itself under the Depression-busting policies of President Franklin Roosevelt, grew even stronger and more centralized under the aegis of "national security". It all seemed quite natural and necessary at the time.


But serious students of history now know that even that "good war" was the result of machinations by a handful of wealthy and powerful men. By closing off Japan's oil supplies in the summer of 1941, Roosevelt, the quintessential Wall Street insider, ensured an eventual attack on the United States.

It has now been well established that Roosevelt and a few close advisers knew full well that Pearl Harbor would be attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, but chose to allow it to happen to further their agenda for launching American into war. (The details of this may be found in my book Rule by Secrecy.) The Vietnam War was prosecuted by men who were close to Roosevelt and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who had long voiced a desire to gain control over Indochina's oil, magnesium and rubber assets. Again a provocation was created. In August, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson whipped Congress into a frenzy claiming that North Vietnamese gunboats had attacked the US Sixth Fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam. "Our boys are floating in the water," he cried. Congress responded by passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which bypassed the Constitution and gave Johnson the power to wage war to stop attacks on Americans. It was the beginning of the real shooting Vietnam War.


And it was all a lie. No evidence has ever been brought forward that such an attack took place. In fact, editors for US News & World Report (July 23, 1984) called it "The 'Phantom Battle' That Led to War."


While America was waging war against North Vietnam, which we were told was merely a puppet of communist Russia and China, Johnson was encouraged by his CFR advisers to grant the Soviet Union loans at higher levels than offered during World War II when they were our ally. US-backed loans provided Russia with the means to build facilities which turned out war materials that were then sent to North Vietnam for use against American troops. This was a good example of the duplicity of our modern wars.

These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed

The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate.

Please try the following:

  • Click the refresh.gif (82 bytes) Regime change button, or try again later.
  • If you are George Bush and typed the country's name in the address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. (IRAQ).
  • To check your weapons inspector settings, click the UN menu, and then click Weapons Inspector Options. On the Security Council tab, click Consensus. The settings should match those provided by your government or NATO.
  • If the Security Council has enabled it, The United States of America can examine your country and automatically discover Weapons of Mass Destruction.
    If you would like to use the CIA to try and discover them,
    click Detect Settings Detect Weapons 
  • Some countries require 128 thousand troops to liberate them. Click the Panic menu and then click About US foreign policy to determine what regime they will install.
  • If you are an Old European Country trying to protect your interests, make sure your options are left wide open as long as possible. Click the Tools menu, and then click on League of Nations. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Head in the Sand section and check settings for your exports to Iraq.
  • Click the Bomb button if you are Donald Rumsfeld.

Cannot find weapons or CIA Error
Iraqi Explorer

The Gulf War was all about oil, from the wells in Kuwait slant drilling into Iraq's southern reserves to the destruction of the oil fields at its finish. Here we found a new Hitler in Saddam Hussein, an enemy armed and financed by the CIA, an agency whose top officials have long been connected to oil men CFR members and other globalists  


Saddam Hussein, strapped for cash due to his eight-year war against Iran on behalf of the US, decided to regain Kuwait as a means of increasing his income. Kuwait had been carved out of southern Iraqi by British troops. When asked her thoughts on this move, US Ambassador April Glaspie replied that the US government had "no opinion" on the matter and that the matter of Kuwait was not associated with America. But when he moved his troops into Kuwait, Bush mobilized a United Nations force against him, backed by a $4 billion secret fund provided by his business associates in Saudi Arabia.


Yet, as those patriotic soldiers closed in on Saddam, the whole war stopped and George H. W. Bush's old business partner is still in power. It appears to have been yet another provocation. And as in Vietnam, even as we prepared to fight against Saddam, the American taxpayers backed $500 million in loans that he used to purchase arms for use against our forces.


Caspian Sea Oil Coveted


Today the real issue is the rich oil reserves of the Caspian Sea region, the prize sought by Hitler whose drive to that area was stopped only by the tenacious Russian defense of the Volga River city of Stalingrad.


In the late 1970's, with the Soviet discovery of vast untapped oil in Chechnya, the region was ripe for exploitation but control over Afghanistan was needed to ensure the safety of a pipeline to bring the oil to world markets. But after almost 10 years of brutal, no-quarter fighting against Afghans and Arab mercenaries backed by the United States, including Osama bin Laden, the Soviets were forced to withdraw. The economic stress of this Russo-Afghan War was enough to topple communism in the early 1990's.


Now the international bankers and oilmen have a foothold in cash-strapped Russia and the estimated $40 billion in Caspian Sea oil is again attracting serious attention. In 1997, six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asian Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) to build a 790-mile-long pipeline to Pakistan and perhaps on to the New Delhi area of India.


Leading this consortium was Unocal Corporation, whose president, John F. Imle, Jr., said the project would be "the foundation for a new commerce corridor for the region - often referred to as the Silk Road for the 21st Century."


But problems developed with the fundamentalist Muslim government in Afghanistan, not the least of which was the Taliban government's treatment of women which prompted feminist demonstrations against firms seeking to do business there. Additionally, the Taliban regime was creating chaotic conditions by pitting the various Islamic sects against each other in order to maintain control. In the mid-1999, Unacol withdrew from the pipeline consortium, citing the hazardous political situation and the project languished.

Notice that in President Bush's declaration of war on terrorism, he never mentioned terrorists in Northern Ireland or the Palestinian suicide bombers. Attention was only focused on Afghanistan, the one nation necessary to complete the lucrative pipeline. It should also be noted that Vice President Dick Cheney headed Halliburton, a giant oil industry service company and is generally thought to be more powerful than the president.


Today it can be demonstrated that military action against Afghanistan has been in the works long before the Sept. 11 attacks.


In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.




As reported by BBC's George Arney, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik was alerted by American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would be launched by mid-October. At a UN-sponsored meeting concerning Afghanistan in Berlin, Naik was informed that unless bin Laden was handed over, America would take military action to either kill or capture both him and Taliban leader Mullah Omar as the initial step in installing a new government there.


It should be noted, however, that American intervention in Afghanistan began years ago, at least six months prior to the Soviet invasion in December, 1979.


In a 1998 interview with former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in the French publication Le Nouvel Observateur, the significant portions of which never made it to the United States, he admitted that American activities in Afghanistan actually began six months prior to the Soviet action.


Brzezinski said the Jimmy Carter administration began secretly funding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul in July of 1979 with the full knowledge such action might provoke a Soviet invasion. Soviet leaders at the time argued the invasion was necessary to thwart American aggression in Afghanistan. The former national security advisor, who helped found the globalist Trilateral Commission, expressed no regret at this provocation, stating, "That secret operation was an excellent idea. Itbrought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire." It also produced the Taliban regime which we are fighting today, as well as Osama bin Laden.


By 1984, with Vice President George H. W. Bush overseeing the Afghan situation, bin Laden was in charge of the Maktab al-Khidamir (MAK) which funneled money, arms and manpower from the outside world into the war against the Soviets. He soon helped form a polyglot formation of Arabic troops from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps, whom the CIA found easier to deal with than the Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan.


There should be considerable soul-searching about America's role in arming and training an international group of Muslim extremists in Afghanistan long after their comrades destroyed the Marine barracks in Beruit and hijacked numerous airliners.


Little noticed in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks were reports that China had signed a pact with the Afghans and was quietly inducted into the controversial World Trade Organization, action which under normal circumstances would have drawn widespread protest. Although such a pact is unconfirmed at this time, Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf, chairman of their joint chiefs and chief of the Pakistani Army Staff, this years visited China at their request and discussed matters of mutual interest.


Although, it is claimed that Pakistan is aiding the US in the current War Against Terrorism, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, Michael Sheehan, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee that Pakistan supports and trains terrorist groups in Afghanistan


This raises the specter of Chinese intervention should US forces become bogged down in mountainous Afghanistan. This prospect is particularly unsettling as back in 1555, the French prophet Nostradamus, who has been proven correct in so many of his prophecies, predicted that America and Russia would go to war against a coalition made up of Arab nations and China. Until just recently, such a notion seemed absurd.




The WTC/Pentagon attacks provided a convenient excuse to launch the pre-laid plans for military action against Afghanistan. But were they simply allowed to happen or were they contrived? The question becomes: Would any American allow an attack on fellow Americans just to further his own business or political agenda?


The answer, unfortunately, appears to be "Yes."


Incredibly, 40-year-old government documents thought to have been destroyed long ago recently were made public show the US military in the early 1960's proposed making terrorist attacks in the United States and blaming them on Fidel Castro.


These documents are discussed in a recent book on the National Security Agency (NSA) entitled Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency by James Bamford.


These documents were produced beginning in late 1961 following the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that spring. President John F. Kennedy, angered by the inept actions of the CIA, had shifted responsibility for Cuba from that agency to the Department of Defense. Here, military strategists considered plans to create terrorist actions which would alarm the American population and stampede them into supporting a military attack on Cuba.


Under consideration in "Operation Northwoods" were plans:


* to create "a series of well-coordinated incidents" in or around the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to include inciting riots, blowing up ammunition stores, aircraft and ships.


* to "develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."


* to "sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated)..foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States"


* to explode bombs in carefully chosen locations along with the release of "prepared documents" pointing to Cuban complicity.


* to use fake Russian aircraft to harass civilian airliners.


* to make "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft" even to simulating the shooting down of a civilian airliner.


Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods and senior military officers ordered the documents destroyed. But someone slipped up and the papers were discovered by the Assassination Records Review Board and recently released by the National Archives. More recently, according to The New York Times (October 28, 1993), an informant named Emad Salem early in 1993 was involved with Middle Eastern terrorists connected to Osama bin Laden to develop a bomb for use against New York's World Trade Center. Salem, a former Egyptian Army officer, wanted to substitute a harmless powder for the explosive but his plan to thwart the attack was blocked by an FBI official who apparently did not want to expose the inside informant. The attack was allowed to proceed.


The February 26 explosion in the WTC resulted in six deaths, more than 1,000 casualties and damage in excess of half billion dollars.


We now see that creating crises to further political goals is a methodology well understood and utilized in the 20th century. Is this the game today? Let's examine the Sept. 11 attack.




Superficially, it all seemed straightforward enough. According to the official story, about 19 suicidal Middle Eastern terrorists, their hearts full of hatred for American freedom and democracy, hijacked four airliners, crashing two into the twin towers of New York City's World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth reportedly crashed in western Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to fight the terrorists.


But a series of disturbing questions have arisen. Among them:


* Why was the US military preparing war plans against Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 attacks? Were they just looking for some event to propel the normally disinterested American public into a war as in the past?


* How could paper documents incriminating bin Laden be found intact at the WTC but the plane's black recording boxes designed to withstand crashes were damaged beyond use?


* Even days and weeks after the WTC attack, why were news cameramen prevented from photographing the ruins from certain angles, as complained about by CBS Correspondent Lou Young, who asked, "What are they afraid we're going to see?"


* Why has the NYPD liaison to the FBI been sent packing as a "security risk" as reported in the Oct. 16 New York Times? Whose security is at risk? The FBI? What is it that the bureau does not want NYPD to know?


The Muslim Brotherhood, the Nazis and Al-Qa'ida

Al-Qa'ida is the product of an Arab fascist group that was set up in the 1920s, funded by Adolf Hitler, used by British, French and American Intelligence after WWII, and later was supported by the Saudis and reactivated by the CIA.

* How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan involving perhaps as many as 100 persons and in the works for five years escape the notice of our intelligence services, especially the FBI and CIA? And why, instead of cashiering those responsible for this intelligence failure and totally restructuring these agencies, are we doubling their budgets? Will we now get twice as much failure as before?


* Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?


* Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions within the buildings? And why did the destruction of the WTC towers appear more like a controlled implosion than a tragic accident?


* Why did FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledge that the list of named hijackers might not contain their real names? Doesn't everyone have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding pass? Where was the normal security?


* Why was there a discrepancy of 35 names between the published passenger lists and the official death toll on all four of the ill-fated flights? Internet Columnist Gary North reported, "the published names in no instance match the total listed for the number of people on board." Why the discrepancy?


* As none of these listed passengers had an Arabic-sounding names, how did the government know which were the hijackers?


* Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers given by a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic control not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claimed were responsible?


* Since Saudi Arabia's foreign minister claimed five of the proclaimed hijackers were not aboard the death planes and in fact are still alive and a sixth man on that list was reported to be alive and well in Tunisia, why are these names still on the FBI list?


* Why were none of the named hijacker's names on any of the passenger list? If they all used aliases, how did the FBI identify them so quickly?


* Why did one of the named hijackers take luggage on a suicide flight, then leave it along with an incriminating note in his car at the airport?


* As for the overall investigation into the September attacks, by late October U.S. authorities conceded that most of their promising leads for finding accomplices and some of their long-held suspicions about several suspects have unraveled, according to The New York Times. Since more than 800 people have been arrested and more than 365,000 tips have been received from the public, why has nothing substantial has been forthcoming in the largest U.S. criminal investigation in history?


* Why are none of the nearly 100 people still being sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation seen as a major suspect?


* Why are we bombing Afghanistan when apparently none of the listed hijackers were Afghans, but instead Arabs from various Middle Eastern nations? Since Iraq was implicated in the 1993 WTC attack, why are we not bombing that "rogue" nation?


* Why does the heavy drinking and searching for hookers by some of the hijackers in Boston, as reported by Reuters New Service, sound more like mercenaries carousing before a mission than pious religious fundamentalists about to meet their maker?


* How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals, the excuse for hustling President Bush all across the country on Sept. 11? Was this evidence of an inside job or was it, as reported by Fox News, evidence that former FBI employee and double agent Robert Hanssen delivered an updated version of the purloined computer software Promis to his Russian handlers who passed it along to bin Laden? Does this software, which was stolen from a US company during the Reagan Administration by Justice Department officials under Attorney General Ed Meese, allow outsiders carte blanch entrée to our top security computers? (Hanssen's last job before being arrested as a spy was to upgrade the FBI's intelligence computer systems.)


* If United Flight 93 crashed as the result of a struggle between heroic passengers and the hijackers, why did witnesses tell of a second plane which followed it down, falling burning debris, no deep crater and crash wreckage spread over a six-mile area indicative of an aerial explosion?


* Why did news outlets describe the throat-cutting and mutilation of passengers on Flight 93 with box cutters when Time magazine on Sept. 24 reported that one of the passengers called home on a cell phone to report, "We have been hijacked. They are being kind."?


As Internet pundit Gary North stated, "We need a theory of the coordinated hijackings that rests on a plausible cause-and-effect sequence that does not assume the complete failure of both check-in procedures and the on-board seating procedures on four separate flights on two separate airlinesI don't see how anyone can make an accurate judgment about who was behind the attacks until he has a plausible explanation of how hijackers got onto the planes and were not removed."


But the federal government aided by a sycophantic mass media did not allow such rational thinking to interfere with a rush to judgment that Osama bin Laden was the culprit behind the attacks.




As in the JFK assassination, authorities had a suspect even before anyone knew for certain what had happened. He was the son of a wealthy Middle Eastern oil family, Osama bin Laden, who during the Russo-Afghan War of the 1980s, received arms and financing from the US Government. Despite the fact that bin Laden has denied any knowledge of the attack, he was presumed guilty by both the government and the press. No other interpretation of the attack was allowed in the corporate mass media.

Bin Laden is a made-to-order enemy, the man reportedly behind the 1993 WTC attack and a fugitive from United States justice for more than a decade. It has been noted that the government apparently has spent more time and money chasing Microsoft's Bill Gates than in capturing bin Laden.


This may be due to the business connections between our new terrorist enemy and wealthy American companies.


According to several reports, including Jonathan Beaty and S. C. Gwynne's book The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of the BCCI (New York: Random House, 1993) and American Free Press (October 15, 2001), the reincarnation of the Washington newspaper The Spotlight, Bush family friend James R. Bath used money from Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem, to open a partnership with George W. Bush in Arbusto Energy, a West Texas drilling company. Bush believed the word "arbusto" to mean Bush in Spanish, although it generally refers to a "shrub".


According to The Houston Chronicle, Salem bin Laden named Bath his business representative in Texas shortly after the senior Bush was named CIA director by appointed President Gerald Ford in 1975. It was the Bush family, particularly Jeb and Neil, who were involved in the savings and loan debacle from 1989 to 1993 that cost taxpayers more than $500 billion.


Through a tangled web of Texas oilmen, wealthy Saudi sheiks and unscrupulous bankers connected to BCCI, the younger Bush eventually gained a sizable interest in a new oil company called Harken Energy. Two months before Saddam Hussein sent Iraqi troops into Kuwait, Bush sold two-thirds of his Harken stock, netting himself nearly a one million dollar profit. The stock dropped when the Iraqi invasion began.


It should be noted that during the Persian Gulf War, it was Binladen Brothers Construction (now the Binladen Group) that helped build airfields for US aircraft. The bin Laden brothers were then described as "a good friend of the US government".


Later the bin Laden firm continued to be hired to construct an American air base in Saudi Arabia despite the fact that Osama had already been blamed for terrorist acts such as the truck bombing of the Khobar Towers at the Dhahran base which killed 19 Americans. A WorldNetDaily writer commented, "So let's get this straight. Osama blows up our facilities, and his family gets the contract for rebuilding them. Do you get the feeling there is more going on than meets the eye?"


Osama's older brother, Salem, was killed in the strange crash of an ultralight aircraft in 1988. The single-passenger craft suddenly and inexplicably veered into high-voltage electric power lines near San Antonio, Texas. The BCCI bank was closed by federal investigators in 1991 after suffering some $10 billion in losses. BCCI was a Pakistani-run institution with front companies in the Cayman Islands that used secret accounts for global money-laundering and was used by U. S. intelligence to funnel money to bin-Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting against the Soviet-backed government.


Another close connection between bin Laden and the Bush family is a $12-billion private international investment firm known as the Carlyle Group. Although it has removed its web site since the Sept. 11 attacks, it is know that Carlyle directors include former Reagan Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former Bush Secretary of State James Baker and former Reagan aide and GOP operative Richard Darman. The New York Times reported that former President Bush was allowed to buy into Carlyle's investments which involve at least 164 companies around the world.


According to the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2001), "George H. W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm." It has been confirmed by the senior Bush's chief of staff that Bush sent a thank you note to the bin Laden family after a social visit in early 2001.


With such connections and his son as a sitting President of the United States, the senior Bush's Carlyle involvement was questioned by Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, who said, "Any foreign government or foreign investor trying to curry favor with the current Bush Administration is sure to throw business to the Carlyle Group. And with the former President Bush promoting the firm's investments abroad, foreign nationals could understandably confuse the Carlyle Group's interests with the interests of the United States government."


After detailing some of the Carlyle/bin Laden investments in several businesses, including aerospace industries, writer Michael C. Ruppert commented, "In other words, Osama bin Laden's attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, with the resulting massive increase in the US defense budget, have just made his family a great big pile of money."

What makes these business dealings that entangle former and current American political leaders with Middle Easterners even more suspect was the announcement that several US firms were being investigated for short selling stocks just prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.


Short selling of stocks involves the opportunity to gain large profits by passing shares to a friendly third party, then buying them back when the price falls. Historically, if this precedes a traumatic event, it is an indication of foreknowledge. It is widely known that the CIA uses the Promis software to routinely monitor stock trades as a possible warning sign of a terrorist attack or suspicious economic behavior.

A week after the Sept. 11 attacks, the London Times reported that the CIA had asked regulators for the Financial Services Authority in London to investigate the suspicious sales of millions of shares of stock just prior to the terrorist acts. It was hoped the business paper trail might lead to the terrorists. The Times said market regulators in Germany, Japan and the US all had received information concerning the short selling of insurance, airlines and arms companies stock , all of which fell sharply in the wake of the attacks.


City of London broker and analyst Richard Crossley noted that someone sold shares in unusually large quantities beginning three weeks before the assault on the WTC and Pentagon. He said he took this as evidence that someone had insider foreknowledge of the attacks.


"What is more awful than he should aim a stiletto blow at the heart of Western financial markets?," he added. "But to profit from it. Words fail me."



The US Government also admitted it was investigating short selling, which evinced a foreknowledge of the tragedy. There was unusually heavy trading in airline and insurance stocks several days before Sept. 11 which essentially bet on a drop in the worth of the stocks. It was reported by the Interdisciplinary Center, a counter-terrorism think tank involving former Israeli intelligence officers, that insiders made nearly $16 million profit by short selling shares in American and United Airlines, the two airlines that suffered hijacking, and the investment firm of Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors of the WTC.


Apparently none of the suspicious transactions could be traced to bin Laden because this news item quietly dropped from sight, leaving many people wondering if it tracked back to American firms or intelligence agencies.


According to web writer and former LA policeman Michael C. Ruppert, these transactions were handled primarily by Deutsche Bank-A. B. Brown, a firm which until 1998 was chaired by A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who today is executive director of the CIA.


Besides Krongard, other prominent Americans connected to both the CIA and Wall Street power include Clark Clifford (who was a key player in gaining legitimacy for the BCCI), John Foster and Allen Dulles (Allen oversaw the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and sat on the Warren Commission), Bill Casey, David Doherty, George Herbert Walker Bush, John Deutch, Nora Slatkin and Hank Greenburg.


As detailed in Rule by Secrecy, the CIA historically has been top heavy with members of the Wall Street elite who desire to advance their globalist agenda. It also operates a number of front companies which themselves deal in stocks and bonds. I am absolutely convinced that the Central Intelligence Agency had complete and perfect foreknowledge of the attacks, down to the date, time, place and location," Ruppert told OnLine Journal on Oct. 12.


There were other indications of foreknowledge. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown stated on that on Sept. 10 he was warned by his personal "airport security" not to fly the next day., according to radio station KSFO.


More ominous was a piece in the Sept. 28 edition of the Washington Post stating that officials with the instant messaging firm of Odigo in New York confirmed that two employees in Israel received text messages warning of an attack on the WTC two hours before the planes crashed into the buildings. The firm's vice president of sales and marketing, Alex Diamandis said it was possible that the warning was sent to other Odigo members, but they had not received any reports of such.


Military forces had been on a heightened state of alert for several days before the attack and several psychics claimed to have had a premonition that something was afoot.


Even the Russians got in on the act. Dr. Tatyana Koragina, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches which is a part of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, gained credibility due to her July prediction that an unusual catastrophe would strike America in late August ruining the economy.


In a Pravda interview, she stated, "The US has been chosen as the object of financial attack because the financial center of the planet is located there. The effect will be maximal. The strike waves of economic crisis will spread over the planet"


Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Koragina was reinterviewed and asserted the "powerful group" behind the attacks will make new strikes. "When [Americans] understand after the upcoming, new strikes, that their government can guarantee them nothing, they will panic - causing a collapse of their financial system."


Asked who was really behind this odious plan, she replied it is not the 19 terrorists identified by the FBI but rather a larger group seeking to reshape the world. She said this group of extremely powerful private persons hold total assets of about $300 trillion and intend to legitimize their power under a new global government.


Some took Dr. Koragina's eerily correct predictions as evidence that Russia itself may be behind some of the current events. It is a fact that Russia has backed several state sponsors of terrorists, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea and Cuba.




But let us not forget the indications that someone in Israel had foreknowledge of the attacks. And there were questions concerning the number of Israeli citizens killed in the attacks. The day after, the Jerusalem Post claimed two Israelis died on the hijacked airplanes and that 4,000 were missing at the WTC. A week later, a Beirut television station reported that 4,000 Israeli employees of the WTC were absent the day of the attack. This information spread across the Internet but was quickly branded a hoax. On Sept. 19, the Washington Post reported about 113 Israelis were missing at the WTC and the next day, President Bush noted more than 130 Israelis were victims. Finally, on Sept. 22, the New York Times stated "There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried."


Of all the nations of the world, Israel probably profited the most from the events of Sept. 11.


A permanent American military force in the Middle East is now assured, offering an umbrella of protection to that small nation despite the anger engendered in Arab states. After Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Muslim mosque in Jerusalem resulted in widespread violence by Palestinians, world opinion began to shift away from uncritical support of Israel. It has been reported that the Bush Administration was beginning to seriously consider support for a separate Palestinian state.


Israel's powerful and effective intelligence agency, the Mossad, is not beyond suspicion, according to the US Army's School of Advanced Military Studies. The Washington Times on Sept. 10, just 24 hours before the attacks, ran an article quoting officers of the school as describing the Mossad as "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."


It is generally known that the Mossad has penetrated every Arab and Muslim organization and would have had little problem in finding any number of fanatics to carry out a suicide mission in the belief they were serving Allah.


Indeed, recent news reports contended that not all of the hijackers knew their mission would end in death.




Thanks to newly revealed technology, it is now possible to theorize that none of the hijackers intended to die.


Global Hawk is the name of the latest version of a high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned air vehicle (UAV), in other words, a unmanned drone plane that can take off, conduct missions such as photographing battlefields and land by remote electronic control.


This Buck Rogers equipment made its first operational flight Oct. 7 when it was used for reconnaissance over Afghanistan in preparation for US air and missile strikes against the Taliban regime.


But this remote-controlled plane, similar to a Boeing 737 commercial airliner, was successfully tested earlier this year, first at Edwards Air Force Base and later at Edinburgh Air Force Base in southern Australia.


Prior to leaving Australia, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defense Dr. Brendan Nelson said, "Global Hawk will create aviation history again during its return journey to become the first unmanned aircraft to fly non-stop from Australia to the United States west coast."


When news of Global Hawk was first released, there was speculation that the UAV technology might be used to thwart airline hijackings. Once a hijacking took place, the Global Hawk technology would be triggered and the captured plane flown to a landing at a safe location regardless of the actions of the flight crew or the hijackers.


In fact, following the attacks, the New York Times on Sept. 28 in an article on increasing air safety, mentioned "new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control". This made it seem such technology is not yet available, yet earlier this year, a former chief of British Airways suggested that such technology could be used to commandeer an aircraft from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijacking.


Needless to say, there are those today who question if Global Hawk's true first operational use might have been conducted on Sept. 11. After all, as all experienced aviation and military persons well know, if a technology such as Global Hawk is publicly revealed, it most probably has been in secret use for several years. But regardless of how the planes with the terrorists were controlled, it is clear that their managers had information, if not help, from inside the government.




Early on, the Bush White House issued a statement stating that "credible evidence" showed that the hijackers had access to the top secret codes of Air Force One, in which the President fled from Florida to Louisiana and on to Nebraska. This statement made the President's zig-zag journey of 9-11 more like that of a careful and prudent commander than a fleeing coward.


White House officials later said this information was untrue, leaving the public with the question of what else has the Bush people told us that is untrue, or that the their first statements were true, raising the possibility that there may have been inside help in obtaining the codes.


It is certainly true that various agencies knew for some time that suspected terrorists were operating in the United States.


As early as 1995, it was known within police and military circles and reported in VFW and American Legion publications that some 5,000 former Iraqi prisoners of war had been allowed in this country by the Clinton Administration beginning in 1993. Most had worked with the CIA at one time or another and were allowed in this country to avoid death at the hands of a vengeful Saddam Hussein.


Many of these men had been with the Iraqi Republican Guard which blew up the Kuwaiti oil fields at the end of the Gulf War, so they obviously were trained in explosives.


They were "resettled" in various US cities and where they formed cells. These cities included New York City, Boston, Washington, D. C., Miami, New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Kansas City and more.


These men participated in fundraising activities for the HAMAS and Hezballah terrorist chains. They have been connected to Osama bin Laden through a Cebu City connection in the Philippines, the location that convicted bomber Terry Nichols visited with his Philippine wife. At least 12 of these former POWs are believed to have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.


Although this may seem a strange and unreported connection, there is a wealth of information linking Iraqi operatives to Timothy McVeigh. In fact the Oct. 29 edition of U.S. News & World Report revealed that "top Defense officials" believe McVeigh was acting as an agent for Iraq, an astounding development in light of the extent the government continued to deny any conspiracy other that aid from Terry Nichols.


These same trained soldiers reportedly created a number of clandestine laboratories to produce biological warfare germs, including anthrax, bubonic plague, various hemorrhagic fevers and other deadly combinations.




In 1996, The FBI finally was moved to action concerning the biological threat. Ohio microbiologist Larry Wayne Harris had tried to alert the public to the danger of anthrax being smuggled into the United States by Muslim extremists but was demonized by the mass media as a conspiracy buff. In 1998, Harris, along with Nevada microbiologist William Leavitt, was arrested by the FBI in Las Vegas for possessing anthrax cultures.


The mass media broadcast this news widely, repeating the government's charge that the men were testing the deadly toxins in preparation for an attack on New York. These allegations were quietly dropped only a few days later when it was found that the men possessed a harmless veterinary anti-anthrax vaccine. They were attempting to find their own antidote to anthrax, a dangerous disease the government continued to dismiss in the mid-1990s. (US News & World Report, March 2, 1998 and March 9.)


It is interesting that at that same time, several people were warning that an anthrax vaccine ordered for all US military personnel was actually going to be used to spread the disease and provoke a United Nations takeover once enough US soldiers were incapacitated. It was claimed that this plan would be set in motion by an emergency blamed on foreigners which would hasten the use of the vaccine. Several military persons were brought before a court martial for refusing to take the vaccine.


And what of Osama bin Laden? What did he have to say about all this?


Don't look to the corporate mass media to inform you as they have all agreed not to broadcast anything that might detract from the official government story, even though it is acknowledged that Bush's media denunciations of bin Laden have been more filled with adjectives like "evil" and "evildoer" than specific evidence.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAR) noted that on Oct. 10, network executives representing ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN were involved in a conference call with National Security Adviser and Council on Foreign Relations heavyweight Condoleeza Rice. The execs apparently agreed to limit how and what they broadcast regarding bin Laden or his Al Qaeda group. Bush people even tried unsuccessfully to have al Jazeera, called the "CNN of the Mideast," broadcasting from Qatar tone down its coverage of bin Laden. They were more successful with members of our Congress, when they threatened to cut off intelligence reports if they spoke offhand to the media.


The next day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, already on the record saying Americans "need to watch what they say," extended this constraint by contacting major newspapers asking that they not print full transcripts of bin Laden's interviews.


According to a FAR news release, "The point is not that bin Laden or Al Qaeda deserve 'equal time' on US news broadcasts, but that it is troubling for government to shape or influence news content. Withholding information from the public is hardly patriotic. When the White House insists that it's dangerous to report a news event "in its entirety", alarm bells should go off for journalists and the American public alike."


Here's what bin Laden said in an interview on Sept. 28, according to the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, not do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people"


In this interview, apparently suppressed in the United States, bin Laden unsurprisingly blamed the attacks on Israel, claiming, "All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.(and) what had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia. 


Bin Laden went on to state, "we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [US Government] system which makes other nations slaves to the United States or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom."


One cannot, of course, take bin Laden at face value, but then the same could be said for the US Government which has been caught in so many lies and deceit in the past that it is surprising that anyone pays any attention to official pronouncements.


What should be thoughtfully considered is the dismal record of United States foreign policy since World War II. This policy, as confirmed by the New York Times years ago, has been in the hands of the Council on Foreign Relations elite since at least 1939. This elite and its associates includes former Presidents Bush and Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon, virtually every CIA director as well as a considerable number of familiar past and present government officials such as Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Wesley Clark, Strobe Talbott, Alexander Haig, Alan Greenspan, Bruce Babbitt, James A. Baker III, Sandy Berger, Colin Powell, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank C. Carlucci, Richard Darman, John Deutch, Lawrence Eagleburger, Robert McFarlane, Brent Snowcroft, Condoleeza Rice and Casper Weinberger.


This policy has been one of neo-colonialism, that is the subjugation and control of other nations through military dictators or wealthy families supported by, and often placed in power, by the US military or intelligence services.


* The results of this neo-colonial policy has been dismal at best and catastrophic at worst. Never mind the historical aggression displayed by American foreign policy in the Mexican War of 1848 and the Spanish-American War of 1898. Consider this policy since World War II.


* In 1951, when Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in that Mideast nation, he was deposed by a coup instigated by the CIA and the Shah came to power, assuming complete control in 1963. Thousands of Iranians, perhaps millions died during the repressive rule of the Shah and his SAVAK secret police. The Shah was finally forced out in 1979 by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who became the US's latest foreign enemy despite the fact that he had been on the CIA payroll while living in Paris. The Shah was granted asylum in the United States.


* In Guatemala in 1954, again the CIA toppled the popularly elected government of Jacobo Arbenz, which had nationalized United Fruit property. Prominent American government officials such as former CIA Director Walter Bedell Smith, then CIA Director Allen Dulles, Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs John Moors Cabot and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles were all closely connected to United Fruit. An estimated 120,000 Guatemalan peasants died in the resulting military dictatorships.


* Fidel Castro, with covert aid from the CIA, overthrew the military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and instituted sweeping land, industrial and educational reforms as well as nationalizing American businesses. Swifty labeled a communist, the CIA then organized anti-Castro Cubans resulting in numerous attacks on Cuba and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. The island nation has been the object of US economic sanctions since that time.


* More than 3,000 persons died in the wake of an invasion of the Dominican Republic by US Marines in 1965. The troops ostensibly were sent to prevent a communist takeover, although later it was admitted that there had been no proof of such a takeover.


* Also in 1965, the US began the bombing of North Vietnam after President Johnson proclaimed the civil war there an "aggression" by the north. Two years later, American troop strength in Vietnam had grown to 380,000. US dead by the end of that Asian war totaled some 58,000 with casualties to the Vietnamese, both north and south, running more into the millions.


* In 1973, the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile was overthrown by a military coup aided by the CIA. Allende was killed and some 30,000 persons died in subsequent violence and repression, including some Americans.


* In 1968, General Sukarno, the dictator of Indonesia, was overthrown by the General Suharto, again with aid from the CIA. Suharto proved even more dictatorial and corrupt than his predecessor. A reported 800,000 people died during his regime.


* Another 250,000 persons died in 1975 during the brutal invasion of East Timor by the Suharto regime aided by the US Government and Henry Kissinger.


* In 1979, the powerful Somoza family, which had ruled Nicaragua since 1937, was finally overthrown and Daniel Ortega was elected president. CIA-backed Contra insurgents operating from Honduras fought a protracted war to oust the Ortega government in which an estimated 30,000 people died. The ensuing struggle came to include such shady dealing in arms and drugs that it created a scandal in the United States called Iran-Contra, which involved selling arms to Iran and using the profits to support the Contras.


* US Marines landed in Lebanon in 1982 in an attempt to preventing further bloodshed between occupying Israeli troops and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Thousands died in the resulting civil war, including several hundred Palestinians massacred in refugee camps by Christian forces. Despite the battleship shelling of Beirut, American forces were withdrawn in 1984 after a series of bloody attacks on them.


* In 1983, US troops invaded the tiny Caribbean island nation of Grenada after a leftist government was installed. The official explanation was to rescue a handful of American students who initially said they didn't need rescuing.


* For nearly 20 years, during the 1970s and 1980s, the US Government gave aid and arms to the right wing government of the Republic of El Salvador for use against it leftist enemies. By 1988, some 70,000 Salvadorans had died.


* More than one million persons died in the 15-year battle in Angola between the Marxist government aided by Cuban troops and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, supported by South Africa and the US Government.


* When Muammur al-Qaddafi tried to socialize the oil-rich North African nation of Libya beginning with his takeover in 1969, he drew the wrath of the US Government. In 1981, it was claimed that Qaddafi had sent hit teams to the United States to assassinate President Reagan and in 1986, following the withdrawal of U.S. oil companies from Libya, an air attack was launched which missed Qaddafi but killed several people including his infant daughter.


* In 1987, an Iraqi missile attack on the US frigate Stark resulted in 37 deaths. Shortly afterward, the Iraqi president apologized for the incident. In 1988, a US Navy ship shot down an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf resulting in 290 deaths. The Reagan Administration simply called it a mistake.


* Thousands of freedom seeking Chinese were killed in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989 after hardliners conferred with former President Richard Nixon on how to deal with the dissidents. Nixon, of course, was the only US president to resign under threat of criminal indictment.


* About 8,000 Panamanians died over Christmas, 1989, when President George H. W. Bush sent US troops to invade that Central American nation to arrest his former business partner, Manuel Noriega. The excuse was that Noriega was involved in the importation of drugs to the United States. U.S. News & World Report noted that in 1990, the amount of drugs moving through Panama had doubled.

* Iraqi casualties, both military and civilian, totaled more than 300,000 during the short Persian Gulf War of 1991. It has been estimated that more than one million Iraqis, including women and children, have died as a result of the continued missile and air attacks over the past decade as well as economic sanctions against that nation.


* Also in 1991, the United States suspended assistance to Haiti after the election of a liberal priest sparked military action. Eventually, US troops were deployed.


The names of nations that have felt the brunt of US CIA and/or military activity as a result of foreign policy include Somalia, Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Brazil, Chad, Sudan and many others. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated during the Vietnam War, "My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence."


He did not say "my country" or "my people," it is the government, or rather those who control it, that are responsible. Although we the distracted and unaware citizens who claim to live in a democracy must take our fair share of the blame.




Is there precedence in history for what is happening to America today? So much so that there is not enough space to present it all. Nero burned Rome, blamed it on his enemies and took dictatorial power.

But consider what happened just last century.

On February 27, 1933, the German Reichstag or Parliament was destroyed by fire. Hitler and his Nazis blamed the destruction on communist terrorists. They even caught one, a retarded Dutch youth named Marinus van der Lubbe who carried a Communist Party card. After some time in custody, the youth confessed to being the arsonist.

However, later investigation found that one person could not have started the mammoth blaze and that incendiaries had been carried into the building through a tunnel which led to the offices of Hitler's closest partner, Hermann Göring.

Less than a month later, on March 24, 1933, at Hitler's urging, a panicky German Parliament voted 441 to 94 to pass an "Enabling Act" which was the starting point for Hitler's dictatorship. As a result of this act, Germans soon saw gun confiscation, national identity cards, racial profiling, a national security chief (Heinrich Himmler) and later, mass murders and incarcerations in concentration camps.One of the western leaders who supported Hitler and his policies was Prescott Bush, grandfather of President George W. Bush. He must have taken notice of Hitler's method for gaining unwarranted power.

I read for the first time Göbbels' hand-written entry about the Reichstag fire. As he described it, he was at his home with Hitler on that evening of February 27, 1933, when the phone rang at nine o'clock. It was the prankster "Putzi" Hanfstängl, saying: "The Reichstag's on fire." Göbbels remembered that he'd been had twice by Hanfstängl already that week, and he thought this was another prank, so he just put the phone down.

Hanfstängl phoned again and said, "You'd better listen to what I'm saying, The Reichstag's on fire." Göbbels realized this could be serious after all, so he made a phone call to the police station at the Brandenburg Gate, which confirmed that the Reichstag was on fire. Thereupon he and Hitler jumped into a car and drove straight to the Reichstag where they found their worst fears confirmed. This is in the hand-written diary, it is obviously genuine, and it confirms what we know from other sources.

~David Irving

Debunking Conspiracy Theorists

Paranoid Fantasies About 911 Detract From Real Issues

Since the Reichstag fire, the Bush family and their associates in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergers have often mimicked Hitler's tactics of creating a problem, offering a draconian solution and advancing their agenda through any resulting compromise.

The real enemy is whoever is behind the Sept. 11 terror attack. Osama bin Laden, so closely connected to the financial interests of the Bush family and the CIA, may be the mastermind or he may be a convenient scapegoat, yet another provocation to stampeded Americans into another war for oil.


We must thoughtfully consider where the real source of terror lies --- with one bearded fanatic in an impoverished Middle Eastern country or with those who would profit while shredding the US Constitution in the name of defending freedom.


Deja Vu all over again.....

Nazi Germany
's War On Terrorism

 Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag (Parliament) building by a deranged Dutchman to declare a °War on Terrorism, to establish his legitimacy as a leader (even though he hadn’t won a majority in the previous election).


°You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history, he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. °This fire, he said, his voice trembling with emotion, °is the beginning. He used the occasion; a sign from God, he called it to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.


Two weeks later, the first prison for terrorists was built in Oranienburg, holding the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorists. In a national outburst of patriotism, the nation’s flag was everywhere, even printed in newspapers suitable for display.


If The World Treated WW2 Like the 
War O
n Terrorism


Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation, in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it, that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.


To get his patriotic °Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack on the Reichstag building was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained.


Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. Instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as The Fatherland. As hoped, people’s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was °the Homeland”, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, Hitler’s advisors determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, including those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist sympathizers. He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the Fatherland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single powerful leader.

Most Americans remember his Office of Fatherland Security, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and Schutzstaffel, simply by its most famous agency’s initials: the SS.

And, perhaps most important, he invited his supporters in industry into the halls of government to help build his new detention camps, his new military, and his new empire which was to herald a thousand years of peace. Industry and government worked hand-in-glove, in a new type of pseudo-democracy first proposed by Mussolini and sustained by war.





US Wars

The U.S. has been in many wars since it became a country and even before when we were just colonies. I think we were in far more wars than most of us realize. I may have missed some but here are most of them:

In 1680 we fought a war that was known as King William's War, it lasted about 8 years.

In 1702 we fought Queen Anne's War. This war lasted about 10 years. Some of the indians joined the French against us.

In 1739 we were again at war. This was called The War of Jenkin's Ear. It started in 1739 and lasted about 5 years. It was between the colonies and Spain.

We just couldn't relax and a year later we fought another war known as King George's War. This war lasted about 5 years.

We had a year of peace after this war but then we had to fight the most famous pre revolutionary war. In 1755 we fought the French and Indian Wars. This war lasted about 8 years.

But even in between these wars were we at peace during those short periods where war didn't exist? No because we were fighting with other European countries and the indians. This was called the Colonial Indian Wars.

Now we have the American Revolution and that lasts about 8 years from 1775 to 1783. At the same time we have another war called the Indian Wars. Its starts in 1775 but continues until 1890. Its the war with the various indian tribes. We began fighting this war before we were even a country.

Not long after the Revolutionary War, 1798 to be exact, we fought an undeclared naval war with our former friend, France. This lasted for about 3 years and is almost forgotten by history.

We had various rebellions through out this period but I am not counting them as wars.

In 1800 we fought the Tripelitanian War and this one lasted almost 6 years.

The war of 1812 was fought against the British and lasted about 3 years.

Then there was the Algerian War in 1815, that lasted about a year.

In 1819 we decided to attack Florida and seized it from Spain.

1846 brought us the Mexican War. This lasted from 1846 to 1847.

We had a nice little war in Kansas in 1855 that lasted about 6 years. Both sides of the slavery issue were fighting it out.

In 1861 the Civil War Began and lasted until 1865.

In 1893 we got mixed up in the Hawaiian War.

1898 saw us attacking Spain because we thought that they sunk the Maine, a US battleship.

In 1899 we fought the Philippine - American War. This lasted about 14 years if you count the More Rebellion.

In 1900 we got involved in the Boxer Rebellion in China with many other European Governments.

We sent troops to Panama in 1903 to prevent Colombia from overthrowing the government.

From 1909 to 1933 we intervened in various tropical countries, this is known as the Banana Wars.

1914 saw us invade and occupy Vera Cruz, Mexico.

In 1916 we sent a force into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa. This went on for two years.

The Big War, World War I, began for us in 1917 and ended in 1918.

A year later we intervened in the Russia Civil War with other European countries. This lasted about 3 years.


We finally had a period of peace that lasted until the next World War.

World War II started for us in 1941 and ended in 1945.

It wasn't long before we were at war again, the Korean War started in 1950 and lasted about 4 years.

A few years later in 1958 we sent troops to Lebanon.

In 1964 we became involved with Vietnam. This was a long war that lasted from 1964 to 1973.

There were other wars in the area that we got involved with, some covertly. They were the Laotian Civil War which started somewhere around 1960 and lasted for 15 years and the Cambodian Civil War that began around 1970 and lasted until 1975.

In 1965 we intervened in the Dominican Republic.

In 1980 we decided to help Iraq by giving them intelligence info about Iran. By 1988 the war finally ended.

We did the same thing in Lebanon in 1982 but this lasted about 3 years.

In 1983 we invaded Grenada.

In 1987 we sent our navy to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf from the Iranians.1989 saw us invade Panama.

In 1991 we fought the Second Persian Gulf War. After this war in which we had soundly defeated Iraq we maintained a no fly zone until 2003.

The Somalia involvement took place in 1992 and lasted for about 2 years.

In 1994 we occupied Haiti and still have troops there.

1995 saw us involved in the Bosnian War.

In 1999 we were involved with the war in Kosovo.

In 2001 we invaded Afghanistan and are still fighting there.

In 2003 we invaded Iraq and are also still fighting there.

And finally in 2004 we again intervened in Haiti.

So what do all these wars cost? Besides the obvious in human lives, the financial cost is tremendous. Just looking at the major wars and what they cost in Billions of dollars, gives us this list:

The Revolution 1.2
War of 1812 0.7
Mexican War 1.1
Civil War Combined 44.4
Spanish American War 6.3
World War I 196.5
World War II 2,091.3
Korea 263.9
Vietnam 346.7
Gulf War 61.1
Afghanistan And Iran 300.0 (so far)

You can see by the list above that I have left out many smaller conflicts.

Its hard to believe that one country could have fought so many wars. If I had counted all the revolts and small skirmishes there would have been so many more. It seems that we are always at war. Maybe it is time to rethink our policies.



Fake Terrorism 

The Road To Dictatorship


By Michael Rivero
from the Free Republic


It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.


In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licineus Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private landholder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.


In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan.


Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Sparticus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Sparticus had already defeated in battle. But Sparticus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Sparticus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.


Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Sparticus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Sparticus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Sparticus had no choice but to march on Rome.


Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Sparticus' army and even though Pompeii took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.


With this manoeuvre, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome.


The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.


Julius Caesar's political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast right wing" conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits no government was treated as suspicious behaviour. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.


What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolf Hitler succeeded in doing. Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers.


The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Der Führer.


The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice.


Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in.


In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war". Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out to be complete fabrications.


On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine, lying in Havana harbour in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full investigation of the cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in the press for "refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared flat out that to suppose the explosion to be anything other than a deliberate act by Spain was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability".


Under the slogan "Remember the Maine", Americans went to war with Spain, wresting from that nation ownership of what is now much of the American southwest.


In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral Hyman Rickover examined the data recovered from a 1911 examination of the wreck and concluded that there had been no evidence of an external explosion. The most likely cause of the sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker imprudently located next to the ship's magazines. Captain Sigsbee's caution had been well founded.


President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the fever of a major war to mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression. Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars.


Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be manoeuvred into attacking America, much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Sparticus into attacking Rome.


The way open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual defence to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were readily at hand.


The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend it's empire into the "southern resource area".


Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as completely as Crassus had boxed in Sparticus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it, and to do that they had to remove the threat of the American fleet at Pearl Harbour. There never really was any other course open to them.


To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbour itself, Roosevelt and his associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and it's intentions, then later scapegoated for the attack. (Congress recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel, posthumously restoring them to their former ranks).


But as the Army board had concluded at the time, and subsequent de-classified documents confirmed, Washington DC knew the attack was coming, knew exactly where the fleet was, and knew where it was headed.


On November 29th, Secretary of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the attack, and the New York Times in it's special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbour edition, on page 13, reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance!


The much repeated claim that the Japanese fleet maintained radio silence on it's way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still held in the Archives of the NSA is the UNCODED message sent by the Japanese tanker Shirya stating, "proceeding to a position 30.00 N, 154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December." (near HI)


President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam. He wanted it to help his friends who owned defence companies to do a little business. He needed it to get the Pentagon and CIA to quit trying to invade Cuba. And most of all, he needed a provocation to convince the American people that there was really "no other choice".


On August 5, 1964, newspapers across America reported "renewed attacks" against American destroyers operating in Vietnamese waters, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin. The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox while it was on "routine patrol".


The truth is that USS Maddox was involved in aggressive intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam. The truth is also that there was no attack by torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Captain John J. Herrick, the task force commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC that the report was the result of an "over-eager" sonar man who had picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked. But even with this knowledge that the report was false, Lyndon Johnson went on national TV that night to announce the commencement of air strikes against North Vietnam, "retaliation" for an attack that had never occurred.


President George Bush wanted a war in Iraq. Like Crassus, George Bush is motivated by money. Specifically oil money. But with the OPEC alliance failing to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was being glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over roughly 1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region.


George wanted a war to stop that flow of oil, to keep prices (and profits) from falling any further than they already had. But like Roosevelt, he needed the "other side" to make the first move.


Iraq had long been trying to acquire greater access to the Persian Gulf, and felt limited confined a narrow strip of land along Kuwait's northern border, which placed Iraqi interests in close proximity with hostile Iran. George Bush, who had been covertly arming Iraq during its war with Iran, sent word via Jean Kirkpatrick that the United States would not intervene if Saddam Hussein grabbed a larger part of Kuwait. Saddam fell for the bait and invaded.

Of course, Americans were not about to send their sons and daughters to risk their lives for petroleum products. So George Bush arranged a hoax, using public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which has grown rich on taxpayer money by being most industrious and creative liars! Hill & Knowlton concocted a monumental fraud in which the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, went on TV pretending to be a nurse, and related a horror story in which Iraqi troops looted the incubators from a Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the premature babies on the cold floor to die. The media, part of the swindle from the start, never bothered asking why the "nurse" didn't just pick the babies up and wrap them in blankets or something.


Enraged by the incubator story, Americans supported operation Desert Storm, which never removed Saddam Hussein from power but which did take Kuwait's oil off of the market for almost 2 years and limited Iraq's oil exports to this very day. That our sons and daughters came home with serious and lingering medical illnesses was apparently not too great a price to pay for increased oil profits.


Following the victory in Iraq, yet another war appeared to be in the offering in the mineral rich regions of Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was used to create support for military action.

A photo of Fikret Alic, a Muslim, staring through a barbed wire fence, was used to "prove" that the Bosnians were running modern day "Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all possible associations with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the necessity of sending yet more American troops into someone else's nation.


But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the supposed Bosnian Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that the photo was a fake! The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp but a refugee centre. Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful examination of the original photo revealed that the photographer had shot the photo through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool shed. It was the photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees.


Once again, Americans had been hoaxed into support of actions they might otherwise not have agreed with.


While several American Presidents have willingly started wars for personal purposes, perhaps no President has ever carried it to the extreme that Bill Clinton has.


Coincident with the expected public statement of Monica Lewinsky following her testimony, Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on Sudan and Afghanistan, claiming to have had irrefutable proof that bogeyman extraordinaire (and former Afghani ally) Osama Bin Laden was creating terrorist chemical weapons there.


Examination of the photos of the debris revealed none of the expected structures one would find in a laboratory that handled lethal weapons-grade materials. Assurances from the CIA that they had a positive soil test for biological weapons fell on their face when it was revealed that there had been no open soil anywhere near the pre-bombed facility. Sudan requested that international observers come test the remains of the factory for any signs of the nerve gas Clinton had insisted was there. None was found. The Sudanese plant was a harmless aspirin factory, and the owner has sued for damages.


Later examination of the site hit in Afghanistan revealed it to be a mosque.

Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans.


Again, the government and the media were hoaxing Americans. A photo was shown on all the American networks, claiming to be one of Slobodan Milosovic's Migs, shot down while attacking civilians. Closer examination shows it to be stencilled in English!


Like Germany under Chancellor Hitler, there have been events in our nation which strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, such as the New York World Trade Tower bombing, the OK City Federal Building, and the Olympic Park bomb (nicely timed to divert the media from witnesses to the TWA 800 shoot down). The media has been very quick to blame such events on "radicals", "subversives", "vast right wing conspiracies", and other "enemies in our midst", no different than the lies used by Cicero and Hitler.


But on closer examination, such "domestic terrorist" events do not appear to be what they are made out to be. The FBI had an informant inside the World Trade Tower bombers, Emad Salam, who offered to sabotage the bomb. The FBI told him "no". The so-called "hot bed" of white separatism at Elohim City, occasional home to Tim McVeigh in the weeks prior to the OK City bombing, was founded and is being run by an FBI informant!


And nobody has ever really explained what this second Ryder truck was doing in a secret camp half way from Elohim City to Oklahoma City two weeks before the bombing.


So, here we are today. Like the Romans of Crassus' and Cicero's time, or the Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us, implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung by that silly old Bill of Rights. Already there have appeared articles debating whether or not "extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified under certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face.


As was the case in Rome and Germany, the government continues to plead with the public for an expansion of its power and authority, to "deal with the crisis".


However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to the stentorian tones of the talking heads' constant dire warnings, it is legitimate to question just how real the crises is, and how much is the result of political machinations by our own leaders.


Are the terrorists really a threat, or just hired actors with bombs and Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown shirts to wear by Hitler?


Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it a stage managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they have no choice but to surrender the Republic and accept the totalitarian rule of a new emperor, or a new Führer?


Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the Germans never got their Republic back. In both cases, the nation had to totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.


Remember that when Crassus tells you that Sparticus approaches.

Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly designed to provoke the public fear.

Remember that when the Reichstag burns down.



Please feel free to copy this article everywhere.




The Unveiling of the
National Security State


All things change, including our time-honored system of government. We have entered into a new era, marked by the existence of an omnipresent state, controlled by the very few, bound by no law but its own. Welcome to the New World Order.


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

-Benjamin Franklin

A new American order is in place. Better get used to it. Or else.


Five centuries ago, Niccolo Machiavelli explained how to undertake a revolution from above without most people even noticing. In his Discourses on Livy, he wrote that one "must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones."


That is, keep the old government structures, even while you make profound changes to the actual system, because the appearances are all that most people will notice.


So today, instead of seeing the corpse of a republic in which we live, we see merely the dead man’s clothing. Those clothes look the same as ever, albeit increasingly worn. We have had a quiet revolution that has not eliminated our Congressional representatives – it’s simply made them largely irrelevant.


It’s been a long journey to our current state of affairs. Not surprisingly, wars have been a major catalyst. Most wars fought by the United States have added power to the executive branch, while whittling power away from the legislature. This includes wars fought for high-minded purposes such as the Civil War and World War Two, mindless bloodbaths like World War One, and the dozens of undeclared wars over the past half-century.


I would select World War Two – and its immediate aftermath – as the real turning point when the American Dream went awry. This is ironic, since it was at that moment when America first sat atop the world at the pinnacle of power.


And therein lies the problem. For this was when the American republic began its transformation into a national security state. Or, to put it another way, into an Empire.


Harry Truman has received a free ride from historians who glorify the all-powerful American State, but it he deserves a large share of the blame for the existence of our current behemoth .


But enough of the past. This is, after all, post-9/11 America, in which we are collectively driving our vehicle down a dangerous mountain path, only to discover suddenly that we’re not doing the driving.


We no longer govern ourselves. There is no "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," in any meaningful sense – in any sense beyond what it might have meant to a citizen of the U.S.S.R. in the bad old days of the Soviet Union.


As Machiavelli saw in his own time (and as he essentially foretold regarding our own), the dramatic changes to our political institutions have occurred without the people really noticing.


Consider the extraordinary – "nonstop" would be a better word – number of U.S. military actions around the world these days. But when did Congress last issue a declaration of war?


Consider the all-but open purchase of Presidents, members of Congress, and anyone else of significance by those with financial means. Yet another set of nails in the coffin of the American Republic.


Consider the internationalization of real power in this world, and the lack of institutional means to examine or regulate such power. Our global situation is akin to medieval feudalism, or more simply gangsterism. The military power of the United States is the primary tool for enforcement and self-enrichment by those with means. Best of all, you don’t have to be an American citizen to influence policies of the U.S. military. Just ask any influential Saudi Arabian, Israeli, or Chinese leader. Or various leaders from the world of organized crime.


Consider the ramming through of the Patriot Act a bare month after 9/11/01, when it was obvious that not a single member of Congress read it thoroughly. With such a massively expanded federal ability to spy into your personal life, you might as well bid farewell to the Fourth Amendment – at least if you’re doing anything interesting in the opinion of certain and mysterious bureaucrats.


Consider the conviction held by America’s Founding Fathers that a functioning democracy requires an informed citizenry. Otherwise, they argued, the experiment in "government by the people" would be doomed to failure, and would inevitably transform into oligarchy. Compare that to our situation today, when ordinary people cannot gain important information from governing bodies, when the Freedom of Information Act is increasingly unfriendly, and when people are pacified 24/7 by a non-stop all-encompassing entertainment-driven culture that dominates one’s waking moments. The Romans called that bread and circuses. It describes our situation well enough today.


In the same vein, consider also the promulgation of lies by America’s political leadership that served as the pretext for the current war (e.g. the false link between Iraq and Al Quaida, the falseness of claims regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction), and the willingness of America’s so-called Watchdog Media to jump uncritically on board, beating the war drum. And when recognition is made that the information was indeed false, it comes too late to prevent the pointless deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.


Consider the horrified reaction to the savagery of Nazi and Japanese atrocities during the Second World War. To the infamous German defense -- "we were only following orders" -- the world responded (rightly) that there are certain human values that must never be transgressed, and that torture is never an acceptable human value. Fast forward to the atrocities committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. And the defense offered by (what some like to refer to as) America’s finest: that they did no wrong, since they were only following orders. Just ask American soldier, Lyndie England. That’s what she told the world.


Consider the ominous, burgeoning discussion on developing protocols in the event that the upcoming Presidential election needs to be "delayed" due to a possible terrorist attack. Delay the election? Even during America’s Civil War, the election of 1864 occurred right on schedule. We’ve come a long way, indeed.


What has happened by degrees over the past fifty years is that our traditional political structure and culture have eroded and degraded into something that prior generations of Americans would have found shocking and unrecognizable. Indeed, they would have found our current state of affairs to be positively un-American.


Machiavelli certainly had it right, but an addendum is necessary. After the true and deep structures of power have been sufficiently transformed, the outward appearance must eventually catch up. As the old song says, something’s gotta give, and the outward trappings will need to be revised to reflect the new order.


Thus we see, in the wake of 9/11, that the veil of the New State is being lifted. It is a State that has become so expansive and powerful, it is no longer possible to hide it with the fig leaf of the old, honorable ideology of republican virtue. Consider our era the "coming out party" of the National Security State.


The millions of bumper stickers that proudly proclaim "God Bless America" would be better expressed with a slight change:


"May God have mercy on the United States of America."

Warfare Theology and The Coming 4th Reich!


Comparing America to the 3rd Reich seems to be becoming a pastime in America today. Why is that? What is it about America's New World Order, and it’s War on Terror, that reminds us of Germany in the 1930s? George W. Bush, with support from the religious right, and the Christian coalition, are waging a war. How did all this begin? What is the fuel for this new surge of military might? Where did this new "Warfare Theology" come from?

The medieval doctrine of "Just War" (justum bellum, or, more precisely jus ad bellum) was propounded by Saint Augustine of Hippo (fifth century AD), Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in his "Summa Theologicae", Francisco de Vitoria (1548-1617), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in his influential tome "Jure Belli ac Pacis" ("On Rights of War and Peace", 1625), Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767).

Modern thinkers include Michael Walzer in "Just and Unjust Wars" (1977), Barrie Paskins and Michael Dockrill in "The Ethics of War" (1979), Richard Norman in "Ethics, Killing, and War" (1995), Thomas Nagel in "War and Massacre", and Elizabeth Anscombe in "War and Murder".

According to the Catholic Church's rendition of this theory, set forth by Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in his Letter to President Bush on Iraq, dated September 13, 2002, going to war is justified if these conditions are met:

"The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated."

A just war is, therefore, a last resort, all other peaceful conflict resolution options having been exhausted.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy sums up the doctrine thus:

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be:

1.      Having just cause (especially and, according to the United Nations Charter, exclusively, self-defense);

2.      Being (formally) declared by a proper authority;

3.      Possessing a right intention;

4.      Having a reasonable chance of success;

5.      The end being proportional to the means used.

Yet, the evolution of warfare - the invention of nuclear weapons, the propagation of total war, the ubiquity of guerrilla and national liberation movements, the emergence of global, border-hopping terrorist organizations, of totalitarian regimes, and rogue or failed states - requires these principles to be modified by adding these tenets:

6.      That the declaring authority is a lawfully and democratically elected government.

7.      That the declaration of war reflects the popular will.

(Extension of 3) The right intention is to act in just cause.

(Extension of 4) ... or a reasonable chance of avoiding an annihilating defeat.

(Extension of 5) That the outcomes of war are preferable to the outcomes of the preservation of peace.

Still, the doctrine of just war, conceived in Europe in eras past, is fraying at the edges. Rights and corresponding duties are ill-defined or mismatched. What is legal is not always moral and what is legitimate is not invariably legal. Political realism and quasi-religious idealism sit uncomfortably within the same conceptual framework. Norms are vague and debatable while customary law is only partially subsumed in the tradition (i.e., in treaties, conventions and other instruments, as well in the actual conduct of states).

The most contentious issue is, of course, what constitutes "just cause". Self-defense, in its narrowest sense (reaction to direct and overwhelming armed aggression), is a justified casus belli. But what about the use of force to (deontologically, consequentially, or ethically):

1.      Prevent or ameliorate a slow-motion or permanent humanitarian crisis;

2.      Preempt a clear and present danger of aggression ("anticipatory or preemptive self-defense" against what Grotius called "immediate danger");

3.      Secure a safe environment for urgent and indispensable humanitarian relief operations;

4.      Restore democracy in the attacked state ("regime change");

5.      Restore public order in the attacked state;

6.      Prevent human rights violations or crimes against humanity or violations of international law by the attacked state;

7.      Keep the peace ("peacekeeping operations") and enforce compliance with international or bilateral treaties between the aggressor and the attacked state or the attacked state and a third party;

8.      Suppress armed infiltration, indirect aggression, or civil strife aided and abetted by the attacked state;

9.      Honor one's obligations to frameworks and treaties of collective self-defense;

10. Protect one's citizens or the citizens of a third party inside the attacked state;

11. Protect one's property or assets owned by a third party inside the attacked state;

12. Respond to an invitation by the authorities of the attacked state - and with their expressed consent - to militarily intervene within the territory of the attacked state;

13. React to offenses against the nation's honor or its economy.

Unless these issues are resolved and codified, the entire edifice of international law - and, more specifically, the law of war - is in danger of crumbling. The contemporary multilateral regime proved inadequate and unable to effectively tackle genocide (Rwanda, Bosnia), terror (in Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea), and tyranny (in dozens of members of the United Nations).

This feebleness inevitably led to the resurgence of "might is right" unilateralism, as practiced, for instance, by the United States in places as diverse as Grenada and Iraq. This pernicious and ominous phenomenon is coupled with contempt towards and suspicion of international organizations, treaties, institutions, undertakings, and the prevailing consensual order.

In a unipolar world, reliant on a single superpower for its security, the abrogation of the rules of the game could lead to chaotic and lethal anarchy with a multitude of "rebellions" against the emergent American Empire. International law - the formalism of "natural law" - is only one of many competing universalist and missionary value systems. Militant Islam is another. The West must adopt the former to counter the latter.

Truth is ignored, hidden, embellished, or whitewashed i.e. given the
Hollywood treatment


What many people see of America is not really America; it is Hollywood. Not just foreigners, even Americans see America through the eyes of Hollywood. Take World War II. Many Americans think that it was they who saved the world! (It was actually Russia, led by like-it-or-not Stalin, which was the first to inflict a defeat on the Nazis, free a host of countries from occupation, enter Berlin and take charge of Hitler's bunker.)


Not many know that not until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, America had never entered the War on the side of Britain and France. Or, more correctly, they have absolutely no idea of the significance of this decision. Like the grandfather of George Bush, America was busy trading with Nazi Germany. Many, like Bush family patron William Farris (of Standard Oil, now Exxon), were making their fortunes off Nazi slave labour. The U.S. had also closed its gates to European Jews wanting to flee persecution; (forcing them to go to Palestine where they established Israel and have since remained in conflict with the original owners of the land and with their Arab neighbours.) Franklin Roosevelt spent much of his time assuring his nation that he would NEVER send "their children in harm's way" - certainly a poor foil alongside real heroes like Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle or even Josef Stalin. It was precisely this geographic and political isolation from the conflict, which drew people in the war zone like a magnet to the American continent.


So, after sheep-faced Americans joined the war, films like Casablanca were released, which had Americans showing hitherto unseen courage and sparing no effort to save hapless Europeans from evil Nazis. Sure, these films helped sell a lot of "war bonds" to aid the war effort but "war films" continued to be made even after the real war was over - all of them showing Americans as the selfless saviours of the world; all of them conveniently ignoring the enormous sacrifices made by the Russians and the heavy losses made to bear on civilians in the Axis nations. During the War, American soldiers like good soldiers everywhere went about raping and pillaging when they were not busy fighting. In almost all of the war films, Americans GIs were, for mysterious reasons, models of good behaviour. It is this image that generations of Americans have believed in, rather than in what history books would have had to offer.


Rambo II, starring Sylvester Stallone, has Islamic fighters in Afghanistan portrayed as brave freedom fighters, quite in line with government policy at that time. By the time True Lies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger was made, the "freedom fighters" had become "terrorists" both on screen and in the real world! Movies that romanticize military life (aiding recruitment, usually from poorer sections of the American society) such as Top Gun or Black Hawk Down get active cooperation (and under-publicized editorial input) from the U.S. military while others that question military postures have to rope in a foreign government for using their military hardware.  .


In May 2003, an Iraqi boy who suffered burns all over his body, had his arms amputed above the elbow, and lost 20 members of his family after an American missile hit his home became subject of a media frenzy. Although the boy refused American offers of free medical treatment, Hollywoood went ahead and made a movie starring George Clooney with an expectedly different story ending. In the Balkans, American soldiers have been indicted of raping women and forcing them into prostitution but that did not stop Hollywood from making a movie, which showed the opposite - an American soldier killing another soldier to prevent a rape from happening! George Bush and 9/11 was also subject of a movie. However, it featured no pet goat. In sharp contrast, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which attempted to come to terms with truth, was received with unrepressed hostility.


With every war, the deception continues to grow. Even though the fall of the Saddam statue in the middle of Baghdad or the rapturous welcome given to Ahmed Chalabi on his return to Iraq or the daring rescue of Private Jessica Lynch are considered as classics among military psy-ops films, Hollywood remains unbeaten in their effort at perpetuating myths for the U.S. government. Sure, Hollywood has no designs on the world and they are in it with the American war machine only because it is a mutually rewarding relationship. However, truth becomes a casualty - not just in war but also in peace. This blackout is made complete by sanitised coverage of world events by the American media.


In Iraq, for example, news reports are solely based on the version provided by the U.S. military spokesman. American journalists rarely leave the safe confines of the fortified "Green Zone" in Central Baghdad. However, to fool the American public, videos shot by Iraqi journalists are placed in the background. The American journalist wears a bullet-proof vest, stands in front of the camera and then files his "report." A white screen (not seen by viewers) placed behind this brave journalist allows video technicians in a New York or Washington D.C. studio to be able to seamlessly mix the two videos, creating the illusion of the journalist having actually visited the scene. With this kind of deception, the American military remains free to drop bombs on houses of innocent people.