Joerie, joerie, botter en brood,
as ek jou kry, slaat ek jou dood

Wednesday, September 14, 2011




How the world changed after 9/11

On the day of September 11, Charlie Skelton attends a symposium of critical thinkers in New York
The heavy syllables of the victims' names boomed out along the streets around Ground Zero. The public were patted down, then allowed up a cramped side road to peer at a distant video screen of the memorial. They filmed the video screen on their mobile phones, filmed each other filming, and film crews filmed them filming.
Filming crowd
It was hardly fertile ground for grief, you'd think. And yet, the weird detachment of the moment was severed by the chanting of the names and the brief tributes of the readers. It was the daughter who said her father's friends tell her that she reminds them of him that did it for me. That, and the list of victims called Jones. Jones after Jones after Jones. Too many Joneses. I took my sniffles back up the street to Starbucks.
And from Starbucks, I went down the rabbit hole. I found myself at a conference on Walker Street called 'How The World Changed After 9/11'. It was packed, but I managed to slide in at the back, to hear a guy called Webster Tarpley chant his own list of names. The names of the 46 military exercises and hijack drills (called things like 'Vigilant Guardian') that were actually taking place on the morning of September 11. "The greatest density of drills in US military history," Tarpley said.
Fake radar blips, dummy hijacks, dummy attacks, fighter jets sent off to Turkey, the skies left unprotected, with the FBI's top anti-terror experts stuck on a training exercise in California. The drills, said Tarpley, were important, because not only did they weaken and confuse US air defence, but there was also a military drill for each major component of the 9/11 attacks. The drills were cover, and the dummy threats were made real.
September 11, he argues, was a coup carried out by a rogue network within the US military and government. A cabal of fascists, working with (and for) a banking oligarchy, "the old boys of Wall Street".
Webster TarpleyWebster Tarpley
"You want to blame Saudi Arabia, or Israel, or Pakistan? You can't. There isn't the evidence." The evidence, Tarpley says, points towards 9/11 as a false flag attack, carried out by a high level clique, that forced a shocked and awestruck US public into a vast and still ongoing war. It was America's very own Reichstag fire. And the official version of the event? "A racist, militaristic, and fascist myth that we must reject."
What I heard, from speaker after speaker, was a heartfelt desire to turn away from the path of destruction, militarism and lies that America has been set upon after 9/11. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, mourned for Iraq: "One million dead, 4m displaced, and that's a victory?" He sees the failure of Americans to comprehend the scale of the destruction wrought under their flag as nothing less than racist. "In America, we are very good at segregating our tears. Racism is our original sin."
Ray McGovern.Ray McGovern
McGovern quoted from Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham jail: "Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up, but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured." And 9/11, for McGovern, is a "big boil" that needs lancing.
He drew attention to an extraordinary story, barely touched by the mainstream press, that Richard Clarke, who was the White House counter-terrorism czar at the time of the attacks, has recently accused the CIA of deliberately suppressing information before 9/11, information that might have prevented the attacks. Clarke claimed: "There was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information." And who made this decision? "I would think it would have been made by the director".
So that would be George Tenet. Director of the CIA from 1997-2004, now a managing director of an investment bank. The former CIA man, McGovern, ends his speech by saying: "Of all the people who should be put in prison, he'd be top of my list."
Another speaker, Mike Rivero, addressed the outrage, which he often felt when the "false flag" analysis of 9/11 is presented. The idea that "we would never do such a thing" or "it's not the sort of thing governments do." He gave a whistlestop tour of state-sponsored attacks and hoodwinkings: the Lusitania, the Maine, the Dodgy Dossier, Saddam's nuclear weapons, the staged burning of the Reichstag, and the notorious Gleiwitz incident in which the Nazis faked an attack on a German radio station to justify the invasion of Poland. His point being that 9/11 was "not unique". There's a historical context.
History, documentation, facts. A respect for life, and a respect for truth. This is what I heard, over and over again, at this remarkable conference. Wayne Madsen – a former naval officer and NSA operative – spoke of the atmosphere of "hype and fear" that still grips America, 10 years after 9/11. A fear that's pumped into us, relentlessly, through our flatscreen HD Orwellian "telescreens".
Wayne MadsenWayne Madsen
Madsen called for the release of the commission findings that Ludkowski told me about last night: "Let's get those documents out of the National Archives!" But he noted that the man whose job it is to decide what gets released, the administrator of the White House office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is one Cass Sunstein. The same Cass Sunstein that in 2008 urged the government to "cognitively infiltrate" alternative groups like the 9/11 Truth Movement. So releasing those documents probably isn't top of his to-do list.
He's also the same Cass Sunstein that wrote the first op-ed about Julian Assange – the CIA asset and "child of MK Ultra", as Tarpley dubs him. But that's a whole other can of worms …
I found myself blinking back tears for the second time when McGovern read out a poem – in his polished CIA Russian – about a mother mourning the loss of her child. This thread of grieving ran throughout the conference. Wayne Madsen grieved for the loss of "shoeleather journalism", McGovern mourned the death of the fourth estate, while Tarpley spoke of the hollow memorial at Ground Zero – the two "abysses": the reflecting pools, or "voids", as they're often called. He sees these memorials as an appropriately empty vision of "nothingness. Nihil. No ideals, nothing." A nothingness at the heart of America. "But we have to do something."
We have to do something. Even if that something is simply to Google 'Cass Sunstein' and start from there. Begin your own cognitive infiltration. Google 'Vigilant Guardian' or 'Able Danger'. Crosscheck 'Abdel Hakim Belhadj' and 'Al-Qaida'. Begin digging. Begin thinking. And stop believing.

MiKi67: America is just doesn't know it yet.

The Critics of 9/11 Truth: Do They Have A Case?

By Paul Craig Roberts

September 13, 2011 

"Information Clearing House" -- 

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let’s examine the case against the truthers presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.

But first let’s define who the truthers are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance. 

Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories. 9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.

The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.

The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings. It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones. It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes. It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.

The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists. When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.

When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.

When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel--and their testimony is backed up with photographs--in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there. When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.

When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.

It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.

That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement. 

What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.) 

Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?

Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.

Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here. 

Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”
Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem 
arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.

Now we come to Alex Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11. 

Alex avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents--scores of them--methodically planted demolition charges.” 

Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”

Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Alex does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Alex writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon--they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both--stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney. 

I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around
500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.

Alex’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams. 

Alex’s willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at
500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I. 

Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments. 

Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit? 

They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis. 

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion. 

There is no 9/11 debate. On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks. The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.

Friday, September 9, 2011


Hail to the true victors of Rupert's revolution

8 September 2011

On 13 September, one of the world's biggest arms fairs opens in London, backed by the British government. On 8 September, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs. According to Amnesty international, the victims of cluster bombs are 98 per cent civilians and 30 per cent children. The Royal Bank of Scotland has received £20 million in public money. The blurb for the bank's arms party reads: "The Middle East is one of the regions with the greatest number of opportunities for UK defence and security companies. Saudi Arabia... is the world's top defence importer, having spent $56bn in 2009... a very worthwhile region to target."

Such are the Cameron government's priorities following the great "humanitarian" victory in Libya. As Margaret Thatcher once declared: "Rejoice!" And as the bankers and arms merchants raise their glasses, let us not forget the heroic RAF pilots who made Libya ours again by incinerating countless "pro Gaddafi elements" in their homes and cots and clinics, and the unsung stalwarts of the British drone industry at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire who, before and after lunch, provide the information for drone targets so that Hellfire missiles can flatten homes and suck the air out of lungs, a specialty. And cheers to QuinetiQ's drone testing site at Aberporth and at UAV Engines Limited in Lichfield. 

The west's humanitarian mission is not quite finished. Nearly six months after securing a UN resolution authorising "the [protection] of civilians and civilian-populated areas under the threat of attack", Nato is raining fragmentation bombs on civilian-populated Sirte and other "Gaddafi strongholds" where, says a Channel 4 News reporter, "until they cut off the head of the snake, Libyans will not feel safe". I quote that not so much for its Orwellian quality but as a model of journalism's role in justifying "our" bloodbaths in advance. 

This is Rupert's Revolution, after all. Gone from the Murdoch press are pejorative "insurgents". The action in Libya, says The Times, is "a revolution... as revolutions used to be". That it is a coup by a gang of Muammar Gaddafi's ex cronies and spooks in collusion with Nato is hardly news. The self-appointed "rebel leader", Mustafa Abdul Jalil, was Gaddafi's feared justice minister. The CIA runs or bankrolls most of the rest, including America's old friends, the Mujadeen Islamists who spawned al-Qaeda. 

They told journalists what they needed to know: that Gaddafi was about to commit "genocide", of which there was no evidence, unlike the abundant evidence of "rebel" massacres of black African workers falsely accused of being mercenaries. European bankers' secret transfer of the Central Bank of Libya from Tripoli to "rebel" Benghazi by European bankers in order to control the country's oil billions was an epic heist of little interest.

The entirely predictable indictment of Gaddafi before the "international court" at The Hague evokes the charade of the dying "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, whose "heinous crime" has been deployed to promote the west's ambitions in Libya. In 2009, Al-Megrahi was sent back to Libya by the Scottish authorities not for compassionate reasons, as reported, but because his long-awaited appeal would have confirmed his innocence and described how he was framed by the Thatcher government, as the late Paul Foot's landmark expose revealed. As an antidote to the current propaganda, I urge you to read a forensic demolition of el-Melgrahi's "guilt" and its political meaning in Dispatches from the Dark Side: on torture and the death of justice (Verso) by the distinguished human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce.

This is not to detract from Gaddafi's awful dictatorship, a "rendition" destination for MI6, we now learn. But his odium is unrelated to the rape of his country by imperial caricatures such as Nicholas Sarkozy, a Napoleonic Islamophobe whose intelligence services almost certainly set up the coup against Gaddafi. US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks disclose the west's panic over Gaddafi's refusal to hand over the greatest source of oil in Africa and his overtures to China and Russia.

Propaganda relies not only on Murdoch but on apparently respectable voices inducing historical amnesia. The Observer, which has yet to apologise for its catastrophic promotion of Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, is in thrall to the "honourable intervention" of Sarkozy and Cameron and their "humanitarian and emotional" motives. Its political columnist Andrew Rawnsley completes an impressive double.  As Media Lens reminds us, in 2003, Rawnsley wrote of Iraq: "The death toll has been nothing like as high as had been widely feared." A million dead Iraqis later, Rawnsley insists that, in Libya "Britain got it right" and "the number of civilian casualties inflicted by the air strikes seems to have been mercifully light".  Tell that to Libyans with loved ones obliterated by corporate-friendly Hellfires.

Nato attacked Libya to counter and manipulate a general Arab uprising that took the rulers of the world by surprise. Unlike his neighbours, Gaddafi had come to power by denying western control of his country's natural wealth. For this, he was never forgiven, and the opportunity for his demise was seized in the usual manner, as history shows. The American historian William Blum has kept the record. Since the second world war, the United States has crushed or subverted liberation movements in 20 countries, and attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democratic, and dropped bombs on 30 countries, and attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.


Wednesday, September 7, 2011



Atlantic Council: Is Libya a "Global Con?"

Globalist organization ponders whether Al Qaeda has "snookered" NATO. 
by Tony Cartalucci 

First, a Conflict of Interest

The Atlantic Council claims to be a "preeminent, non partisan institution devoted to promoting transatlantic cooperation and international security." It is partnered with NATO and sponsored financially by some of Wall Street and London's largest, most powerful corporate-financier interests. These include many of the big oil interests poised to reap a whirlwind of profits over NATO-backed regime change in Libya, namely BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. It also includes defense contractors already enriched by the protracted bloodshed in Northern Africa including RaytheonBAESAAB TechnologiesLockheed MartinBoeingGeneral Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. Additionally, the world's largest banks and equity firms sponsor Atlantic Council, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Barclays Capital, the Blackstone Group, Citigroup, and Credit Suisse Bank. There is also a tremendous amount of foundation support, each with a nefarious back-story worthy of their own thorough examination, including the Carnegie Corporation of New York , the Ford Foundation, and billionaire bankster George Soros' Open Society Institute.

Photos: (Top) Northrup Grumman's MQ-8 Fire Scout, which made headlines as it was shot down over Libya. (Below) a Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missile, employed during the opening phases of NATO's military intervention in Libya beginning in March of 2011. Both Northrup Grumman and Raytheon, amongst many other defense contractors are financial sponsors of the Atlantic Council, an epicenter providing political and rhetorical support for NATO's ongoing operations in Libya - exposing an astronomical conflict of interest.


But perhaps most alarming is the Council's sponsorship by a large representation from "reputable" news and media agencies, including Thomson Reuters, News Desk Media, Bloomberg (which includes BusinessWeek), and Google.
Such an elaborate, full-spectrum conflict of interest should be alarming to even the most adamant supporters of the current NATO operation in Libya. We see all of the mechanics necessary to generate the justification for regime change through media, public, and political channels, the military might to carry out the war, and the corporate-financier organizations to fully manipulate and exploit the freshly installed regime, all integrated into a single organization. Without a doubt, the Atlantic Council has pledged unwavering support for the NATO operation, with the post, "Well Done, NATO!" perhaps the most obvious indication that not only is the Council amidst an immense conflict of interest but committing a full range of improprieties stemming from it.
Image: A screenshot showing the Atlantic Council's very premature victory congratulationsextended to NATO even as their operations in Tripoli began to peter out and the full extent of the attempted psychological operation was made public.


Before moving on, it is important to understand just how illegitimate NATO is by examining the Atlantic Council partnered with it, and how the Council is tying together corporate-financier interests and NATO's military power to sell, execute, and profit from regime change in Libya. As pointed out by Color Revolutions & Geopolitics in their recent article "The Devil Writes a Handbook: "The Responsibility to Protect" (2002)," the humanitarian aspects of the Libyan operation were merely a marketing ploy for yet another poisoned agenda stemming from Wall Street and London's financial institutions.
A Global Con? 

The above mentioned Atlantic Council recently penned an article titled "Global Con?" within which senior globalist scribe Arnaud de Borchgrave assaults our sensibility by proposing the following question, "Were the United States, France, Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates -- the NATO-led coalition that set out to overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi's regime -- snookered by al-Qaida?" De Borchgrave concludes that it is a preposterous scenario and indeed he is correct, though not for the reasons he proposes.

De Borchgrave begins by mentioning notorious Neo-Conservative James Woolsey, who in the 1990's was the director of the CIA and was approached by Libya's Moammar Qaddafi for assistance against terrorists emanating from Libya's eastern city of Benghazi. Benghazi, of course, is now the current epicenter of the NATO-backed rebellion. Ironically, Woolsey, who de Borchgrave claims is one of the leaders of a campaign "to expose a clandestine Islamist plot to bring Shariah law to America," is also one of the chief proponents of NATO's handing of Libya over to these very "Islamist" terrorists today. Woolsey was one of the signatories of an "open letter to House Republicans" imploring Congress to ignore anti-war sentiments amongst their constituents and to do "more to help the Libyan opposition," which the letter insists "deserves our support." The letter also advised Congress not to be "held hostage" by the UNSC resolution authorizing the military intervention in the first place, undermining the "international rule of law" the US was supposedly enforcing.

The Atlantic Council piece then goes on to look at recent, damning evidence publicized by Asia Times reporter Pepe Escobar, proving that not only NATO's earlier claimed "flickers of Al Qaeda" in Libya are indeed raging fires, but that NATO was well aware of the terroristic nature of the rebels long before even the official start of the unrest in February, 2011. The article goes into this evidence in depth and concludes by saying it is "a harum-scarum scenario of NATO snookered by al-Qaida affiliates that can only please China."

Atlantic Council author de Borchgrave fails entirely to provide any additional insight into Escobar's report - however as we are about to see, if anything Escobar's statements are understated and NATO members have been intentionally nurturing Al Qaeda in Libya for nearly 30 years.

A Global Con Indeed

For nearly three decades, US and British intelligence agencies have supported terrorist organizations within Libya to wage war against Qaddafi's government. In an August 3, 1981 Newsweek article titled, "A Plan to Overthrow Kaddafi," it was stated that:

"The details of the plan were sketchy, but it seemed to be a classic CIA destabilization campaign. One element was a “disinformation” program designed to embarrass Kaddafi and his government. Another was the creation of a “counter government” to challenge his claim to national leadership. A third — potentially the most risky — was an escalating paramilitary campaign, probably by disaffected Libyan nationals, to blow up bridges, conduct small-scale guerrilla operations and demonstrate that Kaddafi was opposed by an indigenous political force." 

Further evidence from around this period of time comes to us from the US Library of Congresswhere the plan apparently went operational and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) trained and supported Libyan terrorists just before they attempted to assassinate Qaddafi in 1984. Then called the "Libyan National Salvation Front" (NFSL), a forerunner of the current "National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO), it would grow over the years and make multiple armed attempts to seize Libya from Qaddafi with CIA and MI6 assistance.

Many of these militants would later form the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in Afghanistan, also with CIA assistance under the auspices of Osama Bin Laden and what would eventually become Al Qaeda. LIFG fighters then returned to Libya and continued fighting against Qaddafi. At the outbreak of war between the US and Afghanistan, and then later with Iraq, many LIFG fighters would once again go abroad, this time to face US, not Soviet troops. Many of these fighters are now back in Libya, after killing US and British troops, under NATO air cover being handed piecemeal an entire nation. West Point's Combating Terrorism Center has published two reports now detailing just how entirely Libya's eastern region is saturated with Al Qaeda linked terrorists, concluding that it is one of the most highly concentrated recruiting grounds for the terror organization anywhere in the world, including Saudi Arabia. One of these reports was published in 2007 - long before the current NATO operation, giving policy makers plenty of warning of just who they would be eventually handing the nation over to in 2011.

For anyone, especially NATO or the US military to feign ignorance as to the constitution of Libya's rebel fighters is especially insulting since their entire existence is owed to 30 years of material support from Western intelligence agencies and now overt military support. Out of absolute folly, Qaddafi had invited the CIA and MI6 into Libya to help sweep up the remnants of LIFG after 2001. This was under the misguided impression that Al Qaeda constituted a common enemy between his regime and Western governments. It appears that instead of helping Qaddafi fight these terrorists, they instead rearmed them, reorganized them, provided them with freshly trained recruits and sent them back into battle against Qaddafi, culminating in what we are now being told is an "indigenous uprising" by the "people" of Libya.
As the depravity and duplicity of both NATO forces, overtly linked to Wall Street and London corporate-financier interests as illustrated via the Atlantic Council, and their terrorist proxies become more apparent throughout Libya, and now creeping over the Algerian border to breathe new life into another notorious Al Qaeda-linked organization, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), NATO and the vast media empire supporting its agenda are seeking any and all diversions from their crumbling narrative. Lately accusations have been leveled against China for allegedly attempting to arm Qaddafi's forces after NATO operations began in March, 2011. While the West claims this is a "violation" of their self-contrived UN mandate prohibiting the arming of belligerents in the Libyan conflict, NATO members, most notably France and Qatar, have been openly supplying weapons to Libyan rebels in direct violation of this very mandate themselves.

US and UK press agencies are also attempting to muddle the debate by reintroducing the fact that the CIA and MI6 were working with Qaddafi against terrorists, now disingenuously labeled as "dissidents." We have even been treated to UK Prime Minister David Cameron promising a full inquiry after arch-Al Qaeda LIFG commander Abdulhakim al-Hasadi aka Balhaj demanded an apology from Western security forces for torturing him after being captured while fighting US troops in Central Asia. It should be noted that these "dissidents" are in fact LIFG fighters, listed by both the US State Department and the UK Home Office as a terrorist organization and it is therefore illegal to provide them any material support at all, let alone air cover, weapons, billions of dollars in aid, and diplomatic recognition.
Indeed, the Libyan conflict is a "global con." Contra to Atlantic Council member Arnaud de Borchgrave's suggestion that somehow the West was "snookered" by Al Qaeda, it is NATO and its Wall Street/London big oil, military industrial, and banking interests "snookering" the world into believing a noble military intervention is underway in Libya. Indeed, the global con is that under the thin and perpetually peeling veneer of humanitarian concern, lies a vicious looting spree by violent, internationally recognized terroristic mercenaries on the ground supported by the Fortune 500's military might via NATO.

In addition to the windfall of profits to be made in Libya, it is specifically noted by another global corporate-financier nexus, the Brookings Institution, that the battle for Libya is being waged in order to establish the primacy of "international law" over that of the nation-state. Clearly by "international law," Brookings means the dictates proposed by think-tanks like itself or the Atlantic Council, rubber stamped by the UN and pursued by an alliance driven by Wall Street and London interests. To portray a bid for global empire as a progressive humanitarian mission to alleviate unrest they themselves created over the course of decades, is indeed a "global con."


BP Profit From Torture

by craig on September 7, 2011 10:20 am in Uncategorized

Just when you thought that nothing could be more sickening than the revelation that the mad Mahdi Blair was godfather to the baptism of Murdoch’s daughter in the River Jordan…
Kudos to the Daily Mail for outing BP’s Mark Allen as the MI6 man who wrote the sickeningly jaunty message to Gadaffi henchman Moussa Koussa on the rendition to terrible torture of a Libyan dissident and his wife and family. Lest we forget, this is the message:
I congratulate you on the safe arrival of Abu Abd Allah Sadiq. This is the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over recent years
Allen then moved seamlessly from MI6 to a £200,000 pa job at BP working on their relationships with Gadaffi and other Arab dictators. We can only hope that one day Egypt emerges from military government to democracy and its security files too are opened. But I am willing to bet that MI6 and CIA shredders have been put in to Cairo government offices and will be working ceaselessly for the next few days. Expect the odd fire too.


OOR & OOR & OOR 1:

"First - let's not labor under any delusions. Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy are heads of state in name only. It is the depravity and megalomania amongst the banks, corporations, and the institutions they have contrived, that are responsible for the most egregious betrayal in Western history."

Lockerbie bomber Megrahi release was 'over BP oil deal'

There have been fresh allegations about the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
A former Libyan foreign minister claims the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was discussed with the British government and linked to a contract for oil company BP.
The Scottish government has always claimed that the decision to free Megrahi was theirs alone and that he was freed solely because he was terminally ill.
His family asked the BBC to film Megrahi, who is clearly now close to death at his home in Tripoli, to end speculation about the state of his health.
Jeremy Bowen reports from Tripoli.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011



Foreign minister reveals MI6 links

This link does not work any longer - see here:

Abdelati Obeidi, former Libyan foreign minister under Col Muammar Gaddafi, has spoken to the BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Tripoli.
Mr Obeidi, 71, who is now in custody, was deeply involved in all the major diplomatic encounters between Libya and the West for more than a decade.
He confirmed that MI6 was operational in Tripoli until the start of the Libyan revolution in February.
Jeremy Bowen reports.