Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007
Karen Kwiatkowski, a veteran of the Pentagon with firsthand experience of the administration’s cherry picking of intelligence, reveals why Bush thinks he can win a war with Iran, why few politicians are serious about withdrawal and why “when they call Iraq a success, they mean it...”
Joshua Scheer: Now, you’re talking about these political appointees and pushing us into war, why haven’t people like Paul Wolfowitz—I mean these seem to feather their own nests…
Karen Kwiatkowski: [laughs] That’s an understatement.
Joshua Scheer: Yeah, but they lead us into war—Marc Zell, Doug Feith’s partner was in bed with Chalabi and it falls apart, and it seems that these guys disappear into the woodwork. What happens?
Karen Kwiatkowski: Well, a big part of what happens is these guys have top cover. The names of the top cover are Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. These guys like what Wolfowitz has done, and here’s the other thing: while we as American citizens do not like being lied to, particularly being lied into a stupid quagmire that makes no sense, we don’t like being lied to—Congress doesn’t like being lied to. However, many in Congress, and certainly in this administration, agree—and this is Democrats and Republicans—like the idea that we have gone into Iraq.
We have built four megabases, they are complete. Most of the money we gave to Halliburton was for construction and completion of these bases. We have, probably, of the hundred and 50 or 60 thousand troops, we have in Iraq—probably 110,000 of those folks are associated with one of those four megabases, safely ensconced behind acres and acres of concrete, to operate there indefinitely, no matter what happens in Baghdad, no matter who takes over, no matter if the country splits into three pieces or stays one—no matter what happens, we have those megabases.
And there’s many in Congress, and certainly in this administration, Republican and Democrat alike, that really like that. Part of the reason I think that we went into Iraq was to reestablish a stronger foothold than we had in Saudi Arabia, but also a more economical, a more flexible—in terms of who we want to hit—If you want to hit Syria, well can you do it from Iraq? Of course you can, and now you can do it from bases that will support any type of airplane you want, any number of troops in barracks, I mean we can do things from Iraq, and this is what they wanted. Yeah, we don’t like being lied to, but quite frankly, many people in the Congress, and certainly this administration, when they call Iraq a success, they mean it and this is why.
We’re in Iraq to stay, and can we strike Iran from Iraq? Well, I don’t know if we’ll do that next week, but we can.
© 2007 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
This condemning video which implicates the BBC of having foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 was swiftly removed from Google video, for no apparent reason.
You can clearly see WTC 7 in the background, yet BBC reporter Jane Stanley reports the building had collapsed. The Salomon Brothers Building she refers to is WTC 7.
Please download and copy this video, mirror it or link it to, but please spread word of it.. this is one of the most important news reports we have on record.
Download it here - AVI version
Download it here - WMV version
Download it here - M4V version
Download it here - FLV version
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 26, 2007
The BBC has become embroiled in a yet another set of media distortions regarding the death of British government weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly in July 2003. Kelly died in mysterious circumstances in the woods near his home in Oxfordshire.
Kelly was Britain's foremost expert on biological weapons, with direct access to WMD intelligence on Iraq. In the months leading up to his death, he had become increasingly skeptical regarding Iraq's alleged WMDs. "It was Dr Kelly who exposed claims by President George Bush, Tony Blair and Colin Powell that mobile biological warfare units had been found in Iraq as false." (Independent, 25 July 2003)
According to the Hutton inquiry report:
"Dr Kelly took his own life... [T]he principal cause of death was bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which Dr Kelly had inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body''.
Suicide was seemingly assumed from the outset by Lord Hutton, and the Hutton Inquiry descended into establishing who, between the BBC and the Government, was to blame for the suicide (rather than murder) of Dr Kelly. The inquiry led by Lord Hutton pointed to "suicide" as the cause of death, in contradiction with the results of the autopsy. "Suicide was never proved, either by the Coroner or Lord Hutton, as required by law". (See Dr. Stephen Frost, et al, Global Research, 28 November 2006)
The inquiry purported to obviate the need for an inquest as well as exonerate the Government of Tony Blair and the Secret Service "of all significant charges". It was an obvious camouflage.
On November 3, 2006, The London Times published a letter by Lord Hutton, in which he attempted to defend his report on Dr. David Kelly's death. In the letter, Lord Hutton dwells on the issue of the allegedly "sexed up" intelligence, ignoring the arguably much larger issue of his failure to establish exactly how Dr. David Kelly died.
A response to Lord Hutton's letter to The Times was submitted to The Times by three distinguished doctors ( Drs. C. Stephen Frost, David Halpin and Searle Sennett) The Times, refused to publish the response, which was subsequently published as an article by Global Research. Drs. Frost et al contributed to breaking the mainstream media silence on the possibility that Dr David Kelly did not commit suicide.
What was dismissed by the mainstream media was that Lord Hutton, who seemingly assumed suicide from the outset, had undermined due process, and therefore laid himself open to charges of cover-up, by himself "sexing up" his own findings on the cause of Dr David Kelly's death. But, a cover-up of what? (See Drs. C. Stephen Frost, et al, op cit)
New British Media consensus
In its "Conspiracy Files" documentary (25 February 2007), the BBC questioned the official version that Kelly had committed suicide, as outlined in the Hutton inquiry report.
The media consensus regarding the cause of Dr. Kelly's death seems to have been reversed. Or has it?
While the media has acknowledged that Dr. Kelly was murdered, they have also waffled their way out of addressing two crucial questions: Who ordered the assassination of David Kelly? Who ordered the cover-up? (Both of which are criminal offenses).
Contradicting their own assessment of the evidence, the British media, with the BBC in the lead, are now saying in chorus: the government of Tony Blair could not possibly have been involved. John Morrison, former deputy chief of British defence intelligence, who was interviewed by the BBC, states emphatically that there was "no British secret service plot to kill Dr Kelly."
Mr Morrison rejects suggestions that Dr Kelly could have been the victim of British agents licensed to kill: "It is indeed complete fantasy that there are agents that are licensed to kill". According to Morrisson:
"There are intelligence agencies around the world who do engage in assassinations, there's no doubt about that. Some of them not very nice people at all..... But we [ in Britain] have never had a policy of assassination to my knowledge in the history of the UK intelligence agencies, and certainly not in the last few decades". (Source BBC website)
If Her Majesty's government was not involved because The British Secret Service "does not have a policy of assassination", who then could possibly be behind the murder of David Kelly? Criminal InvestigationIf it was murder rather than suicide, one would expect a full fledged police investigation leading up to trial court proceedings. One would also expect --as in a bona fide criminal investigation-- that one or more "suspects" would be identified, and that "methods", "motives" and "intent" would be examined. Moreover, one would also expect that the issue of alleged government involvement be either confirmed or dismissed in a court of law. (Following the Abolition of the Death Penalty in 1965, the maximum sentence under British law for murder is life imprisonment.) Will a criminal investigation --which could potentially bring down the government-- be allowed to proceed? Or will there be another cover-up, "to cover-up the cover-up"?
Saddam did It
Meanwhile, in the interest of "balanced reporting", the BBC documentary also included an authoritative statement by Richard Spertzel, a former US weapons inspector who worked with Dr Kelly in Iraq. Spertzel believes that "the Iraqis assassinated him" implying that Kelly had been murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein and that the defunct Baathist regime's intelligence apparatus was indelibly behind the assassination.
It has always been obvious that his death was highly convenient for the UK intelligence services but one of Kelly's former colleagues, Richard Spertzel, an American biological weapons inspector, says that the Iraqi intelligence service may have been pursuing a vendetta against him. Spertzel says both he and Kelly were known to be on an Iraqi hit list.(Irish independent, 26 Feb 2007)
How "convenient to the UK intelligence services" and the Government. Saddam (who is no longer alive) was behind the assassination of Dr. Kelly!
Qui Buono? Who benefits? Did the murder of Dr. Kelly serve the interests of Iraq. Was it "covenient" for the defunct Baathist regime? And why the Hutton report cover-up? If indeed Saddam had been behind it, one would have expected that news reports of the Iraqi sponsored murder of a British scientist would have been plastered on Britain's tabloids
Where is the motive? What interest would the post Saddam Iraqi resistance have in murdering a prominent British scientist who was revealing the lies behind the Iraqi WMD allegations, which served as the main justification for waging war on Iraq. Remember: Dr David Kelly was the source for a BBC report claiming the government of Tony Blair had "sexed up" its dossier on Saddam's alleged WMD arsenal. And ultimately, the "sexed up" WMD report was the casus belli, the pretext for waging war on Iraq, which was invoked by the US and its indefectible British ally.
On GMTV "The Sunday Programme", 25 February, Liberal MP Norman Baker, outlines the results of his investigation. He states that it was not suicide, but murder.
"I've concluded in my mind, beyond reasonable doubt as it were, that it's impossible for the suicide explanation to hold water. The medical evidence doesn't support it in any way, the psychological evidence barely supports it either and as it wasn't obviously natural causes or an accident, then you're driven to the conclusion that it must have been some sort of murder."
"Describing his approach as non-sensational and factual, he said he has tested various theories 'to destruction'. One witness who contacted him recently claimed to "know" that Dr Kelly was murdered. Asked about "complicity of the State", Mr Baker chose his words carefully, claiming this would 'set the hares running'. He is pursuing a number of leads"
Norman Baker's inquiry has reached the conclusion that Kelly was assassinated but he asserts categorically that the British government could not possibly have been involved:
"I don't believe the Prime Minister, the politicians and the Government were responsible for what happened to David Kelly. I believe they treated him shamefully and I believe they treated him callously in that they deliberately leaked his name to the press and they were quite happy to offer him up as fodder in some sort of Soviet-style Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in order to discredit Andrew Gilligan and the BBC".
by Larry Chin
Global Research, February 26, 2007
In another display of true colors, the Democrats are considering legislation to limit the Bush administration's war powers in Iraq to "fighting Al-Qaeda."
This deception clearly demonstrates, once again, that the Democrats are politically and morally bankrupt -- and every bit as enthusiastic as the Bush administration in spreading the endless "war on terrorism" conquest to every corner of the world.
It is no surprise, given six years of enthusiastic bipartisan Washington cooperation on 9/11 (a US-orchestrated covert operation) and the "war on terrorism," that we find the Democrats clinging to the same original "Al-Qaeda" lie as that still being ruthlessly wielded by Dick Cheney.
Fact: "Islamic terrorism" is a creation and instrument of Anglo-American policy.
Fact: "Islamic terrorists," including "Al-Qaeda," have been, and continue to be, assets of US military-intelligence since the end of the Cold War.
As written by Michel Chossudovsky in his book, America's "War on Terrorism": "Members of Congress were fully cognizant of the links between the US administration and Al-Qaeda. They knew exactly who Osama bin Laden was -- a pawn in the hands of the Clinton, and later, the Bush administration. Despite this knowledge, Republicans and Democrats in unison gave their full support to the President to 'wage war on Osama.'"
The Democrats have always supported the "war on terrorism" and its natural expansion to the conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq, and beyond.
The war in Iraq has been an "Al-Qaeda" propaganda war, an "anti-terrorist" cleansing, justified by the same bipartisan-supported lie of 9/11, from day one.
The Orwellian truth behind the comments of Dick Cheney is that the real "Al-Qaeda strategy" is bipartisan (and he knows it). Both Democrats and neocons alike push the enduring propaganda that all opposition to US occupation, all insurgencies, and "sectarian" violence are linked to "Al-Qaeda." Any "enemy" of US interests (most recently Iran) is connected to "Al-Qaeda," or eventually transformed into "Al-Qaeda."
A policy limiting US forces in Iraq to fighting the "Al-Qaeda" apparatus means that there will be no limit. No limit to troop strength. No limit in scope. No change in US policy.
No opposition, but absolute knowing cooperation, with the Bush administration.
No end to boundless criminality.
No limit to the war, even as the Bush administration continues to provoke Iran, and sets up the next 9/11, paving the way for a full-scale holocaust that could begin at any moment.
Monday, February 26, 2007
By William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph, 25/02/2007
America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.
In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.
The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.
In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.
Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.
Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.
His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."
Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.
Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party.
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."
Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.
The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.
A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.
The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."
At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters.
The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.
While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.
"It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. "All options are still on the table."
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.
Yet again, terrorism is spread in the world by the CIA!
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Monday, February 19th, 2007
There were fatal misstatements of fact and key omissions in the BBC’s programme on the nine eleven “conspiracy theories” which aired last night. The programme highlighted the most sensational and lurid allegations including a bizarre anti-semitic rumour which can only increase tensions in the Middle East. It ignored more widely held theories that rogue elements in the CIA facilitated the 911 attacks to help establish the war on terror.
1. The programme claimed that the Washington’s official 911 investigation found no conspiracy. However it was built in to the terms of reference of the 911 Commission that no individual in the US should be singled out for blame, even accusations of incompetence were not allowed. When commission chair Thomas clean commented that heads should have rolled there was a storm of protest in Washington and Kean withdrew his remarks.
2. The programme claimed that the official NIST investigation of the collapsing towers confirmed the official story. However the evidence produced by NIST did not support the NIST conclusions. NIST also made it clear that it had made no attempt to explain the most suspicious elements of all: the speed of collapse and the total destruction of the central core down to ground level. This canard has been repeated across the mainstream media most recently by George Monbiot in a bizarre article in the Guardian comparing “conspiracists” to a virus.
3. The programme suggested that the “conspiracy theorists” were causing grief to the relatives of the victims. They failed to mention that it was the relatives of the victims whose pressure led to the creation of the 911 Commission and that a large number of victims relatives angrily dispute the official story. Indeed one victim, William Rodriguez, an eyewitness who claims the bombs were set in the basement of the buildings, is touring Britain at the moment. The BBC has refused to interview him on any of its programmes.
4. The programme stated that the debris trail from flight ninety three was consistent with a crash rather than a shoot down. It closely examined the weakest evidence and failed to mention the strongest evidence. It appeared to misunderstand the allegations that a mystery plane landed in Cleveland airport.
5. The programme stated that there “happened to be” a “routine defence training exercise” on the morning of the nine eleven attacks. It failed to mention that these “routine” exercises contained a hushed up “anti-hijack exercise” which only came to light with the unofficial release of secret tapes from NORAD. The BBC must have been aware of the contents of these tapes because they ran an excerpt on the programme.
6. The programme falsely stated that the Pentagon “gave inaccurate information” to the official inquiries due to “human error in the fog of war“. But the inquiries took place some years later. In fact 911 Commission officials determined that the falsehoods from the Pentagon were not due to the fog of war and there were grounds for bringing criminal prosecutions against Pentagon officials.
7. The programme failed to mention the blocking of FBI officials in Minnesota who correctly suspected that Zacharias Moussaoui was involved in a plot to fly planes into the World Trade Centre weeks before the attacks. Despite sixty memos to FBI headquarters these officials were refused permission to examine Moussaoui’s laptop on legally spurious grounds. However the programme had a murky and confusing description of a second similar incident.
Ian Henshall is the UK’s leading author on the subject with 911 Revealed favourably reviewed in The Daily Mail and the Sunday Times and letters carried in The Guardian. However the programme makers made no attempt to contact him.
Is there a conspiracy across the media to spread canards and misinformation? No.
Is there shoddy research, incompetence and a refusal to admit newsrooms bought a lemon from the CIA? Yes.
Is there a policy to smear dissenters as “conspiracy theorists” approved by top management at the BBC? Presumably, after all the official story is a conspiracy theory too, and a widely discredited one at that.
Thursday, February 15th, 2007
Ian R. Crane
Word is reaching us that the BBC is in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The conspiracy Files will be put out to air on Sunday evening. The dilemma is apparently due to there being two versions of Mike Rodin & Guy Smith’s documentary. One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.
It appears that the dilemma is a direct result of the phenomenal reaction to the recent flurry of 9/11 related items appearing in the National media. The debate kicked off with the publication of George Monbiot’s ill-researched hit-piece on Loose Change, the most downloaded video in the history of Google Video. Any casual observer perusing the responses posted on the Guardian website, could not fail to notice that the remarkable difference in style between those who leapt to the defence of the Official conspiracy Theory (OCT) and those were seeking answers to the glaring anomalies between the OCT and the physical evidence. The vapid vitriol from the defenders of orthodoxy was no match for the measured curiosity of the Truth seekers.
Last Saturday (Feb 10) the public awareness of the case for 9/11 Truth was raised further by a reasonably balanced article authored by Sue Reid and published in the Daily Mail. On Tuesday (Feb 13) Tim Sparke, Executive Producer of Loose Change: Final Cut, responded to Monbiot’s assertion that Loose Change was responsible for triggering a ‘conspiracy Virus’!
In a blatant attempt to publicise BBC2’s 9/11: The conspiracy Files, Jeremy Vine employed New Statesman contributor Brendan O’Neill in an attempt to attack David Shayler and marginalise the 9/11 Truth Movement as a bunch of eccentrics; an objective which seriously missed the mark. Shayler handled himself admirably, he continually offered evidence upon evidence against O’Neill’s argumentum ad hominem. The discerning listener coming away with the clear perspective that there are some aspects of 9/11 that are not quite right!
So what’s up with the Beeb? Well, word reaches us that new kid on the block, Gareth Ancier is the point man in trying to persuade BBC2 to run the hit-piece. Despite the fact that his appointment to the position of Head Honcho in the US (see link below) was only announced in Wednesday’s edition of The Guardian, he is apparently already flexing his muscles. How would the producers Guy Rodin & Mike Smith feel about this outside influence? Well, they’ve been paid so what do they care! Journalistic integrity is not in the vocabulary of the major broadcasters and certainly not in the vocabulary of one Ancier’s previous employers, FOX.
Newly responsible for the marketing of BBC productions in the US, Ancier is no doubt claiming that he will not be able to maximize revenues if the BBC is seen to be running programmes, however balanced, intimating that 9/11 might have been an inside job. From personal experience of operating within the US industrial complex, it is not beyond the realms of probability that Ancier is waving mega$ incentives if the Beeb agrees to run the hit-piece. As Princeton graduate and an initiate of the Phi Beta Kappa fraternity, serious pressure will be being put on Ancier to get the Beeb to ‘play ball’.
Ancier will be familiar with the acquisitions strategy adopted by FOX in the aftermath of the OKC bombing, where local TV stations were broadcasting facts which called into question the ‘Lone Gunman’ theory that the devastation of the Alfred P. Murrah building was the result of a single Ryder truck loaded with fertilizer based explosives.
Local News is a thing of the past in the USA; all local TV stations being required to broadcast the sanitized news prepared by FOX, or one of the other ‘approved’ centralised news organisations . As a friend of mine from Texas commented recently, “Our news media treats us like mushrooms; we’re fed sh*t & kept in the dark.”
There will undoubtedly be individuals within the British Government who will also be angling for the hit-piece to be broadcast. When the truth about the events of 9/11 is eventually realised, there are players who are either going to have to face charges of complicity or endeavour to explain their apparent ignorance, despite the ever-mounting availability of evidence which is anomalous to the OCT. They will also have to explain why they ignored the 9/11 Fact Sheets & Loose Change DVD’s that was sent to every MP, Member of the Lords, & every MEP in April of 2005!
9pm on Sunday evening may turn out to be a defining moment for the BBC.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
by Chris Floyd Global Research, February 16, 2007
I. Paint it Black
Imagine a city torn by sectarian strife. Competing death squads roam the streets; terrorists stage horrific attacks. Local authority is distrusted and weak; local populations protect the extremists in their midst, out of loyalty or fear. A bristling military occupation exacerbates tensions at every turn, while offering prime targets for bombs and snipers. And behind the scenes, in a shadow world of double-cross and double-bluff, covert units of the occupying power run agents on both sides of the civil war, countenancing -- and sometimes directing -- assassinations, terrorist strikes, torture sessions, and ethnic cleansing.Is this a portrait of Belfast during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland? Or a picture of Baghdad today? It is both; and in both cases, one of Britain's most secret – and most criminally compromised – military units has plied its trade in the darkness, "turning" and controlling terrorist killers in a dangerous bid to wring actionable intelligence from blood and betrayal. And America's covert soldiers are right there with them, working side-by-side with their British comrades in the aptly named "Task Force Black," the UK's Sunday Telegraph reports.Last week, the right-wing, pro-war paper published an early valentine to the "Joint Support Group," the covert unit whose bland name belies its dramatic role at the center of the Anglo-American "dirty war" in Iraq. In gushing, lavish, uncritical prose that could have been (and perhaps was) scripted by the unit itself, the Telegraph lauded the team of secret warriors as "one of the Coalition's most effective and deadly weapons in the fight against terror," running "dozens of Iraqi double-agents," including "members of terrorist groups."What the story fails to mention is the fact that in its Ulster incarnation, the JSG – then known as the Force Research Unit (FRU) – actively colluded in the murder of at least 15 civilians by Loyalist deaths squads, and an untold number of victims killed, maimed and tortured by the many Irish Republican Army double-agents controlled by the unit. What's more, the man who commanded the FRU during the height of its depredations – Lt. Col. Gordon Kerr – is in Baghdad now, heading the hugger-mugger Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), a large counter-terrorism force made up of unnamed "existing assets" from the glory days in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.This despite the fact that a 10-year, $100 million investigation by Britain's top police officer, Lord Stevens, confirmed in 2003 that the Kerr-led FRU "sanctioned killings" through "institutionalized collusion" with both Protestant and Catholic militias during the 1980s and 1990s. Stevens sent dossiers of evidence against Kerr and 20 other security apparatchiks to the Blair government's Director of Public Prosecutions, in the expectation that the fiery Scotsman and the others would be put on trial.But instead prosecuting Kerr, Blair promoted him: first to a plum assignment as British military attaché in Beijing – effectively the number two man in all of UK military intelligence, as Scotland's Sunday Herald notes – then with the SRR posting to Baghdad, where Kerr and his former FRU mates now apply the "methods developed on the mean streets of Ulster during the Troubles," as the Telegraph breathlessly relates.The Telegraph puff piece is naturally coy about revealing these methods, beyond the fact that, as in Ireland, the JSG uses "a variety of inducements ranging from blackmail to bribes" to turn Iraqi terrorists into Coalition agents. So to get a better idea of the techniques employed by the group in Baghdad, we must return to those "mean streets of Ulster" and the unit's reign of terror and collusion there, which has been thoroughly documented not only by the exhaustive Stevens inquiries, but also in a remarkable series of investigative reports by the Sunday Herald's Neil Mackay, and in extensive stories by the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and others.We will also see how the operations of the JSG and "Task Force Black" dovetail with U.S. efforts to apply the lessons of its own dirty wars – such as the "Salvador Option" – to Iraq, as well as long-running Bush Administration initiatives to arm and fund "friendly" militias while infiltrating terrorist groups in order to "provoke them into action." It is indeed a picture painted in black, a glimpse at the dark muck that lies beneath the high-flown rhetoric about freedom and civilization forever issuing from the lips of the war leaders.
II. Whacking for the Peelers
Gregory Burns had a problem. He was one of Gordon Kerr's FRU informers planted deep inside the IRA, along with two of his friends, Johnny Dignam and Aidan Starrs. But as Mackay noted in a February 2003 story, the already-partnered Burns had acquired a girlfriend on the side, Margaret Perry, 26, a "civilian" Catholic with no paramilitary ties. Forbidden fruit is sweet, of course – but pillow talk is dangerous for an inside man. "Burns didn't keep his mouth shut and [Perry] found out he was working for British intelligence," an FRU officer told Mackay. "He tried to convince her he was a double-agent the IRA had planted in the [British] army – but she didn't buy it."Burns called his FRU handlers and asked to come in from the cold. He'd been compromised, he said, and now he and his friends needed to get out, with new identities, relocation, good jobs – the usual payoff for trusted agents when the jig was up. But Kerr refused: "He said [Burns] should silence Perry," the FRU man told Mackay. Burns, panicking at thought of the IRA's horrific retributions against informers, insisted: he would have to kill the woman if they didn't bring him in, he told Kerr. Again Kerr refused.And so Burns arranged a meeting with his lover, to "talk over" the situation. His friends, Aidan and Johnny, volunteered to drive her there: "On the way, they pulled into a forest, beat her to death and buried her in a shallow grave," Mackay notes. Two years later, when her body was found, the IRA put two and two together – and slowly tortured Burns and his two friends to death, after first extracting copious amounts of information about British intelligence operations in Ireland.'In Kerr's eyes, Burns just wasn't important enough to resettle," the FRU source told the Sunday Herald. "So we ended up with four unnecessary deaths and the compromising of British army intelligence officers, which ultimately put soldiers' lives at risk. To Kerr, it was always a matter of the ends justifying the means."Then again, Kerr could well afford to sacrifice a few informers here and there to the wrath of the IRA's dreaded "security unit" – because his own prize double agent was the head of that security unit. Codenamed "Stakeknife," Kerr's man presided over, and sometimes administered, the grisly torture-murders of up to 50 men during his tenure in the IRA's upper ranks. The victims included other British double agents who were sacrificed in order to protect Stakeknife's cover, as the Guardian and many other UK papers reported when the agent's work was revealed in 2003. ("Stakeknife" was later identified in the press as Alfredo Scappaticci – an Irishman despite the Italian name, although he continues to deny the charge.)The FRU also "knowingly allowed soldiers, [police] officers and civilians to die at the hands of IRA bombers in order to protect republican double agents," the Sunday Herald's investigations found. As Mackay reports: "FRU sources said around seven police and army personnel died as a result of military intelligence allowing IRA bombs to be placed during Kerr's time in command of the FRU. They estimate that three civilians also died this way, with casualties in the hundreds."But some of the worst excesses came from the FRU's handling of operatives on the other side, in the fiercely pro-British Protestant militia the Ulster Defense Association (UDA). Here, among the Loyalists, Kerr's top double agent was Brian Nelson, who became head of intelligence for the UDA. As John Ware put it in the Guardian: "Kerr regarded Nelson as his jewel in the crown… For the next three years [from 1987], Nelson colluded with murder gangs to shoot IRA suspects. Month after month, armed and masked men crashed into homes. Sometimes they got the wrong address or shot the wrong person."Such as Gerald Slane, a 27-year-old Belfast man shot down in front of his three children. A gun had been found dumped on his property; this, and his Catholicism, was enough to get him assassinated at the order of Kerr's man Nelson. Afterwards, it was found that Slane had no IRA connections. Another "wrong person" killed by the FRU's agents was the Belfast attorney Pat Finucane, who was shot 14 times in front of his wife and children. Finucane was a civil rights activist who had defended both Catholics and Protestants, but was considered an IRA sympathizer by Loyalists – and a thorn in the side by British authorities. He was killed at Nelson's order by a fellow FRU informer in the UDA, Ken Barrett, who was convicted of the murder but freed last year after as part of an amnesty program in the Northern Ireland peace process. Barrett was unapologetic about his FRU "wetwork" on Finucane. "The peelers [authorities] wanted him whacked," he told a BBC documentary team after his release. "We whacked him and that is the end of the story."Kerr gave Nelson packages of intelligence files to help facilitate the assassination of UDA targets, including at least four "civilians" with no IRA ties, the Stevens inquiry found. The FRU also obtained "restriction orders" from other British security and military units in Northern Ireland, whereby they would pull their forces from an area when Kerr's UDA agents were going to make a hit there, allowing the killers to get in and get out without hindrance, investigator Nick Davies reports. Yet the FRU was wary of sharing its own intelligence with other security services – which was the ostensible reason for running the double-agents in the first place. Instead, Kerr engaged in fierce turf wars with other agencies, while "stovepiping" much of his intelligence to the top circles of the UK government, including the cabinet-level Intelligence Committee chaired by then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Indeed, when Nelson was finally exposed and brought to trial on five counts of conspiracy to commit murder, Kerr testified in his behalf, noting for the court that Nelson's intelligence "product and his reporting was passed through the intelligence community and at a high level, and from that point of view he has to be considered a very important agent." As one FRU man told Mackay: "Under Kerr's command…the mindset was one of 'the right people would be allowed to live and wrong people should die.'"This is the "mindset" now operating in the heart of the Green Zone in Baghdad, where the JSG is carrying out – we are told in glowing terms – precisely the same mission it had in Ulster. a unit which has allowed its agents to torture, murder and commit acts of terrorism, including actions that killed local civilians and the soldiers and intelligence operatives of their own country.
III. The White House Green Light
Of course, Kerr and his Baghdad black-op crew are not alone in the double-dealing world of Iraqi counterinsurgency. The Pentagon's ever-expanding secret armies are deeply enmeshed in such efforts as well. As Sy Hersh has reported ("The Coming Wars," New Yorker, Jan. 24, 2005), after his re-election in 2004, George W. Bush signed a series of secret presidential directives that authorized the Pentagon to run virtually unrestricted covert operations, including a reprise of the American-backed, American-trained death squads employed by authoritarian regimes in Central and South America during the Reagan Administration, where so many of the Bush faction cut their teeth – and made their bones."Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” a former high-level intelligence official said to Hersh. "We founded them and we financed them. The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it." A Pentagon insider added: "We’re going to be riding with the bad boys." Another role model for the expanded dirty war cited by Pentagon sources, said Hersh, was Britain's brutal repression of the Mau Mau in Kenya during the 1950s, when British forces set up concentration camps, created their own terrorist groups to confuse and discredit the insurgency, and killed thousands of innocent civilians in quashing the uprising. Bush's formal greenlighting of the death-squad option built upon an already securely-established base, part of a larger effort to turn the world into a "global free-fire zone" for covert operatives, as one top Pentagon official told Hersh. For example, in November 2002 a Pentagon plan to infiltrate terrorist groups and "stimulate" them into action was uncovered by William Arkin, then writing for the Los Angeles Times. The new unit, the "Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group," was described in the Pentagon documents as "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that brings "together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception."Later, in August 2004, then deputy Pentagon chief Paul Wolfowitz appeared before Congress to ask for $500 million to arm and train non-governmental "local militias" to serve as U.S. proxies for "counter-insurgency and "counterterrorist" operations in "ungoverned areas" and hot spots around the world, Agence France Presse (and virtually no one else) reported at the time. These hired paramilitaries were to be employed in what Wolfowitz called an "arc of crisis" that just happened to stretch across the oil-bearing lands and strategic pipeline routes of Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America.By then, the Bush Administration had already begun laying the groundwork for an expanded covert war in the hot spot of Iraq. In November 2003, it created a "commando squad" drawn from the sectarian militias of five major Iraqi factions, as the Washington Post reported that year. Armed, funded and trained by the American occupation forces, and supplied with a "state-of-the-art command, control and communications center" from the Pentagon, the new Iraqi commandos were loosed on the then-nascent Iraqi insurgency – despite the very prescient fears of some U.S. officials "that various Sunni or Shiite factions could eventually use the service to secretly undermine their political competitors," as the Post noted.And indeed, in early 2005 – not long after Bush's directives loosed the "Salvador Option" on Iraq – the tide of death-squad activity began its long and bloody rise to the tsunami-like levels we see today. Ironically, the first big spike of mass torture-murders, chiefly in Sunni areas at the time, coincided with "Operation Lightning," a much ballyhooed effort by American and Iraqi forces to "secure" Baghdad. The operation featured a mass influx of extra troops into the capital; dividing the city into manageable sectors, then working through them one by one; imposing hundreds of checkpoints to lock down all insurgent movements; and establishing a 24-hour presence of security and military forces in troubled neighborhoods, the Associated Press reported in May 2005. In other words, it was almost exactly the same plan now being offered as Bush's "New Way Forward," the controversial "surge."But the "Lightning" fizzled in a matter of weeks, and the death squads grew even bolder. Brazen daylight raids by "men dressed in uniforms" of Iraqi police or Iraqi commandos or other Iraqi security agencies swept up dozens of victims at a time. For months, U.S. "advisers" to Iraqi security agencies – including veterans of the original "Salvador Option" – insisted that these were Sunni insurgents in stolen threads, although many of the victims were Sunni civilians. Later, the line was changed: the chief culprits were now "rogue elements" of the various sectarian militias that had "infiltrated" Iraq's institutions. But as investigative reporter Max Fuller has pointed out in his detailed examination of information buried in reams of mainstream news stories and public Pentagon documents, the vast majority of atrocities then attributed to "rogue" Shiite and Sunni militias were in fact the work of government-controlled commandos and "special forces," trained by Americans, "advised" by Americans and run largely by former CIA assets. As Fuller puts it: "If there are militias in the Ministry of Interior, you can be sure that they are militias that stand to attention whenever a U.S. colonel enters the room." And perhaps a British lieutenant colonel as wellWith the Anglo-American coalition so deeply embedded in dirty war – infiltrating terrorist groups, "stimulating" them into action," protecting "crown jewel" double-agents no matter what the cost, "riding with the bad boys," greenlighting the "Salvador Option" – it is simply impossible to determine the genuine origin of almost any particular terrorist outrage or death squad atrocity in Iraq. All of these operations take place in the shadow world, where terrorists are sometimes government operatives and vice versa, and where security agencies and terrorist groups interpenetrate in murky thickets of collusion and duplicity. This moral chaos leaves "a kind of blot/To mark the full-fraught man and best indued/With some suspicion," as Shakespeare's Henry V says. What's more, the "intelligence" churned out by this system is inevitably tainted by the self-interest, mixed motives, fear and criminality of those who provide it. The ineffectiveness of this approach can be seen in the ever-increasing, many-sided civil war that is tearing Iraq apart. If these covert operations really are intended to quell the violence, they clearly have had the opposite effect. If they have some other intention, the pious defenders of civilization – who approve these activities with promotions, green lights and unlimited budgets – aren't telling.
Friday, February 16, 2007
'I have been unconvinced by the official story of global warming for a long time now and the events of recent months leave me in no doubt that it's all a scam. It's not the warming of the planet that I challenge, but what is causing that to happen. The lie is in the why.
First of all, anything Al Gore wants you to believe comes straight from the Hidden Hand because he is a long time front man for the agenda of global control. Bush may be the current focus of hostility for those who can see the gathering Orwellian nightmare, but the Illuminati work through all sides to dictate the outcome and the 'good guy'/'bad guy' approach is a common technique.
Gore has now become the face of global warming after his 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth, which was the third most successful documentary in American box office history. His book of the same name reached number one in the New York Times bestseller list and he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It has all made this corrupt and deceitful man the darling of the Greens and many more besides.
Cue alarm bells, cue flashing lights, cue anything that says "CON MAN AT WORK".'
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Global Research, February 13, 2007
The White House was today challenged to retract accusations by senior US defence officials that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government are supplying roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents. The call comes from a group of academics and Middle East experts who described the latest allegations as “highly implausible and deeply misleading” and “reminiscent of the false accusations against Saddam’s regime in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq”.
The experts, brought together by Campaign Iran, argue that the statements from Washington give the impression that the US in Iraq has been at war with Shia militias whereas in fact almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. The Shia groups are largely controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government and it is highly unlikely that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency or supplied Sunni guerrillas with military equipment.
The American “dossier” which has taken 14 months to compile, crucially fails to show any link between the arms allegedly discovered in Iraq and the Iranian government, let alone those at “the highest level of government”. It has also raised questions as to how the Americans have suddenly become so certain of Iranian involvement. On 2nd February US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns could only talk about Iran aiding insurgents as a “belief” and avoided stating that Iran was supplying weapons talking instead about “weapons technology”. Questions have also been raised about the authenticity of some of the photographs in the dossier: why for example photographs of mortar shells are dated in the year of the Christian Gregorian calendar rather than the Islamic Persian calendar and why they have non-Persian writing on them.
Professor Abbas Edalat of campaign Iran said today: “There are vast quantities of military equipment currently in Iraq and, as the Independent newspaper reported today, rather than originating in Iran, most improvised explosive devices responsible for killing US soldiers in Iraq consist of heavy artillery shells taken from the arsenals of the former regime. Even if some weaponry does originate in Iran, this is very far from implicating the Iranian government in supporting insurgents. Weapons from around the world are readily available on the black market. American and British made arms are currently spread over 150 countries across the globe To suggest that the American and British governments endorse how each weapon is used or support each group that uses them would be patently ridiculous.
“The Iranian government has rejected the US charges as unacceptable fabrication, has reiterated its support for the Iraqi government and opposed any interference in the country. Senior Democrats such as Senator Chris Dodd have also expressed scepticism over the charges and have asserted that the Bush administration have tried to falsify evidence before.
“The latest accusations coming from Washington do not add up. Iranian support for insurgents would not be consistent with the Iranian government's unerring support for the Iraqi government. Instead it seems that, since the UN Security Council has explicitly ruled out any military option against Iran over the issue of its nuclear programme, the US government is trying to produce a new pretext for an attack. We fear that President Bush intends to launch a military attack on Iran before the end of his term in office. Such a scenario would be catastrophic for the people of Iran and the whole region and would jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of the US and UK forces. It is vital people to stand up to the US war drive on Iran and ensure that all problems with Iran be dealt peacefully by calling on the US to enter into immediate and unconditional negotiations with Iran.”
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
By Greg Harkin, Francis Elliott and Raymond Whitaker
Published: 16 October 2005
Eight British soldiers killed during ambushes in Iraq were the victims of a highly sophisticated bomb first used by the IRA, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
The soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they travelled through the country, died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched "sting" operation more than a decade ago.
This contradicts the British government's claims that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices.
The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that the bombs and the firing devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security guards, were initially created by the UK security services as part of a counter-terrorism strategy at the height of the troubles in the early 1990s.
According to security sources, the technology for the bombs used in the attacks, which were developed using technology from photographic flash units, was employed by the IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice by British agents.
"We are seeing technology in Iraq today that it took the IRA 20 years to develop," said a military intelligence officer with experience in Northern Ireland.
He revealed that one trigger used in a recent Iraqi bombing was a three-way device, combining a command wire, a radio signal and an infra-red beam - a technique perfected by the IRA.
Britain claims that the bomb-making expertise now being used in southern Iraq was passed on by Iran's Revolutionary Guard through Hizbollah, the revolutionary Islamist group it sponsors in Lebanon.
But a former agent who infiltrated the IRA told The Independent on Sunday that the technology reached the Middle East through the IRA's co-operation with Palestinian groups. In turn, some of these groups used to be sponsored by Saddam Hussein and his Baath party.
The former agent added: "The photographic flashgun unit was replaced with infra-red and then coded infra-red, but basically they were variations of the same device. The technology came from the security forces, but the IRA always shared its equipment and expertise with Farc guerrillas in Colombia, the Basque separatists, ETA and Palestinian groups. There is no doubt in my mind that the technology used to kill our troops in Basra is the same British technology from a decade ago."
Even more alarming is the claim that the devices were supplied by the security services to an agent inside the Provisionals as part of a dangerous game of double bluff.
According to investigators examining past collusion between the security forces and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, members of the shadowy army undercover outfit, the Force Research Unit, and officers from MI5 learned in the early 1990s that a senior IRA member in south Armagh was working to develop bombs triggered by light beams. They decided the risks would be diminished if they knew what technology was being used.
"The thinking of the security forces was that if they were intimate with the technology, then they could develop counter-measures, thereby staying one step ahead of the IRA," a senior source close to the inquiry explained. "It may seem absurd that the security services were supplying technology to the IRA, but the strategy was sound.
"Unfortunately, no one could see back then that this technology would be used to kill British soldiers thousands of miles away in a different war."
The Provisionals' agent was allowed to travel to New York and purchase the equipment. But the strategy backfired in March 1992 when the technology triggered a bomb that killed a policewoman and mutilated her male colleague near Newry before counter-measures were in place.
by Kurt Nimmo
Global Research, February 13, 2007
Pentagon carelessness fabricating bogus “evidence” against Iran is really quite stupendous. As I wrote here yesterday, the 81mm mortar shell offered up to the complaisant corporate media as “evidence” Iran is supplying weaponry to the Shi’a of Iraq is an obvious ruse, as the date on the proffered shell does not follow the Muslim calendar and other markings are in English when it only makes sense they would appear in Persian script.
But it gets worse.
As a recent email points out, Iran does not manufacture 81mm mortar shells. According to a report offered by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, connected to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the neocon Brookings Institute, the smallest mortar produced by Iran is the 107mm M-30. This information is included in the JCSS’s “Middle East Military Balance,” updated last February. It can be read in this PDF file on page 15. According to JCSS, “The Middle East Military Balance has been the most authoritative source on Middle Eastern Armies since 1983.” It is quite fortunate for us the hubris-filled neocons care not to double check their engineered lies—erroneously described as a “machining process”—before unleashing them on an unwitting public.
As Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told the Associated Press, the “United States has a long history in fabricating evidence,” an undisputed fact more than underscored by the lead-up to the Iraq invasion when the neocons claimed Iraqi weather balloon trailers doubled as biological weapon labs and clumsily recycled a student’s homework as evidence Saddam was dabbling in weapons of mass destruction.
Considering the shoddiness of the mortar ruse, it makes perfect sense so-called “experts” involved in the scam told “a large gathering of reporters” (more accurately described as script readers and errand boys) “they not be further identified,” lest blame be delivered to their doorstep.
“Why are US officials hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when presenting the most detailed evidence yet that Iran is supplying anti-US forces in Iraq with weaponry?” muses Eason Jordan. “After weeks, if not months, of US official planning to present a damning ‘dossier’ of incriminating evidence against Iran, and after this same US administration presented us with lopsided, erroneous information about the capability and evil intentions of the Saddam Hussein regime, the best the US government can give us today is incendiary evidence presented at a Baghdad news conference by three US officials who refuse to be quoted by name?…. The American people deserve straight talk from identified US officials.”
Of course, such “straight talk” will not be forthcoming—not now or after Iran is destroyed, as Iraq was destroyed before it.
Maybe, if we are lucky, at some point in the future, the names of these “experts” will emerge in the course of a new Nuremberg trial.
Iran does not manufacture 81mm mortars—but Pakistan does. Compare the photo on this death merchant catalog page with the one offered up as “evidence” against the Iranians. Minus the nosecone and fins at the bottom, it is almost a dead ringer, excuse the metaphor (see enlargement here).
Is it possible the Pentagon neocons, in their zeal to finger the Iranians and thus kick start World War Four, as they fondly call it, are using a Pakistani mortar and attributing it to Iran? Considering the long and sordid history of collaboration between the CIA, Pentagon, and Pakistan’s nefarious ISI, this is likely the case.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
By SUE REID 9th February 2007
The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001.
Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C.
The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93.
Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow.
Or that's how the official story goes.
Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster.
The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers.
Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.
A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack.
The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up.
Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services.
Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier.
Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11.
Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis."
These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II).
Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S.
Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro?
In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq?
This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic.
Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?
An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.
Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job.
It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.
And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack.
Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.
Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.
Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.
But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late.
And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it.
Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.
So what of the fall of the Twin Towers?
The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.
It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain.
But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees.
Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up.
The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off?
And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all.
The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times.
How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft?
The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.
"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"
Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons.
"Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building?
"Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively.
"If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole."
And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin.
So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ.
Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane.
So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio?
No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded.
They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target?
Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour.
He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened.
The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not?
He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway."
Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds.
He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers.
The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion.
Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame.
Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington.
The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change.
President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil."
The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007
As it prepares for military aggression against Iran, the Bush administration is once again resorting to a concoction of lies, misinformation and half-truths to provide the pretext. In his January 10 speech announcing an escalation of the war in Iraq, President Bush denounced Syria and Iran for backing anti-US insurgents and declared the American military would “seek out and destroy” these networks. He has since confirmed ordering US troops to “capture or kill” Iranian agents in Iraq.
Bush’s speech has been followed by a steady stream of top US officials condemning Iran’s alleged “meddling” in Iraq—all relayed to the world by a compliant media. To date not a shred of evidence has been provided to support the allegations. Nevertheless, like Bush’s claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the accusations against Iran are simply repeated ad naseum as fact.
US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, was due to present a “dossier” to the media on January 31 aimed at proving US contentions about Iranian activities in Iraq. The briefing in Baghdad, however, was cancelled without explanation—for a second time, with no future date given. While various excuses were given, the real reason for putting the dossier “on hold” was the lack of evidence and concern about the public reaction in the US.
According to the Los Angeles Times on February 1, US officials were concerned that “some of the material may be inconclusive”. They wanted to “avoid repeating the embarrassment that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that the information cited to justify the war was incorrect,” the newspaper explained. “We don’t want a repeat of the situation we had when [former US Secretary of State] Colin Powell went before the United Nations. People are going to be sceptical,” one official explained.
A former senior defence official bluntly told the Los Angeles Times that the task of presenting a case against Iran to a sceptical American public was “a losing proposition”. Others explained that in interagency meetings on Iran, State Department and intelligence officials believed that “some of the material overstates murky evidence and casts a negative light on Iranians who may not be guilty”. Another claimed that if sensitive intelligence material were withdrawn, “the result could be a weak and unconvincing report”.
The dubious character of the US evidence was confirmed by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley in the course of a press conference on February 3. In response to persistent questioning about the cancellation of the Baghdad briefing, Hadley finally blurted out: “The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated. And we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts.”
Hadley’s press conference had been called to release an unclassified summary of a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq compiled by all 16 US intelligence agencies. As well as providing a bleak picture of the prospects for the US occupation of Iraq, the document played down the significance of outside influence on the situation in Iraq.
While repeating US claims of “Iranian lethal support” for Shiite militants in Iraq and “expatriate Iraqi Baathists” using Syria as a safe haven, the NIE stated: “Iraq’s neighbours influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics.” That is, in the words of the NIE, Iran and Syria are not significant factors in the escalating civil war in Iraq.
The lack of evidence has done nothing to rein in Bush’s propagandists, however. In an interview on National Public Radio on February 1, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns accused Iran of assisting Shiite militias in attacks on British soldiers near Basra and on American forces in Baghdad. “Now, we warned Iran, privately on a number of occasions over the last year and a half, and the Iranians, of course, did not appear to listen to that. So now we have begun to detain those Iranian officials. And we think it’s absolutely within our rights to do so under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is self-defence.”
Just hours after Bush’s speech on January 10, US military forces captured five Iranian officials in a provocative early morning raid on a diplomatic office in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. American officials have claimed that some of those detained were Iranian intelligence agents and that maps and other materials “prove” their involvement in sectarian violence. No evidence has been made public and the five remain in US custody without charge despite protests not only by Tehran but also top Iraqi officials.
The operation followed the detention in Baghdad on December 20 of at least five Iranians, including two credentialled diplomats. All were released. Two of the five were detained in a highly provocative raid in the compound of prominent Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, whose party is a major component of the Iraqi ruling coalition and who held talks with Bush in Washington just a week before. Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, insisted that the two security officials were engaged in legitimate discussions with the Iraqi government and should never have been detained.
A significant aspect of Burns’s comments was his reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter. Since the 2003 invasion, the US military has arbitrarily detained scores, if not hundreds, of foreign nationals without trial, without appealing to the UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter has nothing to do with detentions. It provides for the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence” of a member state against armed attack, and was envisaged to cover direct acts of aggression such as those carried out by Nazi Germany prior to World war II.
From the standpoint of the Bush administration, the most important aspect of Article 51 is that it is the only clause of the UN Charter that allows for military action without prior reference to the UN Security Council. The unproven accusations that Iran is supporting “armed attacks” on US forces in Iraq could thus be seized upon by Washington as the spurious justification for sidestepping the UN altogether and initiating an assault on Iran, all in the name of “self-defence”. Burns’s invocation of Article 51 says more about the thinking in the White House than perhaps he would have wished.
Questioned about US intentions to strike or invade Iran, Burns repeated the standard line of the Bush administration that “all options are on the table”. Asked directly to comment on the US military build up in the Persian Gulf and the danger of war with Iran, Burns was non-committal. “I don’t believe that a military conflict with Iran is inevitable,” he said, adding that a diplomatic solution was possible. But his strident demand that Iran should “cease and desist” from providing arms to Shiite insurgents to “target and kill American soldiers” indicates that the US is intent on ratchetting up its bellicose rhetoric against Iran.
Pentagon consultant Dan Goure told the British-based Sunday Telegraph last weekend: “You cannot try to deal with the militia [in Iraq] if you’re not dealing with the Iranians backing them. The message now is that the gloves are off.” According to the article, the US has increased the number of unmanned spy planes monitoring the Iran-Iraq border to provide for 24-hour surveillance. A US intelligence officer told the newspaper that the drones were being flown into Iran. He said that while the military was not currently planning attacks inside Iran, once suspects were a few miles inside Iraq, they would be “whacked”.
At some stage, as its provocations against Iran intensify, there is no doubt that the Bush administration will present a “dossier” to try to justify its aggression. But the fact that it has been put “on hold,” despite ongoing claims by US officials to have “irrefutable” proof of Iran’s support for anti-US militias, is a tell-tale sign that the evidence is, at the very least, threadbare and unconvincing. Like the lies about Iraqi WMDs in Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN and the corresponding British dossier on Iraq, the US is casting around for a convenient pretext to provide the casus belli for war against Iran.
Global Warming – Prevention or Preparedness
by Mitch Battros - ECM/ECTV
The current conviction of thought coming from the global warming enthusiast is that global warming can be prevented or lessened. Their logic tells us if we just reduce or eliminate pollution---all will be fine.In fact, the global warming army wants you to spend billions (with a b) on the theory of “no pollution – no global warming”. It is this very issue as to the reason I have chosen to take on the task of fighting this well organized global warming regime. Make no mistake, what you see unfolding now is the “battle” of Hearts and Minds, but mostly the battle over MONEY. So lets take a look at who is to gain what ---The first offense the global warming cabal uses to attack is the scientists who they claim are paid by the petro-industry. First let me assert now, that less than 5% of the global warming regimes’ claims have any relevance. It appears they have been successful in convincing you that any credible scientist who is against their mantra of -humans are to blame- must in fact be paid by oil company lobbyist. This is a LIE.Oh yes, our beloved Al Gore has just recently initiated yet another attack plan “to shame” anyone who dissents from the support of global warming. Here is what he said in a CNN interview on Tuesday: “the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.”Well, I guess I can’t blame Gore for using Bush’s own manipulating strategy. However, as much as I have disdain for the bubba bush administration, I must point out to you the absolute LIE, which has been placed in a most professionally polished manner of deception, the following words----“Can No Longer Argue”.You know what; I think he really really meant it. No, I mean Gore is telling all of us---“No one can any longer argue”. Are you starting to get the picture? Let me put it in other terms----- “You are either with me, or you are with the polluters” (Al Gore)Now does it resonate with you? I sure hope so----- So you ask—“Hey Mitch, if money is at the root of this battle, what do the global warming soldiers get?” I’m glad you asked. Well, just like in any war, they get what is commonly referred to as: ‘The Spoils of War’. And what would that be? MONEYThere are billions of dollars on the line for global warming special interest groups. Now that we have a new “evil doer”, we need to have a “savior”. And who will be our new saviors? Well the global warming regime of course. And how will they do it? By asking the government for billions and billions of dollars in grants and research. I mean we are facing an immediate and imminent threat, didn’t you know that?**An interesting twist will occur out of this “evil doer” vs “savior” game plan. As I wrote almost two years ago, watch for the oil industry itself to come forward announcing “new technology” to fight the “evil doer”----“because we care” (Shell Oil).But let’s get back to the shining “White Knights” who have put on their armor to save you from the evil ones. It may be sad for me to say, and for you to hear, but lets do it anyway. Most of the seemingly ‘pious’ list of so-called global warming experts you see on the IPCC list are in it for the holy buck. For the many who translate this into your countries language, “buck” is an American slang word for “money or dollar”. It goes something like this---- “no global warming, no grants, no money”.So now let me get to the point--- I will keep this short and direct--- There is only so much money to go around. Each and every one of us will have to answer the following ultimate questions below. For the sake of obvious argument, let us say we all agree the world would be a better place to live with less or no pollution. But that is not what global warming is about, now is it? So lets move on to the real questions:To support spending billions upon billions of dollars on the theory of the global warming regime, you would have to answer “yes” to the following questions.- Prevention -1) Do you believe so-called global warming (which is a made up name by Hansen in 1988) is solely caused by humans?2) Do you believe the stopping or reduction of human pollutants will stop the current and future warming and cooling trends?3) Do you believe we will see moderate weather i.e. hurricanes, floods, tornadoes if pollution was to be stopped or reduced?4) Do you believe the spending of billions and billions of dollars to reduce pollution that our climate and weather will return to what it was in 1960’s?5) In short, do you believe it prudent to spend the available US treasure-chest on what the global warming regime believes is “prevention” of extreme climate and weather conditions? ________________To support the ‘science of cycles’ and the words of our ancestors ‘ancient text’, you would have to say “yes” to the following questions.- Preparedness -1) Do you believe the Earth has seen many warming and cooling trends as it is today, and even at much greater variance in the past?2) Do you believe we (the Earth) will see an escalation of natural phenomena (earth changes) i. e. earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes in the coming years even if pollution is stopped or even reduced?3) Do you believe our ancestors were accurate in telling us of today’s times and the escalation of natural phenomena?4) Do you believe the Sun and other celestial events are the true cause of warming and cooling trends?5) In short, do you believe it prudent to spend the available US treasure-chest on what current science and our ancient ancestors tell us which is to “be prepared”.So there you have it folks, it either comes down to ‘prevention’ or ‘preparedness’. I would suggest to you there is no “prevention” of warming and cooling trends, but there is “preparedness”. Again I say---sure, put all the polluters in jail and have strict mandates on everything, I’m all for taking care of our home Mother Earth, but this will have nothing or very little to do with preventing natural rhythmic events.You might want to read my recent article titled: “Time to Start Thinking of Mass Migration” . Your great grandparents did it, your great-great grandparents did it---and I am suggesting, depending on where you live---you will too. Although most every single United States American came from somewhere else, what is more important is the history of our ancestors and their “forced” migration.No, not by the Chinese or Russians, but by “nature” in the way of cyclical change. By way of natural rhythmic cycles the Earth has seen many times before. That’s right--there will be warming trends and cooling trends, and when the Earth’s climate hits certain points of “critical mass” (in either direction), animals and humans have no choice but to move.Could this be what happened to our ancestors such as the Anasazi of Chaco Canyon, the Maya of Mesoamerica, and some Egyptian and other tribes along the Nile River? The answer is YES, and it is happening again. It is simply the ‘Law of Cycles’.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Editor-in-Chief: Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman
LONDON: Prime Minister Tony Blair told lawmakers on Tuesday that no military action is planned against Iran, but that international opinion is hardening against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and what he described as its interference in conflicts across the Middle East. Iran has been widely criticised for links with Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza, and Shia militias fighting coalition forces in Iraq. Iran ``is trying to prevent reconciliation across the region, and I think that is very short sighted and very foolish,’’ Blair told the House of Commons’ Liaison Committee. ``If they were able to play a constructive role in Iraq, it would be of immense help to the international community. It would also actually be of immense help to Iran in the end since they don’t want chaos on their borders,’’ Blair said during his biannual appearance before the committee to discuss a wide range of local and international issues. ``You can’t take any option off the table, but nobody is talking or planning military intervention. That’s not what the international community wants, `` Blair said. ``It’s not what we want.’’ The liaison committee is composed of chairmen or chairwomen of other Commons committees, and is the only one, which Blair regularly appears before. US President George W Bush has said he has no plans to invade Iran. But he recently increased the US naval presence in the Persian Gulf to its highest level since 2003 by ordering a second aircraft carrier strike group to the region. Bush also has authorised the US military to kill or capture any Iranian agent spotting attacks in Iraq against American forces. The United States and several Western allies believe that Iran is using its nuclear programmeas a cover to produce atomic weapons _ a charge Iran denies. Tehran says it seeks only to generate electricity. Last week a respected think-tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said Iran was likely two to three years from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon. Blair also defended his government’s close relationship with the United States and his readiness sends British troops overseas. He said it was ``ridiculous’’ to suggest the use of force in Iraq or Afghanistan was fuelling extremism, arguing it was necessary to stand up to radicals in their midst. Britain’s influence with China and India and other countries depended on its close relations with Washington, he said. ``I am the person, above all, who can give evidence of the difficulties and sometimes the political penalty you pay for a close relationship with the US, but we shouldn’t give that up in any set of circumstances, in my view,’’ Blair said.
February 6, 2007
I’ve continued pondering chemtrails and the biggest problem I have found is how my mind keeps turning to the philosophical aspect of the mystery. There is science aplenty if you follow the threads, it is often said that the truth is hidden in plain sight and such is the case with chemtrails. The problem for many is in finding satisfaction with the idea that it is simply weather modification or geo-engineering or communication technology and minds are reaching deeper into the metaphysical world for answers. For me, I’m always looking for the threads that tie everything in a neat picture so I can move on to the next mystery, but the amount of information available is nearly overwhelming and reaching a complete conclusion seems next to impossible.
Many insist that the chemical contrails are just a business decision, evidence that our government has become a corporate entity, more illnesses mean more doctor visits and prescription drugs. More storms mean more construction and more land to be developed, the insurance companies were not the friend of many of those washed out by Hurricane Katrina. More earthquakes, tidal waves and international tragedies mean more people donate money that is funneled off, we know the corruption of the Katrina donations alone was huge. Better communication, means increased sales of cell phones and various technologies. The more the average citizen suffers exhaustion and apathy, the easier to pass money-based corporate agendas and the weaker and sicker the society, the easier to manipulate through war, fear and terror.
Others believe that the chemtrails are about mind controlling the people and unfortunately there is evidence to back up those claims. The goal being to dumb us down, overwhelm us with media images and produce passive, non-complaining consumers and constituents. Others say that the mind control technology is being used to prevent the ascension to a higher and more compassionate way of being. That a force greater than us, God or the Universe, is calling us to fulfill our ultimate destiny, a good versus evil scenario beyond our human understanding and the chemtrails are designed to prevent us from receiving those messages from the divine.
Some say that the chemtrails are altering our DNA, against our will, a modern day holocaust. Others say that our DNA is experiencing a natural evolution, changing as we adjust to the earth changes and we are about to experience a new age of mankind, a spiritual ascension to a higher way of being. Still others say that we are in control of our DNA and our health, simply through our thoughts and they also feel we are ushering in a new age, a rise to the next dimension of existence, heaven on earth.
Some believe that UFOs and chemtrails are related, there is much photographic evidence showing orbs or circular craft flying in and out of chemtrail lines. Some suggest that our government is in control of new age propulsion systems discovered by back engineering crashed UFOs or craft found abandoned on the moon. Others feel that our government is working hand in hand with alien societies against us, seeking only to save themselves. And a lot of folks believe that the global government is run by the Annunaki, the serpent race mentioned in the Garden of Eden and the chemtrails are a diabolical exercise to rid the earth of a genetic experiment gone awry, us. And still others believe we are being contacted by benevolent alien beings that want us to save our own planet and find our connection to the spirit of oneness that touches us all.
So I guess it’s no wonder the lines between philosophy and science are getting crossed, I think as humans it’s hard to look up into the vastness of the heavens and not feel small and vulnerable. As we see the writing in the skies it awakens an awareness of our own mortality and when we seek the answers through the words of others, we again find the knowledge that we are mere mortals in a big scary world, afraid of the unknown. I’ve heard some very wise folks say we are living in the greatest time in history and that it is a wonderful time to be alive, so until I discover otherwise, that is what I am choosing to believe.