Fabricating an Enemy. “The Threat of Al Qaeda” as a Justification to Wage War
It is the Bush Administration, rather than Baghdad, which is supporting Al Qaeda
This article was
first published in January 2003, two months prior to the launching of
the war on Iraq. It was subsequently included in my book entitled
America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, Montreal, 2005.
Since the publication of this article, the instruments of propaganda have gained in impetus and sophistication. The global campaign against Muslims has continued unabated with a view to creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
Suspected
terrorists are arrested on trumped up charges. These arrests of
individuals of Middle Eastern origin are not motivated by security
considerations. Their main function is to provide legitimacy to the
“Global War on Terrorism” and the Homeland Security State.
The ultimate objective is to justify a war of conquest.
Terrorist attacks
by Muslims against the Homeland are said to be imminent.
Counter-terrorism is intended to protect the Western World.
Much of the
justification for waging this war without borders rests on the
legitimacy of the US administration’s anti-terrorist agenda. The
latter forms part of the propaganda campaign, which in turn is used to
sway the US population into an unconditional acceptance of the war
agenda.
Both the Bush and Obama
administrations have covertly supported and financed international
terrorism. They have used Al Qaeda as well as ISIS as their
foot-soldiers, while also using the atrocities committed by the “Islamic
terrorists” as a justification for intervening on humanitarian ground.
In Iraq, the Obama administration is
supporting ISIS while at the same time waging a fake “war on terrorism”
against ISIS. Without the support of media propaganda, the legitimacy
of the “war on terrorism” would collapse like a deck of cards.
The ISIS brigades are integrated by
US-NATO sponsored special forces, often recruited by private mercenary
companies on contract to the Pentagon. These special forces which
integrate the terror brigades are in
permanent liaison with their US-NATO counterparts.
Michel Chossudovsky, May 27 2015
* * *
One of the main
objectives of war propaganda is to «fabricate an enemy» . As anti-war
sentiment grows and the political legitimacy the Bush Administration
falters, doubts regarding the existence of this “outside enemy” must be
dispelled.
As the date of the
planned invasion of Iraq approaches, the Bush Administration and its
indefectible British ally have multiplied the “warnings” of future Al
Qaeda terrorist attacks. The enemy has to appear genuine: thousands of
news stories and editorials linking Al Qaeda to the Baghdad government
are planted in the news chain. Colin Powell underscored this
relationship in his presentation to the Davos World Economic Forum in
January. Iraq is casually presented in official statements and in the
media as “a haven for and supplier of the terror network”:
“Evidence that is still tightly held is accumulating within the administration that it is not a matter of chance that terror groups in the al Qaeda universe have made their weapons of choice the poisons, gases and chemical devices that are signature arms of the Iraqi regime.”1
In this context,
propaganda purports to drown the truth, and kill the evidence on how
Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy
Number One”.
Meanwhile,
“anti-terrorist operations” directed against Muslims, including
arbitrary mass arrests have been stepped up. In the US, emergency
measures are contemplated in the case of war. The corporate media is
busy preparing public opinion. A «national emergency» is said to be
justified because «America is under attack»:
« the U.S. and Western interests in the Western world have to be prepared for retaliatory attacks from sleeper cells the second we launch an attack in Iraq.» 2
Defence of the Homeland
Emergency procedures are
already in place. The Secretary of Homeland Defence -whose mandate is
to «safeguard the nation from terrorist attacks»– has already been
granted the authority « to take control of a national emergency»,
implying the establishment of de facto military rule. In turn, the
Northern Command would be put in charge of military operations in the US
«war on terrorism » theatre.
The Smallpox Vaccination Program
In the context of these
emergency measures, preparations for compulsory smallpox vaccination are
already under way in response to a presumed threat of a biological
weapons attack on US soil. The vaccination program –which has been the
object of intense media propaganda– would be launched with the sole
purpose of creating an atmosphere of panic among the population:
«A few infected individuals with a stack of plane tickets–or bus tickets, for that matter–could spread smallpox infection across the country, touching off a plague of large proportions …. It is not inconceivable that a North Korea or an Iraq could retain smallpox in a hidden lab and pass the deadly agent on to terrorists.»3
The hidden agenda is
crystal clear. How best to discredit the anti-war movement and maintain
the legitimacy of the State? Create conditions, which instill fear and
hatred, present the rulers as “guardians of the peace”, committed to
weeding out terrorism and preserving democracy. In the words of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair, echoing almost verbatim the US propaganda
dispatches:
“’I believe it is inevitable that they will try in some form or other,… ‘I think we can see evidence from the recent arrests that the terrorist network is here as it is around the rest of Europe, around the rest of the world… The most frightening thing about these people is the possible coming together of fanaticism and the technology capable of delivering mass destruction.’”4
Mass Arrests
The mass arrests of
individuals of Middle Eastern origin since September 11 2001 on trumped
up charges is not motivated by security considerations. Their main
function is to provide “credibility” to the fear and propaganda
campaign. Each arrest, amply publicised by the corporate media, repeated
day after day “gives a face” to this invisible enemy. It also serves to
drown the fact that Al Qaeda is a creature of the CIA. “Enemy Number
One” is not an enemy but an instrument.)
In other words, the Propaganda campaign performs two important functions.
First it must ensure that the enemy is considered a real threat.
Second, it must distort
the truth, –i.e. it must conceal “the relationship” between this
“fabricated enemy” and its creators within the military-intelligence
apparatus.
In other words, the
nature and history of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and the Islamic
brigades since the Soviet-Afghan war must be suppressed because if it
trickles down to the broader public, the legitimacy of the so-called
“war on terrorism” collapses like a deck of cards. And in the process,
the legitimacy of the main political and military actors is threatened.
The “9/11 Foreknowledge” Scandal
On 16 May 2002, the New
York tabloids revealed that “President Bush had been warned of possible
high jacking before the terror attacks” and had failed to act.5
The disinformation
campaign was visibly stalling in the face of mounting evidence of
CIA-Osama links. For the first time since 9/11, the mainstream press had
hinted to the possibility of a cover-up at the highest echelons of the
US State apparatus.
FBI Agent Coleen Rowley,
who blew the whistle on the FBI, played a key role in unleashing the
crisis. Her controversial Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller pointed to
the existence of “deliberate roadblocks” on the investigation of the
September 11 attacks:
“Minutes after the 9/11 attacks the SSA [David Frasca, Director of the Radical Fundamentalist unit in the FBI] said ‘this was probably all just a coincidence’ and we were to do nothing until we got their permission, because we might screw up something else going on elsewhere in the country” 6
In response to an
impending political crisis, the fear and disinformation campaign went
into overdrive. The news chain was all of a sudden inundated with
reports and warnings of “future terrorist attacks”. A carefully worded
statement (visibly intended to instill fear) by Vice President Dick
Cheney contributed to setting the stage:
“I think that the prospects of a future attack on the U.S. are almost a certainty… It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared.”7
What Cheney is really
telling us is that our “intelligence asset”, which we created, is going
to strike again. Now, if this “CIA creature” were planning new terrorist
attacks, you would expect that the CIA would be first to know about it.
In all likelihood, the CIA also controls the so-called ‘warnings’
emanating from CIA sources on “future terrorist attacks” in the US and
around the World.
Propaganda’s Consistent Pattern
Upon careful examination
of news reports on actual, “possible” or “future” terrorist attacks,
the propaganda campaign exhibits a consistent pattern. Similar concepts
appear simultaneously in hundreds of media reports:
- they refer to “reliable sources“, a growing body of evidence –e.g. government or intelligence or FBI.
- They invariably indicate that the terrorist groups involved have “ties to bin Laden” or Al Qaeda, or are “sympathetic to bin Laden”,
- The reports often points to the possibility of terrorist attacks, “sooner or later” or “in the next two months“.
- The reports often raise the issue of so-called “soft targets”, pointing to the likelihood of civilian casualties.
- They indicate that future terrorist attacks could take place in a number of allied countries (including Britain, France, Germany) in which public opinion is strongly opposed to the US-led war on terrorism.
- They confirm the need by the US and its allies to initiate “pre-emptive” actions directed against these various terrorist organizations and/or the foreign governments which harbour the terrorists.
- They often point to the likelihood that these terrorist groups possess WMD including biological and chemical weapons (as well as nuclear weapons). The links to Iraq and “rogue states”(discussed in Part I) is also mentioned.
- The warnings also include warnings regarding “attacks on US soil”, attacks against civilians in Western cities.
- They point to efforts undertaken by the police authorities to apprehend the alleged terrorists.
- The arrested individuals are in virtually all cases Muslims and/or of Middle Eastern origin.
- The reports are also used to justify the Homeland Security legislation as well as the “ethnic profiling” and mass arrests of presumed terrorists.
This pattern of
disinformation in the Western media applies the usual catch phrases and
buzz words. (See press excerpts below. The relevant catch phrases are
indicated in bold):
“Published reports, along with new information obtained from U.S. intelligence and military sources, point to a growing body of evidence that terrorists associated with and/or sympathetic to Osama bin Laden are planning a significant attack on U.S. soil.
Also targeted are allied countries that
have joined the worldwide hunt for the radical Muslim cells hell-bent
on unleashing new waves of terrorist strikes. … The U.S. government’s
activation of antiterrorist forces comes as the FBI issued a warning
Nov. 14 that a “spectacular” new terrorist attack may be forthcoming – sooner rather than later. …
Elsewhere,
the Australian government issued an unprecedented warning to its
citizens that al-Qaeda terrorists there might launch attacks within the next two months. 8
Although CIA Director George Tenet said in recent congressional testimony that “an attempt to conduct another attack on U.S. soil is certain,” a trio of former senior CIA officials doubted the chance of any “spectacular” terror attacks on U.S. soil.9
“Germans have been skittish since the terrorist attacks in the United States, fearing that their country is a ripe target for terrorism. Several of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks plotted their moves in Hamburg.10
“On Dec. 18, a senior government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, briefed journalists about the ‘high probability’ of a terrorist attack happening ‘sooner or later.’… he named hotels and shopping centres as potential ‘soft targets’… The official also specifically mentioned: a possible chemical attack in
the London subway, the unleashing of smallpox, the poisoning of the
water supply and strikes against “postcard targets” such as Big Ben and
Canary Warf.
The “sooner or later” alert followed a Home Office warning at the end of November that said Islamic radicals might use dirty bombs or poison gas to inflict huge casualties on British cities. This also made big headlines but the warning was quickly retracted in fear that it would cause public panic. 11
The message yesterday was that these terrorists, however obscure, are trying – and, sooner or later,
may break through London’s defences. It is a city where tens of
thousands of souls,… Experts have repeatedly said that the UK, with its
bullish support for the US and its war on terror, is a genuine
and realistic target for terror groups, including the al- Qaeda network
led by 11 September mastermind Osama bin Laden.12
Quoting Margaret Thatcher: “Only America has the reach and means to deal with Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or the other wicked psychopaths who will sooner or later step into their shoes.”13
According to a recent US State Department alert: “Increased security at official US facilities has
led terrorists to seek softer targets such as residential areas, clubs,
restaurants, places of worship, hotels, schools, outdoor recreation
events, resorts, beaches and planes.”14
Actual Terrorist Attacks
To be “effective” the
fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated
“warnings” of future attacks, it also requires “real” terrorist
occurrences or “incidents”, which provide credibility to the
Administration’s war plans. Propaganda endorses the need to implement
“emergency measures” as well as implement retaliatory military actions.
The triggering of “war
pretext incidents” is part of the Pentagon’s assumptions. In fact it is
an integral part of US military history.15 In fact in 1962, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled “Operation
Northwoods, to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the
invasion of Cuba:
“We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,”“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington” “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”(See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”16 (See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).
There is no evidence
that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist
attacks. The latter were undertaken by organisations (or cells of these
organisations), which operate quite independently, with a certain degree
of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a covert
intelligence operation. The «intelligence asset» is not in direct
contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the
role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.
The fundamental question
is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed?
What is the underlying network of ties?
A recent (2002)
classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon «calls for the
creation of a so-called « Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group »
(P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at “stimulating reactions”
among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction —
that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing
themselves to “quick-response” attacks by U.S. forces.» 17
The P2OG initiative is
nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert
operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups
since the Cold War era. This « prodding of terrorist cells » under
covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and
training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.
Covert support by the US
military and intelligence apparatus has been channelled to various
Islamic terrorist organisations through a complex network of
intermediaries and intelligence proxies. Moreover, numerous official
statements, intelligence reports confirm recent links (in the
post Cold War era) between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda
operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and
Macedonia (2001).18
The Republican Party
Committee of the US Congress in a 1997 report points to open
collaboration between the US military and Al Qaeda operatives in the
civil war in Bosnia.19 (See US Congress, 16 January 1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html )
Ties to Al Qaeda and Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing
that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist
organization is said to have “ties to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda”. This
in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al
Qaeda is a creature of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press
reports nor is considered relevant.
The ties of these
terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan’s
military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official
sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to
Pakistan’s ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless
to say, this information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these
terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these
terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to
the CIA.
The Bali Bomb Attack (October 2002)
The Bali attack in the
Kuta seaside resort resulted in close to 200 deaths, mainly Australian
tourists. The bomb attack was allegedly perpetrated by Jemaah Islamiah, a
group, which operates in several countries in South East Asia. Press
reports and official statements point to close ties between Jemaah
Islamiah (JI) and Al Qaeda. The JI’s “operational leader” is Riduan
Isamuddin, alias Hambali, a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan war, who was
trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to a report by UPI:
“The [Soviet-Afghan] war provided opportunities for key figures of these groups, who went to Afghanistan, to experience firsthand the glory of jihad. Many of the radicals detained in Singapore and Malaysia derived their ideological inspiration from the activities of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Pakistan” 20
What the report fails to
mention is that the training of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and
Pakistan was a CIA sponsored initiative launched under President Jimmy
Carter in 1979, using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between.
JI’s links to Indonesia’s Military Intelligence
There are indications, that in addition to its alleged links to Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah also has links to Indonesia’s military intelligence, which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian intelligence.
The links between JI and Indonesia’s Intelligence Agency (BIN) are acknowledged by the International Crisis Group (ICG):
“This link [of JI to the BIN] needs to be explored more fully: it does not necessarily mean that military intelligence was working with JI, but it does raise a question about the extent to which it knew or could have found out more about JI than it has acknowledged.” 21
(International Crisis Group, http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=845 , 2003)
The ICG, however, fails
to mention that Indonesia’s intelligence apparatus has for more than 30
years been controlled by the CIA.
In the wake of the
October 2002 Bali bombing, a contradictory report emanating from
Indonesia’s top brass, pointed to the involvement of both the head of
Indonesian intelligence General A. M. Hendropriyono as well as the CIA:
“The agency and its
director, Gen. A. M. Hendropriyono, are well regarded by the United
States and other governments. But there are still senior intelligence
officers here who believe that the C.I.A. was behind the bombing.”22
In response to these
statements, the Bush Administration demanded that President Megawati
Sukarnoputri, publicly refute the involvement of the U.S in the attacks.
No official retraction was issued. Not only did President. Megawati
remained silent on this matter, she also accused the US of being:
“a superpower that forced the rest of the world to go along with it… We see how ambition to conquer other nations has led to a situation where there is no more peace unless the whole world is complying with the will of the one with the power and strength.” 23
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration, had used the Bali attacks to prop up its fear campaign:
“President Bush said Monday that he assumes al-Qaeda was responsible for the deadly bombing in Indonesia and that he is worried about fresh attacks on the United States.” 24
The news [regarding the
Bali attack] came as US intelligence officials warned that more attacks
like the Indonesian bombing can be expected in the next few months, in
Europe, the Far East or the US.”25
Cover-up
The links of JI to the
Indonesian intelligence agency were never raised in the official
Indonesian government investigation –which was guided behind the scenes
by Australian intelligence and the CIA.
Moreover, shortly after
the bombing, Australian Prime Minister John Howard “admitted that
Australian authorities were warned about possible attacks in Bali but
chose not to issue a warning.”26 Also In the wake of the bombings, the
Australian government chose to work with Indonesia’s Special Forces the
Kopassus, in the so-called “war on terrorism”.
Australia: “Useful Wave of Indignation”
Reminiscent of Operation
Northwoods, the Bali attack served to trigger “a useful wave of
indignation.”27 They contributed to swaying Australian public opinion in
favour of the US invasion of Iraq, while weakening the anti-war protest
movement. In the wake of the Bali attack, the Australian government
“officially” joined the US-led “war on terrorism.” It has not only used
the Bali bombings as a pretext to fully integrate the US-UK military
axis, it has also adopted drastic police measures including “ethnic
profiling” directed against its own citizens:
Prime Minister John Howard made the extraordinary declaration recently that he is prepared to make pre-emptive military strikes against
terrorists in neighbouring Asian countries planning to attack
Australia. Australian intelligence agencies also are very worried about the likelihood of an al-Qaeda attack using nuclear weapons.28
The Attacks on the Indian Parliament (December 2001)
The December 2001
terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament –which contributed to pushing
India and Pakistan to the brink of war– were allegedly conducted by two
Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba (“Army of the Pure”) and
Jaish-e-Muhammad (“Army of Mohammed”). The press reports acknowledged
the ties of both groups to Al Qaeda, without however mentioning that
they were directly supported by Pakistan=s ISI. The Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) confirms in this regard that:
“through its
Interservices Intelligence agency (ISI), Pakistan has provided funding,
arms, training facilities, and aid in crossing borders to Lashkar and
Jaish…Many were given ideological training in the same madrasas, or
Muslim seminaries, that taught the Taliban and foreign fighters in
Afghanistan. They received military training at camps in Afghanistan or
in villages in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Extremist groups [supported
by the ISI] have recently opened several new madrasas in Azad
Kashmir.”29
(Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002)
What the CFR fails to
mention is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and the
fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant
Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating
with the CIA. Ironically, confirmed by the writings of Zbigniew
Brzezinski (who happens to be a member of the CFR), the training of
these “foreign fighters” was an initiative of US foreign policy,
launched during the Carter Administration in 1979 at the outset of the
Soviet-Afghan war. Coinciding with the 1989 Geneva Peace Agreement and
the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ISI was instrumental in the
creation of the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM).30
The timely attack on the Indian Parliament, followed by the ethnic riots
in Gujarat in early 2002, were the culmination of a process initiated
in the 1980s, financed by drug money and abetted by Pakistan’s military
intelligence.
Dismantling the Propaganda Campaign, Building an Anti-War Consensus
We are at the juncture
of the most serious crisis in modern history, requiring an unprecedented
degree of solidarity, courage and commitment. America’s war, which
includes the “first strike” use of nuclear weapons, threatens the future
of humanity.
Much of the
justification for waging this war without borders rests on the
legitimacy of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorist programme. The
latter forms part of the propaganda campaign, which in turn is used to
sway the US population into an unconditional acceptance of the war
agenda.
In the US, and around
the world, the anti-war movement has gained in impetus. While millions
of people have joined hands in opposing the war, the Bush
Administration’s fear and disinformation campaign, relayed by the
corporate media, has served to uphold the shaky legitimacy of the Bush
administration.
At this critical
crossroads, the anti-war/pro-democracy movement must necessarily move to
a higher plane, which addresses the main functions of the
Administration’s propaganda machine. The main purpose of propaganda is
to sustain the legitimacy of the rulers and ensure that the rulers
remain in power.
Undermining the Bush Administration’s « Right to Rule»
In other words, the mobilization of antiwar sentiment in itself will not reverse the tide of war.
What is needed is to
consistently challenge the legitimacy of the main political and military
actors, reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying
criminalisation of foreign policy. Ultimately what is required is to
question and eventually undermine the Bush Administration’s «right to
rule».
Revealing the lies
behind the Bush Administration is the basis for destroying the
legitimacy of the main political and military actors.
Even if a majority of
the population is against the war, this in itself will not prevent the
war from occurring. The propaganda campaign’s objective is to sustain
the lies which support the legitimacy of the main political and military
actors, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Tenet, Armitage,
Rice, et al. As long as the Bush Cabinet is considered a «legitimate
government» in the eyes of the people and World public opinion, it will
carry out the Iraqi invasion plan, whether it has public support or not.
In other words, this
legitimacy must be challenged. Similarly in Britain, where a majority of
the population is against the US-led war, actions must be launched
which ultimately result in the downfall of the Blair Cabinet and the
withdrawal of Britain from the US-led military coalition.
A necessary condition
for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their
propaganda campaign. How best to achieve this objective? By fully
uncovering the lies behind the « war on terrorism» and revealing the
complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.
This is a big hoax, it’s the biggest lie in US history. The war pretext does not stick and the rulers should be removed.
Moreover, it is
important to show that « Enemy Number One » is fabricated. The terrorist
attacks are indeed real, but who is behind them? The covert operations
in support of terrorist organisations, including the history of Al
Qaeda’s links to the CIA since the Soviet Afghan war, must be fully
revealed because they relate directly to the wave of terrorist attacks
which have occurred since September 11, all of which are said to have
links to Al Qaeda.
To reverse the tide, the spreading of information at all levels, which counteracts the propaganda campaign is required.
The truth undermines and overshadows the lie.
And the truth is that the Bush administration is in fact supporting international terrorism as a pretext to wage war on Iraq.
Once this truth becomes fully
understood, the legitimacy of the rulers will collapse like a deck of
cards. This is what has to be achieved. But we can only achieve it, by
effectively counteracting the official propaganda campaign.
The momentum and success of the large
anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and around the world,
should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of
thousands of local level anti-war committees in neighbourhoods, work
places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately through
this network that the legitimacy of those who “rule in our name will be
challenged.
To shunt the Bush Administration’s war
plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must, in the months ahead
reach out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Canada and
around the world, to the millions of ordinary people who have been
misled on the causes and consequences of this war, not to mention the
implications of the Bush Administration’s Homeland Security legislation,
which essentially sets in place the building blocks of a police state.
This initiative requires the spreading
of information in an extensive grassroots network, with a view to
weakening and ultimately disabling the Bush Administration’s propaganda
machine.
When the lies – including those
concerning September 11 – are fully revealed and understood by
everybody, the legitimacy of the Bush Administration will be broken –
Big Brother will have no leg to stand on, that is, no more wars to feed
on. While this will not necessarily result in a fundamental and
significant “regime change” in the US, a new “anti-war consensus” will
have emerged, which will eventually pave the way for a broader struggle
against the New World Order and the American Empire’s quest for global
domination.
NOTES
1. Washington Post, 25 January 2003.
2. Ibid
3 Chicago Sun, 31 December 2002.
4 Reuters, 21 February 2003
5. See Ian Woods, Conspiracy of Silence, McKinney Vindicated, Global Outlook, No. 2, 2002.
6. Coleen Rowley, Memo To FBI Director Robert Mueller, quoted in Global Outlook, No. 3, 2003, p. 28.
7. The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002.
8. Insight on the News, 3 February 2003.
9. UPI, 19 December 2002.
10. New York Times, 6 January 2003.
11. Toronto Star, 5 January 2003.
12. The Scotsman, 8 January 2003.
13. UPI, 10 December 2002.
14. AFP, 3 January 2003.
15. See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003.
16.Operation
Northwoods, declassified top secret document sent by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html .
17. William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002.
18. See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
19.
See Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into
Militant Islamic Base, Congressional Press Release, US Congress, 16
January 1997,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
20. UPI, 6 January 2002.
21. International Crisis Group, Indonesia Backgrounder: How The Jemaah Islamiyah Terrorist Network Operates, http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=845 , 2003
22, Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez, More Attacks on Westerners Are Expected in Indonesia, New York Times, 25 November 2002
23. Quoted in Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez, op cit.
24. USA Today, 15 October 2002.
25. Business AM, 15 October 2002.
26. Christchurch Press, 22 November 2002), (Similar warnings were made by the CIA).
27. Operation Northwoods, op cit.
28. Insight on the News, 3 February 2003.
29. Council on Foreign Relations at:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html, Washington 2002.
30. See K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals, India Abroad, 3 November 1995.
ANNEX
Supporting evidence that
successive US administrations have supported Al Qaeda is summarized
below (references are provided to a selected bibliography):
- The “Islamic Brigades” are a creation of US foreign policy. In the post-Cold War era, the CIA continues to support and use Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda in its covert operations. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an “intelligence asset”.
- The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo and Macedonia.
- The evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan’s military intelligence, the Inter-services Intelligence (ISI). Amply documented, the ISI, allegedly played an undercover role in financing the 9/11 attacks. The ISI has a close working relationship with the CIA.
- Pakistan’s ISI has consistently supported various Islamic terrorist organizations, while also collaborating with the CIA.
- These various terrorist groups supported by Pakistan’s ISI operate with some degree of autonomy in relation to their covert sponsors, but ultimately they act in the way which serves US interests.
- The CIA keeps track of its “intelligence assets”. Amply documented, Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts are known. Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA. In other words, there were no “intelligence failures”! The 9-11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation.
Centre for Research on Globalization, Foreknowledge of 9/11 A Compilation of CRG articles and documents in support of a 9-11 Investigation, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html
No comments:
Post a Comment