The Yinon Plan, al-Qaeda and other plans

[zone]

please do not post on this thread if you are unable to simply process information.

please do not post here if you are not familiar with the subject.

.....

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”: Divide, Conquer and Rule the “New Middle East”

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, November 26, 2011

The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge of the region, know very little about the Arabs. What is unfolding amongst the Arab peoples is naturally a mixed package. Insurgency is part of this package as is opportunism. Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution.


The upheavals in the Arab World are not an Arab “awakening” either; such a term implies that the Arabs have always been sleeping while dictatorship and injustice has been surrounding them. In reality the Arab World, which is part of the broader Turko-Arabo-Iranic World, has been filled with frequent revolts that have been put down by the Arab dictators in coordination with countries like the United States, Britain, and France. It has been the interference of these powers that has always acted as a counter-balance to democracy and it will continue to do so.


Divide and Conquer: How the First “Arab Spring” was Manipulated


The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.


Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.


During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.


In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.


After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.


cont.....

 

[zone]

The Yinon Plan: Order from Chaos…

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

 

[zone]

Securing the Realm: Redefining the Arab World…

Although tweaked, the Yinon Plan is in motion and coming to life under the “Clean Break.” This is through a policy document written in 1996 by Richard Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel at the time. Perle was a former Pentagon under-secretary for Roland Reagan at the time and later a U.S. military advisor to George W. Bush Jr. and the White House. Aside from Perle, the rest of the members of the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ consisted of James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), and Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University). A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is the full name of this 1996 Israel policy paper.

In many regards, the U.S. is executing the objectives outlined in Tel Aviv’s 1996 policy paper to secure the “realm.” Moreover, the term “realm” implies the strategic mentality of the authors. A realm refers to either the territory ruled by a monarch or the territories that fall under a monarch’s reign, but are not physically under their control and have vassals running them. In this context, the word realm is being used to denote the Middle East as the kingdom of Tel Aviv. The fact that Perle, someone who has essentially been a career Pentagon official, helped author the Israeli paper also makes one ask if the conceptualized sovereign of the realm is either Israel, the United States, or both?

 

[zone]

Securing the Realm: The Israeli Blueprints to Destabilize Damascus

The 1996 Israeli document calls for “rolling back Syria” sometime around the year 2000 or afterward by pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing the Syrian Arab Republic with the help of Jordan and Turkey. This has respectively taken place in 2005 and 2011. The 1996 document states: “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [1]

As a first step towards creating an Israeli-dominated “New Middle East” and encircling Syria, the 1996 document calls for removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim “Central Iraq.” The authors write: “But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.” [2]

Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ also call for driving the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing Syria by using Lebanese opposition figures. The document states: “[Israel must divert] Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.” [3] This is what would happen in 2005 after the Hariri Assassination that helped launch the so-called “Cedar Revolution” and create the vehemently anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance controlled by the corrupt Said Hariri.

 

[zone]

The document also calls for Tel Aviv to “take [the] opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime.” [4] This clearly falls into the Israeli strategy of demonizing its opponents through using public relations (PR) campaigns. In 2009, Israeli news media openly admitted that Tel Aviv through its embassies and diplomatic missions had launched a global campaign to discredit the Iranian presidential elections before they even took place through a media campaign and organizing protests in front of Iranian embassies. [5]

The document also mentions something that resembles what is currently going on in Syria. It states: “Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.” [6] With the 2011 upheaval in Syria, the movement of insurgents and the smuggling of weapons through the Jordanian and Turkish borders has become a major problem for Damascus.

In this context, it is no surprise that Arial Sharon and Israel told Washington to attack Syria, Libya, and Iran after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [7] Finally, it is worth knowing that the Israeli document also advocated for pre-emptive war to shape Israel’s geo-strategic environment and to carve out the “New Middle East.” [8] This is a policy that the U.S. would also adopt in 2001.

 

[zone]

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means for balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

Preparing the Chessboard for the &#8220;Clash of Civilizations&#8221;: Divide, Conquer and Rule the &#8220;New Middle East&#8221; | Global Research < click


follow up if you care

 

[zone]

Israel, US Arm Al-Qaeda to Break Syria Into Pieces

by Kevin Barrett

An analyst says the United States and its Zionist masters are using al-Qaeda and other militant groups as a tool to break up Syria into pieces.

In the background of this the al-Nusra rebel Group in Syria, financed and supported with equipment and training by certain Western and Arab countries, has confessed to being a part of al-Qaeda. Syria is now urging the United Nations to classify the al-Nusra Front as an al-Qaeda-linked group. Syria has always maintained that the bulk of fighting and atrocities in Syria are being conducted by these extremist foreign entities funded by a coalition of enemy countries and that there is no civil war as Western media are leading their populations to believe.

Press TV has interviewed Dr. Kevin Barrett, author and political commentator, Madison about this issue. The following is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Should we expect the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) to respond positively to this Syrian request?

Barrett: I doubt it. Unfortunately, the United Nations and the leading powers that dominate the United Nations – of course, the US and its NATO allies – are very hypocritical in the way they deal with so-called al-Qaeda.

On the one hand they pretend that al-Qaeda is some sort of jihadist group that wants to destroy the United States, which is why it is OK to run all over the world murdering people with drone attacks. That’s all supposedly part of this emergency of global war against al-Qaeda.

And yet in Syria, which is the main place where we have people who are declaring themselves to be al-Qaeda actually fighting and conducting terrorist attacks, it seems that the big global institutions like the US, NATO and the UN are perfectly happy to not only allow this so-called al-Qaeda radical Islamic group to be wreaking havoc in Syria and destabilizing the Syrian government, but they are actually arming them.

So it will be really interesting to see how the West deals with this situation now that the al-Nusra Front is actually declaring itself to be a part of al-Qaeda.

Press TV: From day one the United States has said it only wants to support moderate groups such as the FSA (Free Syrian Army) according to it, which is moderate. How do you respond to such an argument?

Barrett: The fact of the matter is that the people who were doing most of the fighting in Syria are these people who are calling themselves linked to al-Qaeda.

And the weapons that are going to this so-called insurgent coalition are ending up mainly in the hands of these people.

And of course they’re not really fighting for a kind of a big anti-imperialist Islamic revolution, although a few of them actually believe that. This is all part of a destabilization operation aimed at Syria and the Middle East designed to break Syria up into pieces according to the ‘Yinon Plan’ (Zionist plan for the Middle East) that was drafted in Israel several decades ago.

So this idea that there are good moderate groups blowing up schools and mosques and so on in Syria and then there are also some bad groups, and that somehow the US is going to make sure that the weapons are only going to the nice moderate groups, is really a charade.

The hypocrisy of these Western powers is just getting way out of control.

Israel, US Arm Al-Qaeda to Break Syria Into Pieces | Veterans Today < click

 

[zone]

WAR IS PEACE

Formulating the Language of Perpetual War – From AUMF to “Associates of Associates.”

The semantic deception began shortly after September 11, 2001. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda,” Bush said in his State of the Union address, “but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated (emphasis added).”

The defining feature of this rhetoric is that it declares war on a particular method of violence used by disaffected states or groups. In fact, the phrase “war on terror” functions as what semiotics calls a floating signifier, a term devoid of any real meaning and thus open to any interpretation.

Terrorism has no shape, mass, or boundary; it is an abstraction, a tactic of asymmetrical warfare used to achieve political goals. Imagine if Franklin D. Roosevelt had declared “war on surprise attacks” in the wake Pearl Harbor, or if Lyndon Johnson had vowed to defeat guerilla warfare in Vietnam. This linguistic construct, therefore, ensures an open-ended conflict with no conceivable end.

Unperturbed by this paradox, British Prime Minister Tony Blair dutifully reiterated that, “the fact is we are at war with terrorism.” But the bombing sorties over Afghanistan had barely begun when the label morphed into “The Long War,” and then the “decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.” And now, the targeted killings program has been “extended to militant groups” with no connection to September 11, 2001 – that is, “associates of associates.” Removing the requirement for any linkage to al-Qaeda gives the government unfettered discretion to assassinate anyone without due process of law.

This phraseology makes it impossible to distinguish the dialectical concepts of war and peace. It makes peace synonymous with a state of warfare. Peace is defined in terms of a generational commitment to war and, in turn, war is framed as a necessity to keep the peace. In other words, War is Peace.

This is the lexicon of perpetual war, the vocabulary of a conflict that is never meant to end. “You can’t end the war,” as one official admits to the Washington Post, “if you keep adding people to the enemy who are not actually part of the original enemy.”

The Orwellian Paradigm: Killing You for Your Own Safety | Global Research < click

 

[zone]

Vol. 28 No. 6 · 23 March 2006
pages 3-12 | 13174 words

The Israel Lobby

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt


For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned … as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.

This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.

Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

cont...

 

[zone]

The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
cont....



....‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.

A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.



John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt · The Israel Lobby: the Israel Lobby · LRB 23 March 2006 < click



cont......some other day maybe.

eh

 

[zone]

To Bostonians, Patriots’ Day is synonymous with Marathon Monday.

But to anti-governments extremists, Patriots’ Day means something entirely different.

Patriots’ Day—a public holiday in Massachusetts and Maine held on the third Monday of April—marks the first shots fired in the Revolutionary War.

It was Patriots’ Day on April 19, 1993, when the Mount Carmel Center in Waco, Texas, went up in flames, allegedly on the orders of Branch Davidian leader David Koresh. At least 72 people died. At the time of the fire, the group was locked in a stand-off with federal agents.

It was two days after Patriots’ Day–April 19, 1995–when Timothy McVeigh detonated a bomb made of fertilizer, diesel fuel, and other chemicals outside a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

It was the day after Patriots’ Day–April 20, 1999–when teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School before committing suicide.

And it was on Patriot’s Day today, April 15, 2013, when two explosions near the finish line of the Boston Marathon left two dead and 86 injured.

...

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center tells NBC News that his organization has no evidence that any of the militia groups that SPLC monitors were involved with Boston, though he acknowledges that Patriots’ Day is an important day to militia groups.

Patriots’ Day: Waco, Oklahoma City, Columbine, and now Boston — MSNBC < click

 

[zone]

[video=youtube;YpZcELZSlRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YpZcELZSlRw#![/video]

Facebook Memorial Page Made BEFORE Boston Bombing

 

[zone]

Power of Nightmares and Unconstitutional
Expose War on Terror Manipulations


Two excellent documentaries, BBC's Power of Nightmares and Robert Greenwald's Unconstitutional, expose blatant manipulations in the war on terror. Power of Nightmares and Unconstitutional are among the best documentaries ever made using highly reliable sources to expose major government manipulations orchestrating war behind the scenes. Both are briefly described below with links given for free viewing online.

As further evidence, my own revealing experiences witnessing these manipulations firsthand while working as a language interpreter in secret meetings with Presidents G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and other top officials are described. For verification purposes, links to major media articles on my whistleblowing testimony are provided. Empowering suggestions are also given on what you can do to help build a brighter future for us all.


The Power of Nightmares

The revealing BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares digs deep into the roots of the war on terror, only to find that much of the widespread fear in the post-9/11 world has been fabricated by those in power for their own interests. The intrepid BBC team presents highly revealing interviews with top officials and experts in combating terrorism who raise serious questions about who is behind all of the fear-mongering. These experts and riveting footage also show how the media have been manipulated to support secret war and power agendas.

This eye-opening documentary shows that, especially after 9/11, fear has been used widely in the media to manipulate the public into giving up civil liberties and turning over power to elite groups with their own hidden agendas. The Power of Nightmares clearly demonstrates that the nightmare vision of a powerful, united terrorist organization waiting to strike our societies is largely an illusion. Wherever the BBC team looked for al-Qaeda, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the sleeper cells in America, they found that we are chasing a phantom enemy. For all citizens who care about the future of our world, this is a must-watch video.


View All Three Parts of the BBC Documentary Power of Nightmares

Each episode is one hour. Part 3 is the most revealing. A 22-minute summary is also available.

For 22 minutes of the best excerpts from this three-hour documentary, click here.

For a high quality version of the most revealing third part of Power of Nightmares, click here.

Click here to watch all three parts and read reviews of Power of Nightmares on archive.org.

For an excellent review of Power of Nightmares in the Los Angeles Times, click here.

For a full written transcript of each part of Power of Nightmares: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

For transcripts, audio and video downloads, and other excellent information on the series, click here.

To order all three parts of Power of Nightmares on one DVD, click here.

Another excellent, revealing BBC/Adam Curtis documentary, Century of the Self, delves into the history of mass propaganda and its power to shape public perception. Click here to purchase. Click here to watch it free.

Power of Nightmares < click

 

[zone]

Unconstitutional by Robert Greenwald

A second eye-opening documentary available online for free viewing is Unconstitutional. In this most excellent work, interviews with ranking members of Congress, top legal experts, and even a former CIA chief describe many insidious efforts to take away freedoms guaranteed under the constitution for over 200 years.

Compelling video footage shows U.S. citizens, from law-abiding store clerks to a U.S. Olympian, who have been the victims of unconstitutional policies established under the Patriot Act. Members of Congress describe the replacement of the previously agreed upon Patriot Act by another version quietly slipped into its place just hours before the final vote in Congress, leaving no one time to read the many devastating changes inserted at the last minute.

Call your friends together to watch this engaging film, and to join in the growing movement to uphold democracy and the U.S. Constitution.

Unconstitutional: Purchase or view free at Unconstitutional: Loss of Civil Liberties

Power of Nightmares < click

 

[zone]

Boston runners were warned: Squamish man

Heiliger, 'stunned' by explosions, was back at hotel when marathon blasts occurred

APRIL 15, 2013

BEN LYPKA
[email protected]

Runners getting set to take part in the Boston Marathon were warned beforehand that they were going to die, said a Squamish resident who took part in the race.

Three people were killed and more than 140 were injured when two bombs exploded near the finish line of the famed 42.2-kilometre running event on Monday (April 15).

Mike Heiliger, 59, said a woman holding several bags was telling runners who were picking up their pre-race packages in downtown Boston on Saturday (April 13) that they were going to die if they participated in the event.

Boston runners were warned: Squamish man | Local News | Squamish Chief, Squamish, BC < click

 

[zone]

An Inconvenient Truth: Finally, proof that the United States has lied in the drone wars

CIA drone strikes have killed between 3,000 and 4,000 people in Pakistan and Yemen.

Print By Foreign Policy
Follow on Twitter
on April 11, 2013 at 11:08 AM, updated April 11, 2013 at 11:09 AM

By Micah Zenko, Foreign Policy

It turns out that the Obama administration has not been honest about who the CIA has been targeting with drones in Pakistan. Jonathan Landay, national security reporter at McClatchy Newspapers, has provided the first analysis of drone-strike victims that is based upon internal, top-secret U.S. intelligence reports. It is the most important reporting on U.S. drone strikes to date because Landay, using U.S. government assessments, plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made by President Obama and his senior aides -- that targeted killings are limited only to officials, members, and affiliates of al Qaeda who pose an imminent threat of attack on the U.S. homeland -- is false.

Senior officials and agencies have emphasized this point over and over because it is essential to the legal foundations on which the strikes are ultimately based: the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force and the U.N. Charter's right to self-defense. A Department of Justice white paper said that the United States can target a "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force" who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." Attorney General Eric Holder said the administration targets "specific senior operational leaders of al-Qaeda and associated forces," and Harold Koh, the senior State Department legal adviser dubbed them "high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks." Obama said during a Google+ Hangout in January 2012: "These strikes have been in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] and going after al-Qaeda suspects." Finally, Obama claimed in September: "Our goal has been to focus on al Qaeda and to focus narrowly on those who would pose an imminent threat to the United States of America."

As the Obama administration unveils its promised and overdue targeted-killing reforms over the next few months, citizens, policymakers, and the media should keep in mind this disconnect between who the United States claimed it was killing and who it was actually killing.

An Inconvenient Truth: Finally, proof that the United States has lied in the drone wars | syracuse.com < click

 

[zone]

"Marathon as Dry-Run Disaster"

Op-Ed, Boston Globe

April 21, 2008

Author: Arnold Bogis, Former Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs


TODAY thousands of runners and hundreds of thousands of spectators are unwittingly taking part in a planned disaster. Yet, they are not just safe from harm (except for the variety brought on by running 26.2 miles), they also are participants in an event that will make the citizens of Greater Boston safer in case of a natural catastrophe or terrorist attack.

Primary responsibility for the health and well-being of both runners and spectators in Boston rests with Boston Emergency Medical Service (BEMS), along with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Emergency Management Agency. According to BEMS chief Richard Serino, his department considers events like the marathon and the Fourth of July celebration as "planned disasters" - safe, controlled environments that present "an opportunity to test some things you would never want to test in a real disaster."

Although the principal goal during such events remains the safety of everyone involved, organizers have realized that these annual gatherings of hundreds of thousands of people present the perfect opportunity to evaluate new technologies, exercise disaster plans, and build vital relationships between public safety agencies and the private sector.

For example, a tracking system that utilizes barcodes and hand scanners to log a patient's condition and location has been tested during past races. During a real disaster, this technology could provide authorities quick access to the location and condition of casualties, information that currently takes hours, if not days, for friends and families of the injured to ascertain.

This year, as always, even more important than testing new technologies is the development of relationships between various public safety and medical communities, as well as with the private sector. Homeland security specialists often talk about the importance of not waiting to "exchange business cards at the scene of a disaster." This means that counterparts from different agencies meet each other before a disaster thrusts them together for the first time.

Treating these large, annual events as opportunities to test the disaster response system accomplishes exactly that. Personnel from public safety and health departments meet regularly during the year to plan these events. New officials will quickly meet their counterparts in other agencies. As described in a recent Globe story about how close the 2007 race came to being cancelled due to weather, a unified command is established where all the relevant organizations can monitor the event and react together if something goes wrong.

This cooperation extends beyond Boston. Thousands of runners pass through eight different towns on their way to the finish line. Coordinating medical care and security for the runners and spectators strengthens connections that will be relied upon when Boston requires mutual aid to deal with a crisis such as a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

To successfully manage the marathon, BEMS and other public safety agencies must have relationships not just with the Boston Athletic Association, which organizes the race, but also with a diverse set of private organizations. These include, but are not limited to, private ambulance services that back up BEMS, and hotels and other businesses along the route that help make the behind-the-scenes operation of the marathon run smoothly. When a real disaster strikes, these contacts can be called upon to lend needed supplies and other assistance.

This type of innovation is not limited to Massachusetts. In Washington,D.C., the city's evacuation plan is tested during the mass exodus of people after the fireworks finale at the Fourth of July festivities. California has developed medical surge plans to be used after catastrophes such as an earthquake in San Francisco or a nuclear terrorist attack in Los Angeles. The New York Police Department has created robust intelligence and counter-terrorism divisions to protect its residents.

Massachusetts is better prepared for a real disaster because every Patriot's Day and Fourth of July is treated as a "disaster." Instead of constant warnings about the inevitability of another terrorist attack or natural catastrophe, the public would be better served if this type of local homeland security innovation were promoted and adopted elsewhere.

Arnold Bogis is a research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Marathon as Dry-Run Disaster - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs < click

 

[Drett]

Wow, I think I'll print this and read it on the train.

 

[zone]

The FBI Fosters, Funds and Equips American Terrorists

video

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

by James Corbett
GRTV.ca
April 17, 2013

People around the world watched in horror this week as explosions rocked the finish line of the Boston Marathon, turning a day of sportsmanship and celebration into one of shock, grief and outrage. As with all such events, the desire to discover who was behind this cowardly act has driven many into a speculative frenzy. And, in a sad reminder of the indoctrination that the Western world has been under for over a decade now in the mythical “war of terror,” it did not take long at all before the collective finger of the mob was pointed squarely in the direction of Muslim terrorists.

Within hours of the blast, fear spread throughout the international Muslim community that the bombing would be connected to an Islamist extremist. A Libyan Twitter user touched a nerve—and received thousands of retweets and worldwide media coverage—by tweeting “Please don’t be a ‘Muslim.’” The backlash began shortly thereafter, with the New York Post falsely implying that a Saudi national was being questioned for his possible role in the attack. The next day, a plane departing Boston Logan Airport returned to the gate and two passengers were forcibly removed because they had been overheard speaking Arabic before takeoff.

As data continues to pour in regarding the bombing and who may be behind it, it is instructive to take a moment to step back and consider this knee-jerk tendency to conclude that this is the work of Islamic radicals. In the minds of millions of Americans, bombs targeting innocents on US soil are inextricably linked with the image of the bearded, turban-wearing boogeyman that has become the shorthand for evil in this age of terror.

This association is not only incorrect, it is dangerously incorrect because it signally fails to identify the one unifying thread between all of the recent terror plots in the US. Lurking behind the shadowy armies of would-be jihadis in the popular imagination is the sober reality that every single major terror bust in the United States since 9/11 has sourced back to the same group, a single entity that has in every single case funded, equipped and even incited the would-be terrorists into action: the FBI.

The Corbett Report | The FBI Fosters, Funds and Equips American Terrorists < click

 

[zone]

Israeli police head to US to aid in Boston Marathon bombing investigation
Get short URL Published time: April 17, 2013 16:11

The investigation into Monday’s deadly bombing at the Boston Marathon has officially gone international: law enforcement officials from Israel have been sent to the United States to assist in the probe.

Israel Police Chief Yohanan Danino says he has dispatched officials to Boston, Massachusetts, where they will meet with Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and other authorities, the Times of Israel Reports.

Citing an earlier report published by the newspaper Maariv, Times of Israel writes that Danino has dispatched police officers to participate in discussions that “will center on the Boston Marathon bombings and deepening professional cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of both countries.”

The paper reports that Israeli law enforcement planned the trip before the deadly pair of bombings on Monday that has so far claimed three lives, but the discussions will now shift focus in order to see how help from abroad can expand the investigation.

In an address made Tuesday, Israel President Shimon Peres said that tragedies such as this week’s incident in Boston, sadly, bring people together from across the world.

“When it comes to events like this, all of us are one family. We feel a part of the people who paid such a high price. God bless them,” Peres said. “Today the real problem is terror, and terror is not an extension of policy: Their policy is terror, their policy is to threaten. Terrorists divide people, they kill innocent people.”

Israeli police head to US to aid in Boston Marathon bombing investigation — RT USA < click