Archive | September 27th, 2012

UN Human Rights Rapporteur Calls on US to End the CIA’s Drone War in Pakistan

Global Research
In a surprising, yet positive, statement, the UN Rapporteur for Human Rights and Counter-terrorism, Ben Emmerson, called on the US to answer questions regarding the secrecy of its drone operations. To many, the statement came as a shock as such a demand was not made on the international level in the past from the US, and coming as it did from the UN, a body supposedly favoring the US, surprised many. Emmerson has been vocal on questioning the legality of the drones and the global outrage resulting from the Predator strikes.Commenting on the issue, 20th August, he said:
“We can’t make a decision on whether it is lawful or unlawful if we do not have the data. If they (the drone technology users) do not establish a mechanism (of internal investigation), it will be my recommendation that the UN should put the mechanisms in place through the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and the Office of the High Commissioner.”
Soon after taking over, Emmerson made sure that highlighting the illegal use of drones and its drastic consequences were among his top priorities. He is also in the process of preparing a comprehensive report for the next session of the UN Human Rights Council in March, where he will report on the spike in the use of drone technology by the Obama administration.

Primarily known as an accomplished lawyer in the United Kingdom, Emmerson is also working for the promotion of fair trials and compensation for innocent war victims. He is also trying to change the international narrative on terrorism and terrorists, where every war prisoner is tagged as a terrorist, with most of them not having the opportunity of a fair trial. But more importantly, his stance on drone attacks, and especially their rise in Pakistan, has started a serious debate in international circles over the morality and legality of the issue.

The recent pace of CIA-operated drone strikes increased in the month of August in Waziristan – Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) – Pakistan. In total, seven drone attacks took place in a month, the highest number in a single month for the current year. The first use of drone attacks was reported in a article in New York Times in 2008, and since then their use has been carried on unabated. A total of 32 drone strikes have hit FATA in 2012. To date, close to 340 drone strikes have killed more than 800 civilians and have caused approximately 3,300 casualties, which, for reasons of media prohibitions in the region, are also dubious as to whether the victims were militants or civilians.

In this context, blasting the drone programme, Mr. Emmerson said:

“Thousands of innocent people, including women and children, have been murdered in these indiscriminate attacks.”

In March, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Navi Pillay, also rejected drone use, as an instrument of human rights violations, stating:

“I see the indiscriminate killings and injuries of civilians in any circumstances as human rights violations.”

Not only do the drones violate a country’s sovereignty but, also, most of the times they result in killing innocent civilians, mostly women and children. Hundreds of attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia have been carried out by the US, keeping in mind the fact that the aforementioned are independent states.

A common trend that is read, heard and witnessed by viewers around the world is that most Western media report or tag casualties in all these strikes as “suspected militants” with no confirmation of the victims’ identities. In Emmerson’s view, this phenomena leads to a basic rights violation where most of the strikes result in the deaths of innocent people.

A comprehensive report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) suggests that the USA owns the highest number of drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s). Among all states in possession of drone technology, the USA tops the chart by a clear margin, boasting a fleet of 678 UAV’s, with 18 different types and 14 of them classified as “heavy”. A big chunk of this fleet consists of the Predator UAV’s that are primarily used for drone strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen.

Emmerson is of the view that demands for fair investigation into the issue by Russia, China and Pakistan helped him in working closely with Christof Heyns, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execution, to formulate an effective proposals on the issue. A man like Emmerson brings hope to the anti-war majority in the world. By locking horns with states such as the USA, he is providing a path for peace-loving states and a hope for an end to violent drone warfare. One can only hope that till the implementation of an effective transparent investigation mechanism, the issue remains on the top of the agenda at the UN. This may also be an opportunity for the UN to revive the iternational trust that it is losing slowly and gradually.

Mounting international pressure, Pakistan’s recent stance and protest lodged against the attacks, and Emmerson’s resolve can help end the drone war. And his words, uttered during an interview, exactly suggest what he aims for in his tenure:

“I am not suggesting in the duration of my mandate that I will change the world but I do have an opportunity to change the dialogue.”

The writer works as a research analyst, programme consultant and content editor at the Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad, along with pursuing his Research Studies in Public Policy from Germany. He also own a news blog by the name of The Faultlines and can be reached at









Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on UN Human Rights Rapporteur Calls on US to End the CIA’s Drone War in Pakistan

Pakistan. CIA Annihilation From The Air: Drone Warfare’s Invisible Dead


After nine months of research and more than 130 interviews, in what is being called one of the most exhaustive attempts by academics to evaluate Washington’s drone wars, the Stanford and New York universities’ law schools have finally put out a damning report.

According to the new study, just one in fifty victims of the CIA programme of “targeted” drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas are known militants, while between 2,562 and 3,325 people were killed in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September this year – of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians, including 176 children.

Based on these and other figures, the report calls the strikes politically counterproductive and damaging, concluding they have killed innocent civilians, ruined the local economy, undermined respect for international law and left the people of the tribal areas psychologically battered, constantly living under the daily threat of annihilation from the air.

The report especially focuses on children becoming collateral damage of strikes, and comes down particularly hard on the common tactic of the “double-tap” strike where initial strikes are followed up by further missiles, killing an even greater number of civilians, and putting fear into the hearts of rescuers who often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.

There is no doubt that this meticulous report will go a long way in challenging the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere. Indeed, an important aspect it highlights is precisely how difficult is it to obtain accurate data on casualties given US efforts to shield the drone programme from democratic accountability, and its failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in targeted killings or provide details about the programme.

The lack of transparency is compounded by the fact that the areas targeted by drones are under military and militant control, making access difficult for local as well as foreign journalists and thus allowing civilians killed by drones to become ‘invisible dead.’

But after the release of this damning report, will anything change? Will the Obama administration relent in carrying out this controversial campaign of death? Many hope that it may just – especially if the report has an impact on the American public.

Coming from American lawyers rather than Pakistani human rights groups, the criticism is likely to resonate a lot more in US domestic debates over the legality of drone warfare.

As Reprieve’s director, Clive Stafford Smith, said: “George Bush wanted to create a global ‘war on terror’ without borders, but it has taken Obama’s drone war to achieve his dream.” But Obama’s dream seems to have become Pakistan’s nightmare and it may just be time for the US to wake up from its delusion once and for all.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Pakistan. CIA Annihilation From The Air: Drone Warfare’s Invisible Dead

Drone Warfare: The Brutal Reality

Global Research

A new study from Stanford University and New York University shows that the highly spoken of drone warfare, praised by both military and political officials, is pure fantasy:

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.[1]

This narrative is false. (Stanford/NYU, Living Under Drones.)

U.S. drones have been killing countless innocent civilians in Pakistan and elsewhere. Those killings are rarely acknowledged by the U.S. government, if only to make tasteless jokes. We may recall President Obama making fun of the efficient killing machine two years ago:

“The Jonas Brothers are here; they’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans. But boys, don’t get any ideas. I have two words for you, ‘predator drones.’ You will never see it coming.” (Barack Obama at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, May 1, 2010. Click on the link to view the video)

Reporting on the study, the The News International (Pakistan} wrote the following:

Just one in fifty victims of the CIA programme of “targeted” drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas are known militants, while between 2,562 and 3,325 people were killed in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September this year – of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians, including 176 children. (The News International (Pakistan), Pakistan. CIA Annihilation From The Air: Drone Warfare’s Invisible Dead, September 26, 2012.)

The Stanford/NYU study states further:

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”[2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan.

The report concludes that:

  • US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury.
  • publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best.
  • current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents.

What we are dealing with is a process of “remote killing” of civilians.

We bring to the attention of our readers a selection of Global Research articles regarding drone warfare.

Posted in USAComments Off on Drone Warfare: The Brutal Reality

The Powerplays behind “The Innocence of Muslims”

by Thierry Meyssan

Israel’s big ploy moves ahead in the shadow of the demonstrations and reactions to the film “The Innocence of Muslims.” However, the appearance of Hezbollah on the scene has reversed the situation, which could prompt Tel Aviv to call off the operation.

JPEG - 22.7 kb

The international reactions to the film by “Sam Bacile” are more and more incomprehensible if taken at face value, ignoring who is behind it and what their objectives are.

This provocation designed to instigate a clash of civilizations is very different from previous ones. It’s goal is not to stigmatize Islam vis-à-vis Western populations to elicit hatred toward the Muslims but is rather directed at Muslims to insult them and thereby incite hatred toward Westerners. This is not “Islamophobia”; it is “Islam-bashing” and its objective is to arouse anger among Muslims and direct that anger toward specific targets: those who in the U.S. or among their allies wish to interrupt the cycles of wars begun on September 11, 2001.

No one knows if the film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” really exists in full-length form. So far, only a thirteen-minute clip has emerged, the most offensive parts of which were dubbed over the soundtrack at a later date. First placed on YouTube, the video had no impact until it was diffused in Arabic by the Salafist television station, Al-Nas. Salafist groups then reacted violently but instead of attacking the station or its Saudi sponsors, they turned their ire on American diplomatic representatives.

The State Department was warned on September 9—two days before the release of the film by the Salafist television station—that several of its embassies would be attacked on the 11th. Yet this alert was not taken seriously and diplomatic personnel were not informed of the threat. The State Department had been expecting anti-American demonstrations to take place to mark the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

It has since been established that behind the Benghazi mob, a commando was already prepared to attack the Consulate and then the fortified villa which was to be used as a safehouse in the case of a serious crisis.

The target of the operation was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. This specialist in Near-Eastern Affairs was known both for his American imperialist views but also his anti-Zionist ones. This was confirmed by the special Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat as he deplored the death of a diplomat who had done much to comprehend the point of view of the Palestinian people and in turn make that viewpoint understood in Washington.

A second target was to be designated to punish France for having aligned herself with U.S. positions. Paris, in fact, refuses to let itself be dragged into a war against Iran and also refuses to get itself more deeply enmeshed in the Syrian quagmire. Consequently, a whole new provocation was launched, employing a satirical magazine that has for years relayed the Neo-conservative viewpoint within the French Left. Anticipating the consequences, France immediately suspended activity at twenty of its embassies and deployed heavy security around them.

At home, the French government presented itself as the guarantor of the freedom of expression. Accordingly, it defends the right of the enemies of Islam to indulge in blasphemous caricatures. But then, openly contradicting itself, the same government announced a prohibition of any demonstration hostile to the film or the magazine, thus denying freedom of expression to the defenders of Islam.

In the French tradition, freedom of expression is considered a foundational condition of democracy. It therefore is accompanied with prohibitions against libel and defamation seen as threatening to democratic debate. The main characteristic of “Innocence” is that it has no connection to historical reality and presents no critique of Islam. It is entirely composed of defamatory scenes. However, libel is not a human right.

Returning to the realm of geopolitics, “The Innocence of Muslims” is reminiscent of the operation which unfolded around the publication of The Satanic Verses. It was 1988 and Iran had just triumphed over Iraq thanks to massive support from the West. In few years, the Imam Khomeini had transformed a colonized population into a nation of warriors. He drew from his religion the strength that allowed him to transform the country and to defeat the enemy. In order to fracture this dangerous Islamic Republic, MI6 commissioned a work from the British writer, Salman Rushdie. Rouhoullah Khomeini immediately issued a religious decree condemning him to death. The campaign halted immediately and the fatwa though maintained, was not carried out.

On this occasion, Teheran should have reacted just as promptly. But Iran was in a corner; in condemning the film it would be playing the game of those pressuring Washington to go to war against Iran. The tactical solution emerged from the intervention by new protagonists. At the outset, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the film by affirming that the enemy was Zionism. Then, at a later stage, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah positioned himself at the head of the movement. In Beirut, during an impassioned speech and facing a galvanized audience, he forced those spreading the insults to face up to their responsibilities.

Hezbollah’s eruption onto the scene modifies the equation dramatically. We are witnessing a shift from the atrocies committed by small-scale disorganized Salafist groups, easily manipulated by Israel, to a warning issued by an extensive, highly-structured organization, operating with combat-ready cells within numerous countries. This time, it is Tel-Aviv who’s in a trap; it has lost control of a protest movement that could at any moment turn against Israel.

For its part, the Obama Administration to extricate itself from the situation issued multiple soothing declarations for the benefit of Muslims but displayed a total lack or solidarity with France. Instead, it condemned the contradictions of French policy, hoping to push in the direction of Paris the smoking powder keg before it explodes in its own face.

Whatever the case, Benjamin Netanyahu is not letting up on the pressure, demanding that Barack Obama trace “a red line” at the militarized nuclear ambitions he attributes to Iran and demanding that the U.S. president go to war when he deems the Iranians will have crossed it.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on The Powerplays behind “The Innocence of Muslims”

How the US helps al-Qaida


US foreign policy brings terrorism to American shores, costs taxpayers billions of dollars and destroys cherished liberties

By Matthew Harwood

Ever since 9/11, American society has had the self-destructive tendency of primarily seeing jihadist terrorists as monsters intent on devouring our social experiment in human liberty and popular rule. Rather than listen to what motivates the individual terrorists that have attacked the United States here and abroad, Americans only hear a convenient narrative left over from the Bush years: “They hate our freedoms.” This belief, however, is nothing more than a collective delusion that continually feeds a foreign policy destructive of our homeland security. Nothing proves this more than examining the motivations of three men who have punctured Americans’ sense of security over the past year.

In September, federal authorities arrested 25-year-old Najibullah Zazi who was planning to suicide bomb the New York subway system. The Afghan immigrant recently pled guilty of conspiring to murder innocent commuters. According to the New York Times, Zazi rationalised his motive to kill innocents this way: “I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the United States military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan by sacrificing my soul for the sake of saving other souls.”

A little more than two months later, Americans were shocked when Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim army psychiatrist, murdered 13 people – 12 service members and one civilian – at the military base at Fort Hood, Texas. Much like Zazi, Hasan’s motivation to massacre his fellow comrades seems to have arisen from his horror at US foreign policy, a policy he was entrusted to carry out. Two years before his crime, Hasan lectured colleagues that American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were an assault on Islam. “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,” Hasan said in a self-fulfilling PowerPoint presentation. And while Hasan didn’t blow himself up at Fort Hood, there seems little doubt that he never intended to walk away from his attack. And he didn’t, an officer’s bullet left him paralysed.

Finally on Christmas Day, 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a rich kid from Nigeria, stashed powdered explosives in his underwear and attempted to blow up Northwest Flight 253 on its way to Detroit. Fortunately he failed. After his botched attack, National Public Radio investigated why the son of a prominent banker would choose the path of a suicide bomber. One reason, it seems, was the treatment of Muslim detainees at Gitmo. NPR’s West African correspondent Ofeibea Quist-Arcton said the anger motivating Abdulmutallab was unique in its violence but not in its sentiment. “I have to say that a lot of people I spoke to in northern Nigeria, if it wasn’t specifically Guantánamo, were also talking about the fact of US foreign policy, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Palestinian-Israeli crisis, how they felt so personally that the US was attacking not only Muslims, as they felt, but even Nigerian Muslims.”

It’s time for the American people to realise that jihadist suicidal terrorism isn’t primarily the product of religious fanaticism, but a logical response to US imperialism. “The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland,” Robert Papes, the pre-eminent US expert on suicidal terrorists, told The American Conservative Magazine in 2005. Religion, according to the author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, only factors into suicide terrorism when the occupying power is of another confession. Say hello to the US-led invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The tragedy of it all is that Osama bin Laden bet the United States would take his bait and lash out in revenge and hubris. By invading and occupying predominantly Muslim countries, undermining the rule of law through preventative detention and torture, and delivering death by drone, the United States proved Bin Laden’s narrative of Christian crusaders and holy war. This accomplished two necessary goals for al-Qaida: it manufactured more jihadists and it economically and militarily weakened history’s greatest hegemon.

This positive-feedback cycle of imperialism and jihadism leaves Americans poorer, less secure, and more afraid. But rather than dig for the root, Americans continue to address the sprouts. Zazi’s plot draws Congressional calls for more mass transit security spending. Hasan’s massacre leads the Pentagon to develop policies to identify and address violent extremism (pdf). Abdulmutallab’s underwear bomb leads to rapid deployment of full body scanners critics call “virtual strip searches”.

Almost nine years after 9/11, the United States has spent approximately a trillion dollars to fight this global “war on terrorism” as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of escalating expenditures on homeland security. In return, American taxpayers continue to jeopardise their economic future for an imperium few benefit from and which brings the war to American shores while simultaneously eating up cherished liberties.

The United States, however, has an easy and moral way to rip out the root and make itself more secure and fiscally sound in the process. It should immediately begin to responsibly draw down its empire by withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, shuttering its worldwide archipelago of military installations, and bringing home its service members. This will help dampen the allure of the jihadist narrative the likes of Abdulmutallab, Hasan, and Zazi latched onto. These men weren’t born jihadists, they were made jihadists. The tragic irony is that the United States helped al-Qaida to do it.

And because of that, we spend evermore on security but continue to feel less and less safe.

Posted in USAComments Off on How the US helps al-Qaida

Systemic Destabilization as “A Strategy of Tension”: 9/11, the JFK Assassination, and the Oklahoma City Bombing

Global Research

Introduction: Structural Deep Events and the Strategy of Tension in Italy

From an American standpoint, it is easy to see clearly how Italian history was systematically destabilized in the second half of the 20th century, by a series of what I call structural deep events. I have defined these as “events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which violate the … social structure, have a major impact on … society, repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, and in many cases proceed from an unknown dark force.”2

The examples in Italy, well known to Italians, include the Piazza Fontana bombing of 1969, the Piazza della Loggia bombing of 1974, and the Bologna railway bombing of 1980.

These bombings, in which over one hundred civilians were killed and many more wounded, were attributed at the time to marginal left-wing elements of society. However, thanks chiefly to a series of investigations and judicial proceedings, it is now clearly established that the bombings were the work of right-wing elements in collusion with Italian military intelligence, as part of an on-going “strategy of tension” to discredit the Italian left, encourage support for a corrupt status quo, and perhaps move beyond democracy altogether.3 As one of the conspirators, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, later stated, “The December 1969 explosion was supposed to be the detonator which would have convinced the political and military authorities to declare a state of emergency.”4

Vinciguerra also revealed that he and others had also been members of a paramilitary “stay-behind” network originally organized at the end of World War II by the CIA and NATO as “Operation Gladio.”

In 1984, questioned by judges about the 1980 Bologna station bombing, Vinciguerra said: “With the massacre of Peteano, and with all those that have followed, the knowledge should by now be clear that there existed a real live structure, occult and hidden, with the capacity of giving a strategic direction to the outrages…[it] lies within the state itself…There exists in Italy a secret force parallel to the armed forces, composed of civilians and military men, in an anti-Soviet capacity that is, to organise a resistance on Italian soil against a Russian army…A secret organisation, a super-organisation with a network of communications, arms and explosives, and men trained to use them…A super-organisation which, lacking a Soviet military invasion which might not happen, took up the task, on Nato’s behalf, of preventing a slip to the left in the political balance of the country. This they did, with the assistance of the official secret services and the political and military forces.5

Gladio connections to sustained false-flag violence, again involving NATO and the CIA, were subsequently revealed in other countries, notably Belgium and Turkey.6

The original purpose of Gladio was to consolidate resistance in the event of a Soviet takeover. But many of the senior Italians involved in the bombings implicated the CIA and NATO in them as well:

General Vito Miceli, the Italian head of military intelligence, after his arrest in 1974 on a charge of conspiring to overthrow the government, testified “that the incriminated organization, … was formed under a secret agreement with the United States and within the framework of NATO.” Former Italian defense minister Paulo Taviani told Magistrate Casson during a 1990 investigation “that during his time in office (1955-58), the Italian secret services were bossed and financed by ‘the boys in Via Veneto’—i.e. the CIA agents in the U.S. Embassy in the heart of Rome.” In 2000 “an Italian secret service general [Giandelio Maletti] said . . . that the CIA gave its tacit approval to a series of bombings in Italy in the 1970s to sow instability and keep communists from taking power. . . . ‘The CIA wanted, through the birth of an extreme nationalism and the contribution of the far right, particularly Ordine Nuovo, to stop (Italy) sliding to the left,’ he said.”7

Another conspirator, Carlo Digilio, “described how he passed on details of planned bomb attacks to his CIA contact, Captain David Carret, who had told him that the bombing campaign was part of a US plan to create a state of emergency.”8 Daniele Ganser, in his important book Nato’s Secret Armies, has endorsed a Spanish report that in 1990 NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner (a German politician and diplomat) secretly confirmed that NATO’s headquarters, SHAPE, was indeed responsible:

The Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), directing organ of NATO’s military apparatus, coordinated the actions of Gladio, according to the revelations of Gladio Secretary-General Manfred Wörner during a reunion with the NATO ambassadors of the 16 allied nations.9

Extrapolating from such testimony, Ola Tunander has compared the strategy of tension in Italy, with its false-flag bombing attacks, to “what the Turkish military elite might describe as the correction of the course of democracy by the ‘deep state’ [a Turkish term].”10

Strategy of Tension

But I believe it would be too simplistic an analysis to blame the Italian strategy of tension exclusively on Vinciguerra’s “super-organisation which… took up the task [of false-flag bombings], on Nato’s behalf.” There appear to have been other directing forces besides NATO and those elements Vinciguerra was aware of through Italian military intelligence (the SID, later SISMI). It is important to recall that the Italian trials of those convicted for the 1980 Bologna bombing implicated not only Vinciguerra, SISMI, and Gladio, but also elements of the Italian mafia (the Banda della Magliana) and the Italian Masonic Lodge Propaganda-Due (P-2), with links to criminal bankers and the Vatican.11

In short, if we suggest that something like the Turkish deep state was involved in the Italian strategy of tension, this does not suggest a solution to the Italian mystery, so much as a zone, or interlocking network, for further research.

Has a Strategy of Tension Been Exercised in America?

Gladio connections to sustained false-flag violence, again involving NATO and the CIA, were subsequently established in other countries, notably Belgium and Turkey.12 I wish to propose that America, as well as Europe, has also suffered from a similar series of false-flag structural deep events, including bombings, that have, in conformity with the same strategy of tension, systematically moved America into its current condition, a state of emergency.

Nato headquarters

Among the false flag structural deep events I wish to consider today are

The John F. Kennedy assassination of 1963, or 11/22, which led to the CIA’s Operation Chaos against the anti-Vietnam War movement. (11/22 was clearly a deep event: many documents in the area of Lee Harvey Oswald’s relations to CIA operations are still being withheld, despite statutory and court orders to release them.13

The Robert Kennedy assassination of 1968, followed immediately by emergency legislation which led to state-sponsored violence at the 1968 Democratic Party Convention.

The 1993 first World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which led to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

9/11 and the subsequent false flag anthrax attacks of 2001, which led to the imposition of Continuity of Government (COG) measures, the Patriot Act, and the proclamation, on September 14, 2001, of a State of Emergency which remains in effect. (In September 2012 it was once again renewed for another year).14

These structural deep events have had a common and cumulative result: the erosion of public or constitutional power, and its progressive replacement by unconstrained repressive force. I have argued elsewhere that

1) as in Italy, all of these events were blamed on marginal left-wing elements, but in fact involved elements inside America’s covert intelligence agencies, along with their shadowy underworld connections.

2) some of these structural deep events bore a relationship to the ongoing secret planning – known in the Pentagon as the Doomsday Project – for Continuity of Government (or COG) in an emergency, which entailed its own secret communications network, and arrangements for what (in the Oliver North Hearings) was called “suspension of the American Constitution.”

3) in every case, the official response to the deep event was a set of new repressive measures, usually in the form of legislation.

4) cumulatively, these events suggest the on-going presence in America of what I have called a “dark force” or “deep state,” analogous to what Vinciguerra described in Italy as a “secret force…occult and hidden, with the capacity of giving a strategic direction to the [successive] outrages.”15

The Oklahoma City Bombing (4/19) and 9/11

Recently I viewed for a film, “A Noble Lie,” about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.16 This gave me a chance, for the first time, to test these hypotheses against the case of Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, or what I shall call 4/19. More than I could have anticipated, 4/19 fit into and strengthened this analysis.

Oklahoma City Bombing

The film “A Noble Lie,” itself points to some striking similarities between the events of 1995 and of 2001. The most obvious is the alleged destruction of a steel-reinforced building by external forces (a truck bomb in the case of the Murrah Building in 1995, flying debris in the case of Building Seven in 2001). Experts in both cases have asserted that the buildings in fact could only have been brought down by cutting charges placed directly against the sustaining columns inside the building. Here for example is a report to Congress from General Benton K. Partin, a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General and expert on non-nuclear weapons devices:

When I first saw the pictures of the truck-bomb’s asymmetrical damage to the Federal Building, my immediate reaction was that the pattern of damage would have been technically impossible without supplementing demolition charges at some of the reinforcing concrete column bases…. For a simplistic blast truck-bomb, of the size and composition reported, to be able to reach out on the order of 60 feet and collapse a reinforced column base the size of column A-7 is beyond credulity.17

There is now a broad and growing consensus among architects, engineers, and other experts, that the three buildings which collapsed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center were also most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges.18

Another important similarity was the legal consequence of most of these events: the response to Oklahoma City was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, while the response to 9/11 was the first implementation of COG and the passage (after a false flag anthrax attack) of the Patriot Act. “A Noble Lie” focuses on the domestic consequences of the Antiterrorism Act, and indeed it did, like the Patriot Act after it, provide for significant restrictions on the right of habeas corpus as the courts had interpreted it.

In other words, both acts provided pretexts for implementation of the proposals for warrantless detention that had been a central focus of COG planning in the 1980s with Oliver North. This fit into a larger ongoing pattern of the progressive restriction of our constitutional rights by unrestrained coercive power — a pattern that I will trace back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

But there were important foreign consequences of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act as well, in particular Section 328, which amended the Foreign Assistance Act to bolster

assistance in the form of arms and ammunition to certain specific countries, for the purpose of fighting terrorism.19 This in turn led in 1997 to the creation of secret “Eyes Only” liaison agreement between the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center (CTC) and Saudi Arabia, followed by a subsequent CIA agreement in 1999 with Uzbekistan (i.e. two of the most secretive and repressive regimes in the world today).20

I have argued that these secret liaison agreements – with Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan – may have provided the cover for secret CIA withholding of information before 9/11 about the designated 9/11 culprits al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.21 Thus, if my analysis of the CIA’s withholding in 2000-2001 is accurate, then 4/19 in 1995 did not just exhibit similarities to 9/11: it was a significant part of the build-up which allowed this withholding to occur, and also 9/11 itself.

Increases in Repressive Power After Deep Events

That 4/19 in 1995 had repressive legal consequences links it both to 9/11 in 2001 and also to 11/22 in 1963, after which the Warren Commission used the JFK assassination to increase CIA surveillance of Americans. As I wrote in Deep Politics, this was the result of

the Warren Commission’s controversial recommendations that the Secret Service’s domestic surveillance responsibilities be increased (WR 25-26). Somewhat illogically, the Warren Report concluded both that Oswald acted alone (WR 22), . . . and also that the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, should coordinate more closely the surveillance of organized groups (WR 463). In particular, it recommended that the Secret Service acquire a computerized data bank compatible with that already developed by the CIA.22

In the ensuing Vietnam War this involvement of the CIA in domestic surveillance led to the CIA’s Operation Chaos, an investigation of the antiwar movement in which the CIA, despite its Charter’s restrictions on domestic spying,

amassed thousands of files on Americans, indexed hundreds of thousands of Americans into its computer records, and disseminated thousands of reports about Americans to the FBI and other government offices. Some of the information concerned the domestic activity of those Americans.23

The pattern of increased repression would repeat itself four years later in 1968 after the assassination of Martin Luther King, in response to which two US Army brigades were (until 1971) stationed on permanent standby in the United States, as part of Operation GARDEN PLOT to deal with domestic unrest.24

The pattern was repeated again with

the assassination of Robert Kennedy. In the twenty-four hours between Bobby’s shooting and his death, Congress hurriedly passed a statute— drafted well in advance (like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 and the Patriot Act of 2001) — that still further augmented the secret powers given to the Secret Service in the name of protecting presidential candidates.25

This was not a trivial or benign change: from this swiftly considered act, passed under Johnson, flowed some of the worst excesses of the Nixon presidency.26 The change also contributed to the chaos and violence at the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968. Army intelligence surveillance agents, seconded to the Secret Service, were present both inside and outside the convention hall. Some of them equipped the so-called “Legion of Justice thugs whom the Chicago Red Squad turned loose on local anti-war groups.”27

Other Similarities between Dallas in 1963 and Oklahoma City in 1995

The repressive consequences after 11/22 in 1963, and after 4/19 in 1995, are linked to other shared features between the two events. Almost immediately after 11/22 there were reports from both inside and outside government, suggesting that Oswald had killed the president as part of an international Communist conspiracy.

In Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, I called these “Phase-One” reports, part of

a two-fold process. Phase One put forward the phantom of an international plot, linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries together. This phantom was used to invoke the danger of a possible nuclear confrontation, which induced Chief Justice Earl Warren and other political notables to accept Phase Two, the equally false (but less dangerous) hypothesis that Oswald killed the President all by himself. …. [T]he Phase-One story… was first promoted and then defused by the CIA. Michael Beschloss has revealed that, at 9:20 AM on the morning of November 23, CIA Director John McCone briefed the new President. In Beschloss’ words: “The CIA had information on foreign connections to the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which suggested to LBJ that Kennedy may have been murdered by an international conspiracy.”28

To this day both Phase-One and Phase-Two stories have dominated the treatment of 11/22 in the governing media, to the virtual exclusion of non-establishment analyses treating 11/22 as a deep event.

Many have forgotten that there was a Phase One-Phase Two process with respect to 4/19 as well. Both immediately and thereafter there were a number of reports linking McVeigh and Nichols to Iraqis and other Middle Easterners, including Ramzi Yousef, the fugitive bomber in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (which also used an ammonium nitrate (ANFO) bomb in a Ryder rental truck.)29 Both Clinton and his Counterterrorism Coordinator, Richard Clarke, have confirmed that some of these stories were discussed at a meeting of the Counterterrorism Security Group on the day of 4/19.30 Both men also claim to have dismissed them in favor of a low-grade Phase Two local conspiracy led by the two designated culprits: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. But reports of Middle Eastern involvement, sometimes attributed to sources inside government, continued to appear in the governing media, including CBS, NBC, and the New York Times.31

First World Trade Center bombing of 1993

Meanwhile, signs of a local Iraqi conspiracy were industriously pursued by an Oklahoma City NBC reporter, Jayna Davis, and collected in her book The Third Terrorist. Her Phase-One evidence was centered on an all-points-bulletin initial search, quickly suppressed, for an unnamed John Doe #2. Her research was subsequently endorsed in a Congressional Report by Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.32

Moreover Richard Clarke has written that the Oklahoma City bombing was followed by a spate of new internal Presidential Decision Directives or PDDs (in addition to the Antiterrorism Act), which were drafted by himself. One of these addressed a security problem in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, and another conferred new counterterrorism powers on himself, including his new title as National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism. Two (PDD 62 and especially PDD 67) dealt with what he calls a more “robust system of command and control” for “our Continuity of Government program,” which in his words “had been allowed to fall apart when the threat of a Soviet nuclear attack had gone away.”33

These words recall Tim Weiner’s report of April 1994 in the New York Times that in the post-Soviet Clinton era, “the Doomsday Project, as it was known” was scheduled to be scaled way back, because “the nuclear tensions” of the Soviet era had faded away.34 In other words Clinton had planned to scale back the Doomsday Project (which was governed by a secret extra-governmental committee including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, then both not in government); but Richard Clarke used Oklahoma City to save the Doomsday Project, make it more robust and place it under his own control.

According to author Andrew Cockburn, a new target was found:

Although the exercises continued, still budgeted at over $200 million a year in the Clinton era, the vanished Soviets were now replaced by terrorists. . . . There were other changes, too. In earlier times the specialists selected to run the “shadow government” had been drawn from across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike. But now, down in the bunkers, Rumsfeld [and Cheney] found [themselves] in politically congenial company, the players’ roster being filled almost exclusively with Republican hawks. “It was one way for these people to stay in touch. They’d meet, do the exercise, but also sit around and castigate the Clinton administration in the most extreme way,” a former Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the phenomenon told me. “You could say this was a secret government-in-waiting.”35

Of course the fact that 4/19 was followed by a strengthening of COG does not of itself corroborate my thesis that COG planning has been a significant factor in the planning and execution of America’s structural deep events36 However there were other recurring features in the picture I have presented of America’s structural deep events, and we do find these in the Oklahoma City story.

Of these the most prominent is the importance in the official story of designated culprits who were very possibly government informants or double agents.37 Perhaps the best documented recent example is the US Government’s use and protection of the senior al-Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed as a double agent inside al Qaeda; this protection allowed him to train some of the participants of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and later help organize the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing in Kenya.38

In my 2008 book The War Conspiracy I discussed the possibility that both Lee Harvey Oswald and some of the Arabs designated in 9/11 (Ali Mohamed, al-Hazmi, al-Mihdhar) may in fact have been double agents working with a US Government agency, such as the FBI or Army Intelligence.39 Others have suggested that at the very least Oswald was an FBI informant; and Lawrence Wright wrote in The New Yorker that, in withholding the names of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar from the FBI, “The CIA may also have been protecting an overseas operation and was afraid that the F.B.I. would expose it.”40

In this context I noted with great interest the contention in “A Noble Lie” that Timothy McVeigh, the prime designated culprit in 4/19, may also have been an informant or double agent working for the U.S. Army.41 Of course this contention remains unproven, but the film provides some corroborative evidence.

The Oklahoma City Bombing and Operation PATCON

What is certain is that McVeigh, like Oswald, al-Hazmi, and al-Mihdhar, was in a milieu of known informants and or double agents, who were part of an important secret operation. In the case of Oswald and the two Saudis, this suggests reasons for the U.S. Government’s on-going suppression of important facts about them, both before the crimes they are alleged to have committed, and ever since to the present day.42

In 2005 John M. Berger, an excellent researcher, discovered that in the 1990s the FBI, in a major counterintelligence operation, codenamed PATCON for “Patriot-conspiracy,” had been investigating McVeigh’s milieu of armed right-wingers — or what Berger called

a wildly diverse collection of racist, ultra-libertarian, right-wing and/or pro-gun activists and extremists who, over the years, have found common cause in their suspicion and fear of the federal government. The undercover agents met some of the most infamous names in the movement, but their work never led to a single arrest. When McVeigh walked through the middle of the investigation in 1993, he went unnoticed.43

PATCON was particularly focused on a former asset of Oliver North’s illegal network to supply arms to the Nicaragua Contras: Tom Posey and his paramilitary group Civilian Material Assistance (CMA). In the 1980s, according to Paul de Armond, CMA had begun as “as an adjunct to the Alabama Ku Klux Klan.”44 Enrolled in the Contra supply effort by first the Defense Intelligence Agency and then Oliver North, CMA’s “volunteer” work in patrolling the Arizona border against incoming aliens persuaded then-Congressman John McCain to serve on its board.45 But in PATCON’s eyes in the Post-Reagan era, “Posey was a notorious black market arms dealer, suspected of having contraband sources on more than one U.S. military base.”46

In both JFK and 9/11 it seems clear to me that the subsequent cover-ups derive from the fact that the respective plots were skillfully designed to piggy-back on authorized covert operations, in such a way as to ensure a subsequent cover-up. Berger’s important essay in Foreign Policy on PATCON does not suggest a connection between McVeigh’s plot and the FBI operation. However he notes deep in the essay that Dennis Mahon, an associate of McVeigh and another important target of PATCON,

would go on to be a well-known figure in white supremacist circles and was convicted in February for the 2004 mail bombing of a state diversity official in Arizona. After his arrest in 2009, Mahon told his cellmate that he was “the number three anonymous person in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation.”

In other words, Mahon identified himself as John Doe #2.

Berger, on his own Website Intelwire, has written that “Mahon has spoken of knowing McVeigh in the past,” and has concluded that, “Based on those comments and other information, it is at least plausible that Mahon was involved in the [Oklahoma City] bombing.47 Berger’s “other evidence” is the testimony of ATF informant Carol Howe, transmitted first by Jayna Davis and then by Congressman Rohrabacher, that before 4/19“Mahon talked about targeting federal buildings for bombings. …[and] took three trips [with McVeigh’s contact Andre Strassmeir] to Oklahoma City.”48

Mahon has been characterized as a self-aggrandizing loose talker. However, it seems safe to say that we better understand the context of Oklahoma City after considering the new evidence relating to PATCON, a secret FBI operation from 1991 to 1993 then known only to insiders.

Was Oklahoma City “a Sting Gone Wrong”?

Although PATCON itself was officially terminated in 1993, we learn from its files that there were in fact a number of ongoing informants at Elohim City, Oklahoma very likely including not only Howe but also Strassmeir.49 The Government’s lack of response to the reports they received of an intended bombing strengthens the hypothesis, voiced in the film “A Noble Lie,” that the 4/19 plot was initially intended as a sting, the lethal result of which represented “a sting gone wrong.”

If so, this would increase the similarity between 4/19 and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. According to the official account, this was also a conspiracy penetrated by the FBI, also involving an ANFO bomb on a Ryder rental truck that was also later identified by its vehicle identification number (VIN) on a metal fragment.50 In the 1993 bombing the New York Times later reported from tapes of interviews of the FBI’s informant with his FBI handler:

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.51

This Times story of the 2003 WTC bombing clearly describes a conspiracy that had been effectively penetrated by the FBI, which nonetheless, for whatever reason, reached its lethal conclusion. One such case of a penetrated operation “gone wrong” in 1993 might be attributed to confusion, bureaucratic incompetence, or the problems of determining when sufficient evidence had been gathered to justify arrests. A repeated catastrophe two years later raises the question whether the lethal outcome was not intended.

Together with the example of inaction on the CIA’s prior knowledge of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, the three mass murders strengthen the claim to the International Criminal Court of Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, the Honorary President of Italy’s Supreme Court: that 9/11 was “a repeat of the CIA’s ‘strategy of tension’ carried out in Italy” from the 1960s to the 1980s.52 I appreciate that it will be difficult as well as painful for most Americans to contemplate that America’s own history, like that of Italy a half century ago, could have been systemically manipulated and destabilized by unknown forces. But the more research I do, the more I am convinced that something like Judge Imposimato’s verdict must be considered.

Moreover, if the Italian analogy is applicable to the United States, then the judgment that “9/11 was “a repeat of the CIA’s ‘strategy of tension’ carried out in Italy” raises a larger question about all the structural deep events we have considered, especially the bombings of 1993 and 1995. Were these all part of a single sustained strategy of tension? It is too early to tell. But at the very least the WTC bombings of 1993 and 2001 show suggestive signs of common origins – both outside government (the plotters Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the informant Ali Mohammed) and possibly inside (as indicated by the overlapping, ongoing cover-ups of both).53

In contrast, all of the structural deep events I have been discussing are predictably treated by the governing media as the work of marginal outsiders – by a “lone nut” like Oswald, or a “lone wolf” like Timothy McVeigh. The commonalities between these events I have presented suggest a different analysis: that insiders including intelligence officials and other government officers, as well as outsiders, including government agents and double agents, must be held responsible for repeatedly designing plots that, because of their interface with sanctioned intelligence operations, will not be revealed by government.

My own analysis identifies these insiders as part of an on-going milieu, admittedly amorphous and unstructured, linking the secret networks in government to other powerful forces in our society, For want of a better phrase, I have labeled this milieu, reluctantly, as the “deep state.”54 But as I remarked earlier with respect to Italy, the term “deep state” is not offered as a solution to these unsolved crimes, but as a focus for further research.

An Alternative Analysis of Deep Events: State Crimes Against Democracy

Let me contrast my own analysis with those of two others. The first is the notion of a “secret government” put forward in an important PBS program in 1987 by Bill Moyers.55 It rightly points to the dangerous rise of covert agencies, and above all the CIA, inside government since the National Security Act of 1947. And it analyzes the crimes of Iran-Contra in particular as an example of secret government escaping from the jurisdiction of the law and other restraints of the Constitution and public state.

In the words of the Moyers show

The Secret Government is an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and superpatriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government.

In other words, the show was pointing to the “Enterprise” used by North and his allies inside and outside the Executive Office Building to implement Iran-Contra and other policies that violated law and/or the directives of Congress. As I have shown elsewhere, North, implementing these policies, availed himself of the emergency antiterrorist network, codenamed Flashboard, that had been put together, at immense cost, by the Doomsday Project.56 In so doing, he was “piggy-backing:” using the authorized secret network for an illicit, criminal program, outside of the network’s designated purpose.

Such an analysis could be screened on PBS in 1987 because one part of the U.S. government at that time was at war with another – a war which set Casey at odds not only with Congress but even with senior officers in his own agency the CIA.57 One can locate Moyers’ show as part of a series of insider leaks and governing media exposés of Oliver North’s off-the-books “Enterprise,” which North (and behind him CIA director Casey) had used to violate official policies and laws.58 In short Moyers’ challenge to Casey’s and North’s “warriors” suited the aims of the traditional CIA (and their usual backers, the “traders” on Wall Street).59

Thus we should not be surprised that it had nothing to say about the role of North’s superior, Vice-President Bush, or about the stake of corporate interests in promoting CIA covert operations around the world (such as the much larger 1980s CIA operation in Afghanistan). Above all, it had not a word about North’s Doomsday Project planning to “suspend the U.S. Constitution,” even though this did surface for an instant in the Iran-Contra Hearings.60 By its silence about the Doomsday Project, the show failed to address the ongoing planning which, I believe, allowed for the fruition of COG plans in 9/11 and the Patriot Act. To sum up, the Moyers attack on the secret government was largely confined to what was already in the public record. It did not venture into deep politics.

More recently the concept of State Crimes Against Democracy, or SCADs, has been proposed by Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, and endorsed by some of my friends in the 9/11 Truth community, including Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff. By SCADs, Prof. deHaven-Smith means “concerted actions or inactions by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty.”61

One great advantage of the SCAD hypothesis is that, unlike my own work, it has been discussed in academic journals, thus breaking a kind of sound barrier. But I have problems with the term “State Crimes.” On the one hand I would claim that the State, or some segments of the state, is often the victim of deep events, as in 4/19. On the other I see the State as primarily a guarantor of democracy, not simply an enemy of it.

I agree that some government insiders play an important role in these events, indeed, I have documented some of these in the preceding pages. But I find it misleading to pin the blame for the crime on the State alone. After all, if a bank insider opens the door to a group of bank robbers, what ensues (even if you choose to call it an “inside job”) is unmistakably a robbery of the bank, not by it.

SCAD analysis is far more useful and sophisticated than I can present it here, and I expect to continue to learn from those who pursue it. But it is not deep political analysis. DeHaven-Smith’s list of SCADs includes “the secret wars in Laos and Cambodia,” two relevant policy decisions (rather than events) that we know came from the Oval Office; although covert at the time, and very arguably illegal, they were when exposed not at all mysterious and thus essentially not very deep.

By positing SCADs as a struggle between the State on the one hand and democracy on the other, I believe this analysis oversimplifies both concepts, and underestimates (as Moyers did not) the internal contradictions within each. Democracy is after all a form of the state in which the people’s freedom and power is constitutionally guaranteed by the state (or what I call the public state). And at least one of deHaven-Smith’s SCADs – the JFK assassination – might more logically be considered a crime against the state, rather thanby it.

Phillips and Hoff seem to recognize this difficulty: they drop the JFK assassination from their own list of SCADs.62 But this artificially segregates the JFK assassination from other deep events, such as the Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy assassinations, which I believe are parts of a common syndrome.

In short I believe in the crucial importance of a distinction that SCAD analysis does not make – between the public state that is ostensibly dedicated to fostering the welfare, rights and upward power of the people, and that residue of unofficial powers inside and outside government, or what I have awkwardly called the deep state, that for a half century has been progressively eroding that upward or persuasive power, and replacing it with unrestricted, unconstitutional power (or violence) of its own.

My final objection to SCAD analysis is practical. If the state is the author of these crimes, then the work of critics must be to mobilize public opinion against the state. This fits the libertarian politics of those who (like Alex Jones and other lovers of the Second Amendment) profoundly distrust the public US state in its entirety, and not just its covert agencies. Prof. DeHaven-Smith’s own analysis implicates not just covert intelligence agencies of the US Government but the government as a whole, and perhaps particularly the courts. (In support of this indictment, he is able to point to the Supreme Court’s unusual action, in 2000, of itself electing George W. Bush as president, by a vote of five to four.)

But a strategy of attacking the state as a whole seems to me an example of defeatist politics. Here again we can be enlightened by the Italian strategy of tension, which is a tale of indiscriminate terror with a happier ending. The terror bombings ended after Bologna in 1980, thanks to a series of vigorous and courageous investigations by first journalists, then parliamentary commissions, and finally the courts (not least the court of Judge Imposimato himself, which investigated the murder of Italian premier Aldo Moro and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II). The victory of truth over violence did not come easily: journalists, parliamentarians, and at least one judge were themselves killed. And it was clearly a victory against one part of the state, which was achieved through the countervailing forces of other parts.

The Italian example proves that the forces behind a strategy of tension are not invincible. They also suggest that, if the dark forces of the deep state are to be defeated, this will take the combined resources, not just of the people, but of those elements in government that can, eventually, be aroused in search of the truth.

If this essay contributes to this purpose, it will be because others take up the line of inquiry I have indicated. I myself do not claim to understand the inner truth about these structural deep events. But I hope I have successfully indicated some of the directions which future investigations should pursue.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and WarThe Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.

Recommended citation: Peter Dale Scott, “Systemic Destabilization in Recent American History: 9/11, the JFK Assassination, and the Oklahoma City Bombing,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10 Issue 39, No. 2, September 24, 2012.

Articles on related subjects

• Peter Dale Scott, Why Americans Must End America’s Self-Generating Wars

• Peter Dale Scott, The NATO Afghanistan War and US-Russian Relations: Drugs, Oil, and War

• Peter Dale Scott, The Doomsday Project and Deep Events:JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11

• Peter Dale Scott, Norway’s Terror as Systemic Destabilization: Breivik, the Arms-for-Drugs Milieu, and Global Shadow Elites

• Tim Shorrock, Reading the Egyptian Revolution Through the Lens of US Policy in South Korea Circa 1980: Revelations in US Declassified Documents


1 This essay is adapted from a talk I presented at the 2012 Oakland 9/11 Film Festival presented by the Northern CA 9/11 Truth Alliance.

2 Peter Dale Scott, “The Doomsday Project and Deep Events: JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, November 21, 2011,

3 Daniele Ganser, Nato’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (New York: Routledge, 2005); Philip Willan, Puppetmasters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy (London: Constable, 1991).

4 Vincenzo Vinciguerra, in “Strage di Piazza Fontana spunta un agente USA,” La Repubblica, February 11, 1998, here.

5 “Secret agents, freemasons, fascists . . . and a top-level campaign of political ‘destabilisation,’” The Guardian, December 5, 1990, here; quoted in Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (London: Frank Cass, 2005), 7.

6 Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies, 125-47, 224-44.

7 Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 181. Cf. Ganser,NATO’s Secret Armies, 6.

8 Ola Tunander, “The War on Terror and the Pax Americana, ” in David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2007), I, 164.

9 Ganser, Nato’s Secret Armies, 26; citing El Pais, November 26, 1990.

10 Tunander, “The War on Terror,” 164.

11 Cf. Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 30: “In February 1989 Italian Special Prosecutor Domenico Sica asserted that responsibility for at least some of the terror bombings during the past decade lay also with the Mafia—that is, what I am referring to as the global drug connection.”

12 Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies, 125-47, 224-44.

13 Scott Shane, “C.I.A. Is Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery,” New York Times, October 16, 2009, here. For my analysis of deep similarities between 11/22 and 9/11, see Peter Dale Scott, The War ConspiracyJFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich, MA: The Mary Ferrell Foundation, 2008), 341-96.

14 See White House, “Message from the President Regarding the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks,” September 11, 2012, here.

15 For my ambivalent use of the term “deep state,” see Scott, American War Machine, 20-23.

16 For an introduction to the film, see “A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995 with James Lane and Chris Emery,” Alex Jones Channel, December 16, 2011,

17 General Benton K. Partin, letter to members of Congress, May 17, 1995; in David Hoffman, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror (Los Angeles: Feral House, 1998); on line at here. Another explosives expert, Samuel Cohen, wrote to a Congressman that “It would have been absolutely impossible and against the laws of nature for a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil… no matter how much was used… to bring the building down” (ibid.). Anton Breivik’s ammonium nitrate car bomb in front of the Norwegian Prime Minister’s office would seem to corroborate Partin and Cohen: Breivik’s bomb shattered windows but caused no structural damage whatever to the building.

18 “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out,” a film prepared by AE911Truth, PBS, September 16, 2012; viewable on line at here. Cf. Bill Christison (a former senior official of the CIA), “Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11,” Dissident Voice, August 14, 2006, The WTC buildings “were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings.”

19 Charles Doyle, “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: A Summary,” Federation of American Scientists, June 3, 1996, here. In a December 2000 memo, Richard Clarke confirmed that this assistance was being supplied “through the CIA’s Counter-terrorism Center (CTC) and State’s Anti-Terrorism Program (ATA)”

20 Scott, “Launching the U.S. Terror War,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, here; citing Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, The Eleventh Day (New York: Ballantine Books, c2011), 396.

21 Scott, “Launching the U.S. Terror War.” This withholding of information is a significant parallel with the CIA’s withholding of significant information about Lee Harvey Oswald from the FBI in 1963, in the weeks just before the 11/22 JFK assassination.

22 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 280; quoted in Scott, “Doomsday Project.”

23 Church Committee, Report, Book III – Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, 682.

24 Nate Jones, “Document Friday: ‘Garden Plot:’ The Army’s Emergency Plan to Restore “Law and Order” to America.” National Security Archive, August 11, 2011, here.

25 Public Law 90-331 (18 U.S.C. 3056); discussion in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch, and Russell Stetler,The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (New York: Random House, 1976), 443-46; quoted in Scott, “Doomsday Project.”

26 Army intelligence agents were seconded to the Secret Service, and at this time there was a great increase in their number. The Washington Star later explained that “the big build-up in [Army] information gathering…did not come until after the shooting of the Rev. Martin Luther King” (Washington Star, December 6, 1970; reprinted in Federal Data Banks Hearings, p. 1728); quoted in Scott, “Doomsday Project.”

27 George O’Toole, The Private Sector (New York: Norton, 1978), 145, quoted in Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 278-79, also Scott, “Doomsday Project.”

28 Peter Dale Scott, “Overview: The CIA, the Drug Traffic, and Oswald in Mexico,” History Matters, here; citing Michael Beschloss, ed., Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), 22. “Phase-One” stories, followed by “Phase-Two” media rebuttals, have continued ever since, most recently in 2012 with the publication by former CIA officer Brian Latell of an informant’s claim that Castro had prior knowledge of what would happen in Dallas (Brian Latell, Castro’s Secrets: The CIA and Cuba’s Intelligence Machine [New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012]).

29 Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2002, here; “Take AIM: Jayna Davis on OKC Third Terrorist,”,here. Cf. Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, “The Oklahoma City Bombing: Was There A Foreign Connection?” Report, December 26, 2006, here.

30 Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004), 97-99.

31 Jim Naureckas , “The Oklahoma City Bombing: The Jihad That Wasn’t,” Extra! (Fair), July/August 1995,here.

32 Jayna Davis, The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing (Nashville TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004); Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman’s Report, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation.

33 Clarke, Against All Enemies, 167.

34 Tim Weiner, “Pentagon Book for Doomsday Is to Be Closed,” New York Times, April 17, 1994: quoted in Scott, Road to 9/11, 186.

35 Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy(New York: Scribner, 2007), 88; quoted in Scott, Road to 9/11, 187.

36 Scott, “The Doomsday Project and Deep Events.”

37 Over and over the daily news provides instances of new deep events that involve informants. As I write, the headlines report widespread Muslim violence throughout the world, in response to a despicable anti-Muslim film one of whose promoters admitted to be a deliberate provocation (Sheila Musaji, “The Tragic Consequences of Extremism,” The American Muslim, September 14, 2012, here). I was not surprised to read later that one of the men responsible for the film, Nakoula Nakoula, was also a federal informant (“Producer Of Anti-Islam Film Was Fed Snitch,” The Smoking Gun, September 14, 2012, here).

As I wrote on my Facebook page, “I don’t think anyone should leap to sweeping conclusions from this revelation that one of the film’s makers, Nakoula Nakoula, was a government informant. But this fact so complicates the background of this allegedly “amateurish” film that I feel justified in my original assumption: that we might be facing here another deep event (as defined in my book American War Machine).”

38 Scott, Road to 9/11, 151-60.

39 Scott, War Conspiracy, 355-56, 357-63 (“The Role of Double Agents”); Cf. Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 247-53, 257-60.

40 See Anthony Summers, Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover (New York: PocketBooks, 1994), ch.29, n4; Harrison E. Livingstone, The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy (Bloomington, IN: Trafford, 2006), 131 (Oswald); Lawrence Wright, “The Agent,” New Yorker, July 10 and 17, 2006, 68; cf. Wright, Looming Tower, 339-44 (al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar).

41 This is in line with other features he exhibited in conformity with those I had previously pointed to in the designated culprit stereotype. One is the absurd ease and speed with which he was soon arrested for driving without license plates. In 2008 I compared Oswald with the alleged 9/11 hijackers under the heading “Instant Identification of the Culprits” (Scott, War Conspiracy, 347-49). David Hammer, who was on Death Row with McVeigh, has written that McVeigh confided to him at length how in fact he was a federal undercover agent in a sting operation targeting right-wing extremists. See David Paul Hammer, Deadly Secrets: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing (B.oomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2010).

42 Jefferson Morley and Michael Scott, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2008) [11/22]; Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots (Walterville, OR: Trine Day, 2011) [9/11].

43 J.M. Berger, “Patriot Games: How the FBI spent a decade hunting white supremacists and missed Timothy McVeigh,” Foreign Policy, April 18, 2012, here.

44 “First organized by Tom Posey as part of his Civilian Military Assistance (CMA) organization, the CMA operated as a shadow wing of the Reagan administrations illegal Contra network. Posey and the CMA began as an adjunct to the Alabama Ku Klux Klan. They were first active in smuggling weapons to Central America with the assistance of a Defense Intelligence Agency operation called “Yellow Fruit” and later absorbed into Oliver North’s Contra re-supply operation.

Posey was later indicted for violations of the Neutrality Act for his gunrunning activities. North and Reagan administration officials intervened in the trial and the charges were dismissed under the curious grounds that the Neutrality Act only applied during peacetime and the Contra operation was the equivalent of a formal state of war” (Paul de Armond, “Racist Origins of Border Militias”).

45 “John McCain has worked with white racists before,” Daily Kos, October 12, 2008, here. I have not been able to determine whether this is the Tom Posey whom David Koch named to be Treasurer of his Citizens for a Sound Economy. Cf. “Tom-Posey, KKK, Koch Brothers, CSE,” here.

46 Berger, “Patriot Games.”

47 John Berger, “Witness Mahon Claimed He Was Third Man in Oklahoma City Bombing,” Intelwire, January 10, 2012, here.

48 Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman’s Report, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation.

49 For Strassmeir as an intelligence agent, see e.g. Investigative Report prepared for Oklahoma Representative Charles Key, in Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee, Final Report, 460-62; David Hoffman, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror (Venice City, CA: Feral House, 1998), 121-47.

50 Athan G. Theoharis, The FBI: A Comprehensive Reference Guide (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press, 1999), 94.

51 Ralph Blumenthal, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast,” New York Times, October 28, 1993, here.

52 “Top Italian Judge Refers 9/11 to International Criminal Court,” Aangirfan, September 11, 2012, here.

53 Scott, Road to 9/11, 151-61. Both before and after 1993, and again before and after 2001, a key role in the cover-up was played by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. See Scott, Road to 9/11, 152, 155-59; Peter Lance, Triple Cross (New York: Regan/HarperCollins, 2006), 219-23, 274-79, 298-301, 317-18, 358-64, etc.

54 Scott, American War Machine, 20-23.

55 Bill Moyers, The Secret Government, PBS 1987; here.

56 Peter Dale Scott, “Northwards without North,” Social Justice (Summer 1989); revised as “North, Iran-Contra, and the Doomsday Project: The Original Congressional Cover Up of Continuity-of-Government Planning,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, February 21, 2011, here.

57 See e.g. Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 396-404; Scott and Marshall,Cocaine Politics, 125-64. (Posey),

58 North’s ventures into illegality eventually involved the mobilization of known drug-traffickers in support of the Contras. One of his more dubious assets was the patriot paramilitary group Civilian Military Assistance of Tom Posey, which eventually became a prime target of PATCON (Berger, “Patriot Games).

59 For the distinction between traders and warriors or “Prussians,” see Michael Klare, “Beyond the “Vietnam Syndrome” (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies, 1981); Peter Dale Scott, “Korea (1950), the Tonkin Gulf Incident, and 9/11: Deep Events in Recent American History,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, June 22, 2008, here.

60 A personal note: when I was at a think tank in Washington dealing with Iran-Contra, I was videotaped at length by the two producers of Moyers’ show. One week before the show aired on PBS, they assured me that I would be in it. But in the end, all that remained of me in the show was my forearm, in an unexplained group shot of the think tank sitting around a conference table. At the time my research focused on the activities of Bush and North (including North’s alleged plans for “suspension of the constitution”) that the Committees, like the Moyers program, did not pursue. See Scott, “North, Iran-Contra, and the Doomsday Project.”

61 Lance deHaven-Smith, “Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government,”American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 796; citing Lance deHaven-Smith, “When political crimes are inside jobs: Detecting state crimes against democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28(3).

62 Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, “State Crimes Against Democracy,” Media Freedom International, Mar 2, 2010, here.

Posted in USAComments Off on Systemic Destabilization as “A Strategy of Tension”: 9/11, the JFK Assassination, and the Oklahoma City Bombing

“On Psywar against the Innocent”

Global Research

When freedom of expression is used to incite the public to hatred of a national, religious, racial or ethnic group it becomes a crime. According to Article 20 of the U.N.’s “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” :

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

This doesn’t contradict rights of freedom of expression. It attempts to constrain agendas of hatred. It is possible that any program of military propaganda or psywar against groups or nations is fundamentally illegal. Attempts to defend extreme hate crimes as within our rights of free speech encourages censorship, which encourages repression.

A video of U.S. origin, “Innocence of Muslims,” the trailer to a film defaming and sexually deriding the Prohet Mohammed, has of course resulted in protest by Muslims worldwide. Why isn’t everyone protesting ? The trailer is intensively offensive to human values, lacks redeeming artistic merit, and is recognizably propaganda. In California a judge refused to ban “Innocence of Muslims” from youtube, on the grounds that suppression would violate U.S. guarantees of free speech.

In France Charlie Hebdo has published on its cover a cartoon caricature depicting Islam’s Prophet naked in a distorted sexual posture. The effect is despicable and intended. The original issue sold out and despite the anxiety of the country’s 4 million Muslims, Charlie Hebdo ran the cartoon again. While France is sensitive to religious laws (abortions don’t appear in French literature), it hasn’t charged the editors of Charlie Hebdo with a hate crime, and instead closed French embassies and schools in twenty countries. Domestically any protests against the Charlie Hebdo cartoon, or against the American video/film, are banned. In Germany there are debates about whether the film should be allowed at cinemas or not.

To step back in history: in 2005 a cartoon of the Prophet by a Dutch cartoonist caused global protest by Muslims. The effect of his cartoon was compounded by selection of Islamic countries as NATO’s preferred military targets as well as the occupation of Iraq. Internationally the humour of blasphemous cartoons is lost on people who live by their religions, particularly when their co-religionists are slaughtered for profit.

Europe can’t be considered unwitting in the uses of cartoons as weaponry. Starting in about 1934 a campaign of cartoons attacking Judaism became a singularly Nazi tool in propaganda programs which became extermination programs. A similarity compounds in that both the U.S. video and the French cartoon are semi-pornographic in deriding their target sexually. Sexual derision as propaganda was introduced to the world by Julius Streicher, editor of Der Stuermer, the Nazi organ which published cartoons of Jews defined to caricature. A note from The Black Book, originally compiled by the Soviet Union’s Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee starting in 1942:

For the first time in history, pornography was made an instrument of national education when Julius Streicher became editor of Der Stuermer and head of the publishing house Stuermer Verlag. Streicher, governor of Franconia, publicly honored by Hitler, was charged with the task of turnng men in swine. Sadism and morbid sexual suggestions were the means. No under-the-counter sales were made of his perversely sensational literature, but rather by advertising and even by edict was it disseminated throughout Germany….Der Stuermer claims that the Jewish religion by its laws imposes sexual crimes on its believers.”

The video trailer of “Innocence of Muslims” strums these chords. In every country of the world, Muslims have the courage to protest the ugliness. Aside from being a blasphemy within Islam, the singular derision of the Prophet extends to the entire religious group. It isn’t only propaganda but hate propaganda, and the occasional violence of the response a measure of the propaganda’s damage and effectiveness.

“Innocence of Muslims” has its predecessor in the film Fitna made by Netherlands MP Geert Wilders, who rose to a seat in Dutch Parliament by increasing Islamophobia and gathering its support. In February 2009 Wilders showed the film to members of the U.S. Congress. In Canada as the Conservative government contributed to the illegal bombing of Libya, Mr. Wilders shared his opinion of Mohammed on May 9th, 2011 in Toronto, then on May 10 from Ottawa’s National Arts Center. Although Wilders was acquitted of hate speech in the Netherlands, moments of his warnings against Islamizaton are provocative deep insults. Canada’s laws against hate speech were not applied and he was given police protection. When the banner of freedom of speech yields a serious hate crime, repeatedly without prosecution, the campaign is sanctioned by the State.

Citizens of Western nations where ‘sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me,’ are slow to realize the sensitivity of Islam to symbolism, if not somewhat numb to religion in general. In the 1980′s Islamic fundamentalist threats against Salmon Rushdie may have seemed a ridiculous response to his manner of questioning authority. After strong warnings, his “Satanic Verses” was used in a worldwide marketing campaign with predictable results.

Some indication of an agitprop campaign was there in the effective marshalling of England’s and North American literary communities to Rushdie’s defense, in a “which side are you on” equation useful to warriors, less so to intellectuals. The rise of Islamophobia inerfaces neatly with U.S. and Coaliton bombing of Iraq in 1990-91, and the subsequent military policies against Islamic nations. The defense of Rushdie’s literary merit and rights, was followed by the demonization of Saddam Hussein and five Hiroshima’s worth of ordinance dropped on a Muslim culture in 1990 and 91, initial steps in the destruction of Iraq’s national group, museums, culture, people.

Because in 2012, the U.S. and France refuse to assert domestic laws against hate crimes in response to ongoing violations of Muslims’ civil, religions and political rights, the propaganda continues with State sanction. In France, the government’s responses to Hebdo and the anti-Islamic film contribute to isolating Muslims from their national fabric. It has the same effect as adopting anti-burqa legislation.

In North America the ongoing extreme abuses of Islamic culture, both through crimes of foreign policy, but more immediately in the military’s and legal system’s treatment of individual Muslims, are normalized. The appearance of widely publicized hate crimes, masquerading as the flux of free expression, warns one as a prelude to another step in another illegal war targeting hundreds of thousand of innocent civilians.

When we speak of Hitler’s “War against the Jews,” we are using a figure of speech. It was a war against unarmed men, against women and children, carried on by an army of many millions of highly expert soldiers using all the destructive techniques of modern military science… – The Black Book


Posted in CampaignsComments Off on “On Psywar against the Innocent”

Confronting War Rhetoric Against Iran: Stop the March to War

Global Research

War rhetoric is beginning to get out of control between Israel and Iran. There are clear signs now that the overwhelming majority of Israelis do not want a suicidal war against Iran, which would have devastating consequences for the State of Israel and its entire population. In the United States there is also an increasing divide between those who want a US-Israeli attack on Iran and those who think that it will have devastating consequences for the Middle East and the United States.

The Iranians have now warned that they are prepared to retaliate and that if Iran is attacked the door could be opened for World War III. The US and a large coalition of its allies are presently executing naval drills in the Persian Gulf, while the Israelis are holding military drills on the Syrian border while the Syrian Army is fighting a US-sponsored insurgency. The Iranians themselves have begun preparations for military exercises simulating an eventual invasion of Israel in the scenario of a US-Israeli pre-emptive strike. Indeed the world is at a dangerous cross-road in its history.

For years Global Research has worked to alert our readers about the danger that humanity faces if a war is launched against the Iran. We have brought analyses forward from leading experts and world statesmen warning that the march to war be stopped before it is too late for all of us. We have worked to present alternative views and cutting edge news from around the world. Global Research has worked to give an international platform for those important voices that are ignored in the mainstream discourse that is supportive of the war agendas that have laid waste to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

We have also brought forward an important book on the dangers of nuclear war that warns against a strike on Iran by our director, Professor Emeritus Michel Chossudovsky: Towards A World War III Scenario: The Dangers of a Nuclear War is an important total that no anti-war activist or person opposing a military strike against Iran should be without.

Global Research’s objects are to prevent such wars by spreading the word through truth and research. We want a much needed to debate to take place that the corporate media is avoiding. More than ever we rely on the support of our valued readers to spread the message and warnings against such a war. Global Research does not receive foundation money or any form of government or corporate support. This is how we maintain our independence and integrity. We need your support in whatever way you can provide it, whether it’s financial or through re-posting our material and articles on social media pages or on your blogs and forwarding them to your friends, family, and colleagues.

Posted in IranComments Off on Confronting War Rhetoric Against Iran: Stop the March to War

“War on Iran Will Trigger World War III”

Global Research

“Our defensive power has been created on the basis of our defensive strategy and the presumption ruling our defensive strategy is that we will enter an massive battle with a US-led coalition.” Brigadier General Hossein Salami, IRGC Deputy Commander, September 2012)

* * *

Both the US and Israel have threatened to implement a preemptive first strike attack against Iran, the consequences of which would be devastating.

Responding to these ongoing threats, Iran’s Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) General Amir Ali Hajizadeh has warned that a US-Israeli military attack against Iran could lead to the outbreak of a Third World War. He also intimated that Israel cannot launch a war without the green-light from the US.

If such a war were to be launched, according to General Hajizadeh, a scenario of uncontrolled military escalation is likely to occur. If attacked, Iran would retaliate against both Israeli and US targets including US military facilities in neighboring countries (ie. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gulf States):

Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force General Amir Ali Hajizadeh warned the US and the Zionist regime [Israel] that an attack on Iran will likely trigger World War III.

Speaking to the Arabic news network, Al-Alam on Sunday, General Hajizadeh said the US and the Israeli regime may not enter war with Iran “independent from each other, meaning that either one of these two starts the war, it will be joined by the other one”.

“We see the US and the Zionist regime standing fully on the side of each other and we cannot imagine the Zionist regime initiating a war without the US backup. Due to the same reason, if a war breaks out, we will definitely wage battle on both sides and will definitely be engaged with the US bases,” he said.

“In case such conditions arise, a series of incidents will take place which will not be controllable and manageable and such a war might turn into a third world war. That means, certain countries may enter the war for or against Iran,” added the general.

The IRGC commander warned that in case such war is waged on Iran, the US bases in “those countries around us and inside the neighboring countries will be targeted and they will even be threatened by the nations of these very states”. (Fars News Agency, September 23, 2012, emphasis added)

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. The statement of General Hajizadeh must be taken seriously.

Active war preparations against Iran have been ongoing for the last eight years. Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America’s NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated. Israel cannot act without the support of its allies.

This is a coordinated endeavor of the Pentagon, NATO and Israel’s Defense Force (IDF) directed against Iran. Several non-NATO partner countries including the frontline Arab states (members of NATO’sMediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative) are also involved.

Media Disinformation

Public opinion, swayed by media hype is tacitly supportive, indifferent or ignorant as to the likely impacts of what is upheld as an ad hoc “punitive” operation directed against Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than an all out war.

The war on Iran is presented to public opinion as an issue among others. It is not viewed as a threat to humanity. Quite the opposite: it is viewed as a humanitarian endeavor.


The Western media is beating the drums of war. The purpose is to tacitly instil, through repeated media reports, ad nauseam, within people’s inner consciousness, the notion that the Iranian threat is real and that the Islamic Republic should be “taken out”.

Iran has significant military capabilities. The fact that an attack on Iran could lead to retaliation and escalation which could potentially unleash a “global war” is not a matter of concern.

While the Islamic Republic does not constitute a threat to the security of Israel, Iran’s military brass has emphasized that in the case of an attack on Iran, retaliation against Israel is contemplated, with potentially devastating consequences:

On Saturday, IRGC’s top Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said an enemy invasion of Iran is possible, but such a war would put an end to the life of the Zionist regime of Israel.

“War may break out, but if Zionists [Israeli government] start something, that will be the point of their annihilation and the endpoint of their story,” he added.

Jafari, meantime, underlined that “no one dares to wage an extensive ground assault on Iran”.

The General said if the enemy were wise, there wouldn’t be any problem, “but the problem is that there is no guarantee for this rationality and we should be prepared too.

Later yesterday, his deputy, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, cautioned that any possible attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Zionist regime would provide an opportunity for Tehran to wipe the regime off the earth.

“If the Zionists embark on attacking Iran, it will provide a historical opportunity for the Islamic Revolution to wipe them off the world’s geographical history,” Salami said on Saturday night on the state-run TV.

“We are now through with concerns about the Zionist regime’s threats,” he said, adding that Israel has bitter memories of its last-decade wars with the regional allies of the Islamic Republic, including Hezbollah and Hamas Movement.

“(Given the above-mentioned failures) how does it (the Zionist regime) want to be a threat against the Islamic Republic of Iran?” Salami asked.

He, meantime, underlined Iran’s preparedness to confront any aggression against the country, and said,“Our defensive power has been created on the basis of our defensive strategy and the presumption ruling our defensive strategy is that we will enter an massive battle with a US-led coalition.”

On Friday, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi also warned that Tehran would reciprocate any aggression against the country with an “immediate” and “non-stop” response, stressed.

“We do not feel threatened by the boastful remarks of Zionist leaders, because they are creatures with deep fright who continue crying out since they know that Iran’s response to threats will be readymade, immediate and non-stop,” Major General Firouzabadi told reporters on the sidelines of September 21 military parades marking the anniversary of the Week of Sacred Defense here in Tehran on Friday morning.

“The Zionist regime officials have declared in their (military) estimates that military operations against Iran neither can be done by Israel nor is useful for them,” he added.

He also stated that Iran’s armed forces today are unpredictable and their strategy and actions cannot be foreseen by the enemies.

The Sacred Defense Week, commemorating Iranians’ sacrifices during the 8 years of Iraqi imposed war on Iran in 1980s, started on Friday with nationwide parades by various units of the Islamic Republic Army, Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basij (volunteer) forces in Southern Tehran. (Fars News Agency, September 23, 2012, emphasis added)

Reverse the Tide of War

We call upon our readers to spread the message far and wide.

We call upon people across the land, in America, Western Europe, Israel, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their governments which are supportive of military action against Iran, against the media which serves to camouflage the devastating implications of a war against Iran.

The people of Israel are largely united against Prime Minister Netanyahu’s resolve to attack Iran.

A protocol of non-aggression should be reached between Israel and Iran.

Posted in IranComments Off on “War on Iran Will Trigger World War III”

Akram Assad, director, holds shrapnel found in the school after an attack


Shuhada Khuza’a  is a secondary school that lies 500 meters from the border between  Khan Yunis, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, and Israel.  This school was established in 2002 and serves the entire population of the small farming village of Khuza’a.

Due to its proximity to the ‘buffer zone’, the school is subject to frequent shootings from tanks and shelling from drones.  The ‘buffer zone’ is a military no-go area which was unilaterally imposed by Israel in 2007.  It extends along the entire northern and eastern perimeter of the Gaza Strip adjacent to Israel, but inside Palestinian territory.  In 2009, Israel announced that the ‘buffer zone’ would extend 300 meters into Gaza, but the precise area designated by Israel as a ‘buffer zone’ is unknown and, in reality, it can extend as far as 1,500 meters.

The establishment of the ‘buffer zone’ is illegal under international law.  The buffer zone is often enforced using live fire, which results in the loss of Palestinian lives, land and property.  An example of this enforcement is the 5 automatic Israeli sniper towers near Shuhada Khuza’a which shoot at anyone who ventures into the 300 meters.

Akram Assad has been the director of Shuhada Khuza’a  for 2 years and can easily describe the kind of conditions that his 300 students face on a daily basis: “There have been so many attacks on this school, sometimes even twice in one month.  No prior warning is usually given, even though some of the attacks happen when school is in session. On 14 June 2012, for instance, the school was shelled just a bit after the children left. 

Most often, the attacks come from tanks shooting shells, but sometimes we have drone attacks after school hours.  When the shooting begins, we make the students lie on the ground in their classrooms or gather them in one place and wait for the shooting to stop.  We have no way to leave or escape once an attack begins.  Once, the tanks came up to the school and we all stayed behind for 2 hours after school, because even the ICRC could not coordinate for us to leave.” 

The constant attacks have had a negative effect on the teachers and students of Shuhada Khuza’a: “The children are always nervous and feel scared.  These psychological problems are reflected in their poor grades and discipline issues.  In the morning, if they see tanks around the buffer zone, they simply do not show up for school that day.  The teachers are also scared, so how can they be expected to help the children?  It is obviously very hard to learn or teach under these conditions.”

Some of the structures in the school remain unrepaired from previous attacks. This can be attributed to the closure of the Gaza Strip and the subsequent ban on imports, which has resulted in the limited availability and prohibitively high prices of building materials.  The computer classroom, for instance, has a gaping hole in one of its walls resulting from a previous attack.

Further to this, bullet holes in some of the windows and corridors serve as evidence of repeated attacks on the school. One of the buildings is considerably damaged, and has metal rods protruding from a section of the wall:  “A fletchete  bomb was dropped on the school one night and the shrapnel chipped some of the walls.  We have yet to receive help to reconstruct the damaged structures.  Sometimes, when the buildings get damaged, we form committees, approach businessmen or ask the children’s parents to contribute towards repairs.”

Ammunition collected in Shuhada Khuza’a after one of the attacks

For some of the students, the attacks and their effects are not only limited to their school life: “During ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in 2009, 4 of our students died and 9 students were orphaned.  A sizeable number of our current students have had their homes destroyed completely or partially by Israel’s forces.  When they go home, they cannot even study or do their homework.  They have serious psychological problems and we try to keep them close to their teachers, so that they can receive counseling and assistance with their studies.  We also try to engage them in sports such as football, as a way of helping them to forget about their problems.”

Irrespective of the significant challenges, Akram hopes that the situation and learning conditions will improve in Shuhada Khuza’a school: “I do not know if these attacks are meant to incite fear in the children or make us leave the area.  This school is the only secondary school in Khuza’a and next year we will have even more students.  It is dangerous here and there is no safe place to hide from the attacks.  We just wish and hope for the same things as schools in other countries.  In particular, we need a room for the psychology teacher, because it is one of our priorities to address the psychological problems that these children have.  We also hope that this area will be peaceful one day.”

Under Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the destruction of private property is prohibited unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.  Further, according to the second paragraph of Article 8 (b)(i) and (ii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities” and “intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives” constitute war crimes.

Public Document

3 attachments — Download all attachments   View all images  
12K   View   Download
33K   View   Download
34K   View   Download  

Posted in Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on Akram Assad, director, holds shrapnel found in the school after an attack

Shoah’s pages


September 2012
« Aug   Oct »