Archive | March 27th, 2018

Yemen: Peace on the Horizon?

Featured image: Ali Naser Mohamad

The Houthis and the former President of South Yemen introduced somewhat similar peace proposals for ending the War on Yemen.

The first move in this direction was made during last week’s Valdai Conference on Russia’s role in the Mideast, when Ali Naser Mohamad, who presided over the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen from 1980-1986, issued an 8-point plan for resolving the conflict in which his most unique suggestion was to “initiate a dialogue between all the political forces on the establishment of a two-region federal state.” This was clearly in reference to the Southern Transitional Council’s (STC) seizure of Aden, their former capital, from Hadi’s government at the end of January after the internationally recognized leader refused to reform his Cabinet and reportedly ordered that force be used against the protesting Southerners.

Federalization has long been thought of as a “compromise” between wartime allies Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the first of which began the war in order to reinstall Hadi as Yemen’s President while the latter is thought of having a favorable approach towards the Southern separatists.

As for the Houthis’ proposal, it interestingly mirrored most of what the former South Yemeni leader proposed, albeit with its own nuances. Both sides want an end to the war, new elections, and UNSC support, though they seem to differ over some technicalities. Whereas the South wants a federal solution, the Houthis importantly suggest that all contested issues be decided by a referendum, with the implication being that it would be a nationwide one where the more populous North would have the electoral power to reject any regional-centric proposal put forth by the South. The issues of South Yemen’s autonomy and the country’s corresponding constitutional reform to legalize this desired status seem to be the primary difference between each party’s peace proposals.

In the stalemated military situation that defines the present day, neither side is able to enforce their will on the other, but the most important observation is that the political will for peace invariably exists in the territories that used to comprise the independent countries of North and South Yemen.

Extrapolating from this, it can be deduced that each of their populations are completely exasperated by this war, especially the majority of the country that resides in the North and has been forced to endure the insufferable humanitarian consequences of the coalition’s war against the Houthis for over the past three years now. Likewise, presuming that the former South Yemeni President was speaking in a semi-official capacity and “testing the waters” at Valdai, the conclusion can be reached that the STC is “moderating” its independence aspirations and willing to settle for federalization, at least at this stage, which of course appeals to the Saudis and the Houthis for different reasons and makes it easier to begin a dialogue on ending the war.

In the coming future, all sides will likely readjust their positions somewhat as they politically jockey with one another in preparing for inevitable peace talks, and it’s here where Russia could play a strategic role in facilitating this by mediating or possibly even hosting this dialogue whenever it ultimately happens.

Posted in YemenComments Off on Yemen: Peace on the Horizon?

Globalism’s First Victim. NATO’s War on Yugoslavia


David Orchard led the anti-war campaign across Canada relentlessly mobilizing support against NATO’s war on Yugoslavia.

March 24, 2018 commemorates the 19th anniversary of  NATO’s war on Yugoslavia.

This article was originally published by Toronto’s National Post on June 23, 1999.

David Orchard (image left)

In March [1999], the most powerful military force in history attacked tiny Yugoslavia (one fifth the size of Saskatchewan) and after seventy-nine days of flagrantly illegal bombing forced an occupation of Kosovo. Admitting its intention was to break Yugoslavia’s spirit, NATO targeted civilian structures, dropping over 23,000 bombs (500 Canadian) and cruise missiles in a campaign of terror bombing, dNATO’s War on Yugoslaviaescribed recently by Alexander Solzhenitsyn as follows: “I don’t see any difference in the behaviour of NATO and of Hitler. NATO wants to erect its own order in the world and it needs Yugoslavia simply as an example: We’ll punish Yugoslavia and the whole rest of the planet will tremble.”

The idea that NATO attacked Yugoslavia to solve a humanitarian crisis is about as credible as Germany’s claim in 1939 that it was invading Poland to prevent “Polish atrocities.” The United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported the first registered refugees out of Kosovo on March 27th — three days after the bombing began. Civilian casualties after twenty-one days of bombing exceeded all casualties on both sides in Kosovo in the three months before the war.

In an all out effort to convince public opinion that Yugoslavia deserved the onslaught, Western politicians and media are churning out endless accusations of Serb atrocities, while the proven and infinitely greater atrocities of NATO — launching an aggressive war, using internationally outlawed cluster bombs and firing depleted uranium ammunition into Yugoslavia — are buried.

Why did NATO attack Yugoslavia and why are Serbs — Canada’s staunch allies in both World Wars, with 1.5 million dead resisting Hitler’s Nazis and Italian Fascism — being demonized?

Most 19th century wars were over trade. When the U.S. invaded Canada in 1812, Andrew Jackson declared, “We are going to… vindicate our right to a free trade, and open markets… and to carry the Republican standard to the Heights of Abraham.” In 1839, Britain demanded China accept its opium and attacked when China said no. When Thailand refused British trading demands in 1849, Britain “found its presumption unbounded” and decided “a better disposed King [be] placed on the throne… and through him, we might, beyond doubt, gain all we desire.”

In 1999, NATO said it was attacking Yugoslavia to force it to sign the Rambouillet “peace agreement” (even though the Vienna Convention states that any treaty obtained by force or the threat of force is void).

Significantly, Rambouillet stipulated:

“The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles” and “There shall be no impediments to the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital to and from Kosovo.”

During the war, Bill Clinton elaborated:

“If we’re going to have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world Europe has got to be the key; that’s what this Kosovo thing is all about… It’s globalism versus tribalism.”

“Tribalism” was the word used by 19th century free trade liberals to describe nationalism. And this war was all about threatening any nation which might have ideas of independence.

Yugoslavia had a domestically controlled economy, a strong publicly owned sector, a good (and free) health care system and its own defence industry. It had many employee owned factories — its population was resisting wholesale privatization. It produced its own pharmaceuticals, aircraft and Yugo automobile. It refused to allow U.S. military bases on its soil. According to the speaker of the Russian Duma:

“Yugoslavia annoys NATO because it conducts an independent policy, does not want to join NATO and has an attractive geographic position.”

Ottawa, cutting medicare, agricultural research, social housing and shelters for battered women, spent tens of millions to bomb Yugoslavia and is spending millions more occupying Kosovo, while abandoning its own sovereignty to U.S. demands, from magazines to fish, wheat and lumber. It is expropriating part of British Columbia for the U.S. military and considering the U.S. dollar as North America’s currency. Now, the Liberals have thrown our reputation as a peace keeper into the trash can, along with the rule of international law, by smashing a small country to pieces at the behest of Washington.

In a March 28 New York Times article, Thomas Friedman wrote:

“For globalization to work, America can’t be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is… The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

As NATO troops entered Kosovo, the same newspaper announced Kosovo’s new currency will be the U.S. dollar or German mark, currencies of the two countries most responsible for Yugoslavia’s break-up. And after months of being told that Slobodan Milosevic was the problem, we heard Washington Balkans expert, Daniel Serwer, explain:

“It’s not a single person that’s at issue, there’s a regime in place in Belgrade that is incompatible with the kind of economy that the World Bank… has to insist on…”

The Canadian government professes great interest in human rights. Globalization undermines both democracy and national sovereignty, the only guarantors of human rights. Unfortunately for Messrs. Clinton, Chretien et al, that message was not lost on millions around the world watching NATO bombs pulverize Yugoslavia.

Posted in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, YugoslaviaComments Off on Globalism’s First Victim. NATO’s War on Yugoslavia

Neocons Are Back with a Big War Budget and Big War Plans

On Friday, President Trump signed the omnibus spending bill for 2018. The $1.3 trillion bill was so monstrous that it would have made the biggest spender in the Obama Administration blush. The image of leading Congressional Democrats Pelosi and Schumer grinning and gloating over getting everything they wanted — and then some — will likely come back to haunt Republicans at the midterm elections. If so, they will deserve it.

Even President Trump admitted the bill was horrible. As he said in the signing ceremony,

“there are a lot of things that we shouldn’t have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense, forced — if we want to build our military…”

This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare state.

But no one “forced” President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of Congress. He knows that no one in Washington cares about deficits so he was more than willing to spread some Fed-created money at home to get his massive war spending boost.

And about the militarism funded by the bill? Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference that,

“As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding.”

He’s right and wrong at the same time. Yes it is another big increase in military spending. In fact the US continues to spend more than at least the next seven or so largest countries combined. But his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we weren’t looking?

Of course not.

On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration, which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. And so on. The military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is conspiracy fact. Enemies must be created to keep Washington rich, even as the rest of the country suffers from the destruction of the dollar. That is why the neocons continue to do very well in this Administration.

While Trump and Mattis were celebrating big military spending increases, the president announced that John Bolton, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war debacle, would become his national security advisor. As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has written, this is a man who, while at the State Department, demanded that intelligence analysts reach pre-determined conclusions about Iraq and WMDs. He cooked the books for war.

Bolton is on the record calling for war with Iran, North Korea, even Cuba! His return to a senior position in government is a return to the unconstitutional, immoral, and failed policies of pre-emptive war.

Make no mistake: the neocons are back and looking for another war. They’ve got the president’s ear. Iran? North Korea? Russia? China? Who’s next for the warmongers?

Posted in USAComments Off on Neocons Are Back with a Big War Budget and Big War Plans

Integrity Has Vanished From the West. “Western Democracy is a Hoax”


Among Western political leaders there is not an ounce of integrity or morality. The Western print and TV media is dishonest and corrupt beyond repair.  Yet the Russian government persists in its fantasy of “working with Russia’s Western partners.”  The only way Russia can work with crooks is to become a crook.  Is that what the Russian government wants?

Finian Cunningham notes the absurdity in the political and media uproar over Trump (belatedly) telephoning Putin to congratulate him on his reelection with 77 percent of the vote, a show of public approval that no Western political leader could possibly attain.  The crazed US senator from Arizona called the person with the largest majority vote of our time “a dictator.”  Yet a real blood-soaked dictator from Saudi Arabia is feted at the White House and fawned over by the president of the United States. (Source)

The Western politicians and presstitutes are morally outraged over an alleged poisoning, unsupported by any evidence, of a former spy of no consequence on orders by the president of Russia himself.  These kind of insane insults thrown at the leader of the world’s most powerful military nation—and Russia is a nation, unlike the mongrel Western countries—raise the chances of nuclear Armageddon beyond the risks during the 20th century’s Cold War.  The insane fools making these unsupported accusations show total disregard for all life on earth.  Yet they regard themselves as the salt of the earth and as “exceptional, indispensable” people.

Think about the alleged poisoning of Skirpal by Russia.  What can this be other than an orchestrated effort to demonize the president of Russia?  How can the West be so outraged over the death of a former double-agent, that is, a deceptive person, and completely indifferent to the millions of peoples destroyed by the West in the 21st century alone.  Where is the outrage among Western peoples over the massive deaths for which the West, acting through its Saudi agent, is responsible in Yemen?  Where is the Western outrage among Western peoples over the deaths in Syria?  The deaths in Libya, in Somalia, Pakistan, Ukraine, Afghanistan?  Where is the outrage in the West over the constant Western interference in the internal affairs of other countries?  How many times has Washington overthrown a democratically-elected government in Honduras and reinstalled a Washington puppet? 

The corruption in the West extends beyond politicians, presstitutes, and an insouciant public to experts.  When the ridiculous Condi Rice, national security adviser to president George W. Bush, spoke of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction sending up a nuclear cloud over an American city, experts did not laugh her out of court.  The chance of any such event was precisely zero and every expert knew it, but the corrupt experts held their tongues.  If they spoke the truth, they knew that they would not get on TV, would not get a government grant, would be out of the running for a government appointment.  So they accepted the absurd lie designed to justify an American invasion that destroyed a country.

This is the West.  There is nothing but lies and indifference to the deaths of others.  The only outrage is orchestrated and directed against a target:  the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Iran, Assad, Russia and Putin, and against reformist leaders in Latin America.  The targets for Western outrage are always those who act independently of Washington or who are no longer useful to Washington’s purposes.

The quality of people in Western governments has collapsed to the very bottom of the barrel.  The British actually have a person, Boris Johnson, as Foreign Secretary, who is so low-down that a former British ambassador has no compunction in calling him  a categorical liar. (Source) The British lab Porton Down, contrary to Johnson’s claim, has not identified the agent associated with the attack on Skripal as a Russian novichok agent.  Note also that if the British lab is able to identify a novichok agent, it also has the capability of producing it, a capability that many countries have as the formulas were published years ago in a book.  

That the novichok poisoning of Skripal is an orchestration is obvious.  The minute the event occurred the story was ready.  With no evidence in hand, the British government and presstitute media were screaming “the Russians did it.”  Not content with that, Boris Johnson screamed “Putin did it.”  In order to institutionalize fear and hatred of Russia into British consciousness, British school children are being taught that Putin is like Hitler. (Source)

Orchestrations this blatant demonstrate that Western governments have no respect for the intelligence of their peoples.  That Western governments get away with these fantastic lies indicates that the governments are immune to accountability.  Even if accountability were possible, there is no sign that Western peoples are capable of holding their governments accountable.  As Washington drives the world to nuclear war, where are the protests?  The only protest is brainwashed school children protesting the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment.

Western democracy is a hoax.  Consider Catalonia.  The people voted for independence and were denounced for doing so by European politicians.  The Spanish government invaded Catalonia alleging that the popular referendum, in which people expressed their opinion about their own future, was illegal. Catalonian leaders are in prison awaiting trial, except for Carles Puigdemont who escaped to Belgium. Now Germany has captured him on his return to Belgium from Finland where he lectured at the University of Helsinki and is holding him in jail for a Spanish government that bears more resemblance to Francisco Franco than to democracy. (Source)  The European Union itself is a conspiracy against democracy.  

The success of Western propaganda in creating non-existent virtues for itself is the greatest public relations success in history.

Posted in EuropeComments Off on Integrity Has Vanished From the West. “Western Democracy is a Hoax”

Is Trump Trying to Fire Mueller or Preemptively Discredit His Findings?


Over the past week, nearly a year after he tried to have Robert Muellerfired, Donald Trump went on a tweeting rampage against the special counsel. Trump’s escalating Twitter attacks may be a harbinger of Mueller’s impending dismissal — or the president could be trying to preemptively discredit and delegitimize Mueller’s eventual findings against him.

Mueller was appointed special counsel in May 2017. The following month, Trump ordered White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn refused and threatened to resign. Trump backed down but has been champing at the bit to end Mueller’s investigation, apparently restrained by his lawyers’ promises that the probe is coming to an end. In addition, GOP heavyweights like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) warned that firing Mueller would spell “the beginning of the end of [Trump’s] presidency.”

But Mueller’s investigation shows no signs of abating. He continues to secure grand jury indictments, as well as plea bargains that make those pleading guilty into cooperating witnesses. And now he has subpoenaed financial records of the Trump Organization.

Mueller’s Charge

Although the Department of Justice regulation empowers the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel, that task fell to Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last year, since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

The Justice Department regulation allows for discipline or removal of the special counsel only in the event of “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”

Rosenstein recently told USA Today that he sees no justification for terminating Mueller as special counsel, stating, “The special counsel is not an unguided missile.”

Trump cannot personally fire Mueller. He could order Rosenstein to do it, and if Rosenstein refuses, Trump could fire Rosenstein or force his resignation. Since Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand is about to retire, the next person in line who could fire Mueller would be Solicitor General Noel Francisco, a right-winger with ties to the conservative Federalist Society. Francisco may be amenable to giving Mueller the axe.

Mueller Team Subpoenas Trump Organization, Meets With Trump Lawyers

Last week, the special counsel issued subpoenas to the Trump Organization for financial documents, some of which relate to Russia. NBC News reported that the subpoena seeks emails, work papers, text messages, telephone logs “and other documents going back to Nov. 1, 2015, 4½ months after Trump launched his campaign.” According to The New York Times, “The order is the first known instance of the special counsel demanding records directly related to President Trump’s businesses, bringing the investigation closer to the president.”

Last July, Trump told the Times that Mueller would cross a “red line” if he investigated any Trump business unrelated to Russia.

A few days after the subpoenas were served, Trump’s lawyers met with Mueller’s team “and received more details about how the special counsel is approaching the investigation, including the scope of his interest in the Trump Organization,” the Times reported.

Mueller’s investigation is apparently pursuing three issues, according to Timothy L. O’Brien at Bloomberg:

First, it is seeking information as to whether Trump or his campaign worked with Russia to help Trump win the election. Second, it is looking into whether Trump or his advisers engaged in obstruction of justice to end the investigation. And third, it is investigating a possible quid pro quo that Trump and family members, particularly son-in-law Jared Kushner, may have sought in return for political favors, such as lifting sanctions on Russia or altering US policy on the Ukraine.

Trump’s Tweet Storm Targets Mueller

After the meeting between the special counsel’s team and his lawyers, Trump let loose with his tweet storm, calling out Mueller by name for the first time on Twitter since the special counsel was appointed. According to CNN, the meeting “unleashed a new level of Trump’s public hostility toward Mueller, even while some of the President’s advisers show a willingness to negotiate Trump’s testimony.”

On March 17, Trump tweeted,

“The Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime.”

On March 18, Trump tweeted,

“Why does the Mueller team have 13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans? Another Dem recently added . . . does anyone think this is fair? And yet, there is NO COLLUSION!”

Trump apparently forgot that Mueller, the head of the team, is a long-time Republican.

Trump is evidently aware that conflict of interest is a ground for firing a special counsel. Having laid the foundation for that alleged conflict with his tweet about “hardened Democrats,” Trump followed up the next day with a tweet:

“A total witch hunt with massive conflicts of interest!”

On March 21, Trump invoked the opinion of Fox News legal analyst and emeritus Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who opposed the appointment of Mueller in the first place. Trump paraphrased Dershowitz’s statements, tweeting,

“I think President Trump was right when he said there never should have been a Special Council (sic) appointed because there was no probable cause for believing that there was any crime, collusion or otherwise, or obstruction of justice.”

Dershowitz apparently failed to read the regulation, which does not require probable cause of criminal activity at the time a special counsel is appointed. After appointment, the counsel’s investigation may or may not uncover evidence amounting to probable cause, which is the standard for the filing of criminal charges.

Trump’s lawyers have sent conflicting signals about the fate of the Mueller investigation. On March 16, attorney John Dowd wrote in an email to the Daily Beast,

“I pray that Acting Attorney General Rosenstein will . . . bring an end to alleged Russian Collusion investigation.”

Dowd first said he was speaking on behalf of the president, but later backtracked and said he was speaking for himself. He resigned a few days later, saying the president wasn’t following his advice.

Ty Cobb, another Trump lawyer, tried to defuse the growing fear that Mueller’s days are numbered, stating on March 18,

“The White House yet again confirms that the president is not considering or discussing the firing of the special counsel, Robert Mueller.”

But Trump just hired attorney Joseph diGenova, who has publicly accused the FBI and Justice Department of “trying to frame” the president, a claim that likely endears him to Trump.

Democrats fear that Trump might set the wheels in motion to fire Mueller during the forthcoming two-week congressional spring break.

Some Republicans Support Mueller but Won’t Codify It With Legislation

Eight months ago, legislators introduced two bipartisan bills to subject a president’s order to fire a special counsel to judicial review. But Republican lawmakers are not promoting the legislation, which is now stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Although some Republicans have questioned the constitutionality of the legislation, those concerns are without merit, and are more likely motivated by political considerations.

GOP lawmakers know that any bill they pass to protect Mueller would require Trump’s signature and they would have to override his veto. Republicans are more likely “making a counterintuitive, all-in bet that Donald Trump will save their 51-49 majority” in the Senate, according to Politico. They expect Trump to actively campaign for Republican incumbents as well as challengers.

“If they’re going to run with him, how are they also going to stand up to him when he precipitates a constitutional crisis? The answer is that they’re not,” Michael Tomasky wrote in the Daily Beast.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Mueller “ought to be allowed to finish his job,” adding, “I think he was an excellent appointment.” McConnell told reporters,

“I think he will go wherever the facts lead him and I think he will have great credibility with the American people when he reaches the conclusion of his investigation. So, I have a lot of confidence in him.”

The senator called Mueller “a thoroughly credible individual.”

But when pressed about legislation to protect Mueller, McConnell demurred, saying,

“I don’t think that’s necessary. I don’t think Bob Mueller is going anywhere. I think there is widespread feeling, and the president’s lawyers obviously agree, that he ought to be allowed to finish the job.”

Other GOP senators expressed confidence in Mueller. Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) said he told the White House to allow Mueller “to continue his investigation unimpeded,” adding,

“I know Mueller well and believe him to be a straight shooter, and I continue to believe that giving Mueller the time and support necessary to get to the bottom of things is in the best interest of all parties involved.”

But Hatch didn’t think legislation to protect Mueller was necessary at this point, saying,

“I do not believe the president would take such a foolish action.”

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (Texas) said he doubted Trump would terminate Mueller’s appointment because “the consequences would be so overwhelming.”

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) stated on CNN’s “State of the Union” that some of his GOP colleagues told him they would consider the firing of Mueller to be a “massive red line that can’t be crossed.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) told reporters,

“I received assurances that [Mueller’s] firing is not even under consideration,” adding, “The special counsel should be free to follow through his investigation to its completion without interference, absolutely. I am confident he will be able to do that.”

A special counsel cannot be removed absent good cause under the Justice Department regulation. But without protective legislation, there could be no review of a meritless decision by Trump to dismiss Mueller.

Can Mueller Indict Trump?

What consequences, if any, could Trump face if the special counsel finds evidence of criminal activity by the president?

Mueller could deliver his findings to the House of Representatives for consideration of impeachment. But that body, with its Republican majority, will not likely entertain any discussion of impeachment, particularly because Trump is dutifully fulfilling their agenda of tax cuts for the rich and the appointment of a right-wing Supreme Court justice and lower federal court judges.

Whether or not a sitting president can be criminally indicted is a matter of controversy.

memo from independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation of Clinton says a president can be indicted for criminal activity:

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

Moreover, diGenova once argued in a Wall Street Journal column that a president could be constitutionally indicted. “It would teach the valuable civics lesson that no one is above the law,” diGenova wrote during the Clinton investigation.

Jonathan Turley, writing in The Washington Post, examined the arguments for and against indicting a sitting president and concluded he could be indicted. It is unclear whether a president can pardon himself, but Turley thinks Trump would be impeached if he were to pardon himself.

A Preemptive Strike by Trump?

Trump is notorious for relying on his own instincts rather than the advice of counsel, such as whether to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin on his election victory. But Trump is apparently aware of the risks entailed by engineering Mueller’s departure.

As the special counsel zeroes in on him, Trump may instead be mounting a preemptive strike against Mueller’s findings, should they incriminate him. Recall that Trump didn’t expect to be elected president, so he waged a campaign to discredit the election results in advance, repeatedly claiming the election was “rigged.”

The bottom line is that we may never see Mueller’s findings unless he persuades a grand jury to return an indictment against Trump.

If Mueller’s conclusions do become public, Trump is likely counting on his preemptive campaign of delegitimization in order to escape criminal accountability.

Posted in USAComments Off on Is Trump Trying to Fire Mueller or Preemptively Discredit His Findings?

Antisemitism: The Questions that Require Urgent Answers


Below are questions that require urgent answers:

1. As a Member of the British (or American/Canadian) Jewish community, do you support the actions of the Israel government including the illegal settlement of over 600,000 of its own citizens in the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights plus the 11 year blockade of essential goods against 1.8m civilians in Gaza, intended to effect regime change: actions that deliberately violate both UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights?

2. Do you appreciate the level of global opposition to the repressive and oppressive policies of the Likud government?

3. Do you agree that UN Security Council Resolutions should be complied with as a mandatory duty by every UN Member, including the United Kingdom, the US and Israel?

4. Do you really believe that there is no correlation or linkage between Israeli government policy towards the indigenous peoples of the region, and the dangerous increase in global antisemitism?

5. Do you agree with the proposition that although the state of Israel has an inalienable right to exist, that right does not extend to the destruction or removal of millions of those who have been the majority indigenous people of the region continuously for over a thousand years?

6. Do you believe in the sanctity of human life, freedom of expression and the importance of human and civil rights regardless of race, religion or colour – and do you believe in democratic government?

Posted in Europe, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Antisemitism: The Questions that Require Urgent Answers

Western Day of the Long Knives



In mid-1934, Hitler’s night and day of the long knives, Operation Hummingbird purge, eliminated regime enemies, executing them to solidify power, Ernst Rohm the best known victim, longtime SA leader.

On March 26, Washington, 21 European nations, Canada and Australia expelled over 135 Russian diplomats as of Monday, a coordinated political conspiracy, including Britain ordering 23 Russian diplomats out of the country days earlier.

More Russophobic Western shoes are likely to drop ahead, anti-Russia political and economic war raging.

Each hostile action piled on previous ones risks heading things toward something much more serious.

Hostility by the West against the world’s dominant superpower is madness. If current actions lead to military ones, an increasing possibility, Russian super-weapons can turn Western nations to smoldering rubble overnight – easily penetrating defenses against them.

It remains to be seen what if any actions Moscow takes other than responding tit-for-tat against nations expelling its diplomats.

Hostile Monday actions require strong Russian resolve to hit back hard. Weakness or indecisiveness will encourage further unacceptable Western actions, a slippery slope toward greater trouble than already.

A statement by Russia’s Foreign Ministry isn’t enough – tough, but not tough enough, saying:

“We express our strong protest in the wake of the decision taken by a number of EU and NATO member countries to expel Russian diplomats.”

“We consider this as an unfriendly step that is not consistent with the goals and interests of establishing the underlying reasons and searching for the perpetrators of the incident that occurred in the town of Salisbury on March 4.”

“The provocative gesture of the so-called solidarity of these countries with London, which blindly followed the British authorities in the so-called ‘Skripal case’ and which never got around to sort out the circumstances of the incident, is a continuation of the confrontational policy to escalate the situation.”

“Presenting unfounded charges against Russia in the absence of explanations of what happened and refusing to engage in meaningful interaction, the British authorities have de facto adopted a prejudiced, biased as well as hypocritical stance.”

“This is an attempt on the lives of Russian citizens on the territory of Great Britain.”

“Despite our repeated requests for information addressed to London, Russia does not have any information in this regard.”

“British allies (sic) don’t have any objective and exhaustive data and blindly follow the principle of Euro-Atlantic unity at the expense of common sense, the rules of civilized state-to-state dialogue and the principles of international law.”

“It goes without saying that this unfriendly move by this group of countries will not go unnoticed, and we will respond to it.”

It “goes without saying” that it’s time for resolve and toughness, diplomacy a waste of time.

Outreach by Russia to the West while being politically and economically assaulted is a sign of weakness in the face of deep-seated hostility toward its government and leadership, encouraging more if not confronted forcefully enough to show Moscow won’t take it any more.

The Kremlin has lots of options. A good first one would be to expel US and UK ambassadors, scores of their diplomatic staff, and recall Russian ambassadors to these countries – along with a message to other Western nations explaining they’re next if unacceptable actions continue escalating.

Posted in Europe, RussiaComments Off on Western Day of the Long Knives

Is Albania a Partner of the US In Supporting International Terrorism?


On March 22, 2018 the former Mayor of New York and adviser to President Trump, Rudy Giuliani was in Tirana. He was invited to Albania’s capital by Maryam Rajavi, the head of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) organization, to celebrate the Iranian festival of Nowruz with the Iranian jihadist organization which Albania has hosted since 2013. In this meeting, which was secretly organized by the Mojahedin, Giuliani showed his support for some 3.000 Iranian radicals that Albania hosts. In his speech Giuliani encouraged the Mojahedin to continue their fight against the government of Iran and called for regime change in Tehran.

The gathering of the Mojahedin was also attended by three Albanian politicians. They were Pandeli Majko, Minister for the Diaspora in the present Albanian government. Majko served as Minister of the Interior during the era of secret CIA renditions in Eastern Europe when Albania was used by the CIA to rendition and torture people. Majko who has never denied his cooperation with the CIA or the existence of secret prisons in Albania, has defended the illegal renditions and torture and has criticized those who spoke against the torture chambers of the CIA.

The second politician was Fatmir Mediu, a former disgraced Minister of Defense, who is blamed in Albania for weapon trafficking to Afghanistan and the Gerdec explosion and killings. The Gerdec explosion which killed 26 Albanians, injured hundreds, and damaged or destroyed over two thousand homes was part of an operation by Fatmir Mediu and American contractors to fake old Albanian ammunition and sell them as new to Afghanistan.

The third politician was Elona Gjebrea, who served as deputy Minister of the Interior for Albania’s infamous Minister of Interior Saimir Tahiri (2013-2017) and is now under investigation for possible links with a notorious Albanian mafia gang known as the Habilaj brothers.

Giuliani told to the Mojahedin that the US and the Albanian government see them as the only future for Iran, and the necessary thing to do at this moment is regime change. Pandeli Majko, the Minister of Diaspora in the Edi Rama’s government supported Giuliani’s claim and told the Mojahedin that his dream is to return to Tehran with the Mojahedin. Elona Gjebrea and Fatmir Mediu did the same. They supported the Mojahedin in their violent mission for regime change in Iran. Rudi Giuliani emboldened the Mojahedin by telling them that changes are coming to Washington. John Bolton, their fierce supporter is going to become President Trump’s National Security Advisor and he wants a regime change in Iran.

The threats of Giuliani against Iran have been instrumentalized in recent months with mass surveillance and attacks on Iranian and Shiia Muslim institutions in Albania and Kosovo. The Israelis are very vigilant against the Iranian influence in the Balkans too. They instruct their Albanian partners to target Iran and its institutions, even though Iran has never had any problem with any Balkan country. With the arrival of the Mojahedin in Albania, the anti-Iran and anti-Shiia hysteria is becoming more and more public. The Mojahedin, who act as a proxy army for the US and Israel, claim that Iran is very influential in Albania and is working with its agents to discredit their fight for regime change. In recent months they have launched a number of smear attacks against Iranian institutions and the embassy in Tirana. On March 15 they attacked a group of Albanian intellectuals headed by the ex-president of Albania, Rexhep Mejdani who participated in a scientific conference in Tehran, claiming that they were part of a plot by Tehran to discredit them. The Mojahedin, who are having many of their members abandon the organization in Albania, attack the defectors by insulting them as Iranian agents and threaten to assassinate them. The UNHCR which is supposed to help all war refugees has sided with the Mojahedin and refuses to support the defectors financially and asks them to go back to their Mojahedin camp if they want to get financial support. When local Albanian TV stations dare to present the claims of the defectors who show how they are abused, enslaved and radicalized by MEK, the Mojahedin attack the Albanian media claiming that they have been bought by Iran.

In face of the threats that MEK makes against Albanian intellectuals, media and its defectors, the Albanian government keeps silent, even though a recent police report claims that the Mojahedin might assassinate some of the defectors who have abandoned the organization. While the Albanian government and its courts are very vigilant to jail any Albanian Salafi as a terrorist if they make calls for regime change in Syria or praise ISIS, so far no actions have been taken against the Iranian Mojahedin, Albanian or US politicians who support the MEK jihad and make calls for regime change in Iran, even though the Albanian the criminal code punishes such calls with imprisonment from four up to ten years. The Albanian government and its courts have not taken any action even against those Mojahedin who have threatened to assassinate their defectors in Albania.

The Albanian government who is ordered by people like John Bolton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani to do all they can to support the Mojahedin, have finally started to attack even Shiia and Sufi religious institutions in Albania. On March 22, 2018 the anti-terror police disrupted the ceremony of Novruz that the World Headquarters of Bektashism organized in Tirana. The ceremony of the liberal Muslim Sufi sect was disrupted when anti-terrorism police detained two retired Iranian journalists and an Iraqi-German citizen who were celebrating the Novruz in the Grand Sufi Teqe. The invitees were officially invited to the ceremony by Baba Mondi, the Grand Dervish of the Bektashis. However the Albanian anti-terror units who take note of complains by MEK about Iranian influence and conspiracy against them, detained and interrogated as terrorists for 7 hours the two retired Iranian journalists who were covering the Bektashi festival. Even though the journalists were later released, this event shocked the Bektashi community and the Iranian cultural NGO-s who operate in Albania.

The attacks that the Mojahedin are launching against local Muslim communities, academics and intellectuals, journalists and media are shocking the Albanian public. Until now they have seen the Mojahedin as some foreign terrorist leftovers that the USA wanted to dump in Albania after they were expelled from Iraq. However, the recent media and police attacks are showing to the Albanian public that the Mojahedin are a threat not only to Iran, but to Albania too. On the other hand, the calls from US senators like Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton and John McCain on the Mojahedin who are based in Albania to go and wage jihad in Iran, make many Albanians worried and upset. Many ask: if the USA wants to use the Mojahedin to fight Iran, why don’t they host them in the USA instead of Albania? The Albanian public has not and has never had any problem with Iran. Why is the American government blackmailing Albania and using it as a launchpad for its next terrorist war against another Middle Eastern country? Was it not enough for the US administration to allow the Saudis to radicalize the Muslim youths in the Balkans and send them to Syria for jihad, but now they are creating another jihad and the Muslims of the Balkans are again to pay the price?

Mr. Rudy Giuliani! Mr. John Bolton! Can you please take your Mojahedin to the USA and from there do anything you want! We do not want to fight another Middle Eastern war for you. Leave us alone, please!

Posted in USA, AlbaniaComments Off on Is Albania a Partner of the US In Supporting International Terrorism?

The Skripal Incident: A Diabolical Plot to Demonize Russia



Likely cooked up by dark forces in London and Washington, the Skripal incident escalated a long-running campaign to politically and economically marginalize, weaken, contain and isolate Russia.

The scheme recklessly heads things toward possible East/West military confrontation – especially after Trump’s capitulation to extremist neocons in charge of US foreign policy.

Bipartisan Russophobic hardliners in Washington want tougher tactics used against the Kremlin – including full implementation of the so-called “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATS).

Enacted last August, it calls for imposing tough sanctions on Russia relating to cyber security, its energy and defense sectors, its operation in Syria, and other activities.

It directs the US Treasury and National Security Council to develop a strategy for countering Russia. The measure targets Iran and North Korea the same way.

Within 180 days of enactment, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Advisor are required to submit a detailed report to Congress to include “identification of the most significant senior foreign political figures and oligarchs in the Russian Federation, as determined by their closeness to the (Kremlin) and their net worth” – along with an assessment of their relationship to Putin and other top Russian officials.

Last summer, Trump went along with the measure reluctantly, saying:

“While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed,” adding:

“In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions,” including restrictions on executive branch authority over foreign policy.

“My Administration will give careful and respectful consideration to the preferences expressed by the Congress in these various provisions and will implement them in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.”

Appointing Mike Pompeo for State and John Bolton as new national security advisor showed Trump’s capitulation to hardliners in Washington wanting toughness imposed on Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and other countries targeted for regime change.

The orchestrated Skripal false flag provides greater ammunition for hardline neocons to pursue their hostile Russophobic agenda – in Washington, the UK and other EU countries.

Britain began the latest toughness on Russia by expelling 23 of its diplomats. At least 10 other EU countries are expected to take similar action, perhaps as early as Monday – along with further anti-Russia steps by UK Tories.

Trump is expected to expel Russian diplomats, along with perhaps additional anti-Kremlin actions this week.

According to State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, the Trump administration is considering a “range of options to respond to Russia’s outrageous actions in the UK, both to demonstrate our solidarity with our ally and to hold Russia accountable for its clear breach of international norms and agreements” – with no further elaboration, hostile outrageous remarks.

On Sunday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blasted what she called unacceptable global “mud-slinging and adverse publicity” against the Kremlin, adding:

“What do we see? A colossal failure from the point of view of evidence. London simply has no evidentiary basis to hide behind.”

‘(T)he only thing that can save Theresa May, and the United Kingdom in principle, I mean the political establishment, is global support, first of all from the European Union and NATO partners” – especially from Washington.

Moscow intends responding in kind to hostile actions against its government.

Russophobia is at a fever pitch, likely to escalate ahead, not subside, risking unknown consequences.

Clearly Moscow had nothing to do with the Skripal incident, nor is any falsely claimed “Russian aggression” ongoing in Syria, Ukraine or anywhere else.

Western sentiment is almost entirely Russophobic. Escalating anti-Russia actions risks heading things toward something much more serious.

Lessons from two world wars weren’t learned. A third one with today’s super weapons could doom us all.

Posted in Russia, UKComments Off on The Skripal Incident: A Diabolical Plot to Demonize Russia

The U.S. Relationship to Jihadists and al-Qaeda Across the World


A Brief History

Major hat tip to Washington’s Blog for its article ““Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. And Saudi Backing Of Al-Qaeda Led Directly To 9/11,” Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report

To many Americans who pay only a small portion of their time to what is happening in Syria, the claim that the United States is funding and supporting ISIS sounds like absolute insanity. After all, the corporations who feed them their news incessantly inform them of the threat of ISIS at home and abroad and remind them how hard their government is working in order to keep them safe. Even when many Americans can clearly see that the United States is funding extremists in order to destroy Assad, it is difficult for them to grasp that the most frightening enemy of all, ISIS itself, is also being directed by Western intelligence, the GCC, and Israel.

It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.

As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article “Implausible Deniability: West’s ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq,”

Beginning in 2011 – and actually even as early as 2007 – the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran.

Billions in cash have been funneled into the hands of terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now being called “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” or ISIS. One can see clearly by any map of ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against Turkey’s borders with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward – this is because it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated.

ISIS was harbored on NATO territory, armed and funded by US CIA agents with cash and weapons brought in from the Saudis, Qataris, and NATO members themselves. The “non-lethal aid” the US and British sent including the vehicles we now see ISIS driving around in.

They didn’t “take” this gear from “moderates.” There were never any moderates to begin with. The deadly sectarian genocide we now see unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the Pentagon – current and former officials – interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh. Hersh’s 9-page 2007 report, “The Redirection” states explicitly:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” and are “sympathetic to Al Qaeda” – is a verbatim definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the words of Hersh were as prophetic as they were factually informed, grounded in the reality of a regional conflict already engineered and taking shape as early as 2007. Hersh’s report would also forewarn the sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention the region’s Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah.

While Hersh’s report was written in 2007, knowledge of the plan to use death squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, had been reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John Barry for Newsweek in an article entitled “The Salvador Option.”

Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, “NATO’s Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,”

In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran’s arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey’s (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.

Cartalucci is referring to a cross-border invasion that was coordinated with NATO, Turkey, Israel, and the death squads where Israel acted as air force cover while Turkey facilitated the death squad invasion from inside its own borders.

Keep in mind also that, prior to the rapid appearance and seizure of territory by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, European media outlets like Der Spiegel reported that hundreds of fighters were being trained in Jordan by Western intelligence and military personnel for the purpose of deployment in Syria to fight against Assad. The numbers were said to be expected to reach about 10,000 fighters when the reports were issued in March, 2013. Although Western and European media outlets would try to spin the operation as the training of “moderate rebels,” subsequent reports revealed that these fighters were actually ISIS fighters.

Western media outlets have also gone to great lengths to spin the fact that ISIS is operating in both Syria and Iraq with an alarming number of American weapons and equipment. As Business Insider stated,

The report [study by the London-based small arms research organization Conflict Armament Research] said the jihadists disposed of ‘significant quantities’ of US-made small arms including M16 assault rifles and included photos showing the markings ‘Property of US Govt.’

The article also acknowledged that a large number of the weapons used by ISIS were provided by Saudi Arabia, a close American ally.

As Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report has documented on numerous occasions, the plan to invade and destabilize Syria by using hordes of al-Qaeda terrorists and mercenaries has been in existence since at least 2007. Cartalucci writes,

A 2007 New Yorker article written by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a plan under the Bush Administration to organize, arm, train, and deploy a regional army of terrorists, many with ties directly to Al Qaeda, in a bid to destabilize and overthrow both Syria and Iran. The plan consisted of US and Israeli backing, covertly funneled through Saudi proxies to conceal Washington and Tel Aviv’s role, in building the sectarian extremist front.

According to Seymour Hersh’s 2007 article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” Saudi Arabia, a more credible candidate for openly interfacing with the militants, openly admitted that it was a danger, but that they “created it,” and therefore could “control it,” in meetings with Washington. The plan called for not only setting up terrorist enclaves in nations neighboring Syria, including Lebanon, Jordan, and US-occupied Iraq, but also for building up the Muslim Brotherhood, both inside Syria’s borders and beyond – including in Egypt.[1] [2]

Hersh also pointed out the long history between the Saudi Royals and their funding of religious fanatics for the purposes of destabilization since the 1970s proxy war against the Soviet Union, the Iranians, and to the more recent (in terms of the writing of the article) possibilities of using such types of fighters in Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, and Syria. He wrote,

Nasr went on, “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. “The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.”

The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family’s myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.[3]

In a more telling passage, however, Hersh describes the connection between the Saudis, Jihadists, and the U.S. government. He wrote,

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”[4]

Hersh continued by stating that the Israelis, the Saudis, and the Americans have “developed a series of informal understandings about their new strategic direction.” In addition to the security of Israel, the weakening of Hamas, and the countering of “Shiite ascendance in the region,” there was also a fourth goal of the three entities. Hersh wrote,

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah. The Saudi government is also at odds with the Syrians over the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, in Beirut in 2005, for which it believes the Assad government was responsible. Hariri, a billionaire Sunni, was closely associated with the Saudi regime and with Prince Bandar. (A U.N. inquiry strongly suggested that the Syrians were involved, but offered no direct evidence; there are plans for another investigation, by an international tribunal.)[5]

Hersh also quoted Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Druze minority in Lebanon and adamant Assad opponent who stated to Hersh that he had actually traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with then Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the possibility of weakening and destabilizing the Assad government in Syria. Hersh stated,

Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said.

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”

There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.[6]

Hersh also spoke with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, who told Hersh that he believed that the United States wished to cause the partitioning of both Lebanon and Syria. Hersh states that, “In Syria, he [Nasrallah] said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.”[7]

It is also important to remember that the so-called leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As Voltaire Net describes Baghdadi,

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi who joined Al-Qaeda to fight against President Saddam Hussein. During the U.S. invasion, he distinguished himself by engaging in several actions against Shiites and Christians (including the taking of the Baghdad Cathedral) and by ushering in an Islamist reign of terror (he presided over an Islamic court which sentenced many Iraqis to be slaughtered in public). After the departure of Paul Bremer III, al-Baghdadi was arrested and incarcerated at Camp Bucca from 2005 to 2009. This period saw the dissolution of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose fighters merged into a group of tribal resistance, the Islamic Emirate of Iraq.

On 16 May 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named emir of the IEI, which was in the process of disintegration. After the departure of U.S. troops, he staged operations against the government al-Maliki, accused of being at the service of Iran. In 2013, after vowing allegiance to Al-Qaeda, he took off with his group to continue the jihad in Syria, rebaptizing it Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. In doing so, he challenged the privileges that Ayman al-Zawahiri had previously granted, on behalf of Al-Qaeda, to the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, which was originally nothing more than an extension of the IEI.

Regardless, false assumptions surrounding the true leadership of ISIS would be called into question in January of 2014 when Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned and operated news agency, published an article as well as a video of an interrogation of an ISIS fighter who had been captured while operating inside Syria.

When asked why ISIS was following the movement of the Free Syrian Army and who had given him the orders to do so, the fighter stated that he did not know why he was ordered to monitor the FSA’s movement but that the orders had come from Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal of the Saudi Royal Family.

An excerpt from the relevant section of the interrogation reads as follows:

Interrogator: Why do you (ISIS) monitor the movement of the Free Syrian Army?

ISIS Detainee: I don’t know exactly why but we received orders from ISIS command.

Interrogator: Who among ISIS gave the orders?

ISIS Detainee: Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal, who is also known as Abu Faisal.

Such revelations, of course, will only be shocking news to those who have been unaware of the levels to which the Saudis have been involved with the funding, training, and directing of death squad forces deployed in Syria. Indeed, the Saudis have even openly admitted to the Russian government that they do, in fact, control a number of varied terrorist organizations across the world.

Even tired mainstream media organizations such as Newsweek (aka The Daily Beast) can no longer ignore the facts surrounding the Saudis’ involvement with the organization of terrorist groups across the world.

Note also that Voltaire Net describes al-Nusra, a documented al-Qaeda connected group, as merely an extension of the IEI (Islamic Emirate of Iraq) which itself was nothing more than a version of Al-Qaeda In Iraq. Thus, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, came the IEI, which then became the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. IEIL then became ISIS/ISIL which is now often referred to as IS.

In other words, Nusra=Al-Qaeda-IEI=IEIL=ISIL=ISIS=IS.

With the information presented above regarding the nature of the Free Syrian Army and the so-called “moderate rebels,” it would be entirely fair to add these “moderate” groups to the list as well.

1970s Mujhadeen

The fact that ISIS is nothing more than a name change for al-Qaeda is significant as well since the terror organization was the open creation of the United States with the help of Saudi Arabia as far back as the late 1970s. It is recommended that the reader access Washington’s Blog’s article , “Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. And Saudi Backing Of Al-Qaeda Led Directly To 9/11,” for an in-depth discussion of America’s support of terrorism from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. Washington’s Blog writes:

Perhaps one of the most vaunted sources for documenting America’s support of terrorism comes from the man who could be considered the architect of al-Qaeda, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser and was instrumental in creating the organization and helping steer policy that would direct it against the Afghan government and the Soviet Union.

Easily accessed on YouTube, a researcher with five minutes to spare can watch Brzezinski standing in front of his terrorist brigades and encouraging them in their jihad. At one point in the footage, Brzezisnki tells the Mujahadin fighters,

We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over – there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.

Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the United States organized and supported the Mujahadin at the time, including Osama Bin Laden. He said,

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.[8]

Later, in 2001, it was admitted by Brzezinski in an interview with Le Nouvel Observatour, that the United States had funded al-Qaeda/Mujahadin six months before the Soviets invaded.

As Brzezinski told Le Nouvel Observateur in a 1998 interview:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.


Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Similar admissions, although much less willing to accept the results as Brzezinski, came from former CIA Director Robert Gates and even President Jimmy Carter himself. As Eric Alterman wrote for The Nation,

First revealed by former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates in his 1996 memoir From the Shadows, the $500 million in nonlethal aid was designed to counter the billions the Soviets were pouring into the puppet regime they had installed in Kabul. Some on the American side were willing–perhaps even eager–to lure the Soviets into a Vietnam-like entanglement. Others viewed the program as a way of destabilizing the puppet government and countering the Soviets, whose undeniable aggression in the area was helping to reheat the cold war to a dangerous boil.

According to Gates’s recounting, a key meeting took place on March 30, 1979. Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wondered aloud whether “there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’” Arnold Horelick, CIA Soviet expert, warned that this was just what we could expect. In a 1998 conversation with Le Nouvel Observateur, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted, “We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.”

Yet Carter, who signed the finding authorizing the covert program on July 3, 1979, today explains that it was definitely “not my intention” to inspire a Soviet invasion. Cyrus Vance, who was then Secretary of State, is not well enough to be interviewed, but his close aide Marshall Shulman insists that the State Department worked hard to dissuade the Soviets from invading and would never have undertaken a program to encourage it, though he says he was unaware of the covert program at the time. Indeed, Vance hardly seems to be represented at all in Gates’s recounting, although Brzezinski doubts that Carter would have approved the aid unless Vance “approved, however unenthusiastically.”[9]

Gates added a similar admission in his book, From The Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story Of Five Presidents And How They Won The Cold War.[10]

One major terrorist supporter during her bloody tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, also admitted that the United States created al-Qaeda. Clinton stated,

“Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

“They invaded Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

“And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“So there is a very strong argument which is… it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let’s be careful with what we sow… because we will harvest.

“So we then left Pakistan … We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country… you deal with the mines that are along the border and… by the way we don’t want to have anything to do with you… in fact we’re sanctioning you… So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.”[11]

But the fact that the United States created and funded both Bin Laden and al-Qaeda is not revealed only through a few statements by retired officials. It is fully part of American mainstream history. As the 1998 article by Michael Moran, “Bin Laden Comes Home To Roost,” for MSNBC states,

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar – the MAK – which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.

What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.


The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.


To this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.

“Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said.[12]

Even the CIA-affiliated Washington Post admitted the Saudi role in an article written in 2002, entitled, “From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts.” Stevens and Ottway wrote that

The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings ….

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books ….

The Council on Foreign Relations also addressed the issue of Saudi and CIA-funded madrassas and the fact that these schools serve as an intentional breeding ground for extremism. The article, “Pakistan’s Education System And Links To Extremism,” states,

The 9/11 Commission report (PDF) released in 2004 said some of Pakistan’s religious schools or madrassas served as “incubators for violent extremism.” Since then, there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to militancy.

For almost one thousand years, madrassas have been centers of Islamic learning that produce the next generation of Islamic scholars and clerics. In Pakistan in the 1980s they underwent a complete change under Zia’s Islamization efforts, but it was Pakistan’s leading role in the anti-Soviet campaign in neighboring Afghanistan during this time that radicalized some of these madrassas. New madrassas sprouted, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where students were encouraged to join the Afghan resistance. The rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1990s, and reports that many of the group’s leaders were educated in Pakistan’s madrassas, fueled concern regarding these schools.

In an article by Jason Burke of the Guardian entitled, “Frankenstein The CIA Created,” Burke writes about the network of terrorists spawned by the CIA’s al-Qaeda operation in Afghanistan in the late 70s. Burke writes,

When Clement Rodney Hampton-el, a hospital technician from Brooklyn, New Jersey, returned home from the war in Afghanistan in 1989, he told friends his only desire was to return. Though he had been wounded in the arm and leg by a Russian shell, he said he had failed. He had not achieved martyrdom in the name of Islam.

So he found a different theatre for his holy war and achieved a different sort of martyrdom. Three years ago, he was convicted of planning a series of massive explosions in Manhattan and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Hampton-el was described by prosecutors as a skilled bomb-maker. It was hardly surprising. In Afghanistan he fought with the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, whose training and weaponry were mainly supplied by the CIA.

He was not alone. American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

Since the fall of the Soviet puppet government in 1992, another 2,500 are believed to have passed through the camps. They are now run by an assortment of Islamic extremists, including Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist.

Bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan from Saudi Arabia in 1979, aged 22. Though he saw a considerable amount of combat – around the eastern city of Jalalabad in March 1989 and, earlier, around the border town of Khost – his speciality was logistics.

From his base in the Pakistani city of Peshawar, he used his experience of the construction trade, and his money, to build a series of bases where the mujahideen could be trained by their Pakistani, American and, if some recent press reports are to be believed, British advisers.

One of the camps bin Laden built, known as Al-Badr, was the target of the American missile strikes against him last summer. Now it is used by Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a Pakistan-based organisation that trains volunteers to fight in Kashmir.

Some of their recruits kidnapped and almost certainly killed a group of Western hostages a few years ago. The bases are still full of new volunteers, many Pakistanis. Most of those who were killed in last August’s strikes were Pakistani.

A Harkut-ul-Mujahideen official said last week that it had Germans and Britons fighting for the cause, as well as Egyptians, Palestinians and Saudis. Muslims from the West as well as from the Middle East and North Africa are regularly stopped by Pakistani police on the road up the Khyber Pass heading for the camps. Hundreds get through. Afghan veterans have now joined bin Laden’s al-Qaeda group.

Some have returned to former battlegrounds, like the university-educated Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, a key figure in the Egyptian al-Jihad terrorist group. Al-Zawahiri ran his own operation during the Afghan war, bringing in and training volunteers from the Middle East. Some of the $500 million the CIA poured into Afghanistan reached his group. Al-Zawahiri has become a close aide of bin Laden and has now returned to Afghanistan to work with him. His al-Jihad group has been linked to the Yemeni kidnappers.

One Saudi journalist who interviewed bin Laden in 1989 remembers three of his close associates going under the names of Abu Mohammed, Abu Hafz and Abu Ahmed. All three fought with bin Laden in the early Eighties, travelled with him to the Sudan and have come back to Afghanistan. Afghan veterans, believed to include men who fought the Americans in Somalia, have also returned.

Other members of al-Quaeda remain overseas. Afghan veterans now linked to bin Laden have been traced by investigators to Pakistan, East Africa, Albania, Chechnya, Algeria, France, the US and Britain.

At least one of the kidnappers in Yemen was reported to have fought in Afghanistan and to be linked to al-Quaeda. Despite reports that bin Laden was effectively funded by the Americans, it is impossible to gauge how much American aid he received. He was not a major figure in the Afghan war. Most American weapons, including Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, were channelled by the Pakistanis to the Hezb-i-Islami faction of the mujahideen led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Bin Laden was only loosely connected with the group, serving under another Hezb-i-Islami commander known as Engineer Machmud. However, bin Laden’s Office of Services, set up to recruit overseas for the war, received some US cash.

Robert Dreyfuss also succintly describes the geo-political situation surrounding the creation of al-Qaeda and the organization and funding of terrorists since the late 1970s. Notably, he also mentions that the late 1970s were not the beginning of Western support for terrorism. Dreyfuss takes the timeline back to the 1960s. He writes,

For half a century the United States and many of its allies saw what I call the “Islamic right” as convenient partners in the Cold War.


In the decades before 9/11, hard-core activists and organizations among Muslim fundamentalists on the far right were often viewed as allies for two reasons, because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and because the opposed secular nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh.


By the end of the 1950s, rather than allying itself with the secular forces of progress in the Middle East and the Arab world, the United States found itself in league with Saudi Arabia’s Islamist legions. Choosing Saudi Arabia over Nasser’s Egypt was probably the single biggest mistake the United States has ever made in the Middle East.

A second big mistake … occurred in the 1970s, when, at the height of the Cold War and the struggle for control of the Middle East, the United States either supported or acquiesced in the rapid growth of Islamic right in countries from Egypt to Afghanistan. In Egypt, Anwar Sadat brought the Muslim Brotherhood back to Egypt. In Syria, the United States, Israel, and Jordan supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a civil war against Syria. And … Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of Hamas.

Still another major mistake was the fantasy that Islam would penetrate the USSR and unravel the Soviet Union in Asia. It led to America’s support for the jihadists in Afghanistan. But … America’s alliance with the Afghan Islamists long predated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and had its roots in CIA activity in Afghanistan in the 1960s and in the early and mid-1970s. The Afghan jihad spawned civil war in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, gave rise to the Taliban, and got Osama bin Laden started on building Al Qaeda.

Would the Islamic right have existed without U.S. support? Of course. This is not a book for the conspiracy-minded. But there is no question that the virulence of the movement that we now confront—and which confronts many of the countries in the region, too, from Algeria to India and beyond—would have been significantly less had the United States made other choices during the Cold War.

Pakistani nuclear scientist and peace activist, Perez Hoodbhoy, also wrote about the role of both the West and Pakistan in the creation of global jihad and the control those countries had over the movement. He wrote,

The bleeders [leaders who advocated the idea of “bleeding” the Soviet Union, by Hoodbhoy’s own definition] soon organized and armed the Great Global Jihad, funded by Saudi Arabia, and executed by Pakistan. A powerful magnet for militant Sunni activists was created by the US. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad.

American universities produced books for Afghan children that extolled the virtues of jihad and of killing communists. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, sometimes find textbooks produced as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980’s . These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to “pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs”. Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness and they are still widely available in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

At the international level, Radical Islam went into overdrive as its superpower ally, the United States, funneled support to the mujahideen. Ronald Reagan feted jihadist leaders on the White House lawn, and the U.S. press lionized them.

Washington’s Blog also adds that, Michael J. Springmann, chief of the visa section at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, claims that the CIA insisted that the consulate approve visas for Afghanis so that they could travel to the United States and be trained in terrorism so that they could then be sent back to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. This would later play a role in the questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

Funding Terror Domestically – 1993 World Trade Center Bombing

Without attempting to trace every movement of the Western-backed terror apparatus, it is important to note a number of flashpoints in its history. The 1993 WTC bombing was one of these flashpoints, since it ushered in an era of greater police state, shredding of civil rights, and a government/media-induced hysteria over “domestic terrorism” and terror attacks committed by foreigners against American targets at home.

Ample evidence exists to show that the attacks were committed with help from the FBI. Most notably, FBI informant, Emad Salem, who was attempting to help the FBI infiltrate and prevent the attacks (or so he thought) revealed that the FBI insisted that the terrorists be given real explosives against Salem’s own advice.

New York Times report from 1993 summarzied Salem’s situation in the article entitled, “Tapes Depict Proposal To Thwart Bombs Used In Trade Center Blast,

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.

Thankfully for Salem, he was smart enough to smell a rat and taped his conversations with intelligence and law enforcement agents in secret, which he then released. Many, however, appear to remain secret by order of the court. The Blumenthal article continues,

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City’s tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian army officer, was used by the Government to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the trade center blast, he was feuding with the F.B.I. Supervisor ‘Messed It Up’

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, “came and messed it up.”

“He requested to meet me in the hotel,” Mr. Salem says of the supervisor. “He requested to make me to testify and if he didn’t push for that, we’ll be going building the bomb with a phony powder and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn’t do that.”

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. headquarters in Washington about the bureau’s failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.

“He said, I don’t think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York office to go to Washington, D.C.,” Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him.

Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem’s account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the New York people: “Well, of course not, because they don’t want to get their butts chewed.”

Mary Jo White, who, as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York is prosecuting defendants in two related bombing cases, declined yesterday to comment on the Salem allegations or any other aspect of the cases. An investigator close to the case who refused to be identified further said, “We wish he would have saved the world,” but called Mr. Salem’s claims “figments of his imagination.”

The transcripts, which are stamped “draft” and compiled from 70 tapes recorded secretly during the last two years by Mr. Salem, were turned over to defense lawyers in the second bombing case by the Government on Tuesday under a judge’s order barring lawyers from disseminating them. A large portion of the material was made available to The New York Times.

In a letter to Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Andrew C. McCarthy, an assistant United States attorney, said that he had learned of the tapes while debriefing Mr. Salem and that the informer had then voluntarily turned them over. Other Salem tapes and transcripts were being withheld pending Government review, of “security and other issues,” Mr. McCarthy said.

William M. Kunstler, a defense lawyer in the case, accused the Government this week of improper delay in handing over all the material. The transcripts he had seen, he said, “were filled with all sorts of Government misconduct.” But citing the judge’s order, he said he could not provide any details.

The transcripts do not make clear the extent to which Federal authorities knew that there was a plan to bomb the World Trade Center, merely that they knew that a bombing of some sort was being discussed. But Mr. Salem’s evident anguish at not being able to thwart the trade center blast is a recurrent theme in the transcripts. In one of the first numbered tapes, Mr. Salem is quoted as telling agent Floyd: “Since the bomb went off I feel terrible. I feel bad. I feel here is people who don’t listen.”

Ms. Floyd seems to commiserate, saying, “hey, I mean it wasn’t like you didn’t try and I didn’t try.”

In an apparent reference to Mr. Salem’s complaints about the supervisor, Agent Floyd adds, “You can’t force people to do the right thing.”

The investigator involved in the case who would not be quoted by name said that Mr. Salem may have been led to believe by the agents that they were blameless for any mistakes. It was a classic agent’s tactic, he said, to “blame the boss for all that’s bad and take credit for all the good things.”

In another point in the transcripts, Mr. Salem recounts a conversation he said he had with Mr. Anticev, saying, “I said, ‘Guys, now you saw this bomb went off and you both know that we could avoid that.’ ” At another point, Mr. Salem says, “You get paid, guys, to prevent problems like this from happening.”

Mr. Salem talks of the plan to substitute harmless powder for explosives during another conversation with agent Floyd. In that conversation, he recalls a previous discussion with Mr. Anticev.

“Do you deny,” Mr. Salem says he told the other agent, “your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?” Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev did not deny it. “We was handling the case perfectly well until the supervisor came and messed it up, upside down.”

The transcripts reflect an effort to keep Mr. Salem as an intelligence asset who would not have to go public or testify.

A police detective working with the F.B.I., Louis Napoli, assures Mr. Salem in one conversation, “We can give you total immunity towards prosecution, towards, ah, ah, testifying.” But he adds: “I still have to tell you that if you’re the only game in town in regards to the information,” then, he says, “you’ll have to testify.”
. . . . .
The transcripts are being closely studied by lawyers looking for signs that Mr. Salem and the law enforcement officials, in their zeal to gather evidence, may have crossed the legal line into entrapment, a charge that defense counsel have already raised.

But the transcripts show that the officials were concerned that by associating with bombing defendants awaiting trial in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Mr. Salem might have been accused of spying on the defense.

In an undated conversation, Mr. Anticev tries to explain the perils.

“We’re not allowed to have any information regarding that,” he tells Mr. Salem. “That could jeopardize, you know, if you go see a lawyer, ah, you know, with the defendant’s friend or whatever like that, and you’re talking about things we’re not suppose to, ah, condone that. We’re not supposed to make people do that for us. That’s like sacred ground. You can’t be privileged, ah, you can’t know what’s being talked about at all.”

Mr. Salem seems to bridle. “I, I, I don’t think that’s right,” he says.

The agent insists: “Yeah, but that’s just a guideline. If that ever happened, ah, you can back and reported on the meeting between, ah, you know, Kunstler and Mohammad A. Elgabrown. Forget about it. I mean a lot of people ah the case can get thrown out. You understand?” The references were to the defense lawyer, Mr. Kunstler, and his client in the second bomb case, Ibrahim A. Elgabrowny.

Mr. Salem seems to reluctantly agree.

“They want you to have a hand in it,” Mr. Anticev goes on, “but they’re afraid that when you get that kind of, ah, too deep, like me, it’s almost like, especially with all this legal stuff going on right now.”

If it were just intelligence gathering, the agent says, “You can do anything you want. You could go crazy over there and have a good time. Do you know what I mean?”

The agent goes on: “But now that everything is going to court and there is legal stuff and it’s just, it’s just too hard. It’s just too tricky, if, this, you know. And then there’s the fact if you come by with the big information, he did this, ah, let me talk about this with the other people again.”

“O.K.,” Mr. Salem says. “All right. O.K.”

In an article for the New York Magazine entitled “The CIA’s Jihad,” Robert I. Friedman, wrote in 1995 (March 27) on another questionable facet of the bombing. He wrote,

Shiekh Omar Abdel Rahman commands an almost deified adoration and respect in certain Islamic circles. It was his 1980 fatwa – religious decree – condemning Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel that is widely believed to be responsible for Sadat’s assassination a year later. (Rahman was subsequently tried but acquitted.)


The CIA paid to send Abdel Rahman to Peshawar ‘to preach to the Afghans about the necessity of unity to overthrow the Kabul regime,’ according to Professor Rubin. By all accounts, Rahman was brilliant at inspiring the faithful.

As a reward for his services, the CIA gave the sheikh a one-year visa to the United States in May, 1990 – even though he was on a State Department terrorism watch list that should have barred him from the country.

After a public outcry in the wake of the World Trade Centre bombing, a State Department representative discovered that Rahman had, in fact, received four United States visas dating back to December 15, 1986. All were given to him by CIA agents acting as consular officers at American embassies in Khartoum and Cairo. The CIA officers claimed they didn’t know the sheikh was one of the most notorious political figures in the Middle East and a militant on the State Department’s list of undesirables. The agent in Khartoum said that when the sheikh walked in the computers were down and the Sudanese clerk didn’t bother to check the microfiche file.

Says one top New York investigator: ‘Left with the choice between pleading stupidity or else admitting deceit, the CIA went with stupidity.’


The sheikh arrived in Brooklyn at a fortuitous time for the CIA. In the wake of the Soviet Union’s retreat from Afghanistan, Congress had slashed the amount of covert aid going to the mujaheddin. The international network of Arab-financed support groups became even more vital to the CIA, including the string of jihad offices that had been set up across America with the help of Saudi and American intelligence. To drum up support, the agency paved the way for veterans of the Afghan conflict to visit the centres and tell their inspirational war stories; in return, the centres collected millions of dollars for the rebels at a time when they needed it most.

There were jihad offices in Jersey City, Atlanta and Dallas, but the most important was the one in Brooklyn, called Alkifah – Arabic for ‘the struggle.’ That storefront became the de facto headquarters of the sheikh.


On November 5, 1990, Rabbi Meir Kahane, an ultra-right-wing Zionist militant, was shot in the throat with a .357 magnum in a Manhattan hotel; El-Sayyid Nosair was gunned down by an off-duty postal inspector outside the hotel, and the murder weapon was found a few feet from his hand.

A subsequent search of Nosair’s Cliffside Park, New Jersey home turned up forty boxes of evidence – evidence that, had the D.A.’s office and the FBI looked at it more carefully, would have revealed an active terrorist conspiracy about to boil over in New York.


In addition to discovering thousands of rounds of ammunition and hit lists with the names of New York judges and prosecutors, investigators found amongst the Nosair evidence classified U.S. military-training manuals.


Also found amongst Nosair’s effects were several documents, letters and notebooks in Arabic, which when eventually translated would point to e terror conspiracy against the United States. The D.A.’s office shipped these, along with the other evidence, to the FBI’s office at 26 Federal Plaza. ‘We gave all this stuff to the bureau, thinking that they were well equipped,’ says one source close to the D.A.’s office. ‘After the World Trade Centre, we discovered they never translated the material.’

According to other sources familiar with the case, the FBI told District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau that Nosair was a lone gunman, not part of a broader conspiracy; the prosecution took this position at trial and lost, only convicting Nosair of gun charges. Morgenthau speculated the CIA may have encouraged the FBI not to pursue any other leads, these sources say. ‘The FBI lied to me,’ Morgenthau has told colleagues. ‘They’re supposed to untangle terrorist connections, but they can’t be trusted to do the job.’

Three years later, on the day the FBI arrested four Arabs for the World Trade Centre bombing, saying it had all of the suspects, Morgenthau’s ears pricked up. He didn’t believe the four were ‘self-starters,’ and speculated that there was probably a larger network as well as a foreign sponsor. He also had a hunch that the suspects would lead back to Sheikh Abdel Rahman. But he worried that the dots might not be connected because the U.S. government was protecting the sheikh for his help in Afghanistan.


Nevertheless, some in the D.A.’s office believe that until the Ryder van exploded underneath New York’s tallest building, the sheikh and his men were being protected by the CIA. Morgenthau reportedly believes the CIA brought the sheikh to Brooklyn in the first place….

As far as can be determined, no American agency is investigating leads suggesting foreign-government involvement in the New York terror conspiracy. For example, Saudi intelligence has contributed to Sheikh Rahman’s legal-defence fund, according to Mohammed al-Khilewi, the former first secretary to the Saudi mission at the U.N.

Friedman also points out that intelligence agencies had notes in their possession that by all reason should have connected these terrorists but these agencies did not connect the dots before 1993.

Washington’s Blog quotes CNN’s 1994 report entitled “Terror Nation? U.S. Creation?“, which stated (as summarized by Congressman Peter Deutsch),

Some Afghan groups that have had close affiliation with Pakistani Intelligence are believed to have been involved in the [1993] New York World Trade Center bombings.


Pro-Western afghan officials … officially warned the U.S. government about Hekmatyar no fewer than four times. The last warning delivered just days before the [1993] Trade Center attack.” Speaking to former CIA Director Robert Gates, about Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Peter Arnett reports, “The Pakistanis showered Gulbuddin Hekmatyar with U.S. provided weapons and sang his praises to the CIA. They had close ties with Hakmatyar going back to the mid-1970’s.”

Washington’s Blog adds,

This is interesting because it is widely-acknowledged that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was enthusiastically backed by the U.S. For example, U.S. News and World Report says:

[He was] once among America’s most valued allies. In the 1980s, the CIA funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and ammunition to help them battle the Soviet Army during its occupation of Afghanistan. Hekmatyar, then widely considered by Washington to be a reliable anti-Soviet rebel, was even flown to the United States by the CIA in 1985.

As the New York TimesCBS News and others reported, an FBI informant involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center begged the FBI to substitute fake bomb power for real explosives, but his FBI handler somehow let real explosives be used.


The United States would once again use al-Qaeda in the late 90s in Kosovo under the name Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which would, much like the Libyan war, provoke a response from the Yugoslav government used to justify a “humanitarian war” which resulted in thousands of deaths of innocent people. As Michel Chossudovsky wrote in his Global Research article, “Bill Clinton Worked Hand in Glove with Al Qaeda: “Helped Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base,”

The “Bosnian pattern” described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was then replicated in Kosovo. Among the foreign mercenaries fighting in Kosovo (and Macedonia in 2001) were Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union as well as “soldiers of fortune” from several NATO countries including Britain, Holland and Germany.

Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with “former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain’s 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private security companies”. (The Scotsman, Glasgow, 29 August 1999)

The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training programme for the KLA, said a senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.’ While these covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit’s D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the bombing campaign in March. (ibid)

While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan financed by the “Islamic jihad” were collaborating in training the KLA in guerilla and diversion tactics. (Truth in Media, April 2, 1999)

Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, … Bin Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994 … Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamentalists. (Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998, emphasis added).

. . . .  of the RPC congressional document, . . . .  confirms that the Clinton administration was collaborating with Al Qaeda. The actions taken by the Clinton administration were intended to create ethnic and factional divisions which eventually were conducive to the fracturing of the Yugoslav Federation.

In retrospect, the Obama Administration’s covert support of the ISIS in Syria and Iraq bears a canny resemblance to the Clinton administration’s support of the Militant Islamic Base in Bosnia and Kosovo. What this suggests is that US intelligence rather than the White House and the State Department determine the main thrust of US foreign policy, which consists in supporting and financing “Jihadist” terrorist organizations with a view to destabilizing sovereign countries.

The Plot To Assassinate Ghaddafi In The ’90s

Former MI5 agent David Shayler caused a massive controversy in Britain after revealing a failed plot by MI6 to assassinate Muammar Ghaddafi in Libya in 1996. The plan centered around paying and working closely with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an al-Qaeda terrorist organization that would later surface again during the course of the Western backed war to overthrow Ghaddafi in 2011. The plot, which centered around planting a bomb in Ghaddafi’s car, failed to kill Ghaddafi as the device was planted in the wrong vehicle. It did, however, kill a number of innocent civilians. The goal, according to Shayler, was to kill Ghaddafi, which would send Libya into absolute chaos, possibly allowing al-Qaeda to seize power. This would allow Britain and most likely the United States to invade and seize control of the oild fields, pipelines, and the coast, all while seeing the leader who had long resisted Western machinations eliminated.

As Gary Gambill wrote in his article, “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group,” for the Jamestown Foundation,

After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi’s government “an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty” and declaring its overthrow to be “the foremost duty after faith in God.” [3] This and future LIFG communiqués were issued by Libyan Afghans who had been granted political asylum in Britain (often after being rejected by continental European governments), where anti-Qadhafi sentiments stemming from the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, remained at a fever pitch. The involvement of the British government in the LIFG campaign against Qadhafi remains the subject of immense controversy. LIFG’s next big operation, a failed attempt to assassinate Qadhafi in February 1996 that killed several of his bodyguards, was later said to have been financed by British intelligence to the tune of $160,000, according to ex-M15 officer David Shayler. [4] While Shayler’s allegations have not been independently confirmed, it is clear that Britain allowed LIFG to develop a base of logistical support and fundraising on its soil. At any rate, financing by bin Laden appears to have been much more important. According to one report, LIFG received up to $50,000 from the Saudi terrorist mastermind for each of its militants killed on the battlefield.

While not the United States government proper, the UK and US intelligence agencies often function as one unit as a result of the so-called “special relationship” that saw the intelligence communities of both countries merged during the second World War. Regardless, the incident, at the very least, shows Western governments working hand in hand with al-Qaeda in an effort to kill the leader of a sovereign state.


The war against Ghaddafi in Libya worked in much the same way as the attempted killing of Ghaddafi was supposed to work in the ’90s. Indeed, it also followed the same trend as the war in Syria, the difference being the fact that Syria has not only been able to hold on for seven years but also seems to be on the cusp of defeating Western the Western agenda.

During the course of the war against Libya, the United States openly supported al-Qaeda terrorists as a proxy army to overthrow the Libyan government.

Among the Libyan “rebels” being supported by the United States was the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist organization that, as was mentioned above, is nothing more than another regional division and nomenclature for al-Qaeda itself. As Webster Tarpley wrote in his article, “The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists Who Killed US, NATO Troops In Iraq,

The specific institutional basis for the recruitment of guerrilla fighters in northeastern Libya is associated with an organization which previously called itself the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). During the course of 2007, the LIFG declared itself an official subsidiary of al Qaeda, later assuming the name of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). As a result of this 2007 merger, an increased number of guerrilla fighters arrived in Iraq from Libya. According to Felter and Fishman, “The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007.” This merger is confirmed by other sources: A 2008 statement attributed to Ayman al-Zawahiri claimed that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has joined al-Qaeda.

. . .

The West Point study [ Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007).] makes clear that the main bulwarks of the LIFG and of the later AQIM were the twin cities of Benghazi and Darnah. This is documented in a statement by Abu Layth al-Libi, the self-styled “Emir” of the LIFG, who later became a top official of al Qaeda. At the time of the 2007 merger, “Abu Layth al-Libi, LIFG’s Emir, reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al-Qa’ida, saying: ‘It is with the grace of God that we were hoisting the banner of jihad against this apostate regime under the leadership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sacrificed the elite of its sons and commanders in combating this regime whose blood was spilled on the mountains of Darnah, the streets of Benghazi, the outskirts of Tripoli, the desert of Sabha, and the sands of the beach.’”This 2007 merger meant that the Libyan recruits for Al Qaeda became an increasingly important part of the activity of this organization as a whole, shifting the center of gravity to some degree away from the Saudis and Egyptians who had previously been most conspicuous. As Felter and Fishman comment, “Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al-Qa’ida. The Sinjar Records offer some evidence that Libyans began surging into Iraq in larger numbers beginning in May 2007. Most of the Libyan recruits came from cities in northeast Libya, an area long known for jihadi-linked militancy.”

. . . . .

Looking back at the tragic experience of US efforts to incite the population of Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation in the years after 1979, it should be clear that the policy of the Reagan White House to arm the Afghan mujahedin with Stinger missiles and other modern weapons turned out to be highly destructive for the United States. As current Defense Secretary Robert Gates comes close to admitting in his memoirs, Al Qaeda was created during those years by the United States as a form of Arab Legion against the Soviet presence, with long-term results which have been highly lamented.

Today, it is clear that the United States is providing modern weapons for the Libyan rebels through Saudi Arabia and across the Egyptian border with the active assistance of the Egyptian army and of the newly installed pro-US Egyptian military junta. This is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for a complete arms embargo on Libya. The assumption is that these weapons will be used against Gaddafi in the coming weeks. But, given the violently anti-American nature of the population of northeast Libya that is now being armed, there is no certainty that these weapons will not be soon turned against those who have provided them.

. . . . .

For those who attempt to follow the ins and outs of the CIA’s management of its various patsy organizations inside the realm of presumed Islamic terrorism, it may be useful to trace the transformation of the LIFG-AQIM from deadly enemy to close ally. This phenomenon is closely linked to the general reversal of the ideological fronts of US imperialism that marks the divide between the Bush-Cheney-neocon administrations and the current Obama-Brzezinski-International Crisis Group regime. The Bush approach was to use the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a reason for direct military attack. The Obama method is to use Al Qaeda to overthrow independent governments, and then either Balkanize and partition the countries in question, or else use them as kamikaze puppets against larger enemies like Russia, China, or Iran. This approach implies a more or less open fraternization with terrorist groups, which was signaled in a general way in Obamas famous Cairo speech of 2009. The links of the Obama campaign to the terrorist organizations deployed by the CIA against Russia were already a matter of public record three years ago.But such a reversal

of field cannot be improvised overnight; it took several years of preparation. On July 10, 2009, The London Daily Telegraph reported that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group had split with Al Qaeda. This was when the United States had decided to de-emphasize the Iraq war, and also to prepare to use the Sunni Moslem Brotherhood and its Sunni Al Qaeda offshoot for the destabilization of the leading Arab states preparatory to turning them against Shiite Iran. Paul Cruikshank wrote at that time in the New York Daily News about one top LIFG honcho who wanted to dial back the relation to al Qaeda and the infamous Osama Bin Laden; this was “Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. While mainstream Muslim leaders have long criticized Al Qaeda, these critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite.” But by this time some LIFG bosses had moved up into al Qaeda: the London Daily Telegraph reported that senior Al Qaeda members Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Laith al-Libi were LIFG members. Around this time, Qaddafi released some LIFG fighters in an ill-advsided humanitarian gesture.

It is highly recommended for the reader to acces Peter Dale Scott’s article “Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons? Peter Dale Scott’s Libyan Notebook” published in the Asia Pacific Journal in order to views his “notes” in the run-up to the destabilization and invasion of Libya.

Later, in 2016, as the United States and Britain used the presence of “extremists” in Libya to justify military action in the country yet again, Tony Cartalucci wrote in his article, “US-NATO Invade Libya To Fight Terrorists Of Own Creation,

As has been explained by geopolitical analysts since 2011, terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and their various rebrandings are far from being the West’s true adversaries. Besides being funded, armed, and backed by the West’s closest and oldest Middle Eastern allies – particularly the Saudis and Qataris – these terrorist organizations serve a two-fold purpose. First, they serve as a mercenary army with which the West fights targeted nations by proxy. Second, they serve as a pretext for direct Western military intervention when proxy war fails or is not an option.

This was first illustrated with the very inception of Al Qaeda in the 1980’s where it was used as a proxy force by the US and Saudis to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. In 2001, the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was used as a pretext for a US invasion and occupation that endures to this very day.

As of 2011, literally these very same terrorists were organized, armed, funded, and provided with NATO aircover to overthrow the government of Libya. From there, they were rearmed and shipped to NATO-member Turkey where they then invaded northern Syria, and more specifically Idlib and the pivotal city of Aleppo.

The Business Insider would report in its article, “REPORT: The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels,” that:

The administration has said that the previously hidden CIA operation in Benghazi involved finding, repurchasing and destroying heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, but in October we reported evidence indicating that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

There have been several possible SA-7 spottings in Syria dating as far back as early summer 2012, and there are indications that at least some of Gaddafi’s 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles were shipped before now.

On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi” who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.

The Business Insider’s mention of Abdelhakim Belhaj working directly with Ambassador Stevens is particularly important. Belhaj was quite literally the leader of US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – Al Qaeda in Libya. Despite his obvious ties to Al Qaeda, he was openly backed by the US during the 2011 Libyan War, and afterward, was posing for pictures with US senators including Arizona senator John McCain in the aftermath of NATO’s regime change operations. LIFG’s leader, Abdelhakim Belhadj, is now reportedly also a senior leader of ISIS in Libya.

Fox News in a March 2015 report titled, “Herridge: ISIS Has Turned Libya Into New Support Base, Safe Haven,” would claim:

Herridge reported that one of the alleged leaders of ISIS in North Africa is Libyan Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was seen by the U.S. as a willing partner in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

“Now, it’s alleged he is firmly aligned with ISIS and supports the training camps in eastern Libya,” Herridge said.

It is clear that the West is not fighting ISIS, but instead, has clearly both created it and is intentionally perpetuating it to help justify its military and geopolitical maneuvering across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, and advance its aspirations toward regional and global political, military, and economic hegemony.

The very same technicals – armed trucks used in combat – bearing the Libyan “rebel” insignia, have literally just been painted over by images of ISIS’ flag, like props on a Hollywood set being used in a bad sequel. With the US-British and European intervention in a destroyed Libya overrun by terrorists – a Libya we were promised by NATO was bringing brought peace, stability, “freedom,” and “democracy” with its 2011 intervention, we see fully the danger of entrusting other nations to a similar fate wrought by Western intervention – most notably Syria.


Books, documentaries, articles, and lectures abound regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and who was ultimately responsible for them. Needless to say, an attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job is beyond the scope of this article. One aspect that is not up for debate, however, is whether or not the official story regarding 9/11 is true. The official story is demonstrably false.

With this in mind, I highly access reading and/or viewing the following materials in order to gain a better understanding of the link between al-Qaeda and the United States government as it relates to 9/11.

Loose Change – documentary


Fabled Enemies – documentary

Confronting The Evidence – documentary

Syria ISIS IS Al-Qaeda

It is important to remember that the so-called leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As Voltaire Netdescribes Baghdadi,

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi who joined Al-Qaeda to fight against President Saddam Hussein. During the U.S. invasion, he distinguished himself by engaging in several actions against Shiites and Christians (including the taking of the Baghdad Cathedral) and by ushering in an Islamist reign of terror (he presided over an Islamic court which sentenced many Iraqis to be slaughtered in public). After the departure of Paul Bremer III, al-Baghdadi was arrested and incarcerated at Camp Bucca from 2005 to 2009. This period saw the dissolution of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose fighters merged into a group of tribal resistance, the Islamic Emirate of Iraq.

On 16 May 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named emir of the IEI, which was in the process of disintegration. After the departure of U.S. troops, he staged operations against the government al-Maliki, accused of being at the service of Iran. In 2013, after vowing allegiance to Al-Qaeda, he took off with his group to continue the jihad in Syria, rebaptizing it Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. In doing so, he challenged the privileges that Ayman al-Zawahiri had previously granted, on behalf of Al-Qaeda, to the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, which was originally nothing more than an extension of the IEI.

Regardless, false assumptions surrounding the true leadership of ISIS would be called into question in January of 2014 when Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned and operated news agency, published an article as well as a video of an interrogation of an ISIS fighter who had been captured while operating inside Syria.

When asked why ISIS was following the movement of the Free Syrian Army and who had given him the orders to do so, the fighter stated that he did not know why he was ordered to monitor the FSA’s movement but that the orders had come from Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal of the Saudi Royal Family.

An excerpt from the relevant section of the interrogation reads as follows:

Interrogator: Why do you (ISIS) monitor the movement of the Free Syrian Army?

ISIS Detainee: I don’t know exactly why but we received orders from ISIS command.

Interrogator: Who among ISIS gave the orders?

ISIS Detainee: Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal, who is also known as Abu Faisal.

Such revelations, of course, will only be shocking news to those who have been unaware of the levels to which the Saudis have been involved with the funding, training, and directing of death squad forces deployed in Syria. Indeed, the Saudis have even openly admitted to the Russian governmentthat they do, in fact, control a number of varied terrorist organizations across the world.

Even tired mainstream media organizations such as Newsweek (aka The Daily Beast) can no longer ignore the facts surrounding the Saudis’ involvement with the organization of terrorist groups across the world.

Note also that Voltaire Net describes al-Nusra, a documented al-Qaeda connected group, as merely an extension of the IEI (Islamic Emirate of Iraq) which itself was nothing more than a version of Al-Qaeda In Iraq. Thus, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, came the IEI, which then became the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. IEIL then became ISIS/ISIL which is now often referred to as IS.

In other words, Nusra=Al-Qaeda-IEI=IEIL=ISIL=ISIS=IS.

With the information presented above regarding the nature of the Free Syrian Army and the so-called “moderate rebels,” it would be entirely fair to add these “moderate” groups to the list as well.


The United States not only openly uses extremist groups in Syria for the purpose of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad, it continues to use the terrorist proxy army either for the purpose of mass destabilizations or “isolated” terror attacks by which to put target governments under pressure and/or justify American invasion based upon the invented threat.

The use of terrorist proxy armies did not begin with Syria and it will not end with Syria.

Nevertheless, it is important to understand the level to which the U.S. has used these organizations for its own geopolitical and domestic purposes in order to understand current affairs and thus effect change. From Afghanistan in the 1980s to Syria in 2018, the United States has found a useful army of terrorists that has been used to great effect over nearly four decades. This article has only scratched the surface of the incidents discussed as well as American funding and use of terrorism in general.

However, these incidents are well-known and American support for extremists is not something that is grossly hidden. Until Americans understand that the domestic and foreign bogeyman they have been trained to hate and fear is a creation working at the behest of their own government, they will continue to be passed back and forth between loss of liberty at home and war abroad.

Posted in Middle East, USAComments Off on The U.S. Relationship to Jihadists and al-Qaeda Across the World

Shoah’s pages