Quote of the Day: Whose Conspiracy?

From former economist, blogger and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy Paul Craig Roberts at this website

What disturbs me is that no one in authority or in the mainstream media has any interest in checking the facts. Instead, those who raise awkward matters are dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

Why this is damning is puzzling. The government’s story of 9/11 is a story of a conspiracy as is the government’s story of the Boston Marathon Bombing. These things happen because of conspiracies. What is at issue is: whose conspiracy? We know from Operation Gladio and Operation Northwoods that governments do engage in murderous conspiracies against their own citizens. Therefore, it is a mistake to conclude that governments do not engage in conspiracies.

One often hears the objection that if 9/11 was a false flag attack, someone would have talked.

Why would they have talked? Only those who organized the conspiracy would know. Why would they undermine their own conspiracy?

Recall William Binney. He developed the surveillance system used by NSA. When he saw that it was being used against the American people, he talked. But he had taken no documents with which to prove his claims, which saved him from successful prosecution but gave him no evidence for his claims. This is why Edward Snowden took the documents and released them. Nevertheless, many see Snowden as a spy who stole national security secrets, not as a whistleblower warning us that the Constitution that protects us is being overthrown.

High level government officials have contradicted parts of the 9/11 official story and the official story that links the invasion of Iraq to 9/11 and to weapons of mass destruction. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta contradicted Vice President Cheney and the official 9/11 story timeline. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill has said that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the subject of the first cabinet meeting in the George W. Bush administration long before 9/11. He wrote it in a book and told it on CBS News’ 60 Minutes. CNN and other news stations reported it. But it had no effect.

Whistleblowers pay a high price. Many of them are in prison. Obama has prosecuted and imprisoned a record number. Once they are thrown in prison, the question becomes: “Who would believe a criminal?”

As for 9/11 all sorts of people have talked. Over 100 police, firemen and first responders have reported hearing and experiencing a large number of explosions in the Twin Towers. Maintanence personnel report experiencing massive explosions in the sub-basements prior to the building being hit by an airplane. None of this testimony has had any effect on the authorities behind the official story or on the presstitutes.

There are 2,300 architects and engineers who have written to Congress requesting a real investigation. Instead of the request being treated with the respect that 2,300 professionals deserve, the professionals are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.”

An international panel of scientists have reported the presence of reacted and unreacted nanothermite in the dust of the World Trade Centers. They have offered their samples to government agencies and to scientists for confirmation. No one will touch it. The reason is clear. Today science funding is heavily dependent on the federal government and on private companies that have federal contracts. Scientists understand that speaking out about 9/11 means the termination of their career.

The government has us where it wants us—powerless and disinformed. Most Americans are too uneducated to be able to tell the difference between a building falling down from asymetrical damage and one blowing up. Mainstream journalists cannot question and investigate and keep their jobs. Scientists cannot speak out and continue to be funded. 

Truth telling has been shoved off into the alternative Internet media where I would wager the government runs sites that proclaim wild conspiracies, the purpose of which is to discredit all skeptics.

The French Government Uses Free Speech as Pretext to Suppress Free Speech

At the Ron Paul Institute, Daniel McAdams comments that the French government has used the Charlie Hebdo incident as a convenient excuse to crack down on Free speech (“After Free Speech Rally, France Cracks Down on Free Speech”)

Well that didn't take long. Just three days after the French government hosted dozens of foreign leaders in a "unity rally" to defend free speech in the wake of last week's shooting at the Charlie Hebdo magazine, France has begun arresting its citizens for actually exercising free speech.

According to news reports, more than 50 French citizens were arrested today and charged with offensive speech — the same kind of speech that was the trademark of of the Charlie Hebdo publication. 

None of those arrested were charged with links to terrorism or any real crime. Instead, they are facing up to seven years in prison for making statements the French authorities claim are supportive of the shootings or are anti-Semitic.

New directives from the French Justice Ministry provided the legal basis for arresting those deemed "supportive" of the attacks or who express anti-Semitic or racist sentiment. Anti-Muslim sentiment was not included in the government's new arrest orders, despite a dramatic spike in actual attacks on French Muslims since the shootings. The justice ministry claimed the new anti-speech measures were necessary to protect freedom of expression.

Among those arrested is controversial French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, charged with being "an apologist for terrorism" and facing jail time over a Facebook post making fun of Sunday's "unity rally." Exercising free speech by making fun of the French government as it celebrates free speech is apparently a crime.

The French government has long banned Dieudonné's comedy performances over his controversial jokes, even as French authorities celebrate Charlie Hebdo's controversial jokes.

Those arrested for exercising free speech in France will be charged under "special measures" put into place after the shooting, which provide for immediate sentencing of the accused. Some 130,000 military and security forces have been deployed on the streets of France and ordered to keep a particular eye on incidents that could bring violence against the police.

Unreported in the US, Charlie Hebdo has long ties with the French Communist Party and after the shooting has moved its headquarters to the offices of Libération, a French newspaper with roots in the Communist Party-inspired unrest of May, 1968. One of most famous Charlie Hebdo cartoonists,Stéphane Charbonnier ("Charb"), was a long-time member of the French Communist Party. Currently the newspaper is considered "left wing" and is controlled by Edouard de Rothschild of the international banking family, which should provide some additional fodder for the conspiracy-minded.

France and Europe chokes under the noxious cloud of hypocrisy.

Judge Andrew Napolitano at the LewRockwell.com sees the same (bold mine)

The French government has prohibited speech it considers to be hateful and even made it criminal. When the predecessor magazine to Charlie Hebdo once mocked the death of Charles de Gaulle, the French government shut it down — permanently.

The theory of anti-hate speech laws is that hate speech often leads to violence, and violence demands police and thus the expenditure of public resources, and so the government can make it illegal to spout hatred in order to conserve its resources. This attitude presumes, as Wilson did when he prosecuted folks for publicly singing German songs during World War I, that the government is the origin of free speech and can lawfully limit the speech it hates and fears. It also presumes that all ideas are equal, and none is worthy of hatred.

When the massacres occurred last week in Paris, all three of the murderers knew that the police would be unarmed and so would be their victims. It was as if they were shooting fish in a barrel. Why is that? The answer lies in the same mentality that believes it can eradicate hate by regulating speech. That mentality demands that government have a monopoly on violence, even violence against evil.

So, to those who embrace this dreadful theory, the great loss in Paris last week was not human life, which is a gift from God; it was free speech, which is a gift from the state. Hence the French government, which seems not to care about innocent life, instead of addressing these massacres as crimes against innocent people, proclaimed the massacres crimes against the freedom of speech. Would the French government have reacted similarly if the murderers had killed workers at an ammunition factory, instead of at a satirical magazine?

And how hypocritical was it of the French government to claim it defends free speech! In France, you can go to jail if you publicly express hatred for a group whose members may be defined generally by characteristics of birth, such as gender, age, race, place of origin or religion.

You can also go to jail for using speech to defy the government. This past weekend, millions of folks in France wore buttons and headbands that proclaimed in French: “I am Charlie Hebdo.” Those whose buttons proclaimed “I am not Charlie Hebdo” were asked by the police to remove them. Those who wore buttons that proclaimed, either satirically or hatefully, “I am Kouachi” were arrested. Arrested for speech at a march in support of free speech? Yes.

What’s going on here? What’s going on in France, and what might be the future in America, is the government defending the speech with which it agrees and punishing the speech with which it disagrees. What’s going on is the assault by some in radical Islam not on speech, but on vulnerable innocents in their everyday lives in order to intimidate their governments. What’s going on is the deployment of 90,000 French troops to catch and kill three murderers because the government does not trust the local police to use guns to keep the streets safe or private persons to use guns to defend their own lives.

Meanwhile former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal Paul Craig Roberts deems that the unfortunate Charlie Hebdo incident was instead a false flag

The Likely Implications of a US War Against Syria

One of the major developments being ignored today by domestic media has been the heating up of the war rhetoric by US and her allies against Syria.

From Bloomberg:

The Obama administration is constructing the legal and political justification for a limited military strike on Syria that would demonstrate international censure against chemical weapons, according to a U.S. official.

Any action taken by the U.S. would have a narrow scope and not be aimed at taking out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the official said, contrasting it to the allied offensive in Libya that targeted Muammar Qaddafi. A strike would concentrate on Syria’s weapons capabilities.

President Barack Obama and his aides are consulting with U.S. lawmakers and allies such as the U.K. and France about possible military action. French President Francois Hollande said today that Syria’s use of chemical arms must be punished. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron has summoned Parliament back from its recess on Aug. 29 to discuss the country’s response.

Any action by Obama to intervene in Syria will run up against U.S. public opinion that offers little support for new military commitments in the region. It also would consume political capital as Obama also seeks to get agreement from U.S. lawmakers on fiscal policy, the nation’s debt limit and a new chairman of the Federal Reserve.

As pointed out in the past the relationship between inflation and war are intertwined.

For governments, war serves as diversion for the public from economic troubles usually caused or aggravated by inflationism, and importantly, war serves as justification for expanding control over society’s resources. And wars are mainly financed by inflationism. Of course, wars provide lavish businesses to defense and defense related industries. They also boost the egos of war mongers

Brinkmanship geopolitics in Syria has led to a spike in gold and oil prices. These are signs that shouldn’t be ignored as they will have spillover effects on the economy.

While the US and her allies accuses Syria of having to recently use chemical weapons to justify war, many has  countered that this has been a false flag—or a planted operation. For instance a hacked email from a defense contractor of the British government revealed of a (INFOWARS.com) “plan “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime”

A war in Syria could mean big trouble for the world.

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal explains at the Huffington Post:

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.”

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality.

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism?

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.”

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes.

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government.

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.

The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand.

This only shows of the tendency of the public to focus on the sensational and overlook the more important events. 

Video: Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fake FBI Terror Plots

Former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Andrew P. Napolitano narrates of the US government's history of creating 'false flags' or fake terror plots at the Fox News Channel.(hat tip Lew Rockwell.com)

The Strategy Behind the US War on Terror: Initiate Terrorism to Justify Overthrow of Governments

The US foreign policy of the "war on terror" may have been a grand covert scheme engineered to promote the political and economic interests of several highly connected power blocs implemented through "false flags".

Writes the Washington's Blog (bold highlights original) [source lewrockwell.com]

Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander NATO, testifies in this 2-minute video that the US planned to overthrow seven countries after 9/11: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

The Pentagon admitted a strategy to do so (here, here, here):

1. the US conducts acts of terrorism in nations they want to control,
2. the US continues terrorism to provoke an act of reprisal,
3. the US labels the reprisal “terrorism” to justify covert and overt military operations to overthrow targeted governments.

Therefore, the US caused the “war on terror” as a policy choice; 9/11 was pretense and not the cause.

Indeed, war law and two UN Security Council Resolutions provided international cooperation for factual discovery of the 9/11 terrorists, arrests, and trial for lawful justice all nations supported.

The US rejects the rule of law, violates treaty obligations, killed over a million human beings from armed attacks since 9/11, and so far has long-term costs of $4 to $6 trillion to US taxpayers ($40 – $60,000 per household).

This rogue state of the US ends when enough Americans in military, law enforcement, government, media, education, and the general public have sufficient intellectual integrity and moral courage to accept the “emperor has no clothes” obvious facts.

This unlawful policy choice of the US for Wars of Aggression has killed 20-30 million people in covert and overt wars since 1945.

Read the rest here 

In the world of politics, one should be leery of what "appears" to be.  Or what has been peddled or communicated to the public as the cause, by politicians and the politically influenced mainstream media, may most likely just be the effects of an underlying unseen design or plot.

Has the Foiled Bombing of the New York Fed Been a Prank or False Flag?

A supposed attempt to "terrorize" Americans by "bombing" the New York Federal Reserve has been reported foiled.

From LA Times (bold mine) 

A 21-year-old Bangladeshi man who wanted to "destroy America" tried to detonate what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb in front of the Federal Reserve Bank in Manhattan on Wednesday, but the explosive was a dud provided by agents as part of an FBI sting, authorities said. 

The FBI and New York police said Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, whom they described as an Al Qaeda loyalist, was arrested in a hotel room after several futile attempts to detonate the fake bomb by remote control. He was arraigned in federal court hours later on charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempting to provide material support to Al Qaeda.

"Attempting to destroy a landmark building and kill or maim untold numbers of innocent bystanders is about as serious as the imagination can conjure," said Mary Galligan, acting assistant director of the FBI in New York. She said there was no danger to the public because two "accomplices" were working with the FBI and because the purported bomb contained no explosives. 

Officials said that did not reduce the seriousness of the threat. 

 "He was arrested, but he clearly had the intent of creating mayhem," New York's police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, told reporters. Kelly said the alleged plot — one of more than a dozen thwarted in New York since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — showed that the city remains "very much a coveted target" of terrorists. "We see this threat as being with us for a long time to come," he said. 

A 21-page complaint details months of alleged planning by Nafis, who entered the United States on a student visa in January but who allegedly told an informant that his true reason for coming to the country was to wage jihad, or holy war. Nafis settled into an apartment in the New York City borough of Queens and allegedly began trying to recruit militants, one of whom was an informant. 

Eventually, authorities say, Nafis also made contact with a second man, whom he believed to be a member of Al Qaeda. In reality, the man was an undercover FBI agent.  

"Bombing" of the NY FED with a dud or a fake bomb seems more like a prank than an act of terror. 

On the other hand, fingerprints of official involvement may even suggest of another possible false flag similar to the recent CIA double agent underwear bomber. The fugitive not only had relations with an FBI undercover agent but has been on the watchlist for months. 

One can't help draw the involvement of public officials in the understanding that many of the terror plots have been faked.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained in this video

 

In today's highly politicized world, one can't really know if events are for real, staged or that people have become paranoids.

ASEAN Experts: Yuan to Replace U.S. dollar, Euro

From Xinhua,

China's currency could be eventually used as an alternative to the U.S. dollar and Euro by southeast Asian countries, experts said.

Phathanaphong Phusuwan, a senior official of the Bank of Thailand, said in a seminar on Thai-Chinese trade, investment and finance relations on Saturday that the yuan would likely be used more between China and ASEAN member states in the long run.

In the panel discussion co-hosted by the National Research Council of Thailand, Huaqiao University and the Thai-Chinese Culture & Economy Association here, the official of the Thai central bank commented the Chinese currency could possibly replace the U.S. dollar and Euro when it comes to trade, financial and money-exchange dealings throughout the ASEAN community, due in part to the unresolved economic and financial problems in the United States and the European Union.

"In the long run from 2015 onwards, trade with Asia will largely increase under the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area agreement, which will influence the use of the yuan and the local currencies. The yuan is then a good alternative for the international trade in the future," said the official, referring to the year in which the regional bloc will become an ASEAN Economic Community.

Nevertheless, he said, the role of the Chinese currency in Thailand and other ASEAN states will remain limited in the short and medium terms.

Thai merchants have increased their use of the yuan in trade, following the easing of restrictions by the Chinese government, he said. A dozen Thai commercial banks and foreign banks' branches here currently offer yuan-based services, including foreign currency deposits, money exchange, fund transfers and purchases of Chinese banknotes.

The Chinese currency has accounted for 10.8 percent of China's trade dealings with the world during the first half of this year, according to a report of the Thai central bank.

ASEAN’s plan to embrace free trade with China should be welcomed.

Yet the above again reveals of the (economic) love –(geopolitical) hate relationship between ASEAN and China.

While free trade may increase the usage of China’s yuan for trade and finance within the region, the role of the yuan as ASEAN’s reserve currency is not guaranteed. This will ultimately depend on the interplay or action-reaction feedback by global participants, not limited to politicians.

For instance, if China’s slowdown turns into a hard landing, what will be the response by the Chinese political authorities? If China inflates as massively as their counterparts in the West, then the likelihood of concerted massive inflation by major economies may mean, hardly a yuan standard for ASEAN, but of a potential return of the role of gold as money (I just don’t know how this would take shape; perhaps a modified Bretton Woods standard?).

Or if China adapts protectionism or goes into a shooting war over territorial claims with ASEAN neighbors then the free trade agreement will simply evaporate or reneged upon. [As a side note, the geographical claims dispute, for me, has most likely been a False Flag]

Given that current political and economic events remain so fluid and sensitive or vulnerable to dramatic changes, it would be a mistake to read present trends into the future.

Although I am hopeful that the technology backed globalization and decentralization will become the dominant force overtime. As well as, I am hopeful of the return of sound money or the de-politicization of money.

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde: China and Vietnam to Expand Trade Via Road Network

More signs of China’s love-hate relationship with ASEAN.

Vietnam one of the claimants in the territorial dispute in the South China Sea has forged a “historic” agreement with China to expand trade through a major road network

From ADB, (bold added)

For the first time, buses and trucks will be able to cross overland between the rugged southern regions of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the remote northern regions of Viet Nam using a 1,300 kilometer route spanning from Ha Noi to Shenzhen made possible through a road transport agreement between the two countries.

“The new transport agreement will have a profound impact not only on bilateral trade and tourism, but also on Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) transport facilitation," said Yushu Feng, Principal Economist, Regional Cooperation, at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which facilitated the bilateral road transport agreement in line with GMS transport facilitation initiatives. “This is a key milestone for regional cooperation.”

The new agreement will ease restrictions on trucks and buses travelling between major economic zones in PRC’s Yunnan province, Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region, Guangdong province and six provinces in Viet Nam, including Lang Son and Quang Ninh provinces, and the cities of Ha Noi and Hai Phong.

Previously, transport operators were only allowed to travel up to 20 kilometers into each other’s territories. Starting August 2012, each country will be able to issue up to 15,100 permits for trucks and buses that travel within the border province area, and each will be able to issue up to 500 permits for trucks and buses than can go to inland provincial areas.

Another significant route, connecting Kunming to Ha Noi and Hai Phong and governed by the same agreement, was inaugurated in Kunming on 16 August 2012.

In 2011, road transport volume between PRC and Viet Nam through the Yuyi-Friendship border gate was as much as 1 million tons for goods and around 726,000 passengers traveled overland between both countries. Transport volume is expected to increase with the newly-implemented road transport agreement. To accommodate market demand, the permit quota for 2013 will be increased, accordingly.

The controversial disputes make it to the headlines and thus fire up emotions that arouse aggression via obtuse (feel good) nationalism.

But these trade agreements which signifies “key milestone for regional cooperation” will be relegated to the business or back pages.Yes the growing trade volume between ASEAN-China are for real.

Overall, China’s seeming antagonistic foreign policies or the gunboat diplomacy has hardly been consistent with her economic policies.

This makes me suspect that one of the two contradicting policies signify as no more than false signals (if not a false flag) aimed at the promotion of concealed political goals.

False Flag Operations by Governments

Here is a list of False Flag operations conducted by governments.

False Flag, according to Wikipedia.org, are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is: flying the flag of a country other than one’s own.

From Washington’s Blog (hat tip Lew Rockwell.com)

• A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that - under orders from the chief of the Gestapo - he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson

• The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister

• Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

• The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred)

• As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that - only nine months before - the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. (While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed as a serious proposal for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads fortunately prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan)

• The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing

• An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)

• Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton says that a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq (and see this)
• According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

• The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings

• As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".

Read the rest here

Recently the supposed underwear bomber suicide bomber turned out to be a CIA double agent

In the Philippines, the Marcos regime staged the ambush of then Secretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile as pretext to impose Martial Law.

Bottom line: Political events can be manipulated by governments to achieve stealth goal/s.

I believe this may apply to the controversial territorial disputes

We can’t simply trust politically influenced media or the mainstream to tell us the truth.

Drone Warfare Hits Philippine Shores

The “War on Terror” theater has expanded to the Philippines. A US drone reportedly targeting local terror groups hit a part of Mindanao scored heavy fatalities.

From Brookings.edu (thanks to the Facebook group Filipinos for Ron Paul 2012)

Early last month, Tausug villagers on the Southern Philippine island of Jolo heard a buzzing sound not heard before. It is a sound familiar to the people of Waziristan who live along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, where the United States fights the Taliban. It was the dreaded drone, which arrives from distant and unknown destinations to cause death and destruction. Within minutes, 15 people lay dead and a community plunged into despair, fear and mourning.

The U.S. drone strike, targeting accused leaders in the Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah organisations, marked the first time the weapon has been used in Southeast Asia. The drone has so far been used against Muslim groups and the Tausug are the latest on the list.

Just as in Pakistan and other theatres of the "war on terror", the strike has provoked controversy, with a Filipino lawmaker condemning the attack as a violation of national sovereignty. This controversy could increase with the recent American announcement that it plans to boost its drone fleet in the Philippines by 30 per cent. The U.S. already has hundreds of troops stationed on Jolo Island, but until now, the Americans have maintained a non-combat "advisory" role.

The expansion of U.S.' drone war has the potential to further enflame a volatile conflict involving the southern Muslim areas and Manila, which has killed around 120,000 people over the past four decades. To understand what is happening in the Philippines and the U.S.' role in the conflict, we need to look at the Tausug, among the most populous and dominant of the 13 groups of Muslims in the South Philippines known as "Moro", a pejorative name given by Spanish colonisers centuries ago.

While local terrorist groups should be brought to justice for their dastardly acts, the reported incident shows that US has now directly and brazenly intervened in Philippine politics.

This could be part of the protective umbrella deal, which the Philippine government may have secretly struck with the US, owing to the recent territorial disputes. [Again giving weight to my thesis on Scarborough incident as a false flag]

The Philippines rejected the renewal of 1947 Military Bases Agreement in 1991, yet it appears that the treaty has been tacitly revived with clearance and approval of the incumbent local government to use Subic and Clark bases.

This seem to partly validate my thesis

What seems to be the common denominator between now and two decades ago when the Bases Extension Treaty was rejected by the Philippine Senate?

Well both has the Aquino administration (mother and son)taking on the side of—or has fought for an extension of—US foreign policy in the country.

Not that this about the Aquino administration being an American stooge, although they may well be, but about the developing trend in US foreign policy and the possible implications here.

Aside from the free hand to use Philippine facilities to suit US President Obama’s thirst for military expansionism (imperialism) in Asia, drone warfare has substituted for bases to become an intrusive influence to Philippine politics, with the implicit license to kill any US government labeled terrorist (true or not).

Echoing Judge Andrew Napolitano remonstrations

Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president. In the name of fighting demons in pick-up trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our emails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers' arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability.

Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.

Obama’s war on terror has made him judge, jury and executioner even in the Philippines.

The Implications of China’s Direct Access to the US Treasury

Here is more proof that the Scarborough Shoal issue has been a sham

From Reuters

China can now bypass Wall Street when buying U.S. government debt and go straight to the U.S. Treasury, in what is the Treasury's first-ever direct relationship with a foreign government, according to documents viewed by Reuters.

The relationship means the People's Bank of China buys U.S. debt using a different method than any other central bank in the world.

The other central banks, including the Bank of Japan, which has a large appetite for Treasuries, place orders for U.S. debt with major Wall Street banks designated by the government as primary dealers. Those dealers then bid on their behalf at Treasury auctions.

China, which holds $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, still buys some Treasuries through primary dealers, but since June 2011, that route hasn't been necessary.

The documents viewed by Reuters show the U.S. Treasury Department has given the People's Bank of China a direct computer link to its auction system, which the Chinese first used to buy two-year notes in late June 2011.

China can now participate in auctions without placing bids through primary dealers. If it wants to sell, however, it still has to go through the market.

This only reveals how the US is in such dire financial straits to grant China's government a privileged DIRECT access to the US Treasury. This is tantamount to BILATERAL financing which now eludes the crony Wall Street “too big to fail” firms.

Cutting the middle man means Wall Street will earn less and will have less info on China-US financing deals.

On the other hand China is likely to be given special deals which won’t be known by the public.

This also exhibits the dimension of relationship between China and the US, which implies of deepening interdependencies on economic, financial and geopolitical aspects.

Of course the inference from the above statement is that the Scarborough Shoal controversy has been mostly a false flag. What you see isn't really what has been. Politicians and media has taken the public for a ride at the circus.

Has the Underwear Bomber Hoax been Designed to Justify Naked Airport Security Checks?

I recently pointed out that the expose on the underwear bomber terrorist hoax has likely been driven by an undeclared political incentive,

Visible ‘terrorism’ effects, as illustrated above, can be manufactured for political reasons—example to justify the existence and or the expansion of government bureaucracies (such as US Homeland Security) or to promote interests of the military industrial complex or both.

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, writing at the lewrockwell.com proposes this source of motivation,

But the real significance of this latest hoax is to introduce into the fearful American public the idea of an undetectable underwear bomb.

What does this bring to mind? Anyone of my generation or any science fiction aficionado immediately thinks of Robert Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters.

Written in 1951 but set in our time, Earth is invaded by small creatures that attach to the human body and take over the person. The humans become the puppets of their masters. Large areas of America succumb to the invaders before the morons in Washington understand that the invasion is real and not a conspiracy theory.

On clothed humans, the creatures cannot be detected, and the edict goes out that anyone clothed is a suspect. Everyone must go about naked. Women are not even allowed to carry purses in their hand, because the creature can be in the purse attached to the woman’s hand.

Obviously, if the CIA, the news sources, and Dianne Feinstein’s briefers are correct that defeated al-Qaeda has come up with an “undetectable” bomb, we will have to pass through airport security naked.

In short, create a scenario to justify the TSA’s lust for naked security checks (perhaps this porno entertainment for them).

Could be.

Nonetheless the current trend of airport security checks has been dehumanizing and symptomatic of the expanding rule of tyranny.

False Flag: Underwear Bomber was a CIA Double Agent

From the Globe and Mail

The would-be suicide bomber dispatched by the Yemen branch of al-Qaeda last month to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner was actually a double agent who infiltrated the terrorist group and volunteered for the suicide mission, U.S. and foreign officials said Tuesday.

In an extraordinary intelligence coup, the agent left Yemen, travelling by way of the United Arab Emirates, and delivered both the innovative bomb designed for his air attack and critical information on the group’s leaders to the CIA, Saudi and other foreign intelligence agencies.

This accounts for another example of what could be a false flag (Wikipedia.org)

operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.

And this is why I staunchly adhere to the great Frederic Bastiat’s doctrine that aims to distinguish the seen and the unseen

Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee.

Visible ‘terrorism’ effects, as illustrated above, can be manufactured for political reasons—example to justify the existence and or the expansion of government bureaucracies (such as US Homeland Security) or to promote interests of the military industrial complex or both.

Or seen at another angle, maybe the war on terror may have spawned their own monsters.