COMMENT - This description of the CIA/covert destruction of Yugoslavia is instructive in how the CIA/New World Order operates in getting rid of rivals or anyone who won't do as they are told.
This is how Ukraine is being taken apart - by putting in real nazis and fascists. Read more, see
Confessions Of An Economic Hitman, by John Perkins.
(THE GREANVILLE POST) Confession of a CIA Agent: They gave us millions to dismember Yugoslavia
Author TGP STAFF Date November 29, 2015
The Greanville Post • Vol. IX
We bribed parties and politicians who enticed hate between the nations. Our ultimate goal was to enslave you! •
WebTribune publishes their interview with former CIA agent Robert Baer during his promotion tour in Quebec for upcoming book
“Secrets of the White House” last week.
My boss, who was formerly a US Senator, stressed repeatedly that some kind of scam would go down in Bosnia. A month before the alleged genocide in Srebrenica, he told me that the town would be headline news around the world and ordered us to call the media.
Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, has authored many books which disclosed the secrets of both the CIA and the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He has been arrested and detained several times. Mitt Waspurh, a personal friend who worked at the Senate and shared information was killed at gunpoint. As a senior CIA operative, Baer worked in Yugoslavia during the 1991-94 period and in the Middle East. He has worked on several documentaries on National Geographic, accusing the Bush administration of waging war for oil.
The interview was conducted live in Canada, during my trip a few days ago. Robert Baer is currently promoting his book “The Secrets of the White House” in Quebec, where we talked. In an interview we spoke of the background of the war in Yugoslavia.
Where and when was your first job in Yugoslavia?
I arrived by helicopter with three agents. We landed on 12 January 1991 in Sarajevo. Our job was to keep an eye on alleged terrorists of Serbian nationality, who were expected to attack Sarajevo.
Who were the terrorists in question and why were they supposed to carry out these attacks?
They gave us files about a group called “Supreme Serbia” detailing plans to conduct a series of bomb attacks on key buildings in Sarajevo in opposition to Bosnia’s ambition to leave former Yugoslavia.
Did that group ever exist and what exactly you were doing in Sarajevo under CIA command?
No such group ever existed! Our headquarters lied to us. Our mission was to alarm and spread panic among politicians in Bosnia, simply to fill their heads with the idea that Serbs would attack. To begin with, we accepted the story, but after a while we started to wonder. Why were we raising such hysteria when the group clearly did not exist?
How and when did the mission end and did it have a name?
For me it ended after two weeks, I landed a new job in Slovenia. The operation lasted a month and had the name “Istina” (i.e. “truth”) although it was anything but!
Why did you go to Slovenia?
I received instructions that Slovenia was ready to declare independence. We were given money, a few million dollars, to fund various NGOs, opposition parties and various politicians who inflamed hatred.
Srebrenica a convenient false flag to frame Serbia
“Srebrenica should be blamed on Bosnians, Serbs and Americans – that is us! But in fact everything has been blamed on the Serbs. Many victims buried as Muslims were Serbs and other nationalities. A few years ago a friend of mine, a former CIA agent and now at the IMF, said that Srebrenica is the product of an agreement between the US government and politicians in Bosnia. The town of Srebrenica was sacrificed to give America a motive to attack the Serbs for their alleged crimes…Srebrenica is political marketing!”
Did you have an opinion about the CIA propaganda and did your colleagues think?
Of course, no one turns down a CIA mission, especially when we were all nervous and prone to paranoia! Many CIA agents and senior officers disappeared simply because they refused to conduct propaganda against the Serbs in Yugoslavia. Personally I was shocked at the dose of lies being fed from our agencies and politicians! Many CIA agents were directing propaganda without being aware of what they were doing. Everyone knew just a fraction of the story and only the one who created the whole story knew the background – they are [the] politicians.
So there was only propaganda against the Serbs?
Yes and no. The aim of the propaganda was to divide the republics so they would break away from the motherland Yugoslavia. We had to choose a scapegoat who would be blamed for everything. Someone who would be responsible for the war and violence. Serbia was chosen because in some ways it is a successor to Yugoslavia.
Can you name the politicians in the former Yugoslavia [who] were paid by the CIA?
Franjo Tudjman: the rightwing strongman of Croatia, a sector of Yugoslavia with historically heavy pro-fascist leanings and a onetime Nazi ally. He received friendly coverage by the Western media.
Yes, although it is somewhat delicate. Stipe Mesic, Franjo Tudjman, Alija Izetbegovic, many counselors and members of the government of Yugoslavia, were paid as were Serbian generals, journalists and even some military units. Radovan Karadzic was being paid for a while but stopped accepting help when he realised he would be sacrificed and charged with war crimes committed in Bosnia. It was directed by the American administration.
Tudjman visiting Croatian soldiers.
You mentioned that the media was controlled and funded, how exactly did that happen?
This is already known, some CIA agents were responsible for writing the official statement that the announcers read on the news. Of course the news presenters were oblivious to it, they got the news from their boss and he got it from our man. Everyone had the same mission: to spread hatred, nationalism and the differences between people through television.
We all know of Srebrenica, can you say about it?
Yes! In 1992 I was in Bosnia again, but this time we were supposed to train military units to represent Bosnia, a new state that had just declared independence. Srebrenica is an exaggerated story and unfortunately many people are being manipulated. The number of victims is the same as the number of Serbs and others killed but Srebrenica is political marketing. My boss, who was formerly a US Senator, stressed repeatedly that some kind of scam would go down in Bosnia. A month before the alleged genocide in Srebrenica, he told me that the town would be headline news around the world and ordered us to call the media. When I asked why, he said you’ll see. The new Bosnian army got the order to attack homes and civilians. These were of course citizens of Srebrenica. At the same moment, the Serbs attacked from the other side. Probably someone had paid to incite them!
Then who is guilty of genocide in Srebrenica?
Srebrenica should be blamed on Bosnians, Serbs and Americans – that is us! But in fact everything has been blamed on the Serbs. Unfortunately, many of the victims buried as Muslims were Serbs and other nationalities. A few years ago a friend of mine, a former CIA agent and now at the IMF, said that Srebrenica is the product of agreement between the US government and politicians in Bosnia. The town of Srebrenica was sacrificed to give America a motive to attack the Serbs for their alleged crimes.
Ultimately why do you think Yugoslavia collapsed and why did your government want to do it?
It is all very clear, the people who incited the war and dictated the terms of the peace now own the companies that exploit various mineral resources and the like! They simply made slaves of you, your people work for nothing and that product goes to Germany and America…they are the winners! You will eventually have to purchase and import what you have created yourself, and since you have no money, you have to borrow, that’s the whole story with the whole of the Balkans!
Radovan Karadzic, Bosnian Serb leader, one of the fall guys, like Milosevic.
You were never in Kosovo as a CIA agent, but did you feel any pressure from America?
Of course! Kosovo was taken for two reasons, first because of mineral and natural resources, and secondly, Kosovo is a military base of NATO! In the heart of Europe it is their largest military base.
Do you have a message for the people of the former Yugoslavia?
I have. Forget the past, it was staged and false. They manipulated you, they got what they wanted and it is stupid that you still hate one another, you must show that you are stronger and realise who has created this ! I sincerely apologise! That’s why I have for a long time disclosed the secrets of the CIA and the White House!
Click here to read the original article in WebTribune (Serbian, Latinica).
Labels: CIA, PROPAGANDA, RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, ROBERT BAER, SUBVERSION, YUGOSLAVIA
Read more...
COMMENT - The problem is the private ownership of the oil companies and the biggest banks, who are now so powerful that they can tell governments what to do. The entire breakup of Sudan was to benefit the neocolonial elite that owns these corporations. There has to be international agreement with real consequences for violation of the law, that puts the ownership of natural resources permanently into the hands of the people of the country collectively, so they cannot be sold for cents on the dollar by a neoliberal politician looking for a bribe, by a finance minister who is eyeing a job at the World Bank, IMF or similar institutions, and by transnational corporations which will even overthrow governments to get a better deal, and have. Public resources must permanently, right to the point of sale, rest in the hands of the people of country. Which would also eliminate 99% of all 'wars' on the continent.
(SF Bay View) South Sudan: African Union commission says oil resources must benefit the people for lasting peace
August 30, 2015
by
Ann Garrison
KPFA Weekend News broadcast Aug. 22, 2015
Audio Player
Professor Horace Campbell says the recommendations of
the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan, which include
using the country’s oil wealth to benefit its people,
must be implemented if there is to be any hope of lasting peace.
South Sudan children, web
Transcript
KPFA Evening News Anchor Sharon Sobotta: The warring parties in South Sudan’s 20-month civil war signed a peace agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, earlier this week. The civil war which began in December of 2013 has cost more lives than anyone can precisely estimate now and uprooted over 2 million South Sudanese people.
However, seven previous ceasefire agreements have already failed. Dr. Horace Campbell is a Syracuse University Professor of African American Studies who spoke with KPFA’s Ann Garrison.
South Sudan mapKPFA/Ann Garrison: When President Obama sat down to talk about bringing peace to South Sudan with Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, Ugandan President Yoweri Museven, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Sudanese Foreign Minister Ibrahim Ghandour and … Nkosazana …
Horace Campbell: Dlamini-Zuma.
KPFA: OK, thank you. … chairwoman of the African Union, you said, on Democracy Now, that everyone at the table, except Mrs. Zuma, was compromised. Can you elaborate on what you meant by that?
Horace Campbell: What I meant by that is that the looting of South Sudan has gone on since independence, in the past four years. When the economy of South Sudan was part of the Sudan, the oil revenues were about $50-100 billion per year.
The reporting we have from South Sudan is that the economy is now based on $5 billion. That $5 billion from the oil – and 90 percent of the economy is based on petroleum resources – is not being used in South Sudan for the health, welfare, water supply and education of the people.
It is being looted in collaboration with the regional leaders of Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and members of the Sudanese elite. Ethiopia is heavily invested in hotels, Uganda in food, Kenya in banking and telecommunications.
And so the situation in South Sudan is one where the leaders have no accountability to the people of the South Sudan and they have money and property in Uganda, in Nairobi and in Addis Ababa. And the resources for the South Sudan should be used for the people of South Sudan so that they can have a better quality of life.
The African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan says that oil resources must benefit the people.
The African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan says that oil resources must benefit the people.
KPFA: This is what I’ve noticed from the very beginning. When I first started reporting on this in December 2013, I tried to figure out what was going on and I spoke to Mabior Garang de Mabior, the son of John Garang, and he said that the conflict had turned attention to the suffering of South Sudanese, but that they had been suffering like refugees before the conflict, because the oil revenues were not reaching them.
Horace Campbell: And it will not reach them now, because the institutions in the South Sudan are not organized for the well-being of the people. South Sudan is run by the military; it is run by international NGOs and a Parliament that does not have real power.
And that is why I am in agreement with the recommendations of the African Union, which recommended a transitional period with three distinctive features:
a high level oversight panel to guide the period of transition,
a transitional government that excludes those politically accountable for the crisis, and
a transitional government that addresses the questions of justice in different forms.
And one of the key areas they spoke about in terms of justice in different forms was that oversight of the resources from the African Development Bank, so that the infrastructure, the health and the well-being of the people of South Sudan is taken care of.
KPFA: That was Syracuse University Professor Horace Campbell, the author of many books and articles on Africa, most recently “Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya: Lessons for Africa in the Forging of African Unity.”
With regard to the international NGOs running South Sudan in a way that deprives the South Sudanese people, Campbell cited, in particular, the ENOUGH Project to “End Mass Atrocities and Crimes Against Humanity” founded by security state professional John Prendergast and USAID chair nominee Gayle Smith.
In Berkeley, for Pacifica, KPFA and AfrobeatRadio, I’m Ann Garrison.
Oakland writer Ann Garrison writes for the San Francisco Bay View, Black Agenda Report, Black Star News, Counterpunch and her own website, Ann Garrison, and produces for AfrobeatRadio on WBAI-NYC, KPFA Evening News, KPFA Flashpoints and for her own YouTube Channel, AnnieGetYourGang. She can be reached at anniegarrison@gmail.com. In March 2014 she was awarded the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for promoting peace in the Great Lakes Region of Africa through her reporting.
Labels: ANN GARRISON, CIA, HORACE CAMPBELL, NEOCOLONIALISM, OIL, SOUTH SUDAN
Read more...
(CFR) Transferring CIA Drone Strikes to the Pentagon
Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 31
Author: Micah Zenko, Douglas Dillon Fellow
Download Now
Full Text of Memorandum (96K PDF)
Publisher Council on Foreign Relations Press
Release Date April 2013
The main obstacle to acknowledging the scope, legality, and oversight of U.S. targeted killings beyond traditional or "hot" battlefields is the division of lead executive authority between the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)—a subunit of the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Operations Command—and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In particular, the U.S. government cannot legally acknowledge covert actions undertaken by the CIA. The failure to answer the growing demands for transparency increases the risk that U.S. drone strikes will be curtailed or eliminated due to mounting domestic or international pressure. To take a meaningful first step toward greater transparency, President Barack Obama should sign a directive that consolidates lead executive authority for planning and conducting nonbattlefield targeted killings under DOD.
One Mission, Two Programs
U.S. targeted killings are needlessly made complex and opaque by their division between two separate entities: JSOC and the CIA. Although drone strikes carried out by the two organizations presumably target the same people, the organizations have different authorities, policies, accountability mechanisms, and oversight. Splitting the drone program between the JSOC and CIA is apparently intended to allow the plausible deniability of CIA strikes. Strikes by the CIA are classified as Title 50 covert actions, defined as "activities of the United States Government . . . where it is intended that the role . . . will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include traditional . . . military activities." As covert operations, the government cannot legally provide any information about how the CIA conducts targeted killings, while JSOC operations are guided by Title 10 "armed forces" operations and a publicly available military doctrine. Joint Publication 3-60, Joint Targeting, details steps in the joint targeting cycle, including the processes, responsibilities, and collateral damage estimations intended to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties. Unlike strikes carried out by the CIA, JSOC operations can be (and are) acknowledged by the U.S. government.
The different reporting requirements of JSOC and the CIA mean that congressional oversight of U.S. targeted killings is similarly murky. Sometimes oversight is duplicated among the committees; at other times, there is confusion over who is mandated to oversee which operations. CIA drone strikes are reported to the intelligence committees. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), has confirmed that the SSCI receives poststrike notifications, reviews video footage, and holds monthly meetings to "question every aspect of the program." Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), has said that he reviews both CIA and JSOC counterterrorism airstrikes. JSOC does not report to the HPSCI. As of March 2012, all JSOC counterterrorism operations are reported quarterly to the armed services committees. Meanwhile, the foreign relations committees—tasked with overseeing all U.S. foreign policy and counterterrorism strategies—have formally requested briefings on drone strikes that have been repeatedly denied by the White House. However, oversight should not be limited to ensuring compliance with the law and preventing abuses, but rather expanded to ensure that policies are consistent with strategic objectives and aligned with other ongoing military and diplomatic activities. This can only be accomplished by DOD operations because the foreign relations committees cannot hold hearings on covert CIA drone strikes.
Consolidating Executive Authority
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission recommended that the "lead responsibility for directing and executing paramilitary operations, whether clandestine or covert, should shift to the Defense Department" to avoid the "creation of redundant, overlapping capabilities and authorities in such sensitive work." The recommendation was never seriously considered because the CIA wanted to retain its covert action authorities and, more important, it was generally believed such operations would remain a rarity. (At the time, there had been only one nonbattlefield targeted killing.) Nearly a decade later, there is increasing bipartisan consensus that consolidating lead executive authority for drone strikes would pave the way for broader strategic reforms, including declassifying the relevant legal memoranda, explicitly stating which international legal principles apply, and providing information to the public on existing procedures that prevent harm to civilians. During his February 2013 nomination hearing, CIA director John O. Brennan welcomed the transfer of targeted killings to the DOD: "The CIA should not be doing traditional military activities and operations."
The main objection to consolidating lead executive authority in DOD is that it would eliminate the possibility of deniability for U.S. covert operations. However, any diplomatic or public relations advantages from deniability that once existed are minimal or even nonexistent given the widely reported targeted killings in Pakistan and Yemen. For instance, because CIA drone strikes cannot be acknowledged, the United States has effectively ceded its strategic communications efforts to the Pakistani army and intelligence service, nongovernmental organizations, and the Taliban. Moreover, Pakistani and Yemeni militaries have often taken advantage of this communications vacuum by shifting the blame of civilian casualties caused by their own airstrikes (or others, like those reportedly conducted by Saudi Arabia in Yemen) to the U.S. government. This perpetuates and exacerbates animosity in civilian populations toward the United States. If the United States acknowledged its drone strikes and collateral damage—only possible under DOD Title 10 authorities—then it would not be held responsible for airstrikes conducted by other countries.
The CIA should, however, retain the ability it has had since 9/11 to conduct lethal covert actions in extremely rare circumstances, such as against immediate threats to the U.S. homeland or diplomatic outposts. Each would require a separate presidential finding, and should be fully and currently informed to the intelligence committees. Of the roughly 420 nonbattlefield targeted killings that the United States has conducted, very few would have met this criteria.
The president should direct that U.S. drone strikes be conducted as DOD Title 10 operations. That decision would enhance U.S. national security in the following ways:
* Improve the transparency and legitimacy of targeted killings, including what methods are used to prevent civilian harm.
* Focus the finite resources of the CIA on its original core missions of intelligence collection, analysis, and early warning. (There is no reason for the CIA to maintain a redundant fleet of armed drones, or to conduct military operations that are inherently better suited to JSOC, the premier specialized military organization. As "traditional military activities" under U.S. law, these belong under Title 10 operations.)
* Place all drone strikes under a single international legal framework, which would be clearly delineated for military operations and can therefore be articulated publicly.
* Unify congressional oversight of specific operations under the armed services committee, which would end the current situation whereby there is confusion over who has oversight responsibility.
* Allow U.S. government officials to counter myths and misinformation about targeted killings at home and abroad by acknowledging responsibility for its own strikes.
* Increase pressure on other states to be more transparent in their own conduct of military and paramilitary operations in nonbattlefield settings by establishing the precedent that the Obama administration claims can have a normative influence on how others use drones.
A First Step Forward
In an interview, President Obama revealed, "I think creating a legal structure, processes, with oversight checks on how we use unmanned weapons is going to be a challenge for me and for my successors for some time to come—partly because technology may evolve fairly rapidly for other countries as well." The Obama administration has two central objectives for its targeted killing reforms: preventing constraints on its ability to conduct lethal operations and setting precedents for the use of armed drones by other states. By law, institutional culture, and customary practice, drone strikes conducted by the CIA cannot reach the minimum thresholds of transparency and accountability required to achieve either objective. JSOC is also a highly secretive organization, but the United States could provide a much clearer and more detailed explanation of the outstanding issues regarding targeted killing without compromising the military's sources and methods—should the president prioritize such change. Moreover, according to a February 2013 poll, U.S. public support for military drone strikes (75 percent) was higher than for those conducted by the CIA (65 percent). Without ending CIA targeted killings, the Obama administration cannot undertake any of the reforms that it has stated are necessary both to ensure drone strikes do not go the way of third-country renditions and enhanced interrogation techniques, but also to establish the precedents of greater openness in how such operations are conducted by others.
Labels: AL-QAEDA, CIA, TERRORISM
Read more...
(LANDDESTROYER REPORT) Al Qaeda Terrorists Pass US Special Forces, CIA Agents on Way to Syria
November 1, 2013
(Tony Cartalucci) - A recent Daily Telegraph article reveals that armies of Al Qaeda terrorists are using NATO-member Turkey as a springboard for their invasion of neighboring Syria.
NATO is the chief executor of the so-called "War on Terror," started in 2001 after Al Qaeda terrorists allegedly flew four passenger planes into various targets on America's east coast, including the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. Nearly 3,000 people died in a single day. The invasion of Afghanistan promptly followed based on the pretense that it was "harboring" members of Al Qaeda. The invasion and nearly decade-long occupation of Iraq followed shortly thereafter.
Yet despite all of this, Turkey, a NATO member since the early 1950's, appears to be guilty of the very crime Afghanistan was allegedly invaded and to this day still occupied for, harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. An army of Al Qaeda is (and has been for nearly 3 years) using southern Turkey as a safe-haven and staging ground for the invasion of Syria - disingenuously portrayed by the Western media as a "civil war."
Worst of all, these terrorists, literally carrying Al Qaeda's banner into battle, are passing CIA outposts, US, British, and French special operations training camps, and through Western-funded refugee camps, on their way to commit a wide array of atrocities along and within Syria's borders.
This defies all explanations except one - the "War on Terror" is a fraud, and the very terrorists thousands of Western troops have died chasing across the planet, have been armed, funded, trained, propped up, and reconstituted by the West itself as a perpetual excuse to engage in global aggression, occupation, and wars of immense profit in both terms of wealth and geopolitical power.
The Daily Telegraph, in its article, "Al-Qaeda recruits entering Syria from Turkey safehouses," has recently reported:
Hundreds of al-Qaeda recruits are being kept in safe houses in southern Turkey, before being smuggled over the border to wage “jihad” in Syria, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
The network of hideouts is enabling a steady flow of foreign fighters - including Britons - to join the country’s civil war, according to some of the volunteers involved.
These foreign jihadists have now largely eclipsed the “moderate” wing of the rebel Free Syrian Army, which is supported by the West. Al-Qaeda’s ability to use Turkish territory will raise questions about the role the Nato member is playing in Syria’s civil war.
Turkey has backed the rebels from the beginning - and its government has been assumed to share the West’s concerns about al-Qaeda. But experts say there are growing fears over whether the Turkish authorities may have lost control of the movement of new al-Qaeda recruits - or may even be turning a blind eye.
Of course, the Telegraph is plainly deceiving its readers. The use of Al Qaeda as a militant proxy against Syria is not an unpredictable and unfortunate result of the ongoing Syrian conflict, but instead a well documented Western plan exposed as early as 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh in his article, "The Redirection," which stated (emphasis added):
"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 coöperated 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."
Clearly, the only thing NATO, Turkey, and the Western press have "lost control" of, is the narrative used to deceive the public.
The CIA Not Only Watches Al Qaeda Pass, But is Clearly Arming Them
The New York Times in their March 2013 article titled, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that:
With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.
The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.
The New York Times piece attempts to spin America's role in arming militants in Syria. The Times continues by stating:
The American government became involved, the former American official said, in part because there was a sense that other states would arm the rebels anyhow. The C.I.A. role in facilitating the shipments, he said, gave the United States a degree of influence over the process, including trying to steer weapons away from Islamist groups and persuading donors to withhold portable antiaircraft missiles that might be used in future terrorist attacks on civilian aircraft.
Just like the Telegraph, the Times is overtly lying to its readers. So-called "Islamists" constitute the summation of armed aggression against the Syrian government specifically because the plans outlined by Hersh in 2007 are now being executed by the CIA, within NATO-member Turkey's territory, along the Turkish-Syrian border.
Western Special Forces are Training Al Qaeda Terrorists
In addition to the CIA, Western special forces are also operating along and within Syria's borders. A June 2013 LA Times article titled, "U.S. has secretly provided arms training to Syria rebels since 2012," admitted:
CIA agents and special operations troops have trained the rebels in anti-tank and antiaircraft weaponry in Jordan and Turkey.
The LA Times continued:
CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and antiaircraft weapons since late last year, months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming them, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders.
The covert U.S. training at bases in Jordan and Turkey, along with Obama's decision this month to supply arms and ammunition to the rebels, has raised hope among the beleaguered Syrian opposition that Washington ultimately will provide heavier weapons as well. So far, the rebels say they lack the weapons they need to regain the offensive in the country's bitter civil war.
Al Qaeda's Al Nusra front has established itself on Syria's battlefields allegedly because of its martial prowess, in contrast to the bumbling "moderates" allegedly trained by US special forces. How is it possible that the West, along with their regional partners, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are arming, funding, and admittedly training armies of "moderates," and yet Al Qaeda has still managed to prevail? Who is arming, funding, and training them? The answer is simple - there were never any meaningful "moderates" despite ham-handed attempts by the Western media to insist otherwise, and the West is intentionally assisting Al Qaeda, just as was planned in 2007.
Thousands of Western troops have died, and are still dying in the so-called "War on Terror." Many more have been maimed and/or psychologically effected. Evidence suggests that there was no lapse between US backing of Al Qaeda in the 1980's in Afghanistan and today - and that even as US troops fought on in Iraq, the West and its partners in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel were arming and funneling terrorists into the country to fuel sectarian violence designed specifically to set up the strategic assets necessary for a covert/proxy war versus Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.
Labels: AL-QAEDA, CIA, COLONIALISM, LYBIA, SYRIA, TERRORISM
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE) CIA, M16 trained security services: Sekeramayi
24/04/2013 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
STATE security minister Sydney Sekeramayi has said it was ironic that the West was leading calls for so-called security sector reforms having helped train the country’s defence and security establishment for more than 20 years.
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC-T party is insisting that reform of the security sector remains one of the outstanding issues in the implementation of the Global Political Agreement.
The party blames service chiefs for helping President Robert Mugabe stay in power by brutalising its supporters during the inconclusive 2008 elections and wants to force them out of office before new elections due this year.
However, Zanu PF has ruled out any tempering with the defence and security establishment and Sekeramayi said Wednesday that they were surprised the West was backing calls for the so-called reforms.
He said: “The British Military Advisory and Training Team left the country in 2001 after a 20-year stint with our army. They did not complain then, why now?
“In the same vein, the President’s Department held various exchange programmes with other Western intelligence services among them CIA, BND (Germany intelligence) and M16.”
Sekeramayi also said the security services chiefs must remain in office whatever party assumes power after elections expected later this year.
“We will be going for elections in this country and one would want to assume and expect that any government that comes into power will respect the existing institutions in the country,” he said in a lecture at the Zimbabwe Defence College.
“All these officers were very active in the liberation struggle and they are in their current positions not by favour but competence. We would expect that the professional role they play would be respected. We do not expect any leader to say that they do not want so and so.
“The talk about removing the commandant elements is misguided. It is not something originating internally but from external forces. It is something that we must reject. It is an attempt to destabilise the defence and security forces.
“It is an attempt to plant a spirit which removes the discipline that is there among the security forces but we believe that our defence and security forces will continue to be disciplined and professional.”
However, a number of serving generals have already publicly stated that they would not work under a leader who did not participate in the country’s liberation struggle, a thinly veiled reference to Tsvangirai.
Labels: ARMED FORCES, CIA, MI6, SYDNEY SEKERAMAYI
Read more...
(GLOBALRESEARCH) The History of America’s “Africa Agenda”
The Role of John Foster Dulles
By Greg Guma
Global Research, April 01, 2013
On February 11, 1958 Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was asked about Tunisia during a press conference.
A few days earlier French planes had bombed and strafed schools and a local market in the village of Sakiet. Dulles’ reply was ignored by the daily press, and before the Internet that meant it almost didn’t happen. But Toward Freedom obtained a transcript and printed it verbatim.
Editor Bill Lloyd said it seemed like “the most eloquent testimony in many months on the inadequacy of U.S. policy regarding North Africa.” The headline read: “Dulles Humor slights Tunisia Policy”
Dulles had been asked to “define a little more specifically for us” the US interest in the Tunisian crisis, basically, “what US objectives are in dealing with this situation?” TF continues online & in communities “We would like to see in Indonesia a government which is constitutional and which reflects the real interests and desire of the people of Indonesia,” Dulles began. He went on to say that the Indonesian people would never want a Communist government, especially since “most of them are Moslems,” and wouldn’t want a government that “maintains itself only by coercive methods and does not respond to the will of the people.”
Only then did someone in the press corps suggest that perhaps Dulles had misunderstood the question, since he was being asked about Tunisia “and you replied on the Indonesian. But could I ask the question again, sir?”
Dulles replied, “Maybe the same answer applies.”
What followed was laughter. Eventually, Dulles did add that the US hoped to minimize the impact of any incident in Algeria. Nothing should deflect “the trend toward cooperation which we believe is in the interest on all concerned.”
Lloyd proceeded to deconstruct the answer. By failing to push for peace, he explained, US policy was really encouraging “bitter-enders” and undermining any cooperation trend. He also took aim at Dulles’ exaggeration of the communist threat, and said his so-called joke raised questions about his judgment and the information he received. Lloyd also pointed to the banning of unions and mentioned a controversial topic, the “French tactic of encouraging communist penetration to destroy nationalism.” Then this:
“The communist label which was so playfully tossed on to Tunisia by Secretary Dulles also looks pretty foolish when one reflects that there are no communists whatever in the Tunisian assembly but that slightly more than one-fourth of the Deputies in Paris are communists.
“The danger of communism is North Africa arises largely from the repressive French policy and our support of it with gifts of guns and money.”
Among the lessons for today is to stay alert for signs of the establishment’s favorite fallback strategy – distracting the public with a dehumanized enemy – and how the actions of other countries can create unexpected ripples. Father & son, 1957 President Bourguiba hoped the UN Security Council would take up the Algerian crisis. But many in his own political party were skeptical, and called British and US help in Tunisia’s negotiations with France an “Angle-Saxon smothering operation.”
Bill Lloyd admitted that Tunisia really had no one in her corner. After all, the French used US NATO planes to bomb Sakiet and the State Department opted to ignore it. But President Eisenhower had changed his tune since 1955. In March 1956, he had promised to do everything possible for a peaceful settlement in Algeria. The State Department pretended not to get the memo. The “smothering operation” apparently meant burying Bourguiba’s efforts to make the Algerian war part of any larger North Africa discussions, and blocking any push for separate Algerian nationhood. Lloyd reached a common sense conclusion. Only the US was in a position to speak firmly with France about the necessity of peace and independence for Algeria. Until then leaders would just be addressing fringe issues – or, in the case of Dulles on Tunisia – or Indonesia, make matters worse.
Global Visions By the end of the 1960s the non-aligned agenda, the movement Toward Freedom had pioneered in the US, was a plank in the foreign policy platform of many new nations. Making an editorial adjustment, the newsletter gradually shifted focus to the emerging impacts of neo-colonialism, acknowledging the complex economic challenges of independence, and promoting a role for non-aligned countries as peacemakers. Lloyd also took up a new fight – promoting satellite broadcasting as a tool for development and peace. Clearly ahead of his time, he offered a radical vision that still resonates almost half a century later. He wrote:
“World communication are as important to the future of world society as the nervous system is to the human body….A new structure commensurate with today’s technological advances is necessary, institutionalizing the concept of reciprocity, in which each nation will be given the opportunity to broadcast its music, drama, literature and views on world affairs to the rest of the world.”
Imagine: a true global exchange of cultures beyond the reach of commercial media, embracing interdependence and proudly promoting diversity. The 1970s began with groundbreaking reports on the proclamation of a “cooperative republic” in Guyana, emerging disaster in Cambodia, and Gulf Oil’s support for Portuguese colonialists in Africa. Where was the US media by this time? Still ignoring most struggles for freedom around the world. And when they did pay attention the coverage frequently reinforced stereotypes. TF continued to correct the record and fill in the gaps by drawing on a network of independent correspondents Lloyd had recruited. Maps were frequently used to reveal geopolitical dynamics (still a good note for media covering international news).
As editor, Bill Loyd focused primarily on the UN’s role, non-alignment and Africa. He saw hope in countries likes Tunisia, and advanced new proposals for mediation and peacemaking. In 1973, for example, he called for “a nonviolent international volunteer corps” that could help reduce violence and perform essential tasks in threatened regions. That was a decade before the launch of Witness for Peace. At the end of the ’70s Bill lobbied for world authority over the radio spectrum and the geostationary orbit for satellites. Covering a month-long International Telecommunications Union conference in Geneva, he peppered the leadership with questions and ideas. Here’s a taste of his thinking on the subject:
“Direct satellite broadcasting should be freed from the straightjacket of observing national boundaries at the receiving end and put on the basis of a world forum, with every national having its right to speak. The need for a world forum of nations is clear. US policy over the past 25 years has been seriously flawed by the pervasive ignorance on the part of the US public of the aspirations and demands of the majority of humankind living in the developing world.”
“As the late Adlai E. Stevenson said, ‘What America needs is a good hearing aid!’ All other countries need good hearing aids, too, in order to understand the real world of which they are only a part. Therefore, a forum by direct satellite broadcast, in which each nation had equal time to present its music, literature, and view on world affairs, would be a valuable supplement to existing news and cultural exchange channels.” *
On The Road Toward Freedom: A Cold War Story, part six of six. Greg Guma edited Toward Freedom from 1986-88, and 1994-2004.
Labels: CIA, COUPS, JOHN FOSTER DULLES, TUNISIA
Read more...
Zimbabwe implicated in CIA torture
06/02/2013 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
ZIMBABWE was among the countries which helped the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture individuals associated with Al Qaeda and suspected of involvement in the September 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington.
According to a report by the Open Society Foundation released this week, Zimbabwe was among 54 countries involved in the “secret detention and extra-ordinary rendition” of suspects as the US hunted down those responsible for the attack.
The report claims that five suspects were held in Zimbabwe for a month following their illegal arrest in Malawi during a secret joint operation involving the CIA and the country’s National Intelligence Bureau.
Saudi national Fahad al Bahli, Ibrahim Habaci from Turkey and three other individuals were arrested in June 2003 and were taken to Harare where they spent a month before being shipped off to Sudan.
Intelligence authorities in Harare have not commented on the allegations.
After the 9/11 attacks the CIA launched a twin programme under which suspected terrorists were held at centres outside the US where they were subjected to so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” that also involved torture and other forms of abuse.
The agency was also granted authority to engage in “extraordinary rendition” or the transfer without legal process of detainees to the custody of foreign governments for purposes of detention and interrogation.
“Both the secret detention program and the extraordinary rendition program were highly classified, conducted outside the United States, and designed to place detainee interrogations beyond the reach of the law. Torture was a hallmark of both,” the Open Society report claimed.
The report says there were no known judicial cases or investigations in Zimbabwe relating to its participation in CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations.
But it adds that while primary responsibility for the human rights violations associated with the CIA’s secret programmes “no doubt lies with the United States”, countries that participated or assisted in these operations also bore responsibility for the violations.
“International human rights law not only bars states from directly committing the violations associated with the extraordinary rendition and secret detention programmes, but also obligates them not to transfer individuals to states where they are at real risk of torture or to otherwise cooperate with or facilitate the commission of those violations,” the report says.
Labels: CIA, TERRORISM, TORTURE
Read more...
9/11 Mastermind Osama bin Laden: America’s Anti-Soviet “Peace Warrior” and CIA “Intelligence Asset”
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 08, 2012
“On September 11, 2012, let us not only renew our efforts to expose the truth, but also take our awareness a step further to understand that the wars launched since that fateful autumn day in 2001 - in the bitterly ironic name of “justice” and supposedly to combat “terrorism” - continue to take lives of people across the world. These wars are based on lies and their costs are staggering.”
The eleventh commemoration anniversary of 9/11 brings to the forefront the issue of 911 truth. The official story is that Al Qaeda, with the complicity of the Taliban government was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Both George W Bush and Barack Obama claim that the late Osama bin Laden was the architect of 9/11, responsible for overseeing the 9/11 hijackers.
And that is why, we are told, that America is waging a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) under the Pentagon’s doctrine of “preemptive warfare”.
The Global War on Terrorism not only targets “non-State” terrorist entities including Al Qaeda, it is also directed against alleged “state sponsors” of terrorism. In this regard, several Western countries including the US, Britain and Canada consider that Iran is supportive of the “Sunni jihadist terror network”, an absurd proposition. In December 2011, a Manhattan court judgment (based on selected testimonies and fabricated evidence), accused the Islamic Republic of Iran of supporting the 9/11 Al Qaeda hijackers.
The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 91/11 Commission’s recommendation was that the this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case).
In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”. (See Michel Chossudovsky, the 9/11 Reader, Global Research, September 3, 2001)
Who was Osama bin Laden, the Alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks?
The US administration tacitly acknowledges that Osama bin Laden had been recruited by the CIA in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. Osama bin Laden was the leader of Al Qaeda which was supported covertly by the CIA.
The Blowback: The official version is that “we supported” Al Qaeda’s jihadist crusade against the Soviet Union. “It was for a good cause.:
According to Washington’s narrative Osama bin Laden “turned against us” in the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war, which broadly coincided with the end of the Cold War (1946-1989), .
In intelligence parlance, “the blowback” refers to an “intelligence asset” which goes against its sponsors, namely the CIA.
In the immediate wake of the Cold War, bin Laden was said to have abandoned the jihad. He was portrayed with some hesitation as a “Peace Warrior” involved in humanitarian undertakings. The byline of this post Cold War photograph of Osama bin Laden published by the Independent in 1993, describes Bin Laden as an “anti-Soviet warrior” “on the road to peace”.
* * *
Robert Fisk’s 1993 report, published at the outset of the post Cold War era. described Bin Laden as a former “freedom fighter”, “Saudi businessman” and philanthropist:
Osama Bin Laden sat in his gold- fringed robe, guarded by the loyal Arab mujahedin who fought alongside him in Afghanistan. Bearded, taciturn figures – unarmed, but never more than a few yards from the man who recruited them, trained them and then dispatched them to destroy the Soviet army – they watched unsmiling as the Sudanese villagers of Almatig lined up to thank the Saudi businessman who is about to complete the highway linking their homes to Khartoum for the first time in history.
With his high cheekbones, narrow eyes and long brown robe, Mr Bin Laden looks every inch the mountain warrior of mujahedin legend. Chadored children danced in front of him, preachers acknowledged his wisdom. ”We have been waiting for this road through all the revolutions in Sudan,” a sheikh said. ”We waited until we had given up on everybody – and then Osama Bin Laden came along.”
Al Qaeda in the 1990s
Did Bin Laden abandon the jihadist cause?
The evidence amply confirms that in the wake of the Cold War, Bin Laden maintained his links with the CIA –indirectly through Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI)– and continued to perform the role of a US sponsored “intelligence asset”
Al Qaeda was directly involved in the US-NATO sponsored civil war is Bosnia, providing support to the Bosnian Muslim Army.
Ironically, the links of Al Qaeda to the Clinton administration are fully documented by a lengthy Congressional report of the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997.
The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having “helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base” leading to the recruitment through the so-called “Militant Islamic Network,” of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world.
Ironically, Osama bin Laden’s Sudan based NGO, alluded to in Robert Fisk’s 1993 article, is identified in the Republican Party Committee (RPC) as a “phoney humanitarian organization” linked up to with the Bosnia terror network, and directly supported by the Clinton administration:
… The role of one Sudan-based “humanitarian organization,” called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration’s “hands-on” involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials… the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization … has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. … TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96] (The original document is on the website of the US Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm emphasis added)
The Republican Party accused president Bill Clinton and his National Security Adviser Anthony Lake (who subsequently headed the CIA) of abetting and supporting the recruitment of Mujahideen, who were then dispatched to Bosnia.
The unspoken objective was to destroy Yugoslavia as a nation state.
From Bosnia to Kosovo
In the late 1990s, Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden –acting in liaison with the Western military alliance– was involved in providing support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
The “Bosnian pattern” described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated in Kosovo. With the complicity of NATO and the US State Department. Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO’s war effort.
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”.7
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. 8
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.10
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. (Michel Chossudovsky Osamagate, October 9, 2001 numerals refer to endnotes in the original article)
According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence division also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:
“The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden” . Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict.” (US Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial Committee, 13 December 2000).
Macedonia: Al Qaeda and the US Military in the Months Preceding 9/11
On the 10th of September, eleven years ago, I published an article entitled Washington Behind Terrorist Assaults In Macedonia, which confirmed that the US military and Al Qaeda were collaborating in supporting a self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), involved in terrorist attacks in the FYR of Macedonia. This text was among the first articles posted by Global Research, which was launched on September 9, 2001.
The NLA was an offshoot of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The NLA-KLA terrorists were trained and supported by a private mercenary company, Military Professional Resources International (MPRI), on contract to the Pentagon.
“Among the foreign mercenaries now [ June-July 2001] fighting with the KLA-NLA are Mujahedin 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. Some of these Western mercenaries had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian Muslim Army.12
While Washington was arming the National Liberation Army (NLA) terrorists which included Al Qaeda mercenaries in its ranks, some 3000 heavily armed NATO troops were given the mandate to “disarm the rebels” and enforce the cease-fire. Code-named “Essential Harvest” this NATO endeavor was officially launched on August 22, 2001.
The actual NATO operation under a “humanitarian mandate” consisting of troop deployments started on August 27, two weeks before the September 11, 2001 attacks.
At the time, this bogus R2P “peacekeeping” operation under British command was intended to weaken the Macedonian Armed Forces and destabilize national institutions. In the words, of the Prime minister of FYR of Macedonia Ljubco Georgievski:
“As much as their text ["peace plan"] is brutal, more brutal and worrying is the fashion in which they are trying to break up Macedonian state institutions,’ … All of the terrorist actions in Macedonia have been supported by the Western democracies… all threats and blackmails have been presented so far, except that NATO will conduct an air-strike on us.” (Macedonian Prime Minister Mr. Ljubco Georgievski, quoted in Washington Behind Terrorist Assaults In Macedonia, emphasis added)
In a bitter irony, Washington was behind the terrorist NLA assault in Macedonia integrated by Al Qaeda mercenaries, which preceded the August 27 NATO intervention. The objective of Operation “Essential Harvest” was not disarm the NLA terrorists. The hidden agenda was twofold: coverup and regime change.
While Secretary of State Colin Powell had, at the time reaffirmed America’s resolve to “combat terrorism”, US military advisers were fighting alongside the NLA terrorists. The NLA was not only integrated by Al Qaeda mercenaries, the rebels were being supported by US special forces:
Among the rebels that were withdrawing were 17 “instructors” – former [MPRI] US officers that provided military training for the rebels. Not only that: the Macedonian security forces claim that 70% of the equipment that the guerrilla fighters took with them are of US production and the latter includes highly sophisticated third generation night vision devices.” (Ibid, See also Hamburger Abendblatt, Hamburg, 27 June 2001, English translation by OK-Macedonia, Skopje, 28 June 2001, at http://www.ok.mk/news/story.asp?id=1631. )
What is significant in these events is that barely a few months before 9/11, former US military officers, which had integrated the ranks of the terror brigades, were caught red-handed (June 2001) together with Al Qaeda mercenaries.
In other words, in the weeks preceding 9/11, there is evidence of active collaboration between Al Qaeda and US military officers on contract to the Pentagon in blatant contradiction with the 9/11 narrative.
The official 9/11 story is predicated on the “blowback”, namely that Al Qaeda, the alleged perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks “turned against us” in the wake of the Cold War (1989). The events in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia confirm unequivocally that Al Qaeda was an intelligence asset throughout the 1990s up until June 2001, when NLA Al Qaeda operatives were arrested with their US military instructors.
The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from US military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget as well as by several Islamic organisations including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the US government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia is implemented through various Islamic groups.
US military advisers mingle with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force, Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a “blowback” where so-called “intelligence assets” have gone against their sponsors!
But this did not happen during the Cold war! It is happening right now in Macedonia. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian New Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington’s envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists. 17 In other words, the so-called “intelligence assets” are still serving the interests of their US sponsors. (Michel Chossudovsky, Osamagate, Global Research, October 9, 2001)
Throughout the post 9/11 era (2001-2012), there is ample evidence that Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliated entities (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria), have continued to play a central role in US sponsored covert operations.
Macedonia versus Syria: Déjà Vu
Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia: The strategic objective of the US-NATO military operations was to destabilize and destroy the Yugoslav Federation using Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as a means to triggering sectarian strife and ethnic divisions within a socially and culturally diverse national society.
The Bosnia-Kosovo model was replicated in Libya and Syria.
The National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia integrated by Al Qaeda terrorists versus the Free Syrian Army (FSA) integrated by Al Qaeda mercenaries recruited by NATO, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Macedonia’s Prime Minister Georgievski’s statement (above) `focusing on the threats of NATO airstrikes and the breaking up of state institutions,’ is remarkably similar to that of Syrian president Bashar Al Assad.
Al Qaeda Déjà Vu? The FSA terrorist attacks in Syria in 2012 bear a canny resemblance to those conducted in Macedonia in 2001. The Syrian FSA integrated by Al Qaeda operatives is supported by the same Western powers, which intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia.
Labels: 911, AL-QAEDA, CIA, TERRORISM
Read more...
CIA Director reportedly in Turkey for secret talks
By Joseph Fitsanakis
Global Research, September 04, 2012
intelNews.org
Turkish and American authorities have refused comment on persistent reports that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is currently on a secret visit to Turkey. News of the alleged trip was first reported on Monday by Turkish tabloid daily Aks,am.
The newspaper said David Petraeus, who heads the United States’ foremost civilian intelligence agency, had arrived earlier that day in Istanbul’s Atatürk International Airport, on his private plane. According to the article, the CIA chief decided to embark on the unannounced trip in order to discuss “counterterrorism and the situation in Syria” with senior Turkish officials.
Several hours later, French news agency Agence France Presse reported that, according to “a US official”, the CIA Director was indeed in Turkey, holding secret “meetings on regional issues”.
However, the unnamed US source would not provide specific information about Petreaeus’ meeting arrangements while in Turkey, nor would (s)he divulge the names of the Turkish officials that were scheduled to meet with him. Another Turkish daily, Hürriyet, said the CIA Director would probably meet with his Turkish counterpart, MI.T chief Hakan Fidan, as well as with Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
But repeated efforts by the paper to confirm this were rebuffed by representatives of the US embassy in Ankara, as well as Turkish officials. The latter appeared to have coordinated their responses, with spokespersons from both Turkey’s Foreign Ministry and the Office of the Prime Minister telling Hürriyet that they “had no information” on whether Petraeus was in the country.
If the reports of the CIA Director’s secret visit to Istanbul are correct, the obvious questions are “why” and why now”? The last time Petraeus paid an unannounced visit to Turkey, which eventually leaked to the press, was roughly six months ago, reportedly do discuss the crisis in Syria. As intelNews as reported consistently, based on claims by British, German and American media, around the time of Petraeus’ secret visit to Turkey, US President Barack Obama has authorized CIA officers stationed in the country to provide “non-lethal support” to Syrian anti-government rebels. It is also known that, Washington considers Turkey as one of its most important intelligence allies in the ongoing Syrian crisis, along with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel. Could the CIA Director’s second unannounced visit to Turkey in less than six months be heralding an intensification of Washington’s intelligence involvement in the Syrian crisis?
Labels: CIA, NATO, TURKEY
Read more...
CIA’s Freedom House: A house of destruction
Saturday, 25 August 2012 19:36
Phyllis Kachere
Describing itself as a “clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world”, Freedom House has a history of muddying the political waters of targeted nations.
Freedom House was formed in the United States in 1941 to counter isolationism and to support the Marshall Plan, and has largely been supported by US federal funding.
According to the US Institute of Policy Studies, in 2001 Freedom House had and income of around US$11 million, increasing to over US$26 million in 2006.
“Much of the increase was due to a rise between 2004 and 2005 in US government federal funding, from US$12 million to US$20 million. Federal funding fell to around US$10 million in 2007, but still represented around 80 percent of Freedom House’s budget,” read a statement on the Inter Press Service (IPS) website.
The strong financial links between the US government and Freedom House have resulted in critics questioning how an organisation that claims to be independent could be funded by a government which it seeks to be independent from.
These strong links have cemented suspicions that Freedom House is indeed used by the US government to do hatchet jobs on nations deemed to be threats to America.
When Freedom House released what they said were findings of a new public opinion poll on Zimbabwe on Thursday, it was not surprising that political analysts were left wondering what the American CIA-sponsored agent was up to this time.
UK-based Zimbabwean law lecturer and political analyst Dr Alex Magaisa opined on his Facebook page:
“Research itself is a site of struggle — sometimes between researchers or between the researcher and the researched or indeed, among the researched. It is important to bear in mind always, that research is not an innocent exercise but is invariably designed toward certain goals; certain agendas; with the researchers themselves being critical actors. There is invariably always an agenda, albeit unsaid, behind research.
“So when you look at a survey or research, you have to go outside the narrow focus on the results and interpretations and ask the hard question: What is the agenda behind this survey? It could be to wake up; it could be to lull.
“It is a question that both the positively represented and the negatively represented have to bear in mind. Either way, you have to look at a survey or research generally with a critically aware eye and mind.”
Responding to Dr Magaisa’s post, Mr Mirirai Smart said:
“Strategists know what popularity surveys and not research aim at. Most people are always fooled almost all the time by such stupid gimmicks which either are meant to lull unliked politicians into undeserved self-praise and therefore into a lull or galvanise the supposed survey unpopular to gird their loins into action, which may be the real intent of such.
[Which would be true witnessing the firing of 12 MDC councillors for corruption. However, there is very little else the MDC can do until the next elections. They are who they are, and the more people get to know them, the less likely they are to vote for them. People don't want joblosses in government, they don't want to give their land back through some kind of 'land audit', they don't want their economy owned by Anglo-American De Beers, Morgan Tsvangirai's former employer and sole beneficiary of the privatisation of the diamond mines. Lastly, as libertarians who believe in 'free markts', they don't WANT to govern. They want to be in power - that's all. The MDC cannot change who they are before the next election, or even after it. - MrK]
“People get fully emotionally charged and frustrated either into action or inaction as a result. Which is what strategists par excellence aim at. Political engineering at its most stupid, actually.”
The critical question to be asked is: Why now? What are the Americans seeking to achieve?
Could the Americans be trying to divert Zimbabweans from the more pressing constitution-making debate?
“Efforts that strategists expend to try and shape world outcomes in the political arena either accelerate or decelerate a process, by refocusing direction. We are here embroiled in discussing some survey/research, occupying space which can best and profitably be used to discuss the constitution which might affect the lives of generations after us. No move is as stupid as it looks,” warned Mr Smart.
IPS has quoted Italian political scientist Professor Diego Giannonea, questioning this unholy alliance.
Prof Giannonea wrote that US government funding to Freedom House was “unusual, especially when one considers that the organisations involved in the assessment and monitoring of human rights, democracy and freedom in the world refuse on principle — as a guarantee of their independence and credibility — government funding.”
[Look at the people who are associated with Freedom House - Zbigniev Brzezinksi, Jean Kirkpatrick, etc. - MrK]
The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organisations selected by the State Department to receive funding for “clandestine activities” inside Iran.
In a research study quoted by the paper, Freedom House set out its conclusions:
“Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance — which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders.”
Past Freedom House advisers and associates have included former CIA director James Woolsey, the late UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick; conservative Rolling Stone writer P. J. O'Rourke, and the late Samuel Huntington, the Harvard professor known for his “clash of civilisations” thesis.
In fact, Freedom House is classified in the same group with other CIA-linked organisations like the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, National Endowment for Democracy, Millennium Challenge Corporation and the International Centre for Journalists.
Egyptian media reported in 2009 that 16 young Egyptian activists benefited from a two-month Freedom House “New Generation Fellowship” in Washington DC.
“The activists received training in advocacy and met with US government officials, members of Congress, media outlets and think tanks.
“As far back as 2008, members of the April 6th Movement attended the inaugural summit of the Association of Youth Movements (AYM) in New York, where they networked with other movements, attended workshops on the use of new and social media and learned about technical upgrades, such as consistently alternating computer simcards, which help to evade state internet surveillance.”
Information gleaned from various American websites shows that AYM is sponsored by Pepsi, YouTube and MTV.
Amongst the luminaries who participated in the 2008 Summit, which focused on training activists in the use of Facebook and Twitter, were James Glassman of the State Department, Sherif Mansour of Freedom House, national security advisor Shaarik Zafar and Larry Diamond of the National Endowment for Democracy.
And it is these American-trained young people who drove the so-called Arab Spring in Egypt.
Freedom House took an active role in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, specifically in training the non-violent student movement, known as Otpor.
Closer home, in February 2006 clandestine Freedom House meetings in Zambia led to the deportation of now Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his eight-member team from that country. Reports said that the eight MDC-T officials posed as tourists but later held secret meetings with officials from Freedom House in Livingstone.
The MDC-T officials included the late Mr Isaac Matongo, Mr Nelson Chamisa, Ms Lucia Matibenga, Ms Gertrude Mthombeni, Ms Paurina Mpariwa, Mr William Bango, Ms Thokozani Khupe and Mr Eddie Cross.
According to reports, Mr Tsvangirai flew into Victoria Falls ahead of his colleagues and met a Samuel Mark Imende, believed to be Kenyan.
After regrouping at Zambezi Sun International Hotel in Livingstone, the MDC leaders held a marathon meeting with the Freedom House members, who were initially believed to be MDC donors.
Sources said the officials from the US-funded organisation were initially stationed in Kenya to mobilise sentiments against the Kenyan government’s bid to amend that country’s constitution.
The sources said Imende was present at the meeting in Zambia because he had been working hand-in-hand with the organisation during its stint in Kenya.
Labels: CIA, FREEDOM HOUSE
Read more...
COMMENT - Considering the source - Freedom House is a rightwing, state funded thinktank,
about which Wikipedia states:
The board is currently chaired by William H. Taft IV. Taft assumed chairmanship of the board in January 2009, succeeding Peter Ackerman. Other current board members include Kenneth Adelman, Farooq Kathwari, Azar Nafisi, Mark Palmer, P. J. O'Rourke, and Lawrence Lessig,[15] while past board-members have included Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Otto Reich, Donald Rumsfeld, Whitney North Seymour, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, and Bayard Rustin.
Zimbabwe Opinion Survey Reveals Hope for Elections, but Cynicism About Political Leaders
Washington
According to a public opinion survey released today, Zimbabweans remain anxiously uncertain about the political future of their country. Findings from Change and ‘New’ Politics in Zimbabwe revealed that despite widespread optimism that the next elections expected in the first half of 2013 will bring definite change, many Zimbabweans continue to fear that the lead up to elections will include heightened levels of political violence.
“Freedom House is encouraged by Zimbabweans’ obvious enthusiasm about the upcoming elections despite the lingering fear of violence,” said David J. Kramer, president of Freedom House. “These findings should serve as bellwether for what citizens are expecting of their future political leaders and how both political parties can define their policies to adequately address these expectations.”
The survey, commissioned by Freedom House and conducted by South African political analyst Susan Booysen and the Mass Public Opinion Institute in Harare, found that respondents were pleased by significant economic improvements that have occurred under the Inclusive Government but critical of political leaders’ performance on employment creation, service delivery and addressing persistent food shortages. Among the approximately one half of respondents who agreed to state their political opinions, expression of support for the two leading parties, ZANU PF and MDC T, shifted considerably from earlier Freedom House surveys with sizeable gains for ZANU PF and losses for MDC T.
Key findings of the survey include:
* 47% of those who said they will vote in the next elections stated ‘this is the election that will make the difference’. The largest block of respondents, 45%, said the Zimbabwean people will be ready for elections in the first half of 2013. 85% are ‘sure’ or ‘very sure’ that they will be casting their ballots in the next election.
* A total of 35% respondents in this survey (compared with 16% in 2010) now believe that the next round of elections will be free and fair.
* 65% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that ‘fear of violence and intimidation make people vote for parties or candidates other than the ones they prefer.’ Respondents’ actual experiences of violence have decreased, however, with 22% reporting incidents of violence in their communities from 2010-2012, a drop from the 58% who reported the same between 2008-2010.
* While Zimbabweans still positively assess the Inclusive Government (IG) on a variety of issues, its positive ratings are substantially less positive than in 2010. In contrast with 2010, survey respondents are now greatly more critical of IG’s ability to assure Zimbabweans freedom to speak about political matters openly. 44% now state the IG is doing ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ in assuring freedom of speech compared with 9% who gave this response in 2010.
* The most serious problem Zimbabweans confront is unemployment. Approximately 2/3 of Zimbabweans are formally unemployed, and the effects are felt strongly at both community and national levels.
* Zimbabweans have become more critical of their political leaders. While 40% said they trusted political parties ‘a lot’ or ‘somewhat’ in 2010, this has dropped to 30% in 2012. Based on the responses of the 53% of survey participants who agreed to state their political choices, trust in MDC-T, in particular, dropped from 66% to 39%, while trust in ZANU PF rose from 36% to 52%.
* When asked who they would vote for if parliamentary elections were held tomorrow, 47% of respondents said they would not vote, or refused to indicate who they would vote for (up from 41% in 2010). Of the 53% who declared their preference, 20% said they would support MDC-T (down from 38% in 2010) and 31% ZANU PF (up from 17% in 2010).
The survey polled a nationally representative sample of 1198 adult Zimbabweans between 23 June and 7 July 2012. Topics addressed were political power, elections, fear and violence, the constitution, and socio-economic conditions. Interviews were carried out in all ten provinces in each respondent’s language of choice. The survey follows similar Freedom House polls that were conducted in November-December 2010 and September 2009. The nearly 3-year span of these surveys offers a rich field of comparison between the results of the different surveys and brings to light intriguing new developments in Zimbabwean public opinion.
The following findings were taken from an interim report. Comprehensive findings from the survey will be released in September 2012.
Freedom House, an independent non-governmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has been monitoring political rights and civil liberties in Zimbabwe since 1980.
For more information, visit:
Freedom in the World 2012: Zimbabwe
Freedom of the Press 2011: Zimbabwe
Freedom on the Net 2011: Zimbabwe
Blog: Freedom at Issue
Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.
Join us on Facebook and Twitter (freedomhousedc) and stay up to date with Freedom House’s latest news and events by signing up for our RSS feeds and our blog.
Issues:
Civil Society, Democratic Governance, Elections
Regions:
Sub-Saharan Africa
Countries:
Zimbabwe
Labels: CIA, FREEDOM HOUSE
Read more...
9/11 Attacks: Criminal Foreknowledge and Insider Trading lead directly to the CIA's Highest Ranks
CIA Executive Director "Buzzy" Krongard managed Firm that handled "Put" Options on UAL
by Michael C. Ruppert
Global Research, August 13, 2012
- 2001-10-20
Global Research Editor's note
As September approaches, we are reminded that the anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11 will soon be upon us once again. 11 years later, are we any closer to the truth about what really happened on that fateful day?
For the next month until September 11, 2012, we will be posting on a daily basis important articles from our early archives pertaining to the tragic events of 9/11. The following text by Michael C. Ruppert published in October 2001 brings to the forefront the issue of foreknowledge and insider trading pertaining to airline listings on the Chicago Board Options Exchange including United Airlines and American Airlines.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 13, 2012
Suppressed Details of 9/11 Criminal Insider Trading lead directly into the CIA`s Highest Ranks
CIA Executive Director "Buzzy" Krongard managed Firm that handled "put" Options on UAL
by Michael C. Ruppert
FTW Publications, 9 October 2001, Centre for Research on Globalisation, globalresearch.ca, 20 October 2001
Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That evidence also demonstrates that, in the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee "private client relations." In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.
The Scope of Known Insider Trading
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades - in real time - as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades. "Selling Short" is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months. "Put Options," purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 - regardless of where the market then stands.
A "call option" is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
*
Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options... Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
*
On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;... Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
*
[The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
*
No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
*
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
*
Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
*
European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.]
On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes." They don't dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
"... October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put" options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp."
"...The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options..."
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
CIA, the Banks and the Brokers
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let's look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA's history. Clark Clifford - The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles - These two brothers "designed" the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey - Ronald Reagan's CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush - President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, and which shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.
A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard - The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation's second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering drug money. This includes Citigroup's 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin - This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank's board.
Maurice "Hank" Greenburg - The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg's and AIG's long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG's stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read that story, please go to http://www.copvcia.com/stories/part_2.html.
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.
The original URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html
Copyright, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications at http://www.copvcia.com.
Now you have the opportunity to watch the important testimonies from this conference. Order your DVD of "The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception" from Global Research and find out the latest research on the event that launched 11 years of war and aggression.
Press For Truth and The International Center for 9/11 Studies Present:
The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception
DVD AVAILABLE TO ORDER FROM GLOBAL RESEARCH!
Price: $22.95
(+ S&H)
CLICK HERE TO ORDER YOUR COPY!
Click here to view the TRAILER on GlobalResearchTV
Produced by:
Steven Davies
Dan Dicks
Bryan Law
An over 5 hour DVD, with comprehensive coverage of the 4 day Toronto Hearings from September 2011.
Featuring expert witness testimony from:
David Ray Griffin
Richard Gage
David Chandler
Michel Chossudovsky
Kevin Ryan
Niels Harrit
Barbara Honegger
Peter Dale Scott
Graeme MacQueen
Jonathan Cole
Cynthia McKinney
…and many more!
The Toronto Hearings on 9/11: Uncovering Ten Years of Deception
Produced By:
Press for Truth
Runtime:
Over 5 hours!
Release Date:
April 2012
Price: $22.95
(+ S&H)
ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY!
Labels: 911, AL-QAEDA, CIA, TERRORISM
Read more...
