by Michael Gaddy

To this point in time the only evidence that has been presented concerning the terrible murders at Fort Hood has been that presented by accomplished liars and killers of innocent people: the government. To detail and list the lies of the government and its propaganda arm, known as the media, would take more time and space than is available. Need I say more than “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,” “Read my lips, no new taxes,” “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski,” “I am not a crook”; and “all our POWs are home.” Web sites abound with documentation of the lies of the state, its leaders and component agencies. What more can be said about killers of the innocent than, Vicki Weaver (shot in the face by FBI agent Lon Horiuchi while holding her infant daughter), Samuel Weaver (14-year-old, shot in the back by US Marshals) and the 80 plus killed at Waco, including 32 children.

Seeing as how government testimony could be impeached in any court not operated and controlled by the state as originating from a pathological and habitual liar, we can assume we will never be privileged to the truth in this matter, but it would be informative to have the following questions answered; questions I am sure we will never hear asked by the MSM.

We know Hasan graduated from Virginia Tech with a degree in biochemistry from the school’s Center for Applied Behavior Systems, most likely on the taxpayer’s dime. While at Virginia Tech did Hasan have any associations with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); was he in any way associated with them since his graduation, if so, in what capacity? DARPA states on its website, “DARPA programs focus on high-risk research that will have payoffs that could provide dramatic advances in military capabilities.” DARPA has been rumored to be associated with the MKULTRA program of mind control and Virginia Tech. Cathy O’Brien stated in her book,Trance-Formation of America that “Virginia Tech is good for two things, engineering and mind control.” and that “most of the east coast M.K. Ultra Mind Control experiments happened in this DARPA facility.”

Another question that deserves an answer is, “Exactly what position did Major Hasan hold in the U.S. Army’s PSYOP community and how did that relate to his dealings with his patients? Also, what was Major Hasan’s position with the US Center for the Study of Traumatic Stressand how did this relate to his duties with the Army’s Warrior Combat Reset Program? Did Major Hasan’s assignment to Ft. Hood have anything to do with a program the Army initiated to “electronically prepare” soldiers for redeployment to Iraq and Afghanistan?

The number of suicides and murders seen in returning veterans is at an all time high. These numbers have been downplayed and underreported. Have there been any reports within the military dealing with what commanders feel could lead to an inability to continue to prosecute the wars? Recently a report was published stating a significant number of 17–24-year-olds to be unfit for military service. The lack of a qualified pool for entrance into the military will lead to a continuation of multiple redeployments that will lead to more and more suicides, murders and rapes among returning veterans. What steps are being taken to electronically or medically deal with these problems and what was Major Hasan’s role in these programs?

The Department of Homeland Security contacted a Soviet company called Psychotechnology Research Institute in 2007 in its never-ending search to ferret out terrorist suspects. Ironically, this was the same company contacted by the FBI in an effort to assist with the siege at Waco, and was also the entity that was tasked with dealing with Russian soldiers suffering from PTSD upon their return from Afghanistan. The question must be asked, were any of the techniques now being employed by the US military, specifically by Major Hasan, acquired from this Soviet company? Was the software made by this company known as Semantic Stimuli Response Measurements Technology (SSRM Tek) a part of any treatment of American soldiers? It has been reported Russian soldiers being treated with this technology experienced not a remission of battle memories but instead an immersion in those memories which caused several of them to become very violent resulting in the deaths of over 30 of their fellow soldiers.

The great majority of information concerning mind control as a military tool and the cooperation of the Soviets with our military and its efforts at mind control are shrouded in secrecy.

Americans have a right to know what techniques and experiments are being used on their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters who have, or will, experience the horrors of war.

The thought the government would not engage in such activity is preposterous. One need only look before and during the Vietnam War to see what mind control experiments were being conducted, many times against the will of the soldier involved. There is presently a lawsuit filed by attorney Gordon Erspamer in January in Federal District Court in San Francisco against the Army and CIA on behalf of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) and six former soldiers who claim to be survivors of these experiments. Found here is the actual proof these experiments were conducted.

Are we to believe that somewhere between these mind control experiments on both civilians and soldiers, both then and now, the government has acquired a moral compass concerning what it will and will not do to those it considers to be nothing but indentured servants and guinea pigs? Americans can blindly accept the lies of government and continue providing their children to the monster, or begin to demand answers to questions like those posed above.

How long will we continue to compile evidence for Henry Kissinger’s claim that “Soldiers are just dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns of foreign policy?”

by Jerry Mazza, OnlineJournal

The story as it unwinds seems too scripted to be true. That Army psychiatrist and Major Nidal M. Hasan went on a rampage at Fort Hood with two guns blazing, a .357 Magnum and a semi-automatic pistol with laser target-finder, after shouting the Arabic phrase ‘Allah Akbar’ (God is Greatest) as he opened fire, and will live (so far) to talk about it, though an Army-appointed lawyer says he will never get a fair trial.

Hasan coincidentally received his masters in chemistry at Virginia Tech, famous for the infamousSeung-Hui Cho, the campus killer gunman credited on April 19, 2007, with the deadliest shooting rampage in modern history. Seung-Hui’s sister curiously works for a State Department office that oversees billions of dollars in American aid for Iraq. See the link to Citizens for Legitimate Government on him and his ‘Missing Records.’ It’s more of the script, the association of Hasan with Seung-Hui.

Consider, too, that in 2007, Major Hasan, who received his medical degree in psychiatry from Walter Reed Hospital, spoke there, warning of threats within the ranks of Muslim Soldiers in a 50-slide Power-Point presentation, titled The Koranic World View As it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military. “He stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan,” reports the Nov. 10 Washington Post, which includes Hasan’s entire presentation.

Hasan went so far as to say, “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.” How and why these words didn’t get his military superiors to question him seems beyond understanding, unless that, too, was part of the script. Could it be that they felt he was speaking the truth? But there was a more than veiled threat in the presentation, which you’ll see if you read it.

In fact, Hasan entered Walter Reed in 2003 and spent six years as an intern, resident and fellow. He was transferred to Fort Hood as a psychiatrist in July 2009 and was to leave soon forAfghanistan and had asked on numerous occasions not to be deployed. He even offered theU.S. government its money back for his Walter Reed education, every dollar of it. He did not want to fight fellow Muslims. Yet no one raised an eye? This is a U.S. Army major speaking, not some slacker from the sticks trying to dodge combat.

Of course, aside from his glaringly strong (if not correct) feelings against the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, his supervisors found him quite competent counseling wounded PTSD soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the NY Times’ Details Emerge about Fort Hood suspect’s history, “Col. Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of clinical services at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, said she had known Hasan.

“‘You wouldn’t think that someone who works in your facility and provided excellent care for his patients, which he did, could do something like this,’ Kesling said. She described him as ‘a quiet man who wouldn’t seek the limelight’ and said she was shocked when she heard he was the suspect in the shootings.’” One can only imagine the tales he heard, which would only bolster his philosophical antipathy to the War on Terror, which he considered and claims to be a war on Islam, with which any number of Americans would agree.

This is all vaguely reminiscent of supposed communist-sympathizer Lee Harvey Oswald and his feelings for Cuba, which purportedly drove him towards a similar “lone gunman” assassination of President Kennedy, which today is amply questioned by millions of Americans who believe it involved the CIA, the Mob, the Defense Industry, and George H.W. Bush, Sr., among a number of the usual suspects.

Yet, an ABC News headline from Nov. 9 screams Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda: Army Major in Fort Hood Massacre Used ‘Electronic Means’ (the computer) to Connect with Terrorists: “U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army MajorNidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News. According to the officials, the Army was informed of Hasan’s contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response.”

Why is it unclear, or is it just being withheld, or is there nothing of consequence to report, or is it a sheer lie?

This is coming from ABC News, which on every anniversary of JFK’s assassination, runs a “last word” piece on how it was committed by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, the network being a long-standing CIA front. And here, they have automatically established that the fabled ‘Al Qaeda,’ created, funded, and branded by the CIA, was in contact with Major Hasan. So, what did they do about it? Nothing! Read the balance of the article for the indignant ire of the politicians, so reminiscent of all the leads to the CIA and other presences in the JFK assassination, whose inquiry was led by Allan Dulles, the CIA head Kennedy fired in “1961 over Operation Northwoods, a proposed covert CIA operation aimed at gaining popular support for a war against Cuba by framing Cuba for stage real or simulated attacks on American citizens.”

Of course, echoing ABC News is the New York Times with U.S. Knew of Suspect’s Tie to Radical Cleric. Aha, even more ties on the path to jihad, even more foreknowledge: “Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between the military psychiatrist accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen knownfor his incendiary anti-American teachings [itals mine].” And what did they do about it?

“But the federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages from the psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, did not suggest any threat of violence and concluding that no further action was warranted, government officials said Monday.” Oh, then why mention it in the first place? It goes on . . .

“Major Hasan’s 10 to 20 messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshiped, indicate that the troubled [now he’s nuts] military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but that the authorities left him in his post.” Why? Why? Why? Unless it’s all sheer BS.

Is this not reminiscent of 9/11 and the continued incompetence before, during and after it of various intelligence and government agencies, not to mention NORAD, the Pentagon, the executive branch? And nary a soul was fired after the terrible event.

All they could do was blame 19 head-shots of Muslims pulled out of a file by FBI Director Robert Mueller, who wouldn’t claim with complete surety their authenticity. And then the next step was declaring the War on Terror and preemptively, illegally, attacking Afghanistan, supposedly in search of (the Muslim goat) Osama bin Laden, who supposedly engineered it. Several years after 9/11, he was taken off the FBI’s Most Wanted list for the crime for lack of evidence to prove he was responsible for it. And then there was Iraq, claiming this time (the Muslim goat) Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and was about to use them any second, which was subsequently proven totally false.

So now Hasan is buried in Al Qaeda next to a radical cleric with strong anti-American teachings. Paydirt! The news networks have created a grid-like spider-web that holds its fly morsel, Hasan, to shame Islam. Does this not buttress the whole sagging “conspiracy theory” of the administration, particularly as more and more books, DVDs, architects, engineers, military men, pilots speak out against the flaws in the administration’s “9/11 conspiracy theory?” Does this not hit us over the head again with “a Muslim did it, remember 9/11?” Why was the intelligence at Fort Hood, the FBI, and CIA asleep at the wheel — perhaps part of the script?

It also comes out in the same Times story linked above, “In 2000 and 2001, Mr. Awlaki [the radical cleric] served as an imam at two mosques in the United States frequented by three future Sept. 11 hijackers. Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi attended the Rabat mosque inSan Diego, where Mr. Awlaki later admitted meeting Mr. Hazmi several times but ‘claimed not to remember any specifics of what they discussed,’ according to the report of the national Sept. 11 commission.” Uh huh, uh huh, we’re building to something here and . . .

“Both Mr. Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, later attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque inFalls Church, Va., after Mr. Awlaki had moved there in early 2001. The Sept. 11 commission report expressed ‘suspicion’ about the coincidence, but said its investigators were unable to find Mr. Awlaki to question him.” Yes, but . . .

“Major Hasan attended the same Virginia mosque, but it is not known whether they met there.” Hasan attended the same mosque, but it’s not known if he and Hani, the idiot who couldn’t fly a Cessna, met there. But nevertheless we take from this, if you’re political I.Q. isn’t below 40, the implication that Hasan was connected to the hijackers, because he’s a “nut killer terrorist,” too.

Yet who left him to do his killing but the very people in charge of his career. Or maybe someone in the backroom said, “Hands off Hasan. We have other plans for him. He’s in the bigger picture.” Ah, so much like Oswald, or David Chapman who shot John Lennon. Chapman then calmly sat down on the sidewalk after he did it, waiting for the police to come and take him. His handler, the doorman Jose Perdomo, went gone for the day, saying bye-bye to Chapman, as this Manchurian patsy went off to life imprisonment. And not in a mental hospital, but in a straight-up prison, which he “chose” to do, uh huh, uh huh.

And yet there’s more. Hasan supposedly wasn’t a lone gunman. No, he had three accomplices they say, one dead, and two in custody. Sort of makes sense. I mean to kill 13 people and wound 29 in a matter of minutes, supposedly thrusting a hundred rounds of ammo into the clips of his two pistols, Hasan would have to be John Wayne plus Superman. It would ruin the whole movie. But who are the accomplices? Well, there’s an account from CNN of the capture of one of them on a golf course two and a half miles away as 30 to 40 sirening cars full of MPs came to get him. Here is the short piece . . .

“(CNN) — A senior officer who was playing golf Thursday near Fort Hood, Texas, told CNN he witnessed the arrest of one of the two surviving suspects of the shooting at the Army installation.

“Shortly after the shooting, the officer said, military police told him to clear the course and he saw other MPs surround the building that held the golf carts, he said.

The senior officer said he ducked into a nearby house for cover as 30 to 40 cars carrying MPs approached.

“He said he saw a soldier in battle-dress uniform, his hands in the air. The MPs ordered him to lie on the ground and open his uniform, presumably to ensure he was not carrying explosives, the senior officer said.” Presumably, they found no bomb.

“He said an MP told him that authorities considered the man to be a suspect in the shootings after having overheard the man say he was with the shooter. The man was surrounded for 25 to 30 minutes, until a convoy of vehicles arrived, led by a Ford Crown Victoria and carrying men in suits, and he was taken away, the senior officer said.” Sirening up to a suspect in 40 cars, wow, that’s stealth for you. And who was the man? And where is he now?

But they probably caught a few other suspects as well. I wonder if they’re all Muslims. And speaking of that, how do we jibe Hasan’s violent nature with Reuters’ article U.S. Army gunman’s act “impossible” – grandfather, who by the way lives on the West Bank in Palestine, where the Hasan family came from via Jordan to America.

“AL-BIREH, West Bank, Nov 7 (Reuters) – The grandfather of a U.S. Army psychiatrist accused of shooting dead 13 people and wounding 30 others at a base in Texas said on Saturday he found it impossible to believe his grandson had committed the act.

“’He is a doctor and loves the U.S.’ Ismail Mustafa Hamad told Reuters in an interview at his home in the Palestinian town of al-Bireh. ‘America made him what he is.’” Now, there’s a certain, deep irony to that statement.

The article concludes ”Hasan, who had spent years counseling wounded soldiers, many of whom had lost limbs fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, last visited him in the occupied West Bank some 10 years ago. Hamad said he had since visited his grandson in the United States. Hamad appeared to rule out a political motive.” Didn’t the poor old man know everything is political everywhere in this universe?

And so it goes, the contradictions, the lies, the suspected truth of what this orchestrated event means, and how it will bolster, supercharge resentment against Muslims once again and perpetuate our wars against their nations. And the folks who hold the puppet strings, will we be seeing them, hearing from them, or just listening to their news releases? Conflicting, accusatory, guilt in the highest from association, etc. All I can say is, “Good night, America, and good luck.”

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Amidst all the debate over whether the Ft. Hood killer is a terrorist, murderer, enemy combatant, traitor, sleeper agent, or insane person, there is one glaring fact staring America in the face: what happened at Ft. Hood is more blowback from U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Even at this early stage of the investigation, the evidence is virtually conclusive that the accused killer, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was motivated to kill U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood by deep anger and rage arising from the things that the U.S. government has been doing to people in the Middle East for many years.

Oh, I can already hear the interventionists exclaiming, “You’re a justifier! You’re justifying what he did!”

Isn’t that what they said after the 9/11 attacks, when we libertarians pointed out that those attacks were motivated by the deep anger and rage that had boiled over in the Middle East because of what the U.S. government had been doing to people there?

“You’re a justifier,” the interventionists cried. “You’re justifying what they did.”

In fact, isn’t that what they said after Timothy McVeigh’s terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City, when we libertarians pointed out that he had been motivated by deep anger and rage arising from the federal massacre of U.S. citizens at Waco, including innocent women and children?

“You’re a justifier,” they said. “You’re justifying what McVeigh did.”

The reason the interventionists go off on this “You’re a justifier” tirade is that the last thing they want to be confronted with is the wrongdoing of the U.S. government and its responsibility for the blowback — the retaliatory consequences — from such wrongdoing.

Think back to the 1993 terrorist strike on the World Trade Center. The following is an excerpt from a statement made by convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef to the federal judge at Yousef’s sentencing hearing. As you read what he said, see if you detect anger and rage within this man:

“You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism…. And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people…. You are the ones who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars, and hypocrites.”

That terrorist attack at the World Trade Center took place in 1993. That was after the Persian Gulf War, when the Pentagon knowingly and intentionally destroyed the water-and-sewage facilities in Iraq with the specific intent of spreading infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people. It was also the second year of the brutal sanctions that were contributing to the deaths of Iraqi children, many from infectious illnesses.

That was what Yousef was referring to when he mentioned the “embargo which kills nobody but children and elderly people.” That’s just one of the things that the U.S. government was doing to people in the Middle East that were causing people’s anger and rage to reach a boiling point.

Here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, we repeatedly warned — prior to 9/11 — that unless the U.S. government ceased and desisted from its wrongful conduct in the Middle East, the United States would be hit with another terrorist attack. We were repeatedly pointing out that the anger and rage were going to reach another boiling point, just like they had in 1993, and culminate in a terrorist attack on American soil.

Of course, one might say, “But the Pentagon, the president, and the CIA probably weren’t reading your essays prior to 9/11 and so they wouldn’t have known about such warnings.”

Fair enough. But surely many of them were familiar with the works of Chalmers Johnson, professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, who served as a consultant for the CIA from 1967-1973. In his book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Johnson made the same point — that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East was inevitably going to lead to retaliatory terrorist blowback on American soil. His book was published in March 2000, more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.

Did the U.S. government learn anything at all after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center? Did it change its interventionist foreign policy? Did it stop doing bad things to people in the Middle East?

On the contrary, it not only continued its interventionist policies that had precipitated the 1993 retaliatory blowback on the World Trade Center, it expanded upon them for the next several years, until the anger and rage in the Middle East once again reached a boiling point that erupted in full force on 9/11.

For example, consider the brutal sanctions that were contributing to the deaths of countless Iraqi children that had filled Ramzi Yousef and many other people in the Middle East with anger and rage. Those sanctions continued … and continued … and continued, with the death toll mounting year after year after year — along with rising anger and rage.

Click here for a compilation of articles that provide an excellent summary of the nature and consequences of the sanctions on Iraq.

By the mid-1990s the death toll for Iraqi children from the sanctions had reached the hundreds of thousands.

What was the response of U.S. officials to this rising death toll? Nothing but callous indifference. They simply didn’t care. In 1996 U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright expressed the official position of Washington when she responded to a question put to her by “Sixty Minutes” regarding the half-a-million children who had died as a result of the sanctions: She said that such a price was “worth it.” By “it” she meant U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically the attempt to oust Saddam Hussein from power and replace him with a U.S.-approved ruler.

In other words, U.S. officials were willing to trade the lives of any number of Iraqi children, no matter how high such a number might reach, to achieve the U.S. foreign policy goal of “regime change.”

The brutal sanctions continued throughout the 1990s and in to the 2000s, amidst a growing outcry all over the world, not to mention the rising anger and rage within people in the Middle East. In order to cover its wrongdoing, the U.S. got the UN to enact the infamous oil-for-food program, a crooked, corrupt, bureaucratic, socialistic government program that was nothing more than a charade to cover up the rising death toll and the callous indifference to the horror.

In 2000, in a crisis of conscience, two high UN officials, Hans van Sponeck and Denis Halliday, even resigned their posts in protest to what was being described as genocide. “As a UN official, I should not be expected to be silent to that which I recognise as a true human tragedy that needs to be ended,” von Sponeck stated. “How long the civilian population, which is totally innocent on all this, should be exposed to such punishment for something that they have never done?” he asked.

Those brutal sanctions continued all way up to the U.S invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t all that the U.S. government did after the Berlin Wall collapsed, when people were questioning the necessity of an enormous Cold War military and military-industrial complex. The U.S. government also did such things as station troops on Islamic holy lands, knowing full well the adverse effect this would have on the sensitivities of Muslims. It also enforced the brutal no-fly zones over Iraq, which were used as the excuse to kill more Iraqis — zones which, by the way, had never been approved by either Congress or the UN. And on top of all this death, destruction, and humiliation, was the never-ending unconditional financial and military foreign aid given to the Israeli government.

I ask you: What better formula for boiling anger and rage among people in the Middle East than that?

Did anything change after the 9/11 attacks? Did the U.S. government learn any lessons from those attacks? Did it abandon any of its interventionist policies?

On the contrary, it not only continued the policies that had given rise to the anger and rage, it used the attacks to expand the interventionist policies.

First and foremost, the 9/11 attacks were used as the excuse to effect regime change not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.

In other words, what 11 years of brutal and deadly sanctions had failed to achieve in Iraq — regime change — was quickly achieved with a military invasion and occupation.

The U.S. government had provided Afghanistan with millions of dollars in foreign aid immediately prior to the 9/11 attacks, with full knowledge that Osama bin Laden was based in Afghanistan. But when the Taliban refused to comply with President Bush’s unconditional and non-negotiable demand to turn bin Laden over to the United States without the production of any evidence, the U.S. resorted to invasion and occupation to oust the Taliban from power and replace them with a U.S.-approved ruler, in the process killing countless Afghanis who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Compare the deadly and disastrous consequences from the military approach used to try to capture bin Laden to the criminal-justice approach that was used to capture Ramzi Yousef. Yousef today is residing in a U.S. federal penitentiary as a result of the sentence he received by a federal judge who treated terrorism as the federal crime it is. Also, no one was killed by U.S. bombs in Pakistan, where Yousef was ultimately arrested.

Compounding the invasions and long-term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan has been the callous indifference to the loss of innocent life in those two countries. Year after year, U.S. officials have professed to be killing and destroying out of love for the Iraqi and Afghani people. Sure, we’re killing you but it’s all for your own good because in the long run, you will have democracy and so it will all be worth it, U.S. officials have exclaimed. Don’t fret about losing your mother or father, or your bride, or your sister, or your friend. In the long run, you will thank us because you will find that democracy will be worth it.

What could be more wrongful, more immoral than that — the intentional killing of human beings in order to achieve a political-welfare goal? And keep in mind that there has never been an upward limit on the number of Afghanis and Iraqis who could be killed to achieve “democracy.” Any number of deaths, no matter how high, would be considered “worth it.”

Longtime supporters of The Future of Freedom Foundation know that ever since our inception in 1989, we have led the way in opposition to a pro-empire, pro-interventionist foreign policy. In fact, one of earliest books was The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars, followed later by Liberty, Security, and the War on Terrorism, published after 9/11, followed by innumerable essays since then.

Since 9/11, we have consistently opposed both the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, arguing fervently that not only were these two wars illegal (no declaration of war, as required by the U.S. Constitution) but that they were nothing more than a continuation of the policies that had produced the boiling anger and rage that had erupted in 1993 and then again on 9/11.

We must never lose sight of the fact that in Iraq, it is the U.S. government that is the aggressor — the invader — the occupier. It is the U.S. government that started this war. It is the Iraqis who are the defenders, the victims of what the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal called a “war of aggression.”

We should also never lose sight of the fact that while Afghanistan bore a tangential relationship to 9/11, the decision to treat the attack as a military problem rather than a criminal-justice one has been an unmitigated disaster. By killing countless Afghanis who had nothing to do with 9/11, the U.S. government has simultaneously swelled the ranks of people whose anger and rage have propelled them into the ranks of those who seek retaliation, including it now seems beyond any doubt, the alleged Ft. Hood killer, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Are we here at The Future of Freedom Foundation surprised by the Ft. Hood killings? Why would we be? In fact, what surprises us is that we haven’t seen more of this type of thing. How can it be otherwise?

I’m going to repeat what we’ve been saying since before 9/11: the U.S. government needs to get out of the Middle East and Afghanistan. Pull the troops out now. There is no other genuine way to support them. Stop the killing. End the occupations. The U.S. military and the CIA have had eight years to do all the killing, torturing, humiliating, and destroying they want. Now it is time to bring it to an end. Enough is enough.

And I’m going to repeat our predictions of what Americans should expect should the U.S. government continue its pro-empire, pro-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan: Americans should prepare themselves to reap the full bounty of what their government’s foreign policy is sowing. An evil seed will produce an evil tree that will bear evil fruit. As the anger and rage arising from the U.S. government’s foreign policy periodically boils over, everyone should prepare himself for more acts of terrorism, murder, treason, war, insanity or whatever other label you wish to put on the retaliatory killing, not to mention the monetary disaster that looms ahead from all of the out-of-control spending to finance this imperialist and interventionist madness.

by Michael Gaddy

The facts as presented by the Army and the media reference the shooting at Fort Hood just don’t compute. While I routinely dismiss any “facts” disseminated by the Army and the state’s propaganda wing, sometimes referred to as the mainstream media (MSM), there are some glaring inconsistencies in what has been reported about this tragedy.

First is the report the perpetrator was dead and then hours later the revelation that he was still alive. Exactly how long does it take to determine if a person is dead or alive? Could it be no one knew whom the shooter or shooters were and a story had to be concocted for public consumption? What happened to the two other “suspects” that were detained? What did they do to qualify as suspects and more importantly, what information surfaced that led to their release? One of the suspects reportedly stated he “was with the shooter.”

Second is the number of victims from a single shooter. Let us not forget this shooting did not occur at the mall, it occurred on a military installation where the victims had been trained in military tactics and some were combat veterans. We are to believe they did nothing to stop a single shooter and he was allowed to reload several times and continue shooting and the only thing that stopped him was the arrival of a police officer after the gunman had gunned down over 40 people?

And how so very convenient for the state, a perpetrator who was both anti-war and a Muslim; just doesn’t get any better than that. Could this be an example of following the philosophy of Rahm Emanuel on dealing with a crisis?

Third was the shutting down of communications in and around Ft. Hood for hours. While the Army and the media will explain this in various scenarios, it also provided the Army with a chance to create whatever story it was they wanted to provide the public on the terrible tragedy. Of course we all know the Army would never distort or lie about the facts involving the deaths of innocents. Well, there is that My Lai thing. People on the ground have told me cell phone towers were jammed to prevent unauthorized dissemination of information after the shooting. Again, the Army would not want any information contrary to the company line emerging from this disaster.

All too convenient for the Army was the rapid release of negative information related to the alleged shooter. It was said he received a negative evaluation report and that he had caused “red flags” to be raised some months ago concerning emails. Do we know anything this detailed about the “suspects” who were released? The caveat was added that it was unclear as to whether the suspect was the author of those emails. So, months ago, alarms were raised about emails the suspect might have sent, yet, in all those months the Army has been unable to determine who wrote them. Yeah, right. If red flags were in fact raised months ago, why did the Army do nothing? Going back to the 9/11 paradigm, we see the same evidence exhibited: the state had prior warnings but did not act on them. This proves unequivocally the government is either incompetent or complicit in both events. Yet, the state would have us all unarmed and depending on them for protection.

President Obama pledged, “to get answers to every single question about this event” but he also promised an end to signing statements, a transparent government, no more torture of detainees, and many more lies.

There has been speculation on the Internet that the shooting could have been a revolt against the Army from soldiers faced with stop-loss and multiple combat tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. While there is no evidence to support this theory, there is also no evidence to support the official Army version of events. Suicides among military personnel and veterans are at alarming levels, yet the Department of Defense does more to hide these facts than it does to deal with them.

The last thing the state can let happen is an awakening by its enforcement arm (military and LE) that they are nothing but tools of oppression and in fact, slaves to the monster they serve. While the military is trained and encouraged to kill and bomb in the name of the state, they are forbidden the means of protection for themselves and their loved ones once they are outside the killing zones designated by the state.

All is not normal inside the military community. This is not just seen in our military, instruments of oppression in other countries are revolting as well.

While it is doubtful we will ever learn the truth of exactly what happened at Fort Hood, we know with a degree of certainty the truth will never be revealed by the Army or the media. Could this have been a false flag event to divert the attention of the American public from the debates and planned demonstrations against the health care fiasco? Could it have simply been another MK Ultra event to further demonize the anti-war element in this country and to lay another crime at the feet of the current villain du jour: Muslims? Could there be a connection between this alleged shooter and his fellow Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, other than an oblique reference to Cho having a Muslim influence?

One must always ask this question when faced with a story that is issued and controlled by the State: Cui Bono? Wonderful, is it not, the state is empowered with the unique ability to investigate its own lies and the power of the media and academia to demonize any who would question its veracity, and the support of Boobus, whose livelihood depends on the state’s power to redistribute the wealth of the nation from producers to parasites.