by Jonathan Elinoff, New World Order Report

After reading the article released by Cracked.com, I decided to update and revise their sloppy work.  Their article had only 7.  I can name 33 and I am planning on releasing a revised list soon with up to 50.  The article I was insulted to read by the lack of information can be viewed here, but don’t waste your time, all of that is in this article and more.

Most people can’t resist getting the details on the latest conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they may seem. At the same time, many people quickly denounce any conspiracy theory as untrue … and sometimes as unpatriotic or just plain ridiculous.   Lets not forget all of the thousands of conspiracies out of Wall Street like Bernie Madoff and many others to commit fraud and extortion, among many crimes of conspiracy.  USA Today reports that over 75% of personal ads in the paper and on craigslist are married couples posing as single for a one night affair.  When someone knocks on your door to sell you a set of knives or phone cards, anything for that matter, do they have a profit motive?  What is conspiracy other than just a scary way of saying “alternative agenda”?  When 2 friends go to a bar and begin to plan their wingman approach on 2 girls they see at the bar, how often are they planning on lying to those girls?  “I own a small business and am in town for a short while.  Oh yeah, you look beautiful.”

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.  To conspire means “to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end.”  The term “conspiracy theory” is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from “the people”.

To many, conspiracy theories are just human nature.  Not all people in this world are honest, hard working and forthcoming about their intentions.  Certainly we can all agree on this.  So how did the term “conspiracy theory” get grouped in with fiction, fantasy and folklore?  Maybe that’s a conspiracy, just kidding.  Or am I?

Skeptics are important in achieving an objective view of reality, however, skeptism is not the same as reinforcing the official storyline.  In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or “mainstream” story of events.  Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original “mainstream” view of history, and actually not being skeptical.  This is not skeptism, it is just a convenient way for the establishment view of things to be seen as the correct version, all the time, every time.  In fact, it is common for “hit pieces” or “debunking articles” to pick extremely fringe and not very populated conspiracy theories.  This in turn makes all conspiracies on a subject matter look crazy.  Skeptics magazine and Popular Mechanics, among many others, did this with 9/11.  They referred to less than 10% of the many different conspiracy theories about 9/11 and picked the less popular ones, in fact, they picked the fringe, highly improbable points that only a few people make.  This was used as the “final investigation” for looking into the conspiracy theories.  Convenient, huh?

In fact, if one were to look into conspiracy theories, they will largely find that thinking about a conspiracy is associated with lunacy and paranoia.  Some websites suggest it as an illness.  It is also not surprising to see so many people on the internet writing about conspiracy theories in a condescending tone, usually with the words “kool-aid,” “crack pot,” or “nut job” in their articulation.  This must be obvious to anyone that emotionally writing about such serious matter insults the reader more than the conspiracy theorist because there is no need to resort to this kind of behavior.  It is employed often with an “expert” who will say something along the lines of, “for these conspiracies to be true, you would need hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved.  It’s just not conceivable.”

I find it extremely odd that the assumption is on thousands of participants in a conspiracy.  I, for one, find it hard to believe any conspiracy involving more than a handful of people but the fact remains that there have been conspiracies in our world, proven and not made up, that involved many hundreds of people.  It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact.

One more thing to consider, have you noticed that if the conspiracy is involving powerful interests with the ability to bribe, threaten or manipulate major institutions (like the mafia, big corporations or government) then don’t you find it odd when people use one of those as the “credible” counter-argument?  What I mean is, if you are discussing a conspiracy about the mafia, and someone hands you a debunking article that was written by the mafia, it doesn’t seem like it would take rocket science to look at that with serious criticism and credibility.  This is the case with many conspiracies.  In fact, I am handed debunking pieces all the time written in many cases by the conspirators in question.  Doesn’t this seem odd to anybody else but me?

While intelligent cynicism certainly can be healthy, though, some of the greatest discoveries of all time were initially received (often with great vitriol) as blasphemous conspiracy theories — think of the revelation that the earth was not the center of the universe, or that the world was not flat but actually round.

What follows are some of these most shocking modern conspiracy theories that turned out true after thorough investigation by our society.  Some through congressional hearings, others through investigative journalism.  Many of these, however, were just admitted to by those involved.  These are just 33 of them, and I still had a long list of others to add.  There are a total of 33 in this article.  Many of these are listed with original and credible news clips on the matter, as well as documentaries.

1.      The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).

2.      The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society’s secrets to law enforcement officials.  What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.

3.      MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a “truth serum” to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.

A short video about MK-ULTRA from a documentary called Secrets of the CIA:

4.      Operation Mockingbird: Also in the 1950s to ’70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.

5.      Manhattan Project:  The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. The project was led by the United States, and included participation from the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.  The project’s roots lay in scientists’ fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret.  With the total involved, this makes it one of the largest conspiracies in history.  Entire towns were built for short periods of time, employing people, all under secrecy and top national secrecy at that.  The government never admitted to it, the media never reported on it, and people had no idea for over 25 years.  Project research took place at over thirty sites across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now the Hanford Site, the uranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory. The MED maintained control over U.S. weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.

6.      Asbestos: Between 1930 and 1960, manufacturers did all they could to prevent the link between asbestos and respiratory diseases, including cancer, becoming known, so they could avoid prosecution. American workers had in fact sued the Johns Manville company as far back as 1932, but it was not until 1962 that epidemiologists finally established beyond any doubt what company bosses had known for a long time – asbestos causes cancer.

7.      Watergate: Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. While conspiracy theories suggested underhanded dealings were taking place, it wasn’t until 1974 that White House tape recordings linked President Nixon to the break-in and forced him to resign.

8.      The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years. Close to 200 of the men died from syphilis or related complications by the end of the study.

9.      Operation Northwoods: In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. The plans included committing acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, killing innocent people and U.S. soldiers, blowing up aU.S. ship, assassinating Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees, and hijacking planes. The plans were all approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but were reportedly rejected by the civilian leadership, then kept secret for nearly 40 years.

Author James Bamford, “A Pretext For War”, discusses the declassified “Operation Northwoods” documents revealing that in 1962 the CIA was planning to stage phony terrorist attacks on the US and blame it on Cuba to start a war:

10.  1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A 15-year-old girl named “Nayirah” testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die. The testimony helped gain major public support for the 1991 Gulf War, but — despite protests that the dispute of this story was itself a conspiracy theory — it was later discovered that the testimony was false. The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony.  It turned out that she had taken acting lessons on request of the CIA and was actually the niece of a major politician in Kuwait. Nayirah was later disclosed to be Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA.  The Congressional Human Rights Caucus, of which Congressman Tom Lantos was co-chairman, had been responsible for hosting Nurse Nayirah, and thereby popularizing her allegations. When the girl’s account was later challenged by independent human rights monitors, Lantos replied, “The notion that any of the witnesses brought to the caucus through the Kuwaiti Embassy would not be credible did not cross my mind… I have no basis for assuming that her story is not true, but the point goes beyond that. If one hypothesizes that the woman’s story is fictitious from A to Z, that in no way diminishes the avalanche of human rights violations.” Nevertheless, the senior Republican on the Human Rights Caucus, John Edward Porter, responded to the revelations “by saying that if he had known the girl was the ambassador’s daughter, he would not have allowed her to testify.”

11.  Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s:  COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. The FBI used covert operations from its inception, however formal COINTELPRO operations took place between 1956 and 1971. The FBI’s stated motivation at the time was “protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order.”  According to FBI records, 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups suspected of being subversive, such as communist and socialist organizations; the women’s rights movement; militant black nationalist groups, and the non-violent civil rights movement, including individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the American Indian Movement, and other civil rights groups; a broad range of organizations labeled “New Left”, including Students for a Democratic Society, the National Lawyers Guild, the Weathermen, almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, and even individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; and nationalist groups such as those “seeking independence for Puerto Rico.” The other 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert “white hate groups,” including the Ku Klux Klan and National States’ Rights Party. The directives governing COINTELPRO were issued by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered FBI agents to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” the activities of these movements and their leaders.

This is a documentary on COINTELPRO:

Read the rest at this link.

Here is an excerpt from a full speech given by Gen. Wes Clark (ret.) in which he lays out how the Project for a New American Century took over U.S. foreign policy starting with Bush, Sr.’s presidency into today.

by Chuck Baldwin

Now it’s Barack Obama’s war. After campaigning against “George Bush’s War” in the Middle East, Obama has escalated that war. By transferring thousands of America’s forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, and by sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the liberal Democrat has demonstrated that his administration is not so different from that of his “conservative” Republican predecessor.

While I was crisscrossing America during the campaign season last year, I repeatedly predicted that no matter who won the White House, John McCain or Barack Obama, neither would end the war in the Middle East. Many Democrats tried to argue with me, saying they knew Obama would end the war. Now they know I told the truth.

During his speech at West Point in which he announced the war’s escalation, he said, “[T]he Taliban [is] a ruthless, repressive and radical movement.” What he (or John McCain or George W. Bush) never bothers to tell you is that this is the same Taliban that the US government SUPPORTED, back when it was fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Obama also said, “We are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.” That is a lie! US forces will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Obama has no more intention of bringing all US troops out of Iraq than he does bringing them home from Afghanistan. Beyond that, there are more private contractors (read “mercenaries”) operating in Iraq than US troops. And this will likely be the case in Afghanistan, as well.

But not only did Obama escalate the war in Afghanistan, he made it clear that he is prepared to extend the war into Pakistan. Obama’s speech was laced with references to Pakistan. Examples:

“Our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

“Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” (Note: the latest reports state that there are no more than 100 al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.)

“We need a strategy that works on both sides of the [Afghanistan-Pakistan] border.”

Obama even intimated that he was prepared to extend the war well beyond Pakistan. He told the West Point cadets, “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends WELL BEYOND Afghanistan and Pakistan.” (Emphasis added.)

Just how far beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan Obama intends to extend the war he did not say, but there is no question he is fully prepared to broaden the war even further.

Obama even had the unmitigated gall to criticize the Afghan government for being “hampered by corruption, the drug trade.” Need I remind readers that for all its faults, when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, there was virtually NO DRUG TRADE coming out of Afghanistan? For all intents and purposes, the Taliban destroyed the drug business in Afghanistan. Opium and drug production only returned to Afghanistan after US forces displaced the Taliban. In fact, drug production in Afghanistan takes place right under the noses (no pun intended) and with the passive compliance of US forces.

But there is an even more evil and sinister motive for perpetual war than drug smuggling: perpetual war is a tool of globalists to enslave us!

Under the rubric of the “war on terror,” Big Government elitists are able to dismantle the constitutional safeguards of our freedom. Without 9/11 and the “war on terror” there would be no Patriot Act, for example.

Remember, the Patriot Act was first proposed during the Clinton administration, but a recalcitrant Republican Congress refused to approve it. But with a Republican in the White House (G.W. Bush), those same Republicans easily passed the Patriot Act into law. And to show you how this partisanship stuff works, those same Democrats who tried to pass the Patriot Act in the 90s (called by a different name, of course), voted AGAINST the Patriot Act when proposed by Republicans in the early 2000s. And since we’re on the Patriot Act, don’t hold your breath waiting for a Democratic Congress or the Democrat Barack Obama to expunge it.

Now think it through: first, the Democrats tried to pass the Patriot Act (under a different name) and Republicans opposed it. Next, Republicans (who once opposed it) passed the Patriot Act and Democrats (who once proposed it) opposed it. Now, both Democrats and Republicans (who have both opposed and proposed it) accept and embrace the Patriot Act. And with all that political posturing and grandstanding aside, the Patriot Act is only law today because WE ARE AT WAR.

Without war, we would not have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – which cannot even keep uninvited people out of the White House – the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and thousands of laws and regulations that trample constitutionally protected liberties.

In the name of “War,” our government can record our phone calls, read our emails, monitor our financial transactions and movements, and even place an Army combat division (USNORTHCOM) on American soil to WATCH – OR EVEN FIGHT AGAINST – US! And some of you don’t even give it a second thought. Why? WE ARE AT WAR!

I know! I know! Obama promises to “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.” Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that we are going to spend trillions of dollars on the war effort, send more than 50,000 troops plus thousands of independent contractors, and ship millions of tons of equipment half way around the world, and then turn around and bring them all back home IN EIGHTEEN MONTHS? I might have been born in the morning, but it was not yesterday morning!

Of course, that brings up another purpose globalists have in keeping us at war: the financial cost of waging war keeps the country in debt and keeps the Fed’s printing presses running.

Come on, folks, face it: there are many people who get “filthy, stinking” rich during times of war. If you have not read USMC Brigadier General Smedley Butler’s book, War is a Racket, you need to get it.

After winning the Marine Corps Brevet Medal, the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the French Order of the Black Star and TWO Congressional Medals of Honor, Butler said (as quoted in Common Sense magazine), “I spent 33 years and four months in active service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, do you really think things have gotten any better since General Butler wrote those words?

All in all, perpetual war serves two great interests: it helps the Machiavellians among us strip us of our liberties, and it helps the military-industrial complex make trillions of dollars. For these reasons, Barack Obama will do nothing to end the war in the Middle East. If anything, he will expand the war beyond Afghanistan, as he plainly suggested in his speech at West Point.

Once again, unless Americans recognize that both major parties in Washington, D.C., are persistent in serving the financial interests of internationalists (not to mention their own personal financial interests) and are more than eager to trample constitutional liberties in the process, nothing will change in our country – except that our liberties and way of life will continue to evaporate.

And as I’ve said before, I am absolutely convinced that the only way the evil machinations of the globalists now running things in DC can be thwarted is by State governments drawing a firm and determined line in the sand in defense of their liberties. And they need to start drawing that line NOW!

In the meantime, the Bush-Obama war (it was never America’s war, as it was never constitutionally declared by the people’s representatives) drags on and on and on.

by Ray McGovern

Media commentary on the upcoming 9/11 trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has raised concern that state secrets may be divulged, including details about how the Bush administration used torture to extract evidence about al-Qaeda.

“I think that we’re going to shine a light on something that a lot of people don’t want to look at” is how American Civil Liberties Union attorney Denney LeBoeuf put it, according to The New York Times on Saturday.

No problem, says Attorney General Eric Holder, who claims to have “great confidence” that other evidence – apart from what may have been gleaned from the 183 times Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, for example – will suffice to convict him.

Maybe so, But what the Fawning Corporate Media (or FCM) have so far neglected is the likelihood that the testimony will be so public that they will have to break their studied silence about why Sheikh Mohammed and his associates say they orchestrated the attacks of 9/11.

For reasons that are painfully obvious, the FCM have done their best to ignore or bury the role that Israel’s repression of the Palestinians has played in motivating the 9/11 attacks and other anti-Western terrorism.

It is not like there is no evidence on this key issue. Rather, it appears that the Israel-Palestine connection is pretty much kept off limits for discussion.

Yet, as Sheikh Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators go to trial, the FCM’s tacit but tight embargo will be under great strain. Eyes will have to be averted from the sensitive Israeli-Palestinian motive even more than from torture, which most Americans know about (and, God help us, are willing to explain away).

The Bromides

To refresh our memories, let’s recall the bromides we were fed by the likes of President George W. Bush about why the terrorists attacked on 9/11.

Rather than mentioning long-held grievances expressed by many Arabs – such as Western intrusion into their region, Washington’s propping up of autocrats who enrich themselves in deals with multinational oil companies, and Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory – Bush told the American people that “the terrorists hate our freedoms.”

Former Vice President Dick Cheney reprised that feel-good theme in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on May 21. Cheney said the terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences.”

Some observers might have found those qualities strange for Cheney to cite given his role in violating constitutional rights, torturing captives and spreading falsehoods to justify an aggressive war against Iraq.

But Cheney also slipped up in the speech, presumably because he had lost his best speechwriters upon leaving office. He inadvertently acknowledged the Israeli albatross hanging around the neck of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

“They [terrorists] have never lacked for grievances against the United States.  Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel… – these are the true sources of resentment,” Cheney said.

Yet “our support for Israel” is hardly ever included in these formulations, but Cheney at least got that part right.

Rarely in the FCM – and not even often on the Web – does one find Sheikh Mohammed’s explanation for what motivated him to “mastermind” 9/11. Apparently, few pundits have made it as far as page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report.

The drafters were at work on the report when they learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been captured. They knew that he earned a degree in mechanical engineering from North Carolina A&T in Greensboro in 1986, before going to Afghanistan to fight the Russian occupier.

And it seems their first assumption was that he suffered some major indignity at the hands of Americans in Greensboro. Thus the strange wording of one major finding on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

Moreover, the footnote section reveals that KSM was not the only “mastermind” terrorist motivated by “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel,” although in the footnote the Commission dances around a specific reference to Israel, leaving it to the reader to infer that point from the context. Note the missing words in the footnote on page 488:

“On KSM’s rationale for attacking the United States, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Sept. 5, 2003 (in this regard, KSM’s statements echo those of Yousef, who delivered an extensive polemic against U.S. foreign policy at his January 1998 sentencing),” the footnote said.

Was Yousef, who happens to be Mohammed’s nephew, perhaps upset about U.S. foreign policy favoring NATO expansion, or maybe toward Guam? Obviously, the unstated inference in the footnote was about Israel.

The First Attack

Famous photo, likely taken after severe sleep deprivation and/or torture.

The family connection between Yousef and Mohammed was not incidental, either. “Yousef’s instant notoriety as the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing inspired KSM to become involved in planning attacks against the United States,” the 9/11 Commission Report noted on page 147.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on Feb. 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below Tower One. The 1,500-pound urea nitrate-hydrogen gas-enhanced device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower, bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.

It failed to accomplish that, but the bombing did kill six people and injured 1,042.

Motive? Ramzi Yousef spelled out his motive in a letter to The New York Times after the bombing:

“We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.”

Yousef was captured in Pakistan in 1995, imprisoned in New York City, and held there until his trial. On Nov. 12, 1997, he was convicted of “seditious conspiracy” and was sentenced the following January to life without parole. He is held at the high-security Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

Regarding the touchy Israel connection, the 9/11 Commission stepped up to the plate in the “Recommendations” section of its final report, which was issued on July 22, 2004, but then bunted:

“America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. … Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.” (pp 376-377)

A more convincing swing at this issue was taken in an unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004, just two months later. The board stated:

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.

“Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

The report directly contradicted what Bush had been saying about “why they hate us,” letting the elephant out of the bag and into the room, so to speak.

But, you say, you didn’t hear much about that report either, despite 24-hour cable “news” networks and the “change-everything” importance of 9/11 in justifying U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Creative Editing

If you’ve read down this far, you will not be surprised that the FCM ignored the Defense Science Board findings for two months. On Nov. 24, 2004, The New York Times, erstwhile “newspaper of record,” finally published a story on the report – but only after some highly instructive surgery.

Read the rest by clicking here.

by Russell D. Longcore

On Thursday, November 5th, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan used handguns to fire upon fellow soldiers at Fort Hood Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30.

The base commander says soldiers who witnessed the shooting reported that Major Hasan shouted “Allah Akbar!” (God is great) before opening fire. Hasan, an American citizen and a practicing Muslim, himself was shot four times, and is presently hospitalized in stable condition. Originally it was thought that Hasan was killed, but later his survival was confirmed.

Hasan is a physician…a psychiatrist in fact. He recently worked at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Maryland, one of the primary places that wounded Gulf War soldiers are treated for horrific injuries. But those same wounded soldiers bring back deep mental wounds, and Hasan’s specialty was in counseling and helping soldiers suffering the mental anguish from war.

Major Hasan was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan, and reports say that he was angry about his deployment.

Over the coming weeks and months, military investigators will work to determine Major Hasan’s motivation for the murders. If found competent, he will likely stand trial for the murders and injuries. However, you should expect that the findings will be “spun” in a way that absolves Washington and the military from any responsibility for their part in the murders.

Nothing in this article should be misconstrued as a tacit approval of Hanan’s acts. Murder is always murder, and killing 13 and wounding 30 is an horrific slaughter. No justification exists for this act.

Here are some points that likely will be off-limits in the mainstream media:

1. The morality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. George Bush’s administration and Congress lied the US into an Iraq war against their own puppet dictator Saddam Hussein. It was never proven that Hussein or Iraq had ANY involvement in the 9-11 attacks. President Obama has now fully embraced war in Iraq and Afghanistan which continues unabated.

2. The legality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No declaration of war has ever been enacted by the US Congress, which is required in the Constitution.

3. Base security and the Second Amendment. Military personnel do not forsake their rights under the Second Amendment when they take their Oath of Service, do they? The fact that the soldiers on bases across the world are unarmed makes it easy for any assailant to do his work. Universities like Virginia Tech (curiously Hasan’s alma mater, where another mass murder incident took place), public schools, and government buildings are also open kill zones for armed gunmen. Just one soldier carrying his sidearm at Fort Hood could have stopped the slaughter. One soldier. One.

4. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Part of PTSD is the mental anguish military personnel experience when they have done unspeakable things in war that conflicts with their moral code. How do you live with yourself when your actions caused the deaths of women and children who never did anything to deserve death? How do you cope with seeing thousands of people bombed out of their homes and turned into refugees? How do you cope with seeing your buddies blown to bits by IEDs? How do you deal with the disease, displacement and death that your very presence in a foreign country delivers? Most military personnel live through it, albeit mentally tortured. But some choose #5.

5. Suicide rates in the military. News stories about alarmingly high suicide rates in the military have been surfacing since 2001 when the US began its military adventures in Iraq. The fact that military personnel have been deployed multiple times is a giant factor. The fact that National Guard and Reservists have also been deployed to “the sandbox” multiple times is another suicide factor. Finally, soldiers see…and cause…thousands of civilian deaths in both countries. The military personnel ask “what are we doing here?” and find no answer. They can’t escape their service, can’t desert their post and hop a plane for home, find themselves 5,000 miles from home with no solutions, or are scheduled for a mandatory deployment that they cannot avoid without court martial. So, in hopelessness and despair, many kill themselves.

6. Desertion: defined in Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as “Any member of the armed forces who (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently; or the abandonment of military duty without leave and without the intent to return.” Only in the military…or slavery… is a soldier “owned property,” subject to court martial, death or imprisonment for “quitting” his job. Desertion rates are up significantly since 2001, with many deserters heading to Canada or some other nation for asylum.

Major Hasan is a devout Muslim, so his story will likely be spun about Islam and terrorism. Reports say that he has expressed grave concerns about waging war against fellow Muslims. This is a legitimate concern for any devout believer.

But Hanan had other options. He could have refused the deployment for religious reasons (Conscientious Objector status), or simply the reason that he refused to obey an order he believed to be an unlawful order. Lieutenant Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iraq in 2006. Watada said he believed the war to be illegal and that, under the doctrine of command responsibility, it would make him party to war crimes. The Army lost the initial court martial ruling, dropped the second court martial in 2008 and discharged him from the Army.

Washington’s leaders and minions set the stage for this tragedy. But don’t look to them to take any responsibility for the toxic environment that our military personnel are forced to live under. Isn’t this akin to abusing a dog over years, and then feigning surprise when the dog attacks someone? Should we not treat our fellow humans better than our pets?

Think about this. Do you believe that any military personnel, constitutionally deployed within the borders of the Unites States of America in a purely defensive status would ever have reason to react in this manner?

Does this have anything to do with state secession? Yes, it does.

Hanan’s actions are what is commonly referred to as “blowback”…the unintended consequences of government policy. Nations that don’t invade other nations don’t have these kinds of tragic events as a rule. And states that eventually secede from the US, and keep their militias within their own borders, defending the new nation from invasion, won’t have them either.