Life, as we don't know it

Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend"

Oh what a surprise!! Fancy that! The US Government creating its enemies, what an unbelievable load of............................errrgh, truth.

By Michel Chossudovsky

Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has been presented both by the Bush administration and the Western media as the mastermind behind the "insurgency" in Iraq, allegedly responsible for the massacres of Iraqi civilians.

Zarqawi is the outside enemy of America. The Bush administration in official statements, including presidential speeches, national security documents, etc. has repeatedly pointed to the need to "go after" Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden.

"You know, I hate to predict violence, but I just understand the nature of the killers. This guy, Zarqawi, an al Qaeda associate -- who was in Baghdad, by the way, prior to the removal of Saddam Hussein -- is still at large in Iraq. And as you might remember, part of his operational plan was to sow violence and discord amongst the various groups in Iraq by cold- blooded killing. And we need to help find Zarqawi so that the people of Iraq can have a more bright -- bright future." (George W. Bush, Press Conference, 1 June 2004)

The official mandate of US and British occupation forces is to fight and win the "war on terrorism" on behalf of the Iraqi people. Zarqawi constitutes Washington's justification for the continued military occupation of Iraq, not to mention the brutal siege of densely populated urban areas directed against "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which is said to be led by Zarqawi.

Coalition forces are upheld as playing a "peace keeping role" in consultation with the United Nations. The Western media in chorus has consistently upheld the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism". It has not only presented Zarqawi as a brutal terrorist, it has also failed to report on the Pentagon's disinformation campaign, which has been known and documented since 2002.

Pentagon PSYOP Zarqawi Program

In an unusual twist, the Washington Post in a recent article, has acknowledged that the role of Zarqawi had been deliberately "magnified" by the Pentagon with a view to galvanizing public support for the US-UK led "war on terrorism":

"The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. "Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response," one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: "Media operations," "Special Ops (626)" (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein's government) and "PSYOP," the U.S. military term for propaganda work . . ." (WP. 10 April 2006)

The military's propaganda program, according to the Washington Post, has "largely been aimed at Iraqis, but seems to have spilled over into the U.S. media. One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war." (WP, op cit.)

An internal document produced by U.S. military headquarters in Iraq, states that "the Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." (WP, op cit).

The senior commander entrusted with Pentagon's PSYOP operation is General Kimmitt who now occupies the position of senior planner at US Central Command (USCENTCOM), responsible for directing operations in Iraq and the Middle East.

"In 2003 and 2004, he coordinated public affairs, information operations and psychological operations in Iraq -- though he said in an interview the internal briefing must be mistaken because he did not actually run the psychological operations and could not speak for them. Kimmitt said, "There was clearly an information campaign to raise the public awareness of who Zarqawi was, primarily for the Iraqi audience but also with the international audience."

A goal of the campaign was to drive a wedge into the insurgency by emphasizing Zarqawi's terrorist acts and foreign origin, said officers familiar with the program. "Through aggressive Strategic Communications, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi now represents: Terrorism in Iraq/Foreign Fighters in Iraq/Suffering of Iraqi People (Infrastructure Attacks)/Denial of Iraqi Aspirations," the same briefing asserts . . .

It is difficult to determine how much has been spent on the Zarqawi campaign, which began two years ago and is believed to be ongoing. U.S. propaganda efforts in Iraq in 2004 cost $24 million, but that included extensive building of offices and residences for troops involved, as well as radio broadcasts and distribution of thousands of leaflets with Zarqawi's face on them, said the officer speaking on background . . .

The Zarqawi program at the Pentagon was run concurrently with a related operation "led by the Lincoln Group, a U.S. consulting firm, to place pro-U.S. articles in Iraq newspapers, according to the officer familiar with the program who spoke on background." According to The Washington Post, however, there was no relationship between the Pentagon's PSYOP program and that run by the Lincoln Group on behalf of the Pentagon. (WP, 10 April 2006)

Disinformation and war propaganda are an integral part of military planning. What the Washington Post fails to mention, however, is its own role in sustaining the Zarqawi legend , along with network TV, most of the printed press, and of course CNN and Fox News, not to mention a significant portion of the alternative media. Disinformation regarding the War on terrorism has been fed into the news chain by a limited number of "top feeders":

A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the "scoops" that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources - the four TV networks, TIME, Newsweek, CNN - where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda - or, put less politely, psychological warfare. ( Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11)

Charlie Sheen Courageously Challenges 9/11 Orthodoxy On National TV

Good to see ole Charlie boy is still keeping up the good fight, I just hope people are listening and doing what he suggests- RESEARCH.

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 15 2006

Over the past month Charlie Sheen's comments on 9/11 have sent shockwaves throughout the media and caused a firestorm of both support and establishment hit pieces. Sheen made history Friday night when he became the first high profile figure to bring serious questions about 9/11 to the forum of the late night talk show.

Sheen's appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live (VIDEO) is a watershed moment and it takes place at a time when the questioning of 9/11 has seeped into popular culture to a degree where the dam is really starting to break.

If Charlie Sheen had walked out on the same stage three years ago he may have expected to hear a chorus of boos from some parts of the crowd. As it was Sheen was given a warm reception and he outlined his stance superbly in stating, "I felt the only real validation that I needed was being a tax paying citizen that loves my country." For that statement Sheen received further applause and he went on to succinctly clarify why he had boldly stepped up to the plate with his initial comments about 9/11.

"I've done a lot of research," said Sheen, referring to the growing number of high-profile individuals who have already bravely stepped forward to ask questions about 9/11, stating "...its not just me, its the people that have come before me - the experts and the engineers, the physicists and the scientists and the scholars, that raised a lot of these things and I took a look at their research and said yeah, it doesn't add up, a lot of it doesn't add up, hence these questions."

Sheen was sharp to focus in on just two important topics to peak the interest of the viewer and not leave them muddled as to what he was actually highlighting.

"There are two areas," said Sheen, "Building 7 and the five frames from the Pentagon. Don't listen to me, do your own research."

The latter statement served to dismiss allegations in the hit pieces that Sheen had encountered that he was somehow not qualified to have an opinion on certain issues because he was a Hollywood actor with a colorful past. A relevent rhetorical questions to ask would be, if Einstein had been caught drink driving would that take away from the theory of relativity?

On the other hand we have a President with widely publicized past and present alcohol and stress related problems. The mainstream attempted to convey a double standard in order to distance themselves from even mentioning Sheen's insistence on talking about hardcore evidence.

Sheen addressed the hit pieces themselves and the fact that they uniformly failed to answer his invitation to challenge him on the precise issues and questions he was raising.

"[The mainstream media] didn't really take a look at any of the stuff I was asking them to look at, any of the evidence or any of the stuff that generated those questions..."

Charlie Sheen has received support from numerous different areas after his public stance gathered steam and his admirable courage in putting his entire career on the line to draw attention to 9/11 should be commended.

The audience reaction on Jimmy Kimmel Live spoke volumes to the truth that a majority of thinking Americans are behind Charlie Sheen in, and as Sheen himself stated are exercising," a constitutional and a God-given right to be curious about things that didn't make sense."

Following the broadcast of the Jimmy Kimmel Live show, Alex Jones spoke with Sheen about his views concerning the interview. Sheen made the following statement:

"This is a landmark moment in the 9/11 Truth Movement. We have fired a flaming arrow into the heart of the myopic propaganda posing as the irrefutable official story. Come one, come all, the floodgates have opened! Reveal your patriotism."

In response Alex Jones stated, "In my 12 years of broadcast, I have broken hundreds of stories that have gained national attention, but none have captured the imagination of the people like Charlie Sheen's statements on 9/11. Universally people recognize that his courageous stand has smashed the floodgates and the tide has now turned. The 9/11 Truth Movement saw its birth over four and a half years ago and it witnessed an unprecedented infusion when Charlie Sheen spoke out. "

"The bottom line is that people resonate with Charlie Sheen's courage. The average man or woman understands that Sheen is taking a risk by saying aloud what they have only thought about in secret: 9/11 was an inside job and the foundational event for the police state growing in America and the pretext for the ongoing wars for global empire.”

We sincerely hope that Charlie Sheen's bravery will be mirrored by other public figures who will take the gamble of risking their reputation in the cause of freedom for future generations long into the 21st century.

9/11: The Myth and the Reality

Given all the media attention to the Moussaoui case I thought it necessary to inject a little sense into the madness so as not to lose anybody to the emotionally saturated trial of the self confessed lunatic who is about as reliable a witness as a chocolate teapot is to a tea party. 'Hey, lets take a madman to court who wasn't even on any of the planes on 911 and sentance him to death for the 911 attacks!! , what a great way to remind the sheople of the world who was really responsible for 9/11!'

Oh and when you done with that guys I have a neighbour with Downsyndrome who confessed to me the other day that it was her who killed the beloved and much missed Bambi with a lollipop stick and an empty can of coke. To be honest with you I don't think this is her only crime, just the other day I caught her talking to one of her friends about a plot to steal some coloured pens from the back of the rainbow bus she travels on each day by way of distracting the driver. In other words you could be looking at a terrorist hijacking plot here; and many lives may be in danger....not to mention the coloured pens. So perhaps when your finished helping the mentally retarded Moussaoui tell you exactly what you want us to hear you might come over and do a number on my neighbour downsyndrome friend before anymore Disney characters are harmed or anymore people lose their beloved colouring pens. Those damn retards, I knew all along they were faking, thanks USA for finding the real sleepercells of our world, die retards die!!!

Bambi: Murdered by terrorists pretending to be retards. Damn sickos

9/11: The Myth and the Reality

David Ray Griffin
(Authorized Version)

NOTE: This lecture was delivered March 30, 2006, at Grand Lake Theater in Oakland for Progressive Democrats of the East Bay. Abbreviated versions of it were given in San Francisco for the Democratic World Federalists on April 2 and the Commonwealth Club on April 3.

Although I am a philosopher of religion and theologian, I have spent most of my time during the past three years on 9/11---studying it, writing about it, and speaking about it. In this lecture, I will try to make clear why I believe this issue worthy of so much time and energy. I will do this in terms of the distinction between myth and reality.

I am here using the term "myth" in two senses. In one sense, a myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false, failing to correspond with reality.

In a deeper sense, which is employed by students of religion, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for a people, a story that reminds them who they are and why they do what they do. When a story is called as a myth in this sense---which we can call Myth with a capital M---the focus is not on the story's relation to reality but on its function. This orienting and mobilizing function is possible, moreover, only because Myths with a capital M have religious overtones. Such a Myth is a Sacred Story.

However, although to note that a story functions as a Myth in the religious sense is not necessarily to deny its truth, a story cannot function as a Sacred Myth within a community or nation unless it is believed to be true. In most cases, moreover, the truth of the Myth is taken on faith. It is not a matter of debate. If some people have the bad taste to question the truth of the Sacred Story, the keepers of the faith do not enter into debate with them. Rather, they ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.

Frosty attitudes to Global warming

It seems that the issue of global warming is a contentious issue amongst many people. What surprises me the most though is peoples ignorance on our earths history and the more serious- and likely threat- of global cooling which, were it not for our human omissions, would likely be in an accelerated state and pose a far greater threat than the ominous and largely government body endorsed theory of global warming.

In a nutshell I have done my homework and read more than a few internet pages on the topic. I have a moderate to good historical understanding of the earths behaviour over the last several millions of years and am well aware of just how uninhabitable this planet generally is. The thing that I find the most surprising is that most people seem to think this planet is generally serene and pleasant when the truth is quite the opposite, whatever we do or do not do in terms of our C02 omissions this earth will once again, as it has done so many times before, react in a way that is not conducive to human life. Whether we go through another great freeze, a colossal flooding or a heat wave to rival dominoes pizza's warm delivery technology matters little. The point is people ought to take the time to study up on their history, and by history I do not just mean the bits that include our existence. This would be most helpful, so you do not look foolish.

In the meantime, and to clarify, It is important for mankind's evolution and progress that we invest in cleaner and more abundant energy sources, that we do more to protect the fragile lungs of our own kind and all other species on this planet and that we always seek to better our methods and reduce pollution. But make no mistake, this planet is in no danger, it has survived much greater viruses and attacks than the scourge of mankind. It is ourselves we need to worry about and of course in order to prepare for when this earth goes back to her usual behaviour of temper tantrums we need to think ahead and make changes; but I for one will not buy into a theory endorsed primarily only by government funded scientists in much the same way as I would not trust the general body of any institution or group who has such binding ties to governments known for their pathological habit of deception, propaganda and outright fraud. Almost all of the information you will find online in regards to the fear mongering of global warming leads back to the pockets of governments with obvious agendas for pushing such oblique and shaky science. Believe what you will, but just coz the ice caps are melting that does not necessarily mean we are to blame. They have done this before you know and it didn't require our help whatsoever.

Below is an intelligent response from a forum poster whose views and research I share. His comments, worded well and backed up by fact, mirror my own:-

I have read Bill Bryson's book[The book he is refering to is 'A brief history of nearly everything' which is a very good book.], a great book in fact, and I was most interested in the information concerning other carbon dioxide contributors. The biggest being decaying vegetation, and spewing volcanoes. Humans contribute roughly 7 billion tons of CO2 each year, whereas a volcanic venting, even without eruptions can pump out over 200 billion tons each year. The oceans are an incredible absorber, and forests less so. Carbon dioxide is in the air, there is a lot of it. Whether we are getting warmer or not, or if we have tipped the scale somehow with our paltry contributions since the start of the Industrial Revolution (the famous hockey stick chart), is not the real issue. The question we should be asking ourselves is: Can we adapt? The planet itself is far from danger, so any Save the Planet people need to reassess their focus. We are out to save ourselves. I'm all about keeping song birds, grey wolves, and bengal tigers on the map, but lets face the facts: roughly 25 of the billions of species on this planet go extinct everyday. A drop in the bucket. Human intervention, for better or worse, can pump that number up to the hundreds, but it is still nothing. We should wonder why we need these creatures. Ecosystems are based on a balance, and once certain organisms are extracted from the equation, those species sharing that environment can either benefit from, or be doomed by their absence. Hence, a domino effect. Remove wolves, deer and rabbit populations skyrocket; vegetation decreases; other weaker animals are forced out, the ecosystem may fail in a matter of months, years, or decades.
The planet has been blasted by asteroids, endured tsunami after tsunami, earth shattering earthquakes, sun-blotting supervolcanic eruptions, solar flares, ice ages, polar shifts, mass extinctions by super heat, or super cold. All this over the course of 3 to 4 billion years, and we have the gall to say we have a profound effect on what is happening to the planet. Sorry, but only in relation to ourselves. We're insignificant beings, who have only recently, for the past couple hundred years, had any considerable impact. Think about that.

Global warming: Get your facts straight

You would think when listening to the scientists of the governments that we are on the brink of man made destruction. But anyone who has taken the time to actually research the issue, and our worlds history, as I have, will realize that Global warming is yet another fear tactic used to manipulate us and undoubtedly exploit us whilst pinning the blame soley on our shoulders. In truth the earth has been doing this for millions of years and anybody who took the time to actually read up on this subject for themselves would be well aware that the period we find ourselves living in is on of the calmest earth periods in a long time and is something of an oddity against the turbulent nature of earth's mood swings. Get your fact straights people and start standing up and protesting against real issues like 9/11 instead of wasting your time over mickey mouse issues like global warming!!! really, what is so wrong with people that they cannot see the truth from the lies anymore....

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

London Telgraph/ Bob Carter

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

Nuclear war anyone?

I'm not surprised to hear this and I have been well aware that this eventuality has been on the cards for some years. I can only hope Bush is impeached before he does anything else murderously stupid...again

Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'
London Telegraph

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, One of several contenders for the title of 'The New Hitler'

Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.

This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants.

Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities, is fuelling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.

The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.

The election of Mr Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear programme, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.

Mr Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' "

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.

The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium".

V for Vendetta : My review

It is not often these days that I write much dialogue on my blog, rather I put up articles I deem worthy of attention and thought and let the information speak for itself, whatever it may say. There are several reasons for this, reason one is that truth needs few spokesmen, simply it requires a platform from which to be launched. Truth is not an opinion or an idea it is a reality that exists whether it is acknowledged or not. When the emotional bias and instability of human beings is mixed in with it truth becomes an abstract and relative concept, often what you are left with is anything but what its name implies. For this reason mainly I avoid adding too much of my own personal feelings to truth and accept my humble place at its feet. Silenty I pass along its words for no other reason other than I can and I feel that right now it is the closest I can get to a sense of freedom in a world where freedom dies a little more each day. Another reason is that my grammar and spelling are not very good and I do not wish to undermine the information I put up here with bad penmanship and shoddy spelling.

Nevertheless tonight I will write a brief review on V for Vendetta and throw caution to the wind. If you are one of these people who judges another based upon their grammatical capabilities then turn away or bite your tongue ;0)

Noam Chomsky, an outright idiot or a willing puppet?

I never liked this guy to be honest. He makes a lot of noise about nothing much at all and seems completely retarded when it comes to matters of actual importance. This guy claims to be an intellectual who basks in the radiance of logic but I fail to see any sound logic in his thought process.

Whether he is simply stupid or something more sinister is for you decide...........I'll say this, he makes Michael Moore look like a die hard truth activist in comparison and that, well, that just ain't right man.....

Phil ;0)

Noam Chomsky: Controlled Asset Of The New World Order

Daniel L. Abrahamson / PREVIOUSLY CARRIED AT RENSE.COM | April 6 2006

Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth battling against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic is beyond question.

However as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. In fact, since the 1960's Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.

His formula over the years has stayed consistent: blame “America” and “corporations” while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass which pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction. Then after pinning all the worlds ills on American imperialism, Chomsky offers the solution of world government under the United Nations.

In his book “The Conspirator’s Hierarchy,” Dr. John Coleman named Chomsky as a deep cover CIA agent working to undermine social protest groups. Certainly Dr. Coleman’s claims appear validated by an honest review of Chomsky’s role as a Left gatekeeper.

Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are “nothing organizations.” When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the cycle of debt.

Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur; and that peak oil is real and good for humanity.

What he does advocate is population control, gun control, support for U.N.E.S.C.O., and the end of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world government under the UN. In other words, the major goals of the New World Order.

Chomsky’s role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.

Tens of millions of activists worldwide still remain trapped by this scam, failing to recognize the inherent autocratic and elitist structures of Marxism-Leninism or the newer incarnation under Chomsky.

The Globalist elites and their army of social scientists at the Tavistock Institute understand that people are going to question the inequities of the current economic system. For example, why is wealth distributed so unevenly between classes and countries? Why are those living in third world nations allowed to die from preventable diseases and starvation? Why does the U.S. government sponsor and direct such murderous foreign policy? Why was America attacked on 9-11?

In other words, why is the world embroiled in such violence? Who is behind all this suffering? And most importantly, what solutions would relieve the poverty and destruction plaguing the worldwide population?

Enter Chomsky, the controlled opposition, to play the role of re-direct agent. He discusses a mere fraction of the real elite manipulation and then quickly pushes his followers into dead-end solutions and alienating rhetoric. Chomsky’s hero status is further amplified by Left gatekeeper publications like Z Magazine, DemocracyNow!, The Progressive, and The Nation.

Is it a coincidence that all of those magazines receive major funding from Globalist front-groups like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and MacArthur Foundation? Chomsky may be the head gatekeeper, but he works alongside a network of fellow Globalist assets like Amy Goodman who do their best to appear radical while avoiding all the hardcore issues and deliberately leading the Left into oblivion.

The following analysis will show that Noam Chomsky is a deep cover agent for the New World Order, a master of black propaganda whose true motives become clear with a sober and honest examination.

911:

Noam Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper in the aftermath of the 9-11 crimes, lashing out at the 9-11 truth movement and claiming any suggestions of government complicity are fabrications. The “radical” Chomsky takes a position so deeply rooted in denial that it makes the staged 9-11 whitewash commission look like an honest study. He belligerently refuses to discuss any of the massive evidence proving government foreknowledge and participation in the crimes, claiming it would destroy the activist movements worldwide:

“If the left spends its time on this, that's the end of the left, in my
opinion: the mainstream would be utterly delighted. It is highly
likely that nothing significant will be found. And if -- which I very
greatly doubt -- something is found that would quickly send everyone
in Washington to the death chamber, the left is unlikely to emerge
triumphant.”

In other words, Chomsky is telling his followers to ignore the evidence because according to him, none exists. However even if there is massive evidence, responsible activists should ignore it because it would be “the end of the Left.” Chomsky’s role as a 9-11 gatekeeper goes even further as he denies each piece of evidence individually. The following examples should suffice:

A) As most honest 9-11 researchers know, 7 of the accused 19 hijackers are alive, proving the official story is a fabrication. Many of the remaining 12 were trained as U.S. Air Force bases and CIA-connected Huffman Aviation. Many of the accused “religious fanatics” acted more like degenerate contract agents, as they flashed wads of cash, visited strip clubs, drank profusely, blew cocaine, smoked weed, cavorted with strippers and had strange meetings in the drug-rich Florida keys.

Men like Mohammed Atta fit the MO of an undercover CIA drug runner: a man trained at U.S. Air Force bases, fluent in many languages, able to evade INS regulations, working with drug dealers, and receiving wired bank funds from CIA-linked Pakistani intelligence. There remains no photographic evidence of these supposed hijackers ever getting on the planes (walking through airport security does not count). Furthermore, the autopsy list of Flight 77 which supposedly hit the Pentagon listed none of the accused hijackers.

Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect

Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks

*** You can here the full Alex Jones interview here

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 4 2006

The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.

Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.

In an interview with The Alex Jones Show aired nationally on the GCN Radio Network, Bowman (pictured below) stated that at the bare minimum if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11 then the government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. He said it is plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of what was taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the strings behind the attack.

Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11 that simulated planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the attack.

"The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD....that they didn't they didn't know what was real and what was part of the exercise," said Bowman

"I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they're the ones that should be the object of investigation."

Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect behind the attacks, Bowman stated, "If I had to narrow it down to one person....I think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney."

Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11.

Bowman agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship and stated, "I think there's been nothing closer to fascism than what we've seen lately from this government."

Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, "Done more to destroy the rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined."

Bowman trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up with abounding conflicts of interest, charging, "The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash."

"There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk," said Bowman.

Asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 were preparing to stage another false-flag attack to reinvigorate their agenda Bowman agreed that, "I can see that and I hope they can't pull it off, I hope they are prevented from pulling it off but I know darn good and well they'd like to have another one."

A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. These charges are ridiculed by the fact that Sheen is an expert on 9/11 who spends hours a day meticulously researching the topic, something that the attack dogs have failed to do, aiming their comments solely at Sheen's personal life and ignoring his invitation to challenge him on the facts.

In addition, from the very start we have put forth eminently credible individuals only for them to be ignored by the establishment media. Physics Professors, former White House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German Defense Ministers and Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, have all gone public on 9/11 but have been uniformly ignored by the majority of the establishment press.

Will Robert Bowman also be blackballed as the mainstream continue to misrepresent the 9/11 truth movement as an occupation of the fringe minority?

Bowman is currently running for Congress in Florida's 15th District.