Below is an article from Dreamland co-host Jim Marrs' website.
The War on Terrorism: Fact or Fiction? "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Philosopher George Santayana
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." President John F. Kennedy
Americans are now beginning to pay the price for sleeping through history classes, ignoring important information in the alternative media and neglecting to participate in their own political process.
They find themselves in a new war--the War on Terrorism. This is a war they never asked for and never envisioned, anesthetized as we all are by the flickering tube of distraction. It is a war predicated on the premise that a sneak attack was made on the United States September 11, 2001.
Unlike previous wars, there is no Berlin or Tokyo to capture and hence, no victory to be won, except for those who profit from war. The real victims of this war will be the average American citizen, right along with the starving Afghan.
This new war might well be compared to the failed War on Drugs and the nearly forgotten War on Poverty. No clear victory has yet been achieved over the misuse of drugs or the ravages of poverty within our own nation. Our prisons are overflowing with drug offenders with no appreciable lessening of either demand or supply and our basic civil rights have been badly mauled.
Just like those failed campaigns, the War on Terrorism for the foreseeable future will set us all on a costly course of restrictions on individual freedom, ever more centralized authority and omnipresent fear.
And where are the voices of those who would argue the merits of this new war? The airwaves and newspapers only ratchet the fear factor upwards each day with little or no effort to hear the many thoughtful Americans who are asking themselves, "Do I really need to give up my freedoms in order to save them?"
So with flags flying on the antennae of our gas-guzzling vehicles and love of country pulsing in our hearts, we march off to yet another war for oil.
Yes, oil. Petroleum has been behind all recent wars, beginning in the early 1940s, when a mostly rural and isolationist America was suddenly thrown into a world war as a reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans mourned the loss of some 3,000 soldiers and civilians in Hawaii and, in righteous indignation, allowed their country to be turned into a giant military camp.
The federal government, which had consolidated so much power unto itself under the Depression-busting policies of President Franklin Roosevelt, grew even stronger and more centralized under the aegis of "national security." It all seemed quite natural and necessary at the time.
But serious students of history now know that even that "good war" was the result of machinations by a handful of wealthy and powerful men. By closing off Japan's oil supplies in the summer of 1941, Roosevelt, the quintessential Wall Street insider, ensured an eventual attack on the United States. It has now been well established that Roosevelt and a few close advisers knew full well that Pearl Harbor would be attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, but chose to allow it to happen to further their agenda for launching American into war (the details of this may be found in my book Rule by Secrecy.)
The Vietnam War was prosecuted by men who were close to Roosevelt and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who had long voiced a desire to gain control over Indochina?s oil, magnesium and rubber assets. Again a provocation was created. In August, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson whipped Congress into a frenzy claiming that North Vietnamese gunboats had attacked the US Sixth Fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam. "Our boys are floating in the water," he cried. Congress responded by passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which bypassed the Constitution and gave Johnson the power to wage war to stop attacks on Americans. It was the beginning of the real shooting Vietnam War.
And it was all a lie. No evidence has ever been brought forward that such an attack took place. In fact, editors for US News & World Report (July 23, 1984) called it "The 'Phantom Battle' That Led to War."
While America was waging war against North Vietnam, which we were told was merely a puppet of communist Russia and China, Johnson was encouraged by his CFR advisers to grant the Soviet Union loans at higher levels than offered during World War II when they were our ally. US-backed loans provided Russia with the means to build facilities which turned out war materials that were then sent to North Vietnam for use against American troops. This was a good example of the duplicity of our modern wars.
The Gulf War was all about oil, from the wells in Kuwait slant drilling into Iraq?s southern reserves to the destruction of the oil fields at its finish. Here we found a new Hitler in Saddam Hussein, an enemy armed and financed by the CIA, an agency whose top officials have long been connected to oil men CFR members and other globalists (See Jim Marrs' book Rule by Secrecy).
Saddam Hussein, strapped for cash due to his eight-year war against Iran on behalf of the US, decided to regain Kuwait as a means of increasing his income. Kuwait had been carved out of southern Iraqi by British troops. When asked her thoughts on this move, US Ambassador April Glaspie replied that the US government had "no opinion" on the matter and that the matter of Kuwait was not associated with America. But when he moved his troops into Kuwait, Bush mobilized a United Nations force against him, backed by a $4 billion secret fund provided by his business associates in Saudi Arabia.
Yet, as those patriotic soldiers closed in on Saddam, the whole war stopped and George H. W. Bush's old business partner is still in power. It appears to have been yet another provocation. And as in Vietnam, even as we prepared to fight against Saddam, the American taxpayers backed $500 million in loans that he used to purchase arms for use against our forces.
Today the real issue is the rich oil reserves of the Caspian Sea region, the prize sought by Hitler whose drive to that area was stopped only by the tenacious Russian defense of the Volga River city of Stalingrad.
In the late 1970s, with the Soviet discovery of vast untapped oil in Chechnya, the region was ripe for exploitation but control over Afghanistan was needed to ensure the safety of a pipeline to bring the oil to world markets. But after almost 10 years of brutal, no-quarter fighting against Afghans and Arab mercenaries backed by the United States, including Osama bin Laden, the Soviets were forced to withdraw. The economic stress of this Russo-Afghan War was enough to topple communism in the early 1990s.
Now the international bankers and oilmen have a foothold in cash-strapped Russia and the estimated $40 billion in Caspian Sea oil is again attracting serious attention. In 1997, six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asian Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) to build a 790-mile-long pipeline to Pakistan and perhaps on to the New Delhi area of India.
Leading this consortium was Unocal Corporation, whose president, John F. Imle, Jr., said the project would be "the foundation for a new commerce corridor for the region--often referred to as the Silk Road for the 21st Century."
But problems developed with the fundamentalist Muslim government in Afghanistan, not the least of which was the Taliban government?s treatment of women which prompted feminist demonstrations against firms seeking to do business there. Additionally, the Taliban regime was creating chaotic conditions by pitting the various Islamic sects against each other in order to maintain control. In the mid-1999, Unacol withdrew from the pipeline consortium, citing the hazardous political situation and the project languished.
Notice that in President Bush's declaration of war on terrorism, he never mentioned terrorists in Northern Ireland or the Palestinian suicide bombers. Attention was only focused on Afghanistan, the one nation necessary to complete the lucrative pipeline. It should also be noted that Vice President Dick Cheney headed Halliburton, a giant oil industry service company and is generally thought to be more powerful than the president.
Today it can be demonstrated that military action against Afghanistan has been in the works long before the Sept. 11 attacks.
As reported by BBC?s George Arney, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik was alerted by American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would be launched by mid-October. At a UN-sponsored meeting concerning Afghanistan in Berlin, Naik was informed that unless bin Laden was handed over, America would take military action to either kill or capture both him and Taliban leader Mullah Omar as the initial step in installing a new government there.
It should be noted, however, that American intervention in Afghanistan began years ago, at least six months prior to the Soviet invasion in December, 1979.
In a 1998 interview with former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in the French publication Le Nouvel Observateur, the significant portions of which never made it to the United States, he admitted that American activities in Afghanistan actually began six months prior to the Soviet action.
Brzezinski said the Jimmy Carter administration began secretly funding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul in July of 1979 with the full knowledge such action might provoke a Soviet invasion. Soviet leaders at the time argued the invasion was necessary to thwart American aggression in Afghanistan. The former national security advisor, who helped found the globalist Trilateral Commission, expressed no regret at this provocation, stating, "That secret operation was an excellent idea. It?brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire." It also produced the Taliban regime which we are fighting today, as well as Osama bin Laden.
By 1984, with Vice President George H. W. Bush overseeing the Afghan situation, bin Laden was in charge of the Maktab al-Khidamir (MAK) which funneled money, arms and manpower from the outside world into the war against the Soviets. He soon helped form a polyglot formation of Arabic troops from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps, whom the CIA found easier to deal with than the Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan.
There should be considerable soul-searching about America's role in arming and training an international group of Muslim extremists in Afghanistan long after their comrades destroyed the Marine barracks in Beruit and hijacked numerous airliners.
Little noticed in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks were reports that China had signed a pact with the Afghans and was quietly inducted into the controversial World Trade Organization, action which under normal circumstances would have drawn widespread protest. Although such a pact is unconfirmed at this time, Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf, chairman of their joint chiefs and chief of the Pakistani Army Staff, this years visited China at their request and discussed matters of mutual interest.
Although, it is claimed that Pakistan is aiding the US in the current War Against Terrorism, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, Michael Sheehan, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee that Pakistan supports and trains terrorist groups in Afghanistan
This raises the specter of Chinese intervention should US forces become bogged down in mountainous Afghanistan. This prospect is particularly unsettling as back in 1555, the French prophet Nostradamus, who has been proven correct in so many of his prophecies, predicted that America and Russia would go to war against a coalition made up of Arab nations and China. Until just recently, such a notion seemed absurd.
The WTC/Pentagon attacks provided a convenient excuse to launch the pre-laid plans for military action against Afghanistan. But were they simply allowed to happen or were they contrived? The question becomes: Would any American allow an attack on fellow Americans just to further his own business or political agenda?
The answer, unfortunately, appears to be "Yes."
Incredibly, 40-year-old government documents thought to have been destroyed long ago recently were made public show the US military in the early 1960s proposed making terrorist attacks in the United States and blaming them on Fidel Castro.
These documents are discussed in a recent book on the National Security Agency (NSA) entitled Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency by James Bamford.
These documents were produced beginning in late 1961 following the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that spring. President John F. Kennedy, angered by the inept actions of the CIA, had shifted responsibility for Cuba from that agency to the Department of Defense. Here, military strategists considered plans to create terrorist actions which would alarm the American population and stampede them into supporting a military attack on Cuba.
Under consideration in "Operation Northwoods" were plans:
--to create "a series of well-coordinated incidents" in or around the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to include inciting riots, blowing up ammunition stores, aircraft and ships.
--to "develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."
--to "?sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated)..foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States?"
--to explode bombs in carefully chosen locations along with the release of "prepared documents" pointing to Cuban complicity.
--to use fake Russian aircraft to harass civilian airliners.
--to make "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft" even to simulating the shooting down of a civilian airliner.
Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods and senior military officers ordered the documents destroyed. But someone slipped up and the papers were discovered by the Assassination Records Review Board and recently released by the National Archives.
More recently, according to The New York Times (October 28, 1993), an informant named Emad Salem early in 1993 was involved with Middle Eastern terrorists connected to Osama bin Laden to develop a bomb for use against New York's World Trade Center. Salem, a former Egyptian Army officer, wanted to substitute a harmless powder for the explosive but his plan to thwart the attack was blocked by an FBI official who apparently did not want to expose the inside informant. The attack was allowed to proceed.
The February 26 explosion in the WTC resulted in six deaths, more than 1,000 casualties and damage in excess of half billion dollars.
We now see that creating crises to further political goals is a methodology well understood and utilized in the 20th century. Is this the game today?
Let's examine the Sept. 11 attack. Superficially, it all seemed straightforward enough. According to the official story, about 19 suicidal Middle Eastern terrorists, their hearts full of hatred for American freedom and democracy, hijacked four airliners, crashing two into the twin towers of New York City?s World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth reportedly crashed in western Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to fight the terrorists.
But a series of disturbing questions have arisen. Among them:
Why was the US military preparing war plans against Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 attacks? Were they just looking for some event to propel the normally disinterested American public into a war as in the past?
How could paper documents incriminating bin Laden be found intact at the WTC but the plane's black recording boxes designed to withstand crashes were damaged beyond use?
Even days and weeks after the WTC attack, why were news cameramen prevented from photographing the ruins from certain angles, as complained about by CBS Correspondent Lou Young, who asked, "What are they afraid we?re going to see?"
Why has the NYPD liaison to the FBI been sent packing as a "security risk" as reported in the Oct. 16 New York Times? Whose security is at risk? The FBI? What is it that the bureau does not want NYPD to know?
How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan involving perhaps as many as 100 persons and in the works for five years escape the notice of our intelligence services, especially the FBI and CIA? And why, instead of cashiering those responsible for this intelligence failure and totally restructuring these agencies, are we doubling their budgets? Will we now get twice as much failure as before?
Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?
Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions within the buildings? And why did the destruction of the WTC towers appear more like a controlled implosion than a tragic accident?
Why did FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledge that the list of named hijackers might not contain their real names? Doesn't everyone have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding pass? Where was the normal security?
Why was there a discrepancy of 35 names between the published passenger lists and the official death toll on all four of the ill-fated flights? Internet Columnist Gary North reported, "?the published names in no instance match the total listed for the number of people on board." Why the discrepancy?
As none of these listed passengers had an Arabic-sounding names, how did the government know which were the hijackers?
Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers given by a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic control not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claimed were responsible?
Since Saudi Arabia's foreign minister claimed five of the proclaimed hijackers were not aboard the death planes and in fact are still alive and a sixth man on that list was reported to be alive and well in Tunisia, why are these names still on the FBI list?
Why were none of the named hijacker's names on any of the passenger list? If they all used aliases, how did the FBI identify them so quickly?
Why did one of the named hijackers take luggage on a suicide flight, then leave it along with an incriminating note in his car at the airport?
As for the overall investigation into the September attacks, by late October U.S. authorities conceded that most of their promising leads for finding accomplices and some of their long-held suspicions about several suspects have unraveled, according to The New York Times. Since more than 800 people have been arrested and more than 365,000 tips have been received from the public, why has nothing substantial has been forthcoming in the largest U.S. criminal investigation in history?
Why are none of the nearly 100 people still being sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation seen as a major suspect?
Why are we bombing Afghanistan when apparently none of the listed hijackers were Afghans, but instead Arabs from various Middle Eastern nations? Since Iraq was implicated in the 1993 WTC attack, why are we not bombing that "rogue" nation?
Why does the heavy drinking and searching for hookers by some of the hijackers in Boston, as reported by Reuters New Service, sound more like mercenaries carousing before a mission than pious religious fundamentalists about to meet their maker?
How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals, the excuse for hustling President Bush all across the country on Sept. 11? Was this evidence of an inside job or was it, as reported by Fox News, evidence that former FBI employee and double agent Robert Hanssen delivered an updated version of the purloined computer software Promis to his Russian handlers who passed it along to bin Laden? Does this software, which was stolen from a US company during the Reagan Administration by Justice Department officials under Attorney General Ed Meese, allow outsiders carte blanch entr
NOTE: This news story, previously published on our old site, will have any links removed.