Terrorists! Anthrax! Read All About It!

I wish to draw your attention to two new posts at my main blog, which highlight excellent articles recently published by Covert Action Magazine.

Peter Dale Scott et al.: The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11 is only the first of a three-part series, and it's not for me to predict what's coming next; but in this installment, Scott and his coauthors detail a long-running "deception" in which the US (and some of its allies) have been recruiting, training, positioning and supplying radical Islamic terrorists on the global stage, raising Hell by proxy wherever and whenever it suits their plans for world domination.

When the "host" government cannot control them, the U.S. comes to the rescue with a series of "almost-but-not-quite-successful" assaults by day, which never quite eliminate the terrorists, followed by secret re-supply missions by night, to keep the "enemy" strong enough to constitute a mortal threat which justifies more "almost-but-not-quite-successful" assaults.

It's a typical feedback loop: the longer it goes on, the easier recruiting becomes.

This is called "nation-building", or in some cases "bringing democracy" or "protecting civilians" or "restoring stability" and it's established policy as far as the U.S. government is concerned. And all these phrases rhyme with "mom and apple pie", so who could argue? And of course it gets bipartisan support.

And just to be clear, Peter Dale Scott didn't say all this; I did. I've been saying it for a long time. Scott and his colleagues have provided important supporting details.

In Graeme MacQueen: The Anthrax Attacks Had All The Markings Of A False Flag Operation, MacQueen suggests (or, depending on your threshold, proves) that the evidentiary trail (linking the hijackers to anthrax via their extraordinary interest in crop-dusters) was false, and that the object of the false evidentiary trail was to connect anthrax to 9/11 and to Iraq, thus laying the foundation for forcible "regime change" there.

As we know, regime change in Iraq had long been the goal of American and Israeli "expansionists".

Since the false flag trail documented by MacQueen fell apart almost immediately, and could not be put back together again, one might think this would have been the end of the plan to change the Iraqi regime by force.

But the planners were mostly interested in "nation-building", "bringing democracy", "protecting civilians", and "restoring stability", so they "justified" their plan to the American people (and indeed to the people of the world) and carried it out, even though the "logic" that "supported" it had already been shown to be worthless.

I think you ought to read both of these articles in full, and I welcome your comments, either here or there.


Cui Bono

Thanks for bringing these two insightful articles to our attention, Winter.

Peter Dale Scott says a few times that the various groups of islamic terrorists managed to advance the aims of the American Establishment (Cui Bono, anyone?).

This is, and has always been, obvious but ONLY IF you look at what happens and do not listen to what others (the media and our esteemed leaders) say it means. Like watching a film without the sound. You pay much more attention to what you are looking at to see what it all means.

Absorbing 'the narrative' and letting it interpret for us what we see is the problem. Throwing out the teevee is the first step on the road to cease being a 'blockhead'.

I have long considered these various groups of head choppers to be The American Foreign Legion. The Legionnaires themselves are not very bright, of course, and are the last to realise this. Useful Idiots always are the last.

I have a dim memory of writing an article way back about one of these Useful Idiots, after being released from an Egyptian prison, making a video appealing to his fellow Idiots to stop being idiots before they are 'stood up against the wall'.

Throughout both articles by Peter Dale Scott and Graeme MacQueen are many references to incompetence that accompanied the corrupt plans. It's never just corruption. It's always corruption and incompetence. Incompetence is part of the territory for these people and is a source of hope for me.

Aside from the incompetence and corruption of the criminals, another trait stands out for me. And that is the widespread lack of courage on the part of the victims: the public, the media and the so-called leaders. Congress in general and two senators in particular.

legionnaires disease

It's taken me a while to put my finger on the exact wording, and the source ... but I have it now!

Webster Tarpley calls the "head choppers" "NATO's Arab Legion"

you gotta love it! Wink

Good old Webster, eh.

I never knew quite what to make of him

I don't either

I don't know what to make of Tarpley either. I used to think he was one of the sharpest knives in the drawer, but I don't think that anymore. It's pretty clear that he and I disagree about that. Wink


Thanks, James. You've made a lot of good points.

I hope your source of hope turns out to be a nice, rich vein of it ... and I fear it may be our only hope.

The psychos have so much control of so much stuff, that if they weren't such clowns half the time, we might be in more trouble than we are now -- hard to imagine sometimes, but I guess it could have turned out much worse! Wink


I'm not so sure about the "lack of courage" part. I tend to think the politicians and media are leading us astray in the most brazen way imaginable. I don't see a lack of courage there. I see pedal to the metal, so to speak.

As far as the "lack of courage on the part of" the public is concerned, I am not at all convinced. I've read one news story after another quoting government officials saying more or less verbatim:

We've been overwhelmed with requests from the public saying "Do whatever you can to keep us safe!"

but I have never read or heard any member of the public saying that -- we only get stuff like this second-hand, through government spokesmen.

None of the people I knew at the time were saying any such thing. And I still haven't come across anybody who is saying that.

I don't know anybody who thinks it's a good idea to give more power to the government, and I don't know anybody who thinks the government gives a hoot about keeping us safe, so it's hard to imagine anyone thinking it's a good idea to give more power to the government so it can do a better job of keeping us safe.

Maybe I don't hang with the right crowd, but then again this "overwhelming public opinion" could be just another vicious lie. A psy-op. Or part of the psy-op. As you wish.

Other than that (and I could be way wrong about it), I think you've hit all the nails on their heads, so to speak.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.